Is "AbortionMan" pro-life?

Right before comedian Chris Rock was to emcee the Academy Awards in 2005, Matt Drudge linked to a story about one of Rock's routines, abortion. In that routine Rock said:

Abortion, it's beautiful, it's beautiful abortion is legal. I love going to an abortion rallies to pick up women, cause you know they are f---ing. You ain't gonna find a bunch of virgins at the abortion rallies.

View the entire bit here, but be warned it's vulgarity-laced.

It turned out Rock was using satire to speak against abortion, according to trusted conservative sources.

Now several readers have written to say Damon Wayans' AbortionMan routine, which JivinJ exposed here and I wrote about on WorldNetDaily.com, was acted in the same vein: satire. Could they be right?

Obscenity alert...

Wrote reader Charles:

Damon was clearly depicting the disgusting horror of abortion in his video. You seemed to miss the fact that his histrionics were not an endorsement. Quite the opposite....
The Wayan Brothers and Jim Carrey performed outrageous parodies and satires on In Living Color, an early Fox comedy show.

abortion man 3.jpg

I am very certain Wayan was bringing an ugly truth home in a way that was palatable to an audience that was unlikely to receive it in a conventional way. The Wayans' methods are multi-layered. First they open you up, then they pour it in. It's later that their intent bubbles to the surface and provokes serious thought.

Watch it again, viewing from my paradigm. You might be surprised.

Wrote reader Jarrod:

I followed the link from your site and watched the AbortionMan video. The sketch is crude and sick and twisted but it is also doing something else. It's showing an abortion for what it really is -- a brutal, sick and selfish act of murder, hitman style. When you watch that sketch there is absolutely no question as to what an abortion is. There is no grey area, no blurring of lines. It's a full on ambush of a woman by a hitman hired by a bum.

I would not presume to claim to know Wayan's heart or thought process behind that film piece but in its own twisted way it's making the abortion issue a heck of a lot clearer than those who favor abortions would like. It might not be "bad" for our side after all. That tape made me wonder if the Wayans clan might "secretly" be pro-life. I mean honestly, imagine someone who favors abortion watching that sketch. It makes THEM look like vermain. It makes me, a pro-lifer, feel good because I would never do that in the name of "choice" or "freedom."

The more I think about it, the more I agree with these guys. AbortionMan is an indictment against drive-by fathers. It hyperbolizes coerced abortions.

And if this is so, all the hypocritical complaining on the Left about AbortionMan is placed in new light.

They got punked. The last laugh is on them.


Comments:

So there!


Would be interesting to get a Wayan statement on this.

Posted by: carder at April 24, 2008 6:37 AM


If I had to choose between satire or not, I would be inclined to say the video is satire also, from what I have read about it. Damon Wayans' has a TV show, "My Wife and Kids". It is a comedy about a father who loves his family. He tries to do the right thing for his wife and kids and is a good TV role model for fathers, in my opinion. "Abortion Man" is so contrary to his TV persona, it wouldn't make sense for him to risk his TV career to make such a distasteful video, unless it was satire.

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 7:36 AM


They got punked. The last laugh is on them.

Hehehe. You crack me up when you try to pretend that you're all "down" with what those crazy kids are saying these days.

And yeah, the last laugh is on the pro-choicers. Oh wait, abortion is still legal isn't it?

On a more serious note, I really cannot understand your insistence on reading HUGE CONSEQUENCE into minor bits of pop culture. It's kind of weird.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 24, 2008 7:37 AM


Hiero, On a more serious note, I really cannot understand your insistence on reading HUGE CONSEQUENCE into minor bits of pop culture. It's kind of weird.

Your statement just makes me sad. This is a pro-life blog. Abortion Man is an abortionist who stomps on pregnant women. Need I say more?

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 7:57 AM


Janet, to be fair, I find the video horrifying, because I'm pro-choice for one thing, and because I am anti-violence against women. The statistics on homicide against pregnant black women are pretty bad.

On the other hand, what I had in mind when I made that comment was the running tendency here to be all "look! Horton Hears A Who is pro-life! We're winning!" "look! Juno is pro-life! We're winning!" "look! Chris Rock is pro-life (according to "trusted conservative sources")! We're winning!"....when none of those things are necessarily or even likely to be true.

I mean, I suppose it's part of the whole schtick to read consequence into pop culture to keep heart in the faithful, but it seems ultimately self-defeating.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 24, 2008 8:23 AM


Hiero:

I think Jill throws in the hyperbole to get a reaction out of people.
Look at it from a pro-life point of view, after 35 years of fighting legal abortion, every little thing feels like a "victory"in a sense, at least a baby-step towards it. The point is we do want to "win" eventually.

Self- defeating? How? I don't see it that way. We may look foolish to some PC'rs, but that's not what matters here.

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 8:47 AM


"I am anti-violence against women"...
----------------------------

Hmmmm...and would you call abortion a non-violent event on pregnant women?

I must be missing something here...

Posted by: RSD at April 24, 2008 8:47 AM


RSD, what you're saying doesn't make any sense to me, unless you're suggesting that any outpatient medical procedure as a violent event.

Although....I might have agreed with you the day I got my wisdom teeth removed.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 24, 2008 8:53 AM


Actually Hieronymous every time a mother chooses life, and the baby is born, we win. It's a rather simple thing. The difference between us is we value life more than choice.

Without life, there is no choice. Life is more valuable.

In the end, abortion is ultimately self-defeating.

I don't really have time to argue with you - I have some children to save!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at April 24, 2008 8:55 AM


Satire is great and all, but when are some big celebrites going to get the courage to speak out frankly against abortion?

If they really are pro-life, maybe Chris Rock and Damon Wayans can knock some sense into Oprah. Chris is on her show quite often.

So, how many other celebrities do we know who are pro-life?

Well, there's... Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and.....?

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 8:59 AM


It's hard to believe this is supposed to be speaking out against abortion. I love comedy and humor, but I would never do this kind of "skit" with abortion. It's just such a serious topic to me. It's like trying to make some funny skit with the holocaust, like Jew Burning Man or something. It's seems horribly offensive, so I have a hard time believing he meant it for good. That is just my opinion though, and perhaps some people are only able to cope with the horrors of abortion through humor. I dunno.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 9:02 AM


You know that Chris Rock was pretty satirical there. I wouldn't call him pro-life though, and really Rock was just trying to be funny, going on the stereotype that women who get abortions are sluts.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 24, 2008 9:06 AM


Jill, good question - it's interesting to see the different reactions people have had.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 9:09 AM


Chris 8:55:Actually Hieronymous every time a mother chooses life, and the baby is born, we win. It's a rather simple thing. The difference between us is we value life more than choice.

You are so right, but for people who don't see it that way, choice seems like the end all be all. The ultimate victory in the pro-life movement will be when every person realizes how precious life is, that this idea of "choice" is incompatible with pregnancy.

Pregnancy is a natural function of womanhood. We don't "choose" nature, it just comes to us and we accept it. Can we choose a sunny day? Snow in summer? A full moon? No.

Remember the TV (butter?) commercial many years ago where the woman said "Don't fool with Mother nature"? It may sound corny, but abortion is "fooling with Mother nature" as well.


Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 9:19 AM


"..unless you're suggesting that any outpatient medical procedure as a violent event"
-------------------------------

Hier..I would call a procedure done on women that always result in at least 1 death, violent.

Posted by: RSD at April 24, 2008 9:31 AM


Bobby: 9:02: It's hard to believe this is supposed to be speaking out against abortion. I love comedy and humor, but I would never do this kind of "skit" with abortion. It's just such a serious topic to me. It's like trying to make some funny skit with the holocaust, like Jew Burning Man or something. It's seems horribly offensive, so I have a hard time believing he meant it for good. That is just my opinion though, and perhaps some people are only able to cope with the horrors of abortion through humor. I dunno.

I see your point. But if you are familiar with the hit Broadway play, "The Producers", you know that Mel Brooks used comedy to make fun of Nazi Germany. Here Brooks' take on the subject:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/010820/archive_038235.htm

20 Mel Brooks

His humor brings down Hitler, and the house(an excerpt)

By Nancy Shute
Posted 8/12/01
`I was never crazy about Hitler," says Mel Brooks. Who was? But even now, more than 50 years after the fall of the Third Reich, the man who masterminded the extermination of more than 7 million people is still handled with care, as if the magnitude of his crime demands no less. Brooks had the guts, and gall, to realize that the simplest way to demolish Hitler was to mock him.

"If you stand on a soapbox and trade rhetoric with a dictator you never win," says Brooks, 75. "That's what they do so well; they seduce people. But if you ridicule them, bring them down with laughter--they can't win. You show how crazy they are."

Thus was born Springtime for Hitler, the ersatz musical that serves as the crux of The Producers, Brooks's tale of a larcenous Broadway producer determined to stage the worst show ever and abscond with the cash when it fails. In Brooks's mad vision, chorines decked out in SS regalia goose-step while trilling "Springtime for Hitler and Germany! Winter for Poland and France!" A Hitler Youth type chirps: "Don't be stupid, be a smarty, come and join the Nazi party!" And the chorus croons: "We're marching to a faster pace. Look out, here comes the Master Race!"

"Well! Talk about bad taste!" huffs a matron in the mythical audience. That's exactly the point. Since the 1930s, when the young Melvin Kaminsky would crack up his Brooklyn schoolmates, Brooks has had a passion for poking society in the eye. When the movie of The Producers debuted in 1968, many critics panned it as crude. But the film is now considered a classic, and when the stage version opened on Broadway earlier this year, it was an instant hit, sweeping the Tony Awards. It also sparked fresh complaints about its gleeful mockery of Nazis, Jews, and homosexuals.

"There are always holier-than-thou guys," says Brooks. "It's like, `I care about those poor Jews and you don't.' " Brooks, who is Jewish, saw the results of Hitler's handiwork firsthand, while serving in the Army in Europe in World War II. "I didn't see the camps, but I saw streams of refugees. They were starving. It was horrible." Brooks attacked that horror with the only weapon he had--his wit...

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 9:31 AM


Janet,
"So, how many other celebrities do we know who are pro-life?

Well, there's... Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and.....?"

Mel Gibson? how about Jim Cavezel? didn't a guy on 2 and a half men give to a CPC?

Posted by: rosie at April 24, 2008 9:33 AM


Janet,
"So, how many other celebrities do we know who are pro-life?

Well, there's... Patricia Heaton (Everybody Loves Raymond) and.....?"

Mel Gibson? how about Jim Cavezel? didn't a guy on 2 and a half men give to a CPC?

Posted by: rosie at April 24, 2008 9:33 AM

Rosie: Good ones! Not sure about 2 and a half men. Do you mean Charlie Sheen?

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 9:40 AM


Who is Jim Cavezel?

Anyway-
The March for Women’s Lives Celebrity Coalition includes:

Margie Adam, Christina Aguilera, Jennifer Aniston, Curtis Armstrong, Elaine Aronson, Bea Arthur, Ed Asner, Kevin Bacon, Alec Baldwin, William Baldwin, Meredith Baxter, Shari Belafonte, Maria Bello, Polly Bergen, Thora Birch, Amy Brenneman, Betty Buckley, Jessica Capshaw, Lynda Carter, Stockard Channing, Jill Clayburgh, Kate Clinton, Glenn Close, Cindy Crawford, Sheryl Crow, Alan Cumming, Tyne Daly, Blythe Danner, Kristin Davis, Ossie Davis, Dana Delany, Laura Dern, Ellen DeGeneres, Ani DiFranco, Illeana Douglas, Denise Dowse, Fran Drescher, Kirsten Dunst, David Eigenberg, Hector Elizondo, Emme, Eve Ensler, Giancarlo Esposito, Melissa Etheridge, Morgan Fairchild, Edie Falco, Frances Fisher, Calista Flockhart, Jane Fonda, Bonnie Franklin, Janeane Garofalo, Ana Gasteyer, Indigo Girls, Annabeth Gish, Whoopi Goldberg, Lauren Graham, Maggie Gyllenhaal, LisaGay Hamilton, Ben Harper, Ed Harris, Salma Hayek, Marg Helgenberger, Isabella Hofmann, Helen Hunt, Amy Jo Johnson, Kathryn Joosten, Ashley Judd, Catherine Keener, Carole King, Swoosie Kurt, Christine Lahti, Sanaa Lathan, Sharon Lawrence, Lisa Loeb, Amy Madigan, Natalie Maines, Wendie Malick, Joshua Malina, Camryn Manheim, Frances McDormand, Ewan McGregor, Marilyn McIntyre, Sarah McLachlan, Moby, Demi Moore, Julianne Moore, Alanis Morissette, Kathy Najimy, Alyson Palmer, Joe Pantoliano, Mary-Louise Parker, Adrian Pasdar, Pink, Martha Plimpton, Doris Roberts, Paul Rudd, Susan Sarandon, Campbell Scott, Kyra Sedgwick, Cybill Shepherd, SONiA, Fisher Stevens, Gloria Steinem, Julia Stiles, Corky and Mike Stoller, Sharon Stone, Amber Tamblyn, Mary Testa, Charlize Theron, Uma Thurman, Heather Tom, Stanley Tucci, Kathleen Turner, Ted Turner, Sarah Weddington, Audrey Wells, Bradley Whitford, Thom Yorke, Amy Ziff, Elizabeth Ziff

Posted by: Laura at April 24, 2008 9:41 AM


Everytime I see a rollcall of the wicked and unrepentant, my heart hurts.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 24, 2008 9:58 AM


I am not surprised Laura doesn't know who JC is...

Posted by: RSD at April 24, 2008 10:02 AM


Laura,

Jim Caviezel played Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ"

Thanks for the list of pro-choicers. We should start a letter writing campaign to them.


Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 10:02 AM


Well, you could always have Mel Gibson do a public service announcement:

"Hey Sugart**s, don't have an abortion!"

Posted by: Laura at April 24, 2008 10:31 AM


But Jacqueline, how many of them are intelligent/informed enough to know that the March for Women's Lives was in fact a pro-abortion rally? I know some people who assumed it was a healthcare march. I watched it on C-Span when it happened, and the blank stare on the faces of many of the young women in the crowd when Whoopi was waving around the wire coat hanger suggested that they didn't know what they were in for, either.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 10:36 AM


Jill (or others):

What are the 'trusted conservative sources' referring to Chris Rock? As a pro-lifer, I remember not being very pleased with the bit when I heard it, so I'd love to know what the sources base their conclusion on.

Posted by: Alex at April 24, 2008 10:39 AM


John L:

Thanks for the observation. I saw Doris Roberts on the list (plays Raymond's mother on his show) and she doesn't seem like the PC type. Just a feeling I had.

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 10:40 AM


Mel Gibson is a good example of somebody indoctrinated by their parents, in this case his father.

Gibson Sr. is a wildman, thinking that "the Church in Rome has been taken over by a coalition of Jews and Freemasons acting for Satan."

He doesn't believe there was a WW II Holocaust, "They [the Jews] simply got up and left!" Hardcore....

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 10:43 AM


Mel Gibson's father is a sedevacantist, I believe. WEIRD.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 10:47 AM


I know some people who assumed it was a healthcare march. I watched it on C-Span when it happened, and the blank stare on the faces of many of the young women in the crowd when Whoopi was waving around the wire coat hanger suggested that they didn't know what they were in for, either.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 10:36 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We are so busted...

John has revealed that most of the crowd at the March for Women's Lives consisted of zombies that Gloria Steinem creates on her unholy facility in Matamoros, Mexico.
If the stupid liberal media had bothered to take a closer look, it would have been obvious:
http://www.wiltonlibrary.org/ya/blog/zombies1.jpg

Posted by: Laura at April 24, 2008 10:49 AM


Not zombies, Laura. Young-skulls-full-of-mush. Impressionable "youts". Ignorant kids who don't know any better. Like everyone under 25 who intends to vote for Barry O'Bama.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 10:59 AM


sedevacantist

Bobby, awesome word. Latin, ah Latin...

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 11:05 AM


Doug: Gibson Sr. is a wildman, thinking that "the Church in Rome has been taken over by a coalition of Jews and Freemasons acting for Satan."

