New Stanek WND column, “Killer cupids”
The abortion industry cannot let the Partial Birth Abortion Ban go, for three reasons….
So the industry has embarked on an interesting public relations campaign.
Although it maintained for 15 years during PBA Ban court battles that the number committed was infinitesimally small, now it says the ban has created havoc in the industry.
And while it has always claimed legalized abortion is the safest surgical procedure in the history of the world, now it says the ban has forced “dangerous” abortions on mothers and abortionists.
It launched its PR campaign on July 30 with the help of United Press International, in one of the most egregious displays of journalistic deception I
have ever read….
The “more dangerous… medical procedure”?
Visualizing a preborn baby’s internal organs by ultrasound and injecting the heart medication
Digoxin in an FDA-unapproved use through the mother’s abdomen and into the heart of her thrashing baby (no one likes needles) to cause an instant, deadly heart attack….
Pay attention. Since the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the PBA ban this past April, paranoia has apparently struck the entire late-term abortion industry, forcing these specialized deed-doers out in the open. And there are apparently quite a few, with lots of spectators….
But despite the media’s best help, the pro-PBA campaign is ill-conceived, availing itself to an array of pro-life inquiries and talking points. These are….
Continue reading my column today, “Killer cupid abortionists,”on WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Great column Jill!
what lenghts the media will go to to cover for the abortion industry..they are willing accomplices in this evil trade…
I get a kick out of this one:
“At Oregon Health & Science University, “[m]edical students and nursing students are no longer invited to watch later-term abortions, for fear one might MISINTERPRET the procedure and lodge a criminal complaint,” reported the Boston Globe. ”
….keeping the heinous procedure on the low down…
No “DOCTOR” would ever, ever, EVER inject Digoxin into a child’s heart! It’s reprehensible! If any doctor crosses that line, he/she is no better than the killer rotting on death row!
Heather,
imagine what those poor little babies are going through ? I really hate this world sometimes when I think about it… how I got a chance to live, but these poor babies are given a death sentence through no fault of there own.
jasper, not to mention the frustration that we are powerless to stop it. These spoiled brat baby killers have had their way for 34 years now. They cut, stab, burn, and torture children to death, and they have little to no consience about it. We really do live in a sick world!
Mary posed an excellent question to the PC side. She asked them to name 1 social problem that abortion has solved/eliminated. I have yet to hear a response.
Yes, thats a good point Heather, it hasn’t solved anything. It’s only left damage, destruction and heartbreak in its path.
That’s why the women from ‘Silent No More’ say “Abortion didn’t solve our problems, it just created new ones.”
That is so true!
Heather, when did Mary post that question?
You’d think if abortion did solve ANY problems, PC’s would be right on that!
And hi, jasper!
Hi Janet!
Hi Janet!
Janet and jasper, I sit here and I think about that question, and I can’t come up with a single answer.
Hey y’all!
I wish I could post more, miss all of you.
I’m homeschooling this year, but I really am going to try visiting more.
All of your insights rock!
Your column sheds more light that the pro-life movement has the abortion industry on the run.
The abortion industry is in fact on its last legs if we can get at least one more solid pro-life justice on the Supreme Court.
That is a tall order, however, because Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson are the only Republicans who can defeat Hillary, and Thompson still has not announced that he will run, although he probably will.
Hillary will be tough to defeat, but it can happen. If she wins, though, she would take all of the momentum out of the pro-life movement because she is a 60s radical who would appoint only left-wing judges.
Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg are just waiting for a Hillary to be elected so that they can retire from the Supreme Court.
The ’08 elections will be among the most important in American history. Hillary is a female devil and must be defeated.
Clay, I couldn’t agree more. Well said.
Heather: Mary posed an excellent question to the PC side. She asked them to name 1 social problem that abortion has solved/eliminated. I have yet to hear a response.
Who promised that any social problem would be “eliminated” or “solved”? For every child to be wanted is a worthy goal, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that there will be zero unwanted kids, no matter what.
Had there been no abortions, there would be more people right now. Some of them would be suffering and/or would have suffered a lot. In some cases it is better that an abortion took place, IMO – the suffering would have been that great. I know that some women do end up regretting having abortions, on balance, but many women suffer much less from having an abortion versus continuing the pregnancy against their will. Less suffering is good.
Doug
The ’08 elections will be among the most important in American history. Hillary is a female devil and must be defeated.
:: laughing ::
Clay, I’ve never liked Hillary myself. Part of it is just a visceral response to her, which many guys have. Not saying it’s “right,” but the feeling is there.
I don’t know what’s going to happen in the election, but it’s not looking good for the Republicans right now.
Doug
use through the mother’s abdomen and into the heart of her thrashing baby (no one likes needles) to cause an instant, deadly heart attack….
Jill, seriously, quit appealing to emotions based on fiction. You do not know for a fact that they baby is thrashing inside. Way to make up some propaganda to feed more lies!!
Solved any problems?
How about solving the problems of 50,000,000 women who didn’t want to be pregnant anymore.
Midnite, why wouldn’t the baby thrash? I have been pregnant three times (to term). The slightest things could make my children thrash around in my tummy…even foods they didn’t like. Are you telling me you think they’re going to sit still all of a sudden when a painful poison is injected in their heart?
No Bethany, that is not what I am saying. I find it funny that Jill just knows what is happening in another woman’s womb at all times. Especially when she is getting an abortion.
How could she not know what a baby will do in reaction to poison? It’s obvious…just like it’s obvious that if you stick a newborn with a needle, they’re going to scream.
And out of those 50,000,000 women, how many are relieved and happy today? The pro choice mantra: Let’s keep abortion safe, legal, and RARE. That sure doesn’t look rare to me.
Heather, look at the Imnotsorry.net site. The number of women there should be alarmingly high, according to people like Laura…but surprisingly, only a few dozen women’s names are there…maybe a little more than that, can’t remember. All I know is that the number isn’t that high. Compare that to the women who are part of the “I regret my abortion” sites.
Laura, let me tell you something. The women I knew who aborted were all smart, educated, and they all had careers. Why didn’t they do anything to avoid an unwanted pregnancy to begin with? Condoms are cheap and affordable to most anyone.
Jill:
We have heart injection abortions in Canada. There is no evidence PBA is done here. Somehow, I don’t hear of too many Canadian abortionists complaining.
Laura: A heck of a lot of women DID want to be pregnant, but for one reason or another felt abortion would solve their problem. A lot of women were co-erced.
Bethany, thank you for the link! I have visited this most pathetic site before to read these tales of denial. Didn’t doctor Reardon say that PAS can take from 10 to 15 years before it is recognized? I wonder how many of these women will feel awful down the road. How long ago were their abortions? I am going there to browse around for a second. We COULD even say that these stories were made up by some pro choicers. The same way they say that WE make things up.
Laura, let me tell you something. The women I knew who aborted were all smart, educated, and they all had careers. Why didn’t they do anything to avoid an unwanted pregnancy to begin with?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why would that be any of your business?
Crotchsniffing?
Laura, you are so ignorant and sad.
Didn’t doctor Reardon say that PAS can take from 10 to 15 years before it is recognized?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Dr.” Reardon of Pacific Western University?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
He’s a lot better than “Dr.” Finkle………former abortionist of an Arizona prison.
Laura, there you go again. Your diploma is generic and blood soaked. NOW bought it for you.
Midnite, why wouldn’t the baby thrash? I have been pregnant three times (to term). The slightest things could make my children thrash around in my tummy…even foods they didn’t like. Are you telling me you think they’re going to sit still all of a sudden when a painful poison is injected in their heart?
Bethany, there is reflexive movement early on – I think even at 6 or 8 weeks gestation. This is not the same at all as conscious pain perception, the ability to suffer or “be tortured,” or “go through” anything.
