A pro-abort commenter recently suggested that pro-aborts picket homes of pro-lifers. I responded that will never happen because pro-aborts have no drive or intestiinal fortitude.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, we have tact, discretion and manners.
The fact that you don't speaks volumes about your mother.
(Well, perhaps she TRIED...)

Wow. I am in awe. With Christmas being a time to remember and give to those less fortunate, I cannot think of a more appropriate time to spend a few hours, in the blustery cold, to publicly rebuking those who choose to further a company which is so against the meaning of Christmas and the holiday season.

Wow!I am amazed that they could get so many people to picket. ( We are lucky if we get five on a nice day.) I had pictured this as a picket of a couple of people.

No, we have tact, discretion and manners.

OK--that was funny!

*belly laugh*

Hooves in maw, I was cracking up when I read that too. OH the irony...

and you wonder why they try to keep their activies secret. Not because they're ashamed of them, but they don't want a bunch of crazies outside their house on Christmas.

The horror of Mr. Weitz trying to provide jobs for his employees by contracting to do a construction job.

I am proud to be a part of these dedicated pro-lifers from Denver who are so committed to defending the unborn, even in freezing temperatures. While these contractors are trying to celebrate the Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ in their million dollar homes in peace and tranquility, we are there to remind them of the thousands of children who will never get to open presents on Christmas morning because of the Planned Parenthood these contractors are building that will rob children of their lives.

There will be NO CHILD KILLING WITH TRANQUILITY!

The horror of Mr. Weitz trying to provide jobs for his employees by contracting to do a construction job.

OK boys, here's what we're going to do:

Start with the barbed wire...then move on to the furnaces, OK?

Yawol mein Furher....

Such a big crowd to endure the snow and cold for the sake of the unborn is heartwarming.

Meanwhile those who grow richer in their comfortable homes at the cost of the unborn is sickening.

Oh please...

Look at the protesters at these events.
Cruddy clothes, the nasty old beaters they drive, the notable lack of employment...

These guys - like the Disability suckers and deadbeat dads who are the Army of God - are not exactly on the "success track." The closest they'l ever come to doing anything notable is to drag their loser butts out in front of a news camera with a bloody fetus photo and scream "Looka me! Looka me! Looka me!" like a sugar-amped three-year-old.

It's SO pathetic...

Well, Laura, once you start attacking people for cruddy clothes and old cars, I'm going to get a bit nervous.

Hooves, I sure don't put a modern medical facility on the same level as a Nazi death camp. I know that you do. Different perspectives, that's for sure.

"Look at the protesters at these events.
Cruddy clothes, the nasty old beaters they drive, the notable lack of employment..."

It's called living a humble life, Laura - and not getting rich off of the blood of innocent children.

The photos below demonstrate the utmost of pro-life resolve: picketing during a blizzard on Christmas morning. Whether or not you agreed with their strategy, you must admire their dedication.
-------
They just look plain rude and stupid to me.

The snow looks way, too white! Sure could use some "snow paint"!

I don't admire their dedication either. Not like they took the day off work or anything. What else is there to do? Waste time at church or waste time picketing some hardworking guy's house. Tough choice.

Well, Laura, once you start attacking people for cruddy clothes and old cars, I'm going to get a bit nervous.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really?
I was reading an article not 3 months ago from someone having an aneurysm over the nice cars, designer clothes and expensive jewelry the staff at the Aurora clinic were sportin'. Someone else was frothing over Steve Trombley's salary.
(Reeks of envy, doesn't it?)

Laura, Perhaps it was not intended, but your post sure comes across to me as announcing to the world that success in this life is measured solely by the amount of money you make, and that the goodness in your heart does not matter.

I don't admire their dedication either. Not like they took the day off work or anything. What else is there to do? Waste time at church or waste time picketing some hardworking guy's house. Tough choice.

Posted by: Hal at December 28, 2007 1:24 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, if I were to go to a Midnight Mass and fart during the service in order to bring awareness to the suffering of diverticulosis victims, would I be an activist with a social conscience, or perhaps just a rude moron?

When does promoting your political agenda cross the line? You want an easy rule-of-thumb?
We'll use the gass-passing standard.

1) Don't fart in anybody's home or church.
2) Avoid farting at them on Christmas or any other joyous or solemn holiday. (4th of July - OK!)
3) Don't fart where tender and vulnerable children might be damaged.

(Emily Post would be SO proud of me!)

It would be nice to see at least one tuxedo...

Laura, your post about the appearance of the pro-lifers was pretty elitist.

According to local news reports, Tuesday was the snowiest Christmas Day in Denver's history!

Laura, Perhaps it was not intended, but your post sure comes across to me as announcing to the world that success in this life is measured solely by the amount of money you make, and that the goodness in your heart does not matter.

Posted by: Brian at December 28, 2007 1:26 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's true, brian-
You know what else is true?

Giving $100,000.00 to your political action committee is far more effective than wandering aimlessly in front of someone's home.
Giving $100,000.00 to a pro-life candidate's campaign is more effective than wandering aimlessly in front of someone's home.
Giving $100,000.00 to Planned Parenthood or your local CPC to avert abortions is more effective than wandering aimlessly in front of someone's home.

I used to be the fundraising beast from Hell.
I can assure you that expensive dinners, fairway fees and plain 'ol cash will further your cause WAY MO than an bloody fetus photo will.

Your side just squandered a 12-year window of opportunity. I'm ecstatic. Just keep wandering in the snow.

Laura, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

Again Laura you're fixated on money. Money isn't gonna solve the abortion problem. Our society is way past that.
What's needed is a conversion of heart and the desire to live a good moral life.

Laura, I believe that animal rights activists have also shown that you don't need a lot of money to accomplish your goal.

"The horror of Mr. Weitz trying to provide jobs for his employees by contracting to do a construction job."

Wrong, Hal, as usual. The horror is not in the things you claim, it's in the slaughter of children that you don't claim. It's the destruction job, not the construction job, to which conscientious, sane, compassionate people (not you or your ilk) object.

Speaking of slaughter,destruction, cars and clothing, I expect that Hitler drove the finest car available, and wore the sharpest uniforms. I understand that the quantity and quality of certain material goods available to the Germans was increased (can anybody say BRIBE?)as all these goods were taken by force from the Nazi victims.

I can understand Laura's desire to suppress the graphic evidence of the atrocities committed by the abortion cartel; just as Hitler and his ilk also went to considerable lengths to suppress such evidence of their genocidal handiwork.

What I can't understand is why on earth anyone would expect prolifers to take advice from anyone who hates us as much as she does. It's not as though she has ever given us the slightest cause to suspect that she has our best interests in mind...or those of the tender, vulnerable children whose slaughter she constantly tries to rationalize. The borts never cease to amaze...

Laura, I believe that animal rights activists have also shown that you don't need a lot of money to accomplish your goal.

Posted by: Phil at December 28, 2007 2:24 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not only do groups like PETA, World Wildlife Fund, Humane Society of the United States and others have monster budgets, they have HUGE celebrity contingents. Right-to-life organizations have neither.

So... did it work? Did they stop building the Planned Parenthood clinic in Denver?

No?

Wow, what a shock.

A pro-abort commenter recently suggested that pro-aborts picket homes of pro-lifers.

That's silly. Pro-choicers don't waste our time picketing pro-lifers because we don't care if people are pro-life. Being pro-choice is about helping people to avoid harm, not trying to punish people for their "sins." That's why we have anti-choicers wasting Christmas picketing with ugly signs that offend and upset and save no babies, while pro-choicers spend their time volunteering in birth control clinics and actually preventing abortions from happening.

That's silly. Pro-choicers don't waste our time picketing pro-lifers because we don't care if people are pro-life.

If you didn't care, I doubt you would be here reading and/or commenting.

"Being pro-choice is about helping people to avoid harm..."

Now that's rich! Please explain how ripping the arms and legs off of helpless babies in the womb is "avoiding harm".

Oh I get it – you mean the “harm” of a woman having the inconvenience of taking care of a baby, or the “harm” of a child interfering with her career, or the “harm” of not being able to drive fancy cars or wear name brand clothing because of the financial burden a child would bring to her life.

"Pro-choicers don't waste our time picketing pro-lifers because we don't care if people are pro-life. Being pro-choice is about helping people to avoid harm, not trying to punish people for their "sins." That's why we have anti-choicers wasting Christmas picketing with ugly signs that offend and upset and save no babies, while pro-choicers spend their time volunteering in birth control clinics and actually preventing abortions from happening."

Bethany, where is the ROTFLMAO emoticon when we need him?!

Birth control "clinics" don't prevent abortions. Pills, IUDS, shots, patches, condoms, etc. cannot ensure that their users won't procreate a child. What they do ensure is that their users won't expect a child; so when one is conceived, (s)he is more likely to be considered inconvenient, unexpected, unprepared for, and therefore as unwanted by his/her parents as (s)he is by the population police, and end up as grist for the death mills.

Most women submitting to induced abortions are not married, but became pregnant by sexual sin. Induced abortion is not the reproductive reset button it's marketed as, but a violent, invasive assault on a woman's delicate, intricate reproductive system. Women are subjected to much more bodily harm in an abortion then in childbirth; how's that again about punishing people for their sins?

Bloody fetus pictures do save children (actual ones, not hypothetical ones) from abortion; that is why their discrediting and suppression is so very dear to the anti-hearts of the anti-life people who want them so dead.

Pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Resource Centers currently outnumber abortion mills about 3 to 1; they also employ many volunteers who actually prevent abortions from happening. Ain't it a beotch?!

tp is right about one thing, though, that proaborts don't care if people are pro-life. That is why Roe v. Wade was not put before the American people for a vote, but before a handful of judicial activists to be foisted on a predominantly pro-life America against the majority of their wills and better judgment.
They don't care that the children they kill don't want, deserve, or need to be killed. Those children are the staunchest prolifers of any year, if they could just make their feelings & wishes known. One brave man tried to amplify those via a film called "The Silent Scream"; and the proaborts tried to silence it. No, they don't care how much their victims want or deserve to live.

Oh, and speaking of things that haven't worked, I remember the pre-Roe proabort rhetoric promising us that legalizing induced abortion would reduced child abuse, ensure greater safety for women, and solve various other social ills. Women are injured and killed daily by "safe, legal" induced abortions, child abuse has increased by at least 800%, people still suffer from starvation all over the world, etc. In short, has it worked? NO. Wow. What a shock?!...

Birth control "clinics" don't prevent abortions. Pills, IUDS, shots, patches, condoms, etc. cannot ensure that their users won't procreate a child.

WRONG. I know lots of women who've used birth control for years and never had an unplanned pregnancy. I, myself, have used birth control for a decade without ever having an unplanned pregnancy. Clearly, you have no earthly idea what you're talking about.

What they do ensure is that their users won't expect a child; so when one is conceived, (s)he is more likely to be considered inconvenient, unexpected, unprepared for, and therefore as unwanted by his/her parents

WRONG again! In fact, women who don't use birth control are far more likely to have abortions than women using birth control. The 11% of fertile women who don't use birth control are responsible for half of all the abortions in the US.

Women are subjected to much more bodily harm in an abortion then in childbirth;

WRONG AGAIN! Childbirth is eleven times more deadly than abortion, and many times more likely to result in complications.

Pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Resource Centers currently outnumber abortion mills about 3 to 1;

Births outnumber abortions 3 to 1 and pretty much always have. So what?