He doesn't believe there was a WW II Holocaust, "They [the Jews] simply got up and left!" Hardcore....

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 10:43 AM

So his Dad is goofy, and Gibson said something stupid about Jews when he was drunk. That makes him an indoctrinated Catholic? Please.

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 11:07 AM


Not zombies, Laura. Young-skulls-full-of-mush. Impressionable "youts". Ignorant kids who don't know any better. Like everyone under 25 who intends to vote for Barry O'Bama.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 10:59 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHOA! John is Rush Limbaugh!
(Notice how you've never seen them together?)

Posted by: Laura at April 24, 2008 11:08 AM


These schismatics with their paranoia over Vatican II need to get a life. And so do the apostates who continue to try to abuse Vatican II to ruin the Church.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 11:09 AM


Rush Limbaugh is a Catholic Pennsylvanian in his late twenties?? Holy Quarter Pounder with Cheese!

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 11:11 AM


"youts"


Heh, 'My Cousin Vinny'

funniest line in the movie.

Posted by: Andy at April 24, 2008 11:13 AM


Right on, Andy. Plus my use of it proves that I'm Joe Pesci, in addition to being Rush Limbaugh.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 11:19 AM


Speaking of Jim Cavezel...

Did you see him in "Frequency?" (I think that was the name of the movie.) It was a great movie and the first time I had ever seen him.

Posted by: Kristen at April 24, 2008 11:20 AM


"Without life, there is no choice. Life is more valuable."

Give me choice or give me death. Life without freedom is nothing.

And I don't think abortion man is satire. It's not legal to beat a pregnant woman to the point of miscarriage. It's not legal to beat any woman! And if beating woman was legal and this was satire it would be speaking out against beating women.

Posted by: Jess at April 24, 2008 11:33 AM


Jess, You are missing the fact that a baby is being killed in addition to the woman being beaten. You're right about the beating, but I think it's about both that and abortion

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 11:43 AM


Janet @ 9:31:


I freakin' love Mel Brooks...the guys got a set of giblets to go with his sense of humor!

Have you ever heard of the book "Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot" by John Callahan?

He's the cartoonist who got in so much hot water with the disability rights crowd for drawing a cartoon of two horseback riding deputies looking at a tipped over wheelchair on a dusty trail. The caption of the cartoon is the title of his book. All the “differently-abled” rights lock-steppers started writing him hate mail and boycotting the publications he appeared in.

Until…..

They found out he is a quadriplegic.

Reminds me of Mel Brooks.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 12:03 PM


Jess said: "Give me choice or give me death."

Does the unborn child get the same options?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 12:04 PM


Does the unborn child get the same options?

Goosebumps...

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 12:05 PM


John
I always knew you had a split personality!!

Jim Caviezel - the combination of faith and good looks is soooo sexy!! Eduardo Verastegui ain't so bad either...

God did such a GOOD job....

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 12:11 PM


"Rush Limbaugh is a Catholic Pennsylvanian in his late twenties?? Holy Quarter Pounder with Cheese!"

Oh you're my age, John! I was wondering how old you were... are you a cradle Catholic?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 12:14 PM


I can't believe how many yung'uns are on this site!! (And how many are PL...that's encouraging!)

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 12:23 PM


So his Dad is goofy, and Gibson said something stupid about Jews when he was drunk. That makes him an indoctrinated Catholic? Please.

No, Janet, not those alone, but Mel's stance on his dad's beliefs and on other things make it clear.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 12:24 PM


James Caviezel was in 'Angel Eyes' with J. Lo.

He can play a mean bad guy....

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 12:29 PM


"Do the unborn get the same choice?"

There is no choice, no caring, no conception of any such thing on the part of the unborn.

If there was, it'd be a much different deal.

This comes down to the desire of the pregnant woman against the desires of certain other people.

Had any of us posting on message boards had parents who'd decided to end the pregnancy that resulted in us being here, then there never would have been an "us" with any awareness in the first place.

That there is no conscious choice for the unborn makes a huge difference for many people.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 12:34 PM


Doug,
stop splitting hairs and criticizing people you don't really know, and faiths you don't really understand.
All people are indoctrinated in SOME belief system when they are young, even atheistic secularism or materialism, which is also a religion.
However, most people begin to question their beliefs as they develop into adulthood and then either decide to make them really their own or shed them.
Who knows what Mel Gibson's life has really been like? He's had a number of addiction problems and but for the grace of God therego any one of us.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 12:36 PM


That there is no conscious choice for the unborn makes a huge difference for many people.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 12:34 PM

How in God's name can you make such a stupid statement? How do actually KNOW this? When does consciousness begin? Does anyone REALLY KNOW at this point?

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 12:42 PM


Patricia, that the truth sounds "stupid" to you isn't the fault of anybody else.

It is not the exact "point" of consciousness that is at issue here. Granted that we could argue about it, and there is range of time in gestation when it normally becomes present, but the fact remains that the unborn, early enough in gestation, have no such consciousness.

The majority of people in the US would not, for example, ban abortion during the first trimester.

Within that group, alone, there are vast numbers of people to whom it makes a difference that the unborn are not sentient, not conscious, not "awake," etc.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 12:54 PM


@Doug and Jess,

it just keeps blowing my mind that you cannot fathom injustice to anyone beyond your tight confines of sentience, as if sentience = electrical impulses carried along an intact nervous system. It is as if we were to accept sentience as some sort of line-drawn. What about really stupid, uncaring people? What about you?

Posted by: John McDonell at April 24, 2008 12:58 PM


However, most people begin to question their beliefs as they develop into adulthood and then either decide to make them really their own or shed them. Who knows what Mel Gibson's life has really been like? He's had a number of addiction problems and but for the grace of God therego any one of us.

While I do think there are some criticisms of him that make sense, I was only noting what I believe to be the case about the formation of his beliefs.

A lot of it came straight from his dad, pounded in since an early age. Mel himself makes no bones about it.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 1:01 PM


John, sentience is what makes for it being "anyone." A living organism is one thing, but without personality, awareness, etc., without there being "somebody home" then it's a different deal.

It's not a "tight confine," it's something that matters to a great many people.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 1:04 PM


"Life without freedom is nothing"
-----------------------------------

So...all those people living in CHINA and other countries w/o freedom are NOTHING?

Without LIFE, then you really have nothing..with Life, you at least have Hope...

Posted by: RSD at April 24, 2008 1:08 PM


"...but the fact remains that the unborn, early enough in gestation, have no such consciousness."

You do not know this for a fact. I would say that no one really knows when conscienceness begins or even what it entails in the unborn. Therefore, to make this a reason why abortion is morally valid is ridiculous. It is merely convenient for those who wish to rid themselves of what they perceive as a consequence of abortion.
It's the same as arguing for euthanizing people who are said to be in a PVS condition. What does this even mean? There is no agreement on this condition within the medical community.

That's fine about Mel, but he is not IMO an "indoctrinated" Catholic. He has chosen for himself his own path (which no doubt you don't like). As an alcoholic, he no doubt has many issues, but you don't have any idea what has led him to have the beliefs he has, anymore than I do. Show some charity and stop bashing Catholics.
BTW, some might call you an indoctrinated atheistic materialist.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 1:09 PM


The pro-life group Fidelis is upset by the video. See http://www.lifenews.com/nat3889.html where Jill is also quoted.

Posted by: Steve Ertelt at April 24, 2008 1:10 PM


Hooves: 12:03: I freakin' love Mel Brooks...the guys got a set of giblets to go with his sense of humor!

Have you ever heard of the book "Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot" by John Callahan?

He's the cartoonist who got in so much hot water with the disability rights crowd for drawing a cartoon of two horseback riding deputies looking at a tipped over wheelchair on a dusty trail. The caption of the cartoon is the title of his book. All the “differently-abled” rights lock-steppers started writing him hate mail and boycotting the publications he appeared in.

Until…..

They found out he is a quadriplegic.

Reminds me of Mel Brooks.

That is funny! I'll have to look for that book!

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 1:10 PM


You do not know this for a fact. I would say that no one really knows when conscienceness begins or even what it entails in the unborn.

Patricia, late enough in gestation and almost all fetuses have the awareness we're talking about. The brainwaves, etc., are there and easily detectable. And again - this is not defining exactly when a given fetus becomes conscious, this is just saying that early enough in gestation then no consciousness is present.
......

Therefore, to make this a reason why abortion is morally valid is ridiculous.

It makes a difference to me, and to many people. You have things that are valid, the most important to you, etc., and for other people they aren't always going to be the same.
......

It is merely convenient for those who wish to rid themselves of what they perceive as a consequence of abortion.

You lost me there.
.....

It's the same as arguing for euthanizing people who are said to be in a PVS condition.

Nope. The PVS patients are not inside the body of a person, so it's a much different deal. As far as PVS, there may be a living body there, but if the consciousness is gone, then the person that once was is no longer there, they are gone, IMO.
......

What does this even mean? There is no agreement on this condition within the medical community.

Maybe, but I think the "not conscious" as opposed to "minimally conscious," etc., is well-accepted.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 1:26 PM


Patricia: That's fine about Mel, but he is not IMO an "indoctrinated" Catholic.

Okay, so you and I disagree on whether he was indoctrinated.
.....

He has chosen for himself his own path (which no doubt you don't like).

No. He's welcome to it. But do I want public policy to be made on his positions on things? Heck no.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 1:29 PM



Doug

John, sentience is what makes for it being "anyone." A living organism is one thing, but without personality, awareness, etc., without there being "somebody home" then it's a different deal.

It's not a "tight confine," it's something that matters to a great
many people.

What's this deal and tight confine all about?

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 1:50 PM


My point Doug is that you like many of your liberal proabort peers figure that if a person is a practicing Catholic who truly believes in their faith then they must somehow be "indoctrinated". Because, well you know, the CAtholic position on everything moral is just so UNREASONABLE, that no intelligent, thinking person would ever consider Catholicism as a viable religion. Stop doing this - it makes you look intolerant and a bigot. Of course, you'll never be called this because intolerance only goes one way in our culture today - and that favours the proabort liberal mindset which you have. The bigots of course are those who believe abortion and homosexual lifestyles are immoral.

As for abortion you have all kinds of reasons why abortion is moral at some dates and not at others - viability, consciousness, physical perfection, and on and on the list goes. When will you make up your mind? The truth is none of these criteria can actually be pinned down - they are changing all the time. To base your moral code and your virtue on something this fluid is irrational. You are like chaf in the wind.

"It is merely convenient for those who wish to rid themselves of what they perceive as a consequence of abortion."

- the last word should have been sex instead of abortion. Of course in your mind, there are no consequences to sex because there's abortion!! I'm sure you couldn't finish the sentence if it had a blank space in it - it's not a part of your mindset.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 1:53 PM


So Doug,

Since you know I love pegging you with yes or no questions:

If medical science someday proves that human beings are sentient and conscience from the moment of conception would you then be against abortion?

Yes or No?

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 1:54 PM


"A living organism is one thing, but without personality, awareness, etc., without there being "somebody home" then it's a different deal."

In fact the unborn do exhibit personality traits very young in the womb as many mothers can attest to. How do we know when there's anybody home? At this point in medical science we don't.

I read about 4 mons ago about a researcher who claims that IVF children appear to have some kind of relationship with their frozen brother/sister- embryo's. While this sounds very bizarre on the surface it may not be so. We know so little about what we are manipulating. So there may be a consciousness that we are not aware of or do not even understand but once had and cannot remember.
It sounds flaky but you just never know....

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 2:01 PM


When you watch that sketch there is absolutely no question as to what an abortion is. There is no grey area, no blurring of lines. It's a full on ambush of a woman by a hitman hired by a bum.

And women who choose abortion for themselves... don't exist?

I mean honestly, imagine someone who favors abortion watching that sketch. It makes THEM look like vermain. It makes me, a pro-lifer, feel good because I would never do that in the name of "choice" and "freedom."

LOL. Yeah, that would make sense, if not for the fact that pro-choicers don't force anyone to abort, either, due to our belief in choice and freedom.

Posted by: reality at April 24, 2008 2:04 PM


If little hands, arms, feet, toes and faces don't sway Doug, I don't think anything will.

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 2:06 PM


Good point Carla....I just want to see how far he will go to stick to his sentience argument.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 2:09 PM


LOL. Yeah, that would make sense, if not for the fact that pro-choicers don't force anyone to abort, either, due to our belief in choice and freedom.

Hmmmm....well, that would certainly explain your propensity for vilifying any woman who has the unmitigated gall to admit out loud that she regrets her "choice" to have an abortion....

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 2:12 PM


I am 35 weeks pregnant. This baby has it's own personality which is VERY different from it's older sister. This child is territorial, where as Abigail didn't care if we poked at her. This one doesn't care about music as much as Abigail did. Abigail was much more sensitive to noises than this baby has been, and she is still very sensitive to sounds. We joke she would have made a great spotter in WWII, she alerts us to any and all things flying overhead, whether we are inside or out. There are many other differences, I look forward to comparing their extra-uterine life as well.So much of Abigail's personality has carried over from before she was even born.

I've noticed a difference in the two since this one was about 16 weeks, I felt quickening at 14. That doesn't mean it wasn't there before that, just that I wasn't able to notice it, although they did behave very differently in their 10 week sonograms. As a midwife in training I'd see babies as young as 10-12 weeks "swimming" away from the doppler, you'd have to chase them all over the womb to get a good heart rate.

How can anyone say, well, I don't know if it really is aware, so I'll kill it before I can find out, I'll just hope it isn't so I can sleep better at night.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 2:12 PM


That could be said for pro-choice in general, Carla.

Heck, even watching the "blueberry" on the ultrasound still didn't stop someone we know from going through with it.

She just didn't want to be pregnant.

*sad sigh*

Posted by: carder at April 24, 2008 2:18 PM


God love you and your babies, Elizabeth G.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 2:21 PM


Had any of us posting on message boards had parents who'd decided to end the pregnancy that resulted in us being here, then there never would have been an "us" with any awareness in the first place.
-------

While I have clear memories going back to when I was around 2 or so, my husband vividly remembers seeing an eclipse that occured when he was about 16 months old, recounting it all in detail.

However, my little sister Caroline claims to have no memories before 5 years old, none at all, no feelings, no vauge thoughts, no "awareness" of her early childhood. So, when she was a three years old could we have put her in a trashbag and thrown her in the dumpster?

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 2:27 PM


New reader and first time commenter, here. I appreciate your blog, Mrs. Stanek. Thank you for your work.

I have not yet read the Fidelis link that Steve Ertelt posted.

I'm not convinced the video is satire and that its creators are trying to reach an audience with the truth in a manner they see as unconventional but potentially effective.

Can God use whatever tool He chooses to open someone's eyes to the truth? No doubt He can (and does!), and perhaps this video will indeed help someone out there understand how profoundly horrific abortion is, no matter what the producers' intent.

However, I just don't believe anyone who truly understands the gravity of child killing could make a vignette like this. Yes, I know satire is irreverent, but this... this is not right. It's sick and heartbreaking.

Posted by: Mrs. Ruthanne Shepherd at April 24, 2008 2:32 PM


Hey Elizabeth G:
My daughter who is musically gifted would have heard me playing piano alot during that pregnancy. I often think that her ear was trained while in utero!!

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 2:33 PM


I thought this was interesting...

How can we find how a majority of the population feels about this?

January 2006 CBS Poll (data extrapolated over 100% off of Wikipedia's data display): Abortion should be...

05% : Never legal
18% : Not legal OR Only to save mother's life
51% : Not legal OR only to save mother's life OR limit it to rape and incest cases
66% : Needs more restrictions than current law

That means...

A. That tells me that half of this country would like to limit abortion to only 2% of its current state.

B. 2 out of every 3 Americans think Roe v. Wade is bad law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/Abortion_in_the_United_States#
cite_ref-pollingreport_11-1

Posted by: Alex at April 24, 2008 2:33 PM


Hi Ruthanne! Welcome. Nice to have you here.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 2:34 PM


What's this deal and tight confine all about?

