Weekend question

weekend%20question.jpgHow can someone who is pro-abortion argue against abortions of female fetuses based solely on their gender? Some countries such as China or India have made such abortions illegal. Would you support such a prohibition in the United States?


Comments:

Jill: How can someone who is pro-abortion argue against abortions of female fetuses based solely on their gender?

If somebody is actually "pro-abortion" then they're not going to be against any abortions.

If your question is really for pro-choicers, then it's well-taken. To viability, I would leave it to the woman or couple involved, regardless of their reasons. If not, then I wouldn't be pro-choice.
......

Some countries such as China or India have made such abortions illegal. Would you support such a prohibition in the United States?

How do you prove that's the motivation, though? Do those countries simply forbid abortions of females?

I can see being against it, were there a perceived problem as in China - the imbalance of males-to-females is seen as a problem, the same way that overpopulation was the motivation for the "one child" policy.

If I felt that the need to correct such an imbalance was more important than what the given woman or couple wanted, then I wouldn't be pro-choice, there. That's a huge "if," though, as of now anyway.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 17, 2007 12:07 PM


I'm pro-choice.
I feel that it isn't my place to tell anyone what or who they have to carry in their uterus.
It's really none of my business.

Posted by: Laura at November 17, 2007 12:16 PM


Doug, maybe you'd feel different if you were living in China and couldn't find a wife?
Or you had a daughter who was kidnapped and sold into a family to be a wife for their son (this is being done by the way)?
Funny how things twist themselves around - women who are supposed to be the advocates, and protectors of their unborn babies are themselves preyed upon by abortion - theirs sisters killed in the womb, never having a "choice" about anything in life...
There are 40 MILLION girls "missing" in Asia, except they're not missing they were murdered.

Posted by: Patricia at November 17, 2007 12:17 PM


I've never heard a pro-choicer argue that the problem with India and China is that abortion is legal, or that gender-based abortion is legal. Obviously, abortion is legal in a lot of places, and most of them don't have gender imbalances.

The problem in India and China is not legal abortion, but extreme sexism. If daughters were not seen as burdens in these cultures, there would be no gender imbalance.

Posted by: tp at November 17, 2007 12:36 PM


And I would not support such a law in the US, because as I said, it is unnecessary here. There is no gender imbalance in the US. And besides, these laws can't be enforced, anyway (as India and China continue to demonstrate).

Posted by: tp at November 17, 2007 12:39 PM


Doug, maybe you'd feel different if you were living in China and couldn't find a wife?

Patricia, sure, just as I said: "If I felt that the need to correct such an imbalance was more important than what the given woman or couple wanted, then I wouldn't be pro-choice, there."

Posted by: Doug at November 17, 2007 12:47 PM


Where the majority of sex selection abortions dispose of females, don't you think feminists would have an issue with women being relegated to a second choice second class status, be it in China, India, or in the United States?

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 1:26 PM


Mary, what a great point!

Posted by: heather at November 17, 2007 1:53 PM


Since the numerical gender imbalance only exists in certain cultures, it is culturally based. Therefore, external cultural pressures are affecting the choices of the women. They may be pressured by their spouse, family, or fear of abandonment or rejection. I don't think our American notion of free choice really applies. These women may in fact have virtually no choice. Abortion is just another instrument in the oppresssive toolkit. It is not about choice, it is about killing those you don't want to be living.

Posted by: hippie at November 17, 2007 2:32 PM


Where the majority of sex selection abortions dispose of females, don't you think feminists would have an issue with women being relegated to a second choice second class status, be it in China, India, or in the United States?

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 1:26 PM
...............................................

Having an issue with sexist cultural bias in foreign countries does nothing to change that bias. I don't feel that I have the right to tell foreign countries how to govern their citizens. Do you?

Posted by: Sally at November 17, 2007 2:34 PM


I don't feel that I have the right to tell foreign countries how to govern their citizens. Do you?

Well, yeah. We told Germany by WWII that we didn't like the idea of them exterminating their Jews. But in Germany, they didn't believe their Jews were worthy of life, much like people who don't believe "fetuses" are worthy of life.

An interesting aside, they are finding that homosexuality might be genetically predisposed. How about mothers who wanted to abort the children who carried the "gay gene"?

Posted by: Tony at November 17, 2007 2:56 PM


Heather,

Thank you.

Hippie,

You sum it up very well. These cultures will not change overnight so abortion can easily be used as a tool to ensure the birth of males, and yes women can most certainly be pressured into aborting their female offspring.

Sally,

Tell that to feminists who have criticized the oppression of Afghan women and the forced wearing of burkas, to the American feminist(who's name escapes me) briefly held captive in Iran during the Iranian Revolution because she gave her opinion against chadors, tell it to Kate Michelman who had an issue with Romanian women being forced to bear children, to the group of Dutch(?) feminists who were going around in a boat, performing abortions in countries where it is illegal, and groups in this country that have pushed for abortion and birth control in foreign lands.
You might ask these persons, who aren't exactly shy about dictating to foreign governments as to how to treat their citizens, and even attempting to violate the laws of foreign countries, if they have any problem with abortion being used to maintain the second choice second class status of women.

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 3:21 PM


Forced to wear a head scarf? That is oppression. How can you compare that to a woman's free choice to obey her husband's desire that she abort a daughter so they can try for the more prestigious boy her family expects her to produce?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2007 3:57 PM


Anonymous,

I'm not comparing them. I'm addressing Sally's question about telling governments how to treat their citizens. Those were just some examples.

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 4:16 PM


Mary,

I was being sarcastic about the headscarf comparison. I find it silly that people think a muslim headscarf is oppressive. It is a cultural tradition. Similarly, other cultures have women cover their nipples, but some don't. Community standards of dress are not oppression.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 17, 2007 4:37 PM


Anonymous,

My apologies. Sometimes its hard to tell in writing exactly how people are trying to come across. You're quite right about dress. I understand that in Afghanistan, many women prefer to wear the burka. Many women are not comfortable being seen in public by men other than their husbands, and are not permitted to look at men, so they feel more comfortable covered up.
Also, the chador in Iran can have important religious significance. Pious women chose to wear it but it was not a requirement, like it became after 1979. It was piously religious women who objected to the required wearing of the chador since that took away from the religious significance of it.
We do tend to apply our cultural standards to other people and assume they want to be like us, which maybe they don't.
Its interesting some of our feminists have no trouble speaking out against coverings, but are strangely silent on the issue sex selection abortion, as you so well point out.

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 5:01 PM


Doug, oh so you're prochoice when it suits your need, such as an inconvenient baby after a one-night stand or any other stand for that matter, but if it affects you directly, well then I guess not.
What does that say about you?

Posted by: Patricia at November 17, 2007 5:16 PM


Doug, oh so you're prochoice when it suits your need, such as an inconvenient baby after a one-night stand or any other stand for that matter, but if it affects you directly, well then I guess not. What does that say about you?

It says I'm being truthful and acknowledging that it's not impossible that I'd feel differently.

We are weighing our desire against the desire of pregnant women. It would take a heck of a lot, even a quite extreme situation for me to think that it shouldn't be left to the women themselves.

For you it doesn't take much at all.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 17, 2007 5:40 PM


Sorry Doug, but a baby is a baby ALL of the time not just when it's convenient for you or any other man or woman. That baby by nature of its humanity has the right to live whether its a girl or a boy.
And you're not being TRUTHFUL, just deceitful in order to get what you want. Which is sex without responsibility.

Posted by: Patricia at November 17, 2007 5:45 PM


prettyinpink blasphemed God and accused God and me of condoning "murder" here http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/11/colorado_for_eq.html
by saying:

"Zeke, according to you, we can still murder and it's okay. As long as we call it capital punishment."

You mean according to God aka Jesus Christ, don't you? And according to the Apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews and the Apostle John. You include them in your blasphemy as well since they all promoted the death penalty for capital criminals.

MATTHEW 15:3-9
He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 "For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5 "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me [is] a gift [to God" -- ] 6 'then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: 8 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with [their] lips, But their heart is far from Me. 9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching [as] doctrines the commandments of men.' " [Cf. Mark 7:6-13] --Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ is referencing Himself where He gave this command in Exodus 21:17 and here He is clearly upholding that command and criticizing those Jews who don't follow it.

Do you reject Christianity now because according to you Jesus Christ, who is God, promoted murder in commanding that men bring about justice by executing other men for specific crimes?

HEBREWS 10:28-29
Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

MOSES LAW = THE LAW THAT JESUS CHRIST GAVE TO MOSES

ACTS 25:11
"For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar."

ROMANS 13:3-4
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil.

1 TIMOTHY 1:8-11
BUT WE KNOW THAT THE LAW [IS] GOOD IF ONE USES IT LAWFULLY, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for [the] lawless and insubordinate, for [the] ungodly and for sinners, for [the] unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

NUMBERS 35:31-33
'Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death... So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.'

REVELATION 13:10
...he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

And of course, here is where God INSTITUTED capital punishment for the entire world to obey and be carried out by men. Not by Him. By men. That's exactly what it says.

GENESIS 9:6
"WHOEVER SHEDS MAN'S BLOOD, BY MAN HIS BLOOD SHALL BE SHED; FOR IN THE IMAGE OF GOD HE MADE MAN.

If you are Catholic prettyinpink then you have committed a MORTAL SIN by calling God a murderer since He commanded that capital criminals be executed and made it clear that there is no other acceptable just punishment for those crimes.

If you want to hold to your belief that God and I are promoting murder when we promote justice through advocating the execution of capital criminals then here is your chance to renounce Christianity and tell the world that the Christian God is evil and that you are a pagan or hold to some other belief that you believe is "superior" to the vengeful, justice-seeking doctrine promoted by the God of the bible in the Old and New Testaments.

Or you can apologize to me and admit that you were wrong to accuse God and myself of condoning murder through the promotion of the just punishment of execution for those who commit capital crimes.

Which is it gonna be?

Posted by: zeke13:19 at November 17, 2007 6:07 PM


Doug has willingly become a vile piece of human waste.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at November 17, 2007 6:15 PM


Zeke, your random jihadist musings are what I look forward to every day....................

Posted by: JKeller at November 17, 2007 6:37 PM


Zeke 6:15PM

That's Christian? I don't recall Christ ever referring to any person as such.

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 6:48 PM


Zeke, seriously. You make me laugh so much.

*snort*

Posted by: Rae at November 17, 2007 7:24 PM


Jill,

as we can see so far, pro-aborts wouldn't outlaw gender specific abortions.

Abortion is their holiest sacrament.

Posted by: jasper at November 17, 2007 8:31 PM


I don't like gender-specific abortion, but I can't really say I'd want a law that says it should be illegal.

Abortion itself isn't really causing gender-specific abortions like in India or China. It's the culture and mindset that women are not as valuable that is the problem.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 17, 2007 9:02 PM


I am a pro-choice feminist and I do not support sex-selection.

Althought this issue is not as black and white as it has been presented here. Because I am pro-choice rather than pro-abortion, I do not see any contradiction in supporting the legalization of abortion and not supporting sex-selection. As hippie already pointed out sex-selection is not about the woman's choice or her bodily autonomy. It is about oppression and control.

However, I do not think the solution is to make sex-selection illegal (as that is very hard to regulate because how can you tell a woman's motives for aborting?) I think we need to address the larger issue, which is the way women are treated and perceived within those countries.

Sex selection is an indication of a bigger problem, however, it is not a problem in and of itself.

Posted by: th at November 17, 2007 9:03 PM


Oh, now that I read through the posts, I see that tp has already said what I have, except more eloquently. Yes.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 17, 2007 9:04 PM


I don't like gender-specific abortion, but I can't really say I'd want a law that says it should be illegal.

What is wrong with it, Stephanie?

Posted by: Bethany at November 17, 2007 9:32 PM


Bethany, what is wrong with it, is that it indicates a larger problem of a society that views women as inferior and less desireable.

Posted by: th at November 17, 2007 9:34 PM


Bethany, what is wrong with it, is that it indicates a larger problem of a society that views women as inferior and less desireable.

Posted by: th at November 17, 2007 9:34 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...And how crappy would it be to be born female into a society like that?
Let them spend a generation or two cranking out virtually all boys, and their big cultural sausage party will come to an end.
I can't think of anything that would make them learn to value women quicker than making them go without for a while. You don't know what 'ya got 'til it's gone.

Posted by: Laura at November 17, 2007 9:59 PM


Stephanie and th,

So long as it is easy to dispose of females before birth, why should anyone bother to better the circumstances of women? Its easier just to get rid of them and maintain the status quo.
Right, the problem is the culture, but gender selection abortion is helping maintain the second choice second class status of women in these countries and will continue to do so.
By the way, I read in a nursing journal article in the early 1980's in which the late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn maintained that 4 out of 5 of the fetuses aborted for being the "wrong" sex in the United States at that time were female. Dr. Mendelsohn was discussing sexism in medicine(imagine that!) and brought up this statistic. At this time ultrasound was not routine and people seldom knew the gender of their unborn babies, unless they had amniocentesis, which wasn't common either. Apparently doctors were providing this service on request to determine the sex. I can only imagine it would be far easier today though I have no statistics.
Apparently it isn't only those other cultures where women have been so devalued.

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 10:17 PM


I personally know an OB who was asked to determine the sex of a baby in the early 80's.
The woman told him if the fetus was female she planned to"get rid of it". The OB refused, telling her she would have to find another physician, he'd have no part of it.
She gave birth to a girl.

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 10:31 PM


Women in our culture are more valued the more they function in traditionally male roles. So while some individual women are more valued, it is based on the male standard. Women are less valued the more female they are. A woman with ten kids is derided. While a woman who makes $10 million is considered a success.

I think women should have equal opportunity in the workplace and I think the lot of women has improved due to the women's movement as Sally so aptly pointed out. However, I think there is progress yet to be made in valuing that women have babies and that in and of itself is to be celebrated and valued. A woman who has ten kids is as much of an asset and contributor to society as woman who is a doctor, lawyer or indian chief.

Posted by: hippie at November 17, 2007 10:32 PM


"Apparently it isn't only those other cultures where women have been so devalued."

Very true. This is why I am a feminist. We still have a lot of work to do.

"Right, the problem is the culture, but gender selection abortion is helping maintain the second choice second class status of women in these countries and will continue to do so."

I see gender selection as a result of women's oppression. In my opinion, I really don't see it fueling the problem, but it is certainly a very alarming signal.

Posted by: th at November 17, 2007 10:33 PM


hippie, I completely agree. Women do not get near enough appreciation for raising children and unfortunately men get even less. I would really like to see society give more credit to stay at home mothers and fathers (especially fathers, who are given such litte respect when they choose to fill this role)

As a society, we can't afford to depreciate the value of stereotypical "women's work". (and we need to get away from it being done entirely by women)

Posted by: th at November 17, 2007 10:40 PM


th,

I must disagree. Gender selection abortion is maintaining the second choice second class status of women, and that definitely fuels the problem. One feeds off the other.

In this day and age, the woman I mentioned could far more easily learn her baby was a girl and abort it for that reason, with no one the wiser as to why she aborted. You're right th, there is still a lot of work to do.

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 10:47 PM


th,

I was responding to your 10:33pm post.

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 10:48 PM


What were you referring to Mary?

Did the scripture references I gave of what Jesus said in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 not direct you to Jesus Christ's specific words well enough?

Don't question me, go look at the bible references I gave.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at November 17, 2007 11:03 PM


Patricai: Sorry Doug, but a baby is a baby ALL of the time not just when it's convenient for you or any other man or woman.

Not the issue. If you want to call it a "baby" that is fine with me, but the physical reality is not what the argument is.
......

That baby by nature of its humanity has the right to live whether its a girl or a boy.

Nope, you are simply lying there. It is the fact that we don't attribute right to life to the unborn that has you arguing in the first place.
......

And you're not being TRUTHFUL, just deceitful in order to get what you want. Which is sex without responsibility.

Baloney. You don't know about me. You're just making up silly stuff.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 17, 2007 11:22 PM


Doug has willingly become a vile piece of human waste.

Silly, Zeke, you're the one that wants women's will subverted to your own. The weakness of your own pretend arguments lead you to childish ad hominems.

Oh well. You're an asset for the Pro-Choice side.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 17, 2007 11:24 PM


Ultimately, the woman owns her uterus, and if she wants to use it to gestate boys only, she's entitled to do so.

I expect that as sex-selection abortions lower the number of women in countries like India and China, the perceived value of women will increase. Thus, sex-selection will be self-limiting.

Posted by: SoMG at November 17, 2007 11:26 PM


Stephanie: I don't like gender-specific abortion, but I can't really say I'd want a law that says it should be illegal.

Abortion itself isn't really causing gender-specific abortions like in India or China. It's the culture and mindset that women are not as valuable that is the problem.

