Constitutionally protected hate speech against John Roberts

roberts 4 portrait.jpgAs our commenter Laura first reported yesterday, according to the Associated Press this morning:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts suffered a seizure at his summer home in Maine yesterday, causing a fall that resulted in minor scrapes, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said. He was to remain in a Maine hospital overnight....

Roberts, 52, underwent a "thorough neurological evaluation, which revealed no cause for concern," Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said in a statement. Roberts had a similar episode in 1993, she said. Doctors called yesterday's incident "a benign idiopathic seizure," she added.

Left bloggers, given a stern talking to by their poobah Kos only last week to talk nice, are wishing for a death sentence or making other crass statements....

Wonkette:

Chief Justice John Roberts has died in his summer home in Maine. No, not really, but we know you have your fingers crossed.

Delilah Boyd:

What I learned Today: Supreme Court Justice's Foaming At The Mouth Is "No Cause For Concern."

Justinsomnia :

Who’s Idiopathic? Chief Justice John Roberts.

roberts 2 jack whispering.jpgIrregular Times :

... [Roberts] was on a dock in at his vacation home in Port Clyde, Maine. I know Port Clyde. It’s not exactly a bustling metropolis. It's a sleepy little town by the ocean, with bed and breakfasts and rental cottages. It's the kind of place that people like John Roberts go to in order to relax.

So, I doubt the suggestion in the Daily News article that these seizures could be brought on by stress. The kind of stress that is required to bring on seizures is pretty rare in places like out on the golf course or on a boat dock at a vacation home. If John Roberts really is having stress-induced seizures that lead him to lose consciousness and fall down while playing golf and walking out on the dock at his oceanside vacation home, then he's a maniac.

There is something other than stress that can induce "seizures" that make people fall down and lose consciousness: Psychoactive drugs.... How do we know that Justice John Roberts isn't losing consciousness because he's on some kind of drug obtained by prescription or on the street?

Democratic Underground [hat tip: Lonewacko]

ThomCat: I hate to wish anyone ill, but I hope his tenure on the supreme court is a short one.

kaygore: If there is a God, then he is not too young to become the right-hand maiden to Satan in the inner reaches of Hell.

roberts 3 family.jpg

antifaschits: [responding to a request for prayers] why? karma, if it exists, will probably kick this SOB in the teeth. Except, unlike 40,000,000 americans, he has access to the best of the best health care plans in the world. If, unexpectedly, he sees his own frail human life, his ability to suffer and die, his future pass before his eyes, like it does to hundreds of thousands each day in this country, if it educates him about the harm he inflicts on others, then, yeah, I can see hoping for him. But more likely than not, he won't. He will not recognize life as most of us see it. He will continue in his neocon way of viewing things, and simply add fat to the fire when he recovers and returns to the bench.

aquart: [responding to the request for prayers] Okay: Dear Lord, May the evil John Roberts does come back to him and only him, from every place it has gone, from everyone it has harmed.

kaygore: Better prayer. Dear God, Please release Satan's hand-maiden, John Roberts, from his worldly cares and allow him to join once again with the Prince of Darkness in the lowest reaches of Hell. We pray this in the name of your son, our lord, Jesus. Amen.

Bornaginhooligan: I prayed. But it didn't come true.

NoodleyAppendage: See. That's what happens when you attempt to goose step down the stairs. Neocon, pro-fascist horseplay is inherently dangerous.

GoddessOfGuinness: After a fall...He must have tripped on his preconceived notions... ...the ones he didn't bring with him to the job.

roberts 1 jack dancing.gif

Onlooker: I think the hatred is tongue in cheek, but .... How can he be decent when he uses his power to infringe on women's rights, civil rights, and worker's rights? He's a person whose decisions can affect the well-being of millions, and he has done far more harm than good. He may be a decent man in his private life, but he's a dangerous man on the SC.

youngdem: Just because he looks like a decent man doesn't mean he is..He is an evil, UNAMERICAN man... Ted Bundy also looked like a decent man. This one is just a serial killer of fundamental rights.

mitchum: F*** that noise; he's a [expletive deleted] lowlife fascist

Massachusetts: May Roberts and every other Bu$hco appointed treasonous Bastard rot in hell for their interpretive abuse and misuse of OUR (WE THE PEOPLES), Constitution and Rights! NO SYMPATHY HERE! MAYBE EXXON OR ONE OF THE BIG CORPS WHO CARE LESS ABOUT OUR COUNTRY AND PEOPLE WILL SEND HIM SOME LILIES.

eppur_se_muova: Great, just don't bring him back. nt

mitchum: F*** him; it wouldn't bother me if that was a one way trip

Finally, on my own blog, Laura:

Wow! All of you who prayed for the demise of a Supreme Court justice may have just received your wish. I got my wish when I found out it was ROBERTS.

And they call us "vitriolic," their favorite term - next to "misogynist."


Comments:

WOW, these people are HATEFUL!

I would never wish for a pro-choice justice to die! Or to "release him to the farthest reaches of Hell". What is wrong with these people?

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 8:17 AM


Laura, your blood runs cold. That statement will come back to haunt you someday.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 8:17 AM


These are some outrageous reactions, but to be fair, Jill not everyone on the left is this vile. From the site, Talk Left:

Think kind and healthy thoughts for Chief Justice Roberts, who suffered a seizure yesterday.

Posted by: Adam Graham at July 31, 2007 8:20 AM


Bethany, Could you imagine if all pro choicers took turns wishing the same evil fate on their beloved abortionists?

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 8:21 AM


Bethany, I meant all pro lifers.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 8:23 AM



I think Jill knows that not everyone on the left would wish him harm... she is just spotlighting the ones who do.

Thank you, Adam, for wishing him well, and not being like these awful people above, in that way.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 8:23 AM


Heather, that's the difference... we pray for abortionists, hoping that one day they will see the light and change their ways...these people like Laura, they wish harm on their enemies.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 8:25 AM


I went to one blog that said "Reverend Falwell is worm food now." How would Laura like it if I were to write the same thing about deceased abortionist John Britton?

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 8:26 AM


Here's another one from democratic underground:

"...and I can no longer ellicit concerns for those whom have helped to abbrogate the constitution.I refuse to "wish him well" or pretend I hope for an early recovery.In my heart of hearts, I pray he dies slowly by an STD that he could have avoided by the condom use he felt it was wrong to advocate for American youth.I hope that tonight, John Roberts confronts his mortality, and then, weighing himself, finds himself as wanting as I do..."

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 8:31 AM


Bethany, it is a deep and disturbing soul sickness. I can't even bring myself to say such things. I've discovered that these pro choice "Bastions of Tolerance" are ONLY tolerant if one is PC. Not all pro choicers are this way though.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 8:35 AM


Laura proved this yesterday by referring to Norma McCorvey as a "coke head" and a "drunk." If Norma had remained PC, I'm sure Laura would have sympathised with her, and she would have referred to her as an alcoholic and a suffering drug addict.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 8:47 AM


"Bethany, it is a deep and disturbing soul sickness"

Yes, many of them being the Godless creatures that they are, have this problem.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 8:51 AM


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I knew my comments would be pretty tame compared to the "real life" blogs. I think it's hilarious that Jill was just WISHIN' for a Supreme Court Justice to get hit with a malady - AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE FETUS BOY!
Remember; Be careful what you wish for...

Posted by: Laura at July 31, 2007 8:55 AM


Troll girl has arrived.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 8:57 AM


You consider your comments tame, Laura? Yours was one of the worst.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 8:57 AM


LOL! Laura, I thought you worked for a living. Why aren't you at work today?

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 8:59 AM


Adam, I appreciate your sense of balance, but I'm not here to do PR for Left bloggers. Their hateful chatter has reached such a noise level that even Kos is trying to tone them down.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:59 AM


I think Oliver is right- she is probably just trolling the site. But at the same time, I still feel pity for her, because she is still a person who obviously has some severe issues and really needs to find out what love is. Maybe she never has felt loved. Maybe this is the way she copes with that. I feel that she must have been hurt in life, to have ended up as bitter and cold-hearted as she appears to be. If she would just open up her heart to us, she would find some friends here who would be more than willing to help her.


Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 9:04 AM


Laura has NEVER had an abortion, but she knows for a fact that PAS is nonexistent. She's a power hungry wing ding!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 9:05 AM


Bethany, true. You never do know what could have happened to a person that could cause this behavior.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 9:07 AM


As dishonest as Laura has been so far, I wouldn't be surprised if she was lying about never having been pregnant before. Her posts seem to reflect someone who has had something tragic happen in her life, and I think it could very easily be abortion.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 9:08 AM


Bethany, I THOUGHT the same thing!!!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 9:11 AM


Well, you know what they say about great minds...:)

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 9:15 AM


Laura reminds me alot of my mom...very cold, yet somehow sad. I'll be praying for her

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2007 9:22 AM


Lauren, wow, I am sorry. :-(

I don't know if this is too personal to ask, but I am curious. Do you have any idea what type of events in her life may have shaped her into that type of person?

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 9:26 AM


My mother's little brother killed himself when he was 23. I was born about 4 years later. I think that his death changed my mom's life alot as well as my grandparent's. They don't talk about it...AT ALL, but I know it was something that really defined them as a family.


Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2007 9:32 AM


Hey, here's a question for y'all: How are the hateful words that the moonbats spouted at Chief Justice Roberts any worse than the words that many of you have spouted toward Laura?

I get it. You disagree with Laura. You think she's wrong. So do I, as a matter of fact. But that doesn't excuse ad hominem attacks.

Furthermore, if any of you are Christian, then you need to remember that every word you write is a reflection of your faith for good or ill. As Paul wrote, we are all "ambassadors for Christ."

Posted by: Naaman at July 31, 2007 9:35 AM


>

Your prayers will all go unanswered because god is imaginary.... if he was a real all powerful deity, there would be no Roe and no abortions...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 9:39 AM


Naaman, where do you see ad hominem attacks towards Laura? We have responded to her ad hominem attacks, no more than that. I do not believe she has received a single insult.

Lauren, that is absolutely terrible! It makes sense that she would have become bitter after that. I hope and pray that she will be able to find peace and learn how to remove the bitterness from her life so that you and she can become closer as mother and daughter.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 9:39 AM


"Hey, here's a question for y'all: How are the hateful words that the moonbats spouted at Chief Justice Roberts any worse than the words that many of you have spouted toward Laura?

I get it. You disagree with Laura. You think she's wrong. So do I, as a matter of fact. But that doesn't excuse ad hominem attacks."

Xian hypocrites think it is OK an long as they hate in the name of Jesus....

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 9:42 AM


Your prayers will all go unanswered because god is imaginary.... if he was a real all powerful deity, there would be no Roe and no abortions...

That isn't true, DcLawDawg.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 9:42 AM


"That isn't true, DcLawDawg."

Got any scientific proof published in any peer reviewed scientific journal that any prayer is ever answered....???

Didn't think so.....

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 9:43 AM


@Naaman

Youre right. Our insults to Laura are just the same. I mean they werent provoked at all, and they are of the degree of wishing she was dead and cursing her to Hell.

You are right that we shouldnt stoop down and throw insults, mainly because shes only trolling us for that reason, not for any rational debate of course. You are however incorrect by drawing a line between the two insults and where their hate lies.

I dont mean this to be rude, but you dont come across as the level headed "hip" pro-lifer for attacking other "ignorant" pro-lifers. Its fine to disagree with us and everything, but please dont do it just to be "cool."

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 9:45 AM


LOL that's the best you have, DClawdawg?

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 9:45 AM


Bethany,I pray for the same thing. Right now she is so lost in "unitarianism" and it's so sad. She wants to believe, but she thinks that the bible degrades women ect.

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2007 9:49 AM


((((((hugs)))))) Lauren.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 9:52 AM


((((hugs)))) back Bethany.

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2007 9:56 AM


Naaman, I agree. Some of things said about Laura were a bit much.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 10:07 AM


"LOL that's the best you have, DClawdawg?"


That's all I need.... if you have some scientific proof of any deity answering prayers, you could post it right here....If the Bible is literally true, then something is seriously amiss. Simply look at the facts. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:


Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!


If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens.


In Matthew 17:20 Jesus says:


For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.


If "nothing will be impossible to you", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should disappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying.


In Matthew 21:21:


I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.


If "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", then if we ask to cure cancer tonight, cancer should disappear. Right? Yet nothing happens. Note again that there is not a non-literal way to interpret "you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer", unless you replace "whatever" with "nothing" or "little."


The message is reiterated Mark 11:24:


Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.


If God says, "believe that you have received it, and it will be yours," and if we believe in God and his power, then what should happen if we pray to cure cancer tonight? It should be cured. Either that, or God is lying.


In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells all of us just how easy prayer can be:


"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."


Look at how direct this statement is: "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." This is the "Son of God" speaking. Have we taken him "too literally?" No. This is a simple, unambiguous statement. Have we taken his statement "out of context?" No - Jesus uses the word anyone. Yet Jesus' statement is obviously false. Because when we ask God to cure cancer tonight, nothing happens.


We see the same thing over and over again...


In Matthew 18:19 Jesus says:


Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.


In James 5:15-16 the Bible says:


And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.


In Mark 9:23:


All things are possible to him who believes.

In Luke 1:37:


For with God nothing will be impossible.


Nothing could be simpler or clearer than Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible. Yet, when we pray to eliminate cancer, nothing happens.


And keep in mind that this is Jesus talking here. These are not the words of human beings. These are not the words of "inspired" human beings. These are supposedly the words of God himself, incarnated in a human body. Jesus is supposed to be a perfect, sinless being. And yet, it is obvious that Jesus is lying. What Jesus says is clearly incorrect.


This is because god is imaginary and has nothing to do with abortions or anything else...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 10:08 AM


"Some of things said about Laura were a bit much."

Christian hypocrites think it is OK to judge others and make hateful statements about nonbelievers as long as they do it in the name of Jesus....

Go figure...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 10:10 AM


As an epileptic, I don't find jokes about seizures funny at all.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 10:16 AM


"Yes, many of them being the Godless creatures that they are, have this problem."

The problem is that your god is not a very nice deity... he enjoys killing children...

Kill Sons of Sinners

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

God Will Kill Children

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

Kill Men, Women, and Children

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all � old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

God Kills all the First Born of Egypt

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

Kill Old Men and Young Women

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

(Note that after God promises the Israelites a victory against Babylon, the Israelites actually get their butts kicked by them in the next chapter. So much for an all-knowing and all-powerful God.)

God Will Kill the Children of Sinners

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

More Rape and Baby Killing

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

so much for a loving deity..... ROFLMFAO!

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 10:17 AM


Naaman, I was wrong. I went back and realized there were in fact some insults to Laura. I'm sorry for my error.

Nothing could be simpler or clearer than Jesus' promises about prayer in the Bible. Yet, when we pray to eliminate cancer, nothing happens.

That's not always true.

Hindrances to prayer:

Unbelief/doubt
5If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

7For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Sin
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Asking withthe wrong motives "You ask, and don't receive, because you ask amiss, so that you may spend it for your pleasures." James 4:3.

Unforgiving spirit - And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.

There are many, many more examples of prayers being hindered by different things in our life. God never guarantees that our prayers will be answered if they are being hindered by something.


Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 10:23 AM


"Jill not everyone on the left is this vile"

At least people on the left are not known for their pedophillia...

The reason the right wing christians hate abortion is because it decreases the supply of children for them to molest and prey on.

* Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

* Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in
prison.


* Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

* Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

* Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

* Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

* Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.


* Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.


* Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after
admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

* Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

* Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.


* Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

* Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.


* Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.


* Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.


* Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

* Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.


* Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

* Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 28.

* Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.


* Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

* Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful
sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.


* Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

* Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after
the allegations were reported in the media.


* Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.


* Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.

* Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

* Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

* Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year
old girl.


* Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.


* Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age
of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

* Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.

* Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

* Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

* Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

* Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.


* Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

* Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

* Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months
in federal prison and fined $18,000.

* Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

* Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex
from boys and girls over the internet.

* Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

* Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

* Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years
in prison.

* Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 10:30 AM


DClawdawg, I'm very impressed. You know how to copy and paste large articles. What are you trying to prove? Who ever claimed that republicans have no sin?

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 10:32 AM


I have a friend who sort of acts like Laura.It's sometimes hard to just listen to her rant and never say anything back. Example; She will see an over weight person on the street, and she will immediately start with the "Fat jokes" She will pick on retarded people. She stabs her own family in the back. She picks on people's appearances ALL the time. She has had an abortion. She thinks it should stay legal. Why do I stay friends with her? I guess I still see good in her. I really think she's in deep emotional pain.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 10:34 AM


At least people on the left are not known for their pedophillia...
The reason the right wing christians hate abortion is because it decreases the supply of children for them to molest and prey on.

And FYI, "republican politician" is not synonymous with "Christian".

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 10:37 AM


It sometimes seems that way though, Bethany. The republicans are always trying to corner the market on Christian "values" voters. I know on at least 2 separate occasions I was told by my church how to vote, and told which pieces of legislature I was not to support.

Posted by: JK at July 31, 2007 11:07 AM


"The republicans are always trying to corner the market on Christian "values" voters."

They're not perfect, but they're alot better than the Democrat party.

"I know on at least 2 separate occasions I was told by my church how to vote, and told which pieces of legislature I was not to support."

Thats good news, I glad to hear some pastors have some balls.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 11:12 AM


LaBelleGarce,

Do you regret having your child terminated? just curious.


Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 11:39 AM


jasper,
Churches aren't supposed to tell their congregations how to vote, they could lose their tax exempt status, which would be bad for my church, seeing that they already have financial problems. I know you don't value the right to choose, but I thought at least you would value the right to choose who to vote for. If your priest expressed a desire for everyone to vote for a Democratic candidate would you praise him for his "balls" as well?

Posted by: JK at July 31, 2007 11:50 AM


DAWG.,

So let me see if I understand...If we are Christian we are hypocrites for criticizing someone's outrageous behavior.

But if we don't believe in God the it's okay to criticize the Christians?

Do you realize that you have come on here and made exactly the same unsavory types of comments you accused us of?

What's up with that?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 12:00 PM


JK,

Father Corapi has forgone his tax exemption for exactly this reason.

If a far left priest was encouraging us to vote for a-embryonic stem cell research and pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-homosexual marriage...I would be outraged. Not because he disagrees with me, but because he disagrees with church teaching.

If he was a democrat that was pro-choice, anti embryonic stem cell and anti homosexual marriage, then I would applaud the priest, yes.

It's not about democrat or republican, it's about issues, and the churches stand on them. Not an individuals stand on them, but the church herself's.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 12:12 PM


Dawg Gone?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 12:12 PM


"jasper,
Churches aren't supposed to tell their congregations how to vote, they could lose their tax exempt status"

so what, let's pay the taxes and not be silent on the social issues of the day.

"I know you don't value the right to choose"

yes, I do, I value the right to choose on many thing, but not the right to choose murder.

"If your priest expressed a desire for everyone to vote for a Democratic candidate would you praise him for his "balls" as well?"

Yes, then I would leave that church and go to one that celebrates life.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 12:18 PM


It's one thing for a pastor, priest, or church to present their views and positions in the hopes that church goers take them into consideration. It's another to be told like a three year old what to do and what to believe. People should make their own decisions on their own personal politics, not be scared into them by fear of losing their salvation or their place in their church.

And some churches don't have the luxury of throwing their tax exempt status to the wind, although its great that some can. As I mentioned before, my church already has financial difficulties, and cannot afford to lose their tax exempt status.

Posted by: JK at July 31, 2007 12:39 PM


LaBelleGrace, you can't PROVE that PAS doesn't exist. There are numerous abortion support groups out there that say it DOES. You are 1 person. I'm going with the group. Dr. Reardon has studied post abortive women. He gave their despair a name. How dare you try to take that away from them! Someone had to come along and give other illnesses a name. We have bipolar, anxiety disorder, BPD, PTSD, and so on. We could never treat these people without these diagnoses.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 12:43 PM


You know, I have PTSD. I also have had an abortion. I really don't find the effects remotely comparable :-P

I hope that John Roberts is all right. I strongly dislike his policy, but I'd never wish him dead.

Oh, has anyone here seen the movie Hairspray yet?? I went to see it last night with my best friend and it was AMAZING!! We were the only people in the theatre and we got to dance and sing in the aisles and stuff. It was fun!

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 12:45 PM


Erin,
Oooh, that sounds like fun, dancing and singing in a movie theatre. I haven't seen Hairspray yet, but I plan on it soon. :-)

And you're right, I don't care for John Roberts as a Supreme Court justice, but I'm glad that his episode wasn't serious and I'm glad he's going to be OK.

Posted by: JK at July 31, 2007 12:51 PM


Erin, not everyone who has an abortion has PAS, just like not everyone who goes through something tramatic gets PTSD. Just because your abortion didn't cause something similar to PTSD doesn't mean it won't in some women.

I'm curious (if it's not to personal) what was your treatment for PTSD. I did EMDR. It was fairly successful for me. I'm just curious what you used an if it helped.


Anyways, no I havn't seen hairspray yet, though I've heard it is good. The last movie I saw was Transformers and it was AWESOME!

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2007 12:54 PM


Lauren- My parents just sent me to some basic therapy. I still go. To be honest, the more physical aspects of the PTSD haven't really cooled down, though mentally I'm much better than I was.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 12:58 PM


I'm so happy we have pro-choicers who aren't gleefully rejoicing Robert's seizure. Thank you guys for not being jerks!

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2007 12:59 PM


"It's one thing for a pastor, priest, or church to present their views and positions in the hopes that church goers take them into consideration. It's another to be told like a three year old what to do and what to believe."

If someone can't handle the Truth, thats too bad. The Priest should tell the Truth about what the church teaches and not be cowering like a little mouse, afaid that they might "offend" somebody.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 1:05 PM


"So let me see if I understand...If we are Christian we are hypocrites for criticizing someone's outrageous behavior."

Your jesus forbids you from judging others and/or calling them hateful names..... if you claim to be a follower of jesus and then fail to follow his teachings, you are a christian hypocrite... it is that simple...

"But if we don't believe in God the it's okay to criticize the Christians?"

Sure.... non christians are not bound by your jesus' teachings..

"Do you realize that you have come on here and made exactly the same unsavory types of comments you accused us of?"

I have pointed out some christian hypocrisy..

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 1:09 PM


I'm not worried about being "offended". I was never "offended" that the leadership of my church held those views because I have always known that they have and it does not "offend" me when people hold different political views than myself. What worries me is that they are holding peoples' personal preferences, ideas and views in such low regard. If we were all supposed to think with one collective brain, why did God choose to bless us with individual ones?

Posted by: JK at July 31, 2007 1:13 PM


"LaBelleGrace, you can't PROVE that PAS doesn't exist."

Nobody has to prove it doesn't exist.... no one has to prove a negative....like your deity, if you claim he is real the onus is on you to prove he exists, otherwise, he is imaginary, just like post abortion syndrome...

"There are numerous abortion support groups out there that say it DOES. You are 1 person. I'm going with the group."

The AMA and the APA say PAS does not exist... these are the official word on medical and psychiatric conditions.... the AMA and the APA carry more weight than some baloney right to life website...

"Dr. Reardon has studied post abortive women. He gave their despair a name."

David Reardon is a quack.... he is not recognized by the AMA or the APA....

"How dare you try to take that away from them!"

You cannot take away that which they never had...

"Someone had to come along and give other illnesses a name. We have bipolar, anxiety disorder, BPD, PTSD, and so on. We could never treat these people without these diagnoses."

all of these diseases and mental conditions are found in the DSM IV, which is the official manual of psychiatric conditions and how they are diagnosed.... go look in it for "Post Abortion Syndrome" and you will not find it because it is bunk and not recognized by the medical community!

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 1:27 PM


Dawg,
I have pointed out some Christian hypocrisy..


If that's what you want to call it, okay. Making a laundry list of every thing wrong that a Christian or Republican has ever done to prove that their are inconsistencies in human nature seems a little tacky, but whatever...

Are you saying that the rules are differentfor you than for us and that as you see it, you can come here, attack us, and use that as a test to see if everyone of us responds the way you think we will, so that you can say, "See, christians get mad just like everybody else?"

Because I don't think that a single Christian here would argue with you. Not one of us would claim that Christians are either sinless or perfect.

So what is your point? Christians make mistakes? They aren't perfect? They can be hypocrites? You win. We are all of the above. Now allow me to add lying to the list...

I think you seem like a nice guy. Rational. Intelligent. Eloquent. Would you care to conduct a civil debate on abortion?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 1:30 PM


Dawg,

Your jesus forbids you from judging others and/or calling them hateful names....

