This just gets stickier and stickier.

Ultimately, what is the goal? To have a solid pro-life candidate or have a candidate who will defeat a Democrat candidate?

I'm stumped.

Thomspon is not up to the task. Stick with acting Fred.

Flip-flopping panderer.

Carder - right on - I do see people torn between idealism and practicality there.

Jill, I really agree that Thompson has been screwing up. No political argument here, and I've always liked the guy. Seems like he has squandered any surges in popularity (as well as that nice deep voice) by his performance.

Doug

By the way, Fred Thompson played the college president of the fictional "Texas State University" in the movie "Necessary Roughness." It's a crappy movie, but I bought it for the nice aerial shots of my alma mater, where the movie was filmed.

I liked Thompson for his 1 minute cameo in that movie. Although he's now ruined it for me by being a jackass.

I'm confused about all the PL opposition to Thompson. I was under the impression that you guys wanted a federalist?

We guys want a pro-lifer. He don't count.

To better answer your question, pro-life activism transcends politics. While many of us might support state's rights, we would oppose allowing states to legalize abortion and would instead suggest a Human Life Amendment. While others support big government as a was to protect vulnerable human life, they oppose it in other political areas.

It's all about protecting innocent people from unnatural deaths: medical neglect, euthanasia, abortion, etc.

I get what you're saying Jacqueline, but I don't necessarily think it's realistic.

Right now, you may have a couple of candidates who will say that they support an HLA, but it really doesn't cost them anything, since it hasn't got a snowball's chance of being passed at any point in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, Thompson is at least honest about his adherence to federalist values, which include seeing R v. W overturned. I just don't really get why that's a bad thing.

...to clarify, I don't see why that's a bad thing for your side. My side, on the other hand, would really hate to see R v. W overturned :-)

Carol, why wouldn't you want to see Roe V Wade overturned?

My side, on the other hand, would really hate to see R v. W overturned :-)

So you see my point: Roe totally usurps the will of the people and those they've elected to represent them, but since you love abortion, this gross exercise in judicial power suits you.

So a gross exercise in ANY power that protects innocent babies would go completely unchallenged by me, even though I would oppose it in the lesser political realm.

Heather - because I'm pro-choice.

Jacqueline - I'm sorry, when did I ever suggest that? You seem like the type of person who doesn't like it when people put words in your mouth. I would appreciate it if you didn't do that to me.

Also, no, I don't see your point that Roe usurps the will of the people. First, I'm not a federalist. Second, the will of the people appears to support a woman's right to choose.

Carol, I think you had better take a very good look at what you support. There are 1.3 million abortions annually. Is that okay with you? If so, why? WHO is having these abortions?

Carol, also 45% of abortions are repeats. Abortion has turned men and women into reproductive SLOBS!!!!

Also, have you ever heard any really good reason for an abortion??? I haven't. This is what I hear. "I don't have time for a kid." That's NOT good enough!!!! You sure made the time to have sex.

I'm sorry, when did I ever suggest that?

When you said you wanted to keep Roe. Roes is universally decried as bad constitutional law.

Also, no, I don't see your point that Roe usurps the will of the people. First, I'm not a federalist. Second, the will of the people appears to support a woman's right to choose.

Perhaps people do support abortion, but they didn't in 1973. Roe struck down laws enacted by 50 state legislatures staffed by thousands of state law-makers elected to represent the will of the people. What the states enacted was the will of the people- what the Supreme Court enacted was their will, trumping the voters of the United States.

And why write out "right to choose"? Right to choose what? Can't you just say abortion?

Jacque - I wasn't clear earlier. I meant when you said that "I loved abortion" that you were putting words in my mouth.

Roe may be "universally decried," but I don't know that it's bad constitutional law. It's based upon a series of precedents that allow people to make decisions in their private lives free of state interference, and I'm fine with that.

Also, in 1973 it certainly wasn't all 50 states in which abortion was criminalized from what I can recall. I believe that there were a couple of states that had either just struck down their abortion restrictions or had taken most of the teeth out of them.

Finally, sure, the right to choose includes the right to choose an abortion. I'm fine with saying the word abortion, but as I hope that I've made clear, to me, the right to choose means just that....the right to make the choice, whichever way the woman decides to go.

Also, Heather, I don't think I'm qualified to make a judgment about whether a woman has a really good reason to choose an abortion without knowing her circumstances. That's one of the many reasons that I'm pro-choice.

One of the MANY reasons you're pro choice? Give me a few good reasons. I can't think of any. Carol, is it okay with you that abortionists don't turn in child molesters? I would think that you would be totally appalled at that. Is it okay with you that abortionists molest, rape, and stalk their patients? Is it okay to kill your baby?

Carol, didn't your husband help to build the baby killing mill in Aurora?

Jacque - I wasn't clear earlier. I meant when you said that "I loved abortion" that you were putting words in my mouth.

If you don't love it, why support it?

Roe may be "universally decried," but I don't know that it's bad constitutional law. It's based upon a series of precedents that allow people to make decisions in their private lives free of state interference, and I'm fine with that.

There's no constitutional basis for it or it's precedents, which is why it makes it bad constitutional law. Whether one agrees with the outcome or not, no where in the constitution does it say that we are guarenteed the right to dismember our own children.

Also, in 1973 it certainly wasn't all 50 states in which abortion was criminalized from what I can recall.

You're right. Colorado, New York and California had legalized abortion in certain contexts. Certainly not the "no-holds-barred through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason" legalization, but legalized nonetheless.

Beyond that, 3 out of 50 is 6%. So 94% of states opposed Roe. That's the will of the people. And certainly, if the other 94% willed it, like CA, NY and CO, they could have legalized it without the SCOTUS strong-arming them.
I believe that there were a couple of states that had either just struck down their abortion restrictions or had taken most of the teeth out of them.

Finally, sure, the right to choose includes the right to choose an abortion.

Great! It's just that so many people are for legalized abortion, but dare not speak it's name.

Also, any real woman would/should never be okay with abortionists covering the tracks of child molesters. It really makes you just as bad as the molester.

Heather - sort of, he did the secondary surveying work after they had received their building permit.

Jacqueline - If I don't love it I can't support it? That's silly. There are a lot of things that I don't love that I nonetheless support. Like...I support states and cities levying taxes in order to provide vital services, but I don't love being taxed.