Janet, John M. said, to Jess and I, you cannot fathom injustice to anyone beyond your tight confines of sentience.

My point is that the "anyone" often involves being sentient in the first place.

A lot less pregnancies would be wanted if they were not going to result in a sentient child. Likewise, if I was to go into a permanent vegetative state, I don't want my body to be kept alive. What would be the point of that? I do see a big difference from there being "somebody home" (or "anyone) and the absence of it.

I know it makes no difference to some people, too.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 2:35 PM


"Life without freedom is nothing"
-----------------------------------

RSD: So...all those people living in CHINA and other countries w/o freedom are NOTHING?

Without LIFE, then you really have nothing..with Life, you at least have Hope...

RSD, aside from the question of just what the "you" really is, I certainly agree - it could be said that freedom without life is nothing, but the reverse isn't true, or at least not necessarily true.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 2:38 PM


You play piano, Patrica? That's interesting, because I've been working on some piano pieces by Philip Glass, and there's this part during one of them that always makes me think of you. Strange, I know, but I think it's because I practiced that part a bunch after I had just had a convo with you on this blog. There are also parts that make me think of Hal, Doug, and Dan too. What can I say, I'm a weird guy...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 2:38 PM


Thank you for the kind welcome, Bobby. : )

Posted by: Mrs. Ruthanne Shepherd at April 24, 2008 2:38 PM


Elizabeth I have 4 children and my eldest girl has a memory of when she was 6 mons- 8 mons old.
How do we know? She remembers wearing a purple sleeper with white dots. I remember the sleeper and it was an 8 or 10month sleeper which was very unusual in that it was a very strong purple. She loved purple when she was very small. My girl who is now 15 says that this colour strongly attracted her. She would not have worn this garment after about 11 mons - she would have been too big.
I myself have a memory of being in my crib - but I don't know how old I was except that I was very small and my brother was a baby crying. This means I was likely a little over a year old.
Pretty darn interesting eh?

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 2:40 PM


I don't play myself, but always have classical music playing in the background. When Abigial was only a few months old (postpartum) certain music would soothe her whereas other music would make her cry. She really hated a lot of syncopation or a chaotic melody and would cry until we turned it off.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 2:40 PM


"A lot less pregnancies would be wanted if they were not going to result in a sentient child."

HOW would you KNOW this?

Yes Bobby I play piano and sometimes in a rare moment - violin (when I want to teach myself humility).
We just bought tons of music from an annual booksale near us. I believe we picked up some Philip Glass. I will go look.
My daughter plays both instruments very well.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 2:44 PM


Yep, and that's just looking at it from a secular view point, you throw in the fact that the child has a soul and that God will judge between the quick and the dead and that it would be better to have a milstone tied around your neck and thrown into the sea than to harm one of his little ones and it gets very interesting indeed.

Were I to die tonight, secularly speaking, it would be the same as if I had been aborted prebirth, I would have no awareness of being dead. (So I don't really understand the logic of murder of an adult with awareness predeath being different from abortion in this case as either way after death there would be no awareness.)

However the Truth tells us a very different scenario would play out, with my soul being very aware, just as the souls of the babies that God knit in the womb but died an untimely death.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 2:52 PM


Patricia,

Most Catholics don't have a dad like Mel Gibson does. Also, I've heard him speak of his beliefs and where they came from. IMO "indoctrinated" does fit.
......

As for abortion you have all kinds of reasons why abortion is moral at some dates and not at others - viability, consciousness, physical perfection, and on and on the list goes. When will you make up your mind? The truth is none of these criteria can actually be pinned down - they are changing all the time. To base your moral code and your virtue on something this fluid is irrational. You are like chaf in the wind.

No, you're just pretending what my position is. To viability I'm for letting the woman decide. Doesn't matter what her reason is. Nothing "fluid" there.
.....

"It is merely convenient for those who wish to rid themselves of what they perceive as a consequence of sex."

Of course in your mind, there are no consequences to sex because there's abortion!

That's just silly. Sometimes the consequences can be a pregnancy - no debate about it. That's not saying the pregnancy has to be continued, of course, but that it resulted from sex is totally accepted, believe me.
.....

I'm sure you couldn't finish the sentence if it had a blank space in it - it's not a part of your mindset.

Oh please. It didn't make sense as you stated it, that's all.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 2:53 PM


If medical science someday proves that human beings are sentient and conscience from the moment of conception would you then be against abortion?

Yes or No?

Hooves, great question. Yeah, I would.

I was going to say there's not a straight "yes or no" answer, because there is also the woman to be considered. As things are now, after viability the woman is still there, but I see the formation of a thinking, feeling person, just as the woman is.

You realize it's fairly-well farfetched, i.e. the fertilized egg, the zygote, the blastocyst, etc., being conscious, right?

Still, yeah - I'd think of it as a "thinking, feeling person" then, and be against abortion, over the wishes of the woman.

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


To viability I'm for letting the woman decide. Doesn't matter what her reason is. Nothing "fluid" there.

This statement is illogical in itself. By the fact of letting a woman decide, the criteria therefore MUST be fluid - every woman will have her own criteria!
REthink, please.

Your position on Catholicism is bigoted and intolerant. Period.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 2:55 PM


So Doug,
Abortion is NEVER immoral - never wrong in your opinion? It's all dependent upon the "fluid" criteria of what the woman thinks and wants?

You believe in tyranny if this is what you support.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 2:58 PM


In fact the unborn do exhibit personality traits very young in the womb as many mothers can attest to. How do we know when there's anybody home? At this point in medical science we don't.

Patricia, agreed that one fetus will be different from another, activity level, etc., but that isn't necessarily due to consciousness.

Brainwaves that we associate with consciousness have been easily detectable with medical technology for decades. If they're not there, they're not there.
.....

I read about 4 mons ago about a researcher who claims that IVF children appear to have some kind of relationship with their frozen brother/sister- embryo's. While this sounds very bizarre on the surface it may not be so. We know so little about what we are manipulating. So there may be a consciousness that we are not aware of or do not even understand but once had and cannot remember. It sounds flaky but you just never know....

Far out.... What was noted to make the researcher think there was a "relationship"?

I realize we don't know everything, but I wouldn't take away the legal freedom that women now have on the basis of a "maybe."

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 2:59 PM


"A lot less pregnancies would be wanted if they were not going to result in a sentient child."
------

That depends on by whom you are speaking. Every baby is a wanted baby, just not all by their biological parents. There are people out there who only adopt Downs kids, there are children who are adopted and loved that have no arms or legs, I would be very willing to adopt a child with a condition incompatible with life, just to have it be loved and perhaps held warmly and hear a soothing voice before it died.

I assure you every baby, EVERY baby is wanted by someone.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 2:59 PM


Elizabeth,
some music IS more calming that's for sure.
Try some of Debussy, Liszt or Mozart.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 3:00 PM


I realize we don't know everything, but I wouldn't take away the legal freedom that women now have on the basis of a "maybe."
------

But yet, you allow for taking life away on the basis of a "maybe"

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 3:02 PM


If little hands, arms, feet, toes and faces don't sway Doug, I don't think anything will.

Carla, that too is a good question. It does make a difference to me, and I do feel sad when seeing an aborted fetus. More sad than with an embryo, and it'd be still less for a blastocyst, and a zygote. I think earlier abortions are better than later ones.

Still, if on the part of the unborn there wasn't "somebody" there as far as awareness, if there wasn't anything there that suffered, then I still favor letting the woman have an abortion if she wants to.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:03 PM


"Patricia, agreed that one fetus will be different from another, activity level, etc., but that isn't necessarily due to consciousness."

Only a man could make a statement like this. I'm sorry Doug, but it shows a profound lack of understanding about fetal life and you must think women are very stupid. I don't think there is one pregnant woman who would believe for a minute that every movement her unborn baby makes is reflex.

BTW, this researcher was approached by a couple who mentioned to him that there daughter had been having dreams since the age of 4 about her "other brothers and sisters". She had a twin and she wanted to know what her parents were going to do with the other 8 brothers and sisters who were in a cold dark cave and were freezing. The parents had never told their daughter that she was conceived via IVF - they in fact had 8 embryos on ice.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 3:05 PM


that would certainly explain your propensity for vilifying any woman who has the unmitigated gall to admit out loud that she regrets her "choice" to have an abortion.

Hooves, do you really see Reality do that, though?

In general I don't see Pro-Choicers "vilifying" women who regret having abortions. No question about it - some will regret it.

I think it's silly to act like all women have to feel a certain way, and that just because person A regrets something, that it'll have to be bad for person B, but that's not the same at all.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:06 PM


However, my little sister Caroline claims to have no memories before 5 years old, none at all, no feelings, no vauge thoughts, no "awareness" of her early childhood. So, when she was a three years old could we have put her in a trashbag and thrown her in the dumpster?

Elizabeth, no - there's no doubt she was aware at three, is there? Of course not.

Moreover, there's nothing like the desire of a pregnant woman to end the pregnancy involved - your sister was not inside the body of a person at that point.

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


Bobby, I am indeed a cradle Catholic. My faith waned in my late teens/early twenties, but never became weak enough for me to abandon it. Then after the years of questioning, all of my questions were answered, so my faith is stronger than it ever was before. This probably explains why I like to rhetorically kick pro-abortion ex-Catholics in the mouth.

Doug's position in a nutshell: Let us err on the side of death.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 3:13 PM


Alex, 10:39a, asked: "What are the 'trusted conservative sources' referring to Chris Rock?"

Dorinda Bordlee on NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bordlee200502160740.asp

Ann Coulter on Fox News

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 24, 2008 3:14 PM


Alex, it makes a huge difference how the poll is conducted. ABC News poll, January of this year:

"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?"

57% of people thought it should be legal in all cases (21%) or in most cases (36%).

This is a normal response - same question was asked 21 times going back to June 1996, and it was from 49% to 59% every time.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:17 PM


@Doug,

you missed it again ... the word to center on is injustice not 'sentience'. It is as if a person can only do injustice to a sentient being. Is it OK to kill another human, non-sentient being? Why do you think there is no injustice here ... if that is the way you think?

Jess talks about injustice done to the woman ... she doesn't even acknowledge the presence of another developing human being. Does not injustice occur to non-sentieent beings?

It is so strange that you think some kind of electricity means sentience ... it's a guess Doug because even the most brilliant scientist cannot tell you how electric signals are perceived as thought. We can only measure electricity... period! To assume only electric impulses denote 'thinking/consciousness' is arrogant.

Posted by: John McDonell at April 24, 2008 3:19 PM


"In general I don't see Pro-Choicers "vilifying" women who regret having abortions. No question about it - some will regret it.

I think it's silly to act like all women have to feel a certain way, and that just because person A regrets something, that it'll have to be bad for person B, but that's not the same at all."

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:06 PM

You don't think so? In fact, the proaborts insist that women and men who regret their abortions were those who should not have had them in the first place but only because they were mentally/emotionally unstable. It is they who insist that all women respond the same way after abortions and that very few women regret abortion. The increasing numbers of women showing up at marches and demonstrations, and at medical conferences and within the popular media show this not to be the case. Likely these represent only a fraction of those who feel this way.
The proaborts are very worried about the impact these people are having on the abortion debate - esp. the men. Because they show abortion for what it is - death in every way possible. Physical, emotional and spiritual.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 3:22 PM


Hooves, do you really see Reality do that, though?

I have seen it from reality, Laura, Edyt, Amanda, Sally.....et all, ad nauseum. Face it Doug, you are one of the few civilized (if not enigmatic) PA's on this board.

And thank you for your straightforward answer. I know how hard it is for you to stick to yes or no....

Ruthanne: Hi there and welcome!!

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 3:23 PM


"A lot less pregnancies would be wanted if they were not going to result in a sentient child."

Patricia: HOW would you KNOW this?

I think this one is self-evident. Do you even seriously disagree?

If parents find out that the unborn baby will not develop awareness, never have emotions or be able to communicate, etc., I submit that many would choose to end the pregnancy rather than have it continue.

Somebody here said that 90% of Down Syndrome pregnancies were being aborted (in the US, I think). Is it not logical to think that pregnancies where there would be no awareness at all wouldn't have at least as high a rate of being ended? Thus, the "lot less would be wanted" would be obviously true.

I also know that some people would continue it, as have testified several people right on this site.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:25 PM


"To viability I'm for letting the woman decide. Doesn't matter what her reason is. Nothing "fluid" there."

This statement is illogical in itself. By the fact of letting a woman decide, the criteria therefore MUST be fluid - every woman will have her own criteria! REthink, please.

I think you're just dancing around. Sure, there are any number of reasons that may be her motivation. It still boils down to what she wants, on balance, and I say let her decide.
......

Your position on Catholicism is bigoted and intolerant. Period.

Baloney. You just want to rant and rave.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:27 PM


It depends on how you define awareness, I have no doubt that young babies in the womb are aware, so either we're using different definitions, it's a matter of belief, or I suppose one or both of us being dishonest would also explain the difference.

Caroline may not have been inside someone else, but she was inside their home and fully dependent upon my parents, perhaps they had a desire to end the dependency. I suppose they could have dropped her off somewhere to fend for herself, so they wouldn't be directly killing her, just getting rid of the "dependency". Evidently she wouldn't have remembered it later if she survived and by your thinking (correct me if I'm wrong), she certianly wouldn't remember if she was dead.

So what's the difference in killing someone who is aware, as opposed to someone who is not? If you do not believe in a God who will hold us accountable, or a soul, then either way the dead are no longer aware. They are not here to know they are not here. The only awareness is in those that are still alive and miss the dead. A person can miss an unborn dead just as much as they can miss a person who died after birth. So what difference does awareness make?

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 3:31 PM


"I realize we don't know everything, but I wouldn't take away the legal freedom that women now have on the basis of a "maybe."

Elizabeth: But yet, you allow for taking life away on the basis of a "maybe"

No, I allow for it on the basis of what the woman wants. If on balance she wants to end the pregnancy, it's not a "maybe."

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:33 PM


Abortion is NEVER immoral - never wrong in your opinion?

Oh brother... Patricia, of course I do, as with cases where the woman is forced to have one against her will.

And after viability I do say that the restrictions we have on abortion are okay with me - at that point I think that sentience, etc., is there for most fetuses. There is also the option of inducing delivery, so it's somewhat of a different question, but even aside from that it's not true at all that I say "abortion is never immoral."

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:33 PM


My goodness John L, that is JUST like me! I never left the faith as well, but was fairly lack-luster about it. Then I began studying it like crazy, and I haven't stopped since. Did you also attend a parochial school where you were served a healthy dose of Haugen, Hass, and other contemporary Catholic guitar music? "Gather Us In" will forever be imbedded in my head...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 3:35 PM


John L Doug's position in a nutshell: Let us err on the side of death.

No, my position is let us not put the unfeeling unborn above the thinking, feeling woman just because of the desires of po-lifers.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:35 PM


Patricia 3:22
Thank you! I think that the lack of compassion for those that regret their abortions or part in abortion is very telling. They insist that I was a whack job before I ever had an abortion! We are talking millions of people impacted by abortion, all mentally ill, right?!

I have to ask again...
What GOOD has abortion done for women?
How has it HELPED women?

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 3:37 PM


I have to ask again...
What GOOD has abortion done for women?
How has it HELPED women?

I'd love to hear Doug's answer on this one.

How 'bout it Doug?

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 3:41 PM


Doug,

"I think you're just dancing around. Sure, there are any number of reasons that may be her motivation. It still boils down to what she wants, on balance, and I say let her decide."

Decide by what criteria? Her own? Somebody elses? We already have that - for one couple it's Down's syndrome that prompts them to abort, for another it's cleft palate, for another it's that the baby is a girl.
You advocate tyranny against a whole class of people - unborn babies under guise of women's rights. I really doubt you care a whit about women and their rights.

"Your position on Catholicism is bigoted and intolerant. Period.

Baloney. You just want to rant and rave."

