Stanek on Dennis Miller today

UPDATE, 1p:The interview has been rescheduled for this Wednesday, September 24, at 10:20a EST.
_______________

UPDATE, 10:18a: Miller is on remote in Las Vegas and has been having technical difficulties (can't hear in his headset). The show has had to go to a rerun and promises to reschedule me.
_______________

dennis miller 2.jpg

Jill will be on the Dennis Miller show this morning at 9:20a 11:20 EST (sorry, times zones confuse me). Find local station listings here.


Comments:

Go Jill!

I think you're on a roll.

Seriously, we're rooting for ya.

Posted by: Opinionated at September 22, 2008 6:35 AM


I get to hear him around noon in my area. I'll have an ear out for you!

Posted by: carder at September 22, 2008 6:56 AM


Praying for you Jill! You go girl!!

Posted by: Carla at September 22, 2008 7:15 AM


I'm looking forward to hearing it!!!!

Posted by: Bethany at September 22, 2008 8:44 AM


That's interesting.
I was under the impression that Dennis Miller was pro-abortion.
Even still, apparently he isn't militant enough not to have Jill on his program.
I hope I get a chance to listen.

Posted by: Sandi at September 22, 2008 8:46 AM


let's hope in hour 3 that people call in to ask more about the born alive issue. Maybe some of the readers can do this?
good to keep this issue at the top of the list in the election.
In Canada - yah, we don't talk about abortion here. It's a non-issue because of course, abortion is a basic human right and human rights are non-debatable....{dripping sarcasm}

Posted by: Patricia at September 22, 2008 8:50 AM


Jill:

Please be sure to make Obama's utter dishonesty in responding to the BornAliveTruth ad a centerpiece of your argument. I mean really stick it to him, his ad was one lie after another.

Also, please make a point of mentioning to the Black and Hispanic communities (who are solidly supporting him and we must do something about this) that Obama supports UNLIMITED killing of all their unborn children and that he totally goes against their Christian moral values. Mention Alveda King, Star Parker and all the other Black leaders who are strongly opposing his bid for power.

Posted by: Joe at September 22, 2008 8:59 AM


That's interesting.
I was under the impression that Dennis Miller was pro-abortion.
Even still, apparently he isn't militant enough not to have Jill on his program.
I hope I get a chance to listen.

I think Dennis Miller is pro-life. At least, that's what I heard.

Posted by: Bethany at September 22, 2008 9:06 AM


I stand corrected...I guess he's not pro-life. (Just googled and found something he said). How unfortunate. I really thought he was.

Posted by: Bethany at September 22, 2008 9:09 AM


Too bad, Bethany. So did I because he's always on O'Reiley. Penance, penance, penance.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 22, 2008 9:18 AM


Jill:

Ask Dennis Miller when life begins.

Posted by: HisMan at September 22, 2008 9:49 AM


Yes, Jill, pick a fight with your conservative host.

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 10:04 AM


Is Dennis Miller a libertarian? I thought he was, and I'm pretty sure most (not all) libertarians are pro-choice.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 22, 2008 10:04 AM


For anyone who's interested, Sheila Liaugminas has an interesting blog on the "Right to Die" initiative in Washington.

http://www.informblog.com

Posted by: DeeL at September 22, 2008 10:09 AM


I'm pretty sure he identifies as a conservative libertarian. I think he's in the "personally opposed, but..." camp on abortion.

I remember he had some pretty acerbic anti-church rants back in maybe 2001 or so, when the whole sexual abuse thing with was big news. That's mostly all I know of him firsthand; the rest is from just hearing about him.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 22, 2008 10:13 AM


I going to say something and please don't take this the wrong way - I'm absolutely pro-life, however, when it comes to the issue of Born Alive Infant protections and the stance that Obama takes, only the most extreme understanding of abortion could be applied in the need of achieving a dead baby.

Even if someone is pro-choice, such as Miller, when they understand that this is where abortion leads: a corruption of what it means to be a born US citizen - that's a big pebble in their shoe. It will take some time for that to irritate them, but it eventually will bother them.

Jill's witness and what Gianna went through as compared to where Obama stands is powerful enough for the time being to touch hearts.

As it relates to BAIPA - and Obama's stance and lies - that's where the focus needs to remain.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 22, 2008 10:19 AM


Chris, you're right. God willing, if I do go on Miller's show, it won't be to pick a fight or make him uncomfortable. It will be to inform him and his viewers about Obama's radical position that makes him pro-infanticide, which no reasonable person, even pro-choice, is comfortable with.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 22, 2008 10:29 AM


Bummer! i was lining the kids naptime up to coincide with the program! i really hope he keeps his word and has you on another time!

Posted by: becky at September 22, 2008 10:34 AM


Was listening for a little bit...will catch you next time!!

Posted by: Carla at September 22, 2008 10:37 AM


I'm sorry it had to be rescheduled, Jill.

Posted by: Bethany at September 22, 2008 10:37 AM


As it relates to BAIPA - and Obama's stance and lies - that's where the focus needs to remain.

I do agree with this. Most people I know are like, "Oh, yeah, okay, Obama supports infanticide? Yeah right." (Probably at least in part due to the fact that people my age have spent literally their whole lives hearing democrats be called "baby killers." One of the downsides of inflammatory language is that it makes it harder to speak accurately about inflammatory actions.)

I think that most people I know, as far as they're informed on the BAIPA issue (which is not very far), default to the "I would rather leave it up to the doctor who is there in the room and has an idea what is going on, because I'm not a doctor and none of those politicians are doctors" stance. It only becomes even a question of Obama's actions rather than a question of the (alleged mis)characterization of them by pro-lifers when you point out the discrepancy between what he says and what actually was, ie with exceptions for the life of the mother.

Of course this isn't to say that merely knowing the facts will turn people away from Obama. People might think he honestly made a mistake, or they might think that at worst he got caught up in playing politics by voting against something because of who it came from rather than what it was -- something to frown on and be unhappy with, but not something that overshadows other issues. But what counts is that people at least have the opportunity to make those justifications themselves.

Posted by: Alexandra at September 22, 2008 10:38 AM


HisMan: "Ask Dennis Miller when life begins."

HM, Jill is going on there, I'd imagine, to discuss the Born-Alive votes, not to get into an argument about abortion itself. Miller is pro-choice, but he's not hostile to those who disagree on the matter, and he likes McCain/Palin.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 22, 2008 10:56 AM


A mistake happens once or twice and people usually own up to it or ADMIT they made a mistake. 4 times, Obama?? 4 times??

Posted by: Carla at September 22, 2008 11:08 AM


But Carla,

He's a lawyer so he must know what he's talking about (Sarcasm Alert).

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've head that one. I'd be rich $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

Posted by: Janet at September 22, 2008 11:12 AM


Interview to be rescheduled.

Here's something for you to act on if you haven't already done so.

Please e-mail ConscienceComment@hhs.gov before Thursday, Sept. 25.

The US Dept of Health and Human Services is considering a proposed regulation to protect the rights of medical workers in following their consciences, in not having to act against their beliefs.

Why is this important?

So that individual medical workers, and private hospitals or other institutions that receive federal funds, may not be discriminated against for refusing to take part in certain practices that violate their conscience and beliefs.

Without the new regulation, medical workers may have to leave their jobs rather than act against their beliefs. Catholic hospitals might be forced to provide abortions by state or local governments.