I'm sorry, did I miss something? Someone here called you a "hateful" name? Point 'em out. 20 lashes with a mullet! Cuz I just looked and I can't find that anywhere...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 1:32 PM


Where did we call anyone names? We said that laura seemed sad and cold, which she does. We didn't say that "Laura is a ________" or anything similar.

We aren't "attacking" her, or "judging" her. We know nothing about her other than how she presents herself on this board. On this board she has presented herself quite harshly. Throughout any conversation I have seen we have called upon each other to pray for whatever hurt she may be feeling.

A great quote I'd like to share is "Whenever someone asks you to remember what Jesus would do, know that a perfectly acceptable answer is to freak out and turn over tables". When we see gruesome injustice and blashphemy, we sometimes must use our "strict words". We love Laura and all of our "choicers", but that doesn't mean we will tolerate everything they do with a smile.


****


Erin, I would look into EMDR. It was *really* good at minimizing the physical symptoms. I did the "tap" therapy, and that seemed to help alot.

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2007 1:35 PM


JK, I feel the same way, concerning churches and their lack of respect for personal preferences. A friend of mine even said that in 2004 her priest straight out told the congregation to vote for Bush. It was not a suggestion but rather an order. I just couldn't believe it.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 1:39 PM


"If a far left priest was encouraging us to vote for a-embryonic stem cell research and pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-homosexual marriage...I would be outraged. Not because he disagrees with me, but because he disagrees with church teaching."

Please explain how a gay couple marrying affects you or your marital relationship....

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 1:42 PM


prettyinpink,
I was told in almost the same manner regarding Bush in 2004.

Posted by: JK at July 31, 2007 1:42 PM


"LOL! Laura, I thought you worked for a living."

Typical Xtian hypocrite tactic... when you have nothing to attack the message, just attack the messenger...

"Why aren't you at work today?"

Ever heard of vacation? I'm self employed.... I can do whatever I want with my workday.....

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 1:46 PM


"I think you seem like a nice guy. Rational. Intelligent. Eloquent."

Thanx! You are correct on all counts...

"Would you care to conduct a civil debate on abortion?"

I doubt you have anything much to debate.... abortion is legal... it isn't murder and it does not kill any babies....

The only people who are against abortion seem to be those who oppose it on religious grounds.. there is no secular reason to oppose abortion... it is a woman's choice and none of anyone else's business... that's the bottom line...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 1:52 PM


If you think these Godless proaborts are bad, you should check out the abortion message board on AOL where they hang out. The valliant prolifers there could use your help. You'll have to go to www.aol.com and get a free AOL email address to post (you don't have to install AOL's software to do it), but you can red without logging in:

http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=59700&func=3&channel=News

Posted by: The Jimster at July 31, 2007 2:00 PM


"I'm sorry, did I miss something? Someone here called you a "hateful" name? Point 'em out. 20 lashes with a mullet! Cuz I just looked and I can't find that anywhere..."

I recognize some of you from AOL message boards... while I haven't see any righteous Xtian name calling yet, I predict it won't be long before the name calling and hell threats start...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 2:10 PM


Laura Dawg,

Please explain how a gay couple marrying affects you or your marital relationship....

You mean you suddenly think that I have something to debate/offer?

Before I enter into debate with you I would need some sort of sign that you were serious and not just working out some personal anger issues...

Now allow me to add lying to the list...

Apparently, that one went right over you head...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 2:11 PM


Hey Kreskin, (Laura/Dawg)

I recognize some of you from AOL message boards... while I haven't see any righteous Xtian name calling yet, I predict it won't be long before the name calling and hell threats start...

Sorry to disappoint, but that's one prediction that won't be coming true! You see, we don't need to resort to name calling to point out your flaws. You seem to be doing a fine job all by yourself.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 2:14 PM


Who cares what your priest says or what some politician does. Everyone here is skirting the real issue (which has NOTHING to do with religion.)

I came to this board to hopefully do two things as a pro-lifer.

1) I want to finally hammer down the definitive philosophical dismisal of abortion.

2)Make it 100% clear to the pro-choice and pro-life side alike that abortion has ZERO to do with being responsible and that it is 100% driven by the desire to not be pregnant, which in turn is largely a desire driven by petty motives.

-It is my opinion, and something I have seen many many times, that both the pro-life and pro-choice seem to think that abortion is a question over a mothers responsibility to their child long term. I feel extremely confident that if there were strong institutions supporting both pregnant women (young and old) and adoption AND that if the public truly understood that abortion is a selfish act intended to avoid 9 months of uncomfort that abortion would become nominal and most people today, right now, would be appalled and would decry abortion. I have met countless people who say things like "Oh Im for abortion, I mean a mother shouldnt have to die to save her baby!" or "Oh Im for abortion, I mean if you cant afford a kid you shouldnt have to have one!" If you ever watch PP advertisments, its almost always geared towards "responsibility" which of course is horseshit when answered with adoption and state support.

I find myself highly disapointed by the pro-choice side for trolling all these threads and equally disapointed in the pro-life side for allowing yourselves to be drawn into pointless arguments on religion. I am an on-fire devout christian, but Im not here to debate the validity of the Bible, and honestly I do not think most of you are.

I truly feel that if the pro-life side spent more effort honing in on the philosophical basis for our belief, spent time advertising the true reasons for abortion, AND spent money and support to adoption and legislation mandating stronger maternity laws, we would be extremely effective. Only a few twisted people can really look zat what abortion is, really understand the logical premise for it, and still come out on the choice side.

I apologize for rambling, but you can see that I am frustrated.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 2:20 PM


Oliver,

You have to understand, that being new, you may not be familiar with the way things have been working here. Most of us (on both sides) have been posting for months now. I would say that a good 70% of the pro choice people who post here came on sounding very similar to Laura and DCDawg...it took time to weed out the trouble makers from the sincere. But we did it. At first glance they ALL looked like trouble makers. Go back to March and read how we all began...

It is a process of evolving...When posters like Laura and DCdawg first come on, it's hard to tell if they are posturing or testing...so we play the game for awhile. One of two things will happen. They will either tire of their game, or they will let down their walls and begin to truly dialogue.

But to just ignore them, or dismiss them right away, is to take a chance that we will lose an opportunity to actually exchange ideas.

For now, these two girls are just beating their breasts and patting each other on the back for their cleverness. They probably go to another site and complement each other and high five each other and swap war stories...We know that and don't care.

It may seem like they are "drawing us in" but they aren't. We are all just feeling each other out.

I get the feeling that they will grow bored and leave soon of their own volition, but on the outside chance that one or both of them is truly reaching out for help, guidance or honest debate, we are willing to play their little game with them.

You don't know what frustrated is until you've met Cameron...whom we love now, by the way. But boy oh boy, talk about testing...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 2:43 PM


Oliver,

About institutions supporting women in pregnancy, there are over 3500 crisis pregnancy centers in this country, run by pro-lifers, providing such services as emergency shelters, clothing, medical and legal referrals, and support for a woman by a volunteer. I would like to point out that we have two facilities in the midsize midwestern city which provide shelter to women and girls, one by court order, the other by choice. By the way, thanks to pro-life efforts, our former governor signed a law permitting pregnant minors to seek emergency shelter at any facility for mothers and infants if they are being abused or have reason to fear abuse. I would say pro-life people are definitely putting their money where their mouths are in offering assistance to women facing crisis pregnancies.
Concerning adoption. There is often the issue of parents who will not, for whatever reason, sign away parental rights. There are also courts who for whatever unfathomable reason, will not terminate parental rights or will reinstate rights to totally unfit parents. Also, with assistance and support, we have such programs where I live as well, families can be better enabled to remain intact, which is preferable.
That's not to say our adoption system doesn't have a lot of hardened arteries in it or that there haven't been much needed changes.
At one time, single parent adoptions were unheard of. I recall years ago a black woman stating that any black woman walking into an adoption agency would have been laughed right out of it. If what this woman says is true, one must wonder how many black children lost out on a loving parent, home, and extended family because of some stupid prejudice. We are seeing more single parent adoptions of all races and barriers and prejudices are being broken down.
I won't get into any debates over gay adoption, but I seriously can't have a problem with a lesbian couple who adopted the severely disabled child of drug addicted parents or the gay male couple who adopted AIDS babies and gave them a loving home.
Sometimes its just a matter of putting out an appeal. I understand Evangelical leaders are encouraging church members to adopt hard to place children. Also, many years ago, my hometown newpaper had a section called "A Child is Waiting" that was very effective in finding homes for hard to place children.

Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2007 2:48 PM


Adam, I appreciate your sense of balance, but I'm not here to do PR for Left bloggers. Their hateful chatter has reached such a noise level that even Kos is trying to tone them down.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 31, 2007 08:59 AM

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

Typical. You're just on a smear campaign to further your agenda.

I've always found it quite sad when someone will sell their integrity to further their agenda.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 2:57 PM


Mary - Dont misunderstand me. I do understand that there is already alot of good work in progress, however my beef is a two pronged one. Number one, we need people to understand from a moral point of view that abortion is at least immoral to some degree, and to understand that the only drive behind abortion is the desire to avoid the pregnancy itself, not parenting, again combating the PP propaganda that abortion is resonsible. Then two, we have to make both the adoption services and maternity laws in general into something so strong and ingrained into society (much like a certain procedure we all know and love) that both the desire and need for abortion is gone and that there are an "in-your-face" number of services available.

Mk- I suppose that you could be correct, and I may be just glossing over the pro-life responses, but it just doesnt feel like we have any control and that we are getting upset over the topics they intend us to. I understand this really isnt "forum" and it is more of a series of topical threads, however it appears that many a "thread" get so easily derailed over subjects that, honestly in my opinion, have no true affect on the issue.

I really want to just sit down and hardcore debate the issues that I feel are integral to abortion, but I really do not feel it a good use of time to debate the existance of PAS or if Jesus wants us to kill old people or not.

Nevertheless, I do understand that you are the experienced poster and I suppose Ill shut my trap and just lurk untill something juicy pops up.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 3:02 PM


Oliver,

I feel extremely confident that if there were strong institutions supporting both pregnant women (young and old) and adoption AND that if the public truly understood that abortion is a selfish act intended to avoid 9 months of uncomfort that abortion would become nominal and most people today, right now, would be appalled and would decry abortion.

Would that it were that easy.
Erin, a girl who posts here, just had an aboriton.
She claims to have no regrets.
Here is a bit of the conversation that took place recently...

Erin Said:

MK- you don't seem to quite understand the cutthroat nature of a business world nor that some women really, really don't like children. In the business world, and also in the world of many performing arts, pregnancy really IS that big of a deal. If you want children, no problem. But a child takes a lot more attention and care than a spouse does- and some people don't want to deal with that. Ever. I, for example, do not like children. They irritate me on a very profound level. I was on an airplane two days ago and this whiny little baby was squalling the entire time. I don't ever want to have one of those.

Some people don't like children. It happens. Who are you to say that just because you like children, everyone should be willing to have them? If I find a kitten at my door, but I don't want a cat, should I take it in anyway? Shouldn't YOU respect the fact that some women never want children, as much as you do?

Bethany- some people just honestly do not want children. Not now, not ever. Some couples don't want to be open to pregnancy- and sterilization is often only approved by physicians after a certain age. Should couples that love each other but do not want to have children keep themselves physically from each other? Yes, birth control can fail. Adoption is an option, but abortion needs to be one too. If you're taking all possible precautions, there needs to be a failsafe. A woman pursuing a high-powered career or intense schooling would not be able to deal with the blow that a pregnancy carried to term could deal on her. Some people don't want children. I understand, Bethany, that you have a very difficult time understanding this because of your considerate attempts to get pregnant right now. My mother went through the same thing before she adopted me. But there are people who whether married or not, cannot deal with the aspect of becoming pregnant or raising a child. It simply isn't in their plans for their life

I replied:


I'm not asking you to raise children, Erin.
I'm asking you to refrain from having sex, OR if you find yourself pregnant then to step up to the plate, give the child it's life and let people who DO want children raise him/her. Would that really destroy any chances you had of a "Power Career"?

And it's funny that you chose the phrase Cut-Throat.
Because that is exactly what abortion is. Cut-Throat. Winner takes all, loser dies. And for what? A part in a play? An office with a window.

One word. Priorities! I suggest you get them in order.

Do you realize Erin that had you not aborted your child, you would now be three months into the pregnancy, 6 more to go. Next St Patricks Day when your drinkin' a beer or watchin' the parade, you remember that right about then you would have been giving birth to a child. And then you could have gone on your merry way and gotten your part in a commercial or bought an airline or whatever this unbelievably important thing is that you just had to do. St. Patricks Day. That's it. March. Wait until you see how fast March comes upon you...6 lousy months..

Her response:
The first thing I want to address is some of the most basic issues that are coming up. What many of you don't seem to understand is that the issues here are not, to me, absolute ones. I have a strong belief in subjective morality. I do not believe that I commited murder or that the abortionist did. I do not believe that the 5 week old fetus had any soul or ability to feel pain. These aren't new beliefs fueled by denial- they're beliefs that I have had for several years now. Are they subject to change? YES. That's what experience is for. Do I think they will change? No. You'll also have to forgive me, but any religious arguments are lost on me. I don't believe in God, and I am quite happy with my own system. If I believed that I had taken a life, committed an act of murder? I would be racked with guilt. But I don't. I'd be happy to have a conversation with anyone who likes on my belief structure, which I know to very strong Christians can come off as callous and amoral.

I'll tackle the adoption issue in my next post, I don't want to get all crazy and make a massive-giganto post and hurt people's heads ;-)

OK, on to the adoption issue. You ladies certainly do keep my on my toes!

Firstly, yes, I was adopted. I was adopted as a two-month old baby in a closed adoption, meaning the records are shut off from both me and my birth parents. I love my adoptive parents and really, see no difference. My mother and father tried all kinds of fertilization treatments for about 5 years before going through the adoption system, which was a long, arduous process for both my adoption and my brother's- my brother is adopted from South Korea. I completely support adoption as an alternative- but many people don't realize that there are more than enough children in the foster care system to supply every parent who wants a child with one and still have many, many children still in the system. It's over crowded, inefficient, and if I hadn't been a white child, I very likely would never have been adopted. You spend a lot of time talking about how a disproportionate number of black women have abortions- you realize that the largest population of unadopted children are black also? They are, for lack of a better term, the least desirable of any minority in terms of adoption. If every woman who has an abortion instead put the child up for adoption, you can't even imagine the conditions our foster care system would be in- and it's already pretty ineffecient and poorly run.

Now don't get me wrong...we love Erin. She's been with us for awhile and we've become friends.

But talk about frustrating!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 3:08 PM


LaBelleGarce,

Do you regret having your child terminated? just curious.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 11:39 AM

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

No, I considered everything before I chose to abort so there's no reason to regret it.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 3:14 PM


"No, I considered everything before I chose to abort so there's no reason to regret it."

Did consider giving life to that poor baby that you killed? maybe give him up for adoption.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 3:20 PM


It's mutually frustrating though! Sometimes I just want to shake jasper, for instance. I like to debate with people- I thrive on it. I get bored when everyone agrees with me. It doesn't mean I don't get frustrated too! That's what, to me, makes it fun!

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 3:22 PM


Well she does make a good point about the adoption system...although I would like to have some research along with it. I remember looking at SOME research a while back and found that the adoption system is not near as broken as people make it out to be.

However, branching from that I would like to make both a moral and a practical point. The morality of an action is not affected by side-effects.

Example: The Death Penalty is not immoral because those dealing it out often are racist. The immorality is in the racist dealing of the penalty. In order to attack the Death Penalty then you must attack its logical premises, not its sideeffects.

Abortion is not moral because "who will parent the offspring?"

Think, does it make it moral for a mother to neglect her born child because the adoption agencies are filled? Someone has to be responsible for the indigent at all points, and if there is no adoption agency to speak of, then the parent involved is the only one left.

Now for the practical point. If we do not have the agency to parent these children and remove the responsibility from these "parents" then we will find it hard to get them to drop their actions, even if they should believe it to be immoral. Plenty of people overturn morality in stressed times.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 3:25 PM


PAS was recognized untill the APA was headed by someone who was tied to the pro-choice political agenda.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 3:28 PM


Erin, I would look into EMDR. It was *really* good at minimizing the physical symptoms. I did the "tap" therapy, and that seemed to help alot.

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2007 01:35 PM

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

Obviously I'm not "Erin" but I figured I'd comment on this. I've heard good things about EMDR but it annoyed the heck out of me. I faired better with deliberately triggering my PTSD reactions and sorting out what was behind them.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 3:40 PM


"PAS was recognized untill the APA was headed by someone who was tied to the pro-choice political agenda."

Neither the APA or the AMA EVER recognized PAS as any bonafide medical condition.... doesn't your Jesus have somethinmg to say about bearing false witness..

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 3:55 PM


"No, I considered everything before I chose to abort so there's no reason to regret it."

Did consider giving life to that poor baby that you killed? maybe give him up for adoption.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 03:20 PM

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

What part of "No, I considered everything before I chose to abort so there's no reason to regret it" did you not understand?

You do know what the word "everything" means ...?

Btw, if I'm going to gestate it's because I want to have a child - not to give it away. Gestating isn't an easy experience for everyone.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 3:56 PM


Prior to 1994 the (DSM III-R) did list abortion as a "psychosocial stressor" capable of producing some or all of the symptoms of PTSD. Specifically, in Chapter Two, page 20 of that edition, a psychosocial stressor was described to include a "Physical illness or injury: e.g., illness, accident, surgery, abortion.


Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 3:59 PM


See Also

Fergusson et al., 2006

and

Broen et al., 2005)

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 4:03 PM


"Btw, if I'm going to gestate it's because I want to have a child - not to give it away. Gestating isn't an easy experience for everyone."

You should have thought about that before you had sex. Just because you are irresponible and selfish, that doesn't give you the right to kill another life. that's why you have PAS now.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 4:05 PM


"PAS was recognized untill the APA was headed by someone who was tied to the pro-choice political agenda."


Neither the APA or the AMA EVER recognized PAS as any bonafide medical condition.... doesn't your Jesus have somethinmg to say about bearing false witness..


Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 03:55 PM

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

Exactly.

Some need to learn that it doesn't pay to get your information from biased sources. ;)

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 4:06 PM


"Btw, if I'm going to gestate it's because I want to have a child - not to give it away. Gestating isn't an easy experience for everyone."

I wish that everyone knew that this is the truth behind abortion. I would love to see PP use this as their advertisement.

"Planned Parenthood - Adoption? If *Im* going to gesitate it, Im not giving it away! Choose abortion!"

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 4:08 PM


"Btw, if I'm going to gestate it's because I want to have a child - not to give it away. Gestating isn't an easy experience for everyone."

You should have thought about that before you had sex. Just because you are irresponible and selfish, that doesn't give you the right to kill another life. that's why you have PAS now.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 04:05 PM

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

It appears that you don't know what they say about assuming things.

I was pregnant from rape and I don't have PAS. I have PTSD from rape and years of abuse in my childhood. But thanks for trying to diagnose me when you know absolutely nothing about me.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 4:14 PM


Prior to 1994 the (DSM III-R) did list abortion as a "psychosocial stressor" capable of producing some or all of the symptoms of PTSD. Specifically, in Chapter Two, page 20 of that edition, a psychosocial stressor was described to include a "Physical illness or injury: e.g., illness, accident, surgery, abortion.

Im guessing you double posted earlier, just in case you missed it the first time.

Go look up the studies I also posted showing abortive women are more likely to be depressed than women who carry to term or were never pregnant.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 4:14 PM


jasper, watch your assumptions about PTSD.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 4:15 PM


"Did consider giving life to that poor baby that you killed?"

No babies are killed during an abortion...

"maybe give him up for adoption."

why should women be brood mares for infertile women? There are already many millions of desperate, suffering, breathing, born living children who need a home... why don't you anti choicers start doing something for them before you start directing your concerns towards other people's fetuses?

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 4:17 PM


Why should I have to pay medicaid?

As part of the human society you are obligated to obey certain rules, one of which is the care for indigents.


Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 4:21 PM


Oliver,

Exactly the point I was making by sharing Erins post.

6 months of her life, (which was a direct consequence of her actions/choices) was all it would have taken to give her son or daughter a chance at life. But she couldn't do it...the question is why?

We had a looooooong post on here awhile back discussing the foster care/adoption situation and it is just not true that babies are sitting around waiting for families. It is a very small percentage of children that are waiting for homes. Most children in foster care are there because they haven't been relinquished. And black babies are placed just as easily as white babies. These are simply falsehoods that if bought into, feed the idea that it is better to abort.

But the bottom line is, these girls don't want to be pregnant for 9 minutes let along 9 months, so it wouldn't matter if prospective parents were lined up in the delivery room. I don't understand it myself. I can't imagine thinking that I was more important than someones life. But they honestly do. I don't know where this mindset comes from. It's totally foreign to me. Any ideas?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 4:21 PM


Oliver, what you believe is our obligation we may not agree to. You can't automatically assume that you can make a sweeping generalization about people's obligations and expect everyone to agree with you.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 4:23 PM


"I was pregnant from rape"

oh, sorry to hear about that and the abuse. that's awful. Did you file a police report when you were raped? did you have him thrown in jail?

good-luck

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 4:24 PM


"Prior to 1994 the (DSM III-R) did list abortion as a "psychosocial stressor" capable of producing some or all of the symptoms of PTSD. Specifically, in Chapter Two, page 20 of that edition, a psychosocial stressor was described to include a "Physical illness or injury: e.g., illness, accident, surgery, abortion."

The APA and the DSM NEVER listed PAS as a medical condition, Gomer...

"Im guessing you double posted earlier, just in case you missed it the first time."

"Go look up the studies I also posted showing abortive women are more likely to be depressed than women who carry to term or were never pregnant."

Those studies are not valid studies... just RTL hypocrite propaganda..

One of the most faulty arguments against abortion is that it causes severe depression and trauma to the mother. Abortion opponents even claim that women may even suffer Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder -- five, ten or even twenty years later. Pamphlets handed out by pro-life protesters at abortion clinics usually start out with lines like "You're hurting."

The experiences of these women are not to be trivialized; most struggle with the decision to have an abortion, and most feel sorrow and regret. But the statistics overwhelmingly refute the claim that these women go on to suffer severe trauma. The predominant response to abortion is relief. This is confirmed by dozens of studies that have researched women's reactions to abortions (for example, Adler, 1975; Burnell, Dworsky, and Harrington, 1972; Lazarus, 1985; Payne, Kravitz, Notman, and Anderson, 1976; and Smith, 1973.) (1)

In one famous study, 90% of the women surveyed said their abortion was the right thing to do. (2)

C. Everett Koop, the Surgeon General under Ronald Reagan, conducted a study that tried to learn everything it could on abortion and concluded that the number of women who suffered from post-abortion trauma was minuscule. (3)

Apparently, a small percentage of women who are hurting in their ordinary lives decide to have abortions, and link any later trauma to this experience, but it is clear that abortion is not the primary source of their problems. As noted psychiatrist Nada Stotland observed, "There is not one piece of evidence for such a syndrome." (4)

Part of the problem with the pro-life claim is that they are misusing the term Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Inevitably, all people experience loss or trauma at some point in their lives. Normally, they go through a period of disorganization, after which the healing process begins.

In a few years they may be back to normal. But in a small percentage of cases, the trauma is unusually severe, and the victims unusually susceptible. PTSD is a well-defined and extreme condition brought on by extreme circumstances, like war, concentration camps, brutal rape, disaster or torture. The symptoms are unmistakably severe: insomnia, anxiety, reliving the nightmare, withdrawal from society, emotional numbness, extreme passivity, even refusal to leave one's house. And these symptoms usually settle in quickly, within weeks of the trauma, and without treatment usually last a lifetime. They do not lie dormant under the surface, to resurface five, ten, or fifteen years later. If someone has PTSD, they will know it beyond all doubt. Fortunately, there are almost no known cases of PTSD attributable to abortion alone.

references

1. Patricia Lunneborg, Abortion: A Positive Decision (New York: Bergin & Garvey, 1992), p. 92, citing Adler, Nancy E., "Emotional Responses of Women Following Therapeutic Abortion," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 45, 1975, 446-454; Burnell, George M., Dworksy, William A., Harrington, Robert L., "Post Abortion Group Therapy," American Journal of Psychiatry 129, 1972, 134-137; Lazarus, Arthur, "Psychiatric Sequelae of Legalized Elective First Trimester Abortion," Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology 4, 1985, 141-150; Payne, Edmund C., Kravitz, Arthur R., Notman, Malkah T., Anderson, Jane V., "Outcome Following Therapeutic Abortion," Archives of General Psychiatry 33, 1976, 725-733; Smith, Elizabeth M., "A Follow-up Study of Women Who Request Abortion," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 43, 1973, 574-585.