Women are injured and killed daily by "safe, legal" induced abortions

WRONG AGAIN. At least 10 times as many women were killed by abortion before Roe v. Wade. Women are no longer killed "daily" by abortion, despite anti-choice efforts to return us to those days.

According to local news reports, Tuesday was the snowiest Christmas Day in Denver's history!
-------------------------------------------

This may be true, but looking at the pictures it doesn't seem like much of a blizzard to me. Maybe a lot of snowfall came later in the day. I am not sure. But look at the road... theres no snow on it. In a blizzard the snow plows can't keep up. Just the other day MN had a blizzard. My friend dropped his phone in the snow after doing a snow angel. about 10 minutes later we went back to try and find it thinking our footprints and his snow angel would still be somewhat present. Guess what ... everything was covered up because the snow was coming down so fast and was blowing like crazy. This looks more like snow flurries to me.

P.S.

Pro-life Crisis Pregnancy Resource Centers currently outnumber abortion mills about 3 to 1;

LOL. God this is silly. To open an abortion clinic, you need a doctor, a license, actual medical staff, actual medical equipment, and so on.

To open a crisis pregnancy center, all you need is a few dollar store pregnancy tests and anti-choice pamphlets.

Considering that, I'm surprised the ratio of CPCs to clinics isn't 10:1.

by the way Phil what they mean when they say "snowiest christmas day" is how much snow is on the ground TOTAL. This doesn't just mean what fell on Christmas day. It means what fell on christmas day plus what was already on the ground.

Laura, you are correct in stating that PETA, HSUS, and the WWF have large budgets. I should have been more clear though, in what I define an "animal rights" organization to be.....PETA and HSUS are for treating animals ethically, and are embraced by the larger veg-friendly community. They support euthanizing homeless animals, applaud things like organic and free-range meat, and promote the idea of less-suffering.

Animal rights is a whole different ballpark. AR activists and organizations are fewer in number and support a much larger goal - total animal liberation. AR activists tend to work in small, community-centered groups, and many are horizontally organized. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and Animal Defense League are examples of AR groups that have used persistant, local activism to bring about major results. In fact, a hallmark of the SHAC campaign was targeted house demos, going after those involved in the peripheral companies that worked with their main target - Huntingdon Life Sciences.

You just gotta love these topics. The pro-aborts blow a gasket and with their posts give us more insight into the minds of the pro-aborts. It keeps getting more wacky, I can always count on a good laugh from the wacky Laura posts.

"Childbirth is eleven times more deadly than abortion, and many times more likely to result in complications."

What a moronic statement! Childbirth gives life to a child - Abortion causes a child to die 100% of the time, thus making it far more deadly than any of your imagined "complications"!

"At least 10 times as many women were killed by abortion before Roe v. Wade."

Well any woman who makes the "choice" to murder the child inside her womb deserves to die!

*glances* I should be killed, Dani? Oh, oh, get Zeke in here. Maybe you guys could joyously execute me in front of a large audience!

Birth control "clinics" don't prevent abortions. Pills, IUDS, shots, patches, condoms, etc. cannot ensure that their users won't procreate a child.

WRONG. I know lots of women who've used birth control for years and never had an unplanned pregnancy. I, myself, have used birth control for a decade without ever having an unplanned pregnancy. Clearly, you have no earthly idea what you're talking about.
WRONG again! In fact, women who don't use birth control are far more likely to have abortions than women using birth control. The 11% of fertile women who don't use birth control are responsible for half of all the abortions in the US.

Sorry, TP, but it is you that is wrong.

Consider these studies:

In a study of abortion patients in 1994-95 [Alan Guttmacher Institute], 58% of patients reported that they ‘currently used’ contraception during the month of their last menstrual period…
[CDC, MMWR, 7June02, "Abortion Surveillance – United States, 1998"]

Two-thirds of unplanned pregnancies occur among women who described themselves as using birth control.
Among the women who became pregnant unintentionally, 65% reported using contraception when they conceived. [May 2003, journal Human Reproduction, Researchers from the Hospital de Bicetre, France; The Washington Post, 5/5/03]

More info, (this is long, sorry) thanks to PhysiciansforLife.org

The facts speak for themselves:
Fact 1. Contraceptive use is already “virtually universal among women of reproductive age,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) reports that 89% of reproductive-age women already are using contraception and 98% have used it in their lifetime.

There are still unintended pregnancies and abortions because with typical use, the risk of pregnancy over 12 months is 9% with oral contraceptives and 15% with condoms. (http://womenshealth.about.com/cs/birthcontrol/a/effectivenessbc.htm)

Fact 2. Contraceptive researchers and social scientists measuring effectiveness in large-scale studies have reached (often reluctantly) the same conclusion: increased availability of contraception, and even emergency contraception, fails to reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion. Studies examining the impact of emergency contraception (EC) are reviewed at http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/FactSheetEC9606.htm. Research in the U.S., Western Europe and China produced remarkable unanimity:

• “No effect on abortion rates was demonstrated with advance provision of EC... [W]idespread distribution of ...EC through health services may not be an effective way to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy”
(Glasier et al., Contraception 2004);

• “We did not observe a difference in pregnancy rates...Previous studies also failed to show significant differences in pregnancy or abortion rates among women with advance provision of EC” (Tina Raine et al., JAMA 2005);

• “This study adds to the growing literature casting doubt on the increased use of EC as a quick fix for rising abortion rates” (Hu et al., Contraception 2005);

• “Another commonly held view for which there is no documented evidence is that improving knowledge about and access to Emergency Contraception will reduce the number of teenage pregnancies...Experience of use so far does not give any evidence of effectiveness” (Williams, Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, 2005).

Even AGI’s own 2006 “Contraception Counts” report, which ranks states on policies improving contraceptive access as well as on abortion rates, shows no correlation between better access to contraception and lower abortion rates.

U.S. researcher Douglas Kirby concludes: “Most studies that have been conducted during the past 20 years have indicated that improving access to contraception did not significantly increase contraceptive use or decrease teen pregnancy” (“Reflections on Two Decades of Research on Teen Sexual Behavior and Pregnancy,” 1999 Journal of School Health 3:69).

Fact 3. The effectiveness of EC – in the words of prominent EC researcher Anna Glasier – is “unsubstantiated by randomized trials” and “based on rather unreliable data and a great many assumptions” (2004 Contraception 69:361-366). Among several recent studies questioning the 89% efficacy claimed by Plan B’s manufacturer, one concludes that the “best available estimate” of Plan B effectiveness is only 72% (Stanford and Mikolajczyk, “Methodological review of the effectiveness of emergency contraception,” 2005 Current Women’s Health Reviews 1:119-129).

These authors note that the higher estimate of effectiveness is based on two small samples of women:
British women using natural family planning (NFP) in the 1960s and women in
North Carolina in the 1980s who were trying to conceive. The fertility rate, especially among the British NFP users, was very likely higher than among women in a key World Health Organization study comparing effectiveness of two methods of emergency contraception. This error led to overestimating EC effectiveness. In addition, Stanford notes, “the methods used for comparison do not take into account the normal variation in the timing of ovulation within the menstrual cycle.”

Fact 4. One columnist dismisses the “argument” made by "opponents” of contraception that “birth control pills, like morning-after pills, can block implantation of an embryo. But there’s no evidence that this has ever happened.” There’s plenty of evidence if one knows where to look.

A leading medical textbook on embryology, Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (6th ed.), explains that “morning after pills” taken “within 72 hours after sexual intercourse usually prevent implantation of the blastocyst...These hormones prevent implantation, not fertilization. Consequently, they should not be called contraceptive pills. … It would be more appropriate to call them ‘contraimplantation pills.’ Because the term abortion refers to a premature stoppage of a pregnancy, the term abortion could be applied to such an early termination of pregnancy” (p. 532).

The leading textbook on obstetrics, Williams Obstetrics, provides a detailed overview of the many female hormones involved in the fertility cycle and their effect on the five major stages of the endometrial cycle. (See 19th ed., pp. 82-93, edited by F. Gary Cunningham, M.D. et al., 1996.)

The editors describe the miraculous process by which the uterus is prepared each month to be a safe haven for a developing embryo as “unique and astonishing” (at 82). They note that “two thirds of the entire endometrium is shed and regenerated more than 450 times, on average, in the life of most women. … [If] the doubling time of endometrial growth experienced from the 5th to the 20th day of the ovarian cycle were maintained for 1 year, the weight of the endometrium would approach 1 ton!” (at 83) This astonishing process can be disrupted, thwarting the implantation of a newly conceived embryo, by counteracting certain hormones.

The most commonly used contraceptive pill is a combination of estrogen and progestin.

Here’s what Williams Obstetrics has to say about its mode of action: “Estrogen alone in sufficient dose will inhibit ovulation. … Implantation also is likely inhibited by altering normal endometrial maturation. Although estrogen accelerates ovum transport, progestins cause slowing; thus their possible role in altered tubal and uterine motility is unclear. “… Similar to estrogens, progestins produce an endometrium that is unfavorable to blastocyst implantation. Finally, progestins also can inhibit ovulation. …“The net or combined effect of estrogen and progestin with respect to contraception is extremely effective ovulation suppression [assuming perfect use!--ed.], sperm penetration blockage by cervical mucus, and unfavorable endometrium for implantation if the first two mechanisms fail” (at 1322-23).

Of progestin-only “mini-pills” using the ingredient in the Plan B emergency “contraceptive”), Williams Obstetrics explains: “They have not achieved wide-spread popularity because of a much-higher incidence of irregular bleeding and a higher pregnancy rate. As with all forms of progestin-only contraception, when failure results in pregnancy, there is also an increased risk that it is ectopic. … These agents, when used alone, impair fertility without always inhibiting ovulation. This likely results from inducing cervical mucus that impedes sperm penetration and from altering endometrial maturation sufficiently to thwart successful blastocyst implantation. … [If] menses are not disturbed, or only minimally disturbed, ovulation is likely not suppressed, and the pregnancy risk is greater. Actual pregnancy rates with progestin-only pills range from 1.1 to 9.6 pregnancies per 100 women in the first year of use” (at 1333-34).

Robert A. Hatcher, MD, principal editor of the definitive guide Contraceptive Technology (18th ed., 2004), has also produced a 171-page Pocket Guide to Managing Contraception, available in print and online at www.managingcontraception.com.

The mechanisms of action of various forms of contraception are described briefly:

• Combined (Estrogen & Progestin) Oral Contraceptives (COCs): “Suppresses ovulation. … Also causes thickening of cervical mucus, which blocks sperm penetration and entry into the upper reproductive tract. Thin, asynchronous endometrium inhibits implantation. Tubal motility slowed” (at 101).

• The mechanisms of progestin-only contraceptive pills (POPs) are described this way: “Thickens cervical mucus to prevent sperm entry into upper reproductive tract (major mechanism).”

N.B. That action requires 12-24 hours, while sperm in fertile mucus need only 6 hours to be capacitated, that is, capable of fertilizing an ovum. The description continues: “Effect short-lived–requires punctual dosing. Other mechanisms include ovulation suppression (in about 50% of cycles), thin, atrophic endometrium which inhibits implantation; and slowed diminished mobility. Some POPs in Europe suppress ovulation more than the levonorgestrel, norgestrel and norethindrone pills used in the USA” (at 124).

By “punctual dosing,” the authors do mean PUNCTUAL. If a woman is only 3 hours late in taking her daily dose, she is advised to use “backup contraception for 48 hours” and “consider using emergency contraception if [she had] sex in past 3-5 days” (at 127).