Read a short article here:
http://tinyurl.com/3vfru7
"Christian Docs Urge Support for Law Protecting Pro-Life Healthcare Workers" (The Christian Post)

Or listen to a brief 8 minute interview with the CEO of the Christian Medical Assocation at this link:

http://www.cwfa.org/play2.asp?id=cw20080917a

Please leave a comment for HHS BEFORE Sept 25!

E-mail: ConscienceComment@HHS.gov

A simple message could be:

Dear Secretary,

I support the proposed regulations that will protect the rights of medical workers to follow their consciences. I urge you to pass this regulation to protect workers and institutions from discriminatory practices by agencies receiving any federal funds.

Sincerely,

Posted by: Opinionated at September 22, 2008 11:13 AM


Oops! That's "heard" not head.

Posted by: Janet at September 22, 2008 11:13 AM


Dennis Miller rules.

Posted by: Doug at September 22, 2008 12:13 PM



A mistake happens once or twice and people usually own up to it or ADMIT they made a mistake. 4 times, Obama?? 4 times??
Posted by: Carla at September 22, 2008 11:08 AM

Three of the bills were not indentical to the Federal version and needed to be defeated. The forth version is the only one we're debating.

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 12:42 PM


Hal,

If it were a mistake, Obama would have said so. He stands by his decision to this day.

Posted by: Ricky P. at September 22, 2008 12:55 PM


Not a big deal. Of the two cases we know about, the baby Jill held couldn't be saved (and no medical efforts were attempted by Jill) and the other one is alive and well and campaigning against Obama.

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 12:59 PM


Isn't that convenient, Hal? If they survive the bill would have had no effect, and if they die either nothing could be done or we'll never hear of it.

There are more survivors, by the way: http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html

Posted by: Ricky P. at September 22, 2008 1:15 PM


If it were a mistake, Obama would have said so. He stands by his decision to this day.

Ricky, that's what I really question. The vote split right along party lines that last time, and I wonder why.

Posted by: Doug at September 22, 2008 1:19 PM


Doug,

Well, I think again if there was a good reason that caused the whole party to vote against it, Obama would have stated what that reason was already. None of the ones he's given so far have flown with me.

As you know the bill was voted in unanimously at the national level. But if one person would have come out and said they were going to vote against it I wouldn't be surprised if several others would have gathered behind him/her and used that to justify voting against it themselves.

It only takes one to break the ice. Which is basically what Obama did in speaking against the bill. That's my theory.

Posted by: Ricky P. at September 22, 2008 1:31 PM


"Isn't that convenient, Hal? If they survive the bill would have had no effect, and if they die either nothing could be done or we'll never hear of it."

Now you're beginning to understand. This is all politics, not medicine.

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 1:39 PM


"This is all politics, not medicine.

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 1:39 PM"
----------------------------------

Sure Hal..but in the meantime, aborted but born lives are at stake...what do you do with those lives? Leave them to die?

Posted by: RSD at September 22, 2008 2:01 PM


Leave them to the best judgment of the mother and the doctor.

(and don't forget, the law Jill wanted PASSED. what exactly is her complaint?)

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 2:26 PM


Best Judgment=

Mother wants the baby dead.
Doctor has to make sure the baby is dead, because the mother wants the baby dead.

Posted by: Carla at September 22, 2008 2:30 PM


well, what can you do?

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 3:01 PM


Protect those babies, Hal...that's what decent human being do...protect the young.

Posted by: RSD at September 22, 2008 3:04 PM


I can always do more.

Posted by: Carla at September 22, 2008 3:08 PM


JILL'S ON RELEVANT RADIO RIGHT NOW WITH DREW MARIANI!!!

TURN IT ON!!!

CHICAGO AM 930

Mike

Posted by: Mike at September 22, 2008 3:26 PM


Democrats have committed so much damage to our country, it's time for them to be utterly defeated.

How have they damaged our country? By enaction of 501c3 tax legislation that muzzled the church through one corrupted man, LBJ. By their taking God out of school in 1969 via Madelene Murray O'Hare. By legalizing abortion in 1973 by Roe v. Wade. By one weak and unrespected Bill Clinton whose weakness emboldened Islam extrmemists to attack our country. By their treasonous actions towards our President in time of war and by one Mr. Harry Ried who called the Iraq war a defeat. By trying to normalize homosexuality through the courts, i.e. in the Democratic strongholds of Massachusettes and California. By opposing the drilling of oil offshore, in ANWR and in the Rocky Mountains and the Dakotas. By looting our financial institutions and then blaming Republicans. By listening to radical environmentalists, the ungodly ALCU who want to atheize our country, and homosexuals who want to normalize perverted behavior. The immoral madenss must stop now!

Stop the Democrats, the destroyers of our country.

Posted by: HisMan at September 22, 2008 3:30 PM


HisMan, I have a different view on each of your issues. I guess that's why I'm voting Democratic.

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 3:33 PM


*eyeroll*

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 22, 2008 3:35 PM


Leave them to the best judgment of the mother and the doctor.

(and don't forget, the law Jill wanted PASSED. what exactly is her complaint?)

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 2:26 PM
__________________________________________

Hal, you are personally in favor of infanticide, right? I asked you before and you never responded.
I know you participated in two abortions -- did either of your children survive the procedure?

Posted by: LB at September 22, 2008 4:10 PM


Both abortions were done early in first trimester. Nothing there to "survive" the procedure.

As fair as infanticide, I don't support it. No one does. That's why it's a non-issue.

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 4:15 PM


Try as you might, Hal, you can't get around the Youtube audio clip in which Obama explains why he had a problem with the Born Alive bill.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 22, 2008 4:29 PM


bmmg39. I don't care about the Born Alive Bill.

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 4:35 PM


The Born Alive bill is about letting newborns die, and Sen. Obama is on the record about why he opposed protecting said newborns. If you don't care, then cool, but don't try to claim that no one supports infanticide or that it's a non-issue.

Posted by: bmmg39 at September 22, 2008 4:42 PM


As fair as infanticide, I don't support it. No one does. That's why it's a non-issue.

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 4:15 PM
-------------------

The truth is Hal, you do support infanticide, it's called legalized abortion.

Posted by: HisMan at September 22, 2008 5:39 PM


http://www.johnmccain.com/PhoneBank/?guid=0A517F03-C3ED-4A24-A14A-3BD9D5F32F2F

Here's a link for the McCain phone bank for swing states.

Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2008 6:31 PM


Hal says "Nothing there to "survive" the procedure."(Talking about the children he had aborted)

Ok, Hal no wishful thinking will change the fact that there was of course "something" there that you killed. That "something" being your children.


Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2008 6:36 PM


Hey, they're talking about bornalivetruth.org on Hannity after this commercial break.

Posted by: lauren at September 22, 2008 8:09 PM


Ricky P: Well, I think again if there was a good reason that caused the whole party to vote against it, Obama would have stated what that reason was already. None of the ones he's given so far have flown with me.

I haven't heard his reason for the last vote in the Illinois Senate on the state bill which did contain the provisions he and the other Democrats wanted, as far as I know.

If it was a case of one person being "confused" about the bill, I could see it, but this was all the Democrats voting one way, so it smacks of the political to me.

Posted by: Doug at September 22, 2008 8:23 PM


Yeah, you've said that more than once, Doug. Mr. Obama has also lied several times with regards to the issue. He's lied about the National Right to Life Committee's report on his voting record. His campaign has made lies about the Gianna Jessen ad. He's said that the question of the beginning of human rights for a human being is a question that is above his pay grade. Mr. Obama expresses many beautiful ideas using many beautiful words, but apparently he can't give a simple answer to a simple question. You're not the only one to think that his conduct "smacks of the political." You'll remember that Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry and Ms. Pelosi and others are also very "political" and "circumspect" about their pro-life views. If Mr. Obama's the exception to the rule (of politics), he's quite the exception!