2. Henshaw, Stanley K., Martire, Greg, "Abortion and the Public Opinion Polls: Women Who Have Had Abortions," Family Planning Perspectives 14, 1982, 60-62.

3. "More on Koop's Study of Abortion," Family Planning Perspectives 22, 1990, 36-39.

4. "Abortion Refusals Seen as Traumatic," Seattle Times, May 4, 1991, p. A5.

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 4:27 PM


certainly. Alot of these women tell themselves that they are doing a "good" thing by being responsible, even if they know it deep down. The first step is for us to somehow educate the population not just that adoption agencies exist and run better than they say, but that abortion is simply a selfish act from women who do not want to go through 9 months of discomfort.

These women also believe they are not violating any rights. It would be like a parent saying to themselves "well I dont have to feed my 9 month old....its MY money after all!" Unfortunately you have to go through the "9 minutes" or however long to relenquish your child to the proper authorities, and you are still responsible during this time.

The final thought is that the fetus is not a person. This is again a belief with no logical backing. However they want to believe it in order to justify to themselves the action. Ask anyone why a fetus is not a person and they'll go "uh well it doesnt think." They dont even know WHY they believe this, they just do.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 4:29 PM


"Btw, if I'm going to gestate it's because I want to have a child - not to give it away. Gestating isn't an easy experience for everyone."

I wish that everyone knew that this is the truth behind abortion. I would love to see PP use this as their advertisement.

"Planned Parenthood - Adoption? If *Im* going to gesitate it, Im not giving it away! Choose abortion!"

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 04:08 PM

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

Since I speak for no one but myself - you look rather silly.

I spent 5 1/2 months vomitting when I gestated my first daughter. I was a bit luckier with the second - less actual vomitting just nausea for most of the pregnancy. I wouldn't choose to go through that again just to give it away like a puppy. If you would - that's your choice.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 4:30 PM


"Fortunately, there are almost no known cases of PTSD attributable to abortion alone."

DC LapDawg,

You're clueless.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 4:30 PM


No babies are killed during an abortion...

Please tell me you guys are not so far behind in this debate that you actually want to start at the "It's a fetus, stupid, not a baby" stage.


Here let me do it for you.

It's not a baby moron. It's a fetus.

Fetus simply means young one. Look it up.
It's simply a term that means it a young human being.

It can't think or breath on it's own. It's not a human being!

Then what is it? A dog?

It might be a human being, but it' not a person.

Why? What makes someone a person?

They can think, and feel pain you idiot!

Well, lots of people can't think or feel pain due to head injuries or neurological problems. Are they not human?

They don't have to live off of another person like a fetus does. No one has the right to use my body. What if you woke up in bed attached to a violinist that needed your kidney. Would you have to give it to him...?

Blah, blah, blah...

Are we caught up now.?


Sheesh, at least if you guys are gonna play the "We're so much smarter than you stupid Christians" game, come up with some new material! I feel like I'm playing chutes and ladders and I just hit the chute that sends me back to "start"

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 4:34 PM


"I spent 5 1/2 months vomitting when I gestated my first daughter. I was a bit luckier with the second - less actual vomitting just nausea for most of the pregnancy. I wouldn't choose to go through that again just to give it away like a puppy. If you would - that's your choice."

Oh, I see, you killed one unborn baby because you were raped...but you would still kill today even if you weren't raped because of the morning sickness..

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 4:37 PM


Well Jasper,

I asked for something new, and I got it...

Vomiting? Abort!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 4:38 PM


Okay,
Oliver sounds silly because he suggests that you carry your own son or daughter for nine months...

But you don't look silly when you say you'd rather suck your child through a vacuum hose than give it away like a puppy?

Given the choice, I'm sure the baby would say "Treat me like a puppy, PLEASE!"

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 4:41 PM


Prior to 1994 the (DSM III-R) did list abortion as a "psychosocial stressor" capable of producing some or all of the symptoms of PTSD. Specifically, in Chapter Two, page 20 of that edition, a psychosocial stressor was described to include a "Physical illness or injury: e.g., illness, accident, surgery, abortion.

Im guessing you double posted earlier, just in case you missed it the first time.

Go look up the studies I also posted showing abortive women are more likely to be depressed than women who carry to term or were never pregnant.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 04:14 PM

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

Actually, I'm on vacation this week (my daughters are off at camp - real camp with scheduled events all day) and only have dial-up at our seasonal camp. If it double posted it was due to the website not coming back up after I posted and my hitting refresh.

Anyway, you can stop telling me that I don't know the origins of my PTSD or how I feel about my abortion. I know exactly when and where my PTSD started and it wasn't from the abortion.

You are aware that abusive people tell others how they feel, right?

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 4:41 PM


"Prior to 1994 the (DSM III-R) did list abortion as a "psychosocial stressor" capable of producing [b]some[/b] or [b]all[/b] of the symptoms of PTSD."

If you are trying to say that PAS, as a term was never used, you are sorely lacking in deriving basic logic. If I need to explain how they are essentially the same thing then I will, but Im hoping its more you missed the word I have in bold.

"Those studies are not valid studies... just RTL hypocrite propaganda.."

The man who did the New Zealand study was pro-choice, looking to discredit PAS, and although remaining pro-choice, now believes post-abortive women should be given more psychological support.

Frankly saying, "oh thats bullshit RTL propaganda" is no response to refute them. I should say "oh thats bullshit pro-choice propaganda and go on my merry way.

I dont know why Im even arguing this because abortion is immoral based on logical derivations of accepted beliefs, not because there is PAS. I dont care if having an abortion has any negative effects. Hell it could make you into millionaire Superman for all I care, it is still immoral.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 4:45 PM


Jasper,

This is what Rae was trying to tell you the other day. While she is still not "Pro-Life" she is ant-stupidity. She recognizes that if a womans life is on the line, abortion should remain an option, but feels that women who have abortions for reasons like these three (honestly, vomiting?) should NOT be allowed to abort. That's why she got so upset. Instead of recognizing that she had had a complete change of heart, you jumped on her for the small percentage that she was still struggling with...

As far as I'm concerned, you can let rip on the Dawg-belle-and-spinwiddy gang...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 4:45 PM


"I was pregnant from rape"

oh, sorry to hear about that and the abuse. that's awful. Did you file a police report when you were raped? did you have him thrown in jail?

good-luck

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 04:24 PM

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

Thanks but I don't need your false sympathy. Your other post shows exactly how sympathetic you are about my being raped.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 4:49 PM


Rae is pro-life if the only reasons she feel are credible for abortion are death (or extreme disformity etc), rape, and incest.

Belle - I never said, or hell, even implied that you do not know where your PTSD symptoms come from. Is paranoia one of them?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 4:53 PM


"I dont know why Im even arguing this because abortion is immoral based on logical derivations of accepted beliefs, not because there is PAS."

That may be your morality based on YOUR religious beliefs, but everyone does not subscribe to YOU morality...

"I dont care if having an abortion has any negative effects. Hell it could make you into millionaire Superman for all I care, it is still immoral."

Only according to you.... we are a free country and everyone does not have to obey your morality or values...

besides, your god loves killing children... and we know that your jesus never says a word in the bible about abortion...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 4:55 PM


"If you are trying to say that PAS, as a term was never used, you are sorely lacking in deriving basic logic."

Logic has nothing to do with it.... it either lists PAS as a genuine psych condition or it doesn't....

If I need to explain how they are essentially the same thing then I will, but Im hoping its more you missed the word I have in bold."

Cite anywhere in any AMA publication, any APA publication, or anyplace in the DSM that says PAS is a genuine psychological condition.... we'll be waiting, Gomer...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 5:01 PM


Hah, right, so I can go shoot some random person. Hey its MY beliefs that I can do what I want!

And you are most correct, I base all my argument on my religion, because, you know, the Bible talks so much about abortion and stem cells and all that. Of course I couldnt come up with ideas of my own, because I am a christian after all right?

Youre right MK, its like going all the way back to start with these guys.

Dawg...I used to debate on a board that had many pro-choice 13 year olds, and honestly, they had far superior rationing skills.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 5:02 PM


Where exactly did I say that I'd abort because of severe morning sickness?

I'll give you all a hint - I didn't. I said that I wouldn't gestate just to give it away like a puppy. You assumed that meant that I'd abort instead.

Btw, as for your other foolish assumptions - I aborted the pregnancy from rape for health reasons not because I was pregnant from rape.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 5:03 PM


Rae is pro-life if the only reasons she feel are credible for abortion are death (or extreme disformity etc), rape, and incest.

Belle - I never said, or hell, even implied that you do not know where your PTSD symptoms come from. Is paranoia one of them?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 04:53 PM

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

Go back and read your own comments - I am far from paranoid, you did imply it.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 5:08 PM


"Laura Dawg,"

WTF is "lauradawg?"

"You mean you suddenly think that I have something to debate/offer?"

You were the one offering to debate me.....

"Before I enter into debate with you I would need some sort of sign that you were serious and not just working out some personal anger issues..."

I'm not angry about anything... anger is something that anti choicers and anti gay Xtians seem to express here...

"Now allow me to add lying to the list..."

Christian hypocrites corner the market on bearing false witness....

"Apparently, that one went right over you head..."

@@ rolling eyes.....

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 5:09 PM


Dawg - Okay, I now realize the calibur of thought issuing forth from you.

The DSM 3 listed abortion as a stressor leading to a possibility of all the symptoms of PSTD.

PAS is the idea that abortion is a stressor leading to a possibility of all the symptoms of PSTD.

The APA published the DSM 3.

Okay now here comes the complicated logic part.

If A(being abortion) implies B(being a stressor) and P(being PAS) implies A(being abortion) then it follows that P must also imply B.

Now couple that really hard thought with the idea that the APA publishes the DSM 3, and we get that the APA, in DSM 3, included PAS as a condition.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 5:14 PM


LaBelle- would you have kept it otherwise? If you are pregnant from something other than rape, is abortion all right in your mind? I'm trying to figure out if I have an ally here or not.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 5:14 PM


Oliver- correlation doesn't equal causation...

And I wasn't implying that any of you other lovers are the foes. I heart you all!

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 5:16 PM


"Apparently, that one went right over you head..."


@@ rolling eyes.....

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 05:09 PM

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

They seem to make a lot of assumptions about strangers as well.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 5:17 PM


Belle - I honestly do not see it, you need to point it out.

To quote you, you said "Since I speak for no one but myself - you look rather silly.

I spent 5 1/2 months [b]vomitting[/b] when I gestated my first daughter. I was a bit luckier with the second - [b]less actual vomitting just nausea[/b] for most of the pregnancy. [b]I wouldn't choose to go through that again just to give it away like a puppy.[/b] If you would - that's your choice.[/b]"

You have stated here that if you were pregnant, and did not want to parent the child, you would abort, citing vomiting in your first pregnancy and just a general nausea in your second, as your motivation.

In summary, that you would rather not go through with sickness if you did not want to keep the child.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 5:20 PM


Erin, Im sure she is on your side and would have an abortion if it suited her. Shes throwing the "rape" excuse around to make us go "oh gosh...Im so sorry." While I am sorry if she was truly raped, it doesnt mean anything to the abortion debate seeing that rape comprises less than 1% of abortion cases, and that I personally am conflicted on the issue in regards to abortion anyways.

Im not here to change rape induced abortion. Im here to stop women from the selfish killing of fetuses for the sake of vomiting etc.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 5:25 PM


LaBelleGrace,

I'm so sorry to hear of your being the victim of such a despicable crime.

Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2007 5:33 PM


Oliver- one of the things that YOU are going to need to learn is that we do try to respect each other here at least. I bet if men had to carry babies, they'd be aborting too. Be nice.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 5:37 PM


I meant no disrespect with my statement. I was being direct and honest. I do feel sorry for her, but it holds no weight in the debate over abortion between the pro-life side and pro-choice.

Erin, explain to me why you feel that a fetus has no rights, and what do you believe grants rights to any human over any other thing in the universe?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 5:41 PM


Im sure men would abort even more fetuses.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 5:43 PM


LaBelle- would you have kept it otherwise? If you are pregnant from something other than rape, is abortion all right in your mind? I'm trying to figure out if I have an ally here or not.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 05:14 PM

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

I'm Pro-Choice simply because without bodily autonomy we have nothing. It's a legal issue to me.

The only reasons that I would abort are health, rape/incest/abuse, or severe fetal deformities. But no one need live by my personal beliefs.

In the case of rape, I can't say that I would definitely abort again since the circumstances today would be different.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 5:53 PM


Belle explain then why the rights to privacy and property are not as important as bodily autonomy?

Why is a parent subject to sacrifice their rights to property and privacy to care for their child, yet a pregnant mother is not required to sacrifice bodily autonomy for the sake of her child?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 5:56 PM


Heath4life: >>you can't PROVE that PAS doesn't exist.

Either it's recognized as a syndrome or it is not. It's not.

Now of course some women suffer some post-traumatic stress after having abortions, same as some women who give birth do. It's prevalent enough and the symptoms are often severe enough for those who give birth that it is recognized as a syndrome.

There is no guarantee that a person will not have regrets, on balance, regardless of which choice they make. That's just a fact, and it's no reason to take away the freedom women have in the matter of abortion nor in the matter of willingly continuing pregnancies.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 6:02 PM


Belle why did you then say you would abort for vomiting if you did not want to keep the fetus?

These are the sorts of abortion that are unnessecary. Every parent must in part lose their rights to the degree required to care for their children.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 6:05 PM


LaBelleGrace,

I'm so sorry to hear of your being the victim of such a despicable crime.

Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2007 05:33 PM

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

Thank you Mary. :)

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 6:08 PM


LaBelle,

Sorry about your rape. I meant it.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 6:08 PM


Doug - No, but that the choices they make neglect inept members of our society they are responsible to does make it so that their "choice" should be revoked.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 6:09 PM


Oliver: >>Why is a parent subject to sacrifice their rights to property and privacy to care for their child, yet a pregnant mother is not required to sacrifice bodily autonomy for the sake of her child?

Good question. A born child can suffer, is mentally aware, has emotions, begins having relationships, etc. We attribute personhood at birth, and there's a lot of historical precedent behind that. It doesn't *have* to be that way, but it is that way.

A born child is also not inside the body of a person, and that too makes a big difference. The parents of the born child aren't giving up bodily autonomy, either.

If there was sufficient opinion for having abortion be illegal, it would be, but there's not. There isn't much argument for having it be legal to kill born children, so the differences between the born and the unborn, especially the unborn as far as "elective" abortion in the US, make a good bit of difference to lots of people.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 6:10 PM


There is something wrong with a society that is so hell-bent on killing their own children. These pro-choicers are illogical. It goes against your nature to kill your own children - mothers are supposed to protect their children. All of these pro-choicers, honestly, you sound like absolutely miserable people. In bad relationships, with PAS or PTSD or whatever you want to call it. You try to rationalize it but it's not going to go away unless you admit it's wrong to kill your own child no matter what circumstance. No circumstance can possibly replace that beautiful one-of-a-kind child. Look for healing instead of just shouting at people on the internet. That baby had half of your own genes coursing through them. It's your flesh and blood.

Posted by: Lynn at July 31, 2007 6:13 PM


Doug @6:10 are you aware that unborn children can suffer/feel pain, are mentally aware (goes through sleep patterns in the womb) and certainly has a relationship with his or her mother and others too (they can hear - respond to mother's voice etc).

The US only attributed personhood at birth since 1973 - prior to that for the most part abortion was illegal. Now with medical technology, doctors do surgery in utero, you can see a baby's face in the womb, they have fingers and toes at 12 weeks.

What again is the difference between an unborn baby and a born baby?

Posted by: Lynn at July 31, 2007 6:20 PM


Oliver: "Make it 100% clear to the pro-choice and pro-life side alike that abortion has ZERO to do with being responsible and that it is 100% driven by the desire to not be pregnant, which in turn is largely a desire driven by petty motives."

Oliver, good posts from you - nice to see them. What I see you doing is substituting "responsible" for what you desire. A pregnancy is the responsibility of the woman who is pregenant, first and foremost. She may do what you want, and she may not. Whatever she does, in no way is she "responsible" for adding to the population of the world (especially against her will), and what "philosophical" need do you see that is greater than that?

You may deem her desire "petty," but that's your own subjective take on it. If we set out at the beginning what is desired, then of course one can be "responsible" to that objective, or not. This comes down to the woman's desire against yours, and the woman isn't responsible to *your* desire in the matter.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 6:24 PM


Oliver- I consider a central nervous system to be the main factor. A fetus cannot feel pain. It's alive, and growing, but it has no ability to function or sense pain in any way until roughly threequarters of the way through the second trimester. To me, that's what characterizes it. Until that point, it has no rights superceding that of the host/mother. I agree that third trimester abortions need to be regulated. Before significant nervous system development occurs, there is no basis for the classification of personhood.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 6:25 PM


Belle why did you then say you would abort for vomiting if you did not want to keep the fetus?

These are the sorts of abortion that are unnessecary. Every parent must in part lose their rights to the degree required to care for their children.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 06:05 PM

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

This is what I said -

"I spent 5 1/2 months vomitting when I gestated my first daughter. I was a bit luckier with the second - less actual vomitting just nausea for most of the pregnancy. I wouldn't choose to go through that again just to give it away like a puppy. If you would - that's your choice."

Nowhere in there did I say that I would abort because of severe vomitting. I said that I wouldn't choose to go through that again just to give it away like a puppy because I wouldn't.


Why must every parent lose their rights? Because you think it's morally wrong isn't a good enough reason.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 6:25 PM


We are not talking about public opinion here. Regardless of what the opinion is, our state is designed arounded the concept of protecting the rights of the individual against the motives of the many, so certainly you would agree that if a group of persons were having their rights abused, it would be up to the state, not individual choice or major opinion to sort the matters out.

Historical precedent, again, although worth noting, is as you said no ground to base moral beliefs upon.

That being said, it seems bodily autonomy is your major talking point so lets discuss the differing factors behind the right to autonomy and the rights to privacy and property.

To begin with, we should approach the issue of parental sacrifice of property and privacy to born children. Why is it that a parent cannot simply withold their rights from their child when they feel lead to? Why is it that parents are obligated directly to the care of their children?

Now you say parents can indeed withold their bodily autonomy from their child, which is true. Why is this possible? The answer is that a parent is never asked to sacrifice any more of their rights to their child than is necesary to care for him. Think, a child cannot demand the master bedroom, but he must be given the shelter of choice by the parent.

So what is the key difference between parents with a born child and a pregnant mother with an unborn fetus? You pointed out the difference perfectly by stating "a born child is also not inside the body of a person, and that too makes a big difference." Yes it makes a huge difference.

A fetus cannot be cared for any other way than to exist in its mother womb. Instead of thinking that a parent must sacrifice X right and Y right to the degree necesary to not neglect their child, streamline it a bit and see that a parent must sacrifice their rights in general to the degree that their child requires. A parent to a born child never has to sacrifice their right to bodily autonomy because it never need occur.

Now your other point was that it was okay to hurt a fetus because it is unaware, and I am assuming you mean not a person. So my question to you is what are the criterion for personhood? You imply that we earn personhood as we develop, namely by gaining awareness, but did you know that certain apes are aware past that of a 5 year old? And did you know that infants do not have self-awareness untill 18 months? How do you rectify these inconsistancies with your requirements for personhood?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 6:28 PM


Doug,

Do parents have the right to kill a full term baby still in the womb? Let's say the baby isn't due for a few more weeks but could survive, and the parents make the "choice" that the child will be unwanted after all. Being you are a supporter of bodily autonomy, would you support their killing the baby in utero and expelling it?
"If there was sufficient opinion for abortion being illegal it would be." Am I to assume that decades of slavery in this country were justified
because there just weren't enough people who thought it should be illegal? How about segregation and Jim Crow laws, should Dr.Martin Luther King have waited for sufficient opinion before he began his crusade to make segregation and discrimination illegal?

Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2007 6:31 PM


Erin - Turtles feel pain

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 6:31 PM


Lynn: "are you aware that unborn children can suffer/feel pain, are mentally aware (goes through sleep patterns in the womb) and certainly has a relationship with his or her mother and others too (they can hear - respond to mother's voice etc).

The US only attributed personhood at birth since 1973 - prior to that for the most part abortion was illegal. Now with medical technology, doctors do surgery in utero, you can see a baby's face in the womb, they have fingers and toes at 12 weeks.

What again is the difference between an unborn baby and a born baby?"

Hi Lynn. As far as elective abortion in the US, the unborn do not in general feel anything, care about anything, consciously experience anything. I realize that a decent argument can be made for the weeks getting into the 20s, but those are a very small percentage of abortions.

Personhood has never been attributed to the unborn. The procedure of abortion was illegal, yes, (in general) prior to 1973 for some years, but that is not the same thing as attributing personhood/right to life. Even prior to 1973 the fetus could be killed if there were enough problems with it or enough danger to the mother.

One huge difference between the born and unborn is that one is inside the body of a person. Being sentient versus non-sentient is another big one. Agreed about the toes, etc., but that's no reason to take away the freedom that women now have in the matter. We don't need more people on earth for the sake of *more.*

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 6:32 PM


Belle explain then why the rights to privacy and property are not as important as bodily autonomy?

Why is a parent subject to sacrifice their rights to property and privacy to care for their child, yet a pregnant mother is not required to sacrifice bodily autonomy for the sake of her child?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 05:56 PM

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

Check out the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Rights are given upon birth for a very logical reason -

Please explain how you can give rights to a non-citizen (the embryo/fetus) over the rights of the citizen (the woman) when there is no guarantee that the embryo/fetus will ever make it to fruition. It's like giving rights to ghosts.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 6:34 PM


"Oliver, good posts from you - nice to see them. What I see you doing is substituting "responsible" for what you desire. A pregnancy is the responsibility of the woman who is pregenant, first and foremost. She may do what you want, and she may not. Whatever she does, in no way is she "responsible" for adding to the population of the world (especially against her will), and what "philosophical" need do you see that is greater than that?"

First of all, my use of responsibility was in reference to abortionists cajoleing their customers into make a "responsible choice" by not having a child they could not care for. My point was that we need to make it clear that this is not an excuse because of adoption, and that the only reason to have an abortion is to discontinue the actual pregnacy.

My other use of responsible is to reference the idea of social responsibility. The concept that the indigents of the world are the responsibility of others.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 6:37 PM


Mary: "Do parents have the right to kill a full term baby still in the womb? Let's say the baby isn't due for a few more weeks but could survive, and the parents make the "choice" that the child will be unwanted after all. Being you are a supporter of bodily autonomy, would you support their killing the baby in utero and expelling it?
"If there was sufficient opinion for abortion being illegal it would be." Am I to assume that decades of slavery in this country were justified
because there just weren't enough people who thought it should be illegal? How about segregation and Jim Crow laws, should Dr.Martin Luther King have waited for sufficient opinion before he began his crusade to make segregation and discrimination illegal?"

Yo, Mary. I really don't think parents have the right to kill a full-term fetus. Per Roe, if the states want to, they can protect the life of such fetuses. And anyway, such a baby would be delivered, not aborted, if the couple's desire was to end it right now.

Personally, I realize that some of the same awareness, ability to suffer, etc., will be there in late-term fetuses, just as it is in full-term, born babies. I have no problem with the restrictions on abortion that most states have now.

Slavery was "justified" at the time because enough people wanted it. Not everybody felt that way, and the slaves had feelings too, so I'm against it myself. "Justified" is in the eye of the beholder.

As sentient beings, I think it was wrong to make people slaves. It was a group of people subverting the will of the slaves to their own. Likewise, I am against banning or further restricting abortion. I do not want the will of women subverted to those who object to abortion.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 6:40 PM


LaBelle,

Sorry about your rape. I meant it.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 06:08 PM

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

I'll take you at your word then and say thank you. :)

Your questions about reporting it - reporting it was pointless. We'd been dating for over a year. I wasn't covered with bruises and I definitely wasn't up to dealing with people who wouldn't have believed me.

I was right for feeling that way since I told my mother about it 16 years later and she wouldn't even believe me at first.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 6:42 PM


Belle - So it is alright to void the rights of non-citizens? There are basic human rights no matter what some piece of paper says.

Also

"I wouldn't choose to go through [vomiting and nausea] again just to give it away like a puppy."

I dont honestly know how to make it any clearer than that. You flat out said you would discontinue a pregnancy from nausea. Im assuming you are avoiding it either because of some deep level of misunderstanding that we are apparently unable to bridge or because you are embaressed that you said this. Either way, I dont see any further point talking about it.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 6:42 PM


This question was posed to Laura...

"LOL! Laura, I thought you worked for a living."
"Why aren't you at work today?"