Also, does it really matter at this point what the laws in the states were at the point that R v. W went into effect? Your point was that it usurped the will of the people, which as reflected in the various states' legislatures may be true. However, it doesn't change the fact that at this point in time, the "will of the people" supports the ruling of R v. W.

Heather, a lot of things that people do appall me. I've seen your litany of bad abortionists, and I agree that if a person rapes, sexually abuses, stalks or harasses someone, that's bad. However, I don't think that your statistically insignificant percentage of bad people who happened to be abortion providers says anything at all about whether abortion should be legal. If I had the time and the inclination, I could provide you with lengthy testimonies about bad cops, bad lawyers, bad firemen, bad teachers, bad priests, and bad parents, all of whom have committed the same bad acts that you put in your lists. Does that mean that cops, lawyers, firemen, teachers, priests and parents should all be condemned as a group? No, and it's ridiculous to think so.

Thompson did not "concur" with Stephanopolous' statement. I don't believe he understood the significance of the term, "brain-dead."

I can't imagine why the Senator's "coaching" would offend any one. He's obviously better suited for talking about small government, defense, and, while his heart is in the right place, he hasn't studied the prolife, profamily issues as deeply as immigration and taxes. Isn't it a good thing that he seeks out reliable advisers and is willing to correct himself as best as he understands and is able?

Senator Thompson has said almost the same thing about the criminalization of abortion at least since he first ran for the Senate. He is trying to get the words right, at least.

I am sure there's a way, but, as a non-lawyer, I wonder how a human life amendment would allow for criminalization directed at abortionists while leaving the mother and her accomplices free from prosecution. Did the anti-slavery amendments allowed slave owners amnesty and only criminalized trafficking.

My biggest fear about all the calls for amendments to the Constitution is the delay and distraction - I am convinced that the changes can be done by Congress and *will* be done by the States, even New York and California. I've also been warned that there is a risk of a call for a Constitutional Convention, where the anti-life, anti-family, anti-God crowd throws out the good stuff.

However, I'm encouraged that Senator is obviously able to learn new things and seems to understand that the words, as well as the topic, are very important to us.

Carol, I don't need your list of bad cops, priests, dentists, etc. I'm SURE they're out there, but this is a blog about abortion. That's why I am sticking on topic.

J. Lewis and Jon O. Shimabukuro, Congressional Research Service
Updated January 28, 2001

Abortion Law Development: A Brief Overview

he law with respect to abortion in mid-19th century America followed the common law of England in all but a few states. By the time of the Civil War, a number of states had begun to revise their statutes in order to prohibit abortion at all stages of gestation, with various exceptions for therapeutic abortions.

1967 saw the first victory of an abortion reform movement with the passage of liberalizing legislation in Colorado. The legislation was based on the Model Penal Code. Between 1967 and 1973, approximately one-third of the states had adopted, either in whole or in part, the Model Penal Code's provisions allowing abortion in instances other than where only the woman's life was in danger.

Jacqueline, it's quite clear that states were slowly lifting abortion bans prior to Roe v Wade. It is pure specualtion to assert that states would place bans on abortion in the event of Roe v Wade being struck down. Anti choice resources would be thinly spread over 50 states in attempt to ensure complete denial of reproductive rights to every woman in this country. I personally don't believe you folks could pull it off.

arol, I don't need your list of bad cops, priests, dentists, etc. I'm SURE they're out there, but this is a blog about abortion. That's why I am sticking on topic.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:24 PM
.......................................................
You wandered away from the subject of abortion into child molestation.

Sally, it's one in the same. Pay attention.

Carol, I don't need your list of bad cops, priests, dentists, etc. I'm SURE they're out there, but this is a blog about abortion. That's why I am sticking on topic.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:24 PM

Yes Heather, but what you do is take examples of some bad people who happen to be abortion providers, and try to argue that from that small sample, all abortion providers must be bad people, and that abortion should therefore be criminalized.

My point was that doing that is a bad argument, it doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny, and it's not convincing.

Carol, you're wrong. They all cover for child molesters. So, I maintain that anyone that condones this is just as bad as a child molester.

Yes Heather, but what you do is take examples of some bad people who happen to be abortion providers, and try to argue that from that small sample, all abortion providers must be bad people, and that abortion should therefore be criminalized.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Actually, obstetricians have the highest malpractice rates of any specialty, have to pay the highest rates for malpractice coverage, and are the most likely of any specialty to lose in court.
Perhaps we should outlaw pregnancy and childbirth to prevent those quacks from harming women and newborns.

Jacqueline, it's quite clear that states were slowly lifting abortion bans prior to Roe v Wade.

6% isn't much of a trend.

It is pure specualtion to assert that states would place bans on abortion in the event of Roe v Wade being struck down

No- it's fact. Many states have their old abortion laws on the books and several others have enacted trigger bans.

Well, Carol- I hate abortion. And I oppose it with everything I am. I hate it because it's the killing of an innocent child.

Many of your ideology hate abortion, too, yet insist it remain legal. The question is, why do you dislike it. If you dislike it for the shame reasons I do, does that not make you pro-life?

Jacqueline-

That was the first step into my conversion process.

Jacqueline -

I didn't say that I love it, nor did I say that I hate it.

Would I very much prefer that we lived in a more utopian society where the burden of child-rearing didn't fall primarily on women, where women aren't shamed or made to feel like sluts/whores/etc. because they happen to have had sex, where everyone has a support system that would allow them to raise a child and still live their life, and where people in general don't think that women need to be protected from making decisions for themselves? Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

However, we don't live in that society, and therefore I support a woman's right to choose. And if that choice is for an abortion, then so be it.

Carol, Excellent answer!

However, we don't live in that society, and therefore I support a woman's right to choose. And if that choice is for an abortion, then so be it.

And because society sucks, you support giving women an option that you recognize to be sh!tty, rather than helping to make life better?

Since life sucks, girls, let's make it worse!!

This is the twisted logic found in another debate we're having about parental consent and notification.

Pro-Choicer: I oppose it because abused girls might incite anger in their abusers if they learn of their pregnancy and intent to abort.

Pro-Lifer: I support getting that abused girl the hell out of the abusive situation, not killing her child and sending her right back home for a beating.