Doug
I’m pretty sure that a LOT of the stories on the “I regret my abortion” site are made up. Many of them have a very typical contrived feel. I have no doubt that some of the stories are true- but others I’m certain were made up by lifers in an attempt to overload the site with ‘proof’ that all abortions are bad and scar women for life. Some women regret their abortions. Others don’t. Trying to use falsehoods to promote your ideas only makes more people turn away from your side.
And re. Hilary…I’d much prefer Obama. I’m not a fan of her either, mainly because I find her a bit too polarizing. Very smart lady, and I respect her a lot, but certain aspects of her just turn me off. And it has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a lady. I’m all for a female president. Just not Hilary. Obama 08, yay!
And out of those 50,000,000 women, how many are relieved and happy today?
Most of them, Heather. The vast majority. They made their best choice, same as do most women who elect to continue pregnancies and give birth, IMO.
……….
The pro choice mantra: Let’s keep abortion safe, legal, and RARE. That sure doesn’t look rare to me.
Do you think that most pro-choicers *want* more abortions versus less? I certainly do not. Personally, I don’t “want” women to have abortions, per se. I think it’s better to prevent pregnancies if they’re going to be unwanted. There is some risk to abortion, there’s monetary costs, etc. Better to avoid them, I say.
Yet the fact is that there are still a lot of unwanted pregnancies that occur, and many times the best thing for the woman to do then is have an abortion. Once the pregnancy is underway, the “prevention is better” no longer applies. Too late for that.
Doug
Laura, there you go again. Your diploma is generic and blood soaked. NOW bought it for you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Generic diploma?
Gee, NOW helped me when I shattered my pelvis and a femur into cornflakes.
Bethany, there is reflexive movement early on – I think even at 6 or 8 weeks gestation. This is not the same at all as conscious pain perception, the ability to suffer or “be tortured,” or “go through” anything.
Doug
Doug, you could say the same thing about a newborn infant. That doesn’t give you the right to kill it. It’s a moot point.
Doug, and some of them probably killed themselves.
Do you think that most pro-choicers *want* more abortions versus less? I certainly do not. Personally, I don’t “want” women to have abortions, per se. I think it’s better to prevent pregnancies if they’re going to be unwanted. There is some risk to abortion, there’s monetary costs, etc. Better to avoid them, I say.
Yes, Doug…I’m not trying to be rude or insulting, but I think that you personally are okay with whatever number of babies are aborted, because, as you said, it helps the population, which you believe is out of control. For women to continue to have abortions, to you, it is a positive thing, not a negative. You want them to continue, so that you don’t have to worry about overpopulation. Right? Or am I wrong about that? Would you be happy if abortion was nearly non-existant?
Gee, NOW helped me when I shattered my pelvis and a femur into cornflakes.
Laura, you judged Norma McCorvy for accepting handouts…what makes you any better?
Bethany, RIGHT!
Bethany, I am sending you a quick e mail.
OKay, looking out for it!
Gee, NOW helped me when I shattered my pelvis and a femur into cornflakes.
Laura, you judged Norma McCorvy for accepting handouts…what makes you any better?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, because I’ve been a taxpaying, contributing member of society – including the year I was injured – since I was 15. Norma McCorvey has never been anything but a sucking void her entire life. The donations I’ve made to NOW MORE than covers the grant I was given.
LOL sure, Laura.
Norma’s a woman…you know, one of those people you and NOW supposedly support?… oh never mind, you wouldn’t know, I guess.
Midnite, 1:43p: A) We’re talking about late-term babies. B) Late-term babies feel pain, with more pain receptors, actually, than at any other time in their lives. C) I’ve never seen an infant sit through a shot. D) A Digoxin injection into the heart involves way more than that. E) My analysis is realistic. Yours is not. It’s a great question for an abortionist, if you know one.
Suzanne, 2:11p: Yes, the whining by abortionists on this is an ill-considered (i.e., stupid) PR scheme.
Doug, 2:45p, said: “Bethany, there is reflexive movement early on – I think even at 6 or 8 weeks gestation. This is not the same at all as conscious pain perception, the ability to suffer or “be tortured,” or “go through” anything.”
Doug, welcome, btw. I don’t think I’ve said that yet. I appreciate your posts, even if I wholeheartedly disagree. Back on point, we’re talking about late term babies, not early, who we know feel pain. We know this not just from studies but from evidence of premature babies born at the same age.
Erin, 2:46p: Obama supports abortion to the point he supports infanticide. Do you?
Laura would still be supporting her if she were pro choice. Everything in Laura’s world is disposable. Too bad NOW couldn’t buy you some compassion and a personality to boot!
Actually, Jill, he voted ‘present’ to the case that you keep bringing up. Meaning he didn’t vote for it- he merely refused to vote either for or against it.
‘Spoiled brat baby killers’? Its that kind of hysterical melodramatic garbage that make antichoicers look like ranting idiots. No one takes a ranting idiot seriously and no one should take seriously 99% of what antichoicers have to say either.
Erin, he voted “present” the first year and “no” after that.
Lol, I sat through my first round of shots as a baby without a peep! I think I was abnormal though.
Around 5, though, when I had to get my shots for kindergarden, I squalled.
‘Spoiled brat baby killers’? Its that kind of hysterical melodramatic garbage that make antichoicers look like ranting idiots. No one takes a ranting idiot seriously and no one should take seriously 99% of what antichoicers have to say either.
Texasred, are you finished with your rant about people who rant?
Texas Red, You make yourself look like an idiot!
Does Heather actually think anyone is going to take her temper tantrums and hysterical fits seriously? She doesnt care about the truth. She just makes up things as she goes and the more florid and sensationalistic they are the better she likes it. Whether they are accurate or not apparently couldnt matter less to her. The ACOG has stated that the D&X procedure is sometimes the best option available. Why would polititians who know nothing about medicine try to second guess and contradict a medical professional? and why would Heather want to pretend she knows more about the matter than doctors?
TR, where is your proof that nobody takes anti choicers seriously?
Heather, look in the mirror. There is nothing idiotic about pointing out the absurdity of your hysterical little temper tantrums. Refering to anyone as ‘spoiled brat baby killers’ is about as idiotic as it gets and makes you look like a fool.
Texas Red, Your posts just drip with rage.
Texasred, are you finished with your rant about people who rant?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who, with any integrity at all, would try to pretend two sentence is a ‘rant’? Obviously you dont like to deal with the face you show in the context of this discussion.
Laura, there you go again. Your diploma is generic and blood soaked. NOW bought it for you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~One more comment apparently based on hysterical irrational idiocy.
Texas Red, why? I’m entitled to my opinion. You don’t run America sweety.
Midnite: “Jill, seriously, quit appealing to emotions based on fiction. You do not know for a fact that they baby is thrashing inside.”
No, I agree Midnite, I bet the baby is having a good-ole time getting that shot of poison in the heart. It must feel swell.
Erin:”Actually, Jill, he voted ‘present’ to the case that you keep bringing up. Meaning he didn’t vote for it- he merely refused to vote either for or against it.”
because Obama is gutless and has no spine.
Heather, you dont run America either, which is a truly wonderful thing. I never would try to keep you from speaking your mind, such as it is. But I reserve the right to laugh heartily at what a fool and idiot you prove yourself to be.
I can’t believe you’re still talking. I do hope you realize that the moment abortion is banned, it will inevitably continue, and be far less safe, due to the lack of medical procedure. Quit your whining.
Heather trying to pretend I am experiencing ‘rage’ is one more indication that you have the need to make up lies because youre not able to deal with reality. Youre showing your capacious backside to the world and looking like an idiot. I find that more amusing than I can begin to tell you. Where is YOUR proof that anyone with any intelligence DOES take your little hysterical tantrums seriously?
Texas Red, right back at you.
Texas Red, I hear that you have been on this crusade for years. Give it up! You spoiled brat baby killers have had your way for 34 years now. It’s time for abortion to end!
Valgaav, did you know that women are dying from legal abortions? Did you know that abortionists have been raping and molesting their patients, even with the legalization of abortion? Get your facts straight.