Ever heard of vacation? I'm self employed.... I can do whatever I want with my workday.....

Posted by: DC LawDawg at July 31, 2007 01:46 PM

and answered by Dawg...assumed you were the same person since no one asked Dawg why they weren't at work...

hence, Laura/Dawg...wouldn't be the first time someone posted under two different names...won't be the last...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 6:44 PM


But talk about frustrating!

****
Imagine how frustrating it must be for her to have to deal with self righteous holier than thou judgmental you?

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 6:44 PM


Laura has NEVER had an abortion, but she knows for a fact that PAS is nonexistent. She's a power hungry wing ding!

***
What an incredibly stupid comment. If anyone is power hungry its those on the antichoice side. How does 'let each woman decide for herself' indicate someone being 'power hungry'? YOURE the one harboring the egocentric delusion that you know what is 'best' for everyone and everyone 'should' live their lives to suit you. As for PAS - its an antichoice myth. Anyone who actually knows anything about the subject is aware of that. Obviously that leaves you out.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 6:48 PM


As for the 14th ammendment, Im not seeing how this draws a line between autonomy and the rest of the rights, care to explain?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 6:49 PM


Doug - babies are conscious in the womb - hear sounds, react to touch, sleep etc.

So your only real difference between born and unborn it sounds like is location, location, location (one body within another). The whole premise of arguments like Doug's is to pit the mother against her child - the child is just an interloper infringing on her life. Why should a child die who didn't ask to be created in the first place? Location is indeed important. Being in a womb is the most dangerous place to be in America right now.

Posted by: Lynn at July 31, 2007 6:52 PM


Yeah you cant say whats best! I want to rape chickens and torture the elderly, how can YOU say any different!?!?!!?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 6:52 PM


Belle - So it is alright to void the rights of non-citizens? There are basic human rights no matter what some piece of paper says.

Also

"I wouldn't choose to go through [vomiting and nausea] again just to give it away like a puppy."

I dont honestly know how to make it any clearer than that. You flat out said you would discontinue a pregnancy from nausea. Im assuming you are avoiding it either because of some deep level of misunderstanding that we are apparently unable to bridge or because you are embaressed that you said this. Either way, I dont see any further point talking about it.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 06:42 PM

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

Again - stop assuming and actually read what I said. I said nothing about aborting. I was talking about gestating and how I won't put a child up for adoption after going through severe sickness to have it.

As for the rest - non-citizens in the sense that they don't even exist on their own and can't be guaranteed to ever exist on their own - yes.

Please explain to me exactly how a piece of paper is going to guarantee that any given embryo/fetus is going to make it to fruition.

Our legal system is designed to protect the rights of our citizens - first. Why should a woman lose those rights because she's pregnant?

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 6:53 PM


Laura/ Dawg are the smae person?

IP's match?

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 6:53 PM


again, what an incredibly stupid statement - trying to pretend your 'friend' has anything at all to do with anyone who posts here is laughable. And if you are her 'friend' then its no wonder she has issues.
**********

I have a friend who sort of acts like Laura.It's sometimes hard to just listen to her rant and never say anything back. Example; She will see an over weight person on the street, and she will immediately start with the "Fat jokes" She will pick on retarded people. She stabs her own family in the back. She picks on people's appearances ALL the time. She has had an abortion. She thinks it should stay legal. Why do I stay friends with her? I guess I still see good in her. I really think she's in deep emotional pain.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 31, 2007 10:34 AM

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 6:53 PM


Doug you don't have a problem with babies dying, subverted to the "will" of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant? That's inconsistent, unless you take away the babies' humanity, which of course is what pro-slave people said about blacks, that they were not human.

Posted by: Lynn at July 31, 2007 6:55 PM


Oliver- and a turtle has a central nervous system.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 6:56 PM


Oliver, we really *are* talking about public opinion, in this case. Enough opinion and a thing will be legal or illegal. Society is simply not going to want children to not be cared for, and thus we have child support laws, etc. Right to life has been attributed in that case, and the amount of sentiment for not-caring-for-children is tiny if present at all.

I reckon we're pretty much in agreement on the differences and similarities between the born and the unborn. As far as abortion being legal, enough people want the woman to retain her bodily autonomy that that's the deal.

I am not saying it's "okay to hurt a fetus" because it is unaware. If it's a wanted pregnancy then I certainly don't think that Joe Blow should be able to harm the fetus without penalty.

In the case of unwanted pregnancy, that the fetus cannot suffer does make a difference to me, personally. We have the desire of the given woman to end the pregnancy, and we have the desire of some other people to not let her end it. The unborn don't care, and I see no good reason to let the will of other people trump the will of the woman who is actually pregnant.

I do see some personhood in the fetus late enough in gestation, as it becomes at least somewhat similar to most full-term born infants. I know that infants aren't self-aware (in the way you mean it) yet we do grant personhood at birth, therefore I don't see that type of self-awareness as necessary for personhood.

Really, when *personality* and sensation and mental awareness becomes present, that's pretty good for personhood for me, and thus I don't have problems with the restrictions on abortion late in gestation that most states have.

In this vein, even though Terri Schiavo was obviously a "person" from birth, pretty much no matter who is asked about it, when the mind is gone then I see personhood going away. A body could be kept "alive" on life-support even with the brain removed, but to me who *they* were is long gone.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 6:57 PM


Belle....

Okay lets start over. First of all, contrary to leftist propaganda, fetuses DO exist.

So now explain to me, why are we going to withold rights from fetuses just because the Bill of Rights does not grant them citizenship?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 6:59 PM


Doug,

Excuse me, but you were talking about bodily autonomy, so please address the issue. Does the right to bodily autonomy cease as the pregnancy advances and at what point does the woman have less right to it? Does the full term fetus demand the same of the mother as the 1st trimester fetus?
Doug, Roe v Wade struck down state laws and for the most part silenced the voice of the American electorate on this issue. If you check NARAL's website, you will see that since states obtained the right to make laws governing abortion, more restrictions have been put into place. NARAL itself gives the nation "a dismal D-" on abortion rights as well as the "dismal" state by state statistics on laws and abortion clinic shortages. Certainly if the American people strongly supported abortion, this would not be the case. In fact, abortion advocates should have no cause for concern if the majority of the American people truly support abortion, wouldn't you agree?
About the slavery issue, sure you might have been against slavery, I also find it abhorrent, but you would agree that since there was not sufficicient support to make slavery illegal, then it should be legal, right? After all, what gave any one the right to tell someone else they couldn't own a slave?
Also, please address my question concerning Dr. King.

Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2007 7:00 PM


For those who have a problem with others judging, do you have a problem with these judgments?

Rape is wrong.
Sexual abuse of children is wrong.
Stealing what doesn't belong to you is wrong.
Beating your significant other is wrong.

Actions can and should be judged as right or wrong and it happens all the time.

What cannot be judged is a person's intent or their mitigating circumstances. Hence, "abortion is wrong" is a perfectly valid statement and a judgment that can indeed be "forced" on those who disagree, because innocent life is at stake. Children and their mothers deserve better than what the pro-choice side has to offer.

Posted by: Lynn at July 31, 2007 7:00 PM


Lynn: "Doug you don't have a problem with babies dying, subverted to the "will" of a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant? That's inconsistent, unless you take away the babies' humanity, which of course is what pro-slave people said about blacks, that they were not human."

Well, that's just it -- the unborn have no will. Nothing there is being subverted. it's the desire of the pregnant woman against other people.

Human, Yes? Alive, yes? No argument there. Yet we don't need more people on earth for the sake of *more," and I see no good reason to not let women retain the choices they have now.

The slaves had feelings, the unborn don't.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 7:00 PM


There is something wrong with a society that is so hell-bent on killing their own children. These pro-choicers are illogical. It goes against your nature to kill your own children - mothers are supposed to protect their children. All of these pro-choicers, honestly, you sound like absolutely miserable people. In bad relationships, with PAS or PTSD or whatever you want to call it. You try to rationalize it but it's not going to go away unless you admit it's wrong to kill your own child no matter what circumstance. No circumstance can possibly replace that beautiful one-of-a-kind child. Look for healing instead of just shouting at people on the internet. That baby had half of your own genes coursing through them. It's your flesh and blood.

Posted by: Lynn at July 31, 2007 06:13 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If this was to me, I'm going to be quite blunt and rude like you and just say - get bent. Your nastiess doesn't deserve a better answer than that.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 7:01 PM


Okay...so youre saying that turtles have rights?

Earlier you said that a central nervous system was the requirement for giving a baby rights....therefore turtles have rights too?

(ps fetuses have central nervous systems at around 4 weeks last time I checked)

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 7:02 PM


The fetus is not 'conscious' until there is a functional cerebral cortex. Most - about 90% of abortions - take place in the first trimester with 60% taking place by 8 weeks. No, at that stage, they arent 'conscious' and they arentconsciously 'reacting' to anything. Rangint about 'mothers' and 'babies' just shows how antichoicers try to hide behind melodramatics and hysteria. No one is 'pitting' anyone against anyone. You have a woman who knows she isnt in a position to deal with the demands of a pregnancy. Who are YOU to contradict her? Resorting to melodramatics and emotionalism and hysterical rhetorical rants doesnt do the antichoice side any favors. It looks as though an intelligent well thought out argument against a womans right to reproductive freedom is beyond your grasp.
********************************

Doug - babies are conscious in the womb - hear sounds, react to touch, sleep etc.

So your only real difference between born and unborn it sounds like is location, location, location (one body within another). The whole premise of arguments like Doug's is to pit the mother against her child - the child is just an interloper infringing on her life. Why should a child die who didn't ask to be created in the first place? Location is indeed important. Being in a womb is the most dangerous place to be in America right now.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 7:02 PM


*headdesk* I kill skin cells that have my DNA coursing through them everyday. I guess I will never be happy until I repent of killing my little offspring!

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 7:04 PM


Belle....

Okay lets start over. First of all, contrary to leftist propaganda, fetuses DO exist.

So now explain to me, why are we going to withold rights from fetuses just because the Bill of Rights does not grant them citizenship?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 06:59 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not on their own - they don't. They aren't legally considered citizens and there is no guarantee that they will ever be.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 7:06 PM


Erin,
We love you too...no worries...we're not clumping you into the "new" group.

Belle,
Welcome. I too am sorry that you were raped. Why people rape, and the role society plays in this horrible crime is a discussion for another time. But like Oliver, I never see rape as justification for abortion. Unless of course a woman is raped by a baby...

I would like to extend a sincere welcome. If you felt attacked earlier, that is because so many "new" people came on at once and it was difficult to discern who was legitimate and who was just trolling. I honestly believe you have something to offer and I hope you stay around.


Jasper,

I believe Belle was saying that if she were to become pregnant again, and suffered for 9 months with morning sickness, she would keep the child, if for no other reason than it took so much out of her to bring it to life. Am I correct Belle. After nine months of suffering and sickness, she wouldn't just give it away. Of course this begs the question, if you weren't sick at all and the pregnancy was a breeze, would you consider putting it up for adoption? But I digress...

Doug,
What a breath of fresh air you are...While I disagree with every point that you made, you made them fairly, and respectfully and I would like to wish you a warm welcome also.

Oliver,
I think you may have met your match with Doug. It will be fun to watch you two have at it!

Have I forgotten anyone? If so, catch next time you post...

Carry on...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 7:06 PM


@Doug,

It does not matter whether the fetus feels pain or not. We do not sanction killing the innocent if it can be done painlessly or without the victim"s awareness.

Posted by: J.J. at July 31, 2007 7:06 PM


Doug, we can stop talking because you believe whatever is legal is what is correct. You believe slavery was moral and genocide and murder and rape and various other crime throughout humanity have been justified because of the current local opinion. We have no need to discuss morality any further. I think you will find yourself in small number to justify the past atrocities thusly.

I suggest you spend some time reading on ethics, I have hardly the time to get distracting arguing the inconsistancies in your belief system.

A fetus could think, sing, dance, or cure cancer for all you care and itd still be void of rights because an uneducated population supports it.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 7:08 PM


Equating a baby with skin cells kind of proves my point. I'm sorry to hit close to home - it's frustrating to me when children die needlessly and women are indeed out there suffering from their choices. I honestly hope you find your way to help some day.

Posted by: Lynn at July 31, 2007 7:09 PM


"Our legal system is designed to protect the rights of our citizens - first. Why should a woman lose those rights because she's pregnant?"

Unborn babies should be protected like born babies as the only difference between them is the location.

abortion is flat out killing innocent human beings. Brutal!

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 7:09 PM


Belle -

So you only give basic human rights to citizens. Do you mean to imply that I could kill a non-citizen, say a Mexican, because I feel like it, and how dare anyone take my right to choice away for the sake of a non-citizen?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 7:11 PM


Mary,

I think the right to bodily autonomy does lessen late in gestation, depending on what desire is at work (and as a practical matter - if nobody will do an abortion, things are changed). If the only reason the pregnancy is desired to be ended is because the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, then I don't think she has unlimited autonomy right there, per the Roe decision and in certain states.

No, the full-term fetus does not demand the same of the mother as the first trimester fetus.

Sure, some states have added restrictions, and some have been struck down as Unconstitutional too. Agreed that there are some shortage of clinics in some areas. But that doesn't mean people don't support abortion.

The polls confirm that a majority of people want abortion to be legal, though not without restrictions. It is only a minority that wants it to be illegal, or illegal for "elective" reasons.

No, I don't agree that slavery "should be legal" if there isn't enough support for it being illegal. That is because my "should" is not the same as those who favor slavery.

*"should Dr.Martin Luther King have waited for sufficient opinion before he began his crusade to make segregation and discrimination illegal?"*

No, because he isn't dependent on popular opinion there. Heck, should I care what other people think if I want to go get a pizza? He was doing what he wanted and he wasn't stepping on the rights of other people.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 7:13 PM



"The slaves had feelings, the unborn don't."

@Doug,

feeling are generated in the brain by the amygdala axis/R-complex, please tell when a fetus grows these.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 7:14 PM


Oliver- there are sodomy laws still on the books in my state because an uneducated public supports it. Laws don't make something right or wrong, they enforce a majority opinion in an attempt to create balance. To be honest, there would be millions more people alive today if it weren't for abortion- and we would be in serious, serious trouble in terms of our population.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 7:14 PM


"The fetus is not 'conscious' until there is a functional cerebral cortex. Most - about 90% of abortions - take place in the first trimester with 60% taking place by 8 weeks. No, at that stage, they arent 'conscious' and they arentconsciously 'reacting' to anything. Rangint about 'mothers' and 'babies' just shows how antichoicers try to hide behind melodramatics and hysteria. No one is 'pitting' anyone against anyone. You have a woman who knows she isnt in a position to deal with the demands of a pregnancy. Who are YOU to contradict her? Resorting to melodramatics and emotionalism and hysterical rhetorical rants doesnt do the antichoice side any favors. It looks as though an intelligent well thought out argument against a womans right to reproductive freedom is beyond your grasp."

So you only support women having abortions when they cannot support the pregnancy? Please clarify how we determine what "cannot" means?

Also, explain how a monkey, with higher thinking power than a 5 year old, does not have human rights, and that a newborn with the thinking level of the average mammal does.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 7:16 PM


Hi John,
You've walked into a hornets nest I'm afraid...we could use you...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 7:17 PM


A monkey doesn't have 'thinking' power.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 7:18 PM


Doug, what does it matter debating? You support strictly what the law states. You might as well, for the purposes of this argument, copy paste some law books.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 7:19 PM


Its this kind of melodramatic hysterical meaningless rant that makes antichoicers look so idiotic. Abortion is 'wrong' because I say so. Abortion is killing a baby because I say so. There is something wrong with any woman who has an abortion because I say so. Its a beautiful child. Its a little baby. whine whine whine whine whine Get past the delusion that youre in a position to decide what is best for someone else. You may explain why YOU wouldnt abort but that doesnt mean a single solitary thing to anyone BUT you. If a woman knows she isnt in a position to continue a pregnancy who are YOU to contradict her? where do you get the egocentric fantasy that YOU are in a position to contradict her and tell her she is 'wrong'? Just who made YOU such an authority on HER Life?
**************
There is something wrong with a society that is so hell-bent on killing their own children. These pro-choicers are illogical. It goes against your nature to kill your own children - mothers are supposed to protect their children. All of these pro-choicers, honestly, you sound like absolutely miserable people. In bad relationships, with PAS or PTSD or whatever you want to call it. You try to rationalize it but it's not going to go away unless you admit it's wrong to kill your own child no matter what circumstance. No circumstance can possibly replace that beautiful one-of-a-kind child. Look for healing instead of just shouting at people on the internet. That baby had half of your own genes coursing through them. It's your flesh and blood.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 7:19 PM


Erin,

Actually, Some apes do. The chimpanzee grows intellectually at the same rate as a child until the age of five. They can communicate with words and teach the next generation the "new" language. They also are "self-aware". When a 6 month old looks in a mirror it has no idea that it is looking at itself. When a dog sees it's image in a mirror it will look behind the mirror. But chimpanzees know that they are looking at themselves...it's quite fascinating, really.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 7:20 PM


Oliver: *"Doug, we can stop talking because you believe whatever is legal is what is correct."*

Nope, that is just a straw man argument on your part. I never said "correct" in any such unqualifed manner. If there is sufficient opinion for a law, then it will exist, but I didn't say it would be "correct," necessarily. Sheesh.

O: *"You believe slavery was moral and genocide and murder and rape and various other crime throughout humanity have been justified because of the current local opinion."*

Again, no, no, no. You're just making stuff up. I did not say "moral." I did not say "justified" like that. That there is sufficient opinion for actions or laws does not necessarily mean that I agree with them or favor them. Ahem.


O: *"We have no need to discuss morality any further. I think you will find yourself in small number to justify the past atrocities thusly."*

You're not adressing morality, you've been pretending that your desire is some imaginary external absolute, and it is not. In no way have I been "jusifying" past atrocities.


O: "*I suggest you spend some time reading on ethics, I have hardly the time to get distracting arguing the inconsistancies in your belief system."*

You haven't even got to it yet. You're stuck making up straw men.


O: "*A fetus could think, sing, dance, or cure cancer for all you care and itd still be void of rights because an uneducated population supports it."*

Now you're just being silly.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 7:21 PM


Yeah you cant say whats best! I want to rape chickens and torture the elderly, how can YOU say any different!?!?!!?

***
Another argument that makes antichoicers look like complete and total idiots.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 7:22 PM


Texasred: >>Doug - babies are conscious in the womb - hear sounds, react to touch, sleep etc

Nope, not for 98% or 99% of abortions they're not.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 7:23 PM


"Oliver- there are sodomy laws still on the books in my state because an uneducated public supports it. Laws don't make something right or wrong, they enforce a majority opinion in an attempt to create balance. To be honest, there would be millions more people alive today if it weren't for abortion- and we would be in serious, serious trouble in terms of our population."

The world can and will hold a larger population first of all. Secondly, you are implying that overpopulation is cause for the death of innocents.

Now, I want you to really carefully read my post. If you look at it closely I am NOT saying that morals are subjective to laws. I was commenting that Doug believes this, and that because of this I can no longer debate him.

Now I understand that the posts are updating wildly fast and how it could be confusing, but please read my posts that you respond to carefully, as I am arguing many different points to many different people.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 7:23 PM


Texas- I am actually a very happy person. Thank you.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 7:24 PM


"To be honest, there would be millions more people alive today if it weren't for abortion- and we would be in serious, serious trouble in terms of our population."

Yea, let's go to the China one child policy... Silly. Control our borders (>20 million illegals) and it wouldn't be a problem.

Posted by: jasper at July 31, 2007 7:25 PM


Oliver: "*that the choices they make neglect inept members of our society they are responsible to does make it so that their "choice" should be revoked.*"

That's only your opinion, and I disagree. Women are not "responsible" for gestating pregnancies against their will. We have LOTS of people on earth already. Good grief -- we certainly don't need to force things on women who don't want to.

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


jasper- that's not what I'm saying. And how, exactly, do you propose that we control our borders? Really, it's not possible. If people want to get in, they're going to keep trying. No big silly wall is going to stop them.

The world automatically corrects overpopulation. In the next century, I'm quite sure that there will be a large pandemic. It will fix our population problem for us.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 7:27 PM


A sense of right and wrong have left the building and apart from a cataclysm aren't coming back.

Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, come Lord Jesus......

Posted by: HisMan at July 31, 2007 7:28 PM


Texasred: "*Yeah you cant say whats best!*"

Of course I can. What do you want to know?

TR: "*I want to rape chickens and torture the elderly, how can YOU say any different?!"*

Easily. And so can many other people. Do you think there is much sentiment for doing those things? Very funny....


TR: "*Another argument that makes antichoicers look like complete and total idiots."*

If you have to pretend about what the other side in the debate is saying, then you're not even in the game in the first place.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 7:30 PM


LaBelleGarce,

You bring up an interesting point. You said your PTSD was related directly to your rape. Hardly any surprise. You prove a point though. Did your abortion, for whatever reason you had it, do anything to ease the horror you suffered?
Our society still has a Neanderthal mentality when it comes to rape. Do we hear any outrage over the crime of rape itself? Where is the outrage over the all too often lenient treatment of sex offenders? A victim can be beaten, mutilated, burned(as one victim in our city was) infected with AIDS, or murdered, and she's just another crime statistic. Let her become pregnant and our society goes ballistic. Again there's no concern over what happened to her, its just an emotional response to her pregnancy. There are those who would say your abortion somwhow made this crime easier for you to live with. I say that is an outrage and trivializes the horror you endured and continue to live with.

Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2007 7:31 PM


*sigh* Whatever makes you happy, HisMan. All the interesting people will be in hell anyway, I think.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 7:31 PM


YOU dont determine jack diddly squat about someone elses pregnancy. Thats one little slice of reality you dont seem to be able to grasp. THe woman says she cant deal with the demands of a pregnancy. It doesnt matter 'why' she says that. Youre not in a position to decide if her reasons are 'good enough' or not. Get past that megalomaniacal delusion. Monkeys dont have a thing to do with this discussion. Im really beginning to wonder if someone is paying you to make an idiot of yourself. Its hard to believe youre working this hard without some kind of positive reinforcement.
***************************************

So you only support women having abortions when they cannot support the pregnancy? Please clarify how we determine what "cannot" means?

Also, explain how a monkey, with higher thinking power than a 5 year old, does not have human rights, and that a newborn with the thinking level of the average mammal does.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 7:32 PM


Thats fine Doug, we can start over. You added unneeded confusion when you started talking about public opinion and saying things like slavery was "justified." Whatever, lets start over.

Okay, to start out, a woman has no right to abortion seeing as it is her responsibility given by the concept of the social contract. What are your thoughts?

By the way guys, Texasred is quoting people, please read the posts clearly. Hes on the choice side.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 7:33 PM


Please explain how you can give rights to a non-citizen (the embryo/fetus) over the rights of the citizen (the woman) when there is no guarantee that the embryo/fetus will ever make it to fruition. It's like giving rights to ghosts.

Is there any guarantee that after you give birth, your child will not become ill and die from some disease, or die from other causes? No. There are no guarantees like this in life. There is no guarantee that if you have a child, and the child lives to be 1, that after that age, your baby will live to be 2. There's no guarantee that your child won't develop leukemia and die. There's no guarantee that your child won't fall into a well and die. There's no guarantee that your child won't die from any other cause out there. Does that mean if you let your already born children live past birth that you are giving life to "ghosts"? Of course not. The fact that many unborn babies die is not proof that they aren't human beings, unless you also want to say that the fact that many born children die makes them "ghosts" as well.


MK, @ your post at 4:34 LOL!! So true.

Oliver, great posts...I appreciate you being here and hope you stay! :)

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 7:34 PM


Texasred: >>Doug - babies are conscious in the womb - hear sounds, react to touch, sleep etc

Nope, not for 98% or 99% of abortions they're not.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 07:23 PM
****
Doug, I didnt say that. This is Iva.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 7:34 PM


Oliver: "*Doug, what does it matter debating? You support strictly what the law states. You might as well, for the purposes of this argument, copy paste some law books."*

It matters because you want to subvert the will of women to your own, just as the slaveowners wanted the will of other sentient people subverted to theirs.

It matters because your desire is that the freedom that women have in this matter be taken away.

It matters because this is one of the best arguments going, one that takes us down to the unprovable assumptions we all make.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 7:34 PM


WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH YOUR BABY

Your baby's length is now about 3 to 5 millimeters -- about the size of a peppercorn! The brain is forming three separate parts: the forebrain (memory and reasoning), the midbrain (translates messages from the brain to organs and limbs) and the hindbrain (regulates breathing and muscle movement). At this point the embryo is now three-dimensional and completely enclosed in the amniotic sac.

http://www.epigee.org/fetal1.html

These are from a site for expectant mothers and in no way are they biased...pro-life vs pro-abortion is not an issue here...