I'm worried about Mrs. Palin, too: true, she's only running as vice-president, but were she to become president, would she fulfill her office by protecting all Americans from violence? That is, would she meaningfully promote the pro-life cause? Or would she continue to cite such disclaimers as, "in my opinion"? Even as a vice-president, she probably could have some influence on the president's decisions.

Posted by: Jon at September 23, 2008 2:36 AM


Jon, likewise there have been numerous lies about Obama and his actions and positions.

Really, do you think all the Democrats voted the way they did because they were "for killing born babies"?

Posted by: Doug at September 23, 2008 6:51 AM


It always amazes me how liberals think that twisting words, dancing around with different terms to describe THE BABY, and dressing up the verbage used to destroy it, enables them to dismiss the reality of abortion and allow them to sleep at night.

Equally amazing is the lenghts to which the abortion industry has gone to come up with new innovative ways to make damn sure the BABY is definitely DEAD when said "procedure" is finished...lest the "dreaded complication" should occur.

Pathetic.

Posted by: Mike at September 23, 2008 9:49 AM


Doug 6:51 said, "[L]ikewise there have been numerous lies about Obama and his actions and positions."

Lies about Mr. Obama don't necessarily reflect on his character; lies of Mr. Obama certainly do. If successful, the latter also obscure his true position on the pertinent issues. I would also note that the lies of Mr. Obama are in some cases also lies about Mr. Obama because of complicity by the mainstream media.

Really, do you think all the Democrats voted the way they did because they were "for killing born babies"?

Doug, do you think the platform of the Democrat party has a "pro-choice" platform because they are "for killing pre-born babies"?

Posted by: Jon at September 23, 2008 10:17 AM


"Brave" new world speak: Nothing there to "survive" the procedure.

Pay no attention to the living human life there that took a "procedure" to prevent just that...its survival. You can't have it both ways. You MUST admit to killing who would have survived otherwise. In such excuses, we see more Americans completely losing their reasoning. That has to take a toll in other areas of their lives. A reasonable conscience cannot go on forever without cutting it out or be left with a twisted, distorted view of the world forever after. That is why the unjust killing of another can only result in some form of suicide...of the psyche, spirit, view of human life, and reason itself.

Posted by: KC at September 23, 2008 10:28 AM


The truth is Hal, you do support infanticide, it's called legalized abortion.
Posted by: HisMan at September 22, 2008 5:39 PM

If you want to change the terms of the debate, then fine, I support legal abortion. See ya in hell old friend.

Posted by: Hal at September 23, 2008 11:41 AM


"That is why the unjust killing of another can only result in some form of suicide...of the psyche, spirit, view of human life, and reason itself."
----------------------------------------

KC, you know that and I know that...but the pro-abort folks here deny even the presence of said spirit hence their skewed reasoning to support the killing of babies (either born or unborn).

Posted by: RSD at September 23, 2008 11:47 AM


"See ya in hell old friend.

Posted by: Hal at September 23, 2008 11:41 AM"
--------------------------------------------

Ok Hal...that's one place I won't care if you go first.

We prefer to be with Christ and the Holy Mother when we're done here with this life...that's why we do the the work they want us to do.


Posted by: RSD at September 23, 2008 11:53 AM


Hal @ 11:14,
Pleease apologize. I doubt you have any idea how crude and hateful your comment was.

Posted by: Janet at September 23, 2008 3:10 PM


Janet, I apologize for insinuating HisMan and I would meet in Hell. I was just trying to point out that if abortion = infanticide, then I'd go to Hell (if it exists) because I support legal abortion. I don't support infanticide, but if you say they're the same thing, then I guess I'm doomed.

Posted by: Hal at September 23, 2008 4:00 PM


Hal, why don't you support infanticide?

Posted by: Lauren at September 23, 2008 5:28 PM


Lauren, I suppose to some people who oppose abortion rights, it seems impossible that someone could oppose killing children but at the same time allow women to "kill" the "child" in their womb. Whatever. I'm not here to debate philosophy. Banning abortion is impractical and immoral.

Posted by: Hal at September 23, 2008 6:23 PM


Hal 4:15 said, "Both abortions were done early in first trimester. Nothing there to 'survive' the procedure.

This isn't debate, Hal? nor philosophy? What is it? natural science? theology?

Hal continued, "As fair as infanticide, I don't support it. No one does. That's why it's a non-issue."

Princeton professor Peter Singer has long supported certain cases of infanticide. If the United States eventually recognizes "infanticide rights," will you oppose them? Under what is known as the Groningen Protocol, infanticide is already taking place on a regular basis in the Netherlands with government support. (See the end of this LifeSiteNews article. See also two more articles linked to there.)

Also, banning induced abortion is very practical. Planned Parenthood and other "abortion providers" would no longer exist. Pharmacies would no longer stock abortifacients. Apparently Christian opposition to induced abortion has a long history. As Christianity and in particular the institution of the Catholic Church increasingly influenced European society, those who dispensed abortifacient herbs found themselves classified as witches and were often "persecuted." (See the end of this Wikipedia article.)

Hal, why do you say that a ban on abortion is immoral? Are you a secular humanist? Christians recognize the human being as having been made in the image of God. When God re-created the world after the Flood--He had destroyed it because of human violence--He said we could kill the animals, but (Gen. 9:6)

"Whoever sheds man's blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man."

Also, an animal that killed a human being was to be killed. He then proceeded to tell Noah and his sons, just as He had told Adam, to be fruitful and multiply.

Posted by: Jon at September 24, 2008 1:25 AM


Regarding the contempt for human life in the Netherlands, the following passage is a section from the translated speech of Geert Wilders in the Dutch parliament on September 17.

There are far too few people with health care. Secretary of State Bussemaker [Socialist party] knows that. But meanwhile she is waving away all wrongdoing in our nursing homes and homes for the elderly. The 88-year old Mrs. Willemse has been sitting in a dilapidated wheelchair, the wheels tilted, a ramshackle wooden frame and a plate as backrest. She got bedsores sitting in it. And the very elderly gentleman Steller has been waiting more than two years for the care he needs. Mrs. Emons died not in her bed but in the in the cold storage of the morgue due to haste.

Incidents? Unfortunately they are not incidents. Already for a very long time they aren’t. In many of our nursing homes, poverty rules.

This Cabinet leaves our elderly, our disabled and seriously ill as hard as a stone in the lurch. Elderly people just have to wait and see whether they will be reanimated.

[There follows a chapter on care for the elderly, budget change and lower taxes]

Posted by: Jon at September 24, 2008 3:40 AM


Oh, yeah! I thought the interview went well!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 24, 2008 9:30 AM


Jill,

Good interview with Dennis Miller. Right now he's on the air saying he is going to keep up on the issue for the next six weeks up to the election. Thank God!

Posted by: Janet at September 24, 2008 9:49 AM


HisMan,

Will you leave the country if Obama is elected?

Posted by: MH at September 24, 2008 9:58 AM


Dennis Miller is still taking calls on abortion at 10:10 AM! Yahoo!

Posted by: Janet at September 24, 2008 10:17 AM


"Hal, why do you say that a ban on abortion is immoral? Are you a secular humanist? "

If I correctly understand the term, I guess I am.

Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 10:17 AM



HisMan,

Will you leave the country if Obama is elected?
Posted by: MH at September 24, 2008 9:58 AM


Guys, and Gals....If I can stick it out through 8 years of GWB, I think you can handle 8 years of Obama. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 10:19 AM


Jon,

What the heck are you talking about? Pharmacies don't stock abortifacients.

If you're talking about birth control and Plan B, that is where we differ because those two medications don't induce abortion.

Posted by: Stephanie at September 24, 2008 10:35 AM


Hal says "it seems impossible that someone could oppose killing children but at the same time allow women to "kill" the "child" in their womb"

Hal, putting things in scare quotes don't make them not true. You did have your children killed while they were in the womb. I think now I'll go "feed" my "baby". Also, are you seriously not concerned with the philosophical underpinnings of your stance? That's incredibly dangerous. Would you blindly follow any law that is set forth?

Posted by: Lauren at September 24, 2008 10:39 AM


Stephanie, BC and Plan B do work by a mechanism that can prevent they already conceived from being able to implant, hince causing those preborn children to die. That's why they are sometimes refered to as abortificients.

Posted by: Lauren at September 24, 2008 10:42 AM


Freedom of Choice Act
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4359.html

Posted by: Carla at September 24, 2008 11:08 AM


Lauren, I don't blindly follow ANY law. I happen to support the right of a woman to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy without interference from our government. You don't.

Posted by: Hal at September 24, 2008 11:10 AM


And Stephanie 10:35, I think that I've heard that some pro-abortionists include such drugs as the ones you mentioned under the category of contraceptives. That inclusion really is deceitful and evil.

Posted by: Jon at September 24, 2008 11:11 AM


Hal says "I happen to support the right of a woman to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy without interference from our government."

Hal, by yuour own admission you do so blidly without thinking about the philosophical underpinnings. I didn't just wake up one day and say "ya know what, I think abortion is wrong so it is!" I actually weighed the issue from all perspectives, looked into the philosophy and saw that the underlying philosophy of abortion on demand is shaky at best.

You just say "well I support abortion. Period." and, again by your own admission, you don't really think about the issue in any wider terms. To me this means that you are either someone who lacks intelligence (which I honestly don't think) or someone who wants to plug his ears and yell LLALALLALA ABORTION IS OK!!!. I think the latter is far more likely. SO keep plugging your ears, but don't pretend that your position is anything other than emotional.

Posted by: Lauren at September 24, 2008 11:16 AM


This is OT, but I just watched the saddest video I think I've ever seen. It was about women who are wetnursing in china right now after their recent formula scandal. The woman they profiled had to give up her baby girl for adoption last month because she was her second baby. She still has her milk (can you imagine?) and she sees that she can be of assistance.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9880681

Posted by: Lauren at September 24, 2008 11:44 AM


It was interference from our government (the judiciary, anyway, NEVER the voice of the people) which made abortion legal in the first place.

Posted by: Kel at September 24, 2008 11:44 AM


Not exactly true Kel, several states, thruoght the Voice of the People, had legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade. Many more would do so today if necessary.

Posted by: Hal at September 24, 2008 11:56 AM


Hal @ 11:10 AM

Hal - I have no problem with a woman terminating a pregnancy - naturally, when she delivers without elective intervention. (Uninduced miscarriage is not elective.)

You apparently don't mind an abortionist interfering with the pregnancy to take the life of a human being. But the government can't undertake the very role it was created for, which is governance of what people can and cannot do? You can't assert one thing (government support of rights) without also asserting the responsibility we have to one another.

Lauren raises a really good point - if you have no philosophical foundation why should your view be worth listening to - where does your right to even speak on the subject come from?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 24, 2008 12:35 PM


where does your right to even speak on the subject come from?
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 24, 2008 12:35 PM

Jill, and the United States Constitution.

You don't have to listen to me, but I think it's probably more interesting then a whole site dedicated to comments "that's right Jill, good work." Maybe not.

Posted by: Hal at September 24, 2008 12:39 PM


that's where people like me come in, hal. it's more of a "yes, jill, you're fundamentally right, but..."

and you simply do not care that born babies are/were being left to die alone, without even a chance at survival because their mothers wanted them dead at some point in their lives? great guy you are...

Posted by: xalisae at September 24, 2008 1:15 PM


I do care about that Xalisae. I'm glad Jill held the baby that this happened to. Even Jill realized that the baby could not survive. Not just because "their mother wanted it dead"

Posted by: Hal at September 24, 2008 1:45 PM


"Really, do you think all the Democrats voted the way they did because they were "for killing born babies"?"

Jon: Doug, do you think the platform of the Democrat party has a "pro-choice" platform because they are "for killing pre-born babies"?

I notice that you didn't answer.

No, Pro-Choicers are for leaving it up to the woman. If no women want to have abortions then Pro-Choicers are fine with that.

Posted by: Doug at September 24, 2008 1:56 PM


Hal: I'm glad Jill held the baby that this happened to. Even Jill realized that the baby could not survive. Not just because "their mother wanted it dead"

Right, the issue there was palliative care - nothing to do with pro-choice/pro-life.

Posted by: Doug at September 24, 2008 2:00 PM


Doug,

Right, the issue there was palliative care - nothing to do with pro-choice/pro-life.

That's the point Jill has been making all along...
It's Obama who turned it into a prolife/prochoice argument.

So are you saying that Obama is against palliative care? Would that be a fair way to say it?

Posted by: mk (aka mullet troll) at September 24, 2008 2:24 PM


What other reason is there for having an abortion than the mother "wanting it dead?" Hmmmm..wonder when a baby is born alive if the mother should just be handed the baby and she can finish the job. You know...choice and all. The doctor can supervise, no other doctor need be called to give another opinion. Done. Dead.

Posted by: Carla at September 24, 2008 2:32 PM


MK, a fair way to put it is that Obama didn't see a need for a law mandating palliative care, or perhaps recognized the need but didn't like this particular law. Either way, no big deal.

Would you rather have a president who over-reacts to everything like McCain?

Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 2:37 PM


Not exactly true Kel, several states, thruoght the Voice of the People, had legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade. Many more would do so today if necessary.
Posted by: Hal at September 24, 2008 11:56 AM
**************************************

Okey dokey, let's overturn Roe v. Wade (which never should have existed in the first place) and take it back to the states. I mean, proponents of "choice" should have nothing to worry about, then, since so many states would legalize abortion if necessary. If Obama gets his way, FOCA will be enacted and it will overturn every state restriction, which was enacted by the WILL of the PEOPLE.

The very fact that any state government legalized abortion IS governmental interference.

Side note: You know, I find it a little twisted that in a few years, we won't be able to choose which kind of LIGHT BULB we use in our homes (thanks to the energy bill), but we can abort as many of our kids as we want! Woohoo! Let's save the planet! Yeah! *smirk*

Posted by: Kel at September 24, 2008 2:38 PM


Kel, in general we really don't vote on rights though - slavery being illegal in all states rather than just the ones which would have voted against it being a good example.

On post-viability restrictions, I hadn't heard that FOCA would change anything, actually.

Posted by: Doug at September 24, 2008 2:41 PM


Kel, if Roe was overturned, and each state voted on what abortion law to have, and let's say half of the states allowed abortion pretty much on demand for first four months, would you be satisfied? If not, why are you suggesting it?

Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 2:48 PM


That's the point Jill has been making all along... It's Obama who turned it into a prolife/prochoice argument.

MK, and he had a point, for every vote until the last one, because then he and the other Democrats had what they wanted in the bill.


So are you saying that Obama is against palliative care? Would that be a fair way to say it?