Heather- abortion WILL NEVER end. Numbers will go down, in time, I’m sure. But it won’t end. Legal or not. Abortions and forced miscarriages have been going on since the earliest civilizations. It won’t end. Just like any other human issue.
Valgaav, did you know that women are dying from legal abortions? Did you know that abortionists have been raping and molesting their patients, even with the legalization of abortion? Get your facts straight.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kind of like those priests and Republicans who rape and molest children?
Naturally you want to outlaw Christianity and the Republican Party…
You spoiled brat baby killers have had your way for 34 years now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
…And you spoiled brat fetus fetishists have had your way for the last 34 years.
You don’t want abortions and you don’t have them.
Isn’t choice a wonderful thing?
Laura, You are using diversion tactics. I have yet to see you answer a question about abortion. You always move on to another topic.
How have pro lifers had their way?
How have pro lifers had their way?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You don’t believe in abortion, so you choose not to have one.
That’s called getting your way.
A fetus fetish? What kind of degree did NOW purchase for you?
Laura, you’re a weirdo.
Heather trying to pretend I am experiencing ‘rage’ is one more indication that you have the need to make up lies because youre not able to deal with reality. Youre showing your capacious backside to the world and looking like an idiot. I find that more amusing than I can begin to tell you. Where is YOUR proof that anyone with any intelligence DOES take your little hysterical tantrums seriously?
Wow, I have to say…it’s so funny. It’s like going back in time, reading Iva’s posts.
She is like a broken record, literally. Almost every quote she has made so far has been word for word the exact same as the posts she made 5-6 years ago on the Sheck forums. There’s only one difference. She is actually leaving out the F word. That part is kind of a nice change, actually.
But I mean, if I could go back and copy and paste the posts she made back then, I could show you posts where word for word the exact same quotes come out time and time again. For example, the whole, “You’re trying to pretend that you know anything”, or “Insensate nonviable tissue”, or “You’re proving to the world what an idiot and fool you are”.. or “trying to pretend that the ZEF is anything more than insensate nonviable tissue is moronic”, etc etc etc…. you’d think after 5 years, Iva would have come up with some new material, but apparently there’s not much more to her. She’s good for laughs though.
you’d think after 5 years, Iva would have come up with some new material, but apparently there’s not much more to her. She’s good for laughs though.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You guys post that stale, tedious old Bible drivel continually and THEN tell someone they need to come up with “new material?”
You first.
You guys post that stale, tedious old Bible drivel continually and THEN tell someone they need to come up with “new material?”
You first.
lol Okay, I don’t use the Bible in all of my posts, do I? Only when it’s relevant to a situation. Now, if you see me quoting the same exact Bible verse, word for word, on every post I make, then you might be able to say I was being like Iva.
It’s sweet of you to stick up for her though.
Bless you for trying to save the lives of innocent babies. I’m a strong man who has seen war and even dead bodies, but when someone showed me pictures of a partial birth abortion, I cried like a little girl.
Anyone supporting or considering support of partial birth abortions should be required to look at the truth of what it is, I can’t imagine many having a heart cold enough to ignore how horrific that procedure is.
yes. they must be pals.
Old bible drivel? Kind of like all that pro choice slogan – drivel.
Iva Red, I must have struck a nerve in you when I used the term BABY KILLER. Thank God and America for our freedom of speech. I’m sorry if you’re offended, but that is my choice of wording. So, get over it!
Per TR:
The ACOG has stated that the D&X procedure is sometimes the best option available. Why would polititians who know nothing about medicine try to second guess and contradict a medical professional?
*****************
ACOG is in the back pocket of the pro-choicers. They are to afraid to take any other stance. They deserve to be questioned.
Where by the way TR, has Heather made up stories and lies???
The stories and lies from the pro-choicers are continually coming out as per Jill’s post.
Let’s review just a few more shall we?”
“it’s just a blob of tissue”
“women don’t suffer from abortion”
“birth control pills will help abortion rates go down”
“no, we won’t tell anyone you have a 23 year old boyfirend, even though you’re fifteen”
“oh, that’s ok. just state you’re sixteen on your medical forms and make up a birthday”
“of course we provide safe legal abortions”
Per Erin:
I’m pretty sure that a LOT of the stories on the “I regret my abortion” site are made up. Many of them have a very typical contrived feel. I have no doubt that some of the stories are true- but others I’m certain were made up by lifers in an attempt to overload the site with ‘proof’ that all abortions are bad and scar women for life.
*********************************
First you are pretty sure, then you are certain.
Which is it?? How can you be certain??? Prove it.
Erin, how do you know when you become pregnant with your first wanted child that you will not suffer from some type of PAS.
How do you know the feelings of your choice to abort won’t somehow affect your emotions with a wanted pregnancy. You may have the same type of morning sickness which could trigger a whole set of emotions you don’t even know you are carrying around right now. The mind body connection is very powerful.
Quickly, before I read the rest of the comments:
Why in the world is it a problem that NOW hands out scholarships? If anything that is one of the good things it is doing. There is no need to deride someone for getting help to have an education.
Doing so only perpetuates the ridiculous stereotype that prolifers want all women to be baby-making machines and never go to college.
I’m sorry, I”m just getting tired of the insulting comments Laura is receiving. Need I go on as to how ridiculous it has become? I have seen it in at least two threads!
Why in the world is it a problem that NOW hands out scholarships?
Its not that NOW hands out scholarships…it’s the hypocrisy Laura exposed when she expressed that she thought Norma McCorvy was a scumbag because she accepted handouts from pro-life people…but then she admitted she accepted a scholarship from NOW. If it’s wrong to accept handouts in one situation, why not another? That’s the point that we were trying to make with that. I don’t think it’s wrong to accept donations at all.
Prove it? I can’t prove it. It’s my opinion. But my opinion is equally as valid as any of yours. I know I won’t feel regret because I knew my options and made my decisions myself. Right now, I don’t even want children. As many people on here know, I don’t LIKE children. They make me uncomfortable. Always have. If I do, it will be because I decided that I would like to raise a child and the time was right for me to do it. I’ll have provided myself and my potential baby with the most hospitable and comfortable life possible.
Okay, Bethany. I too think donations, scholarships, and financial aid are acceptable.
Does that mean we can stop antagonizing recievers of welfare, too?
Who antagonizes welfare recipients?
Sandy, Thank you!
PIP, TOO BAD! She eggs it on herself. She always attacks me personally! Why don’t you tell her to KNOCK IT OFF??
Conservatives, essentially calling them lazy and saying its too much to have a small portion of their check going to the government to help them.
I have to agree with Don.
When I see these types of photos I get very very emotional. That’s why I can’t view most if any of them.
Do any of you pro-choicers feel any emotion towards pictures of brutally aborted babies??? Or, do you just shut it out like these once very alive persons were nothing to begin with??
PIP: “I’m sorry, I”m just getting tired of the insulting comments Laura is receiving. Need I go on as to how ridiculous it has become? ”
..in PIP’s world it’s always ok to insult pro-lifers but never ok to insult pro-choicers.
btw: “spoiled brat baby killers” is much too nice, I believe these people (abortionists) are truly evil (they may not realize it themselves) but they are.
jasper–
excuse me? I don’t think I ever condoned personal insults ever.
jasper, she calls me a crotch sniffer earlier in the thread. That’s not insulting?
PIP, my words to Laura aren’t really any of your business. She has been insulting to me on numerous other occasions. I highly doubt you would take it!! She’s a TROLL!
For the record, I never said Laura was super-polite or anything, I don’t condone the insults she throws.
But to resort to invalidating her education because of who supplied her the necessary funds…is not a good example. That’s all.
So please, if someone attacks you, best attack them back, but lets keep the attacks for the arguments rather than the person. kay?
