Weekend question: Are pro-lifers going to adopt all the unwanted babies?

Read the following email chain...

adopt - i love you 5.png

So what is the pro-life answer to the question, "Why don't you people put up or shut up - pay for the care of pregnant mothers in crisis and adopt the unwanted or "defective" babies?"


Comments:

Comments like this show that they are totally uniformed about how many approved couples are waiting to adopt, yes biracial, babies with health issues, conceived in rape etc. The problem really is that the woman cannot imagine carrying the baby to term to even consider adoption.
I am amazed at how many people are not aware of the long waiting list of people who desire to adopt and how it breaks their heart to see babies destroyed by abortion.

Posted by: Susie at July 24, 2010 7:34 AM


Woo-hoo! I love that question. Love it. An old friend made that comment once, albeit in a much less hostile way, and I've even heard supposedly pro-life Christians say the same thing (I think they've been beaten down by this sound bite).

I explained to the friend that opposing a moral evil like abortion does not required you to own the situation. If your neighbor his beating his wife, kids and dog, do you have to be willing to marry the wife, raise the kids to adulthood and adopt the dog before you call the police, CPS and the humane society? (You can also ask if they could oppose a government policy of killing the homeless without having to let the homeless live in their house).

Then I explained that even though we aren't obligated to do more just because we speak out against crushing and dismembering innocent human beings that pro-lifers do plenty with their own time and money. I described Care Net Pregnancy Center (where I've been a volunteer / donor / board member) and all the great things we do for women and families in need, and for free! Pregnancy tests, diapers, clothes, formula, life skills training, post-abortion trauma counseling and more.

He said he had never heard of those. I explained that of course he hadn't. The 90%+ wildly pro-abortion media wouldn't tell him such things.

As a bonus you can point out that unless the person is truly pro-abortion (i.e., they think that if a mother can't support her child she must abort -- something they will never admit), then they have the same obligation to adopt these children. Think about it: If they want there to be a choice and they want to play the adoption card, then they would have the same liability to care for them.

More here, if you are interested: http://tinyurl.com/25tekyb

We should welcome this objection by pro-legalized abortionists. It lets us explain the underlying fallacy of their question and how they never apply it in situations outside the womb, how pro-lifers do a lot to help before and after delivery, and how the same obligation falls on them.

They may not convert but any objective middle-grounder will see the merits.

Posted by: Neil at July 24, 2010 7:55 AM


Anybody opposed to theft should hand over his money to the theif if they don't want him to steal.

Posted by: Jasper at July 24, 2010 8:19 AM


Aside from the part where pro-lifers actually are doing this, I basically agree with Neil, although I would phrase it a bit more concisely.

I am against car theft, but I do not have to join the police or Neighborhood Watch to tell other people not to steal cars. Any idiot can see that stealing cars is wrong and that everyone should be opposed to it whether they are professionally opposed to car stealing or not.

Abortion is much more serious, but the same principle applies. It's wrong. I don't need to be an adoptive parent to know that, and unless the person talking to me is actively involved in preventing the occurrence of every single thing they oppose, they're a hypocrite.

Posted by: Keli Hu at July 24, 2010 8:25 AM


The point is that it is not up to "prolifers" to adopt all these babies although I'm quite certain that there are enough couples in the US willing to adopt most of the babies who are defined as "unwanted".
And of course, some women will change their minds about the unwanted status of their babies as pregnancy progresses.

The point is that abortion which IS the killing of another human being mainly because he/she is inconvenient is a stop gap treatment for failed contraception most of the time.

The point is that people who contracept and/or engage in promiscuous behavior expect zero consequences from their behavior.

The point is whether we adopt all the babies or whether these women have abortions, many go on to repeat the behaviors that led to them getting pregnant in the first place.

The above email is simplistic and immature and shows a complete lack of understanding of a very complex social problem which abortion only intensifies.

Posted by: angel at July 24, 2010 8:30 AM


If activists for the murder of the innocent unborn would stop funding this devastating practice, help us fight for lower adoption costs, and help us pay for adoptions, we would see an incredible turn around!! I happen to know many, many individuals; self included, who have deeply desired to open our Loving homes to these children, but because we do not have the money for the outrageous legal fees and we do not have a "properly padded savings account," we are denied the opportunity to put our words into action!

Put up or shut up??? My husband and I, as well as many others we know, are now raising children not our own. I do agree that there are many who hate the murder of the unborn, but are unwilling to either open their homes to them or support families who are willing to raise these beautiful children. However, that statement certainly cannot be cast upon all who hate the murder of the innocent unborn!

Posted by: Cherry at July 24, 2010 8:34 AM


Imagine this question in a different type of situation. If I knew the woman next door was being abuse by her husband, would I have to be willing to take her into my home in order to have the right to speak out against it?

Another question - when would it be enough? Does every person who believes that abortion is wrong have to adopt a baby? Would that convince pro-choicers that we are serious? I don't think they would be convinced.

But on the other hand I do believe that a culture of adoption should rise up from those who are pro-life. Not because we HAVE to but because we should want to.

Posted by: Zach Nielsen at July 24, 2010 8:43 AM


Cherry, the fact is the whole question posed by the email is a red herring.

The question is should women have the unilateral right to kill another person because they are inconvenient, unwanted, disabled or the product of a rape?

The answer is no.

Posted by: angel at July 24, 2010 8:44 AM


Pro-choicers always accuse us of not being consistent with this, but really, has there EVER been a survey asking fosters parents and adoptive parents if they are pro-life?

I suspect if there is such a survey, it would indicate that the high majority of adoptive and foster parents are pro-life and very, very few are pro-choice. Parents who adopt defective children are also probably pro-life.

Why do I suspect very few are pro-choice? Pro-choicers are mostly concerned about their lives and ME, ME ME. I don't suspect many of them accept and choose inconveniences in their lives. It is in their rhetoric : Have an abortion because your life is more important then the baby's.

I suspect more pro-lifers adopt because they defend each and every life. They accept the sacrifices that comes with adopting a child with or without disabilities. A pro-lifers will say that the child's life is AS important if not more important then their own.

I think there really should be a survey done, to point out, that we do adopt and stay true to our convictions. Their accusation with thus be seen for the falsehood it is.

Not like it will matter to them anyways; they'll find something else to accuse us of....

Posted by: chantal at July 24, 2010 8:51 AM


I think it is good to have at least two levels of responses: A pithier version -- but accurate -- version to quickly shoot down fallacious pro-abort sound bites, and a more thorough response to share with those truly interested in the facts.

Posted by: Neil at July 24, 2010 8:57 AM



Wait a minute. Abortion was supposed to guarantee that every child would be wanted. So what's the issue here? Also, no child would be born addicted, every child would be perfect and certainly planned.
I still remember the old bumper sticker.

Every child a wanted child
Support Abortion Reform

So logic only dictates that 37 years of legal abortion means we have no unwanted children.

Perhaps our response to this PC red herring should be "but, but, but...didn't you promise..?

Posted by: Mary at July 24, 2010 9:23 AM


Thank you all for really great responses. I will remember all you have all commented here...especially Neil! I am grateful for the education I receive each time I read the comments here.

Posted by: MamaMT at July 24, 2010 9:29 AM


Jill,
My wife and I are adopting a child with special needs from the foster care system. I know tons of people who have adopted, are adopting, or are getting ready to adopt. The Zoe Foundation (www.thezoefoundation.com) is an example of a foundation that is helping parents adopt unwanted, bi-racial and special needs babies from birth. It is a total misconception that these babies are unwanted. Besides, when birth moms see ultrasounds, the vast majority, 80% some say, decide to carry. Planned Parenthood does a terrible job educating women. Besides, if THEY were so interested in female welfare, they should not charge for abortions!

Posted by: Ed at July 24, 2010 9:33 AM


God gave us free will, America gave us liberty, but no where is murder morally okay, there is no argument. "Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use any violence to get what it wants." -Mother Teresa

This sums it up, she's a saint in Heaven.

if abortion is just a procedure, could you kill a baby with your bare hands?

Posted by: Bill Purcell at July 24, 2010 9:34 AM


Anything to avoid the actual question of whether or not abortion unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being.

But really, suppose I have adopted 20 unwanted children. Would teh pro-choicer posing the question now become pro-life? Suppose I would never under any circumstances adopt a child. Would the pro-choicer therefore be justified in remaining pro-choice? How does my personal behavior somehow address the arguments put forth against abortion? It's a classic ad hominum argument. It in no way addresses the pro-life claim that abortion unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being. It's an intellectually lazy way out of having to think about the issue.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at July 24, 2010 9:38 AM


Ed,

Congratulations to you and your wife. However I am a little perplexed. Abortion advocates promised that every child would be perfect, i.e. abortion would eliminate babies born with special needs, as well as planned and wanted so I can't imagine where you found a special needs child.
Do such children still exist after 37 years of legal abortion?

Posted by: Mary at July 24, 2010 9:43 AM


There were pro-lifers on this very site who did offer pregnant women help and said they would adopt the baby. The women went into the clinics anyhow.

So this ridiculous argument proves what? Pro-lifers DO offer to adopt all the time. And there are waiting lists of couples waiting to adopt...I know because I have friends and family that have adopted or are currently trying to adopt. The hoops you have to jump through to adopt are amazing.

And whether I personally adopt all 1.2 million children slated for abortion this year or not that does not change the humanity of these children or the fact that abortion is the intentional killing of a living human being.

So pro-choicers, unless you're willing to have sex with every rapist out there so that they don't have the desire to rape women then you have no right to formulate any opinion on rape or to shove your anti-rape views on others... See what a stupid argument that is? It reminds me of when my 3 year old says "Well I took his toy because he wouldn't share!" What someone else does doesn't make your actions right. Ya know, ever heard of "two wrongs don't make a right?"

Even if pro-lifers never lifted a finger to help pregnant women (which we do) that doesn't justify killing unborn children.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 24, 2010 9:51 AM


g.j. must have seen the mystical warehouse of unwanted infants stacked on miles of shelving waiting for an adoption that will never come.

Ultimately, g.j.'s question reveals an ignorance of the current state of the adoption process.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at July 24, 2010 10:11 AM


I had 3 couples that offered to adopt a woman's child who was thinking of abortion. I put it on my facebook status for prayer. She aborted anyway.

One couple asked me to keep them in mind if I know of another pregnant young woman considering abortion.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 24, 2010 10:18 AM


Er... Jill, at the risk of going off on a tangent: what's with this hostile e-mailer using the subject line, "I love you"? That doesn't exactly gibe with what they said to you, does it? It strikes me a bit like coming in for a hug, only to get a good angle from which to thrust your poison dagger!

Given that dishonest and poisonous footing, I'm not sure how you (or anyone) could expect to have a sincere conversation at all. They tipped their hand as a "I just want to rage against you, that's all" type of person, I think...

Posted by: Paladin at July 24, 2010 10:22 AM


"Wait a minute. Abortion was supposed to guarantee that every child would be wanted. So what's the issue here? Also, no child would be born addicted, every child would be perfect and certainly planned.
I still remember the old bumper sticker.

Every child a wanted child
Support Abortion Reform

So logic only dictates that 37 years of legal abortion means we have no unwanted children."

--------------------------------
Love it, Mary!

This question drives me nuts, because it completely ignores the responsibility of the two people who made the baby in the first place. Which, of course, is the foundation the pro-aborts stand on: no responsibility, no obligation, just free sex and "my choice."

I don't have to adopt every child in order to recognize that murdering the baby is wrong and evil.

Posted by: Jennifer at July 24, 2010 10:25 AM


So, the logic would suggest that since she advocates for abortion, she should personally pay for all abortions?

If we promise to adopt all the babies, will they promise not to kill any more babies?

Posted by: ProlifeKaren at July 24, 2010 10:28 AM


If we promise to adopt all the babies, will they promise not to kill any more babies?
Posted by: ProlifeKaren at July 24, 2010 10:28 AM

Good question, Karen.

Posted by: Kel at July 24, 2010 10:39 AM


What gets me is that it never makes any difference to them if pro-lifers have adopted children or not. Pro-choicers never said, "You know what, guys, Ronald Reagan has an adopted son. Since he's willing to put his money where his mouth is, why don't we listen to him about abortion?" They don't give John McCain's views on abortion any additional weight because he has an adopted daughter. They hate the Palin family for demonstrating that having a baby in high school or having a baby with disabilities doesn't have to "ruin your life."

Expecting pro-lifers to adopt all children without families is like expecting people who care about genocide in Darfur to rush over there and personally try to stop it. Everyone has different levels of what they're able to do. Personally, I grew up going to a Catholic school wth a lot of adopted kids, including my best friend's two older siblings. Not everybody is in a position to adopt. When they are and they do, that's fantastic. When they can't, it doesn't make them some sort of hypocrites.

If pro-choicers care so much about access to abortion, why don't they all become abortionists? Oh, right, because a lot of them don't want to go to medical school, can't go to medical school...

Posted by: Marauder at July 24, 2010 10:50 AM


Heck, why don't they all become abortionists and work for free?

Posted by: Marauder at July 24, 2010 10:52 AM


Great points, everyone.
As a future resource, here is a free pro-life brochure that explains the various adoption systems in the USA: http://secularprolife.org/files/adoption.pdf

Posted by: Kelsey at July 24, 2010 10:53 AM


Anything to avoid the actual question of whether or not abortion unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being.

But really, suppose I have adopted 20 unwanted children. Would teh pro-choicer posing the question now become pro-life? Suppose I would never under any circumstances adopt a child. Would the pro-choicer therefore be justified in remaining pro-choice? How does my personal behavior somehow address the arguments put forth against abortion? It's a classic ad hominum argument. It in no way addresses the pro-life claim that abortion unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being. It's an intellectually lazy way out of having to think about the issue.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at July 24, 2010 9:38 AM

Like I said, Bobby the question is a red-herring which deflects away from the real issues in abortion.

"The point is that abortion which IS the killing of another human being mainly because he/she is inconvenient is a stop gap treatment for failed contraception most of the time."

The question is should women have the unilateral right to kill another person because they are inconvenient, unwanted, disabled or the product of a rape?

The answer is no.
Posted by: angel at July 24, 2010 8:44 AM

It's been my experience too, working with women seeking abortions, that often you can promise them the world but in the end they abort.

Because abortion backs up contraception.
People behave differently when they contracept - they are not in the mind of expecting a child and therefore abortion removes that consequence of sexual activity (or in some cases public evidence of illicit sexual activity).

To kill abortion we have to kill contraception.
They are twin evils.

It's not about how many babies get adopted.

It's about whether it's morally permissable for a woman to unilaterally kill another human being for her own health, convenience or other "needs".

Posted by: angel at July 24, 2010 10:58 AM


Believe me, if j.g. found out that all pro-lifers were indeed adopting all the unwanted children,
this wouldn't stop him. He'd merely start saying:

"See, you people are only opposing abortion because you want babys to adopt. Your exploiting women in crisis pregnancies by takin their babys from them - forcing them to engage in the pain of adoption because you want children. . . you hypocrites . . ." and on and on ad nauseam.*

Because this whole thing is not about the babies, but about the need to be right. Pro-aborts simply have no other credible arguments, so they have to indulge in ad hominem arguments against us.

And yes, by all means ask them if THEY are so much for choice, would adopt all the babies of women who choose not to abort?

*All mis-spellings and grammatical mistakes here are meant to reflect the OP's own.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at July 24, 2010 11:00 AM


Ever hear that there are more people on waiting lists to adopt
than the 1.5 babies killed in the US annually? Over 2 million parents are awaiting a precious baby to bless their family.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_34.asp

Posted by: Leslie Hanks at July 24, 2010 11:10 AM


"Because this whole thing is not about the babies, but about the need to be right."

I know Lori you don't have the NEED to be right but your above statement IS right.

Posted by: Praxedes at July 24, 2010 11:56 AM


It is ironic that pro-aborts would say such a thing, since they tend to be against adoption. This is especially true of the hard core pro-aborts. They do everything they can to discourage women from choosing it. I wish I had some way to connect them to the anti-adoption activist groups. These groups want to put adoption out of business. Id like to put them out of business.

Posted by: Ceecee at July 24, 2010 12:17 PM


"Because this whole thing is not about the babies, but about the need to be right."

I know Lori you don't have the NEED to be right but your above statement IS right.
Posted by: Praxedes at July 24, 2010 11:56 AM

Thanks Praxedes!

Posted by: Lori Pieper at July 24, 2010 1:13 PM


Oh, send them over and we'll take all that fit into the house! The wife and I have three of our own, two autistic boys aged 6 & 5 and their three year old sister. We had to stop there because childbearing was tearing the wife up (Anyone who says it's never a health problem for a woman can talk to her. Nice knowing ya.)

We can't adopt because agencies take one look and send us on our way. That might be because I'm 57 yrs. old (the wife is 35). Money is also tight, so foreign adoptions are unlikely.

But we love our kids and will love any more that God sends.

So the nitwit wants to know where prolifers are who will adopt? Right here baby, right here!

Posted by: Subvet at July 24, 2010 1:17 PM


Subvet, we're right there with you!

Thankfully, we're actually on the too young side of adoption right now, so there is hope for the future!

Posted by: Lauren at July 24, 2010 1:36 PM


Wait a minute. Abortion was supposed to guarantee that every child would be wanted. So what's the issue here? Also, no child would be born addicted, every child would be perfect and certainly planned.
I still remember the old bumper sticker.

Every child a wanted child
Support Abortion Reform

So logic only dictates that 37 years of legal abortion means we have no unwanted children.

Perhaps our response to this PC red herring should be "but, but, but...didn't you promise..?

Posted by: Mary at July 24, 2010 9:23 AM

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

Mary,

After almost four decades of elective abortion on demand and in many cases funded by YOUR money [which was confiscated by the federal government under force of law] performed on minor daughters without the parents consent or even knowledge, pretty much only the 'wanted' children survive.

The 'dead babies r us' mob see to it that the un- wanted children of the [ethnic minorities and the poor] die very young.

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in

populations that we don't want to have too many of." [the un-wanted children]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

New York Times online magazine, published Sunday, July 7, 2009

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 24, 2010 1:37 PM


I see a lot of people who are angry about the fact that there are a lot of people waiting to adopt, but too many hoops to jump through to complete the process.

How can we take this anger, and make adoption an easier and cheaper process, without weakening the safety checks to make sure children go to good homes?

Posted by: KushielsMoon at July 24, 2010 1:44 PM


"How can we take this anger, and make adoption an easier and cheaper process, without weakening the safety checks to make sure children go to good homes?"

Posted by: KushielsMoon at July 24, 2010 1:44 PM

Ask them one question:

Are you opposed to legal abortion? If they state yes, allow the adoption.

Posted by: Praxedes at July 24, 2010 2:00 PM


this persons email "diatribe" is just another way for them to excuse the act of abortion. Do you know how HARD it IS to adopt a baby in the world today? My sister in law has been waiting for about 2 years, I kid you not. Why??? IF a baby can't be adopted, then just kill it?? what a sick world we live in. Sounds like this person that wrote the email has some sort of guilt in their conscience.....otherwise they wouldn't sound so hostile and bitter.

Posted by: nicole at July 24, 2010 2:08 PM


My sister is in the same boat in Canada. Waiting to adopt. In the province in which my sister lives there are not private adoption agencies...not allowed. So where she lives you can abort your baby, the government will pay for it, no problem, no questions asked but if you want to adopt or put your baby up for adoption...well good luck and don't bother us.

Kushielsmoon, I don't know what the answer is. there do need to be checks, for example to make sure a child sexual predator isn't trying to adopt so he can have his own little sex slave but I think the place to start is the money. It is so wildly expensive. If you don't have 30-40 grand at your disposal you're on your own. If I hadn't been abe to conceive I wouldn't be able to be a mom because I don't have that kind of money! Fostering is heartbreaking. I had a church friend who fostered but quit becauase she and her husband couldn't handle the heartache of losing child after child. The foster care system is not healthy for children emotionally. Too much moving from family to family. The foster care system should stive more to find PERMANENT homes and families for these precious kids.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 24, 2010 3:00 PM


"So any person who knows what is right to do but does not do it, to him it is sin."

It is written somewhere else that 'whatever is not of faith is sin'.

Whether we do or don't do is between us and our conscience and Holy Spirit.

Sometime's God says to me to do, while, at the same time, to another HE might be saying 'do not do'.

If either of us chose NOT to acknowledge what God was saying to us it would be sin to us individually.

I am sure there are many peole whom God has instructed to adopt a child. I am just as certain there are many people God has NOT instructed to adopt a child or maybe even GOD said specifically, "Do NOT adopt a child!"

Bottom line: Do not let the 'dead babies r crowd' and/or the scribes/pharisees attempt to lay a quilt trip on you because you are not conforming to these blind guides and whitewashed tombs convoluted construct of what it means to be a son of God.

The closest these brood of vipers can get to an understanding of God is an existence of legalistic religion which produces only death.

They have no right, no authority, no power to judge what you do or don't do in regard to GOD.

Only Father, Son and Holy Spirit and members of the body of Christ are delegated that authority and responsibility.

How many children did Jesus adopt in his 32 years on the planet?

How many orphanages did HE build?

How many unwed mothers did HE provide for?

Other than the two accounts of miraculous feeding of the thouands how many meals on wheels did Jesus deliver?

How many sick people did not get healed?

How many spiritually oppressed people did not get delivered?

If GOD instructs you do the impossible, then HE will give you both the faith and the grace to fulfilf HIS commandment.

Faith is simply hearing and obeying what GOD has told you to do.

Grace is the power to do what you cannot do without grace.

Now obviously GOD is telling some of HIS people to build orphanages, to adopt, to build hospitals, to pray for the sick and those oppressed of the devil, to feed the hungry, clohte the naked and visit those sick and imprison.

When Caiaphas and Herrod get up in your grill and accuse you of not doing enough or not doing it right, remind them they have some footwashing of their own to do before they even begin to think about instructing you in the way of righteousness.

HOLY SPIRIT will convict us of sin and instruct us in righteousness.


Posted by: yor bro ken at July 24, 2010 3:53 PM


mmhhmmm isn't that why CPC's exist?
To help pay for women's medical bills, and if they choose find a suitable family to adopt the baby?