• Depo-Provera injection. The mechanisms are as follows: “Suppresses ovulation by inhibiting LH and FSH surge, thickens cervical mucus blocking sperm entry into female upper reproductive tract, slows tubal and endometrial mobility, and causes thinning of the endometrium” (at 128).

• Implanon (implanted rod with progestin now replacing Norplant, which was withdrawn from the market after a successful class action suit based on risks and unpleasant side effects). Its mechanisms: “…thick cervical mucus prevents normal sperm transport”; “inhibition of ovulation”; and “atrophic endometrium” which will inhibit implantation.

A major study by Marta Durand et al. (2005 Contraception 71:451-457) confirms the frequent failure of levonorgestrel (LNG) to prevent ovulation, when administered as an emergency contraceptive before the LH surge. Instead LNG interferes with the function of the corpus luteum in preparing the endometrium for implantation.

Durand et al. studied levels of glycodelin in the blood and endometrium of women who had been given two doses of LNG 12 hours apart.

One group received LNG 3-4 days before the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge. LH triggers both the release of an ovum from the dominant follicle, and the conversion of the residual follicle into a corpus luteum producing progesterone to prepare the endometrium for a possible implantation. LH is necessary to maintain luteal function for the first two weeks. The second group received LNG at the time of the rise in LH, and the third group 48 hours afterward.

In the first group only, LNG caused a rise in glycodelin 4 days earlier than normal which produces “antifertility activity” during the fertile window, and also causes “deleterious effects on [progesterone] production by the corpus luteum” (at 455). Reduced levels of glycodelin in the endometrium at the time implantation should occur can inhibit implantation and result in an embryo’s death.

Chang-hai He et al. compared the effects of 0.75 mg LNG tablets (Postinor and a Chinese version). The pills were taken by women within 8 hours of every act of unprotected intercourse, and again 24 hours later, during the week before and week after their estimated day of ovulation. (1991 Int J Gynecol Obstet 36:43-48).

Ovulation occurred in all but 14.4% of cycles.

He et al. state: “Earlier we have reported that ovulation was not affected in four out of six women given 0.75 mg levonorgestrel daily for 7 days starting on day 11 of their cycle. Thus, it would appear that the mechanism of action of postcoitally administered levonorgestrel is not inhibition of ovulation in most women but presumably involves an effect on the endometrium, rendering it unsuitable for implantation” (at 47).

If the media does not believe the evidence published in science journals and medical textbooks, perhaps they would believe in the post-fertilization effect of contraceptives if they read about it in The New York Times.

Coincidentally, that newspaper allowed a statement by James Trussell (described therein as “one of the world’s leading experts on contraception”) to appear on its pages earlier this year, maintaining that all hormonal methods of contraception involve postfertilization (i.e., abortifacient) effects.

The Times censor must have been asleep at the switch when he allowed this statement by Trussell to slip past him:
“The evidence is about the same for all hormonal methods of contraception. We can’t rule out a postfertility effect for Plan B, and the same is true for the birth control pill” (quoted in R. Shorto, “Contra-Contraception,” The New York Times, May 7, 2006).

There are other reasons not to support contraceptive-promoting legislation which we’ll save for a later day. But it should be clear that more contraception does not decrease unintended pregnancies and abortions.

And it should be clear what effectiveness contraception does have may depend on post-fertilization, abortifacient effects.

[Life Insight, October-November 2006, Vol. 17, No. 4, www.usccb.org/prolife]
(“Where the Rubber Meets Roe,” Washington Post, Oct. 1, 2006, at B2)

If we lived in a just society that upheld God's Law of "Do Not Murder" you would have never had the opportunity to become a murderer in the first place. You know, just because you had an abortion, doesn't mean you're not a mother anymore - you are simply a mother of a dead child.

The above post was directed to Erin for asking:

"I should be killed, Dani? Oh, oh, get Zeke in here. Maybe you guys could joyously execute me in front of a large audience!"

Or a dead fetus. But seriously, Dani. Dontcha wanna kill me? You and Zeke sure seem to tout that! C'mon. Maybe you can burn me at the stake! How's that sound? A good, old fashioned, heretic burning. Nothing like it!

Erin - All a "fetus" is, is an unborn baby.

If it wasn't really a baby, then you weren't really pregnant. But I understand your need to minimize your evil deeds to ease your conscience.

And to answer your question, if abortion were a capital crime like it should be, then yes, you deserve to be executed for murdering your poor helpless little baby.

Technically, even if abortion were a capital crime, I'd just be guilty of negligence, or possibly I'd be an accomplice. An abortionist would be the one guilty of capital offense. And either way, I think you're nuts ^_^

If there is a hell, I'll see you and Zeke there.

Dani: If we lived in a just society that upheld God's Law of "Do Not Murder" you would have never had the opportunity to become a murderer in the first place.

Nope - abortion is not "murder," even if you don't like it. The meaning of the Commandment and the actual wording in some Bible versions is "Thou shalt not murder," and abortion was not considered murder in biblical times. Abortion has been known, desired, and practiced for thousands and thousands of years.
......

You know, just because you had an abortion, doesn't mean you're not a mother anymore - you are simply a mother of a dead child.

Many people feel that "child" applies from birth to puberty or even later, but not earlier than birth. It really doesn't matter what terms you favor; the argument isn't over terminology, in the main.

Doug

I would like to address tp's comment at 4:31pm re: "at least 10 times as many women were killed by abortion before Roe vs. Wade". Ex-abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson (and he WAS the US's biggest abortion guru in the late '60's and 70's)admitted that pro-aborts and womens/feminist organizations made up, that is faked, most of the statistics about womens deaths due to abortion. In this way it appeared to give weight to the fact that women were dying by the thousands and abortion therefore needed to made legal. The abortion industry continues it's deceitful ways, especially in countries which are attempting to resist efforts to legalize the murder of their unborn children. Thus for example we have so called hard cases of women impregnated through supposed rapes when in fact nothing of the sort occurred. Unfortunately, so entrenched is the false "right" of abortion that even the media, bastions of truth and fair play that they are, participate in this tactic. I believe the NY Times recently retracted a such story. Hopefully, as more and more women who suffer physical and emotional effects of abortion come forward, the truth will set us all free.

Hmmm Doug,
So where does the expression, "I'm with child" come from?
No woman I know goes around talking about her fetus. "Well, you know, I felt my fetus move last night. It was incredible!"
or
"Wow! I can feel the fetus' head/arm/foot!"
Really, it's only a fetus because if we said baby then we'd all have to acknowledge that we are killing something valued - a person. Lets call a spade a spade, shall we, fetus is just a convenient term so men can cop out on supporting their sex partner when she becomes pregnant and women can do the nasty and get rid of the consequences.

Laura, your post about the appearance of the pro-lifers was pretty elitist.

According to local news reports, Tuesday was the snowiest Christmas Day in Denver's history!

Posted by: Phil at December 28, 2007 1:47 PM
.................................

Snowiest doesn't mean coldest. It's pretty balmy in Denver when it snows in comparison to Chicago. It can snow one morning and get up to 60 degrees in the afternoon.

Oh I get it – you mean the “harm” of a woman having the inconvenience of taking care of a baby, or the “harm” of a child interfering with her career, or the “harm” of not being able to drive fancy cars or wear name brand clothing because of the financial burden a child would bring to her life.

Posted by: Dani at December 28, 2007 3:40 PM
........................................

I see. You'd rather that women not have careers, cars or decent clothing at all. Working at Wal-mart, driving a clunker and wearing thrift store clothing is good enough for you............

"Childbirth is eleven times more deadly than abortion, and many times more likely to result in complications."

What a moronic statement! Childbirth gives life to a child - Abortion causes a child to die 100% of the time, thus making it far more deadly than any of your imagined "complications"!

"At least 10 times as many women were killed by abortion before Roe v. Wade."

Well any woman who makes the "choice" to murder the child inside her womb deserves to die!
Posted by: Dani at December 28, 2007 5:56 PM
................................................

How sociopathic of you.

"I see. You'd rather that women not have careers, cars or decent clothing at all. Working at Wal-mart, driving a clunker and wearing thrift store clothing is good enough for you...."

Sally - Actually, I'd rather that women not be so selfish and kill their own kids for needless material gain. What is sociopathic is valuing nice cars and worthless careers over the life of your own child.

I see. You'd rather that women not have careers, cars or decent clothing at all. Working at Wal-mart, driving a clunker and wearing thrift store clothing is good enough for you............

Posted by: Sally at December 28, 2007 7:23 PM
_____________________________________________

So it really is all about $$$ to you and your fellow pro-abortion folks. It's about appearances --- what people wear and what they drive. You simply don't value other people at all. I think the comments from Sally and Laura pretty much sum up their worldview. It's about the money and the appearances -- no heart or soul involved.
Also, I can't understand why the protesters bother you both --- you are so very proud of abortion. These construction folks are making good money building the PP facility, the protesters should help them drum up more business and get some name recognition. Unless they are worried about appearances and letting people know where the money comes from.

Sally - Actually, I'd rather that women not be so selfish and kill their own kids for needless material gain. What is sociopathic is valuing nice cars and worthless careers over the life of your own child.

Posted by: Dani at December 28, 2007 7:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What material gain? Is there some sort of "abortion lotto?"
By the way, you've just joined Heather in her cry for ghetto life. Apparently education and career are "worthless."

So it really is all about $$$ to you and your fellow pro-abortion folks. It's about appearances --- what people wear and what they drive. You simply don't value other people at all. I think the comments from Sally and Laura pretty much sum up their worldview. It's about the money and the appearances -- no heart or soul involved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do you plan to pay your kids' $270,000 college tuition bills with heart, soul, and good intentions?

Patricia, I hear you on "with child.' It can also be said that "I'm going to have a baby," as in the future. The good ol' English Langwidge; all hail Elmer Fudd.

"Child" is different than "baby" in application, i.e. more people think "baby" applies to the unborn, though of course it's far from uniformly accepted.

"Fetus" is medically correct, and not dependent on opinion as "child" and "baby" are. Saying "fetus" or "embryo" can't really be argued with. Stating "baby" or "not baby" as if it's a meaningful argument in the abortion debate is false and IMO silly.

Also - one can say whatever, pick whatever terms, and there's no necessary positive valuation there. Maybe they feel one way, maybe not, regardless of which words they'd pick - it's not related to personhood; though I do think some generalizations can be made.

Lets call a spade a spade, shall we, fetus is just a convenient term so men can cop out on supporting their sex partner when she becomes pregnant and women can do the nasty and get rid of the consequences.

Hey, let's call a spade a "child" or "baby." Not a big deal. Fetus is medically and biologically correct. Doesn't matter what a given woman or man says.

If the man has agreed that a pregnancy will be continued, then I don't think it's right if he later advises the woman to have an abortion. IMO people should be up-front about this and communicate well, and stick by what they say.

Doug

Laura --

Actually, my daughter will be gaining her degree with a full ride scholarship to Notre Dame. I believe that my heart, soul and good intentions; as well as her hard work, had everything to do with it.

By the way, I am a single mom. And you are a ????

