Of course it's true.

Anti-choicers might not know it, but birth spacing is important for both maternal health and infant survival. The mantra is "three to five saves lives"--waiting that many years between births greatly reduces infant mortality, especially in the third world.

http://info.k4health.org/pr/l13/l13chap1.shtml

Why do you think the Duggars ended up in the hospital with their last baby? Because having one pregnancy after another is unhealthy and unsafe. It's sick to see them lauded on blogs for deliberately putting their baby at risk just to prove how "pro-life" they are.

But, of course, pro-lifers oppose contraception use, both here and in third-world countries with higher mortality rates. Less contraception=more dead babies. Aren't you supposed to care about the babies?

There's a direct connection between an expectant mother and her child.

Ashley -

Great post. I don't understand the fight against contraceptive use or sex ed classes while then saying abortion is the worst thing in the world. If it is a terrible evil, go to all lengths to keep people from getting pregnant that don't want to get pregnant.

The Fetus People generally oppose distributing condoms in third world countries, even though it's a barrier method and doesn't interfere with fertilization. Why? BIRTH SPACING SAVES LIVES. Condom use allows for birth spacing. I suppose when it comes to either contraception use or more dead babies, more dead babies is the lesser of two evils.

Why do you think the Duggars ended up in the hospital with their last baby? Because having one pregnancy after another is unhealthy and unsafe.

Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 9:32 AM

Ashley, dear, that's a ridiculous statement. That was child #19. 1-18 weren't spaced according to your "mantra" and they were just fine. Most people don't even have 1/2 the number of children they did, so you statement is just you making noise. sorry to be so harsh, but think about what you wrote.

Okay Marie, what about the study I posted? Shouldn't we be encouraging birth spacing and condom use in order to save more babies' lives?

Oh, and "three to five saves lives" is not my "mantra," it's a fact backed up by the research of respected medical organizations.

Ashley,

I looked into the birth spacing, and it's interesting. According to the site, it used to be 2 years apart, and now recent studies show 3 years is better. Most of the people I know have a sister or brother 1 year apart, and both are healthy, so I don't really know. I didn't do the study though, so what do I know anyway! It's very interesting.

However, I totally agree with you about condom use. I believe condoms can do a world of good in third world countries ( and here as well) not so much for the birth spacing issue, but for the reduction in unwanted pregnanices (reduction in abortions) and STD's. Condom use would save so many lives. It's a shame that Catholics and others cannot get on board with this!.

Another study:

http://www.globalhealth.org/sources/view.php3?id=387

"Children born 3 to 5 years after the previous child are about 2.5 times more likely to survive to age five than children born less than 2 years after the previous child."

You want to "save babies"? Instead of encouraging women to forgo contraception and get pregnant as often as possible, why don't you tell them the facts about birth spacing? Why not advise all new mothers to wait at least 3 years before having another? Will any of the pro-lifers reading this agree to help save babies?

"Condom use would save so many lives. It's a shame that Catholics and others cannot get on board with this!"

Amen.

I actually support the pro-lifers who actually want to do something to save lives and reduce abortion rates.

Ashley,

How can birth spacing help save babies if there's an "oops" in between? What if the woman gets pregnant 1 year after baby #1? Does she keep the baby or does she abort for mantra's sake?

Again, I'd support birth-spacing if that's what the woman believes and wants but only if a condom is used in place of abortion for birth spacing.

But please understand, as a Christian, I believe that God creates the life in the woman on His timing, not hers.

Of course the underlined quote is true. That is why teaching ABSTINENCE is so critical. Unlike condoms, it has a zero failure rate. Unlike all forms of medicine taken to avoid pregnancy it has zero harmful side effects.

"I believe that God creates the life in the woman on His timing, not hers."

Well, that life is twice as likely to die without birth spacing, regardless of what God wants.

And no, you don't have to run out and have an abortion if you get pregnant one year later. But obviously, if you want what's best for your baby, you should do everything you can to avoid it.

Well, that life is twice as likely to die without birth spacing, regardless of what God wants.

Ashley, we will have agree to disagree with that statement.

if you want what's best for your baby, you should do everything you can to avoid it.

HUH? Wouldn't the baby starve to death? I'm confused with that statement. Can you explain?

"Ashley, we will have agree to disagree with that statement."

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a well-established fact that birth spacing reduces infant mortality, regardless of what you think God wants. Read the studies I posted.

And I meant that you should avoid getting pregnant by accident right after having a baby, because birth spacing is important for both infant and maternal health.

Subvet,January 9, 2010 10:06 AM,

Although true, not everyone thinks/believes that having sex before marriage or having sex every time the urge comes along is a bad thing. I'm a supporter of ABSTINENCE teaching for those who will listen, but condom use for those who won't.

My #1 goal is to reduce the # of abortions.

Though it didn't always turn out this way, nursing children was nature's way of spacing births. Given that children could only be fed by nursing, mothers would often breastfeed up to two years and possibly longer. Women would also wetnurse, as my greataunt did, another baby who's mother had died or was unable to nurse her own child. This would also keep the woman infertile.

Certainly breastfeeding was not foolproof and there were any number of factors involved, but mother nature at least gave it a shot!

I find the "I wish Catholics would get on board w/ contraception b/c their stance is killing people" argument absolutely ludicrous. The Catholic church's teaching is that we're all called to a little bit of self control in keeping with our dignity as human beings. That means natural family planning (which is so far beyond the "rhythm" method thanks to greater understanding of a woman's cycle) and abstaining during fertile times if you don't wish to become pregnant (and of course abstinence outside of marriage). The Church opposes contraception b/c it's a barrier between the marital union and divorces the sexual act from it's natural procreative end. The Church encourages spacing of children and Catholics do NOT advocate for getting pregnant as much as you can (if individuals do this it's b/c they want to have extremely large families not b/c they're "ordered" to do so). Anyone (Catholic or not) who disregards Church teaching about premarital sex is SURELY not going to feel bound to it's teaching about contraception.

So there's no reason for the Church not to teach what it believes to be true to it's faithful. There's also nothing wrong with Catholics as citizens lobbying their government not to fund efforts that they believe to be gravely immoral and pushing instead for policies that they feel are both moral and more effective.

To sum up and get back to the original topic. I totally agree with Clinton's statement. Totally. I just don't make the jump that a woman needs contraception and available abortions to accomplish said family planning/birth spacing.

Ashley,

I'm reading over the studies you posted, and of course I have questions....

What role does genetics play in the children who passed before age 5 or the health of the mother deteriorated because the children weren't "spaced apart"?

Is the study biased towards population control since the average woman now has her first child at approx. age 30, and 40 is still the age doctors tell us to pretty much stop trying to have kids? That gives the woman approx. 3 kids tops if they use birth spacing. These sites tend to lean towards population studies as well. I'm just curious, as I've never heard of this until now. Forgive me please & thank you for your patience!

I don't know the answers to those questions any more than you do, but I'm looking into it. I think "three to five saves lives" applies worldwide, to people of all ethnic groups.

Ashley,

I read the link you posted and it has a lot of good information. Something you didn't mention though is the various demographic and cultural elements at play when discussing birth spacing. According to the link, birth spacing around the world is highly determined by factors such as maternal age, maternal employement, maternal education level, place of residence, beliefs about fertility, breastfeeding, gender preferences, availability of childcare, and so on. These are the factors that influence birth spacing (both in the US and the third world), not the availability of contraceptives. Contraceptive availability is not essential to promoting birth spacing (as NFP is available for commited, monogamous couples and abstinence for others), nor is it a significant factor when parents make their birth spacing decisions.

I wonder if increased infant mortality results from children dying because their pregnant mother can no longer nurse them. In poor countries, unlike wealthier nations, this may be the young child's only source of nutrition. You also have more sicklier and undernourished mothers for whom a pregnancy can be fatal. Many, many factors here.

Ashley, exclusive nursing following a birth is considered a very effective birth control method.

It's about 98% effective in the first 6 months.

In countries with high breast feeding rates there would be 50% more births if mothers did not breastfeed.

journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=57075843AF368EAA863A3CB5929074A2.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=182219

In fact, even before China instituted its draconian reproductive policies, they had a higher rate of child spacing than the general global population because of their very high rate of both nursing and extended nursing beyond 1 year.

www.jstor.org/pss/1966436

Mary & Lauren,

Thanks for posting the breastfeeding posts/links.

I completely forgot about that, or didn't connect the dots. I nursed for almost a year, and didn't get my monthly curse at all during that time. In fact, a couple months after I stopped nursing I still didn't get it, and my doctor put me on Provera to start it again.

Mary, you are correct. Many factors here, but interesting and possible important study nevertheless.

1) The premature birth of Duggar #19 had nothing to do with spacing. Michelle had a medical problem with her gallbladder and it was THAT problem that caused the premature contractions.

2) As pointed out above, natural spacing of that "optimum range" has been achieved historically through breastfeeding, which also, btw, in third world countries is the best way to care nourish children. Substitute formulas are neither easy nor reliable... water is contaminated, formula itself overseas is often contaminated (it's where American manufacturers dump the stuff they can't legally sell here for one reason or another).

If you TRULY care about children's health, advocating exclusive breastfeeding according to the WHO guidelines would be the best thing for both feeding the babies already born and spacing the babies yet to come.

My own children are spaced by breastfeeding... 17, 13, 11, 8, 5, 4 (the far ends of those ages, they're almost 2 years apart) and 4 months of age.

It's sick to see them lauded on blogs for deliberately putting their baby at risk just to prove how "pro-life" they are.

Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 9:32 AM
------

Ashley - what exactly are you sickened by?

Are you sickened by the hypocrisy that the Duggars might put a baby at risk when instead they should have violently shredded that same child?

So the hypocrisy is disdainful and the shredding of the child is not?

Is that correct?

There are several things wrong with Clinton's statement. She assumes we have total control over what happens in our lives. (If we have A then B, C, D, E and F follow right in line. If we don't have A, we may never have a chance at B, C, D, and so on...) Life isn't that simple. (Thank goodness.) She doesn't address all the tangential road blocks or opportunities along the way. But she makes her message simple because she's betting that simple people will buy into it. She's a liberal politician, that's what she does. If people don't buy what she's selling, she's out of a job. Why should anyone put their trust in her?

Let's look at birth spacing. Generally a breast feeding mom will have babies further spaced especially if she continues breast feeding for more than a year. So more widely spaced babies are more likely to have been breast fed babies. So that is an embedded variable. Due to unsanitary conditions, formula is a bad idea for anyone in the undeveloped world. Also, if an infant dies in the first year, his mother is more likely to have another baby sooner than had he lived. So that is another confounding factor in the accumulation of data about birth spacing. In the USA, birth spacing is probably far less of a health indicator because of general good health in the population.

Ashley,

First of all, nice to see you posting again, after you never defended your point of view on abortion in an earlier thread.

Second of all, these types of studies are inherently flawed. The studies have no control because they do not tell certain parents to space children and others to not space children. They only observe the results of parents who have spaced and of parents who have not spaced. This fails to take into account that the KIND of parents who space their children may also be the KIND of parents who provide better care for their children.