Well then, excuse me, Heather…
PIP, I was just saying that Laura has come on here and bashed me repeatedly. I am not going to take her verbal trashing. She came and told us that NOW paid for her education – fine. So be it! So, she kept up her harassing ways. I decided to give her a dose of her own medicine. I started with an organization that I loathe and she cherishes…. NOW. *okay sigh of relief*
PIP, you haven’t always been super polite yourself. The C word and Ann Coulter. You don’t have any problems with expressing yourself.
*sigh*
I find this rather depressing.
Coulter is in the public eye and opens herself open to criticism. That is how I see her based on her actions and words. She makes no attempt to seem like a decent person.
And I never said you shouldn’t “express yourself” either. I just didn’t like the way you were insulting her education. It seemed an odd target. Bethany explained her inconsistancy and I conceded. I don’t know why this is still such a problem.
Also, I wasn’t tooting my own horn. I’m not sure where you got that impression.
okay, I’m over it. Moving on now.
okay ;)
PIP, I was just saying that Laura has come on here and bashed me repeatedly. I am not going to take her verbal trashing. She came and told us that NOW paid for her education – fine. So be it! So, she kept up her harassing ways. I decided to give her a dose of her own medicine. I started with an organization that I loathe and she cherishes…. NOW. *okay sigh of relief*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You jumped on me as soon as I arrived here.
You trashed NOW without even knowing what NOW was. (Pretty much the same way you called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned even though you didn’t know what Roe v. Wade was…)
You make really unusual generalizations about me all the time. (I must have had an abortion, I think everything in life is disposable, that I’m “ignorant and sad,” that someone else paid for my education, I’m a “weirdo” etc…)
If you pull the whole “Poor Heather” trip I’m going to blow chunks.
And you have jumped on me also. Let it go Troll girl!
Guys! STOP IT! Honestly. Treat each other with respect. I don’t care if the other person doesn’t, take the higher ground. There is no reason for this nonsense. You’re all intelligent adults. STOP IT.
And you have jumped on me also. Let it go Troll girl!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’d call you a troll, but you’re SO bad at it.
You seldom seem to have a clue what you’re talking about,you quote sources like David Reardon, and you seem to pull stories from the Weekly World News.
Yup, bad…
PrettyInPink, I appreciate your comments. There are many positions here, but you seem quite fair-minded.
Doug
Erin, I plan on it. For the record, I did try to be nice to you once Laura. I really did. I am still willing to be. I guess it’s now up to you.
Bethany, there is reflexive movement early on – I think even at 6 or 8 weeks gestation. This is not the same at all as conscious pain perception, the ability to suffer or “be tortured,” or “go through” anything.
Doug, you could say the same thing about a newborn infant. That doesn’t give you the right to kill it. It’s a moot point.
Oh no – newborn infants can almost *always* feel pain, suffer, etc.
Erin, I’m sorry to you, because I like you.
Thanks, Doug. I try to be. Sometimes I get caught up in it though so feel free to remind me when I do.
Doug, and some of them probably killed themselves.
Heather, como se dice en Ingles? All right…seriously, I don’t see what I said to prompt you to say that.
Dawg
Actually I like both you and Doug on the PC side. You’re both peaceful.
Doug [thread above where you said most women are happy about the abortion.]
Heather- I’m not angry at you, I’m not angry at anyone. I get frustrated when I see people acting nasty to each other, because nothing ever gets accomplished like that- rather, that causes way more problems than it can solve. People on opposing sides of issues often fail to recognize the humanity of their own opponents. I’ve been guilty of feeling that way on occasion, because of how deeply I feel on certain issues, but allowing that to put blockades in front of the promise of compromise will only prevent any progress in terms of reconciling our belief systems.
And I like you too, Heather ;-)
PIP: Thanks, Doug. I try to be. Sometimes I get caught up in it though so feel free to remind me when I do.
Well, I like to argue, so not much really bums me out. I appreciate all the pro-life minds who read and post here, same as for the pro-choicers.
So many times online, things get personal, and boy oh boy does the trouble often start there. There is also the difference between being online and offline. Online, we often feel “secure” in our relative anonymity, and “get caught up in” things more than we would if we were discussing things in person. And I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing – there is value in just being able to let fly, if nothing else, many times. I guess there is a “balance” for each one of us, one that will make us the most happy, as well as a balance for a message board in general. I’m a long-winded so-and-so, ain’t I?
Also, there’s no perceived voice inflection, body language, etc., online, usually, and that contributes to things going overboard too.
My mom had AOL in the early 1990s, and was always telling me to get a computer, get online, etc., – that I’d love it. Finally did, in 1996, and YeeHaa, Mom was right.
Best,
Doug
I can’t hash and rehash, because it will just provoke Laura again. So, I shall try to be the bigger person here and apologize to you Laura. Please accept my apology.
Doug, and some of them probably killed themselves.
Heather, como se dice en Ingles? All right…seriously, I don’t see what I said to prompt you to say that.
Doug [thread above where you said most women are happy about the abortion.]
Ah, I see. Yes, that is true. It’s also true for some women who carry to term and give birth. As always, there is no guarantee that a given decision – to end a pregnancy or to continue one – will be later seen as correct. No such guarantees in life exist. That, IMO, is no reason to deny the choice of ending a pregnancy to a woman, nor to deny the choice of continuing a pregnancy.
Doug
People on opposing sides of issues often fail to recognize the humanity of their own opponents. I’ve been guilty of feeling that way on occasion, because of how deeply I feel on certain issues, but allowing that to put blockades in front of the promise of compromise will only prevent any progress in terms of reconciling our belief systems.
Whew…. Erin, you rock.
Doug
Doug, welcome, btw. I don’t think I’ve said that yet. I appreciate your posts, even if I wholeheartedly disagree. Back on point, we’re talking about late term babies, not early, who we know feel pain. We know this not just from studies but from evidence of premature babies born at the same age.
Hey Jill. Thank you. “Late term” can mean different things, and therein is often the rub.
I know that at 30 weeks gestation most fetuses have at least one sense working. Most have more than one working then. At 26 weeks, a good argument can be made for fetuses being sensate. Even at 24, I know that a good argument can be made for many fetuses being able to feel pain. Not that all fetuses will feel pain then, but it’s an argument for the unborn “in general.”
Earlier than that, it really gets sketchy – I’m not saying that no fetuses are sensate then, but to act as if all are is erroneous.
Doug
goodnight all.
Sandy: Do any of you pro-choicers feel any emotion towards pictures of brutally aborted babies??? Or, do you just shut it out like these once very alive persons were nothing to begin with??
Many surgical procedures are visceral, deal with tissue, blood, gore, etc., and there is a “yuck” factor there, no question about it for me.
“Baby”? Maybe, maybe not – the usage of that term lies in the eye of the beholder. I don’t have a problem with “unborn baby,” but pretending that saying “It’s a baby,” is any meaningful argument in the abortion debate is false.
The unborn are not persons. Personhood is not attributed until birth. It is a societal construct, an idea. The unborn in this argument are human, yes, and alive, and organisms. Personhood is a separate matter.
“Nothing to begin with”? No, not at all. They may be wanted very much. There is no one way about it. They also may be unwanted.
If the unborn can suffer, that means something to me. That is the case late in gestation, beyond when all but a miniscule portion of abortions take place. I’m fine with restrictions on “elective” abortions at viability and afterwards, when many of the unborn have the capability to suffer.
Doug
Can some pro-choicer answer my question about emotions (if any) they feel towards the photos of bruality aborted babies??
PCs always say that your side is not heartless. How can you have a heart and not be emotionally devastated by viewing these photos??
This is where I get very one-sided. I can’t understand how ANY human can condone such murderous acts. The pictures don’t lie.
I carried two beautiful children into this world, feeling their life inside of me during my pregnancy. I carried them into this world understanding their basic needs. They are no different than the babies who needed and deserved their mother’s nurture while in the womb. Every baby is dependant on their mother whether still in the womb or born into the world from the womb.