I call it as I see it Doug based on your posts. Sorry. You never denied my statements about how you view the Catholic church and indoctrination.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 3:42 PM


"I realize we don't know everything, but I wouldn't take away the legal freedom that women now have on the basis of a "maybe."

Elizabeth: But yet, you allow for taking life away on the basis of a "maybe"

No, I allow for it on the basis of what the woman wants. If on balance she wants to end the pregnancy, it's not a "maybe."
-----

Okay, you allow for the taking of life on the basis of personal prefence.

However, the maybe in the first quote, as I understood it, was talking about whether or not the baby is aware. The mother's prefernce doesn't change whether or not the baby is aware. You stated that if the child is aware that it should have an impact on whether or not it has a right to live.

Doug: Still, yeah - I'd think of it as a "thinking, feeling person" then, and be against abortion, over the wishes of the woman.

So I'm saying maybe it is aware, then you are willing to put the whims of a mother over the life of her child for a maybe. You are erring on the side that says the child is unaware, as opposed to erring on the side of caution about taking a "sentient's" life.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 3:44 PM


Pro-lifers put the baby above the mother? I thought we put the baby's LIFE above the mother's nine months of inconvenience. But Doug, if you know my position better than I do, please, do tell.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 3:45 PM


"Oh brother... Patricia, of course I do, as with cases where the woman is forced to have one against her will."

Well that's probably at least 30% of all abortions according to recent studies Doug.

Pretty limited morality, I think. Or looking at it another way, a lot of lack of virtue.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 3:47 PM


"Patricia, agreed that one fetus will be different from another, activity level, etc., but that isn't necessarily due to consciousness."

Only a man could make a statement like this. I'm sorry Doug, but it shows a profound lack of understanding about fetal life and you must think women are very stupid.

No, no, no. No.
......

I don't think there is one pregnant woman who would believe for a minute that every movement her unborn baby makes is reflex.

So what? I said no such thing. I do not believe that you are unable to know the difference btween what I said and that.
......

BTW, this researcher was approached by a couple who mentioned to him that there daughter had been having dreams since the age of 4 about her "other brothers and sisters". She had a twin and she wanted to know what her parents were going to do with the other 8 brothers and sisters who were in a cold dark cave and were freezing. The parents had never told their daughter that she was conceived via IVF - they in fact had 8 embryos on ice.

Do you have a link? Sounds made-up to me.

If true, then I'm also not saying there is no such thing as psychic ability.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:49 PM


John M: you missed it again ... the word to center on is injustice not 'sentience'. It is as if a person can only do injustice to a sentient being. Is it OK to kill another human, non-sentient being? Why do you think there is no injustice here ... if that is the way you think?

No, John, Janet asked and I answered.

Is it okay to kill another human, non-sentient being? Yes, IMO, if that being is inside the body of a person who does not want it there.

I think there is no injustice there because that being does not suffer, while if we deny the woman an abortion, she may certainly suffer.
......

Jess talks about injustice done to the woman ... she doesn't even acknowledge the presence of another developing human being. Does not injustice occur to non-sentieent beings?

It's a good question. Jess may feel that it's a greater injustice to the woman to deny her the abortion. That's my feeling, anyway.
.....

It is so strange that you think some kind of electricity means sentience ... it's a guess Doug because even the most brilliant scientist cannot tell you how electric signals are perceived as thought. We can only measure electricity... period! To assume only electric impulses denote 'thinking/consciousness' is arrogant.

Now hang on here, Hoss. We know of brainwaves and the different states of consciousness they are related to. It's not just "measuring electricity."

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 3:50 PM


Interesting,
Doug knows that his parent's didn't influence him into being a adult personhooded(read aware) agnostic(see all knowing God of murder) who knows absolutely that no one has a good argument against his dogma for abortion.
Well, give it to Dogma Doug, a defender of the rabid anti-Catholic, Sad Eyed Sally, to always mention a Catholic when discussing AbortionMan.
And here comes my prophesy of Doug answering my post.
No, and No.
No he wasn't a unpaided apologist for the anti-Catholic writings of Sad Eyed Sally,but he did of course, and we find him again thinking about Catholics that are Dogma Doug's "typical version" of Catholics, in his dogmatic closed mind.
And of course, Dogma Doug will now mention how he knows good Catholics, as all good bigots must.
Did JJ teach anti-Catholicism propaganda to Dogma Doug, while living in Canada, or did Dogma Doug instruct old hippies in anti-Catholic propaganda?
Ain't it a hoot Dogma Doug being a product of your parent's bigotry and always finding allies in bigotry all over the North American Continent? Hey, bigots? Parents?
You got something in common with Gibson, Dogma Doug, except when a Catholic does it, its a subject to pick at, and until your bigoted mind begins to think that your bigotry is just a reflection of Gibson, your dogmatic mind will continue to progess towards its goal. And that goal is kissing the feet of a Texasredneck and praising a gang of Taylors and skaters from sites unknown.
Get it yet, Dogma Doug?

Posted by: yllas at April 24, 2008 3:58 PM


Doug:

"Is it okay to kill another human, non-sentient being? Yes, IMO, if that being is inside the body of a person who does not want it there.

I think there is no injustice there because that being does not suffer, while if we deny the woman an abortion, she may certainly suffer."

I think you would have a difficult time convincing many highly regarded researchers of your last statement. While there is considerable discussion over just what the unborn child feels, it's quite evident their responses are much more than just reflex - as would be expected since they are human persons.

But under your criteria, whether the baby suffers or not, you would still favour abortion because you consider that the woman has the final say. So what you write regarding pain is in fact, irrelevant. According to you Doug, the unborn child is really just a mass of cells, which neonatology has shown it is not!

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 4:20 PM


@Elizabeth G: I see that you're a midwife, I was wondering what sort of training you needed for that job and what kind of licensing is needed to become certified? A friend of mine is looking into going into midwifery or becoming a doula. Do you know of any credible sources I can send her? The help would be vunderbar.

By the way, it's nice to make your acquaintance.

@Patricia: I agree with Doug on Mel Gibson. And yes, I know the Catholic Church =/= indoctrination, but in his case, with what his dad blathers on about and believes, I do think Mr. Gibson was probably indoctrinated to an extent, however, I'm sure now that he's older he may have some of his own views that may have tempered his father's but...

Posted by: Rae at April 24, 2008 4:35 PM


Alex, 10:39a, asked: "What are the 'trusted conservative sources' referring to Chris Rock?"

Dorinda Bordlee on NRO: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bordlee200502160740.asp

Ann Coulter on Fox News [no link]

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 24, 2008 3:14 PM

ROFL!!

Jill, how the heck to you get from this (from the Bordlee article):

It's time for all of us in the pro-life movement to learn to appreciate the power of political satire. Comedian Chris Rock, slated to host the Oscars this month, is being accused of promoting abortion.

[quote from CR's routine]

Whether Rock is pro-life or pro-choice, whether he intended to use satire or really believes what he said, is beside the point. What's "beautiful" is that Chris Rock has exposed a profound side effect of legalized abortion — the sexual mistreatment of women.

To this (from your post):

It turned out Rock was using satire to speak against abortion, according to trusted conservative sources.

Bordlee has no idea whether he intended it as satire, and doesn't care. Do you deliberately put blinders on whenever you read something so that you can just make stuff up? Your statement about Chris Rock's intention is a delusional invention.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 24, 2008 4:43 PM


According to you Doug, the unborn child is really just a mass of cells, which neonatology has shown it is not!

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 4:20 PM

At certain stages, it most certainly is a mass of cells. At other stages, it isn't.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 24, 2008 4:45 PM


It concerns how quickly some people on this site dismiss the need for personal freedom. Not just concerning abortion. God gave us choice. Let's make some.

Posted by: Jess at April 24, 2008 4:47 PM


Hier,
but very quickly those cells become differentiated and organized...
IN fact within the first 3 weeks of life, the beginnings of organs

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 4:52 PM


continuing my 4:52pm post (I accidentally hit the post button urghhh):
are established, especially certain key organs such as the heart.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 4:54 PM


Heart beat at 22 days....

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 4:59 PM


Although the blastocyst or embryo is made up of cells, it is by no means simply a "clump" of cells, at least if by a clump, you mean a collection or gathering of cells that are not interrelated or work together for a purpose. On the contrary, at the moment of conception, the product of conception is a complete whole, an integrated being. In a certain sense, we are all just "clumps of cells." Yet we are not a random collection of cells, like a bag full of bottles is just a clump of bottles. No, we are an integrated whole because every cell in our body works together for a common purpose. This is true as well of the embryo. Given the proper environment and nutrition, it will grow and develop just like we do. The developmental process is a continuum. So if the claim is that at one point it is simply a clump of cells, the question is; at what point does it cease being simply a clump of cells and begins to be an integrated whole? When it "looks" more human? That isn't terribly scientific. Science tells us that we were all once embryos. That we were all once a "clump of cells" should give us pause.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 5:05 PM


Jess,
It depends upon what you mean by "freedom".
Your freedom to abort certainly negatively impacts the unborn baby's freedom to enjoy a long life on this Earth and the freedom to develop it's talents someday....
Freedom can be a very relative term. Your freedom is another's death sentence.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 5:05 PM


In a certain sense, we are all just "clumps of cells."

...a VERY good point...

Of course if you are a STTNG fan, we are all just "ugly bags of mostly water" too.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 5:17 PM


Maybe Jill has a video of a growing baby in the womb? Seems like our class could use a little refresher!!

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 5:18 PM


I like the visembryo site Carla.

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html

When I was pregnant with #2, I used it to show #1 what was going on inside mommy.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 24, 2008 5:20 PM


@Hooves: And bacteria are nothing more than bags of enzymes! :-p

Posted by: Rae at April 24, 2008 5:25 PM


@Hiero: Aaaaaah! I love the Visible Embryo Website! It's so cool!

Posted by: Rae at April 24, 2008 5:31 PM


Wow, that IS cool, Hiero!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 5:43 PM


yllas, we all get that you rant, rave, and gibber with your own fantasies.

Tell you what, though - if others are willing I'd certainly support you being named the primary spokesperson for right-to-lifers. That would ensure that women wouldn't have to worry about losing any rights.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 5:49 PM


Caroline may not have been inside someone else, but she was inside their home and fully dependent upon my parents, perhaps they had a desire to end the dependency. I suppose they could have dropped her off somewhere to fend for herself, so they wouldn't be directly killing her, just getting rid of the "dependency". Evidently she wouldn't have remembered it later if she survived and by your thinking (correct me if I'm wrong), she certianly wouldn't remember if she was dead.

Elizabeth, good posts. A three year old like that is a thinking, feeling person - you don't see people arguing that, do you? What sentiment do you see for parents being able to end the dependency by "dropping her off somewhere"? The differences between the unborn and the three year old account for the wide divide between that case and the abortion debate.
......

So what's the difference in killing someone who is aware, as opposed to someone who is not? If you do not believe in a God who will hold us accountable, or a soul, then either way the dead are no longer aware. They are not here to know they are not here. The only awareness is in those that are still alive and miss the dead. A person can miss an unborn dead just as much as they can miss a person who died after birth. So what difference does awareness make?

If there is no awareness, then I do not see that "someone" is actually there. May be a body, may be a living organism, but, and this is my opinion, if awareness is gone then the person they were is gone too. If I end up in a permanent vegetative state, I don't now want to be kept alive that way. What would be the point? We are "human beings," physically, as are the unborn in this debate, but that's not what makes us special on earth. There are many other singular species, but it's our brains that make us really whowe are, it's our awareness.

Agreed that a person can miss an unborn dead as much as somebody who died after birth. Heck, they could miss them more. That is a matter for the awareness of the person doing the "missing." For my part, I'd more miss women having the freedom they do than I miss every single pregnancy not being continued.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 6:05 PM


Wow, that IS cool, Hiero!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 5:43 PM

I really like it. I was so disappointed with all the pencil sketches in the "What to Expect" type books. I wanted to know what was really happening, and I was also disappointed with how the maternity books tend to dumb things down.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 24, 2008 6:11 PM


Doug, please answer my 3:41 post.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 6:18 PM


insist that women and men who regret their abortions were those who should not have had them in the first place but only because they were mentally/emotionally unstable. It is they who insist that all women respond the same way after abortions and that very few women regret abortion.

Patricia, seems to me you are exxagerating and misstating people's positions.

I think that if a person regrets having an abortion, on balance, then they "should not have had one in the first place," since now we have hindsight, and that goes regardless of whether they had emotional problems beforehand or not. Of course, hindsight isn't present beforehand.

Yes, it is true that a very high percentage of women with emotional problems afterward had them beforehand as well, but that is not to say that a given woman should not have an abortion - I'd have to know a lot more, know her fairly well, etc.

I also don't think you see people saying that all women respond the same way after abortions. Come on....

I do think the great majority of women that have abortions do not end up regretting them, on balance. You say, "very few women regret abortion" is the claim, but that leaves the door open for any regret, no matter how slight. I think that for almost all women there is a mixture of feelings, and that it's probably quite rare for there to truly be zero regrets at all.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 6:18 PM


""Life without freedom is nothing"

Freedom without life is even less.

Posted by: mk at April 24, 2008 6:19 PM


What GOOD has abortion done for women? How has it HELPED women?

Carla, there are many answers. Some have come from Erin and others right on this site. I often mention Erin because she's such a good example.

A woman may be financially strapped, and not want to take on the added expense of having a child/having more children.

She may not feel she is able to care for a child/another child, or that it would interfere with her caring for others around her.

It may compromise her education, employment, etc.

She may not be in the right type of relationship, etc.

There are many others but those are some of the most frequent. And you may feel that "it doesn't have to be that way," but for many women it simply is that way.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 6:20 PM


and the award for most angry, rambling, nonsensical, completely vapid and pointless posts goes to....

...drum roll...


yllas!!!!

Honestly dude...your posts make me dizzy.

And Jill - Never once in that link does Bordlee assert that Chris Rock is pro life. And Ann Coulter is a "trusted source" regarding the opinions of Chris Rock??? Because she knows him so well or what?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 6:22 PM


"I think you're just dancing around. Sure, there are any number of reasons that may be her motivation. It still boils down to what she wants, on balance, and I say let her decide."

Patricia: Decide by what criteria? Her own? Somebody elses? We already have that - for one couple it's Down's syndrome that prompts them to abort, for another it's cleft palate, for another it's that the baby is a girl.
You advocate tyranny against a whole class of people - unborn babies under guise of women's rights. I really doubt you care a whit about women and their rights.

Yes, her own criteria, as I've said.

The unborn are not a "class of people," as you state it. You may think that, but there's certainly no agreement to it - in fact, it's that personhood and rights are not attributed to the unborn that has you upset in the first place.

I do care about women. Put yourself in the place of a girl or woman who has an unwanted pregnancy. I can see that it may be a very bad thing for her, and that it may be best to end the pregnancy.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 6:23 PM


"Oh brother... Patricia, of course I do, as with cases where the woman is forced to have one against her will."

Well that's probably at least 30% of all abortions according to recent studies Doug. Pretty limited morality, I think.

Why in the world do you think that would be "pretty limited morality"? If there is coercion involved, then Pro-Choicers are not going to be for it. Not a hard concept.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 6:24 PM


Rae -

A midwifery license requires a minimum of a bachelor's degree in nursing, passing of the NCLEX licensure exam, followed by a post grad concentration in midwifery. It can be done as a certificate, or as a masters degree depending on whether or not she wants to become a Nurse Practitioner in addition to being a midwife.

She'd be an apprentice for a while - there's a certain specific number of births you have to attend before you can practice on your own, but I forget the specific number.

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 6:25 PM


I agree with Doug on Mel Gibson. And yes, I know the Catholic Church =/= indoctrination, but in his case, with what his dad blathers on about and believes, I do think Mr. Gibson was probably indoctrinated to an extent, however, I'm sure now that he's older he may have some of his own views that may have tempered his father's but...

Thank you, Rae. I wasn't saying that "Catholics are bad," nor even that "Mel Gibson is bad," but yeah....

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 6:26 PM


John L: Pro-lifers put the baby above the mother? I thought we put the baby's LIFE above the mother's nine months of inconvenience. But Doug, if you know my position better than I do, please, do tell.