Who says kids need $270K tuition bills. Not all kids go to college. Some go into trades. Some are lucky to get scholarships due to their hard work. There are many possibilities. Maybe your kids doesn't go to that better school but settles for something a little less. I wonder how many young adults would feel positive if mommy and daddy said, "Well, you know sweetie, it's lucky we aborted our third child. We would never have been able to afford college for you."
The point is that people don't need all the "stuff" they think they need. My parents who lived through the depression did not have a house or car when they started a family. My mom wore the same wool coat for 35 years (I used to wonder why when I was a kid! Now I know!!)But they worked hard and had hope that one day things would get better. And they did. Everyone today wants the car, the house, the never-ending better job. Suddenly by the time your 35 it's time to have a kid and guess what -- no kids come. People no longer make room for children in their lives.

Laura --

Actually, my daughter will be gaining her degree with a full ride scholarship to Notre Dame. I believe that my heart, soul and good intentions; as well as her hard work, had everything to do with it.

By the way, I am a single mom. And you are a ????

Posted by: LB at December 28, 2007 8:29 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, yes!
Just march down to the CPC and tell the girls that their child will get a free ride through an Ivy-League school.

I sure miss Frank Zappa...

Hey LB hats off to you!

Absolutely!
Hats off to LB! She really bucked the trend.
Sometime check out the stats for single mothers, especially single TEEN mothers:

Children living apart from fathers are five times more likely to be poor than children from two-parent homes. Children of uninvolved fathers are twice as likely to drop out of school, abuse alcohol or drugs or go to jail, and four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.1

So, if teen mothers have no functional family of origin, no “village” to rely on, all parenting responsibilities fall on young girls who received little nurturing themselves. It’s no surprise they turn to welfare. One-half of all teen mothers and more than three-quarters of unmarried teen mothers receive welfare within five years of their first child’s birth.1

While on paper, married, two-parent families sound like stabilizing alternatives, chances of marital success are slim. Only 30% of married teen mothers stay married. Teen marriages are twice as likely to fail as marriages in which the woman is at least 25 years old.1 Plus, studies of welfare mothers suggest some teen moms may be better off unmarried for safety reasons. According to Esta Soler, president of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, “Studies consistently show that at least 50% to 60% of women receiving welfare have experienced physical abuse by an intimate partner…compared to 22% of the general population… A significant number of women receiving welfare also report a history of physical and sexual abuse in childhood.” In a California study, some recipients report lifetime abuse rates of 80% to 83%.4

While the absence of a caring father has profound consequences for children, the presence of an abusive one may be a matter of life or death. All of these factors take a toll on children. Teen parents are twice as likely as older parents to abuse or neglect their children.5 In reported incidents of abuse and neglect, 100 per 1,000 were families headed by teen mothers. The rate is less than half in families with new mothers in their 20s: 51 incidents per 1,000 families.1 Foster care placement is also significantly higher for children of teen mothers.1

Children of teenagers, then, come to school with baggage and consequently perform poorly. They are 50% more likely to repeat a grade, do worse on standardized tests, and are less likely to complete high school than if their mothers had delayed childbearing. Sons of teen mothers are 13% more likely to end up in prison; daughters, 22% more likely to also become teen mothers.1

Oh, yes!
Just march down to the CPC and tell the girls that their child will get a free ride through an Ivy-League school.

Posted by: Laura at December 28, 2007 8:41 PM
______________________________________________

Laura --

What an odd comment! If you really were pro-choice and not pro-abortion -- I would think that you would be happy that a the child of an independent, single woman was an achiever. But no.
I would tell the women at the CPC to have hope and have their child. I would help them to understand that choosing life is the positive path, whether they choose to raise the child or place him/her for adoption.

Laura, do you hate single moms or something. Is it jealously? Or perhaps, regret that you missed out on an abortion sale or something? Does hurting others make you feel better?

Well, Laura, I too am a single mom. My x abandoned our family when I had 4 kids under the age of 8.
My son is going to university next year, my daughter who was valedictorian in her Gr 8 class, is carrying a 95 average in Gr 10 and my other daughter is a gifted musician who plays violin and piano.
It's true that children are definitely better off with two MARRIED parents, but unfortunately, I didn't have a choice in the matter. Nevertheless, through prayer and persistence, and by good example, my kids will probably do okay.
Your stats give even more weight to the fact that sex belongs in MARRIAGE. Teen girls have no business even considering sex. They should be working on developing their personality and interests. Unfortunately, because of contraception and abortion, young women today are under sexual seige. If they don't have sex, a man will always find someone else who will.

Your long paragraph of 'facts' don't support abortion, but only argue that parents of all types need the emotional support of the people around them. A child needs to valued on more than just a financial basis.

In fact looking at those facts of yours, I'm surprised that you don't advocate just killing poor people. But then again you do, and so did your dear Ms Sanger.

Laura, you didn't answer my question, what are you? It seems obvious that you aren't a mother and likely that you earn your $$$ through the abortion industry in some manner. What are you?

Patricia --

Good work with those kids! I'm glad to see another single mom on here. The PC'ers just love to paint us all as failures.
I always brace for an attack whenever I bring it up --- lovely.

Laura, you didn't answer my question, what are you? It seems obvious that you aren't a mother and likely that you earn your $$$ through the abortion industry in some manner. What are you?

Posted by: LB at December 28, 2007 8:59 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, first and foremost I'm a human being, but after that I'm a veterinary technician/animal control officer.
Why do you ask?

Laura --

I'm glad you answered, I've always wondered where you were coming from.
Vet tech and animal control officer a good field of work. My daughter and I volunteer regularly at our humane society and also serve as foster home to many kittens every summer.

You probably see alot of sad cases in that role, but also see many successes as well. People always think it's hard volunteering at the shelter with all those abandoned animals, but I tell them that it isn't. I see many more good adoptions that I would have imagined when I started. Many of the animals at the shelter just bloom when they get the attention from the staff and volunteers, most are just stopping by our place on the way to a good home.

Laura you can really drive me crazy. You say some of the harshest things and then sometimes you just crack me up with your wit. I really think you need to lighten up on the single moms. I know we disagree on the abortion issue, but you really don't have to so nasty about it. When you get nasty, I just have to post because it drives me nuts --- please delve into your 'caretaker' mode a little bit more when dealing with people.

Patricia, I hear you on "with child.' It can also be said that "I'm going to have a baby," as in the future. The good ol' English Langwidge; all hail Elmer Fudd.

"Child" is different than "baby" in application, i.e. more people think "baby" applies to the unborn, though of course it's far from uniformly accepted.

"Fetus" is medically correct, and not dependent on opinion as "child" and "baby" are. Saying "fetus" or "embryo" can't really be argued with. Stating "baby" or "not baby" as if it's a meaningful argument in the abortion debate is false and IMO silly.

Also - one can say whatever, pick whatever terms, and there's no necessary positive valuation there. Maybe they feel one way, maybe not, regardless of which words they'd pick - it's not related to personhood; though I do think some generalizations can be made.

Lets call a spade a spade, shall we, fetus is just a convenient term so men can cop out on supporting their sex partner when she becomes pregnant and women can do the nasty and get rid of the consequences.

Hey, let's call a spade a "child" or "baby." Not a big deal. Fetus is medically and biologically correct. Doesn't matter what a given woman or man says.

If the man has agreed that a pregnancy will be continued, then I don't think it's right if he later advises the woman to have an abortion. IMO people should be up-front about this and communicate well, and stick by what they say.

Doug
Posted by: Doug at December 28, 2007 8:26 PM

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

@Doug,

this TRULY is an old and stupid argument. The word 'fetus' is used in medicine to denote a growth stage. However, it is NOT species specific. That means a dog; or a cat; or a rat; etc... were like a humans (sort of) - fetuses at one time.

The words 'baby' or 'child' do specify the human species. So, it is highly appropriate to say 'baby-shower'! A 'child'(that already exists for 9 months) is born of a woman.

The medical term for a post-born infant is called a *roll-drum* - NEONATE ... translation from Latin 'after-birth' .... very technically accurate, eh?

John M: this TRULY is an old and stupid argument. The word 'fetus' is used in medicine to denote a growth stage. However, it is NOT species specific. That means a dog; or a cat; or a rat; etc... were like a humans (sort of) - fetuses at one time.

John, if there is "stupid" here it's pretending that the species is in doubt on Jill's blog. If you think the species is in question, let me know.
......

The words 'baby' or 'child' do specify the human species. So, it is highly appropriate to say 'baby-shower'! A 'child'(that already exists for 9 months) is born of a woman.

No, "baby" obviously often refers to other species as well, but this is not a big deal in the first place - again, here - "human" is understood.
......

The medical term for a post-born infant is called a *roll-drum* - NEONATE ... translation from Latin 'after-birth' .... very technically accurate, eh?

Yeah, and if you see somebody arguing that "neonate" doesn't apply post-birth (to a point) then I'd say you have a good case against them.

Meanwhile, as I noted, saying "it's a baby" or "it's not a baby" are not meaningful arguments in the abortion debate.

Doug

"I see. You'd rather that women not have careers, cars or decent clothing at all. Working at Wal-mart, driving a clunker and wearing thrift store clothing is good enough for you...."

Sally - Actually, I'd rather that women not be so selfish and kill their own kids for needless material gain. What is sociopathic is valuing nice cars and worthless careers over the life of your own child.

Posted by: Dani at December 28, 2007 7:55 PM
....................................................

What you'd selfishly rather that others value, is of no importance. What is sociopathic is valuing an embryo over the life of a woman.

Well, Laura, I too am a single mom. My x abandoned our family when I had 4 kids under the age of 8.
My son is going to university next year, my daughter who was valedictorian in her Gr 8 class, is carrying a 95 average in Gr 10 and my other daughter is a gifted musician who plays violin and piano.
It's true that children are definitely better off with two MARRIED parents, but unfortunately, I didn't have a choice in the matter. Nevertheless, through prayer and persistence, and by good example, my kids will probably do okay.
Your stats give even more weight to the fact that sex belongs in MARRIAGE. Teen girls have no business even considering sex. They should be working on developing their personality and interests. Unfortunately, because of contraception and abortion, young women today are under sexual seige. If they don't have sex, a man will always find someone else who will.

Posted by: Patricia at December 28, 2007 8:59 PM
.......................................................

Good grief! When girls were not allowed to go to college, the only chance at a decent life was to sell their sexuality off for monetary support/marriage. Women making their own choices is sexual siege? Oh please!

What you'd selfishly rather that others value, is of no importance. What is sociopathic is valuing an embryo over the life of a woman.
Posted by: Sally at December 28, 2007 11:10 PM

Its not valuing one life above another...its asking for equality. Its the same with animal rights....people accuse AR activists of valuing animals over people, but that's not the case: we value both lives equally, and are only asking that the equality/right to life are extended to them as well.

Uh Sally,
Are you now, or have you ever been a prostitute?
You think like a prostitute that failed in the business of prostitution.

Directed to Dani -- You are good, no, VERY GOOD at staying on topic, responding w/ brief and thorough comebacks, standing strong and not wavering. 'Love your tenacity...attempting to get through to Laura, who I'm thinking realizes that Denver's style on Christmas morn will somehow be effective, bloody photos of torn apart infants and all. Her forte is to discredit what she silently recognizes as effective.

