Take a Moment

By Mary Kay Hastings
teaffe.jpg
Take a moment. Pour yourself a cup of tea. Have a cookie. Think about this.
Life comes down to "moments". So much can happen, and change in just one "moment'.

Take a sunrise. One moment it's dark, and the next moment it's morning.
Or how about one moment your a single woman, then you stand at the altar, say I do, and in single moment, you are now a married women, bound to someone for life.
Then there are the moments when a person takes their last breath. Alive one moment. Dead the next.
How about the moment a baby take it's first step, or the moment of you first kiss...

Well, you get the idea...Kodak even has a jingle about them "Celebrate the moments of your life...(musical notes?)

Last night everyone was on here ganging up on HisMan and as a result got to bed very late (or early) and are probably now sleeping.

While you were sleeping an odd thing happened. One of those aforementioned moments occurred.

Last night, Partial Birth Abortion was a legal and viable option for killing the unborn..

But this morning, in a matter of moments, a vote was taken by the supreme court, and now, just like that (what do you guys say? oh yes, SNAP)
PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS ILLEGAL AND NO LONGER A VIABLE OPTION FOR KILLING THE UNBORN...WITH NO CHANCE FOR APPEAL.

Hope none of you choked on your tea. Hope you all slept well. I know I did.
One lump or two? Would you like a little crow with your cuppa?

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals, with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority.
It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion.
Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely used procedures that remain legal.babymalachi-small.jpg


The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.
More than 1 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, according to recent statistics. Nearly 90 percent of those occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and are not affected by Wednesday's ruling.
Six federal courts have said the law that was in focus Wednesday is an impermissible restriction on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
The law bans a method of ending a pregnancy, rather than limiting when an abortion can be performed.
"Today's decision is alarming," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling "refuses to take ... seriously" previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.
Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

You mean the way we tolerated and applauded the federal intervention of the ruling Roe vs Wade...hmmmm, very interesting, hypocritcal, but veeeerryyyy interesting.

She was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.
Abortion opponents say the law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method — dismembering the fetus in the uterus — is available and, indeed, much more common.
In 2000, the court with key differences in its membership struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortions. Writing for a 5-4 majority at that time, Justice Breyer said the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision.valeriebaby.jpg
The Republican-controlled Congress responded in 2003 by passing a federal law that asserted the procedure is gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary to preserve a woman's health. That statement was designed to overcome the health exception to restrictions that the court has demanded in abortion cases.
But federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York said the law was unconstitutional, and three appellate courts agreed. The Supreme Court accepted appeals from California and Nebraska, setting up Wednesday's ruling.
Kennedy's dissent in 2000 was so strong that few court watchers expected him to take a different view of the current case.

I think I'll skip the tea. Maybe break open a bottle of Champagne instead...
mmmmmmmm......oments.

[smiling baby photo courtesy: Valerie]


Comments:

Praise my God in Heaven!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 11:37 AM


I just don't believe it! Praaaaaaaaiiiisssseeee God!! Amen! Amen!!

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 11:39 AM


Praise the Lord, one more step in the right direction.

Posted by: SH at April 18, 2007 11:40 AM


And He is faithful......

I am literally weeping at my desk.

Now, we make abortion illegal, forever, never to return to dirty out land.

I press on.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 11:42 AM


All it means is that the docs will make sure the fetus dies in utero before starting to remove it.

Probably using Tiller's method--intracardial injection of digoxin, guided by ultrasound.

Number of abortions prevented: zero.

Number of late-term abortions prevented: zero.

But it does indicate that the current court may be willing to tolerate other, more meaningful infringements.

This will help democrats win the upcoming presidential election.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 11:44 AM


As His Man always says,God will make all of the wrongs right. Press on all.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 11:45 AM


This is truly a day to proclaim his song...

Val,
Hail Mary.

Beth,
Our Father.

God,
Thank you.

Jill,
sorry you missed it! Hope the "mouseland" was worth it ! lol

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 11:46 AM


You know my mom said that those who would have a partial birth abortion can also get a C-section..and donate the babies' organs to those that need them. If the baby is going to die sometimes the mom chooses a partial-birth (if she finds it convenient) but C-section is usually the alternate option. Now that partial-birth is banned, maybe premies (sp?) can gain much-needed organs. Looking forward to the benefits.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 11:47 AM


SOMG,If I were you I'd be very worried about my judgement day! I'm so glad I'm not you. How do you feel when you look at that tattered little body of that aborted baby? Troll.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 11:48 AM


Yes,

SOMG,

We know what it means.

But it also means that God hears us. Baby steps. Or should I say "fetal" steps.

This is a victory, whether you see it or not.

And not even you can ruin it.

Besides, Hillary ain't queen yet.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 11:50 AM


Sorry PiP. Harvesting the fetal organs is a nice thought, but the alternative will be to kill the fetus in utero before starting to remove it, not to do a c-section.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 11:51 AM


But my mother said that sometimes babies that are born medically dead, C-sectoion or otherwise, are artificially kept alive to harvest the organs. It seems very possible..I mean she doesn't work in the maternity ward, but she does work in a hospital...

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 11:53 AM


PIP,

Do you honestly think that women who won't sacrifice 9 months of their life for their child because of selfishness, are going to opt to have a C-section and donate those little body parts to other babies?

Get real. They avoid unpleasantness, remember?
If you think being pregnant and giving birth is bad, try having a C-section.

No, SOMG is right. They just kill 'em before they come out. But then we'll have to show pictures of beautiful intact, perfectly formed little babies instead of ones with deflated heads.

No, abortion has not ended. But like I said, it is still a victory!

viva la pro-life!
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 11:54 AM


I just mean that those babies that are dead or going to die already can donate their organs.

I know people who are in deep distress over losing a loved one but want to help others so they donate organs.

Therefore, those that choose PBA over C-section for convenience can now do a C-section and choose to donate the organs after death.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 11:56 AM


SoMG:

For a supposedley smart guy, well, you're just not.

No medical malpractice insurance company would glibly insure that type of procedure you so wistfully claim in light of the ban. Nor would an abortionist attempt a feat of such misguided and perverted courage.

Just take your bat and ball and go home. Take it like a man if you can.

Hey medical mal-practice lawyers, especially the Christian ones, take note.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 11:56 AM


mk, you wrote: "But then we'll have to show pictures of beautiful intact, perfectly formed little babies instead of ones with deflated heads."

You are mistaken. The head will still be "deflated" (actually decompressed and crushed) in order to minimize dilation of the patient's cervix. It'll just be done AFTER fetal death is documented.

Sorry to burst your bubble (so to speak).

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 11:59 AM


People that have been given the right to kill their children in the womb should NEVER have been given that right/choice to begin with. It was all one big mistake. You people abused it. This is a step in the right direction!

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 11:59 AM


SOMG,

And this gives you pleasure, why?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:00 PM


Well, honestly, that case probably didnt do much, most states already had it as a highly restricted procedure anyway, and i believe accounted for less than 1% of abortions.

There are other procedures that can be done to allow the mother to have the abortion. This isnt really a victory, more like a medical shift in procedures that will be performed.

Those 1% will still happen, just under a different procedure, no need for celebration, you really havent stopped anything. Ii could personally care less for the ban as it does nothing overall.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:00 PM


Pro-life team = 1 SoMg =0

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 12:03 PM


HisMan, you don't know what you're posting about. Intracardial injection of digoxin is already in use. It's one of the standard techniques in late-term abortion.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 12:05 PM


MK, personally I doubt (or at least like to) that Hilary will get the democratic nomination (thank God) shes far too divisive a figure and simply would probably not get enough votes.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:05 PM


It's a step in the right direction!

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:06 PM


I join you in hoping the dems won't nominate Hillary--I think she's the only one who could lose this election for the dems!

I don't even think she'd enjoy being president.

I think she'd be much happier letting someone else be prez and appoint her to the Supreme Court. Now THERE'S a job she'd be good at.

Then again, I didn't think she could win a senate seat either. I remember I lost money betting against her when she ran.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 12:16 PM


Well, seems that you guys will still be able to get dismembered fetus pictures, theres another procedure where the fetus is dismembered in utero, and it is slightly more common than partial birth abortion, so you still get to wave those lovely pictures at clinics and post them on blog entries

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:20 PM


SOMG, personally I want Obama, but his chances are small too simply because he will be discriminated against for his name sounding Muslim even though hes currently a Christian

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:21 PM


SoMG:

Thanks for explaining so cold-heartedley (pun intended), that injecting poison into a defenseless innocent human being's heart is still done. You have such a calm and stone cold way of explaining things. Well, nurder by any other name is still murder.

I ge teh feeling you somehow have a vested interest in abortion. Is in monetary or philosophical?

Policy review my friend, policy review.

In light of a concrete ban, changes must occur. The price of Poker just went up...alot.