Posted by: Maria at July 24, 2010 4:17 PM


Um NO! CPC's do not help anyone except the Anti-choice movement. They do not help women by misinforming and pushing them into a rash decision which will ACTULLY affect the rest of their lives. You want to talk about regret… how about the mother whose baby was born addicted to meth and under developed, or the mother who can’t afford to feed another child and has to decide which child to give up for adoption… That’s not a mother regretting abortion, that’s a mother and child regretting birth… I would rather see a thousand regretted abortions than 20 regretted births!

What is their weapon of choice for bullying these poor girls? Projected Guilt based on a heavily flawed moral code that their own leaders don’t even follow! In their view, if you abort your pregnancy you’re a whore but if you keep it you’re a mother..... It's the same guilt the religious powers have been cramming down our throats since before that Jesus guy "who never actually existed" was supposedly killed by Jews...

You know it says in the bible that god gave man free will to CHOOSE if they wanted to believe or not. Too bad he didn’t give free will to fetuses huh? You would think he would have seen this coming…..

Posted by: Biggz at July 24, 2010 4:49 PM


But Maria, CPC's "LIE" to women!

Ugh. The pro-abort community just seems more and more insane. They have no valid arguments, just strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. They have no actual facts to support their so-called "arguments," and they are technologically and scientifically ignorant. Just slogans and excuses, that's all they have.

Posted by: MaryLee at July 24, 2010 4:51 PM


Biggz, you've just proved my point. No actual valid arguments, no real proof. Just a bunch of whining and name-calling.

CPCs exist to help women. Period. CPCs do not make women feel guilty--it is not "anti-choice" to provide women with ACTUAL CHOICES beyond abortion. You would think that the pro-abortion community would be happy that CPCs take the cast-offs, the women who don't want to hand over their money to kill their child. But nope, pro-abortion clinics LIE to women, they lie about biology, they lie about the risks, they lie about everything, all in the name of "CHOICE."

We have the ability to choose things. We do not have the RIGHT to choose everything. Wake up, Biggz.

Posted by: MaryLee at July 24, 2010 4:55 PM


Adopt them. Then raise them to be pro-life!

Posted by: Stephen at July 24, 2010 5:32 PM


Posted by: Biggz at July 24, 2010 4:49 PM

Troll!

No proof, no respect, no valid arguments, just a series of whining, name-calling and spitting out hatred.

Kind of sorry for this person, it must be so hard to live so full of hatred and resentment.

On the other hand, just shows how desperate the pro-aborts are, I think they do have a feeling they're losing, so at least they try to shout as loud as they can to make themselves believe they are right. Truth cannot be silenced though. Not by some screaming pro-abort anyway.

Posted by: Vita at July 24, 2010 6:13 PM


So abortion should be banned because there are lots of childless couples who need babies? All right! Way to go! Women as incubators - don't ya just love it!!?? But here's how you can decrease abortion before the ban - which will only take place in the bible belt whereas smart, liberal states will continue to "kill the baybees." Calculate the amount of money it takes to raise a child and offer that to a woman who is thinking of killing her baybee. That sure could change the equation and just think how much scarole that you're saving the taxpayer cuz with that kind of dough, mommy won't be able to apply for welfare. Money for fetuses (whoops pre born human beings) sure sounds like a winning deal to me.

And re the "personhood" of a fetus. You do realize that neither science nor religion agrees on when personhood (ensoulment) begins and that's why there's no universal acceptance of a newly fertilized egg being a human - except for evangelical Christians and the Roman Catholic Church. But good luck with your "personhood" legislative agenda - so far it's failed. A fetus is no more a "person" than my hemorrhoid. Oh, I know, I'm gonna burn in hell.... Ta, off to bake some fetus cookies. Yumm.... Hmmm, maybe I should stop "contracepting" (LOL!) and get myself a fetus so I can help some poor, childless couple. As Christian "Ken" says - ya gotta have faith! Ka-ching!

Posted by: Jenna at July 24, 2010 6:14 PM


Actually your argument does not hold water and this whole thread proves it. I'm pretty curtain that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body in America.

As for choices, PP give's adoption referrals to anyone who even hints they might want to go down that road... Do CPC's give out abortion referrals if asked to? NO! and therein lies the hypocrisy and misinformation. At PP you are given all choices regardless of personal beliefs by the staff. CPC's are a political tool who only tells women the options THEY believe are appropriate and leave the rest out. That's not only wrong but its illegal and here an exclusive for all you anti-choice people...

Investigations into the disinformation going on in CPC's has already been done. I watched a presentation in a room full of legislators with Lila Rose style “minus the jump editing" videos of 10 different girls going into different CPC's across my state and all the selective information they were given. Mark my words the healthcare reform will kill CPC's.

Q. When was the last time you went into a PP? or do you just believe everything you read on the internet?

It’s very simple, with abortion legal fetuses do die during the procedure, with abortion illegal mothers and fetuses die like in PA and that’s even sadder because those women have families waiting for them to come home... maybe even other children…

Posted by: Biggz at July 24, 2010 6:21 PM


Posted by: Biggz at July 24, 2010 6:21 PM

Well said. "Pro-lifers" worship the fetus. The women carrying the fetus are expendable, collateral damage. If they die in an illegal abortion it's God's will and God's just punishment on a woman who defies God's will that she be a silent and happy producer of fetuses for God. It's a strange world view that comes out of a very patriarchal and misogynistic culture and one that is very threatened by the reproductive independence represented by the availability of abortion and birth control which get in the way of the biblical view of women as subservient handmaidens. With abortion and contraception, women can now be fully autonomous and that's anathema for this crowd. It's an interesting world view and one that is probably generating countless term papers!

Posted by: Jenna at July 24, 2010 6:48 PM


Live Action's answer...

Answering: "If you don't adopt, you can't be pro-life"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kPkQqgkMevY

Posted by: Live Action at July 24, 2010 7:18 PM


Jenna and Biggz, again, you have no facts, no logic, nothing to back up your "arguments," which aren't arguments at all, but, again, straw man arguments, hypotheticals, and ad hominem attacks. I'm not religious. I support gay rights. I'm a pescatarian (doctor ordered me to eat fish)....As far as my experience goes, I was once pro-abortion like you. I know what PP is all about. I know what CPCs are all about.

But please, please be honest about abortion. Most women have abortions because they are told it is their "best" choice. Women are hurt from abortion. Pro-life women care about the unborn, yes....AND we care about women, far more than pro-aborts care about women. We want to help women. The unborn aren't enemies. Pregnancy is not a disease. And women DIE--they are DYING--from legal abortions. Abortion exploits and hurts women. Abortion teaches women to kill in order to get what they want. Abortion is destructive, selfish, and unnecessary.

Your hypothetical arguments are invalid, and inaccurate. The truth is, the unborn are people. A two year old isn't less a person than a 20 year old. And the unborn's right to live trumps all. We do not have the right to kill any human being based on whether or not their existence is "convenient" for us.

I'm a woman. I know how amazing women can be, when they stop telling women to kill their children for the sake of "liberty." It's not true liberty, to kill your child. That isn't a right, it's a disgrace.

Posted by: MaryLee at July 24, 2010 7:45 PM


Biggz... nope. Women don't have a right to do whatever they want with their own bodies in America. Can't use your body for prostitution and can't use your body to smoke crack....etc...

Please stop going down these ridiculous rabbit trails. you can't come up with any valid argument in support for abortion so you make this utterly ridiculous statements. You'd rather have a thousand dead babies and grief-stricken women than 20 living babies and mournful moms? Wow. You're a real peach. What a compassionate human being you are Biggz. Scares me that there are such cold-hearted people out there.

Jenna...can't answer anything you posted because I skipped over you. your posts are the regular wah wah wah whining of pro-aborts. I started reading and just lost interest.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 24, 2010 8:04 PM


First, we must stop letting anti-lifers frame the debate. Too long we have played the "gentlemen" and allowed them to pitch and we just swing at what they give us. We need to reclaim the conversation by setting the tone.

The issue is still whether or not the unborn is a human person. The question about "adoption" is just another "straw man" argument to distract from the humanity of the child and must be exposed as such. When you do so, don't worry about "hurting their feelings". Half the time in these debates, you aren't speaking so much to the opponents as you are to those listening in. What most likely will happen is that the pro-aborts will be exposed as fools. So be it.

Jill, you had it right the first time. Let's say that no one will "adopt" them (although plenty of pro-lifers will, that's beside the point). Does that fact give license to murder these people? NO. End of discussion.

Posted by: Janet Baker at July 24, 2010 8:07 PM


While it doesn't change the validity of any argument for abortion, the statement that there are lists of parents waiting for children they can't find is not completely truthful. Those parents are waiting for child/baby that meets their definition of acceptable. There are thousands of children completely free (as in untethered from their biological parents) & ready for adoption through a process that is virtually FREE in most states and no more time consuming than prenatal care. www.adoptuskids.org Over 2000 children leave the foster care system every year with NO FAMILY even though they could have been adopted because they didn't fit someone's (or anyone's) definition of a wanted child (excellent book chronicling life for some of these kids is 'On Their Own'.)

While not justifying abortion, that we as a country allow these children to remain family-less while only allowing infants to join our families is problematic. We expect mothers to welcome (or at least carry) pregnancies that are poorly timed or with infants that may have problems diagnosed prenatally but most (not all) adoptive parents are unwilling to look past the baggage that a not-quite-so-perfect child would bring to their own family.

So I do think the subject warrants some honest introspection apart from the excuses 'there are lists of people waiting for years to adopt' and 'it's so expensive.'

Posted by: shirley at July 24, 2010 8:40 PM


My sister is pro-abortion. She is a loony leftie. And when she found out her son has down syndrome, she chose life.
The irony is that if the Obamacare she so adamantly supports will eventually result is forced abortion of imperfect babies in the name of saving taxpayer money. After all, the pro-abortion lobby already advocates this. And since Conor is now alive he will be subject "really late term abortion" by withholding life saving medical treatment.

Posted by: fishydude at July 24, 2010 8:46 PM


Mary,
Unfortunately you are correct in pointing out the fact that abortion allows people to practice eugenics. One statistics say 90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted. However, and thank the Lord, there are many babies that are born with disabilities still. I just heard about one with spina bifida who is waiting adoption (http://fur.ly/1905 Please spread the word). Most disabilities today include autism spectrum disorder, mental retardation and cerebral palsy. For any woman with a baby with potential of being a child with special needs out there, don't abort. We can help you find a forever family for that child! :)

Posted by: Ed at July 24, 2010 9:52 PM


Jenna,

Don't forget the Eastern Catholic Churches! They also teach and believe, in communion with the Holy See, that life begins at conception (as do, incidentally, these embryology textbooks).

Posted by: JoAnna at July 24, 2010 9:55 PM


Shirley,
You are correct. A lot of people only want the perfect adoption story. But there are many children with messy lives in need of courageous people who are willing go through a mess in order to love an unloved child. Although I don't agree with the pro-abortion person in the e-mail I must say that, as a Christian, the church is in need of repentance. We are in love with the American dream, which is a driving force behind abortion, while God is in love with the dream that each life is. Unfortunately, as a whole body, we are NOT aligned with his heart. If we were more aligned, we would have more power to battle this evil in our society. We are in need of repentance. That is the truth.

Posted by: Ed at July 24, 2010 9:56 PM


Staying out of the arguments.

My wife and I pretty much made it financially possible for two babies to live who might otherwise very well have been aborted. We also donate heavily to the White Rose, various Texas Pro-Life groups that provide financial support, etc.

While the abortionists and their supporters demand to be funded by taxpayers, right-to-life obtains its money from hundreds of thousands of donors. It just isn't true that we don't support mothers who choose life!

Posted by: Bill at July 24, 2010 10:01 PM


Praxedes - I think that would make adoption worse, not better. Most Americans support at least some form of legal abortion. You would be restricting the possible parents to a tiny portion of the country, and I don't think that's a good idea.

Sydney M. - I've heard that money is a big problem. Some people have mentioned that you have to have a large amount in a savings fund to be allowed to adopt (on top of all the fees to complete the adoption!).


Does anyone have contacts with law makers, or any groups who help write/sponsor laws? Perhaps we could get someone to figure out how much money the average parent has at the time of their children's birth, and then make a law saying that adoption agencies can't require you to have more than that average?

MaryLee, I see you responding to Biggz and Jenna and claiming they only have strawman attacks. Perhaps you could help our discussion here about how to improve adoption?

Posted by: KushielsMoon at July 24, 2010 10:03 PM


Are prolifers going to adopt all the unwanted kids?

The short answer is yes.

The reason kids don't get adopted is basically government red tape. There are plenty of families waiting to adopt. The government and its myriad agencies stand in the way. There are even enough homes for the handicapped kids.

Posted by: hippie at July 24, 2010 10:03 PM


hippie, k-moon - those are really just myths. 'Kids' are easy easy easy to adopt. Again, I would refer to www.adoptuskids.org 123,000 children currently awaiting adoption - kids who are already freed from their biological parents. Adopting through the foster system is cheap (often free) and usually does not require any more time than someone would spend going to prenatal visits and on labor and delivery (usually 60 - 120 hours depending on the state). Waht you guys are referring to is adopting 'babies.' So please refer to it as such - if someone wants a child they are out there waiting. And waiting. And waiting. If you insist on an infant then there is a wait and a price.

Again, I don't offer this as an excuse for abortion, but it is untrue say that 'kids' aren't available for adoption. Only those who limit what they will accept into their family need to wait.

Posted by: shirley at July 24, 2010 10:14 PM


Let's turn the table on these geniuses:

If the right to choose to abort is fundamental, why isn't every pro choice-lovin' feminist paying for every abortion in the country?

How many abortions have YOU paid for lately? One? Ten? Why so few? Why don't you do the taxpayers a favor and pay for all the abortions yourselves so that Democrats for Life can breathe a collective sigh of relief that they're now off the hook for taxpayer-funded abortions?

To quote a certain e-mailer: Since you're so...well, "holy" is not exactly the right choice of words here...I'll leave the adjective up to you.

Posted by: carder at July 24, 2010 11:13 PM


I think the question has already been well answered...

But I just wanted to add that it is equally important for we pro-lifers to sign up as foster parents in our local jurisdictions. Though the waiting list to adopt infants and young children is long, there are too many older kids waiting in foster care for a family to call their own. Of course, many of these children are not yet adoptable but that doesn't mean they shouldn't enjoy living in a household where they are considered blood regardless of their legal status.

I'm not at all trying to support the ridiculous argument that pro-lifers aren't willing to adopt or that they even should be required to adopt to avoid being hypocrites... but we can push ourselves to think outside the box a bit regarding the way we can embrace the value of each and every life.

Posted by: Laurie at July 24, 2010 11:15 PM


Shirley, do NOT think that it is not expensive or time consuming to adopt from foster care. That is our heart's desire... and we have months of classes to take, we have to pay to have a home study done, and then we have to answer question after question about why a couple with seven children would want to adopt more!

I do think more people need to know how precious these children are. I'm a pediatric RN, hubby is an EMT, we live literally 2 minutes from the closest hospital in case of an emergency (and I work there)... we WANT to adopt children with medical needs and give them the best life possible. God has given us these skills and these blessings and we honestly believe that it is our calling to do this. Just try to get it done, though... easier said than done. So many of these kids have case workers who want them to be an only child. I'm sorry, but I think that for a child who has medical issues that may continue throughout adulthood, having a large number of siblings who will be there long after my husband and I have gone on to heaven would be a blessing!

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 24, 2010 11:52 PM


Posted by: carder at July 24, 2010 11:13 PM

AMEN Carder!

Posted by: Praxedes at July 25, 2010 2:11 AM


In North Carolina, adoption law does not include an age limit. However, my sister-in-law who is a lawyer said it is nearly impossible to adopt in the US if one parent is over 40. Forget it if both are. It doesn't matter if the child they wish to adopt is the same age as children they already have or is a teenager. It doesn't matter that couple over 40 are more stable, and are more likely to have higher incomes. That is why older couples have to resort to foreign adoption.
I make about 3X (6 figures) what I made when I was 35. I am now 49. 2 kids, 13 and 14. We have a 4 bedroom home that could easily accommodate 2 siblings in need of a permanent home. Our son and daughter would love to share their home with a new brother and sister.
But the system will not allow us to.

Posted by: fishydude at July 25, 2010 8:29 AM


Shirley,

The kids waiting and waiting are very old, many are practically adults. They have been through a lot by the time the government finally releases them for adoption. So yes, all available babies are adopted.

Posted by: hippie at July 25, 2010 8:41 AM


"So many of these kids have case workers who want them to be an only child. I'm sorry, but I think that for a child who has medical issues that may continue throughout adulthood, having a large number of siblings who will be there long after my husband and I have gone on to heaven would be a blessing!"

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 24, 2010 11:52 PM

It seems to me that yours would be the ideal family situation for adoption. I can't understand why there is so much red tape. I'll keep you in my prayers as you try to adopt a special needs child. God bless.

Posted by: Janet at July 25, 2010 10:32 AM


Posted by: Jenna at July 24, 2010 6:14 PM


"You do realize that neither science nor religion agrees on when personhood (ensoulment) begins and that's why there's no universal acceptance of a newly fertilized egg being a human - except for evangelical Christians and the Roman Catholic Church."

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

Jenna,

You do realize 'there is no universal acceptance' of ANYTHING.

You do realize that being the majority does quarantee one is corect in her/his opinions anymore than being in the minority is proof that one is wrong.

You do reaize that one of the evolutionary functions of the female of the species is to gestate young in order that the species will be perpetuated.

In that since woman are 'incubators'.

You do realize that 'ensoulment' is a 'religious concept' and does not fall under the purview of 'science'.

Jenna,

When your mother was pregnant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 25, 2010 11:03 AM


Jenna,

Just because a person believes in 'GOD' does not render them incapable of rational thought.

Jewish and Christian scientists have made significant contributions to the advance of science. Faith is not inherently incompatable with logic and reason.

Ironically some of the most dogmatic and intollerant people I have encountered and/or read about are atheistic humanists.

You are an excellent example of that kind of person.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 25, 2010 11:12 AM


Good grief! The misspellings in 'jg's' e-mail! If you're trying to be taken seriously, learn to SPELL, 'jg'.

'Biggz'...unbelievable. You STILL spout that OLD 'Feminist propaganda' "A woman can do whatever she wants with HER body"...and yet you accuse US of just repeating whatever we read on the internet???

I was a volunteer in a CPC. We gave out maternity/baby clothes, diapers, formula, baby furniture, car seats. We referred women to OB/GYNs, and pediatricians, we TOOK THE WOMEN to those appointments. We helped women find JOBS.As for being inside a "Planned Parenthood", and what THEY actually do "for women"....you should talk to my niece who had an abortion in one. She'll tell you what "help" they offered her..ummm..NONE. With PP it's "You wanna abort? Okie-dokie. Hand over your money and hop up on the table!"

Posted by: Pamela at July 25, 2010 11:52 AM


I don't agree with the way that the emailer to Jill phrased it - he/she left a lot of logical voids there that others have rightfully picked apart. I will agree with an earlier poster who said it is a side issue - if abortion is immoral, than things like that don't matter.

I will throw out a one-off though that I've noticed that seems to be a frustration and my guess is, the emailer's interests were peaked by.

A quick glance of the abortion battle finds a weird little world of hardcore pro-lifers and hardcore pro-choicers that seems to be against each other and against each others organizations more than they are for any sort of right or life. Now I know, people can give countless stories of things they have done and are doing - I'm just saying from a perception standpoint, if a person went to ten blogs on each side and threw out words they thought of, I doubt love, grace, support, kindness - any of those would be listed.

Pro-lifers seem to be against Planned Parenthood and highly in favor of lawsuits and making the other side look bad (I'm thinking back to a guy being sprayed by water and vinegar in california and wanting to sue - and I'm looking at this STUPID Jimmy Kimmel situation as well). Pro Choicers are in favor of really only one choice. Both sides see each other as less than human and babies and pregnant women just seem to be pawns in the whole game.

So while I don't agree with the direction the emailer put it - I'd phrase it like this:

- How does threatening lawsuits and fighting with people like Jimmy Kimmel help pregnant women or the future of an unborn child?

Would like an honest conversation on this - I'm pro-life - but not a fan of the movement (if that makes sense).

Posted by: Ex-GOP Voter at July 25, 2010 11:59 AM


I guess the solution to every pro-abort's problem, financial, social, physical, psychological, etc. is to murder it?

Real, real smart.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at July 25, 2010 12:34 PM


Faith is not inherently incompatable with logic and reason.

Ironically some of the most dogmatic and intollerant people I have encountered and/or read about are atheistic humanists.

You are an excellent example of that kind of person.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 25, 2010 11:12 AM

The thing is the post modernist rejects reason.

Reason does not convince them.

They are indoctrinated with a set of beliefs which are not based in reality. They are totally closed minded, moved neither by logic nor data. They are totally captive to the zeitgeist of group think. There are no skeptics or freethinkers among them. They operate within clearly defined limits. They utterly lack introspection or self criticism. Rational self evaluation is entirely alien to their worldview. The believe they are right because some of their ideas are currently fashionable.

Posted by: hippie at July 25, 2010 12:52 PM


"Biggz... nope. Women don't have a right to do whatever they want with their own bodies in America. Can't use your body for prostitution and can't use your body to smoke crack....etc"

Scuse me but if I want to work as a prostitute in Nevada, the law will allow me to do so. If I want to smoke cigarettes and drink myself to death, I can because booze and cigarettes are legal. If California legalizes pot, I will be able to smoke it there. If I want to have sex with one person or 100, I can. If I want to eat fatty foods and sugar laden pastries, I can. And if I want to kill my fetus or my appendix, I can cuz it's legal. Try another line of logic, Sydney.

"When your mother was pregnant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus"

She was pregnant with a homo sapiens fetus which she was free to carry to term or not - not a homo sapiens "person." While your question seems clever it is really quite pointless and certainly not the "gotcha" that you think it is.

And speaking of which, how are those "personhood" initiatives working out for ya?

"I guess the solution to every pro-abort's problem, financial, social, physical, psychological, etc. is to murder it?"