Exactly - if somebody favors leaving it up to the woman who is the one pregnant, her reasons are her own, and the pro-choicer's feeling is not dependent upon them.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 17, 2007 11:27 PM


Doug,
The pro=choicer's feeling is not dependent upon them? The pro-choicer's are the one's making the decisions to abort & the others are fueling their desire to do so.

Posted by: AB Laura at November 17, 2007 11:45 PM


Goodness, some PCer's really will support anything won't they as long as it's veiled under the term "choice"? A woman choosing to abort because the sex of the baby isn't what she wants? You would REALLY support such a ludicrous idea? If aborting a baby because it's not a girl is not the devaluation of women, then I seriously do not have a clue what is. PCer's claim their right to "choose" because it liberates them, makes them stronger, and then to say that it is okay to abort because the sex of the baby is a girl? Doesn't that just contradict your whole movement? I mean, maybe I'm misconstruing what is being said but that is how I interpreted it. WHERE is it that you draw the necessary line to say that something is wrong or even just stupid? Do you not find it completely stupid to abort a child based on their sex? Not because of health complications, not because of rape or incest, but because of their gender? How is it that you can't find anything wrong with that? I'm being genuine here too..I really want to know the logic behind something that seems to me to be completely ridiculous.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 17, 2007 11:55 PM


Elizabeth,
I agree, but have come to the conclusion, and I'm sure all PC'ers can back me up here, that they don't care what the sex is, what it looks like, what color hair it may have, what it may become if it were born, if it were healthy or not, how it came about, etc., etc., etc. They think "it" is absolutely worthless and deserving of the mother (and I use that term VERY loosely) to do with it as she pleases.

Posted by: AB Laura at November 18, 2007 12:00 AM


Doug.

Does Jill Stanek have a persuasive argument that women should NOT have the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion?

Posted by: yllas at November 18, 2007 12:48 AM


Mary.
Does Jill Stanek have a persuasive argument that women should NOT have the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion?

Posted by: yllas at November 18, 2007 12:56 AM


Elizabeth, remember some women will choose to selectively keep girls, and abort the boys.

Posted by: SoMG at November 18, 2007 1:07 AM


Somg.
Does Jill Stanek have a persuasive argument that women should NOT have the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion?

Posted by: yllas at November 18, 2007 1:13 AM


don't feel that I have the right to tell foreign countries how to govern their citizens. Do you?

Well, yeah. We told Germany by WWII that we didn't like the idea of them exterminating their Jews. But in Germany, they didn't believe their Jews were worthy of life, much like people who don't believe "fetuses" are worthy of life.

An interesting aside, they are finding that homosexuality might be genetically predisposed. How about mothers who wanted to abort the children who carried the "gay gene"?

Posted by: Tony at November 17, 2007 2:56 PM
........................................

Japan attacked us. Germany was allied with Japan. We went to war against both. The US government didn't concern themselves with Jewish people slaughtered any more than the US government concerns themselves about geonocide in Africa.

Posted by: Sally at November 18, 2007 1:41 AM


Heather,

Thank you.

Hippie,

You sum it up very well. These cultures will not change overnight so abortion can easily be used as a tool to ensure the birth of males, and yes women can most certainly be pressured into aborting their female offspring.

Sally,

Tell that to feminists who have criticized the oppression of Afghan women and the forced wearing of burkas, to the American feminist(who's name escapes me) briefly held captive in Iran during the Iranian Revolution because she gave her opinion against chadors, tell it to Kate Michelman who had an issue with Romanian women being forced to bear children, to the group of Dutch(?) feminists who were going around in a boat, performing abortions in countries where it is illegal, and groups in this country that have pushed for abortion and birth control in foreign lands.
You might ask these persons, who aren't exactly shy about dictating to foreign governments as to how to treat their citizens, and even attempting to violate the laws of foreign countries, if they have any problem with abortion being used to maintain the second choice second class status of women.

Posted by: Mary at November 17, 2007 3:21 PM
...............................................................

What is your point Mary? Feminist should shut up because no matter what they say nothing will be done? Or perhaps they aren't yelling loud enough for the US to march to war against countries who govern their countries to was we find disgusting?
Tell me Mary. Are you for people violating the laws of foriegn countries if they are smuggling in forbidden Bibles?

Posted by: Sally at November 18, 2007 1:47 AM


Jill,

as we can see so far, pro-aborts wouldn't outlaw gender specific abortions.

Abortion is their holiest sacrament.

Posted by: jasper at November 17, 2007 8:31 PM
................................................

A medical procedure is a religious rite? Okey dokey. @@

Posted by: Sally at November 18, 2007 1:52 AM


Since the numerical gender imbalance only exists in certain cultures, it is culturally based. Therefore, external cultural pressures are affecting the choices of the women. They may be pressured by their spouse, family, or fear of abandonment or rejection. I don't think our American notion of free choice really applies. These women may in fact have virtually no choice. Abortion is just another instrument in the oppresssive toolkit. It is not about choice, it is about killing those you don't want to be living.

Posted by: hippie at November 17, 2007 2:32 PM
.........................................................

This makes no sense. You seem to have a need to blame someone for something yet don't know who to blame or why.
Have another hot fudge sunday and praise Hersheys.

Posted by: Sally at November 18, 2007 2:45 AM


Sally.
Does Jill Stanek have a persuasive argument that women should NOT be have the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion?

Posted by: yllas at November 18, 2007 3:15 AM


Sally.
Does Jill Stanek have a persuasive argument that women should NOT have the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion?

Posted by: yllas at November 18, 2007 3:19 AM


Sally.
Does anybody at this post board have a persuasive argument that women should NOT have the freedom to do what they want in matters of abortion?

Posted by: yllas at November 18, 2007 3:46 AM


Sally,

In your 2:34PM post you said "I don't feel I have a right to tell foreign countries how to govern their citizens". Apparently you're the one who thinks feminists should shut up. I'm pointing out that there are those, some of them feminists, who obviously think they have every right to do so. You would seem to agree, except however when it comes to the disposing of unborn females.
About smuggling bibles, I have my own thoughts concerning missionaries but as I said I never get into religious discussions or debates on this blog. By the way Sally, how do you feel about those ladies on the boat performing abortions in countries where its illegal?

Zeke, 11:13PM

I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

SOMG 11:26

So the existence or women depend on supply and demand? How reassuring. By the way, in his article Dr. Mendelsohn stated that feminist Gloria Steinem expressed concern about sex selection abortion when she state that if the trend continued, women would have to be put in cages with signs that read "please do not feed". You know, what you do with rare animals?
It doesn't seem that Ms. Steinem shared your optimistic outlook.

Posted by: Mary at November 18, 2007 7:27 AM


My goodness what typos!

I meant to say,

So the existence of women depends on supply and demand?

Posted by: Mary at November 18, 2007 7:41 AM


"if somebody favors leaving it up to the woman who is the one pregnant, her reasons are her own, and the pro-choicer's feeling is not dependent upon them."

AB Laura: The pro-choicer's feeling is not dependent upon them? The pro-choicer's are the one's making the decisions to abort & the others are fueling their desire to do so.

Laura, from a pro-choice perspective the woman's reasons are her own. If I or anybody "wants" a woman to have an abortion or to continue a pregnancy for our reasons, then we are not pro-choice, at least not in that case.

If we don't think a given reason is enough to have an abortion, then there we aren't pro-choice, either. In reality a lot of that will happen - for example the sex-selection abortions will have more objections than some other reasons like severe fetal abnormality, danger to the woman, etc.

I'm not saying that anybody "should" end pregnancies against their own will.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 8:39 AM


SoMG, and I find something completely ridiculous about keeping girls over boys too. Basing abortion on sex-selection is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. Next to people being completely okay with it.

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 18, 2007 8:54 AM


Elizabeth: some PCer's really will support anything won't they as long as it's veiled under the term "choice"?

If we are leaving the decision up to the woman, then what does her reason matter?
......

A woman choosing to abort because the sex of the baby isn't what she wants? You would REALLY support such a ludicrous idea?

Yeah, for me personally, to viability I support whatever she wants. Elizabeth, I would not make that choice myself - if my wife was pregnant and she and I wanted an abortion, then (obviously) okay by me. Yet if we wanted to have a child, then I would not want to select the sex.

That said, I can understand why some people do want to choose the sex.
......

If aborting a baby because it's not a girl is not the devaluation of women, then I seriously do not have a clue what is.

I think that's putting the cart before the horse. It is because women are less valued in some countries and cultures that this deal occurs, frequently. In the US, despite the sexes not really being equal all the way, I'd think some people would want to have a girl if they'd already had a bunch of boys, or vice-versa. That's not "the devaluation of women" (or of men) that's just their desire in the specific situation.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 9:04 AM


AB Laura: I'm sure all PC'ers can back me up here, that they don't care what the sex is, what it looks like, what color hair it may have, what it may become if it were born, if it were healthy or not, how it came about, etc., etc., etc. They think "it" is absolutely worthless and deserving of the mother (and I use that term VERY loosely) to do with it as she pleases.

Holy Crow, Laura, hold on a minute. No, Pro-choicers are not saying "worthless."

Dear Bobby and his wife just had Gianna, and I think that's great and I hope they have all the kids they want. I am glad when a baby is born and wanted as much as Gianna is.

I'm sure Gianna is more than worth her weight in gold to Bobby and his wife. "Worthless" never comes into my mind there.

If somebody really thinks "worthless" as you portray it, then they are not pro-choice.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 9:13 AM


Doug, yes, you are saying that an unborn child is worthless- unless another person decides that they place worth on it.
You do not think that they have worth in and of themselves, by nature of being human beings. you think the only worth they have is determined by the mother.

Posted by: Bethany at November 18, 2007 9:48 AM


.....AND you only think the reason anyone has worth is determined on how others value them. Without others to place value someone, you would deem them without value. You do not place inherent value on any individual, period.

Posted by: Bethany at November 18, 2007 9:56 AM


Bethany,
Exactly!

Doug,
So you can speak for all PC'ers & tell us all that "it", ALL "it's", have worth?

Posted by: AB Laura at November 18, 2007 10:04 AM


@Doug (again),
Using Bobby's baby Gianna is a poor choice for an answer. You know exactly what I'm talking about, Doug. You know, the aborted "choices" that are flushed down toilets, ground up in garbage disposals, incinerated, thrown in the trash, etc. You mean to tell me that you think, being "pro-choice" and all, that these "choices" have worth? And then you said, "If somebody really thinks "worthless" as you portray it, then they are not pro-choice." If that's true, then you guys really need to come up with a new "sugar-coated" title for what you exactly are.

Posted by: AB Laura at November 18, 2007 10:14 AM


B: Doug, yes, you are saying that an unborn child is worthless- unless another person decides that they place worth on it.

Okay, Bethany, I'd agree with that, though I am not saying "worthless" with the bad connotation it usually has. I am saying the concept of worth is in the eye of the beholder, that there has to be "somebody" there in the first place to have desires and make valuations. I don't limit the "somebody" to people, either. If there are "higher" beings than us, then they too have their opinions, perhaps. I also think that some other species - dolphins, primates, elephants, etc., have emotions and care about some things.
......

You do not think that they have worth in and of themselves, by nature of being human beings. you think the only worth they have is determined by the mother.

No, anybody and everybody can have their own opinion. I am saying that I don't see why others should enforce their opinion over the woman's.
......

AND you only think the reason anyone has worth is determined on how others value them. Without others to place value someone, you would deem them without value. You do not place inherent value on any individual, period.

There is no "inherent" value. Value does not exist without a mind to care one way or another. Yet it's not that the only value comes from "others." A hugely significant valuation is how the individual feels about themself - the most imporant one, in fact, IMO.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 10:19 AM


You know, the aborted "choices" that are flushed down toilets, ground up in garbage disposals, incinerated, thrown in the trash, etc. You mean to tell me that you think, being "pro-choice" and all, that these "choices" have worth?

Nope, Laura, I'm not for that. After viability I'm not "for abortion" at all unless there's some fairly extreme circumstances. As for born babies "thrown in the trash" - I'm not for that, at all, either. I'm not pro-choice there.
......

And then you said, "If somebody really thinks "worthless" as you portray it, then they are not pro-choice." If that's true, then you guys really need to come up with a new "sugar-coated" title for what you exactly are.

Nope, it's two different things. If somebody wants an abortion to take place, without consideration of what the woman wants, or they put their opinion above hers, then they are not pro-choice in the first place, there. "We guys" are not wanting that.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 10:24 AM



So I summed up your beliefs pretty well then....


Okay, Bethany, I'd agree with that, though I am not saying "worthless" with the bad connotation it usually has.

Doug, it still has a bad connotation when you say that any human being has no worth without others valuing them. That's just how it is. It's offensive and hurtful.

Posted by: Bethany at November 18, 2007 10:24 AM


Nope, Laura, I'm not for that. After viability I'm not "for abortion" at all unless there's some fairly extreme circumstances. As for born babies "thrown in the trash" - I'm not for that, at all, either. I'm not pro-choice there.

Doug, she didn't ask you about born babies, did she?

Posted by: Bethany at November 18, 2007 10:25 AM


Doug, that's a lie...you have yourself said that even after viability, it matters more what the woman wants, even though you "wouldn't mind" it being limited. But you wouldn't tell her not to if she really wanted it, even if there was no really good reason.

Posted by: Bethany at November 18, 2007 10:26 AM


Correction: "wouldn't mind" it being limited after viability.

Posted by: Bethany at November 18, 2007 10:27 AM


So you can speak for all PC'ers & tell us all that "it", ALL "it's", have worth?

Laura, I can't "speak for all pro-choicers," really, any more than yllas can speak for pro-lifers. ; )

I am saying that to the point that we are pro-choice, we are leaving the value to the woman or couple to decide. Not all pro-choicers will agree on time of gestation, etc.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 10:28 AM


Sorry to leave in the middle of the discussion...gotta run to church. Ttys

Posted by: Bethany at November 18, 2007 10:31 AM


Doug, it still has a bad connotation when you say that any human being has no worth without others valuing them. That's just how it is. It's offensive and hurtful.

Bethany, I certainly understand that you feel that way.
......

Doug, that's a lie...you have yourself said that even after viability, it matters more what the woman wants, even though you "wouldn't mind" it being limited. But you wouldn't tell her not to if she really wanted it, even if there was no really good reason.

Ahem, no it's not "a lie" - good grief, I do support a woman wanting to end a pregnancy but after viability delivery can be induced (as I've said many times). Abortion isn't the only deal for ending pregnancies then.
......

Doug, she didn't ask you about born babies, did she?

Okay, maybe not. It was the "thrown in the trash" etc., that made me think differently, but I guess it doesn't have to be that way.

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 10:35 AM


Gotta go too - the Grand Bocce Ball Championship of Atlanta is due to begin in 54 minutes....

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 10:36 AM


Doug,
you said, "I am saying that to the point that we are pro-choice, we are leaving the value to the woman or couple to decide. Not all pro-choicers will agree on time of gestation, etc."

So what you are saying is that "worth" or "value" only comes into play after viability? So when "it" was born (wanted) "it" was worthless only until "it" was viable? The time of gestation really doesn't come in to play, here..the "it" and "it's" "worth" or "value" is decided pretty early by the woman or couple. If it has no "worth or value" in thier eyes, it's aborted...if it does, it is loved (by either keeping it or putting it up for adoption).

and then,
"Nope, Laura, I'm not for that. After viability I'm not "for abortion" at all unless there's some fairly extreme circumstances."
But Doug, you are for a woman's choice, as all of the PC'ers agree. That's what Pro-Choice is about. If it is the woman's choice to abort "it" after viability, and you are not "for that", then are you really pro-choice?

Posted by: AB Laura at November 18, 2007 11:18 AM


Aww zeke, maybe you didn't see my reply.

I will say this and only this. And like zeke I will use LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS.

"If you are Catholic prettyinpink then you have committed a MORTAL SIN by calling God a murderer since He commanded that capital criminals be executed and made it clear that there is no other acceptable just punishment for those crimes."

If I were Catholic (which I'm not), I would absolutely be justified in saying that capital punishment is wrong (and MURDER), because the Church SAYS THAT IT IS WRONG according to their doctrine.

At the biblical age the death penalty was justified because there were no other means to truly protect society. We have all the means at our disposal to practice justice without murder. Now CP is definitely MURDER because there is simply no need for it. Especially for those capital crimes like lying.

So remember that CONTEXT is a very good thing to have when you are proof-texting.

If you WANT to know more about it go RESEARCH it and what the CATHOLIC CHURCH says about IT.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 18, 2007 12:05 PM


Ahem, no it's not "a lie" - good grief, I do support a woman wanting to end a pregnancy but after viability delivery can be induced (as I've said many times). Abortion isn't the only deal for ending pregnancies then.

Doug, "can be induced" is not anywhere near the same thing as "should be induced". Don't you see that? I could say, a woman "can have an abortion", because obviously, a woman can do that. That is not saying what my view is on it, it's just stating the obvious. It is not taking a stance one way or the other.