No, not at all. of course he's not against palliative care.

Posted by: Doug at September 24, 2008 2:48 PM


The convention "bounces" are over, and as more stuff has come out about Palin, Obama has regained what has been a "normal" lead for him.

Still not nearly enough to make any forecasts at this early date.

Posted by: Doug at September 24, 2008 2:54 PM


well, i just go a little further, hal. if it weren't for the decisions of the mother and actions of the doctor, that baby wouldn't need that care and be suffering in that way to begin with.

but...i don't understand you, and you make me very sad to see that a person can think in such a way. i was urged to abort my daughter. i didn't. i'm sure the lives of my husband and i would be much more comfortable now, but my daughter would be dead, and my husband who thought that would be a good idea at the time would not have his little girl that he loves more than his own life, and who loves him beyond measure. can you see that it's not about you? don't you wonder who would've loved you that isn't here to do that now? who would've loved you, hal?

my daughter wasn't killed because i am a stubborn, willful, hopeful woman. i can ask her how happy she is to be alive, and she lets me know everyday, blissfully unaware of the debate that raged before she was born, and that the life she enjoys now once hung ing the balance. after that, i knew how very wrong abortion is, but when i became pregnant with my son, i wanted to scream in outrage that the life i had inside me had no value to the outside world. i wish i could make you understand me, so that maybe i could understand you.

Posted by: xalisae at September 24, 2008 2:59 PM


Xalisea, you didn't want an abortion, and didn't have one. That's great. I don't see the children I never had as a loss. I could have had 10 children by now and had all that love, but two wonderful kids are enough for me, I'm not greedy.

Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 3:07 PM


yeah, and i could've had a bunch too, but once i was pregnant, those kids were there. had i gotten an abortion that one little girl would be dead, never to exist again, period. my kids are not interchangable. do you see yours as such?

Posted by: xalisae at September 24, 2008 3:15 PM


my kids are my kids, they are not interchangeable at all. They are very different, but each very lovable. I didn't have any other children. If I had, I'm sure I'd love them too.

Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 3:26 PM


Hal @ 1:45 PM

Actually, with Jill's experience, the mother didn't want the baby to have Downs Syndrome - that the baby couldn't survive wasn't due to a natural miscarriage. Her abortion of him wasn't because he was jeapordizing her life, only her prospective life without caring for him.

Her loss. I'm sure he's in God's hands now.

Your concern about this matter Hal just comes across as thin, insincere and non-empathetic - similar to someone saying "It's a pity - he drowned" avoiding the issue that the victim wasn't viable because he was held under water, while completely excusing the murder.

I don't think you're deliberately malicious, but as I said before, you're simply defending your own history, and like Doug, you simply pick and choose an arbitrary point that suits your own circular moral logic.

You cannot reasonably explain why 10 minutes before delivery of a nine-month old gestational age infant an abortionist can shove a catheter into her and inject her with a poison to kill her, that such action is moral and good, but after delivery, if while being held by her mother the same poison being injected would be wrong.

Utilitarian pragmatists should be encouraged to practice what they preach. Your philosophy only works when it's do unto others, but don't do that to me.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 24, 2008 3:33 PM


Chris, I have to run. we'll have to debate more later.

Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 3:42 PM


Hal says "I didn't have any other children"

Yes, you did. You had two other children. That you killed. I have four children, but two died before birth. Just because they're dead doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Hal, look, I understand that if you admit that you have these children you have to admit that you killed them. That's a tough admission and it's very understandable that you are shying away from it. I'm sure the post-abortive pro-lifers on this site can help you deal with that far more than I can. I'm sorry that you've bought into the worlds ideology that says it's ok to kill your children because they're not "really" children. Unfortunately, alot of people have bought into this. But you admit that you don't really, truthfully look into *why* this claim is true, and until you do you're going to continue to lie to yourself.

Posted by: Lauren at September 24, 2008 3:45 PM


X,

:hugs:

Your little girl is so, so, so lucky to have you as her mommy. Believe me, I know all about that debate that raged on before she was born as I had to deal with that too. It's funny how when the choice you choose is life, suddenly people are trying to tell you all the reasons that is the WRONG choice.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at September 24, 2008 3:52 PM


:) thanks, liz. you've done so much to be proud of, the kudos goes to you.

that's something that I think people that have been in our positions can appreciate more than some others...when someone says that abortion is necessary...that is such a lie. we know it.

Posted by: xalisae at September 24, 2008 4:41 PM


Kel, if Roe was overturned, and each state voted on what abortion law to have, and let's say half of the states allowed abortion pretty much on demand for first four months, would you be satisfied? If not, why are you suggesting it?
Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 2:48 PM
***********************************************

Would you be satisfied, Hal? I doubt it.

I brought up the point about states after you did. My point was, if the states had abortion laws before Roe v. Wade was enacted, why was that not "good enough" for the pro-aborts?? They were not satisfied until there was a phony "right" to abortion "found" in the Constitution, and now they do everything in their power to make abortion accessible through the 9th month, for any reason, including for minors without parental consent.

And you think MY position is unreasonable??

Posted by: Kel at September 24, 2008 5:14 PM


Xalisea, you didn't want an abortion, and didn't have one. That's great. I don't see the children I never had as a loss. I could have had 10 children by now and had all that love, but two wonderful kids are enough for me, I'm not greedy.
Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 3:07 PM
*****************************************

I'm really sad to see that you don't realize that your termination of those two little lives was the "greedy" act.

It's not the bearing of our children that's greedy. You've got it completely backwards, Hal.

Posted by: Kel at September 24, 2008 5:20 PM


By the way, Hal, I'm not trying to attack you. I was just stunned by your comment.

Posted by: Kel at September 24, 2008 5:31 PM


Kel, I understand. I'm often stunned at this site. I'm not sure the dialog is productive, but it is often eye-opening.

Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 6:44 PM


i like dennis miller, but wasn't able to listen. how were the call-ins?

Posted by: xalisae at September 24, 2008 7:30 PM


Xalisea, you didn't want an abortion, and didn't have one. That's great. I don't see the children I never had as a loss. I could have had 10 children by now and had all that love, but two wonderful kids are enough for me, I'm not greedy.
Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 3:07 PM

I"m with Kel on this one. I'm sure you had an altruistic motive for aborting your kids Hal! You must think we are a bunch of idiots on this blog!
Your logic is so warped it's pathetic.

Posted by: Patricia at September 24, 2008 7:59 PM


Leave them to the best judgment of the mother and the doctor.

(and don't forget, the law Jill wanted PASSED. what exactly is her complaint?)

Posted by: Hal at September 22, 2008 2:26 PM

oh yes, this is a sweet statement isn't it!
The mother who wants the baby dead and the doctor who's trying to kill the baby.
I'm sure they will make an impartial decision keeping what's best for the baby in mind!
what a joke!
Where do you come up with this stuff, Hal?

Posted by: Patricia at September 24, 2008 8:04 PM


yeah. i'm beyond aghast at hal's comments and attitudes regarding his own children. they are commodities to him, fully interchangable and with no intrinsic worth; only of as much value he deems them. he has pets, not kids. hell, i know people who have pets that speak of them more fondly than he does.

Posted by: xalisae at September 24, 2008 9:21 PM


I speak very fondly of my children. I adore them.

I do not put the aborted pregnancies on the same level of my beloved children. Be aghast at that if you wish.

Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 9:47 PM


Hal says "aborted pregnancies" contrasted with "beloved children."

Hal, look the "pregnancies" weren't aborted...your children were. Your beloved children were killed.

