Fox to air abortion documentary Saturday

fnc.jpgFox News will show a documentary on abortion this Saturday:

Fox News cameras went inside an operating room as a 20-year-old student underwent an abortion, as part of a documentary titled "Facing Reality, Choice," that will air Saturday, Oct. 27, at 9 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel....
In the scene Fox does not focus on the surgical details of the abortion procedure, but it is emotionally wrenching, however, as the woman cries through the abortion and her mother, beside her for emotional support, learns this is her daughter's second abortion in less than a year.

The Fox documentary profiles three women to explore the abortion issue by following their agonizing decisions to have their babies or terminate their pregnancies....

The Fox News documentary is groundbreaking in that it does not touch at all on the political debate or legal analysis surrounding abortion.

All that is seen and heard during the hour are the women and families as they struggle to choose what to do about their pregnancies.

Well, no. There will be one family member not be seen or heard during the 20-year-old's abortion, which really aggravates me. Why not? Sure, forget politics and legal analysis. Let's simply get real for once. Let's show that esoteric "choice." I've seen one documentary where doctors peeled back a patient's face to fix cheekbones and another where conjoined twins were separated. What's wrong with showing abortion?

variety1.jpgI will be disappointed if Fox doesn't treat this issue fairly, but I'm concerned. If Variety gave the documentary a glowing review, there's a red flag:

If only other programming on Fox News exhibited the understated restraint of "Facing Reality: Choice," a special that avoids taking sides in chronicling young women's experiences with unwanted or difficult pregnancies....

Given the strident tone of Fox's talking heads, "Facing Reality" approaches this divisive issue with surprising compassion, including an interview with a kindly-looking doctor who performs abortions.

That "kindly-looking doctor" is 72-year-old Arkansas abortionist William Harrison, who has admittedly committed at least 10,000, maybe 20,000 abortions, he lost count - and he's still at it.

Yet Fox called him a "gynecologist" in the promo:

"It is a moral crisis for them... this is not a black and white issue," gynecologist Dr. William Harrison said. "It's not something that you can say, you know, 'This is good and this is bad.' It's a mix.... The woman who's making that decision is the only person that can make that moral choice for herself."

Wrong. That's moral relativist gobbledy-gook that I hope Fox is fair enough to allow countered. And that last sentence was political speak, btw.

You can watch video clips here.

[HT: moderator Bethany; photo credit: Fox]


Comments:

They called him a gynecologist because that's what he is.

Posted by: SoMG at October 24, 2007 8:15 PM


Well, part of the reason they may not show an abortion is because it involves you know, the vagina. I don't think they can really show a massive close up of a vagina on TV.

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2007 8:21 PM


even Fox thinks abortion decisions are best left to the woman who has to face the "reality."

Posted by: Hal at October 24, 2007 8:23 PM


When Bill O'Reilly interviewed "Kelly", the girl who had an abortion from George Tiller, he told her not to "beat herself up about it".

This girl murdered her unborn baby and he tells her not to beat herself up about it.

Posted by: SoMG at October 24, 2007 8:28 PM


Wow! "Choice" really seemed to make her happy! just look at her "I'm so comfortable with my decision" face....

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 8:43 PM


Did you ever notice that, in life, when you KNOW you've made the right decision about something, you KNOW it because it feels right...you feel comfortable with it...you feel confident. Well, why is it, that if abortion is "such a good choice", why is it such a struggle for these girls?

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 8:48 PM


Most patients choose abortion as the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: SoMG at October 24, 2007 9:00 PM


Laura, I 'know' I made the right choice when I aborted. Lots of women do. You guys just like to pick and choose the ones that have a hard time with it- and often they have a hard time with it afterwards because you guys keep telling them they SHOULD.

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2007 9:03 PM


SoMG,
The two "evils" being.......

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 9:04 PM


I mean, it's pretty rare for a woman to have an abortion for the sake of having an abortion--although I do know one woman who, when Paul Hill shot Dr. Britton, went out and got pregnant in order to abort as a personal protest.

She'd have done better to just donate the $ to MSfC.

Posted by: SoMG at October 24, 2007 9:05 PM


Erin,
Easy...please....I was just asking a question. I mean, alot of these girls go in with people for emotional support. If I knew I was making the right decision, I certainly would not need any type of emotional support.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 24, 2007 9:05 PM


Erin,
Easy...please....I was just asking a question. I mean, alot of these girls go in with people for emotional support. If I knew I was making the right decision, I certainly would not need any type of emotional support.

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 9:06 PM


The two evils being abortion on the one hand, and unwanted pregnancy, labor and delivery, and parenthood, on the other.

Posted by: SoMG at October 24, 2007 9:07 PM


SoMg,
I'm still seeing only one evil!

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 9:09 PM


the women I know who had abortions feel fine about it.

Posted by: Hal at October 24, 2007 9:10 PM


For that matter, most health-care decisions are choices of the least of evils.

The surgeon who cuts you open doesn't do it because he thinks incisions are beneficial to you, but in order to relieve you of a greater evil (the tumor).

Chemotherapy is a choice of a lesser evil (poisoning) over a greater evil (cancer).

You get used to choosing the lesser evil in health care.

Posted by: SoMG at October 24, 2007 9:11 PM


PL Laura, you deny that unwanted pregnancy, labor and delivery, and unchosen parenthood, are evil?

This is why right-to-lifers need to be restrained.

You are an argument for FoCA.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 24, 2007 9:15 PM


Laura- it's a surgical procedure. When I had my biopsy a couple weeks ago, my mom was with me. Also, you generally can't drive afterwards, and so need to have someone with you.

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2007 9:15 PM


"the women I know who had abortions feel fine about it."

Were they your babies, Hal? JK...not funny, I know....but many times, people will justify things in their heads so they don't feel the pain/guilt. Just as a thief will justify it within on WHY they need to steal something...they deserve to have it...THEY were robbed by not having it, etc. Or, maybe...just maybe....JESUS HAS HEALED THEM & TAKEN THEIR GUILT AWAY!!! :)

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 9:15 PM


Ooops--that's me.

Posted by: SoMG at October 24, 2007 9:17 PM


I mean that anonymous.

Posted by: SoMG at October 24, 2007 9:18 PM


Anonymous said: "PL Laura, you deny that unwanted pregnancy, labor and delivery, and unchosen parenthood, are evil?"

Not killing a child is evil? Talk about backwards.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 24, 2007 9:18 PM


I'm not going to waste my time watching the abortion documentary on Fox. Instead I am going to watch the movie...

-------

"BELLA" THE MOVIE OPENS FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26th!!

Whether your Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, you should go see the movie this weekend.

The long anticipated movie "Bella" will be opening this weekend in many cities. Please make sure you see it this weekend.

The plot is about two people whose lives are changed forever discover that sometimes it takes losing it all to finally appreciate the things that truly matter. Bella is a heartwarming love story that goes much deeper than romance. It is an unforgettable story that celebrates unborn life, family, relationships and our capacity for love in the face of the unexpected.

For More…

http://bellathemovie.com

Mike

Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2007 9:19 PM


Anonymous at October 24, 2007 9:15 PM,
Yes, I do deny it!!! An unwanted pregancy to one, may be a blessing to another...NO EVIL HERE....
Labor & Delivery.....epideral..NO EVIL HERE.....
Unchosen Parenthood.....Kindof contradicts itself when one having sex DOES know how babies are made! NO EVIL HERE....just lack of will power to stop and use birth control!!!

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 9:20 PM


The women that do feel bad afterwards do so only because prolifers tell them they should? How about women taking responsibility for their feelings? The women that blame their feelings on prolifers should stop playing the victim. The only victim is their unborn baby.

Posted by: Carrie at October 24, 2007 9:26 PM


John,
Did I read that wrong??? You've got me all confused now...

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 9:28 PM


Carrie- being yelled at and called a baby killer, or told you're going to hell enough times will have an emotional impact on a person. How about this- take a woman who has had a miscarriage. Keep repeating that she did something to make it happen. Keep telling her that she killed her fetus. You'll convince her.

It's emotional warfare. Just like your silly gory pictures that cater to everyone that has a weak stomach for surgery.

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2007 9:32 PM


Carrie,
AMEN to that! The only thing that pro-lifers do (by their peaceful presence) is to have these girls bring out their own accountability!

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 9:34 PM


Hi PL Laura, I think john was disagreeing with SoMG's claims that unwanted pregnancies are evil.

Posted by: Carrie at October 24, 2007 9:35 PM


PL Laura, you wrote: "An unwanted pregancy to one, may be a blessing to another...NO EVIL HERE...."

It's not up to the "other" to decide. The uterus belongs to the woman, who alone decides who gets to live there and for how long.

You wrote "Labor & Delivery.....epideral..NO EVIL HERE" Ha ha. Go to med school, do a rotation in OB/GYN, and say that again.

You wrote "NO EVIL HERE....just lack of will power to stop and use birth control!!!"

That's a reason to make sure she knows how to contracept, not a reason to force her to suffer pregnancy, labor and delivery, and parenthood.

And remember, we now know that laws against abortion do not prevent women from having abortions, but they do drive up the complication rate. See http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/fulltext

Posted by: SoMG at October 24, 2007 9:38 PM


Carrie,
That's what I thought, too. But after reading my statement & then John's, I wasn't sure if I got it backwards or not...Thanks! :)

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 9:39 PM


Sorry Erin, but I am going to have to disagree with you on that. If some of the women who abort feel that way, then it is their responsibilty. People can't control how others act, but they can control how they choose to react to it. If they want to make themselves into a victim, then it is their choice I suppose. I would think it would be more empowering to take ownership of their feeings instead of blaming it on prolifers. Why would they care what prolifers say anyway? Aren't we the fringe element?

Posted by: Carrie at October 24, 2007 9:43 PM


One of the most common elements of a rape victim is to feel extreme guilt.

Hmmm. So, obviously, because she feels it, it means it's true? It's totally all her fault for getting raped?

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2007 9:49 PM


*grins* The best ever quote I've ever seen in my life ever.

"You can't be pro-life AND anti-Zombie!"