Would I very much prefer that we lived in a more utopian society where the burden of child-rearing didn't fall primarily on women,

Posted by: Carol at November 20, 2007 1:05 PM

Name ONE society where the "burden" of child rearing doesn't fall primarily on the woman. That's just how it is, so until men start bearing children your statement is absurd and has NO possible correlation with abortion.

where women aren't shamed or made to feel like sluts/whores/etc. because they happen to have had sex,
Posted by: Carol at November 20, 2007 1:05 PM

Exactly! So let's kill the babies so the women don't feel like that!

BTW, if someone feels like that then they're a fool.

I'm sorry Jacqueline. I know that you don't agree, but I don't believe for a second that not forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy is making things worse.

Name ONE society where the "burden" of child rearing doesn't fall primarily on the woman. That's just how it is, so until men start bearing children your statement is absurd and has NO possible correlation with abortion.

where women aren't shamed or made to feel like sluts/whores/etc. because they happen to have had sex,
Posted by: Carol at November 20, 2007 1:05 PM

Exactly! So let's kill the babies so the women don't feel like that!

BTW, if someone feels like that then they're a fool.
Posted by: Kristen at November 20, 2007 1:14 PM

Kristin -

My statement completely relates to abortion, and is hardly absurd. Whether every society in history has placed the burden of child-rearing on women is irrelevant. MY point is that it IS the woman's burden, and her choice whether she wants to take it up.

Also, your re-wording of my point about slut-shaming isn't what I said at all. I never said that legal abortion prevents slut-shaming, but it can sometimes be a consequence of it.

Carol, why is she having unprotected sex? This causes pregnancy.

Slut-shaming? Who can shame you into feeling that way?

Abortionists call women sluts all the time.

Edward Allred calls his abortion patients "tramps" and "dogs" on a regular basis. Buy this book...Lime5.

My statement completely relates to abortion, and is hardly absurd. Whether every society in history has placed the burden of child-rearing on women is irrelevant. MY point is that it IS the woman's burden, and her choice whether she wants to take it up.

Also, your re-wording of my point about slut-shaming isn't what I said at all. I never said that legal abortion prevents slut-shaming, but it can sometimes be a consequence of it.

Posted by: Carol at November 20, 2007 1:20 PM

She can make the choice before she has sex. And now if has nothing to do with abortion. This is the way it's been for hundreds of thousands of years and it isn't likely to change, even in a Utopian society so get off the high horse.

And I didn't re-word anything. I cut and pasted so what you said is what you said. Re-read your post.

As Heather said, if you feel like a slut or shameful it's your problem. You feel the way you feel because of YOU not anyone else. Just some more shrugging of responsibility I guess...it's always someone else’s fault, the father (you were supposed to wear a condom!) the baby (it'll ruin my life.) Cry me a river will ya?

Carol,

you wrote:

"what you do is take examples of some bad people who happen to be abortion providers, and try to argue that from that small sample, all abortion providers must be bad people, and that abortion should therefore be criminalized.

My point was that doing that is a bad argument, it doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny, and it's not convincing.

Posted by: Carol at November 20, 2007 12:42 PM

What makes these people bad, is that they are abortion providers. That is they kill human beings. Some may have other faults as well, most of us do. If they also break certain reporting laws, they should be prosecuted.

Abortion has been a crime in many societies because abortion is killing a human being. Abortion was not a crime because people who did it were bad.

Killing is not a crime because bad people kill.

Rather, people are bad if they kill.

Thanks Kristen!!!

where women aren't shamed or made to feel like sluts/whores/etc. because they happen to have had sex

Women that have sex in the right context KNOW they aren't sluts/whores. I know I'm not. Those words bounce right off of me. My married friends that have sex more often than most single people are also immune to such epithets.

If women are ashamed of their choices because that's because they've done something worthy of shame.

I'm sorry Jacqueline. I know that you don't agree, but I don't believe for a second that not forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy is making things worse.

So you love abortion, then?

Who forced you to MAKE the UNWANTED pregnancy?

Carol, there were men who stopped all construction on an abortion clinic in Texas. Now, those were REAL men! They refused to help build a baby killing clinic.

Carol, there were men who stopped all construction on an abortion clinic in Texas. Now, those were REAL men! They refused to help build a baby killing clinic.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 1:49 PM

Right! And (as Jacque says) I can guaran-damn-tee ya that THOSE men are taking a HUGE part in the rearing of their children. Maybe you should pick better men. It's the pathetic losers that are taking their girlfriends/wives to the PP to get an abortion.

Sally,
You wrote,

"resources would be thinly spread over 50 states in attempt to ensure complete denial of reproductive rights to every woman in this country."

Posted by: Sally at November 20, 2007 12:31 PM

An amendment acknowledging and defending the right to life of every human being is not "complete denial of reproductive rights" Every woman would still be able to abstain and use contraceptives. Once a woman is pregnant, she has already reproduced. Abortion does not affect reproduction. It kills a new and distinct life.

Plenty of doctors right now are perfectly willing to deny women sterilization. While I don't agree with these doctors, they are in part denying women reproductive freedom by denying them one means to avoid reproducing. Plenty of women have complained about it, and no one cares.

Carol,

"I don't believe for a second that not forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy is making things worse.

Posted by: Carol at November 20, 2007 1:15 PM

I am not sure what force you mean.

No force is required for pregnancy to continue.

Abortion is the use of force to kill the developing child.

hippie, excellent point! There you have it. Reproductive freedom denied!

With an abortion, you are forcing a child to die!

Kristen, how right you are. Think about it. No child support to pay, no commitment, no wedding vows to take. Sad part is, a lot of these people continue on having sex with each other. Even after the abortion. Then the girl usually ends up pregnant again. These women seem to be looking for love through sex.

Abortions don't empower women. It actually makes them appear weak. They generally drift back to the man who coerced them into the abortion in the first place. Like lost puppies. By then the guy usually finds someone else to pursue [ a real challenge] while the weak woman hangs on to the bread crumbs. No self respect at all.

LIME 5

This is a book everyone concerned about women's health must read!!!

Lime 5, written by Mark Crutcher, exposes and destroys the second great pillar of lies which supports the abortion industry.

The first pillar of lies is that, somehow, abortion does not really destroy a baby. But many in the abortion movement have abandoned that one, as did the man I met at a demonstration holding a sign that said, "Keep baby-killing legal!"

The second pillar of lies, however, requires much more work to destroy. It is the idea that abortion is good for women, that it enhances and serves their lives and health.

