Journey into the Internet arms of Anderson Cooper
Thanks to bloggers, CNN was quickly exposed as leaning its YouTube Republican presidential candidate debate left by choosing Democrat-affiliated questioners and questions.
The retired gay general asking the “gays in the military” question has been much discussed. We now know he’s a Hillary worker on the homosexual issue.
Other ringers have been noted, including Journey from Arlington, TX, who it turned out was an Edwards supporter.
The question is whether CNN purposefully chose these people are simply failed to research their backgrounds. Most pundits think the latter.
But I’m finding it harder to believe that of 5,000 submissions, Anderson Cooper and CNN picked Journey’s question blindly. Hers was on abortion….
In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with and what should her penalty be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?
It turns out that aside from being an Edwards groupie, Journey is also a Cooper groupie.
Michelle Malkin reported:
She posted this video a month ago exulting that “Anderson Cooper said my name!” during a CNN viewer comment segment. She wrote, “Horrible video, but at least I’ve got some type of recording of this event that has made my week!”
Continued Michelle:
On her blog, she posted an Anderson Cooper segment from VH1 with the following comment: “Anderson officially had the Best Week Ever for the week of 10/26/07, and looked more delicious than a pic-i-nic basket while doing so. And lookie, I found the video and uploaded it to Youtube for y’all. :D”
“Delicious!”
I found the October 15 comment she made on Anderson’s blog that got her into his air space.
Interestingly, Journey calls herself paperserenade on her YouTube channel, where she certainly has showered Cooper with YouTube affection, although it appears she has removed that VH1 video.
But did Cooper never remember her name?
But there’s more.
RH Reality Check’s Amie Newman blogged on the debate the morning after:
You may remember Journey from RH Reality Check’s eNews and her post last week where she shared why it has been so important to her to submit a range of video questions on reproductive health issues to the debate. RH Reality Check contacted Journey before the debates precisely because we appreciated her nuanced and assertive questions about reproductive health issues. And it is true that any of Journey’s questions that were submitted to YouTube would have been a worthy addition to the sequence of questions at the debate.
But the question she asked that was put to the Republican presidential candidates was the one I thought would never get asked (kudos to the CNN employees who chose it!)…
Was it simply coincidental that Journey expended so much energy promoting the CNN YouTube debate without knowing her video would be picked?
Was it simply coincidental that RH Reality Check likewise gave the YouTube debate extraordinary attention beforehand and simply coincidentally contacted Journey to spotlight her?
Did I sense a little CYA in RH Reality Check’s morning-after post?
Here’s the entire Q&A segment, fyi:
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.
I’m a Democrat and I submitted questions for the debate as well.
People who were CLEARLY Republicans asked questions at the Democratic CNN/You Tube debate.
I don’t understand what the big deal is. Didn’t you want to know how the candidates felt about abortion and gays in the military?
You would think that Hillary’s man could have at least have been articulate. The guy droned on on live TV–during a debate no less. He started getting boos from impatient Republicans after about 45 seconds of preaching:)
I don’t trust the Clinton News Nework or Anderson Cooper, CNN is filled with pro-abort liberals.
I have read Michelle Malkin’s blog and have just finished reading this post. Just to clear up a couple of things: I contacted Journey weeks before the YouTube debate after having seen her astute video questions on reproductive health. She submitted MANY of them because she cares deeply about the issue. Journey never contacted me. I crafted an email campaign with our readers, using Journey’s videos, to encourage them to submit video questions on reproductive and sexual health issues to the debate because we CARE about the issues, this country and how women and families will fare under particular policies. It is, obviously, very important to us at RH Reality Check that both our Democratic and Republican candidates keep these issues on their radar screen – and not just in an abortion is good/abortion is bad manner – but in a more expansive way so that the American public feels these issues are being discussed in a way that is connected to their day to day lives. Most Americans are not in the extremist camps when it comes to abortion, contraception, HIV/AIDS and other RH issues and are looking for a more nuanced discussion of what we all believe and want to see enacted into public policy.
Journey is a 19 year-old politically active college student who cares enough about her country and women’s lives to make her voice known. If you want to be frustrated with CNN for picking videos from (gasp!) those who identify as supporters of Democratic candidates for a Republican debate, go ahead. But I have no idea why. Are we really that divided as a country that now citizens who identify as belonging to one political party cannot ask questions of a presidential candidate that might very well become their next president?!
RH Reality Check was thrilled (as I said in my post) that Journey’s question was picked. And while I would say it’s pure coincidence,I don’t think it was. I think it was that Journey crafted intelligent, well thought out questions for our candidates. They drew me in as an editor who was doing her research weeks before the debate for a site that concerns itself with these issues and it obviously drew in the CNN staff who picked the videos.