Your baby's heart is now beating and blood circulation is evident. The kidneys and liver are growing fast, and the neural tube, which connects the brain with the spinal cord, closes.

The unborn child
at seven weeks
(5 weeks after conception)

Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny human male, swimming extremely vigorously in the amnionic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. The tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards to the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers. The baby was extremely alive and did not look at all like the photos and drawings of 'embryos' which I have seen. When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage, blunt extremities, etc.


8 weeks - The unborn child, called a fetus at this stage, is about half an inch long. The tiny person is protected by the amnionic sac, filled with fluid. Inside, the child swims and moves gracefully. The arms and legs have lengthened, and fingers can be seen. The toes will develop in the next few days. Brain waves can be measured.

12 weeks - Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

- Paul E. Rockwell, M.D.
! DID YOU KNOW: Pregnancy is counted from the first day of a woman's last period. This means that at conception, the unborn child is already considered two weeks old!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 7:35 PM


Aaaack! Iva, I am SORRY -- good grief....

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 7:36 PM


Doug, if you have some antichoicers trying to pretend that killing the elderly is somehow 'the same' as abortion then thats an imbecilic argument. Its that kind of pointless meaningless absurd 'analogy' that makes antichoicers look like idiots.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 7:38 PM


*shakes head* The brain is not fully formed at 12 weeks.

Two months is also too early to determine gender.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 7:38 PM


Oliver,

No worries here...until Texasred says something worth reading, I won't be reading them at all, let alone looking at them closely...

But thanks for the heads up...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 7:39 PM


I wouldnt apologize to TexasRed, unless you two are doing the "highfive" thing that MK suggested once. In which case you might want to advice your bud that they are not adding anything to the argument like you are and the tie is making you look the worse.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 7:39 PM


Aaaack! Iva, I am SORRY -- good grief....

**********************************************
ROFL! Doug, you KNOW Im not going to let you forget this! ;)

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 7:40 PM


Oliver says: "*Okay, to start out, a woman has no right to abortion seeing as it is her responsibility given by the concept of the social contract. What are your thoughts?*"

I disagree, Oliver. There is no social contract to gestate unwanted pregnancies. And by that I mean early enough in gestation where the Roe restrictions may apply - that area is up for argument but it's not the main abortion debate.

There being no need to increase the population, per se, what necessary "contract" do you see there?

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 7:40 PM


You bring up an interesting point. You said your PTSD was related directly to your rape. Hardly any surprise. You prove a point though. Did your abortion, for whatever reason you had it, do anything to ease the horror you suffered?
Our society still has a Neanderthal mentality when it comes to rape. Do we hear any outrage over the crime of rape itself? Where is the outrage over the all too often lenient treatment of sex offenders? A victim can be beaten, mutilated, burned(as one victim in our city was) infected with AIDS, or murdered, and she's just another crime statistic. Let her become pregnant and our society goes ballistic. Again there's no concern over what happened to her, its just an emotional response to her pregnancy. There are those who would say your abortion somwhow made this crime easier for you to live with. I say that is an outrage and trivializes the horror you endured and continue to live with.

Mary, beautifully expressed post! Thank you so much!

Do you happen to know if any Planned Parenthood clinics offer post rape counseling, to help the woman get through the grief she is feeling after her rape?


Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 7:40 PM


Doug, I didnt say that. This is Iva.

Iva? Are you the same Iva who used to debate on the Sheck forums?

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 7:41 PM


TR: "*if you have some antichoicers trying to pretend that killing the elderly is somehow 'the same' as abortion then thats an imbecilic argument. Its that kind of pointless meaningless absurd 'analogy' that makes antichoicers look like idiots.*"

It's a meaningless argument. That the unborn are "human" and "alive" isn't the debate. When we get to the differences between them is where the arguing starts.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 7:44 PM


Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being ever seen.
*********************************************
This is another glaring example of absurd antichoice propaganda. For starters, if a woman was having surgery for a fallopian tube ruptured by a tubal pregnancy her life would be hanging by a thread. No one would be wasting time playing 'Show and tell'. Secondly the woman would have needed something done before two months gestation. Anyone who knows anything at all about the subject will find one flaw after another in this whole antichoice dog and pony tall tale. But antichoicers accept it as 'the truth' and either dont want to stop and THINK about how absurd the story is or they arent educated to RECOGNIZE how absurd the story is. They just repeat it time after time after time and cant understand why they arent taken seriously.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 7:45 PM


No, what we are trying to establish is the utter stupidity of the argument you expoused earlier that its not my right to decide what someone else does. My response was a sarcastic note that of course we decide what other people are allowed to do constantly, every day, and to argue that abortion cannot be held to the same standard because it is a personal choice is beyond absurd.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 7:46 PM


Bethany- actually, yes, they do.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/mid-hudson-valley/rape-crisis-support.htm

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 7:47 PM


Jasper,

Laura/ Dawg are the smae person?
IP's match?

No, just their level of obnoxiousness matches...
I checked. They are so similar that I wondered. Dawg answered a question that was addressed to Laura, so I checked...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 7:47 PM


Iva? Are you the same Iva who used to debate on the Sheck forums?

**************************************
Probably. I dont recall there being but one Iva who ever posted there. I havent posted there in ages though.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 7:47 PM


Im talking about the idea that the indigents of society are the responsiblity of those who are capable. Much like the parent of a born child, a pregnant mother must sacrifice her rights to the degree necesary to provide for the indigent fetus.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 7:48 PM


LaBelleGarce,

You bring up an interesting point. You said your PTSD was related directly to your rape. Hardly any surprise. You prove a point though. Did your abortion, for whatever reason you had it, do anything to ease the horror you suffered?
Our society still has a Neanderthal mentality when it comes to rape. Do we hear any outrage over the crime of rape itself? Where is the outrage over the all too often lenient treatment of sex offenders? A victim can be beaten, mutilated, burned(as one victim in our city was) infected with AIDS, or murdered, and she's just another crime statistic. Let her become pregnant and our society goes ballistic. Again there's no concern over what happened to her, its just an emotional response to her pregnancy. There are those who would say your abortion somwhow made this crime easier for you to live with. I say that is an outrage and trivializes the horror you endured and continue to live with.


Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2007 07:31 PM

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

Since I didn't abort because of the rape - no. They are two separate issues.

I've seen some say that women abort to get back at the rapist. Perhaps some do but I didn't. No one else is to blame for the rapist's actions but him. Just like in everything else - you are only accountable for your own actions.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 7:49 PM


Bethany, why would PP provide rape crisis counscelling? Would you expect your OB/Gyn to provide such?

Posted by: Sally at July 31, 2007 7:51 PM


"The slaves had feelings, the unborn don't."

[i]John: "Doug,

feeling are generated in the brain by the amygdala axis/R-complex, please tell when a fetus grows these."[/i]

For there to be conscious perception, there has to be a connected, developed and operational cerebral cortex. There is often reflexive movement early on, and I imagine the amygdala axis/R-complex does have something to do with feeling per what you said, but when we are talking about mental awareness, conscious pain perception, etc., the old cortex has to be "up and running" too.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 7:51 PM


MK:

The fact that their IPs match may mean they're just in the same general geographical area.

Posted by: HisMan at July 31, 2007 7:51 PM


Erin,

Show me something that says the brain isn't formed at 12 weeks. And you can't tell gender with your eyes but you can tell with DNA testing. The gender is determined at conception...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 7:53 PM


Doug,

A late term fetus will place the same demands on the mother, food, water, protection, oxygenation, as an early term fetus will, and be a lot heavier as well! You talk of bodily autonomy. I don't understand how its relevant at one point in pregnancy and not another. Based on your autonomy argument, if its not acceptable for a full term pregnancy to be ended because the mother just doesn't want it, why is it acceptable earlier in the pregnancy? Autonomy can't be an argument where you get to pick and choose.
George Tiller has been aborting late term pregnancies for years. These women want their bodily autonomy. Why would you object since you support autonomy?
You better check the NARAL website for yourself Doug. Not all of these restrictions have been struck down or ruled unconstitutional, or NARAL wouldn't be whining. Why are these laws even passed if the American people so overwhelmingly support abortion? Also, polls are showing a deep ambivalence on the part of Americans concerning abortion, especially among young people.
Doug I'm sorry but you failed to address my questions on slavery and Dr.King. If there was not sufficient support to make slavery, and eventually discrimination and segregation illegal, then no laws should have been passed ending slavery, or discrimination and segregation. Does your argument apply exclusively to abortion?

Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2007 7:53 PM


Doug, what does it matter? Infants do not have self-awareness, nor do they have fully formed central nervous systems. Do we deny them rights as humans? If not, then why?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 7:54 PM


Oliver: "*Im talking about the idea that the indigents of society are the responsiblity of those who are capable. Much like the parent of a born child, a pregnant mother must sacrifice her rights to the degree necesary to provide for the indigent fetus.*"

That idea applies for born people to certain extents, yes, but the unborn are not in "society," and they are inside the body of a person, so things are quite different.

As a society, we say that parents (or somebody) should support born children. The sentiment for the unborn is not nearly so prevalent. As a society we don't *need* more people, per se, especially to the extent of taking away the freedom the women have in the matter, and thus I imagine it will remain quite a different deal in the public eye.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 7:57 PM


Lets start out with some facts here, courtesy of the JAMA, CDC and AGI. There are about 100,000,000 women in the US, just over 4,000,000 births and fewer than 1,000,000 abortions. Obviously there are not "so many" abortions in the US per year.

Secondly, about 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, with over 60% performed by 8 weeks. And this percentage is growing larger since RU486 is now legal in the US. Less than 1% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks gestation and the reasons for these are atypical.

Until so late in gestation as to make abortion a moot point, the fetus is mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure. It is mindless because there is no functional cerebral cortex. There is 'no one home'. The cerebral cortex does not begin to kick in until about the same point in gestation as potential viability. The fetus is insensate. The central nervous system is not adequately developed for it to be sensate and until there is a functional cerebral cortex there is 'no one home' TO feel anything. And the fetus is not viable until its developed enough to survive outside the uterus.

Mindless insensate nonviable tissue has no rights nor should it have rights. Mindless insensate nonviable tissue is not capable of being 'innocent' You might as well carry on about an innocent kidney. Mindless insensate nonviable tissue is not 'a baby' or 'a child' regardless of its potential. If a woman gives birth to mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure then she does not have a baby. She has a miscarriage. The potential it had to develop into a baby is lost.

The zef is genetically human. That doesnt make it a person, a human being, or a child. Learn the difference between an adjective and a noun. You may THINK of the zygote/embryo/fetus (zef) as a baby but that doesnt mean anyone has an obligation to agree with you. And if youre not the one pregnant then how you 'see' the zef really doesnt matter just one whole heck of a lot.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 8:00 PM


Belle -

So you only give basic human rights to citizens. Do you mean to imply that I could kill a non-citizen, say a Mexican, because I feel like it, and how dare anyone take my right to choice away for the sake of a non-citizen?

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 07:11 PM

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

Are they residing inside of some woman's uterus?

Yes, my question was deliberately silly because yours was too.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 8:01 PM


Oliver: "*Doug, what does it matter? Infants do not have self-awareness, nor do they have fully formed central nervous systems. Do we deny them rights as humans? If not, then why?"*

I've already said that I'm fine with restrictions late in gestation since then the fetus is getting aware like a full-term infant is.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 8:01 PM


"Early in development, from about 12-18 weeks gestation, there is a complete link from the periphery to the thalamus in the brain, and the fetus shows clear evidence of defensive reactions against tissue damage including hormonal and hemodynamic responses."

12-18 weeks. No earlier.

http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html

This claims that the most reliable time period is 20 weeks- according to a presentation by a PRO-LIFE PHYSICIAN.

As I have said before, correlation does not equal causation.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 8:02 PM


Oh...this one is good too. Brain responses that correlate to born persons response to pain. 20 weeks.

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 8:04 PM


Doug, what does it matter? Infants do not have self-awareness, nor do they have fully formed central nervous systems. Do we deny them rights as humans? If not, then why?
***********************************************
Virtually anyone could take care of an infant, even you although I doubt if Id trust you with one. If the woman cannot take care of an infant then someone else can take over. No one can take over a pregnancy. An infant is a separate being. Mindless insensate nonviable tissue separated from the woman pregnant is just going to be tissue and cell structure.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 8:04 PM


Erin,

He didn't say fully functioning...he said fully formed.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:04 PM


Im talking about the idea that the indigents of society are the responsiblity of those who are capable. Much like the parent of a born child, a pregnant mother must sacrifice her rights to the degree necesary to provide for the indigent fetus.
*************************************************

Bullsh**

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 8:06 PM


The fetus can't feel pain though. And isn't that what you're trying to get at?

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 8:07 PM


By society, I mean human society, not the US. Fetuses are members of human society the same way that infants and newborns are, only minus the brain. Assume that fetuses are indeed persons for the sake of the autonomy argument. If this is the case the autonomy of the mother is expected to be infringed upon, because not only is her fetus a member of society, but it is also a person (by assumption) and therefore it is an indigent exactly in the same way that a child is to their parents. Therefore her rights are waived to the degree to provide food, water, and shelter to her indigent untill an alternative source can be located.

Its not a matter of "needing" more people. They already exist and must be dealt with.

Now if you want to disagree on the grounds that fetuses are not persons, lets move on to that side of the argument, but for now lets focus on autonomy.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 8:08 PM


I NEVER have the responsibility to give up my rights. Never.

Posted by: Erin at July 31, 2007 8:09 PM


Hi guys,

I strongly get the impression that Texasred is male. So, does the lil-woman need her BIG STUD to do the arguing for her ...
"Its this kind of melodramatic hysterical meaningless rant that makes antichoicers look so idiotic. Abortion is 'wrong' because I say so. Abortion is killing a baby because I say so. There is something wrong with any woman who has an abortion because I say so. Its a beautiful child. Its a little baby. whine whine whine whine whine Get past the delusion that youre in a position to decide what is best for someone else. You may explain why YOU wouldnt abort but that doesnt mean a single solitary thing to anyone BUT you. If a woman knows she isnt in a position to continue a pregnancy who are YOU to contradict her? where do you get the egocentric fantasy that YOU are in a position to contradict her and tell her she is 'wrong'? Just who made YOU such an authority on HER Life?"

This is the identical problem as the body autonomy one. Human beings are not isolates but are group beings ... the main group is the family. The word is not 'independent' but 'interdependent'. Sounds like a silly, hair-splitting distinction, eh? But such is thrust into my personal life because I am severally disabled. The word 'independent' as it applies to us means isolate, alone .... so loneliness and 'not-belonging' are very much part of my life.

I think we do-a-little-arm-twisting on a pregnant girl when she first finds out she is pregnant. At that time, she is in the middle of the first depression in pregnancy.(80% of all abortions are done from 7-10 weeks) just when she needs support ... what does she hear? "if you don't abort, you will never BELONG ... AND CERTAINLY YOUR BABY DOES NOT!"

My authority T-red is ME .... am I wrong?

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:09 PM


I say that is an outrage and trivializes the horror you endured and continue to live with.
*************************************************
If YOURE not the one pregnant then what 'you say' doesnt mean jack diddly squat. How megalomaniacal to harbor the delusion that YOU are in some kind of a position to tell another woman how she 'should' feel about her rape. Trying to pretend that compelling a woman to gestate and give birth is somehow hess horrible and outrageous than letting her do what she knows is best makes you look arrogant egocentric and idiotic beyond description.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 8:10 PM


Mary,

The full-term pregnancy won't be ended by abortion, it'll be delivered. There doesn't have to be an abortion at that point, almost always. The woman's bodily autonomy isn't affected there - doesn't matter whether the pregnancy ends by delivery or by abortion. With earlier pregnancies, the autonomy is indeed affected - either she has to remain pregnant or not.

Tiller doesn't do third-trimester abortions just because the woman wants to end the pregnancy. You can say "late-term" and mean 20 weeks or more, but that's not the same as more than 26 weeks. It doesn't take a majority of people to pass a law, necessarily, it only takes sufficient opinion, and that can be on the part of a few legislators.

M: "*I'm sorry but you failed to address my questions on slavery and Dr.King. If there was not sufficient support to make slavery, and eventually discrimination and segregation illegal, then no laws should have been passed ending slavery, or discrimination and segregation. Does your argument apply exclusively to abortion?*"

Yes I did adress them. Slavery, et al, were made illegal because there came a time when there WAS sufficient opinion for them to be illegal. And nope - for any and all laws that's the way it is. All it takes is enough opinion for them to exist. The sufficient opinion could even be on the part of one person, in fact, as with a monarchy. That's not saying the given law would be right/wrong/good/bad in the eyes of me, you, or another group of people.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 8:10 PM


If a parent cannot find a suitable alternative to the care of their child, they are still responsible.

In the case of pregnancy, a suitable alternative cannot be found untill birth. In this case, like a parent waiting on a suitable alternative, the mother must be responsible for the indigent.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 8:12 PM


Erin,

Honestly? I was just trying to get an unbiased reference to go back to while we are arguing.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not the baby can feel pain, many people can't feel pain. I had epidurals during my last two deliveries and I can assure you I was feeling no pain...but I can also assure you that I was alive and functioning as a person...I was actually doing a crossword puzzle.

Abortion is wrong because it ends a human life. Whether that person feels pain is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of the act. If an abortion is done after the point where a baby can feel pain, it doesn't make it any more wrong...it does however, make it sadder. Having your life snuffed out is bad enough, but doing it by dismemberment in the 8th month as our friend Tiller does...well, that's right up there with slasher movies.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:13 PM


I strongly get the impression that Texasred is male.

*****
Then youre really really stupid.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 8:15 PM


Erin....yes you do, constantly. You would have to care for your child if you had one, voiding your right to property and privacy. Hell you have to even care for your dog.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 8:15 PM


Doug,

Tiller doesn't do third-trimester abortions just because the woman wants to end the pregnancy.

Actually he does. As long as he's getting paid, he'll do them for any reason whatsoever...that's why he's being charged with all those crimes.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:16 PM


My authority T-red is ME .... am I wrong?

***********************************
As far as Im concerned, you already proved youre an idiot. You also denigrate and demean women by trying to pretend that we are somehow not in a position to make our own decisions and need someone to tell us what we 'should' do. And you trivialize the reasons why women choose to end a pregnancy by whining that someone 'says' if they give birth they wont 'fit in'. It sounds like you imagine your backside is a valid source of information.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 8:19 PM


Oh yes, "bull****", then dont respond to the actual points. Nice.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 8:20 PM


Oliver: "*By society, I mean human society, not the US. Fetuses are members of human society the same way that infants and newborns are, only minus the brain. Assume that fetuses are indeed persons for the sake of the autonomy argument. If this is the case the autonomy of the mother is expected to be infringed upon, because not only is her fetus a member of society, but it is also a person (by assumption) and therefore it is an indigent exactly in the same way that a child is to their parents. Therefore her rights are waived to the degree to provide food, water, and shelter to her indigent untill an alternative source can be located."*

Well, Geez, Oliver, the unborn are *not* members of society, now are they? They're not attributed personhood nor rights as the born are. They're not granted citizenship, etc.

On autonomy, the fact that the born are not inside somebody's body and the born are makes it a different deal. I know that you and others wish that the unborn were treated the same as the born, but it's just not that way. Nor is there any demonstrable evidence that they need to be.


O: "*Its not a matter of "needing" more people. They already exist and must be dealt with."*

And for some people, choosing to end the pregnancy is the best way to deal with the situation. This comes down to your desire (and that of other people too) against the desire of the woman, and I don't see you having any persuasive case why we should.


O: "* you want to disagree on the grounds that fetuses are not persons, lets move on to that side of the argument, but for now lets focus on autonomy.*"

Okay, but I gotta go for tonight... We attribute full, real personhood at birth, not before. Personhood is a societal construct. As a society, we do expect that parents will support their children - we've already attributed right to life and other rights there. As a society, we don't need to force a woman to continue a pregnancy; we already have plenty that do it willingly.

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 8:22 PM


Tiller doesn't do third-trimester abortions just because the woman wants to end the pregnancy.

MK: "*Actually he does. As long as he's getting paid, he'll do them for any reason whatsoever...that's why he's being charged with all those crimes.*"

MK, do you have proof of elective abortions past 26 weeks?

Also, how do you italicize text on these boards?

Gracias,

Doug

Posted by: Doug at July 31, 2007 8:24 PM


Abortion is wrong because it ends a human life.
******************************************
It removes mindless insensate nonviable human tissue and cell structure from the body of a thinking feeling reasoning person who does not want that tissue and cell structure in her uterus. Its genetically human. Learn the difference between an adjective and a noun. Whining 'abortion is wrong because I think its wrong' - and that IS what you just said - means nothing when youre just giving your opinion. If youre not the one pregnant your opinion isnt relevant. Youre not part of the decision making process.

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 8:24 PM


Actually he does. As long as he's getting paid, he'll do them for any reason whatsoever...that's why he's being charged with all those crimes.

*********************************
And your proof would be? Or do you just want to sit on a scanner and post a picture of your butt?

Posted by: TexasRed at July 31, 2007 8:27 PM


Doug,

do the lesser sign followed by a small i followed by the greater sign.

Then type what you want italicized.

then do the lesser sign followed by a slash followed by a small i followed by a greater sign.

I can't show because it automatically italicizes it and the "symbols" disappear...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:33 PM


Doug,

go to this website and look on the left hand side...you'll see a box that says late term abortion care...elective.

http://www.drtiller.com/

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:35 PM



[our medical director]
[employment opportunities]
[notice of privacy practices]
[abortion by pill]

[abortion care - WOMEN'S HEALTH CARE SERVICES, P.A.]

Late Abortion Care
Elective

Abortion Counseling & Consultation | Procedure

At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician and is based on sonogram results, physical examination and last menstrual period date (if known). Our telephone counselors will ask you a number of medical questions to determine if you are eligible for an elective abortion. If you have visited another clinic or physician, we will ask for the results from a recent ultrasound.

Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. Each person's circumstances are reviewed on a case-by-base basis. Please call so that we can discuss admission criteria with you

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:36 PM


Belle,
Welcome. I too am sorry that you were raped. Why people rape, and the role society plays in this horrible crime is a discussion for another time. But like Oliver, I never see rape as justification for abortion. Unless of course a woman is raped by a baby...

I would like to extend a sincere welcome. If you felt attacked earlier, that is because so many "new" people came on at once and it was difficult to discern who was legitimate and who was just trolling. I honestly believe you have something to offer and I hope you stay around.


Jasper,

I believe Belle was saying that if she were to become pregnant again, and suffered for 9 months with morning sickness, she would keep the child, if for no other reason than it took so much out of her to bring it to life. Am I correct Belle. After nine months of suffering and sickness, she wouldn't just give it away. Of course this begs the question, if you weren't sick at all and the pregnancy was a breeze, would you consider putting it up for adoption? But I digress...

Doug,
What a breath of fresh air you are...While I disagree with every point that you made, you made them fairly, and respectfully and I would like to wish you a warm welcome also.

Posted by: MK at July 31, 2007 07:06 PM

In regard to rape - like everyone else, you are entitled to your opinion. I think it is a reason to abort if that is what the victim feels she needs to do - rape isn't just being forced to have sex and anyone who has been raped knows that fact quite well.

Thank you for your welcome. I'm not a troll and as far as being attacked goes - I'm used to it. I've been told by supposed "Pro-Lifers" that I'm a slut, whore, baby-killer, should have killed myself when I was suicidal, should have died on the table when I aborted, to blame for my rape, lied about being raped, put down because I have PTSD, etc., yet I'm still here. Words by strangers on a message board are nothing compared to the things that I've actually endured in real life.

I call them supposed "Pro-Lifers" because those kind of people don't care about life at all if they can treat a victim like that - even if they don't believe someone they should tread lightly just in case they're wrong. Some victims aren't at my level of healing and comments like those could really hurt them. Furthering your agenda by hurting others is wrong for any side of any issue.

As for your comments to Jasper - you got it. In answer to your question about if I weren't sick - I still would't give a child away. It's my child and my responsibility. I have two teenaged daughters and honestly wouldn't want to start again but I would if I became pregnant. However, this is just me and what I would or wouldn't do isn't what anyone else has to do.

Btw, I hope Doug stays as well since I have yet to disagree with anything he has posted over the years that I've been posting with him. He and I think a lot alike - he just explains it better than I do sometimes because I have too may things that I consider an obvious given.