The fact is that abortion destroys the women who buy it.

Not only does it destroy them because of the spiritual, physical, and psychological damage it does.

It destroys them because it is the most unregulated surgical industry in the United States.

Women are lied to, injured, sexually abused, and killed in so-called "safe and legal" abortion facilities in this nation.

Many think that "legal" means "moral." Not so.

But many also think that, morality aside, "legal" means "safe." They therefore reason that although abortion is wrong, at least it should be legal for the sake of the lives, health, and safety of women.

Read Lime 5, and you will see documented evidence that "legal" does not mean "safe," especially when it comes to abortion. You will see how the abortion industry does not at all serve the health and safety of women.

You will be shocked, disgusted, and outraged.

And you will have in your hands a tool to challenge supporters of legal abortion, who clamor for the rights and health and safety of women.

The challenge, which I repeat today with a call to all people everywhere, is this: Are those who work so hard to keep abortion legal and available for the sake of the "health and safety of women" willing to work just as hard to see to it that abortion is in fact safe for those same women? Are they willing to examine the evidence that the abortion industry does not protect the health and safety of women, and that the most common surgical procedure in America is also the least regulated? Are they willing to speak out about the abuses documented in studies like LIME 5? If not, why not?

Where, indeed, is the allegiance of those who clamor for the availability of abortion? Is it with the women they claim to care about, or for the abortion industry and those who run it?

This book lays out the challenge, and lays out concrete legislative proposals for the protection of the women of our land.

Priests for Life, and I personally, were privileged to help gather some of the information that is in this book, and to assist Mark Crutcher, the Founder and President of Life Dynamics, Inc., in its production.

Now, Priests for Life is happy to help distribute this book. It is available from the Priests for Life Orders Department at PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314 Tel. (718) 980-4400, ext. 237 or toll free 888-PFL-3448, ext. 237, Fax 718-980-3900, email orders@priestsforlife.org

I will have further comments on Lime 5, and will be glad to answer questions about it, in this section of our web site.

God bless you, and all the women of our country!

Fr. Frank Pavone

If the right to have an abortion is the will of the people and apparently everybody wants it legal..let's put it to a national vote and see what happens. But I'm pretty sure nobody would ever do that. Hmmm, wonder why.

All I was doing was pointing out that circumstances are such that a woman might weigh things and reasonably come to the conclusion that she is neither able nor willing to carry to term and care for a child. Also, I think that it's her business and not mine.

And Heather, I've already figured out what your idea of real men are from the Mr. Brooks/Godfather posts. No thanks.

All I was doing was pointing out that circumstances are such that a woman might weigh things and reasonably come to the conclusion that she is neither able nor willing to carry to term and care for a child

Let's be honest. Let's take our the "able" and just leave willing. Beyong that, let's remember that not killing a child doesn't force the mother to care for the child. Adoption is an option.

In my own personal opinion, he should stick to acting as the D.A. on Law and Order. He seemed to be better at that...

Elizabeth,

We all know abortion on demand would fail on a referendum.

We all know abortion on demand would fail on a referendum.

If written correctly. It only failed in South Dakota because it didn't include a rape/incest exeption, which alienated a lot of anti-abortion people to vote against it. This was the loophole Planned Parenthood exploited.

And Heather, I've already figured out what your idea of real men are from the Mr. Brooks/Godfather posts. No thanks.

Posted by: Carol at November 20, 2007 2:37 PM

It was me that said you should pick better men. I've never seen Mr. Brooks or The Godfather movies so what's your argument with me?

Do you have something against a man who's a teacher with 6 children that he takes to the park? Or teaches to ride a bike? (My husband)

Or maybe you could slam his father, who (besides my husband) is the best man I have ever known and was the kindest, most compassionate man while he spent his last 10 years fighting lymphoma?

Maybe my brother-in-law? An Aurora fireman who puts himself in danger each day and wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice his life rescuing people from a burning building, leaving his wife and daughter behind.

Carol there are plenty of good men out there. Unfortunately for the girls who cry "ME, ME, ME!" they are attracted to more altruistic gals.

"That's NOT good enough!!!! You sure made the time to have sex."

Err.. 1 hour vs 18 years?

Back on topic: I adore Burke Balch. He's anti-medical futility and is on bard with my life's work to overturn our statutes in Texas.

Kristen, how right you are. Think about it. No child support to pay, no commitment, no wedding vows to take. Sad part is, a lot of these people continue on having sex with each other. Even after the abortion. Then the girl usually ends up pregnant again. These women seem to be looking for love through sex.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 2:15 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, it sounds like these women are in love, are loved in return, and just don't want kids.

It's the pathetic losers that are taking their girlfriends/wives to the PP to get an abortion.

Posted by: Kristen at November 20, 2007 1:54 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So if the wife/girlfriend wants an abortion, the man is a loser for taking her to get one?
He sounds like a hero to me.

No, it sounds like these women are in love, are loved in return, and just don't want kids.

So if the wife/girlfriend wants an abortion, the man is a loser for taking her to get one?
He sounds like a hero to me.

No, he is a failure as a man and as a father. He should stand up and protect his children.

No, he is a failure as a man and as a father. He should stand up and protect his children.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 20, 2007 4:17 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, he's a law-abiding American who doesn't want to be a father. Lots of men don't want to be fathers.

No, he's a law-abiding American who doesn't want to be a father. Lots of men don't want to be fathers.

Abortion doesn't make men not-fathers. It makes them the fathers of dead children, whom they helped to kill.

How is that not the absence of manhood?

Abortion doesn't make men not-fathers. It makes them the fathers of dead children, whom they helped to kill.

How is that not the absence of manhood?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 20, 2007 4:26 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What does fatherhood have to do with being a man?
For that matter, anti-abortion activists Randall Terry, Gary Heaven, Eric Rudolph and Neal Horsley have all been tagged for being deadbeat dads. I think accompanying women to get an abortion is more masculine and responsible than creating children you refuse to feed.

I hold men who take their gf's/wives to get abortions and men who don't take care of their kids in the same regard. They're both cowards who can't deal with the consequences of their actions. Definitely not my kind of guy.

You would know, wouldn't you Elizabeth? ;0)

Right. I guess what Laura views as true love, I view as a "sex thing." Ask Chris Rock. LOL!