Sadly, Journey has received mountains of hate mail /emails from those who identify as “pro-life.” Please leave Journey alone and focus on the issues at hand. Call CNN if you want – form a boycott for all I care – but attacking a citizen for asking a question (even one who has a crush on Anderson Cooper!)on issues she cares deeply about in an effort to get her country talking about them, is useless.
Journey’s father called into the Alan Colmes radio show last night. He said she came to the conclusion of supporting Edwards after submitting the video. Also, he was disappointed with the massive amounts of negative comments she was receiving, and that she was distraught over it.
She needs to take a “Journey” to Oprah’s makeover show…then, MAYBE I’ll understand why she cares about this issue so much. Until then, and I won’t hold my breath, it was politically motivated. Like she even cares what the Republicans would answer, anyway!
Annie, are we really so divided as a country that one side can’t express their opinions that some questions seem planted? I don’t take my marching orders from you or any one else for that matter. People who put themselves into the public arena should expect to be questioned and that includes you,CNN,Anderson Cooper, Journey, and me. If Journey doesn’t like it, then she can take her cookies and go home. I choose to pray outside of abortion “clinics” and receive alot of grief for doing so. If I decided I didn’t want to deal with it, then I would stop. If Journey can’t take the heat, then she should stay out of the kitchen.
She needs to take a “Journey” to Oprah’s makeover show…then, MAYBE I’ll understand why she cares about this issue so much.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What the hell was that supposed to mean?
Vegan, Journey’s father’s rationale for her donning an Edwards t-shirt is incredible, i.e., not credible. She just happened to have one laying around?
Amie, thanks for your detailed response.
The concern is not so much that there are crossover questioners but that:
1) there is collusion.
2) there is built-in antagonism between CNN and MSM toward Republicans/conservatives that is clearly not displayed toward Democrats/liberals.
If you compare the Democrat and Republican CNN/YouTube questions, clearly the former received softballs. Whereas Republican candidates received an angry retired gay military officer in the crowd, Democrat candidates received an anti-war vet and his mother, for example.
Further, this was a debate by which Republican and independent voters were to gain useful information to pick a presidential candidate. The questions should have been those of interest to them, not liberals.
For instance, Journey’s abortion question, “In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with and what should her penalty be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?” is the last one social conservatives would ask.
Why? Because it’s a nonissue. Aborting mothers have never been and will never be prosecuted. The only persons bringing this up are pro-aborts wanting to scare-monger. There are a hundred other questions we would have liked answered.
Further, this was a debate by which Republican and independent voters were to gain useful information to pick a presidential candidate. The questions should have been those of interest to them, not liberals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So Republicans don’t care about abortion and gays in the military?
Interesting. I thought they were the ONLY ones who cared.
Jill
I didn’t state it right in my comment….he said that she submitted the video a while ago, and after that, decided to support Edwards. CNN wanted her (and from what he said, the others who had submitted video questions that were asked at the debate) to record a short video response of their reaction to the answers given to their question…so that’s why she had a response up so quickly.
I am gay, I get my news from CNN, I have a blog dedicated to Anderson Cooper, I am voting for John Edwards. Do you mean I am not allowed to ask a question to the Republicans? I cannot be interested in the opinion a Republican candidate have in any issue? If a Republican wins (ha, ha) am I supposed to be completely blind as to where I stand in what his administration might be? Do you see why if somebody was wearing a John Edwards T-shirt doesn’t have to mean that she is not allowed to ask questions to the Republican candidates?
VeganPhil,
Who did she support before Edwards?
I’m sorry if she is distraught over negative comments. But, if she can’t “play with the big boys” she really should not. Being 19, I give her credit, though. But, seems to me that she has been looking for “cyberstardom” for a while, and maybe got more than she was bargaining for. In her heart, I am sure she knows where her motives for submitting the question(s) came from.
For instance, Journey’s abortion question, “In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with and what should her penalty be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?” is the last one social conservatives would ask.
Why? Because it’s a nonissue. Aborting mothers have never been and will never be prosecuted. The only persons bringing this up are pro-aborts wanting to scare-monger. There are a hundred other questions we would want answered.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 30, 2007 12:49 PM
…………………………………………………………
Are you recanting your abortion is murder/abortion is a holocaust rhetoric Jill? Abortion was never murder and never will be. It certainly isn’t a holocaust. When you scratch away at all of your hysterical ravings all you have left is your fanatical desire to control the lives of women. Is that not the true reason for your unwillingness to answer the question? Why can’t you just be honest? Could it be that without all the emotive hysterics you and yours don’t have a leg to stand on?
Your ilk’s proposed punishments for illegal procedures most certainly is an issue whether you chose to burry your head in the sand or not. It is irresponsible of you to not address the consequences of your agenda. Is this just some kind of little game to you?
Peter,
I believe that Jill’s post (12:49 pm) answered your questions.
Also, if you are sure that you are already voting for John Edwards, why would you care what a Republican would think? Would your question, on live T.V., not then be motivated to possibly just get a rise out of you, then?