For example, as Lauren started to point out earlier, women who breastfeed tend not to have children every year, as breastfeeding works as a natural contraceptive. Breastfeeding is also linked to higher infant mortality. It could be that the women who are spacing are, in general, simply breastfeeding more and are thus having healthier children. It could be that the kinds of parents who tend to "plan" their children also tend to have better resources, or tend to devote a larger portion of those resources, to raise those children. There really is little way to control for those factors. How exactly do you measure good parenting in a study?

Think about it. You brought up the Duggars as your example, yet they buck the trend you supposed ruthlessly. Why is that? Could it be that they are atypical of people who do not space, in that they are very caring and wealthy parents? Could it be that a huge portion of those who do not space are just careless and that they drive up the infant mortality numbers?

"There's a direct connection between a woman's ability to plan her family, space her pregnancies and give birth safely, and her ability to get an education, work outside the home, support her family and participate fully in the life of her community," she said....

Maybe she is putting the cart before the horse. Pressure on women to be more like men and get out there and work and compete as well as devaluing the contributions that women make to family life may lead women to choose contraceptives. By the time some women figure this out it is often too late for them to have as many children as they wanted. 40% of women over 40 in Germany say they wanted more children than they had. Sure some women really want careers, however most working mothers say they would rather be at home with their children. So basically it is society that wants women working and having fewer children. When asked, women say they want more kids and less career.

Did you know that eating less ice cream can lower your chance of murder?

Yep, in several independent studies, one done in New York, there exists a very strong correlation between ice cream purchase and murder.

So, using Ashley's logic, NOT EATING ICE CREAM SAVES LIVES!!!!

Ashley, it's true that letting your body rest between pregnancies is healthy. There is a way to do this naturally and it's called Natural Family Planning. It not only helps women space pregnancies, but it puts them in touch with their own bodies. This is how a woman can TRULY take control of her own health, not taking a pill that damages her endocrine system by tricking her body into thinking it's pregnant.

Ashley,

The Duggars did not deliberately put their child at risk. I understand Mrs. Duggar developed eclampsia, some reports say gall bladder problems.
Whatever, it was a medical emergency no one could foresee, just as a one cannot foresee a pregnant woman rupturing a brain aneurysm or being involved in a car accident.

The premature delivery shows that whatever is necessary in a medical crisis to save the mother and/or child will be done. There is no need for the likes of the late Tiller or Carhart.

You showed us a single study, but let's look at the U.N. Population Reports own study which shows that of all the world's nations, the ones with the tightest abortion restrictions had the LEAST number of maternal deaths whereas those with the most liberal abortion laws had the HIGHEST number of maternal deaths. If it truly was the case that legalized abortion saves mothers lives, you would see the results reversed.

Condoms do not help promote safe sex - they promote risk taking. Basic psychology - if a person believes themselves to be "protected" from harm they will engage in riskier behaviors more often than they would if they are not feeling protected. Furthermore, condoms are very unreliable in prevention of pregnancies or STD's.

In the entire history of human kind, I know of only one instance in which a virgin was impregnated without having had sex - and neither you nor I are in league with the Virgin Mary. If you don't want to worry about the consequences of having sex, don't have it.

Natural Family Planning IS used as birth spacing. It uses the natural fertility signs to let a woman know when she's pregnant. Breastfeeding also helps to space children.

Birth control and condoms are NOT the answer, especially for 3rd world countries.

oops, meant to say when she can become pregnant

Hi Brandy,

I have often seen the figure of 78,000 touted by PAs as the number of illegal abortion deaths worldwide.

In all honesty that is quite miniscule. Either that many women aren't resorting to illegal abortion or its not all that dangerous.
How many women die of preventable disease, malnutrition, abuse, war, criminal violence, etc.? Apparently that doesn't matter since I never hear any concern expressed over these numbers.

I do believe in spacing pregnancies...but my doctor told me one year is healthy. My son is three and my husband and I are just now trying for a second child. We used condoms for birth control because I refused to put the deadly pill in my body anymore. I learned all about natural family planning and wanted my husband to get on board but he insisted on the condoms because he felt he had more control with that. He didn't really understand my fertility or how natural family planning works and is so stubborn so he refused to read up on it. ugh, whatever. And he is Catholic which makes it all the more ironic to me.

The point is, that condoms do lead some people to feel "safe" and thus make riskier sexual decisions such as extra-marital casual sex or more partners etc...which can lead to more pregnancies (cause condoms are not 100% effective all the time even if used correctly every sexual encounter). If the contracepting couple has an anti-child mentality, meaning they are not planning for a child and do not want a child to result from their sexual union, the child that results due to contraceptive failure is usually aborted. THAT is why pro-lifers don't generally encourage the use of contraception.

I would have liked to have had a second baby earlier but finances have determined we had to wait this long between kids. I was working full time too. Now I am home with my son and ready for another little person to join our family. I am glad I could space my pregnancies, but if an "accidental" pregnancy had occurred again (my son was an "accident" while on Yaz) my husband and I had pro-life views and would definitely have welcomed that child.

With the exclusion of a few commenters, I think this thread has proved that the Fetus People immediately stop caring about fetuses as soon as they emerge from the womb. Reputable scientists--not anti-choice fanatics--have found "three to five saves lives" is true, especially in third world countries. Why? We don't know, but the statistics are there, and researchers first discovered this pattern in 1923.

Once again, when choosing between condom use and more dead babies, anti-choicers pick more dead babies every time.

And preaching abstinence to people in the Third World is ludicrous. They need contraception that works, not a morality play.

Getting back to other aspects of the question. .

I think Clinton has it precisely backward. It is the kind of help a woman receives in her work and school situation that helps her give birth and raise the children she chooses to have (and when the pregnancy is unexpected as well).

Let's see: according to the Alan Guttmacher institute, one half of abortions in America are obtained by college-age women. There are a lot of pregnant college students out there who choose abortion.

This is far from surprising, since too many college campuses there is no or insufficient housing for parenting students, no available childcare on campus and no coverage for childbirth or pediatric care in school health care policies. It is simply assumed that you won't be pregnant or raising a child while in college.

In spite of their name, "pro-choice" groups haven't done anything about this. It was up to Feminists for Life to start a College Outreach Program to educate college age women about the resources out their, to work for change in attitudes and facilities. Since they started this program in 1994, abortion has dropped 30% on college campuses.

The same barriers are often faced by pregnant women in the workforce. In too many places, women lack guaranteed maternity leave, access to childcare at work, and face hostile attitudes toward working mothers.

What did Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Larry Lader, the founders of NARAL, tell feminists back in the early 70's? "If you want to get ahead in the education and business world like men, abortion is a necessity." That's it. Not "maternity leaves are a necessity, but "abortion is the solution to everything."

Feminists as usual have just devoted too much attention to abortion, and too little to real help for women. Certainly some strides have been made, but I wish they devoted one-tenth the amount of time and money to these things as they do to abortion.

I imagine that if things are like this in the U.S., they are much worse in poorer countries of the world when women struggle to get an education or find a job.

How much time is Secretary Clinton paying to problems of women and school and the work force other than offering contraception and abortion?

I meant in the last line "women in school and the workforce."

Ashley,

What third world women need is not contraception but education, better nutrition, better maternal-child health services, legal rights, protection from abuse, just to name a few.

Women in these countries have numerous children just to guarantee any survive, much like our great, and great great grandmothers did.

Also contraception may not be safe for 3rd world women. A malnourished, anemic, and sickly woman can tolerate the Pill, IUD or RU486? If she develops complications the only "medical care" she has available is a primitive first aid station 50 miles away by oxcart.

I worked in healthcare for years from the entire range of pre-natal, peri-natal, post-natal, and pediatric care. The most physically, mentally, and emotionally healthy families I met were married, committed, two-parent, large families with the healthiest mothers and babies. Some of the largest families I met were the most stable families, with loving, supportive, hands-on husbands and fathers, healthy "breastfed-best-fed" babies, usually had uncomplicated labors and deliveries, healthy children with less sick visits, their highest priorities were family-time (meals together, fun activities) and typically faith-based emphasis in their lives (weekly visits to a house of worship). You know what, when I started studying it the research actually backed up everything I saw in practice before I ever studied it. This pro-abort, population control, every baby "wanted and planned" garbage, choose what babies you want to "K or K" (Keep or to Kill) mentality is the result of selfish, self-centered, promiscuous sex (translation-I can have sex whenever I want, with whoever I want, however I want and get rid of the consequences. It's a LIE! You know why because devalued, meaningless sex with devalued, disposable sexual partners leads to devalued, disposable babies thrown in garbage cans of medical waste.

Read "The Case for Marriage" by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, "Why Marriage Matters" by Glenn T. Stanton, "Uncle Sam's Plantation", Pimps, Whores and Welfare Brats" and "White Ghetto" all by Star Parker (ex-self professed welfare queen).

Good old Hillary Clinton, winner of the Margaret "get rid of the unfit, human weeds" Sanger "Maggie" Award, can tell women how to be really successful; my paraphrase "just control how many babies you have, kill the ones you don't want and you will be healthy, wealthy and wise just like me".

Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 1:56 PM
----------

Ashley - here's a serious question.

There are 100 glasses lined up. One of them has a colorless, odorless liquid poison. It will kill you within 5 minutes. The others hold water - also colorless and odorless.

Would you like a drink? You can pick any glass of liquid. The liquid could be put through a micro-pore filter for you if that would help you select a glass. Thirsty?

And preaching abstinence to people in the Third World is ludicrous. They need contraception that works, not a morality play.

Ashley - did you take the example I gave above seriously? And if so, why wouldn't such examples work with others?

I detect a narrative - "the Third World". How is it impossible for those of which you speak to be incapable of learning about abstinence in a realistic, life-saving manner?

Wouldn't it be more morally perverse to offer to filter the poison for them, and mislead them into thinking that would keep them safe (safer?) than to simply say - keep yourselves pure until you marry and once married stay faithful to each other?

How is that not common sense vs a morality play?

Anyway, Clinton's remarks were dead on. Fertility rates and women's rights are directly linked all over the world.

http://www.prb.org/Educators/TeachersGuides/HumanPopulation/Women.aspx

I don't want to live in Niger, Mali, or Chad. Abortion is illegal in all these countries, and women have little access to contraception and have 6 kids on average. Yet anti-choicers want America to have the same policies as they do.

Here's a map of abortion policies around the world. The countries that ban abortion are marked in pink and purple.

http://www.womenonwaves.org/attachment-682-en.html

I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in ANY of the countries that ban abortion. Most of them are Muslim hellholes--the countries we're supposed to be fighting against to preserve our superior way of life. Yet anti-choicers want to drag us down to their level and adopt the same policies as Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia....ie, no abortion or contraception for anyone.

Ashley:

Stop being an abortionist idiot. Stop calling people who support unborn human rights "fetus people" or "anti-choice fanatics".

Stop saying unborn human rights supporters want "dead babies". The only ones who want "dead babies" and have given us a billion of them in the last 20 years are you human being destroying abortionists.

You abortionists support destroying the whole human race through abortion violence. Go and get a conscience and stop supporting the killing of your fellow human beings. Remember, you like everyone else started off as an unborn child.

Ashley, 2:27PM

Please, stop and think. You are talking about countries with horrendous poverty, maternal-child care, no legal protections for women, abuse, disease, malnutrition, etc. Women have 6 children? How many of those children even survive to adulthood?
Other countries deny women legal rights. Abortion and contraception will remedy that how?
How about the lack of education and abuse these women are also subjected to? How will abortion and contraception remedy that?