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2007 9:53 PM


Erin, I honestly don't see your point. If you want to explain it more, I'll address it. I don't compare what prolifers do to what rapists do, maybe you do?

Posted by: Carrie at October 24, 2007 9:54 PM


"BELLA" THE MOVIE OPENS FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26th!!

You can hear about the upcoming movie on the Audio Archives on the following link.

Just click on the link and then type in the word "Bella" in the second search engine!

a Audio Archive Introduction to the movie BELLA.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2007 9:55 PM


"The best ever quote I've ever seen in my life ever."

That's sad :(

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 9:57 PM


Carrie- you are suggesting if someone feels an emotion strongly, that it is founded in reality. You are suggesting that if someone feels guilty about something, it's because they did something wrong. You apply it to women who have had abortions. I am applying it to women who have been raped. Explain the difference.

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2007 9:57 PM


I was indeed disagreeing with the idea that allowing children to live is somehow "evil".

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 24, 2007 10:06 PM


Labor and Delivery is not a piece of cake, epidural or not.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 24, 2007 10:07 PM


"BELLA" THE MOVIE OPENS FRIDAY, OCTOBER 26th!!

Here's another Audio Archive link to listen about the movie "Bella".

Just click on the link and then type in the word "Bella" next to Title!

a Another Audio Archive Link - Introduction to the movie BELLA.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at October 24, 2007 10:08 PM


no pain, no gain!

Posted by: PL Laura at October 24, 2007 10:09 PM


Erin, I don't see the connection between abortion and rape. I don't see the women who abort as victims of prolifers. I am suggesting that they take responsibilty for their feelings and their actions. The victim in an abortion is the unborn. The victim in the rape is the person who was raped. (or I should use survivor of rape instead of victim of rape, that's how I prefer to be referred to).

Posted by: Carrie at October 24, 2007 10:09 PM


pip said: "Labor and Delivery is not a piece of cake, epidural or not."

Should we offer to euthanize people who have appendicitis? Appendectomy is not a piece of cake, after all. We wouldn't want people to experience any pain or discomfort in life.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 24, 2007 10:20 PM


Most patients choose abortion as the lesser of two evils.

Ahhhh...but they are still choosing evil.

Posted by: mk at October 24, 2007 10:49 PM


"Should we offer to euthanize people who have appendicitis? Appendectomy is not a piece of cake, after all. We wouldn't want people to experience any pain or discomfort in life."

I wasn't saying ANYTHING.

The only think I was commenting on was the insinuation that labor was easy.


Jesus.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 24, 2007 10:53 PM


William Harrison? Gross. That old buzzard is still killing babies? I saw an interview with him where he admitted to performing 10 abortions on one woman. The interviewer asked, "Isn't that extreme?" he hesitated, and then he replied "No." He's just gross.

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 5:02 AM


Congressman John Hostettler represents southwestern Indiana as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He is a frequent leader and advocate of pro-life legislation in Washington.
Maybe the writers for the NBC drama Law and Order just ran out of plot ideas. Instead of a fresh new storyline, their Jan. 6 episode recycled a tired and reliable media theme: a "pro-lifer" stalking and killing an abortion practitioner.

The abortionist, predictably, was portrayed as a family man, caring and gentle with the women who visited his clinic. The pro-lifer was portrayed as a cold and calculated fanatic who prayed with his family before assassinating the kindly abortionist.

This theme has taken many forms on the networks, cable, Hollywood and even news programs. Movies like the Cider House Rules depict abortionists as saintly heroes, while television programs like The West Wing, Felicity, The Practice, Gideon's Crossing, Party of Five, and others show pro-lifers as intolerant and violent.

The roles are almost never reversed. Pro-lifers are rarely portrayed as caring people with a legitimate concern about the destruction of pre-born babies. Abortionists are not shown to have any shortcomings, much less possess the capability of harming another human being. But is this an accurate representation of reality?

A brief glance at the facts shows it is not. In fact, these portrayals are at odds with what has taken place since the Supreme Court invented a right to take life in the womb 29 years ago. Since 1973, abortion providers and radical abortion supporters have committed more murders and other felonies than can be accurately tallied (not including the tens of millions of murdered babies). The examples are plentiful.

On Valentines Day last year, Oklahoma City abortionist John Baxter Hamilton strangled his wife, beat her and slammed her face repeatedly onto a marble floor, killing her. Hardly the actions of someone who is "pro-woman." Dr. Hamilton was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.1

Another abortionist, Dr. Brian Finkel, owner of the Metro Phoenix Women's Clinic, was indicted in January on charges of molesting 26 patients. That comes on top of 17 counts of sexual abuse and sexual assault brought against Finkel last year. Altogether, more than 100 women, including four former employees, have alleged sexual misconduct by Finkel.2

In 1999, Pasadena abortionist Kevin Paul Anderson strangled his business partner, Dr. Deepti Gupta, a mother of two young children who was expecting her third, the product of their extramarital affair. After strangling her, Anderson put Gupti's body in her car, poured gasoline on her and pushed the car off a 450-foot cliff. He was convicted of second-degree murder.3

In a case that parallels the recent "Law and Order" episode - except the roles were reversed - Alabama pro-abortion activist Eileen Orstein Janezic murdered pro-life minister and radio talk show host Jerry Simon. After shooting Simon through a window of his home, she held police at bay with a pistol for six hours while quoting from the Satanic Bible.4

Many abortionists have also been convicted of murdering or maiming their patients. In January, jurors awarded $2 million to the 5-year-old son of a woman who died following a 1997 abortion at the Delaware Women's Health Organization clinic. The jury found that Dr. Mohammad Imran was negligent and that his actions led to the death of the 19-year-old woman.5

In May 2000, California abortionist Dr. Bruce Steir pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter for the death of a 27-year-old woman. According to the medical examiner, she bled to death after Steir performed a second-trimester abortion on her at A Lady's Choice Clinic. The examiner ruled her death "a result of gross negligence."6

Another California abortionist, Alicia Ruiz Hanna, was convicted in 1994 of second-degree murder after a 27-year-old mother of four died in her clinic. Two of the woman's children, who sat in the waiting room for hours after she died, saw Hanna trying to stuff their mother's body into the trunk of a car in order to dump her body in Mexico. The judge described Hanna as "callous and self-serving" before sentencing her to 15 years to life in prison.7

Countless other women have died as the result of abortions, several more have given birth to live babies maimed by abortionists, and one New York City abortionist, Dr. Allan Zarkin, even carved his initials on the abdomen of a woman upon whom he had just performed a Caesarean section. Zarkin was fired for this act, but was later hired at The Choices Women's Medical Center in Long Island, which performs 15,000 abortions a year.8

Though you rarely hear about it, there are also numerous cases of abortion supporters killing women who didn't make the right "choice."

In 1998, a jury found Alfred E. Smith guilty of murder in the death of his ex-girlfriend Deena Moody because she refused to abort their preborn child. Her charred body was found in her burned car near an Amtrak station.

In 1997, 38-year old Kevin Robinson murdered 15-year-old Daphne Sulk because he had gotten her pregnant and she refused to get an abortion to cover up his child molestation. Daphne's frozen body was discovered near a Wyoming rest area.9

In a particularly horrific case, Lavern Ward was upset that his girlfriend, 28-year old Debra Evans, was pregnant with his child and would not get an abortion. So he shot and killed her. Then he stabbed Evan's ten-year-old daughter in the neck and killed her. After hacking the unborn child out of Evan's body, Ward abducted her seven-year old son and stabbed him to death. The only bright spot in this tragedy is that the baby somehow lived.10

The list goes on and on and on. Yet the national media almost never cover these incidents. Hollywood and network writers and producers will not portray them. Abortion groups will not acknowledge them, much less apologize for or denounce them.

The truth is that taxi cab drivers, grocery store workers, service station employees, used car dealers, real estate agents, liquor store employees, police officers, jewelers and hotel personnel are murdered at a rate many, many times higher than abortionists, according to Bureau of Labor statistics. But these murders do not fit into a political agenda, so they are ignored by the abortion-favoring media.

The success of a movement that does not enjoy widespread public support often depends on effective propaganda. The pro-abortion movement knows this well and has advanced its cause by repeating myths until they were accepted as fact. Their distortions have turned a violent act into a celebrated "right."

No one understands this better than the national abortion provider Planned Parenthood, who hands out annual awards "to the media and entertainment figures who have best advocated abortion during the previous year." Among the winners honored last month: the NBC drama Law and Order.

Posted by: heather at October 24, 2007 6:30 PM

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 5:05 AM


Did anyone read where Kayla says that the baby's father will resent her for the rest of his life? So, I guess that the guy's "hang up" comes before the life of the child. Let's not forget that he helped to create that baby. It's sickening. The only reason women face these "difficult choices" is because they put themselves into the situation to begin with. They are all old enough to know that sex can/did cause pregnancy. I hate it when they act like victims!!

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 5:22 AM


Above is a list of some other "fine" abortionists.

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 5:35 AM


Another question, why do they cry? Why are women crying through an abortion? I have heard from most that it was just "a slight cramping sensation." So, what's the problem? It's because they realize that they have just murdered their child. What else could it be? I wouldn't cry over any other operation.

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 5:55 AM


Hi Heather, according to some prochoicers, the only reason they cry is because prolifers make them feel bad. (wipes tear from corner of eye and goes to get a violin to play a sad song)

Posted by: Carrie at October 25, 2007 6:05 AM


Carrie, Good morning to all of you early birds! Yes. I have never been present at an abortion procedure. I'm wondering what causes them to cry during their procedures. I doubt there are any pro lifers present in the OR.

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 6:14 AM


Carrie, I'm positive that every woman who cries on the abortion table, has her mind fixated on what those gosh darn RTLfers will think of her.

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 6:23 AM


Labor and Delivery is not a piece of cake, epidural or not.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 24, 2007 10:07 PM

Actually it is kind of a cake walk with the epidural. And the doctors are giving them earlier now so there really can be very little pain, mainly strong cramps.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 25, 2007 7:37 AM


Epidurals are great! No pain at all.