I would like to see evidence of some of this hate mail. Do they have evidence that this mail came from actual prolifers or is it from proaborts trying to stir-up controversy? Sounds like more proabort hysteria.
AB Laura
Her father said she was undecided. Regardless, it doesn’t matter who she supports now….everyone will end up being a Ron Paul supporter eventually ;)
Carrie…oh my gosh! I was just going to post the same thought!!! They try so hard to make us look bad – for caring about the unborn? Go figure. Pretty easy for me to see where the “hate” comes from!
Anon,
oops! missed that one! Thanks for pointing that out. :)
I don’t trust the Clinton News Nework or Anderson Cooper, CNN is filled with pro-abort liberals.
Posted by: jasper at November 30, 2007 11:43 AM
……………………………………….
Well Jasper, why don’t you take a stab at answering the question. It’s been asked many many times right here. What do you think the punishment should be for ‘murdering unborn babies’?
Jill has obviously changed her mind about abortion being murder. I bet that you haven’t. Answer the question.
Ha AB Laura, beat you to it.
Jill, I understand your point about the Republican debate being a place where Republicans and Independents can get answers to the questions that matter to them.
But any question included about abortion is, according to likely voters in all parties, not going to get at the heart of the matter. Most voters on both sides of the political fence have many pressing issues in their lives that they want to hear the candidates address. Voters really care about Iraq, the economy,the massive deficit, and health care.
Abortion is “used” by the mainstream media to divide and sensationalize. Obviously, being on one side of the political fence or another in regards to abortion politics matters to people. But did you honestly think you’d hear anything new from the Republican candidates about where they stand regarding Roe v. Wade or their stance on abortion?
Also, I disagree 100% that the issue of criminalizing women who obtain illegal abortions is a non-issue. It is incredibly important to me to understand, how, under a constitutional amendment banning abortion women who obtain an abortion anyway would fare? In a world where abortion is considered full-fledged murder I cannot foresee anything but women prosecuted & jailed for, essentially, committing murder under that scenario. To say to me, a woman who worked at an abortion clinic for seven years, that the millions of women each year who have an abortion have no idea what they are doing is absurd. I saw pro-life women come to our clinic, deeply religious Catholic women, Muslim women, Jewish women, professional women with children. Most women who access abortion are already mothers; working mothers; married mothers. They are women who are raising wonderful children already. Where I worked, they were each assigned a health care advocate who talked to them, described the procedure, showed them an ultrasound and ultimately did not let them go forth with the abortion if the advocate sensed any wavering on the part of the woman. So if we are to become a country that outlaws abortion, we must consider all ramifications of that decision.
As for Journey and her response, VeganPhil is exactly right. CNN asked the video questioners to post a response to the candidates immediately following the debate. She put on her Edwards t-shirt because she is clearly proud of who she is supporting.
As for the commenter who angrily states that because she puts herself out there to hound women in front of an abortion clinic, Journey should expect hounding as well: I’m not sure what to say. I do expect to be examined and taken to task for what I write. I enjoy the dialogue. But Journey is getting pummeled by hateful, unproductive, angry comments. It is a sad state when this what we deem “okay.”
Sally, I’ll answer your question. I think that the punishment should be a murder charge for the abortionist. I think the women and those who help them should be charged with accesory to murder or something like that. If the father of the unborn child helps or knows about the abortion, then I think that his punishment should be the same as the mother.
VeganPhil,
Who did she support before Edwards?
I’m sorry if she is distraught over negative comments. But, if she can’t “play with the big boys” she really should not. Being 19, I give her credit, though. But, seems to me that she has been looking for “cyberstardom” for a while, and maybe got more than she was bargaining for. In her heart, I am sure she knows where her motives for submitting the question(s) came from.
Posted by: AB Laura at November 30, 2007 1:12 PM
…………………………………………………
Why don’t you play like a big boy and answer the question Laura? What do you think the punishment for ‘murdering unborn babies’ should be? It’s not a new question Laura. You should have a well considered answer.
That’s really funny Annie. I guess you must have eyes on the back of your head or something like that. I guess you know that I hound women although you have actually never seen what I do. Maybe you don’t have eyes on the back of your head, maybe you just look into your crystal ball to see what I do. If someone puts themselves out there on a controversial issue, then guess what? Controversy follows. That include people on both sides of the issue. Now, why don’t you answer my question. Where’s your proof that the supposed hatemail came from prolifers? Back-up your claims.
Laura, when will you pro-aborts learn that pro-lifers are not going to accept your bait on prosecuting aborting mothers? Abortion laws have always, always focused on the practitioner and always, always will. If you don’t like that, and if you view that as a discrepancy, present a bill to your legislature when the day comes Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Peter, this is a primary. You will have ample opportunity to vet your candidate’s opponent before the general.
Gee, someone’s taken hostages and is threatening to blow them up at a Hillary Clinton campaign headquarters.