It boils down to your desire against that of the pregnant woman. Sure, it may be what the woman wants or does not want against the life of the unborn, but what is operative here is her opinion against yours. I don't think you need one more person on earth more than she may need to end the pregnancy.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 6:30 PM


whats the difference between abortion man and a abortion clinic? not much.

Posted by: jasper at April 24, 2008 6:34 PM


Patricia: According to you Doug, the unborn child is really just a mass of cells, which neonatology has shown it is not!

Hieronymous: "At certain stages, it most certainly is a mass of cells. At other stages, it isn't."

Yes, and moreover, we are all "a mass of cells" in one way of looking at it. Patricia, you are awfully good at telling the other person how they look at things, except that you are so often wrong.

On the physical reality of the unborn, I'd think that you and I would not have many disagreements.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 6:34 PM


I don't think you need one more person on earth more than she may need to end the pregnancy.

Doug, please don't go there!, Because you'd rather have no people on earth than too many? that makes sense.... If everyone thought the way you do, we'd go extinct.

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 6:36 PM


"Hieronymous: "At certain stages, it most certainly is a mass of cells. At other stages, it isn't."

Hieronymous, when you first found out you were pregnant, how did you feel? "oh, it's just a clump of cells" or "oh, there's a baby growing inside of me?"

Posted by: jasper at April 24, 2008 6:41 PM


Patricia - the regret thing is not something that can be quantified by a study.

Of all the girls I've talked to, and there have been many, the majority of them regret not being more careful and getting pregnant, which led to an abortion - not the abortion itself. So while that IS still regret, and could be twisted in to a statistic to say "women regret abortions", it isn't actually regretting abortion, but the action that led to it.


Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 6:41 PM


Doug,

I'm not sure what your point is. I think what you meant to say is that it matters what questions were asked - not how it is conducted. And then you went on to display facts similar to the ones I presented. I think you have a problem with the WAY I DISPLAYED the data.

I saw the responses to the question that you posted also - I chose to go with the one I did because it is less stupid (no offense). (e.g. What does 'legal in most cases' mean?) That being said, I'll play with your data for a minute:
--------------------------
YOU SAID:
57% of people thought it should be legal in all cases (21%) or in most cases (36%).

This is a normal response - same question was asked 21 times going back to June 1996, and it was from 49% to 59% every time.

I SAY:
43% of people thought it should be illegal in all cases or in most cases.

This is a normal response - same question was asked 21 times going back to June 1996, and it was from 41% to 51% every time.

I WOULD ALSO SAY:
Hey look...only 21% of people agree with the current law!
---------------------------------

Right now, abortion is legal except in the extremely rare situation addressed in Gonzalez v. Carhart. That means abortion is currently legal in all three trimesters, for any reason, including can't afford a baby, have too many kids, worry about how the pregnancy will affect your looks and don't like the sex of the child. I GUARANTEE that if we polled based on that, at least 2 out of 3 would agree that people think we should limit that.

Posted by: Alex at April 24, 2008 6:46 PM


Doug, if every pro-choice person on Earth put a plastic bag over his head, you wouldn't need Planned Parenthood to thin the herd anymore, right?

Plus it would greatly reduce CO2 emissions.

You say I'm trying to force my will on the woman when I say that she can't kill her child. You might as well argue that society has no right to tell people that they can't drive a car at 200 mph through a residential area.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 6:48 PM


John L:

all pregnancy is in your mind is "9 months of inconvenience" ?

Inconvenience.... seriously??
I'm glad you take it so lightly, I guess being a guy and all, you can get away with that.

But please tell that to someone without health insurance, or someone who's job gives lousy maternity benefits, or someone who can't afford to take any time off of work and still keep a roof over her head. Or tell that to someone with preclampsia, gestational diabetes, severe morning sickness, hyper emesis, back pain, leg pain, chronic braxton hicks contractions, or any of the other DOZENS of potential side effects of pregnancy that anyone who's gone through could PROMISE you are farrrrrrrrr more than an "inconvenience".

I really hope you were joking when you said that, because otherwise its sort of frightening.

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 6:50 PM


If human life has no value until it has attained sentience, does that mean that people with a higher IQ have more value than those with a lower IQ? And if so, do people with a higher IQ then have the right to murder people with a lower IQ?

I'm just trying to figure out exactly how this bat guano insane pro-abortion logic works.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 6:51 PM


Amanda I disagree. Of course it can be quantified and it will be. Give us some more time, please.
The Supreme Court cited 180 women's stories of regret. It is now part of Supreme Court doctrine that some women come to regret their abortions. The Supreme Court wants more testimonies. The goal is one million. http://www.operationoutcry.org

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 6:52 PM


You're right, Amanda. Pregnancy isn't nine months of inconvenience. Pregnancy is more like eight months of inconvenience, since it takes awhile for a woman to know she's pregnant.

Also, the "r" key on your keyboard is brrrrrrroken.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 6:55 PM


Thanks, Jill!

Posted by: Alex at April 24, 2008 6:57 PM


Yes, Doug those are all REASONS a woman may abort. At the mill, they played on my lack of income, my singleness, my college degree that they said I would NEVER use, my piece of crap car, my lack of resources and support. They questioned over and over "How are you ever going to afford a baby??"

Doug, I could have done it. Many other women can and do. If given the resources and support to raise their babies.

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 6:58 PM


The Supreme Court cited 180 women's stories of regret. It is now part of Supreme Court doctrine that some women come to regret their abortions. The Supreme Court wants more testimonies. The goal is one million. http://www.operationoutcry.org

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 6:52 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After MS. magazine published 5000 signatures from women who were grateful that they had access to abortion when they needed it, Silent No More tried to retaliate by publishing 5000 signatures of women who regretted their abortion.
It took Ms. magazine less than two weeks to reach their goal. Silent No More has been at it for over a year and isn't even CLOSE to their goal.

50,000,000 abortions and you can only find 180 women who regretted their decision?

Posted by: Laura at April 24, 2008 7:01 PM


Wow John. What a fantastic, compassionate attitude.

I'm sure you've persuaded many women in tough situations to keep their baby by telling them its all just an inconvenience.

You honestly think you're doing the pro life side any favors by calling pregnancy nothing more than 8 months of inconvenience?

Don't you think, if you ACTUALLY wanted to prevent abortions, you'd acknowledge just how difficult and challenging and scary it is for a lot of women, and look at it a little more compassionately and consider what all of her needs might be? Or is that all irrelevant to you as long as she keeps that baby?

You know I sit on the fence and sway back and forth daily when it comes to my feelings about the legality of abortion...but attitudes like yours make it impossible for me to reconcile that you actually give a damn about women, and not just your self righteous agenda.

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 7:03 PM


Hieronymous, when you first found out you were pregnant, how did you feel? "oh, it's just a clump of cells" or "oh, there's a baby growing inside of me?"

Posted by: jasper at April 24, 2008 6:41 PM

Honestly Jasper? I don't really remember thinking either thing. As far as I can recall with #1, I'm pretty sure my first thoughts were along the lines of "holy s**t, I'm pregnant".

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 24, 2008 7:03 PM


Laura,
I said give it time.

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 7:06 PM


Doug,

I've emailed you...

Everyone else, totally enjoying tonights discussion...you're all on a roll...

Posted by: mk at April 24, 2008 7:08 PM


Laura,

If you're out there, they still haven't found that priest...weird!

Posted by: mk at April 24, 2008 7:08 PM


Carla - I'm guessing that was actually a response to what I said?

If so, I wasn't listing those as reasons to abort. I meant them as reasons why pregnany, whether you planned it or not, is a lot more than an inconvenience.

One of my co workers is pregnant with twins. She and her husband are beyond excited. However she's having a lot of complications, and admitted a few days ago she's broken down sobbing on several days because its so hard, and scary.

If someone passed that off as an inconvenience, I would really call in to question that persons' capacity to feel empathy.

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 7:08 PM


Laura,

If you're out there, they still haven't found that priest...weird!

Though they did find the balloons...weirder!

Posted by: mk at April 24, 2008 7:09 PM


Though they did find the balloons...weirder!

Posted by: mk at April 24, 2008 7:09 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

That's kinda scary.
This is one of the weirdest stories EVER!

Posted by: Laura at April 24, 2008 7:11 PM


If someone passed that off as an inconvenience, I would really call in to question that persons' capacity to feel empathy.

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 7:08 PM

Amanda, I'm beginning to suspect that John has been confined in a small, dark room for many years now, with only his computer for company. It would explain a lot of things.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 24, 2008 7:13 PM


y'all will appreciate this:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=29222505

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 7:13 PM


Doug,

Do you know anyone personally who was forced to remain pregnant?

Or anyone who gave birth and regretted it?

Posted by: carder at April 24, 2008 7:19 PM


The Supreme Court cited 180 women's stories of regret. It is now part of Supreme Court doctrine that some women come to regret their abortions. The Supreme Court wants more testimonies. The goal is one million. http://www.operationoutcry.org

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 6:52 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
After MS. magazine published 5000 signatures from women who were grateful that they had access to abortion when they needed it, Silent No More tried to retaliate by publishing 5000 signatures of women who regretted their abortion.
It took Ms. magazine less than two weeks to reach their goal. Silent No More has been at it for over a year and isn't even CLOSE to their goal.

50,000,000 abortions and you can only find 180 women who regretted their decision?

Posted by: Laura at April 24, 2008 7:01 PM
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Look at it this way, 50,000,000 abortions and MS. magazine could only find 5000 women who were grateful for access to abortion when they needed it? What about the other 44,820 abortions not accounted for? We can't assume what their responses would be. *If Silent No More had their own magazine numbers might be much different. Those who regret may be ashamed to come forward as well.

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 7:23 PM


Laura,

I know right? Here's a link...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3802071.ece

Posted by: mk at April 24, 2008 7:24 PM


Carla:6:52: The Supreme Court cited 180 women's stories of regret. It is now part of Supreme Court doctrine that some women come to regret their abortions. The Supreme Court wants more testimonies. The goal is one million. http://www.operationoutcry.org

This is a great project, we need to get the word out. I wonder if Jill has commented on this story recently.

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 7:26 PM


Bobby the Kid,
What's wrong with Haugen, Hass, et al?

Posted by: carder at April 24, 2008 7:26 PM


janet,

that's 48 MILLION, not 48 thousand...and good point. Where are the other 48 million women???

Posted by: mk at April 24, 2008 7:27 PM


"After MS. magazine published 5000 signatures from women who were grateful that they had access to abortion when they needed it, Silent No More tried to retaliate by publishing 5000 signatures of women who regretted their abortion.
It took Ms. magazine less than two weeks to reach their goal. Silent No More has been at it for over a year and isn't even CLOSE to their goal."

Laura,

I think what we have to realize is that "I don't regret my abortion" is not the opposite of "I regret my abortion." No, in fact, the opposite of "I regret my abortion" is "I regret my child" because we are saying abortion needs to be outlawed, so that people need to tell us how miserable they would be if we outlawed abortion and they had to live with their "unwanted" children. This is an important distinction that is often overlooked.

So what Ms. Magazine needs to do is find 5000 women who will say "I regret my child. I wish I would have had the option to abort him/her." Indeed.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 7:28 PM


"You know I sit on the fence and sway back and forth daily when it comes to my feelings about the legality of abortion..."

There's hope for you then, Amanda.


Made my day.

Posted by: carder at April 24, 2008 7:29 PM


Mexican Top Court Considers Abortion Law

MEXICO CITY, APRIL 23, 2008 (Zenit.org).- A law permitting abortion in the capital city of Mexico is being considered before the nation's top court.

Testimonies began April 11 in an attempt to prove that the abortion law, which went into effect April 25, 2007, is not constitutional. The law permits abortions only in the capital and up through the 12th week of pregnancy. The court hearings are expected to continue for several months.

A range of scientists and other specialists testified that the embryo, from the moment of conception, is already an individual human being, distinct from the mother.

Susana Andrade, of the pro-life organization Incluyendo Mexico, told ZENIT that specialists in bioethics, philosophy, genetics, law and human rights affirmed to the judges that there is human life, even before 12 weeks of gestation, and that it falls to the high court to protect this group of individuals, as mandated by the Constitution.

Doctor Jorge Traslosheros Hernández testified before the court, proposing that the judged faced a grave dilemma: "If you decide in favor of indiscriminate abortion, you will be placing yourselves on the side of those who throughout history have held back the rights of Indians, women, black people, Jews, and now too, the embryo."

GO MEXICO!!!!!

Posted by: mk at April 24, 2008 7:30 PM


"Nearly 70 percent of Italian gynecologists now refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds and the number is increasing, a report by the country's ministry"

GO ITALY!!!!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080422192609.lcpkej77&show_article=1

Posted by: mk at April 24, 2008 7:31 PM


"What's wrong with Haugen, Hass, et al?"

Haha, nothing intrinsically, Carder. I mean, there's nothing wrong with their music (although sometimes the lyrics are a bit off, as in "not in some heaven light years away"...) I personally just find a lot of it to not have a terribly reverent "feel" or beat to it. A lot of it seems to have been written with an acoustic guitar in mind, and I love the guitar, but I personally don't find it appropriate during mass. It's hard hard to explain.. just think about the musical sounds of "Holy, Holy, Holy" and "How Great Thou Art" compared with "Here I am Lord" and "Deep Within." I just appreciate the first two hymns much more than the latter two hymns.

But it's all good. This is just my personal preference, so I have no problem with people appreciating their hymns. Some of them remind me of my childhood, so it can sometimes be a guilty pleasure for me.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 7:37 PM


"the pro-life organization Incluyendo Mexico"

For anyone who cares, Incluyendo Mexico means "including Mexico". Apparently the unborn aren't excluded.

Doug, you need to catch the next flight out to Mexico City and straighten out all those specialists in bioethics, philosophy, genetics, law and human rights. The nerve of them.


Posted by: carder at April 24, 2008 7:41 PM


Yes, and moreover, we are all "a mass of cells" in one way of looking at it. Patricia, you are awfully good at telling the other person how they look at things, except that you are so often wrong.

On the physical reality of the unborn, I'd think that you and I would not have many disagreements.

Posted by: Doug at April 24, 2008 6:34 PM


I prefer not to look at people as a mass of cells Doug. I don't think we agree on ANYTHING regarding the unborn. You don't know your prenatal development.I have never ever thought of my children as masses of cells.
That's the difference Doug - I see people as persons - you do not. Some are mere inconveniences based on their degree of development, sex, location etc.

Posted by: Patricia at April 24, 2008 7:43 PM


mk:7:27: janet,

that's 48 MILLION, not 48 thousand...and good point. Where are the other 48 million women???

Thanks for the correction. You know, the Virgin of Guadalupe (Mexico) is the Patroness of the Unborn! VIVA MEXICO AND ITALY!

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 7:44 PM


The Kid,

I would venture to say that it's a cultural thing, too. Imagine listening to Christian salsa! Not kidding. Or Christian merengue. Haven't personally heard it at mass, but you know us latinos...


I met a priest from Africa who brought his goat skin drum and my did he raise the roof singing "Alleluia"!

Posted by: carder at April 24, 2008 7:45 PM


Carder one of my clients was "forced" to remain pregnant. She thought it was too late to have an abortion the day she visited the birthcenter and picked adoptive parents for the baby.

After that she felt obligated to continue the pregnancy because she had promised to give the baby to the new parents. She had lots of support from the adoptive mom and myself during her pregnancy.

She did not regret giving birth. You could see she loved the baby girl, but was in a bad home situation. She nursed her for the first couple of days to give her the best start in life she could.

She was in her late thirties and this was her 4th or 5th live birth, she did not have any of her kids anymore and she had also had several abortions previously.