Abortion, within state legal parameters, is legal, ergo it's not, according to the law, "murder." And if I want to "murder" my fetus, it ain't nobody's business but my own. And BTW, even if Roe is overturned, abortion will still be legal in those evil, librul states. LOL!

"You do reaize that one of the evolutionary functions of the female of the species is to gestate young in order that the species will be perpetuated."

And you do realize that gestation is up to the individual woman. Forced gestation is as disrespectful of women as is forced abortion. But yeah, let's force all women to produce at least one baybee for the fatherland - and that includes nuns, too!

Posted by: Jenna at July 25, 2010 1:34 PM


No Jenna. You should try another line of logic. you may be able to be a hooker in SOME places but not everywhere in the US. And maybe you can smoke cigarettes but you can't smoke crack...so much for your argument that its your body and you can do whatever you want. Law says otherwise doesn't it?

And the point of the abortion debate is that you are not just deciding what you want to do with YOUR body. It is basic biological fact that a pregnant woman has another body inside hers. I can attest to that as I have a son. When I was pregnant with him there was a penis in my womb. It wasn't MY penis...it was my son's. His feet were in my womb, his hands, his penis, his head...HIS BODY. If you try to deny this as truth Jenna I will KNOW you are nuts. Its truth, its medical fact...there is no denying this. So try to reframe your argument.

I as a woman don't very much care what other women do to THEIR bodies. For example I think breast implants are stupid and I would never get them but I think other women should have that right to get them for their bodies if they want them. I don't begrudge other women the right to control their bodies. I do begrudge them when they try to have their children's bodies chopped into pieces and suctioned out of their wombs.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 25, 2010 1:43 PM


Jenna,
There's no such thing as forced gestation. Pregnancy is a natural maturation process of a human life in the womb. The "force" comes through abortion/killing. Abortion is not a natural process!

Posted by: Janet at July 25, 2010 1:49 PM


Kushie, the point is that pro-aborts use the adoption argument to deflect from the actual issue, which is, WHAT IS ABORTION? Is it the killing of a human being? It's obviously the killing of a person, and since no woman has the right to destroy the body of another in the name of "choice," the "adoption" argument is neither here nor there. I know pro-life couples who have adopted. My husband and I would like to adopt once we get settled. But whether or not pro-lifers adopt all so-called "unwanted" babies doesn't give anyone the right to abortion.

Posted by: MaryLee at July 25, 2010 1:51 PM


"They are indoctrinated with a set of beliefs which are not based in reality. They are totally closed minded, moved neither by logic nor data. They are totally captive to the zeitgeist of group think. There are no skeptics or freethinkers among them. They operate within clearly defined limits. They utterly lack introspection or self criticism..."

Wow. Sounds like Roman Catholics who base their decisions on what "holy father"s says - no freethinking there. Sounds like creationist Christians who believe that the earth was created in 6 days because the bible says so - no freethinking there. And belief in a "virgin birth" and Trinity and resurrected god - talk about beliefs not set in reality!

"There's no such thing as forced gestation"

If women are denied their right to an abortion, that's forced gestation. Of course, they could try a back alley termination - not that you care about that...

"Abortion is not a natural process!"

The same could be said for any surgical procedure including breast inhancements, vasectomies, and tubals. All which of which are the choices of those who wish to have the procedures. Not anybody else's. The same holds true for abortion.

"I do begrudge them when they try to have their children's bodies chopped into pieces and suctioned out of their wombs"

Ergo - your belief system should override my right to bodily autonomy. If you want to have children, that's your business and your right. You do not, however, have the right to impose your belief system onto what I do with my body. And love the graphic and bogus "little bodies being chopped up" metaphor. It's so scaaaaary. but not medically accurate. Does make for great anti-choice propaganda though.

Posted by: Jenna at July 25, 2010 2:06 PM


Jenna...do you think its okay for a man to use his body to rape a woman? If you are against rape then what a hypocrite you are! You can't allow YOUR belief system to override a man's bodily autonomy!

And ERGO, the child, Jenna...the one you keep ignoring in the abortion equation...also has a body and a right to his or her own bodily autonomy.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 25, 2010 2:09 PM


I find it very useful to answer the question honestly: no. But to remind them that it is pro life that has been active in getting the Pregnant Woman Support Act in the new health care bill, as well as broadly supporting the idea that every child should have health insurance as a government guarantee.

Once I answer the question by saying that I would be - and, indeed, I was - ready to be responsible for any and all children I sire, I ask them if they are going to spoon feed all the children with severe cerebral palsy caused only by their mother's previous abortion and the preterm birth it causes to future pregnancies.

Left column below:

http://www.uvalies.org/birthdefects.html

Posted by: Sean at July 25, 2010 2:19 PM


I hate it when people say crap like that in the email.

I DID try to help a woman who couldn't take care of the baby she was pregnant with. At the time I couldn't take the baby because I had a newborn myself, but I tried. I offered her options and everything I could, offerred to help as much as I was able, she STILL aborted the baby. (I mourned that child, btw. I still think about that baby. The woman in question has mental issues that would prevent her from truly caring for the child; and I've forgiven her, but I still feel a pain in my heart whenever I think of that child).

Even if a person was willing to take a baby in danger of abortion that doesn't mean the woman in question wouldn't still abort that baby.

There's couples out there who would take those babies, but it doesn't always work that way.

It's a 2 way street...the pregnant woman in question has to be willing to put her baby up for adoption and if she's not, then no amount of numbers of couples who would LOVE to love that child and raise that child as their own would change their minds. (I've met women who said they wouldn't want to go through pregnancy and then put the baby up for adoption, yes, I've talked to women who have said that--what do we do about THAT, Mr./Miss JG emailer since you know so much?

Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 25, 2010 2:20 PM


Well?

How many abortions have you paid for, Jenna, Biggz?

We want to be lectured.

Posted by: carder at July 25, 2010 2:42 PM


You do not, however, have the right to impose your belief system onto what I do with my body. Posted by: Jenna at July 25, 2010 2:06 PM

Yes, I do. If you decide you want to commit suicide, I believe that intervention to save your life is the morally correct thing to do. And the government supports me in this. The law permits me to physically restrain you and provides me with mechanisms to involuntarily detain you despite your wishes to carry out a self-injurious act. This is one of numerous instances in which the law restricts your "right" to body autonomy.

Posted by: Fed Up at July 25, 2010 2:55 PM


Good one Fed up! I didn't even think of that example! Jenna's arguments just don't hold water but I'm interested to see what she spews now.

the thing is they keep arguing bodily autonomy. But no one is trying to stop women from controlling their bodies. They ignor the whole reason we are against abortion. They ignore the uborn child. But that is the cruxt of our position so to ignore that is to be disingenous. Do what you will to YOUR body Jenna but we will not support you as you abort your CHILD'S BODY. Just like I can say do what you want in your own home as long as that doesn't include you beating and starving your children.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 25, 2010 2:59 PM


"Sounds like Roman Catholics who base their decisions on what "holy father"s says - no freethinking there."

Fail.

Louis Pasteur was Roman Catholic. His freethinking has saved millions of lives, probably more lives than any man who has ever lived. His experiment proving that life does not arise from nothing is still on display in a museum in France.

"Sounds like creationist Christians who believe that the earth was created in 6 days because the bible says so - no freethinking there."

Fail.

Again.

Isaac Newton was a creationist Christian. His laws of thermodynamics and formulation of the Calculus underly all the technology of the modern world. He was a radical freethinker.


Your comments just prove my point: Your thinking and conclusions are baseless and fact free.

Posted by: hippie at July 25, 2010 3:03 PM


You'll notice, here and elsewhere, that they will not even try to answer the question I posted above:

How many kids born preterm living a shortened life with developmental disabilities have your beloved abortions been worth?

How many will be worth it as we go forward from here?

Posted by: Sean at July 25, 2010 3:14 PM



How many kids born preterm living a shortened life with developmental disabilities have your beloved abortions been worth?

How many will be worth it as we go forward from here?

Posted by: Sean at July 25, 2010 3:14 PM


The short answer is that they don't know, don't want to know and don't care.

Just like they don't know math/science, don't want to know it, and don't care what truths it reveals.

They don't know the eastern nor western ancient, medieval or modern philosophers whether religious or secular. In short, they know almost nothing. Their entire education is political indoctrination designed to elicit the emotional responses they exhibit.

They neither seek nor accept truth.

Posted by: hippie at July 25, 2010 3:25 PM


"And BTW, even if Roe is overturned, abortion will still be legal in those evil, librul states."

It wasn't too long ago that proaborts were saying "Roe will never be overturned. . . .

Go! Go!! Go!!! Go!!!!

Posted by: Praxedes at July 25, 2010 3:53 PM


I can't adopt every child that could face abortion simply because it is impossible for me to do. I do not have the financial resources to raise 100,000 children per year.

The fact that I can not do the impossible at the behest of the Pro-Choice movement does not invalidate my Pro-Life views.

Posted by: Marc at July 25, 2010 4:20 PM


I believe this type of fallacy is called "tu quoque"

Posted by: Marc at July 25, 2010 4:28 PM


"Sounds like Roman Catholics who base their decisions on what "holy father"s says - no freethinking there."

Oh, I love these ignorant generalizations.

And what does your typical "freethinking" atheist base their derogatory statements about the Church on? Do they put in the work to learn what the Church actually teaches and the actual reason behind the teachings? Do they learn the Catechism, read works from great Catholic Theologians, saints, philosophers, and apologists?

Typically, no. They simply repeat what they are told on their little atheist blogs or whatever outlet they use. Not a whole lot of "free thinking" going on there. The Dawkins, Hitchens, PZ Myers crowd chatter back and forth repeating the same old ignorance. Often they go after easy targets in the form of extreme fundamentalists or people who simply don't know how to defend their faith. They tear these easy targets apart on their little angry blogs and then somehow come to the conclusion that all religion is irrational.

They put atheistic spin on Church related news, they distort actual teaching and replace it with something that IS irrational and ridiculous. Then all the little Dawkins, Myers wannabes simply repeat what was said without an ounce of intellectual honesty or critical thinking. How very "free thinking".

My Catholic faith properly understood.. meaning I have studied Theology, Philosophy, Church history etc.. is completely rational..completely reasonable.

The distorted version of my faith being bantered around on atheist blogs IS completely irrational and unreasonable. It's not the same faith. Not even close. Keep beating down those straw men.


Posted by: psalm at July 25, 2010 4:46 PM


I typically don't respond to the ignorant anti-Catholic/Christian remarks made on here but since you guy and gals have pretty much handled the "pro-choice" arguments on this thread....ehh I let off some steam.

Back to the main topic.

Posted by: psalm at July 25, 2010 4:58 PM


The Planned Parenthood of Fresno California in the 1980's was horrible. I talked to them on the phone about a pregnancy test, and made the mistake of telling them I did NOT want an abortion. I also said it was very important that the people I lived with not know about it, because I was afraid they would brow beat me into an unwanted abortion.
They adamently refused to give me any confidentiality rights. The results of my pregnancy test had to be called home, and if I weasn't there when the call came in, they would leave a message. Totally unacceptable. But they refused to do it any other way. No, I couldn't come back later in the day to find out the results. It had to be called home, and the message given to whoever answered the phone. That was their policy and it was final.

I was in my mid twenties. This is the same organization that gives secret abortions to minors without their parents knowledge, and without reporting child sex abuse cases to authorities.

I can still remember the PP staffer on the phone begging me not to hang up when I realized I was going to be trapped into an unwanted abortion if I went there. I hung up in disgust at the lack of confidentiality rights.

I wish I could give a great testamony of having a baby, but when I finally did get a pregnancy test, it came back negative. Meanwhile, I have never, since that time, contacted a PP for any reason. Neither did I ever again suggest anyone go to a PP clinic for services. (Although I sometimes had before that time.)

I do not have a good feeling about all the wonderful things Planned Parenthood does for women, because as far as my experience taught me, they don't do much for women. I think their goal is to scrape the woman out and that's it.
PP giving women options? Don't make me laugh. I don't think they wanted me to have any options.

Posted by: Ceecee at July 25, 2010 5:42 PM


"Yes, I do. If you decide you want to commit suicide, I believe that intervention to save your life is the morally correct thing to do. And the government supports me in this. The law permits me to physically restrain you and provides me with mechanisms to involuntarily detain you despite your wishes to carry out a self-injurious act"

You really should check your state's law regarding "restraint." I suspect that if you don't have an MSW or an advanced degree in psychology, then you don't have the legal right to restrain or otherwise "Pink Slip" somebody for their suicidal ideation. But let's take this one step further. In your ideal world, would you have the right to physically restrain me if I wanted to abort my fetus? Right now, it's called assault and battery and if you touched me, I'd press charges. But nice, in the happy babyland of the anti-choice movement, if a woman tried to go to Canada or wherever abortion was legal, then you could physically restrain her.

Nice.

Posted by: Jenna at July 25, 2010 5:49 PM


"They don't know the eastern nor western ancient, medieval or modern philosophers whether religious or secular"

Really, and your knowledge of curriculum at colleges attended by those who subscribe to the pro-choice argument is what? If they attend those politically incorrect liberal colleges that you hate so much, they have a strong background in non Western systems. BTW, what is the position of Reformed Judaism regarding abortion? What does my Talmud say? Let's hear your knowledge of philosophies other than your own - including the religious positions vis-a-vis abortion of pro-choice Protestant churches. Inform us, please! There's a reason why there are so few Reformed Jews in the anti-choice movement and why many are active with Planned Parenthood. Please do tell us why!

Posted by: Sabra at July 25, 2010 5:59 PM


Posted by: Ceecee at July 25, 2010 5:42 PM

I find your comments to be, frankly, a bit puzzling as there are strict federal and state mandates regarding patient confidentiality. Forgive me if I find your tale a bit strange especially with your reference to "secret abortion" and not reporting child abuse. If you are using the Lila Rose videos, the actual prosecution of non reporting of child abuse doesn't seem to exist. Minnesota recently decided not to pursue charges, based on Lila' videos, for lack of real evidence. Again, your tale is a bit questionable.

Posted by: Sabra at July 25, 2010 6:05 PM


I suspect that if you don't have an MSW or an advanced degree in psychology, then you don't have the legal right to restrain or otherwise "Pink Slip" somebody for their suicidal ideation"

Ideation is one thing. A person who is actively involved in a suicidal act or who's life is in immediate danger is another.

Do most police officers have a MSW or advanced degree in psych? Because they certainly can restrain a suicidal person.

I am an RN and I have restrained a suicidal person in the hospital. Are you telling me you think I committed a crime? Clarification please.

"You do not, however, have the right to impose your belief system onto what I do with my body"

And yet you have the right to impose your belief system onto the body of an unborn child? The self refuting nature of your logic has probably already been discussed somewhere on this thread but I figured I would also point it out.

Posted by: psalm at July 25, 2010 6:16 PM


I'm curious. For the "pro-choicers" on here.

Would you be willing to endure the same destruction of your body that is performed on the unborn during an abortion, and if not – why?”

Posted by: psalm at July 25, 2010 6:25 PM


Posted by: psalm at July 25, 2010 6:16 PM

This was the quote regarding restraint of those attempting to commit suicide. "Yes, I do. If you decide you want to commit suicide, I believe that intervention to save your life is the morally correct thing to do. And the government supports me in this."

As I noted, government is very specific about "restraint." The above poster seems to think that anybody is entitled to restrain somebody committing suicide and that isn't the case. As you are a nurse, you are, most likely, covered by state law if you are acting within a clinical capacity.

"And yet you have the right to impose your belief system onto the body of an unborn child?'

Right now, the law supports a woman's right to abortion bases on privacy. Right now, the law (and science and religion) doesn't agree that a fetus is "an unborn child." As a nurse, you should know that, according to biology, that which is within the womb is a fetus - not an unborn child. I certainly hope that you are not in public health as it's apparent that your personal religious beliefs (and that's what personhood is all about) might get in the way of a woman's health - as in her life is less important than that of the fetus. And "self refuting logic" - LOL - that's what the law stipulates. How are those "personhood" laws working out for ya?!

Posted by: Jenna at July 25, 2010 6:30 PM


And if a fetus is a "baby", why doesn't the Catholic Chuch baptize the "baby" in utero. If a miscarriage occurs, that which is flushed down the toilet doesn't get baptized. Does that mean that the "baby" isn't going straight to heaven, LOL!

Posted by: Jenna at July 25, 2010 6:36 PM


Hi Jenna.


"And "self refuting logic" - LOL - that's what the law stipulates. "

I'm not sure what syllogism you have in mind here. Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, you seem to be arguing:

1. If the law stipulates something, then there can be no self-refuting consequences to said law.
2. The law stipulates that abortions may be performed.
Therefore, abortion can not have any self refuting consequences.

I agree with the minor premise, but I can see no reason to hold to the major premise. In fact, the major seems to be patently false. How do you defend the major? Or do you have a different syllogism in mind?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at July 25, 2010 6:38 PM


"Does that mean that the "baby" isn't going straight to heaven, LOL! "

Jenna,

Where does the Catholic Church teach that if you are not baptized, then you don't go straight to heaven?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at July 25, 2010 6:41 PM


"Right now, the law (and science and religion) doesn't agree that a fetus is "an unborn child.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Science tells us when human life begins. There is no debate there. If I find one RN or physician whom I work with that tells me a fetus isn't an unborn child, I'll go and retake my state boards.

You are posing a false dilemma. My Catholic faith has nothing to do with the scientific fact that a fetus is an unborn child. My faith agrees with accurate science.

Even if there was a disagreement somewhere between science, religion, and law, it doesn't follow that killing should be the default position.

Seems to me that the skeptical argument actually works against the pro-choice movement. If we don't know for sure what it is, we shouldn't be killing it.

"As a nurse, you should know that, according to biology, that which is within the womb is a fetus - not an unborn child."

What? As a nurse, I know that a fetus IS an unborn child. It is a human being in the fetal stage of development. What are you talking about?

If a fetus isn't an unborn child, what is it?

Posted by: psalm at July 25, 2010 6:48 PM


"If a fetus isn't an unborn child, what is it?"

Wait for it, Ashley H...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at July 25, 2010 6:51 PM


"And if a fetus is a "baby", why doesn't the Catholic Chuch baptize the "baby" in utero. If a miscarriage occurs, that which is flushed down the toilet doesn't get baptized. Does that mean that the "baby" isn't going straight to heaven, LOL!

In addition to what was already mentioned on this.

The Sacraments of the Catholic church have specific matter and form that guide how the they are to be administered. Hence, "in utero" baptism would not be practical or even possible. It does not follow that because of this, the fetus isn't a "baby" according to the church.

Maybe you should stick to non Church related arguments?

Posted by: psalm at July 25, 2010 7:04 PM


Calling it a night. Before I go..

Jenna, You keep wanting to deny the intrinsic value of human beings.

I am really curious what your answer is to this.

Would you be willing to endure the same destruction of your body that is performed on the unborn during an abortion, and if not – why?

Posted by: psalm at July 25, 2010 7:11 PM


Yes, I agree more people need to put action to their words but there are so many people who want children but the wait list is sooooooo long. Really what needs to be done is laws need to be changed and adoption needs to be made easier so more people can take home those poor babies. I almost had an abortion, actually it would have been a second trimester abortion and I when I decided not to kill my son, so many families offered to adopt him, trust me there wasn't a lack for adopting couples! Even though I chose to keep him( and I am so glad I didn't have the abortion) If every something happened to me. There would be a line of loving families that would take him in second, even at 15 months old. The want to adopt is so strong, it's the laws that make it hard. And I think it's all a plot for more abortions, they make adoption so hard yet abortion is so easy. Sketchy don't ya think?

Posted by: Heather at July 25, 2010 7:43 PM



Jenna clearly threw out the first few chapters of her human development textbooks so as not to have her political beliefs challenged by the science.

And, naturally, she cannot even attempt to answer the two very simple questions I asked above regarding how many kids she is willing to have in wheelchairs for their whole lives thanks only to her beloved abortions?

I know of at least 3 nurses who would love to make a fool of Jenna in a discussion of medical science.

Posted by: Sean at July 25, 2010 7:44 PM


Jenna, all the procedures you mentioned, that aren't "natural," are, in fact, preventative and defensive procedures. Abortion is a destructive procedure. None of the procedures YOU mentioned involved destroying the body of another person and incinerating it. Abortion involves not only the body of the mother, but the body of her child. The mother does NOT have the right to destroy her child's body, not for any reason, and not in the name of "choice."

Posted by: MaryLee at July 25, 2010 8:16 PM


Also, Jenna, do you understand that some of us here are non-religious pro-lifers? I've seen so-called "Christians" and "Catholics" argue for "choice." The truth is, abortion kills. It is indefensible and unnecessary, it is violent, gruesome, and selfish. Women aren't liberated by it. We cannot be liberated when we've killed another person to achieve that "liberty."

Posted by: MaryLee at July 25, 2010 8:18 PM


"As I noted, government is very specific about 'restraint.' The above poster seems to think that anybody is entitled to restrain somebody committing suicide and that isn't the case. As you are a nurse, you are, most likely, covered by state law if you are acting within a clinical capacity."
Posted by: Jenna at July 25, 2010 6:30 PM

First you say the government is very specific about "restraint." Then you follow that up with "you are, most likely covered by state law..." which leads me to the conclusion that you have no idea whatsoever about what laws may or may not govern a person who prevents someone else from taking their own life. Especially since you're mixing up the federal and state governments pretty freely there.

I think you're trying to make the word "restrain" out to be much more ambiguous in this context than it actually is. You know what was meant by restraining someone from committing suicide. For example, if you try to hang yourself and I stop you by grabbing you bodily and removing your neck from the noose, that would be restraint. What would happen after this would probably be your family thanking me profusely and you have even more of your autonomy revoked, very possibly over your express protests, potentially including a suicide watch. And since the point of a suicide watch is to prevent someone from killing themselves when that person is actively trying to, that's more autonomy that you don't have.

Bottom line, you are not at liberty to do whatever you want just because you want it, even when the only person you're hurting is yourself. Why on earth would you have the right to hurt someone else who not only has not done anything to deserve it, but can not do anything to deserve it? And "I don't want them" is not an acceptable answer.

Posted by: Keli Hu at July 25, 2010 9:35 PM


There's a reason why there are so few Reformed Jews in the anti-choice movement and why many are active with Planned Parenthood. Please do tell us why!