I bet those killer doctors are in their offices right now talking to their insurance companies and in-vitro murder support staff.

Are the grapes that sour?

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:23 PM


PIP,

Therefore, those that choose PBA over C-section for convenience can now do a C-section and choose to donate the organs after death.

I understand that you are saying they can, I'm saying they won't

Donating the organs would be a totally unselfish move, and considering that they just killed their own child, I just don't see unselfish moves happenin'.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:24 PM


I don't even think she'd enjoy being president.

And what Hillary enjoys is always uppermost in my mind...

Great criteria for electing a president..."Yes, but will she enjooooy it?

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:25 PM


Oh, another restriction to the ban, it can be done to save the life of the mother, which is why a majority of them are performed anyway, so as I said, it really doesnt do much.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:26 PM


I just went to Operation Rescue. According to the Zogby poll,59% of Americans believe that abortion is murder.The # of abortions is said to be dropping. Good news-More and more young people are turning pro-life.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 12:26 PM


well, MK in a way it makes sense.

If you dont like the job, are you going to do it as well as you would if you happened to like what you're doing?

Now think if thats controlling the country, and a good portion of the world, kinda scary if she were to have a bad day.

It kinda comes down to does she actually care.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:27 PM


mom, polls are not reliable overall, dont believe everything you see.

I read two separate polls, one said more people were becoming liberal

another claimed more were becoming conservative.


simply put, polls are fairly unreliable and shouldnt be taken that seriously.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:29 PM


I wouldn't worry about Hillary. She's not worried about you.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 12:30 PM


Dan,

Well, seems that you guys will still be able to get dismembered fetus pictures, theres another procedure where the fetus is dismembered in utero, and it is slightly more common than partial birth abortion, so you still get to wave those lovely pictures at clinics and post them on blog entries

Actually, one of the arguments that the pro-choice side gave for not banning this procedure was that they were unable to control how big the opening in the cervix would get, thus always running the risk that the child would "slip" through unintentionally.

They said that because of this, they would be unable to perform any abortions after 12 weeks, because they might result in a live baby being born. They'd be unable to cut it into pieces in time.

This is why they are so worried about this ruling.

mk

I can find that if you insist...but I'd rather not have to. It's on PDF and it won't let me copy and paste it. I've posted it before.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:30 PM


SOMG,

again she asks:


And this gives you pleasure, why?


Why does it please you that they can simply dismember the baby, or stops it heart, or drown it in saline solution?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:32 PM


Wait,don't believe anything I see? WHY? I have looked at your posted links. Should I not believe them?

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 12:32 PM


MK, that still ignores the fact that the procedure is still allowed for the safety of the mother, which most, if not all are done for anyway, it essentially does nothing.

and MK, honestly, all the pro choicers ive talked to so far really arent worried about this ruling, it changes nothing overall, i think the best analogy ive seen so far is that its "throwing a biscuit at a mad puppy"

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:33 PM


That ? was for you Dan.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 12:34 PM


no, mom, simply put polls are known to be unreliable and are often biased. They simply dont work well and arent very reliable.


Maybe if it were a study I wouldnt care all that much, but polls are in a whole nother area

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:35 PM


Yep good 'ol Hillary:

Anyone know any upstaters left in New York?

No? Oh, right, they've either escaped, been aborted, or taxed out of existence, or..........collecting welfare checks.

Now, there's an absolute brilliant politician.

No wonder, SoMG is for such a loser.

And Borack. Wow. An absolute genuis and with plenty of political experience to boot. No, he won't get elected because well, I don't think we're that stupid.

John McCain, he's the next Prez. He appointed my son to the USAFA. I wouldn't say that I am totally happy about him being president because of his wimmpy stance on stem cell research, but, I can handicap pretty good. However, regarding elections, too many variables to really know who's gonna win. His debating skills would literally eat alive any of the current Democratic hopefuls. If I had my choice, Jon Kyl is the best man for president.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:36 PM


it should be to a madd puppy not at a mad puppy, by the way. Misquoted it.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:36 PM


Dan,

Oh, another restriction to the ban, it can be done to save the life of the mother, which is why a majority of them are performed anyway, so as I said, it really doesnt do much.

The AMA has already gone on record stating that it is NEVER necessary to save the life of the mother.

If it doesn't matter to you, if it's so inconsequential, then why are you guys trying to rip it apart?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:38 PM


His Man, make no mistake, the net pres is going to be a democrat, look at fundraising numbers if you dont believe me.

Yeah, obama IS inexperienced, but you knw what? Ii think, along with many others, that he could pull it off if he got elected. Hes got a shot.


If Him and Hilary ran on the same ticket, the election probably wouldnt even need to happen, itd be done fairly quickly. Over 40million between them, i believe thats more than all the republican canidates combined.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:39 PM


Wait,don't believe anything I see? WHY? I have looked at your posted links. Should I not believe them?

Good one Mom.

mk


Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:40 PM


MK, what gives me satisfaction ("satisfaction" is more correct than "pleasure") is the fact that some pregnant women will not be forced to endure labor and delivery of unwanted babies because these alternative abortion techniques are available.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 12:41 PM


Dan, It's so sad to me that you are a young pro-deather. SOMG,I feel that you are an older man, and for you the mold has been made. When I allow myself to become really emotional about the abortion debate,it brings tears to my eyes. I can't help but wonder who in their right mind could look at baby Malachi and continue to give it their stamp of approval? What do you guys have against children? Why is it okay with you that they die a violent death??

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 12:41 PM


MK, two words, ecoptic pregnancy.


we arent ripping it apart, we're trying to show you that it really accomplishes nothing. There are other procedures that can be done and it can be performed to save the life of the mother

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:43 PM


When you look at the pic. of the tattered body,do you feel nothing? How does this make you feel about women? Does it really generate more respect for women?

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 12:44 PM


SOMG,

MK, what gives me satisfaction ("satisfaction" is more correct than "pleasure") is the fact that some pregnant women will not be forced to endure labor and delivery of unwanted babies because these alternative abortion techniques are available.

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will, probably even if I'm not) but would a woman pregant with an 8 month old fetus, still have to go through labor and delivery?

Isn't that what our little seaweed friends are for? If you give the child a heart attack, how are you going to get it out without labor and delivery?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:45 PM


Dan, I agree with you that the next prez will be a Dem, not so much because of the fundraising numbers, but because in Ohio (the key swing state) the GOP is radioactive.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 12:47 PM


Dan and SoMg,I am not here for myself. I am here for unborn children. Why do you think it's for the best that they die? Little baby Malachi could have been so much in this life. Instead of being greeted with a warm blanket and a bottle,he was chopped up like dog meat. Instead of support,you should be expressing outrage!

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 12:48 PM


SoMG:

I will say it again as I have said on previous posts.

Just being on this site the same time with you makes me feel, well, dirty.

I know, it's me.

I think you really hate woman. No one that truly loved woman could disguise such vitriolic hatred in the mask that you care about their rights.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:50 PM


Dan,

Two words...
Not happenin'

Ectopic pregnancies don't last long enough to be considered late term...

None of these areas has as much space or nurturing tissue as a uterus for a pregnancy to develop. As the fetus grows, it will eventually burst the organ that contains it. This can cause severe bleeding and endanger the mother's life. A classical ectopic pregnancy never develops into a live birth.


2% of ectopic pregnancies occur in the ovary, cervix, or are intraabdominal. Transvaginal ultrasound examination is usually able to detect a cervical pregnancy. An ovarian pregnancy is differentiated from a tubal pregnancy by the Spiegelberg criteria.[3]

While a fetus of ectopic pregnancy is typically not viable, very rarely, an abdominal pregnancy has been salvaged. In such a situation the placenta sits on the intraabdominal organs or the peritoneum and has found sufficient blood supply. In this author's experience this is invariably bowel or mesentery, but other sites, such as the renal (kidney), liver or hepatic (liver) artery or even aorta have been described. Support to near viability has occasionally been described, but even in third world countries, the diagnosis is most commonly made at 16 to 20 weeks gestation. Such a fetus would have to be delivered by laparotomy. Maternal morbidity and mortality from extrauterine pregnancy is high as attempts to remove the placenta from the organs to which it is attached usually lead to uncontrollable bleeding from the attachment site. If the organ to which the placenta is attached is removable, such as a section of bowel, then the placenta should be removed together with that organ. This is such a rare occurrence that true data are unavailable and reliance must be made on anecdotal reports.[4][5] However, the vast majority of abdominal pregnancies require intervention well before fetal viability because the risk of hemorrhage.

Wasn't it SOMG who went on and on about very, very very, being reduced to very, very....


mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:50 PM


MK,

Yeah, I know. But if perhaps the baby was wanted in the first place but the mother felt that because of circumstances abortion would be an option. But with PBA I don't think that organ donation is possible, but with C-section it is.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:55 PM


The feminists love to howl like banshees about how abortion empowers women. If this were true then why is it that when I look at the picture of aborted baby Malachi I feel the opposite?