…And you’re worried that my side might ask some tough questions.
If anyone hadn’t yet heard (because it just happened), a dude with a bomb (according to the AP according to the police) is holding two Hillary Clinton campaign workers hostage in her Rochester, New Hampshire office.
Sally, I’ll answer your question. I think that the punishment should be a murder charge for the abortionist. I think the women and those who help them should be charged with accesory to murder or something like that. If the father of the unborn child helps or knows about the abortion, then I think that his punishment should be the same as the mother.
Posted by: Carrie at November 30, 2007 1:37 PM
…………………………………………
Thank you Carrie!
How do you propose to prove an abortion has taken place?
Who gets prosecuted if the woman provides her own abortion? How do you prove it wasn’t a spontaneous abortion?
If the abortion procedure is illegal who will be allowed to be trained for this illegal procedure in the case of medical necessity?
Who will decide the necessity?
If a woman dies due to the lack of appropriate medical care due to the lack of available abortion, who is responsible? IE, who gets prosecuted for her wrongful death?
Maybe more questions could be asked at the debates if the candidates who actually answered the questions were allowed to answer, and those who didn’t were given a time-out. Its a problem in both parties….too much fluff, not enough substance. There’s no need to take 90 seconds for a 10 second answer…especially when there isn’t even an answer given in those 90 seconds!
Hi Sally, most prolifers do not agree with me on this and that’s OK. We don’t have to think like one giant brain. I seriously don’t think that even if abortion is banned that the women will be prosecuted. As far as the other questions, I honestly don’t know. I think that is something that will be worked out in the future. You made some good points that I should definitely ponder. I am certainly stirring up controversy today. I thought that was your job. :)
Laura, I just heard about the hostage situation. That’s very scary.
Amie, your question is two-fold:
1) If and when Roe v. Wade is overturned, won’t aborting mothers in the U.S. become hunted criminals?
2) If pro-lifers think abortion is murder, don’t they want aborting mothers to become hunted criminals?
I have written on this a few times in columns and blog posts.
Clarke Forsythe, lead attorney at Americans United for Life and an expert on abortion law history, gave me solid answers.
Quoting Clarke, first looking back at abortion law history, which is germane to analyze how pro-lifers have always treated aborting mothers and also because some state laws would revert back to previous abortion laws when Roe is overturned:
The rule in virtually all the states was that doctors were prosecuted as the perpetrators of the crime. I don’t know of any prosecution of aborting women in the 20th century. The only way in which women could have been potentially prosecuted would have been for soliciting an abortion, meaning going to an abortionist or a doctor and saying, “Will you do one?” But men and women were treated equally under those rules, and I don’t even know of a solicitation prosecution against women.
On on why pro-lifers as a rule do not support prosecuting aborting mothers, Clarke again:
We are interested in reducing abortions, not maximizing prosecutions. Doctors are the ones who perform the abortion, and they are the ones who are the principles in the crime. In addition, to make the law effective, women’s testimony is necessary to effectively prosecute the abortionist, and if you treat the woman as a principle or accomplice, you can’t use her testimony.
Women have been treated as the second victim since the second half of the 19th century. There’s no reason to question that today.
Good points Jill. You and Sally have definitely given some things to ponder regarding prosecuting aborting mothers and fathers.
Amie, first, thanks for the respectful, intelligent discussion.
As for “pummeling” Journey, it is easy to label comments as “hateful, unproductive, angry.”
While I expect she is getting some of that, I expect more are simply calling her out and questioning her disengenuousness. I hear your and Vegan’s explanation for the t-shirt. Nevertheless, she wore it on purpose. She intended to make a statement. She is just not getting back the response she wanted to her statement.
The abortion issue is the most important of our generation. It is a debate of life and death. Perhaps Journey has been cocooned, but now she’s entered the real world. It is an utterly serious topic that pro-lifers don’t play around with. Cliches and whining won’t work, particularly when one is promoting the right to kill preborn babies.
Furthermore, our pro-life kids are her counterpart, and they are very strong, very tough, very smart. I’m very proud of them. None of them would cry foul as she now is. You have no idea of the hostility our kids encounter on college campuses. But they don’t get their feelings hurt. They’re not fragile flowers. This is all bigger than that.
Sally said, “Why don’t you play like a big boy and answer the question Laura? What do you think the punishment for ‘murdering unborn babies’ should be? It’s not a new question Laura. You should have a well considered answer.”
I’m sorry Sally, I thought from your original post that the question was being directed to Jill.
This is new to me, Sally. I have only being paying attention and getting involved with pro-life issues since the mill in Aurora popped up. I really haven’t put much thought into this question, though. If I had a response, you know darned well I would have posted it immediately.
However, with a spur-of-the-moment thought, I’ll go with a general Thompson response on this one: It’s up to the states to decide.
Excuse me?