Rae,
There are a couple of different routes to becoming a midwife in the US depending on your state. What Amanda was describing is nurse-midwifery. I trained to be a Certified Professional Midwife (I did not complete my training by two catches and did not take the national exam.) I chose this route as it was much quicker, gives much more autonomy (no reporting to a docter) and the training is more "holistic" (a good word, but used by too many hippies ;) ) as opposed to the traditional medical model here in America.

narm.org has a lot of information about become a CPM. In Texas, texasmidwives.com has some good info too, I had to take an accredited course for a min of 18 months and also complete an internship which can be done concurently.

In Oklahoma anyone could hang out a shingle and say they are a midwife. Let the client beware!

In Missouri, CPM's are not legal and there are only two or three practicing Nurse Midwifes in the state, you want to talk about antichoice! There you can have an unassisted homebirth and it is perfectly legal, but if you hire a trained CPM to assist you, then it's a felony.

If you'd like anymore details or differences between the two main types of midwives, let me know.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 7:48 PM


And Bobby,


How about suggesting your abortion regret question to the good folks at Ms.? Imagine their response!

Posted by: carder at April 24, 2008 7:48 PM


Did you really call Ann Coulter a reliable source? You know she doesn't think a woman should have the right to vote. See, if we make abortion illegal then they'll just go after a woman's right to vote, then a woman's right to not get married, a woman's right to not get raped, etc... Do you see where I'm getting this from?

Posted by: Jess at April 24, 2008 7:50 PM


Carder -

I'm not sure I'll ever hop off the fence in either direction at this point.

I have my opinions, and they are strong opinions, but they don't seem to fit in with either side.

All I know without a doubt though, is that anyone who passes off a pregnancy as an inconvenience, whether they are trying to make abortion seem like its no big deal OR make pregnancy seem like its no big deal, are doing a great injustice to women, babies, and to themselves.

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 7:51 PM


Eliza. G.

Wow. Sounds like that client has had her ups and downs. Might have been crossing the line asking what was more painful emotionally: giving birth of having abortions.

Midwives delivered all 3 of my babies. Last one was at a birth center. If there's a next itme, I would like to do home birth.

Posted by: carder at April 24, 2008 7:52 PM


Oh yeah, I hope I didn't give the impression that there was only one way to do things. I totally realize that different cultures can legitimately do different things at mass. For example, while I strongly oppose liturgical dancing here in the West, I realize that it means something very different in certain places in Africa, and can be perfectly acceptable (even called for, I think) at mass there. So these different kinds of music associated with different cultures that happen at mass in that culture seem fine to me. I just don't think the guitar is considered a reverent or "sacred" sounding here in the West. It's associated more with rock n' roll.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 7:54 PM


"How about suggesting your abortion regret question to the good folks at Ms.? Imagine their response!"

Ha!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 7:58 PM


Elizabeth G,

CPMs are illegal in Mass, too.

I looked in to it at one point and was discouraged by the fact that it seems like Nurse Midwives have to go through just as much scrutiny as a OB/GYN these days. Mass even requires an RN license to be a lactation specialist. I got to work as a doula at a Jewish hospital in NYC, but when I moved back here and looked for a similar position, I was told its not allowed. A bunch of pointless bureaucracy for the most part. =(

Instead I work for a practice that does pediatric speech/physical/occupational therapy. Its still very rewarding, but still, to do the REAL work, I need to get my masters. Which is SO daunting because of the outrageous costs of grad school

Uhhggg... sorry for the mini rant here...this has been my frustration de jour.

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 7:58 PM


I think what we have to realize is that "I don't regret my abortion" is not the opposite of "I regret my abortion." No, in fact, the opposite of "I regret my abortion" is "I regret my child" because we are saying abortion needs to be outlawed, so that people need to tell us how miserable they would be if we outlawed abortion and they had to live with their "unwanted" children. This is an important distinction that is often overlooked.

So what Ms. Magazine needs to do is find 5000 women who will say "I regret my child. I wish I would have had the option to abort him/her." Indeed.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 7:28 PM

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this point Bobby.

Anti-abortion activists were and are attempting to use a "harm to the pregnant woman" argument to move policy in the direction of criminalizing abortion. Part of that effort is finding women to testify that their abortions harmed them in some way, particularly psychologically, and then to argue that because it harmed that sample of women, it must harm all women.

The response to that from the pro-choice side is to the "abortion harms all women" argument, and to find women to testify that their abortion had no real harmful effect. Ms. Magazine seems to have been more successful at getting a response.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 24, 2008 7:59 PM


"I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this point Bobby."

No, that's fine Hiero.

"Anti-abortion activists were and are attempting to use a "harm to the pregnant woman" argument to move policy in the direction of criminalizing abortion. Part of that effort is finding women to testify that their abortions harmed them in some way, particularly psychologically, and then to argue that because it harmed that sample of women, it must harm all women.

The response to that from the pro-choice side is to the "abortion harms all women" argument, and to find women to testify that their abortion had no real harmful effect. Ms. Magazine seems to have been more successful at getting a response."

That makes sense. I suppose I look at this in terms of 'allowing abortion' vs. 'not allowing abortion' and you are saying that it is phrased in terms of 'the bad side of abortion' vs. 'the good side of abortion.' The former is attempting to compare and contrast the angle that the pro-life side sees abortion (the legality of it) and the latter looks at it from the PC angle (the choice; it can sometimes be a good choice, sometimes a bad choice). Hmmm, that's interesting...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 24, 2008 8:19 PM


Amanda said: "You honestly think you're doing the pro life side any favors by calling pregnancy nothing more than 8 months of inconvenience?"

Haha, no! I thought I was poking fun at you for acting like pregnancy is similar to the Bubonic plague!

Of course many women who are pregnant need help. And I fully support every effort to give them help which doesn't result in a dead baby.

Hieronymous said: "Amanda, I'm beginning to suspect that John has been confined in a small, dark room for many years now, with only his computer for company. It would explain a lot of things."

Well, I do spend about 8 hours a day in a small, dark room. My eyes are usually closed then. I spend most of the rest of the time working. I somehow doubt you've ever worked a day in your life. It would explain a lot of things.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 8:50 PM


John 8:50: Well, I do spend about 8 hours a day in a small, dark room. My eyes are usually closed then. I spend most of the rest of the time working.

That was funny! :)

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 8:56 PM


"Haha, no! I thought I was poking fun at you for acting like pregnancy is similar to the Bubonic plague!"

Really? Even though you called it an inconvenience BEFORE I listed the reasons why its not that simple?

You poked fun at me for something I said, before I even said anything! Thats magical John! I'm impressed!!

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 8:56 PM


Amanda,

I think " the inconvenience idea" came up in a point earlier in the day before you got here. It's not like it's never been said before...

Posted by: Janet at April 24, 2008 8:59 PM


Sentient hoo-hah.

This is all a bunch of nonsense.

God's intent and will are expressed at conception.

To deliberately interrupt that divine expression is just plain wrong.

To be able to make a decision like abortion implies the possession of all knowledge and like John M. so eloquently states, is arrogant.

Posted by: HisMan at April 24, 2008 9:03 PM


Oh, no, Amanda. You misunderstand me. Pregnancy is absolutely eight months of inconvenience, no matter how hysterical that makes you. That's simply reality. Though I neglected to explain myself because I was so amused by your, well, craziness. That's why I poked fun at you. OK, I'll be serious now.

Pregnancy is an inconvenience, but that doesn't mean pregnancy is easy. A lot of women will need help to get through it. Fortunately we pro-lifers are ready, willing and able to help any women who need assistance during this time period through churches and charities. Many of us (including me) even support expanded government programs intended to help these women.

If it makes you feel any better, I also consider something like a broken arm to be an inconvenience. Last year I participated in the March for Life while I had a sprained knee. I just didn't bend that knee as I walked. It was rather inconvenient.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 9:06 PM


I do have to agree with Amanda on this one point. Saying pregnancy is simply an inconvience is not honest. I am EXCEEDINGLY prolife, but I am also for honest full disclosure. It's the same reason I can't say come to Jesus and you'll have an easy life with all your problems taken care of. It's not true. Repent and believe on Jesus and you will have forgiveness and everlasting life, but you will be hated by the world!

My own last pregnancy with Abigail I started developing preeclampsia, staying pregnant was damaging my liver and kidneys. We kept me pregnant as long as we could and then did some midwifery tricks that sent me into labor, if it hadn't workes I'd have gone in the morning to induce so I didn't seize and have permanant organ damage.

My mom had hyperemesis with all her kids, worse with me. With me she was hospitalized for severe dehydration due to all the vomiting.

Another friend has a clotting disorder during pregnancy and must have daily injections, she also has an incompetent cervix and had a cerclage and bedrest for half her pregnancy to keep her one baby that survived.

Obviously there are financial, family and social considerations as well. Let's not belittle what women have gone through to save their children or even children they will not parent, but will lovingly pass on to others who will, by calling it an inconvience. Women and babies need honesty. We can be honest and say, yes it is hard, but I will help you.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 9:16 PM


Alright, Elizabeth, how about this?

Pregnancy sometimes has serious difficulties attached to it. However, abortion is usually resorted to for the sake of convenience.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 9:22 PM


John, you posted while I was still composing my post.
I think we're having diction issues.

Inconvenient is defined in Webster's as: not convenient especially in giving trouble or annoyance.

Some of the complications in pregnancy are far more than annoying. I think you could probably come up with a more accurate word than inconvenience.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 9:26 PM


I can agree with that wholeheartedly.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 9:28 PM


John L:

If it's any consolation, I understood what you were saying from the start...

Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2008 9:31 PM


John,

Please explain to me why I'm "crazy" for listing a reason of ACTUAL reasons why pregnancy is much more than an inconvenience. Please, enlighten me. Were any of the things I listed untrue or exaggerated? And if not, how is anything I said crazy or hysterical? Or is that simply your way of dismissing anything I have to say because I'm not 100% against abortion being legal?


Elizabeth G -

Thank you. I don't get how people (and both sides do it- i don't discriminate) can trivialize pregnancy. It drives me nuts.

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 9:44 PM


Hiero,
You disagree with women filling out declarations that explain how abortion hurt them? These declarations are legally filed in courts of law as friend of the court briefs. They have been used in states that would like to further pro life legislation.
The women who believe they have not been harmed by abortion won't be filling one out. MS magazine seems to have been a one shot deal. Operation Outcry as well as Campus Outcry and International Outcry are ongoing and the declarations continue to be submitted daily. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 9:58 PM


"Hieronymous, when you first found out you were pregnant, how did you feel? "oh, it's just a clump of cells" or "oh, there's a baby growing inside of me?"

Posted by: jasper at April 24, 2008 6:41 PM

Honestly Jasper? I don't really remember thinking either thing. As far as I can recall with #1, I'm pretty sure my first thoughts were along the lines of "holy s**t, I'm pregnant".

Really? just "holy s**t, I'm pregnant" ? You never thought about the fact you had a child growing inside you? Ok, I'll take your word. It just seems really strange you didn't realize or contemplate it.

Posted by: jasper at April 24, 2008 10:03 PM


Well, I just got done catching up on the latest train of thought here and I don't see anywhere where John or anyone else was TRIVIALIZING pregnancy. I think all of us intellegent adults here understand that pregnancy can be beautiful, enriching, challenging, trying, difficult, in some cases even medically dangerous....I think we can also all see that John was trying to make a point by CONTRASTING the fact that abortion is a permanent solution to a TEMPORARY problem. Pregnancy is not always difficult or dangerous, but abortion always ends the life of an unborn child. Period.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 10:14 PM


Oh--and I notice that lately the only choice seems to be abortion or motherhood. I take it Adoption doesn't exist anymore?? Oh, right...even saying that makes me a narrowminded ignoramous. Sorry. Guess I'll just go take a bath now. G'night all.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 24, 2008 10:16 PM


Hi Laura,
Silent No More/Operation Outcry once were together. Silent No More now does more speaking engagements and gets the word out through publicity that abortion hurts women. Silent No More never "retaliated" but did have a signature drive at one point. My name was on it. That was years ago.
Operation Outcry is a project of The Justice Foundation and is doing more of the legal work using the signed declarations from women and men hurt by abortion. Norma McCorvey(the Roe of Roe v Wade) and Sandra Cano(the Doe of Doe v Bolton)are clients of The Justice Foundation.

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 10:16 PM


@Carla: You still on yet tonight? I'm going to email you if you are. Just let me know please. :)

Posted by: Rae at April 24, 2008 10:26 PM


Heading to bed soon, sweets!! :) Whats up?

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 10:31 PM


@Carla: Are you available for meeting up this weekend? Have you talked to Sandy at all about it?

Posted by: Rae at April 24, 2008 10:35 PM


I don't have Sandy's email. Do you?
We could meet Sunday night? Why don't we email tomorrow ok?

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 10:42 PM


Amanda, I found your hyperventilating amusing. That's really all there is to it. Pro-aborts are always exaggerating about pregnancy, speaking as though every pregnancy is struck by the worst of the worst complications, and all women are lucky to get through a pregnancy alive! And you use that as an excuse to justify abortion, of course. It's just so silly.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 24, 2008 10:44 PM


@John: She's not exaggerating. Pregnancy isn't always sunshine and kittens. Get over it. Childbirth isn't always a wonderful experience either, my mom nearly died giving birth to me after a relatively uneventful pregnancy (ignoring the fact she couldn't eat anything because of her gall bladder problems).

Sure, not every pregnancy is a nightmarish experience. And no, the potential for a nightmarish pregnancy is NOT a reason for abortion.

But you really *need* to stop trivializing pregnancy, because every pregnancy has the potential to be life-threatening or dangerous...but just because it has the potential doesn't mean it always will be. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Rae at April 24, 2008 10:50 PM


Now Now Dogma Doug,
Your gibberish amounts to always answering a post eventually with a No, and another No.
Gibberish? Hmm, who else uses that word when posting here? Down with dumb Skater8, or your close(very close) mind puppet named Pop Taylor Dung? Or is it your favorite Texasredneck that uses gibberish? Get it yet, Dogma Doug?
The next time you use another persons moniker Dogma Doug, and post a image to this post board, don't use my moniker, Dogma Doug. It's easy to return the favor Dogma Doug. Get it yet, Doug?

Posted by: yllas at April 24, 2008 11:31 PM


Hooves-in-Maw,
I don't know John L as I am a new reader on this blog, so I can only go by his choice of words here. I understand his point that many promoting abortion make pregnancy out to be the most horrible experience for every woman possible. I also have seen first hand how pregnancy/birth can be dangerous. It doesn't ever justify murder, but we must be honest about it.


I would like to point out though, that I addressed adoption in no less than three posts today. No, you are not the only one who considers that to be an option. It is a wonderful answer to many difficult situations.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 24, 2008 11:45 PM


John -

tell me which one of the things I mentioned was an "exaggeration".

show me the quote where I said these things happen in all pregnancies.

show me the quote where I said any of those things justified abortion.


I'll wait here. *hums a tune*

Posted by: Amanda at April 24, 2008 11:48 PM


I am the son of HisMan. The battle begins.

Posted by: SonOfHisMan at April 25, 2008 12:02 AM


Hooves, I love the way you and John read in to my reaction to his comments about pregnancy being an inconvenience.

I never ONCE said that any of the things I mentioned justified having an abortion or that anyone with those challenges should have one instead of keeping their child or giving it up for adoption. In fact, every complication I listed came to mind because someone I know has dealt with it - and kept their child. That doesn't mean it wasn't a whole lot more than an inconvenience though.

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 12:05 AM


"Janet, to be fair, I find the video horrifying, because I'm pro-choice for one thing, and because I am anti-violence against women."

Are you pro-violence against men? If not, then why not just say "I am anti-violence?" What's the point of segregating?

"Had any of us posting on message boards had parents who'd decided to end the pregnancy that resulted in us being here, then there never would have been an 'us' with any awareness in the first place."

Yes, yes, and if our parents killed us five days after we were born, same thing -- we wouldn't be typing this right now. And?

Posted by: bmmg39 at April 25, 2008 12:06 AM


Amanda, this is insane hyperventilation:

"all pregnancy is in your mind is "9 months of inconvenience" ?

Inconvenience.... seriously??
I'm glad you take it so lightly, I guess being a guy and all, you can get away with that.