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 7:45 AM


How about this- take a woman who has had a miscarriage. Keep repeating that she did something to make it happen. Keep telling her that she killed her fetus. You'll convince her.

It's emotional warfare. Just like your silly gory pictures that cater to everyone that has a weak stomach for surgery.

Posted by: Erin at October 24, 2007 9:32 PM



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



having had 3 miscarriages myself, I don't need anyone telling me over and over again that I did something to cause it...I do that very well myself even though I know that I didn't do anything to cause them.



Those "silly gory pictures" as you call them speak "truth to power" as liberals are fond of saying. Only in this case it is a truth that the proaborts don't want to be seen so they will twist words and parse sentences and lie and kick and scream and shout to try to stop people from seeing them and realizing that they truly are looking at a baby that has been dismembered and ripped from their mother's womb.



Somewhere it was said that the baby was being left out and the response was that to show that part of the abortion would mean showing private parts on TV. Actually, they could have shown the ultrasound that was used to show the baby during the abortion...that would allow the baby's view of the "choice" to be seen and experienced. But then we would have another "Silent Scream" controversy with one side claiming that the "glob of tissue" has no clue what is going on and doesn't feel any pain and the other side being shown proof positive that the baby is alive, does feel pain and knows exactly what is going on and we can't have that on national TV b/c it just might change some more hearts and minds...

Posted by: sam at October 25, 2007 7:54 AM


sam, I'm sorry to hear about your miscarriages. What on earth do PCers think an aborted baby is going to look like? It's a mess!

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 7:59 AM


"Labor and Delivery is not a piece of cake, epidural or not."

Certainly can't speak for everyone, but it was piece of cake for me!

Raising the little buggers however cannot be helped with an epidural.

And getting a cavity filled was much worse.

Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 8:15 AM


The difference between a miscarriage and an abortion should be obvious.

Since the mother had absolutely nothing to do with the advent of the miscarriage, accusing her of causing it would be superfluous.

The mother choosing abortion, however, has done just that. Chosen. Actively made a decision and then cooperated in the act that subsequently led to the demise of her child.

Telling someone that was a victim of a convenience store robbery that they were culpable for the crime is just silly.

Telling the thief that HE was culpaple is called justice.

The comparison is ludicrous. I'm surprised you made it Erin.

As to the gory pictures, did you feel the same way when Laura showed us her "vulture and child" pic?

Or when we saw that little girl running away from a napalm bomb in viet nam.

Or the Daniel Pearl video?

I think not. This only bothers you, because it echoes your own, albeit buried in your subconscious, feelings.

Those pictures aren't meant to conjure up feelings of peace and well being. They are meant to show the truth. If the truth is upsetting, why are you surprised? People who choose abortion, habitually choose paths that offer the least amount of unpleasantness. Isn't that why they had the abortion to begin with? To avoid less than pleasant feelings? To avoid challenge, and meeting their problems head on? Isn't that the point of abortion?

So it is no wonder that you refer to these photos as "gory" or "silly"...Anything that takes effort appears to be silly to you guys from where I sit.

Integrity, courage, decency are not words that come to mind when I think of abortion. Just like they aren't words that come to your mind, when you see those pictures.

Posted by: mk at October 25, 2007 8:28 AM


Bravo, Sam and MK. I am surprised that Erin would have made that comparison, too. Surely she knew how easily rebutted it would have been?

Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 8:40 AM


Well, why is it, that if abortion is "such a good choice", why is it such a struggle for these girls?

Because sometimes there are conflicts. Many times, a pregnancy is continued because on balance it's wanted, though the conflicts can make that a tough decision too.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 9:03 AM


SoMG: The two evils being abortion on the one hand, and unwanted pregnancy, labor and delivery, and parenthood, on the other.

Right - neither option may be "good" in the woman's opinion. It's not like women necessarily "like" to have abortions; it may simply just be the best choice in the situation.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 25, 2007 9:05 AM


Erin,

I to had a miscarraige. And I had to have an D&C. It was emotionally awful. Even though I did nothing wrong, to knew what was happnening and it was very painful (both physically and emotionally). I think about my little one who is with Jesus, and it gives me comfort. But I long for the day, when I will meet him or her.

Something not discussed is that we will see these babies again. All of us. We will be held accountable for their lives. They will look at us (especially those who claim they are Christians), and ask why? Why didn't we protect them. We will then have to face God, and what answers are good enough?

For those of us who are PLers - did we invite girls and women to live with us so that they would have a safe place to live and we can mentor them as they prepare to become mothers. Did we help them with childcare, education, job training. We are called to do this. Not just to stand outside PP which is very important, but be active in the care for unwed mothers. Did we look at adoption? God will ask what did we do to help? Did we walk with them. After all, stats say consistantly that over 60% would not choose abortion, if someone would walk that road with them. Are we doing that? If not, then we need to get off our rears and become involoved. We must be engaged. Saying we are pro-life, yet not being involved in some way, is not acceptable. We cannot say to others don't have an abortion, unless we are willing to help.

But this goes past just abortion, it is helping those who are disabled and the elderly. Making sure they have dignity and respect. If we cannot respect life from fertilization to natural death, we are in serious trouble. We need to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Do we want a society where we kill off (euthenize) those we feel are no longer productive or worthy of life? This is where we are headed. We will be held accountable.

For those who are PCers - The questions will be just as difficult. What right do you have in playing God? I realize many don't believe God exsists, but He does. He created each of us. He has a purpose for everyone. What right do you have to cut that off? When did killing the innocent become acceptable? What possible excuse is there for killing innocent human beings. You can no longer use the argument it's a blob, bc technology has proven otherwise. By 6 weeks, the unborn child's heart is beating. Just look at 4D ultrasounds. The most defenseless of all human beings are the unborn. Are career interference, social life, bad timing etc, really good enough reasons to abort? Why aren't PCers willing to walk beside a girl/woman and help, instead of telling her her life will be better off by aborting her baby?

When PCer's face God, what will they say to the little ones who were killed by abortion. How will they respond when those little ones start to ask questions? And what will they say when God starts asking the questions.

I have to wrestle with these questions. What am I doing to change hearts and attitudes? Am I reflecting Jesus to girls who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant? Calling women baby killers if that happens, is not reflecting Jesus. Calling to her and saying I will walk with you, is. There is a huge difference. It is about the attitude of the heart. I do pray outside of PP almost everyday, but I have been working on starting an adoption ministry in my church. We will all be held accountable. All of humanity. I want to stand in front of those lost to abortion and before God and say I am not perfect, but I tried to make a difference.

Posted by: Tara at October 25, 2007 9:42 AM


Tara,

"I to had a miscarraige. And I had to have an D&C."

I am sorry for your loss.

"Something not discussed is that we will see these babies again. All of us. We will be held accountable for their lives."

Only if there really is an afterlife, something that is far from certain.

"We will then have to face God, and what answers are good enough?"

Assuming that there really is a God and that the concept isn't a human construct.

"What right do you have in playing God?"

If one doesn't believe that God exists, one cannot be trying to play God.

"I realize many don't believe God exsists, but He does."

There can never be any proof in either direction that God either exists or does not. It all comes down to what a person is taught and what she decides to believe. What makes one belief (ie. that God exists) any more valid than a competing belief (namely, that God does not exist)? By what basis do you determine that yours is true and mine is not?

"He created each of us. He has a purpose for everyone."

A comforting thought that does not tally with what actually happens in the world.

"When did killing the innocent become acceptable?"

When the "innocent" began infringing on other innocents.

"What possible excuse is there for killing innocent human beings."

One does not have human life until one has a function brain. Before then, one simply has the potential for human life.

"You can no longer use the argument it's a blob, bc technology has proven otherwise."

Technically, at one point it is just a blob of cells.

"By 6 weeks, the unborn child's heart is beating."

A heartbeat does not mean that one possess human life. Human life is accorded by brain function, nothing else.

"The most defenseless of all human beings are the unborn."

Simply because one is defenseless does not mean that others are required to protect and cherish.

"Are career interference, social life, bad timing etc, really good enough reasons to abort? "

Yes.

"Why aren't PCers willing to walk beside a girl/woman and help, instead of telling her her life will be better off by aborting her baby?"

Because sometimes abortion is the best form of aid.

"When PCer's face God, what will they say to the little ones who were killed by abortion. How will they respond when those little ones start to ask questions? And what will they say when God starts asking the questions."

Since its not certain that anyone will face a God, I'm not concerned. I refuse to live my life based on what some hypothetical being (if we can even be certain that our interpretation of what such a being would want) thinks I should do. I am in charge of my own life. No one else.

Posted by: Enigma at October 25, 2007 10:57 AM


Oops, i left out a few words. In my final set of parentheses, the text is supposed to read (if we can even be certain that our interpretation of what such a being would want is accurate).

Posted by: Enigma at October 25, 2007 11:03 AM


Enigma, then don't worry about it. I guess you will know exactly how your life will go.

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 11:17 AM


PiP,

you wrote

Labor and Delivery is not a piece of cake, epidural or not.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 24, 2007 10:07 PM

Not neccessarily. If you had a rough L and D, I believe you.

I had two. No pain drugs whatever. Both cake walks.

Posted by: hippie at October 25, 2007 11:18 AM


Really?!

All the people I know that have had children in the past 10 years tell me "thank god for epidurals, but don't you think it's a walk in the park either."

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 25, 2007 12:35 PM


And also I've witnessed a few and the women did not seem to be having a fun time.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 25, 2007 12:36 PM


Enigma -

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, my 3 year old got sick.

If you are right and there is no God, I will have lost nothing in this life because I will have lived my life trying to protect and help others. I will have strived to emulate Jesus. Most religions reguard him as one of the greatest human beings that ever lived. He lived for others not himself. He was selfless not selfish.

We hold certain ideas as being good, do unto others as you would have done to you. The Golden Rule. Nothing is greater then lying down your life for someone else, bc Jesus did that.

If I am right and there is a God, then I still lose nothing, yet you lose everything. Because I will have put my life in Jesus's hands and tried to make a difference. Yet, you will be lost and I that makes me sad.