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 8:38 PM


Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician

The problem is Kansas law says that two doctors must concur and Mr. Tiller has failed to do this on numerous occasions. Jill has posted many, many times on this...one was fairly recently.

Next time you're on, I'll look it up for you.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:38 PM


*sigh* Doug you completely missed the essence of everything I said to you about autonomy. Do you even know what bodily autonomy means? It means essentially the right to your body.

Now I guess Ill break it down into smaller pieces.

1)All human beings are members of the "human society." All human beings have the right to not be neglected, among many other inherent rights.

2)A parent owes a fraction of their rights to their born child to not neglect them. This is evidenced in that a parent must give up their right to privacy and property by feeding and caring for their child. This responsiblity cannot be ended abruptly. A parent cannot decide one night to toss their child on the street or to starve him. They are required to uphold this responsibility untill a suitable replacement is found.

This responsibility arises from the concept that all indigent humans require care, and for children the parent is the default caretaker. This is witnessed in the law, and is also just plain common sense.

3)Assuming that a fetus is in fact a human person, protected under the same right to not be neglected than at the least the mother of the fetus, being the parent, being the default caretaker untill a suitable replacement is established, owes to her fetus, in part, her right to privacy and property.

Now up till now, I believe we agree for the most part. Where we disagree is on the next part.

4)I would now propose the notion that there is no fundamental differences amongst the right to property, right to privacy, and the right to bodily autonomy. In fact I would propose that bodily autonomy is a derived right, derived from the both the right to privacy and property, and that a derived right cannot be different or greater than its premise. If you should disagree here, provide some points, not just "well its different cuz its in her body."

5)Assuming that the mother owes some basic rights in part to her fetus (which we are still assuming it is a person for the sake of the argument) and assuming that there is no fundamental difference between privacy and property and bodily autonomy (BA for short), we can derive that the mother also owes in part her autonomy to the fetus (again assuming for the sake of the argument that it is a person)

6)Now, also taking into account that a parents obligation to their born child cannot be ended ubruptly, but must be ended with a replacement, we can further derive that a mother cannot end her obligation abruptly as well. Based on that idea, we can derive that abortion is not a viable option for a pregnant mother.


That is the most fleshed out argument I have currently. If you misunderstand this one as well, I will try to be more concise, maybe take each point post by post.

Posted by: Oliver at July 31, 2007 8:48 PM


Belle,

Honestly, you won't find too much hatred from our side, at least not on this site. If you stick around you'll see that most of us, truly care and have actually been in quite a few of the same situations that you all have been in...

I myself became pregnant out of wedlock (got married and will celebrate my 27th next month), was adopted, have a granddaughter born out of wedlock, was raped, was addicted to drugs, and had my share (my large share) of "illicit" sex.

Val, suffers from ADHD and takes medication for it.

Bethany just suffered her second miscarriage in a year.

Heather just had a baby, but for years was not living the "clean" life...

Some suffer from depression, some have been in abusive relationships, many have gotten pregnant out of wedlock, some have been adopted, some are pro choice, some are pro life, some are men, some are women, but all of us have become friends. And all of us are pro women and pro each other.

We check each other when things get heated, we won't let name calling slide,(we tend to forgive newbies, because they usually come defensive). We even have a resident Jester, that for some reason seems to have disappeared...

You should get to know the people on your side. They will confirm that we treat each other civilly and on the whole it has been quite a pleasant experience.

Stephanie, Midnite, Rae, Alyssa, Amanda, Leah, Less, Cameron, Heather B, Jen C, Ingrid, are all on the pro choice side (you'll even notice that we have conceded to calling you pro-choice and not pro-abortion) tho I'm sure I have forgotten someone and they will let me know.

Bethany and I are moderators. Jill owns the site.
Valerie, Heather4life, Jasper, Mary, Rasqual, Lauren, are the major players for the pro-life side, tho we do get some occasional "helpers" like Mike...

PIP and Samantha T started out on the pro choice side but have since switched over to the pro life side...

It's hard when people like dawg/texared/laura come on because they upset the status quo and they do it negatively...it's understandable because as you've pointed out there is vitriolic opinion swapping from our side too. But you won't find it on this site.

So again, welcome. I hope we see more of you.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:54 PM


Hey there! Just checking out your blog. I am a Conservative Republican who also happens to support a woman's right to choose abortion. Hi Laura:)

Posted by: HeatherA40 at July 31, 2007 8:54 PM


Sorry about the mistake in gender T-Red,

guess I got all confused by the vitriol, emptiness and antagonism I got from your posts. This void seems to be a male bastion, but if you feel that this sort of venom suits you ... your call!

you are definitely not the first to call me an idiot and hopefully will not be the last. You came to this site ... why? I feel that our answers won't phase you in the least .... and we do have them too. But right now: how's about a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from this idiot!

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:55 PM


"Mindless insensate nonviable human tissue and cell structure "

Wow, talk about cognitive dissonance...

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2007 8:56 PM


You go John!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:59 PM


Hello HeatherA40,

Welcome.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 8:59 PM


Hey Lauren,

We're just pretending that Texasred doesn't exist. It gets easier with practice...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 9:01 PM


didn't mean to make the same post 3 times. Sorry bout that, Chief. Anyway, I am from Kansas and I am ProChoice. I myself have never been pregnant but I would never even try to tell someone else let alone a stranger how to handle their own personal medical decisions.

Posted by: HeatherA40 at July 31, 2007 9:08 PM


Neither would I Heather. Unfortunately, elective abortion isn't really a medical decision.

And I wouldn't tell someone else, let alone a complete stranger how to do anything in their life, unless it involved taking the life of someone else.

Then I feel not only permitted, but obligated, to speak up.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 9:15 PM


Alright bed time for the Pope family. Don't worry bout the multiple posts, Heather, that happens to all of us.

Posted by: Lauren at July 31, 2007 9:15 PM


Heather,

Sorry to say you're not going to get much more out of us tonite...we're exhausted by the onslaught of the newcomers...

But come back tomorrow..be forewarned, this site can be addictive...

I'll be back at 6:00am to check on things...and then again throughout the day. It's nice to meet you and I hope you come back often...
Mary Kay

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 9:17 PM


Darn, the marquee command doesn't work. "pouts"

It's been years since I used html codes.

Thanks for the posts everyone. Have a great day tomorrow. I won't be here because I'm off to the Berkshire Mountains for the day but I'll be back with a lot of great landscape pictures and hopefully some pictures of black bears - if anyone wants to see them just ask and I'll set up a website with them so you don't have to worry about downloading pictures from strangers. ;)

Posted by: LaBelleGarce at July 31, 2007 9:45 PM


Belle,

I just checked in one last time before turning in.
I'm so glad that you'll be back. And have a great time in the mountains. I love the mountains. I'm so jealous...don't tease the bears!

until we meet again...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 9:47 PM


Hello everyone! Newbies and oldies! (oldies but goodies right?)

It seems I missed a very good debate with some good opinions on both sides. sorry I missed it!

MK - It looks like the new blood is going to keep us on our toes. Any chance we can get the old blood to stop stepping on our toes so we can dance? ;-) I'm exhausted just reading the bit I had time to read!

Posted by: valerie at July 31, 2007 9:48 PM


Hey - MK

If you're still here/or in the AM : I don't have time to read everything...Can I get the lowdown?

Posted by: valerie at July 31, 2007 9:50 PM


Hey Val,

When does your son go back to school? LOL
Sure missed you tonite!
Email me if you get a chance...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 31, 2007 9:51 PM


Awww, MK, you're always forgetting me, or mistaking me for someone else ;-(

Posted by: JK at July 31, 2007 9:58 PM


On a completely unrelated note; does anyone have at&t wireless and would like to join me in bashing their incredibly crappy service?

Posted by: JK at July 31, 2007 10:02 PM


TexasRed,

Please cool your jets. Belle certainly did not react to a post directed to her as you are. The point I was trying to make, and which Belle appeared to understand, was that no concern is expressed over the crime of rape itself. Our society will go ballistic over a pregnancy resulting from a rape, but not over the crime itself and will view abortion as somehow eliminating the victim's trauma. This trivalizes the crime of rape, like somehow the horror can be magically erased. Belle has made it very plain this is not the case.
Sadly, our society's mentality toward the rape victim is still in the stone age and sex offenders are treated much too leniently. That's the real issue that must be addressed. That was the point of my post.

Bethany,

Thank you for your kind comment.

Doug,

Please get your facts straight. Tiller does abort women for no other reason than they want it and has been under investigation. He does abortions into the 3rd trimeser. According to one psychiatrist who reviewed his charts, women had late term abortions for no other reason than that they wanted to go to rock concerts. Sure, these women could deliver live infants who have a chance for survival, but they want them dead, which is why they go to Tiller. As a supporter of bodily autonomy, I'm sure you would have no problem with that.
Also Doug, slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, which Lincoln was encouraged to retract, he refused, to better his chances at a reelection he never lived to see and a civil war. Lincoln's successor in the White House was an avowed racist who wanted to send the newly freed black slaves back to the plantation. Years after the civil war, laws would be passed to put black Americans "in their places". There was definitely not a majority consensus to free the slaves or to treat blacks equally. That's why we had segregation and Jim Crow.
Where do you address my question concerning Dr.King?

Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2007 10:13 PM


Dr Tiller is a hero

Posted by: HeatherA40 at July 31, 2007 11:11 PM


Thanks to all who made me feel welcome here. Thanks be to Laura for the link.:)

Posted by: HeatherA40 at July 31, 2007 11:13 PM


Personally, I got a bad feeling about Roberts during the confirmation hearings almost two years ago. He refused to give Sen. Dianne Feinstein a straight yes or no answer to her question: "John F. Kennedy made the following statement; 'I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.' My question is; do you?" He gave some lame Mickey Mouse answer, and Sen. Feinstein asked in surprise, "you can't answer yes or no?" The way I saw it, he didn't answer yes or no for a simple reason; he didn't WANT to. No doubt he was secretly worried that if he did, he'd make his far-right supporters mad at him. I haven't trusted the man since; his wearing the black robe doesn't change my opinion at all.

Posted by: Ocean at July 31, 2007 11:48 PM


Erin,

"A monkey doesn't have thinking power."

MK wrote: "Actually, Some apes do. The chimpanzee grows intellectually at the same rate as a child until the age of five. They can communicate with words and teach the next generation the "new" language. They also are "self-aware". When a 6 month old looks in a mirror it has no idea that it is looking at itself. When a dog sees it's image in a mirror it will look behind the mirror. But chimpanzees know that they are looking at themselves."

Do some research on the great apes, and you'll find that they have intelligence that is surprisingly close to our own. Do MONKEYS have that same brain power? No, not all primates do. But, they do possess the knowledge and skill to make tools, and to understand a primitive concept of right and wrong. Don't believe me? Look it up on Google. You'll find a veritable myriad of websites with that kind of information and evidence.

Look at Koko or Binti Jua, both African lowland gorillas. One knows perfect sign language, the other rescued a tiny boy who fell into the gorilla pit at the Brookfield Zoo. Some argue that it was just motherly instinct, but apes are smart enough to tell whether or not a human is one of them.

Also, look at dolphins and octopi. Both have problem solving skills well above that of any other creature in the animal kingdom.

Don't be so fast to shoot down the animal kingdom without knowing the different traits animals carry.

PS If anyone likes political humor, go rent Lewis Black's Red White & Screwed. I almost peed myself laughing!

Posted by: Danny at August 1, 2007 12:00 AM


Wait, I don't get it. Just because people disagree with you... they shouldn't have the right to free speech? How Anti-American

Posted by: Megan at August 1, 2007 1:13 AM


Thinking is idiating. Forming an image or idea. Solving a problem or being taught how to communicate isn't THINKING- it's adapting. Animals- even apes like Koko- all are rewarded with things like food when they get things right. They are working simply towards getting a reward. The ability to come up with unique ideas is a purely human trait. By a pure definition of thinking, we are alone.

Posted by: Erin at August 1, 2007 1:26 AM


Unfortunately, we can think that we're alone in that, but unless we were truly in their heads, we'll never know.

Looking at the things they do in the wild [Chimps coordinating attacks on smaller primates, orangutans walking into human habitations without having any previous history of being in contact with humans, etc] is good evidence that they do think, and that they can also feel emotions just like we do. I have to respectfully disagree with you and say that you're not giving credit where credit is due.

Also, keep in mind how Homo Sapiens started. Before Homo Sapiens was Homo Habilus, and before that were Cro Magnons and Neandrthals before them. Even Australeopithicus was no more than a giant ape, yet it ADAPTED [as you put it] to it's environment. Humans are no more than instinctive creatures that have a higher brain function and an opposable thumb.

Aside from that, I have no doubt that within our lifetime, or even that of the next generation, we'll see increased intelligence from certain species, and we'll be eating our words.

Posted by: Danny at August 1, 2007 3:27 AM


Erin,

I am in no way saying that Chimpanzees will cure cancer. But they do think. After learning "x" amount of words (for rewards) they were able to put the words together in new ways to create new thoughts. Then a mother taught the language to her child and there were no "cheerios" exchanged.

Not to mention Charlotte is at the that stage where she points and whines when she wants something and I am giving her "rewards" when she uses words. Does this make me a chimp? Don't answer that! It was rhetorical!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 6:07 AM


Q. How do the chimpanzees use ASL?

A. Under double-blind conditions, we have found that the chimpanzees communicate information in American Sign Language (ASL) to human observers. They use signs to refer to natural language categories: e.g. DOG for any dog, FLOWER for any flower, SHOE for any shoe, etc. The chimpanzees acquire and spontaneously use their signs to communicate with humans and each other about the normal course of surrounding events. They have demonstrated an ability to invent new signs or combine signs to metaphorically label a novel item, for example: calling a radish CRY HURT FOOD or referring to a watermelon as a DRINK FRUIT. In a double-blind condition, the chimpanzees can comprehend and produce novel prepositional phrases, understand vocal English words, translate words into their ASL glosses and even transmit their signing skills to the next generation without human intervention. Their play behavior has demonstrated that they use the same types of imaginary play as humans. It has also been demonstrated that they carry on chimpanzee-to-chimpanzee conversation and sign to themselves when alone. Conversational research shows the chimpanzees initiate and maintain conversations in ways that are like humans. The chimpanzees can repair a conversation if there is misunderstanding. They will also sign to themselves when alone and we have even observed them to sign in their sleep.

http://www.cwu.edu/~cwuchci/faq.html

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 6:21 AM


Erin,

The ability to come up with unique ideas is a purely human trait. By a pure definition of thinking, we are alone.

Given that human beings are unique, doesn't abortion make even less moral sense? We alone are able to create, produce, "think"...Why? What makes us different? And isn't one of those differences having a "conscience"? Having the ability to differentiate between a moral right and a moral wrong?

Without it, what separates us from the chimps? The ability to use sign language doesn't separate us nearly as much as the ability to behave morally.

When we stop doing that, we revert to animal behaviors. When we copulate for the "fun" of it, we become no more than beasts, rutting instead of "making love". When we abort our children instead of protecting them we revert to animal behaviors, doing things only for the "reward" or avoidance of punishment.

I find it ironic that you recognize humans as the highest form of animal life for precisely the fact that they can "think" and yet when faced with a problem that requires "Higher" thinking, you revert to animal instinct and eliminate the "problem" in the least humane way...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 6:33 AM


JK,

Awww, MK, you're always forgetting me, or mistaking me for someone else ;-(

I'm so sorry sweetie...I think it's the JK, JM, JJ thing...we need to change your name...any ideas?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 6:41 AM


PAS WILL make the books one day.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 6:55 AM


I disagree that anyone came down on Laura too hard. She needs to be held accountable for the things she says. It's not okay for her to be nasty to pro lifers either. Maybe if she took a different approach, she could make a few friends.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 7:01 AM


Heather,
I'm so glad you're back. After yesterday's abuse, I was afraid you had left for good. Laura said some pretty hurtful stuff...

And yes, PAS will definitely be on the books one day.

As Oliver pointed out, it already was, once.

They can change the Hippocratic oath to suit their needs, they can change the definition of marriage, they can replace words like baby and life with fetus and non-personhood, but they can't change the bottom line. Abortion is morally wrong, and it hurts women. While you might not have understood all the nuances of Roe vs Wade getting overturned (who does?) you understand something that they never will...something so simple that a small child gets it...abortion takes a life. So simple, and yet completely beyond their grasp...


Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 7:19 AM


Hi MK! No, I just had a busy schedule yesterday, and then my computer went down. I wouldn't let her scare me away. I'm sure she's also Texas Red. Looking through the posts proves that to me.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 7:26 AM


Iva, I guess you arethe same person I used to debate with years ago. Has it been 5 years? 6?
I think you and Andrea are the first two people I ever encountered in the pro-choice debate. Debating with you helped me greatly in learning how to debate with people who are difficult to deal with, or difficult to relate to. I did learn a lot from you in that way, and for that, I thank you.


"Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months) I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being ever seen.
*********************************************
This is another glaring example of absurd antichoice propaganda. For starters, if a woman was having surgery for a fallopian tube ruptured by a tubal pregnancy her life would be hanging by a thread. No one would be wasting time playing 'Show and tell'. Secondly the woman would have needed something done before two months gestation. Anyone who knows anything at all about the subject will find one flaw after another in this whole antichoice dog and pony tall tale. But antichoicers accept it as 'the truth' and either dont want to stop and THINK about how absurd the story is or they arent educated to RECOGNIZE how absurd the story is. They just repeat it time after time after time and cant understand why they arent taken seriously.".

Iva, I remember years ago, you told me that all of the fetal pictures that I showed you online were fake. I couldn't prove it to you then, but I don't need to now. I know without a doubt you were wrong because I saw it with my own eyes.

I suffered from a miscarriage in February of this year. I did see the tinest little human being I have ever seen, and I took pictures of my baby.
I want to show you pictures, so that you can see for yourself, from one woman to another, that this is truly what they look like. There is nothing faked about these photos. This is my little baby, named Blessing, who is now buried in my backyard, under the cherry willows. Please, if you have nothing nice to say, please just say nothing at all:

My baby was only 6 weeks along, when he/she passed away.

This is a jewelry box, and a sandwich bag... the baby was the size of a lima bean. Very, very tiny:

http://www.preciousinfants.com/babyblessing111.jpg

Closeup of the baby:
http://www.preciousinfants.com/babyblessingtwo.jpg

In my hand:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/bethanyf.jpg

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/bethanyd.jpg

The baby's hands, closeup:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/babyblessing2%20%282%29.jpg

P.S. Can you tell Andrea that I miss her and hope she is doing okay?

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2007 7:28 AM


Heather,
No I checked all their IP's...hard to believe there were three of them...who knows, maybe they shared the same mother or all three dated Tiller...

The only thing the same about them was their inability to speak like human beings to human beings...everything else, email, IP's and names were different...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 7:28 AM


"Okay, to start out, a woman has no right to abortion seeing as it is her responsibility given by the concept of the social contract. What are your thoughts?"

The constitution says otherwise...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at August 1, 2007 7:30 AM


"No I checked all their IP's...hard to believe there were three of them..."

Hmmmmm.... stalking behavior....

Posted by: DC LawDawg at August 1, 2007 7:36 AM


Hmmmmm.... stalking behavior....

Nope, just typical & reasonable moderator behavior.

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2007 7:38 AM


DCLawDawg


Where in the Constitution is the issue of abortion addressed and exactly what does it say?

Posted by: Mary at August 1, 2007 7:38 AM


Dawg,
How lovely to see you this morning. I see that a good night's sleep has refreshed you and you're ready to begin anew...

Sad to say, my hopes that you would prove to be a decent person once we got past all the nonsense, have been dashed.

If and when you decide to treat everyone here, pro-choice as well as pro-life, with respect, I will be more than happy to enter into conversation. Until then, I'm afraid you leave me no choice but to ignore you. Unfortunate, because you might find that you actually like this site.

Oh well, as you like to say, the CHOICE is yours.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 7:40 AM


DC Law Dog, someone has to have some control over the trolls.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 7:40 AM


Bethany, Beautiful pics. It's a tiny little human. I don't care what they say!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 7:43 AM


"After yesterday's abuse, I was afraid you had left for good. Laura said some pretty hurtful stuff..."

ROFLMFAO! Abuse??? Nothing says abuse like some christian hypocrite outside a clinic waving a fetus sign and shouting epithets at women who are going in for a legal medical procedure...

"And yes, PAS will definitely be on the books one day."

ROFLMFAO! No it won't!

"As Oliver pointed out, it already was, once...

Ollie is lying.... "PAS" was never in the DSM .. he is free to cite the publishing date and page number of any past edition of the DSM where PAS was ever listed as a psychological condition or disease..... oooops.... he can't....

Posted by: DC LawDawg at August 1, 2007 7:44 AM


Hi folks,

wanted to get this 'out' for discussion. [Dan and a few other think I have a poetic streak in me. This is straight from that place and will no doubt be found wanting. So, humour me with some kind of consideration.]

This whole debate we're having is not about abortion at all, but it is about how to respond to the reality experienced. For some, it is with reverential awe, enthusiasm, laughter etc. The very same stimulation for others seem to evoke a kind of ho-hum numbness, a yawn ... a so-what's-the-big-deal, entertain-me, "I'm bored (not boring, but exciting)!" on and on. There is an additional hurdle here ... it's that being awed by anything is not-cool. It is a learned response ... 'you have to be cool to be 'in'...'

Any kid has zest to burn ... a child is 'UP' (personified) ... and is never 'cool' (doesn't even know what this means). The reason we do not wish to have babies/children we are scared about demands to be uncool - [my nephew then 2, demanded that his uncle play 'horsey' with him and drop on all fours to the floor. My brother was a complete stranger to our nephew!] .... laws (adult rules) that are neutral is 'cool' ... but for a kid - why would humans ever want to be that indifferent?

Maybe we can all learn from the little ones?

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 7:45 AM


DC [Go back to Law School] Dog. There, that's better.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 7:45 AM


Bethany,
Have you heard from Val? I miss her. Danny starts school in two weeks so she should be on more...

And where the heck are Cam, Alyssa, Midnite, etal?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 7:46 AM


Hey Mary,

Good Morning. I have therapy this morning, so I hope you'll be around (along with Heather and Bethany) to keep an eye on things...

Don't you miss Rasqual...He was sooooo good with words.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 7:47 AM


MaryKay, you're right. You and Oliver both. We've got to stop responding to the pointless, rude posts, and only respond to someone who is making a point in sincerity.
If one of the rude posters happens to, even by accident, make a good point for their side, I will respond. If not, I'll just (TRY to) ignore, because there's really no point in continuing the back and forth, arguing with people who's best argument is, "Your Stoopid".

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2007 7:48 AM


Dawg, It's too early for your out of control ranting. Would you please tone it down?

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 7:50 AM


John,

Yes, getting back some of that childhood wonder would do this world good.

I remember once when my Johnny was looking at the candy at the checkout line...Of course we responded no to his pleas for a bar...

As we left the store he said to his father "Daddy, next time we see a "wall of candy", can I get some?

To me, that checkout was a nightmare of greed and desire...just another temptation that I had to nip in the bud...but to a six year old, it was a "Wall of Candy". A magical dream come true...LOL.

Children definitely see things through different lenses. Wonder where we can get some of those glasses...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 7:52 AM


DCLawDog -

"Ollie is lying.... "PAS" was never in the DSM .. he is free to cite the publishing date and page number of any past edition of the DSM where PAS was ever listed as a psychological condition or disease..... oooops.... he can't...."

It was in the 2nd or 3ed revision. I WILL get you that information as it is in my notes and am doing research on this very subject for my blog.

Posted by: valerie at August 1, 2007 7:53 AM


Good morning everyone! *holds up cup of coffee to the screen*

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 7:53 AM


Hoorah for Val and clink to the coffee cup heather...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 7:54 AM


Heather thank you (((hugs)))

Mk good morning, and YES!!! I wish Rasqual would come back!!!

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2007 7:55 AM


John, I agree...we can learn so much from little ones.

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2007 7:58 AM


Dawg, it doesn't matter what YOU think. PAS will make the medical books one day. Thank God that Dr. Reardon cared enough about my gender to study this disorder. Call him what you will, but he gave a damn about women! You don't seem to. Now don't make me get out my list of corrupt abortionists. It will make for a very long day.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 7:59 AM


It was in the 2nd or 3ed revision. I WILL get you that information as it is in my notes and am doing research on this very subject for my blog.