The woman who shot her fetus was arrested and prosecuted. The woman who had the dead fetuses in her house and RV was arrested and charged with inducing abortion. The woman in the story below was arrested and charged.
All of this happened even though abortion is legal. If abortion is outlawed I can GUARANTEE women will be imprisoned for it:
Woman, 18, Arrested for Self-Induced Abortion
January 25, 2007 by womensspace
Prosecutors in Lawrence, Massachusetts could charge this 18-year-old woman, Amber Abreu, with manslaughter because she took an ulcer medication containing Misoprostol, a drug that is legal in the U.S., in an attempt to terminate a pregnancy. She has already been charged with
Hi Sally, most prolifers do not agree with me on this and that’s OK. We don’t have to think like one giant brain. I seriously don’t think that even if abortion is banned that the women will be prosecuted. As far as the other questions, I honestly don’t know. I think that is something that will be worked out in the future. You made some good points that I should definitely ponder. I am certainly stirring up controversy today. I thought that was your job. :)
Posted by: Carrie at November 30, 2007 1:50 PM
……………………………………………………………………
Thanks for your honesty Carrie. I think it foolish to pass legislation and hope that the details can be worked out later. I hope that you do ponder the ramifications.
Me? Controversial? Gee thanks!
Wait, how did she shoot her fetus? Did she shoot herself in the abdomen or something? Cause wouldn’t that injure her as well? I’m confused…could you give more details on this story Laura?
Laura, get the latest news on those two. Homicide charges were dropped in both cases.
Furthermore, the first woman potentially delivered viable babies alive and killed them. That was an infanticide case.
Actually, the second one was, too. She aborted her baby alive.
Sally said, “Why don’t you play like a big boy and answer the question Laura? What do you think the punishment for ‘murdering unborn babies’ should be? It’s not a new question Laura. You should have a well considered answer.”
I’m sorry Sally, I thought from your original post that the question was being directed to Jill.
This is new to me, Sally. I have only being paying attention and getting involved with pro-life issues since the mill in Aurora popped up. I really haven’t put much thought into this question, though. If I had a response, you know darned well I would have posted it immediately.
However, with a spur-of-the-moment thought, I’ll go with a general Thompson response on this one: It’s up to the states to decide.
Posted by: AB Laura at November 30, 2007 2:16 PM
…………………………………………….
Laura, my friendly adversary, I take whom and what I support very seriously. If I don’t just ‘go with’ someone else’s answers. It’s difficult for me to understand anyone taking a strong position over things they don’t really understand. I hope that you will fully examine the ramifications of the PL stance.
I’m not sure why the focus is on “proving” hate mail?! I’m not out to “get” anyone who respectfully disagrees with my political position. I contacted Journey after the debate (the day after) and she told me she was feeling a bit overwhelmed because she was receiving a lot of hateful emails from those who identify as “pro-life.” Why is that so hard to believe? If you go to her YouTube response video you can read many of the comments yourself.
Jill, your answer includes exactly what I addressed as faulty reasoning – woman as victim. This is the stance that anti-choicers take as a default stance, in my opinion. And, as I shared in my comment, when will you stop seeing millions upon millions of grown women as victims?! Women speak out and say, “I’m not a victim” and yet you turn around and say, “Oh, no, no but you are a victim” to satisfy a political appetite.
As for the reasoning that the state laws pre Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have allowed for prosecuting women and so therefore that wouldn’t happen in the future isn’t nearly enough for me to feel confident penalizing women won’t be on the table. We are seeing some horrible legislation coming from the state and local levels that have terrifying implications for women – in Colorado, South Carolina and other places.
Laura, it’s terrifying that hostages have been taken at Hillary’s headquarters. What does that have to do with anti-choice violence?
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=100574&ran=227137
She shot and killed her fetus.
http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=104124&ran=195201
(More on the same story..)
Amie,
You don’t view girls who have abortion as victims? What about the girls who have abortiosn because they’ve been raped? They’re victims twice. Victims of the rape and victims of the abortion industry that convinces them that a baby conceived by rape MUST be aborted because it would just be too terrible to carry such an innocent soul to term. You don’t think teenage girls who have abortions through consentual sex as victims? I guarantee you that minor girls who are convinced by PP and the abortion industry that abortion is the only way ARE victims. They are manipulated and underestimated by the abortion industry. They are preyed upon because of their age and lack of knowledge. That certainly screams VICTIM to me. Yes, it may have been their own choosing, but have you never felt guilt or regret over anything you’ve done?? Especially when you were young?? The abortion industry capitalizes on young girls and DOES victimize them.
Hmm, that woman is sick…killing the baby on the day she was supposed to be born. What is wrong with some people?!
Amie, I’ve read the YouTube comments and think Journey is a bit overreactive by how you’re telling me she’s feeling. There were many points of substance. We all get whacked by a few idiots from the other side. Do you really want to go there? I don’t consider the low blows I get to be indicative of all of you. Furthermore, some of those comments can’t be attributed to pro-lifers. There are certainly some diehard Republicans in that mix.