But please tell that to someone without health insurance, or someone who's job gives lousy maternity benefits, or someone who can't afford to take any time off of work and still keep a roof over her head. Or tell that to someone with preclampsia, gestational diabetes, severe morning sickness, hyper emesis, back pain, leg pain, chronic braxton hicks contractions, or any of the other DOZENS of potential side effects of pregnancy that anyone who's gone through could PROMISE you are farrrrrrrrr more than an "inconvenience".

I really hope you were joking when you said that, because otherwise its sort of frightening."

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 25, 2008 12:15 AM


Yes John, I remember typing that.

But let me ask you for a second time...

tell me which one of the things I mentioned was an "exaggeration".

show me the quote where I said these things happen in all pregnancies.

show me the quote where I said any of those things justified abortion.

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 12:21 AM


"tell me which one of the things I mentioned was an "exaggeration"."

The implication that serious complications are a normal part of most pregnancies is an exaggeration. Would it make you feel better if I said that pregnancy is often or usually an inconvenience? No, probably not.

"show me the quote where I said these things happen in all pregnancies."

So you admit that for people who don't experience those, pregnancy is an inconvenience, or even more benign. Good.

"show me the quote where I said any of those things justified abortion."

There is no reason for you to have said those things, nor is there any reason for you to keep harping about it like a fanatic, unless you are trying to justify abortion.

True or false: Most women who resort to abortion aren't trying to avoid serious complications; they're doing it out of CONVENIENCE. You know this is TRUE, and that is the POINT.

Perhaps I worded it badly earlier in the thread. But the irrefutable fact remains that most women seek abortion not because they're in dire economic need, or because they're suffering severe health issues resulting from the pregnancy. They seek abortion as a form of birth control. They seek to avoid the eight months of inconvenience through abortion.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 25, 2008 12:32 AM


"The implication that serious complications are a normal part of most pregnancies is an exaggeration."

Too bad I never implied that... you're reading in things that aren't there because it fits your agenda to attack me, even though I implied nothing of the sort. In fact, I even said "why dont you ask someone who...", which implies that SOME, not ALL women have dealt with the things I mentioned.

"So you admit that for people who don't experience those, pregnancy is an inconvenience, or even more benign. Good."

Nope. Not for a second. I don't think pregnancy is ever benign, and I think its way too significant to ever just be considered an inconvenience. Again, you're just reading in to my words and trying to make it out like I've said things that YOU are the only one actually saying.

"There is no reason for you to have said those things, nor is there any reason for you to keep harping about it like a fanatic, unless you are trying to justify abortion"

Oh. You mean I never said those things justify abortion? Haha, that would be correct. And calling you on twisting my words is "harping like a fanatic"? Really? Because I thought it was just clarifying what I'd said and asking you to back up the insults you were hurling at me. Don't call me crazy if you can't back it up with anything other than what you have chosen to read in to things.

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 12:43 AM


Amanda, fundamentally dishonest and rotten to the core, just like all pro-aborts. Not surprising in the least.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 25, 2008 12:50 AM


Hahahahaha

When all else fails, just start pouting and name calling, right John?

It's the easiest cop out ever.

Especially funny considering anyone who has been reading this thread already read the part where I said I'm really on the fence about abortion, and that my issue with pregnancy being called an inconvenience had absolutely nothing to do with abortion or my views on it.

But good show John! Cheerio!! Way to wrap it up with some class and dignity!!

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 1:01 AM


Not really, Amanda. Just don't see why I should bother. You started out explaining why abortion isn't a mere inconvenience because women experience all kinds of complications; it would be like me saying that crossing a busy street is an inconvenience, and you going nuts on me, saying, well, what if you get your foot stuck in a pothole, what if a car is speeding and hits you, what if a bird craps on you, etc.

Then when I get you to admit that there are plenty of pregnancies free of these kinds of complications, you say that doesn't matter, since even those pregnancies are far more than inconveniences... when earlier your entire argument was predicated upon the idea that those complications made pregnancy more than a mere inconvenience.

Most of this "discussion" has been a result of me admittedly wording a concept poorly. Most women abort for the sake of convenience. That's the point. The rest of the "discussion" came about as you began to hyperventilate.

But, as I said, this is all a waste of my time to explain. Those who are honest already know where I'm coming from. The dishonest people (you) will pretend you don't get it. That's the way morally bankrupt pro-aborts usually are, anyway.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 25, 2008 1:11 AM


" You started out explaining why abortion isn't a mere inconvenience because women experience all kinds of complications"

Really? Because I must have missed the part where I even mentioned abortion in that post. Oh yeah, that's because I didn't.

You're insisting on reading in to things that were never said OR implied.

My reaction to your choice of words has to do with my opinions of PREGNANCY. NOT abortion.

"Then when I get you to admit that there are plenty of pregnancies free of these kinds of complications, you say that doesn't matter, since even those pregnancies are far more than inconveniences... when earlier your entire argument was predicated upon the idea that those complications made pregnancy more than a mere inconvenience."

HAHAHHAHAHAHA. You "got me to admit"???

You still haven't shown me where I said that all pregnancies had complications. So how exactly does one go about "getting someone to admit" something they never denied?

And my entire arguement was that pregnancy can, and often does, have a lot of challenges and complications that make it a lot more than an inconvenience, and I strongly believe, as I have now said half a dozen times, that even a complication-free pregnancy is FAR too significant to be considered so simple as "8 months of inconvenience". And don't act like that was a momentary misstep in your word choice. You repeated that statement several times.

"The dishonest people (you) will pretend you don't get it. That's the way morally bankrupt pro-aborts usually are, anyway."

Aww. Thats cute. Too bad I'm not a pro abort, so that doesn't really fit, now does it?

Can you give me an example of when I've been dishonest?

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 1:20 AM


Having had six, relatively uneventful pregnancies, I would still say that I agree with Amanda that carrying a child to term is more than an inconvenience. Can't imagine what it would be like with complications...

BUT...

Most women have abortions at 8 weeks, long before there are any complications. You could say that they are having the abortion to AVOID complications, but there is no way of knowing what kind of a pregnancy you'll have so that would be basing your abortion on assumptions.

We have a number of people right on this board that have had abortions...Hal, Erin, Carla...and all them had those abortions for convenience sake.

I think both John AND Amanda are right and I think both John AND Amanda are wrong.

Women most often have abortions because pregnancy is inconvenient, but pregnancy for nine months certainly has the potential to be a LOT more than an inconvenience.

I think the point that John was trying to make was that "convenience" or "inconvenience" is the reason women abort, while Amanda is simply saying, pregnancy is more than inconvenient.

Even a "perfect" pregnancy is huge...after all a life has been created and is being nurtured for nine months. A new human being has entered the world and carrying it for nine months is nothing short of miraculous.

Trivializing a miracle is something I wouldn't do. But ending that miracle, for any reason, DOES trivialize this miracle. And turns it into something on par with choosing a breakfast cereal.

I think it is the pro choice side that trivializes pregnancy, myself. That is the belief system that turns "LIFE" into something cheap and expendable.

I think that is what John was trying to say...

It is certainly what I am trying to say.

Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 5:44 AM


Amanda,

You don't have to respond to my argument, but did you at least see it? The one where I refuted your kidney comparison?...here it is again.

Also, I say it is misdirection because both items are in your body. The baby and the organ. One is a person, one is not. We are talking about giving up an item in your body. You and the organ do not have equal rights. You and the baby do.
*
Giving up the organ does not result in the organs death. Giving up the baby does result in the babies death.
*
Nobody can force you to remove your organ, Nobody can force you to remove your baby. This is your scenario. You're right. Nobody can force you to give your organ to someone else. Just as no one can force you to have an abortion. No one can force you to remove something from your body.
(
You can voluntarily give up your organ because it is a non living thing and has no rights. You cannot voluntarily give up your baby because it IS a human being and does have rights.
*

You see? Misdirection. Focusing on giving up your organ takes your eyes off of the real situation.
Posted by: mk at April 23, 2008 8:32 PM

Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 5:48 AM


Rae, Carla,

I'm jealous. You guys get to meet and I don't.

You're welcome in Florida, though.

:0)

Well said, MK.

Posted by: carder at April 25, 2008 6:47 AM


Welcome SonofHimMan!!!

Carder,
Florida sounds awesome!!:)

Posted by: Carla at April 25, 2008 6:56 AM


Sorry I meant SonofHisMan!!

Posted by: Carla at April 25, 2008 6:57 AM


"I am the son of HisMan. The battle begins."

Wow, AWESOME! Your dad rocks!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 25, 2008 7:03 AM


Hiero,
You disagree with women filling out declarations that explain how abortion hurt them? These declarations are legally filed in courts of law as friend of the court briefs. They have been used in states that would like to further pro life legislation. The women who believe they have not been harmed by abortion won't be filling one out. MS magazine seems to have been a one shot deal. Operation Outcry as well as Campus Outcry and International Outcry are ongoing and the declarations continue to be submitted daily. Stay tuned.

Posted by: Carla at April 24, 2008 9:58 PM

Carla, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If these women feel the need to fill out these declarations, then fine. If they truly feel psychologically damaged by having had an abortion, they're free to express that.

What I was responding to was Bobby's comment about what the appropriate pro-choice counter-argument is.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 25, 2008 8:06 AM


Son of something...I don't know if I can take two of them.


And btw, I am definitely a good example of the positive things abortion can lead to. If I had a baby now...Man, I can't even think about it. My life is too awesome. I wouldn't regret having a kid if I did, but I'd probably hold resentment about things for a long time- and many parents do, from what I've heard.

What was this whole argument about if something isn't sentient, it doesn't have rights? A dog is sentient. A person is sentient. My cat is sentient. A rock is not sentient. A fetus for a couple of months isn't sentient. Therefore a rock nor a fetus has any intrinsic rights. We grant rights based on sentience. If you have a dog, and you starve them to death, you're going to get heavily fined and probably go to jail. If you kill a fly, no one gives a rip. Seems pretty simple to me.

Posted by: Erin at April 25, 2008 8:12 AM


Really? just "holy s**t, I'm pregnant" ? You never thought about the fact you had a child growing inside you? Ok, I'll take your word. It just seems really strange you didn't realize or contemplate it.

Posted by: jasper at April 24, 2008 10:03 PM

Jasper, you asked me what my first thoughts were. That was probably about it. Other thoughts came later :-)

In all honesty though, I wasn't one of those women who felt any connection to a "baby" while I was pregnant. I made plans, and thought about what the baby would be like post-pregnancy, but during the first part of my pregancy? Not really. I had a lot of bleeding (sorry if this is TMI) at the beginning, so I just assumed that I would probably be losing the pregnancy anyway.

Posted by: Hieronymous at April 25, 2008 8:13 AM


I have to agree with John about pregnancy being an inconvenience. I've described my pregnancies before, none easy, and mine were nothing compared to my sister. Hers included having to take horrid tasting amino acids (because of PKU) while battling almost constant morning sickness and delivering early because the baby had tracheal ephesia. (Okay not at all sure I spelled that correctly.)

And she, even more than I, brush all the problems off. It was an inconvenience, but to us an inconvenience implies something that it is of short duration.

I think it also lies in the "worth." Would these same people go through the symptoms of pregnancy if at the end, instead of a baby, they got a million dollars? Would that be worth the inconvenience? Would they go through it?

Posted by: Kristen at April 25, 2008 8:15 AM


Hier- yeah, that was pretty much the whole thing for me, too. Lots of obscenities. LOTS.

Posted by: Erin at April 25, 2008 8:18 AM


Hiero,
Thanks for clarifying. :)

Posted by: Carla at April 25, 2008 8:29 AM


Amanda, this is the last time I'm going to repeat myself, because you keep on intentionally ignoring me every time I attempt to explain my remarks.

Most women seek abortion out of convenience, not for any other reason. Because they are getting an abortion out of convenience, they are therefore seeking to avoid the inconvenience of their continued pregnancy. At the point in time when they go for the abortion, in their minds, the pregnancy is nothing but an inconvenience. That is how pregnancy is 8 months of inconvenience that they are trying to avoid - it's all in the mind of the woman seeking the abortion. Capiche?

MK, you don't like using the term "inconvenience" to describe pregnancy because it diminishes pregnancy; it makes one of the most important, miraculous events in a person's life and cheapens it. That is very true, but in the mind of most of the women seeking abortion, pregnancy is merely an inconvenience, and the unborn child something to be eliminated to rid oneself of that source of irritation.

Ironically, I just saw a TV ad for Palmer's cocoa butter which is used to prevent stretch marks during pregnancy. The ad declares, "Pregnancy is a beautiful thing", and shows a very pregnant woman smiling and putting her hands on her abdomen. Obviously the woman in the ad wasn't supposed to think that pregnancy was an inconvenience.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 25, 2008 8:30 AM


Hi Erin,
I am glad that life is going well for you. I am saddened that both of our babies died for our convenience. I pray that if you ever feel that your abortion has harmed you that you will seek help in the awesome abortion recovery programs that are out there. Have a good weekend.

Posted by: Carla at April 25, 2008 8:41 AM


John,

MK, you don't like using the term "inconvenience"

No John, I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying the reality is that pregnancy is MUCH more than a convenience OR and inconvenience, but that the pro choice side has reduced it to such.

And that while some pregnancies might be much worse than others, most abortions are done WAY before you'd know WHAT kind of pregnancy you were going to have.

So while I don't think pregnancy is an inconvenience, I think that the majority of abortions ARE done to avoid being inconvenienced.

This is not the same as saying that pregnancy is self is nothing but an inconvenience. You and I know it is much more. The pro choice side hasn't figured that out yet, tho.

Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 9:00 AM


"this is the last time I'm going to repeat myself, because you keep on intentionally ignoring me every time I attempt to explain my remarks."

No John. I understood perfectly well what you were saying after you started ferociously backpeddling. I was still focusing on your continued use of the term BEFORE you decided you used the word incorrectly and called me crazy, dishonest, rotten, and fistful of other cute names (that really helps make your case by the way) when I called you on it.

and MK - I agree many pro choicers trivialize pregnancy as well, I said that to Elizabeth G. Both sides do it. Often pro choicers will make it seem like a fetus is insignificant and because of that, its not a big deal to abort. While many pro lifers, as John did yesterday, downplay the hugeness and impact pregnancy can have on a woman and pass it off like she's just got a few extra chores for a few months. BOTH are misrepresentations of the truth. BOTH are dishonest. Which is why I kept trying to explain, my response had nothing to do with my views of abortion, but rather my views of pregnancy.

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 9:46 AM


Hey John:

*back pats*

I think Amanda is about as reachable as TR....but I have to admit I found your exchange with her very entertaining! Her hyperventillation attacks are nothing short of amusing....I wonder when she will finally realize that if she'd just calm down and try to converse in a reasonable way she'd be taken a lot more seriously.

It's the main reason I find poking TR so much fun...and why I only engage Doug with legitimate questions. Doug will at least try to keep a civil (if somewhat convoluted) tounge in his head.

Kudos to you for keeping your thoughts linear, your temper in check and your sense of humor engaged!

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 25, 2008 9:51 AM


MK -

I'm sorry I didnt see that response in the other thread. I still think you're misinterpreting my point though by focusing on the organ.

Person A has a kidney disease and they are going to die without a kidney transplant

Person B is a known match who can choose to donate his kidney to Person A.

Person B refuses to consent to the use of his/her body to save Person A.

Person A dies.

Is Person B a murderer? No. Should Person B have been forced by the government to donate the organ? No. Would it have been a nice thing to do? Yes.

Person A is a fetus who requires the body and organs of a mother to survive.

Person B is its mother who was raped.

Person B refuses to consent to the use of her body to save Person A.

Person A dies.


So it doesn't matter if its a baby or a grown man. If Person A doesn't have consent to use of the body it needs to survive, it is up the person who owns the body it needs to survive.

The only thing that I waver on is whether or not the act of sexual intercourse is granting that consent.

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 10:40 AM


Hooves -

you can tell the rate of my breathing through internet posts?


Wow... thats some talent!!

Do you ever contribute anything on this board other than back patting and name calling?