You see I wasn't always a Christian. At one time in my life I didn't even want anyone to mention Jesus's name to me. Yet the stories I could share with you of how Jesus reached me and brought me out of darkness is amazing. I could not have done it on my own. I have no doubt that there is a God who sent His son Jesus for the salvation of the entire world. I am not perfect, I'm a sinner (yes I used the word). I don't pretend to be something I'm not, but I know the love, mercy and grace that God wants all of us to have through Jesus.

What girls need to know is 1) There is a better alternative to abortion and 2)if they have had an abortion that there is forgiveness and healing.

When suicide rates among teens who have abortions is 7xs greater then those who choose life, when alcohol and drug use rises 4xs then those who choose life, when the majority of girls seek counseling after abortion becauses of nightmares, guilt, depression, you have to recognize how desctuctive abortion is. Becasuse like it or not, we (women) know that there is a life developing inside. It is not a blob or just tissue. By 7 weeks both hempispheres of the brain are there and developing, the baby has feet and arms and hands. The baby has kidneys, pancreas appendix. The liver is producing bone marrow, Eyes already have some color to them, the intestines are devloping and carry oxygen. You see this isn't a blob.

I might have posted this before but here it is again. If it is a repeat I apologize.

Abortion Causes Mental Disorders: New Zealand Study May Require Doctors to Do Fewer Abortions

Pro-Choice Researcher Says Some Journals Rejected Politically Volatile Findings

Springfield, IL (Feb. 9, 2005) -- A study in New Zealand that tracked approximately 500 women from birth to 25 years of age has confirmed that young women who have abortions subsequently experience elevated rates of suicidal behaviors, depression, substance abuse, anxiety, and other mental problems.

Most significantly, the researchers – led by Professor David M. Fergusson, who is the director of the longitudinal Christchurch Health and Development Study – found that the higher rate of subsequent mental problems could not be explained by any pre-pregnancy differences in mental health, which had been regularly evaluated over the course of the 25-year study.

Findings Surprise Pro-Choice Researchers

According to Fergusson, the researchers had undertaken the study anticipating that they would be able to confirm the view that any problems found after abortion would be traceable to mental health problems that had existed before the abortion. At first glance, it appeared that their data would confirm this hypothesis. The data showed that women who became pregnant before age 25 were more likely to have experienced family dysfunction and adjustment problems, were more likely to have left home at a young age, and were more likely to have entered a cohabiting relationship.

However, when these and many other factors were taken into account, the findings showed that women who had abortions were still significantly more likely to experience mental health problems. Thus, the data contradicted the hypothesis that prior mental illness or other “pre-disposing” factors could explain the differences.

“We know what people were like before they became pregnant,” Fergusson told The New Zealand Herald. “We take into account their social background, education, ethnicity, previous mental health, exposure to sexual abuse, and a whole mass of factors."

The data persistently pointed toward the politically unwelcome conclusion that abortion may itself be the cause of subsequent mental health problems. So Fergusson presented his results to New Zealand’s Abortion Supervisory Committee, which is charged with ensuring that abortions in that country are conducted in accordance with all the legal requirements. According to The New Zealand Herald, the committee told Fergusson that it would be “undesirable to publish the results in their ‘unclarified’ state.”

Despite his own pro-choice political beliefs, Fergusson responded to the committee with a letter stating that it would be “scientifically irresponsible” to suppress the findings simply because they touched on an explosive political issue.

In an interview about the findings with an Australian radio host, Fergusson stated: “I remain pro-choice. I am not religious. I am an atheist and a rationalist. The findings did surprise me, but the results appear to be very robust because they persist across a series of disorders and a series of ages. . . . Abortion is a traumatic life event; that is, it involves loss, it involves grief, it involves difficulties. And the trauma may, in fact, predispose people to having mental illness.”

Journals Reject the Politically Incorrect Results

The research team of the Christchurch Health and Development Study is used to having its studies on health and human development accepted by the top medical journals on first submission. After all, the collection of data from birth to adulthood of 1,265 children born in Christchurch is one of the most long-running and valuable longitudinal studies in the world. But this study was the first from the experienced research team that touched on the contentious issue of abortion.

Ferguson said the team “went to four journals, which is very unusual for us – we normally get accepted the first time.” Finally, the fourth journal accepted the study for publication.

Although he still holds a pro-choice view, Fergusson believes women and doctors should not blindly accept the unsupported claim that abortion is generally harmless or beneficial to women. He appears particularly upset by the false assurances of abortion’s safety given by the American Psychological Association (APA).

In a 2005 statement, the APA claimed that “well-designed studies” have found that “the risk of psychological harm is low.” In the discussion of their results, Fergusson and his team note that the APA’s position paper ignored many key studies showing evidence of abortion’s harm and looked only at a selective sample of studies that have serious methodological flaws.

Fergusson told reporters that “it verges on scandalous that a surgical procedure that is performed on over one in 10 women has been so poorly researched and evaluated, given the debates about the psychological consequences of abortion.”

Following Fergusson’s complaints about the selective and misleading nature of the 2005 APA statement, the APA removed the page from their Internet site. The statement can still be found through a web archive service, however.

Study May Have Profound Influence on Medicine, Law, and Politics

The reaction to the publication of the Christchurch study is heating up the political debate in the United States. The study was introduced into the official record at the senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Also, a U.S. congressional subcommittee chaired by Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) has asked the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to report on what efforts the NIH is undertaking to confirm or refute Fergusson’s findings.

The impact of the study in other countries may be even more profound. According to The New Zealand Herald, the Christchurch study may require doctors in New Zealand to certify far fewer abortions. Approximately 98 percent of abortions in New Zealand are done under a provision in the law that only allows abortion when “the continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger (not being danger normally attendant upon childbirth) to the life, or to the physical or mental health, of the woman or girl.”

Doctors performing abortions in Great Britain face a similar legal problem. Indeed, the requirement to justify an abortion is even higher in British law. Doctors there are only supposed to perform abortions when the risks of physical or psychological injury from allowing the pregnancy to continue are “greater than if the pregnancy was terminated.”

According to researcher Dr. David Reardon, who has published more than a dozen studies investigating abortion’s impact on women, Fergusson’s study reinforces a growing body of literature showing that doctors in New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere face legal and ethical obligations to discourage or refuse contraindicated abortions.

“Fergusson’s study underscores that fact that evidence-based medicine does not support the conjecture that abortion will protect women from ‘serious danger’ to their mental health,” said Reardon. “Instead, the best evidence indicates that abortion is more likely to increase the risk of mental health problems. Physicians who ignore this study may no longer be able to argue that they are acting in good faith and may therefore be in violation of the law.”

“Record-based studies in Finland and the United States have conclusively proven that the risk of women dying in the year following an abortion is significantly higher than the risk of death if the pregnancy is allowed to continue to term,” said Reardon, who directs the Elliot Institute, a research organization based in Springfield, Illinois. “So the hypothesis that the physical risks of childbirth surpass the risks associated with abortion is no longer tenable. That means most abortion providers have had to look to mental health advantages to justify abortion over childbirth.”

But Reardon now believes that alternative for recommending abortion no longer passes scientific muster, either.

“This New Zealand study, with its unsurpassed controls for possible alternative explanations, confirms the findings of several recent studies linking abortion to higher rates of psychiatric hospitalization. depression, generalized anxiety disorder, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, poor bonding with and parenting of later children, and sleep disorders,” he said. “It should inevitably lead to a change in the standard of care offered to women facing problem pregnancies.”

Some Women May Be At Greater Risk

Reardon, a biomedical ethicist, is an advocate of “evidence-based medicine”—a movement in medical training that encourages the questioning of “routine, accepted practices” which have not been proven to be helpful in scientific trials. If one uses the standards applied in evidence-based medicine, Reardon says, one can only conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the view that abortion is generally beneficial to women. Instead, the opposite appears to be more likely.

“It is true that the practice of medicine is both an art and a science,” Reardon said. “But given the current research, doctors who do an abortion in the hope that it will produce more good than harm for an individual woman can only justify their decisions by reference to the art of medicine, not the science.”

According to Reardon, the best available medical evidence shows that it is easier for a woman to adjust to the birth of an unintended child than it is to adjust to the emotional turmoil caused by an abortion.

“We are social beings, so it is easier for people to adjust to having a new relationship in one’s life than to adjust to the loss of a relationship,” he said. “In the context of abortion, adjusting to the loss is especially difficult if there any unresolved feelings of attachment, grief, or guilt.”

By using known risk factors, the women who are at greatest risk of severe reactions to abortion could be easily identified, according to Reardon. If this were done, some women who are at highest risk of negative reactions might opt for childbirth instead of abortion.

In a recent article published in The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, Reardon identified approximately 35 studies that had identified statistically validated risk factors that most reliably predict which women are most likely to report negative reactions.

“Risk factors for maladjustment were first identified in a 1973 study published by Planned Parenthood,” Reardon said. “Since that time, numerous other researchers have further advanced our knowledge of the risk factors which should be used to screen women at highest risk. These researchers have routinely recommended that the risk factors should be used by doctors to identify women who would benefit from more counseling, either so they can avoid contraindicated abortions or so they can receive better follow up care to help treat negative reactions.”

Feeling pressured by others to consent to the abortion, having moral beliefs that abortion is wrong, or having already developed a strong maternal attachment to the baby are three of the most common risk factors, Reardon says.

While screening makes sense, Reardon says that in practice, screening for risk factors is rare for two reasons.

“First, there are aberrations in the law that shield abortion providers from any liability for emotional complications following an abortion,” he said. “This loophole means that abortion clinics can save time and money by substituting one-size-fits-all counseling for individualized screening.

“The second obstacle in the way of screening is ideological. Many abortion providers insist that it is not their job to try to figure out whether an abortion is more likely to hurt than help a particular woman. They see their role as to ensure that any woman who wants an abortion is provided one.”

“This ‘buyer beware’ mentality is actually inconsistent with medical ethics,” Reardon said. “Actually, the ethic governing most abortion providers’ services is no different than that of the abortionists: ‘If you have the money, we’ll do the abortion.’ Women deserve better. They deserve to have doctors who act like doctors. That means doctors who will give good medical advice based on the best available evidence as applied to each patient’s individual risk profile.”