Yay, Valerie! :) I know I have seen it, or read where it is found before but I cannot remember where I found it and I would like to see it again. Thank you for your research! :)

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2007 8:03 AM


*clapping for Valerie* We have something!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 8:07 AM


Dawg couldn't believe that Val had evidence. He/She ran back to the law books. HA!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 8:15 AM


Bethany,

Iva disputes the story of the ectopic pregnancy. I must wonder if she has any medical background.
Yes, a ruptured fallopian tube is an emergency, but a woman's life is not always "hanging by a thread". I have seen many such cases both in the ER and OR, and most of the patients were stable, just in severe pain, and sometimes not even that. Of course we get them to surgery ASAP since they can "go bad" and will eventually do so. Fortunately in this day and age, with better diagnostic techniques, a rupture can be more immediately diagnosed. In some cases an ectopic pregnancy can be diagnosed prior to rupture.
I have seen fallopian tubes rupture at 2 months and beyond. Again, it varies with the woman.
The incident described in the account sounds very much like one that occured at our hospital over 25 years ago, though I'm know they aren't the same ones. Back then there wasn't laprascopic surgery so the an abdominal incision was made. Also, women usually weren't diagnosed until rupture occurred. The surgeon found the fetus still alive in the amniotic sac floating in the abdomanal cavity. OR staff talked of this incident for years. The surgeon did pick it up for the other staff to see and then laid it on the stand to die. There was certainly no other option. By the way, the patient did make it off the table alive so the surgeon had obviously made certain she was clamped and stable before displaying the fetus.
Yes, the account given is entirely plausible considering the abdominal surgery and less effective diagnostic methods for ectopic pregnancy of the time.

Posted by: Mary at August 1, 2007 8:21 AM


Erin -

"Forming an image or idea. Solving a problem or being taught how to communicate isn't THINKING- it's adapting"

One of the best ways to judge brain function is how much an animal will go against their natural instincts. EX: A mother cat has kittens in a house that is on fire, does she 1. go against her instincts and go into the fire to rescue her kittens, or 2. does she meow noisely outside listening to her instincts telling her not to go anywhere near the fire.

Many cats have gone into the fire. They have the reasoning skills to know that their kittens are in danger and they also have the reasoning skills on how to enter and maneuver in the fire.

Another EX: Newfoundland dogs have precise reasoning skills. They work on a fishing boats and when the fishermen need help with the nets the dogs can reason on what would be the best way to help. They know if they should go into the water and assist that way, or help with the ropes and stand behind the fisherman waiting for the net to come aboard and then help. They will also jump into the water to save someone who has fallen overboard. Adapting would be a dog who barks to warn others, actually doing the rescue is reasoning out that they are best equipped for the job. They also go against their instincts and jump out of helicopters into the water in order to rescue a human that is drowning. Believe me, there is no reward in waiting an hour or two swimming around with a human hanging on while waiting for a rescue. (they don't use the helicopters to pull the human out for many reasons, the weather would make it too dangerous, high winds etc. The area is too rocky and if the wind blows while bringing the person up they can be slammed into the rocks....These dogs are mostly used in the Great Lakes.)

The reason we use dogs in rescue is because of how they can reason out how to rescue. They learn that the wobbly rock is dangerous. Many rodents will continue to step on the wobbly rock not understanding or able to reason out why they can't balance on it. This isn't adapting, as the wobbly rock would tell the adapting animal not to go further. The dog will reason out how to get around the wobbly rock.

Also - English Mastiff's were used in WWI carting weapons in between the fox holes. Bombs would be going off and they would go against their instincts so they can finish their job. Believe me, rewards are the furthest thing on the soldiers minds...

I can go on and on.....Also, human don't do anything without rewards either. You are working very hard for a reward right now. The reward of success. This is something that YOU cannot provide, but you will work your butt off so your boss rewards you - what happens if you work hard and your boss doesn't acknowledge you? Most human's won't work so hard next time because of the lack of reward...


Posted by: valerie at August 1, 2007 8:23 AM


Good morning guys!

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 8:26 AM


Alright bed time for the Pope family. Don't worry bout the multiple posts, Heather, that happens to all of us.

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 8:27 AM


DAWG -

Any clue how long people denied that PTSD existed?

Any clue how long people denied that AD/HD existed?

Any clue how long people denied that PMDD existed?

Any clue how long people denied that Bi Polar existed?

Do I have to continue or do you need other examples of how people needlessly suffered because their symptoms were not properly recognized or diagnosed?

Posted by: valerie at August 1, 2007 8:28 AM


Dawg. *sigh* this is ridiculous. We define PAS as abortion as stressor leading to the symptoms of PTSD.

The DSM 3 listed exactly this.

As defined by mental health experts who are proponents of the PAS diagnosis, the proper definition is limited only to those traumatic reactions associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These include symptoms related to intrusion, hyperarousal, avoidance and dissociation, wherein the stressor causing the trauma is either the abortion, the abortion decision, or the circumstances surrounding the decision to abort.

*snip* Prior to 1994 the (DSM III-R) did list abortion as a "psychosocial stressor" capable of producing some or all of the symptoms of PTSD. Specifically, in Chapter Two, page 20 of that edition, a psychosocial stressor was described to include a "Physical illness or injury: e.g., illness, accident, surgery, abortion."

(*snip* was a message saying PAS is not currently recgonized, which we aren't debating)

OK Dawg, let's go really slowly through

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 8:33 AM


Dawg gone again...

Who is Iva? Dawg?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 8:38 AM


valerie, THANK YOU!! This is the point I was trying to make yesterday! A male friend of mine is in his mid 50's. He has schizophrenia. He told me that years ago, he and "His type" were shuffled off to mental institutions to "tough it out" With proper Dx, medical treatment, and counseling, he is now able to lead an independent life.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 8:42 AM


*sorry posted too soon*


Ok Dawg, let's go slowly through 11th grade logic.

If A) PAS is defined as "those traumatic reactions associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)"
B) PTSD w/ traumatic reaction resulting from abortion "abortion" was a defined medical condition
c)This medical condition was included in the DSM 3

Now here's the hard part...If A is the definition of B, and B is included in c, A must also be defined in c.

So yes, you are right that "PAS" was never found in the DSM, but the definition of the disorder which encompasses the diagnosis was present. Your argument would be akin to saying that the term "Post-Natal Depression" didn't appear in the DSM, while "Post-Partum Depression did". In your lalalogic world this would mean that depression after giving birth doesn't exist. Obviously this is a flawed statement.

(actually, PPD isn't listed as a specific subset of depression at all in the DSMIV, but it is recognized as a subset after 4 weeks, though diagnosis still relies on major depressive disorder...The point is, it is recognized as a disorder in much the same way abortion was recognized as a stressor of PTSD)

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 8:45 AM


Iva is TexasRed.

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2007 8:49 AM


John, I agree that having children is definitely humbleing.

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 8:49 AM


I knew my comments would be pretty tame compared to the "real life" blogs. I think it's hilarious that Jill was just WISHIN' for a Supreme Court Justice to get hit with a malady - AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE FETUS BOY! Remember; Be careful what you wish for...

First, I don't remember Jill wishing a malady on anyone. If she did, please provide the link.

Second, I know a couple of Supreme Court justices who I would like to see begin to enjoy their retirement. I hear the dog track is exciting this time of year.

Third, when Roe v. Wade is overturned, Laura, can you do me a favor and set up a video camera on you when you open the newspaper? I'll pay for the footage of watching your head explode. :)

Posted by: Tony at August 1, 2007 8:50 AM


If nobody had ever bothered to study disorders, how on earth would we treat them? Anorexia, bulimia, BPD, depression, panic attacks, etc. Would it be better to just let the person go mad or die?

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 8:52 AM


Tony,

Welcome! Have you been here before? How can we get you to come back more often!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 8:53 AM


Valerie,

One of the most incredible animal accounts I've read is about a cat that dialed 911!
911 received a call and there was no answer, not an unusual occurenc, so emergency personnel were sent to the apt. the call came from. They found the owner, who was severely disabled, lying on the floor unharmed, he had fallen out of his wheelchair. The phone, which used large square numbers for visually impaired people was off the hook. It was obvious the man could not possibly have reached it and the apt. was otherwise empty except for the cat. The man was adamant the cat had called 911 and that he had trained his cat to do so for just such an emergency. While paramedics were certainly skeptical, they could find no other explanation. Its hard to imagine that someone walked in, called 911, then left the man alone on the floor! I'm sure most of us would at least wait with him until help arrived.

Valerie,

An excellent point about the supposed "non-existence" of certain psyciatric disorders. Believe me, the list could go on forever. I remember when mothers were to blame for a child's autism and for the existence of mental illness. Patients were subjected to totally useless therapies and mothers subjected to terrible guilt. I'm the one who had to finally figure out my daughter was a borderline personality disorder. By the way BPD was once considered a non-existent "junk diagnosis", when you just didn't know how else to diagnose someone's behavior. Research has shown different. Believe me, I've spent my life with it (my father and daughter). It exists. In fact, I often advise parents to look into this possibility when I see behavior suggestive of this disorder. Usually their children are being treated for who knows what else.
That's why Valerie I have encouraged people on this blog and elsewhere to do their own research and know more about their condition than the people treating them, which unfortunately, isn't always so hard to do. Do I sound a little angry? I am. I wish I knew 10 years ago what I know now. I may have had a chance to help my daughter.

Posted by: Mary at August 1, 2007 8:56 AM


Tony, LOL!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 8:56 AM


And if people admitted to PAS now, we might have a chance to help those who suffer from it rather than waiting 10 years, when their lives are in shambles.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 8:59 AM


Mary, I love that cat storey! LOL!

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 9:02 AM


"So yes, you are right that "PAS" was never found in the DSM,"

at last, you admit the truth....

"but the definition of the disorder which encompasses the diagnosis was present."

does not mean PAS is a recognized disorder...

"Your argument would be akin to saying that the term "Post-Natal Depression" didn't appear in the DSM, while "Post-Partum Depression did".

wrong! 'PAS' does not equal PTSD... you are trying to distort facts, just like most RTL hypocrites do.... lies and distortions.........depression after birth may exist and that would be 'post partum depression,' a recognized condition..... PAS does not exist in the DSM or in the medical community...

"In your lalalogic world this would mean that depression after giving birth doesn't exist. Obviously this is a flawed statement."

@@ you are the one with flawed logic.... the only fatc that is important to this argument is that 'PAS' is not a recognized disease, condition or syndrome in the medical community...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at August 1, 2007 9:04 AM


DC, it will be. That's all that matters.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 9:07 AM


Third, when Roe v. Wade is overturned, Laura, can you do me a favor and set up a video camera on you when you open the newspaper? I'll pay for the footage of watching your head explode. :)

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

Honey, you guys had 12 years to get Roe v. Wade overturned and didn't even come close. Now this country is about to take a HARD turn to the left. Learn to like it.
Frankly I'd be THRILLED if Roe v. Wade were overturned right now. That would ensure Hillary's trip to the Oval Office and it sure as Hell wouldn't outlaw abortion. It's a win/win situation for for me...

Posted by: Laura at August 1, 2007 9:11 AM


"Now your other point was that it was okay to hurt a fetus because it is unaware, and I am assuming you mean not a person. So my question to you is what are the criterion for personhood?"

The constitution determines what a 'person' is.... the law is all that matters, not your crummy religious beliefs...

Under the law, you have to be born to be a person...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at August 1, 2007 9:11 AM


MK,

I'm bad at picking names, you can pick one for me......something catchy......

;-)

Posted by: JK at August 1, 2007 9:13 AM


JK, What kind of name?

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 9:17 AM


DCLawDawg,

Not long ago, post partum depression was simply referred to as the the "baby blues". Earlier it was referred to as "melancholia" that was observed in post partum women. In my early to mid 1970s training, we were taught that women sometimes get a little weepy after birth, no one knows why, so when this happens just pull the curtain around the new mother's bed and let her cry. She'll be fine.
We have thankfully come a long way since then and finally recognize post partum depression as a psyciatric disorder and must be treated as such. How many women, babies, and their families suffered needlessly for so long before this disorder was finally recognized and adequately treated? This is an example of serious psychiatric disorders that may very well exist but still go unrecognized as such. I wouldn't be too quick to brush off the existence of PAS. Women suffering from PPD weren't taken too seriously either.

Posted by: Mary at August 1, 2007 9:18 AM


Dawg. Do you really think that a woman suffering cares if her diagnosis is "PTSD from abortion as stressor" or "Post Abortion Syndrome" (which is *defined* as PTSD from abortion as stressor).

You are aware, aren't you, that things have different names. The term "Post-Partem Depression is NOT found in the DSM.

""Postpartum depression" is a clinical term referring to a major depressive episode that is temporally associated with childbirth. Postpartum major depression is not recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV)18 as being diagnostically distinct from its nonpuerperal counterpart, although the DSM-IV does allow the addition of a postpartum-onset specifier for patients with an onset within four weeks of delivery. Thus, the DSM-IV criteria for diagnosing major depression apply to the diagnosis of PMD as well."

http://www.aafp.org/afp/990415ap/2247.html

But, we still refer to "Post-Partum Depression" as such. Just as there was an abortion specifier in regards to PTSD, there is a "postpartum" onset specifier with Major Depression.

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 9:22 AM


MK gets me confused with all the other two letter J names, so she says I need another name.

Posted by: JK at August 1, 2007 9:23 AM


What about 'The Pink Panther'??

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 9:28 AM


Yep, Dawg, Just like when you had to be white to be a person. We all saw how well Dred Scott worked out.

Of course, we recognize that an unborn person can be murdered...unless the mother is the one who hires the killer.

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 9:28 AM


I've never really seen the pink panther....so not a big fan.....

Posted by: JK at August 1, 2007 9:31 AM


Okay, back to the drawing board.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 9:33 AM


ooooh....has everyone here read the last Harry Potter book that wants to?

Posted by: JK at August 1, 2007 9:34 AM


I read a hilarious 5 page "spoiler" that pretty much covered the whole book...

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 9:36 AM


I have two suggestions but one is a spoiler from the last book.

Posted by: JK at August 1, 2007 9:37 AM


Lauren -

Thank you! I was getting on here to post that information.

Posted by: valerie at August 1, 2007 9:42 AM


Okay....

My suggestions:

1.) Keller

2.) JK aka I always knew Snape was good

Posted by: JK at August 1, 2007 9:45 AM


No problem Val. You're welcome to post anything more indepth.

What I don't understand is why both miscarriage and general surgery are "stressors" that may lead to PTSD, but we are to believe that abortion magically is not.

It's insane! These poor women are suffering so that more poor women can suffer!

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 9:46 AM


Hey, I live in Keller...

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 9:48 AM


Lauren,

What state is that?

Posted by: JK at August 1, 2007 9:49 AM


Texas

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 9:50 AM


lauren, It's simple [yet pathetic] If they acknowledge that PAS does exist, then it's just another strike against them. That is the only conclusion I can draw.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 9:52 AM


Cool

I live in Kentucky

My last name is Keller

:-)

Posted by: JK at August 1, 2007 9:53 AM


How about KK Kentucky Keller?

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 9:58 AM


We're thinking about moving to Kentucky. What part do you live in?

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 10:03 AM


Lexington, but I'm originally from the Paris and Cynthiana area, which is not far from Lexington.

Posted by: JKeller at August 1, 2007 10:05 AM


*headdesk*

OK. Here's how it is.

In terms of cats that run into fires etcetera, it's maternal instinct. In terms of dogs who have served in wars, it's an inbred loyalty. Household pets just aren't smart. They don't have the brain power. My cat knows to yowl until someone feeds her if she wants food. That doesn't classify thinking. It classifies training. In the same way, apes are trained. Has an ape ever asked a philosophical question through sign language? No. Their expressions are limited to those which they have been taught and to those which instinctively make sense. It's not thinking. And yes, we can know this. The ability to come up with novel ideas and to contemplate actively our lives is a result of our highly developed brains, especially in terms of our cerebrum, which is several times more developed than our closest relative, the chimp. I acknowledge human superiority because of things that I know from the realm of science. I respect other animals, but I respect humans as the most dominant life form on the planet. Our brains are the result of evolution, and that evolution makes us the most fit species to survive and dominate over animals. Bethany- I think the fact that I have evolved to a level at which I can consider the intricate subjectivity and gray areas of morality is different from animals, yes. The very CONCEPT of morality, however you define it, is distinctly human. So is religion. So is science.

Posted by: Erin at August 1, 2007 10:18 AM


HI Erin!! *waves*

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 10:23 AM


Good morning Heather! How are you?

Posted by: Erin at August 1, 2007 10:25 AM


"Our brains are the result of evolution, and that evolution makes us the most fit species to survive and dominate over animals."

Do have the science that proves this? Do you where I could find it?

Posted by: jasper at August 1, 2007 10:40 AM


jasper, I will not get into an argument on the validity of evolution with you. If you're too dense to see the evidence, there's no point.

Posted by: Erin at August 1, 2007 10:44 AM


"I will not get into an argument on the validity of evolution with you. If you're too dense to see the evidence, there's no point."

Typically, the same people who oppose abortion are the same ones who oppose evolution...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at August 1, 2007 10:50 AM


I'll take that as a "No". I simply asked if you could show me the science and you can't.

Posted by: jasper at August 1, 2007 10:51 AM


"Do have the science that proves this (evolution)? Do you where I could find it?

Yup!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

Posted by: DC LawDawg at August 1, 2007 10:54 AM


http://mi.essortment.com/evolutionhuman_rmow.htm

http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html#I

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10274-dna-trail-points-to-human-brain-evolution.html

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20041129182724data_trunc_sys.shtml

There's the science. Knock yourself out.

Posted by: Erin at August 1, 2007 10:54 AM


jasper- the four sites I've posted have to wait for Jill's approval.

Posted by: Erin at August 1, 2007 10:55 AM


Evolution theory is just that ... a working theory - and it does indeed explain many, many things. But recently there have been some decidedly tricky things to explain on a biochemical level mostly but also on a physical level ... for instance please explain in evolutionary words how the tracheal valve designed for breathing could have evolved when the same tracheal tube is used for drinking and eating. Promoting exclusive use of one over the other eliminates not only the other, but the subject soon dies. It is interesting though, that this is across species.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 11:39 AM


...and faced with the overwhelming evidence, jasper retreats into the mist...defeated...

Hehehe...

Posted by: Erin at August 1, 2007 11:40 AM


Erin,
Be nice, maybe he's just reading...

JK,
See I've done it again. I thought you were the "J" that was now teaching and was originally from Minnesota...Which "J" is that?

I like Keller.
It's simple.
I also like the snape reference but we'd end up shortening it...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 12:02 PM


Erin,

perhaps a wee humility please. The brain is comprised of ????????? how many billions of living cells. How does each cell live? Are there 'living' molecules and 'living' atoms ... likely not. So what makes this cell alive vs dead. Evolution only happens 'to' living beings.

Can we conclude that evolution is anti-abortion because the procedure ends life and doesn't select squat ... except people that are pro-life and will eventually vote in pro-life politicians who will reflect that belief.

And before you go, find out the UN's demographic world population trends .... until 2050. I think you will be amazed a just how large this population 'bust' will be ... within your lifetime too! And what will you, and Doug, and Dawg do with the extra 30 million single males in China? Suggestion - please do not quote science, or US-constitutional law to them, or maybe you could offer to abort them ...

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 12:28 PM


Sorry about that Erin, I'm at work, so during the day I can't to much time reading the posts...

Although, I did read all of your links and none provide any proof. They are all based on assumptions.

Posted by: jasper at August 1, 2007 12:29 PM


MK,

I've decided on JKeller, I think. I don't know about the J from Minnesota. I think Rae might be from Minnesota, though.

Posted by: JKeller at August 1, 2007 12:34 PM


Sure, jasper. Whatever makes you happy.

I don't understand people who don't credit evolution. Are you one of those people who are like, "Oh, microevolution, sure, we can see that, but on a larger scale? Psh! There's no way that microscopic changes can accumulate and make bigger changes in an organism! That's the devil's talk!!!"

Posted by: Erin at August 1, 2007 1:17 PM


JK -

My Dad lives in Cynthiana!! and my mom was hosptilized in both Paris AND Lexington!

It's a small world after all.... sing with me!

;-)

I need sleep.....

Posted by: valerie at August 1, 2007 1:40 PM


Erin -

Were we talking about animals being just as smart as people? Serious question here as I skimmed through some posts.....

Anywho... animals DO have independent thought and the abiltiy to reason out situations. I've worked with animals since 1995 - including training - and I can tell you I KNOW for a fact that they are smarter than we give them credit. (well - some are smarter, I have met some dogs that show no brain activity at all, my sister had one. He flunked puppy kindergarten twice.) This is why they have been our companions for centuries! It isn't just because they are trainable, but because they can reason out basic situations and make decisions that they have not been taught to do.

Also - I do believe in evolution. This is why I believe some animals have a higher intelligence. because they have evolved with us....

And before we go there - I can believe in evolution AND God at the same time. As a matter of fact, I believe that evolution proves God's exiestence. Wasn't it Thomas Aquinas who did alot of writing about that? I could be wrong on the who, but there is a philosopher out there that wrote about it....

Posted by: valerie at August 1, 2007 1:55 PM


We cannot prove that one species evolved into another, there is no proof.

Posted by: jasper at August 1, 2007 2:03 PM


Valerie- that's perfectly fine with me. I very much appreciate people who can acknowledge evolution and God not being in conflict. And yes...Thomas Aquinas, a modernized quotation: "God endows us with sense, and intellect. God endows us with reason we neglect. And despite the abolition by the current inquisition of any intuition that they don't choose, when it comes to God I find I can't believe that He designed a human being with a mind he's not supposed to use!"

Posted by: Erin at August 1, 2007 2:05 PM


Jasper--nor can anyone prove Creationism.

Cheers, Erin and Valerie!

Posted by: Leah at August 1, 2007 2:27 PM


By the way--thanks to everyone for their kind words and their prayers concerning my liver problem. I found out today that it is indeed mono--so no cause for alarm. However, that does mean I have to call my ex and warn him...

Posted by: Leah at August 1, 2007 2:30 PM


Leah, I'm glad to hear it's nothing more serious. Though from what I've heard Mono's no fun either. I'll keep praying for you.

Posted by: Lauren at August 1, 2007 2:46 PM


Hi folks,

before getting into the modern overly simplistic notion of evolution read a little Teilhard de Chardin's 'The Divine Milieu'. He was one of the world's most prominent paleontologists and philosophers. He was also a poet and priest.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 3:31 PM


Leah,

Mono will knock you for a loop (sometimes as long as a couple of months to fully recover) but it won't kill you...Just take it easy. Drink everything (well, not everything. Stay away from the rum. You see what it's done to Valerie)


Valerie, Leah and Erin, (and actually, Jasper and John too)

The Catholic Position


What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man's body developed from previous biological forms, under God's guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter [but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 3:31 PM


JKeller,

I like it. Now I have you clear in my head. Tell us something about yourself...are you a girl or a guy? Pro-life/Pro-choice (I'm pretty sure you're choice right?), age (if you want)...anything. Just so we get some visuals...you know. I mean by now you know more about me than you want to...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 3:35 PM


Leah,

Great news and one huge relief! Thank you for keeping us posted and for heaven sake's woman, get some rest and take care of yourself!

Posted by: Mary at August 1, 2007 3:41 PM


Leah, I'm glad you'll be okay. I had a good feeling that you would be.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 4:01 PM


Hi MK,

much too often scientists impart a 'got-it-cornered' attitude to creation. This is particularly evident in regards to evolution. If Teilhard is read, just a little of the awesomeness of creation will become apparent.

At times, Church comments on faith seem close to being like giving your little one a handshake before bed. Isn't a big hug and kiss ... better?

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 4:01 PM


MK -

"I mean by now you know more about me than you want to..."

Aint that the truth! oohh..... Rum anyone?

;-)

Posted by: valerie at August 1, 2007 4:11 PM


Val,

Quick, you're need on the New Jersey post...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 4:17 PM


Huh?

*HIC*

I think I got there right?

Posted by: valerie at August 1, 2007 4:46 PM


"Given that human beings are unique, doesn't abortion make even less moral sense? We alone are able to create, produce, "think"...Why? What makes us different? And isn't one of those differences having a "conscience"? Having the ability to differentiate between a moral right and a moral wrong?

Without it, what separates us from the chimps? The ability to use sign language doesn't separate us nearly as much as the ability to behave morally.

When we stop doing that, we revert to animal behaviors. When we copulate for the "fun" of it, we become no more than beasts, rutting instead of "making love". When we abort our children instead of protecting them we revert to animal behaviors, doing things only for the "reward" or avoidance of punishment.

I find it ironic that you recognize humans as the highest form of animal life for precisely the fact that they can "think" and yet when faced with a problem that requires "Higher" thinking, you revert to animal instinct and eliminate the "problem" in the least humane way..."