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 12:56 PM


PIP,

Fair enough.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 12:56 PM


I'd hate to burst all your bubbles here, but there are a few very important points about this decision:

1. the vast majority of pro choice people were against the procedure unless the mothers life was at risk anyway

2. the ruling DOES allow the procedure to be performed if the mothers life is determined to be at risk

3. Thanks to this ruling, which banned a procedure that made up 0.17% of abortions, we now have statements on record from Justices Roberts and Alito supporting the right to first trimester abortions, which make up over 90% of abortions.

4. Pro Lifers will no longer be able to use "partial birth abortions" as a catalyst against ALL abortions, because now that they're banned and all other abortions are not, that whole arguement is flushed down the toilet.

5. The ban specifically criminalizes the practitioner, NOT the woman procuring the abortion, so the pro lifers have even LESS of an excuse now to be villifying women who seek abortions

6. Planned Parenthood does not perform this procedure anyway, so the only practitioners who stand to lose money from this ruling are the private clinics. I personally think thats a good thing. Id much rather see abortions performed in a nationally regulated and recognized organization like PP or a hosptial - where health and safety regulations are enforced FAR better than they are with private clinicians.

7. This ban will only end up punishing the very minute percentage of abortion practitioners who have not been following the AMA recommended guidelines for late term abortions. Stopping those few helps the cause immeasurably.

8. The ban is specifically against ONE SPECIFIC PROCEDURE - NOT against abortion, and I support it fully.

Posted by: Amanda at April 18, 2007 12:56 PM


HisMan, you wrote: "And Borack. Wow. An absolute genuis and with plenty of political experience to boot. No, he won't get elected because well, I don't think we're that stupid."

You're kidding, right? LOL-- If George W Bush could become president after a few years as the weakest governer in the nation, then political experience (and brains) are clearly not required.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 12:56 PM


I know they dont last late term, but you said that the AMA went on record saying that theres no valid reason to save a mothers life, theres an example which would be considered an "abortion" as the egg is fertilized. So essentially, there are situations where a mothers life is endangered by a pregnancy, that is just one example.

Another would be the fetus being dead in the womb, theres another abortion to save the life of the mother.

There are others, I simply cant name them off the top of my head.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:57 PM


Dan, MK is right about ectopic pregnancies. With very rare exceptions they don't last long enough to be "late-term".

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 1:02 PM


MK,

Yeah, I know. But if perhaps the baby was wanted in the first place but the mother felt that because of circumstances abortion would be an option. But with PBA I don't think that organ donation is possible, but with C-section it is.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:02 PM


Hey SoMG,

President Bush leads by principles not polls, unlike Barack Obama and HRC.

Posted by: jasper at April 18, 2007 1:03 PM


Amanda,

1. the vast majority of pro choice people were against the procedure unless the mothers life was at risk anyway

If that were true it would have been banned a long time ago. It wasn't a unanimous vote. So at least 4 pro choicers still think it's a good idea. Not to mention SOMG.

2. the ruling DOES allow the procedure to be performed if the mothers life is determined to be at risk

Which the AMA has said that it NEVER is.

3. Thanks to this ruling, which banned a procedure that made up 0.17% of abortions, we now have statements on record from Justices Roberts and Alito supporting the right to first trimester abortions, which make up over 90% of abortions.

These statements are where exactly?

4. Pro Lifers will no longer be able to use "partial birth abortions" as a catalyst against ALL abortions, because now that they're banned and all other abortions are not, that whole arguement is flushed down the toilet.

Whatever will we do? (gasp) Plenty of pictures of early abortions to take their place. Plenty. How sad is that?

5. The ban specifically criminalizes the practitioner, NOT the woman procuring the abortion, so the pro lifers have even LESS of an excuse now to be villifying women who seek abortions

I've stated before that I believe is abortion became illegal I wouldn't want to see the mothers imprisoned. You seem to forget the small yet imperative fact that WE care about the women and their babies.

7. This ban will only end up punishing the very minute percentage of abortion practitioners who have not been following the AMA recommended guidelines for late term abortions.

Yes, like the George Tillers...
Again, fetal steps.
Today Partial Birth, Tomorrow All Abortion.

Moments, remember?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:03 PM


Somg, i was aware of that, but she said the AMA believes abortion is never needed to save a mothers life, and as the egg is fertalized in an ecoptic pregnancy, many pro lifers would still see it as an "abortion", so I used that as an eample simply because it is required to save the life of the mother

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 1:04 PM


Dan, MK is right about ectopic pregnancies. With very rare exceptions they don't last long enough to be "late-term".
Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 01:02 PM

I'm sorry, I just had to get up off of the floor.
Fell of my chair and all that. That's gonna leave a mark.

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:04 PM


Dan - the most common example is when a woman is diagnosed with cancer during her pregnancy. Chemo and radiation are fatal to the fetus, so often the woman has to choose between her own life and that of her fetus. The current law, which was upheld by this decision, is that the mother's right to live trumps the fetus' right to live.

Posted by: Amanda at April 18, 2007 1:05 PM


I know they dont last late term, but you said that the AMA went on record saying that theres no valid reason to save a mothers life, theres an example which would be considered an "abortion" as the egg is fertilized. So essentially, there are situations where a mothers life is endangered by a pregnancy, that is just one example.

Another would be the fetus being dead in the womb, theres another abortion to save the life of the mother.

There are others, I simply cant name them off the top of my head.
Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 12:57 PM


I meant the AMA says there is no reason to abort a viable baby to save a mothers life.

As for the rest, even the Catholic Church teaches that you can remove a child from her mother to save the mothers life...as long as the intent was to preserve the mothers life and not to kill the baby. The intent is what matters.

Do what you can to save both, but if the baby dies, even if you know the baby will die, this is a consequence and not a choice.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:07 PM


MK, what about Amanda's chemo eample? even if the fetus were viable, its most likely going to die in either situation, most likely an abortion would happen.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 1:09 PM


Amanda,besides CA,What other reasons do you see when moms abort? I am curious.Also,I'd really like to know.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 1:11 PM


MK - here are some excerpts from the majority decision... you will see that they CLEARLY suggest using other methods to abort, even in the 2nd trimester, and that they distinctly mention reducing only "late-term abortions", not ALL abortions.

That is why as a pro choicer, I have absolutely no problem with this ruling.


"It is a reasonable inference that a necessary effect of the regulation and the knowledge it conveys will be to encourage some women to carry the infant to full term, thus reducing the absolute number of late-term abortions. The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand.

Physicians are not entitled to ignore regulations that direct them to use reasonable alternative procedures. The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice."

Posted by: Amanda at April 18, 2007 1:15 PM


Dan,

In that scenario you would prolong the pregnancy as long as possible to help insure the babies viablity.

If that can't be done, then the same rules apply. Remember viability can now be as early as 21 weeks.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:15 PM


MK - here are some excerpts from the majority decision... you will see that they CLEARLY suggest using other methods to abort, even in the 2nd trimester, and that they distinctly mention reducing only "late-term abortions", not ALL abortions.

I'm sorry Amanda, I don't know what you are trying to say? Are you simply saying that they will find other ways?

Because if you are, I already admitted that earlier.

Are you saying something else?

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:18 PM


MK, you wrote: "If you give the child (sic) a heart attack, how are you going to get it out without labor and delivery?"

In pieces, with a decompressed skull.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 1:18 PM


If banning partial birth abortion is not big deal, then why did the pro-choicers insist it go to the Supreme Court.

Obviously, this means somthing or pro-choice organizations would not have spent this much money.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:22 PM


Mom -

do you mean reasons for late-term abortions or for first trimester abortions?

The only time I ever knew of a 3rd trimester abortion personally was my first year of college when I worked at a hospital - long before PP or my other internships. She was in a bad car accident and needed to be in a medically induced coma to reduce swelling in her brain. The Dr's told the husband there was no way they could save her without killing the baby.

Posted by: Amanda at April 18, 2007 1:22 PM


Val,cute baby pic.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 1:24 PM


Late term. I know you don't participate in them,but what reasons do you see at the hospital?

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 1:25 PM


Amanda -

"Planned Parenthood does not perform this procedure anyway, so the only practitioners who stand to lose money from this ruling are the private clinics. I personally think thats a good thing. Id much rather see abortions performed in a nationally regulated and recognized organization like PP or a hosptial - where health and safety regulations are enforced FAR better than they are with private clinicians. "


First - I disagree with abortion, you all know that.

Second - I do agree with Amanda on this. If abortion is going to be legal, it should be safe.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:25 PM


MK - it was in response to your question about which statements showed that the new justices support the legality of first, (and even second) trimester abortions.