And now Laura/vet tech -- this one's for you! 'Calling your tush to the carpet. 1)"Cruddy clothes"??? PRACTICAL, COMMON SENSE CLOTHES...water repellent jackets, hoods, jeans, boots. 2)"...nasty old beaters..."??? NO VEHICLES to fit that description IN ANY PHOTO...just in your mind's eye. 3)"..notable lack of employment.."??????????? 'Care to expound on that SUCCESSFULLY?? YOU, my dear, sound like you are disgruntled with life. Woes are not comforted by tearing others down and certainly not by MAKING IT UP as you go along. All that said, it's good you spend time here w/ us. That's less time you're spending somewhere else, perhaps corrupting others.

Doug,

If the man has agreed that a pregnancy will be continued, then I don't think it's right if he later advises the woman to have an abortion. IMO people should be up-front about this and communicate well, and stick by what they say.

Why? I mean what does it matter. If their "valuation" changes and the unborn child ceases to be "important", why should they honor their word? For that matter, why should anyone honor their word ever?

Doug,

Yeah, and if you see somebody arguing that "neonate" doesn't apply post-birth (to a point) then I'd say you have a good case against them.

The problem is not that we argue that fetuses are babies. The problem is that you argue that fetuses are NOT babies.

If we try to tell you that another term for unborn is NOT fetus, then you would have a sound argument. But we don't. YOUR side argues that fetuses, however are NOT babies...

Neonates are babies. Babies are neonates. The fetus/baby argument would be akin to you saying that neonates are NOT babies. Not us saying that neonates ARE babies.

We believe that all the terms are interchangeable. Different words for the same thing. It's your side that doesn't understand this.

Are you trying to tell me that you don't believe neonates and babies are the same thing?

Doug,

Meanwhile, as I noted, saying "it's a baby" or "it's not a baby" are not meaningful arguments in the abortion debate.

They may not be meaningful arguments for you, or in a legal sense, but there are many woman who would change their minds if they could be convinced that these "fetuses" were indeed babies.

Once again, the fact that your side is all over the page on what you think constitutes "A" human being, a person, or a baby is different from person to person. So while the argument that it is a "baby" may not hold any weight with you, it is not so with many other prochoicers...

'Morning MK. I am about to leave for my prayer vigil. The mill wasn't open last week and I pray that it won't be open this week. Have you heard from Heather?

Hey Carrie,

I haven't heard from Heather and am a little worried...

"If the man has agreed that a pregnancy will be continued, then I don't think it's right if he later advises the woman to have an abortion. IMO people should be up-front about this and communicate well, and stick by what they say."

MK: Why? I mean what does it matter. If their "valuation" changes and the unborn child ceases to be "important", why should they honor their word? For that matter, why should anyone honor their word ever?

Because they promised. Because there is the matter of trust in the relationship. If I pormise you something, MK, I will try and stick with it, and I would hope it's vice-versa too.

My opinion.
......

The problem is not that we argue that fetuses are babies. The problem is that you argue that fetuses are NOT babies.

Nope, I don't do that.
......

If we try to tell you that another term for unborn is NOT fetus, then you would have a sound argument. But we don't. YOUR side argues that fetuses, however are NOT babies...

No. While some pro-choicers may say that, that is not what I say. My point is that for the unborn, "baby" or "not baby" is subjective and in the eye of the beholder; not any rational nor logical argument. Personally, I am fine with "unborn baby."
......

Neonates are babies. Babies are neonates. The fetus/baby argument would be akin to you saying that neonates are NOT babies. Not us saying that neonates ARE babies.

No - while there's no real debate on neonates being babies, it's not so for the unborn. Again, "neonate" isn't really arguable, while "baby" most certainly is.
......

We believe that all the terms are interchangeable. Different words for the same thing. It's your side that doesn't understand this.

No - it's understood, but the point is that "baby" or not is a matter of opinion, while embryo, fetus, neonate, etc., are not - they are correct and necessarily so by medical/biological definition.
......

Are you trying to tell me that you don't believe neonates and babies are the same thing?

Not at all.

"Meanwhile, as I noted, saying "it's a baby" or "it's not a baby" are not meaningful arguments in the abortion debate."

MK: They may not be meaningful arguments for you, or in a legal sense, but there are many woman who would change their minds if they could be convinced that these "fetuses" were indeed babies.

Perhaps, but once again, "baby" is subjective. There are people who'd have an abortion who think "baby" applies, and there are some who don't think it applies. Likewise, there are people who wouldn't have an abortion and who think that "baby" does not apply, as well as those that think it do.

What really is operative for those hypothetical women you mention is that their valuation could change, and that's true regardless of terminology.
......

Once again, the fact that your side is all over the page on what you think constitutes "A" human being, a person, or a baby is different from person to person. So while the argument that it is a "baby" may not hold any weight with you, it is not so with many other prochoicers...

Again, "baby" or "not baby" really doesn't matter. As far as being a legal human being, having personhood attributed - yes, those are real issues here. For those pro-choicers who maintain that "not a baby" should necessarily carry some weight in the argument, I say they are wrong, just as it's wrong to act like stating, "it's a baby" must necessarily matter.

Doug

@Doug,

this has to be one of your weirdest ideas ... ".Meanwhile, as I noted, saying "it's a baby" or "it's not a baby" are not meaningful arguments in the abortion debate."

this IS the only argument because what is wanted/unwanted ... A human BABY. 'oh no' the retort is ... 'all I want is to be no longer pregnant.' bs - there is a strong desire to KILL the enemy and abortion does that and more.

I love it when the voice of reason - John Mc Donnell, chimes in.

MK, I haven't heard from Heather either, and am starting to worry about her. Does anyone have her phone number to give her a call?

Doug,

Because they promised. Because there is the matter of trust in the relationship. If I pormise you something, MK, I will try and stick with it, and I would hope it's vice-versa too.

I understand that it's your opinion Doug. What I'm asking is a deeper question...why is that your opinion. What is the basis for keeping a promise? What does it matter?

By the way, MK, I got your Christmas card- it is soooo cute. Thank you for thinking of me this year.
I am glad to see you posting more!

Doug,

No - while there's no real debate on neonates being babies, it's not so for the unborn. Again, "neonate" isn't really arguable, while "baby" most certainly is.
......

Why Doug? At what point did neonate become accepted as synonymous with baby, while fetus stopped being synonymous? They are both simply words for the same thing at different stages.

Doug,

Perhaps, but once again, "baby" is subjective. There are people who'd have an abortion who think "baby" applies, and there are some who don't think it applies. Likewise, there are people who wouldn't have an abortion and who think that "baby" does not apply, as well as those that think it do.

Why is the terminology for fetus/baby subjective, but not neonate. Why can't I claim that a neonate is not a baby also?

Define fetus.
Define neonate.
Define baby.

Your words.

Bethany,

I haven't stopped reading everything, just didn't want to post, get into something and not have time to follow it through. Christmas is pretty nuts around here. I haven't missed a word tho. I promise. I was also getting to know a lot of the posters better. Give everyone else a chance to "expose" themselves...;)

"MK, I haven't heard from Heather either, and am starting to worry about her. Does anyone have her phone number to give her a call? "

Hi Bethany, I did email Heather, but no response yet.....

MK, I'm so glad to hear that! I was starting to think you had left us (for the most part). Christmas has been nuts around here too! So much to do, huh? :) Hope things settle down for you now that it's over. :)

Jasper, i just sent her another email...maybe she'll respond. But if not, I can try to figure out what her phone number is and call her.

MK, this is for you since I met you at the rally in Aurora. My friend was scheduled to pray there on Thursday night (12/27) from 7:00 to 8:00. I was going to meet her there and she called saying that the people there from 6:00 to 7:00 told her to go home. PP was closing for the night. (Thursday they are open late.) And starting January they won't be open late on Thursdays. They aren't getting the "business" they thought they would.

"They aren't getting the "business" they thought they would."

* applause *

@Doug,

over and over you acknowledge that all stages of a preborn infant/baby/fetus presupposes HUMAN. We Pl'ers speak of HUMAN rights ... why do these not apply?

I note that you apply a birth standard ... why apply any rights at this stage, at all? You and I both know that the only REAL rights (and the only ones who matter) are adults. So, over 21 are the only REAL HUMANS! Let's call-it the way our world actually works. Kids are only important as potential adults.

Is this why the will of the pregnant-woman supercedes that of any mere HUMAN fetus (especially when 'will' is not detectable)? They can't find it in adults, either.

I note that you apply a birth standard ... why apply any rights at this stage, at all? You and I both know that the only REAL rights (and the only ones who matter) are adults. So, over 21 are the only REAL HUMANS! Let's call-it the way our world actually works. Kids are only important as potential adults.

Is this why the will of the pregnant-woman supercedes that of any mere HUMAN fetus (especially when 'will' is not detectable)? They can't find it in adults, either.

Kristen,

No way!!!! That is so ironic. It will close not because of our efforts, but because of what we have been claiming all along. The world is waking up!

Thanks for that news! It made my day.

Kristen that really is fantastic news!

Kristen,
Didn't Trombley claim in the Beacon not too long ago that they were getting as much business as they expected, but more in other areas??? Come on now...Steve wouldn't lie...would he????

Hey, you HAVE to let me know when you are there on Saturdays...I'd love to meet you up there to chat & pray!!!!

btw...I think Carrie mentioned that "her" PP was closed last week & might be this week, too! (6:22am, 12/29)

GREAT NEWS!!!

@Doug,

will the real after-birth (NEONATE) please, stand-up ... A) the baby or B) the placenta + womb lining + etc. Just because words/terms are medical/scientific does not mean objective nor up-to-date necessarily.

Hello, John McD!

I hope you had a wonderul CHRISTmas! Happy New Year!

AB Laura, they were open today.:( At least, the numbers seem to be down. They had 7 women going in for abortions today. My unscientific observations lead me to believe that the numbers are down overall. We haven't had a busy Saturday in awhile,except for one. The numbers have been between 7-14 women going in for abortions rather than 20ish. (I go for a couple of hours on Saturday mornings. I am there for the arrivals of the staff and for the patients going in for abortions) It isn't a PP.

(They do only abortions on Saturdays prochoicers. That's how I know the numbers.)

AB Laura, no, Steve wouldn't lie! They're probably just giving their hard working employees a break!

When are you usually there on Saturday? I work during the week so I go in the evening and do the cleaning, shopping, etc.. on the weekends but I could alter plans.

Carrie, how sad. I can't imagine being pregnant on Christmas and then voluntarily ending it less than a week later. Pray, pray, pray for them all.

Kristen, it was a very sad morning.

Carrie,
my bad! I assumed it was a PP...but God bless you for going!!! The numbers coming down is such a good thing! I can't wait until it gets to zero!

Kristen,
I haven't been there in a while, nobody is there on weekdays when I get off of work (I've been working late, lately!) And I do the same as you on weekends. However, if you know a date you'll be there, I'd be glad to meet you up there for a while! Just let me know (I'm only a couple of blocks away.)

I see. You'd rather that women not have careers, cars or decent clothing at all. Working at Wal-mart, driving a clunker and wearing thrift store clothing is good enough for you............

Posted by: Sally at December 28, 2007 7:23 PM
_____________________________________________

So it really is all about $$$ to you and your fellow pro-abortion folks. It's about appearances --- what people wear and what they drive. You simply don't value other people at all. I think the comments from Sally and Laura pretty much sum up their worldview. It's about the money and the appearances -- no heart or soul involved.
Also, I can't understand why the protesters bother you both --- you are so very proud of abortion. These construction folks are making good money building the PP facility, the protesters should help them drum up more business and get some name recognition. Unless they are worried about appearances and letting people know where the money comes from.

Posted by: LB at December 28, 2007 8:00 PM
...................................................