Oh puh-leeze, we want to drag this country down to that level? Prior to Roe v Wade women had no rights or access to contraception? Women couldn't vote? They couldn't own property? They weren't educated?

Get real.

Ashley says"And preaching abstinence to people in the Third World is ludicrous. They need contraception that works, not a morality play."

Ashley, clearly do not know what you are talking about. During the Bush years (yes, evil BushHitler) the United States implimented a policy called ABC to deal with the AIDS crisis in Africa.

A-Abstinance First

B-Be Faithful

C-Condoms as a last resort.

Guess what? The program was enormously successful. Countries that used this model saw a dramatic reduction in AIDS transmission compared to countries where only contraception was pushed.

Your attitude is frankly quite paternalistic. You assume that those in underdeveloped countries can not, or will not control themselves if taught the benefits.

What leads you to believe this?

Here's some information on the matter:

"Surveys from Cambodia, where prevention efforts seem to have reduced HIV infection,12 w8 indicate the proportion of men who reported paying for sex has fallen greatly (fig 2).13 In Zambia, the prevalence of HIV reportedly fell among urban young women during the 1990s.6 12 14 At about that time there was a large reduction in casual and multiple partner sex6 15 in the presence of faith based and other grassroots efforts to promote delay of sexual debut among young people and monogamy for those who were sexually active. More recently, HIV prevalence has declined in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,w8 where large reductions in commercial and other casual sex have been reported among male factory workers.16 And in the Dominican Republic, where HIV also seems to have abated,12 17 men have reported partner reduction in addition to increased condom use with sex workers. "

www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;328/7444/891

Ashley, concerning 3rd world countries, evidently you don't know the story behind Uganda and their ABC policy dropping their HIV positive rate from 21% in 1991 to 6% in 2002 teaching Abstinence first, Be faithful-mongomous and Condoms-as a last resort. You need to read the article in the Washington Post "Let My People Go, AIDS Profiteers".
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901477

You have bought into the stereotype that is talked about in the article "You can't change African's sexual behavior", which is racist and degrading. The last paragraph of the article is priceless-"So hear my plea, HIV-AIDS profiteers. Let my people go. We understand that casual sex is dear to you, but staying alive is dear to us. Listen to African wisdom, and we will show you how to prevent AIDS."

What of Ireland, Ashley? They have some of the lowest, if not the lowest maternal and infant mortality rates despite the fact that abortion is illegal unless the mother's life is demonstratably at risk.

Why is it that people who want to push abortion always forget his inconveinant truth?

Once again, here's the world map of abortion policies.

http://www.womenonwaves.org/attachment-682-en.html

I think this disproves the myth that banning abortion is all about creating a "culture of life." The countries with the strictest abortion bans--Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran--have atrocious human rights records. They also have a penchant for suicide bombings and jihad.

No, banning abortion is not about being "pro-life." These countries all have one thing in common they love to oppress women, especially the ones having sex outside of marriage.

Chris Arsenault...excellent response!

I think Ashley's attitude is extremely telling. "Third world countries" don't need a "morality play" as if they are animals and not people that can learn to control their actions and make healthy lifestyle decisions. Morality is for all of mankind. Not just for us "classy" Americans! What an elitist snob you are, Ashley.

"What an elitist snob you are, Ashley"

Boo hoo. I'm such an elitist, not believing I should push my personal religious beliefs on people who don't share my faith and, frankly, have bigger things to worry about than whether sex outside marriage is moral. AIDS, starvation, infant mortality, literacy....

Wow, Ashley. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that a correlation on a single factor does not mean that there is a single causual reason for that outcome.

Abortion may be illegal in different areas because of different different reasons.

Saudi Arabia might ban abortion because they wish all women to remain slaves to men, but that doesn't mean that Ireland's motives are the same.

Nor can you say that because a country allows abortion that they have a high view of women. This is certainly not true of China, yet China allows abortion on demand.

Ashley, you just don't get it. Teaching about these "morals" you deride is helping with those "bigger things."

Just because you don't want to accept the truth that ABC works, doesn't mean it doesn't. It has drastically cut AIDS transmission. Africans are very pleased with the results, and frankly a little pissed that people like you think that they are too stupid or ignorant to use them correctly.

"Saudi Arabia might ban abortion because they wish all women to remain slaves to men, but that doesn't mean that Ireland's motives are the same."

What are the motives? I can only think of two, which are linked.

1. Extremist religious beliefs, which mandates that
2. Women be punished for sex outside marriage.

Muslim countries are not "pro-life," and they certainly don't care about saving babies. They're notorious for infanticide. So why is abortion banned?

I don't believe that the reasons are radically different in different cultures. That's not the case with most other practices. The death penalty is universally imposed as an act of retribution, "an eye for an eye." People from different cultures don't give different rationales for the death penalty.

Religious extremism and the oppression of women are the only things countries that outright ban abortion have in common.

And before anyone trots out China as a country that allows abortion and devalues women:

China is an anti-choice country. The government often forces--not allows, FORCES--women to undergo abortions they don't want. Women are often held down and subjected to forced late-term abortions against their will.

Banning abortion and forcing abortion are two sides of the same anti-choice coin. Either way, the woman has no say in the matter.

Ashley/Nerd/Schoolnerd,
Are you sticking with the moniker of Ashley then?

women on waves is a biased pro abortion organization. They try to sneak into countries that have strict laws on abortion and then offer abortion on their boats. What happens if something goes wrong? Cause we ALL know that Abortion is NOT safe, and almost always (98% of the time since there are babies that DO survive) ends in the death of at least ONE: the innocent child.

There's an organization that is called Food Not Condoms. Why aren't we helping these countries with nutritious foods and medicines? Instead it seems that some orgs (mostly those obsessed with population control) think the solution is condoms and abortion.

Lauren, Ashley seems incapable of grasping many things...

BTW, the gallbladder information comes directly from Michelle and Jim Bob's website. It triggered contractions that they attempted to stop but which continued anyway. This can happen during a gallbladder attack during pregnancy.

As a certified breastfeeding counselor (a certification I earned during my nursing school days) the politics of breastfeeding and other issues regarding so-called "Third World" countries was a major area of study. The same attitude that Ashley exhibits here is exhibited by formula companies using manipulative, lying techniques to get women using formula with their children with DISASTROUS results for the babies. Honestly if those areas are the concern, we need to worry about creating local industry, removing barriers to true aid (first bringing food and water sanitation supplies, then creating local industry and opportunities for economic growth) and putting an end to genocidal regimes would be far more important than importing condoms, birth control OR formula.

We are not made more "in control" of life by shutting off those aspects of us that are most powerfully female. We simply become more androgynous.

Right, because Irish women are just so oppressed...

3rd world countries have much more in common with each other than with developed nations, completely regardless of abortion. It is disingenuous to compare Liberia with Ireland and pretend that the two cultures are remotely similar.

If we wish to see what abortion would look like in America were it made illegal, looking to Ireland is much more telling than looking to Africa.

Of course, we could also look into our past. Maternal abortion deaths were actually lower in the year prior to Roe than the year after. Antiseptic reduced abortion related deaths far more than legalization. The reason 3rd world countries continue to have high rates of maternal mortality due to abortion is widely because of poor santitation and method, regardless of the legal status of abortion in each country.

Stop comparing apples to oranges.

Religious extremism and oppresion of women sounds like a great basis for dialating a woman's cervix, mutilating and dismembering her unborn baby with a curette and taking a cannula to suction her baby out with powerful vacuum. Makes perfect sense. Kill the innocent baby it will make my life, my country and the world a better place to live. I wonder didn't Hitler consider the Jews a drag on the German people and the economy whose extermination would make Germany and the whole world better place. WOW! You do have Pro Death Derangement Syndrome (PDDS) or Pro Abortion Derangement Syndrome (PADS). That's alright got to go I will leave you to your illness and to the other prolifers to deal with you if they wish. Sounds like a waste of time to me though prolifers but I could be wrong. Take care got to go.

Your comments on China show just how little you understand about the pro-life movement. China is not just another side to the "anti-choice" coin.

We would never force a woman to kill her child. A pro-abortion mindset is what allows this practice to continue.

Also, it is not just China. Many Asian countries have legal abortion, yet devalue women. Abortion is legal in India, but it is often used to abort female children who are devalued by their society.

Legalized abortion does not mean that a society values women. Period.

Not that I think Ashley will look it up but maybe someone else will want the link for my post about the Uganda AIDS article. The link should end with .html Sorry about that. It is an excellent article by the way, don't let anyone tell you the racist propaganda that Africans, African Americans or anyone else cannot change their behavior. PP LIES TO YOU!!! Carry on prolifers.

The hardest person to heal from blindness is the person whose blindness is caused by refusing to see what they don't want to see.

"With the exclusion of a few commenters, I think this thread has proved that the Fetus People immediately stop caring about fetuses as soon as they emerge from the womb." - Ashley

Now, I would very much like to understand how you think my comment says I stop caring about a person once they emerge from the womb. Did I not just tell you that MATERNAL deaths decrease when abortion laws are strict? That would be deaths of the MOTHER - i.e. a grown woman.

In Ireland, the reason abortion is not allowed is because the Irish are Catholic, and as Catholics we believe in the value of human life at all ages and stages of development from conception through natural death.

Your argument that you don't believe you have the right to push your beliefs on others is not very honest. You certainly feel it is your right to push your belief that women should be free to have abortions whenever and wherever they want on others or else you wouldn't be here on a pro-life site posting comments to that effect.

Do you believe that a law should be passed legalizing murder on demand as long as it can be shown to be beneficial to the emotional, physical, or mental well-being of someone else? What about just a general purpose murder on demand law? I am sure that you would oppose both, but isn't that just you imposing your opposition to murder on everyone else? What difference is there between such a law and the law which permits the unborn baby to be killed?

BTW: You can call it a fetus all you like but the word fetus is Latin for offspring. It is not just a cluster of cells or a tumor. If it were a tumor why would you go to an abortion clinic and not an oncologist? If it were a tumor the cells would be identical to the woman's other body cells. If it's a growth why isn't it being biopsied and studied to find out where the disease is? It's a baby - you know it in your heart even if you refuse to acknowledge the truth in your head.

Ashley:

Stop talking about the "oppression of women".

You are an abortionist. You have nothing to say.

Your movement has exterminated 500,000,000 (five hundred MILLION) women around the world in the last 20 years.

You abortionists are the worst destroyers and ravagers of women in all of history!

Just shut up until you repudiate your support for this absolutely evil violence toward women.

Gosh. Some of those five hundred million were little girls I'd wager...who might have grown up to be WOMEN, Ashley!!

Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 2:27 PM
------

Ashley - how much do understand demographics?

When populations have cultural mindsets like one child per couple do they flourish or are those societies subsumed into more pro-creative cultures - say like the Muslim countries which you detest?

Put another way, suppose you were the only one in your area that had one child - in the meantime every other family around you had 6-10 children. Within a generation or two how much say would you have in your affairs? Would you be unable to elect someone who held your same values?

Ashley: "With the exclusion of a few commenters, I think this thread has proved that the Fetus People immediately stop caring about fetuses as soon as they emerge from the womb. Reputable scientists--not anti-choice fanatics--have found "three to five saves lives" is true, especially in third world countries. Why? We don't know, but the statistics are there, and researchers first discovered this pattern in 1923."