Posted by: Lauren at September 24, 2008 10:02 PM


oh...so...you don't put the pregnancies you had terminated on the same level as those you didn't. well, that makes perfect sense, and doesn't make you seem callous, uncaring, or nonsensical at all where your children are concerned. right.

what was so different about the pregnancies you didn't have terminated that you are able to love the children incubated in them, and not the ones you had terminated?

Posted by: xalisae at September 24, 2008 10:09 PM


what was so different about the pregnancies you didn't have terminated that you are able to love the children incubated in them, and not the ones you had terminated?
Posted by: xalisae at September 24, 2008 10:09 PM

xalisae, all the difference in the world

Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 10:13 PM


Kel @ 5:14,
Excellent point!!!

Posted by: Janet at September 24, 2008 10:14 PM


well, hal, that doesn't explain much at all, at least not to me. i suppose it's just beyond my fragile little mind. forgive me.

all i have left to say to you is something you said yourself earlier:

"my kids are my kids..."

it's hard to understand.

Posted by: xalisae at September 24, 2008 10:26 PM


Hal says "all the difference in the world"

Nom, Hal there is NO difference. Your feelings twoards your children don't change who they are. I might think that my daughter is a magical flying unicorn, but that doesn't make it so.

Look, there is NO difference between the children who survived, and the ones you killed. The only difference is that 2 are still on this earth. If one died tomorrow would you say "well, there is a vast difference between my 1 child and the bundle of cells that died!"

Of course, I hope and pray that you would never experience such a thing, but I can not believe that you can have such a disconnect!

Posted by: Lauren at September 24, 2008 10:39 PM


Hal's "disconnect" is exactly the same as every other pro-abort, pro-choice, ALREADY BORN liberal out there.

You can argue with the likes of them until you're blue in the face and it won't make a bit of difference to them. The disconnect is what protects their consciences. (Assuming they have one...)

People who think like Hal will come to their senses eventually regarding their involvement in abortion, but most likely when it's too late.

Whoever coined the phrase, "Isn't it ironic that all the people who are FOR abortion, have ALREADY been born?" sure said a mouthful.

Posted by: Mike at September 24, 2008 11:48 PM


I talked to two people today who had never heard of BAIPA or PBA. Are people living in caves????

Let's continue to get the word out on these horrible acts, please!!
OBAMA is too scary to be our next Pres!

Posted by: Janet at September 25, 2008 12:29 AM


Hal's "disconnect" is exactly the same as every other pro-abort, pro-choice, ALREADY BORN liberal out there.

You can argue with the likes of them until you're blue in the face and it won't make a bit of difference to them. The disconnect is what protects their consciences. (Assuming they have one...)

People who think like Hal will come to their senses eventually regarding their involvement in abortion, but most likely when it's too late.

Whoever coined the phrase, "Isn't it ironic that all the people who are FOR abortion, have ALREADY been born?" sure said a mouthful.

Posted by: Mike at September 24, 2008 11:48 PM
........................

The disconnect starts with your disconnection with actual people and actual experience of life in deference to your lack of wisdom and knowledge.

Posted by: Sally at September 25, 2008 12:40 AM


yes, sally, the only things that can inspire thoughtfulness and compassion towards those humans who've yet to be born are sheer naivete and an utter lack of wisdom and life experience. the only people who have suffered in this world are those who've had abortions. the only people who've been faced with difficult choices and chosen wisely are those who've had abortions. the only parents who've done what is best for their children are the ones who saw that the circumstances for children were not optimal and chose to abort.

give me a break.

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 2:23 AM


Mike @ 11:48 PM

Mike - are you familiar with Scott Klusendorf and SLED?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at September 25, 2008 6:02 AM


"he disconnect starts with your disconnection with actual people and actual experience of life ..."
Posted by: Sally at September 25, 2008 12:40 AM'

Yet, you purport to know just where people are coming from in their actual life experiences, Sally.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 25, 2008 9:08 AM


Of course Sally knows all. Only those who love death know all, those who have an idea that all life is sacred are the screwballs.
Didn't eveyone get that memo?
*rolls eyes*

then gags

Posted by: Sandi at September 25, 2008 9:44 AM


You're right Sally, life has always been sunshine and rainbows and I just can't believe that some people don't want precious little babies!

Look, we all understand that sometimes pregnancy comes as a shock and isn't wanted. That doesn't change the fact that the child is already alive, and we have no right to kill it.

Posted by: Lauren at September 25, 2008 10:17 AM


People who think like Hal will come to their senses eventually regarding their involvement in abortion, but most likely when it's too late."

too late? what is that supposed to mean?

Posted by: Hal at September 25, 2008 11:06 AM


i don't know...i'm still waiting for you to elaborate on "all the difference in the world."

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 11:18 AM


i think you might've meant "deference". ha.

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 11:28 AM


xalisae, you really don't understand? Abortion at four weeks, no harm done. No different from all those other hypothetical babies that could have been born if we hadn't used birth control. Or those who might have been born if they had implanted. No "unique soul." No "miricle of God." I'm with Jill, if there is no God, then abortion is not wrong.

Posted by: Hal at September 25, 2008 11:39 AM


so, you didn't do anything wrong if there's no one around to see it? Geeze, no wonder so many people have a low opinion of atheists. No honor.

and, i think you're the one missing the big difference here. if it was the same as using birth control or not having sex in the first place, there'd be no pregnancy to "terminate" in the first place. you had to take action, hal, to stop a life. i took no action, and whaddaya know, a kid happened. i tink there's just a tad more evidence backing me up than you...like...oh...i dunno...my daughter, for instance. if you think there's no difference between "pregnant" and "not pregnant", you should fing try it sometime, pal. and you should probably get your money back for those abortions and use it to pay for an intro. to biology class.

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 11:56 AM


The comment about God is not that "He's watching us," but that since God didn't create that blob of cells, it isn't immoral to get rid of it.

I understand the biology.
I also understand that you can be pro-life and not believe in invisible sky gods.

Anyway, I've got to get some work done today, Planned Parenthood isn't paying me enough to do this all day long.... Ha. cheers.

Posted by: Hal at September 25, 2008 12:02 PM


i have a 6 year old, and my infant son. i don't think i should have to provide for him anymore. i hate breastfeeding, and afterall, they're my breasts. what's the big deal? he's only an infant, anyway, and not even half as complex and developed as my 6 year old. so, i'll stop feeding him, and he'll be terminated. he's nothing like my 6 year old, and even though he would've been, had i just kept feeding him, i'll just consider him among all the other children older than infants i could've had if my husband and i had just had a little more alone time. and the best part is, i'm an atheist, so i didn't even do anything wrong!

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 12:09 PM


yes, sarcastic quips are fun, especially when you have to leave because you're making no sense and haven't a leg to stand on.

i hope you let yourself see the truth one day, even if only so your kids can finally be mourned as they deserve. i hope you can handle it, too.

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 12:16 PM


what good would mourning do?

Don't tell me you're trying to save my soul too?

Posted by: Hal at September 25, 2008 12:18 PM


no...i just think it's part of being a decent, honorable human being, as everyone should strive to be. giving other people...especially your own children, is very important. this life is all we have.

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 12:30 PM


*giving other people respect and dignity is very important

having remorse for a wrong you've done is also essential.

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 12:35 PM


I suppose that's true. I do have remorse for wrongs I've done in my life. I have no remorse for legal abortions.

Posted by: Hal at September 25, 2008 12:37 PM


ok then. once you've allowed yourself to make the connection between both the things i said there, and acknowledge everything i've said as a whole rather than picking and choosing what you will respond to, you'll really be making some headway in the "decent human being" department.