Valerie - are you saying that just because some pro choice organizations were against it, my opinion is invalid? I have said this a million times before in here - I dont think the "mouths" of this debate - meaning the higly paid organization spokespeople and politicians (on BOTH sides) represent the majority of the US. Most polls show that a significant majority are in favor of legal first trimester abortions, but a significant minority are in favor of legal late-term abortions. In this case, my point of view falls with the majority.

Posted by: Amanda at April 18, 2007 1:27 PM


Mom -

Thanks. I love to show off her pictures. She has the cutest expressions I've ever seen.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:27 PM


She's adorable!

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:29 PM


Amanda -

I wasn't talking to you directly, or accusing you of lying. It was just a comment.

Some here are saying it is no biggie. I just commented that someone thought it was. Look at the 4 judges that didn't want the ban. Somewhere, a good number of people felt it was a big deal.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:31 PM


Valerie -

I see what you're saying. I feel like some people may be focusing more on the fact that this ruling supports the Bush agenda than what the ruling actually says. Lets just say - for anyone to be super happy OR super upset about this ruling, they need to look a little more in depth and the wording used. A lot of pro lifers are looking at this as a victory against abortion itself, which it isnt, and a lot of pro choicers are looking at this as a violation of the right to have an abortion, which it isnt.

Its somewhere in the middle - where I think both sides can say - ok, we can work with this.

Posted by: Amanda at April 18, 2007 1:36 PM


I feel that even if just 1 abortion was prevented a day,it is a victory.As for tighter laws-great! The Choice side has been doing as they please for years now. It's about time someone put their foot down. Even if a private clinic loses$ -I say yay!Hey,Rome wasn't built in a day.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 1:37 PM


Amanda -

I think you are missing a very important piece of the puzzle when it comes to pro-lifers.

This humanized a 'fetus'.

To us, this is a victory.

If the baby was just a fetus with no rights, this would not have been a issue at all.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:43 PM


PIP:

"I just mean that those babies that are dead or going to die already can donate their organs."

The term is called "stillborn", and even though I am pro-choise right along with you, I would appreciate if you did not have to come off so cold and un-caring.

Posted by: LG at April 18, 2007 1:45 PM


SOMG,

In pieces, with a decompressed skull.
Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 01:18 PM


Ahhhh well, that's all right then. For a minute I thought the poor mother was going to have to suffer wrenching labor pains. You know I've done natural childbirth 4 times and it can feel like you're being pulled to pieces. I really feel for those mothers. Wouldn't want them to feel anything like that!

Better leave that for the babies.

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:46 PM


How big a deal it turns out to be depends on the future.

We all seem to agree that by itself it does (almost) nothing. But if it signals that the Supreme Court is willing to accept more onerous or meaningful restrictions, then it matters.

If it signals the end of the health exception requirement, then it matters.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 1:47 PM


SoMG:

Bush, weakest Governor in the nation? Hardly, he beat unbeatable Ann and then was relected to a second term.

No, he was groomed for the presidency.

Or, are you agreeing with me that Borack Obama is not qualified?

We're you fer abortion before you were 'agin it? Or were you 'agin abortion before you fer it?

Whether you like it or not, the abortion tide is turning. I for one, press on.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:47 PM


MK - it was in response to your question about which statements showed that the new justices support the legality of first, (and even second) trimester abortions.

How do you get that they support early abortions from that?

Mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:48 PM


Amanda,

I don't think you get it.

Pro-lifers don't compromise with pro-deathers.

Peace will come only through total victory.

The ban on legal abortion will happen and legal abortion will never return.

Deal with it.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:50 PM


MK, your concern for fetal pain is touching but we're talking about DEAD babies, remember? Fetal demise first; dismemberment and skull crushing afterwards.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 1:51 PM


Bush has done net to nothing good for this country. I think he did well with 9/11, but essentially thats about the only good hes done for this country, the rest f the time he just made us all look like blithering idiots.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 1:51 PM


His Man, abortion itself will most likely never be banned, it may be given back to the states, but it will always be legal somewhere.


Course, marijuana use is against federal law, but states defy that to by allowing medicinal marijuana. Perhaps the same will happen with abortion if worse comes to worse.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 1:53 PM


Mom -

the woman in the car accident was the only time Ive ever encountered it personally. But in my reproductive policy course, we went over about a bazillion case studies involving all sorts of pregnancy issues. There were some really rare defects, like 1 in 200 million chance of having it sort of things, and of course accidents and medical emergencies - like stroke or pulmonary embolism- that ended up resulting in late-term abortions, but the only COMMON reason was cancer diagnoses.

Posted by: Amanda at April 18, 2007 1:53 PM


One of the main reasons I vote Republican:

R's response to todays ruling:

MCCAIN: I'm very happy...
GIULIANI: 'I agree with it'...
ROMNEY: 'A step forward'...

D's response:

HILLARY: 'Erosion of our constitutional rights'...
OBAMA: 'I strongly disagree'...
EDWARDS: 'I could not disagree more strongly'...

Posted by: jasper at April 18, 2007 1:54 PM


How big a deal it turns out to be depends on the future.

We all seem to agree that by itself it does (almost) nothing. But if it signals that the Supreme Court is willing to accept more onerous or meaningful restrictions, then it matters.

If it signals the end of the health exception requirement, then it matters.

We'll just have to wait and see.

DUCK!!!!!

Lightening is about to strike.

I agree with SOMG. IT's not about the victory today. It's about what the victory represents.
The possibilities it presents.

We now know the supreme court is capable of ruling against abortion. We now know that the fetus is a "person" with rights. We now know that America, has some backbone and some morals. We now know that we live in a country that does not condone murder.


Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:55 PM


SoMG:

You are a caricature of the abortion industry.

The problem is, I think you're the only one laughing......at yourself.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:55 PM


Somg,weren't you that guy in the Halloween movie? The one in the white mask. Change your screen name to Micheal Myers.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 1:56 PM


HisMan, the Governor's office in Texas has next to no power. What did Bush ever accomplish in Texas?

You wrote: "The ban on legal abortion will happen and legal abortion will never return."

You really believe this? That Americans will ever tolerate a black market in abortion?

Do you also believe that the Constitution will be replaced by a theocratic state?

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 1:57 PM


5-4 decision down party lines in the face of all precedence and previous rulings???

Anybody want to piss and moan about judicial activism still??

Posted by: Cameron at April 18, 2007 1:57 PM


"HisMan, the Governor's office in Texas has next to no power. What did Bush ever accomplish in Texas?"

He broke all records for executions.

Posted by: Cameron at April 18, 2007 1:59 PM


See, I find the 5-4 thing funny, because if it had been for, say, allowing gay marriage theyd all be crying activism! not fair play! etc

but since its against a form of abortion they could care less.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 1:59 PM


If SoMG is a caricature of the abortion industry, HisMan, than I'm afraid you would be a caricature of all the intolerance, all the bigotry, and all the violence that makes up the worst of Christianity.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 1:59 PM


"The ban on legal abortion will happen and legal abortion will never return."

And abortions will continue unabated... and people like His Man will be demanding manditory monthly pee tests from all women.

Posted by: Cameron at April 18, 2007 2:01 PM


"mom of 3", I'd rather be the strangler in DON'T ANSWER THE PHONE.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 2:01 PM


MK -

I would say the fact that they went out of their way to mention finding alternative methods to abort, and the fact that they went out of their way to state their intent to reduce ONLY late-term abortions shows they support the legality of first term abortions, or at least believe women have a Constitutional right to them.

Valerie - I dont think its an issue of whether or not the fetus is human. Anyone who has half a clue accepts that a fetus IS human. Again it comes down to viability...and in most cases when this procedure is performed, the fetus is either viable, or already dead.

HisMan - I've already told you multiple times that since you've proven you lack the ability to address me with respect, Im not going to respond to you. It isnt my fault you felt the need to insult my faith, my family, my education, call me names, etc. etc. etc. I will not discuss ANYTHING with you - not even the weather. Which is why, in case you didnt notice - I was one of the few people who frequent this forum who did not get invovled in the conversation last night.

Posted by: Amanda at April 18, 2007 2:03 PM


Speaking of murder.

"Abortion is murder."

Not as we speak. Murder is a legal construct used to define a killing that is outlawed by a society or system of jurisprudence. Killing itself is not murder. There is no such natural concept. The idea of "murder" is man-made.
Posted by: Lando the Great at April 17, 2007 09:13 PM


Ahem...


Actually, it sounds to me like YOU made up YOUR own rules. The laws I follow because of the country I live in tell me that murder is the malicious, illegal, and premediated killing of a person. You don't like the rules? Go somewhere else.
Posted by: Ilana at April 17, 2007 09:16 PM

Not anymore...at least some abortions are murder...

MORALITY CANNOT BE LEGISLATED!!!
Posted by: Emily at April 17, 2007 09:17 PM

Well, Well, looky here...apparently, it can!