Just like your views of abortion, you cannot defend your argument against sound criticism. I already pointed out that your correlation proves nothing, yet here you are respoutig your horsecrap. Why is it that so many pro-choicers avoid legitimate debate? I haven't seen one other than SoMG answer a direct criticism. You are pathetic.

Great pro-life dialogue. I hope Hillary is reading this post. What are the odds?

I think the point ashley is trying to make here is that without the benefits of western medicine, Michelle Duggar could have suffered from health problems and several of her children could have died. While it would be nice to have excellent and free prenatal care available to all women around the world, this is not the case. Also, it is a straw argument to claim that ashley is equating middle eastern and african citizens with being beasts with her claim that abstience doesn't work. several studies have shown that the abstience programs touted in this country have failed.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/16/schoolsworldwide.usa
if you think this is too liberal then here is another source:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5806a1.htm

Of course, I have seen many claims on here that are do not have any citations with them, so I think it is safe to say that some of the posters here are a little loose with the truth

Wow, Ashley: "Third world countries don't need a "morality play"

Great example of "progressive" thinking and "The soft bigotry of low expectations."

I think it is safe to say that some of the posters here are a little loose with the truth
Posted by: Kitten parade at January 9, 2010 4:51 PM
-----

Kitten parade - could you provide a citation with that claim?

Thanks!

You people want our country to have the exact same family planning policies as the Islamofascists, whom we're supposed to be fighting against (oh, and Ireland, the one anomaly in the West). We call you the "American Taliban" for a reason. Really, your vision for America is no different.

I'll just repost my last response so you people can let it sink in.

******
Once again, here's the world map of abortion policies.

http://www.womenonwaves.org/attachment-682-en.html

I think this disproves the myth that banning abortion is all about creating a "culture of life." The countries with the strictest abortion bans--Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran--have atrocious human rights records. They also have a penchant for suicide bombings and jihad.

No, banning abortion is not about being "pro-life." These countries all have one thing in common: they love to oppress women, especially the ones having sex outside of marriage.

That is all I have to say.

"You certainly feel it is your right to push your belief that women should be free to have abortions whenever and wherever they want on others."

Haha, the Fetus People make no sense whatsoever. Yes, I'm FORCING women to decide whether or not to have a child! By letting them make their own decisions totally free from government or religious control, I'm...forcing them to choose for themselves!

Uh, no. Letting people make their own decisions is the direct opposite of using force.

"In Ireland, the reason abortion is not allowed is because the Irish are Catholic"

Yeah, well, a lot of people in America aren't. And that's no basis for our laws, since we aren't a theocracy. Of course, that would change if the American Taliban had their way.

I won't sit back and let the American Taliban turn this country into Saudi Arabia. Swap out Islam for Christianity and you have the same idea, right down to the family planning policies.

Ashley-

You are making sweeping generalizations about pro-lifers and then ignore evidence that counters your own. Why not answer the criticism directed at you instead of hurling more baseless insults? It's more intellectually honest.

I think this disproves the myth that banning abortion is all about creating a "culture of life." The countries with the strictest abortion bans--Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran--have atrocious human rights records. They also have a penchant for suicide bombings and jihad.

No, banning abortion is not about being "pro-life." These countries all have one thing in common: they love to oppress women, especially the ones having sex outside of marriage.

Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 6:09 PM
-------

Ashley - your logic only works if you can make the case that the unborn, being shredded at the rate of close to 1.25 million per year in the USA alone, are not human. If they are - that makes the human rights abuses in the other countries pale in comparison.

If someone were to take your life, would any of your other "rights" matter?

That being the case, don't you think the most precious right is that to "life"?

Ashley, you do not adequately address abortion in Ireland. First of all, it is not just Catholic Ireland that rejects abortion. Both The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland reject abortion. Catholicism can not be pointed to as the reason for both since one is protestant.

No, the reason that Ireland rejects abortion is that it recognizes the personhood of the unborn. This is not a religious belief, but rather a recognition of the scientific fact that an unborn human is still a human.

You can't simply dismiss what is inconvienant to your argument. Ireland represents a developed country that rejects abortion and is the best model when projecting what an abortion free America might look like.

first off Ashley, there is a world of difference between radical Islam and Catholic Christianity
Christianity was the first religion to work for the emancipation of women and encouraged men to treat women and children with dignity - something the pagan world did not do

secondly,Islam has repressive ideas about sexuality in which women's bodies are seen as shameful and the cause of men sinning

In this day and age, Catholic Christianity has no such view of human sexuality.

A few other thoughts:

the most important need for women in third world countries is adequate maternal care, the encouragement to breast feed (which will help with spacing) and the end to such practices as child marriages and female circumcision

in the West, many women can safely have a baby every year or 2 years if they so desire because we have better maternal healthcare and the women are in better overall health than their sisters from the Third World

Ashley,

Please don't spread the stereotype that all of the crazy, crazy Fetus People hate women. I don't hate women. I want legislation that helps single mothers (and single fathers, too, albeit there are less single fathers than mothers, but they shouldn't be forgotten), I hate that stupid beauty myth crap going around of "Thin Thin THIN," and one of my collections of short stories is about women suffering around the world and I want to include sources where people can help.

And children's rights and Darfur are the single greatest passions that I have ever had.

I agree with Clinton- women need to be able to plan their families. But abortion is not planning. Contraceptives- yes. Use them if you wish and definitely have access to them. But abortion is not a contraceptive.

Have you ever read those comments of people saying that granting gays rights violates the rights of the religious people? That's sort of how I can't help viewing people who say, "But granting fetuses rights takes rights away from women!" Yeah. Same thing.

We don't have to make this kill or be killed. We are all that we have. We have to take care of one another.

Vannah,

That.
Was.
Beautiful!

:)

You want us to have the same abortion policies as Ireland? Scary.

This is the country that prevented a teen girl, pregnant with a terminally ill fetus, from leaving Ireland--because they thought she might seek an abortion somewhere else.

http://feministing.com/archives/006982.html

The government telling a pregnant woman whether she can travel? That's not "small government" or "individual liberty." That's fascism.

"Have you ever read those comments of people saying that granting gays rights violates the rights of the religious people?"

Well, I'm not aware of any gay people growing inside religious people and being totally dependent upon their bodies for survival.

By the way, I'm out to socialize for the rest of the night.

By the way, I'm out to socialize for the rest of the night.
Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 8:05 PM

good luck with THAT! ;)

Well, I'm not aware of any gay people growing inside religious people and being totally dependent upon their bodies for survival.
Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 8:04 PM
-----

I take it you'd be okay with killing them if they were - yes?

Dear Ashley, You truly have no earthly what you are talking about! Their is a woman, whom I've come to know on here, and their is a movie based on her story. 22 Weeks. You think abortion is funny? Carla, has to live with hers for the rest of her life! Be a thinking honest person for one, and Tell me this. If a woman had a Baby, Would you cut the cord, and throw the baby in the garbage?

I know Ashley is out socializing but I just wanted to ask about that woman Caitlin Bruce who said she DIDN'T want an abortion and was held down in the Michigan abortion clinic by Dr. Albert Hodari and he FORCED an abortion on her against her will. Is Ashley concerned about Caitlin and her lack of a choice here? Is Ashley going to take up the battle for women like Caitlin who were physically forced to abort or women who were threatened and coerced into abortion (some were my friends!) Is Ashley going to show one ounce of concern for these women? Ashley accuses pro-lifers of being fetus lovers, but Ashley is a aborting-mother lover. She doesn't care about women really, just the ones who want to kill their young.

I just decided to check in real quick. I am sorry to be LOL but I told you it was a waste of time. But seriously it really is sad. There is a Biblie scripture about "casting your pearls before swine" and an old saying "a fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". After all the attacks and insults against you prolifers on a PROLIFE BLOG I think you can shake the dust off of your feet, move on and ignore. Translation: Stop feeding the troll. Don't allow your good words and good works to be castigated.

She is what she is: A major proponent for death and the spread of murder throughout the world.

Ashley: "Haha, the Fetus People make no sense whatsoever. Yes, I'm FORCING women to decide whether or not to have a child!"

If you argue that it should be legal to kill a certain human being, then you are forcing your view on that human being, yes.

Persons, not property!

Let's get real & be honest here. Since there is an established link to a increase in miscarriage, infertility & breast cancer to abortion (& some forms of birth control) we must factor these deleterious effects into women's 'health' as well. (These 'risks' are listed on the consent form that each woman must sign before she undergoes an elective abortion at Orlando Women's Center abortuary.)

Of course, when an infant in the womb dies during or after abortion, or as a result of breakthrough ovulation while the mum is on an abortifacient bc) the 'health' (death rate) of that child should also be factored in to represent the true picture.

Abortion is certainly not providing any measure of 'health' for the child who dies from it.

"If a woman had a Baby, Would you cut the cord, and throw the baby in the garbage?"

No. Is that straightforward enough? Doctors aren't allowed to do that either; third trimester abortions are illegal in all 50 states unless there are extraordinary circumstances--usually, when the baby can't survive outside the womb. The gory tales about babies being aborted the day before the due date is a myth.

"Caitlin Bruce who said she DIDN'T want an abortion and was held down in the Michigan abortion clinic by Dr. Albert Hodari and he FORCED an abortion on her against her will. Is Ashley concerned about Caitlin and her lack of a choice here?"

If it's true, send the guy to jail. There are bad abortion doctors. There are bad people in every profession, such as Catholic priests who rape kids and soldiers who have been caught raping and killing Iraqi civilians. Should we shut down the Catholic church and the Army because of a few bad people?

Is anyone going to respond to my post on Ireland? Conservatives are supposed to oppose big government, yet Ireland uses court orders to stop pregnant women from traveling--because they may or may not have an abortion somewhere else. But everyone here is talking about how wonderful Ireland's abortion ban is.

Also, Ireland is the only civilized country you can come up with that bans abortion. Can you at least admit that when it comes to abortion and contraception (and by extension other rights for women, such as the right to travel while pregnant), your views are the same as the mullahs in Egypt and Iranian ayatollahs?

James Pendergraft has been suspended again by Florida board of medicin

Yes, Ashley, I would love for us to be like Ireland. The mother was in absolutely no danger, and there is absolutely no reason that we should murder someone "because they'll soon die anyway!"

Irish law do not put the mother at any risk, and only protect the child. I would be thrilled beyond belief if we adopted them.

Oh and Ashley, if government has knowledge that someone is going to travel to another country to kill another person, yes they have the full right to stop that from happening. We have no-fly lists for a reason, and it doesn't bother me a bit.

No, Ashley, are views are not the same as the leader of Egypt and Iran. They do not respect life. They support, albiet quietly, people killing themselves to kill others. There opposition to abortion is not based on a respect for life, but rather a furthering of their ranks.

We reject abortion out of respect for life. We protect the lives of the defenseless.

Our motives could not be more different. No, we are nothing like them, however your calls for prenatal Jihad do have their tone. The common note is disregard for life.

Sweet, I can't wait til we have government agents handcuffing women at the airport because they may or may not be traveling for abortion. Please loudly proclaim your support for that in public. You'll continue to be thrashed every time you try to ban abortion (as you already have been in Colorado and South Dakota with ludicrous "personhood amendments.") A huge majority of the American people don't want to live in a Christian dictatorship that is no more or less theocratic than Iran.