Posted by: Sabra at July 25, 2010 5:59 PM

Sure, I will tell you why. First, reformed Judaism isn't Judaism. It is secular. Orthodox Judaism is Judaism.

The rate of abortions is highest among blacks with almost half of pregnancies ending in abortion. Next highest is hispanics, about a third end in abortion. Then whites at about 12%. The group with the lowest abortion rate is Asian.

I didn't even need to use philosophy. Just demography.

So basically secular folks from all traditions support abortion more than orthodox religious folks. Heterodox and religious in name only folks are more secularized and therefore more supportive of abortion.

Posted by: hippie at July 25, 2010 9:36 PM


Sabra: This was back in the mid 80's. Those federal and state mandates for confidentiality didn't exist back then. Most places would give you the rights of strict confidentiality back then. But that was just out of their decency, not because it was mandated by law. It's only been in recent years that rules for confidentiality were hardened into law. It was just a couple years ago that new HIPPA rules started requiring people standing in line at a pharmacy give a lot of space to the person being served, so that you can't hear or see what drugs they're buying. In the 20th century, it wasn't like that.
And even if there had been laws back then, who's to say Planned Parenthood wouldn't bend the rules a little to give a woman a "desparately needed" abortion that she was too stubborn to admit she needed? These people can be awfully arrogant in deciding what other people need, you know.

Posted by: Ceecee at July 25, 2010 9:36 PM


The above poster seems to think that anybody is entitled to restrain somebody committing suicide and that isn't the case. Posted by: Jenna at July 25, 2010 6:30 PM

Your response indicates that you do not understand the breadth of my comment or you don't understand the law (which I admit is likely different in my state than yours).

In your ideal world, would you have the right to physically restrain me if I wanted to abort my fetus?

No, but then restraint for abortion wasn't the issue, was it? You claimed a "right" to body autonomy and I noted that such "right" is not an unfettered one.

Right now, it's called assault and battery and if you touched me, I'd press charges.

I can say with complete sincerity that I have no interest whatsoever in touching you. Have a pleasant evening.


Keli Hu- I especially appreciate the last paragraph of your comment. Thank you!

Posted by: Fed Up at July 25, 2010 10:51 PM


If pro-lifers did adopt every child, it would just be turned against them. "They only want to end abortion so they can prey off these young mothers and take their children."

...and they call us hypocritical.

Posted by: Christina at July 26, 2010 7:58 AM


If pro-lifers did adopt every child, it would just be turned against them. "They only want to end abortion so they can prey off these young mothers and take their children."

...and they call us hypocritical.

Posted by: Christina at July 26, 2010 7:59 AM


Pro-choicers seem very happy in their ignorance of embryology. Any and every embryology text book states that HUMAN LIFE begins at conception. HUMAN LIFE! What else there need to be said? It's not a "blob of tissue", it's not a "pregnancy tissue", not a " product of conception", it's HUMAN and it's LIFE, which means it's a human, living, developing being. Which makes the argument about personhood completely irrelevant. Just like in a partial birth abortion - so what, just before the baby is born, it's a fetus, but the second it comes out - a person. So if you stick a needle in his/her brain just in time and it comes out dead (by the mother's wish, of course), it wasn't a baby or a person, it was a fetus????
I'm posting a list of quotes from different embryology books on my next comment.

Posted by: Vita at July 26, 2010 8:22 AM


"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

Posted by: Vita at July 26, 2010 8:25 AM


Well -- I mentioned before I am an adoptive mom and was thinking about perhaps adopting another child. However, most birth parents want a young couple in their late twenties or early thirties to adopt their baby as opposed to a single woman in her fifties; and I really can't blame them.

When I'm retired I would like to take in foster children. I miss having kids around the house.

Posted by: phillymiss at July 26, 2010 10:44 AM


You do not, however, have the right to impose your belief system onto what I do with my body. Posted by: Jenna at July 25, 2010 2:06 PM

Yes, I do. If you decide you want to commit suicide, I believe that intervention to save your life is the morally correct thing to do. And the government supports me in this. The law permits me to physically restrain you and provides me with mechanisms to involuntarily detain you despite your wishes to carry out a self-injurious act. This is one of numerous instances in which the law restricts your "right" to body autonomy.
Posted by: Fed Up at July 25, 2010 2:55 PM
------------------------------
And if you try to kill yourself and end up in my emergency room, I will physically restrain you if necessary and involuntarily detain you despite your wishes and will do everything in my power to counteract whatever it is you just did... be that pumping your stomach, administering charcoal via an NG tube, patching up wounds, etc.

So much for bodily autonomy on THAT front!

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 26, 2010 11:57 AM


"When I'm retired I would like to take in foster children. I miss having kids around the house."

Posted by: phillymiss at July 26, 2010 10:44 AM

That sounds like a very cool idea. Do most foster children have special needs?

Posted by: Janet at July 26, 2010 12:04 PM


If pro-lifers did adopt every child, it would just be turned against them. "They only want to end abortion so they can prey off these young mothers and take their children."

...and they call us hypocritical.

Christina, you're right. I did read a comment by a pc'er saying that prolifers just wanted to save "white" babies so that they could be placed with families that we approved of (white, straight, christian, conservative).

Uh, no.

Posted by: phillymiss at July 26, 2010 12:10 PM


Janet -- not necessarily. Generally it's because their parents can't take proper care of them, for some reason. We (I mean social service agencies) try to find a relative or family friend first that can take care of the child(ren); foster care is the next option. We have kids whose both parents are incarcerated or in drug/alcohol rehab, babies who were born with substances in their systems and cannot go home to the birth mother, parents who surrender the children because they can't take care of them or because they don't want to take care of them. And some children are simply abandoned.

There are "therapeutic foster homes" for children that have emotional disorders, and also for those that are medically fragile. Usually these foster parents have to have some medical training. Foster parents with special needs children generally receive more money, but if you're looking to get rich from being a foster parent, forget it!

Everyone wants babies and toddlers, but older children and special needs children are more difficult to find foster homes for. There's ALWAYS a need for good foster parents, if you're interested . . .

Posted by: phillymiss at July 26, 2010 12:37 PM


Thanks for all that research, Vita. Our website has lots of medical science on it, and I know how long it takes to carefully compile it.

You'll notice that neither Jenna nor any of her colleagues has been able to even approach the questions I have asked of them after I amswered theirs.

Posted by: Sean at July 26, 2010 12:39 PM


Biggaz, et al . . . if a woman is "bullied" or "harrassed" by a CPC, why can't she just walk out? No one is forcing these women to stay. iT seems that you will stop at no lengths to try to shut them down, even if what you say are complete lies. I once heard some nonsense that crisis pregnancy workers "force" women to have natural births so they can be "punished!" How ridiculous is this?

How many women have been killed or injured by CPC's? How many have been (successfully) sued for giving out "misinformation?"

I thought you should know that your nasty, sarcastic posts have reminded me to donate to my favorite CPC's, so thanks for dropping by!

http://www.severalsourcesfd.org/
http://www.carenet.com/

Posted by: phillymiss at July 26, 2010 12:57 PM


Oh yeah right like PP doesn't lie straight through their teeth, biggez. It's been proven when the heartbeat starts, yet if you go to Live Action, on the video a PP person tells the girls that the baby doesn't have a heartbeat until later--in fact, flat out tells the person the fetus isn't a baby (http://www.liveaction.org/ )...so what it is the pre-born baby if said being isn't a baby? A KITTEN? I thought humans only had humans. If it's not human tissue and cells, then what is it? Octopus? Puppies? Maybe it's a Horse!

CPCs aren't likely to give referrals to abortions because they don't believe in abortions.

How many times have we heard of PP referring someone to an adoption agency...pro-choicers start naming those times--how many times? Once? twice? never?

If PP REALLY is for giving women options they'd stop pushing abortions so much (people who worked high up in the heiarchy in PP have SAID that PP had told them to push abortions because that's the money maker!)

Never mistake---abortion IS a business. It's a big money maker for doctors and those who work in them. (don't believe me? Go to the Pro-Life Action League's site and look up former abortionists, a couple of them say up front they took a significant pay-cut when they quit doing abortions. Here's the link to the stories: http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/ ).

Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 26, 2010 1:17 PM


Elisabeth, ER nurses have my utmost respect. I think you guys are among the most overworked and underappreciated staff in all of health care. Thanks for everything you do on behalf of your patients, especially for your care of the violent, abusive, and uncooperative. God bless :)

Posted by: Fed Up at July 26, 2010 1:31 PM


God help any of Jenna's children -if she has any. Or even if she's already murdered them.
Your "free thinking" is so sick -but you'll be sorry when it is your time to answer. Thank God I don't know you personally.

Posted by: nicole at July 26, 2010 1:52 PM


If PP is really about choice and not about making money off women's abortions then why don't they have maternity materials such as CPC's have? For instance, a pregnant young woman walks into PP and says "I'm pregnant and don't know what to do." PP does a pregnancy test and says "yes you are pregnant." If the woman decides she doesn't want an abortion why doesn't PP have the resources available to say "Hey, well we have free maternity clothes in here, free cribs, free baby clothes, diapers, formula, free baby carriers over here, and heres a list of doctors that will provide you free medical care. And if you need help with child care after the birth of the child we'll help you with that too. And if you need a place to live or a job to help provide for your child we can also assist you with that."

After all, isn't is Planned PARENThood? So wheres the help with parenting? But everything I listed above are items and services that CPC's give to their clients for FREE. Because CPC's are not a business. PP is. CPC's don't care about making money, they care about helping women. PP only cares about money.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 26, 2010 1:55 PM


it's not so much that we expect the pro-lifers to adopt all the unwanted kids. it's just i have a hard time believing that you're really concerned about the babies and not just punishing the mothers for sexual immorality when your organizations block things like easy access to contraceptives and/or comprehensive sex education. or seek to exclude gay couples from adopting (thus reducing the number of potential homes)

or when you focus your efforts on terrorizing women going to planned parenthood instead of campaigning for alternatives to abortion.

in fact i'd go so far as to argue that a pro-life stance is one that seeks to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and to provide the most options (adoption, services for single parents) where as the anti-choice stance is to restrict access to contraceptives, education and abortions.

Posted by: sophi at July 26, 2010 2:11 PM


Wow. Way to pay attention to the discussion Sophi. There is not a problem with the number of homes waiting to adopt so the fact that some (not all) pro-lifers are against gay adoption does not mean there aren't enough loving homes waiting for children.

Please don't confuse the abortion issue with the gay issue. There are many pro-life people who are pro-gay rights and vice versa. The issues aren't the same.

There are pro-lifers who don't have a problem with contraceptives and there are some who do. the whole pro-life community is not united on that topic either.

The problem with some contraceptives are that they are abortifacient. They cause early abortions. Since we believe as science states that life begins at conception we can't condone contraception that kills a human being even just a few days old.

My husband and I use non-hormonal contraception and yet we're pro-life so I don't see what your argument is. I'm not trying to restrict any adult's access to condoms, just restrict access by children who shouldn't need it to begin with. As a mom you'll never get me to agree that 10 year olds need to be taught how to put condoms on bananas.

The reason some pro-lifers don't like contraception is because it can foster an anti-child mentality. So they may argue against it but I don't see any of them trying to make it illegal. You're way off base with your arguments Sophi.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 26, 2010 2:28 PM


it's just i have a hard time believing that you're really concerned about the babies and not just punishing the mothers for sexual immorality when your organizations block things like easy access to contraceptives and/or comprehensive sex education. or seek to exclude gay couples from adopting (thus reducing the number of potential homes)

Please tell us which pro-life organizations have tried to block these things. Perhaps some of the conservative umbrella groups like Focus on The Family, but not single issue groups like National Right to Life.

My agency allows gay couples to adopt and I have no problems with this. In fact, gay men and women seem more willing to adopt difficult to place children than straight people.

I don't have a problem with sex ed. or contraception, either. But could you please tell me why New York City, which has both comprehensive sex ed and easy access to contraceptives, has one of the highest abortion rates in the country, and Salt Lake City, which has neither, has a very low rate of teen pregnancies?

Posted by: phillymiss at July 26, 2010 2:41 PM


You guys know nothing about PP that you haven’t read on the internet...

I think the news proves that there are lots of ways to stop a pregnancy "like with a pencil" or dispose of an unwanted baby "like in a airport trash can".

If abortion was made illegal in all 50 states these types of things would happen much more frequently and girls would be scared to even tell anyone they were pregnant. The violence against women would be outrageous. When my wife was pregnant with my step-daughter she wanted to keep the pregnancy but the father did not. When she refused to have an abortion he slipped 10 hits of LSD into her drink a couple nights later... as you can imagine this ended up in a emergency room where they saved my daughter's and wife's lives.

This is the fate you would condemn women in this country to. Its was because of that abortion argument they had, that tipped her off after the drink just enough to make her suspect something was up and to get to the ER. I love my daughter and she is VERY smart but this incident has caused her medical problems her whole life.

The simple truth is that without abortion laws women will be reproductively under the thumb of men... again.

Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 2:51 PM


"The violence against women would be outrageous." -Biggz

I do not understand your arguement. The violence against women is already outrageous. Homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women. Since abortion is legal, many men feel they have the right to sleep with women and not experience any consquences. After all, the woman can choose abortion --so her body, her problem. It can be extrememly dangerous for a woman to choose life for her child; women are bullied, beaten, and murdered all the time because of legal abortion.

Abortion should be illegal and men like your stepdaughter's father should be charged with murder and spend the rest of their lives in prison. But who cares if your stepdaughter's father tried to kill her, if she was not a person?

Posted by: Adair at July 26, 2010 3:17 PM


Biggz... your argument seemed to just show that legal abortion has put women in a bad position where men feel they can bully women into it. To me your argument shows just how SELFISH abortion is no matter who chooses it.

Your step-daughter was a person then? I mean what exactly is your point here? She was your step-daughter or she was a blob harmed by LSD?

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 26, 2010 3:26 PM


"The simple truth is that without abortion laws women will be reproductively under the thumb of men... again.


Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 2:51 PM"
------------------------------------------

Excuse me??

Posted by: RSD at July 26, 2010 3:44 PM


If I fail to provide shelter for all the battered women, men, and children in the world, must I then refrain from condemning abuse?

Same question.

Posted by: bmmg39 at July 26, 2010 4:15 PM


Wrong again, Biggz.

I was a frequent customer of PP's.

Keep throwing out sweeping generalizations though. It is hilarious!! :P

If abortion were made illegal all pregnant women who want to keep their children will be slipped hits of LSD by their abusive partners. Got it.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 26, 2010 4:57 PM


Sydney - You’re SO wrong it makes me want to cry a little...

PP FOR A FACT gives adoption referrals, referrals to parenting classes, referrals to pediatricians, referrals to local charity organizations like albinaparents.org, not to mention providing birth control for both men and women.

PP gives you ALL options and will guide you in the right direction to help you with any decision you make.

Oh and here one more LIE from the anti-choice crowd "Government Funded Abortions" Government money goes to disease prevention and treatment "you know public health safety issues" as well as sexual education for youth and adults alike. Abortions are paid for by patients insurance, charity raised funds, or out of patients own pocket. So, you can quit yelling at Obama now...

PP's gives every woman who walks though the door the complete truth as it is widely accepted in the medical industry, and then presents them with ALL options. CPC's don’t. They are designed to herd pregnant women into a predetermined and political choice with no regard for what may actually be right for the mother or her family. Just what they think is right for the fetus and their own political agenda.

Lastly, my point about my daughter is this... Men who don’t want to be fathers even just financially will find a way to stop that pregnancy, usually though violence and yes a woman’s life is worth more than a fetus's life. Please do a little research and see how it was for women before Margret Sanger stood up and went to prison for even discussing sex and contraception quietly on the sidewalk with mothers...

Ok now let’s hear all of the cherry picked quotes and uniformed arguments against Margret. I love hearing that misunderstood KKK quote. Next time your researching quotes try to take into account at what point in history they were said….

Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 4:58 PM


You do have links to support all of your assertions, right Biggz??

I am on the board of a CPC. Try again.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 26, 2010 5:06 PM


PP FOR A FACT kills living preborn human children in their mother's wombs.
Anything else they do for the "good" of humanity matters very little in light of that fact.

Dare I suggest you watch Maafa21??? :)

Oh, and I noticed you did not say a peep about your daughter being affected by LSD in utero. Since she was just a blob why does it make all that much difference to you?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 26, 2010 5:10 PM


Biggz...you don't mean they "provide" birth control...you mean the SELL birth control.

My friend had an abortion there a few years ago. She was young, 20 and broke. Not only did they NOT give her an abortion for free but when she went back there for her follow up appointment and asked for the pill they CHARGED her for it. She was so ticked. She said "I just had an abortion here last week and you won't give me the pill? you're making me pay for it?" She was not some rich little girl. But PP doesn't care. Its all about money.

What "referrals", Biggz? you mean PP has such nice big buildings like the one they just opened in Houston and yet they can't keep the things mom need on hand?

Birthright (which is my CPC I support) gives formula to moms no questions asked. So yes we pro-lifers care about moms and babies even after pregnancy. One mom's twins are 9 months old but she struggles financially while she is completing school (yes you can go to school and not kill your baby! Amazing!) and her daughters need a special expensive formula. We make sure we have it on hand for her and give her CASES of it. Yes, CASES. We are not in this for the money Biggz.

I know MANY women who have killed their babies at PP but I have NEVER MET ONE WOMAN EVER who received help to have her baby at PP. Not one.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 26, 2010 5:17 PM


Dear Biggz,

I'm pro-life, but not really against Margaret Sanger. I cannot really find any evidence that she was racist (aside from quotes taken out of context). I have come across some pseudo-scientific statements she made, but it was just considered science at the time. She did support negative eugenics, but it was unfortunately a mainstream movement during her time. Also, she was opposed to abortion! For example, she stated, "While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization." Many women do not want a bunch of children, if any. That is ok with me; I don't have issues with most forms of birth control. I am just against killing children after they have been conceived.

You stated that CPCs have "no regard for what may actually be right for the mother or her family. Just what they think is right for the fetus and their own political agenda."

The fetus is part of the woman's family...you cannot speak about the fetus as if he or she is seperate from the family and its best interest. The fetus is not any less the mother's offspring than a born child...why can't we kill 3-year-olds, if it is better for the mother and the rest of the family?

I do not deny that I try to sway women against choosing abortion at the CPC I work at. The truth is, it is better for mothers that their children are alive, not dead. It just is. It is not politics, it is common sense. If killing 3-year-olds was common, I would do my best to convince the woman not to kill her 3-year-old. Of course, there are positives to killing 3-year-olds (the mother would have more money, she may be better able to raise her other children, less taxes toward welfare, etc). But the negatives (you know, the fact that her child would be DEAD, etc) are far more significant.

Posted by: Adair at July 26, 2010 5:39 PM


"Abortion should be illegal and men like your stepdaughter's father should be charged with murder and spend the rest of their lives in prison"

So it then should follow that women who have illegal abortions should either be executed for murder (in capitol punishment states) or spend the rest of their lives in prison. And if abortion is illegal, women will die or be maimed for life - but good enough for em, right? They committed the worse sin and should be punished, right? But wait - women who have abortions are forced into them. They are like little children, with no free will, who are beguiled by shiny objects. Tee hee. We're just silly lil gals who don't know about silly grown up things...

Posted by: Jenna at July 26, 2010 5:44 PM


"Lastly, my point about my daughter is this... Men who don’t want to be fathers even just financially will find a way to stop that pregnancy, usually though violence and yes a woman’s life is worth more than a fetus's life. Please do a little research and see how it was for women before Margret Sanger stood up and went to prison for even discussing sex and contraception quietly on the sidewalk with mothers..."

So if a man doesn't want his baby, his woman should abort the child so he doesn't beat her or slip her drugs to kill the child? And feel grateful that the law has no problem with him badgering her into an unwanted abortion, rather than protecting the child she may well want?

That's one of the sickest arguments I've ever heard. Women should just let the men decide whether their children are wanted or not? Should just submit to an unwanted abortion so nothing worse happens to them?

Is that the kind of "man" you are, Biggz?

Posted by: ycw at July 26, 2010 5:47 PM


Posted by: Sydney M. at July 26, 2010 5:17 PM

Planned Parenthood provides comprehensive reproductive health care for women - they're not in the business of giving out free Pampers and cribs. They provide mamograms, Pap smears, HIV/Aids Education, contraceptive devices and pills, and general gynecological assistance for low income women. They also referrals to those women who do give birth. If I wanted to have an abortion, I would get one from my gynecologist. (As a woman of some means, I wouldn't have to walk the gauntlet of fetus worshippers on the sidewalk of Planned Parenthood.) If I had a baby, my gynecologist wouldn't be giving me free Pampers and a crib. But she would, if I needed it, provide me with referrals to local agencies which provide assistance to women with children as does Planned Parenthood.

What part of Planned Parenthod is a health care facility and not a nursery don't you understand?

Posted by: Jenna at July 26, 2010 5:53 PM


Posted by: ycw at July 26, 2010 5:47 PM

So what do you think about men who flush their partners birth control pills down the toilet? What do you think about men who beat the living crap of their partner if she has an abortion? Is that a real man standing up to a woman who is a "murderer?"

Posted by: Jenna at July 26, 2010 5:58 PM


Dear Jenna,

You are naive. No, women who have abortions should not be charged with murder. This does not mean they are dumb children. But women are far more vulnerable to certain evils (rape, abortion, domestic violence) than men and therefore need special protection. That is reality...deal with it. Women get raped and beaten and killed every single day simply because they are women. It does not mean they are weak, it means we live in a sick world. By your logic, we should do away with domestic violence laws. After all, women can just leave their abusers! They have free will, right? They are not "silly little gals"! They don't need legal protection. It is their choice to be abused. In reality, however, abortion is a violent form of sexism, just like rape and domestic violence are almost always committed against women. If men could have abortions they would need protection as well...but they obviously can't, so it only applies to females.

Also according to your logic, people who try to kill themselves should face jail time. After all, they tried to kill someone (themselves) and that is 100% illegal. However, society recognizes most people who try to kill themselves are under extreme stress and are vulnerable, so they do not deserve jail time...same with women who want abortions. Should we make suicide legal because we are not willing to prosecute those who attempt it?