Yes... And legally abortion does not qualify as murder...
Posted by: Emily at April 17, 2007 09:20 PM

Does now.


Yeah. We lock people up for MURDER, the illegal, malicious, and premediated killing of another person.
Posted by: Ilana at April 17, 2007 09:22 PM

and my favorite:

Yes, honey, abortion is premediated. Is it malicious? No. Is it illegal? No. Until abortion is illegal, malicious, and premediated, it still is not murder. Sorry.
Posted by: Ilana at April 17, 2007 09:26 PM


Well now, you admit to premeditated. Malachi's picture pretty much cinches the malicious part.
And oh look...now it IS illegal too.

Lookin' like a duck...

I think we have a murder here....


and it all happened in a moment.
Yesterday your comments were true, today? *POOF*

I admit I'm gloating, and I'm sure I'll pay for it but...

WOW THAT FELT GOOD!!!!!

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 2:04 PM


and.. His Man is a caricature of the Pharisees.

Posted by: Cameron at April 18, 2007 2:05 PM


Dan,

The other two very good things Bush did for this country were to....you guessed it, defeat Gore and then, Kerry! Too bad, we'd all be sucking on our tailpipes if Gore was elected and Kerry would have made "Tales of Ghengis Khan", mandatory reading in elemtary school so he could promote his propaganda about the military. Oh, and we would have been subjected to seeing his wife on TV alot. Almost too much too bear. Thank you, thank you, George. Good strategery....

Let's see, no terrorists attacks since 9/11, got rid of a baby killing terrorist in the form or Saddam Hussein, reduced taxes, appointed two pro-life Justices to the Supremen Court.......and the beat goes on and on and on...

I can see why your sad about Bush. He's obviously not your woman for the job.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 2:06 PM


To Dan, Less, Cameron and other blind commenters who fail to see the injustice of abortion.

The Partial Birth Abortion ban was enacted through the legislature (the correct way) and upheld by the court.

Posted by: jasper at April 18, 2007 2:06 PM


MK, no one will be charged with murder under the law, I bet it falls under its own set of laws, much like manslaughter or vehicular homocide, itll be in a class all its own.

And I doubt it carries the penalty of murder, esp when other procedures are still allowed

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 2:07 PM


So now His Man doesnt want a woman president. Ahh, seism at its best.


As for the rest of it, I didnt like Gore or Kerry, I would have voted for Bush both times, nut because I like him, but because he was better than the other options.

I know it was put through legislature, there were already restrictions on it anyway, and it really does nothing to stop them anyway, its a moot point, as had been said we have to wait for other cases and laws passed.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 2:10 PM


And Cameron weighs in.......with another profound statement of understanding, wisdom, intellectual prowess, and logic of you guessed it....biblical subjects.

Sup Cam? Or is that Cam Sup? Or is it Whatscamup
or Whatsupcam?

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 2:12 PM


lets see, millions still dying in Iraq, lying to the American people, acting on faulty intel, the Patriot act, and the list goes on and on

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 2:13 PM


Dan - you are correct.

Violation of the ban can only result in a MAXIMUM of 2 year in prison, and is not a felony charge. Hardly a murder charge, in fact, less prison time than robbery, illegal gun posession, etc.

Some more quotes from the ruling:

"The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a womans uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion. The law will not reduce the number of abortions performed because an alternate method dismembering the fetus in the uterus is legal, available and, indeed, much more common."

"Kennedy said the more common abortion method, involving dismemberment, is beyond the reach of the federal ban.

Kennedy said the court could entertain a challenge in which a doctor found it necessary to perform the banned procedure on a patient suffering certain medical complications. "


Posted by: Amanda at April 18, 2007 2:15 PM


What female presidents do we have to chose from? Hilarious Clinton -No thanks.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 2:18 PM


You're parsing Jasper.

"judicial activisism" is generaly employed by perjoritively, by ignorant types such as yourself, to indicate that judges have an presumptive political agenda. You guys, ussually ignorant of any constitutional or procedural nuance, use this name calling any time you'd disagree with a judicial conclusions. For a great example of this sort of ignorance, you seem to think that judicial activism amounts to any judgement not in harmony with legislation. What the hell is the judicial branch of the government for then?? Retard!

Fall asleep during 7th grade government class??

Posted by: Cameron at April 18, 2007 2:19 PM


His Man,I believe it's WASSSUP CAM? lol

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 2:20 PM


I dont want hilary either.

But His Mans comment seemed to make it clear he doesnt think a woman could perform the president's job effectively

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 2:23 PM


I just heard a news update that this ban shall set the stage for future restrictions. I can't wait to watch my local news.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 2:23 PM


I like Bush myself.Bill Clinton -boooooo!

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 2:25 PM


Just so you're aware Jasper...

Merriam-Webster

judicial activism

"the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent."

Precedent is the key thing here, and the decision, not to mention the actual law, amounts to toothless pandering.

Posted by: Cameron at April 18, 2007 2:26 PM


Bill and Hill kept abortion legal because Bill's mistress[Gennifer Flowers] became pregnant with his child and went to the abortion clinic.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 2:32 PM


Hey Cameron,

There's no need to get hysterical. I know exacly what the branches are responsible for, so please don't lecture me.

We need to keep the focus on immorality and gruesomeness of abortion.

Posted by: jasper at April 18, 2007 2:35 PM


SOMG,
Judging by the casual tone of your comments regarding the demise and destruction of fetuses and such, one cannot help but wonder if you've had personal experience in the industry. Have you had the *satisfaction* of extracting the fetus yourself? Pathology lab experience to verify the fetal remains? Seen the contents of the uterus being collected in the jar? Any of that without even blinking? Dr. Bernard Nathanson and you would have lots to muse over...
And for the folks who say that this Supreme Court decision is not that big of a deal, check out PP's website. They are beside themselves.

Posted by: Carder at April 18, 2007 2:41 PM


Thanks for the info Carder.I'm going there now.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 2:45 PM


Calling you a retard was a bit much... my bad!

"We need to keep the focus on immorality and gruesomeness of abortion."

BS! We need to ask ourselves what the net affect is going to be of this kind toothless pandering. Late term abortions go on, mostly un impeded, meanwhile pro-lifers fired-up by the ridiculous outcome of this, are going to be flooding legislative bodies with oodles more restrictions and what not, tying-up courts with stuff that doesn't have constituional snow-ball's chance in hell, and nothing ultimate gets done but an exhaustion of public coffers, and some feel good foof talk about saving pre-babies. Think about... every court prior to the supreme found otherwise. Typically they don't even hear such tripe in these cases, but someone gave roberts and alito a wink and nod, and it's political pay back is all, with little regarding for down stream costs and effects.

Posted by: Cameron at April 18, 2007 2:46 PM


Carder, PP's goal is to use this ruling to get people to donate $. They are expected to over-react.

Posted by: SoMG at April 18, 2007 2:47 PM


The ban only makes a difference in the case of fetuses with severe birth defects, like anencephaly, where natural birth is extremely dangerous, combined with, for example, a compromised immune system--recipient of organ donation or HIV status--makes a c-section extremely risky to secondary infection.

Posted by: ZuRG at April 18, 2007 2:48 PM


Oh,Too funny! I just visited PP web site.BOO HOO save Roe!!

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 2:55 PM


Posted by: Cameron at April 18, 2007 02:19 PM

"For a great example of this sort of ignorance, you seem to think that judicial activism amounts to any judgement not in harmony with legislation. What the hell is the judicial branch of the government for then?? Retard! "

"is generaly employed by perjoritively, by ignorant types such as yourself, "

"You guys, ussually ignorant of any constitutional or procedural nuance, use this name calling any time you'd disagree with a judicial conclusions. "

am I the only one who sees not only the hypocrisy of his statements (especially when put in the right order) but the unbelievable humor as well....


Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 2:56 PM


Don't they realize that Roe is pro-life now? Talk about asleep at the wheel.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 2:57 PM


@Mom:
Get enough psychological hammering and you'll cave, of course. Isn't that how brainwashing works?

Posted by: ZuRG at April 18, 2007 2:59 PM


doesnt matter, the opinion of the person may change, the case doesnt as its in the past.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 2:59 PM


Nope,the facts are there. It's on the net.It's on the news.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 3:02 PM


What facts are you referrng to? This court case? What eactly?

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 3:03 PM


Go to the NOW website.Those greedy vultures want my $$$$$$$$.Planned P-hood wants $$$$ and petition signatures.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 3:09 PM


Already went to the PP website, but I have yet to see any comment about this case on the news yet. Seems that it really hasnt been seen as that big a deal, esp after the VA shooting, the bomb threat at MNU, etc. It didnt even beat out the news on the storm we just had

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 3:11 PM


MOM -

ACLU and NAF have formed a joint letter.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 3:12 PM


Dan -

Go to FoxNews...

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 3:13 PM


i was on fox news earlier, they were only talking bout VT and MNU

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 3:14 PM


Dan quit your lying.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 3:15 PM


front page..

http://www.foxnews.com/

MSNBC even has a video link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/


CNN has it buried on their website. I wonder why?


Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 3:16 PM


still are, they're interviewing a dad who has a daughter at VT

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 3:16 PM


Ah, see, Ive been watching the TV, not internet news.

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 3:17 PM


"The term is called "stillborn", and even though I am pro-choise right along with you, I would appreciate if you did not have to come off so cold and un-caring."

Um, wow, I didn't mean to be "cold or uncaring." I realize the term is called "stillborn."

All I"m saying is...

I have heard of those who are stillborn or die shortly after death that choose to let their baby's organs help others. It is a careful situation but usually after a loved one dies the doctors usually ask if it is possible, and it usually is up to the family especially if the intent is not stated.
With PBA I don't think there is a way the organs can save others but after a C-section and comfort care, they can artificially keep the baby medically alive if the parent consents.
So it stands to reason that in situations where a woman had to choose between a PBA or C-section situation, and now cannot choose PBA, then C-section may have more of a chance of being able to help other babies survive. So maybe there will be more resources.

I never meant to sound cold. I was just trying to explain my position. I apolgize if I did...

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 3:21 PM


Dan -

MSNBC has a video link of when they showed it on TV.

Fox news doesn't put things front and center and then not report it.

hello?

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 3:23 PM


well valerie, all theyve been talking about is the VT massacre today, so, there we go


and its just coming on my news now, itll be coming on shortly sometime after this commecial, ill let you know what this one says about it, coming on bout a 1/2 hour into the news show

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 3:25 PM


And the VT shooting coverage isn't on constantly either.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 3:26 PM


Dan,

You didn't like Gore? :(

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 3:28 PM


mom, its been moving between that and MNU for me.


yeah, dindt really like him, then once 9/11 hit i was very glad he wasnt president, we would have been at a standstill far longer

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 3:30 PM


OK fair enough Dan.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 3:34 PM


wow, ok, well it got literally a 5 to 10 second spot. Said it COULD be an important victory, but thats really bout all it said

Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2007 3:39 PM


This decision really doesn't change anything. The procedure will be used for the same reasons as it was before the act was even passed.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 18, 2007 3:42 PM


Well,I can't worry about your news.I take it that other news stations are more reliable.Especially the ones that all of the pro-choice organizations were watching today. I could care less if you saw it. I'm sure glad they did though.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 3:44 PM


For the past 37 years I have worked in religious and non religious hospitals, pre and post Roe. I have never seen any situation where any pregnant woman has ever been allowed to die or where everything necessary wasn't done to save a pregnant woman's life. Yes, this included everything from early abortion to inducing early labor or delivering by early Cesarean section. We managed very well without partial birth abortion to save women's lives and certainly did so far more humanely to both the mother and when possible the child. Women could receive the necessary care at the local hospital, which had every legal right to do what was necessary to protect her life, both pre and post Roe. Roe v Wade was never necessary to save pregnant women who's lives were at risk. This was just a huge emotional appeal on the part of abortion advocates.
Any woman who's health or life is at risk should immediately be put under the care of a specialist. She may require a high risk maternal care unit. If her life is truly endangered, everything necessary to preserve her life can be safely and legally done at the nearest hospital. No need to travel hundreds of miles to Tiller where her "care" will be supervised by untrained and unlicensed staff in a hotel room.
As for ectopic pregnancy, the overwhelming majority are tubal and immediate surgery is indicated when a diagnosis is made. Nowadays, its possible to save the Fallopian tube in some cases and every effort will be made to do so.

Posted by: Mary at April 18, 2007 3:52 PM


In all honesty this just held the status quo. It was pretty pointless...
there are bigger problems right now, like the VT shootings.
so incredibly sad and horrific, and scary.

Posted by: Mars at April 18, 2007 4:02 PM


Correct Mars, a politician is just throwing a biscuit to an angry puppy.

Posted by: ZuRG at April 18, 2007 4:10 PM


"I'm sure glad they did though."

Because saving babies really isn't y'all's prerogative so much asserting your religious beliefs

Posted by: Cameron at April 18, 2007 4:22 PM


Cameron: I bet if HisMan had his way anyone who was not white and christian would be taken to canada...not that I would mind that....

Posted by: Mars at April 18, 2007 4:38 PM


Hey Dan...

No bomb was found at the U of Minnesota.

*happy dances*

Posted by: Rae Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 4:44 PM


Mary -

Very well said. I've been saying over and over that if a woman's life was in danger or the baby was in danger then she would go to a hospital and not an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood.

Maybe one day they will believe us.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 4:45 PM


""
Ginsburg said the latest decision "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists."

You mean the way we tolerated and applauded the federal intervention of the ruling Roe vs Wade...hmmmm, very interesting, hypocritcal, but veeeerryyyy interesting.
""

The federal intervention of Roe v. Wade? Obviously you haven't gone to law school. In fact, I'm wondering if you are educated at all. Roe v. Wade ruled that state laws interfering with the privacy and pregnancy of a woman was unconstitutional. In other words, there was too much intervention to begin with! Your comment makes it sounds like the United States is forcing women to have abortions against their will. Your comment is better suited for China.
Personally, I think partial birth abortion is a horrible procedure for everyone involved, but should be legal and safe for maternal health reasons. It is Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer's view that the law is unconstitutional because it values a fetus more than it's mother's life and makes a judgment call on a personal matter that a democratic government cannot possibly make democratically!
Not only does this law infanticize women (they can't make their own choices, they are sneaky, child-minded women.) There is no health exception?! are you crazy? It is not constitutional, moral, or efficient for the government to withhold access to an emergency abortion if a woman is going to die, whether certain segements of the population value fetus's lives more than women's lives or not. You have a right to your belief system but the government has no right to force me to give birth if it's going to kill me!
What are your views on ectopic pregnancies? Should both the fetus and mommy die because of ideology?

Posted by: Anna Ruth at April 18, 2007 4:45 PM


most of the prolifers on here think that abortion in the case where the mothers life is in danger is okay.
They do believe however, that their religious views have a foothold in the law making of this country and that it is completely okay to push their views on others.

Posted by: Mars at April 18, 2007 4:49 PM



"This ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme Court precedent and the best interest of women's health and safety,"


Hillary said something along the same lines.

So for 30 years we have had legal abortion and everyone is complaining that we've "changed" the law?

What about the first 200 years that it was Illegal?
Nobody complained from their side in 1973!

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 5:06 PM


It's not okay for the pro-choice crowd to shove their views down OUR throats!That is what you do! Keep abortion safe,legal and rare.So the country has been doing that for years.It is anything but rare.Legal? yes. Safe? Not really Rare Absolutely NOT! It's flaunted in our faces every day,4000 times a day.Innocent children.Dying horrible deaths.Every day.It has to stop somewhere.Pro-choicers have abused this right.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 5:13 PM


"It is Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer's view that the law is unconstitutional because it values a fetus more than it's mother's life and makes a judgment call on a personal matter that a democratic government cannot possibly make democratically!"

I believe you have the wrong judges. Now who needs to go to law school.

The federal gov. took the rights away from the states.

I stand by my statement.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 5:13 PM


I just heard a little bit more about this on my local news. They said that the women won't get into trouble,but the doctor will.Can anyone clarify?

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 5:16 PM


Anna Ruth,

What are your views on ectopic pregnancies? Should both the fetus and mommy die because of ideology?

We have answered this many times, and on this particular post no less.

But come late, I'll repeat.


Dan,

Two words...
Not happenin'

Ectopic pregnancies don't last long enough to be considered late term...

None of these areas has as much space or nurturing tissue as a uterus for a pregnancy to develop. As the fetus grows, it will eventually burst the organ that contains it. This can cause severe bleeding and endanger the mother's life. A classical ectopic pregnancy never develops into a live birth.


2% of ectopic pregnancies occur in the ovary, cervix, or are intraabdominal. Transvaginal ultrasound examination is usually able to detect a cervical pregnancy. An ovarian pregnancy is differentiated from a tubal pregnancy by the Spiegelberg criteria.[3]

While a fetus of ectopic pregnancy is typically not viable, very rarely, an abdominal pregnancy has been salvaged. In such a situation the placenta sits on the intraabdominal organs or the peritoneum and has found sufficient blood supply. In this author's experience this is invariably bowel or mesentery, but other sites, such as the renal (kidney), liver or hepatic (liver) artery or even aorta have been described. Support to near viability has occasionally been described, but even in third world countries, the diagnosis is most commonly made at 16 to 20 weeks gestation. Such a fetus would have to be delivered by laparotomy. Maternal morbidity and mortality from extrauterine pregnancy is high as attempts to remove the placenta from the organs to which it is attached usually lead to uncontrollable bleeding from the attachment site. If the organ to which the placenta is attached is removable, such as a section of bowel, then the placenta should be removed together with that organ. This is such a rare occurrence that true data are unavailable and reliance must be made on anecdotal reports.[4][5] However, the vast majority of abdominal pregnancies require intervention well before fetal viability because the risk of hemorrhage.

Wasn't it SOMG who went on and on about very, very very, being reduced to very, very....


mk
Posted by: MK at April 18, 2007 12:50 PM


Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 5:17 PM


"It is Ginsberg, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer's view that the law is unconstitutional because it values a fetus more than it's mother's life and makes a judgment call on a personal matter that a democratic government cannot possibly make democratically!"


Justice Anthony Kennedy (joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia) upheld a principle that was established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey--the state has a legitimate interest in protecting unborn human life.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 5:19 PM


Anna Ruth,

There is absolutely no medical reason for partial birth abortion. It was invented to make certain a late term aborted baby was good and dead at delivery. Babies born alive and not dying like they were supposed to was becoming an embarassing nuisance. I remember all too well. Please give an example of where it would be necessary to save a woman's life or health. As I stated in my post, women who's lives or health are in anyway endangered can seek safe and legal care at the nearest hospital. If inducing a premature birth or an early C-section is necessary, it can and will be done. I personally know of a young woman who's life was endangered if she went full term because of severe fetal and placental anomalies. She went to the local hospital and early labor was induced at 5 months. I also know of a woman who's severe uterine infection necessitated inducing an early labor as well. This posed less risk of trauma, bleeding and infection to the women and best preserved their ability to have children in the future, as well as being a very tragic necessity to save their lives.

Posted by: Mary at April 18, 2007 5:20 PM


Mom -

I mentioned that earlier in the post. There is absolutely NO penalty to a woman who has this type of abortion, only to the doctor who performs it.

The penalty for an ID&X abortion that is determined to be not medically needed will be a misdemenor conviction and a MAX of 2 years in prison.

Posted by: Amanda at April 18, 2007 5:27 PM


Mary -

I hope you won't mind, but I copy and pasted (given you credit) your last two responses to the political responses post.

They are very well written and were answering questions there too...

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 5:54 PM


Yes Mary,your posts are so well written and they make so much sense.

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 5:56 PM


MK I personally am glad that this type of abortion has been banned, especially since it is typically done past the point at which fetuses are known to have fully developed their ability to feel pain.

On a lighter note, Im ready for a new apparition!

Posted by: JessicaW at April 18, 2007 5:58 PM


Oh PS this is Samantha under my sister's email because I think I got banned...

Posted by: JessicaW at April 18, 2007 5:59 PM


SamanthaT?
You got banned?

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 6:19 PM


Bethany Im not sure exactly what happened. There may just be some kind of glitch because I didnt get an email or anything, but I cannot sign in under my email. :-/

Posted by: JessicaW at April 18, 2007 6:23 PM


I'm sorry, Samantha, I have been wondering where you've been! I wonder if I did something wrong to cause it to happen. Did it just happen since this Monday? I set the board to authentication mode that day...but I changed it back, so I dont know why it would be blocking you from posting.

I hope you've been having a good week!! I will look into it and see if I can figure out what is causing you not to be able to post.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 6:30 PM


Samantha,Hi. I have been having some of those same problems too. Welcome back!

Posted by: momof3 at April 18, 2007 6:34 PM


Here I am girls! I cleaned all the cookies off my computer because someone was trying to crack into my credit card account, so that may have had something to do with it.

Posted by: SamanthaT at April 18, 2007 6:51 PM


Oh good, relieved to know it wasn't something I did. lol
And glad to have you back!

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 6:52 PM


Samantha,

ME TOO ! ME TOO !

I was worried you'd changed your mind again!

Hey, you joined up just in time to celebrate a victory.

Although you would think that everyone, even pro-choicers, would be thrilled that this particularly gruesome method of abortion is over...

Did I tell you about the incorruptibles yet?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 7:22 PM


Hey Samantha,

Bethany (or Jill) have my permission to give you my email if you want...

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 7:23 PM


YaY! I want to learn about the incorruptibles! And I am very excited about the ban on the procedure. It is so terribly awful...I mean, can you imagine how excited that little baby must be, thinking that he is about to get to meet the world? It makes me sick to my stomach.

Posted by: SamanthaT at April 18, 2007 7:47 PM


Hey Samantha,

Have I told you that I love you.
Even before. I loved you. And spent an awful lot of time praying for you.

But now I love you AND I like you.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 8:01 PM


Samantha,

Okay, now these are not as impressive as Medjugorje or the good Padre, but they are creepy, interesting, amazing in their own way.

Throughout the years, certain saints have had to exhumed and moved. Sometimes to be reburied in a church named after them. And other odd reasons.

But...

When they dig them up, they have not aged, decayed or changed one iota. They look as fresh as the day that they died.

Okay, a couple of them look a little worse for the wear...

But for the most part they are perfectly preserved.

check them out here:

http://www.livingmiracles.net/Incorrupt.html

and here:

http://www.overcomeproblems.com/incorruptables.htm

I think St Rita looks more decayed because she was black and it is deceiving...

Also notice at the bottom of the second link that some of them were from 1something AD...

I'll give you another apparition soon...gotta do some more research...you're tappin' me out!

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 8:09 PM


Valerie:
Your baby is incredibly adorable.
I know we all disagree on alot of stuff but who doesn't love a face like that?

Posted by: Mars at April 18, 2007 8:53 PM


Hey Samantha,
Bethany (or Jill) have my permission to give you my email if you want...
mk

Speaking of which, I'd love it if you could send me an email sometime, Samantha. :)
And I'll be sure to give you MK's email. :)

(You can find my email at my website http://www.sketchesbybethany.net by clicking "contact".)

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 9:05 PM


Valerie and Momof3

Mind? I'm very flattered. Thank you both for your kind words.

Posted by: Mary at April 18, 2007 9:17 PM


Mars -

Thanks - She is a my joy. I love to show her off. She is the only granddaughter for both sides of the family, so she is a bit spoiled.

One nice thing about this blog. On one post we are going at each others throats and on another we are talking about antidepressants, music and giving each other support if someone is going through a difficult time. And this will all happen in the same hour!

Kinda cool the way these things work out.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 9:47 PM


Samantha -

Don't forget me! ;-) I have an e-mail address too..

I am glad to see you back on. I was getting worried.

* Smooch *

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 9:50 PM


Hey Valerie:

Have you listened to any of that music I recommended to you?

Posted by: Rae Author Profile Page at April 18, 2007 10:14 PM


Yeah my bf is an only child and I am the oldest by 7 years.
My children will be spoiled
but what else are grandmas for????

Posted by: Mars at April 18, 2007 11:40 PM


honest question.

If abortion is made illegal and most mothers who would abort give their baby up for adoption, where would all of these unwanted children go? How do you guys plan on solving this issue?

This is my biggest question. I am not condoning abortion as it is now, I'm just imagining what would happen if it were outlawed now.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 1:13 AM


PIP,

Concerning your question about "unwanted children". Not every unplanned and unwanted pregnancy results in an unwanted child. Not every planned and wanted pregnancy results in a wanted child. People's lives and circumstances change. Abortion has never, nor will it ever solve the problem of unwanted children. This is like arguing we would solve the problem of unwanted and abused wives by killing engaged women.
There is adoption and do you have any idea how desperate people are to adopt? I have personally witnessed it. Also, making adoption easier with less hassle has helped with more difficult to place children. I once read it was very difficult for single black women, even those with the means and desire, to adopt. I have no idea if this is still the case, and I certainly hope it is not, but you have to wonder how many children lost out on good homes and loving mothers because of some neanderthal mentality toward adoptions by single black women. I remember someone saying that we need to get the hardened arteries out of our adoption system and hopefully we are doing that.
There will always be the unwanted, be they children, old people, spouses, or teenagers. Disposing of any of us because we're unwanted by someone would leave very few of us left on this planet.

Posted by: Mary at April 19, 2007 5:24 AM


PIP,

I can't remember where or who, but we had the adoption discussion before and looked up statistics for children in foster homes. It was actually a very small number of children there were there that could be adopted. Most were in foster care and unadoptable.

I myself was adopted and my mother had to wait 4 years for me. That was back in 1958 when there was no abortion. Imagine what it must be like now.

So adoption is most certainly the most obvious solution. Also if women centers continue to open at the rate they are now, helping a mother to keep her baby should become easier and easier.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 5:37 AM


PIP -

I would also like to add:

If abortion becomes illegal, how many women do you think will think twice before enganging in sexual activity? How many women will make sure the condom is on correctly? How many women will make sure the diaphram doesn't have holes in it?

See, abortion is a crutch. If abortion is made illegal as a birth control method, responsibility will take its place. Just as responsibility was there before Roe.

As women, we have advanced significantly. In the 1800's and early 1900's women were not suppose to say no to their husband for sex. This resulted in women having many children. Birth control was illegal then too so women didn't have a say in this.

Today, things are much different. Women know that sex is not something that is mandated by men. We now have control of this. The mentality has changed. If abortion is outlawed, women would just take more control of bedroom activities.

IMO - Birth control and abortion has allowed us to actually revert back to the 1800's mentality.
I know I do this alot, and I'm sorry, but I'm going to quote from Humanae Vitae again. This was written in 1968.

"It can also be feared that the man who becomes used to contraceptive practices, may in the end lose respect for his wife, and no longer caring about her physical and psychological well-being, will come to the point of considering her a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer his respected and beloved companion"

Watch TV, commericials, movies.
Listen to modern music, lyrics

Tell me where there is respect for women in many of our 'entertainment' today. Women are just sex objects now. Yes, women are shown as sex objects with a brain now, not the Chrissy's of Three's company, but still sex objects.

We will never attain our goal of being treated equally in the work place if men still see us as an object of their desire. We have to be equal all around. We can't say, 'it is my right to wear this short skirt and low cut shirt' and then expect men to take us seriously. Is it fair? not really. Is it life? yup. Haven't you ever wondered why men don't go to work all sexed up? It is because they want to be taken seriously.

If you want to read up on some of the way women were treated in the late 1800's and early 1900's so you can compare them to today I would recommend reading up on Elizabeth Cady Stanton and *gasp* Margeret Sanger. (yes, the same Margaret Sanger that founded PP. I do not agree with what she stood for, but when you read her writings you get a very good understanding of how women were treated.)

Just some fun on Ms. Stanton. Back when she was having kids a woman wasn't suppose to annouce she was pregnant. She was suppose to disappear and then reappear with a baby and act as if this baby was always there. Wanna know what she did? When one of her kids was born, she put raised a flag in honor of her new baby. She announced to the community that she had given birth. She was such a spunky woman. She also did not say the word obey in her wedding vows.

I know I ranted. But I had to get it out. I feel better now.

;-)

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 9:15 AM


Rae -

No, I haven't yet. But I'm going to be ordering from Amazon soon, and I already have it in my cart.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 9:33 AM


Rae -

I forget - Which one did you say was good? I have three in my cart and I can't get all three.

I have in the cart

the heart of everything
silent force
mother earth

I think you answered this before, but I didn't write it down.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 9:49 AM


"I remember someone saying that we need to get the hardened arteries out of our adoption system and hopefully we are doing that. "
That's good. I definately could see the system improving, I hear it needs some work.

"There will always be the unwanted, be they children, old people, spouses, or teenagers. Disposing of any of us because we're unwanted by someone would leave very few of us left on this planet."
I understand. I'm just thinking, if half the children are kept, and half are put up for adoption, does that mean 2,000 children every day enter the system? Wouldn't that be a huge problem?

"So adoption is most certainly the most obvious solution. Also if women centers continue to open at the rate they are now, helping a mother to keep her baby should become easier and easier."
Right. The system to help mothers keep their child should eventually make it much easier on them. Looking forward to it.

"See, abortion is a crutch. If abortion is made illegal as a birth control method, responsibility will take its place. Just as responsibility was there before Roe."
How can you tell? I mean, can you really know for sure?

"Tell me where there is respect for women in many of our 'entertainment' today. Women are just sex objects now. Yes, women are shown as sex objects with a brain now, not the Chrissy's of Three's company, but still sex objects."
I agree. Sex is very prominant in our culture and watching TV it is often sickening.

"She announced to the community that she had given birth. She was such a spunky woman. She also did not say the word obey in her wedding vows."
Very interesting! I wonder if she was the woman who sparked baby showers...

"I know I ranted. But I had to get it out. I feel better now."
No worries!! It was an honest question.

If we begin to develop this stuff first, efficiency, more crisis centers etc,. we could start making abortion illegal a little at a time.

Do you think there are situations where abortion is acceptable? Not acceptable as in "I condone it" but where it would be legally acceptable?

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 10:18 AM


"How can you tell? I mean, can you really know for sure?"

Are we human or beast? I think we are human which means we can control our behavior.

I'll give an example. The sexual revolution of the 1960's was nothing compared to the late 1970's and early 1980's. Sex everywhere. In some area's it was sodom and gamora all over again. Then something happened. People began to get really sick and scientists discovered a disease called AIDS/HIV. Did the people continue in their own personal pleasure. nope. We learned. We adjusted. Behavior modification allowed us to see and respect this disease. We are now teaching other nations how this respect is done. We will combat AIDS. Science may have something to do with it. But changing our attitudes towards our behavior has and will have more to do with it.

All through history there are examples of this. We are not animals. Animals are fueled by their instincts. We can control our instincts. Its very simple really.


"Very interesting! I wonder if she was the woman who sparked baby showers..."

hey - Good thought.

"If we begin to develop this stuff first, efficiency, more crisis centers etc,. we could start making abortion illegal a little at a time."

BINGO! And a great way to put it.

"Do you think there are situations where abortion is acceptable? Not acceptable as in "I condone it" but where it would be legally acceptable?"

Health of the mother if there is no way the child will live. If there is a way to allow the pregnancy to continue until viability and the mother will be in no more danger than she would be at, say, week 18, then it is up to us to try to save the baby. But - Not to sacrafice the mother. It doesn't make sense to lose both.

Some believe rape and incest should be grouped in with this. I don't. I believe that women are stronger than the bastard who raped them. He can't bring us down to an immoral act because of his filthy behavior. Besides, did you ever think of this:

http://www.feministsforlife.org/img/cop/ads_PDF/03DeathPenalty.pdf

prejudice comes in a variety of forms.

And yes, I do know what rape is. I am not speaking out of my (rear end).


Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 11:08 AM


side note - I am pro-life. But if it came down to health of the mother AND rape and incest for legal abortion, I would not fight that.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 11:10 AM


Interesting. I think the idea behind exceptions for rape/incest is the responsibility argument. Like, "people should take responsibility for their actions, so abortion should be illegal. Since rape is not the fault of the victim, then the pregnancy is not her fault so we should make allowances for her."

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 11:18 AM


Oh, cool. I think it's entirely possible to gradually make abortion illegal granted we make some other kinds of changes to help balance it out.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 11:20 AM


And make those exceptions, forgot to add that. But that's probably a given.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 11:20 AM


Valerie: Get the "Silent Force" album, it's their best one in my opinion. :)

Posted by: Rae Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 11:27 AM


PIP -

Yes - alot has to be done to have abortion illegal. It cannot happen over night (even though I still pray for that). The exceptions are something that I think most can live with.


Rae - Thanks I will... Hopefully I will be placing my order tonight. I just need to make sure my hubby has everything he wants. (I hate spending too much on shipping and handleing!)

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 12:21 PM


Valerie,

I would like to add to your comment about women not announcing their pregnancies in the 19th and early 20th centuries. My grandmother was from the era in the early 20th century when "respectable" women did not "flaunt" their pregnancies. They made every effort to hide it, not that they fooled anyone, they only looked like pregnant women trying to hide the very obvious fact they were pregnant. I'm sure this had to do with the sexual mores at the time.
My grandmother was born well before her time and was a most blunt spoken rebel. She was pregnant in the hot weather and no way would she wear a corset or more clothing to "hide" her pregnancy. She "flaunted" it as much as she darned well pleased. She walked into a grocery store and in the presence of a most astounded store clerk, plopped her very heavy and big abdomen on the counter. She then looked the startled clerk in the eye and asked "what the hell are you looking at?. "Respectable" women not only "hid" their pregnancies, they never made use of profanities either.

Posted by: Mary at April 19, 2007 2:07 PM


Mary: Dare I say your grandmother was awesome. :)

Posted by: Rae Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 2:58 PM


Definately awesome.

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 3:14 PM


PIP and Rae,

My grandmother would have greatly appreciated your compliments. Thank you.

Posted by: Mary at April 19, 2007 7:02 PM


Mary,

I notice your grandmother flaunted her pregnancy, not ended it.

Good for her. Good for your mother. Good for you.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 7:40 PM


MK,

Yes I am very thankful she didn't end it, and so is my mother! Ironically, this was not a planned or wanted pregnancy as my grandmother had to get married and fast! My mother always laughed about being the reason her mother got married!
If my grandmother could respond to the kind remarks of you, PIP, and Rae she would say in reference to that store clerk: "Can you believe the nerve of that little S-- of a B----?

Posted by: Mary at April 19, 2007 7:51 PM


Go Grandma!!

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 19, 2007 8:20 PM


njde6yh_19_t_1_n100

Posted by: 19monyka@hotmail.com at April 23, 2007 9:23 AM


njde6yh_120_t_1_n100

Posted by: 120monyka@hotmail.com at April 23, 2007 9:23 AM