Raising children takes a great deal of money LB. Running out and buying a vehicle that you cannot afford insurance or gas for is just foolish.
You have no idea what either Laura or I value. You are simply ticked that your opinion is not valued.
Heart and soul do not feed a child, put a roof over it's head, provide clothing for it, or safe transportation. It takes the desire to do what it takes to provide a decent life. If you cannot provide such for yourself, you cannot provide it for a child.
Also, I have no problem with protesters in the appropriate places. Protesting a person's business decision to erect a totally legal building at that person's home is a fascist extortive attempt to raise hatred towards the builder. Your issue is not with the builder or the building. You go straight from anti-choice to the being a Nazi. Who was it that posted that baby killers should be killed? Dani? Echos of 'baby eating' Jews all over again? Ignorance and fear mongering is not healthy for a civilization.

Uh Sally,
Are you now, or have you ever been a prostitute?
You think like a prostitute that failed in the business of prostitution.
Posted by: yllas at December 29, 2007 12:38 AM
..........................

Of course I have been a prostitute. When daddy died, I found a husband to take care of me just like mommy told me to do. Just like she did. Because that is what God wants all women to do.
Now pick up your toys and go to your room.

Well that explains your deathsex mentality Sally.
How lucky your daddy allowed you to be born into a house of prostitutes.

wow am I glad I live in England- we at least keep these idiots where they belong- in the nut house!

wow am I glad I live in England- we at least keep these idiots where they belong- in the nut house!

Posted by: psychodiva at December 30, 2007 9:14 AM-------------------What idiots?

What material gain? Is there some sort of "abortion lotto?"
By the way, you've just joined Heather in her cry for ghetto life. Apparently education and career are "worthless."

Posted by: Laura at December 28, 2007 8:12 PM***************** Laura, what a loser! You must be jealous of me. I've been gone for a while, and you can't even stop talking about me.

Also, I believe you stated that you HAVE an education. Your happiness always shines through on your beautiful posts. I guess it worked wonders for you.

"Carrie, how sad. I can't imagine being pregnant on Christmas and then voluntarily ending it less than a week later. Pray, pray, pray for them all."

why not?

What you'd selfishly rather that others value, is of no importance. What is sociopathic is valuing an embryo over the life of a woman.
Posted by: Sally at December 28, 2007 11:10 PM

Its not valuing one life above another...its asking for equality. Its the same with animal rights....people accuse AR activists of valuing animals over people, but that's not the case: we value both lives equally, and are only asking that the equality/right to life are extended to them as well.

Posted by: Vegan at December 29, 2007 12:11 AM
................................................

Sorry Charlie. I have the right to kill any animal that belongs to me. Chickens do not have a right to life. I certainly didn't need your permision to euthanize my beloved cat.
And yes. I most certainly do value certain lives of humans above others. I value the born above the unborn, The living above the dead. Those I love above those I don't.

wow am I glad I live in England- we at least keep these idiots where they belong- in the nut house!

Posted by: psychodiva at December 30, 2007 9:14 AM
...................................................

I've lived in England. Thankfully the harmless nuts are allowed to wander free. In America, sociopaths are allowed to wander free if they profess to love Jesus.

John M: this has to be one of your weirdest ideas ...

"Meanwhile, as I noted, saying "it's a baby" or "it's not a baby" are not meaningful arguments in the abortion debate."

this IS the only argument because what is wanted/unwanted ... A human BABY. 'oh no' the retort is ... 'all I want is to be no longer pregnant.' bs - there is a strong desire to KILL the enemy and abortion does that and more.

John, what we see all the time is people saying, "It's a baby," and others saying, "It's not a baby."

That is not any meaningful argument, either way. It's a difference of opinion, and we already know that people disagree about such things. Meanwhile, the abortion debate remains.

Wanted/Unwanted really is where the debate starts. Whether or not a given woman thinks "baby" applies, she may want to continue the pregnancy or to end it.

Doug

"Because they promised. Because there is the matter of trust in the relationship. If I pormise you something, MK, I will try and stick with it, and I would hope it's vice-versa too."

MK: I understand that it's your opinion Doug. What I'm asking is a deeper question...why is that your opinion. What is the basis for keeping a promise? What does it matter?

MK, it's just a fact that people have desires, and that is my desire - for people to keep promises. The basis for keeping a promise is wanting to please those to which the promise is given, and presumably to please oneself, i.e. the promise-maker wants to honor it too.

It's one of those unprovable assumptions we all make, and there is nothing necessarily "deeper" than it.

Doug

"No - while there's no real debate on neonates being babies, it's not so for the unborn. Again, "neonate" isn't really arguable, while "baby" most certainly is."

MK: Why Doug? At what point did neonate become accepted as synonymous with baby, while fetus stopped being synonymous? They are both simply words for the same thing at different stages.

As I said, there's no real debate about "baby" = neonate. For all I know there may be some people who don't think that "baby" applies until some time after birth, and thus they'd argue with it, but they are obviously extremely few, if they exist at all, so "baby" being the same as neonate is not really contested.

Not the same way at all for fetus, embryo, etc. Before birth there is a substantial amount of people who do not think that "baby" applies while the medically-correct terms obviously do.

(And, really, so what if somebody did say, "It's not a baby until one month (or whatever) after birth"? It remains a subjective deal.)

Doug

"Perhaps, but once again, "baby" is subjective. There are people who'd have an abortion who think "baby" applies, and there are some who don't think it applies. Likewise, there are people who wouldn't have an abortion and who think that "baby" does not apply, as well as those that think it do."

Why is the terminology for fetus/baby subjective, but not neonate. Why can't I claim that a neonate is not a baby also?

You can, MK - it's subjective. All I've said all along as far as after birth is that it's not really contested. Feel free, but there aren't many people who agree with you there.
......

Define fetus. Define neonate. Define baby. Your words.

Deal - embryo is after zygote, blastocyst, etc. and up until 10 weeks gestation. I know there is a pretty-well accepted meaning for "fetus" that begins at 9 weeks, but I think things have changed there, over the years, and I think it was 10 weeks when I first paid attention. So, for fetus my first impression is from 10 weeks to birth.

Neonate is after birth, then up until..... I don't really know. Never thought about that one. How about a couple months?

For "baby" I'd say it starts somewhere around 20 or 24 weeks gestation. I certainly understand when others say "unborn baby," and for me there needs to be at least a certain development.

Doug

John M: over and over you acknowledge that all stages of a preborn infant/baby/fetus presupposes HUMAN. We Pl'ers speak of HUMAN rights ... why do these not apply?

Because while the fact of "human rights" applying to humans is a given, that is not saying they apply to all humans. "Humans with attributed rights" is a smaller set, a subset of all humans in this case.
......

I note that you apply a birth standard ... why apply any rights at this stage, at all? You and I both know that the only REAL rights (and the only ones who matter) are adults. So, over 21 are the only REAL HUMANS! Let's call-it the way our world actually works. Kids are only important as potential adults.

John, the Birth Standard is not up to me. It comes from thousands and thousands of years and is massively-rooted in human nature. Myself, I am fine with the restrictions we have on abortion after viability. Forgetting the rare exceptions for the time being, I'd draw the line at 24 weeks gestation.

I simply disagree that it's "real rights" that only adults have. I see those as secondary at best. "Real humans" isn't in doubt as far as adults, or as far as minors, or even for the unborn, as far as being human, alive, being organisms, etc.
......

Is this why the will of the pregnant-woman supercedes that of any mere HUMAN fetus (especially when 'will' is not detectable)? They can't find it in adults, either.

Once again, the "will" of the fetus is at least very questionable. What is really operative is the valuation of the unborn life and the valuation of the woman's freedom in the matter. And no - of course the pregnant woman has will.

Doug

John M: will the real after-birth (NEONATE) please, stand-up ... A) the baby or B) the placenta + womb lining + etc. Just because words/terms are medical/scientific does not mean objective nor up-to-date necessarily.

John, I don't think you are really confused about "afterbirth" as far as the placenta, etc., as opposed to a thing taking place at a later time.

"Afterbirth" is a noun, while "after birth" is a prepositon and a much different noun.

"Neonate" really has little if anything to do with equating to "afterbirth," though if you want to argue about it I imagine you will find no lack of takers.

Doug

Doug,

Define fetus. Define neonate. Define baby. Your words.
*
Deal - embryo is after zygote, blastocyst, etc. and up until 10 weeks gestation. I know there is a pretty-well accepted meaning for "fetus" that begins at 9 weeks, but I think things have changed there, over the years, and I think it was 10 weeks when I first paid attention. So, for fetus my first impression is from 10 weeks to birth.

Sometimes I wonder if you ever have an original thought. I asked you define these in YOUR OWN words and you respond? I know there is a pretty-well accepted meaning for "fetus" that begins at 9 weeks, but I think things have changed there, over the years, and I think it was 10 weeks when I first paid attention.

I'm well aware, and I mean WELL aware of the general consensus for the scientific terms used for fetus and embryo...I asked for YOUR definition.

Doug,

Forgetting the rare exceptions for the time being, I'd draw the line at 24 weeks gestation.

And if the law changed tomorrow and abortions after 24 weeks became commonplace, what would you do about it?

Doug,

Because while the fact of "human rights" applying to humans is a given, that is not saying they apply to all humans. "Humans with attributed rights" is a smaller set, a subset of all humans in this case.

I think the problem that John and I have with your line of reasoning is that you always fall back on the law.

Do you do that with everything in your life?

You keep talking about "attributed rights" as defined by our constitution etc., but don't you understand that "Natural Human Rights" don't come from the government? They exist independent of "laws". The right to life is not something that can be given or taken with mere words on a document.

Yes, it is true, that attributed laws are given to small subsets of groups. But true law is not subjective.

Nowhere is it written that your wife MUST keep a promise that she made to you. And yet you understand that this is so. It is a "natural law". A law written on the human heart. And just like I can say that a neonate is not a baby, you can say that the right to life is not a "legal right". But both of us would be wrong. No matter how many people I got to sign onto the notion that a neonate is not a baby, it wouldn't change the fact that by definition a neonate IS a baby. Similarly, no matter how many laws you get written claiming that the unborn do not have a legal right to life, it won't change the fact that they have a "Natural Right" to life.

I've lived in England. Thankfully the harmless nuts are allowed to wander free. In America, sociopaths are allowed to wander free if they profess to love Jesus.

Posted by: Sally at December 30, 2007 7:18 PM----------------- Did you hear about the abortionist in England who was molesting his abortion patients? He's out on bail.

Marykay, those were some excellent points you made. Really good.

Happy New Year everyone! :D

@Doug,

John M: this has to be one of your weirdest ideas ...

"Meanwhile, as I noted, saying "it's a baby" or "it's not a baby" are not meaningful arguments in the abortion debate."

this IS the only argument because what is wanted/unwanted ... A human BABY. 'oh no' the retort is ... 'all I want is to be no longer pregnant.' bs - there is a strong desire to KILL the enemy and abortion does that and more.

John, what we see all the time is people saying, "It's a baby," and others saying, "It's not a baby."

That is not any meaningful argument, either way. It's a difference of opinion, and we already know that people disagree about such things. Meanwhile, the abortion debate remains.

Wanted/Unwanted really is where the debate starts. Whether or not a given woman thinks "baby" applies, she may want to continue the pregnancy or to end it.