Posted by: Adair at July 26, 2010 6:42 PM


What do you think about men who beat the living crap of their partner if she has an abortion? Is that a real man standing up to a woman who is a "murderer?"

How does anti-abortion translate to beating someone up? I'm against killing Iraqis, so maybe I'll go out and beat up a soldier. Oh wait, that makes no sense. You're pro-choice, so how do you feel about a man beating up a woman who CHOOSES to carry to term (the FAR more likely scenerio). Its funny, I read all the time about women being beated up and killed for choosing life for their babies; can't ever remember reading about a man killing a woman for aborting a baby. Maybe I am mistaken, though...please forward articles that describe men beating, poisoning, or killing women for having an abortion. I will be more than happy to provide tons of articles describing these actions against women who don't want to have abortions.

p.s. That is so nice for you that you can afford to have an abortion in a private doctor's office. Killing your offspring in comfort is so important.

Posted by: Adair at July 26, 2010 6:55 PM


"Please do a little research and see how it was for women before Margret Sanger stood up and went to prison for even discussing sex and contraception quietly on the sidewalk with mothers..."


The woman wanted to give contraceptives to the poor because she wanted to get rid of them, not help them. However it backfired. The rich and educated still have fewer kids.

Sanger said she intended more from the fit and less from the unfit, but the rising child abuse rates show that it was the better parents who actually reduced their fertility the most. She also promoted forced sterilizations.

Oh did I have the bad manners to tell the truth and point out your lies?

I guess I did.

Posted by: hippie at July 26, 2010 6:55 PM


Jenna,

I noticed you have side stepped some important questions asked of you.

1. Would you be willing to endure the same destruction of your body that is performed on the unborn during an abortion, and if not – why?

2 If a fetus isn't an unborn child, what is it?

and,

"And "self refuting logic" - LOL - that's what the law stipulates. "

I'm not sure what syllogism you have in mind here. Please correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I can tell, you seem to be arguing:

1. If the law stipulates something, then there can be no self-refuting consequences to said law.
2. The law stipulates that abortions may be performed.
Therefore, abortion can not have any self refuting consequences.

I agree with the minor premise, but I can see no reason to hold to the major premise. In fact, the major seems to be patently false. How do you defend the major? Or do you have a different syllogism in mind?

Posted by: psalm at July 26, 2010 7:09 PM


Well looky here Biggz.

Women that have been helped by CPC's are heading in to testify!

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6580.html

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 26, 2010 7:11 PM


"Ok now let’s hear all of the cherry picked quotes and uniformed arguments against Margret. I love hearing that misunderstood KKK quote. Next time your researching quotes try to take into account at what point in history they were said…"
Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 4:58 PM

The point in history where being in/supporting the KKK was acceptable, you mean? The point where overt racism was socially permitted? That point? That point that never existed, since overt racism and race-related violence has always generated social tension of a very high degree?

What, exactly, are you trying to defend with that comment? 'Cause I'm very curious.

Posted by: Keli Hu at July 26, 2010 7:23 PM


Adair - Just call any abortion clinic in the country and listen to the stories of women who have to be escorted out by the police because her boyfriend has threatened to kill her and the clinic staff. I have listened to thousand of taped phone calls of violence and threats toward mother and care provider. Reproductive health professionals receive death threats every week from people claiming to be “Pro-Life” Abortion clinics have to be extra careful with all medical records or information because unlike at your OBGYN a HIPPA violation can cost someone their life.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/06/30/antichoicers-willing-look-other-while-women-abused
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/under_the_radar_reproductive_coercion_in_teen_relationships


Carla - You’re going to lose, CPC's are a waste of time. They call themselves Crisis Pregnancy Centers but they should really be called Motherhood Assisting Centers. CPC's don’t do anything for a crisis pregnancy they help mothers with their soon to be or already born babies. It all comes down to options...

Planned Parenthood = Abortion, Adoption, Contraception, and Motherhood. That’s 4 options.

CPC's = Motherhood. That’s one option. The only option your political masters will allow...

Oh yea and there have been organization just like yours for years and years now they just don’t lie about their intents or services the way you guys do, like Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies? Organizations to help mothers in a rough spot get the things they need to help raise their kids. The difference is CPC's are a political tool. It’s a false and misleading title that serves a purpose that the regular title "maternal resources" will not achieve for your cause. By titling your organization a CPC you get your name on the same page of the yellow pages as abortion clinics, even though you provide 0 health care. You guys will lose that title because we both know that’s what the fight is going to be about.

How many actual Doctors do you employ at your CPC? How many Nurses? How many prescriptions do you prescribe or fill a day? Thought so…..

YOU WORK FOR A POLITICAL TOOL! You can BS yourself into thinking you’re helping women and maybe you are helping a few mothers but while you’re helping them you’re also being used to gain political capitol in Washington DC right wing politicians.

Like I said CPC's will be gone soon. They will be put back in the correct section of the yellow pages where they belong.

Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 8:06 PM


Well Keli, It was a time when women didn’t have many rights and Margret was fighting for women rights. At that time the South was run by the KKK. Klan members were in all levels of politics. The last KKK member in congress just died last month... in 2010!!! So back then they were in all levels of government and controlled almost everything down south. There would have been no way to get a bunch of white kkk politicians to give up the power they held over women rights without pandering to their racism. She did what she had to do to help all American women get the rights that women of all colors enjoy today. I know she was not Pro-abortion. None of us are, but we won’t rule it out for anybody else. It’s not our place to govern over someone else’s family planning. If I remember correctly the bible says something about casting stones.....

Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 8:24 PM


Biggz,
You can continue to BS here, ok?

I know why I do what I do, I know the women we help and will continue to help, I get to meet the babies that are saved from abortion because their mother saw the ultrasound. Because she thought abortion was her only choice. I know the women who have heard my abortion story and chose to give life to their babies and put them up for adoption.
It is amazing to be on the LIFE side!

You don't honestly believe the stuff you spew here do you? I should do some checking around and see if you used to post under some other moniker. :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 26, 2010 8:34 PM


It’s not our place to govern over someone else’s family planning. If I remember correctly the bible says something about casting stones.....
Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 8:24 PM
**********************

Yeah. I didn't take you seriously before, but now I *really* don't. lol

Posted by: Kel at July 26, 2010 8:42 PM


So Carla you admit that you tell your bias story to every girl that comes in the door... and that’s not fear mongering? At PP they do not try to sway a patient into any decision, they just present the options and it’s YOUR CHOICE!

So Carla, how many medical classes have you attended to be qualified to give advice to anyone in a medical capacity? OH and you didn’t answer my question about how many doctors and nurses you employ? You have nothing to say about being on the wrong page in the yellow pages huh?


Like I said Political Tool with no medical training what so ever...

Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 8:57 PM


Oh I'm sorry Jenna...just pointing out that PP is not about "choice" afterall. Its all a bunch of bull. They are in "business" you are correct about that.

Biggz..I volunteer at Birthright which is located in a nearby college town. I have SEEN the college girls come in...just a few weeks pregnant...hysterical. So sure they couldn't have the baby and stay in college. But not wanting to abort but sure that they HAVE to. We offer help. And these girls are grateful. And most of them stay in school and have the baby. They are not heavily pregnant women...so your argument fails. I do point out that we continue to offer assistance after the baby is born. Don't you pro-aborts love to paint us pro-lifers as "fetus lovers"? you try to make it sound like we stop caring once the baby is born...so I' thought I'd throw that out there.

Abby Johnson was Planned Parenthoods employee of the year 2008. She has no medical training yet there she was asssisting in an abortion! How is that good medically? She was using the ultrasound to guide the abortionist who couldn't see what he was doing with sharp curettes otherwise! Not sure if I would want a non-medically trained person assisting the doctor in MY surgery...but hey Planned Parenthood is the cream of the crop in healthcare ain't it? I mean even you pro-choicers don't want to kill your children there. Not showing a lot of confidence in them if you ask me.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 26, 2010 8:58 PM


And Biggz...my CPC is non-religious and non-political. We give no money to any political candidate. We don't talk about Jesus or try to sway a girl to become a Republican or any other ridiculous nonsense.

We simply provide the help women need to have their babies. And women appreciate it. Sorry you can't stand that. you must really hate women Biggz.

do you beat your wife? Slip LSD into her drink? Would you or have you forced her to abort? All the comments you've made are very disturbing to me. You seem to have a real hatred for my gender. You can't even stand that women come to CPC's and get help. We don't tie them down. We dont' lie to them. We don't force them to do anything they don't choose to. So what about that makes you so mad Biggz? Are you just mad that some women won't be vicitimized? you are a woman hater, Biggz.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 26, 2010 9:04 PM


Sydney, you said it yourself a doctor was performing the procedure. How many Doctors do you have at Birthright?..... How many certified medical professionals can a young lady talk to about her situation when she comes into birthright?....

And just FYI Abby Johnson is a liar who is trying to make a name for herself in Texas.

Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 9:05 PM


At PP they do not try to sway a patient into any decision, they just present the options and it’s YOUR CHOICE!

Oh, I'm sure they don't. I mean, we only have them on video giving FALSE MEDICAL INFORMATION at multiple PP clinics across the country. (liveaction.org)

So Carla, how many medical classes have you attended to be qualified to give advice to anyone in a medical capacity?

PP counselors are not medical professionals, fyi. They're trained to sell abortions. PRC counselors are trained in crisis intervention and crisis counseling. Some also have education degrees and teach parenting classes. Some have degrees in psychology. Some are RNs.

OH and you didn’t answer my question about how many doctors and nurses you employ?

If a PRC has an ultrasound machine, then that PRC is under the direction of a physician, with trained nurses and/or ultrasound technicians on site. Many without u/s machines also have RNs on site.

You have nothing to say about being on the wrong page in the yellow pages huh?

PRCs are listed under the "abortion alternatives" section which, alphabetically, is listed next to "abortion" and/or "abortion services."

Posted by: Kel at July 26, 2010 9:09 PM


"At PP they do not try to sway a patient into any decision, they just present the options and it’s YOUR CHOICE!"

Right...That's why the PP I called in Winston-Salem, NC 5 years ago had the following conversation with me:

Me: Hi, I just found out I'm pregnant and I need to find a doctor for prenatal care, do you offer that service?

PP: No, we just offer abortions, do you want an abortion?

Me:No, I just need prenatal care, do you offer any sort of prenatal care at all?

PP:Just pregnancy tests. Do you want to come in for an abortion?

Me:No, I have no intention of having an abortion, I just need to find a doctor because I'm new to the area and don't have an OB up here.

PP:SO you're sure you don't want an abortion?

Me:Yes. Can you refer me to someone who provides prenatal care?

PP:Here's a number XXX-XXXX

Me: Thanks

PP: Call back if you change your mind and want an abortion.

Me:...

The number they gave me was for a physician who was not accepting new patients. Yeah, they were sure helpful in providing "comprehensive women's healthcare" and helping me "plan parenthood" LMAO!

Posted by: lauren at July 26, 2010 9:15 PM


At PP they do not try to sway a patient into any decision, they just present the options and it’s YOUR CHOICE!

Oh, and another fyi: PRC counselors don't physically restrain women from walking out and trotting their butts down to the local abortion clinic. In fact, sometimes they do just that. No one's stopping them.

Posted by: Kel at July 26, 2010 9:18 PM


Isn't it funny how we are supposed to "Trust Women" on one hand, but put them in spitting distance of a PRC, and somehow their brains turn to mush?? lol

Guess they're only thinking clearly if they're on PP property...

Posted by: Kel at July 26, 2010 9:21 PM


Biggz,
Sorry. I stopped reading your comment after you wrote "your bias story" My abortion story is the truth about what happened to me during and after my abortion. Call it what you will. I don't give a rip what you think of me or my story. The women who heard it and chose life appreciated it very much.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 26, 2010 9:21 PM


PP only offers one choice...wait for it....abortion!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 26, 2010 9:23 PM


I stopped reading your comment after you wrote "your bias story"

And Biggz apparently said that with a straight face after telling us his "bias [sic] story" regarding LSD and a blob of tissue - I mean, stepdaughter.

Thank you, Carla. Love wins. Life wins. Praise God for you and your "bias" story. :) lol

Posted by: Kel at July 26, 2010 9:24 PM


Biggz: "PP's gives every woman who walks though the door the complete truth as it is widely accepted in the medical industry..."

Really? I wonder how this happened then: http://liveaction.org/press/planned-parenthood-indiana-fabricated-medical-information

Posted by: segamon at July 26, 2010 9:28 PM


Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 8:24 PM

And now you're defending Margaret Sanger's racist and eugenicist philosophies because they were politically expedient!!! What other indefensible philosophies do you think are actually okay to adopt when they are politically expedient? Honestly, the only good part of your post is that you aren't defending Byrd's Klan membership.

Stop now before you make yourself look even stupider.

(I'm sorry to all the grammar nerds in the crowd. I know exclamation marks are not meant to be stacked, but if ever there was a time when they should be stacked anyway...)

Posted by: Keli Hu at July 26, 2010 9:36 PM


Ok, so just to clear things up here... How many doctors?

PP has Thousands of BOARD CERTIFIED DOCTORS AND NURSES. Even the clinicians have had some medical training and they are still in school.

You guys make NO sense at all... PP sells abortions LOL right. Like I stated before an abortion costs about $400 buck but my dad’s cancer surgery cost over 30,000 bucks so where is the money then?

Oh PP is building huge new abortion mills across America paid for by tax dollars and profits…. LOL

No the money for those buildings were donated by supporters and it took years of collecting which is why their accounting showed "Profits" lol Like I said they have to turn so many women away for services that the employees raise money among themselves to help pay for free healthcare. Abortion is the smallest part of what pp does but it’s the part you don’t like so to hell with the rest of it huh?

Well it’s nice to hear your CPC is helping a few girls and bullying a few more with pictures and propaganda stories. PP has been helping and protecting women for what 70 years now....

Oh and I didn’t say you were a political activist I said you’re a tool. A tool is to be used. You are the tool the anti-choice movement uses to combat PP for family planning. Abortion alternatives huh? Very nice code wording there but PP already provides options for “abortion alternatives” so you guys should just go back to being a women’s non-profit organization. But there is no political capital in that huh?

Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 9:41 PM


"Very nice code wording there but PP already provides options for “abortion alternatives”"

No, they don't. See my story above.

Posted by: lauren at July 26, 2010 9:51 PM


I think we should all do something to help and that is why I created www.abortion-support.com . It is a referral agency for pregnancy centers across the country ..just trying to do my part.

Posted by: Abortion Support at July 26, 2010 9:57 PM


Abortion alternatives huh? Very nice code wording there but PP already provides options for “abortion alternatives” so you guys should just go back to being a women’s non-profit organization.

You can take that up with the Yellow Pages, how 'bout that? ;) PRCs don't make any money from their services, and they offer alternatives to abortion, so... yeah. Abortion alternatives sounds right to me.

I've got news for you, Biggz: we aren't "tools" of the pro-life movement, we ARE the pro-life movement. We are on the front lines, on the back lines, in PACs, in PRCs, on blogs, involved with women personally in crisis situations, and so forth.

Abortion is the smallest part of what pp does but it’s the part you don’t like so to hell with the rest of it huh?

Gassing the Jews and the "unfit" was, like, only a teensy part of what Hitler accomplished in Germany, but you don't like it, so you just forget all the totally rockin' stuff he did for Germany!! Is a hitman basically just a good guy who offs people for money when he's not bringin' home that bacon for the wife and kiddos?

PP has Thousands of BOARD CERTIFIED DOCTORS AND NURSES. Even the clinicians have had some medical training and they are still in school.

Ah, yes, but that's not what you were referring to, now is it? You were questioning whether or not Carla et.al were qualified to counsel women on decisions regarding their pregnancies. And, they are. No, PRCs don't have trained abortionists like PP (ohhh, darn!). But there are many unpaid, volunteer, licensed nurses and doctors who give of their time to PRCs to give women free ultrasounds.

Posted by: Kel at July 26, 2010 9:58 PM


Yes Biggz...we do have doctors and nurses that partner FOR FREE (how many abortionists are willing to do that?). The counselors may be R.N's themselves. Some of them are I happen to know. Many are not, but neither are the "counselors" at PP as someone else already pointed out.

and as Kel already said (and I burst out laughing with glee!) We ARE the pro-life movement Biggz... Hate to burst your bubble!

By PP's own admission on their own website in 2007 (they haven't posted any more annual reports since then...hmmm, wonder why?) PP's bulk of services was....ABORTION! The pie chart they used showed a VERY small sliver for mammograms and pap smears...so try again Biggz.

And again Biggz...1.2 millions abortions a year x $400 bucks a pop divided by the 5 minutes it takes to do the abortion = HUGE PROFITS! No lengthy and rare 30,000 lung tumor removal comes close! This ain't rocket science Biggz!

Again, read Carol Everett's book "Blood Money". She explains how they raked in the profits in the chain of abortion clinics she ran. Oh, but Abby's a liar, Carol's a liar too right? I guess if you watched "Meet the Providers" and heard all the many testimonies of former abortionists you'd just spit "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!" at them too?

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 26, 2010 10:10 PM


So Carla, how many medical classes have you attended to be qualified to give advice to anyone in a medical capacity? OH and you didn’t answer my question about how many doctors and nurses you employ? You have nothing to say about being on the wrong page in the yellow pages huh?


Like I said Political Tool with no medical training what so ever...
Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 8:57 PM
--------------------------------------------

I'm an RN who does pediatric, OB, L&D and postpartum work. I teach childbirth education classes. I teach breastfeeding classes.

Go ahead... try to tell ME that I'm a political tool with no medical training whatsoever. (Which, btw, is ONE WORD.)

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 26, 2010 11:25 PM


It's so funny that certain pro-choicers complain that pro-lifers who counsel pregnant women at CPC's have little to no medical training. As has been mentioned, many do!

The main reason the pro-aborts denigrate CPC's is because abortion is the bread and butter of the abortion industry and CPC's often are the first point of contact for a woman who wants to learn how she can manage an alternate future for herself and her baby.

Amazingly, before abortion was legal, some pregnancy counselors were also known as Aunts, Grandmothers, Mothers, and Sisters, as well as some Fathers and Grandfathers.


Posted by: Janet at July 27, 2010 12:39 AM


CPC's don’t do anything for a crisis pregnancy they help mothers with their soon to be or already born babies.
-------------------------------

I'm trying really hard not to die laughing from that statement.

CPCs don't do ANYTHING for a "crisis pregnancy"... because they help mothers with their soon to be born or already born babies??

Um, what exactly do you think is "help" for a crisis pregnancy? Oh, yeah, murder, I forgot that one.

How dare they say they help in a crisis pregnancy? I mean, they don't kill anyone! The baby is born! Horrors! And mom and hopefully dad get... GASP... parenting classes and financial support and diapers and clothes and formula and referrals to people who can help with jobs and daycare and housing.... oh no! They don't do ANYTHING for crisis pregnancies. They ONLY HELP MOTHERS!!!

(You're right. Sometimes stacked exclamation points really are necessary.)

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 27, 2010 12:43 AM


Again... I'm a RN.... I have medical training... want to call me a tool?

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 27, 2010 12:46 AM


I'm an RN as well. :)

Posted by: segamon at July 27, 2010 12:50 AM


There's quite a few of us here... GASP... the horrors... people with medical training who recognize that unborn human beings are... human beings!

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 27, 2010 1:06 AM


Okay, I was looking through some of the newer comments (as many as I could).

Does PP provide free baby clothes to mothers who choose to keep their babies? Or even free medical care from reputable doctors? Not from what I hear & read.

Lots of CPCs do, though. I know of at least one such place that does that and I've heard of others that do, as well.

Abortion has been legal for a long time. It has not lowered the number of abortions that are performed and requested. It has not lowered the number of cases of abuse.

Places like PP don't always give women choices, either. I have heard instances where they said "No, you can't do that." and when the woman went somewhere else they said "Yes, you can do that, and we'll help you."

There have been instances of fathers forcing their young daughters into PP against their will (where's THEIR choice?)

No...abuse hasn't gone down and abortions have not gone down since abortion became legal.

Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 27, 2010 1:50 AM


Sure, I will tell you why. First, reformed Judaism isn't Judaism. It is secular. Orthodox Judaism is Judaism.

Posted by: hippie at July 25, 2010 9:36 PM

Not only is the above statement misinformed, it is truly offensive to the entire Reformed Jewish community especially the Rabbis and religious scholars. It also suggests a certain anti-Semiticism which was evidenced by Republican Senator Joe McCarthy when he targeted Hollywood Jews during his red baiting hysteria. It is still a phrase used by the arguably anti-Semitic Bill Donohue, head of the Catholic Anti-Defamation League. Hitler railed against "secular Jews" who were allegedly responsible for all sorts of problems in Germany. Thus, "secular Jews" went to the ovens along with religious Jews.

As noted by Abraham Foxman of the ADL, there does seem to be an undercurrent of anti-Semiticism in the "pro-life" movement. This comment underscores what he is saying; and as such, it has been screen printed and sent to Foxman and other Jewish groups. It has also been sent to pro-choice groups as it is very instructive regarding the mindset of those in the "pro-life" movement who, for the most part, are Christians. It's interesting that the religion of the majority of American Jews is denigrated because "Hippie" disagrees with its pro-choice philosophy which is based on the Talmud and rabbinical traditions.

Posted by: Sabra at July 27, 2010 6:11 AM


Hi Biggz,
Your posts are so idiotic I don't know why I am bothering, but I had a cup of coffee and am ready to take on the day! :)

I do not need to be a doctor to tell another woman my abortion story. I am the expert when it comes to my abortion. I have my own LIFE EXPERIENCE DEGREE!(ohmygosh I can't believe I am typing this)My CPC has a doctor who donates his time to provide free ultrasounds for women who want them. There are RN's who also volunteer their time with us.
What else? Oh yeah. Our CPC is under Abortion Alternatives in the yellow pages. There are 745 abortion clinics in this country compared to over 4,000 CPC's. Good luck shutting CPC's down.

Now you can continue to call me a political tool, although I prefer Carla and you can also read my post and then say LIAR, LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!! Keep spewing, man!