By the way, should pregnant women register with the government so they can control and monitor every aspect of your life--travel, diet, medical appointments--while you're carrying the almighty fetus? That's basically what they do in Ireland with their travel bans and whatnot.

Ashley,

It wouldn't be any different than someone traveling to Sweden for drugs or Prostitutes. If there is no reason to believe that they will engage in these activities, then no problem. Same with abortion. If there is no reason to believe a women is planning to obtain an abortion in another country (which should be the default position), then there's no problem. Can a women then "cheat the system"? Sure. We can't police every single aspect of everything.

No, that is not "basically what they do in Ireland."

You have no clue what you're talking about, dear.

Depending on reports 4-7 thousand Irish women travel abroad anually for abortions, quietly and without interference.

The reason this young woman was denied travel is because she explicitly stated her reasons for leaving involved abortion. If someone comes to the government asking for permission to flee the country to kill, they will be denied.

Abortions are performed inside the country for women whose lives are truely threatened by continuation of pregnancy. The only women actively stopped from leaving the country are those who attempt to have a non-theraputic abortion authorized and then, when denied, announce their intention to travel out of country for an abortion.

Pregnant women are no more tracked or monitored in Ireland than any other western nation. Stop hyperventilating and actually look at the facts. I know it's much easier to knock down the straw men you create than actually debate the issues, but doing so only makes yourself look ignorant.

"It wouldn't be any different than someone traveling to Sweden for drugs or Prostitutes"

No one monitors that. People with previous marijuana convictions aren't prevented from going to Amsterdam, even though there's lots of pot there. It's sexually active women you want to police and punish, just like your ideological brothers, the Muslims.

"No one monitors that. "

Exactly. Unless there is reason to, like the FBI is following a notorious criminal or something like that.

"People with previous marijuana convictions aren't prevented from going to Amsterdam, even though there's lots of pot there."

Yes, I realize, and that isn't the point. The point is that there needs to be POSITIVE reason to believe that there will be some sort of violation. Prior convictions do not provide warrant.

Also Ashely, suppose that this issue can not be resolved. What follows? Does it then follow that abortion is a morally good thing? What is the point of this argument? What is the syllogism you have in mind?

"It's sexually active women you want to police and punish"

Suppose this is true and that pro-lifers entire motivation for wanting to criminalize abortion is to punish women for being sexually active. How does it follow that abortion does not take the life of an innocent human being?

Ashley, the situation is akin to someone asking the government for use of pot, being denied, and then saying "well fine, I'm going to go over to Sweden and get lots of pot!"

Would the government necessarally intervene? No, but they could make a case for preventing that particular person from traveling, especially if the offense in question was an affront to the American constitution in the way that abortion is an affront to both constitutions on the Island of Ireland.

More to the point, I guess, would be someone announcing their intention to kill their wife via assisted suicide. If that person asked the government for permission and was denied, only to then explain that he intended to go to The Neatherlands to carry out the deed, our country would have every right to prevent his passage.

It wouldn't be any different than someone traveling to Sweden for drugs or Prostitutes. If there is no reason to believe that they will engage in these activities, then no problem."

Bobby, let's leave abortion out of this for a moment. You can't seriously support a country forbidding its citizens from traveling to another country to do what's legal there? Our laws only apply in our jurisdiction. Heck, there's places in Nevada where Prostitution is legal. Should New York be able to stop someone from going there? 19 year olds drive to Canada to drink. Should that be illegal? The only exception I'm aware of is an effort to stop the "sex tourism" to Thiland (I believe), where men are traveling to have sex with young girls. That's such an evil thing--and undeniably destructive(perhaps like some view abortion) that it's hard not to want to outlaw such travel. But for things that are matters of reasonable debate, )drugs, prostitution, drinking age) it seems to me that free people can make their own decisions about travel and have a right to visit places where the laws are more in tune to their own morality.

If you view abortion like I view child prostitution, then it's a tougher call. I suppose rather than banning American travel to Thailand, I would like the US to make greater efforts to fix the problem there.

Hal, I know you addressed Bobby, but I would like to respond.

Currently, many European countries are struggling with how to address this very issue. "Suicide Tourism" has become a big problem for the Swiss as many from the UK are traveling to take advantage of their suicide services. The UK loosened its bans on the practices, as the Swiss strengthened their own.

It's a complicated area, but I do think that governments of both countries have to figure out exactly how to deal with something that is criminal in one country but not the other.

Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 9:32 AM

1. "Why do you think the Duggars ended up in the hospital with their last baby?

2. Because having one pregnancy after another is unhealthy and unsafe.

3. It's sick to see them lauded on blogs for deliberately putting their baby at risk just to prove how "pro-life" they are.

4. But, Bof course, pro-lifers oppose contraception use, both here and in third-world countries with higher mortality rates.

5. Less contraception=more dead babies.

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

ASShley,

I will answer some of your questions.

1 and 2. Michelel Duggar was asmitted to the hospital after consultling with her physician because she was experiencing pain. As it turns out the diagonsis was eclampsia. This sometimes happens in pregnancy. My sister experiened it with her first pregancy but not with her second less than three years after the first.

My wife gave birth to five children in less than eight years and never experienced any complications.

Your postulation is fatuous flatulence. (hot gas)

But what else could we expect from an ASShley.

3. Your assertions about the Duggars are presumptious at best. You would have to spend some time interviewing and observing the Duggars before you could come to any informed conclusions about their motives.

My oldest daughter and I did have the opportunity to spend the evening the Duggars home several years ago.

I can tell you they did not choose to have children because they are pro-life.

They chose to have sex because that is what happily married people do.

They did choose to NOT to plan their children.

Instead they chose to trust GOD's plan as to how many children they would have.

Now this must be like consulting chicken entrails to you, but it is what the Duggars 'choose' to do.

They are successfull, taxpaying, debt free citizens who do NOT rely on the charity of friends, strangers or the government to provide for themselves or for their family. They are training their children to do the same.

4. I do not purport to speak for all pro-lifers, but I am confident that most pro-lifers are opposed to drugs or technologies that kill after conception occurrs.

Some pro-lifers for sake of conscience or other reasons choose not to do anything to prevent conception.

Some pro-lifers fall somewhere in between the two camps.

I know 'this' may sound simplistic to you [That speaks more to you than to 'this'.] but some of us, myself included, believe that GOD has never called a life into being that HE is not able to sustain, however HE choose to sustain her/him.

5. If by contra-ception you mean drugs or devices that prevent the union of the sperm and the egg, then of course less contra-ception means more dead babies, infants, adolscents, adults and elderly. You have to be conceived and alive before you can die.

But if by contra-ception you mean abortifacient drugs and devices that prevent implantation or cause an abortion of a implanted human embryo then you have proferred an obviously false argument.

More abortifacients, deceptively and euphemistically marketed as 'contra-ception', can only equal more dead babies.

ASShley,

Do try to sit down with a pencil and paper and attempt to reason things out for yourself instead of blindly and lazily relying on the ruminations of other equally blind and lazy individuals.

yor bro ken

Posted by: Hal at January 10, 2010 10:46 AM

"You can't seriously support a country forbidding its citizens from traveling to another country to do what's legal there? Our laws only apply in our jurisdiction. Heck, there's places in Nevada where Prostitution is legal. Should New York be able to stop someone from going there?"
--------------------------------------------------

HAL,

Aren't there existing laws preventing taking minors across state lines for the facilitation of an act that would be a crime in the first state?

Prostitution comes to mind.

Is the law in the first state instituted to prevent prostitution in the second state or to prevent children from being victimized?

You are looking at the law from the pimp's or the john,s perspective instead of from the child's/victim's.

yor bro ken

HAL,

Why is it 'wrong' to have sex with children?

If there is no god, then who determines what is 'right and wrong' and by what standard do they make this determination?

Is the concept of 'right and wrong' just another product of the random process of evolution?

If there is no god and evolution rules, then the notion of 'right and wrong' becomes meaningless.

Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse Tong, Joseph Stalin, Al Capone, Ted Bundy, [I was tempted to use the other Ted] all had some pretty bizarre concepts of 'right and wrong'.

There is only legal or illegal as arbitrarily determined by mere mortal humans and, as everyone knows,

'humans are stupid'.

And by the way men do not travel to foreign destinations just to have sex with little girls, they go to have sex with littel boys as well. I suspect there are some women who do the same.

yor bro ken

Hey Ashley, you ignoramus, CHRISTIANS AREN'T THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO END LEGAL ABORTION HERE IN THE US. I'm sick and tired of LIARS like you spreading around that tired garbage. Ending legal abortion is not equal to a theocracy. People want to end abortion because it's the killing of an innocent human. Coincidentally, there's this book that a lot of Christians like to read that has this line in it that says "Thou shalt not kill." Many oppose abortion for this reason. However, other people who have at least a modicum of basic human decency also oppose killing other humans, and at the very least the killing of an innocent child by their own mother who is supposed to be caring for that being rather than harming him or her.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

And ken, I don't believe in god, yet I do believe in the existence of absolute good and absolute evil. I'm curious as to how this exchange between yourself and Hal is going to turn out, as so many other atheists I come across are also moral relativists, and it frustrates me because I feel they give atheism a bad name both with their behavior and simply their philosophy which many people see them as having adopted just so they can "get away with" such atrocious things.

Posted by: Ashley at January 10, 2010 10:13 AM

"A huge majority of the American people don't want to live in a Christian dictatorship that is no more or less theocratic than Iran."

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

ASShley,

Setting aside the absurdity that any rational human, however stupid they may be,is advocating a 'christian dictatorship' do you for one moment think if rational americans were forced to choose between sharia law and a Christian theocracy, that the majority would ever be for sharia law?

Humans are stupid but making that choice is no brainer.

You cannot find a single example in the whole world where christians are in the ruling majority that can be compared to the tyranny of Iran.

The things that you are ascribing to christians and christianity are only found in humanist/progressive enclaves like China or North Korea or Islamo fascist states like Iran.

I know humans are stupid but your rants are the delusional ramblings of a paranoid shizophrenic.

[Are you taking medication for your condition? If not, you should consider the option. If you are, then you consider swithcing medications or prescribing doctors. Something is amiss.]

yor bro ken

Ashley, 10:13am

Prior to Roe were we living under a Christian dictatorship?

X,

I am confident the exchange will go nowhere, because HAL is smart enought to see far enough down the road to determine it will not end well for his philosophy.

History is prologue and you cannot find a single example where humanism, after it has acquired the seats of power, [almost always through lies, deception, manipulation and violence] human rights have NOT suffered.

X, your world view has been shaped by your environment, training, education, and experience.

Your ideas of 'right and wrong' were informed by your worldview.

If you grew up in the western world, you grew up in an at the very least, a post christian culture and you have a 'christian worldview'.

Now you may have already rejected some or most of the 'rules' you did not like, but you have retained more than you know.

That is your bias. For good or for bad, you cannot escape evade or avoid it.

If there is no GOD then what prevents me from doing what ever I want that brings me immediate gratification?

I am not arguing for the existence of a 'god'.

I am arguing that in the absence of a 'god' there is no absloute standard to measure and determine right from wrong, therefore right and wrong do not exist, only what is permitted and what is not.