Of course, my stance is, a woman "should not" have an abortion.

Think about your wording:
"a pregnancy after viability can be induced"

Of course a late term pregnancy can be induced, but do you, Doug, think it should be, and would you support legislation prohibiting abortions after viability with an exception for the life of the mother? Be more specific about your stance....take a direct stand one way or the other.

Try not to be so vague, saying what is already apparent to everyone else, that way people will understand your position better. The way you carefully word things is precisely the reason that people (perhaps) misunderstand your position.

Posted by: Bethany at November 18, 2007 12:50 PM


Good Girl Pip,

You've been paying attention!

Posted by: mk at November 18, 2007 1:11 PM


;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 18, 2007 1:17 PM


Did I tell you I've decided to minor in theology?

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 18, 2007 1:18 PM


That's awesome PiP! I actually thought about a minor in religious studies...but our religious studies department kind of sucks. :-p

MK is gonna be pwoud of j00.

Posted by: Rae at November 18, 2007 1:59 PM


awww :)

Yes, I'm quite excited actually. My Theo 100 prof recommended that I consider a minor and when it came down to registration I saw a lot of classes I'd love to take. I only have to take 3 more classes outside of my core (which I'm finishing this semester) to earn a minor.

And our theology department ROCKS! I'm taking social justice next semester and people have told me that he is one of the best profs at SLU.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 18, 2007 4:38 PM


PIP,

Congragulations! What is your major?

Posted by: Mary at November 18, 2007 5:14 PM


Biology/Pre-PA

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 18, 2007 6:33 PM


PIP,

What is pre- PA? Please excuse my ignorance!

Posted by: Mary at November 18, 2007 6:45 PM


Hi PIP, I just clicked on your link for the first time. You're going to SLU! My older brother got his JD from SLU (my family is from Edwardsville) and he loved it there.

Posted by: Carol at November 18, 2007 7:06 PM


PIP,
OK, I usually don't click on links, but Carol made me do it! Your site is great! I love it! And you are so adorable!!! Do you play the flute, or did I read something wrong?

Posted by: AB Laura at November 18, 2007 7:20 PM


Doug, "can be induced" is not anywhere near the same thing as "should be induced". Don't you see that? I could say, a woman "can have an abortion", because obviously, a woman can do that. That is not saying what my view is on it, it's just stating the obvious. It is not taking a stance one way or the other.

Fair enough, Bethany. Okay, "should be induced."

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 7:22 PM


AB Laura: So what you are saying is that "worth" or "value" only comes into play after viability?

Nope.
......

So when "it" was born (wanted) "it" was worthless only until "it" was viable?

Nope.
......

The time of gestation really doesn't come in to play, here..the "it" and "it's" "worth" or "value" is decided pretty early by the woman or couple. If it has no "worth or value" in thier eyes, it's aborted...if it does, it is loved (by either keeping it or putting it up for adoption).

You tell me if it's decided "early." If the pregnancy is unwanted on balance, it's going to be ended. The point with viability is that it can be ended by inducing delivery.
......

and then,"Nope, Laura, I'm not for that. After viability I'm not "for abortion" at all unless there's some fairly extreme circumstances." But Doug, you are for a woman's choice, as all of the PC'ers agree.

Not after viability, necessarily - just as Roe said. There are many people who are not "uniformly" pro-choice, i.e. without reservation.
......

That's what Pro-Choice is about. If it is the woman's choice to abort "it" after viability, and you are not "for that", then are you really pro-choice?

Many times, no, just as most people are not "pro-life" without reservation.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 7:29 PM


Why are y'all not watching the AMA's?

Posted by: midnite678 Author Profile Page at November 18, 2007 7:34 PM


Midnite, my father-in-law and I won the Grand Bocce Ball Championship of Atlanta (okay, it was only against two of my brothers-in-law, but still...) and now my wife and I got home and there's NFL football on.

Right now the American Medical Association doesn't worry me.

Nor does the American Marketing Association nor the American Motorcyclist Association nor the Academy of Model Aeronautics.

Heh heh - I know what you mean but last week I went through Birmingham on I-65 and waved to you but you must not have seen me.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 8:04 PM


"What is pre- PA? Please excuse my ignorance"
It's cool! It's a up and coming field of medicine. Physician's Assistants get something similar to a master's degree in medicine. They can make diagnoses, prescribe medicine, etc, but they are under a doctor's supervision. It is sort of like a nurse practitioner except PAs work under a doctor and follow a pre-med/med school-like track while NPs work through the nursing system. I hope to either work in the OB/GYN or ER field but I obviously am not making any decisions until I go through internships.

"My older brother got his JD from SLU (my family is from Edwardsville) and he loved it there."
Awesome!! It's a great school, their PA program is nationally ranked, too, and not only are they building a new arena, but also a brand new medical researching facility--which is extremely exciting, maybe I'll get to do work in there sometime!

"Your site is great! I love it! And you are so adorable!!!"
Aww! Thank you :)

"Do you play the flute, or did I read something wrong?
Well, I started playing the flute in the 4th grade (my dad played the flute and sax, my grandpa also plays the flute with several instruments-he was a band instructor), and I was in marching band for a few years. However, being both in marching band, a ballet company, and AP track in high school was wreaking havoc on my mental health, so I decided to stop being in the school's band program. I still occasionally break it out though. Hm...maybe I'll play a little bit over thanksgiving.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 18, 2007 8:20 PM


Doug,

It depends on what part of B'ham you drove through on whether or not I saw you wave? Were you on 65, 459 or 20/59??

Posted by: midnite678 Author Profile Page at November 18, 2007 8:23 PM


Hi AB Laura,

a while back, you said that a huge part of your eating the correct food, is lack of guidance. I've been at this or nearly 3 decades now, so reducing this info into a few short paragraphs is difficult.

So at this time of year maybe go for some nutritional yeast (from a health food store) + granular lecithin + cod liver oil at http://www.drrons.com/naturopathic-medicine.htm. During winter, eating root vgetables; nuts and fermented foods (eg. Stabilium) are likely best.

During summer more fresh, raw vegetables and fruit should be emphasized + chlorella at http://www.shokos.com . Quite often constipation is a big problem usually soaking @2 Tbs of freshly-ground flax seed soaked overnight in a glass of water helps immensely. Drink the mild tasting goo in the a.m.

hope this info is helpful ....

Posted by: John McDonell at November 18, 2007 8:33 PM


AB Laura said: So what you are saying is that "worth" or "value" only comes into play after viability?

and...
So when "it" was born (wanted) "it" was worthless only until "it" was viable?

Doug said: Nope. (to both)

***So, in your opinion, but not all pc'ers and/or pro-abort's opinions, "it" has worth and/or value before "it's" viability?

--------------------------
Doug said: Many times, no, just as most people are not "pro-life" without reservation.

MOST people? Please, do give a few examples. (leaving killing spiders out, of course!)


Posted by: AB Laura at November 18, 2007 8:34 PM


PIP,
I played flute for many years...haven't picked up one in a while, though. Saw James Galway in concert at Ravinia...VERY impressive. You should keep it up when you can...it's a great stress reliever! (not to say your stressed or anything, but your plate is quite full!!!)
:)

Posted by: AB Laura at November 18, 2007 8:45 PM


PIP,

I of all people should have known! I have worked with PAs. I thought you had to be a nurse first but apparently not. Good for you and I wish you every success. I know you'll do well.

Posted by: Mary at November 18, 2007 9:01 PM


"(not to say your stressed or anything, but your plate is quite full!!!)"
LOL actually I'm constantly stressed out during the school year. It's the only way I can keep my performance up. If I just don't care everything would go downhill!

"I know you'll do well."
I hope so!
Usually they want you to have experience with patients and stuff though before you apply to PA school--and a lot of nurses do go back to either be a PA or NP, so maybe that's why you thought that?

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 18, 2007 9:34 PM


Did I tell you I've decided to minor in theology?

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 18, 2007 1:18 PM
................................................................

Why? I'm sorry if I missed it, but what is your major and how will theology fit into your goals? Don't get your dander up. I'm just asking. : )

Posted by: Sally at November 18, 2007 9:48 PM


Ultimately, the woman owns her uterus, and if she wants to use it to gestate boys only, she's entitled to do so.

I expect that as sex-selection abortions lower the number of women in countries like India and China, the perceived value of women will increase. Thus, sex-selection will be self-limiting.

Posted by: SoMG at November 17, 2007 11:26 PM
................................................

Supply and demand.

Posted by: Sally at November 18, 2007 9:57 PM


Midnite, it was straight through on I-65 going south to Mobile. AL is a tall state....

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 10:15 PM


AB Laura: So, in your opinion, but not all pc'ers and/or pro-abort's opinions, "it" has worth and/or value before "it's" viability?

It can have positive value, Laura - it's primarily up to the woman or couple.
......

"Many times, no, just as most people are not "pro-life" without reservation."

MOST people? Please, do give a few examples. (leaving killing spiders out, of course!)

Like people not being pro-choice after viability and people not being pro-life if there is enough danger to the woman or really bad fetal problems, etc.

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2007 10:19 PM


"Why? I'm sorry if I missed it, but what is your major and how will theology fit into your goals? Don't get your dander up. I'm just asking. : )"
Strictly speaking my minor has nothing directly to do with my major. I want to go into medicine. But there are some really cool classes and AMAZING teachers in the theology department. I didn't think I would like it, but I really started to. And you don't have to necessarily take classes like Old Testament, New Testament etc, although those are available. I like to take classes that directly apply to our day and age- morality, social justice, etc. I think having that minor as a foundation will also indirectly benefit any school I might apply to, but also will enrich the diversity of my education. Focusing on science more than people is, in my opinion, one of the downfalls of pre-med/med education.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 18, 2007 10:21 PM


SUPPLY and DEMAND?..........So, if you want to have free sex, it should come without consequences????. So, it's okay to kill your child?

Posted by: heather at November 18, 2007 11:37 PM


"Focusing on science more than people is, in my opinion, one of the downfalls of pre-med/med education."

Oh dear. Very, very true. =(

I also hate how competitive it is to get into medical school for pre-med undergrads. It's pretty cutthroat, at least in Berkeley.

I've had my notes stolen, and people have refused to show me their notes when I arrive late to class and need to catch up. Not to mention I have friends who had their labs sabatoged. I mean, really, you aren't going to get much of an edge over people by doing annoying things like that.

Posted by: Stephanie at November 18, 2007 11:52 PM


"Not to mention I have friends who had their labs sabatoged. I mean, really, you aren't going to get much of an edge over people by doing annoying things like that."

Jesus. I didn't know they were doing cutthroat sh*t like that at Berkeley. You'd think the higher ranked it is the more mature they are, right?
Most of the people around here are pretty good at that kind of stuff, but it is still pretty individualistic. You have to really compete for grades and jobs. But I have not run into that kind of stuff (yet).

"Oh dear. Very, very true. =("
I know. I realize that there are academic standards to be met, but they are not the be-all end-all of medicine. Medicine is mostly about the people. Competence HAS to be there, but there should be a very strong push for patient advocation. My grandfather's doctor refused to treat him once because it was inconvenient (something stupid like he wasn't on call for emergencies that day). We were livid. It's his JOB to be there for him. If you can't honestly care for people, why choose the job?

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 19, 2007 12:02 AM


Hi there Stephanie and PIP.

Posted by: heather at November 19, 2007 12:06 AM


PIP:
Yeah, you'd think, right? It's only really the pre-meds that are majoring in biology (or here, "Molecular and Cell Biology"). Everyone else is cool. =(


Heather:
Hellooo.... =)

Posted by: Stephanie at November 19, 2007 12:49 AM


PIP,

I AM so proud! Wow. A pro-life "doctor"...a dream come true!

*HUG*

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 6:39 AM


Fair enough, Bethany. Okay, "should be induced."
Doug

That is so much clearer...thank you, Doug. I appreciate that.

Bt the way, ....did you always have the opinion that at viability women should be induced instead of aborting, or this fairly recent belief? The only reason I ask is because it seems like you had a different opinion when you first came here (that even at the point of viability, regardless of whether the baby is a baby, it still doesn't matter if the woman chooses to have an abortion at that time, for any reason- it seems like you said you still left it up to the woman to decide), (of course, my memory could be really bad on this one). Has your opinion on this aspect of the abortion debate changed at all since you first showed up here?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 7:53 AM


Doug,

While we're on the topic, what happens if a woman doesn't want to allow the child to be born and given to others to raise? What if she wants the pregnancy to end by means of "eliminating" the fetus forever? Is it still her choice?


And viability by no means says that the child will be fine. Inducing birth at the viability mark almost always means complications. Who is supposed to pay for the health care of an infant whose lungs aren't functioning properly, or who is just too young to make it without medical intervention? The mother? Us? You?

What if she wants the abortion on Tuesday, but on Wednesday the fetus will be viable. Do we "force" her to wait? Who decides when an unborn child is viable?

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 7:58 AM


Aww thank you MK! *hugs back*

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 19, 2007 8:22 AM


Bethany, for years I've been okay with restrictions on abortion at viability. Don't think I've ever said anything to the contrary.

"Should be induced instead of abortion" - this is tough and it gets complicated. Okay, the pregnancy is at 24 or 26 weeks and the woman is desperate for it to end. Yet she can't just wave a magic wand and have the baby be with somebody else. Who is going to pay for the care of such a premature baby? Is there anybody who wants it in the first place? Of course this is a hypothetical situation and a very rare one in practice, but I certainly don't have any perfect solution.

And of course you're probably thinking it'd be perfect for the woman to just keep the baby, but here the presumption is that she doesn't want it, and that the pregnancy is going to be ended one way or another.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 8:38 AM


"Should be induced instead of abortion" - this is tough and it gets complicated. Okay, the pregnancy is at 24 or 26 weeks and the woman is desperate for it to end. Yet she can't just wave a magic wand and have the baby be with somebody else. Who is going to pay for the care of such a premature baby? Is there anybody who wants it in the first place? Of course this is a hypothetical situation and a very rare one in practice, but I certainly don't have any perfect solution.

Doug, there are certainly many options for that woman. Working at a CPC, I come into contact with many women who are desperately searching for a pregnant woman who would like to give away her child. Most of these women cannot have another pregnancy, and really want one. Most do not care about the cost, just that they are able to have a baby. I know several people personally who are waiting to adopt, but it seems that the only way they will get to, is to adopt out of the country. And that is a long, hard, expensive way, from what I've heard. Most would love to adopt a child from within this own country, by a woman who is willing to give her child to them.
We have organizations everywhere where a pregnant woman can decide to give her child away, and the organizations will provide for her needs, and even provide her with a shelter if she needs it. They will pay for her medical expenses, etc.

By the way, if the woman is 24-26 weeks already, why not just make her carry the child until viability, that way no one needs to pay any prematurity expenses? What, she's already been pregnant that long ,and can't stick it out a few more weeks?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 8:44 AM


Bethany, for years I've been okay with restrictions on abortion at viability. Don't think I've ever said anything to the contrary.
"Should be induced instead of abortion" - this is tough and it gets complicated. Okay, the pregnancy is at 24 or 26 weeks and the woman is desperate for it to end. Yet she can't just wave a magic wand and have the baby be with somebody else. Who is going to pay for the care of such a premature baby? Is there anybody who wants it in the first place? Of course this is a hypothetical situation and a very rare one in practice, but I certainly don't have any perfect solution.
And of course you're probably thinking it'd be perfect for the woman to just keep the baby, but here the presumption is that she doesn't want it, and that the pregnancy is going to be ended one way or another.

You haven't really convinced me that you're really against killing viable babies, Doug.


Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 8:45 AM


Who is going to pay for the care of such a premature baby

I would, in a heartbeat. Life is worth more than money.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 8:46 AM


Doug--

As an adoptive parent, I think there are many potential adoptive parents who would take on responsibility for a dramatically premature baby. If the birthmom chose to place (which I believe is part of your parameters), then usually adoptive parents insurance will pick up immediately. In IL, placement can take place as early as 3 days after birth. That means from 72 hours on, this baby would be insured. Before that, birthmom's insurance (if any) could cover, but adoptive parents do take on responsibility for medical expenses in the first three days (for both birthmom and baby) if there is no insurance. So there you go. It's covered.

EH

Posted by: EH at November 19, 2007 8:51 AM


what happens if a woman doesn't want to allow the child to be born and given to others to raise? What if she wants the pregnancy to end by means of "eliminating" the fetus forever? Is it still her choice?

MK, if it's past viability then I am okay with the state and the laws saying "no" to her. Depending on the mental state of the woman this could be really rough on her, and it'd be a very rare thing if ever but I don't see any perfect way to go here either.
......

And viability by no means says that the child will be fine. Inducing birth at the viability mark almost always means complications. Who is supposed to pay for the health care of an infant whose lungs aren't functioning properly, or who is just too young to make it without medical intervention? The mother? Us? You?