Being a man includes taking responsbility for the actions of your penis (i.e. fatherhood).

Men that don't support their children, abandon pregnant women or support aborting their children should have their peni confiscated immediately.

No, he's a law-abiding American who doesn't want to be a father. Lots of men don't want to be fathers.

I know how they can prevent that.

Real men are law abiding Americans who refrain from having sex if they don't want to be a father, and who, if they find themselves in the family way in spite of their best efforts, stand up and protect their "families"...

I got a speeding ticket last year. I was going 7 miles over the limit a half of a block from my house.

When I went to court, I watched as person after person went up to the "bench" and tried to get out of their tickets.

When my turn came I looked the judge straight in the eye and and said "I cannot tell a lie. I was speeding and I deserved the ticket"

You could have heard a pin drop. I think the judge is still laughing. She only made me pay the taxes.

My point is, why does everybody try to get out of taking responsibility for their actions.

Why can't they look their partner in the eye and say "I cannot shirk my responsibility. I got you pregnant, and I'll stand by you until this thing is settled, whether we keep the baby or relinquish it for adoption. Either way, I'm with you for the 9 months. Why? Because we caused this, and we, no one else, must own up to it"

What does abortion have to do with being a man? Get rid of your responsibility. Then, get rid of her.

A hero? No. A loser.

My point is, why does everybody try to get out of taking responsibility for their actions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Choosing abortion IS taking responsibility for your actions.

Another point. A man telling a woman to have an abortion really doesn't give a rat's arse about her body or her choice.

No. Abortion is the most irresponsible thing someone can do. That is generally after irresponsible sex.

It's HIS choice. New slogan. Her body, his choice.

Men who take their girlfriends to the abortion clinic are law abiding citizens? No. Actually a lot of them are taking their minor girlfriends there to conceal sex abuse. They're actually criminals.

Choosing abortion IS taking responsibility for your actions.

Abortion is like killing a murder witness to conceal the crime and avoid taking responsibility for it.

Abortion is killing a baby to avoid taking responsiblity for the baby or the women.

It's HIS choice. New slogan. Her body, his choice.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 5:06 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nope. Only women who want abortions have them.

Jacqueline, the reccomendation that abortions be illegal did not come to the limelight until the AMA came out against it (simply because they thought midwives were cutting into their business)

Funny, seems money was the original motivation behind trying to make it illegal, and you currently argue money is the reason why they want it legal. Hmm...

"Why can't they look their partner in the eye and say "I cannot shirk my responsibility. I got you pregnant, and I'll stand by you until this thing is settled, whether we keep the baby or relinquish it for adoption. Either way, I'm with you for the 9 months. Why? Because we caused this, and we, no one else, must own up to it""

only one more word I'd add in there:

I'll stand by you until this thing is settled, whether we keep the baby or relinquish it for adoption, or you choose to have an abortion.

there, perfect. Of course, thats also assuming an ideal world without deadbeat dads :)

or you choose to have an abortion.

Awwwww Dan, How big of you. You'd stand by her for a whole 3 hours? Shucks! That's a man.

Yes, Carder I would know. He was willing to pay the money for the abortion...but not the money to feed his fabulous daughter. Oh well. His loss. I wouldn't want to be him for any money in the world. He lives quite the meaningless existence....as do most deadbeat dads.

Father's of aborted babies are deadbeat dads.

Actually, they are the worst! They stood by and did nothing to talk the woman out of that abortion. To those that did try, then it turns into a deadbeat mom.

This will sound twisted to pro aborts, of course. They don't feel that there was ever a baby to be killed in the first place, but we know they're wrong. Anyone involved in abortion is guilty as sin.

Heather and MK,

I agree.

not how I (personally) also said the nine months. MK, thats still a lot more than what some guys do (which pisses me off to no end)

Anyone who runs off on that, no matter what the woman's choice, makes me very angry.

note, not not in that first sentence.

Well Dan,

That's good to hear. But Heather has a good point. Men who encourage (or condone) the mother of their children to "erase" them, are really just as bad as deadbeat dads.

They are both fathers that don't protect and provide for their families. Both types of men just want the responsibility to go away. One by removing himself, and one by removing the child.

I could have burned the speeding ticket. Then it wouldn't have existed anymore. But I was still speeding, and no matter how much I pretend that I didn't "get caught", I did. Take that further...even without the ticket, what I was doing was wrong. So I accepted the ticket.
My living in denial will do nothing to sway the judge. Either in a court of law or at the final judgment.

Father's of aborted babies are deadbeat dads.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 5:57 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whaaaaaa?
If a woman chooses to have an abortion the father becomes a criminal?

Both do. Legalized murder is pretty serious.

"Awwwww Dan, How big of you. You'd stand by her for a whole 3 hours? Shucks! That's a man."

LOL!

(simply because they thought midwives were cutting into their business)

Posted by: Dan at November 20, 2007 5:43 PM

I'd like to see where you got that statement from from.

Kristen, my US Legal System class. We go over court cases, constitutional/contraversial issues, etc. Abortion happens to be one of them, along with gun laws, gay marriage, search and seizure, etc

"Awwwww Dan, How big of you. You'd stand by her for a whole 3 hours? Shucks! That's a man."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah. He supported her decision. That's a man.

Both do. Legalized murder is pretty serious.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 6:24 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Murder by definition is unlawful killing.
You're being oxymoronic again.

Yeah. He supported her decision.

Too bad he didn't support her. Her decision wasn't pregnant...she was.

Yeah. He supported her decision.

Too bad he didn't support her. Her decision wasn't pregnant...she was.

Posted by: mk at November 20, 2007 7:19 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...And she CHOSE to have an abortion. She didn't want to be pregnant anymore.

She should have CHOSEN not to get pregnant then...
I know, crazy talk.

And she CHOSE to have an abortion. She didn't want to be pregnant anymore.

I'd dump her too if I were him...woman can't make up her mind. First she wants to be pregnant, then she doesn't "want to be pregnant anymore..."

She should have CHOSEN not to get pregnant then...
I know, crazy talk.

Posted by: mk at November 20, 2007 7:26 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

People don't CHOOSE to have car accidents, either. But when it happens, most CHOOSE medical intervention.

People do CHOOSE to speed tho, and then people must CHOOSE to pay the ticket or CHOOSE to go to jail. But they may not CHOOSE to kill the officer that wrote them the ticket.