The only thing that restains from doing what is prohibited is the fear of being caught and punished by my fellow citizens.

The worst they can do is kill me and then, if there is no 'god', no eternal punishment, no eternal reward for being a model citizen, then so what. I am going to die eventually.

Why not go for the gusto of pleasing myself?

yor bro ken

Ashley, You truly have no clue what you are talking about. Think for yourself, and Do some reading! When's that last time you've read a peace of American history? The United States constitution for example, or the mayflower commpact? Obama, is not an agent for change! He is the dictater! Read for once in your life Ashley! And for those who might be interested, Here's a video I found. Angele, What must a person do in order to go to heaven? Is hell real? If so, How can a person keep from going to hell? Do we preach about hell to much,

"I am not arguing for the existence of a 'god'...I am arguing that in the absence of a 'god' there is no absloute standard to measure and determine right from wrong, therefore right and wrong do not exist, only what is permitted and what is not...The only thing that restains from doing what is prohibited is the fear of being caught and punished by my fellow citizens...The worst they can do is kill me and then, if there is no 'god', no eternal punishment, no eternal reward for being a model citizen, then so what. I am going to die eventually...Why not go for the gusto of pleasing myself?"

Ken, that sounds like you don't necessarily believe in God, but that you think we should all try conning ourselves that one exists, just so that society will be more peaceful. That's the exact prospect I'm afraid of.

And good job, X, pointing out to Ashley that people with disparate religious beliefs (including atheists and agnostics) can agree with regard to the killing of children.

Ashley, you support, applaud, and further the cause of the abortion industry. By your own admission you believe unborn people can and should be exterminated if they are unwanted, useless. inconvenient to the born. You sound just like your ideological brothers the nazis.

"Well, I'm not aware of any gay people growing inside religious people and being totally dependent upon their bodies for survival.
Posted by: Ashley at January 9, 2010 8:04 PM"

Umm...only a ton of them, Ashley. Do you think that only non-religious individuals give rise to homosexuals? I know one personally whose mother is quite religious, so there's a start. He was at one time growing inside a religious person and was totally dependent upon her body for his survival. Do you know any gay people who DIDN'T come from another person's body? Where DID they come from in that case, Ashley? Did they spring up from the ground like a plant, or just materialize into being?

"Why is it 'wrong' to have sex with children?

If there is no god, then who determines what is 'right and wrong' and by what standard do they make this determination?"

Ken, I'm not a philosopher, and I have little interest in trying to divine the essential elements of good and evil. Ultimately, we all have to decide that is 'right and wrong" for ourselves. Even religious people, who accept the existance of God, disagree on things like homosexual rights and abortion. You can't just say "God decides what is right and wrong," since many who believe in God can't agree. Perhaps we choose a religion to match our morality instead of the other way around. (or ignore the parts of our religion we're not comfortable with--Catholics who use condoms for example.)

You and I both agree (I am sure) that sexual contact with little boys and girls is evil, wrong, and should be illegal. I know that there are few people who feel different. You and I can agree that those people are wrong. There are lots of reasons we could both give for why this is wrong. I suppose if less people thought like us, and more thought the other way, child sex would be legal. It would still be wrong. I assume this is your view of the abortion debate.

" Ultimately, we all have to decide that is 'right and wrong" for ourselves."

If that's the case, then why is having sex with a child wrong Hal?
To the adult who is engaging in this behavior it might not be wrong at all, by their moral compass.
In fact, they might even believe it is good for the child.
Why is this situation different from abortion?
After all, no one dies in the sexual encounter.

bm,

My gift of miscommunication manifests once again.

I was arguing against moral relativism,....I think.

I was NOT arguing for or against the existence of god.

[I know GOD, therefore I know GOD exists. For me the question has been settled.]

I was exploring on what basis a society determines what is right and wrong, what is permitted and what is prohibited, and what is encouraged and what is discouraged.

If there is no magnetic North on the moral compaass, then how does a society determine good and bad.

In countries like China, Cuba, Cambodia and N. Korea when the humanist Marxist seized the seats of power the elect/select the 'more equals' attempted to remove all the vestiges of the former rules of life and to re-make man without any knowledge of god or religion.

Then the state became 'god' and being 'god' exerted it's supremecy over all it's subjects, requiring sacrifices and offerrings, crushing those who refused to submit to it's rule and rules.

The state/god could not brook dissent.

To do so would acknowledge that it could be 'mistaken' and if if could be mistaken, then by definition it could not be 'god'.

Even if I could prove there were no 'god', I would not do it because I have read enough modern and ancient history to know that is a sure recipe for disaster.

Humans are stupid, but God can fix stupid.

It is humans who have been educated beyond their intelligence that are resistent to fixing.

But with God resistance is futile.

Nothing is impossible with GOD. HE specializes in the hard cases.

yor bro ken

Posted by: angel at January 10, 2010 2:14 PM

To the adult who is engaging in this behavior it might not be wrong at all, by their moral compass.
In fact, they might even believe it is good for the child.
------------------------------------------------------

Angel,

That is exactly what some proponents of pedophilia believe.

Sex with children is good for both the adult and the child.

This is their chosen delusion.

And in most cases, having rejected the existence of god, they have made themselves their own god and established their own relative, subjective, ever shifting standards or right and wrong.

You hear it all the time from proponents of abortion that it better to abort than bring a child into the world where they will suffer (perhaps be the victim of a pedophile).

Predictable conclusion:

Abortion is 'good' for both the aborted child and the abortive woman.

Depends on what their never settled/ever evolving definition of 'good' is.

yor bro ken

Ken
I see Hal's reasoning as inconsistent.
I'd like him to prove otherwise.
If each of us must decide what is right or wrong, how can he define sex with children as being wrong.
It might be very right to the person who practices it.
And why on earth would he draw the line at sex with children?
after all, no one dies.

HAL,

I am sure you and I agree on a lot of things.

I am sure we disagree on a lot of things.

I am equally sure that you are more intelligent and more educated than I am.

I do not write this to flatter you, but to state what I believe to be true based on observation of the things you have written over more than the course of a year.

I am also equally sure that in some ways you are more of a fool than I am. That is not meant to be an insult. In some ways I am a bigger fool than you.

I am sure I have committed far worse acts than you have. I am equally sure I have been forgiven for far more worse acts than you have or will be.

I try, I do try, to point out the flaws in your arguements without attacking you personally, though I do attack progressive/liberal/humnanists in general.

[Some conservative humanists agendas are no less harmful, in some ways I believe they can be worse.]

I do believe that you try to do right as you perceive the right.

I believe you are basically honest and forthright.

I do believe that though you may be mistaken you do not stoop to lying to advance your arguement.

I believe you choose to believe what you want to believe and if the truth does not comport with what you want to believe then you choose to believe what you want even if it is in incorrect.

I believe you are a man of your word. I do not believe lying would ever come easy to you, though being a human you have lied.

This may not please you or you may not care one way or the other, but I kind of like you.

I believe the reason that I kind of like you is that God kind of likes you.

I know HE loves you, but 'like' is a higher kind of affection.

I want to believe that God likes me too. The people that I 'like' I take a personal interest in.

I believe that is also true of God.

Abraham was a friend of God. David was a man after God's own heart. God 'liked' both of them.

HAL, I am sure GOD likes you.

yor bro ken

Angel, each of us does decide what is right and wrong. I don't even see how it is subject to debate. You have decided that abortion is wrong, haven't you? You have considered the question, concluded that abortion kills an innocent human without sufficient justification, and declared it "wrong." Your decision, based on your value system and reasoning.

I think sex with children is wrong. (this is not where I necessarily "draw the line," it's just an example of one thing I have concluded to be immoral.) From my analysis, it seems beyond dispute that such acts harm innocent children. Some people disagree. I do not hesitate to say that I am right and they are wrong. Some people think it's wrong for married people to use condoms. Others disagree. Each of us make our own decision about what is right and wrong. We make these kinds of decisions every day. I don't "*define* sex with children as being wrong." It is not a definition, but my conviction. As I stated, if more people thought the other way, sex with children would be legal, but --in my *opinion*--still wrong. That's not "moral relativism." That's just an acknowledgment that we don't all share the same values. Some people think it's immoral to eat meat, to drink alcohol, to skip church, or to draw a cartoon of Mohammad. If you don't think eating meat or using birth control is immoral, that doesn't make you a moral relativist. You simply reach your own moral conclusions. That's what we all do.

Ken, thank you for your kind words. I understand you mean no offense calling me a "fool." Truly, we are all fools at times. Being human is complicated. It is less interesting to talk about the things we agree on, but you are right; I'm sure we agree on a lot of things.

You simply reach your own moral conclusions. That's what we all do.

Posted by: Hal at January 10, 2010 3:11 PM

then I trust you will be most accepting of people who have sex with children
after all, it is fine by their moral code.
live and let live, right?

then I trust you will be most accepting of people who have sex with children
after all, it is fine by their moral code.
live and let live, right?
Posted by: angel at January 10, 2010 3:47 PM

Angel, you missed this from my post:

"From my analysis, it seems beyond dispute that such acts harm innocent children. Some people disagree. I do not hesitate to say that I am right and they are wrong"

you didn't answer my question Hal.
All you stated was that you consider it morally wrong and harmful.
That's your opinion based on your moral views.
Under your world order, people can be quite free to have sex with children as long as they do not feel it is morally wrong.
Thus you should leave them alone.

I want to help Ashley understand the whole "Ireland forbidding pregnant women to travel" thing since she clearly just parrots the thoughts of others and has no idea what she is talking about.

Do a little reading Ashley and you will find out that the woman denied access to travel in this instance is in the custody of the Irish HSE. In America speak, it means she is in foster care. And since she is 17, she must ask the HSE (ie. her guardian) if they can transport her out of the country to obtain an abortion.

She is not asking to travel and being denied on the off chance that she may have an abortion. She is requesting that a government agency that is charged with her care and upbringing, transport her with the government's resources to another country specifically for the purpose of procuring an abortion, which is illegal in her country.

Ireland does not, and has never, forbidden pregnant women to travel because they may or may not get an abortion elsewhere. Asserting such shows your complete lack of research or original thought on this issue and on the idea of legalized abortion in general. You simply regurgitated the propaganda of a militant feminist blogger who uses a string of curse words to make her point rather than providing an intelligent argument.

Angel, I'm not saying people should be free to follow their own moral compass. I'm saying we all set our own moral compass. Since most people believe sex with children is wrong, we have laws against it. Not because it offends *my* moral views, but society's. If it were legal, it would still offend my moral views, so I would not "leave them alone," I would try to get the law changed. Like you try to get the abortion laws changed.

My "world order" doesn't allow anyone to do anything they want. I admit I try to err on the side of personal freedom among consenting adults, but I do not advocate everyone acting according to their own moral code. I'm only saying that we all have one, and we decide for ourselves what it is. This discussion started because I was asked

"If there is no god, then who determines what is 'right and wrong' and by what standard do they make this determination?"

I replied we all decide for ourselves what is right or wrong. That's not a license to to violate the law.

Sorry, I have to run now. Have a nice evening everyone.