Yeah - valid points. So, if the woman is forced to remain pregnant, what damage is done to her? I question how many times this would happen, if ever, but it's a toughie.
......

What if she wants the abortion on Tuesday, but on Wednesday the fetus will be viable. Do we "force" her to wait? Who decides when an unborn child is viable?

I think it's up to doctors when viability is there. If we're drawing a line for viability then prior to that I think the woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants one.

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 8:54 AM


Doug,

We left it up to George Tiller and he found the loophole. He's killed many a viable baby, even tho the law prohibited it.

Plus you say it is rare after viability. But that just ain't so. Many, many clinics do abortions up to 24 weeks and a baby can survive at 21.

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 8:57 AM


Bethany, if others are willing to pay, then that's the solution, eh?

By the way, if the woman is 24-26 weeks already, why not just make her carry the child until viability, that way no one needs to pay any prematurity expenses? What, she's already been pregnant that long, and can't stick it out a few more weeks?

It's already a far-fetched example, waiting that long and then simply not wanting to be pregnant anymore. How many times in real life does that happen?

"Can't stick it out a few more weeks?" You'd have to ask our hypothetical woman.

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 8:57 AM


EH, sounds good to me - that there are plenty of people who would want the baby and take care of things.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 9:00 AM


It's already a far-fetched example, waiting that long and then simply not wanting to be pregnant anymore. How many times in real life does that happen?

All too often, Doug.

Have you not read Jill Stanek's own testimony of the Christ Hospital?

Do you not read of the accounts against George Tiller?

It happens all too often, Doug. You are sounding a little naive, no offense.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 9:03 AM


Bethany, if others are willing to pay, then that's the solution, eh?

It's at least one solution, yes.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 9:04 AM


Doug,

Also, if you say that viability is the cutoff, are you saying that the child still doesn't need to be sentient, but just able to breathe on it's own? Does this make him a person? What if the law said that from now on all abortions must remove a live fetus/embryo and kill it after it is removed from the mother. Just for gits and shiggles, let's pretend that for some reason the law has decided that killing it in the mother's womb is no longer an option.

If we remove an 8 week old fetus from the mothers womb is it now a person? It can't survive, but it is on this side of the uterus?

Do you not see the flaws in your logic?

You say it should be sentient. Or it should be viable. Or it should be on this side of the womb. All of these things "magically" change the exact same entity from a non person to a person worthy of protection in your mind. You even count something as subjective as "wantedness" as a reason to allow the child to live.

Can't you see, that the child/fetus/embryo has not changed? The one objective,/i> (the baby at whatever stage) in the mix, has remained exactly the same. But every reason you give for it's demise is subjective.

It's up to the doctor. It's up to the parents. It's up to the location...

Why isn't your argument based on the one provable?
It is human. It is alive. That never changes no matter what anyone elses feeling or desires are.

It seems very dangerous to me to place anything like the value of life into the realm of "valuation".


Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 9:19 AM


We left it up to George Tiller and he found the loophole. He's killed many a viable baby, even tho the law prohibited it.

MK, I realize there are arguments about Tiller. If an abortion is done that late, and it's really only because the woman doesn't want to be pregnant at that point, then I am not for that.

As far as the "health of the woman," Bethany's question about "just sticking it out for a few more weeks" does apply - sometimes I'd say that the woman will be okay, though she doesn't at all like the idea. Other times, she would not be okay, not at all, and there's the rub.
......

Plus you say it is rare after viability. But that just ain't so. Many, many clinics do abortions up to 24 weeks and a baby can survive at 21.

No - a baby might exceedingly rarely survive at 21 weeks, but that is not the point of viability. We are talking about when 50% of babies would survive (well, I am anyway), not when there is a one in a million or less chance.

http://www.sapreemies.za.org/premature/survival.htm

24 weeks is where it was in the late 1990s at that site, and I think that in a well-equipped hospital in a developed country it could be said that 23 weeks applies, at the present time.

"James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada) was the earliest premature baby in the world. He was 128 days premature (21 weeks and 5 days gestation)"

"Amillia Taylor is also often cited as the most-premature baby. She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation."

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 9:21 AM


It happens all too often, Doug. You are sounding a little naive, no offense.

Bethany, I don't think so, but no offense taken. "One such abortion" is going to be "too often" in your opinion.

There are around 1,000 abortions at 24 weeks or later per year in the US, as I recall - CDC figures.

Most of them are not because the woman simply wants to end the pregnancy at that point. So, I think we are looking at some few hundreds of abortions in the US, here - really "elective" abortions.

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 9:26 AM


Doug,

First off calling a fetus 21 weeks is deceptive. Do you mean 21 weeks since the last period of 21 weeks gestation. Because 21 weeks since the last period is actually 23 weeks gestation.

Second, since any infant born before 28 weeks has a much GREATER chance of serious neurological problems, would you then change the term viability to mean "the earliest age for a chance of survival with the fewest possible problems"?

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 9:37 AM


if you say that viability is the cutoff, are you saying that the child still doesn't need to be sentient, but just able to breathe on it's own? Does this make him a person? What if the law said that from now on all abortions must remove a live fetus/embryo and kill it after it is removed from the mother. Just for gits and shiggles, let's pretend that for some reason the law has decided that killing it in the mother's womb is no longer an option.

MK, we've been though this before, and it's two different things. I am okay with public policy having viability as where the line is drawn. That need have nothing to do with sentience. Sentience or not does matter to me, but that is not to say that I think a viable but non-sentient fetus should not be protected as a sentient one would be.
......

If we remove an 8 week old fetus from the mothers womb is it now a person? It can't survive, but it is on this side of the uterus? Do you not see the flaws in your logic?

Good grief, once again you are confusing two different things and misstating my opinion. Your apples & oranges is not "my logic." No, I do not think the 8 week fetus is a person. That is my personal opinion. And of course we both know what the law is, though it's a moot point for the 8 weeker.
......

You say it should be sentient. Or it should be viable. Or it should be on this side of the womb. All of these things "magically" change the exact same entity from a non person to a person worthy of protection in your mind. You even count something as subjective as "wantedness" as a reason to allow the child to live.

No, I do not say "it should be sentient." I do not see that as necessary, as above. If we draw the line at viability, there does not have to be any consideration of sentience. Past viability, in the womb or not is not the end-all of what I consider. "Should be viable" - well, we've been talking about viability.
......

Can't you see, that the child/fetus/embryo has not changed? The one objective,/i> (the baby at whatever stage) in the mix, has remained exactly the same. But every reason you give for it's demise is subjective.

The entire argument is based on subjective feelings. Of course the baby changes. Things are not true of it at points in gestation while they are later on (usually).
......

It's up to the doctor.

That was for viability, which, ahem - you asked about. Who better to do it?
......

It's up to the parents.

It's their pregnancy.
......

It's up to the location...

You know darn well it makes a difference, regardless of how much you may disagree with public policy and regardless of how much you wish it was not that way.
......

Why isn't your argument based on the one provable? It is human. It is alive. That never changes no matter what anyone elses feeling or desires are.

Because that is not the argument in the first place. That's a given, and the entire abortion debate remains.
......

It seems very dangerous to me to place anything like the value of life into the realm of "valuation".

That's just a contradiction.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 9:44 AM


Bethany, I don't think so, but no offense taken. "One such abortion" is going to be "too often" in your opinion.

Well, good grief, Doug. How many unjustified killings of viable babies does it take before you are concerned? How many does it take, before you think it's "too often"?

Would you be just as carefree about murders of born children? Would it take more than 1,000 a year before you were concerned?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 9:51 AM


There are around 1,000 abortions at 24 weeks or later per year in the US, as I recall - CDC figures.Most of them are not because the woman simply wants to end the pregnancy at that point. So, I think we are looking at some few hundreds of abortions in the US, here - really "elective" abortions.

CDC doesn't count many states. California being one of them.

Also,

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. ["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]

Also illuminating is an 1993 internal memo by Barbara Radford, then the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, a "trade association" for abortion clinics:

There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc." [emphasis added]

Likewise, a June 12, 1995, National Abortion Federation letter to members of the House of Representatives noted that late abortions are sought by, among others, "very young teenagers...who have not recognized the signs of their pregnancies until too late," and by "women in poverty, who have tried desperately to act responsibly and to end an unplanned pregnancy in the early stages, only to face insurmountable financial barriers."

In her article about late-term abortions, based in part on extensive interviews with Dr. McMahon and on direct observation of his practice (Los Angeles Times Magazine, January 7, 1990), reporter Karen Tumulty concluded:

If there is any other single factor that inflates the number of late abortions, it is youth. Often, teen-agers do not recognize the first signs of pregnancy. Just as frequently, they put off telling anyone as long as they can.

According to Peggy Jarman, spokeswoman for Dr. George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions in Wichita, Kansas:

About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it. [Kansas City Star]

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact9.html

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 9:52 AM


First off calling a fetus 21 weeks is deceptive. Do you mean 21 weeks since the last period of 21 weeks gestation. Because 21 weeks since the last period is actually 23 weeks gestation.

MK, "completed weeks of gestation" as it says at:

http://www.sapreemies.za.org/premature/survival.htm

It lists the chance of survival as 0% for 21 weeks. Granted that that was in the late 1990s, and that at least two babies have now survived after just less than 22 weeks gestation, as I posted above. All in all, to say that "a baby can survive at 21 weeks" is either totally false or almost never true.
......

Second, since any infant born before 28 weeks has a much GREATER chance of serious neurological problems, would you then change the term viability to mean "the earliest age for a chance of survival with the fewest possible problems"?

Nope - 50/50 chance of survival. That's not saying anything about all the problems that admittedly may be the case.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 9:55 AM


Bethany: Well, good grief, Doug. How many unjustified killings of viable babies does it take before you are concerned? How many does it take, before you think it's "too often"?

I've already said I am not for truly "elective" abortion after viability.
......

Would you be just as carefree about murders of born children?

You didn't get any "carefree" from me. However, between the two - murdering born children and elective abortions past viability - I do see killing the born children as worse.
......

Would it take more than 1,000 a year before you were concerned?

No.

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 10:00 AM


I've already said I am not for truly "elective" abortion after viability.

I responded with statistics which prove that the majority of abortions done late term ARE truly "elective". So what would you have done about those?



Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 10:03 AM


You didn't get any "carefree" from me. However, between the two - murdering born children and elective abortions past viability - I do see killing the born children as worse.

Why?

Is killing a toddler less offensive than killing a teenager?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 10:03 AM


Doug, what exactly is wrong about abortions after viability in your opinion? If it's less offensive to you that viable babies are killed than born babies, obviously, they are a lower class form of human in your opinion, or something. Please do share what exactly you find offensive about a late term abortion, when it is elective.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 10:05 AM


Bethany, past viability is not necessarily the same as "late term."

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, "420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks." These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said "a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy," compared to 71% who responded "did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation," 48% who said "found it hard to make arrangements," and 33% who said "was afraid to tell her partner or parents." The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. ["Why Do Women Have Abortions?," Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]

"16 weeks or more" is not the same as being past viability.
......

Also illuminating is an 1993 internal memo by Barbara Radford, then the executive director of the National Abortion Federation, a "trade association" for abortion clinics:

There are many reasons why women have late abortions: life endangerment, fetal indications, lack of money or health insurance, social-psychological crises, lack of knowledge about human reproduction, etc." [emphasis added]

"Late abortions" is not defined as being past viability, there.
......

Likewise, a June 12, 1995, National Abortion Federation letter to members of the House of Representatives noted that late abortions are sought by, among others, "very young teenagers...who have not recognized the signs of their pregnancies until too late," and by "women in poverty, who have tried desperately to act responsibly and to end an unplanned pregnancy in the early stages, only to face insurmountable financial barriers."

Same deal - "late abortions." What weeks are we really talking about?
......

In her article about late-term abortions, based in part on extensive interviews with Dr. McMahon and on direct observation of his practice (Los Angeles Times Magazine, January 7, 1990), reporter Karen Tumulty concluded:

If there is any other single factor that inflates the number of late abortions, it is youth. Often, teen-agers do not recognize the first signs of pregnancy. Just as frequently, they put off telling anyone as long as they can.

Makes sense to me, but it's still the undefined "late abortions."
......

According to Peggy Jarman, spokeswoman for Dr. George Tiller, who specializes in late-term abortions in Wichita, Kansas:

About three-fourths of Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it. [Kansas City Star]

I think that's too bad - that they try to hide being pregnant, and that they have abortions later versus earlier. Still, "late-term" = ?

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 10:07 AM


"16 weeks or more" is not the same as being past viability.

It is the same as waiting till later in pregnancy, and then "simply wanting an abortion", Doug, which is what you were talking about.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 10:08 AM


I think that's too bad - that they try to hide being pregnant, and that they have abortions later versus earlier. Still, "late-term" = ?

Oh, so you think it's not possible that there might be many of those women who waited till very much later than 16 weeks? Why is this so hard to imagine, Doug? It said "16 weeks or more".

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 10:09 AM


Doug,

Just checking...don't want to put words in your mouth...

Nope - 50/50 chance of survival. That's not saying anything about all the problems that admittedly may be the case.

After 24 weeks, you consider the baby viable and worthy of "personhood" status, thereby making it legally bound to be protected by law, barring the serious physical health or life of the mother?

AND you stick to this assertion even though 90% of the 24 weeks old preemies are going to have serious complications?


Babies born at 25 weeks and less are at high risk of death, a long, tortuous journey through life, and disability. Some babies born at 24 and 25 weeks do, however, seem to be developing normally.

http://tinyurl.com/yolwsr

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 10:12 AM


For information on why Dr. Haskell adopted the method, the 1993 interview in Cincinnati Medicine is very instructive. Dr. Haskell explained that he had been performing dismemberment abortions (D&Es) to 24 weeks:

But they were very tough. Sometimes it was a 45-minute operation. I noticed that some of the later D&Es were very, very easy. So I asked myself why can't they all happen this way. You see the easy ones would have a foot length presentation, you'd reach up and grab the foot of the fetus, pull the fetus down and the head would hang up and then you would collapse the head and take it out. It was easy. . . . Then I said, "Well gee, if I just put the ultrasound up there I could see it all and I wouldn't have to feel around for it." I did that and sure enough, I found it 99 percent of the time. Kind of serendipity.

In 1993, the American Medical News-- the official newspaper of the AMA-- conducted a tape-recorded interview with Dr. Haskell concerning this specific abortion method, in which he said:

And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of this procedure] are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 10:13 AM


http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/pbafact10.html

Reasons for Partial-Birth Abortions: Dr. James McMahon

The late Dr. James McMahon performed thousands of partial-birth abortions, including the third-trimester abortions performed on the five women who appeared with President Clinton at his April 10 veto ceremony. Dr. McMahon's general approach is illustrated by this illuminating statement in the July 5, 1993 edition of American Medical News:

"[A]fter 20 weeks where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it because the potential is so imminently there. I think, 'Gee, it's too bad that this child couldn't be adopted.' On the other hand, I have another position, which I think is superior in the hierarchy of questions, and that is: 'Who owns the child?' It's got to be the mother.'"

In June, 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to Congress a detailed breakdown of a "series" of over 2,000 of these abortions that he had performed. He classified only 9% (175 cases) as involving "maternal [health] indications," of which the most common was "depression."

Dr. Pamela E. Smith, director of Medical Education, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Chicago, gave the Senate Judiciary Committee her analysis of Dr. McMahon's 175 "maternal indication" cases. Of this sample, 39 cases (22%) were for maternal "depression," while another 16% were "for conditions consistent with the birth of a normal child (e.g., sickle cell trait, prolapsed uterus, small pelvis)," Dr. Smith noted. She added that in one-third of the cases, the conditions listed as "maternal indications" by Dr. McMahon really indicated that the procedure itself would be seriously risky to the mother.

Of Dr. McMahon's series, another 1,183 cases (about 56%) were for "fetal flaws," but these included a great many non-lethal disorders, such as cleft palate and Down Syndrome. In an op ed piece written for the Los Angeles Times, Dr. Katherine Dowling, a family physician at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, examined Dr. McMahon's report on this "fetal flaws" group. She wrote:

Twenty-four were done for cystic hydroma (a benign lymphatic mass, usually treatable in a child of normal intelligence). Nine were done for cleft lip-palate syndrome (a friend of mine, mother of five, and a colleague who is a pulmonary specialist were born with this problem). Other reasons included cystic fibrosis (my daughter went through high school with a classmate with cystic fibrosis) and duodenal atresia (surgically correctable, but many children with this problem are moderately mentally retarded). Guess they can't enjoy life, can they? In fact, most of the partial-birth abortions in that [McMahon] survey were done for problems that were either surgically correctable or would result in some degree of neurologic or mental impairment, but would not harm the mother. Or they were done for reasons that were pretty skimpy: depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting. ["What Constitutes A Quality Life?," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 28, 1996]

Over one-third of McMahon's 2,000-abortion "series" involved neither fetal nor maternal health problems, however trivial.