Knowing that women under this “crock of a law” have been granted the right kill their unwanted babies at any point is beyond my comprehension.
The term embryo or fetus are definitions of humans during their growth just like infant, toddler, pre-teen, teenager, young adult. Just because the embryo and fetus live inside the womb should not grant anyone the right to dispose of it.
Heather, legalizing abortion solved the black market in abortion services, which was a dangerous social problem.
Sandy, you wrote: “Every baby is dependant on their mother whether still in the womb or born into the world from the womb.”
That’s not true. After birth, someone else can take care of the baby if the mother prefers not to.
Doug: “The unborn are not persons. Personhood is not attributed until birth. It is a societal construct, an idea. The unborn in this argument are human, yes, and alive, and organisms. Personhood is a separate matter.”
Oh, I see..
the dictionary says a human=person
Doug:”If the unborn can suffer, that means something to me. That is the case late in gestation, beyond when all but a miniscule portion of abortions take place. I’m fine with restrictions on “elective” abortions at viability and afterwards, when many of the unborn have the capability to suffer.”
I’ve heard it all now…”the capacity to suffer”, “it needs to be viabile”, “it needs to be consciense”.
Doug, but it will have all of these things after a few more weeks of living in the womb, why won’t you give them a chance at life? cruel.
Doug “miniscule” is about 9-10% of abortions a year (from start of 2nd tri and beyond). So that works out to 100,000 killings per year (not miniscule).
Laura, there’s a difference between not wanting to be pregnant any more and wanting your baby to be dead. I dare say that a sizable number of those women didn’t want abortions — they wanted REAL options. Which we as a society dont’ bother to provide because with abortion legal, we can tell her it’s all her problem, she’s CHOOSING not to abort.
Shuting a woman off to an abortion clinic is something that makes it easier for everybody else. Ask the SNM women how much it helped them.
Jill, first of all I want to thank you for your efforts to protect the innocent unborn.
Second, I wish that a sudden terror of falling into the pit of hell for all eternity would overtake each of these baby murdering swine (abortionists). Maybe then the baby killing industry would collapse.
Your article was quite revealing. I am a man so other than an opinion, I don’t have any say on the abortion issue.
When I was younger I didn’t see any problem with it. I also didn’t really understand the ramifications or the reality of the procedure.
After my son was born, I didn’t see how someone could make the choice to abort but I still felt it was a woman’s choice. Sadly, my first marriage didn’t last but my son has grown up to be a fine young man.
I am in a second marriage now, and we recently had a daughter. I don’t know if it is because I am older, or if it is because my wife and I are very close and communicate well, but I was much more connected to the whole experience. I watched my daughter develop in the womb via ultrasound. We almost lost her due to the incompetence of the doctor that did the amniocentesis. It really hit home then that this is a life in there and it is wrong to terminate an innocent life at any stage.
The final kicker for me was watching the videos on the silentscream.org website. That should be shown in every sex education class across the country. I was absolutely horrified when I saw what actually happened during an abortion. And that was just on film. I can’t imagine actually being a part of that butchery.
Your writings about the deception of the abortion industry drives my belief even further that abortion on demand or used as a birth control tool needs to end. Hopefully enough people will see your writings and become informed about the realities of the abortion industry.
Jeff, great testimony.
You do have a say on the abortion issue, Jeff. Don’t let the other side con you into inaction because you’re a man. Just because I am not black doesn’t mean I don’t fight racism, etc.
I appreciate your saying my writings have had an impact on your belief. That is encouraging. Thanks.
Do you think that most pro-choicers *want* more abortions versus less? I certainly do not. Personally, I don’t “want” women to have abortions, per se. I think it’s better to prevent pregnancies if they’re going to be unwanted. There is some risk to abortion, there’s monetary costs, etc. Better to avoid them, I say.
Bethany: Yes, Doug…I’m not trying to be rude or insulting, but I think that you personally are okay with whatever number of babies are aborted, because, as you said, it helps the population, which you believe is out of control. For women to continue to have abortions, to you, it is a positive thing, not a negative. You want them to continue, so that you don’t have to worry about overpopulation. Right? Or am I wrong about that? Would you be happy if abortion was nearly non-existant?
I am okay with the number of abortions, yes, but not because I think the population is out of control. The only thing with the population that I’d say is that it does not argue for increasing the rate of growth beyond what it already is. I’m okay with the abortions because I don’t think that continuing a pregnancy against the wishes of the woman is a good thing.
Abortions are not a positive thing to me, by themselves. I do not “want them to continue,” versus preventing unwanted pregnancies. If there were no unwanted pregnancies and no or almost no abortions, I’d be fine with that too.
Doug
Sandy: Do any of you pro-choicers feel any emotion towards pictures of brutally aborted babies??? Or, do you just shut it out like these once very alive persons were nothing to begin with??
It’s not that they’re “nothing.” Most of the time gestation had not gone long enough for them to be able to suffer, and that makes a difference to me. You can say “persons” but there was no personality there, no will, no desire, no consciousness.
When we get to late enough in gestation for the fetus to be getting some awareness, pain perception, etc., going toward being how full-tem born babies are, I’m okay with the restrictions most states have on abortion.
Doug
Sandy: PCs always say that your side is not heartless. How can you have a heart and not be emotionally devastated by viewing these photos??
You are personifying the unborn and “feeling sorry” for them, even though to a point in gestation there is nothing there to have empathy with. I’m not saying your feelings are “wrong.” They simply are, and since you feel that way it’s likely that having an abortion would not be a good thing for you.
The pregnant woman most certainly has emotions, desire, is experiential, etc., and pro-choicers have empathy for her. I don’t say that either side in this argument is “heartless.” The two sides just value different things the most.
Doug
Doug: “The unborn are not persons. Personhood is not attributed until birth. It is a societal construct, an idea. The unborn in this argument are human, yes, and alive, and organisms. Personhood is a separate matter.”
Jasper: Oh, I see.. the dictionary says a human=person
What pro-lifers do not like is that society isn’t attributing personhood to the unborn. It can quickly get into a semantic argument, but legal personhood, i.e. deeming the right to life to be there, is much of what the abortion debate is about. No question that the unborn here are human, alive, and human organisms. Yet “a human” can have shades of meaning that involve more than what the unborn are. Arguing terminology is usually a waste of time here, IMO. What is at issue is the attributed status of the unborn versus the born, and that’s what real personhood is.
……….
Doug:”If the unborn can suffer, that means something to me. That is the case late in gestation, beyond when all but a miniscule portion of abortions take place. I’m fine with restrictions on “elective” abortions at viability and afterwards, when many of the unborn have the capability to suffer.”
Jasper: I’ve heard it all now…”the capacity to suffer”, “it needs to be viabile”, “it needs to be consciense”.
This argument is all about valuation. Those things make a difference. We do not need every woman who is pregnant to continue the pregnancy, per se. The unborn don’t care. This is your desire against the desire of the pregnant woman. I don’t rate your “suffering” over that of the woman who is actually pregnant. I go with her desire, not yours.
……….
Doug, but it will have all of these things after a few more weeks of living in the womb, why won’t you give them a chance at life? cruel.
If there is no suffering on the part of the unborn, why do you think “cruel”? I see it as much more cruel to deny the woman what she wants.
……….
Doug “miniscule” is about 9-10% of abortions a year (from start of 2nd tri and beyond). So that works out to 100,000 killings per year (not miniscule).
No. There isn’t any consciousness at the start of the 2nd trimester. At 24 weeks a decent argument can be made for some fetuses having some awareness. Abortions after 24 weeks are .08% of the total.
Doug
Doug, you make me so sad when you have such apathy for something so atrocious. You seem to really believe that we are on the same level as animals, who can be exterminated at will. I don’t understand how you can use such nice words to convey such cruel ideals.