I replied we all decide for ourselves what is right or wrong. That's not a license to to violate the law.

except that this is exactly what was done to make abortion legal
women got abortions illegally - they flaunted the law until it was changed...
in Canada the law was struck down because ONE doctor repeated violated the abortion law until the judiciary refused to prosecute him anymore
by that time he had done so many illegal abortions, many of them on the mistresses of the country's leading politicians that nothing was done despite that fact that the majority of people felt it was immoral and wrong and there should be a law

this same thing has been repeated with gay rights as well
gays have openly participated in homosexual behavior in bath houses etc and no longer are prosecuted
the laws were struck down

this is again being repeated with euthanasia:
parents killing children
children killing elderly parents
spouses killing spouses
and some are prosecuted, many are not
jail times are lenient if given at all, and the laws removed

I think your ideas are naive

Hal,

Atheists are good, too. People know right from wrong. Even children understand, but I suppose that children comprehend a lot more than adults. Children don't start wars for oil or ignore wars because there's no profit to be gained from them.

Anyways, I agree with you. We need to agree that all people have the capacity for love and hatred and fight to pick love over hatred, which comes regardless of religion.

:)

kbh: "I was arguing against moral relativism,....I think...I was NOT arguing for or against the existence of god."

Okay. I'm not arguing it, either.

Hal wrote:

I replied we all decide for ourselves what is right or wrong. That's not a license to to violate the law.

The problem is that you've cut the ground out from under yourself, if you ever hoped to prove that second statement. If morality is truly the agnostic, personal-taste-driven (or "opinion/conviction-driven", if you like) morass you suggest, then you're not settling the issue of morality (i.e. what is morally right, and what is morally wrong--what people SHOULD do, as opposed to what they SHOULDN'T do, regardless of what they're EMPOWERED or ALLOWED to do [see Angel's posts, above]). You're dodging the issue altogether. By your view, how would anyone ever discuss morality coherently at all? If "what I happen to believe is what I support" is the core maxim, then how could anyone change from a wrong belief to a right one? How could anyone ever repent of an evil? The very terms would be meaningless; and abandoning abortion would have the same moral gradient as deciding on a new favourite rock band, or flavour of ice-cream.

What I (and we, I think) want you to ponder is this: we're not content with the fact that "a view happens to be ours"; we also want that view to be RIGHT (i.e. true--in conformity with objective reality). I don't think my views are "right" simply because I hold them; I hold them because I'm convinced--through the use of sane reason--that they're right!

If your point is that we can't prove most of the views true, in the way that we'd prove the Pythagorean Theorem, then yes... but that's not at all necessary, any more than it's necessary to "prove mathematically" that George Washington ever existed. The mere fact that a "proof" is not "mathematically airtight", or that it's difficult to prove methodically (try explaining a detailed proof to the typical westerner of today--with the attention-span of a gnat! It's not rewarding...) doesn't abolish the fact, as the X-files used to say, "the truth is out there."

I do have a question for Hal. I have read your quote, "From my analysis it is beyond dispute that such acts harm innocent children" regarding why "innocent" children should not have sex with adults. I want to know why should children be protected from such vile acts but not be protected from being mutilated and dismembered in their mother's wombs even at their mother's request that they be exterminated or terminated via abortion? I am also going to also ask if the bloody act of a child being violated by a child predator (I am going to be graphically specific- the taking of a girl child's virginity vaginally or a boy child's virginity anally) is repulsive and sickening to you why would not the taking of that same innocent child's life prenatally during the bloody procedure of abortion? (I have actually seen D&C procedures performed for other medical reasons not for abortions). God knows, I am not being malicious when I ask you these questions because I really want to know. To me there seems to be a disconnect between your understanding of the preciousness of life and the innocence of children contrasted with feeling moral outrage at one type of abuse, sexual abuse, but not being morally outraged at the ultimate form of child abuse, ABORTION, to not even give a child an opportunity to take it's first breath by elective abortion. I feel you are definately on the right track in your moral outrage toward children being abused and mistreated. I will continue to pray for you that the "measure of faith given to you" will be awakened by God.

I am convinced, through the use of sane reason, that sex with children is wrong, that I should not cheat on my wife, and that I should not support denying full civil rights to homosexuals. You, through the use of sane reason, may or may not agree with me. That doesn't change the fact that I am right.

Prolifer, you are correct, I am not outraged by abortion, nor do I consider it child abuse.

Maybe after a few more years here you guys will convince me.

How sad and unfortunate that you feel that way. I will indeed continue to pray that your eyes and heart will be opened Hal.

Hal...you said we are not free to follow our own moral compass but that we all set our own moral compass. I was asking myself "Then who dictates what moral compass we follow...I set my own moral compass but yet may not be free to follow it...says who?" The answer to that is says God but since you don't believe He exists I put the question to you, "says who?" But then you answered and made the argument that society dictates what moral compass we follow. If society deems something is immoral we should not do it (sex with children) but if society is permissive about something (abortion) then it morally acceptable to engage in it. That seemed to be your argument.

The problem with that is that society is sometimes immoral themselves so how can you rely on them to correctly set the moral compass? I think of our very own country in the 18th and 19th centuries when black people were enslaved and most people were fine with it and did not consider it immoral.

i think of Nazi Germany where most people did not think it was immoral that Jews were hauled from their beds and thrown onto freezing trains where they traveled to camps to be gassed to death.

You cannot expect flawed human beings to set the moral compass because they will fail every time.

And one more thing...someday Hal, the majority of Americans may be fine with having sex with children and it may be decriminalized. Of course you will still find it repugnant. Will you then speak out about it and try to convince others of its wickedness and how it harms children? Or will you learn to accept it because society has set the moral compass and deems sex with children acceptable.

This is exactly how we view abortion Hal. It hurts children (and women) so no matter if you or Ashley find it morally acceptable we are compelled to speak out and try to educate others to its great evilness.

"You're dodging the issue altogether. By your view, how would anyone ever discuss morality coherently at all? If "what I happen to believe is what I support" is the core maxim, then how could anyone change from a wrong belief to a right one?...The very terms would be meaningless; and abandoning abortion would have the same moral gradient as deciding on a new favourite rock band, or flavour of ice-cream."

very true Paladin. In fact, in this world order, deciding whether sex with children is right or wrong is exactly on the same level as choosing an ice cream flavor.
Why is cheating on your wife wrong Hal? It's wrong for you but it might not be wrong for Joe B. Would having 3 wives be wrong? Would having one of those wives be age 10 wrong? After all it would be that man's choice?
You still haven't told me why sex with children is wrong except to say that for YOU it is wrong. So what? You consider it harmful. So what? Why?

For Joe A it's not. It's his choice and his body, so butt out. And he's working to have the laws changed. So is Joe B because he wants to have the choice to have 3 wives and wants one to be at least as young as 10. These are his moral choices. The laws may be against them both now but eventually they will get them changed.

Ken, great post at 12:05 PM. :)

What does Irland have to do with this question? Thank you, for clearing that issue up though. I am pro-life, because of my own life. I verry well could have died at birth. I wasn't even susposed to even live, see... which I can not... hear... I was susposed to be mentely challenged. The doctors gave me no hope and told my mother to pull the plug, but she didn't, she chose life, so I can't support a practice, which takes life, and this is what abortion does. It takes life. RJ

Hal wrote:

I am convinced, through the use of sane reason, that sex with children is wrong, that I should not cheat on my wife, and that I should not support denying full civil rights to homosexuals. You, through the use of sane reason, may or may not agree with me. That doesn't change the fact that I am right.

Two serious problems, with this:

1) Two contradictory positions cannot possibly be right at the same time; at least one (or possibly both) must be wrong. Sane reason cannot (as you'd proposed) arrive at mutually exclusive conclusions. With all due respect, friend, you seem to be co-opting logical language, and "cut/pasting" it onto your emotional/opinion-based preferences... and that simply won't do.

2) You say that "sane reason" has led you to believe that sex with children is wrong, that you should not cheat on your wife, and that you should not support denying full civil rights to homosexuals (whatever that means). Care to explain your "sane reasoning" for at least one of these? "Sane reason led me!" is easy to say, but you might not have the "reasoning" quite so clear in your mind as you first thought. Try it.

"Two contradictory positions cannot possibly be right at the same time; at least one (or possibly both) must be wrong."

Sure, I guess. We're human, sometimes we get things wrong. I may be wrong when I conclude abortion is moral, or I may be wrong when I conclude sex with 10 years olds is immoral. All we can do is try the best we can to live moral lives. I'm not sure what we're debating here. Do you deny that you must determine for yourself what is right or wrong?

Hal wrote:

We're human, sometimes we get things wrong. I may be wrong when I conclude abortion is moral, or I may be wrong when I conclude sex with 10 years olds is immoral. All we can do is try the best we can to live moral lives. I'm not sure what we're debating here.

Well... we're debating two main things: your claim, and your starting assumptions.

Here's your claim:

I am convinced, through the use of sane reason, [etc.]. You, through the use of sane reason, may or may not agree with me. That doesn't change the fact that I am right.

This simply can't be; you cannot use "sane reason" while still believing that two contradictory views could both be true. You can't speak of "the fact" that you "are right", while still giving the nod to my opposite view as "also found by sane reason". It would be reasonable, at least, to say, "Paladin, I'm right, and your opposite position is wrong!" But it is patently UNreasonable to say, "We believe mutually exclusive things, and we're both right."

Your starting assumption is, if I understand you correctly, one of "soft" moral relativism (i.e. the view that there might or might not be an objective standard of moral "right and wrong", but there's no certain way to know it if it does exist). That position, while trying to be agnostic and "logically unassailable", is self-contradictory, so long as you insist on talking about morals/ethics at all. If all matters of good and evil, right and wrong, are up to personal guesswork, then there's no basis (other than opinion, emotion,prior social conditioning, or personal taste) for talking about morality at all... since the very definition of morality is "the study of right vs. wrong--what SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be done (i.e. not the study of "what happens to be at the moment" or "what is currently legal", etc.).

Does that clarify?

Do you deny that you must determine for yourself what is right or wrong?

It depends on how you mean your terms. If you mean, "we must discern, within our human limitations, the objective truth about the morality of [x]", then I agree wholeheartedly. But if you mean, "we cannot ever know any moral issue with certainty, so we must be content to muddle along with our changeable opinions and personal tastes", then I flatly reject the idea. I don't "determine (in the latter sense) what's right or wrong", any more than I "decide for myself" the true value of "2 + 2". Some things remain mysteries; but it'd be a grave error to say that EVERYTHING in the moral sphere is.

Hillary is a prime example of Feminism being an elitist girl's club.

Junior Membership to women with undergraduate degrees who are pro-choice.

Associate Membership to graduate students who are pro-choice and hate the Catholic Church Hierarchy.

Full Membership to women with graduate degrees, who share all other characteristics with Associate Members AND who militate for abortion rights.

Leadership Status for Full Members who have advanced the cause of contraception and abortion, especially for minorities and advance the cause of gay marriage.

Emeritus Status for Leadership members who have also aborted their own child.

What's really putrid about this gang is the reality that for all of their talk, their education, their political clout, the only real right enjoyed by most Third World women is the right to kill their unborn children.

That's radical feminism.

"It depends on how you mean your terms. If you mean, "we must discern, within our human limitations, the objective truth about the morality of [x]", then I agree wholeheartedly"

Okay, we agree.