And if they get into an accident they may CHOOSE to go to the hospital, but they may not CHOOSE to kill the guy in the other car.

People don't CHOOSE to have car accidents, either.,/i>

And if the accident was their fault then insurance company may CHOOSE not to pay their medical bills.

And if they get into an accident they may CHOOSE to go to the hospital, but they may not CHOOSE to kill the guy in the other car.

Posted by: mk at November 20, 2007 7:38 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course not, Silly!
Killing people is illegal in this country! You can get executed for that.

Sally, it's one in the same. Pay attention.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:39 PM
..................................

Glib and dismissive of those that can actualy feel harm as usual Heather.

Killing people is illegal in this country! You can get executed for that

Nonetheless, some people still CHOOSE to do it.

You see, no matter how you slice it, no one is FORCING anyone to do anything. We all CHOOSE our paths, and then we must be responsible for our CHOICES.

I know one CHOOSY mother that CHOOSES Jif.

Now she CHEWS and CHEWS and CHEWS...

acqueline, it's quite clear that states were slowly lifting abortion bans prior to Roe v Wade.

6% isn't much of a trend.

It is pure specualtion to assert that states would place bans on abortion in the event of Roe v Wade being struck down

No- it's fact. Many states have their old abortion laws on the books and several others have enacted trigger bans.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 20, 2007 12:55 PM
.................................................................

Taking it back to the state level would trigger more than archaic bans. You're talking about a whole lot of law suits snarling up legal systems. I personally don't have a problem with abortion laws being governed at the state level. I believe that the South should have been allowed to succeed. My ancestors left oppressive societies and I certainly wouldn't have a problem doing the same.

Edward Allred calls his abortion patients "tramps" and "dogs" on a regular basis. Buy this book...Lime5.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 1:30 PM
.....................................

He must be your hero.

If a man supported my decision to rob little old ladies at gunpoint, would he still be a real man?

If a man supported my decision to rob banks, would he still be a real man?

Carol,

you wrote:

"what you do is take examples of some bad people who happen to be abortion providers, and try to argue that from that small sample, all abortion providers must be bad people, and that abortion should therefore be criminalized.

My point was that doing that is a bad argument, it doesn't hold up under any sort of scrutiny, and it's not convincing.

Posted by: Carol at November 20, 2007 12:42 PM

What makes these people bad, is that they are abortion providers. That is they kill human beings. Some may have other faults as well, most of us do. If they also break certain reporting laws, they should be prosecuted.

Abortion has been a crime in many societies because abortion is killing a human being. Abortion was not a crime because people who did it were bad.

Killing is not a crime because bad people kill.

Rather, people are bad if they kill.

Posted by: hippie at November 20, 2007 1:34 PM
..............................................

You are in any danger of being invited to speak at a Veteran's convention.

Sally, I assure you that Edward Allred is not my hero, but he remains a hero to pro choicers. Why? Simply because he's an abortionist.

where women aren't shamed or made to feel like sluts/whores/etc. because they happen to have had sex

Women that have sex in the right context KNOW they aren't sluts/whores. I know I'm not. Those words bounce right off of me. My married friends that have sex more often than most single people are also immune to such epithets.

If women are ashamed of their choices because that's because they've done something worthy of shame.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 20, 2007 1:38 PM
......................................

You are an abusive predator's delight Jacqueline. No one would call you a whore if you weren't one. No one would strike you if you weren't asking for it. Nice job!

If a man supported my decision to rob little old ladies at gunpoint, would he still be a real man?

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 7:59 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Armed robbery is against the law. He might show his support by visiting you in prison.

True, but would that still make him a real man?

Sally,
You wrote,

"resources would be thinly spread over 50 states in attempt to ensure complete denial of reproductive rights to every woman in this country."

Posted by: Sally at November 20, 2007 12:31 PM

An amendment acknowledging and defending the right to life of every human being is not "complete denial of reproductive rights" Every woman would still be able to abstain and use contraceptives. Once a woman is pregnant, she has already reproduced. Abortion does not affect reproduction. It kills a new and distinct life.
................................................

If implantation was all that was necessary for reproduction, removal of the conceptus would have no consequence upon it's existance. I find it incredibly disrespectful of women as well as a complete dehumaization of the gestational process to completely dismiss the essential need of a woman's body to create a 'distinct life'.

Plenty of doctors right now are perfectly willing to deny women sterilization. While I don't agree with these doctors, they are in part denying women reproductive freedom by denying them one means to avoid reproducing. Plenty of women have complained about it, and no one cares.

..................................................................

Yes indeed. They are of the same mind as yourself. Women are too stupid to know if and when they feel confident about becoming a parent. You believe that if the woman would just gestate, she would magically decide that she wants to be a parent. Many doctors believe that taking the option of gestation away will cause we sillyheaded women to suddenly decide the opposite.

Posted by: hippie at November 20, 2007 1:56 PM

Why do all of these "sillyheaded" women have reckless sex when they know good and well that they don't want to be parents?

Why do all of these "sillyheaded" women have reckless sex when they know good and well that they don't want to be parents?

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 8:16 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the same reason you did; because it's big fun.

Big fun doesn't give you the right to kill. Abortion is legal, but it's still murder.

Sally, if someone wants their tubes tied, I could care less. Why not? It's better than abortion!

Sally, if someone wants their tubes tied, I could care less. Why not? It's better than abortion!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...And it's WAY 'mo responsible than cranking out illegitimate children you can't care for.

Yup, I'll agree with you on that one.

Sally said, "You are an abusive predator's delight Jacqueline. No one would call you a whore if you weren't one. No one would strike you if you weren't asking for it. Nice job!"

No, Sally, you're missing her point, here. No one can MAKE somebody feel a certain way about themselves...only that person can CHOOSE to think about theirself that way.
Please try to leave every one of your personal conflicts in life out of other's comments.

I remember when I used to think that George Stephanopoulos was hot....LOL

AB Laura, me too.

Heather,
too funny, huh? (and, oh...Hello!)

Laura,

"Cranking out?" That seems to be a poor choice of words for someone who supposedly supports women. I wouldn't refer to being pregnant for 9 months and then delivering a baby as "cranking out." Sheesh YOU are making women sound like machines. Isn't that what we pro-lifers do? You know, insult and de-value women and expect them to be portals for babies? Looks like you're sounding more like a pro-lifer every day. :)

Elizabeth, it is tacky.