I may not be back till later this afternoon because I have to go to the doctor, but I have to ask you… Doug, do you think that Hitler was a bad person? I’m genuinely curious, because you seem to think that how a society values a person determines their true worth. Since society at the time didn’t deem certain individuals as having value at that time, was Hitler really evil, in your opinion, by having exterminated so many of those deemed unfit? Or do you believe that it was justifiable due to the fact that society as a whole valued them so little?
Bethany, why do you think abortion is “so atrocious”? This has nothing to do with us being “animals.” If the unborn do not care and do not suffer, then how can it be “cruel”? Cruelty has to have some suffering involved with it.
I may not be back till later this afternoon because I have to go to the doctor, but I have to ask you… Doug, do you think that Hitler was a bad person? I’m genuinely curious, because you seem to think that how a society values a person determines their true worth. Since society at the time didn’t deem certain individuals as having value at that time, was Hitler really evil, in your opinion, by having exterminated so many of those deemed unfit? Or do you believe that it was justifiable due to the fact that society as a whole valued them so little?
Yes, I think Hitler was a bad person. There is no “true worth” outside of sentient valuation, i.e. “somebody” has to be valuing, be it a single consciousness or a society, etc. A thing can have physical existence, but where does any concept of good/bad/right/wrong come from, without a mind thinking about it?
It was really a relative few but powerful people in Germany who deemed Jews and others as unfit. Those killed were thinking, feeling people, and I do think Hitler was evil. I do not think he had any just claim to have his desire forced above the will of those people. There is always strife in the world. Right now, there are certain religious extremists who want people outside their religion killed. There are African tribes who wish another tribe exterminated. Their valuation does not mirror how most people in the world feel, and the same for the Nazis – most people say there were evil, and I do too.
Doug
Doug,
Let’s say I was in an accident, I was unconciense, I could not survive on my own and I couldn’t feel anything, I wasn’t suffering. But the doctor said I would make a full recovery and re-gain all of these senses.
Does anybody have the right to kill me or let me die because I don’t have any of those senses? why not? I don’t have the capacity to feel anything?
“The unborn are not persons. Personhood is not attributed until birth. It is a societal construct, an idea. The unborn in this argument are human, yes, and alive, and organisms. Personhood is a separate matter.”
Yes – personhood is a “societal construct – an idea” – that is why it is so dangerous to base our principles of “human rights” on it. It changes from time to time and place to place, depending on political mores and who has the power. For example, if I don’t want you to have rights, and I have the power to do so, I can simply *define away* your personhood via law, language, and culture, and VOILA – you’ve lost your rights! See what I mean – this elusive, socially, culturally, and politically constructed concept of *personhood* is a VERY flimsy foundation on which to build REAL human rights. To have any real human rights, either ALL humans must be considered persons, or we all run the risk of losing our “personhood” and our rights.
Don – what you said!
And, in my opinion, Obama is an empty suit. I can assure you I won’t be voting for either of them, but at least Hillary has some experience and knowledge.
Sorry about the triple-post – the site was very slow… Jill – can you remove the second two?
thanks!
The unborn are not persons? According to whom? Are Jews still sub human?
Jasper, you’re born, with rights already attributed. You’re not inside the body of a person. Whether you were unconscious from the accident or just asleep, there isn’t really any argument here. No, per the above nobody has the right to kill you.
If you were not going to recover, it’d be different. Then the question of letting you die would have much more weight, tending toward a Terri Schiavo deal.
And if you were inside the body of a person there’d be much more of an argument.
Doug
Sue, attributing personhood at birth is age-old, and enormously prevalent the world over, past and present. It really does not “change from time to time” nor from “place to place.” You are imagining a “slippery slope” which is really not there.
As far as risk of losing rights, I think that population pressure is something to think about, as it was in China. It resulted in lesser valuation of life. There were consequences to it that I feel pro-lifers would not like at all.
Doug
Doug,
Ok, so even though I don’t have these senses, I still have a right to life but the unborn baby doesnt because he’s inside another person.
So, why does it matter at all if the baby has these senses or not, it doesnt have any rights to protect his life?
Heather, the Jews never were sub-human. That’s a matter of physical reality, though obviously some people have thought and continue to think ill of them.
Real, legal personhood is not attributed to the unborn, no. Thus it can be legal to kill them, at least to a point in gestation. I think an argument can be made for some limited form of rights and personhood being granted late in gestation, per what the Roe decision said – that past viability the states could find it in their interest to protect the unborn life.
Doug
“Real, legal personhood is not attributed to the unborn, no. Thus it can be legal to kill them, at least to a point in gestation.”
what kind of monster thinks this way.
Jasper, you have had rights granted to you (at birth). After that it doesn’t matter if you are asleep or unconscious from an accident, etc. Short of a permanent vegetative state, or other quite rare thing, society has deemed certain things about you.
The unborn don’t have rights because rights are not attributed to them, not deemed to be present by society. That they are inside the body of a person, and not sentient, etc., contributes to that, but those things are not the whole story nor does it have to be that way.
As far as “rights to protect his life,” there is no “him” there with any will, volition or desire to do anything. At that point, whether “he” lives or dies there’s nobody there with any consciousness, ability to suffer, etc.; there’s no desire at all. All the desire and emotions here are on the part of born people arguing the issue, among pro-choicers, pro-lifes and the pregnant woman herself. Due to the differences between born people and the unborn, there really isn’t significant disagreement about right-to-life for the born, but for the unborn it’s a whole different deal.
Doug
Doug, unborn children have a beating heart, they can kick, and suck their thumbs. They are human. Hitler said the Jews were sub-human. He also had a large following of people who agreed with him. Did that make it so? You believe that an unborn child is not human. We don’t buy it.
“Real, legal personhood is not attributed to the unborn, no. Thus it can be legal to kill them, at least to a point in gestation.”
what kind of monster thinks this way.
That’s silly, Jasper. Regardless of how much you don’t like it, that is just the way things are. And I’m not saying it *has* to be this way, but it is this way.
Once legal personhood is deemed present, right to life is said to be there, and short of legal execution, justifiable homicide, wartime, accidents, etc., it’s not legal to kill.
Doug
Jim Jones had people who believed him too. They are dead…………Just some food for thought.
You believe that an unborn child is not human.
Nope, Heather – the unborn in this argument are just as human as you and me. The DNA is there, and it’s not really at issue.
“I think an argument can be made for some limited form of rights and personhood being granted late in gestation”
why Doug, you just the unborn do not have any rights?
….It’s like the pro-choicers just skip to one legality to the next, to me, this is beyond all reasoned and rational thinking. The current law regading the unborn is a blatent lie and is cruel. It’s never Ok to base one’s rights on how “wanted” they are.
The law is set so if a man kills a pregnant women and her and her unborn baby die, he can be charged with a double homicide, but that same woman can walk into an abortion mill and have that same baby killed legally??????????
This is evil, and insane.
Doug, it should be settled then. Baby = human. So abortion = murder.
Doug, The problem I have with a lot of pro choicers is that they are always changing their wording to suit themselves. Pro life is 1 way. We believe that it is a baby, and that abortion is killing that baby.
Human doesn’t mean person.
Then what does it mean?
“I think an argument can be made for some limited form of rights and personhood being granted late in gestation”
why Doug, you just the unborn do not have any rights?
Jasper, obviously not full rights as born people have. As I said, I feel that it can be argued that the restrictions late in gestation on abortion constitute a limited form of personhood/rights. For danger to the woman, severe fetal deficiency, etc., the unborn can be killed even in the third trimester, so it’s not like “the right to life is there,” per se. But there are the restrictions that most states have, so I think it can be said that things are attributed to the unborn that late in gestation where they are not earlier in gestation.
………..
….It’s like the pro-choicers just skip to one legality to the next, to me, this is beyond all reasoned and rational thinking. The current law regading the unborn is a blatent lie and is cruel. It’s never Ok to base one’s rights on how “wanted” they are.
Well, wanting and valuation are what is really operative. If there was sufficient opinion for personhood to be granted to the unborn, it would be. Legality is what the argument is really over, isn’t it? You mention “all reasoned and rational thinking.” Why do we need to forbid women having abortions? What does it really hurt? What case can you make to demonstrate that we really *need* more pregnancies continued. Why should your desire outweigh the desire of the woman who is actually pregnant?
……….
The law is set so if a man kills a pregnant women and her and her unborn baby die, he can be charged with a double homicide, but that same woman can walk into an abortion mill and have that same baby killed legally?
Right there you’re seeing the difference between wanted and unwanted. Even regardless of “homicide” or not, you don’t see people wanting it to be legal for any Joe Blow to harm somebody’s wanted pregnancy. Pro-Choice in no way is for that, any more than Pro-Life is.
Doug
Doug, The problem I have with a lot of pro choicers is that they are always changing their wording to suit themselves. Pro life is 1 way. We believe that it is a baby, and that abortion is killing that baby.
Heather, “baby” or not for the unborn is in the eye of the beholder. It’s up to the person using the term or not using it. It’s subjective. Claiming that “it’s a baby,” or “it’s not a baby” are not meaningful arguments with respect to abortion.
Seriously, where do you see pro-choicers “changing their wording”?
Doug
Where do I see pro choicers changing wording? It’s a baby, it’s not a baby, it’s a blob of tissue, it’s a human, but my body autonomy trumps it right to live. It’s not a baby until 14 weeks. Need I go on?
“Sue, attributing personhood at birth is age-old, and enormously prevalent the world over, past and present. It really does not “change from time to time” nor from “place to place.” You are imagining a “slippery slope” which is really not there.”
Doug –
It sure does! When slavery was legal and prevalent in this country, it was allowed based on the notion that slaves were not “persons” – were subhuman, or, were “3/5 a person”, as our Constitution first described it. Today, of course, and rightly so, we consider the African-American descendants of slaves to be full “persons”. So, yes, definition of who is a “person” according to the culture and the law does change (and actually did change, within the past 150 years in our own country).
And attributing personhood at birth is not a cultural universal. Some traditional cultures attribute personhood before birth, some at birth, others well after birth. In any event, even if it were, something being widespread, popular, common, and/or age-old does not necessarily make it right or correct (see example of slavery again – it was practiced for approximately 3000-5000 years, around the world, until some people had the guts to stand up and say it was wrong and act upon those beliefs. After that, it became almost universally outlawed – though I am aware that it sadly continues, perhaps outside the law and as indentured servitude in some places in the world).
So, I’ll have to disagree with you there!
Sue
Where do I see pro choicers changing wording? It’s a baby, it’s not a baby,
A matter of personal opinion, Heather, same as for you. Different people see it different ways. Pro-lifers too.
……….
it’s a blob of tissue,
We’re all “blobs of tissue.” Earlier in gestation more people are going to see the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, etc., as unformed (obviously).
……….
it’s a human
There is indeed an argument on this one. First, a strict definition of how “a human” is being used and just what it means is needed.
………
but my body autonomy trumps it right to live.
What’s the argument there? The right to life isn’t attributed so of course the woman’s bodily autonomy takes precedence, to a point in gestation, anyway.
………
It’s not a baby until 14 weeks. Need I go on?
Same as above – that’s not the argument. Call it what you want, call it anything. The debate is about desire and valuation.
Doug
The plain fact is that social justice is impossible if our right to life and our personhood are contingent upon somebody else wanting us to exist. “Every child, a wanted child” ultimately implies “every person, a wanted person,” and that implies the end of liberty and a state of injustice.
Where do I see pro choicers changing wording? It’s a baby, it’s not a baby,
A matter of personal opinion, Heather, same as for you. Different people see it different ways. Pro-lifers too.
……….
it’s a blob of tissue,
We’re all “blobs of tissue.” Earlier in gestation more people are going to see the zygote, blastocyst, embryo, etc., as unformed (obviously).
……….
it’s a human
There is indeed an argument on this one. First, a strict definition of how “a human” is being used and just what it means is needed.
………
but my body autonomy trumps it right to live.
What’s the argument there? The right to life isn’t attributed so of course the woman’s bodily autonomy takes precedence, to a point in gestation, anyway.
………
It’s not a baby until 14 weeks. Need I go on?
Same as above – that’s not the argument. Call it what you want, call it anything. The debate is about desire and valuation.
Doug
Oh, and also, there IS a slippery slope. First abortion, then late term abortion, then legal infanticide of sick infants in countries like the Netherlands, then euthanasia, assisted suicide, futile care laws, etc. etc. etc. At what point do we start saying “soylent green IS people!”?
And, just another thought, separating “person” from “human” is a very convenient rhetorical device that allows us to create a hierarchy of those who are entitled to rights and those who are not. But, such separation is completely artificial and based in no fact.
Sue,
Yes there was slavery, but we still attributed rights/personhood at birth. Not to all that were born, obviously, but birth was the line for attribution.
Where do you see personhood being deemed present before birth? What are these traditional cultures you mention? I agree about some past cultures having the line be after birth, but those are few in number and not prevalent at all.
“Right” or “correct” in the moral realm is always going to be in “somebody’s” opinion. It doesn’t exist in any external way to sentient valuation.
Doug
“”Right” or “correct” in the moral realm is always going to be in “somebody’s” opinion. It doesn’t exist in any external way to sentient valuation.”
By accepting this, haven’t you just consented (in a moral sense – not that you personally actually consent to these things) to accepting all manner of depravity? Then slavery can be right. Murder can be right. Rape can be right. Honor killings of daughters in families by their male relatives can be right.
As for the traditional cultures I mentioned, I will see if I can find any examples where a person is consider a person (i.e., is considered a member of a family, is given a name, etc.) before birth. It’s been a long time since I studied such, but I do seem to recall the line of “personhood” cross-culturally speaking is very fluid.
“Not to all that were born…” exactly my point, personhood was not contributed to all born humans. So the definition of personhood changes. No reason why it can’t – or shouldn’t change – to include those who are not yet born.
Sorry, that last post was me, responding to Doug. Forgot to sign it.
welcome Sue! Hi Doug!
“”Right” or “correct” in the moral realm is always going to be in “somebody’s” opinion. It doesn’t exist in any external way to sentient valuation.”
Sue: By accepting this, haven’t you just consented (in a moral sense – not that you personally actually consent to these things) to accepting all manner of depravity? Then slavery can be right. Murder can be right. Rape can be right. Honor killings of daughters in families by their male relatives can be right.
It’s just a given. It’s reality. Accepting it isn’t consenting to anything, it’s just being cognizant of the truth. I do not think slavery is right. Murder and rape are considered wrong, by definition – they’re legal terms. For some people on earth, those “honor killings” are considered right, yes, but not by me.
……….
As for the traditional cultures I mentioned, I will see if I can find any examples where a person is consider a person (i.e., is considered a member of a family, is given a name, etc.) before birth. It’s been a long time since I studied such, but I do seem to recall the line of “personhood” cross-culturally speaking is very fluid.
I think many times even now some of the unborn are considered members of the family and given a name. I mean real personhood with rights attributed – don’t think any society has actually ever done it.
………
“Not to all that were born…” exactly my point, personhood was not contributed to all born humans. So the definition of personhood changes. No reason why it can’t – or shouldn’t change – to include those who are not yet born.
I don’t think the definition of personhood changes, though the application isn’t always uniform. I agree that it’s not impossible that it would ever be deemed to be present for the unborn. The one big deal is that whether or not all the born are granted it, “not before birth” is still the exceedingly prevalent historical norm.
Doug
Oh, and also, there IS a slippery slope. First abortion, then late term abortion, then legal infanticide of sick infants in countries like the Netherlands, then euthanasia, assisted suicide, futile care laws, etc. etc. etc. At what point do we start saying “soylent green IS people!”?