Fergusson also believes that the same rules that apply to other medical treatments should apply to abortion. “If we were talking about an antibiotic or an asthma risk, and someone reported adverse reactions, people would be advocating further research to evaluate risk,” he said in the New Zealand Herald. “I can see no good reason why the same rules don't apply to abortion.”

Sources:

David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth M. Ridder, “Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(1): 16-24, 2006.

I don't know how old you are, but if you were born after 1973, you should be grateful that your mother chose life and not dismemberment, burned, potassium chloride injected, or to almost be born and being stabbed in the back of the neck with scissors and had your brains sucked out. I am grateful everyday, that my mother chose life. It is a greatest gift of all.



Posted by: Tara at October 25, 2007 12:42 PM


PIP, with all due respect, every labor/birth is different. I have met many women who have told me that they didn't even need pain meds while they were in labor. Some say that labor is like "menstrual cramps"...[[I should have been so lucky]] Mine felt like someone had taken an ice pick to my stomach and back...... Epidural please. You are numb from the waist down. You can even sleep while you are in labor. It just depends on the person.

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 12:43 PM


Yeah heather, that makes sense. Every pregnancy is different as well--some have harder times with others. It's all very individual I guess.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 25, 2007 12:47 PM


Carrie made an incorrect, broad statement about the validity of emotions. All you guys did was prove my point.

Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 12:55 PM


Erin, hello. Just want to clear the air. It may sound like I hate women who have had abortions. Not so. I hate the act itself. The act. I have established plenty of friendships with women who have terminated their pregnancies. We talk about other things. Fashion, make up, men...you know. It isn't like I sit around and nag them to death about it. I just don't agree with what they have done.

Posted by: heather at October 25, 2007 1:34 PM


Heahter- I realize that. The only point that I have been trying to make is a counterpoint to Carrie saying, hey, if someone feels guilty, it's because they should. I'm trying to point out the thousands of occasions where people feel guilty about things they have no business feeling guilty about.

Posted by: Erin at October 25, 2007 1:41 PM


Tara,

"If you are right and there is no God, I will have lost nothing in this life because I will have lived my life trying to protect and help others."

That depends, actually. What if you're wrong in your interpretation of what God is? What if the deity that is out there isn't the Christian God? What if its the god(s) of some other religion? And what if its a jealous God that will be angry that you've been following the wrong religion for all these years? What then?

"If I am right and there is a God, then I still lose nothing, yet you lose everything."

That also depends. For that statement to be true, there would have to be no costs to worshiping or believing. That may be true for you, but it is not for me.

Also, for that statement to be true, the being out there would have to be the Christian God. Otherwise (see above), you could very easily loose.

That statement also requires the existence of a vindictive God who would punish his creations for using the facilities (ie. the mind) that he gave them. Contradictory, no?

"Yet the stories I could share with you of how Jesus reached me and brought me out of darkness is amazing. I could not have done it on my own."

And I could not have done it unless I turned away. I had to recognize that I was on my own before I could get anywhere.

"I have no doubt that there is a God who sent His son Jesus for the salvation of the entire world."

You're perfectly entitled to that belief; however, you belief is not enough to make that statement true.

"What girls need to know is 1) There is a better alternative to abortion and 2)if they have had an abortion that there is forgiveness and healing."

How condescending of you to assume that you know all. How could you possibly know that there is always a better alternative to abortion? And who are you to give forgiveness?

"When suicide rates among teens who have abortions is 7xs greater then those who choose life, when alcohol and drug use rises 4xs then those who choose life,"

Correlation is not causation.

Multiple, reputable studies have shown that post-abortion syndrome is a myth. On the whole, women who seek abortions are better off afterwards. Granted, abortions may lead to problems if one is prone to psychiatric issues, but if one is not, abortion will generally not bring something on that wasn't already there.

"Becasuse like it or not, we (women) know that there is a life developing inside."

And how do you know that I'm not a woman?

"It is not a blob or just tissue. By 7 weeks both hempispheres of the brain are there and developing, the baby has feet and arms and hands. The baby has kidneys, pancreas appendix. The liver is producing bone marrow, Eyes already have some color to them, the intestines are devloping and carry oxygen. You see this isn't a blob."

I never said when the fetus was a blob. I'm short on time so I'm not going to get into a debate on fetal development. Still, development is not indicative that one has human life. One must have a functioning brain to have human life.

I've seen the study before. It would be more convincing if adults that had no previous indications of mental illness never suddenly came down with psychiatric problems. Since this is not the case, I fail to see your point.

Posted by: Enigma at October 25, 2007 2:52 PM


Bah. Why doesn't abortion just go away already. =(

And no, I don't think that illegalizing it will make it go away. If anything, I think that would make it worse.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 25, 2007 4:20 PM


Stephanie, I agree. They should make murder legal again, making it illegal didn't make it go away.

Posted by: jasper at October 25, 2007 4:34 PM


And rape, don't forget rape!

Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 4:38 PM


I can understand his state-level argument. I mean every state decides whether to have the death penalty; what types to use; what constitutes capital cases; how it is determined.

Each state has its own measure of time in prison or jail for certain crimes, etc. In general many states have their own ways of dealing with crime-so it makes sense that he would want to leave it that way when it comes to criminalizing abortion as well.

Besides, he is a libertarian, those guys love to leave everything to the state. That way the federal government holds ultimately less power.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 25, 2007 5:35 PM


whoa where did it go?

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 25, 2007 5:35 PM


Dear Enigma -

There is only one God Creator of heaven and eart. And He has written on every heart a yearning to know Him. We may chose to ignore, deny, or turn away, but that doesn't negate God. As I understand what you said, God must be cruel. We should not misunderstand discipline or consequences as being vengeful.

I was commanded not to judge, therefore I won't. That's God's job. I was commanded to love, and I try to be obediant to that.

So to end, God has given us free will therefore, our consequences are our own. Wonderful are His works and our soul knows it.

Thank you for talking with me.

Posted by: Tara at October 25, 2007 5:51 PM


Tara: According to Reardon, the best available medical evidence shows that it is easier for a woman to adjust to the birth of an unintended child than it is to adjust to the emotional turmoil caused by an abortion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course, the nanosecond you invoke the name "Reardon," you know that you're dealing with total, unadulterated bull"S".

Posted by: Laura at October 25, 2007 7:47 PM


Of course, the nanosecond you invoke the name "Reardon," you know that you're dealing with total, unadulterated bull"S".

Posted by: Laura at October 25, 2007 7:47 PM



Why? Just b/c you don't agree with him? We could easily and with more evidence say the same about Guttmacher (the unadulterated bull"S" part...) but I don't think I've seen anyone use that as the basis for their argument. They tend to back it up with facts to prove that someone is what they say he is. Just b/c you don't personally believe what a scientist/psychologist/sociologist/climatologist (get my drift) is saying doesn't mean that what they are saying isn't true. Have you really looked into his research? Have you looked at his studies in depth or looked at anyone else's research into his studies? Have you gone out and done studies of your own that prove what he is saying is bunk? Until you've done some research of your own, how can you in all honesty say that it's bunk?

Posted by: sam at October 25, 2007 8:03 PM


Have you gone out and done studies of your own that prove what he is saying is bunk? Until you've done some research of your own, how can you in all honesty say that it's bunk?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh, because his "Ph.D" in Bioethics was purchased from Pacific Western University, a low-end diploma mill with no actual facility or faculty that never offered a major in Bioethics.

For $2500.00 you can be "Dr." Sam, and ever bit as legitimate as "Dr." David Reardon.
The man is a poor-quality liar.

Posted by: Laura at October 25, 2007 8:58 PM


Laura, he has 3 Ph.D's according to Answers.com...One of them is from PWU, one is his electronics engineering degree (I assume). I'm going to email him, since his number has changed and I can't get through that way, and I'll get the info on where that third PH.D came from, so we can settle this once and for all. I'm so tired of hearing you lie about him.

Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 9:26 PM


Jasper, Bethany:

I don't see abortion as similar to murder or rape at all. Murder and rape are infringing the rights of fully-formed human beings, I simpy don't put fetii in that catagory, and I probably never will.

To me, early human fetii are no different than the mice fetii that are dissected in my research lab every day. I don't feel any sense of awe when looking at them, just because they are human. Just kind of a intellectual interest.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 25, 2007 9:51 PM


I guess we simply disagree, Stephanie.

Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 9:58 PM


And why do you want abortion to go away, if that's really how you feel? Why do you care?

Posted by: Bethany at October 25, 2007 9:58 PM


Laura,

Just b/c you don't believe his degree is legit doesn't make any of his research less legit. Just the addition of a few extra letters at the end of a name shouldn't add credence to anyone's research and conclusions. There are hundreds of people with those letters after their names who have falsified research and massaged data to make it say what they want it to say...just off the top of my head the S. Korean cloning scientist comes to mind. I truly don't believe you need those letters after your name to come up with legit studies, gather the data and come to conclusions. Anyone with a brain in their head can do that. I had to do that quite a few times in my academic years and I don't have that many extra letters either before or after my name! You don't have to be an expert in a field of study in order to give credence to your conclusions. It helps but it isn't necessary as long as you can show how you got from point A to B and back it up with solid research than that should be enough.

Posted by: sam at October 25, 2007 10:17 PM


If abortion went away, I wouldn't be lurking around on abortion forums all day long. ;)

I'm just tired of all the arguing. The easiest way to do that is to just get rid of abortion (ie, the need for abortion, which I think you agree with, kind of).

But then that brings up arguments about the best way to do this. I think it should be through comprehensive sex education so kids that do have sex know how to keep from getting pregnant, others think abstinence-only is the way to go. So it's a never ending cycle of argument and nothing gets done.

Posted by: Stephanie at October 25, 2007 10:48 PM


That should read "I'm just tired of all the arguing. The easiest way to get rid of the arguing is to just get rid of abortion (ie, the need for abortion, which I think you agree with, kind of)."