Sally, I assure you that Edward Allred is not my hero, but he remains a hero to pro choicers. Why? Simply because he's an abortionist.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 8:03 PM
......................................

Be honest. You enjoy denigrating women and have a fascination with men you believe do so. Soul mates.

OOOOOOOOKAY?? UH HUH.

AB Laura, hello to you also.

Sally, do yourself a favor. Buy this book- Lime5. It exposes abortionists and all of the sleaze involved in the industry.

She can't handle the truth! (what movie was that from, again...it just kindof popped in my head, there!)

Sally.
Be honest. You enjoy denigrating women and have a fascination with men you believe can give you the gift of dead, parasite tissue, from sex.
Have you discussed with a therapist, Sally, the dilemma of creating parasites within you from men you believed didn't denigrate you?
And what could the therapist say, but what comes around goes around for Sally, from being educated at the University of Laura.
I have mercy on ya Sally, which is more then Laura can offer you in your world of parasites and dreams of being Sigorney Weaver fighting of xenomorphs.

And what could the therapist say, but what comes around goes around for Sally, from being educated at the University of Laura.

Posted by: yllas at November 21, 2007 1:41 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course, a Ph.D from the University of Laura is worth every bit as much as a Ph.D from Pacific Western University!

Kristen, my US Legal System class. We go over court cases, constitutional/contraversial issues, etc. Abortion happens to be one of them, along with gun laws, gay marriage, search and seizure, etc

Posted by: Dan at November 20, 2007 7:14 PM

Is that a source? Or is your teacher your source? I doubt a court case says "incidentally the AMA thought midwives were taking business away from them." Come on, give me a REAL source.

Hey Dan, according to your history teacher what ended slavery?

Those who graduated from the University of Laura have a high rate of arresting animals for loitering and pandering in public, and dispensing Ivomec to women to prevent internal parasites in those women.
According to Doug, whose facts are always factual,his studies of women ordering Ivomec for b/c for women, have revealed only graduates from the University of Laura are performing such activities at this time.
The worst part is that University of Laura grads have been caught dispensing Ivomec as b/c for women bought from mail order firms specializing in "outdated" products, which are less efficacious. Thus leading to parasites in women such as Sally.
When confronted with this dispicable act motivated by profit, University of Laura grads respond with the principle of Laura, what comes around, goes around.

You are an abusive predator's delight Jacqueline. No one would call you a whore if you weren't one.

What I actually said was: Those labels (which I don't use, I find that they are only used by women whom applicable to themselves), they only hurt if they are true. So not that "No one would call you a whore if you weren't one" but that those of us called that who know it doesn't apply as not the least insulted by it. And those who are should look at their behavior. If they don't want to be morally compromised woman, they can choose not to be instantaneously.

No one would strike you if you weren't asking for it. Nice job!

Watch it! Don't imply that I support violence in any way! I oppose it completely, it's never the fault of the victim, and I never said anything otherwise.

You are an abusive predator's delight Jacqueline. No one would call you a whore if you weren't one.

What I actually said was: Those labels (which I don't use, I find that they are only used by women whom they are applicable to themselves), they only hurt if they are true. So not that "No one would call you a whore if you weren't one" but that those of us called that who know it doesn't apply as not the least insulted by it. And those who are should look at their behavior. If they don't want to be morally compromised woman, they can choose not to be instantaneously.

No one would strike you if you weren't asking for it. Nice job!

Watch it! Don't imply that I support violence in any way! I oppose it completely, it's never the fault of the victim, and I never said anything otherwise.

Why is everyone looking for MACRO solutions to abortion which is afterall one of many symptoms of the real disease the sexual revolution. That revolution was not generated by any of the three branches of government; the counter revolution will not find its genesis in the federal nor even the state governments.

This is a war to be won ONE woman -- no make that ONE LADY -- at a time.

I oppose the sexual revolution as deeply as I do Islam. BOTH are bad for woman's soul and body. Both deny her REAL freedom and REAL dignity. So we LADIES of the 21st Century have to get busy because we should be fighting on two fronts. Fred may be my choice for president but I do not expect him to do my fighting for me.

I oppose the sexual revolution as deeply as I do Islam. BOTH are bad for woman's soul and body.

And somehow, despite all the abortions, single motherhood, STD's and poverty, people still say that the sexual revolution was good for women.

It baffles the mind.

Jacque, you said it!

Bev C, the sexual revolution has destroyed women. I sure agree with you and Jacque.

Where did this Islam bull get into the conversation?

You know, if you're bright enough to own and operate a vagina responsibly, the sexual revolution was a pretty fabulous thing.

You should ALWAYS read the manual first!

You know, if you're bright enough to own and operate a vagina responsibly, the sexual revolution was a pretty fabulous thing.

STD's, abortion and single motherhood are proof positive that the very premise of the sexual revolution is faulty. Own and operating a vagina responsibly include exercising judgement on who gets to use it.

You should ALWAYS read the manual first!

My manual is the Holy Bible, and it makes it clear that sex within a marriage is fruitful, fulfilling and free of worldly sorrow. Thus I agree about reading the manual.

Choosing abortion IS taking responsibility for your actions.

Posted by: Laura at November 20, 2007 5:00 PM

No, choosing abortion is killing a baby so you won't have to share your resources or make arrangements for adoption.

Plenty of doctors right now are perfectly willing to deny women sterilization. While I don't agree with these doctors, they are in part denying women reproductive freedom by denying them one means to avoid reproducing. Plenty of women have complained about it, and no one cares.

..................................................................

Yes indeed. They are of the same mind as yourself. Women are too stupid to know if and when they feel confident about becoming a parent. You believe that if the woman would just gestate, she would magically decide that she wants to be a parent. Many doctors believe that taking the option of gestation away will cause we sillyheaded women to suddenly decide the opposite.

Posted by: Sally at November 20, 2007 8:14 PM

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

These doctors are not of the same mind as myself because they willingly kill babies that women don't want yet they don't respect a woman's right to control her own fertility in the manner she sees fit.

I do not believe that if a woman continues an unwanted pregnancy she will magically decide she wants to parent. Nor do I believe that the civil rights movement magically ended racism. Racial descrimination should still be prohibited because it oppresses certain races. Abortion should be prohibited because it ends the life of a human being.