Amie said, “Jill, your answer includes exactly what I addressed as faulty reasoning – woman as victim. This is the stance that anti-choicers take as a default stance, in my opinion. And, as I shared in my comment, when will you stop seeing millions upon millions of grown women as victims?! Women speak out and say, “I’m not a victim” and yet you turn around and say, “Oh, no, no but you are a victim” to satisfy a political appetite.”
Amie, as I’ve always told people on your side, if you consider the the pro-life view of abortion law inconsistent, you are free to create laws to prosecute aborting mothers.
Amie, explain the implications for women you see of laws emanating from CO, SC, etc.
Sally said, “Laura, my friendly adversary, I take whom and what I support very seriously. If I don’t just ‘go with’ someone else’s answers. It’s difficult for me to understand anyone taking a strong position over things they don’t really understand. I hope that you will fully examine the ramifications of the PL stance.’
My dearest Sally,
My position is most certainly strong over the things I do understand. Innocent babies are dying, and I can’t stand it! However, I am not going to shoot my mouth off about things I don’t fully understand until I educate myself on the item in question. Based on what I have read from Jill’s posts, it seems as though it is a “non-issue”. So my position, if I had one, is probably irrelevant. (as I’m sure you’ll agree, anyway!)
Maybe Journey is over-exaggerating to get more “quality time” with Anderson Cooper! If not, Anderson should really take her out for dinner to aplogize to her for the exploitation!
Either way, I’m sure she’ll enjoy her 15 minutes of fame!
Abortion laws have always, always focused on the practitioner and always, always will.
Does that mean that in a “pro-life” America, self-abortions will be perfectly legal and OK? “Abortion is murder, unless you do it yourself,” should be the law of the land?
Sally, my honesty seems to get me into trouble. I wish it had an off button sometimes. I wish my bluntness had an off button too.
I see a Geico commercial ahead for Journey.
Cooper takes he out to dinner and Journey becomes offended by Cooper “using her” as a schill for CNN, and Journey refuses to eat “roast duck with mango sauce”.
See Journey, asking that question was so easy, a caveman can do it, says Cooper.
You set me up Cooper, You knew I as going to become a schill for CNN ratings, and your own ambitions, while not caring one lick about me personally.
It’s not that easy Coooper, I have a fascination with you Andy.
TP,
Being perfectly legal and OK are two different ideas I think. There are plenty of perfectly legal activities that I don’t think are OK, as I am sure there are in your mind as well. Abortion happens to be one of them. The death penalty is legal in most states, yet there are people who don’t think it is OK. And abortion is still murder even if you do it to yourself. But people do a lot of dumb things to their bodies…like drugs..alcohol…self-mutilation…eat mcdonalds..(haha). When you do things to your body in those instances you suffer the consequences…why would performing a self-induced abortion be any different? (YEP, I said it, feel free to jump down my throat about it…aaaaand..GO!)
Annie,
As for the reasoning that the state laws pre Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have allowed for prosecuting women and so therefore that wouldn’t happen in the future isn’t nearly enough for me to feel confident penalizing women won’t be on the table.
Why? Because then these women would be “Victims?” Why wouldn’t you want them penalized? Why does that make you fearful? If we don’t penalize them because we understand that they were under great pressure and decided to break the law out of a feeling of panic, then we are treating women as victims. But if we prosecute them and say they are murderers the same as Jeffrey Dahmer then we are horrible brutes that are out to punish women and don’t understand how desperate they are. At which point you are the one treating women as victims. If they are “strong” enough to make a rational decision to abort while abortion is legal, why wouldn’t the women whose choose to abort when it is illegal, not be considered just as strong? What would you like us to do?
“For instance, Journey’s abortion question, “In the event that abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with and what should her penalty be? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?” is the last one social conservatives would ask.”
I think it’s a valid question, actually. When I was pro-choice and considering switching sides, I wondered the same thing myself. And people have different ideas of what prosecution should be. Why shouldn’t the candidates be asked the question? I didn’t watch but I’m sure all the candidates aren’t exactly the same on the issue.
“Aborting mothers have never been and will never be prosecuted.”
Laura said she wanted them to be. Obviously there are differing opinions.
I don’t see the point in this post. Why should only conservatives be allowed to ask questions? I wouldn’t mind if Republicans (respectfully) asked Democrats questions. It’s only fair. It’s not like the people are just attacking them, just asking questions. I mean it’s a YouTube debate, too. Come on.
*sigh*
Cooper is such a fox. If he wasn’t gay I would…
I don’t see the point in this post. Why should only conservatives be allowed to ask questions? I wouldn’t mind if Republicans (respectfully) asked Democrats questions. It’s only fair. It’s not like the people are just attacking them, just asking questions. I mean it’s a YouTube debate, too. Come on.