Posted by: Stephanie at October 25, 2007 10:49 PM


I don't know how old you are, but if you were born after 1973, you should be grateful that your mother chose life and not dismemberment, burned, potassium chloride injected, or to almost be born and being stabbed in the back of the neck with scissors and had your brains sucked out. I am grateful everyday, that my mother chose life. It is a greatest gift of all.

Posted by: Tara at October 25, 2007 12:42 PM


Women had abortions before 1973.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2007 2:11 AM


I wonder if we have a problem with not targeting the target.

It's been said that abortion IS about a woman's 'right to choose'. Sorry but abortion is the CONSEQUENCE of her 'choice'. Too many of us have spent far too much time in this empty hole!

Abortion is the killing of children who have been denied their human rights (not their 'legal person' rights of birth); denied their identity by calling then 'fetus' rather than 'baby'; and, denied them caring .... because it's the pregnant woman's concern/decision -- (not ours) ... to be marked by 'wantedness' as being the necessary criteria for continued existence.

I think it's time for better aim! A movie about 'choosing' is NOT about abortion.

Posted by: John McDonell at October 26, 2007 8:25 AM


Anonymous -

Yes, but the government didn't sanction it. It was illegal. No where does the Constitution say we have a right to kill unborn children. Read the Preamble - the greatest of these rights is life!

And there weren't over 1 million done a year. With all the condoms, birth control, "safe sex" that has been jammed down our throats in the last 35 years, the abortion rate is ridiciulous. The argument was that condoms and birth control would make abortion extremely rare. I don't call over 1 million, 4,500 a day extremely rare.

On top of it abortion split the women's movement in the 60's. The founding mothers of feminisim were against abortion like Jane Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Pearl Buck, Elizabeth Stanton, Lois Weber. There are plenty more I can name. They all agreed that abortion was completely anti-woman. They believed that anyone who made a woman feel abortion was the answer had serious issues.

Posted by: Tara at October 26, 2007 9:01 AM


You don't have to be a medical doctor to see or prove that abortion is bad for women. David Reardon of the Elliot Institute has done excellent studies on post-abortion trauma.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2007 9:07 AM


Anonymous at 9:07, was me.

Posted by: Gabby at October 26, 2007 9:11 AM


Women had abortions before 1973.

Not legally at the rate of a million and a half a year.

Your odds of being born definitely got worse in 1973.

Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 9:30 AM


Amen, John McD!
CHOICE does NOT justify killing a baby.

A challenge to PCR'S: Can a reasonable argument in favor of abortion be made without using the following cliches: "CHOICE", "CHOOSE", "EMPOWERMENT", "EMPOWER", "IT'S MY BODY", "I CAN DO WHAT I WANT"?

Posted by: Gabby at October 26, 2007 9:42 AM


MK,

And we can't be certain it was even half a million. It may have been more, or considerably less. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was one of the falsified statistics Dr. Nathanson said was thrown out to the public.

Tara,

An excellent point about the founding mothers of feminism. They also fought for laws to end child exploitation, to protect women from abuse, and to end slavery and inequality. Truly great women. I understand that some of them supported the outlawing of alcohol because they felt it made men less responsible. Too much time and money in the saloon meant neglected families. These women definitely held men accountable!
I've heard it said that Susan B. Anthony would have personally led the charge against abortion clinics were she alive today.

Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 9:43 AM


Gabby,

"A challenge to PCR'S: Can a reasonable argument in favor of abortion be made without using the following cliches: "CHOICE", "CHOOSE", "EMPOWERMENT", "EMPOWER", "IT'S MY BODY", "I CAN DO WHAT I WANT"?"

No human being has the right to impose upon on another individual's person without that other individual's express consent. There is no reason why a human fetus should be accorded rights that human beings do not possess. Thus, the fetus has no right not to be aborted while the woman in question is perfectly within her to deny the fetus the ability to impose upon her person.

Posted by: Enigma at October 26, 2007 9:51 AM


A challenge to PCR'S: Can a reasonable argument in favor of abortion be made without using the following cliches: "CHOICE", "CHOOSE", "EMPOWERMENT", "EMPOWER", "IT'S MY BODY", "I CAN DO WHAT I WANT"?

Posted by: Gabby at October 26, 2007 9:42 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I dunno.
I'd be thrilled If I never had to hear the clicheed "God" "Jesus" "Baby" "Murder" or "Butcher" -none of which have anything to do with this debate.

Posted by: Laura at October 26, 2007 9:51 AM


Enigma, 9:51am

I believe that on another thread you agreed that this argument applies right up until the ninth month and the woman can dispose of the fetus at any time for any reason she wants.

Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 9:54 AM


Here comes Laura. Watch the drama queen in action. Always trying to be funny. Honey, don't quit your day job:]

Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 9:59 AM


Mary,

"I believe that on another thread you agreed that this argument applies right up until the ninth month and the woman can dispose of the fetus at any time for any reason she wants."

Yes, I did. I believe that a woman should be able to expel the fetus from her womb at any time. After viability, however, I would prefer that the fetus be expelled in such a way so that it can survive. In lieu of legislation that allows this, I would argue that a woman should be able to have an abortion at any point during pregnancy.

Posted by: Enigma at October 26, 2007 10:03 AM


I think women today are much smarter than the feminists of the 1950's, '60's, and '70's. In the name of reproductive rights, they've shot themselves in the foot, so to speak. In the meantime, we need to keep praying for the conversion of the abortionists and for women and girls who feel they have no way out but abortion.

Posted by: Gabby at October 26, 2007 10:08 AM


Enigam,

Thank you. But why would you want the fetus to survive? What difference does it make? What if the woman just wants it dead, period?

Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 10:23 AM


Enigma,
I appreciate your giving it a try!

Enigma, 9:51 says,
"No human being has the right to impose upon on another individual's person without that other individual's express consent. There is no reason why a human fetus should be accorded rights that human beings do not possess. Thus, the fetus has no right not to be aborted while the woman in question is perfectly within her(right) to deny the fetus the ability to impose upon her person."

Are you in effect saying that the fetus, by it's own existence, is imposing upon the rights of the mother without the mothers consent? That's not a reasonable argument for abortion in my book. Let me explain:

Regarding you first statement, "No human being has the right to impose upon on another individual's person without that other individual's express consent." It can be argued that in the case of traffic laws, a policeman can give a driver a ticket (an imposition) for running a red light, whether that driver wants it (consents) or not. There are many other examples of situations where we must do what we don't want (or "consent") to do, ie. paying taxes, refraining from punching someone who makes you angry, etc... Not aborting a baby could be considered one of those things (and in my opinion, does), so the argument doesn't hold up

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2007 10:55 AM


Sorry, 10:55 Anonymous was me again.

Posted by: Gabby at October 26, 2007 10:56 AM


SoMG (first post),

I'm pro-life so he won't be MY gynecologist. Calling an abortionist a gynecologist is an insult to gynecologists. It's like calling a child who roasts marshmallows over a camp fire a gourmet chef.

Posted by: Gabby at October 26, 2007 11:09 AM


Gabby,

In fact Tiller does not have the credentials of a gynecologist. I have no idea where SOMG gets this notion. I understand he is credentialled in family practice.
Delivering babies doesn't make a midwife an obstetrician and performing late term abortions does not make one a gynecologist.

Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 11:16 AM


Gabby,

There is a difference between sex and laws that govern society. By participating in a society, one has tacitly consented to obey its laws. There is no similar structure that governs sexual acts.

"Are you in effect saying that the fetus, by it's own existence, is imposing upon the rights of the mother without the mothers consent?"

Only if the woman did not want to become pregnant. Otherwise, its permissible infringement.

"It can be argued that in the case of traffic laws, a policeman can give a driver a ticket (an imposition) for running a red light, whether that driver wants it (consents) or not."

You're trying to stretch your analogy way too far. As discussed above, the individual in question has already tacitly consented to the system and the rules of the system.

Additionally, the policeman is not violating any one's rights. In contrast, a fetus can be violating another's rights. Violating another's rights in not permitted by the rules of the system (see above). Thus, under the rules of the system, a woman should be able to restore her rights to her own body.

"There are many other examples of situations where we must do what we don't want (or "consent") to do, ie. paying taxes, refraining from punching someone who makes you angry, etc..."

I love this argument. In effect, you're arguing that since we don't consent to everything and that we can't control everything that happens to us, we shouldn't have the option of choosing to consent or not even when we have the option of doing so.

"Not aborting a baby could be considered one of those things (and in my opinion, does), so the argument doesn't hold up."

Two points. Abortion does not involve babies. Abortion typically involves a fetus. A fetus may be a potential baby, but it is not a baby.

Your analogy is what doesn't hold up. You opinion also does not negate the opinions of another.

Posted by: Enigma at October 26, 2007 11:34 AM


Mary,

"But why would you want the fetus to survive?"

Since fetuses are potential human lives, they should not be thrown away indiscriminately. One should think long and hard before making such a decision.

After viability, the fetus can survive on its own. Since it no longer needs to infringe upon the woman to survive, it should be permitted to survive once it has been expelled from an environment where it had no right to be.

"What if the woman just wants it dead, period?"

Women who get abortions are not interested in killing an unwanted fetus; rather, they are interested in removing said fetus from their bodies. Though the result may be the same, the intent is not.

Posted by: Enigma at October 26, 2007 11:38 AM


Can a reasonable argument in favor of abortion be made without using the following cliches: "CHOICE", "CHOOSE", "EMPOWERMENT", "EMPOWER", "IT'S MY BODY", "I CAN DO WHAT I WANT"?

Gabby, people desire things, and in general we let them do them. Where we do not is where they interfere with the rights of other people, or where society is harmed.

I realize you could argue that abortion does those things, but your opinion doesn't make it so. Who says an argument has to be made for abortion in the first place? If you're the one pregnant, then Pro-Choicers are in favor of you doing what is best for you.

If you're not, then the burden of proof is on you. You want to take away the freedom that women have in this matter, then you ought to have a persuasive argument, you ought to be able to demonstrate just why we really need to ban or further restrict abortion. You cannot do that.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 11:49 AM


Enigma,

Fetuses are thrown away indiscriminately to the tune of over a million per year.