In Dr. McMahon's interviews with American Medical News and with Keri Harrison, counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Dr. McMahon freely acknowledged that he performed late second trimester procedures that were "elective" even by his definition ("elective" meaning without fetal or maternal medical justification). After 26 weeks, Dr. McMahon claimed that all of his abortions were "non-elective" -- but his definition of "non-elective" was very expansive. His written submission stated:

"After 26 weeks [six months], those pregnancies that are not flawed are still non-elective. They are interrupted because of maternal risk, rape, incest, psychiatric or pediatric indications." [emphasis added] ["Pediatric indications" was Dr. McMahon's terminology for young teenagers.

Reasons for Partial-Birth Abortions: Dr. David Grundmann

Dr. David Grundmann, the medical director for Planned Parenthood of Australia, has written a paper in which he explicitly states that he uses the partial-birth abortion procedure (he calls it "dilatation and extraction") as his "method of choice" for abortions done after 20 weeks (4 1/2 months), and that he performs such abortions for a broad variety of social reasons. [This paper, "Abortion After Twenty Weeks in Clinical Practice: Practical, Ethical and Legal Issues," and associated documentation, is available from NRLC.]

Dr. Grundmann himself described the procedure in a television interview as "essentially a breech delivery where the fetus is delivered feet first and then when the head of the fetus is brought down into the top of the cervical canal, it is decompressed with a puncturing instrument so that it fits through the cervical opening."

In the 1994 paper, Dr. Grundmann listed several "advantages" of this method, such as that it "can be performed under local and/or twi-light anesthetic" with "no need for narcotic analgesics," "can be performed as an ambulatory out-patient procedure," and there is "no chance of delivering a live fetus." Among the "disadvantages," Dr. Grundmann wrote, is "the aesthetics of the procedure are difficult for some people; and therefore it may be difficult to get staff." (Dr. Grundmann also wrote that "abortion is an integral part of family planning. Theoretically this means abortions at any stage of gestation. Therefore I favor the availability of abortion beyond 20 weeks." )

Dr. Grundmann wrote that in Australia, late-second-trimester abortion is available "in many major hospitals, in most capital cities and large provincial centres" in cases of "lethal fetal abnormalities" or "gross fetal abnormalities," or "risk to maternal life," including "psychotic/suicidal behavior." However, Dr. Grundmann said, his Planned Parenthood clinic also offers the procedure after 20 weeks for women who fall into five additional "categories": (1) "minor or doubtful fetal abnormalities," (2) "extreme maternal immaturity i.e. girls in the 11 to 14 year age group," (3) women "who do not know they are pregnant," for example because of amenorrhea [irregular menstruation] "in women who are very active such as athletes or those under extreme forms of stress i.e. exam stress, relationship breakup...," (4) "intellectually impaired women, who are unaware of basic biology...," (5) "major life crises or major changes in socio-economic circumstances. The most common example of this is a planned or wanted pregnancy followed by the sudden death or desertion of the partner who is in all probability the bread winner."

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 10:14 AM


Bethany: Is killing a toddler less offensive than killing a teenager?

Humorously, knowing some teenagers as I do, it's much more offensive.

Seriously, nope.
......

Doug, what exactly is wrong about abortions after viability in your opinion?

Okay, B - my opinion. Killing a born child is worse than a late-term abortion. Abortions past viability are worse than abortions before viability. And even an abortion at 22 weeks or 20 weeks is worse than one at 8 or 10. And early abortions, by themselves, are not "good."

I would rather see a pregnancy be prevented than have an abortion take place, regardless of the time of gestation.

There are also the feelings of the pregnant woman to be considered, and until viability I place greater value on letting the woman make her own choice, whatever that is. After viability I desire that the unborn continue to live more than I desire that the pregnancy be ended by abortion due to the woman not wanting to be pregnant, alone.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 10:20 AM


Bethany,

Very informative and excellent posts. Thank you.

Posted by: Mary at November 19, 2007 10:22 AM


Okay, B - my opinion. Killing a born child is worse than a late-term abortion. Abortions past viability are worse than abortions before viability. And even an abortion at 22 weeks or 20 weeks is worse than one at 8 or 10. And early abortions, by themselves, are not "good."
I would rather see a pregnancy be prevented than have an abortion take place, regardless of the time of gestation.
There are also the feelings of the pregnant woman to be considered, and until viability I place greater value on letting the woman make her own choice, whatever that is. After viability I desire that the unborn continue to live more than I desire that the pregnancy be ended by abortion due to the woman not wanting to be pregnant, alone.

Doug, you still haven't told me "WHAT" is offensive about abortions?

"why" don't you like them? "Why" would you rather see a woman continue the pregnancy rather than abort?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 10:23 AM


Thank you, Mary! :)

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 10:24 AM


Okay, B - my opinion. Killing a born child is worse than a late-term abortion. Abortions past viability are worse than abortions before viability. And even an abortion at 22 weeks or 20 weeks is worse than one at 8 or 10. And early abortions, by themselves, are not "good."
I would rather see a pregnancy be prevented than have an abortion take place, regardless of the time of gestation.
There are also the feelings of the pregnant woman to be considered, and until viability I place greater value on letting the woman make her own choice, whatever that is. After viability I desire that the unborn continue to live more than I desire that the pregnancy be ended by abortion due to the woman not wanting to be pregnant, alone.

If an unborn child grows in worth as it gets older, then wouldn't it also make sense that after birth, the value would grow as the child continues to grow older and develop more fully?

Why do you value a late term baby more than an early term baby, but not a teenager more than a toddler? This does not make sense, Doug.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 10:29 AM


Doug,

First off calling a fetus 21 weeks is deceptive. Do you mean 21 weeks since the last period of 21 weeks gestation. Because 21 weeks since the last period is actually 23 weeks gestation.

I was referring to clinics that do abortions up to 24 weeks. They don't count by gestation, they count by the last period.

A woman is 26 pregnant, but the baby is NOT 26 weeks. I'm not talking about when you're site says it's viable. I'm talking about "aging" a fetus in an abortion clinic.

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 10:31 AM


I responded with statistics which prove that the majority of abortions done late term ARE truly "elective". So what would you have done about those?

Bethany, after viability ( as opposed to merely "late term") I think that either the pregnancy should be continued or delivery be induced. I do not think abortion is the best thing then.
......

Oh, so you think it's not possible that there might be many of those women who waited till very much later than 16 weeks? Why is this so hard to imagine, Doug? It said "16 weeks or more".

No, of course I don't think that. Of course 16 weeks+ could include abortions past viability. However, there are roughly 70 times more abortions after 16 weeks versus after viability, so it's easy to be incredibly misleading by confusing the two.
......

After 26 weeks, Dr. McMahon claimed that all of his abortions were "non-elective" -- but his definition of "non-elective" was very expansive. His written submission stated:

"After 26 weeks [six months], those pregnancies that are not flawed are still non-elective. They are interrupted because of maternal risk, rape, incest, psychiatric or pediatric indications." [emphasis added] ["Pediatric indications" was Dr. McMahon's terminology for young teenagers.

Okay, now you're talkin'. If there is enough real risk to the woman, then I think abortion is okay. I don't mean just emotional upset here.

If it's a pregnant girl and she is young enough, then there can be great harm done to her by remaining pregnant. Case-by-case I would see that differently than for women in general.

Rape and incest does make a different to me too. It'd be hard for me to tell a rape victim, "No, you can't have an abortion because it's been 24 weeks gestation rather than 20." There too, I'd much rather an early abortion take place if one is going to be had. Still, past viability I'd restrict abortions there just as I would if no rape occurred - it's just more of a gray area for me.

If it is really just a psychiatric deal - the woman is upset, does not want to be pregnant, etc., then I would favor inducing delivery over abortion. If it's only abortion or not then in general I'd say "no abortion" though I'd want to know to what extent the woman really was affected.


Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 10:48 AM


MK: After 24 weeks, you consider the baby viable and worthy of "personhood" status, thereby making it legally bound to be protected by law, barring the serious physical health or life of the mother?

AND you stick to this assertion even though 90% of the 24 weeks old preemies are going to have serious complications?

MK, I certainly know that most preemies that early are gonna have serious troubles. Still, the meaning of "viable" is what it is, and yes - if it's me drawing the line then viability is where I'd draw it.

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 10:54 AM


Doug, I am still not hearing a "reason" that you do not like abortion, or think it is 'good'.

I had written: I responded with statistics which prove that the majority of abortions done late term ARE truly "elective". So what would you have done about those?

You responded: Bethany, after viability ( as opposed to merely "late term") I think that either the pregnancy should be continued or delivery be induced. I do not think abortion is the best thing then.

And why is that? Why is abortion not the best thing? Upon what basis?

I had quoted:

"After 26 weeks [six months], those pregnancies that are not flawed are still non-elective. They are interrupted because of maternal risk, rape, incest, psychiatric or pediatric indications." [emphasis added] ["Pediatric indications" was Dr. McMahon's terminology for young teenagers.

Doug replied: Okay, now you're talkin'. If there is enough real risk to the woman, then I think abortion is okay. I don't mean just emotional upset here.

Well, what is the wrong that is being done, in a late term elective abortion, Doug. Why isn't abortion ok after viability without enough serious risk to the woman?

Rape and incest does make a different to me too. It'd be hard for me to tell a rape victim, "No, you can't have an abortion because it's been 24 weeks gestation rather than 20."

Doug, would you find it difficult to tell a rape victim, "No, you can't kill your baby that you gave birth to just because he reminds you of the rapist."?

If it is really just a psychiatric deal - the woman is upset, does not want to be pregnant, etc., then I would favor inducing delivery over abortion. If it's only abortion or not then in general I'd say "no abortion" though I'd want to know to what extent the woman really was affected.

For what specific reason do you favor birth to abortion?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 11:04 AM


Doug,

Are you avoiding the question about molesting a 5 month old on the other post, or did you just miss it?

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 11:08 AM


Bethany: If an unborn child grows in worth as it gets older, then wouldn't it also make sense that after birth, the value would grow as the child continues to grow older and develop more fully?

Bethany, you want to approach this like it's always in a vacuum, not related to anything else. That is not the way it is - you asked my opinion and this is the way I feel. During gestation the changes that take place make a difference to me, enough that compared to what the pregnant woman wants, I do see the unborn after viability differently than before, if I am to pick one time in gestation.

Within all this hypothetical stuff, let's say we have parents who have to choose between a newborn and a teenager. No argument that this would be a terrible choice to have to make. However, I can see people who would keep the teenager over the baby. There are much more in the way of experiences, memories, etc., there, and they may feel it's more of a loss to lose the teenager. So, I think it's possible that a given person or couple would find more value as time goes along.

Would people want kids if they stayed infants forever? I think development after birth does make a difference.
......

Why do you value a late term baby more than an early term baby, but not a teenager more than a toddler? This does not make sense, Doug.

I was kidding about the teenager. Some parents "want to kill" them, sometimes, in a humorous vein, and I did say, "Humorously.."
......

"why" don't you like them? "Why" would you rather see a woman continue the pregnancy rather than abort?

At that point most fetuses are becoming more similar to full-term born infants as far as sentience, etc. I'm not for born babies being killed, and at that point in gestation I see the unborn as enough of a person that I don't value the desire of the woman alone more than the unborn.

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 11:17 AM


MK: I was referring to clinics that do abortions up to 24 weeks. They don't count by gestation, they count by the last period.

Sure, MK, and thus in that case if we're really only talking about fetuses to 22 weeks gestation (or otherwise less than 24) then the odds of being viable are even less. If a person finds abortion more objectionable later in gestation versus earlier, then 24 weeks LMP is going to be better than 24 weeks gestation.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 11:24 AM


Are you avoiding the question about molesting a 5 month old on the other post, or did you just miss it?

MK, thought I answered it....?

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 11:26 AM


No Doug,

24 weeks LMP means 26 weeks gestation. It's worse.

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 11:27 AM


Doug,

I answered your answer.

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 11:28 AM



It's not a question of the baby's feelings here, it's those of the parents against the fondler.

Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 8:17 AM

Doug,

What if the fondler is the parents?
Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 8:29 AM

**********************************

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 11:30 AM


Doug, why do you refuse to answer "why" you do not like abortion?

Why do you value a late term baby more than an early term baby, but not a teenager more than a toddler? This does not make sense, Doug.

I was kidding about the teenager. Some parents "want to kill" them, sometimes, in a humorous vein, and I did say, "Humorously.."

I think you may have read my post incorrectly...I knew that was humorous. I said that you wouldn't value a teenager more than a toddler, and I was simply asking why.

Within all this hypothetical stuff, let's say we have parents who have to choose between a newborn and a teenager. No argument that this would be a terrible choice to have to make. However, I can see people who would keep the teenager over the baby. There are much more in the way of experiences, memories, etc., there, and they may feel it's more of a loss to lose the teenager. So, I think it's possible that a given person or couple would find more value as time goes along.
Would people want kids if they stayed infants forever? I think development after birth does make a difference.
......

But you do not think that the killing of a toddler is less offensive than the killing of a teenager, Doug. You implied that you think they are equally dreadful.

So, if this is true, then it is a contradiction that you place more value on a newborn baby than a baby who is viable in the womb. That you think it would be more dreadful for a newborn to be killed than a viable baby. That makes no sense, Doug.

Again, I ask. For what reason do you not like abortion?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 11:34 AM


And why is that? Why is abortion not the best thing? Upon what basis?

Bethany, because then I want the unborn to live more than I want the woman to be free to have an abortion.
......

Well, what is the wrong that is being done, in a late term elective abortion, Doug. Why isn't abortion ok after viability without enough serious risk to the woman?

This is a generalization of course, but late enough in gestation and it's a sentient fetus that is killed in an abortion, it's getting more and more similar to full-term born babies, it's getting personality, etc. In my opinion it's becoming a person at that point.
......

For what specific reason do you favor birth to abortion?

Because, all other things being equal, I have no "pure" desire for the unborn to die. Take away the considerations of the woman, and I'm not "for abortion" the same as I'm not hoping people have miscarriages.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 11:36 AM


Bethany, because then I want the unborn to live more than I want the woman to be free to have an abortion.

Why?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 11:38 AM


MK: 24 weeks LMP means 26 weeks gestation. It's worse.

MK, you are absolutely right.

:: slapping self ::

I had a couple cups of coffee, too....

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 11:39 AM


Doug, let me give you a few example answers, so you'll understand what I'm looking for.

1. example) I don't like abortion because it kills an unborn child.

2. example) I don't like abortion because it makes me feel bad. I don't know why, but it just does.

3. example) I don't like abortion because there is a potential baby in there.

Not:
" because then I want the unborn to live more than I want the woman to be free to have an abortion."

This doesn't explain to me "why" you want the unborn to live...it only tells me that you DO want them to live. Which you already explained to me, and I already have heard.


Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 11:40 AM


Because, all other things being equal, I have no "pure" desire for the unborn to die.

But WHY!

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 11:43 AM


This is a generalization of course, but late enough in gestation and it's a sentient fetus that is killed in an abortion, it's getting more and more similar to full-term born babies, it's getting personality, etc. In my opinion it's becoming a person at that point.

okay, this is more like an answer. You're getting there. lol

But Doug, couldn't you also say that a fetus at 8 weeks "becoming" a person?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 11:44 AM


Couldn't you say that it's been "becoming" a person all along?

Just to clarify, that's not my position, but it should be yours, to be consistent.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 11:50 AM


it's getting more and more similar to full-term born babies, it's getting personality, etc

P.S. Personality is determined at conception.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 11:54 AM


To quote the biology textbook, "Life":

The Science of Biology, "The zygote, a single cell resulting from the union of sperm and egg, gives rise ultimately to all the cells of the adult body - more than a hundred trillion cells of diverse sorts in each individual of our species. Many intricate steps make up the development of the body. Development is a process of progressive change that continues not just through growth of the embryo but rather until the death of the animal. During development an organism successfully takes on the forms of the several stages of its life cycle" (5).

To quote a poster on another forum that I visited (IIDB),

"The zygote contains all the genetic information and material required to develop into an adult human, and this development is internally directed by the zygote, not the mother. Note also that "development is a process" that extends beyond the womb and continues until the "death of the animal." Note further that there are "several stages" to the "life cycle." All human beings go through this exact process. From zygote to mature adult to death, a human possesses the same genetic information and material and the same life. Put plainly, there hasn't been a time since your conception when you weren't "you."

Now, isn't that well put?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 12:00 PM


"P.S. Personality is determined at conception. "

@Bethany: That is only half true. The foundations of personality may be determined upon conception, but there is the nurture component to personality. :)

Posted by: Rae at November 19, 2007 12:02 PM


Hi Rae, long time no see. Hope you've been doing well. :)

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 12:04 PM


@Bethany: That is only half true. The foundations of personality may be determined upon conception, but there is the nurture component to personality. :)

I guess I could have worded it differently. ;)

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 12:06 PM


"This is a generalization of course, but late enough in gestation and it's a sentient fetus that is killed in an abortion, it's getting more and more similar to full-term born babies, it's getting personality, etc. In my opinion it's becoming a person at that point."