Posted by: prettyinpink at November 30, 2007 4:13 PM
PIP – I don’t have an issue with Repubs asking Dems and vice versa BUT the issue is that Dems got to ask Dems AND Dems got to ask Repubs. Not very balanced. There are differences of opinions between the Repubs that I would have liked a better understanding of but didn’t get the chance because of the pointless questions of the people featured.
I don’t care if gays serve in the military and I don’t see WHY we have to know one way or the other. Sex (male and female) is “conduct unbecoming” so if M/F can’t have it what’s the point of knowing about M/M? Gays seem to keep saying that their sex life is a private, personal matter yet they broadcast it every chance they get. I DON’T CARE. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” are words to live by for ALL of us.
The only “penalty” for women after abortion is made illegal is…………….therapy.
Especially if they try to self abort.
Therapy by the same psychologist and psychiatrist who treat child abusers and neglecters today.
Abortion providers/doctors will simply become outlaws who have sold their soul to murdering a baby in the womb.
PP becomes nothing more then a place where one gets contraceptives and care for STDS. Or other money making schemes they can think up.
Maybe PP will attract more professional personnel instead of personnel motivated by a choice to murder a baby in the womb.
Elizabeth —
And abortion is still murder even if you do it to yourself. But people do a lot of dumb things to their bodies…like drugs..alcohol…self-mutilation…eat mcdonalds..(haha). When you do things to your body in those instances you suffer the consequences…why would performing a self-induced abortion be any different? (YEP, I said it, feel free to jump down my throat about it…aaaaand..GO!)
I don’t understand your argument here. Drugs are illegal, but self-mutilation and McDonald’s are legal, so which category should self-induced abortion fall under?
P.S. Sorry, above was me.
But Kristen that just breeds an environment of hostility. I can understand encouraging to keep quiet about the bedroom (and if that is the case it includes guys talking about having sex with girls). But we have let go very important Arabic translators because they told people they were gay.
If we can fire people because they are gay, why not fire people because they are a woman? Because they have a health problem? Because they are black? asian? The point is why would it matter, as long as they serve the country? What’s the problem? Why are we practically the only country who asks gay people to conceal who they are?
yllas 4:28pm,
Excellent point!
I just read the responses to her post too, and except for one or two that were posted by Texas Red clones, they all seemed pretty run of the mill. Amie,
You should read some of the stuff that’s been put here on Jill’s. I myself am a hypocrite with a large plank in my eye. Seriously tho, most of those comments seemed basically tame.
Actually TP, I was just using examples of dumb things people do to their bodies….and the mcdonalds was just a joke to lighten to the mood really. I think abortion, self-induced or not, should be illegal..and people should have to deal with the consequences after it is. People have to deal with consequences with every other bad thing they do to their bodies (whether it be of a legal consequence or not)…so why not abortion? Or do women who abort get a special dispensation in life? And if so, WHY?
The only “penalty” for women after abortion is made illegal is…………….therapy.
Really? Well, in that case, how will law enforcement ever catch illegal abortionists?
In the old days, before Roe v. Wade, when women would show up at the hospital with complications from abortion, the police and doctors would threaten her with death/jail unless she told them who had performed the abortion. But if she could simply say “I did it to myself, I swear,” and her only “punishment” would be therapy, how will the police ever catch illegal abortionists?
mk,
Oh yeah, the plank!…have you had a chance to pull it out yet? Should be grossly infected by now!! :)
Again PIP, I don’t care. I don’t see why anyone has to say “I’m gay” or “I’m straight.” You say “we are practically the only country who asks gay people to conceal who they are.” Are we asking them to wear a burka? Come on! I’m not asking anyone to “conceal” anything, GAYS are the ones saying “My sexual orientation doesn’t matter” so practice what you preach, I say. It doesn’t matter so shut up!
If I’m at work I don’t fawn over men, is that what they want? To be able to sexually express themself at work? NOT APPROPRIATE for anyone. IT DOESN’T MATTER SO WHY DO WE NEED TO KNOW?
AB Laura,
Yeah, what was with that? First it didn’t make any sense. Then she/he asked insistently for Jill to cite where she got the picture on that post from, and when Jill did Philosopher disappeared…
Don’t worry, TP, they will be caught. The abortion provider will be easily caught if a charge is brought against them by those who got the abortion and have complications, to simply a charge being brought against them as women bring charges against rapist or molestors.
Really TP, history never repeats itself as you think it does evidently. Ask a general, who went to war with pre-conceived ideas from past wars.
Think therapy TP. It’s that simple.
As simple as one who spanks her child in MA. will be penalized by getting sum o that thar therapy.
BTW, TP, we only solve 50% of murder cases today.
And ain’t nobody going to get rid of murder laws from being unable to catch those murderers too.
And heads up…Texas Red is on the spanking post (or at least she was). I’m refusing to even acknowledge her. I am so tired of being bombarded with the same five insults over and over and over. Just can’t do it tonight. Just thought I’d warn you.