Doug

---------

I keep getting very confused by what you are attempting to say, so I'll take another stab at it ... you talk of the primacy of the 'wantedness/unwantedness, as being the 'first' in timing as well as the 'first'/dominating in influence. This is a bit confusing because he words themselves do not properly belong in logic but in emotions. At first they make particular sense of words to describe the will. Yet you demand that a rational discussion is needed to meet this. You site 'the law' and 'the birth standard'/tradition as your backup. All MK or I rebut you with all sorts of ideas, you dismiss these as 'our personal valuation' vs this huge tradition. It really is strange because the birth standard has always been pro-birth and not pro-abortion. Only in recent decades has technology made it possible for pro-choice stance to even exist in larger numbers.

I can even remember working for CUSO (@4 decades back) in a small remote village in Mexico. At that time, the native-women were only beginning to understand the tie in between sex and pregnancy. So embarking on something thousands of years old is 'iffy'. (Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is likewise thousands of years old but is treated as an archaic system by Western medicine.)

In much the same way (at a time when human life was so disposable in England that a child could be hanged for stealing an apple) the US-constitution served as an international safe-haven. Now you manipulate words so much that this same document is now portrayed as being pro-choice ... as being indifferent to the killing of 'humans'.

Your latest - that you can grade 'humans' on your desires of 'wantedness/unwantedness'. The idea would have been preposterous to the framers of the US-constitution, and you know it ... that it is OK for a whim to outflank an inalienable right ... say mon, what you smokin?

psychodiva said:

"wow am I glad I live in England- we at least keep these idiots where they belong- in the nut house!"

I'm really glad that you are in England and I am far away here in the greatest nation the world has ever known the United States of America.

I've lived in England. Thankfully the harmless nuts are allowed to wander free. In America, sociopaths are allowed to wander free if they profess to love Jesus.

Posted by: Sally at December 30, 2007 7:18 PM----------------- Did you hear about the abortionist in England who was molesting his abortion patients? He's out on bail.

Posted by: heather at January 1, 2008 8:16 AM
..................................

At least he served time. The child molesting priests that the RCC dumped on the unsuspecting citizens of NM didn't even get reported to the authorities.

I'm really glad that you are in England and I am far away here in the greatest nation the world has ever known the United States of America.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at January 1, 2008 4:38 PM
.............................

Do you hate the home of your ancestors Zeke. Many americans have ancestors from England and a certain respect for the peoples of their homelands.

John McD,
Thank God for you.

I think you're finally scraping the mildew off the tile here. Up until now, I couldn't quite put my finger on what was so evasive about Doug's reasoning and you've helped me see it through some pretty intense lenses.

It's assisted me to make sense out of the insanity.

And of course, MK, too.

John McD,
Thank God for you.I think you're finally scraping the mildew off the tile here. Up until now, I couldn't quite put my finger on what was so evasive about Doug's reasoning and you've helped me see it through some pretty intense lenses.

AMEN!! I have had the same problems discerning what exactly was the problem...I mean, I know what Doug is saying and doing is wrong but as you say, I can't always quite put my finger on what it is he is doing when he is manipulating words as he does...many times he just leaves me dumbfounded at how he comes to his carefully worded conclusions. When people like John Mcdonnell post, I am able to more clearly understand what is going on and how to define it, through more experienced eyes.

So Amen, I completely agree with your sentiments, Carder!

Now Doug,
As you can see, it's not just Heather or me that gets that "Huh?" look sometimes when you arrive at some conclusions. Apparently there's quite a few of us , philosopher included, that need to rewind the tape with you.

Maybe that's saying something about the Dougster.

carder, I really just don't get that guy. [[Doug]]...Sorry Doug.

Sometimes I wonder if you ever have an original thought. I asked you define these in YOUR OWN words and you respond? I know there is a pretty-well accepted meaning for "fetus" that begins at 9 weeks, but I think things have changed there, over the years, and I think it was 10 weeks when I first paid attention.

I'm well aware, and I mean WELL aware of the general consensus for the scientific terms used for fetus and embryo...I asked for YOUR definition.

Oh please, MK - the meanings come from other people, for all of us. You, me, everybody has read and heard this stuff over and over.
......

And if the law changed tomorrow and abortions after 24 weeks became commonplace, what would you do about it?

I'd still be against them for most cases.
......

"Because while the fact of "human rights" applying to humans is a given, that is not saying they apply to all humans. "Humans with attributed rights" is a smaller set, a subset of all humans in this case."

I think the problem that John and I have with your line of reasoning is that you always fall back on the law.

That's not "my line of reasoning." That's an honest answer to John's question. He asked about application, and there it is.
......

Do you do that with everything in your life?

Heh - of course not, but when the truth in an answer is such, then I'm going to say it.
.....

You keep talking about "attributed rights" as defined by our constitution etc., but don't you understand that "Natural Human Rights" don't come from the government? They exist independent of "laws". The right to life is not something that can be given or taken with mere words on a document.

No, you saying that does not make it so. I know it's an idea that appeals to some people. Agreed that words on a document need not be the end-all of rights, but it does come down to the granting or not of them.
......

Yes, it is true, that attributed laws are given to small subsets of groups. But true law is not subjective.

Your opinion of "true," there, is already subjective in the first place. John asked me a question and I gave a good answer. That's really it.
......

Nowhere is it written that your wife MUST keep a promise that she made to you. And yet you understand that this is so. It is a "natural law". A law written on the human heart. And just like I can say that a neonate is not a baby, you can say that the right to life is not a "legal right".

My wife and I have various understandings. It's not "natural law," but it is stuff we largely agree upon. Yes, you can say that a neonate is not a baby, and likewise you can say that there are "inherent" rights. It is really the application/granting of rights that is what you want changed with regard to the unborn.
......

But both of us would be wrong. No matter how many people I got to sign onto the notion that a neonate is not a baby, it wouldn't change the fact that by definition a neonate IS a baby. Similarly, no matter how many laws you get written claiming that the unborn do not have a legal right to life, it won't change the fact that they have a "Natural Right" to life.

You're comparing a strict medical definition with a subjective one - "baby" and then comparing both of those to laws and imaginary "inherent" things. What is the point, really?

Doug

John, Heather, Carder - sorry - I'm at a hotel with very dicey internet connection. Had to wait until today to post that last thing to MK. Busy now and will try to get on later.

Best,

Doug

I keep getting very confused by what you are attempting to say, so I'll take another stab at it

John, okay, but I think I've given you the most truthful, simplest answers possible.
......

you talk of the primacy of the 'wantedness/unwantedness, as being the 'first' in timing as well as the 'first'/dominating in influence. This is a bit confusing because he words themselves do not properly belong in logic but in emotions. At first they make particular sense of words to describe the will. Yet you demand that a rational discussion is needed to meet this. You site 'the law' and 'the birth standard'/tradition as your backup. All MK or I rebut you with all sorts of ideas, you dismiss these as 'our personal valuation' vs this huge tradition. It really is strange because the birth standard has always been pro-birth and not pro-abortion. Only in recent decades has technology made it possible for pro-choice stance to even exist in larger numbers.

John, make no mistake - I love me some obfuscatory English, and I have no problem with prolix verbosity, and, heck - I'm all for floribund circumlocution, but I think you're going overboard with complexity.

Primacy, "first in timing," etc. - heck, all I said was that stating "it's a baby" or "it's not a baby" is not a meaningful argument in the abortion debate. I've seen it a ton of times in more than 11 years of arguing abortion, and it's really just a pointless "Is" versus "Is not" deal.

As for there being emotion in the debate - sure, that's really what the debate is. I grant you that there's a living unborn human organism involved - the embryo, fetus, etc. The argument really does come down to emotion - does one more want the unborn life to continue, or does one more want the woman to be free to do what she wants in the matter?

There is no problem with any rational discussion about any of this.

Yes, I cite the law - you ask why human rights are not applied to the unborn, and the answer is that those applying the rights do not do so. This involves the law, to a great deal, so that is part of the "why." Beyond that it's a huge part of human nature to do so - to see the difference between being inside the body of a person and not being there. This is not to say that it *has* to be that way, but it IS that way, and that is the answer to your question.

You and MK bringing up all sorts of ideas is just fine, but they don't necessarily apply to people in general nor to me nor to Joe Blow walking down the street. I do not dismiss them out of hand nor do I disparage you for the things you say. Your valuation remains your valuation, however, same as for me, same as for any individual or group.

The birth standard is not pro-life nor pro-choice, it is just cognizant of the difference between being inside the womb and being born. It's been around for thousands and thousands of years. Again, not saying it "has" to be that way nor that you need like it.
......

I can even remember working for CUSO (@4 decades back) in a small remote village in Mexico. At that time, the native-women were only beginning to understand the tie in between sex and pregnancy. So embarking on something thousands of years old is 'iffy'. (Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is likewise thousands of years old but is treated as an archaic system by Western medicine.)

Fine and dandy - but knowing the sex to pregnancy link wouldn't be required for abortion to be sought, etc.
......

In much the same way (at a time when human life was so disposable in England that a child could be hanged for stealing an apple) the US-constitution served as an international safe-haven. Now you manipulate words so much that this same document is now portrayed as being pro-choice ... as being indifferent to the killing of 'humans'.

It's not me "manipulating words." The fact is that abortion was legal to a time in gestation before, during and after the writing of the Constitution. The writers of it did not feel that abortion should be any more restricted than what it already was, let alone banned. Granted that the Constitution was written with certain things and certain ideas and certain people in mind. Even the pro-life lawyers arguing the Roe case admitted that there was no precedent for applying it as they wished for. Nor could they prove that it should be applied to the unborn.

The Constitution is not specifically pro-choice nor pro-life as we have them in the abortion debate. Once again, it's not really about enumerating specific rights. While some few are mentioned, it's really about keeping government off people's backs.

John M: Your latest - that you can grade 'humans' on your desires of 'wantedness/unwantedness'. The idea would have been preposterous to the framers of the US-constitution, and you know it ... that it is OK for a whim to outflank an inalienable right ... say mon, what you smokin?

No, no, no, John, I don't say that "I can grade" them. I note that some pregnancies are wanted, and that some are unwanted. This was fact in the 1700s as well.

It was no secret to the writers of the Constitution - women had been having abortions sometimes before 1776 and 1789, and they continued to do so during those times and afterward. "Inalienable rights" - a concept that the writers of the Declaration of Independence felt should apply to them, rather than the way it had been previously - the king of England exercising sovreignty over them. Primarily just white men who were landowners. Some rights were attributed by them to women, some minorities, etc. It had nothing to do with the unborn.

This is not me "grading." This is me seeing reality. Most pregnancies are wanted, and are willingly continued by the pregnant woman. It's not up to me to "grade" them, it is up to those women.

Doug

I think you're finally scraping the mildew off the tile here. Up until now, I couldn't quite put my finger on what was so evasive about Doug's reasoning and you've helped me see it through some pretty intense lenses.

It's assisted me to make sense out of the insanity.

Carder, there is nothing evasive about the answers I have given.

I do not make all the same assumptions as John does. Nor do vast numbers of other people. If there is "insanity," it is pretending like that is not the case.

Doug

I really just don't get that guy. [[Doug]]...Sorry Doug.

Heather, was that a hug? ; )

I do get you, and here's a Great Big New Year's hug to you.

(((((((((((Heather))))))))))

Doug,

It most certainly does make a difference whether or not the fetus is considered a baby. If it is considered a baby, "A" human being, then it becomes a whole different ballgame. Once we afford the unborn the same status as the born, then we must rethink the laws and how they have been applied to the unborn.