Abby Johnson is a liar? Prove it.
Live Action is bogus and edits their tape to suit their own agenda? Prove it.
CPC's are bullying women into keeping their babies? Prove it.
PP offers help to young, scared, pregnant girls who don't want abortions? Prove it.
PP hands out diapers, cribs and formula for free? Prove it.

PP offers this
Abort or face a life of misery.

You might want to ask yourself this question.

Why do women choosing life for their babies ENRAGE me(Biggz)so much?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 27, 2010 7:14 AM


Love you, Kel! :) Love wins!

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 27, 2010 7:22 AM


Oh, just a quick story. I was in the Prolife booth at a county fair last weekend. I was with a girl who heard my abortion story and chose life and then put her daughter up for adoption! It was so amazing to tell people our stories and guess what?? We aren't doctors! :P

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 27, 2010 7:53 AM


I have a great answer to the first part of Jill's question ("[Why don't pro-lifers] pay for the care of pregnant mothers in crisis...?").

My wife and I and many of our friends and colleagues do, by supporting the Tepeyac Family Center, a pro-life OB-GYN practice in Northern Virginia.

TFC accepts any patient, with or without health insurance, regardless of race, creed, culture, or income level. They have a huge network of donors that enable TFC to provide full financial coverage and medical care throughout a woman's entire pregnancy, birth, and beyond.

They. Are. Awesome.

Posted by: J. Todd Leffar at July 27, 2010 9:11 AM


The state of Maryland feels that CPC's engage in false advertising - hence, the new state requirement for CPC's to post a notice that abortion will not be mentioned as an alternative to a "crisis pregnancy." As far as I know, any court challenges, so far, have not been successful.

And an FYI, in case you weren't aware, Abby Johnson, prior to her conversion, "told of death threats "targeted at me and my husband and my daughter" and being followed in her car. What's more, on the day of Tiller's murder, her husband begged and pleaded for her not to leave the house, she said. She also spoke of the "harassing things" the entire staff would receive in the mail,..." So it looks like the nice "pro-choicers" might have been not so nice.

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/11/03/planned_parenthood

Posted by: Adair at July 26, 2010 6:55 PM

Another FYI for those who don't want to believe that domestic violence can be perpetrated by those men who don't want their partners taking birth control pills or having abortions. The clinical term is "birth control sabotage." So while the man is engaging in domestic violence, he's also standing up for life. Right? Interesting conundrum there.

http://www.impactresearch.org/documents/birthcontrolexecutive.pdf

Posted by: Adair at July 26, 2010 6:42 PM

Suicide is not a crime in the United States. But seeing that you love analogies, here's one. If a person gets caught doing drugs, they will be prosecuted. Mitigating circumstances, such as psychiatric problems, family dysfunction, etc. might be taken into consideration upon sentencing but it's still a crime. If abortion is criminalized, a woman who gets caught having one could still be prosecuted unless the law says otherwise. But your comparison of abortion to domestic violence is bizarre. A woman who has an abortion, despite your fantasies that all women are "forced" into abortion, makes that decision of her own free will. To say that abortion seeking women and women being abused are in the same situation is offensive to victims of domestic violence. While a victim of abuse is held down by threats of violence, a woman seeking an abortion (and yeah, you can't believe it) makes a rational decision not made under duress. But your rant about "special protection of women" is interesting. Laws against rape were not enacted as "special protections" for women. They were part of criminal statutes involving violence against a person. Assault (including sexual) just doesn't happen to women - and that's why we have laws against aassault. And your contention that women do not willingly have abortions further shows that you think that they are mindless victims and that's really sexist. Guess what. Lots of women have no qualms or regrets about their freely chosen abortions!

BTW, I commend those anti-choicers who do adopt and provide foster homes and other assistance to children who were not born into ideal circumstances. The argument that anti-choicers should adopt all the unwanted children is as specious as the argument that family counselors should be married.

Posted by: Jenna at July 27, 2010 9:21 AM


It's interesting that the religion of the majority of American Jews is denigrated because "Hippie" disagrees with its pro-choice philosophy which is based on the Talmud and rabbinical traditions.
Posted by: Sabra at July 27, 2010 6:11 AM
Sabra, I accept that they are the beliefs put forth in the teachings of a sect of rabbis. But I do not accept your previous assertions that they are based in scripture. I am glad to see that you are no longer blaspheming God by stating these beliefs are based on the Word of God.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 27, 2010 9:44 AM


"And your contention that women do not willingly have abortions further shows that you think that they are mindless victims and that's really sexist. Guess what. Lots of women have no qualms or regrets about their freely chosen abortions!"

Women are not mindless victims. When in a crisis they are vulnerable to someone saying that it is "just a bunch of cells" or that abortion is quick, and easy. How about telling women the truth about fetal development?

64% of abortions are coerced, Jenna. That is hardly freedom of "choice."
Please define "lots" and "no qualms"

There are several websites offering information of coerced and forced abortions. Here is just one.

http://www.stopforcedabortions.org/forced.htm

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 27, 2010 10:29 AM


If the preborn are not human no justification for elective abortion is necessary. But if the preborn are human, no justification for elective abortion is adequate.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 27, 2010 10:30 AM


Posted by: truthseeker at July 27, 2010 9:44 AM

Your statement is as ignorant and offensive as "hippie's." Your denigration of a major division of Judaism, as a "sect," smacks of anti-Semiticism. You are saying that Reformed Jews are "blaspheming" when they say that their beliefs are based "on the word of God." Excuse Me?

"Reform Judaism affirms the central tenets of Judaism - God, Torah and Israel - even as it acknowledges the diversity of Reform Jewish beliefs and practices. We believe that all human beings are created in the image of God, and that we are God’s partners in improving the world. Tikkun olam — repairing the world — is a hallmark of Reform Judaism as we strive to bring peace, freedom and justice to all people."

http://urj.org/about/reform/whatisreform/

I take it you're not a Jew because fellow Jews would not express themselves in such an offensive manner. Where do you get your information from?

But thanks for the comment which I am adding to my file of anti-Semitic comments by the "pro-life" movement. The ADL will be interested in this one. Nice to see a good Christian, like Jill Stanek, tolerates that kinds of intolerance on her blog.

BTW, I would not denigrate the Christianity of those on this blog. Obviously, this doesn't work both ways.

Posted by: Sabra at July 27, 2010 11:40 AM


Maybe before you go reporting it to the ADL, you should consider learning how to actually SPELL "anti-Semitism."

And puh-leeze on the intolerance and anti-Semitism, btw. We have Catholics on this board all the time who don't agree with Protestant beliefs, and we don't go around screaming "anti-Protestantism," and vice-versa. Those who come here seeking to provoke and find offense will find it. Every time you come here, you say the exact same things: reformed Jews don't think abortion kills a human being. You fit the definition of a web troll in many ways: use of multiple monikers to make it appear that your opinion is actually shared by other posters, repeating the exact same things on threads that don't even relate to what you're bringing up, and so forth.

And clearly you don't know what tolerance really means, or you wouldn't make the laughable comment about tolerating intolerance.

Did you ever think perhaps you denigrate the Christianity of those on this blog by simply by invalidating Old Testament teaching about the humanity of the unborn.

We believe that all human beings are created in the image of God

Really? And when are they created?

and that we are God’s partners in improving the world. Tikkun olam — repairing the world — is a hallmark of Reform Judaism as we strive to bring peace, freedom and justice to all people.

How does abortion repair the world? How does it afford peace, freedom (to live) or justice to those who are preborn?

Posted by: Kel at July 27, 2010 12:00 PM


Sabra, I've heard plenty of anti-Christian remarks by pro-choice Jews. Should I start a file too?

Posted by: phillymiss at July 27, 2010 12:12 PM


Sabra, Jenna,
Same person?


Posted by: Janet at July 27, 2010 12:20 PM


What part of Planned Parenthod is a health care facility and not a nursery don't you understand?

Jenna, and what part of "abortion alternatives" do you not understand? I've worked on pro-life hotlines; women would ask if we provided or referred for abortions. Of course, I said no, and they would hang up.

Biggaz, I'm just wondering why you are so hostile towards the CPC's. Did you or someone you know have a bad experience with one? If so, I'm sorry. Why do you want them to close so badly? Shouldn't women have a choice as to go to one or not? If women feel they are so being harrassed or bullied, can't they walk out?

Still waiting for pro-choicers to answer my question: how many women have been maimed or killed at CPC's?


Posted by: phillymiss at July 27, 2010 12:34 PM


"As noted by Abraham Foxman of the ADL, there does seem to be an undercurrent of anti-Semiticism in the "pro-life" movement. "

Sabra,
What kind of "undercurrent"? I NEVER would have guessed that based on the pro-lifers I've met.
Does the ADL take a formal position on abortion?

Posted by: Janet at July 27, 2010 12:53 PM


Biggz,

"PP has Thousands of PP has Thousands of BOARD CERTIFIED DOCTORS AND NURSES. Even the clinicians have had some medical training and they are still in school. Even the clinicians have had some medical training and they are still in school."

The Nazi's had many BOARD CERTIFIED DOCTORS AND NURSES on their staff too. Big deal.

"Like I said they have to turn so many women away for services that the employees raise money among themselves to help pay for free healthcare."

PP IS NOT turning women away. LOL. Which day of the week is free healthcare day at Planned Parenthood? Hmm, let's say Fridays and see what happens.

Posted by: Janet at July 27, 2010 1:04 PM


Posted by: Kel at July 27, 2010 12:00 PM

Sorry for my sloppy spelling. That's not something seen here. Oh, wait, it is. Whatever...What is interesting is that those of you who follow religions which claim that personhood begins with conception engage in denigration of those who don't. It's not just Reformed Judaism; but a number of liberal Protestant churches. And that's why there will never be universal condemnation of abortion and never a universal criminalization of it either. You are obviously entitled to your religious beliefs as are those whose beliefs are different. The rhetoric here just underscores the basic intolerance of those who are anti-choice. I guess that comes with the confidence of being "saved" - whatever that means. (Another belief we don't have in common.)

Posted by: phillymiss at July 27, 2010 12:12 PM

So if you get insulted by Jews, you can insult them back? Is that what your Jesus teaches? You don't seem to understand that the Jews have suffered from anti-Semitism for centuries. You Christians have been in the driver's seat since Constantine. As seen on this blog, the anti-abortion movement would appear to sanction this bigotry. Your ignorance is surpassed only by your arrogance.

Posted by: Sabra at July 27, 2010 1:06 PM


Please pray for a minor girl at the Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, MN. They are not letting her mother see her.(This is the 2nd time in a couple of months)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 27, 2010 1:13 PM


What is interesting is that those of you who follow religions which claim that personhood begins with conception engage in denigration of those who don't. It's not just Reformed Judaism; but a number of liberal Protestant churches. And that's why there will never be universal condemnation of abortion and never a universal criminalization of it either.

Yes, we're aware of this, as your alter-ego "Maevis" has pointed out multiple times. However you also pointed out that these religions/beliefs are "liberal." There's your answer.

The rhetoric here just underscores the basic intolerance of those who are anti-choice.

What we find "intolerable" is the legalized killing of preborn human beings. We also find slavery, sex trafficking, and other evils intolerable.

I guess that comes with the confidence of being "saved" - whatever that means.

It means forgiven of sin through the shedding of Christ's blood. You claim to know much about the Christian faith, but if you don't know what "saved" means, then you really have missed the bus.

You Christians have been in the driver's seat since Constantine. As seen on this blog, the anti-abortion movement would appear to sanction this bigotry. Your ignorance is surpassed only by your arrogance.

Are you unaware of the slaughter of millions of Christians throughout history *because* of their Christianity? Are you unaware that today, Christians are murdered and denied their rights in countries all over the world (many of them Muslim) because of their faith? But it's ok, we're used to it. Attacking the faith of Christians is acceptable in our society. Try that with Judaism or Islam.

Carla, that is awful. :( Praying.

Posted by: Kel at July 27, 2010 1:26 PM


Sabra,
Forgive me, but my memory is getting worse with age... can you please state your position on abortion, as per your religion?
(So you know where I stand, I'm Catholic, but base my anti-abortion stance on modern science.)

Posted by: Janet at July 27, 2010 1:28 PM


Sabra,
Forgive me, but my memory is getting worse with age... can you please state your position on abortion, as per your religion?
(So you know where I stand, I'm Catholic, but base my anti-abortion stance on modern science.)

Posted by: Janet at July 27, 2010 1:28 PM


Sabra, I was just saying that bigotry works both ways, but two wrongs NEVER make a right.

And please don't lecture me, of all people, about bigotry and hatred. Of course the Jewish people have suffered greatly throughout history, but as an African American, I've faced all kinds of racism. And believe me, Jews are not exempt from being racist. I've been called the "n" word by Jews. And one of my (ex-husband's) friends stopped speaking to him when he married me.

And "my" Jesus, who, as you know, was a son of the House of David, doesn't condone hating anyone.

Posted by: phillymiss at July 27, 2010 1:48 PM


"pro-choice philosophy which is based on the Talmud and rabbinical traditions."
Posted by: Sabra at July 27, 2010 6:11 AM

No, it isn't which is why orthodox Jews are not pro choice. The more closely they follow the teaching, the less pro choice they are. Besides, I consider myself in good company, plenty of orthodox Jews recognize this as a secular attack on Judaism as well.

Secularism is anti semitic. Secularists despise religionists.

Pro life folks simply affirm the Jewish commandment prohibiting murder.

As the low fertility secular Jews die off, the faithful Jews will be the overwhelming majority among Jews. So the future of Judaism in America is pro life.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/WillYourGrandchildrenBeJews/

Posted by: hippie at July 27, 2010 2:16 PM


Okay, now I have to eat crow. I checked the GSS data and in fact Jews support abortion as legal for any reason at the rate of 78% whereas folks with no religion support it at only 66%. So atheists would be more likely to support abortion restrictions. The Jewish variable doesn't define Jews. So we can assume a spectrum of belief.

My apologies to secular folks.

http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss08

Posted by: hippie at July 27, 2010 2:41 PM


"Guess what. Lots of women have no qualms or regrets about their freely chosen abortions!"

Guess what? Some women are selfish, slutty child-killers! Just like many men! They can kill their offspring and continue on their merry way...Susan Smith freely choose to kill her kids too and never really cared. So what? I never denied that fact, rather, the point was that MOST women who have abortions are NOT selfish child-killers, but are under extreme pressure from a sexist, violent society.

Rachel MacNair, the amazing pacifist Quaker activist, has many great articles online about the sexism of abortion. Also, not a coincidence that some of the most chauvinist men in America(Howard Stern, Hugh Hefner) are pro-choice and pour money into abortion-rights organizations. They do it because they respect women SO much! So yes, abortion has deep roots in sexism, just like domestic violence.

You entirely missed the point about "special protection." The large majority of victims of domestic violence and rape are female. For example, I do krav maga and the instructor usually includes special instructions for females, because the nature of attack against women tends to be very different from men. In terms of legal protection, you simply confirmed the point I made...laws against abortion are not about gender, but about protecting those vulnerable to a violent act.

I stand corrected, suicide is not a crime. Though it should be, because making something illegal is an important part in showing society is against it. Also, I don't understand your point about drugs. I obviously don't make the laws and don't agree with all of them. Drug addicts need rehab, not jail time.

You are a disgusting human being. You believe it is ok to kill people. Period. Rationalize it all you want...people come up with rationalizations as to why it is ok to blow up innocent toddlers and other acts of shameless killing. I don't know how you sleep at night.

Posted by: Adair at July 27, 2010 2:56 PM


There's actually not that much money in abortion. Abortion doctors are trained as OBGYNs. If they went into labor and delivery, they'd be getting thousands of dollars from insurance every time. If they do abortions, they're getting $400. Unless they're like Tiller, charging $5,000 per procedure.

Have you ever seen an abortion clinic? Most are the definition of "shabby."

To act like people start doing aborttions to get rich simply isn't true.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at July 27, 2010 4:20 PM


Adair - Your first comments give your whole point of view away. Women who have sex are sluts unless they are trying to make a baby? It must be nice to tell others how to live from on top of your ivory tower. The entire anti-choice stance is based on out dated religious beliefs that should have nothing to do with rational, intelligent, modern thinking people of the 21st century. Put down your bible and step out of the dark ages....

Posted by: Biggz at July 27, 2010 4:27 PM


Rational, intelligent, modern thinking people of the 21st century KNOW and UNDERSTAND that life begins at conception. The Biology textbook tells us so.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 27, 2010 4:29 PM


"Adair - Your first comments give your whole point of view away."
Posted by: Biggz at July 27, 2010 4:27 PM

Wait, you mean you've only been reading people's first few sentences and then firing off as fast as you could type it.

That...explains a lot, actually.

Posted by: Keli Hu at July 27, 2010 4:47 PM


"Abortion doctors are trained as OBGYNs. "

This actually isn't true. An abortionist can come from any or no specialization. I believe Tiller was originally a podiatrist.

Posted by: Lauren at July 27, 2010 6:38 PM


...and legislation keeps being proposed (at least here in Illinois) to allow non-doctors to perform abortions...

Yep - that's the way to have women be safe. Not.

So who is protecting women? Pro-abortionists just want abortion to expand and expand.

Posted by: joyfromillinois at July 27, 2010 8:06 PM


I think Tiller was actually a dermatologist. An abortionist is NOT required to have any specialized training in gynecology. When pro-lifers tried to pass that law the pro-aborts fought it tooth and nail.

There are many autobiographies of those who worked in the abortion industry and left it for many reasons. Many abortionists were in the bottom of their classes and never could establish a successful practice and thus ended up working in shabby clinics. That is most abortionists but not all. Some abortionists got involved for ideological reasons. One abortionist said he did both abortions and deliveries but found abortion crowding out his ob practice. Plus, he added, he hated getting calls in the middle of the night to deliver babies.

But abortion is very much a money maker for the clinic owner, which usually happens to be the medical director. A delivery cost about 6,000 bucks (if I remember what my husband and I ended up paying 4 years ago it was 3,000 and the insurance paid, I forget...another 3,000?) but it takes 9 months to get that 6,000 bucks.

An abortion takes place after only a month or so of development and takes 5 minutes to do. 400 some bucks just like that. And that very same woman could very well get knocked up again the next month and come back for another abortion. Abortion is a hugely profitable industry.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 27, 2010 9:04 PM


Biggz
Believing the bible has saved me a lot of grief. I'm very thankful that it is still allowed text in this beautiful country of ours. It's not when you put the bible down that you step out of the dark ages it's when you put it down that you step into the dark ages. An example of that would be justifying the murder of babies.

I feel a little guilty asking for prayer on this thread but I could use lots of prayer. I have a final Thursday and it's not looking too good. Prayer would be appreciated.

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 27, 2010 10:21 PM


Sydney your point is well taken regarding the poor quality of medical practioners who become abortionist. In my community the abortionists were OBs who were so pathetic they could not make it in regular practice and were considered "butchers" by women, their families and other OBs. I worked mainly in maternity care (OB, L&D, Mother/Baby, Gyne, peds office, and other areas) never saw the reputable docs socialize with the abortionists in any way. The abortionists didn't have hospital patients or hospital privileges (they only sent over patients over when they just about killed them with uncontrolled hemorrhage, perforated bowel, didn't get all the baby out (oops I meant retained fetal parts), severe PID Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (a horribly, nasty pus-filled infection of the reprductive tract that we did not admit to the OB floor because they were considered a "dirty case" that could risk life-threatening infection to mothers and babies).

(Sarcasm Alert) Yes, pro-aborts what a wonderful healing, healthy, "first do no harm", life affirming, dignified, respectable, admired profession an abortionist has; dialating cervixes, inserting curettes into uteri to mutilate, dismember, suction out babies and then piecing together pre-born babies (to make sure you got everything). WOW! What a great profession. What a great "choice" to be rooting for. Never say I'm pro-choice without filling in the entire blank of what you are choosing. "I'm pro-choice for opening a woman's vagina with a speculum, forcing open her cervix by inserting increasingly larger and larger dialators until the cervix is dialated wide enough for a curette to be inserted so her pre-born baby can be dismembered and mutilated and then suctioning her pre-born baby out with powerful vacuum. You are sooooo compassionate and caring for women. For every abortion to be successful it must end with a dead baby. One "patient" dead, the other one wounded. Women deserve better than abortion. You are indeed very sick people. What is supposed to be the most nurturing, safe and loving place for an unborn baby becomes a chamber of death and destruction.

Posted by: Prolifer L at July 27, 2010 10:50 PM


I'm Jewish, I'm pro-Life.... Sabra or whoever you are, believe me, I'm just as offended by your claiming to speak for what Jews believe as you are by anything said here.

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 27, 2010 11:01 PM


Your statement is as ignorant and offensive as "hippie's." Your denigration of a major division of Judaism, as a "sect," smacks of anti-Semiticism. You are saying that Reformed Jews are "blaspheming" when they say that their beliefs are based "on the word of God." Excuse Me?
Posted by: Sabra at July 27, 2010 11:40 AM
Sabra,
Try and stay focused here for one moment. You had stated that you and your rabbis believe the Torah(the Word of God) states that human life in womb is somehow "less" than humanlife outsidethe womb. I said either give me the passage from the Torah or you blaspheme your God. In the name of the one true God either give me the chapter and verse I am requesting or take your statement back.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 27, 2010 11:15 PM


myrtle...prayers coming your way. What time is Thursday is your test?

Posted by: truthseeker at July 27, 2010 11:19 PM


My mother suffered medical complications from her second pregnancy that resulted in massive infection twelve years down the road. She had to wear a catheter before undergoing corrective surgery, and was bed-ridden for a good two months after.

My neighbor's daughter-in-law didn't want to get pregnant again but her husband persuaded her to. She suffered from severe post-partum depression and has a strained relationship with her daughter.

And the stories continue. Let's not romanticize childbirth--it can be complicated, and dangerous, despite it being a natural process. But my mom and neighbor's daughter-in-law aren't trying to prevent other women from getting pregnant. They know that no human body should be used as a means to an end, and this includes carrying an unwanted pregnancy.