Bethany: okay, this is more like an answer. You're getting there. lol

All right then - and it's just that I value it positively enough at that point. Simply put, at that point I want the life to continue.
......

But Doug, couldn't you also say that a fetus at 8 weeks "becoming" a person?

Not really. It's undergoing development that's necessary to become a person, sure, but I see the "becoming" as actually gaining some of what I've been talking about - sentience, etc.
......

Personality is determined at conception.

Disagree - while to some extent that is true, in no way is that all there is to it.

Rae is correct, there is nurture as well as nature involved.
......

From zygote to mature adult to death, a human possesses the same genetic information and material and the same life. Put plainly, there hasn't been a time since your conception when you weren't "you."

To the extent of that given DNA, sure, but there is much more to a person than that, IMO at least.


Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 12:17 PM


Ok Doug....then what exactly is an unborn child who has not reached the age of viability becoming?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 12:20 PM


Doug, why do you desire to protect someone who is not a person, but is only in the process of becoming a person?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 12:30 PM


@Bethany: I've been doing eeeeeeh...so-so at best. Still pretty lonely and stuff. Wish this semester was over (in fact, just wish college was over, period).

"I guess I could have worded it differently. ;)"
:) That would be my recommendation. Though I'm of the opinion that nurture has a bit more to do with personality formation than biology. Sure, biology plays a part, but I think a good portion of personality development comes from the way you're raised, who you spend time with, and the sorts of things you're exposed to.

Though that's just my opinion. :)

Posted by: Rae at November 19, 2007 12:44 PM


Rae,

You know what's weird. I used to think that nurture had more to do with it than anything, but as I have been raising my children, I've started to change my thinking on it. I think a LOT of it has to do with biology. My son reminds me so much of myself in the way he behaves, the way he reacts to things, the way he thinks...that sometimes it scares me. It's really weird. I see personality traits in him that I know I had nothing to do with, nurture wise. It's like I'm raising myself as I was as a child, in the form of a boy. He even looks like me! lol
What is even more amazing about this, to me, is that I have raised him completely differently than I was raised by my parents. And yet, I see the same exact traits and feelings and attitudes in him that I saw in myself and believed came from the way I was raised by my parents. Coincidence? Imitation? I don't know. My daughter and other son are not like that. They don't remind me of me like my first son does. I think they are probably more like my husband was as a child, possibly. Or maybe a mixture of both of us.
Also, they had the same personalities in the womb as they did when they came out of me. I noticed with my first child that he did not wake as easily when I tried to move my belly to wake him up. My second was awake all the time. It turns out my first is a very light sleeper, and my second wakes at the drop of a pin.
My third was sucking his thumb in the womb, and still sucks his thumb today at the age of 2.
It's very interesting to think about anyway.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 12:55 PM


@Bethany: I've been doing eeeeeeh...so-so at best. Still pretty lonely and stuff. Wish this semester was over (in fact, just wish college was over, period).

Aw sorry to hear that, Rae. I hope that it will be overwith for you soon. I know it does get lonely. Have you been doing anything artsy lately? I should check your deviant art page.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 1:00 PM


B - definitely agree that biology can determine a LOT about personality. Also would say that the nature versus nurture mix is not written in stone, i.e. for a given person their experiences could really, really change them. Maybe such changes happen and maybe not - which would leave nature as being most of the deal.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 1:04 PM


@Bethany: Heh, I was referring to personality development as a child gets older...not so much baby-personality. I wasn't clear.

It's funny, because I look exactly like my mom (so much that it's scary), and we have some very similar personality traits because she raised me full time. For example, I have a terrible temper and my mom has a terrible temper. However, unlike my mom I am very opinionated and tend to go on long political-tinged rants and my mom doesn't understand that *at all*. I dunno, my mom always says how I'm "just like my dad and his crazy family" and how she doesn't understand me at all because other than our tempers, we literally have nothing in common.

I wasn't necessarily denying a biological component, I just think in some cases nurture over-powers nature.

It's funny in my family, it's almost like I got my physical traits from my mom and my psychological traits from my dad. :-p

Posted by: Rae at November 19, 2007 1:06 PM


Ok Doug....then what exactly is an unborn child who has not reached the age of viability becoming?

Bethany, I don't think that "child" applies there (and I know it's a matter of opinion either way). Zygote becomes blastocyst becomes embryo becomes fetus. Before viability a fetus is becoming a more gestated or "older" fetus - how's that?

Whew, y'all are tiring me out today.
......

Doug, why do you desire to protect someone who is not a person, but is only in the process of becoming a person?

Without arguing too hard about the term of "someone," I simply value the fetus there positively enough. It starts with the very basic "Do I want it to live or not?" Then there's also the consideration of the pregnant woman.

You can take me back through most any number of "why" questions, but in the end we get to basic desire and unproveable assumptions.

For you, among other things it'd be that you simply believe that life is sacred, that the unborn "should live" - as simple as that.

Pro-Choices have the same type of "foundation" beliefs, though obviously they'll differ.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 1:07 PM


@Bethany: I haven't drawn anything in months. :( I haven't had any inspiration. But lately I've been feeling a bit more creative, so perhaps over break I'll have time to draw some. I've gotta start planning the tattoo I plan to get upon graduation next fall so... :)

Posted by: Rae at November 19, 2007 1:08 PM


I think that nurture has more to do with character than personality. You might pick up mannerisms from "outside" but who you are is basically who you are.

I think a shy person will always be a shy person.
A boisterous person will always be more emotive.

While I have many characteristics of my adoptive mom, I was absolutely floored by how much my "pesonality" was my birth mothers...

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 1:09 PM


Doug,

I still find it telling that you can't directly answer the question "Why is early abortion not a "good" thing"...

I understand that you believe it to be acceptable, but I believe you have also said that it is not a "good" thing.

I think this is what Bethany wants you to answer.

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 1:12 PM


Doug,
*
MK: What if the fondler is the parents?
*
Then what I said above, applies:
*
"Nor do I think that desire should overrule society's position on it"
Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 12:08 PM

That doesn't answer my question...

If a mother and father and society all agree that using a 5 month old baby (born, of course) to derive sexual pleasure, is acceptable, would you agree with them?

Is is objectively wrong morally, or is it subjective, since the baby will not be harmed emotionally?

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 1:17 PM


Doug,

Bethany, I don't think that "child" applies there (and I know it's a matter of opinion either way). Zygote becomes blastocyst becomes embryo becomes fetus. Before viability a fetus is becoming a more gestated or "older" fetus - how's that?

Did you see my post the other day about the trains?

A train is made up of many different cars. The engine, the caboose, the sleeper car, the dining car...

At any given time a person can be in/on one of those cars. Can't be on all of them at once, tho.

Now which cars would the person have to be on to be considered "On the train"?

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 1:25 PM


Doug,

You seem to be all about a person's freedom to "Choose"...but don't you think that that is license and not freedom. Doesn't freedom really mean being allowed to do the "right" thing.

Are you truly free if you are making choices like killing your own child?

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 1:35 PM


Bethany, I don't think that "child" applies there (and I know it's a matter of opinion either way). Zygote becomes blastocyst becomes embryo becomes fetus. Before viability a fetus is becoming a more gestated or "older" fetus - how's that?
Whew, y'all are tiring me out today.


But all are names for a stage of development, Doug. They are not names for different creatures, are they?

Of what species is the human fetus, the human zygote, and the human embryo, referring to?

The physical reality is that they are human beings.

Just as toddler is a name for a human being. I wouldn't say, well, a toddler is a toddler, not a person, because he hasn't gone through puberty yet. I would say, regardless of his stage of development, that toddler is still a human being, worthy of protection.

Again, what is wrong with abortion, Doug? I know you "don't like it" but I don't really know why. Why is it wrong to destroy a potential of a person?

I don't cry over lost eggs every month, and I certainly don't cry over my husband's lost sperm. They all have the potential to become human beings and persons.

Or, do you have a distaste for abortion, because you know deep down that killing a human being at any stage of life is not right?


Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 1:44 PM


Without arguing too hard about the term of "someone," I simply value the fetus there positively enough. It starts with the very basic "Do I want it to live or not?" Then there's also the consideration of the pregnant woman.

So you value it positively, but not as positively as a newborn baby. So would that positive feeling maybe be equal to the way you feel about a puppy, or a kitten?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 1:49 PM


You can take me back through most any number of "why" questions, but in the end we get to basic desire and unprovable assumptions.
For you, among other things it'd be that you simply believe that life is sacred, that the unborn "should live" - as simple as that.
Pro-Choices have the same type of "foundation" beliefs, though obviously they'll differ.

Well, let's get to your foundation beliefs, whatever they are, and we'll work from there.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 1:53 PM


@Bethany: I haven't drawn anything in months. :( I haven't had any inspiration. But lately I've been feeling a bit more creative, so perhaps over break I'll have time to draw some. I've gotta start planning the tattoo I plan to get upon graduation next fall so... :)

I hope you'll get inspired soon! I used to write poetry when I was lonely. It seemed to be the most creative time for me to write. I would just write about my feelings. lol

Have you made any changes to the tattoo design?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 2:01 PM


Rae,

I want to see a Christmas Elf!

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 2:23 PM


I still find it telling that you can't directly answer the question "Why is early abortion not a "good" thing"...

Good grief, MK - I've answered this many times over. I've said that in a vacuum I don't "want" abortions. Better to avoid the cost, hassle, risk, etc., and prevent the pregnancy if pregnancy isn't desired.

So, all other things being equal, abortion does have some (small, very small early on) risk, cost, etc., and I see those as "bad" on their own.

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 2:31 PM


Good grief, MK - I've answered this many times over. I've said that in a vacuum I don't "want" abortions. Better to avoid the cost, hassle, risk, etc., and prevent the pregnancy if pregnancy isn't desired.

So you do not like abortions because they cost money and are a hassle?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 2:39 PM


MK: If a mother and father and society all agree that using a 5 month old baby (born, of course) to derive sexual pleasure, is acceptable, would you agree with them?

That's such a huge "if," MK. If we'd been raised in a society where such was considered okay, then perhaps we would think differently, you included. People raised in different societies think female genital mutilation is not only okay but "called for" under their religion, and that is where the baby or young girl is definitely harmed as we here would see it.

If society had no objections then I don't know if I would or not. Same for you, I think.
......

Is is objectively wrong morally, or is it subjective, since the baby will not be harmed emotionally?

There's no "objectively...morally." It's certainly subjective. Without harm to the baby, what do we point to, other than what we've been conditioned to think, there?

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 2:41 PM


Doug,

Don't get your knickers in a knot...

So you don't see any inherent "bad" in an early term abortion. Only consequential "bad" and all of those are to parties other than the unborn?

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 2:41 PM


Doug,

So unless society or the mother or father don't want you to "fondle" a 5 month old baby, then it would be okay with you?

You don't view this as wrong except in context?

Many people have been brought up in a society that says abortion is acceptable and yet they are out there fighting it.

Not folks like me that watched it become legal after being illegal, but people under the age of 30. They view it as morally objectionable even tho society and sometimes there own families think it's okay.

Society thought that slavery was morally proper too, but even people who were raised in this atmosphere believed that it was wrong. So it is not always the case that being raised in a society where things are accepted, means that you will accept them.

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 2:50 PM


Now which cars would the person have to be on to be considered "On the train"?

Doesn't matter, MK. The train is one thing, as the question is asked about - the cars are all the same for that purpose. Joe Blow bein' in the locomotive doesn't necessarily make him an engineer, o' course.
......

You seem to be all about a person's freedom to "Choose"...but don't you think that that is license and not freedom. Doesn't freedom really mean being allowed to do the "right" thing.

No, I'm not "all about" that - there is more to it than that - considerations of the unborn are there for both you and me (though we obviously have our disagreements). Freedom is "being allowed" whether another person thinks the action is "right" or not.
......

Don't get your knickers in a knot...

They're not, and you and Bethany have good questions, and I'm tryin' to cook at the same time; onward we go.
......

So you don't see any inherent "bad" in an early term abortion. Only consequential "bad" and all of those are to parties other than the unborn?

"Bad" as inherent does not exist. There has to be some caring by some entity in the first place before there can be any such thing.

There isn't any caring on the part of the unborn there. If we are not looking at the caring of the mother or father or other parties, then purely on my own I'm neutral on it, without considerations of the others.

I take it for granted that there will be miscarriages, and I think that is bad versus good because there often will be some suffering on the part of the parents if the pregnancy was wanted.

Likewise there will be abortions, and I'd rather see those pregnancies prevented - even if a woman is much better off ending the pregnancy there are still some negatives about abortion. So, bad versus good since it'd be better to not be pregnant in the first place.

So, this is our universe - and I don't see it as "bad" or "good" on its own, with no considerations of desire, suffering, etc., it just is.
......

Many people have been brought up in a society that says abortion is acceptable and yet they are out there fighting it.

True, and by no means is it a sure thing how people will turn out. However, what we are taught makes a big difference, often, and what our culture/parents/peers etc., believe often does too.
......

Not folks like me that watched it become legal after being illegal, but people under the age of 30. They view it as morally objectionable even tho society and sometimes their own families think it's okay.

Granted, yet while there is no guarantee of influence or change, there certainly is the possibility of it in our hypotheticals.
......

Society thought that slavery was morally proper too, but even people who were raised in this atmosphere believed that it was wrong. So it is not always the case that being raised in a society where things are accepted, means that you will accept them.

No doubt.

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 3:27 PM


MK, I made this a separate post so it wouldn't be "lost" in a big one.

So unless society or the mother or father don't want you to "fondle" a 5 month old baby, then it would be okay with you?

It's not me that wants to do it in the first place - just let me make that clear. Just runnin' the minesweeper....

You don't view this as wrong except in context?

We are saying the baby is not physically or emotionally harmed. If that is so, and if there's no intent to harm the baby, then without a context, what wrong can there be?

Purely on its own like that, I don't think it's any worse than giving the baby a hug. I realize this may be fodder for clowns who want to take things out of context.

MK, how about you? If there's no harm, what that is necessarily "bad" about it do you see?

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 3:45 PM


Bethany, agreed that zygote, etc., are names for development stages. And I will agree with you that "human being" applies. That's not saying that any certain granted status is there, but for physical reality then yes.

Just as toddler is a name for a human being. I wouldn't say, well, a toddler is a toddler, not a person, because he hasn't gone through puberty yet. I would say, regardless of his stage of development, that toddler is still a human being, worthy of protection.

Agreed on the toddler, but of course that's not inside the body of a person. When we are talking about a pregnant woman, then I say her desire is worthy of protection, at least to a point in gestation.
......

Again, what is wrong with abortion, Doug? I know you "don't like it" but I don't really know why. Why is it wrong to destroy a potential of a person? I don't cry over lost eggs every month, and I certainly don't cry over my husband's lost sperm. They all have the potential to become human beings and persons.

Without considerations of cost, hassle, risk, emotional upset, etc., then I'm neutral on abortion. I agree that not every egg nor every sperm has to result in a person. I don't see it as "bad" that they (usually) do not. Likewise, I don't see it as bad that not every pregnancy is willingly continued. I would rather see pregnancy prevention versus abortion, but once an unwanted pregnancy is fact, then I see abortion as "good" for some women versus being compelled to continue the pregnancy.
......

Or, do you have a distaste for abortion, because you know deep down that killing a human being at any stage of life is not right?

No, that's really not it. I do not think that every "human being" like that has to live.
......

"Without arguing too hard about the term of "someone," I simply value the fetus there positively enough. It starts with the very basic "Do I want it to live or not?" Then there's also the consideration of the pregnant woman."

So you value it positively, but not as positively as a newborn baby. So would that positive feeling maybe be equal to the way you feel about a puppy, or a kitten?

As gestation goes along, I do get "positive" on the fetus, rather than being neutral, again, all other things considered, as I see it becoming a person then, having emotions, etc.

On the puppy and kitten - I have to laugh - how do we really relate those or equate them? I guess there is a point in gestation when on a "net basis" I would value the fetus similar to the pup or kitty. Yet that is largely an aside to the discussion. For me, the difference between there being a pregnant woman to consider or not is much more profound.
......

let's get to your foundation beliefs, whatever they are, and we'll work from there.

I want less suffering. I want people to be free to do what they want. I realize those are not infinite, and that in fact they can be mutually exclusive in some situations, but there it is.

Doug


Posted by: Doug at November 19, 2007 4:11 PM


Doug,

MK, how about you? If there's no harm, what that is necessarily "bad" about it do you see?

Well, Doug, you and I differ on a very, very fundamental yet critical point.

I do believe that there is inherent good and inherent evil. I realize that there are grey areas in life, but I still believe, firmly, that there is inherent good and inherent evil.