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 12:49 PM


what was so different about the pregnancies you didn't have terminated that you are able to love the children incubated in them, and not the ones you had terminated?
Posted by: xalisae at September 24, 2008 10:09 PM

xalisae, all the difference in the world

Posted by: hal at September 24, 2008 10:13 PM

The difference xalisae is that the two children killed were not WANTED.
Therefore in order to justify their not wanting these two children Hal and his wife have rationalized that these two children were somehow "different" than the two children that they allowed to survive.
However, if we go back and we look at all four children:
1. all four children have(had) new DNA different from Hal and his wife and therefore separate
2. all four children are the children of Hal and his wife (DNA testing would verify this)
3. all four children did reach the developmental stage of 4 weeks (I think Hal keeps lowering the age at which these two children were killed, but anyway) and presumably had the same sort of body processes going on.

What was the difference? NOTHING. Except Hal and his wife's ATTITUDE towards two of the four children.

Posted by: Patricia at September 25, 2008 1:11 PM


there is one other thing I've thought of x:
for a man, having a baby is a very abstract idea.
For a woman, it's certainly much more concrete. After all, she feels different (or can feel different), even in very early pregnancy etc.
But to the father, things pretty much go along the same as before, until the baby comes.
It is probably Hal's wife who is the one who needs to start the rethinking of their abortion experience.

Posted by: Patricia at September 25, 2008 2:01 PM


yes...i thought of that too, patricia. the way he talks kind of reminds me of how my husband used to talk before our daughter was born. after, he changed. hal can't afford to change.

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 2:11 PM


yes...i thought of that too, patricia. the way he talks kind of reminds me of how my husband used to talk before our daughter was born. after, he changed. hal can't afford to change.

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 2:11 PM

Well, it takes a person of great courage to ADMIT that they have killed their own child. That's pretty scary thing to have to do, xalisae.

Posted by: Patricia at September 25, 2008 3:04 PM


"Abortion at four weeks, no harm done. No different from all those other hypothetical babies that could have been born if we hadn't used birth control"

Yes, hal there is a world of difference. There is no child when one is never conceived, but once conception happens a new, unique individual has been formed. Your stance, like X pointed out, is akin to saying that my daughter doesn't exist because she has yet to reach the developmental level of my son. It makes zero sense.

Also, I agree w/ patricia, you do keep truncating the lives of your children to us. There is no way your wife had an abortion at 4 weeks. 4 weeks pregnant= first day of her missed period. Not that it matters in the slightest, it's just interesting that you seem to think that the sooner you can kill 'em, the less they exist.

Posted by: Lauren at September 25, 2008 4:40 PM


I was using four weeks as an example, not a personal story. I don't recall how many weeks, but it was certainly "early."

Posted by: Hal at September 25, 2008 4:47 PM


yes, hal can't be troubled with insignificant trifles like the life spans of his children. at least not the unwanted ones.

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 4:52 PM


at this point, i'm more curious than when i started. i wish i could get your wife's perspective.

Posted by: xalisae at September 25, 2008 5:20 PM


Hi ladies,

you have twigged my curiosity also, but in a very different direction. I keep seeing Hal as an elderly gent ... what rationale does he use on his (now grown) daughters not to kill him, to lessen the 'burden' he has become?

Posted by: John McDonell at September 25, 2008 6:58 PM


Hey, I'm not that old. I'm still supporting them. Wait a few years, then they can have at me.

Posted by: hal at September 25, 2008 7:04 PM


Cold dead hearts = the Hal's of this world.
Very sad.

At least there have been some humans that have mourned the deaths of his two children. Perhaps one day their siblings that were allowed to live by the benevolent dictators they call mom and dad, will mourn them too. Proving once again, it's the pro-life people that keep this world at least semi sane.

But, be careful Hal and Mrs. Hal, those two you allowed to live may one day want an accounting from the two of you as to why two were not worthy of life. And if their hearts turn out as cold towards you as yours was towards their siblings, well, just don't be surprised.

Posted by: Sandi at September 26, 2008 9:19 AM


John McD @ 6:58,

You must be thinking of Doug. :)

Posted by: Janet at September 26, 2008 10:38 AM


Let me clarify that from 10:38 AM ......

John McD,

I keep seeing Hal as an elderly gent

You must be thinking of Doug. :)

(Sad attempt at my trying to make a joke. Oh well.)

Posted by: Janet at September 26, 2008 10:41 AM


Sandi, if my girls determine I'm not "worthy of life," then it would be an act of love, not hearts turned cold, to let me go.

Posted by: Hal at September 26, 2008 10:52 AM


No, no,

I realize that Hal is a fairly young man (@40). I know as one ages and many events make ones heart stretch and life becomes more nuanced, I just wondered how Hal would answer if he was an elderly gent. His daughters would be the age Hal is now. Will they learn-to-be as heartless as Hal is now? Will they exercise that feature towards a more-in-need Hal?

Posted by: John McDonell at September 26, 2008 12:08 PM


Your concern about this matter Hal just comes across as thin, insincere and non-empathetic - similar to someone saying "It's a pity - he drowned" avoiding the issue that the victim wasn't viable because he was held under water, while completely excusing the murder.

I don't think you're deliberately malicious, but as I said before, you're simply defending your own history, and like Doug, you simply pick and choose an arbitrary point that suits your own circular moral logic.

Chris, that's not true. Hal often just notes that not everybody believes the same things.

You, on the other hand, are the one who goes circular - in effect saying, "I'm right because I'm right (or because I say so)."

Posted by: Doug at September 26, 2008 2:32 PM


Look, there is NO difference between the children who survived, and the ones you killed. The only difference is that 2 are still on this earth. If one died tomorrow would you say "well, there is a vast difference between my 1 child and the bundle of cells that died!"

Lauren, you appear to be insisting that Hal think of the unborn as "children," and there's just no logic for that. It's a totally subjective thing - it can be either way.

There's a big difference between his wife having abortions and his kids.

One of my sisters-in-law had three miscarriages on the way to having their three kids.

This is a Catholic family, most certainly pro-life. The miscarriages, while sad, were nothing like what losing one of their three kids would be.

Posted by: Doug at September 26, 2008 2:35 PM


"Ancient" Johnny McD: I keep seeing Hal as an elderly gent.

:: sticking tongue out at John ::

Janet: You must be thinking of Doug. :)

You young whippersnapper....

Posted by: Doug at September 26, 2008 2:39 PM


Will they learn-to-be as heartless as Hal is now?

Now John, that's not true nor is it fair. I don't think that you actually believe Hal to be "heartless."

Posted by: Doug at September 26, 2008 2:41 PM


Hey Doug,

There is an old saying that an apple doesn't fall too far from the tree or (in Jesus' words) we reap what we sow ... fairness has little to do with it - the quirey stands.

Posted by: John McDonell at September 26, 2008 4:10 PM


Doug, no it isn't subjective. It is biologival fact that the children that Hal had killed are the exact same as the ones that he didn;t. The only difference is that his living children were permitted to live for a longer time.

My children who died prenatally are every bit as real as the ones who are hear with me. It isn't "wishful thinking" or "my opinion", it is biological fact.

Posted by: Lauren at September 26, 2008 4:15 PM


John, I'm saying that I don't believe that you really think Hal is "heartless."

Posted by: Doug at September 26, 2008 9:50 PM


Lauren, "child" or not isn't a biological question in the first place. It's a subjective matter of favored terminology - that's why it's no meaningful argument to say "is a child" before birth anymore than it is to say "is not a child."