Nice job, folks, with a thoughtful and intelligent discussion, even when you disagree. It's a breath of fresh air.

Hal wrote:

Okay, we agree.

:) Not so fast, friend!

We agree on one important (though far from all-sufficient) point, yes; we do NOT agree on the many assumptions which underpin your position. For instance: we're still left with your contradictory statements from above, which need to be settled (see above for other examples), and with your (pardon me) rather amorphous system of morality--which doesn't seem stable enough for you to make any pronouncements about morality at all.

Paladin, if "we must discern, within our human limitations, the objective truth about the morality of [x]", then it follows that sometimes we will make mistakes. Therefore, sometimes reasonable people will disagree on the morality of a certain action. You might conclude that eating meat is immoral, I might reach the opposite conclusion. We both can't be "right," but we're both doing our best.

Hal wrote:

Paladin, if "we must discern, within our human limitations, the objective truth about the morality of [x]", then it follows that sometimes we will make mistakes.

True enough; but there are mistakes, and there are mistakes. I can, for example, mistakenly insert my credit card into an ATM, rather than my ATM debit card, and probably no one would be very appalled; but it's quite another matter if I "mistakenly" try to insert my bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich into the same ATM slot (and onlookers could excusably be appalled)!

Also: the more grave the circumstances (such as in the case of abortion), the greater the responsibility to move heaven and earth to FIND the objective truth, if we can, rather than be careless and chevalier (or even lazy) about it.

Finally: you're mistaken if you think that ALL things in life fall into the "only the omniscient could know for certain" camp. I know for certain that 2 + 2 = 4, and it's provably true. I also know that there are no standard penguins currently sitting on my head; it would be silly to "remain agnostic and skeptical" about that. The fact that *some* things must remain nebulous to us (this side of Heaven, anyway) doesn't at all mean that EVERYTHING must!

Therefore, sometimes reasonable people will disagree on the morality of a certain action. You might conclude that eating meat is immoral, I might reach the opposite conclusion. We both can't be "right," but we're both doing our best.

That remains to be seen. Many people give lip-service to "doing their best", "using sane reason", "agonizing over a decision", etc., while they're really throwing up smoke to hide/defend their strong preferences to which they have a mere (though fierce) emotional attachment.

Translation: it's possible to EXAMINE one's reasoning--for soundness, or for flaws. That's what we must do, with abortion positions... especially since the stakes are so high.

Gerard Nadal @ 10:15 AM,

Interesting post. The anti-male bias that exists among radical feminists might be rooted in the hatred of God and God's laws. I wonder if the majority of radical feminists are Atheists. It's ironic that those who reject what they perceive as "patriarchy" see no problem with imposing their own matriarchal ideology.
How can they expect that the radical feminist (pro-abort) ideology would ever be anything less than adversarial given that it is the polar opposite of mainstream culture's values? Maybe that doesn't matter. Maybe the "fun" is in the fight.(?)

I should have written:

How can they expect that the radical feminist (pro-abort) ideology would ever be anything MORE than adversarial ....

Hi Janet,

Yes, it is interesting. Listen to what they accuse the male hierarchy of: Power and Control.

What are the buzzwords of radical feminism?

Power and Control.

These women don't give a rip for the plight of impoverished women. They only care about population control and establishing themselves as the arbiters of people's lifestyles.

If abortion were so effective at lifting women out of poverty, then Harlem and the other inner-city neighborhoods would be awash in literacy and prosperity.

Hillary and her ilk are literally drunk with the blood of innocents.

Paladin: "Translation: it's possible to EXAMINE one's reasoning--for soundness, or for flaws. That's what we must do, with abortion positions... especially since the stakes are so high."

Well said. It amazes me how many pro-choicers, who often lay claim to liberal ideals, shun rational thought and discourse.

I'm curious, what are you specific views on abortion Paladin? What in your view establishes the preborn's rights? Why is it, to you, that those rights include the right to use the mother's body?

I'm curious, what are you specific views on abortion Paladin?

:) Fair is fair, you're right; I should lay my own cards on the table!

My view is that direct and willed abortion (as opposed to incidental abortion--i.e. miscarriage; or abortion which happened as an unintended and non-preventable side-effect of some other action) is always gravely evil, and it is never morally allowable.

What in your view establishes the preborn's rights?

The rights of pre-born persons (from zygote to birth) are found in the same source as our own rights: the intrinsic dignity given to us by God (as is acknowledged not only in Christian revelation, but in the natural law; even our Declaration of Independence, written by a Deist, recognized that fact as "self-evident").

Why is it, to you, that those rights include the right to use the mother's body?

I would say that the very statement ("a child's right to use the mother's body") has the situation exactly backwards; since conception (and the fertility that allows it) is a natural *good* (despite the fact that our Culture of Death views it largely as an onerous evil), child-bearing is an intrinsic (and an intrinsically *good*) facet of human life, and since the child has no say in the matter at all (so there's no point in abortion-tolerant people talking about the baby's "right" to "use" the mother's body), the only moral obligations in play are those of everyone else involved in the situation (e.g. mother, father, etc.). The mother who has conceived a baby in her womb has a responsibility to nurture that child insofar as she is able, and insofar as it is necessary (given the circumstances); and she--like all other humans on the planet--is morally bound NOT to attack the child, especially in order to kill him/her.

Are there cases where a conception causes difficulty? Certainly. Cases of conception during rape (rare though they are) are true cases of violation... but the abortion-tolerant forget one half of the situation: they see (perhaps not clearly or objectively) the violation of the woman, but they do not see the violation of the child, who has a God-given right to be brought into existence in the context of the loving marital embrace of his/her parents--and that right was denied! Abortion-tolerant people seem to think that it's eminently logical to remedy this double-violation by killing the most provably innocent victim of the violation. This is insanity itself... but there it is.

too bad you aren't continuing your blog Paladin. It was very good.
As are your comments....

It amazes me how many pro-choicers, who often lay claim to liberal ideals, shun rational thought and discourse.

Why does that amaze you, Oliver? I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck. I just don't get your particular connection here between liberal ideals and rational thought.

I also don't hang out here much and am dropping in late on this discussion, but it's been extremely interesting on all sides! Trying to figure out the rights of society versus individual freedom is what's most fascinating to me these days.

This is somewhat off-topic, but I am curious about the views of posters here. Aside from the subject of abortion (which involves 2 separate lives), how do you feel about the role of government in regulating an individual's use of their own body?

This could mean anything from, say, the government trying to regulate sexual practices between consenting adults to whether the govt should punish people who have unsuccessfully tried to commit suicide or voluntarily chosen euthanasia.

The basic question is, how much say should we justifiably have in the affairs of our neighbours?

I'm a 40+ non-Christian agnostic who spent her first 20 years in the US and has lived in Canada since. I was shocked fairly recently to discover that there were laws on the books in Texas governing things like sodomy.

Honestly, does anyone here actually support laws that regulate something as private as the sexuality of consenting adults? And if so, please explain to me why!

I can understand, although not support, religious arguments against homosexuality (and I have yet to encounter a single coherent secular argument). I can also understand that a Creator could have a legitimate argument for or against something.

I just really, really, REALLY don't get how humans are allowed to regulate each other in matters concerning each individual's own body.

That is the root question around a lot of issues being discussed in this thread, right?

Just my opinion at this point but I think going off-topic on homosexuality is another one of those circular argument to get us off topic. Terezia, if that is not your intention I apologize but the last couple of weeks as Carla mentioned on a different thread there seems to be a lot of trolling being directed toward Jill's blog. I and many other Christian prolifers do have strong feelings about this topic but I am very skeptical about you posing this topic on Jill's PROLIFE BLOG. If you are truly interested there are ministries that deal with this issue. Mods I am really curious what Jill thinks about this and what Carla says seems to be going on lately. God bless and good night.

Sorry for the double-post. Problem with my computer

Terezia do you believe that people should have the right to drive their bodies around in cars while drunk?

Angel wrote:

too bad you aren't continuing your blog Paladin. It was very good. As are your comments....

:) Thanks. Maybe someday, when I get more than a modicum of free time. (Believe it or not, comments are far quicker for me to write than are my blog posts; I don't have to come up with the topic, myself, for one thing! :) )

Definitely not a troll, Pro-lifer L. I just haven't posted here in ages. I can understand if the moderators choose to limit off-topic posts (although this is kind of the direction this conversation is going in anyway, as far as the general control issues).

angel, I don't think they should be allowed to drive drunk on roads where they might encounter other people. There is a demonstrable risk that drunkenness impairs your ability to operate a motor vehicle. I don't now that there's any realistic debate to the contrary. At least I've never encountered it.

However, if someone wanted to drive drunk on their own land, I say have at it. It's not my right to say they can't do that.

Hey, Terezia, I remember you! I think we talked briefly about a book I was reading, A Buddhist Critique of the Christian Concept of God, among other things. Good to see you. :)

That's the hard-to-find one that even my library doesn't have. Now that you're done with it, was it worth reading? Good to see you too!

I am sorry Terizia but I am a little skeptical right now of those who just want to go in circular arguments when their mindset is not having a discourse but just to frustrate. Do you know what I mean? I am sure Jill and the mods will do an excellent job as usual regarding this.

Hi Prolifer,
There are certain topics that I don't discuss anymore. Homosexuality for one. Those kinds of threads can get pretty heated. And yes they go round and round. I like to pick my battles and save my energy for discussions on why people think abortion is good for women. It seems to be all I have the time or energy for anyway. :)

Terezia: "Why does that amaze you, Oliver? I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck. I just don't get your particular connection here between liberal ideals and rational thought."

Conszidering that Liberalism has its roots in The Great Enlightenment, it shocks me that liberals do not use the rational thought that was the hallmark of that period. It also amazes me because liberals often associate education and, at least the appearance of, intelligience with superiority. All this, and pro-choicers use emotions in place of thought to determine the fates of millions of humans.

For your other question...No, I do not think the government should step in to control our personal lives as long as there is clearly no harm done to another person. Abortion harms another person, so the government has the obligation to regulate it.

I never thought of either liberals or conservatives cornering the market on rational thought, which is why I was confused. Thanks for the clarification, Oliver. I also think we all vastly overrate ourselves as an intelligent species, but that's another story. :)

I am sorry Terizia but I am a little skeptical right now of those who just want to go in circular arguments when their mindset is not having a discourse but just to frustrate. Do you know what I mean?

All righty, then. Had I tried to initiate a discussion entirely about homosexuality and you didn't want to take part in it, my suggestion would be to...not take part in it. You know what I mean?

As I said in my post, I wanted to see what limits people have in how far they're willing to allow the community/govt regulate their personal lives and use of their bodies outside the abortion issue, in keeping with some of the discussion going on earlier in this thread. Considering the role of current public opinion in determining right and wrong is a fascinating one.

Carla chose not to stop this, but now I'm remembering why trying to engage in conversation here can sometimes be so frustrating, especially when honest attempts are met with condescension and presumption. It's just not worth it. So I won't continue posting in this thread.

(Thanks for coming out to play, though, angel.)

I didn't see anything that needed to be stopped. A misunderstanding? Sure.

Carla I see what you are saying and I try to keep out of those discussions as well. I don't have the energy.

Terezia I think you misunderstand me, others may be interested in this discussion and as long as it is ok with the mods no problem.