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 10:53 AM


because you continue to say that you're not pro-abortion, a laughable claim. In your latest attempt at an argument, you show that you have absolutely no understanding for the difference between termination of treatment and direct euthanasia. Just like all pro-abortion people.

And I am also still fully convinced that most women who resort to abortion have the mentality of choosing between a human life and eight months of inconvenience. You know, that which has been the point all along, and was the point when I made my original post. The point which you continue to ignore in order to score some kind of imaginary debate points.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 25, 2008 10:59 AM


Do you ever contribute anything on this board other than back patting and name calling?

WOW!! I'm shocked it took you an hour to prove my point for me!! (But thanks for not leaving me hanging!)

Take a bow!! ;)

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 25, 2008 11:03 AM


Oh, and Amanda:

Please do cut and paste every sentance I've ever written here where I direclty insulted you. I just love empty space.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 25, 2008 11:07 AM


And allow me to fix your analogy, Amanda:

Person A has issues with his kidneys. He doesn't necessarily need a kidney to live, but his life would be much better if he got a new one. So... he finds someone who is a potential organ donor, shoots him in the head, and takes his kidneys for himself.

Person B is pregnant. The pregnancy doesn't have complications, but her life would be much better if she wasn't pregnant. So... she goes and gets an abortion.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 25, 2008 11:07 AM


My mistake....that should have been;

Please do cut and paste every sentance where I ever CALLED ANYONE A NAME here....

I double dog dare you.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 25, 2008 11:09 AM


lol.. what point Hooves??

And John - I love the "when all else fails just shout out a lot of insults" approach to debate. Maybe I'll give it a try some time, it might be more fun, but for now, I think I'll stick to acting like an adult. It kinda sounds like you just have Tourettes though.

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 11:09 AM


I think I'll stick to acting like an adult.

ROTHLMAO!!

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 25, 2008 11:12 AM


Amanda, I use insults only when they are accurately descriptive.

Do us a favor and try to learn the difference between termination of treatment and euthanasia, alright?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 25, 2008 11:13 AM


Boy, I'd love to stick around to see Amanda's list of names I've called people here....but since that would be totally pointless I think I'll just go get ready to meet my mom for lunch.

Keep up the good work John!

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 25, 2008 11:13 AM


Wow...all I see are three adults acting more immature than my 13 year old brother.

How pathetic.

Posted by: Rae at April 25, 2008 11:21 AM


Yes Rae, when we grow up we want to be just as perfect as you.

Shesh.

Hasta...

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 25, 2008 11:24 AM


You are a despicable pro-abortion liar because you continue to say that you're not pro-abortion, a laughable claim.

What are you gonna do about it? Get mad and post on someone's blog?

Posted by: Lothar at April 25, 2008 11:30 AM


Amanda,

You have your A's and B's and life and death mixed up. The parallels you are trying to create are wrong. I think you need to rethink them.

Posted by: Janet at April 25, 2008 11:33 AM


Rae -

You're right chica. I just get a bit flustered when things decline to "you're wrong because you're a ((insert whatever nasty label)) here".

Posted by: Amanda at April 25, 2008 11:40 AM


@Hooves: :) Thank you, you're so sweet to say so, but I'm not perfect. Have a wonderful day and weekend.

Posted by: Rae at April 25, 2008 11:42 AM


Guys, it's Friday - I think it's the stress of the week we're seeing here - seems to happen every Friday (believe me, I've been there). Can we try to be rational and polite in our disagreements if possible?


John L.,

I get what you are saying, although not everyone appreciates the thought, obviously, because there is a lot that can be inferred from it that is misunderstood if not taken in the right light. Is there a way to be more specific and not generalize quite so much? Thanks. God bless you.

Posted by: Janet at April 25, 2008 12:00 PM


Amanda,

I understand what you are trying to say, but again, it's a misdirection. You aren't using "like" arguments.

Nobody can force you to remove your kidney.
Nobody can force you to remove your baby.

You can voluntarily give up your kidney.

You say you can voluntarily give up your baby.
I say no. The kidney isn't a human being. The baby is.

You are comparing being forced to give something up to voluntarily killing something.

You are TRYING to compare having something forcibly taken from you to being forced to keep something. The only commonality is the force. But what is being forced isn't comparable.

By forcing you to continue a pregnancy we are really keeping you from killing someone.

By forcing you to keep your kidney, we are not killing anyone. We may not be enabling them to continue living, but this is very, very different from actively killing them.

They are two different things.

No one is forcing you to kill the baby. You are choosing to do it.

Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 1:46 PM


Amanda,

and MK - I agree many pro choicers trivialize pregnancy as well, I said that to Elizabeth G. Both sides do it. Often pro choicers will make it seem like a fetus is insignificant and because of that, its not a big deal to abort. While many pro lifers, as John did yesterday, downplay the hugeness and impact pregnancy can have on a woman and pass it off like she's just got a few extra chores for a few months. BOTH are misrepresentations of the truth. BOTH are dishonest. Which is why I kept trying to explain, my response had nothing to do with my views of abortion, but rather my views of pregnancy.

I understand. No buts. I understand.

Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 1:59 PM


Trivializing a miracle is something I wouldn't do. But ending that miracle, for any reason, DOES trivialize this miracle. And turns it into something on par with choosing a breakfast cereal.

I think it is the pro choice side that trivializes pregnancy, myself. That is the belief system that turns "LIFE" into something cheap and expendable.

I think that is what John was trying to say...

It is certainly what I am trying to say.


Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 5:44 AM
.................................................

Exaulting a common every day occurance to miracle status is dehumanizing to the experience of pregnancy. You remove the woman from the equation by attributing her very real role in the creation of a child to a magical being. By doing so, you seem to have found an excuse to remove her right to self determination.
John's 'inconvenience' mantra is nothing less than a blatant sign of his contempt for women.
The Pl seem to have a difficult time in determining whether women are 'satan's' playthings or 'god's' playthings. Either way, you seem to believe women are things to be played with. Women are expendable but zygotes are not?

Posted by: Sally at April 25, 2008 2:20 PM


Sally,

At one time every women was in her own mothers womb and every bit as much of a miracle. Saying that the beginning of life is a miracle in no way undermines the mothers role. She was a creation of God. Her child was a creation of God. You are marginalizing both of them by turning them into machines and pressing the "back" button, erasing what you consider a mistake. THIS is what removes the humanity of both parties. Not recognizing the awesomeness of creation itself.

Why does saying that life is a miracle make the mother "expendable"? I don't recall saying that anywhere. What I said was ending life was diminishing the beauty of the miracle of creation. And when a mother kills her child she is turning the creation of new life into "a common every day" occurrence. While it might happen every day, it is anything but "common"!

Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 2:31 PM


Newsflash: A woman's body is not public property for the use of creating miracles.

Posted by: Edyt at April 25, 2008 2:45 PM


Newsflash: A woman's body is not public property for the use of creating miracles.

Editing Newsflash: A woman's body should not be used as public property for creating miracles they will simply destroy.

(the baby is already created once conceived)

Posted by: Bethany at April 25, 2008 2:52 PM



Newsflash: A woman's body is not public property for the use of creating miracles.

I never said I was responsible for putting the baby in there. I never said it was open to the public for procreation...what leaps you make!

Posted by: mk at April 25, 2008 2:59 PM


Everyone:
I want to apologize to Doug publicly for calling him a jerk the other day. It was completely uncalled for on my part. I have already sent Doug an email letting him know my feelings on the matter, but thought it would be better to get it out in the open, because I would feel like a big fat hypocrite moderating this blog with that on my conscience. I know it was wrong for me to resort to ad hominem attacks. I hope you'll all forgive me!

_____________________________________

Having said that;
Hooves, John, and Amanda, all three of you I care about very much, and I would hate for any of you to leave or something like that because of this argument today. It sounds like things got really got out of hand this afternoon. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know.

Posted by: Bethany at April 25, 2008 3:06 PM


Don't know if any PL'ers are interested, but thought I'd put this out there. These are mine and I just posted the ad today.

http://sacramento.craigslist.org/bab/656172668.html

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 25, 2008 3:23 PM


Newsflash: A woman's body is not public property for the use of creating miracles.

Posted by: Edyt at April 25, 2008 2:45 PM

That's too good to be overlooked. Great argument for abstinence.

LET's reword it to say:

A woman's body is not a public playground for the use of creating miracles.

Posted by: Janet at April 25, 2008 3:23 PM


haha, great Janet!! :) That's basically what I was trying to say, but you said it so much better!

Posted by: Bethany at April 25, 2008 3:38 PM


Aw Hooves those are awesome! If I had the money....:)

Posted by: Carla at April 25, 2008 3:41 PM


Yes Carla, they are great for sidewalk counselling because they are full scale size and there are corresponding development details in the lid of the case.

Posted by: Hooves-in-Maw at April 25, 2008 4:22 PM


Lothar said: "What are you gonna do about it? Get mad and post on someone's blog?"

Who says I'm mad?

Bethany, leave over this argument? What argument? I lived most of my life in New York; I hardly consider what I got into with Amanda an argument. But I guess we New Yorkers are more hard core than most.

I won't even care about anything said in this thread come tomorrow.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 25, 2008 5:29 PM


Oh okay, you may be right, John L...I was just making sure. :)

Posted by: Bethany at April 25, 2008 5:55 PM


Bethany,

You're forgiven. By me.

If I were a priest I'd give you absolution.

Between you and me, I was hoping to get a second round of the infamous Bethany-dumping-Doug-into-the-garbage-can emoticon.

Classic stuff...

Glad to hear ya'll kissed and made up.

Posted by: carder at April 25, 2008 9:20 PM


>>I am the son of HisMan. The battle begins.

Ha! Rock and roll, Dude.

Posted by: Doug at April 25, 2008 10:59 PM


Right now, abortion is legal except in the extremely rare situation addressed in Gonzalez v. Carhart. That means abortion is currently legal in all three trimesters, for any reason, including can't afford a baby, have too many kids, worry about how the pregnancy will affect your looks and don't like the sex of the child. I GUARANTEE that if we polled based on that, at least 2 out of 3 would agree that people think we should limit that.

Alex, good topic and I appreciate your response - just worn out today and will reply later re the polls.

Best,

Doug

Posted by: Doug at April 25, 2008 11:05 PM


John L: You say I'm trying to force my will on the woman when I say that she can't kill her child. You might as well argue that society has no right to tell people that they can't drive a car at 200 mph through a residential area.

John, society already says she can't kill her child. That's after birth when there really isn't much disagreement that "child" applies.

Really isn't much disagreement about the fast car, either, since it's nothing like a pregnant woman wanting to end a pregnancy.

Posted by: Doug at April 26, 2008 7:52 PM


John L: If human life has no value until it has attained sentience...

I'd say you know darn well that that's not the premise. Plenty of pregnancies are wanted, even wanted to a very high degree, before and after the point when most fetuses become sentient.

Posted by: Doug at April 26, 2008 7:55 PM


Carla: Yes, Doug those are all REASONS a woman may abort. At the mill, they played on my lack of income, my singleness, my college degree that they said I would NEVER use, my piece of crap car, my lack of resources and support. They questioned over and over "How are you ever going to afford a baby??"

Doug, I could have done it. Many other women can and do. If given the resources and support to raise their babies.

Carla, were you undecided at the time? With hindsight, you shouldn't have had an abortion, due to the way you feel. If women want to do it, then I say go for it, and here's hoping they have the resources and support to do so.

Posted by: Doug at April 26, 2008 7:59 PM


Do you know anyone personally who was forced to remain pregnant?

Hey Carder. Nope.
......

Or anyone who gave birth and regretted it?

A few. In the 1980s I did construction work, and often went to some of the local public housing projects. Yeah, there are those who gave birth and regret it.

There's also a woman who was married to a guy I've known since childhood. They got divorced when their two kids were teenagers, she keeping the kids. When all is said and done, she's a good mother, and it's not like she wishes ill on her kids or wants them with the father or to be adopted, etc., but if she had it to do all over again she says she'd be happier pursuing a career from an early age.

And of course there's the response to the Ann Landers question in the 1970's. 70% of people responding said they wouldn't have kids if they could start over. Surprisingly high, and I doubt the general population feels it to that extent, but even if it's only 30%, or heck - 10%, that's still a ton of people.

Posted by: Doug at April 26, 2008 8:11 PM


Yes, and moreover, we are all "a mass of cells" in one way of looking at it. Patricia, you are awfully good at telling the other person how they look at things, except that you are so often wrong.

On the physical reality of the unborn, I'd think that you and I would not have many disagreements.

Patricia: I prefer not to look at people as a mass of cells Doug.

Fine and dandy, but of course at a time in gestation that's exactly what it is.
.....

I don't think we agree on ANYTHING regarding the unborn.

Well, you're not right there either.
......

You don't know your prenatal development.

Well, I know it better than you do.
......

I have never ever thought of my children as masses of cells.

Fine, no problem.
......


That's the difference Doug - I see people as persons - you do not. Some are mere inconveniences based on their degree of development, sex, location etc.

No, you are really not saying anything there. It's the fact that personhood isn't attributed to the unborn that has you upset in the first place.

If we are not talking about laws and society's position, then of course you saying "person" is your opinion.

Posted by: Doug at April 26, 2008 8:15 PM


And, as ususal Dogma Doug, ends with a No.
Again, being a non- person is Dogma Doug's dogma, which has no truth as far as murder is concerned. Ask those criminals who murdered non-person, human beings. Scott Peterson being the most famous.
And hundreds more who have murdered non person human beings.
You go Dogma Doug, do you write to Scott Peterson and advise him on not being a murderer of Connner Peterson, a non person, human being?



Posted by: yllas at April 27, 2008 4:30 AM


"Patricia: I prefer not to look at people as a mass of cells Doug."

"Fine and dandy, but of course at a time in gestation that's exactly what it is"

When does a person stop being a mass of cells?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 28, 2008 7:00 AM


In a sidebar that went with the
report, the editors of Good Housekeeping wrote:
“All of us at Good Housekeeping know that no mother will be able to read Ann
Landers’ report without passionately agreeing or disagreeing. We would like to know
what your reaction is. Won’t you therefore, take a minute or two to let us know how
you would answer the question: if you it had to do over again, would you have
children?”
In their October issue, Good Housekeeping reported that 95% of the responses were
“Yes.”
How does one account for these vastly different results?

http://www.stats.uwo.ca/faculty/bellhouse/stat353annlanders.pdf

Posted by: Bethany at April 28, 2008 7:04 AM


Carder, here's something you might like:

Posted by: Bethany at April 28, 2008 7:11 AM


Alex: Right now, abortion is legal except in the extremely rare situation addressed in Gonzalez v. Carhart. That means abortion is currently legal in all three trimesters, for any reason, including can't afford a baby, have too many kids, worry about how the pregnancy will affect your looks and don't like the sex of the child. I GUARANTEE that if we polled based on that, at least 2 out of 3 would agree that people think we should limit that.

Alex, it really is not legal in all three trimesters - most states have restrictions in the 3rd or past the point they say is viability.

I do agree that most people are against elective abortions in the third trimester and past viability.

Posted by: Doug at April 28, 2008 9:08 AM


yllas: And, as ususal Dogma Doug, ends with a No.

I was being truthful and correct, as opposed to what you do.

Posted by: Doug at April 28, 2008 9:17 AM


When does a person stop being a mass of cells?

We never do, in one way of looking at it. As far as the zygote - blastocyst - embryo, I'd say about Carnegie stage 7, during the third week, early embryo time.

Posted by: Doug at April 28, 2008 9:26 AM


Jill I watched your interview with Hannity tonight and want to say THANK YOU for holding and comforting that dying child! Im only one small voice but it has been very disturbing to me to see advertisements about protecting pets (dont get me wrong! God bless animals too) BUT!WHATS WRONG WITH A WORLD that has very stiff punishment for those who neglect and harm animals, but its Ok to take the life of a human being in the most horrific cruel ways and means through abortion!!! Thats messed up!!!!!!!

Posted by: Clydene at August 20, 2008 8:50 PM