I'm saying that versus having a miscarriage, it's way, way worse for most people to have a born kid die.

Posted by: Doug at September 26, 2008 9:55 PM


lauren, i already brought up that point earlier, when i compared my infant son to my 6 year old daughter. hal chose to ignore what i said.

Posted by: xalisae at September 26, 2008 10:35 PM


Doug,

you seem to say that the attachment/wantedness is the determining factor in the formation of 'being/child'. As an experiment on the power of the will: take just one sheet of paper and levitate it with will-power alone. Bet you cannot do it.

And yet you contend that will is so powerful that it forms new being. The will maintains what already exists (or in the case of abortion ... destroys what already exists) and 'child' is as valid an English word as the biological, 'fetus'. Why is 'fetus' supposedly more accurate ... it is only without emotive content(due to a short history of biology itself)?

Posted by: John McDonell at September 27, 2008 7:13 AM


I am in a quandry. Disagree with Doug's opinion on grief in the death of a child OR make some breakfast and continue on my merry way. Decisions. Decisions. I disagree, Doug. Makes my day complete and it's only 8:20am!:)

Posted by: Carla at September 27, 2008 8:20 AM


"I'm saying that versus having a miscarriage, it's way, way worse for most people to have a born kid die.
Posted by: Doug at September 26, 2008 9:55 PM"
..........

This is an argument about the quality/strength of attachment. While it is true that this often grows as the child develops; it says little about the strength of the original attachment, nor how swiftly such attachment grows, nor does it speek of the pattern-of-growth-of-this-attachment. A wish to use the word 'child' may be an indication as to how much this attachment has grown.

But such does not indicate the fact of existence, only our acceptance/lack-of-acceptance of this existence.

Posted by: John McDonell at September 27, 2008 9:05 AM


Disagree with Doug's opinion on grief in the death of a child

Carla, I know it's an intensely personal thing for many people, and that miscarriages can be terribly sad. I don't have "an opinion on the death," i.e. it depends on the people involved and things can vary a lot.

I do think this is correct, however - "I'm saying that versus having a miscarriage, it's way, way worse for most people to have a born kid die."

Let's say somebody has three kids already - 5, 10, and 15 years old. I realize this is a hypothetical and that it'd be a horrible choice to have to make for many people, but if one had to choose to loose one of the born kids or suffer a miscarriage, I think the miscarriage is what the vast majority of people would take.

Posted by: Doug at September 27, 2008 9:47 AM


It is a very good thing we don't choose, isn't it??

Pain is pain. Grief is grief. I would never assume that someone hurts more or less than I do in relation to losing a child through miscarriage or stillbirth or later in life.

Do you have children?

Posted by: Carla at September 27, 2008 9:57 AM


you seem to say that the attachment/wantedness is the determining factor in the formation of 'being/child'. As an experiment on the power of the will: take just one sheet of paper and levitate it with will-power alone. Bet you cannot do it.

John, I don't say that. There is the physical reality, certainly, a thing not determined by how others feel.
....


And yet you contend that will is so powerful that it forms new being. The will maintains what already exists (or in the case of abortion ... destroys what already exists) and 'child' is as valid an English word as the biological, 'fetus'. Why is 'fetus' supposedly more accurate ... it is only without emotive content(due to a short history of biology itself)?

No, we're not talking about "will" as far as the "being." There is the physical reality and then there is our attribution to it, if any. "Fetus" is strictly correct since it's a classification that's well defined, same as embryo, etc. - they're medically and biologically correct, and again - not determined by how others feel.

"Child" or not is determined by how others feel. When it starts being a child is subjective, same as for when we stop being children after birth.
.....

"I'm saying that versus having a miscarriage, it's way, way worse for most people to have a born kid die.

This is an argument about the quality/strength of attachment. While it is true that this often grows as the child develops; it says little about the strength of the original attachment, nor how swiftly such attachment grows, nor does it speek of the pattern-of-growth-of-this-attachment. A wish to use the word 'child' may be an indication as to how much this attachment has grown. But such does not indicate the fact of existence, only our acceptance/lack-of-acceptance of this existence.

John, I don't see that contradicts what I've said. Yes - the strength of attachment can change, etc. And I don't think that "child or not" is a matter of "accepting the existence," since the unborn are certainly there; rather it's a matter of how we define "child."

Posted by: Doug at September 27, 2008 10:04 AM


It is a very good thing we don't choose, isn't it??

Carla, it'd be terrible to have to choose, sure.
.....


Pain is pain. Grief is grief. I would never assume that someone hurts more or less than I do in relation to losing a child through miscarriage or stillbirth or later in life.

Do you have children?

No - lots of nieces and nephews but no kids for my wife and me.

I also wouldn't assume how one person feels about losing a kid versus how another person would feel. I'm not making any "absolute" judgments about how much pain there is, only that IMO most people would rather have a miscarriage than lose a born child.

Posted by: Doug at September 27, 2008 11:44 AM


so, if there was a man who fathered another human being, but didn't know that person existed because he moved away before that person's mother even knew she was pregnant with said person...to say that that person was that man's child would be incorrect?

Posted by: xalisae at September 27, 2008 12:15 PM


X, after birth (to elimiminate the differences in defitions about "person" and "child")then no - the man not knowing makes no difference.

Before birth - same deal - the woman is pregnant in your example, whether the man knows or not.

Posted by: Doug at September 28, 2008 4:52 PM


Doug,

" "Fetus" is strictly correct since it's a classification that's well defined, same as embryo, etc. - they're medically and biologically correct, and again - not determined by how others feel."

Right-on Dougy! ... my bro's name too!

First of, the classification is a classification of 'stage-of-development' and not a classification of genus. In other words we are talking about: human-fetus/human-embryo/etc.

Many moons ago we talked of HUMAN rights vs person(birth) rights. These are not the same, but ALL rights are contingent on being alive. Therefore I claim that such a 'right' pre-exists birth ... and even pre-exists being a 'fetus'.

Posted by: John McDonell at September 28, 2008 6:03 PM


First of, the classification is a classification of 'stage-of-development' and not a classification of genus. In other words we are talking about: human-fetus/human-embryo/etc.

John, sure - none of those are a matter of opinion. "Child" and "baby" remain matters of opinion.
.....


Many moons ago we talked of HUMAN rights vs person(birth) rights. These are not the same, but ALL rights are contingent on being alive. Therefore I claim that such a 'right' pre-exists birth ... and even pre-exists being a 'fetus'.

I pretty much agree, yet the laws and rules we have often detail how corpses are to be treated, for example, and thus it could be said that "they have rights," eh?

Yet even if we say that yes, one would have to be alive to have rights attributed, that is only saying, "If there's life then there could be rights." It's not saying, "If there's life then there are rights."

Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2008 2:01 AM


Hi Doug,

"Yet even if we say that yes, one would have to be alive to have rights attributed, that is only saying, "If there's life then there could be rights." It's not saying, "If there's life then there are rights."

True, true! Some examples are excised tumors or organs, even skin cells or blood donations all are 'alive' and without 'rights'. There is a sense though when body-integrity is recognized as having 'rights'. Are there instances of rights that are for the life of a group and override individual 'rights' - example contagion/HIV is purposeful transmission allowed?

Posted by: John McDonell at September 29, 2008 8:54 AM


John, I think we say, in effect, that the "greater good" being at stake allows society to impact the individual.

Posted by: Doug at September 29, 2008 12:20 PM