Enigma, when a woman has an abortion the purpose is to kill and remove the fetus. The procedure of abortion does just that. Its absurd to argue that the only intention is removal and not killing. That's like arguing the purpose of infanticide is not to kill, but to remove the child from a society that doesn't want it.

Please answer my question. If the woman decides in the last trimester, and I have read of such cases, that she wants the child out of her body and tells the abortionist to do it any way he/she has to, even kill it, is this her right and would you support it? By the way, inducing early labor may result in delivering a baby that can't survive after all, so it will die.

An added note. I can remember newspaper accounts of babies surviving abortions at the university hospital in our state. It was embarassing to say the least. Babies also have been known to survive saline abortions. It was a problem because now what do you do when these things are born alive? One feminist publication referred to this as being born with "signs of life". They were aghast that the cost of keeping them alive would be passed on to the woman.

Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 12:46 PM


Mary, Oh, how horrid. The thought of these poor children being born alive after being tortured.

Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 3:03 PM


Mary,

"Fetuses are thrown away indiscriminately to the tune of over a million per year."

Abortion does not equal indiscriminately throwing away a fetus. Abortion is a choice that many women agonize over. It's not something that is generally done lightly.

"Enigma, when a woman has an abortion the purpose is to kill and remove the fetus. The procedure of abortion does just that. Its absurd to argue that the only intention is removal and not killing."

Though the process of abortion does generally kill the fetus (indeed, may of them do so directly) that does not mean that the purpose of abortion is not simply to remove the fetus from a woman's body. Results are not necessarily indicative of intent. The difference here is very subtle but it is there.

"That's like arguing the purpose of infanticide is not to kill, but to remove the child from a society that doesn't want it."

This analogy really doesn't address the issue.

"If the woman decides in the last trimester, and I have read of such cases, that she wants the child out of her body and tells the abortionist to do it any way he/she has to, even kill it, is this her right and would you support it? By the way, inducing early labor may result in delivering a baby that can't survive after all, so it will die."

Morally, I'd have some qualms about it but I would support her choice.

"It was a problem because now what do you do when these things are born alive?"

I need to know more about that issue before I can comment.

Posted by: Enigma at October 26, 2007 3:38 PM


Enigma says 11:34am,
I love this argument. In effect, you're arguing that since we don't consent to everything and that we can't control everything that happens to us, we shouldn't have the option of choosing to consent or not even when we have the option of doing so.

Not really. I thought I made my point pretty effectively. You miss the point. Consider natural law vs. man-made law, moral truths vs. moral relativism, baby at fertilization vs. baby at viability. See the definition of "viable" in wikipedia. Interesting. If not disturbed, that fetus/ baby has a pretty good chance of being born a human baby, therefore it can be considered "viable" from the very start - at fertilization (in my humble opinion).

If you believe morality and ethical behavior is all relative, and are not willing to consider the existence of natural law, there is no more argument left for me.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2007 3:54 PM


Anon. -that's me.

Posted by: Gabby at October 26, 2007 3:55 PM


Gabby,

"Not really. I thought I made my point pretty effectively. You miss the point."

"Consider natural law vs. man-made law, moral truths vs. moral relativism, baby at fertilization vs. baby at viability."

And who decides what natural law is? Who decides what moral truth is? What makes your interpretation the correct one?

As you miss the point of mine.

"See the definition of "viable" in wikipedia."

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. I know people who sabotage the articles. In this case, viability is defined on wikipedia incorrectly.

vi·a·ble /ˈvaɪəbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[vahy-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. capable of living.
2. Physiology.
a. physically fitted to live.
b. (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
3. Botany. able to live and grow.
4. vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses: a period of history that few teachers can make viable for students.
5. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.
6. having the ability to grow, expand, develop, etc.: a new and viable country.Interesting. If not disturbed, that fetus/ baby has a pretty good chance of being born a human baby, therefore it can be considered "viable" from the very start - at fertilization (in my humble opinion).

"If you believe morality and ethical behavior is all relative, and are not willing to consider the existence of natural law, there is no more argument left for me."

I don't believe that all morals/truths are relative in actuality but that they are in practice. I believe that there are some objective truths in the world but that we can never be certain what they are because each of us is caught up in our own subjective interpretation of them.

Posted by: Enigma at October 26, 2007 4:03 PM


Enigma says:

"I don't believe that all morals/truths are relative in actuality but that they are in practice. I believe that there are some objective truths in the world but that we can never be certain what they are because each of us is caught up in our own subjective interpretation of them."

Regarding the certainty of moral truths, our conscience helps us with that. That's that gnawing feeling we get in our gut when we know something is wrong, but we don't exactly know why. The fact that many people don't follow their conscience is mostly due to laziness or carelessness or ignorance (check out Thomas Aquinas' writings for more on the subject). Many people have said it here before, and I'll say it again. I'd rather err on the side of caution where there is uncertainty. I'm not saying I'm right on this, but it's what I believe.

Have a good Friday night all.

Posted by: Gabby at October 26, 2007 5:08 PM


I don't believe that all morals/truths are relative in actuality but that they are in practice. I believe that there are some objective truths in the world but that we can never be certain what they are because each of us is caught up in our own subjective interpretation of them.

Enigma, what leads you to believe there are objective moral truths?

Does it not make sense that there has to be "somebody" there to care, or there would be no morality?

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 5:21 PM


Enigma, 3:38PM

Whether or not its a decision that is taken lightly or is done indiscriminately does not alter the fact that abortions take place over a million times a year.
I agree about the subtle difference Enigma. Its so subtle its impossible to see it at all. Believe me, no one was thrilled when babies that abortion was supposed to kill were instead born alive. The intent was to have them good and dead when removed from the body.
I think my infanticide analogy addresses the issue very well, maybe too well. Throughout history infanticide wasn't viewed as the wanton killing of children, or even as murder, but rather the removal of certain babies for the betterment of the society.
Thank you for answering my remaining questions.

Posted by: Mary at October 26, 2007 6:01 PM


I'm going out soon, so I don't have time to answer everything. Doug's question intrigued me, however, so I decided to take a stab at it.

Doug,

"Enigma, what leads you to believe there are objective moral truths? Does it not make sense that there has to be "somebody" there to care, or there would be no morality?"

I believe that there are objective truths in this world because I cannot shake my absolute certainty that there are some things in this world that are fundamentally and unquestionably wrong while others are fundamentally and unquestionably right.

Despite this conviction, other aspects of my belief system force me to accept the possibility that my beliefs about fundamental truth may not be universally and unquestionably correct. I am, nevertheless, unwilling--and to some extent, unable--to renounce my aforementioned convictions; thus, I conclude that, while there are objective truths in the world, we are incapable of finding them because we are all caught up in our subjective interpretations of objective truth.

Would it make more sense to believe that there is some kind of deity from which objective truth flows? Absolutely. Would it be easier for me to adhere to my belief structure if I believed there was a God? Undoubtedly. Would such a belief enable me to negate my uncertainty about the possibility of finding objective truth? Probably. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that there is no such entity. The path of least resistance, though by far the easiest to tread, is seldom the correct road to travel.

Doug

Posted by: Enigma at October 26, 2007 7:08 PM


Oops. I didn't mean to leave Doug's name at the bottom of that, I forgot to delete Doug's name when I cut and pasted. Sorry about that.

Posted by: Engima at October 26, 2007 7:09 PM


Enigma, well said. I'd add that if there would be a deity or other "higher" beings than us earthly humans, they too would be a "somebody" as far caring and having feelings of good/bad/right/wrong in the moral realm.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 7:31 PM


Enigma,

"No human being has the right to impose upon on another individual's person without that other individual's express consent.

Then why do I have to wear a seatbelt?
Or a helmet when I'm on a motorcycle?
Or get my children vaccinated in order to go to school?
Or have my children indoctrinated by pro choice propaganda in public schools.

Seems to me there is a whole lot of imposing going on without my consent...

Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 8:47 PM


MK, good points about the seatbelt and helmet. I can see kids having to wear them, but for adults who presumably know the risks and won't be hurting other people by not wearing them, then I wonder....

Vaccinations - I think that they are in the kids' interests isn't really up for debate, or is it?

Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 9:03 PM


Enigma 7:08,

I follow your reasoning, but you lost me on the last sentence. What are you referring to when you say "the path of least resistance..."?

Posted by: Gabby at October 26, 2007 11:12 PM


Enigma,

The path of least resistance, though by far the easiest to tread, is seldom the correct road to travel.

While it might make it easier to see things clearly in terms of moral issues, to believe in a higher power that was "absolutely" objective when it comes to morality, following this higher power, especially when it goes against what ones hedonistic side wants, could hardly be called the path of least resistance.

Conversely, I think that believing in a higher, good power, would require you to completely change the way you see the world, and re examine all of the choices you have made and will make.

This would NOT be a path of little resistance. This would be the hardest thing you will ever have to do.

I believe, that you choose NOT to believe in a God, because THAT is your path of least resistance. IT requires nothing from you and allows you to continue to make your choices from a totally "selfish" standpoint. It makes everything all about you and and getting what you want, while accepting God into your life would shift that focus onto others and require much personal sacrifice on your part...

No, I think you are already on the path of least resistance.

God's path is certainly more rewarding, but by no means is it easier.

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."
G K. Chesterton

Posted by: mk at October 27, 2007 5:07 AM


mk 5:07am,

Excellent response. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! That was kind of where I thought he might be going with that, but I didn't have the energy to respond. You're a better philospher than I.

God bless us everyone!

Posted by: Gabby at October 27, 2007 9:16 AM


oops! That's p-h-i-l-o-s-o-p-h-e-r.

Posted by: Gabby at October 27, 2007 9:20 AM


I agree with Gabby, excellent points in your response, Marykay. :)

Posted by: Bethany at October 27, 2007 9:35 AM


MK,

"While it might make it easier to see things clearly in terms of moral issues, to believe in a higher power that was "absolutely" objective when it comes to morality, following this higher power, especially when it goes against what ones hedonistic side wants, could hardly be called the path of least resistance."