By calling them fetuses EXCLUSIVE of babies, we de-humanize them, making it much easier to put the freedom of choice on the woman, considering her a person, "A" human being. She gains the upper hand.

But if the fetus is believed to be a baby, a person, "A" human being, then it becomes a much more even playing ground. It becomes the woman's desire against the babies desire.

While you would argue that the baby has no desire, I would argue that the same might be said for any child that doesn't understand the concept of death. No six month old consciously desires to "live"...

But we assume that it has the right to do so.

Likewise, if the unborn child is considered "A" human being, a person, a baby, then we must assume that it has the right (and unconscious desire) to live also.

So please don't be so quick to dismiss the notion that calling it a "baby" is a waste of time. It is the whole argument in a nutshell. The very subjectiveness of the word changes the game. Many a game of chess has hung on the movements of the pawn.

Doug,

Also your assertion that words have meaning because we "give" them meaning contradicts the notion that words can "mean" whatever we want them to mean.

Either society agrees on the definition or the word becomes useless.

Baby meant something for thousands of years and then a group of people (not all people mind you, but a group) decided it means something else.

Same with marriage. What good is having the word "marriage" mean one thing if you can change it's definition on whim to mean another?

It is really the application/granting of rights that is what you want changed with regard to the unborn.

Yes. And all based on a "word"...personhood. Or baby, meaning "A" human being or person...

John, what we see all the time is people saying, "It's a baby," and others saying, "It's not a baby."
That is not any meaningful argument, either way. It's a difference of opinion, and we already know that people disagree about such things. Meanwhile, the abortion debate remains.

Yes, it does, and "it's a baby" still remains a meaningful argument. How is the baby's wanted/unwanted state remain a meaningful argument in your eyes, when "it's a baby/it's not a baby", isn't? Same thing. They are both arguments, and both speak of differences of opinion, (one of which is based on a truth).

You say babies are unwanted, I say no baby is ever really unwanted. There may be a mother who doesn't want her child, but the truth of the matter is SOMEONE wants EVERY baby. The National Council for Adoption estimates 1.3 million couples are waiting to adopte a child. Less than 50,000 childre in every year are made available for adoption.

And the idea that "wantedness" makes you more valuable is also a difference of opinion here too. I do not think that if you're wanted more, it makes you more valuable. I think all humans have inherent worth.

So why say that debate is meaningless if it is already know that people disagree on it? The whole point of debate is to try to persuade the other side of your beliefs. It doesn't make sense to refuse to debate something because you know that we already disagree on it. Very strange conclusions there, Doug.

Bethany,

It doesn't make sense to refuse to debate something because you know that we already disagree on it

BRILLIANT!

Thanks,MK...And the same to your 8:01 post!

No, it's Just an "Is" versus "Is not" deal. The argument IS valuation.
......

You say babies are unwanted, I say no baby is ever really unwanted. There may be a mother who doesn't want her child, but the truth of the matter is SOMEONE wants EVERY baby. The National Council for Adoption estimates 1.3 million couples are waiting to adopte a child. Less than 50,000 childre in every year are made available for adoption.

Two different things, Bethany. I know how you and some others feel, but first and foremost I'm talking about the pregnant woman, and secondly the woman and the man. Sure, some would want a given pregnancy to continue, but does their valuation trump that of the woman herself? The debate really is about valuation.
......

And the idea that "wantedness" makes you more valuable is also a difference of opinion here too. I do not think that if you're wanted more, it makes you more valuable. I think all humans have inherent worth.

I disagree. Seems to me that you come from the standpoint that God wants us all, so that's still the same thing, even if attributed to a supernatural being.
.......

So why say that debate is meaningless if it is already know that people disagree on it? The whole point of debate is to try to persuade the other side of your beliefs. It doesn't make sense to refuse to debate something because you know that we already disagree on it. Very strange conclusions there, Doug.

I'm saying you can call it anything you want, and it really makes no difference.

Doug

MK: Also your assertion that words have meaning because we "give" them meaning contradicts the notion that words can "mean" whatever we want them to mean.?

Wrong. Of course we give words meaning. That has gone on for all of recorded history. And if enough people want them to mean something else, then they do, to that extent, i.e. now, they would be included in the dictionary, accorded a certain status, etc. A good example is "moot," which has come to mean the exact opposite of what it used to, in large measure.
......

Either society agrees on the definition or the word becomes useless.

No, witness "baby." For some it applies to the unborn and for some it does not. No big deal, really.
......

Baby meant something for thousands of years and then a group of people (not all people mind you, but a group) decided it means something else.

I figure you are wrong, but I don't really know. What proof do you have that "baby" meant the unborn, for thousands of years? Additionally, while some few might have felt that, or while a portion of people might have felt that, what proof do you have that a significant majority felt that way?
.....

Same with marriage. What good is having the word "marriage" mean one thing if you can change it's definition on whim to mean another?

That's a good question, MK, though it quickly evolves into a separate argument. If two people of the same sex really love each other, then what harm do you really see in letting them be married? Failing that, how about a civil union? Is this a civil deal, or a religious one?
......

"It is really the application/granting of rights that is what you want changed with regard to the unborn."

Yes. And all based on a "word"...personhood. Or baby, meaning "A" human being or person...

No, it is the concept of attribution of rights that is real. "Personhood"? Fine - I do think that goes, here. Yet you and I can disagree on where personhood should be granted, and the same for where certain rights should be attributed, recognized, etc.. The stakes in the abortion debate are really where rights, if any, are attributed to the unborn, and where, if at all, they are taken away from pregnant women.

Doug

MK: It most certainly does make a difference whether or not the fetus is considered a baby. If it is considered a baby, "A" human being, then it becomes a whole different ballgame. Once we afford the unborn the same status as the born, then we must rethink the laws and how they have been applied to the unborn.

No - you are talking about "legal human being," and in no way does that necessarily relate to "baby." As I've said - I have no problem with you saying "unborn baby." I understand what you mean, and I'm not one to go on the endless and useless "Is" versus "Is not" bandwagon. Heck, call it "pomegranate," call it "secular concrete," call it "yllas" - the fact remains that is is our valuation, not our terminology, that is the issue.
......

By calling them fetuses EXCLUSIVE of babies, we de-humanize them, making it much easier to put the freedom of choice on the woman, considering her a person, "A" human being. She gains the upper hand.

No, no, no - I agree the fetus includes what some people call "babies." It has nothing to do with "dehumanizing." There is of course the pregnant woman to be considered.
......

But if the fetus is believed to be a baby, a person, "A" human being, then it becomes a much more even playing ground. It becomes the woman's desire against the babies desire.

Well, that's just it - "baby" does not necessarily mean "person" nor "legal human being" (what the argument is really about). As for the "baby's" desire - it remains to be seen if there is even such a thing to a point in gestation.
.......

While you would argue that the baby has no desire, I would argue that the same might be said for any child that doesn't understand the concept of death. No six month old consciously desires to "live".

Yes, MK - there may be some similarities between the unborn and the recently-born, no argument about it. It remains not a matter of the perception of the fetus (or of the born baby) but of we who are determining the issue.
.......

But we assume that it has the right to do so.

No,. we say that it has the right to do so. May be a subtle difference, maybe not.
......

Likewise, if the unborn child is considered "A" human being, a person, a baby, then we must assume that it has the right (and unconscious desire) to live also.

You know - not really. If we say "legal human being," or "person," then that may well mean the attribution of rights, regardless of the presence of desire on the part of the unborn.
.......

So please don't be so quick to dismiss the notion that calling it a "baby" is a waste of time. It is the whole argument in a nutshell. The very subjectiveness of the word changes the game. Many a game of chess has hung on the movements of the pawn.

No, it's just semantic baloney. It's just "Is" against "Is not," over and over, ad infinitum.

Doug

Doug,

You can call it semantics baloney if you want, but it all comes down to one word. Personhood. If we can attain personhood for the unborn, then the unborn will be afforded all of the rights of all persons.

The definition of the word "personhood" is really what the argument is about.

Of course it's about granting rights based on this personhood, but we can't grant rights until we decide if the unborn fall into the personhood category or not.

We aren't really arguing about whether to give them rights. We are arguing about whether they fit the definition of "Personhood". If not then they get no rights. If so, then rights automatically go to them.

So it is about semantics baloney and the definition of personhood, and who fits that definition.

I say the unborn do. You say they don't. You say they don't based on their inability to desire, which is your criteria for everything. I say they do based on Divine Law.

You, on one hand say, that up until viablility, they cannot desire so they are not persons, so they can be killed.

Yet out of the other side of your mouth, you say that even tho a 6 month old child cannot have conscious desires it cannot be killed.

Either conscious desire (sentience) determines whether someone should be allowed the status of personhood or it doesn't.

MK: You can call it semantics baloney if you want, but it all comes down to one word. Personhood. If we can attain personhood for the unborn, then the unborn will be afforded all of the rights of all persons.

Nope, entirely different. "Baby" or not doesn't necessarily go there. Some people think "baby" applies to the unborn, and don't think personhood should be attributed. Some do. Some people don't think "baby" applies to the unborn, and are still against abortion. And of course some aren't. "Baby" or not is nothing more than an "Is" versus "Is not" exercise in futility.
......

The definition of the word "personhood" is really what the argument is about.

Nope - it's really the application of that status or not. But you're much more on the right track than worrying about "baby" or not.
......

Of course it's about granting rights based on this personhood, but we can't grant rights until we decide if the unborn fall into the personhood category or not.

Granting (some) rights IS deeming personhood.
......

We aren't really arguing about whether to give them rights. We are arguing about whether they fit the definition of "Personhood". If not then they get no rights. If so, then rights automatically go to them.

One the one hand I think it's all the same thing, i.e. do we grant rights/grant personhood or not. On the other, I think you're confusing physical reality with granted status.
......

So it is about semantics baloney and the definition of personhood, and who fits that definition.

Defining personhood is really the same as granting rights, here. Semantics ain't the deal.
......

I say the unborn do. You say they don't.

Pretty much on target there, though late enough in gestation and I do see some personhood.
......

You say they don't based on their inability to desire, which is your criteria for everything. I say they do based on Divine Law.

No, sentience, ability to desire, suffer, etc., does make a difference to me, but that's far from the whole thing. And to say it's my criteria for everything is just plain silly.
......

You, on one hand say, that up until viablility, they cannot desire so they are not persons, so they can be killed.

MK, to a large extent that is true, though I grant you that some fetuses may have some such awareness before viability. It is also not a matter of only ending the unborn life or not, since there is the pregnant woman to consider.
......

Yet out of the other side of your mouth, you say that even tho a 6 month old child cannot have conscious desires it cannot be killed. Either conscious desire (sentience) determines whether someone should be allowed the status of personhood or it doesn't.

This is just descending into a morass of false premises. No, I do not say that a 6 month old "cannot" have conscious desires. That's 26 weeks, and already beyond where I think it should be legal to end pregnancies solely because the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, for that matter. Personhood or not for the unborn is also not the totality of this matter, since there is the woman to consider. Personally, I do see some personhood developing late enough in gestation - I've said that many times. At some point, I feel it equals the woman's right to bodily autonomy, and that's where I would draw the line. 24 weeks is where I'd put it.

The restrictions we already have on late-term abortions constitute a limited form of personhood and attributed rights, IMO.

Doug