MK,

Here's where you're wrong. In the wild, if a young animal is born sickly, most mothers will abandon it. If a lion takes over the pride of his rival, he'll kill all the cubs so he can impregnate the lionesses with his seed and keep his bloodline going. Bears will kill cubs they've fathered, chimps and gorillas will even kill the younger animals if they're a detriment or if they're just in a bad mood. Not techinically abortion, but still, our human brutality is nothing original. Nature did it first.

PS Love the article on the Catholic view of evolution. Unfortunately, I stand by my man Darwin on this one. I don't believe some all-powerful diety created the earth and all it's life. Science wins out on this one.

Posted by: Danny at August 1, 2007 5:10 PM


Yes, get out the rum.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 1, 2007 5:32 PM


Rum for me, please. I need some to drown me sorrows in.

I miss my home

Posted by: Danny at August 1, 2007 6:14 PM


Sorry Danny,

you know plenty about reptiles but squat about evolution and minimal amounts about its claims. Life itself did not evolve - only in scientists' wildest surmises can evolution even come close to duplicating even the simplist living-mechanism and they never have replicated any life form in any lab. All cells in every creature are composed of mitochondria + the original cell [a theoretical cell that no longer exists nor has any trace of it ever been found].

Because of its unique structure it is now believed than mitochondria were originally some kind of bacteria .... with its own DNA - kinda like an essential fusion. All speculative evolution ... the only other explanation IS ...... . Evolution is such a stretch ... a very huge stretch - me thinks this stinks too much!

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 6:19 PM


Challenge accepted, Moriarty McDonell...

To the death, then?

Ever hear of the Big Bang Theory? That sounded far fetched up until I did some research.

Unfortunately, I'm heading out with my friends, but I'll be back to finish this debate with evidence to support my claims. It's on!

^_^ V

Posted by: Danny at August 1, 2007 7:33 PM


>

evolution is both theory and fact.....

evolution has been proved over and over again.... in fact the DNA in your body proves evolution...

On the other hand, there is zero proof of creationism or your deity...

Posted by: DC LawDawg at August 1, 2007 7:41 PM


Dawg,

You just haven't been given the wonderful graces that would allow you to understand the proof that is right in front of you.

Grace is a gift. It's not something you demand. In order to see the unseen, you must first be given this gift of grace.

All the proof you need is staring you in the face.
There is none so blind...
I could cite miracle after miracle, but without grace it would all sound silly to you.

To those of us who have asked and recieved, we need no proof. To those of you who refuse to ask and therefore can't recieve, there is no proof.

You don't have the eyes that we do. You don't want the eyes that we have. Therefore you can't see what we see...and I'm sorry for that.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 8:01 PM


Danny,

MK,

Here's where you're wrong. In the wild, if a young animal is born sickly, most mothers will abandon it. If a lion takes over the pride of his rival, he'll kill all the cubs so he can impregnate the lionesses with his seed and keep his bloodline going. Bears will kill cubs they've fathered, chimps and gorillas will even kill the younger animals if they're a detriment or if they're just in a bad mood. Not techinically abortion, but still, our human brutality is nothing original. Nature did it first.

But that was exactly my point...if we don't use that which makes us uniquely human, then we are no better than the beasts. Bears will kill cubs they have fathered because they are not human and have no free will. We do. If we embrace that which makes us different, we rise above the animals kingdom, into the spiritual kingdom. We live on a higher plane. If we don't then we lower ourselves to that of the beast.

Animals and plants have both feet planted firmly on the physical plane. Angels and demons dwell exclusively in the spiritual plane. We have a foot in each of the worlds. Now that's where the real choice comes in. Free will. Down or up. Beast or Child of God.

Animals do what they have to do. People have the freedom to do what they ought to do. This is the difference between license and true freedom. License is the idea that you can do whatever you want. Freedom is the idea that you can do whatever you ought...animal or human. Choose.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 8:07 PM


Thanks again, everyone! I've already had mono for seven weeks, apparently, so hopefully the bad part is over.

MK!!! Why'd you have to take away my rum? I wanna drown my sorrows with Danny! *shakes fist* Must... drown... sorrows!

And thanks for the interesting insight on the Catholic stance on Creationism/Evolution. Even if I don't take that into account as any proof, I still find such things very interesting to read.

Heather--you had a good feeling, did you...? D'you have a good feeling that someone's going to give me a job soon? ;)

Peace, everyone.

Posted by: Leah at August 1, 2007 8:16 PM


a question Dan,

from what did the Big Bang evolve? You'd best dig deep ... ever heard of string theory or, http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ for a wee look at galaxies courtesy of the BIG BANG ...oh, forgot to tell you that if you total all the mass observed in our universe, physicists think it amounts to about 10% of the mass created at the Big Bang ... where is the 90%?

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 8:18 PM


"Bears will kill cubs they have fathered because they are not human and have no free will. We do. If we embrace that which makes us different, we rise above the animals kingdom, into the spiritual kingdom. We live on a higher plane. If we don't then we lower ourselves to that of the beast.

Animals and plants have both feet planted firmly on the physical plane. Angels and demons dwell exclusively in the spiritual plane. We have a foot in each of the worlds. Now that's where the real choice comes in. Free will. Down or up. Beast or Child of God.

Animals do what they have to do. People have the freedom to do what they ought to do. This is the difference between license and true freedom. License is the idea that you can do whatever you want. Freedom is the idea that you can do whatever you ought...animal or human. Choose."

We're all just animals, MK. Animals that have a higher means of communication and problem-solving, but animals nonetheless. I envy the bear, because it is the bear who is truly free to do what it wants. Nature's law is the only law that dictates what the bear does. As humans, we suffer the laws of both church and state.

I envy that bear, and wish that I was in his paws every day of my life.

I need a strong drink...

Posted by: Danny at August 1, 2007 8:54 PM


Danny -

go get that drink....

Are you actually saying that you would rather live in a "survival of the fittest" ideaology? Where if you show any signs of weekness you will be killed? If there is a defect in a child that child needs to die to save the community? Where the elderly are looked at as a burden and should be abandoned?

That is what you want? I feel really sorry for you then......

We are above the animals. Animals are smart, they can think, they can adapt and reason, we can train them. But we can fully recognize that we no longer have to kill the week, abandon the elderly or kill the defective child. We can learn and adapt better than any animal. We can take the defective child and see that he can be an idiot savant and provide a mass amount of knowledge to us, or the best music you have ever heard. We can take the weekest child and give him confidence and he can become Stephen Hawkins. We can take the elderly and learn from them, learn from there mistakes and grow in knowledge through them.

You are living a lonely world, my friend....

Posted by: valerie at August 1, 2007 9:56 PM


Danny -

I just can't stop on this... Your comment, although poetic is realy bothering me....

I used to work with a vet tech who helped with a wolf sactuary. There was no hunting allowed on the property and the wolves were fenced in an enormous forest area. The Alpha female got her leg caught in part of the fence - we never did find out how... we could not treat her leg because any smell of an injury or infection she would have been killed by her pack and treatment would have been too long of a process (it was horribly ripped up and she tried to chew it off). We had to dart her with sedation, take her to the animal hosptial. Amputate her leg without her getting too deep in anestheitc (talk about nervous.. I had to keep her at the same level of sleep - no up, no down..ugg...)we had to give her a reversal so she would wake up quickly. all the blood was scubbed off, no bandnage was put on- but sterile strips were applyed to stay off infection and we released her back with the pack w/in 2 hours of her being initially sedated. That was the only way to attempt to keep her as alpha and alive. I don't even want to think about the pain that poor animal was in, but she went back to the pack and was challenged. She kicked some wolf butt and stayed alpha with only 3 legs for the next several years. She was eventually killed by the next alpha female to come along. (that alpha was a beautiful white wolf...gorgeous!)

There is no way I would want to live in that kind of fear. That is not freedom.

Posted by: valerie at August 1, 2007 10:08 PM


Danny,

You keep hinting that you want to drown your sorrows...What's up? Anything wrong?

And yes, the bear is free to be a bear. But he can never reach any higher, can never dream, can never appreciate a good irish jig, or a good irish coffee for that matter. He isn't free. Not really. He is a prisoner. He is just a bear. But you! You are free to dream, to pipe, to choose to sleep, or choose to wake...

I used to take my kids (now 26,25 and 21) to Foster Ave beach when they were younger. We would brings pink feathers, and sequins and streamers and spend hours, hours I'm sayin', building "our" sand castle. They were awesome. Bucket after bucket of water to make the sand wet...sticks and rocks collected and placed just so...moats, and draw bridges, trolls, dragons and always a chest filled with treasure...We'd arrive at 10:00am and finish about 4:00pm. Good times. But inevitably I'd tell them that it was time to pack up.

About 3:30, there would begin to gather a group of boys (always different ones, but always they would gather) and they would sort of "case" the castle.

The minute we hit some invisible boundary, that only they knew, walking back to the car, these boys would pounce and destroy the castle.

My boys, crushed the first time it happened, asked me why these boys were so mean. I told them that there were two kinds of people in this world. Those that create. And those that destroy. I told them how proud I was of them, because they were boys that had chosen to create. They were lucky, I said, because those other boys were doomed to destroy. Why? I didn't know. Everyone has a story.

But learn this. You too, are either a creator, or a destroyer. Animals can't decide which one they want to be. Only people can. Only people have the option of creating or destroying. Which one are you? Ahhhhh...another "Choice"...choose.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 1, 2007 10:11 PM


Valerie,

Your dad lives in Cynthiana? It is a small world after all. :-) What's his name? (if I may ask)

MK,

I'm a girl, 22, pro choice (you were right about that), if you click on my name you can see some of my artwork.

Posted by: JKeller at August 1, 2007 11:04 PM


Valerie- there are several small village civilizations, especially in Africa, that still do kill defective children, the elderly, or the useless.

What's with all you rum drinkers, anyhow? Isn't there any love for whisky anymore?

Oh, and Danny likes to be melodramatic, MK, haven't you noticed?

Posted by: Erin at August 2, 2007 1:02 AM


Ooooh, John, you're versed in string theory? String theory fascinates me! I can never quite grasp the technicalities, though my broad understanding is quite clear. Perhaps you can widen my comprehension!

Posted by: Erin at August 2, 2007 1:04 AM


MK and Valerie,

You talk about how the bear isn't free, but see, I don't see it that way. I see our emotions, our higher brain funtions, as a detriment at times. Yes, emotions can be a wonderful thing, but they can also be harmful. I deal with my emotions regarding my relationship, my family, my past "sins", if you will, on a daily basis, and I hate them. I believe that animals have more freedom than humans because of natural selection. I understand your comments about defective children, etc, and the ability to appreciate Irish Coffee and the bagpipes, and I do like the fact that we can help those children and we can appreciate those things. I can only wonder what would've become of me had I not gotten the help I had as a child. According to natural law, I would've been culled out long ago, just as Erin would for her eyesight. But, I don't believe animals truly live in the fear that was described. They can fear humans, but when it comes to other animals, nature has established a food chain for a reason.

Maybe natural selection is obsolete. Maybe its what society needs. I don't know. I do know that I wish I was just a beast, so all I had to worry about was eating, sleeping, drinking, and mating. That'd be the ideal life for me.

Posted by: Danny at August 2, 2007 1:27 AM


Oh, and MK, to answer your other question, nothing is wrong. I'm actually quite happy right now, I just really could use a drink. It'd be a nice relaxant. Sorry if you got the wrong idea ^_^"

Posted by: Danny at August 2, 2007 1:34 AM


Danny, I hope you don't mind me saying this, but you don't sound happy. Talking about your aching over past sins, over your emotions about things in your life... Wanting to be able to forget all of that stuff and just live without the emotion. What are you running away from? I hope that you will be okay, and I hope one day you will find the peace that you are seeking.

Posted by: Bethany at August 2, 2007 7:06 AM


Danny,

By making certain choices in life you can have your wish. You want to be a beast, then act like one.

You'll reap what you sow. You rut, but you'll never know love, you'll consume food, but you'll never "eat", you'll hear, but you'll never listen, you'll
sleep but you'll never dream...

Sounds like you've already chosen the life of the beast. By constantly choosing the low moral road, you'll get to live by the "survival of the fittest", you'll never suffer guilt, you'll live, you'll die and nobody will remember you or care...

Sounds rather depressing. But whatever floats your boat.

Me? I'm gonna aim a little higher. I love the fact that I am human. I love all the challenges it presents to me. I love a good joke, a soft rain, a new Dean Koontz book, my morning coffee and evening tea, campfires, down pillows, afternoon movies and a warm towel.

But most of all, I love the fact that I am aware that I love these things. I love the fact that I can know what is good and right and can choose to follow my heart and conscience. A belly rub and a raw fish sound nice...but I want more.
And I've chosen to have it.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 2, 2007 7:09 AM


P.s. All sins can be forgiven... to stop worrying about past sins, confess them to God, and you will have peace. He will forgive you, and give you that comfort you need, to be able to sleep at night with no worries. I would like to see you happy.

I have been curious for a very long time. You said at one time that you used to want to be a Christian missionary, from what I remember. At what point did you begin to doubt God's love for you, and when did you seek other paths in life? Were you hurt by someone? Did you lose a loved one? I hope i am not being too nosy, I just feel like all of your posts reflect a wounded soul...I feel like something happened to you in the past, and if that is so, I would like to do whatever I can to help. I hate to see someone hurting.

Posted by: Bethany at August 2, 2007 7:15 AM


Wounded heart, I cannot save, you from yourself.
Though I wanted to be brave, it never helps.
For your anger's like a flood, raging through your veins.
No amount of love's enough, to end the pain.

Tenderness and time can heal, a right gone wrong.
But the anger that you feel, goes on and on.
And it's not enough to know, that I love you still.
So I'll take my heart and go, for I've had my fill.

If you listen, you can hear, the angels sing.
Up above your head so near, they are hovering.
Waiting to reach out in love, when it falls apart.
When you cannot rise above,
A wounded heart...

Bonnie Raitt

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 2, 2007 7:31 AM


@ Erin,

I am not at all versed in string theory - which is mainly a mathematical model in cosmetology - but like weather modeling it is simpler than this (fewer variables) but confusing to someone like me who doesn't know very much higher-math. The thing about introducing this, is that most physicists have moved well beyond Darwin's approach because it simply does not apply to 'things'. The philosophic word for life is 'animate'. Darwin's evolutionary theories seem to apply here ... and the science is 'biology'. Outside this realm of science endeavor the theory of evolution does not apply except is some far-out sense. For instance, just where is evolution in mathematics, physics, chemistry ... and tons of other sciences.

Part of the problem with scientific individual like Dawg and many pro-aborts who cite science and evolution as a quasi-justification are using an extremely small view of science to give themselves prestige. It is poor, poor, (and silly) argumentation to fend off someone who has been involved in science for some time.

Months ago, I was asked repeatedly why I had such a problem as using 'science' as my foundation. I gave very specific reasons (in biology) why this thrust is so lame ... no answer! There is much that we do not have a clue about ... and I am one of those ignorant folks.

The answer is not: "I give up!" ... this is the answer of abortion - a quasi-suicide! There is life ... in courage, hope, faith, pain, joy, laughter ... etc, etc. These all end in death ... cannot accept abortion as a benevolent option for anyone.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at August 2, 2007 8:40 AM


@ MK and Bethany,

My personal belief is this. I've screwed up in my life, as all humans are bound to do. I've done things I'm not proud of, and I believe that I need to keep working everyday before I can forgive myself for what I've done. I don't think that praying to a diety that allows for a flawed religion will cause me to be forgiven. I believe that it is this pain that lets me know and realize how thankful I am to be alive today.

Am I a wounded soul? In a sense, yes and no. I don't dwell on the past; we have eyes in the front of our heads so we can look forwards and not back. However, I live every day to the fullest and I try to help everyone, because it is those things that will get me one step closer to the redemption I need to give myself.

As for your question about my faith, Bethany, please email me and we can discuss it over email. I don't feel comfortable talking about it here, and I'd rather discuss it in that way. My email address is d-postlewaite@cornellcollege.edu. I'll look forward to something, if anything, from either you or MK.

Well, I'm out. I need to shower, go get my new glasses(!), and go to band practice to play a memorial show for my friend, Max, who died a year ago today. You kids have a good one! I'll check back in a while!

Posted by: Danny at August 2, 2007 1:34 PM


"and go to band practice to play a memorial show for my friend, Max, who died a year ago today."

GAH! I'm off today. I'm playing a memorial show tonight, and our final band practice is this afternoon. I'm a loser :-P

Posted by: Danny at August 2, 2007 2:15 PM


Erin -

"Valerie- there are several small village civilizations, especially in Africa, that still do kill defective children, the elderly, or the useless."

yes you are right. Those people still live in the survival of the fitest mentality and also still live in the pack mentality. These civilizations are becoming far and few now a days. They are learing that you can still have the pack with "defects" in them and still be able to feed everyone. They are learning how to preserve food. How to utilize their lands better for farming. When they are given a choice, they stopped killing or abadnoning their defects and started to help them live in their community.

"What's with all you rum drinkers, anyhow? Isn't there any love for whisky anymore?"

Pass the Jack!! I'm Irish. I'm Polish. And I'm Catholic. I'll drink any alcohol as long as your paying! ;-)

Posted by: valerie at August 2, 2007 3:04 PM


Danny, you sound like a busy guy. Easy on your alcohol.

Posted by: Heather4life at August 2, 2007 3:58 PM


Danny,

The religion isn't flawed. The people who follow it are. Until you understand this, you're going to continue biting off your nose to spite your face.

You acknowledge that you have made mistakes and need to forgive yourself. Maybe you also need to acknowledge that people in the Catholic faith have also made mistakes and need to be forgiven...

Forgiveness would be the key to it all. You forgive yourself, you forgive others, you are forgiven by others, you are forgiven by Him...

Forgive us our sins as we forgive those.

Or you could say Don't forgive our sins if we don't forgive others...choose.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at August 2, 2007 7:19 PM


Daniel, I received your email and replied, but it didn't go through. The email comes back, saying that your spam blocker is getting it. Then I tried sending you an email with my yahoo address and it came back too. You might want to see if maybe your inbox is too full, or if your settings are messed up. :)

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at August 3, 2007 8:54 AM


MK: go to this website and look on the left hand side...you'll see a box that says late term abortion care...elective.

http://www.drtiller.com/

MK, it doesn't say after 26 weeks or third-trimester, and that was the question.

Doug

Posted by: PorkLoin Author Profile Page at August 4, 2007 3:11 PM


Mary: Please get your facts straight. Tiller does abort women for no other reason than they want it and has been under investigation. He does abortions into the 3rd trimeser. According to one psychiatrist who reviewed his charts, women had late term abortions for no other reason than that they wanted to go to rock concerts. Sure, these women could deliver live infants who have a chance for survival, but they want them dead, which is why they go to Tiller. As a supporter of bodily autonomy, I'm sure you would have no problem with that.

Mary, he may do abortions into the third trimester, but the question is if he does them for purely "elective" reasons, i.e. because the woman doesn't wish to be pregnant at that point, rather than for medical reasons. "Late-term" may only mean 20 weeks, 24 weeks, etc.


Also Doug, slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, which Lincoln was encouraged to retract, he refused, to better his chances at a reelection he never lived to see and a civil war. Lincoln's successor in the White House was an avowed racist who wanted to send the newly freed black slaves back to the plantation. Years after the civil war, laws would be passed to put black Americans "in their places". There was definitely not a majority consensus to free the slaves or to treat blacks equally. That's why we had segregation and Jim Crow.

I don't disagree with anything there, though I don't know about it all.

Where do you address my question concerning Dr.King?

Here is your question:

How about segregation and Jim Crow laws, should Dr.Martin Luther King have waited for sufficient opinion before he began his crusade to make segregation and discrimination illegal?

My response: "No, because he isn't dependent on popular opinion there. Heck, should I care what other people think if I want to go get a pizza? He was doing what he wanted and he wasn't stepping on the rights of other people."

The "should" you ask about is going to be in the opinion of somebody or some group, so it depends on who you ask. Person A will say the civil rights movement started too late. Person B will say it never should have started. King's actions were what he wanted to do, so it was really up to him. My own personal opinion is that there was a lot of unfairness, racially, in this country, and that there still is. The time was right, and King took his shot, and from his perspective was fighting the good fight.

Doug

Posted by: PorkLoin Author Profile Page at August 4, 2007 3:29 PM


Oliver (and everybody) sorry for the delay in responses. Long days at work and an inability to log in prevented me until now. This thread may be done and I'll try and catch up with you someplace else.


Oliver: *sigh* Doug you completely missed the essence of everything I said to you about autonomy. Do you even know what bodily autonomy means? It means essentially the right to your body.

Now I guess Ill break it down into smaller pieces.

1)All human beings are members of the "human society." All human beings have the right to not be neglected, among many other inherent rights.

2)A parent owes a fraction of their rights to their born child to not neglect them. This is evidenced in that a parent must give up their right to privacy and property by feeding and caring for their child. This responsiblity cannot be ended abruptly. A parent cannot decide one night to toss their child on the street or to starve him. They are required to uphold this responsibility untill a suitable replacement is found.

This responsibility arises from the concept that all indigent humans require care, and for children the parent is the default caretaker. This is witnessed in the law, and is also just plain common sense.

3)Assuming that a fetus is in fact a human person, protected under the same right to not be neglected than at the least the mother of the fetus, being the parent, being the default caretaker untill a suitable replacement is established, owes to her fetus, in part, her right to privacy and property.

Now up till now, I believe we agree for the most part. Where we disagree is on the next part.

4)I would now propose the notion that there is no fundamental differences amongst the right to property, right to privacy, and the right to bodily autonomy. In fact I would propose that bodily autonomy is a derived right, derived from the both the right to privacy and property, and that a derived right cannot be different or greater than its premise. If you should disagree here, provide some points, not just "well its different cuz its in her body."

5)Assuming that the mother owes some basic rights in part to her fetus (which we are still assuming it is a person for the sake of the argument) and assuming that there is no fundamental difference between privacy and property and bodily autonomy (BA for short), we can derive that the mother also owes in part her autonomy to the fetus (again assuming for the sake of the argument that it is a person)

6)Now, also taking into account that a parents obligation to their born child cannot be ended ubruptly, but must be ended with a replacement, we can further derive that a mother cannot end her obligation abruptly as well. Based on that idea, we can derive that abortion is not a viable option for a pregnant mother.

That is the most fleshed out argument I have currently. If you misunderstand this one as well, I will try to be more concise, maybe take each point post by post.


Actually, we do disagree to a large extent, all along there. I don't see the unborn as members of "human society." They are human, yes, and alive, yes, but until after birth they're not in "society." Even as born infants we are hardly social, i.e. we're not aware of others as being in a social group with us, don't have memories in that way, aren't aware of ourselves as we have to be to truly be in any type of "society."

On rights, there is nothing "inherent" there. There are popular and in some cases exceedingly prevalent feelings about them, right-to-life after birth being a good example, but they are a concept of the mind. They don't exist beyond the mental conception of them, there's no external existence. As with laws, all it takes is sufficient opinion and they can be said to exist, be that opinion from a monarch, oligarchy, majority, etc. Without the attribution of any right, however, it does not exist.

The fetus is most certainly not a human person. That is a big disagreement between you and me. If we all felt the same way about things, the abortion debate wouldn't exist. Full, actual personhood, i.e. the right to life being granted (among other things) is not there for the fetus. Even in the third trimester it can be killed if there are deficiencies severe enough and/or enough danger to the woman. I am not saying it is impossible that personhood would ever be granted, but it is not so, nor has it ever been, even when abortion was pretty much illegal. Granting personhood to the unborn would be a huge deal, with so many ramifications I shudder to think.... I also don't think the fetus is "protected under the same right to not be neglected." A pregnant woman can legally drink, etc., can she not? I am not at all saying it's a good thing, and I hope that nobody does anything harmful to wanted fetuses. Fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. = very bad stuff. I don't know where I would draw the line, i.e. would I make it illegal for a pregnant woman to have one drink, two, etc.?

Agreed that there are no fundamental differences between rights. But I don't think the mother owes some basic rights to the fetus. Personally, if a pregnancy is going to be continued I hope she does what is necessary for the best possible development, but I don't think there's any law on that. Is there? And if the pregnancy is unwanted then I don't see the fetus as being owed anything, to the point of viability, anyway. If we assume that personhood has been granted, it'd be a whole different deal. Born kids are supposed to be taken care of - there's no practical disagreement with that. But with the unborn it's a different deal. There, there's lots of disagreement, at the least.

This is a great argument, IMO because it takes us all down to the unprovable assumptions we all make.


Best,

Doug

Posted by: PorkLoin Author Profile Page at August 4, 2007 4:02 PM