Decisions can't be made in a vacuum. But we can try our best to treat women as people, not as caricatures that fit a certain ideology. Not all women who seek abortions feel vulnerable, and many pregnant women feel ambivalent about their decision to carry the pregnancy to term. And vice versa...to try to flatten the complexity of a woman's reproductive decision-making is to undermine her autonomy.

Posted by: Megan at July 27, 2010 11:46 PM


truthseeker
Bless you. Thursday at 7:30 a.m.. I'm really struggling in algebra and I'm majoring in Environmental Sustainable Resources so it's important I have a good understanding of Algebra 100 and Survey of Calculus. My prayer is that I can go past Calculus but at this point I can't see that happening.

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 27, 2010 11:48 PM


Megan
I do believe that women should have a complete voice over what there own bodies are subjected to but I believe they supersede their own rights when they intefere with the autonomy of the unborn baby.

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 27, 2010 11:57 PM


Megan
And when the moms life is really in danger the baby should be delivered by C-Section not killed. I think when life becomes the focus not death more lives will be saved.

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 28, 2010 12:08 AM


"What is interesting is that those of you who follow religions which claim that personhood begins with conception engage in denigration of those who don't."

Wow, Sabra finally admits that what we have a problem with is people's stance on abortion, not their religion or their cultural background. I'm glad that you understand now that we think you are wrong because we think you are wrong, not because you're Jewish.

Posted by: ycw at July 28, 2010 6:29 AM



"Decisions can't be made in a vacuum. But we can try our best to treat women as people, not as caricatures that fit a certain ideology. Not all women who seek abortions feel vulnerable, and many pregnant women feel ambivalent about their decision to carry the pregnancy to term. And vice versa...to try to flatten the complexity of a woman's reproductive decision-making is to undermine her autonomy."


Hi Megan,
Blah, blah, blah. You did say something about a vacuum though. Which is used in an abortion. For some women childbirth can be risky, how does that prove abortion does NOT kill a child???!!! We should treat women as people. Pregnant women should be treated as people too. People that are carrying a child.

How does a living, growing, preborn human child NOT die in an abortion? Please direct me to some links on that. That abortion has nothing to do with the ending of a life.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 28, 2010 6:37 AM


Praying for you myrtle. :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 28, 2010 6:39 AM


"My neighbor's daughter-in-law didn't want to get pregnant again but her husband persuaded her to. She suffered from severe post-partum depression and has a strained relationship with her daughter."

Hmm... but you have no problem with it if a woman is persuaded by her "partner" to get an abortion, right? Then it's just a free choice. You're comparing apples to oranges anyway--you are talking about a choice to get pregnant, not a choice to kill a human being that already exists.

Is childbirth always easy, or always 100% safe? No, but neither is abortion. Does your mother regret the life of the sibling that resulted from her second pregnancy? Do you? Does your mom wish she could have had your brother or sister killed so that she didn't have to suffer?

Posted by: ycw at July 28, 2010 6:41 AM


Carla
Thanks for the prayers. And for that great big light you shine, like a lighthouse providing guidance for a lot of ships that are being led astray. Appreciate you. I know it sounds corny but if we can't thank people who make a real difference who can we thank.:0)

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 28, 2010 8:02 AM


Posted by: truthseeker at July 27, 2010 11:15 PM

"You had stated that you and your rabbis believe the Torah(the Word of God) states that human life in womb is somehow "less" than humanlife outsidethe womb."

I never said any such thing. You're putting words in my mouth as the saying goes. I have said that Reformed Judaism supports a woman's right to an abortion. And in response to your misinformed and offensive definition of Reformed Judaism (a "sect"), I provided you with a quote (and link) to the principals of Reformed Judaism in which the Torah is referenced. This is really funny. What gives you the right to say that I am blaspheming? Are you a Talumudic scholar? But here is a short summary of Reformed beliefs on abortion.

"It is clear from all of this that the traditional authorities would be most lenient with abortions within the first forty days. After that time, there is a difference of opinion. Those who are within the broadest range of permissibility permit abortion at any time before birth, if there is serious danger to the health of the mother or child. Reform Judaism does not encourage abortion, nor favor it for trivial reasons, or sanction it "on demand."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/reform_practices.html#Abortion

Unlike Christianity, Judaism doesn't have one set Cannon that all are required to believe under penalty of mortal sin. That's why there is constant debate and discussion of the Talmud. If you think that Reformed Jews are somehow "blaspheming" then I suggest that you discuss this was a Reformed Rabbi who has much more expertise in this area than I do - and certainly much more than you do. If you are Jewish (and I don't think you are) please provide me with a link to something that supports your view that we are a "blasphemous sect."

Posted by: Sabra at July 28, 2010 8:40 AM


In my devotional time I have been reading the old testament accounts of Israel's captivity in Egypt and release, the wanderings in the desert and their crossing of the Jordan River. It has been such a reproach to me because the Israelites saw God's power and yet days later were sinning and complaining again...just how I am most times.

Anyhow, this verse came to mind hearing Jewish people get on this website and argue in favor of abortion which is straight from the gates of hell.

Deuteronomy 30:19
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.

These were the final words of Moses to the children of Israel. How sad to see their descendants choosing death and curses instead of choosing God's blessings. The Jews are God's chosen people! How it must break God's heart to see His beloved people helping in the destruction of His other children.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 28, 2010 9:01 AM


I find myself agreeing with Biggaz, believe it or not. There is just no need to call women who have abortions "slutty." I HATE the "s" word; for me it's just as bad as the "n" word and has been used to shame, humiliate, and label women for years. And there is no equivalent word for males in the English language, which means a double standard is in play here.

Posted by: phillymiss at July 28, 2010 9:02 AM


Folks, this is way off topic but like many Americans my house is in foreclosure. Tomorrow at 1:00 EST I have a "conciliation conference" with my lender to try to work out some kind of payment arrangement. Please pray that I will be able to keep my house! Thank you.


Melissa (aka Phillymiss)

Posted by: phillymiss at July 28, 2010 9:06 AM


Oh Melissa! Thats horrible! I will be praying for you today and tomorrow! God can work miracles!

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 28, 2010 9:13 AM


Thank you, Sydney, I appreciate it!

Posted by: phillymiss at July 28, 2010 9:31 AM


Praying for you too, phillymiss!!

Thank you, myrtle! :)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 28, 2010 11:35 AM


there's a 'stalemate' of sorts in this argument. Both sides go round and round.

Perhaps the way out of such an impasse is that posters from both sides list anything that would justify killing an infant or toddler.

They are called HUMAN rights, not person rights. A HUMAN BECOMES A LEGAL ENTITY(PERSON) AT BIRTH. We and all HUMANS have rights before birth - an event not marked by DNA (so far as we know).

Posted by: John McDonell at July 28, 2010 11:55 AM


I am praying for you Myrtle and for you too phillymiss for God to help and bless you both.

Posted by: Prolifer L at July 28, 2010 12:44 PM


phillymiss,

Praying your meeting goes well tomorrow. Please let your lender know that there are lots of pro-lifers in the blogosphere praying for you!!!

Posted by: Janet at July 28, 2010 1:41 PM


Am praying for you both, Myrtle and Melissa!

Posted by: Fed Up at July 28, 2010 1:58 PM


They are called HUMAN rights, not person rights. A HUMAN BECOMES A LEGAL ENTITY(PERSON) AT BIRTH. We and all HUMANS have rights before birth - an event not marked by DNA (so far as we know).

John McDonell at July 28, 2010 11:55 AM

===========================================

Here we go again! Please go to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary AND the Oxford Online Dictionary.

Oxford says this as one of the defintions of "person":

"1 a human being regarded as an individual"

(Here's the link: http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1277141#m_en_us1277141 ).

So apparently human being and persons are not two different defintions.

If the pre-born baby is not a human being (or person) until birth then what the heck is a woman pregnant with before hand? (Please keep in mind we are ALL walking masses of tissues, organs and cells, we have that definitely in common--the only difference is we're in a different develop/developed stage than a pre-born baby--but it doesn't change what it is).

Really, people, before you say "human being" and "person" are two different definitions pull up at least one dictionary to back up your claim!

Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 28, 2010 2:07 PM


YCW:

Women should not be forced into getting abortions, either. Intake counselors at abortion clinics speak to women to see if they're making the choice of their own volition. But they don't believe that all women who seek abortions are acting against their will/under some false consciousness. That would be wrong. Do you believe that pregnant women should be grilled regarding the wantedness of the pregnancy? Should women be asked if they're going through with it to please a partner or because they believe a baby will save a relationship?

We need to trust women and their bodies. This means making all choices possible. I'm all aboard for cutting through the bureaucratic red tape/moneymakig scheme of the adoption industry. I'm also applying to work for a program that links special needs children to crucial services--this enables women to prepare for a special needs child and, perhaps, continue a wanted pregnancy that turned out to be more complicated than thought.

But there will always be women who don't think pregnancy is right for them at that time. We need to support these women too and trust them to trust their bodies.

Posted by: Megan at July 28, 2010 2:11 PM


Ah Carla, it's nice to see you're back to your bullying. I guess tolerance is reserved only for those women who prostrate themselves before you in pain and remorse. Heaven forbid somebody come before you whom you can't pigeonhole as weak and delusional.

My embryo/fetus was killed during my abortion. I think I'm smart enough to figure that out--in fact, I think most women can do so without needing ultrasounds and detailed descriptions of fetal anatomy. You do good work giving women options besides abortion, but to call for the outlaw of abortion really undermines the decision that many women have come to on their own terms.

Posted by: Megan at July 28, 2010 2:19 PM


And it's pretty insensitive to think about the potential difficulties of pregnancy and, in the same breath, champion the outlawing of abortion. But at least mom will get a baby at the end of all that hardship...this is NOT how any woman should enter motherhood. With the baby treated as some kind of consolation prize...tell that to the woman with post-partum depression. If she had done it all over, she wouldn't have had that baby. Shock! Some women just can't do motherhood.

I don't care if she's a married woman whose condom broke, or the sluttiest fifteen-year-old in the world--the consequence of pregnancy is deciding whether to put one's body through the struggle or not. The woman's right to liberty--bodily autonomy--trumps a developing fetus' right to be born.

Posted by: Megan at July 28, 2010 2:29 PM


Megan,
How do you respond to the fact that one study found 64% of American women felt pressured by others. (1) More than half felt rushed or uncertain, yet 67% received no counseling 1) and 79% were not told about available alternatives at the abortion clinic.(1) A survey of members at a poltically-neutral post-abortion support website of 5,714 active members, found 772 incidences of individuals in a member's life invovled in coercing or otherwise pressuring her into the abortion(s), including the counselors at abortion clinics. (source) These statistics should be alarming and don't represent "women who don't think pregnancy is right for them at that time", but rather women who would otherwise want their pregnancy if she had the financial resources and emotional support. If anything, these statistic represent the need for better (not less!) screening and pre-abortion counseling, as well as individuals with actual degrees in counseling at hospitals and clinics.

1) VM Rue et. al. "Induced abortions and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women," Medical Science Monitor 10(10):SR5-16 (2004).

Posted by: Rachael C. at July 28, 2010 2:35 PM


Also, I recommend reading an article I wrote on CPCs, trying to objectively look at and address the claims and concerns the pro-choice side has about CPCs:
Questions and Answers About Pregnancy Resource Centers

Posted by: Rachael C. at July 28, 2010 2:39 PM


Megan,
Bullying? Really?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 28, 2010 2:43 PM


It's ok Megan keep chanting the pro-abort mantra

"I don't care if it's a baby I have the "right to choose"

Dilatation
Mutilation
Suction and then
Cremation"

Keep repeating it, it is still sick. Women deserve better than abortion. I won't waste my time or yours going over the circular arguments.


Posted by: Prolifer L at July 28, 2010 2:56 PM


"You do good work giving women options besides abortion, but to call for the outlaw of abortion really undermines the decision that many women have come to on their own terms."
Posted by: Megan at July 28, 2010 2:19 PM

Not every decision someone arrives at, on their own terms or otherwise, is a valid or morally justifiable decision. I might make the decision to steal priceless artworks and sell them to rich collectors (I've been watching White Collar, and I highly recommend it :) for any number of reasons. That does not mean my decision to do so--even if I agonized over making it--is morally right.

Posted by: Keli Hu at July 28, 2010 2:59 PM


And it's pretty insensitive to think about the potential difficulties of pregnancy and, in the same breath, champion the outlawing of abortion.

Megan, abortion does not address nor treat the underlying causes of pregnancy complications, maternal mortality, or PPD, but rather access to safe drinking water and better nutrition during pregnancy and post-partum period, more affordable and earlier access to prenatal care (especially in high-risk populations), as well as pregnancy education classes, and educating women about the early warning signs of conditions such as PPD or Pre-eclampsiam, all contribute to helping women and their babies have healthier outcomes.

Posted by: Rachael C. at July 28, 2010 3:02 PM



"But there will always be women who don't think pregnancy is right for them at that time. We need to support these women too and trust them to trust their bodies."

Posted by: Megan at July 28, 2010 2:11 PM

And there will always be boyfriends who want girlfriends to get abortions so they don't have to marry her or pay child support. So, for the sake of the finances of these worthless creeps, pro aborts concede, better to kill a baby than burden a guy's wallet.

Posted by: hippie at July 28, 2010 3:10 PM


"I guess tolerance is reserved only for those women who prostrate themselves before you in pain and remorse."

Hi again, Megan.

I have been tolerant of proaborts here for almost 3 years now. :)

Women do not prostrate themselves before me. They do however, in their pain and remorse email, call and facebook me and ask for abortion recovery resources. Which I am happy to provide.

Here's one
National Helpline for Abortion Recovery
1-866-482-LIFE(5433)

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 28, 2010 3:27 PM


So you don't want to own up to the problem? You just want to open your gaping maw and moan about how babies shouldn't be aborted nevermind the fact that putting up a child for adoption can be very traumatizing and that most of them aren't even put up for adoption anyways and end up in dysfunctional homes. Maybe you should visit a juvenile prison center for awhile and learn about the misery of kid's lives whos mother's were too dumb to get abortions.

Anyone mildly progressive and actually cares about other people would be pro-abortion.

Posted by: Fleur at July 28, 2010 4:44 PM


Hi Fleur,
Whose maw in particular are you referring to? Mine?
Cause right now mine is YAWNING!!

Hardly surprised by another post which sounds exactly like all of the other posts that all prolifers need to adopt all babies or shut up.

If I do not lift another finger to help another soul as long as I live, how does abortion NOT kill a child?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 28, 2010 5:07 PM


"...tell that to the woman with post-partum depression. If she had done it all over, she wouldn't have had that baby. Shock! Some women just can't do motherhood." Posted by: Megan at July 28, 2010 2:29 PM

==================================================

So, just because women suffer from Post Partum Depression women should be able to abort (kill) their children? Just because during that time she "wouldn't have had that baby."

You do realize that those could be the leftover hormones from pregnancy and those could also be hormones and maybe not how the woman TRULY feels?

Motherhood is the hardest best job I ever had.

BUT...

It's NOT about FEELING like you love someone, it's about ACTING upon RESPONSIBILITY; upon what Love demands of us. Love demands people to put someone else ahead of themselves. Love demands people care for others' needs, wants and desires. Sometimes it means putting one's own wants, needs and desires last.

Love is not a feeling. You can have loving feelings, but feelings come and go. Love is a Commitment is the issue.

When a woman conceives a child, her body has made a commitment to care for that child; no, it's not a conscious choice, but it's what the body understands is what its geared to do...to provide an environment in which that child can grow, develop and prepare for leaving the womb. A woman betrays her body's natural responses when she violates that commitment by having an abortion.

For the record, it's really not brillant to ask a woman going through Post Partum Depression how she feeling about having a baby, because any woman going through that doesn't feel great, even if she was cool with having a baby, it's still not the easiest thing to go through.


Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 28, 2010 5:18 PM


Anyone mildly progressive and actually cares about other people would be pro-abortion.

Posted by: Fleur at July 28, 2010 4:44 PM

==================================================

I never cared about being "progressive" and if being "progressive" means being for a woman killing her child then I'd rather not be "progressive" thank you very much.

I care about people enough to be against abortion. Babies, mothers and fathers, plus other kids as well, I care enough about all of them to be against abortion...translation: I care huge amounts for other people, which is why I'm pro-life instead of pro-abortion.

Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 28, 2010 5:22 PM


Fleur, a few of my friends were adopted. Their lives were better because their mothers were brave enough to give them up. So you'd rather a child DIE, then have the mother go through emotional pain? ...This way of thinking doesn't surprise me. Pro-aborts are big whiners.

Why should the child be sacrificed for the sake of his mother? Why? What good is that? How does that help women? How does that help society? What does that teach us? It teaches us that selfishness, violence, death, and lack of responsibility is the only way to go. Nice lesson. No wonder our youth are so messed up. I don't think kids are in juvie because their mothers gave them up for adoption. They're in juvie because we aren't upping the ante where education is concerned, we aren't getting our hands dirty and fixing the system where it's broken. Aborting more children isn't fixing the system....it has been making it worse.

And I consider myself rather progressive. I think abortion is beyond REGRESSIVE. It's destructive. It's fascist. It is the most vile and selfish act in existence.

Posted by: MaryLee at July 28, 2010 5:46 PM


And: Keli!!!!! I love White Collar, too! It's so good.

Yes, I guess Megan et. al, don't understand the difference between the "ability" to choose something and the "right" to choose something. I've said this before, but it's apropos:

"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." --G.K. Chesterton

Nobody has the right to take away the life of another person for any reason at all. Nobody has the right to dehumanize and demonize the unborn. My rights end where the body of another begins. If that other person resides in my body, so be it. I do not have the right to "choose" death for my child simply because I don't want her, or because I'm scared, or because I'm not ready, whatever that means....as if one can EVER be ready for a baby.

Posted by: MaryLee at July 28, 2010 5:50 PM


Oh, and Fleur: My adopted friends have told me--without my asking or prompting--that they are grateful to their birth mothers for loving them enough to allow them to live. They've said that to me, verbatim.

Posted by: MaryLee at July 28, 2010 5:52 PM


Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 28, 2010 2:07 PM

Hi Mom in Texas,

Please do not get all worked up, I'm definitely PL!!! The use of the 'person vs human' argument is bogus not only because the two words/concepts are interchangeable (as you have pointed out), it is because the Right to Life is a HUMAN RIGHT right now. (we do not have to wait for clarification of person vs human. The 'protection' is guaranteed by the US constitution to 'humans'. It simply does not matter if the HUMAN is called 'embryo, zygote, fetus, infant, newborn, person, toddler, teen, adult, be-comatose, disabled' or any descriptive word. The critical word always is and always has been 'HUMAN'. Abortion denies a HUMAN right.

The opposition says that there is no protection before being a 'PERSON'. Is not protection guaranteed to a HUMAN? If a pre-born, human-fetus is HUMAN (as even pro-aborts note) where is the protection guarantee? If there is no guarantee of protection is anyone safe?

You got sidelined by my intention in my original post. We PL''ers talk about the pro-abort line dehumanizes. By talking about the precious nature of HUMAN life, perhaps we might learn not to dispose of it readily (no matter what stage of development/poor-development).

The HUMAN vs PERSON problematic because a switch to another language ('fetus' is not a medical-science word, but a Latin word for a pre-born HUMAN), is always possible. Why is 'fetus' not precious? ... nor person? nor any other name for HUMAN? When/how did WE become junk/disposable/the-enemy?

Posted by: John McDonell at July 28, 2010 6:12 PM


Megan, abortion does not address nor treat the underlying causes of pregnancy complications, maternal mortality, or PPD, but rather access to safe drinking water and better nutrition during pregnancy and post-partum period, more affordable and earlier access to prenatal care (especially in high-risk populations), as well as pregnancy education classes, and educating women about the early warning signs of conditions such as PPD or Pre-eclampsiam, all contribute to helping women and their babies have healthier outcomes.
Posted by: Rachael C. at July 28, 2010 3:02 PM
..........................

Precisely Rachael. But women do not abort to 'feel' better (or do they?) [read bellow]

A few decades ago, a New Zealand Ob/Gyn, Patrick Dunn decided to plot the mood swings of women during pregnancy. What he found was that there was enough symmetry-of-experience to form a graph. The 1st DEPRESSION was a rather sharp fall lasting from wk8 - @wk12. [The low-point was wk10, where he noted that 80% of abortions occur.] The 2nd DEPRESSION begins at the start o the third trimester and slowly worsens until birth. Then there is a sharp-rising glitch to euphoria. {IMO this happens as the result of natural endorphin release (which is more powerful than morphine). So what does this say .... abortion is the result, not the cause of depression. A medical 'rule' is to take-no-action if depression is a symptom. Get rid if the depression FIRST ... THEN DO SURGERY ETC. Right now we stupidly believe that a surgery 'cures' a depression.

A 3rd DEPRESSION swiftly follows birth and starts right where the third trimester one left off. [It is IMO the famous postpartum depression.] It rapidly deepens (often to suicide).

After more biochemistry studies, I found what MAY BE the cause of this DEPRESSION-PHENOMENON. {Zinc and Copper in Medicine' eds Karcioglu & Sarper @1983} The symmetry with the extra-ordinarily high use of zinc in the developing human fetus is uncanny. For instance, between wks 5 & 6 the optic nerve (highly zinc dependent is formed. In the third trimester (in preparation for birth all organs and their systems are getting final adjustments - like insulin production (zinc dependent pancreas) only begins the day before birth. Colostrum (first milk) is noted for its very high zinc portion. This reflects the start of the functioning of the immune system and the start of the functioning of the pulmonary and digestive tracks in a newborn.

Of note, in this discussion is a 4th PERIOD in human development of high zinc usage - puberty. Both males and females are affected .... growth, zits, spermatozoa, etc are all highly zinc dependent. Girls have PMS and boys are often seeking criminal activity ... become alcohol addicted. An adolescent/young-woman who has inadequate zinc status is a shoe-in for these depressive periods.

The mossy fiber layers of our cerebellum (part of our brain, coordinates muscle movement with our emotions) is highly zinc dependent and probably why we have depression as a major clinical sign of zinc deficit.

I suspect that women like Carla, may find some relief if they combined zinc intake with a newer technique for trauma (used for rape victims). It involves looking at a series of green lights in a bar. The lights go 'on' sequentially/in-tandem over and over

Btw any operation robs the body of zinc. So abortion only adds to the zinc deficit situation.