Heather: "the sexual revolution has destroyed women."

Women aren't destroyed. Are you destroyed? My mother, wife, daughters, and female coworkers are not destroyed. I see a lot of undestroyed women. I'm sure most are happy they have some sexual freedom.

You know, if you're bright enough to own and operate a vagina responsibly, the sexual revolution was a pretty fabulous thing.

You should ALWAYS read the manual first!

Posted by: Laura at November 21, 2007 12:53 PM

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The womens movement changed many things and gave women opportunities, however it didn't fix everything.

Under the "old rules" some women suffered and were exploited and under the "new rules" some women suffer and are exploited.

To some extent women traded old problems for new problems.
While the sexual revolution changed society, it didn't change nature. It changed some things, but it didn't fix everything.

I am happy in my relationship and you sound happy in yours, which is probably the result of both good planning and good fortune.

The truth is life has always been good for the fortunate.

The challenge to civil society is how to help the poor planners and the unfortunate. Those who can't find, won't open or anyhow don't read the manual.

Women aren't destroyed. Are you destroyed? My mother, wife, daughters, and female coworkers are not destroyed. I see a lot of undestroyed women. I'm sure most are happy they have some sexual freedom.

Posted by: Hal at November 21, 2007 2:41 PM

I think many women are in many ways better off. I think some of the most vulnerable women have traded old problems for new problems. Women certainly have more options, and as Laura pointed out, the bright and responsible ones benefitted the most. No surprise there.

hippie I totally agree!

Sally,

You wrote,

Killing is not a crime because bad people kill.

Rather, people are bad if they kill.

Posted by: hippie at November 20, 2007 1:34 PM
..............................................

You are in any danger of being invited to speak at a Veteran's convention.

Posted by: Sally at November 20, 2007 8:01 PM

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I think most in the military have internalized the concept of killing innocent unarmed people as bad long before they joined the military and were deployed to an area of armed conflict. Many war veterans deal with issues about the violent situations they were in and the violence they participated in especially if innocent people were accidently killed or mistakenly targeted. I think most have a good conscience. Don't you?

She should have CHOSEN not to get pregnant then...
I know, crazy talk.

Posted by: mk at November 20, 2007 7:26 PM

.........................

Come now MK. You know that becoming pregnant isn't a choice or there wouldn't be infertile women begging for children.

Abortions don't empower women. It actually makes them appear weak. They generally drift back to the man who coerced them into the abortion in the first place. Like lost puppies. By then the guy usually finds someone else to pursue [ a real challenge] while the weak woman hangs on to the bread crumbs. No self respect at all.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 2:21 PM
......................................

Looking to hook up with an abusive ass in your opinion? Gonna show the kind of man that you find repugnant what a 'real' woman is? Good luck!

(simply because they thought midwives were cutting into their business)

Posted by: Dan at November 20, 2007 5:43 PM

I'd like to see where you got that statement from from.

Posted by: Kristen at November 20, 2007 6:50 PM
........................................

My grandma's grandma was a midwife. Considered a physician by the medical community as well as society. Doctors didn't concern themselves with female stuff much for many reasons. IMO not until women's health issues started becoming profiable.

If a man supported my decision to rob banks, would he still be a real man?

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 8:01 PM
............................................

As opposed to a comic book character?

Sally, I assure you that Edward Allred is not my hero, but he remains a hero to pro choicers. Why? Simply because he's an abortionist.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 8:03 PM
.........................................

I've never heard of him. I am my own hero. You tend to elevate the opinions of media personas IMO. JIll, Brittney and her friend......what's her face..... are more familiar to you than your neighbors. Wanna bet?

My grandma's grandma was a midwife. Considered a physician by the medical community as well as society. Doctors didn't concern themselves with female stuff much for many reasons. IMO not until women's health issues started becoming profiable.

Posted by: Sally at November 21, 2007 8:53 PM

Oh my goodness!!!! Hell hath frozen over!!! Sally, I agree 100% with you!!!! (on a totally different level, I'm sure...but I'll take the agreement part and leave well enough alone!)

**smiles & hugs for Sally!**

Why do all of these "sillyheaded" women have reckless sex when they know good and well that they don't want to be parents?

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 8:16 PM
..................................................

Heather, I do believe that you are dying to have 'reckless sex'. You might even involve a man this time.

Sally said, "You are an abusive predator's delight Jacqueline. No one would call you a whore if you weren't one. No one would strike you if you weren't asking for it. Nice job!"

No, Sally, you're missing her point, here. No one can MAKE somebody feel a certain way about themselves...only that person can CHOOSE to think about theirself that way.
Please try to leave every one of your personal conflicts in life out of other's comments.

Posted by: AB Laura at November 20, 2007 9:00 PM
...........................................

Laura, you are completely lacking in any measure of sociology, psychology, theology.......hell common sense.

No, Sally, I am not. I have had the blinders removed. You, on the other hand have not. I feel sorry for you. And, like I said, I pray for you every night! (cuz I love you!)

Sally: My grandma's grandma was a midwife. Considered a physician by the medical community as well as society. Doctors didn't concern themselves with female stuff much for many reasons. IMO not until women's health issues started becoming profiable.

Yep - and much or most of the reason that abortion became illegal in many states in the 1800s was due to the influence of doctors, who saw midwives as infringing upon what was "rightfully" theirs.

Doug

Doug,
Not following...you agreed with Sally that doctors didn't concern themselves w/female stuff; midwives deliver babies...why did abortion become illegal in man states because of this? Who did the abortions at the time?

**many states***
sorry for any confusion...

Laura, one of the reasons those doctors did concern themselves with womens' stuff was when there was pay for them involved, and they felt that midwives were not entitled to "encroach" on what the docs felt was their rightful territory.

To get around the midwives, doctors advocated abortion being made illegal, unless doctors (not midwives) said it was called for.

Doug

Doug,
I see, thanks...more like a "$win$"-win for the docs...

Yeah - profit motive.

Heather, I do believe that you are dying to have 'reckless sex'. You might even involve a man this time.

Posted by: Sally at November 21, 2007 9:08 PM***************** I don't quite get that. I could go out and have reckless sex. I'd rather not.

Sally, maybe that's your biggest problem. You're pro "reckless sex." Straighten up and fly right, would ya?