I believe in God, I believe that God is all good. I believe that God is Love. I believe that He desires good. (there is your someone to care) and I believe that the absence of God produces evil. I believe that the degrees of good and evil are based on how much God is involved or excluded.

I believe that "using" a small child for sexual gratification is indeed inherently evil, because I believe that this was not the purpose that they were created (by God) for. This action is completely void of Love, and where there is no love, there is no God. It is a perversion of love.

I also believe in the entity satan, and all the demons that go with him, and while I don't believe that his evil can ever equal God's good, I believe it is formidable. I believe he exists to pervert and subvert God's desire for us. Where God wishes us to love one another as He loves us, satan wants us to lust and call it love thereby removing God from the picture. Where God wants us to show our love in a physical way so that He can gift us with new life, an outward sign of our love, I believe satan wants to pervert that . He wants us to abuse this gift of life in anyway possible, and the best (worst?) way he can think of is to turn it into death. God gives us wine, satan gives us alcoholism. God gives us food, satan gives us gluttony. God gives us himself, satan takes our "self" away...with satan it's all illusion. Even this illusion that the prochoice side feeds on. The illusion of unbound freedom. Freedom unbound, is really slavery. Illusion. Dust. Lies.

So my answer is that even if every single person in the world believed that it was perfectly okay to have sexual relations with a child, and even if that child was not physically hurt, it would still be wrong.

Because I believe that there are other kinds of hurt than mental or physical. The person molesting the child is hurt because his soul is perverted and darkened and evil will feed off of it, and the child is hurt because his soul will be tainted by something foul and impure. To "dirty" a pure and innocent being like this is one of the greatest evils I know of. Preying on the pure is one of satans greatest "pleasures". Score one for him if he can desecrate the sacred (the pure, sinless infant) and make it profane (engage it in an act so heinous that I can't even hold it in my mind for more than a few moments.)

No Doug, there is no Santa Claus. But yes, Doug, there is inherent evil.

Posted by: mk at November 19, 2007 6:15 PM


prettyinpink claimed:

"If I were Catholic (which I'm not), I would absolutely be justified in saying that capital punishment is wrong (and MURDER), because the Church SAYS THAT IT IS WRONG according to their doctrine."

That's not accurate. The Catholic catechism does not say that the death penalty is "wrong". They simply claim that they are MORE MERCIFUL AND COMPASSIONATE than God has revealed Himself to be for the past 5,000+ years until recently when pinko communist and marxist anti-justice Roman Catholics began to infiltrate and influence Catholic thought. Only recently has there been a push to let convicted capital criminals (mostly murderers and rapists) live out their lives in prisons funded by we the taxpayers.

The Catholic Church lost its backbone a long time ago when they allowed gay men to enter the priesthood and allowed some of the most vile people to teach at their colleges and universities. Both of these have resulted in tragedies that the Catholic bishop in my area, John D'Arcy, has had to spend considerable time dealing with.

You further claimed giving absolutely no evidence to back up your claim:

"At the biblical age the death penalty was justified because there were no other means to truly protect society. We have all the means at our disposal to practice justice without murder. Now CP is definitely MURDER because there is simply no need for it. Especially for those capital crimes like lying."

WHAT A SINKING LOAD OF HORSE CRAP!!

Why in the hell would anyone claim that "there were no other means at our disposal to practice justice"? You have to be biblically illeterate or just believe whatever some idiot priest tells you to swallow such garbage.

You must have NO IDEA AT ALL that there were prisons mentioned in the Old Testament. Of course, only pagan nations had prisons because God made it clear that prisons are NOT a just punishment for any crime.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that God could not have told Israel to build a prison and keep convicted criminals there? that after all of those big vicotries where Israel got silver, gold and all sorts of other resources you think that they were unable to have prisons to put criminals into?

Its not that they didn't have the "means" to lock up criminals. Its that prison is an inherently unjust form of punishment. Even today in the USA close to 2/3 of those released from prison go right back in a short time later.

Here is hardcore, indisputable evidence that prisons actually existed in Old Testament times contrary to what lying priests and anti-death penalty advocates like Helen Prejean will tell you. They're lying because they know prisons existed in the Old Testament and still claim that God couldn't bring about a prison system for Israel to use.

Genesis 39:20
Then Joseph's master took him and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners [were] confined. And he was there in the prison.

Judges 16:21
Then the Philistines took him and put out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza. They bound him with bronze fetters, and he became a grinder in the prison.

2 Kings 17:4
And the king of Assyria uncovered a conspiracy by Hoshea; for he had sent messengers to So, king of Egypt, and brought no tribute to the king of Assyria, as [he had done] year by year. Therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison.

OK, that should be enough. Its significant that the first reference of Joseph being put in prison occured BEFORE Christ gave the law to Moses. So, God was aware of prisons and that they could be used as a form of punishment. God knew it was possible, but He rejected it because prison is a demonstrably unjust and ineffective form of punishment.

Now that your ridiculous assertion that "the death penalty was justified because there were no other means to truly protect society" has been utterly refuted based upon the evidence from scripture do you have an actual reason for promoting injustice by letting murderers and rapists live that you can back up?

And when did God abandon the death penalty as the ONLY just punishment for murder and give the OK for punishing murderers by sticking them in prison for a few years? It had to be sometime after Jesus Christ supported the death penalty in Matthew 15 and after the Apostle Paul supported the death penalty in Rom 13 and 1 Tim 1.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at November 19, 2007 6:17 PM


Well, Doug, you and I differ on a very, very fundamental yet critical point.
I do believe that there is inherent good and inherent evil. I realize that there are grey areas in life, but I still believe, firmly, that there is inherent good and inherent evil.
I believe in God, I believe that God is all good. I believe that God is Love. I believe that He desires good. (there is your someone to care) and I believe that the absence of God produces evil. I believe that the degrees of good and evil are based on how much God is involved or excluded.
I believe that "using" a small child for sexual gratification is indeed inherently evil, because I believe that this was not the purpose that they were created (by God) for. This action is completely void of Love, and where there is no love, there is no God. It is a perversion of love.
I also believe in the entity satan, and all the demons that go with him, and while I don't believe that his evil can ever equal God's good, I believe it is formidable. I believe he exists to pervert and subvert God's desire for us. Where God wishes us to love one another as He loves us, satan wants us to lust and call it love thereby removing God from the picture. Where God wants us to show our love in a physical way so that He can gift us with new life, an outward sign of our love, I believe satan wants to pervert that . He wants us to abuse this gift of life in anyway possible, and the best (worst?) way he can think of is to turn it into death. God gives us wine, satan gives us alcoholism. God gives us food, satan gives us gluttony. God gives us himself, satan takes our "self" away...with satan it's all illusion. Even this illusion that the prochoice side feeds on. The illusion of unbound freedom. Freedom unbound, is really slavery. Illusion. Dust. Lies.
So my answer is that even if every single person in the world believed that it was perfectly okay to have sexual relations with a child, and even if that child was not physically hurt, it would still be wrong.
Because I believe that there are other kinds of hurt than mental or physical. The person molesting the child is hurt because his soul is perverted and darkened and evil will feed off of it, and the child is hurt because his soul will be tainted by something foul and impure. To "dirty" a pure and innocent being like this is one of the greatest evils I know of. Preying on the pure is one of satans greatest "pleasures". Score one for him if he can desecrate the sacred (the pure, sinless infant) and make it profane (engage it in an act so heinous that I can't even hold it in my mind for more than a few moments.)
No Doug, there is no Santa Claus. But yes, Doug, there is inherent evil.

How beautifully written, Marykay. I agree with every single word.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 6:35 PM


Zeke, must every post you make be a shouting match? Notice, no one else is shouting at you. All you would have to do is speak civilly, and people would listen.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 6:35 PM


Plus, I can guarantee that yelling at people and telling them they are full of horse crap or that they are idiots, is not the way to help them see your point of view, or even be inclined to listen with an open mind.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 6:37 PM


The words in bold and/or CAPITALIZED are the important words and statements in the post.

How about you not nitpick my posting format like some frilly little girl and actually respond to the CONTENT?

Do you or anyone else want to take a stab at when you believe God abandoned the death penalty as the only just punishment for murder and said that prison is an acceptable punishment? He didn't say it in the Old or New Testament, so when and where did God reveal such a change?

Posted by: zeke13:19 at November 19, 2007 6:43 PM


Bethany claimed:

"Plus, I can guarantee that yelling at people and telling them they are full of horse crap or that they are idiots, is not the way to help them see your point of view, or even be inclined to listen with an open mind."

Guess what!? I showed that what prettyinpink claimed was indeed a stinking piece of horsecrap!

She claimed that "the means" to protect people from murderers through using PRISONS did not exist during the time the Old and New Testament occured and was written. I showed examples of nations using prisons in the Old Testament which completely proved her claim to be 100% wrong.

Now, she will probably respond by making another claim that is false, saying something like "I didn't say that prisons didn't exist back then", but that is the only valid implication of her words since TODAY we keep capital criminals in prisons. So, if she didn't mean to say that prisons did not exist for those in Israel and other nations to make use of, then what could she possibly be saying?

OLD TESTAMENT TIME - PRISONS EXISTED - GOD OPPOSED

PRESENT TIME - PRISONS EXIST - GOD (NOW) SUPPORTS?

For prettyinpink's argument to stand prisons cannot have been an option for Israel or other nations during the period of time the Old Testament covered.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at November 19, 2007 6:51 PM


Guess what!? I showed that what prettyinpink claimed was indeed a stinking piece of horsecrap!


Zeke, where did I say anything about the points you made? I simply said that people will listen to you more quickly if you treat them with kindness.

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers."

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 6:58 PM


The words in bold and/or CAPITALIZED are the important words and statements in the post.
How about you not nitpick my posting format like some frilly little girl and actually respond to the CONTENT?
Do you or anyone else want to take a stab at when you believe God abandoned the death penalty as the only just punishment for murder and said that prison is an acceptable punishment? He didn't say it in the Old or New Testament, so when and where did God reveal such a change?

Like I said, if you want people to recognize the content, say it with grace.

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 6:59 PM


Agreed on the toddler, but of course that's not inside the body of a person. When we are talking about a pregnant woman, then I say her desire is worthy of protection, at least to a point in gestation.

Okay, Doug. Why is the woman's desire not worthy of protection after viability, if the fetus is simply "becoming" a person, and is not yet actually a person?

Shouldn't the woman be granted the right to choose, even if it's just because she's afraid she "looks fat"?

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 7:03 PM


prettyinpink claimed:

"If I were Catholic (which I'm not), I would absolutely be justified in saying that capital punishment is wrong (and MURDER), because the Church SAYS THAT IT IS WRONG according to their doctrine."

That's not accurate. The Catholic catechism does not say that the death penalty is "wrong". They simply claim that they are MORE MERCIFUL AND COMPASSIONATE than God has revealed Himself to be for the past 5,000+ years until recently when pinko communist and marxist anti-justice Roman Catholics began to infiltrate and influence Catholic thought. Only recently has there been a push to let convicted capital criminals (mostly murderers and rapists) live out their lives in prisons funded by we the taxpayers.

The Catholic Church lost its backbone a long time ago when they allowed gay men to enter the priesthood and allowed some of the most vile people to teach at their colleges and universities. Both of these have resulted in tragedies that the Catholic bishop in my area, John D'Arcy, has had to spend considerable time dealing with.

You further claimed giving absolutely no evidence to back up your claim:

"At the biblical age the death penalty was justified because there were no other means to truly protect society. We have all the means at our disposal to practice justice without murder. Now CP is definitely MURDER because there is simply no need for it. Especially for those capital crimes like lying."

WHAT A STINKING LOAD OF HORSE CRAP!!

Why in the hell would anyone claim that "there were no other means at our disposal to practice justice"? You have to be biblically illeterate or just believe whatever some idiot priest tells you to swallow such garbage.

You must have NO IDEA AT ALL that there were prisons mentioned in the Old Testament. Of course, only pagan nations had prisons because God made it clear that prisons are NOT a just punishment for any crime.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that God could not have told Israel to build a prison and keep convicted criminals there? That after all of those big victories where Israel got silver, gold and all sorts of other resources you think that they were unable to have prisons to put criminals into?

Its not that they didn't have the "means" to lock up criminals. Its that prison is an inherently unjust form of punishment. Even today in the USA close to 2/3 of those released from prison go right back in a short time later.

Here is hardcore, indisputable evidence that prisons actually existed in Old Testament times contrary to what lying priests and anti-death penalty advocates like Helen Prejean will tell you. They're lying because they know prisons existed in the Old Testament and still claim that God couldn't bring about a prison system for Israel to use.

Genesis 39:20
Then Joseph's master took him and put him into the prison, a place where the king's prisoners [were] confined. And he was there in the prison.

Judges 16:21
Then the Philistines took him and put out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza. They bound him with bronze fetters, and he became a grinder in the prison.

2 Kings 17:4
And the king of Assyria uncovered a conspiracy by Hoshea; for he had sent messengers to So, king of Egypt, and brought no tribute to the king of Assyria, as [he had done] year by year. Therefore the king of Assyria shut him up, and bound him in prison.

OK, that should be enough. Its significant that the first reference of Joseph being put in prison occured BEFORE Christ gave the law to Moses. So, God was aware of prisons and that they could be used as a form of punishment. God knew it was possible, but He rejected it because prison is a demonstrably unjust and ineffective form of punishment.

Now that your ridiculous assertion that "the death penalty was justified because there were no other means to truly protect society" has been utterly refuted based upon the evidence from scripture do you have an actual reason for promoting injustice by letting murderers and rapists live that you can back up?

And when did God abandon the death penalty as the ONLY just punishment for murder and give the OK for punishing murderers by sticking them in prison for a few years? It had to be sometime after Jesus Christ supported the death penalty in Matthew 15 and after the Apostle Paul supported the death penalty in Rom 13 and 1 Tim 1.

Posted by: zeke13:19 at November 19, 2007 7:22 PM


Crap, I didn't meant o post that again here.

lol

Posted by: zeke13:19 at November 19, 2007 7:29 PM


That's okay. :)

Posted by: Bethany at November 19, 2007 7:31 PM


"You must have NO IDEA AT ALL that there were prisons mentioned in the Old Testament."
I do, thanks. However I didn't think I needed to qualify the statement with "they weren't maximum security prisons like we have."

Zeke, I really don't want to debate with you because you have no respect for me or my views. I would be more inclined if you didn't go on to my blog to personally attack me.

See ya later.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 20, 2007 12:29 AM


She went to your blog too?

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 6:04 AM


Yes. And told me I was vile. Especially because I plan to take social justice next semester.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 20, 2007 7:19 AM


Oh, and then, after she came here to tell me how the Catholic church works, told me I was vile specifically because I listen to my Jesuit teachers.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 20, 2007 7:23 AM


PIP,

Zeke is most definitely becoming a problem. I almost deleted her post yesterday. Huge difference between her and yllas.

How are you handling her posting on your site?

I guess it's time to talk to Jill. She might be the first person we ever banned on here...

Posted by: mk at November 20, 2007 7:38 AM


I told her if she ever posted on my site again I would block her.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 20, 2007 7:40 AM


PiP,

And has she posted since then? When was this?

Posted by: mk at November 20, 2007 7:43 AM


Well she posted the really derogatory statement on the 17th. I tried to answer with something glib like, "oh that statement is so foolish." Then yesterday she posted again saying it was only because I can't respond the CONTENT that I would not respond to her. I just got fed up, and last night I told her never to post on my site again. If you want to go look, it's under the post about my schedule.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 20, 2007 7:50 AM


And told me I was vile. Especially because I plan to take social justice next semester.

Holy Mackeral, PIP, how oh how could you do such a thing, take that class....?

Amazing stuff. ; )

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 8:21 AM


MK: You don't view this as wrong except in context?

"We are saying the baby is not physically or emotionally harmed. If that is so, and if there's no intent to harm the baby, then without a context, what wrong can there be?"

"Purely on its own like that, I don't think it's any worse than giving the baby a hug."

"MK, how about you? If there's no harm, what that is necessarily "bad" about it do you see?"

I do believe that there is inherent good and inherent evil.

I knew that, MK. Nice post by you, and that certainly is in the context of your beliefs. I don't like the idea of fondling the 5 month old, either, and that's in the context of my upbringing, societal conditioning, etc.

I think here there always has to be such a context. Without any actual harm taking place, it's down to us really just thinking and saying, "wrong."

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 8:27 AM


Doug,

I knew that, MK. Nice post by you, and that certainly is in the context of your beliefs. I don't like the idea of fondling the 5 month old, either, and that's in the context of my upbringing, societal conditioning, etc.

I don't think so Doug. I think you find it repulsive because, even you, have not managed to completely remove God from your soul. I think that is His voice you hear, no matter how faint or far away it sounds. That feeling, that it would be wrong, even though logically you can't explain why? It's called a conscience. I'm pleased to hear that yours is still working. To a degree. ;)

Posted by: mk at November 20, 2007 9:10 AM


"Holy Mackeral, PIP, how oh how could you do such a thing, take that class....?"

LOL. A grave sin, I know.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 20, 2007 9:33 AM


"Agreed on the toddler, but of course that's not inside the body of a person. When we are talking about a pregnant woman, then I say her desire is worthy of protection, at least to a point in gestation."

Bethany: Okay, Doug. Why is the woman's desire not worthy of protection after viability, if the fetus is simply "becoming" a person, and is not yet actually a person?

I think it's worthy, but then it's not only abortion by which it can be satisfied, since there is delivery to be considered. To a large extent I agree with the Supreme Court in the Roe decision - that at that point the fetus "then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb." Even without that, IMO most fetuses are then enough "persons" that they deserve more consideration versus the woman's wishes.

A tough question for me is what do to after viability if a woman would be truly emotionally distraught, and wanting an abortion, enough that there are real valid concerns about her, even though it's "mental health" versus physical. What do you think?
......

Shouldn't the woman be granted the right to choose, even if it's just because she's afraid she "looks fat"?

Well, I have said "no" to that, after viability. Bethany, "drawing the line" is one thing, and I'm not saying that I should be the one to make public policy, though I will certainly give my opinions.

I do feel strongly, often, that women who are really just deciding they no longer want to be pregnant that late in gestation should have thought of it sooner, or, better yet, not gotten pregnant.

Doug


Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 10:34 AM


"Holy Mackeral, PIP, how oh how could you do such a thing, take that class....?"

LOL. A grave sin, I know.

Aha! I knew it! You're goin' for Vicelord....

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 10:36 AM


"I knew that, MK. Nice post by you, and that certainly is in the context of your beliefs. I don't like the idea of fondling the 5 month old, either, and that's in the context of my upbringing, societal conditioning, etc."

I don't think so Doug. I think you find it repulsive because, even you, have not managed to completely remove God from your soul. I think that is His voice you hear, no matter how faint or far away it sounds. That feeling, that it would be wrong, even though logically you can't explain why? It's called a conscience. I'm pleased to hear that yours is still working. To a degree. ;)

Heh heh then as a point of argument I've gotta say that I don't have a conscience that way. [wink]

I really am trying to look at it down deep, beyond such assumptions. I realize this is just a "what if?" but had my environment been different then I think I could certainly feel differently, and I think the same is true for you, as with some people from other cultures and what their beliefs display.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 10:41 AM


Can't you ban SOMG and Laura?

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:20 PM


Do they harass people too?

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 20, 2007 12:23 PM


yes!..ME!

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 12:28 PM


;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 20, 2007 12:50 PM


A tough question for me is what do to after viability if a woman would be truly emotionally distraught, and wanting an abortion, enough that there are real valid concerns about her, even though it's "mental health" versus physical. What do you think?

You know what I think. lol

Get her a good counselor, one who understands what she's going through and can help her through the pregnancy. Get her lots of help, find her a friend. Tell her she can do it. Tell her she's worth more than abortion. Abortion won't solve her mental anguish.

Posted by: Bethany at November 20, 2007 1:02 PM


Doug, it is a fact your a piece of human waste. As to your willingly becoming a vile piece of human waste, that is opinion, vile that is.
Factually, your not a piece of human waste, your totally human waste.
It all began when you were born Doug.

Is it not a fact that no one thought of you the moment you were created Doug? Yes or no?
Is it not a fact that you are the remainder, a waste, of their sensory satisfaction to fill their empty lifes? Yes or no?
Is it not a fact Doug, that your whole life is producing waste until you die?
Is it not a fact Doug, that only waste may prouduce waste, till the waste dies?
That you Doug, are just the sum total of the waste of atoms, molecules, enzymes, proteins, exchanging waste?
Cheer up Doug. Being labeled human waste is fact. You began as the human waste of sensory satisfaction without a thought of your being wanted or unwanted Doug. To a certain degree Doug, you really had no will in being created as human waste, but you willingly became vile human waste from your will to kill little human waste as a right of others.
Vile; Latin etymology, cheap, worthless.

When I'm driving in my car
And that man comes on the radio
He's telling me more and more
About some useless information
Supposed to fire my imagination...

I can't get no satisfaction
I can't get no satisfaction
cuz I try and I try and I try and I try

And then Doug was made the waste of trying, and trying, and trying to satisfy their satisfactions.
Ain't it fun Doug? Being realistic and factual towards human waste?
Is that why you treat human life in the womb as waste Doug, because one day you understood the fact that you are the waste of satsifaction for satsifaction's worth?

Have some sympathy for me Doug, its the nature of my game to puzzle you, Doug.



Posted by: yllas at November 20, 2007 2:22 PM


Oh no, I mispelled a word. Well it least Erin will get some satisfaction from trying to be the hypocritical grammar cop here.

Posted by: yllas at November 20, 2007 2:27 PM


Is it just me, or is yllas really annoying?

Sally, is that you being facetious?

Posted by: Stephanie at November 20, 2007 7:33 PM


Stephanie.
Sally is annoying,really.

Posted by: yllas at November 21, 2007 1:06 AM


Doug,

I really am trying to look at it down deep, beyond such assumptions. I realize this is just a "what if?" but had my environment been different then I think I could certainly feel differently, and I think the same is true for you, as with some people from other cultures and what their beliefs display.

Reminds me of alcoholics who blame their past on their present.

There comes a time in every man's life when he must ask himself, "Why do I believe what I believe?" Is it because I was brought up that way, or because I really believe it.

There are people here that have been victims of Domestic Violence. That's their past, that's their history.

Some of them are angry, bitter...but some, like Mary have moved on and used their past to build their future. They changed. They grew up. They stopped falling back on "But that's the environment I was brought up in".

Nobody is "locked" into their childhood. Many, many people believe different things than they were "taught" as children.

Muslims become Christian. Bernard Nathanson becomes pro-life. The abused become counselors.
The broken become fixers...

and the non-believers join the land of the living.

You can do it Doug, if you'd just get out of your way.

Posted by: mk at November 21, 2007 7:49 AM


yllas: Doug, it is a fact your a piece of human waste.

As if this is the first time a mentally-ill person with no rational argument has resorted to lame name-calling....
......

its the nature of my game to puzzle you

:: laughing :: Well, you haven't fooled anyone, so how's that going?

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 1:04 PM


"I really am trying to look at it down deep, beyond such assumptions. I realize this is just a "what if?" but had my environment been different then I think I could certainly feel differently, and I think the same is true for you, as with some people from other cultures and what their beliefs display".

MK: Reminds me of alcoholics who blame their past on their present. There comes a time in every man's life when he must ask himself, "Why do I believe what I believe?" Is it because I was brought up that way, or because I really believe it.

I don't think people really ask themselves "do I really believe it?" If you do, you do. The past can indeed affect the present.
......

There are people here that have been victims of Domestic Violence. That's their past, that's their history. Some of them are angry, bitter...but some, like Mary have moved on and used their past to build their future. They changed. They grew up. They stopped falling back on "But that's the environment I was brought up in". Nobody is "locked" into their childhood. Many, many people believe different things than they were "taught" as children.

Sure, but the fact remains that there will be a segment of the population with the need to embrace certain types of beliefs, and it makes a huge difference to them what type of culture they are in, i.e. the vast majority of them in Islamic culture will become radical muslims, and the vast majority of them in other cultures will end up with beliefs that are different, but which serve the same purpose for them.
......

Muslims become Christian. Bernard Nathanson becomes pro-life. The abused become counselors. The broken become fixers... and the non-believers join the land of the living. You can do it Doug, if you'd just get out of your way.

On an individual basis, anything can happen, sure, but what I said remains true. Not everybody has the same emotional needs you do, though, MK.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 1:10 PM


As if this is the first time a mentally-ill person with no rational argument has resorted to lame name-calling....

Read Yllas's whole post, and you'll see her point was not that you actually are a pile of human waste. I had to stop and read carefully too, to figure that out, Doug.

I think her point was to express the "reality" that you describe to us on a daily basis. That you believe we as humans don't have any inherent value. If we have no inherent value, doesn't that make us (realistically) "human waste"?

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 3:27 PM


If we have no inherent value, doesn't that make us (realistically) "human waste"?

Not at all, Bethany. Don't you think "waste" has a negative connotation, i.e. that a valuation has already been made?

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 4:30 PM


Doug, without anyone to value me, am I not unwanted, unvalued?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=UwI&defl=en&q=define:waste&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

"Waste, rubbish, trash, garbage, or junk is unwanted or undesired material. "

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 4:47 PM


Doug,

Not everybody has the same emotional needs you do, though, MK.

What emotional needs could I possibly be having filled by recognizing the unborn as human beings worthy of dignity, respect and life?

Posted by: mk at November 21, 2007 4:56 PM


Doug,

I don't think people really ask themselves "do I really believe it?" If you do, you do. The past can indeed affect the present.

First off, I never said that the past doesn't affect the present. What I said was, you can become chained to the past or you can become free of it. The CHOICE is always there.

Many people don't ask themselves what they really believe. These are "ordinary" people. Are you truly satisfied being an "ordinary" person. Personally, I want to be extraordinary. I want to go the extra mile. I want to know the truth. I won't be satisfied with what I was told. Are you honestly one of those people that is just ambivalent about it all. Whatever?

Posted by: mk at November 21, 2007 5:01 PM


Doug, without anyone to value me, am I not unwanted, unvalued?

Yes, Bethany, but that is different from the negative connotation of "waste." I do not see "waste" as neutral, i.e. a valuation has been made.

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 5:08 PM


MK: Reminds me of alcoholics who blame their past on their present. There comes a time in every man's life when he must ask himself, "Why do I believe what I believe?" Is it because I was brought up that way, or because I really believe it.

"I don't think people really ask themselves "do I really believe it?" If you do, you do. The past can indeed affect the present."

First off, I never said that the past doesn't affect the present. What I said was, you can become chained to the past or you can become free of it. The CHOICE is always there.

I was agreeing with you on the past. And yeah - the choice is always there, at least to varying degrees, I would say - some people simply cannot just "turn off" the past.
......

Many people don't ask themselves what they really believe. These are "ordinary" people. Are you truly satisfied being an "ordinary" person. Personally, I want to be extraordinary. I want to go the extra mile. I want to know the truth. I won't be satisfied with what I was told. Are you honestly one of those people that is just ambivalent about it all. Whatever?

MK, that's why I said: "I really am trying to look at it down deep, beyond such assumptions."

One reason I like the abortion debate is that it takes us down to the unprovable assumptions we all make. Below them are things which are true for all of us, and at least that is a starting point, an area where we can agree. I've said before that you and Bethany (and others) have done a lot of good thinking on the matter. I don't say that you are "bad" for thinking as you do. On the pro-choice side there are also people who have done a lot of good thinking.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 5:19 PM


Muslims become Christian. Bernard Nathanson becomes pro-life. The abused become counselors. The broken become fixers... and the non-believers join the land of the living. You can do it Doug, if you'd just get out of your way.

"On an individual basis, anything can happen, sure, but what I said remains true. Not everybody has the same emotional needs you do, though, MK."

What emotional needs could I possibly be having filled by recognizing the unborn as human beings worthy of dignity, respect and life?

That's not really the same thing. I am saying that there will be people with a need to embrace dogma. They may presume that the "non-believers" are the same way, but that is not true. And it's certainly possible that one dogma could be exchanged for another, as with the Muslims and Christians.

I am not saying it is merely an emotional need on your part for you to say the unborn deserve life. I think you have made your valuation and are sure of it - and I don't say you are "wrong" for it.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 5:30 PM


Yes, Bethany, but that is different from the negative connotation of "waste." I do not see "waste" as neutral, i.e. a valuation has been made.

Regardless of whether it has a negative connotation or not, it is what it is.

If you have no value, you are literally human waste.

If I have no value, I am literally human waste.

Where we differ is that I believe that no matter whether no one in the world valued me, I would still have value.

I believe that if no one in this world thought you were worth anything, Doug, you would have value.

You, of course, disagree.

And the term "human waste", though definitely negative, is the reality of what you are saying.

You just don't like to hear it so factual, so "cold", to just say it like it is to you.. Like Carder said to you, "It's frigid". It seems frigid to you, doesn't it, when it's direct and factual? Maybe it's not just because of a valuation. Maybe it just IS.

I do not think you are human waste any more than Yllas does (I think her post was to make a point, not to say she thinks that of you).

I think that you have value, a value that is significant, a value that you will not recognize.

You are worth a lot, inherently, Doug. Wish you knew it.

Posted by: Bethany at November 21, 2007 6:34 PM


Bethany,

perhaps Doug is fixated on truth being a 'thing' ... a precept, a base, a dogma. However, Truth is a 'who' and not a 'what' ... a Living person, to relate to.

There are two present-day difficulties with this approach: 1) Truth is always in charge. We need some basic humility because at times He-Truth seems done-for ... ie. Jesus before Pilate saying He came to bear witness to the truth. He who is Truth was standing right in front of Pilate. Pilate saw a smelly, scourged, bloody, beaten, and almost dead man. If truth was a man, wouldn't He be Super-man?
2) even to this day and among Christians, this uncanny fragility of Truth unnerves us. When Jesus says 'whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me ...' is not a mere show but a truism that echoes deeply in abortion. We all would rather .... than listen!

Posted by: John McDonell at November 21, 2007 9:25 PM


If you have no value, you are literally human waste.

If I have no value, I am literally human waste.

Gotta disagree, Bethany - "waste" implies that a valution has already been made,
......

Where we differ is that I believe that no matter whether no one in the world valued me, I would still have value.

I believe that if no one in this world thought you were worth anything, Doug, you would have value. You, of course, disagree.

I know what you mean, but you are not really addressing what I have said. For a valuation to be made, there has to be a mind, or "somebody" there to make the valuation, to care about it, to have desires, etc. Wouldn't have to be "in the world," as I've said repeatedly in the past. This leaves it open if there would be "higher" beings that us earthly humans, or just other beings off-world who made valuations.
......

And the term "human waste", though definitely negative, is the reality of what you are saying.

Nope, not at all, as above. If no inherent value than it doesn't apply. Moreover, I value myself positively, as does my wife (well, mostly. anyway ; ) ), and my family, not to mention others, so the "waste" thing is just silly with respect to the most applicable people who care.
......

You just don't like to hear it so factual, so "cold", to just say it like it is to you.. Like Carder said to you, "It's frigid". It seems frigid to you, doesn't it, when it's direct and factual? Maybe it's not just because of a valuation. Maybe it just IS.

Those who presuppose there "has to be a way to see things" don't like the truth, when it is otherwise. They may think it's "frigid" or "cold," yes. If everybody thought like you and Carder, it wouldn't be the argument it is.
......

I do not think you are human waste any more than Yllas does (I think her post was to make a point, not to say she thinks that of you).

Bethany, you are a dear sweet person, and I may have been too hard on yllas, if it is a "her," or if not. I don't know "her" situation, and who knows what it is?
......

I think that you have value, a value that is significant, a value that you will not recognize. You are worth a lot, inherently, Doug. Wish you knew it.

I appreciate the sentiment, B, but I'd say I do recognize the value, without pretending, nothing inherent involved.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 9:43 PM


Posted by: John McDonell at November 21, 2007 9:25 PM,

John!!! I understood that on so many levels!!! Thank you!!!!

Posted by: AB Laura at November 21, 2007 9:55 PM


perhaps Doug is fixated on truth being a 'thing' ... a precept, a base, a dogma. However, Truth is a 'who' and not a 'what' ... a Living person, to relate to.

John, in a way that is the most humanistic of beliefs, one I don't necessarily disagree with. I trust women to know the truth of themselves. For those who would presume to "tell" them what is best, beyond that, I have serious reservations about it.
......

There are two present-day difficulties with this approach: 1) Truth is always in charge. We need some basic humility because at times He-Truth seems done-for ... ie. Jesus before Pilate saying He came to bear witness to the truth. He who is Truth was standing right in front of Pilate. Pilate saw a smelly, scourged, bloody, beaten, and almost dead man. If truth was a man, wouldn't He be Super-man?

Even going with that, if Jesus was really against abortion, isn't it reasonable to think he would have spoken against it, specifically? Abortion was known, desired, and practiced in biblical times, as well as for thousands of years beforehand.
......

2) even to this day and among Christians, this uncanny fragility of Truth unnerves us. When Jesus says 'whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me ...' is not a mere show but a truism that echoes deeply in abortion. We all would rather .... than listen!

John, I don't see truth as fragile. There are things that are true of us people, regardless of our specific religious beliefs and regardless if we have religious beliefs or not. There is physical reality, regardless of our opinion about it and regardless if we even know of it or not. There is that which is verifiable, even among people with different presumptions, assumptions, wishes, and emotional needs.

Regards,

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 21, 2007 9:56 PM


John, very beautifully spoken!

Posted by: Bethany at November 22, 2007 7:02 AM