Posted by: John McDonell at July 28, 2010 7:55 PM


Ah, just suck it up and deal with the depression, three stages of it...and the morning sickness, and fatigue, etc etc etc. Prize is waiting just around the corner! Only the start of 18 years of putting somebody else first...

Of course abortion is a selfish decision. I'm selfish. I want to have control of my body and my pleasure and my procreation. My rights end when a child is BORN.

Posted by: Megan at July 28, 2010 8:32 PM


Ya know what Megan? You're right....I have to put somebody else first. I no longer get to sleep in, and when my son pees the bed or has a nightmare I must interrupt my beauty sleep to comfort him and change the sheets. I have to fix his plate first, I no longer can spend hours in front of the mirror in the morning getting ready...I can't spend money on expensive handbags like I used to because I want to use the money to put him in soccer and t-ball and private preschool this Fall. I definitely don't get to watch the tv shows I want anymore, I usually acquiesce to my son. Its usually Spongebob on the tube. My house is no longer neat and tidy but very much lived in by a toddler who leaves his crayons on the floor and puts toys in my purse. I play with him, teach him, dress him, feed him...and its exhausting.

But my life has never been better! Its actually more fulfilling not to be so narcissistic for a change. To realize that life is more than just your wants, your needs. To be wrapped up in yourself is when bitterness and misery start to fester.

Being UNselfish and mothering my child was the best thing I ever did. So sorry you don't know that joy now Megan.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 28, 2010 9:37 PM


You got mot of it right Megan, thanks for admitting abortion is a selfish decision. Me, me, me, that is what it is all about. My body, my pleasure, my procreation, my rights but you got one part wrong your rights end when you lay down, have sexual intercourse with a man and conceive another distinct human being who has his/her own DNA, his/her own, heart, lungs, brain, and quite possibly may have something you don't have, A PENIS. The ultrasonagrapher will tell you "you're having a BOY". It's ok to admit what we prolifers knew along, abortion is the selfish taking of an innocent human life.

Like I said you keep chanting the pro-abort mantra, "I don't care if it's a baby, I have the "right to choose"

Dilatation
Mutilation
Suction and then
Cremation"

I will pray one day your heart and mind will be ready to receive the truth. Women and babies deserve better than abortion. Everytime I witnessed a delivery, my own and many other women's deliveries, I had the awesome privilege of witnessing a miracle, a baby take his or her first breath. You know what Megan? Every single delivery, we all held our breaths while we waited for the baby to take his/her first breath, to hear that first cry to know that the baby was ALIVE, I remember the tears of joy on mother's, father's, even sometimes nurse's faces because the miracle of life is so awesome. I can also never forget the rare times my patients delivered a stillborn when there was no first breath, no first cry and the anguish in the delivery room and the sobs of the mothers and fathers even the tears in the eyes of the staff and docs. i remember holding these women while they sobbed inconsolably and all I could say was "I am so sorry". Horrible situation. Shame on you and may God help you. Life is so very precious. Life is so priceless. Life is irreplacable. Life is a gift. Women and babies deserve better than abortion.

Posted by: Prolifer L at July 28, 2010 9:54 PM


No one is saying "suck it up and deal with these conditions" You are purposely misconstruing and misrepresenting our point of views. Rather we look at the underlying causes, prevention, and treatments of such conditions and recognize a multi-point approach is needed, ending a pregnancy through abortion is not a cure all and does not adequitely address or treat these conditions, akin to putting a band-aid on a gaping wound.

Posted by: Rachael C. at July 28, 2010 10:20 PM


Sabra,
Still not chapter or verse from scripture to back your rabbinacal opinions that humans in the womb are "less" than humans outside the womb. Tell me, do you believe scipture is the Word of God? I ask for the fourth time, PLEASE PROVIDE THE CHAPTER AND VERSE FROM THE TORAH THAT YOUR RABBIS REFERENCE WHEN THEY ARE MAKING A JUSTIFIATION FOR ALOWING A PERSON TO KILL A BABY IN HIS MOTHER'S WOMB. If such a verse does not exist, then admit it does not exist and cease to speaking so perjurously about the Lord's Word.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 28, 2010 11:07 PM


Of course abortion is a selfish decision. I'm selfish. I want to have control of my body and my pleasure and my procreation. My rights end when a child is BORN.

Posted by: Megan at July 28, 2010 8:32 PM
==================================================

How's that working out for you, Megan? You learned to truly Love someone? Because Love is the most UNselfish act out there (yes, Love is action...as a friend of mine once told me "Love is a verb" I didn't believe him at first, but now I'm beginning to see what he means).

Love demands we put someone else ahead of ourselves.

However, the moment of conception is when another SEPARATE human being comes into play. They have the very basic human right, which is the right to life. Abortion takes away that right and traumatizes the woman's body.

I hope one day you change you have a change of heart and mind.

Love isn't selfish. It's not always easy, but it is worth it.


Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 28, 2010 11:56 PM


Sabra,
Your parents take pride in their work for Planned Parenthood; an organization that spends it's energies promoting the destruction of human life. She does not invest her time providing services for parents who decide to carry their babies to term. It may hurt to hear this but you could show your parents the light. Our God is a creator of life and the giver of life. Abortion is an unholy antithesis of this God who created all of us. Lets find some common ground to grow upon. Do the people of Reform Judaism believe in the Holy Spirit?

Posted by: truthseeker at July 29, 2010 12:28 AM


"My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years." From the book of Genesis chapter 6 and vers 3. Life is the Spirit of God within us. To destroy life (abortion)is to rail against the Holy Spirit of God.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 29, 2010 1:51 AM


Posted by: truthseeker at July 28, 2010 11:07 PM

You really don't understand Judaism. Unlike certain Christians who base their beliefs on a literal interpretation of the Bible, we have an ongoing process of scripture interpretation and debate, much of it based on the Talmud. As such, it could be comparable to the teaching authority in the Roman Catholic church which provides instruction to the faithful based on their interpretation of scripture and teachings of church fathers. But here's a citation from another source which references "teachings" that support abortion.

"Reform Judaism agrees with the traditional authorities that abortions should be approached cautiously throughout the life of the fetus. Most
authorities would be least hesitant during the first forty days of thefetus' life (Yeb. 69b; Nid. 30b; M. Ker. 1.1; Shulhan Arukah Hoshen
Mishpat 210.2; Solomon Skola, Bet Shelomo, Hoshen Mishpat 132; JosephTrani, Responsa Maharit 1.99, Noam 9 pp 213ff, etc.). Even the strict Rabbi Unterman permits non-Jews to perform abortions within the forty day periods (Rabbi Unterman, op. cit., pp 8ff).From forty days until twenty-seven weeks, the fetus possesses some status, but its future remains doubtful (goses biydei adam; San. 78a;Nid 44b and commentaries) as we are not sure of this viability."

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/10-Reform/section-21.html

But glad to hear that you think that Reformed Judaism "blasphemes." That kind of anti-Semitic stuff, from Christians, should have gone out with the Inquisition. It's ironic. Third century rabbis, in admonishing their flock not to go to Christian services, said that this early Christianity, which believed that a Jewish rabbi was part of a triune god system, was blasphemous. But your comments are very, very instructive and are being shared. Thank you.

Posted by: Sabra at July 29, 2010 6:25 AM


Megan,
I know that life will teach what you need to know.
Just like it did for me and many of us here. I am praying for you and someday IF you come to the end of yourself and feel you have nowhere else to turn I hope you reach out.

Nobody could every fully explain to me what it would be like to conceive, carry a child and give birth. There is no other experience like it in the whole world. To see the ultrasounds, hear the heartbeat, feel the kicking, and finally giving birth(4 times)has forever changed me. Amazing. Miraculous.

Although I am sometimes hard on you and snarky with you I care very much about you or I wouldn't bother.

Love wins.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 29, 2010 8:13 AM


Sabra:
Yes, we think that the religious views you present are wrong. Yes, we think it is blasphemy to say that God allows abortion with impunity. No, we do not think all Jews are blasphemers. We do not think Jews who hold these evil beliefs are more blasphemous or more evil than those who claim to be Christians and hold these beliefs.

The word you are looking for to describe our stance is pro-life, or perhaps anti-abortion, not anti-Semitic. If you disagree with the Catholic church, does that automatically make you an anti-Catholic bigot? No.

Posted by: ycw at July 29, 2010 8:42 AM


Posted by: Megan at July 28, 2010 8:32 PM


That entire post is just disgusting.

Posted by: Kristen at July 29, 2010 10:13 AM


Sabra, I'm Jewish. Only Reform Judaism works that way, not Orthodox Judaism (Conservative Judaism, well, depends on the rabbi.) Do not pretend to speak for all Jews. You don't speak for me. And you certainly don't speak for YHWH, who tells us that He knew us in the womb before we were born.

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 29, 2010 10:21 AM


Elisabeth, thank you for your beautiful post. Sabra may not believe you are Jewish, butI have met prolife Jewish women before; they were either Conservative or Orthodox. My former mother-in-law grew up in the Conservative tradition and is prolife. Messianic Jews are also generally prolife, but they are not considered Jewish by the Jewish community. There may be some Reform Jews who are prolife somewhere, but they are about as common as prolife Unitarians.

Although I am disappointed that most Jewish people are so pro-abortion, I have a great respect for the Jewish people and all they have contributed to the world, especially the civil rights movement. Are you going to print this post, too? If so, tell Abe Foxman I said Shalom!

Posted by: phillymiss at July 29, 2010 11:04 AM


"My embryo/fetus was killed during my abortion."

Hi again Megan,
Well. Which was it? An embryo becomes a fetus at around 8 weeks. Fetus is Latin for "little one" btw.

If you have told me before how far along you were I apologize. How far along were you?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 29, 2010 1:15 PM


Well, at least Megan is being honest. And thank you for recognizing that many, many prolifers DO care about children after they're born.

Posted by: phillymiss at July 29, 2010 3:40 PM


Yes Megan, thanks for being honest. All the high-minded pro-choice rhetoric in the world always comes down to this in the end: "My selfish pleasure trumps my unborn child's right to his very existence."

Someday when you come to realize how wrong and destructive this view of life is, you will have a difficult time living with what you've done. You will have to face up to it eventually, and I hope it's sooner rather than later. You will need to find healing, and there will be people here to help you when you do.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at July 29, 2010 5:01 PM


McDonnell
I believe the majority of health issues are organic in nature. I think if farmers completely understood that they are the ultimate medicine cabinet via our nations food supply our country would be a lot healthier.

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 29, 2010 5:32 PM


Ah yes, fire and brimstone. I'll take it up with my Creator when the time comes, but for now, I sit content knowing I didn't half-heartedly bring a child into the world out of some overzealous obligation to a six-week-old embryo. I have enough work trying to be a dutiful daughter to my parents, a good sister, and a loyal friend. Shame on me for choosing not to distract myself from these existing relationships.

Selfishness--the ultimate anathema. If wanting ownership of one's pregnancy means being selfish, then so be it. I think many mothers have kids for selfish reasons...because they want their partners to love them more or need something small and vulnerable to love them or because they're bored or simply feel that it's the "thing to do" once one hits 35.

Having child is a virtue in and of itself. And right now, I think I can do more "good" by following through on the relationships I have and getting an education, rather than dragging a baby through a somewhat tumultous period of my life.

Posted by: Megan at July 29, 2010 5:43 PM


Oops, I meant "isn't" a virtue. Apparently I can't type.

Posted by: Megan at July 29, 2010 5:45 PM


"half-heartedly bring a child into the world out of some overzealous obligation to a six-week-old embryo."

No, you half heartedly brought a child into the world out of some overzealous need for physical intimacy, consequences be damned.

Posted by: Lauren at July 29, 2010 5:48 PM


Posted by: Megan at July 28, 2010 2:29 PM

"The woman's right to liberty--bodily autonomy--trumps a developing fetus' right to be born."


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

Well there you go. That settles it. It is amazing that no one ever put it so succinctly.

Jill,

Don't bother coming back from your mini-vacation.

Megan, has settled the issue once and for all.

Hey! All you 'dead babies r us' can join the sierra club and hug a tree to death.

Or you can beat your Prius into a bicycle or scrap it and use the proceeds to buy a goat or a milk cow and raise organic soy beans and medical marijuana.

Disconnect from the grid, dig your own water well or recyle your urine and use your solid waste to fertize your organic garden.

But please do it all downwind of me.

To recap Megan has setttled the issue. This is not a drill. Put away your rusty coathangers and anti-rape condoms. Pefect peace and metaphyical prosperity is coming your way.

Megan has settled the issue. Mark your calendar. You heard it here first.

Megan has settled the issue.


Posted by: yor bro ken at July 29, 2010 5:55 PM


Fire and brimstone? How many young women are struggling with alcoholism or taking psychotropic drugs to cope with the aftermath? You think there is no effect? You will have to face it someday and that's no religious metaphor. Someday is here and now, not after you're dead, Megs. You are a tremendous failure as a parent and that trumps being a good sibling or daughter. You did not escape parenthood when you killed your child. You are a mother, the mother of a corpse. I hope someday that you find physical and emotional healing. Your selfishness has become pathological.

Posted by: ninek at July 29, 2010 7:21 PM


"Megan has settled the issue."

I guess I'll just move on then. Wait,what did she say?

Posted by: psalm at July 29, 2010 7:51 PM


Megan, a woman's right to liberty does not include the right to kill her unborn child. That is not liberty. There is no such thing as a right to kill another--especially one's own child. Bodily autonomy, indeed. A fetus has the right to live, and the right to live trumps all. What about THEIR bodily autonomy? How fascist and blind can you be?

Posted by: MaryLee at July 29, 2010 8:23 PM


Ken
Take a trip to Yellowstone National Park or the Grand Canyon and then come back and preach to us Although I see no need to hug a tree, being thankful for the shade and beauty they provide I think is allright. The part about digging your own well recycling your urine and disconnecting from the grid would be a little extreme. I'm hoping the grid get's replaced gradually by something that's a little more earth and people friendly. I have a beautiful pecan tree in my front yard once when it was sick I prayed for it! Not to it for it. And now it's better.


Jill
I hope you are back or come back soon. And on your next mini or deluxe vacation I hope you get to see some of nature's wonders. Although they dim in comparison to grandchildren.

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 29, 2010 8:31 PM


Messianic Jews are considered Jews by Orthodox and Conservative Jews because in their teachings you are Jewish if you were born Jewish (like I was) or converted to Judaism.

Reform Judaism, like all liberal branches of every religious or philosophical system ever invented, do not tolerate any different teaching or thinking. If you don't believe what they believe and dare to consider Y'shua to be Messiah (yes, I am a Messianic Jew) then you are no longer qualified to be Jewish in their eyes. The always "tolerant" left...

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 29, 2010 8:53 PM


Sabra, Elisabeth said Scripture states that God knew us in the womb. Even the most liberal Talmudic rabbi would have trouble bending that scripture far enough to somehow deny God's very own acknowledgement of the inherent value of life from the point of conception. Tell me, what is the Talmudic interpretation of the book of Jeremiah chapter 1 verse 5?

Posted by: truthseeker at July 30, 2010 12:31 AM


Ah, just suck it up and deal with the depression, three stages of it...and the morning sickness, and fatigue, etc etc etc. Prize is waiting just around the corner! Only the start of 18 years of putting somebody else first...

Of course abortion is a selfish decision. I'm selfish. I want to have control of my body and my pleasure and my procreation. My rights end when a child is BORN.
Posted by: Megan at July 28, 2010 8:32 PM


classic narcissism.

Which is why your life will be a train wreck unless you find a way to open your heart.

If you can't find love in your heart for your unborn baby, warm and wrapped close to your heart, how in heaven's name will you find it for your poopy, cranky, mind-tiring newborn?

Suddenly you are going to become a selfless person devoted to a baby???? Many post abortive moms do, but you just sound like you are all about ME ME ME. :(

Posted by: angel at July 30, 2010 6:57 AM


Posted by: myrtle miller at July 29, 2010 8:31 PM

"Ken

Take a trip to Yellowstone National Park or the Grand Canyon and then come back and preach to us."


Myrtle,

Been there, done that. (Yellowstone and Grand Canyon.(

I have been a hewer of wood and toter of water.

I have actually lived OFF the grid. No power, no phones, no running water and no utility bills.

Used a honey bucket, but installed a septic system as quickly as I could.

Ran the pipe from the spring to my house as quick as I could.

Got phone lines in, got propane appliances and generator and batteries as quick as I could.

Helped my neighbors harvest the trees from their property and build log homes.

Installed and maintained 2 1/2 miles of private road.

In the process wife and I produced 5 children.

Homeschooled all of them with no support from Caesar, all the whle Caesar was taxing me to educate other folks children, many of whom were/are here illegally.

No mortgage, no debt.

My tree hugger fellow citizens took offense to my progress and labled me a 'developer'.

I wonder where these folks live and how their dwellings came to be.

The one thing I could not avoid was property taxes.

Caesar has abrogated unto himself the power to take more revenue from me for every improvement I made to my standard of living and quality of life.

And if I am unwilling or unable to pay what Caesar demands he will steal it all from me.

But Caesar never caused a single drop of rain to fall or caused a single tree to grow.

Myrtle,

Can I get an 'amen' now, seeing as I practiced... BEORE I preached.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 30, 2010 7:30 AM


I'm glad that you are working hard on your relationships with your parents and siblings Megan. But the relationship with your baby also already existed. You were already a mother with a child. That parent/child relationship already existed. Try to pretend it didn't but it did. And you had an obligation to your child. And you copped out. You didn't abort some whimsical idea of a child, you aborted an actual, living, flesh and blood baby.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 30, 2010 7:52 AM


Elisabeth, it seems that there is a great deal of hostility towards Messianic Jews by the mainstream Jewish community -- it's my understanding that they do not qualify for admittance to Israel under the law of return because they are considered Christian. But this subject is for another blog.

Anyway, I would like to bring up a point mentioned by Fleur. Adoption CAN be very traumatic for birth moms. In the past many women were pressured to give up their babies for the "sin" of having a child out of wedlock. Birth mothers need support, counseling, and of course, love.

Posted by: phillymiss at July 30, 2010 10:06 AM


Posted by: myrtle miller at July 29, 2010 5:32 PM

Couldn't agree more, with both you and Ken's attempts. Seeing as you are of an adventurist spirit maybe www.cheniere.org has a different take on power-from-the-grid.

Without doubt, the most mind-numbing book that affronts many of our lifestyle presumptions is 'Lights Out' T.S. Wiley. {There are many other books too! But there are plenty of repercussions to Wiley's book: one being, the timing-of-month-wise/amt.-of-sleep-necessary in human reproduction vs psychological manifestation.

We too often hear that science is on the PC-side. Right, poor-science. That's the main reason I commented about the possible role of zinc deficit in pregnancy depressions. It helps to deflate the contention that science backs PC. Abortion is bad medical practice because it's science sucks!

Posted by: John McDonell at July 30, 2010 12:13 PM


John,

I'm afraid I forgot to say it, but I found your study fascinating. I'm thinking I'd talk to my Family Practioner (she used to deliver babies and she's pro-life) and see what she thinks.

You just might be on to something! Best wishes for the future on that study. If zinc does any good with helping with all those hormones and things, then maybe we could help women more. I know at the time when I first had my son, I was pretty depressed--but also figured out it was partly linked to the Darvoset I was prescribed. I quit taking it, switched to normal over-the-counter Advil and my outlook on life improved a lot!

Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 30, 2010 12:22 PM


Ken
Absolutely. That's awesome. What you described is why I believe that the only thing stronger than a village is the tenacity and beauty of our own individual spirits as humans. A lot of times when we attempt to tear others down it's because we fail to see our own strengths and weaknesses. Start praying for them that's what I've been doing lately and I feel a better. Someone insulted me so bad recently my thoughts towards them were not charitable. At the same time something rose up and I just determined within my spirit that I would not quit praying for this person until they were saved. A day a lifetime whatever it took. I'm very hardheaded when my mind and spirit agree.

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 30, 2010 3:52 PM


Myrtle,

What we, my neighbors and I accomplished, was through a 'community' centered in Christ. Not to be compared to collectivism, socialism or communism... or even 'village'.

Though we all assisted each other in the endeavor, most of the work done on individual homes was performed by the individuals who eventually inhabited them.

The one item that continues to this day to be a community item is the 2 1/2 mile private road.

Now that there are more people who own property fronted by that road, people who were not there from the beginning and who do not share our faith nor our experiences, it is beginning to take on the semblance of the ever growing menace of Caesar's manner of doing things.

There is a 'road association' with a voting members and a chairman and the majority is constrained only by the depth of their own pockets. If the ones with deep pockets can afford the new project then everyone should be able to afford it as well.

Myrtle,

I am just plain hard headed, spirit and mind aside.

Posted by: yor bro ken at August 1, 2010 6:05 PM


Ken
I kinda of came to that conclusion early on that you were hard headed. Nothing wrong with that. I read somewhere that the mule a very obstinatate creature when treated right actually has a very good disposition. Sometimes life makes us hard headed sometimes we're born that way. I think I got my stubborness from my dad. You mentioned that all that was left from the community was the road. I don't agree. The road is the only physical evidence left. What you learned will always be a part of who you are. God bless you and yours.

Posted by: myrtle miller at August 2, 2010 9:23 AM


Oops! Obstinate.

Posted by: myrtle miller at August 2, 2010 8:38 PM


Sabra,

You need to get comfortable with being a Jew.

Anti-semitism is just plain bigotry.

Suggest you do a little research and discover how many different people groups are under the 'semite' umbrella.

I would be just as critical of your bloviations if you were a budhist, hindu, Bahai, New Age, etc.

It is your 'opinions' we discriminate against, not your religiouls affiliation or ethnic identity.

Cowgirl up, get past your hyper-sensitivities.

Like the Japanese comediane said, "They dropped two atomic bombs on us." Deal with the past and get on with your life.

The only people I am aware of who wish 'you' harm are the Jew hating mass murderers and serial killers who have hijacked the Islamic religion.

But they want to kill Americans almost as much as Jews.

Posted by: yor bro ken at August 2, 2010 11:18 PM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "o" in the field below: