Three questions to choose from on Planned Parenthood Aurora:
If PP is found guilty of defrauding the City of Aurora, what do you think should be the consequences, if any?
What do you think will be the actual outcome of this real life drama?
Who should play CEO Steve Trombley in the t.v. movie?
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
Kick their butts out of the city! There’s a good start.
I’ll answer my own question.
I think PP will be found guilty, perhaps even of criminal activity.
I think it should have its permits revoked. It should be forced to sell. Why, just because it is standing there, should the City make it any allowances? It’s there until false pretenses. I hope the City will do the right thing. Someone mentioned moving the Aurora police department in, which sounded like a great idea. PP should sell for whatver the market will bear. It may have just built a $7.5 mil white elephant.
Who should play Trombley? Actor Billy Zane, who played Rose’s evil fiance in Titanic.
Who should play Trombley? How about pro abort, Ed Asner. I can’t help but wonder why he’s so PC.
This story made my local news 2 days ago. I almost forgot to share that.
1) PP will be found guilty of protecting law-abiding Americans from religious zealot terrorists. There will be a lovely parade.
2) The outcome? The people of Aurora will receive affordable healthcare, the medical professionals will get paid and add to the tax base, unwanted pregnancy rates and STD rates will drop, and pro-lifers will have a nice place to wander around with their fancy cardboard signs.
Everybody is happy.
3) Viggo IS Trombley: http://www.movie-gazette.com/directory/img/viggo+mortensen.jpg
Ron Livingston (OfficeSpace). He looks just like him.
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/5760/Events/5760/RonLivings_Sapp_12408939_400.jpg.html?path=pgallery&path_key=Livingston,%20Ron
If PP is found guilty of criminal activity, than whoever falsified the documents should incur whatever penalty the law allows.
If the office was built and approved based on fraud, PP should never be given an occupancy permit for it – which would mean they would have to sell at fair market price.
Also, all legal fees will have to be paid by PP.
I also think that if PP was found to have criminally defrauded the city of Aurora, any other relationships the city has with them should be severed. I also think an audit of state business given to PP (school education, etc.) is in order.
I don’t know what kind of city, county, state, or federal funds PP Chicago gets, but I think that money definitely should be under the microscope now.
What I *think* will happen? They’ll pay some sort of fine, maybe. Perhaps agree to open the clinic but NOT do abortions, just provide their re-education services and other propaganda.
Now, I think they should be fined severely for their libelous statements that against Scheidler and the protestors, and if found guilty, have to pay the defendants for damage to their reputation, in addition to having to take out full page ads in every newspaper in a 60 mile radius, recanting their ad and explaining that they LOST the case, that prolifers are not violent, etc.
Milehi, he is so cute! I loved him in Office Space!!
What will happen: PP found guilty
Outcome: Steve will get fired so they can save some face and they’ll face a hefty fine.(7.5 mil sound good to me.)
Who should play Trombley? The guy who played Jack from “Will and Grace”.
I had to pull up his picture. I’d say if we are going on looks, Hugh Grant.
If PP is found guilty of defrauding the city, they should not be allowed to open their doors in Aurora. In reality, I think that the city will drag their feet a bit more and then let PP open as-is.
Nathan Lane could play Steve Trombley in the movie. Jim Caviezel could play Eric Scheidler.
PP should be forced to make a *sincere* apology ON NATIONAL TELEVISION.
The actual outcome will probably be PP setting up shop within the next year or so in a similiar location but perhaps a different state regardless of how the proceedings in Aurora go.
John Cusack could play that guy. Julia Roberts should play Jill Stanek. Or maybe Meg Ryan.
“Who should play Trombley? Actor Billy Zane, who played Rose’s evil fiance in Titanic.”
He wasn’t evil, just misguided.
Jill Stanek should play Jill Stanek. Jill Stanek should play all the characters. That is the only way I would see whatever this movie is we’re talking about.
I don’t think there will be evidence of fraud, so PP won’t be charged with anything.
They may have not been completely forthcoming or misled officials, but that doesnt make fraud, fraud takes needs evidence of outright falsehoods, which I don’t think they’ll find.
And the facility will open, just much later as planned due to an investigation that turns up little to nothing.
Course, this is all ideally speaking, so who knows
OT but I thought you guys would like to see it:
1_____ Can you say there’s no jealousy in your relationship?
Yes
2_____ Is your relationship free of drug and alcohol abuse?
Yes
3_____ Can you say you’re never asked to compromise your moral values?
Yes
4_____ Do you appreciate and enjoy each other’s family and friends?
We love each others families. All his friends are cool.
5_____ Have you discussed your long-term goals for faith, family and career in detail?
I guess
6_____ Do you have complete confidence in each other?
Yes
7_____ Has experience shown him/her to always be truthful and open with
Yes, even though sometimes the truth sucks
8_____ Does he/she always follow through on promises and commitments?
Yes
9_____ Do you talk openly and easily with each other about everything? (Including this test?)
I just took it but yeah I’ll tell him
10_____ Do you both listen carefully to one another and try to understand each other’s point of view?
Yes, well, um, once he said I wouldn’t understand because it was “an asian thing”. So maybe?
11_____ Do you practice the same faith by praying and going to church together regularly?
We are both kinda Catholics (baptized and stuff)
12_____ Do you both agree that marriage is forever?
Yes, actually we talk about this often and completely agree.
13_____ Do you refrain from using manipulation or blackmail to get your own way?
Yes
14_____ Do you like spending time together doing different activities? (Not just watching TV, mall shopping or talking on the phone together. I recommend volunteering for church, charity and civic projects — or joining school clubs, bands, debate teams or sports programs.)
We rock climb, hike, bike, take walks, discuss current and past events, I once went to diner with him his dad and brother.
15_____ When you have a disagreement or the going gets tough, do both of you respond respectfully with patience and understanding?
We are always calm and respectful around each other, even when I’m freaking the f*** out.
16_____ Have your family and friends told you they approve of your relationship — that they feel it’s making you a better person?
My grandmother doesn’t like asians, but besides that we’re good!
17_____ Do you limit your physical relationship to holding hands and simple kisses?
Coming out of something serious, I didn’t rush anything.
18_____ Have you seen each other during good times and bad? (Virtues shine during adversity. Never rush to marriage. — you’ll miss critical signs of good or bad character traits.)
Yes and we’re both empathetic.
19_____ Do you both stay away from pornographic magazines, videos, Internet, etc.?
I don’t. The occasional erotic story won’t make me go blind.
20_____ If your future spouse had a serious accident that maimed or disfigured him/her for life, would your love remain strong? Could your love survive without physical expression?
Of course.
21_____ Do each of you dress, speak and act modestly?
I don’t dress very modest. But I feel i speak and act modestly.
22_____ Can you admit your own shortcomings and discuss them openly?
Yes, problems aren’t so bad when you share them
23_____ Are you both generous in making sacrifices for others?
Yes
24_____ Does your sweetheart already have the qualities needed to be a super spouse and a wonderful parent for your children?
Yes, and I think he will make super cute kids
25_____ Are you willing to give up power and let your loved one control some of the important decisions and circumstances? (True love means frequently surrendering your will to meet your loved one’s needs and wishes without violating your moral values.)
Yes, he wears the pants but respects my views and opinions.
Here’s the Scoring . . .
Scoring: Give yourself one point for each “yes” answer and zero points for each “no” answer.
(Her score?____ His Score?____)
22 to 25 pts. “Solid as a Rock!”. . . It’s True Love! Congratulations on a very strong relationship.
19 to 21 pts. “Looking Good!”. . . You’re relationship has good potential. With a little work, you can become “Solid as a Rock.”
15 to 18 pts. “Warning Signals!”. . . It might be “Infatuation.” Work on the “No’s.” Take the test again in 6 months and again in 12 months. Hopefully your scores will improve and your relationship will grow. If your relationship doesn’t greatly improve within a year, you should consider ending it.
Below 15 pts. “Red Alert!”. . . Sorry, this may be painful to hear, but it’s probably time to say “goodbye.” It’s either blind infatuation or there are other serious problems. (If you’re married and you scored below 15 points, don’t give up — get some good marriage counseling ASAP.)
I got 22. My biggest problem is I dress immodestly and read illicit literature. I’ll probably kick the mini skirts come winter but I refuse to lose the stories.
http://prolife.com/DrLauraSchlessinger.htm
Good quiz. I’m doing a lot better then my last relationship considering I hated his family, cheated on him constantly, hated the fact he didn’t have a mind of his own and we shared none of the same interest and hobbies.
Believe it or not I would much rather have a boyfriend who was pro-life with a mind of his own then pro-chocie who didn’t think for himself.
If PP was guilty of fraud, they should be reprimanded.
If they violated no law, they should be not be punished. Personally, I feel that fraud was not committed. PP may have kept things quiet but I believe they adhered to the letter of the law.
Realistically, I think the city of Aura is simply bowing to anti-abortion pressure at this point. They’ll investigate simply so they don’t look bad and then they’ll allow PP to open.
1.) PP should be found guilty of fraud and prohibited from doing business in Aurora.
2.) The City of Aurora may not have enough of guts to do the right thing and allow them to open due to some technicality. There will be lawsuits from both sides keeping the whole situation in limbo for a while.
3.) Paul Reubens (Pee Wee Herman) can play Trombley. They seem to have a lot in common.
Milehimama has it right on most everything as to what should happen, but I think since they had 13 babies slated to be killed, they should face the same music as anyone else would for 13 counts of conspiracy to commit murder.
I hope and pray that they aren’t allowed to open in Aurora or any other city; if they are, unwanted pregnancy rates and STD rates will soar. Most pregnancies are unwanted by PP; they aren’t about reducing out-of-wedlock/teen pregnancies–too much grist for their death mills, and jingle in their tills there–but they do want to reduce teen births via abortion. And PP is notorious for encouraging the sort of sexual behavior that increases std rates, while distributing the sort of artificial birth control that fails frequently in preventing pregnancy, and is worse than useless in the prevention of stds. But they are passionate about attacking sexual purity, the one thing that actually works in preventing both those things.
I don’t care who plays Trombley; I just wish he’d quit play-acting himself, and honestly face and repent the destruction he and his organization have inflicted on society under the guise of “affordable reproductive healthcare.”
illicit literature
Jess – that made me smile. Just what is that?
Charlton Heston to play the part.
1. If they are found guilty of fraud, they should be prevented from opening and pay a hefty fine. I think the Feds should investigate for any patterns of fraud and deception in the permitting process in other states. 2. I agree with Rosie- PP will offer up Trombley to hide the fact that there is pattern of deception being orchestrated from the central office. He’ll be their scapegoat. After that, it wil unfortunately open. 3. I think Pauly Shore should play Trombley- they are both Weasels.
Simon Cowell could play him!
My prediction: PP will not be found guilty of fraud or any other illegal activity.
The clinic will open in at most a few months.
Simon Cowell bugs the crap out of me.
Jess said: “Believe it or not I would much rather have a boyfriend who was pro-life with a mind of his own then pro-chocie who didn’t think for himself.”
Jess, I could not agree with you more. I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing–seems like such a no-brainer.
Someone told me that anyone who has read Marquis de Sade shouldn’t be trusted.
I gave an indignant “Hey! I have read him, but he is one crazy mother….”
And he said, “I say that only because if you have read him you are completely disillusioned. There is no way you could read him and still have a pure mind.”
I had to agree. If you want to see pure crazy spelled out in what he considers “logical argument” read Philosophy in the Bedroom. If you want to read his argument against the existence of God, read Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man. If you want to be appalled beyond what you thought imaginable read Justine.
Interestingly enought in “Philosophy” he does lay out an argument for abortion. But I won’t quote it unless someone asks. It’s not profane or anything at all, but the words “De Sade” might offend people or something..
PP is guilty of fraud.
They should be banned from operating in the city of Aurora.
What I predict will happen:
City of Aurora will slap them with some kind of fine and legal fees and allow them to open.
I pray and hope this does not happen, because:
1) Thousands of innocent little babies will be viciously murdered in their mothers’ wombs.
2) Women and young girls will be scarred for life, many will suffer irreparable physical harm.
3) Some will die.
4) Sexual promiscuity will increase among teens and young adults.
5) Pregnancies will increase among young girls.
6) Abortions will increase among young girls and young women.
7) PP targets young women and anticipates they will have between 3 and 5 abortions at the hands of PP abortionists throughout their fertile years.
8) Latina women and girls will be duped into receiving reduced-rate *health care* only to be talked into using chemical aboritifacients.
9) When these fail, they will be coerced into killing their unborn children.
10) The same goes for other minority groups.
11) Finally, child predators who have sexual relations with underage girls will go unreported because PP NEVER EVER REPORTS SUSPECTED CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.
That is the City of Aurora’s *status quo*.
I am praying and hoping and fasting that this will never, ever happen in Aurora.
Milehi, 1:21p: Great analysis. Yes, I think if found guilty, PP should be investigated on a broader level re: taxpayer funding. If this fraud involved any other type of business, that would happen. But because this is about abortion, involves PP, and is in IL, that won’t happen unless citizens in individual counties rise up and demand investigations by their state attorneys. PP has a presence in many. It won’t happen if left to the General Assembly or the AG, Lisa Madigan.
Some suggestions on who to play Steve were very good, spot on. Some were hilarious. Charlton Heston? Simon Cowell? Pee Wee Herman? rofl
Julia to play Jill Brockovich? Now that one was astute.
PIP, do you want to email me what de Sade said about abortion?
IF the building is to be vacated, I stand by my Dr. Hilgers proposal.
Jill should play Jill and Steve should play Steve. That way, the two of them won’t need a script when the camera starts rolling!
Ohhhh I love Julie’s choices…Nathan Lane and James Caviezel.
Carder, the problem is Steve ducks or turns whenever he sees me. Won’t make for good footage.
BTW, Life lynx, your comments are great.
Sure Jill, it’s really not bad at all, but de Sade has the habit of offending people. What is your email?
Who is Sade? Is that the singer?
PIP, considering how much rape he committed I hope no one mistakes him for pro-CHOICE, lol.
Well considering his life and especially early childhood I can’t really see how he could not have been a crazy sexual predator. One good thing about the French Revolution, getting him off the streets.
No heather he was an 18th century French aristocrat for whom Sadism is named.
Possibly the first dude to use date rape.
Oh, thanks Jess! I saw the first name, and I re read the top post. Got it now. Thanx..
Jess-
lol! He’s more like pro-choice on everything. Pro-choice concerning murder, rape, torture, sex, sodomy, stealing….
“illicit literature”
LOL. It’s ok to call it a trashy romance novel. =) I have a shelf of them. I love used book stores.
2_____ Is your relationship free of drug and alcohol abuse?
Maybe I should go get some alcohol and abuse it…
If they split hairs like they did with Scooter Libby, odds are whoever filled out the paperwork is guilty of either fraud or perjury. They certainly knew who the tenant was at the time. This probably won’t be hard to prove, if it is pursued.
Whether or not it will be pursued is a good question. Also, unclear what the penalty might be.
My bet is that after a long court fight, they will eventually get an occupancy permit. Don’t know what the precedent is in Aurora, Dupage/Kane counties, etc. for fraud on an occupancy permit…Could be they will simply be allowed to resubmit, have the council discuss, and then vote. It isn’t clear to me also if there might be a better “medical” use for this land…At least in Naperville, they do allow some discussion on whether there are already too many other similar businesses in the same area. I believe they are literally just around the corner from Rush Copley, where you can presumably get the same services. In addition, having close proximity to the District 204 High Schools may work against them; being walking distance from 2 of them may suggest the city to tell them to locate somewhere away from the high schools. PP would probably complain about that, but I believe based upon location there might be a reasonable argument that yes, they can be in Aurora, but not right behind Fox Valley Mall, in a residential neighborhood, and within walking distance to two high schools.
If Planned Parenthood were to be allowed in Aurora, the logical place (to me) would be downtown by the Casino/Boat, where there already is plenty of “adult” business.
Right Enigma, they “adhered to the letter of the law.” And next time I fill out the paperwork for my mortgage how about I use your name? Seems fair, I used a name, just not mine – same difference isn’t it?
Ah, Kristen, touche.
My husband is a contractor so I asked him what would happen if he falsified any information on an application for a building permit. He has to get permits for everything from putting up backyard sheds to doing home renovations. He told me he would have to tear the building down, and in the case of home renovations, immediately stop them, about which I’m sure homeowners would be less than thrilled with.
So maybe Steve Trombley should be required to tear his building down or stop any activity such as painting, wallpapering, or any type of insided finish work or landscaping.
I think, if convicted, they should be treated like any other business that commits fraud. But its not like its going to be a crushing blow to the entire organization like you may dream it would be. It’ll take more than a technicality to “defeat” an organization like PP.
Oh, and I don’t think its a flashy enough story to be made into a movie. Possibly an episode of 48 Hours or 60 Minutes. I mean, none of you have tried to bomb it, so the violence would be zero, as would the sexual content. At least in The Good Shepherd there was a little bit of sex and some violence to save it from being too painstakingly boring.
Jkeller,
None of us have tried to “bomb it” because we do not practice or believe in such violence nor do we know anything about assembling bombs or the use of explosives. I’ve never fired a gun.
Until you know for absolute certain who has committed a particular act of violence, you shouldn’t make assumptions. Anyone can commit a particular act of violence for whatever sick reason they see fit.
How about as a penalty, PP should be forced to donate the building to a prolife pregnancy center?
Kind of unrealistic, but what the heck.
Mary: I’ve never fired a gun.
Mary, you oughtta give it a try. It’s a blast.
Doug
“Mary, you oughtta give it a try. It’s a blast.”
It really is.
Everybody is being way too nice on the “Who should play Steve Trombley question
My vote is Steve Buscemi: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000114/
If it goes through, they’ll probably get fined and have to refile for occupancy of the building, which will remain unoccupied until the new set of papers goes through. Either way, it’ll open eventually.
Doug,
You got a million of ’em. *smile*
I doubt anything will happen to PP. This investigation is just for show for all the pro-lifers who threw a fit about the clinic opening.
The “Gemini Office Development” can actually be considered an offshoot of PP. It’s like how people can start committees within their own cities with only two members, making it seem official, when it’s not really that big of a deal anyway. This is the same way companies make it seem like they don’t have a monopoly. They re-name different sections. This is like saying PP’s contractors are all the “Gemini Office Development.”
Besides, lots of buildings are constructed without knowing who the tenants are. Look at condos and apartments. You could be housing serial killers, but you don’t need to tell the city who will be occupying the space before you build it. Same goes with the clinic. The city knew it was going to be a clinic, they saw the blueprints and KNEW there would be bulletproof glass and security cameras, so I highly doubt they didn’t have the slightest clue it was going to be a PP.
If anything, the city should be in trouble for negligence. If they really needed to know the tenant, they should have asked.
And honestly, would anyone really care about this if the tenant eventually ended up being a dentist or a lawyer or any other “acceptable” practice?
Businesses file paperwork like this all the time. Tenants change all the time. Planned Parenthood saw the loophole and ran with it. And with all the uproar that’s been going on, their actions really don’t surprise me at all. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if a lot of people in Aurora really didn’t mind the fact that it was going to be there, and just the few people who don’t want it happen to be the loudest.
The “Gemini Office Development” can actually be considered an offshoot of PP
Edyt, that’s the WHOLE POINT! They knew it was going to be a Planned Parenthood clinic. “Tenants Unknown” was NEVER true in this case.
If they didn’t *know* that the parent company (PP) was going to be the tenant, than why would they order bullet proof glass? Why even build the place to begin with?
Probably, there are a lot of people who don’t mind (or don’t think they should mind) that an abortion mill is being built there. Probably, there are a whole lot of people who DO mind (not the least of which would be the people in the immediate vicinity whose property values, at least, will be affected).
The point is, the ones who are now “the loudest” were denied the opportunity to be heard on the matter before the site was built, because PP lied and took away their choice and their voice. That’s why they are so loud now.
And, I believe that if you knowingly harbor a serial killer, and don’t alert the authorities, you go to jail as well.
The city DID ask (that would be on the form that asked Gemini to state who the tenant was).
Mary,
I wasn’t accusing any of you of wanting to bomb it. I was just saying that nobody had tried to bomb it so any movie made about it would not have the violence factor to keep an audience interested.
1. I don’t know the law. Logic states that they should not be allowed to occupy that building, at the least.
2. Planned Parenthood has a ton of (our tax) money and political influence. They’ll likely win and open their abortuarium.
3. George Newbern, if he’ll gain 30 pounds.
Oh come on, you Pro-Lifers, why not just say you want Charlie Manson to play him in the movie hee hee hee.
Doug,
Because we’re saving Charlie Manson to play Morgentaler.
JKeller,
Thank you, but in your 9:20pm post concerning the PP clinic you said and I quote “I mean none of you have tried to bomb it, so the violence would be zero…”. It did sound like you were directing your comment to the pro-life posters on this blog and pro-lifers in general.
I can understand that you may not have intended your message to come across as it was worded in the post, something that certainly happens to all of us, and I appreciate the clarification.
Look. Buildings can be built without the city knowing who the tenant is. It happens ALL THE TIME.
I’m not SAYING PP was right in what they did. I’m saying they FOUND the loophole and ran with it.
Don’t make it sound like I’m advocating for PP. I’m stating the law and the way that cities do not hold contractors accountable until someone in the city gets mad. Even then, often the government ignores its own constituents.
BESIDES, the public is NOT asked every time the city approves a building. If you ask ANY city official, they have trouble getting anyone to care about what they’re doing anyway. Like I said before, the only reason the city is actually looking into it is because a lot of people threw a fit.
OTHERWISE they never would have done it.
And Jacqueline – the law is not and should not ever be confused with something like logic.
If you actually researched laws on a daily basis (as I do) you would see that many, if not most, of them are ridiculous, benefit few, and provide little protection from the public, press or government.
Edyt,
And Jacqueline – the law is not and should not ever be confused with something like logic.
We agree. In practice, yes. In principle- No. I strive to enact laws that promote social justice and maintain order. Therefore I would support evicting a contemptous tenant that lied on its permit applications- it is both just and helps maintain order. Besides, if PP weren’t doing something that violates the inate sense of justice within us, they wouldn’t feel the need to lie in order to get what they want.
How’s this for a sense of justice?
Pro-lifers maintain that a fetus/child/baby/don’t-make-me-get-into-terminology-it’s-not-my-strong-suite has the right to live within the woman’s body, regardless of the damage or harm it may incur upon the woman.
Does that not also strip the woman of her rights to her own body?
While yes, I agree that killing is not right, and so on and so on… if you REALLY want to get into justice, where is the justice for women?
Both a woman and her child cannot maintain civil rights at the same time in the same body. Two people cannot both have rights within one person.
Does that make sense? Legally? Forget ethics for a second, think about the implications it would have on the law if both woman and child had to fight for their rights to the body they both occupy at the same time.
Let’s not be ridiculous. Nobody wants abortions to happen. But in the matter of the law, the rights of the individual go to the person who can voice her opinion, who has held occupancy in the body for the longer amount of time, and who has physical power in the world around her.
And that’s why abortion is legal. Not because people think it’s ethically okay.
Edyt, why can’t women exercise some self control over their bodies before sex?
Edyt
The city doesn’t hold contractors accountable until someone gets mad? I beg to differ. When we put an addition on our home we had city inspectors visiting us and we live on 2 acres in a rural area. We were also denied a permit to build an extra shed on our property. Believe me, it didn’t go up anyway because we assumed the city wouldn’t care.
Edyt, we may not care what city officials are doing but the feeling is not mutual. The city cares very much about what you do so if you want anything done to your own home or property, my husband or any other reputable contractor won’t touch it without a permit from the city. If a permit is denied, you’re, well, outta luck.
Falsifying any information for any reason will also result in very serious and expensive consequences.
Man, Edyt, you must have missed last night’s “Mystery ER” with the multiple personality woman. THREE people were in one body!
And, I believe you mean HUMAN rights, not CIVIL rights; human rights are endowed by your Creator , civil rights come from the State.
The baby itself does not attack or harm the woman. The effects of the woman’s own hormones, immune system, or bodily structures may be harmful, however. The baby is also an innocent bystander.
“who has held occupancy of her body”… well, if it’s NOT a unique human being, a child, then it is simply an outgrowth of the woman’s own body (egg). Therefore, “occupancy rights” don’t apply.
If there were such a thing as occupancy rights in a human body.
That said, I believe that a child does have certain rights to his mother’s body. They are not legal rights (well, some, like a neglect law, are); just because something is legal does not make it true, good, or moral; just because something is not legal does not make it illegal, bad, or harmful.
Edyt,
the rights of the individual go to the person who can voice her opinion
This is where we emphatically disagree. I don’t think that rights should be bestowed upon people that can “voice their opinions.” I believe inalienable human rights belong to all human beings, regardless of ability to communicate, age, gender, race, ability, etc. Think about the implications of what you are saying. When we condemn the defenseless and imbue rights to only those that can advocate for themselves, we are social darwinists instead of loving, compassionate human beings.
Edyt, you may one day suffer a brain injury that renders you unable to communicate for a time. I would still fight relentlessly for your right to recieve food and water, although you (much like an unborn baby) are dependent for care and unable to express your desires. I would fight for you because you are a human being- and your value doesn’t change regardless of how weak or dependent you might become. Unborn babies- small, weak, and dependent, have the same right to live as stronger, bigger independent folk. As a woman that knows that women are typically smaller in size and physically weaker than men, I’m glad rights are not bestowed based on size and might, because I wouldn’t have any.
That brings to mind 2 quotes:
“feminism is the radical notion that women are people”
and
“if dogs ruled the world, I hope it wouldn’t be by size. Cause there’s probably some chihuahuas out there with pretty good ideas.”
:)
My point is, Edyt: There will always be someone bigger, stronger, richer, more powerful, smarter, etc. than you. Should they have more rights than you because they have the ability to be heard? When we don’t have equality across humanity, and take away the rights of the unborn to live, what we open up is the ability for bigger, stronger, people to take away our rights.
“Does that not also strip the woman of her rights to her own body?”
No.
“While yes, I agree that killing is not right, and so on and so on… if you REALLY want to get into justice, where is the justice for women?”
Where’s the injustice? carring her own child who needs her to live is injustice?
“Both a woman and her child cannot maintain civil rights at the same time in the same body. Two people cannot both have rights within one person.”
Yes they can. murdering one of those people is uncivil.
Both a woman and her child cannot maintain civil rights at the same time in the same body. Two people cannot both have rights within one person.
This reminds me of my undergrad days as a social work student. We had exercises in ethical dilemmas. To resolve them, we used the Ethical Principles Screen, that ranks the principles in order of value/importance. The most important principle won.
For example, in the ethical principles of respecting client self-determination and protecting client health and well-being, health and well-being was weighed as paramount. So if a client wanted to exercise self-determination and kill themselves, our principle of protecting their health and well-being superseded their self-determination.
Such is the case when rights collide.
In the case of two individuals, mother and child, that you claim can’t have rights to the same body, we have to weigh the value of the rights at stake:
Rights of the Woman-
Bodily Autonomy
Rights of the Child-
Life
This is where we weigh the rights and determine which one has greater value: The right of the women not to share her body for 9 months or the right of the child to live his/her life.
Life is the foremost right. It is the right without which there can be no other rights. In the ethical principles screen, it would trump the woman’s right to bodily autonomy. This is how we handle such dilemmas.
Here’s an analogy about equality and rights:
Let’s suppose sex didn’t sometimes result in a baby, but instead, it could potentially fuse the partners together for 9 months.
These are two adults. Both have the ability to express their opinions. Both have equal value. Should the bigger or stronger one have the right to kill the smaller/weaker one simply because they can (and sharing their body with the smaller/weaker is interfering with their life)? Can the stronger one simply say, “I just wanted to have sex, I didn’t want to share my body.” and kill the other to avoid the temporary inconvienence?
It’s not a great analogy, because we’re not talking about killing adults but our very own babies. Sharing our bodies with our own children is not the same as sharing it with a stranger. We don’t struggle to carry our babies, they simply go with us wherever we go. They don’t talk. They don’t require diaper bags. Nonetheless, would one think twice before killing an inconvienent adult but not a hidden child? Sadly, I think the adult would have more sympathies (although I would hope that a defenseless baby would ellicit some pity), because we’re depersonified the baby. This is how people can say, “While yes, I agree that killing is not right, and so on and so on… if you REALLY want to get into justice, where is the justice for women?” loosely translated into, “Killing babies is wrong, but adults should have more rights.” Killing people at all stages is abominable. How have we been so calloused?
It reminds me of an abortion debate my senior year, when I challenged the opponents to prove the unborn weren’t human beings. Their response was, “Of course the unborn are human beings, we just believe that the woman should have more rights than the fetus.”
To which I replied, “What’s it called when one group of people have more rights than another?That’s called oppression, when whites have more rights than blacks, men have more rights than women, and women have more rights than their unborn child, We support equality.”
Babies are equal to mothers are equal to men are equal to all human beings. All humans have the right to live, be it in a house or a womb.
Edyt,
Don’t be giving legal advice if you’re not a lawyer.
Jacqueline,
Your Ethical Principles Screen is an interesting way to look at the right to life of the unborn child. However, it could be turned around against the baby. Pro-abortion proponents argue that the woman’s life takes precedence over the life of her unborn child. Sometimes doctors will advise a woman to abort her baby because the pregnancy might be difficult, even life-threatening. Some would argue that she should abort the child to preserve her own life, to be able to continue being a mother to her other born children.
I’m not saying the ethical principles screen isn’t valid, but that it could be used to argue for the life of the mother over the life of the baby. And it often is. It seems to be utilitarian.
This is where a higher reasoning is needed, i.e., that all human beings have a unique dignity bestowed on them by their Creator. Yes, this does cross over to theology. But it may be difficult to argue against abortion in all cases without the truths of the Faith enlightening the truths that we can know from reason alone.
Fr. Frank Pavone has a phrase that we should all remember:
Why can’t we love them both?
Jacqueline,
Excellent examples and arguments in your 10:34 PM and 11:28 PM posts.
Paul,
I was just saying that when supposed rights collide, the most important takes precedence. Even so, I believe my analogy still holds true, because the certain death of the baby is a worse fate than the possible death of the mother (certain vs. possible; two equal lives). I don’t see it explotable, as long as you maintain that the two lives in question are of equal worth (which I do). Therefore I can’t see any assault against the baby violating the ethical principles screen, unless of course the lives aren’t equal- and then the screen wouldn’t matter to begin with.
Above all, I promote equality. My views on equality come from my belief in innate human dignity as individuals created in the image of God- as well as the fact that inequality is unjust. If the woman and child are of equal worth, then all that can be done should be done to save both lives. In the tragic case of ectopic pregnancy, where both mother and child would die, the death of the child actually saves one life. But the intentional destruction of life beyond the purpose of saving life is unacceptable.
“Oh come on, you Pro-Lifers, why not just say you want Charlie Manson to play him in the movie hee hee hee.”
Jacqueline: Doug, Because we’re saving Charlie Manson to play Morgentaler.
Ha! Touch
Doug- you must admit. The resemblance in both appearance and character between Morgentaler and Manson is UNCANNY!
Doug- you must admit. The resemblance in both appearance and character between Morgentaler and Manson is UNCANNY!
Well, Jacqueline, on character we disagree but I have to laugh again about the appearance — I looked up pictures of him and yeah, oh yeah.
In the same vein:
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/4456/samewd5.png