In the third paragraph of my post I was emphasizing (reread the questions asked if you wonder why) how I could hold my beliefs about objective truth without believing that there is a god from which objective truth flows.

I completely disagree on what constitutes the path of least resistance. Over and over, I see believers who are fixed, so set in what they have been taught that they stop thinking about the world. They use religion as a crutch. They never question anything and never confront the hard issues. How is that not the path of least resistance?

I may be wrong about what I believe, but at least I can say that I believe what I believe because I wasn't afraid to question what I had been taught. I wasn't afraid to confront those nasty truths about the world. I hide behind nothing.

"Conversely, I think that believing in a higher, good power, would require you to completely change the way you see the world, and re examine all of the choices you have made and will make."

You assume too much. You know absolutely nothing about me. I've honestly been told that any religion would be glad to have me because I'm a pretty moral person. I don't need some hypothetical being looking over my shoulder and judging my every move in order to be and to do good.

"This would NOT be a path of little resistance. This would be the hardest thing you will ever have to do."

Really? One of the hardest things that I've ever had to do led me to become an atheist in the first place. The decision itself was not, but what led me to make it was. Ultimately, I had no choice. Necessity is a strong motivator. I did what I had to do.

"I believe, that you choose NOT to believe in a God, because THAT is your path of least resistance."

Again, you assume too much. With as much thinking and questioning as I do about the world and objective truth, it would be ignorant to call my chosen path easy.

I did not turn away because I sought to make my life easier. If anything, I turned away because I sought to make my life harder. I systematically rejected every source of false comfort because I preferred truth, even if it hurt.

"IT requires nothing from you and allows you to continue to make your choices from a totally "selfish" standpoint. It makes everything all about you and and getting what you want, while accepting God into your life would shift that focus onto others and require much personal sacrifice on your part..."

You assume too much and, in this case, I have neither the time nor the energy to refute you.

"God's path is certainly more rewarding, but by no means is it easier."

See above.

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."
G K. Chesterton

That quote dosen't apply to me. I was fairly religious when I was young. I was the one that was left wanting.

Posted by: Enigma at October 27, 2007 11:36 AM


An added note:

If you need the threat of a hypothetical being looking over your shoulder and judging you in order for you to behave yourself and do good, you aren't a moral person. Morality requires that one has an inward sense of right and wrong and chooses to right simply because it is right and not because there's some parental figure standing overhead and compelling you to do so.

Posted by: Engima at October 27, 2007 11:50 AM


Enigma,

I was fairly religious when I was young. I was the one that was left wanting.


Ahhhhh, now I see. You confuse being religious with being Christian. That's okay. Many people do.

Religion gets in the way of Christianity, actually.

I'm talking about having a relationship with God.
Not about crossing your T's and dotting your I's so that you can label yourself something.

And in rereading my post I think the word selfish came out wrong. I mean it as in "I can do it" as opposed to "I'm gonna need a little help". Putting yourself in God's place so that everything sort of flows in and out of you...

"Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair."
Gilbert K. Chesterton

Posted by: mk at October 27, 2007 6:36 PM


@Enigma,

before this thread is run out there are a few problems here. One of the biggest is your desire for security in writing about something that is very close to you. This being a public site would tend to make almost anyone a wee gun shy!

There are people here who can make your obvious intelligence and good heart dance. I would offer myself, but I could be far too slow-paced for your liking. You can try e-mailing personal stuff to MK or Bethany. Both these ladies have great wisdom and are very, very discrete on confidentiality issues.

You might also wish to share more personal insights with Doug (I'm a volunteering him here as a mentor!) Just go thru MK for the getting of e-mails.

Posted by: John McDonell at October 28, 2007 9:07 AM


I completely disagree on what constitutes the path of least resistance. Over and over, I see believers who are fixed, so set in what they have been taught that they stop thinking about the world. They use religion as a crutch. They never question anything and never confront the hard issues. How is that not the path of least resistance?

I may be wrong about what I believe, but at least I can say that I believe what I believe because I wasn't afraid to question what I had been taught. I wasn't afraid to confront those nasty truths about the world. I hide behind nothing.

Posted by: Enigma at October 27, 2007 11:36 AM

Enigma, do you honestly believe we don't question? To me that shows you know very little about religion/Christianity. We constantly question, wonder, discover. We have Faith and God has answers.

It always makes me laugh when people say "You're hiding behind your religion." No I'm not; I'm shouting it from the tallest tower I can find.

You are correct in saying that my religion changes the way I view the world. And I think I see a lot of things you miss. The miracle in the smallest seed that grows to a tree, the beauty of the mountains, the calmness of the breeze. Without God I would miss these and my life would not be the awe-inspiring journey it is to me.

Posted by: Kristen at October 28, 2007 5:03 PM


MK,

"Ahhhhh, now I see. You confuse being religious with being Christian. That's okay. Many people do."

Actually, I don't. One can be religious (ie. believe in a god and have a relationship with that god) without following a religion. I am aware of this and I have friends who are religious in this sense.

In my own personal life, I tend not to differentiate the two because they occurred simultaneously in my own life. I was religious when I was Christian. When I turned my back on the Christian religion I abandoned my belief in any sort of deity as well.

"Religion gets in the way of Christianity, actually."

I have to admit, you've lost me here.

"And in rereading my post I think the word selfish came out wrong. I mean it as in "I can do it" as opposed to "I'm gonna need a little help". Putting yourself in God's place so that everything sort of flows in and out of you..."

That's a kind of hubris that terrifies me to even think about. I don't think that "everything sort of flows in and out of" me. If anything, I recognize that I am insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I don't put myself if place of a god, I simply deny that there is any form of deity that is in charge of our lives.

"Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair."

Here's an idea. I know you mean well, but the harder you push and the more you preach, the more you push whoever you're talking to away.

Posted by: Enigma at October 28, 2007 5:18 PM


Here's an idea. I know you mean well, but the harder you push and the more you preach, the more you push whoever you're talking to away.


Posted by: Enigma at October 28, 2007 5:18 PM

Only those that don't want to listen. To those that are open she's a kind soul willing to help.

Posted by: Kristen at October 28, 2007 5:22 PM


Kristen,

"Enigma, do you honestly believe we don't question?"

Yes. I've run into far too many believers who refuse to even think about the world. They simply say, "well, the bible says this" or "the church says this" and refuse to even consider any other point of view. Instead of actively thinking about and confronting the world, they let their holy book and their religion do the thinking for them.

"To me that shows you know very little about religion/Christianity. We constantly question, wonder, discover."

I'll believe it when I see it.

"It always makes me laugh when people say "You're hiding behind your religion." No I'm not; I'm shouting it from the tallest tower I can find."

Find your amusement where you will; I'll find mine where I will.

"You are correct in saying that my religion changes the way I view the world. And I think I see a lot of things you miss. The miracle in the smallest seed that grows to a tree, the beauty of the mountains, the calmness of the breeze. Without God I would miss these and my life would not be the awe-inspiring journey it is to me."

Do you honestly think I don't stop and wonder at the marvels of the world? Do you honestly believe that I don't perceive the incredible beauty? God and religion do not have a monopoly on awe, self-awareness, inspiration, marvel, humility, or anything else; despite the human tendency to pretend that they do.

Posted by: Enigma at October 28, 2007 5:24 PM


John,

"One of the biggest is your desire for security in writing about something that is very close to you."

Believe it or not, I have not yet crossed that line. The beliefs that I discuss here are beliefs that I am unafraid to share (well, for the most part...I do have to admit that I'm never planning to tell some of my family members that I'm an atheist. I can do without becoming the family pariah.)

"This being a public site would tend to make almost anyone a wee gun shy!"

Indeed.

"You can try e-mailing personal stuff to MK or Bethany. Both these ladies have great wisdom and are very, very discrete on confidentiality issues.
You might also wish to share more personal insights with Doug (I'm a volunteering him here as a mentor!) Just go thru MK for the getting of e-mails."

I'll keep it in mind. People keep offering but the truth is that I will not confide in anyone that I think has the propensity to condemn me or preach to me.

Posted by: Enigma at October 28, 2007 5:30 PM


Kirsten,

"Only those that don't want to listen. To those that are open she's a kind soul willing to help."

Not necessarily. Sometimes, even when one is open, one finds that one's own internal journey and questioning of previously held beliefs is hindered by such pushing. If done the wrong way, even the most well-intended nudge can make one feel cornered and defensive.

Posted by: Enigma at October 28, 2007 5:32 PM


Enigma,

I'm truly sorry if you see my words as pushing. I just feel that you are in pain, and every motherly instinct tells me to "make the owie better"...

Bad MK, Bad...no more pushing...(Maybe just a little teeny, tiny bit?)

Posted by: mk at October 28, 2007 6:41 PM


And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
Anais Nin

Anxiety is love's greatest killer. It makes others feel as you might when a drowning man holds on to you. You want to save him, but you know he will strangle you with his panic.
Anais Nin

Posted by: mk at October 28, 2007 7:31 PM


Enigma,

Puzzle me this...

They never question anything and never confront the hard issues.

What are the "hard" issues?

Posted by: mk at October 28, 2007 7:33 PM


I'll believe it when I see it.

Perhaps you'll see it when you believe it?

Where are you looking?

Posted by: mk at October 28, 2007 7:35 PM


Enigma, I see your careful and logical posts, and feel so much "the same" as you.

One difference I'm aware of is your feeling that there is fundamental right and wrong in the moral realm.

I don't get that one as it seems obvious to me that there has to be "somebody" with desires and feelings of what they want and don't want in the first place. Otherwise there would be no such thing as morality - there would be no perceptions of the good/bad/right/wrong of anything.

For me, if there was a diety, if there were gods or a god, then that'd satisfy it - those entities could have the perceptions.

If you are in pain in some way, I am curious about that.

porkloin@aol.com

I would never preach to you or condemn you. You're welcome to e-mail me.

Heck, anybody and everybody is welcome to e-mail me.


Best,

Doug

Posted by: Doug at October 29, 2007 11:58 AM