At the point where population pressure is bad enough. Some past societies have “put out” their elderly, sick, young, etc., in times of resource shortage.
Abortion has been done for thousands and thousands of years. Nothing new there. There are some cases as with the Netherlands example where few people are going to say tha prolonging the life is necessarily a good thing. In no way is that “sick,” per se.
If somebody is of sound mind and is suffering to the point that they really want to die, what is so bad about assisted suicide?
……….
And, just another thought, separating “person” from “human” is a very convenient rhetorical device that allows us to create a hierarchy of those who are entitled to rights and those who are not. But, such separation is completely artificial and based in no fact.
It’s not artificial, it’s factual. “Human” is an adjective and a noun, dealing with physical reality. “Person” is a societal construct, an attributed status. It’s an idea.
As far as deeming personhood present at birth, agreed that it doesn’t *have* to be that way. It could be later or earlier. But coming outside the body of a person makes a huge difference to many people and it’s understandable that being born is the current and past dividing line.
Doug
Abortions have been done for thousands and thousands of years……………and that still doesn’t make it okay!
Doug – busy now – I will try to get back to some of your comments later.
Sue
Sue, triple post fixed.
Doug, Congressional findings (which the Supreme Court relies heavily upon, as in PBA Ban II) based on studies confirm preborns feel pain at 20 weeks, questionably earlier.
You stated you were pretty sure babies felt pain at 26 weeks and maybe wondered if they did at 24. My grandson was born at 25. He unequivocably felt pain.
Doug, Congressional findings (which the Supreme Court relies heavily upon, as in PBA Ban II) based on studies confirm preborns feel pain at 20 weeks, questionably earlier.
You stated you were pretty sure babies felt pain at 26 weeks and maybe wondered if they did at 24. My grandson was born at 25. He unequivocably felt pain.
Jill, I don’t doubt what you say about your grandson at 25 weeks. Not all fetuses will be sensate at 26 weeks, but I do know that some are sensate earlier than that.
Here’s hoping your grandson is doing well – 25 weeks is really early.
The thalamus and the cerebral cortex are “hooking up” around weeks 22 – 26, so I see this as the zone where some fetuses become sensate. 25? Okay. And I would go with the idea that some fetuses can consciously feel pain at 24, 23, perhaps even 22 weeks.
But to act like preborns feel pain at 20 weeks (in general) is to be talking about something other than actual mental awareness/conscious pain perception, the abiility to suffer, etc.
I’m going to see if I can find what was actually said to Congress about 20 weeks.
Best,
Doug
Fetal pain/Congress.
A lot of this comes from Dr. Kanwljeet Anand, who testified “the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation.” He says the unborn have the sensory nerves, skin receptors, and brain stem necessary to feel pain. That the pain was evidenced by reflexive motion, increased heart rate, and the secretion of stress hormones.
While under oath, he did acknowledge that many doctors do not share his view, and that it was not really possible to measure conscious pain in a 20 week fetus. Also that other doctors’ studies have shown that more brain and nerve structure completion are necessary for the conscious experience of pain.
Those with a political agenda might just take his claims at face value, and disregard the conflicting information, but he does make some errors or at least illogical leaps. Anand was paid by the gov’t to testify.
Heart rate and hormone release are autonomic functions. They are not at all necessarily indicative of any conscious feeling of pain. And reflexive motion obviously is not.
Are the nerves, receptors, and brain stem necessary to feel pain? Yes. But they are not sufficient for it, and he just leaps by that as if it doesn’t matter. To actually be mentally aware of pain, to be conscious of pain, the cerebral cortex has to be sufficiently developed, connected, and functional enough, and this is not true at 20 weeks, though for a given fetus it often will be true later in the weeks in the 20s.
Doug
Doug, you’re welcome to, but you disagree with Congressional findings.
And I just checked Wikipedia, a source I expect you’ll trust more than GOP controlled Congressional findings, and it actually has a pretty good entry on this topic. It lends credence that there is fetal pain at least by 20 weeks and maybe (likely) before. It appears those disparaging this have an agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain
Question is, wouldn’t we rather err on the side of pain?
Grandson is ok, btw. Thanks for your concern. He’s 7 now. Joy of my life. Has slight cerebral palsy.
Jill, good link there. First, “congressional findings” were based on admittedly one-sided testimony, without regard to alternate observations made by other doctors, as noted under oath even by those whose opinion is for pain earlier in gestation.
There was also quite a hazy or non-existent definition of what “pain” really meant, there. We had references to reflexive movement, and faster heartbeats and the production of hormones. If we are actually talking about conscious pain perception and mental awareness, there is much more to pain that that.
Had there been less political will involved and more focus on what can actually be proven, it would have been a different deal.
Right from that link:
Most scientists believe that a fetus is able to feel pain sometime during the pregnancy, often beginning less than 24 weeks after conception, although the question of exactly when pain might be possible is disputed. Some academics argue that it appears as early as seven weeks after conception. Others claim that pain cannot be felt until the third trimester of pregnancy or until after birth.
There may be an “emerging consensus among developmental neurobiologists that the establishment of thalamocortical connections” (at about 26 weeks) is a critical event with regard to fetal perception of pain. Nevertheless, because pain can involve sensory, emotional and cognitive factors, it is “impossible to know” when painful experiences may become possible, even if it is known when thalamocortical connections are established. According to Arthur Caplan, “there is no consensus among the medical and scientific experts about precisely when a fetus becomes pain-capable. Some put the point at 28 weeks. Others say 26 or 24 and still others younger still.”
So there is a huge range there, from 7 weeks to after birth. Holy crow…. Anti-abortion legislaters could have brought in the “7 weeks” people but would that have made it fact? Same for the “after birth” people – I do think the unborn can feel pain at some point.
The thalamocortical connection is a very prevalent point now, and it makes sense to me – the cortex, where conscious thought resides, has to be operating and developed and connected enough for conscious pain perception. The things in the congressional testimony are necessary for pain to be felt, yes, but they are not sufficient for it by themselves, and at 20 weeks they are by themselves.
As far as erring on the side of pain, I have no problem with it, as long as it doesn’t pose any danger to the woman.
My real argument here is that it is not correct to flatly say that “fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks.”
Doug
Doug, if it’s only considered “cruel” if there is pain involved, then would you not consider it cruel for a woman to take her newborn baby, give the baby drugs through milk which would make the baby fall asleep, and then, after the baby is completely unconscious, injecting the baby with a poison that would kill it? Would this not be cruel to you?
Bethany, good morning.
“Cruel”: willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.
Excellent question. Yes, it’d be cruel to me, but bear with me as I did really have to think about this one. Does it cause pain or distress to the baby? Actually, I don’t think so, certainly not mental distress, there’s no conscious suffering that goes on there. We give drugs to terminally ill patients and pets due to us feeling that it’s cruel not to do so. I realize those are vastly different situations, of course.
We do have a “social contract,” however – the implied agreements we accept in return for living in society. As a society we are really just a group of people that want similar things, all in all. Once right-to-life is attributed, we think it wrong to kill, usually; wartime, legal execution, self-defense, etc., being some exceptions. With the baby, killing it would cause pain and distress to many people – it’d be cruel in their eyes to do so, and in mine as well. I really don’t have any need or desire for that baby to be killed.
I know that you and many others feel the same way about killing the unborn. I see it as different there because it’s not just a case of the baby anymore. It’s also a case of the pregnant woman. She can definitely suffer, have pain and distress. The social contract doesn’t apply to the unborn, or at least doesn’t apply in the same way. I know many people wish that were different, too.
In both cases – your example of the poisoned baby and an aborted embryo or fetus, there may be no pain or distress on their part. There’s no conscious input from either of them – it’s all what we think about it that makes for cruelty or not. With the born baby, there is little disagreement. With the unborn and the pregnant woman, there’s lots of disagreement.
Doug