Kristen —
If I’m at work I don’t fawn over men, is that what they want?
How would you feel if you had to conceal your relationship with your spouse from your co-workers? No right casually say things like “my husband and I went out to eat last night,” or “my husband and I are planning a vacation,” or “my husband is such a sweetheart! He brought me breakfast in bed for our anniversary!” and if you ever did accidentally mention your husband, you would be fired. Would you be able to deal with that?
Gay people just want the same rights as everyone else, to be themselves and not be fired for it. Why should someone be fired for revealing that s/he has a same-sex partner? How does that harm anyone?
The abortion provider will be easily caught if a charge is brought against them by those who got the abortion and have complications, to simply a charge being brought against them as women bring charges against rapist or molestors.
Very few women are willing to turn in doctors who help them abort illegally, especially if there is no penalty for their silence. They’re too grateful for the doctor’s help.
It makes no sense to compare abortion to rape or molestation, because rape and molestation are both crimes committed against unwilling victims. Abortionists do not sneak up on unwilling women and attack them; women willingly seek out abortionists and pay them to perform abortions.
right on, tp. My point exactly. Straight people don’t get fired for talking about their relationships. I’m sure women gossip all the time around the water cooler.
If someone found you saying something like “my husband and I are going to have a romantic picnic on Saturday” and fired you, how would that make you feel?
I don’t gossip around the water cooler and frankly I don’t talk about my husband at work either. REALLY I don’t. I want to do my job and get the heck out of Dodge. I have heard others in my office talk about their spouses but it inevitably falls into talk of sex or lack there of and I think it’s not only unprofessional but trashy.
Oddly enough I’m taking vacation next week and I simply said “I’m on vacation next week.” They know me enough to know that’s all the info they require or are going to get.
It doesn’t belong in the work place and I don’t consider the people I work with friends that I would share that information with. I don’t need or want to know you got your period, how sick your kid is, what a pill your sister is. Leave me alone so I can get back to my family. They are my co-workers and I prefer they keep their mouths shut too, gay OR straight.
Homophobes try to make it all about sex, but a person’s orientation is a HUGE PART of their life. Everyone knows that I’m heterosexual because I’m married to a man. It’s unreasonable to demand that gay people keep their life partners secret from their co-workers.
If I’m invited to the company party, I can bring my husband with me, and I can introduce him as my husband, and I can hold his hand, and hug him, and dance with him, and that’s fine. But if my gay co-worker wants to go, he has to leave his partner at home? Or lie to everyone and say that they’re just roommates, and keep away from each other so as to not arouse any suspicions? That’s ridiculous!
Well, my global company doesn’t allow me to bring my spouse to my Christmas party and I’m thinking the military doesn’t normally have a big party on the taxpayer
Amie,
you wrote,
“I saw pro-life women come to our clinic, deeply religious Catholic women, Muslim women, Jewish women, professional women with children. Most women who access abortion are already mothers; working mothers; married mothers.”
Posted by: Amie Newman at November 30, 2007 1:34 PM
Well, I have to disagree with your assesment of deeply religious women. Just because someone comes from a religious background doesn’t make them deeply religious. If they abandon their faith for convenience, they are not deeply religious. Consider all the martyrs who died for their faith. They were deeply religious. I understand some people are not willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for their religion, but those are not deeply religious people. Someone who kills a baby so they won’t have to share their resources or make some arrangements for adoption is not seriously religious even if they have been involved in a religious group.
As for the advocates clinics employ, they have a vested interest in seeing women chose abortion because they are paid by the clinic. Check out the website abortionclinicdays/blogs.com where these counselors explain how they work with ambivalent mothers to get them to abort rather than choose life. They honestly believe that killing a baby is just fine. They sometimes tell of some poor mom with cancer who is there because she is scared, uninsured etc. Then talk about how she is so much better off without her baby. She would truly be better off with a doctor who actually would try to save her life as well as her baby’s.
I don’t get why so many make motherhood out to be some kind of tragedy. Motherhood is a wonderful part of life and it begins the moment you are pregnant. Our society is so allergic to responsibility and compassion, both of which make life better. They don’t drain you or kill your fun anymore than babies do.
As for the young woman who sent her question to the debate, I am sure she can find the strength to delete the comments which offend her from her blog or she can ask youtube to take them down if that is where they are.
Kristen
You expect people in the army to not make friends and heaven forbid not say anything about their love life?
They are living together and literally dying together, too. It would be INSANE to think that they shouldn’t talk about anything personal unless they want to get fired.
Where do you work were you can’t be friends or talk with your co-workers? Maybe I’m just a really social creature, but I would HATE to work in a place that doesn’t let me become friends with others without fear of losing my job.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 30, 2007 5:26 PM
That anon was me.
PIP, it’s my choice who I’m friends with. They are all fairly nice people but I’ve had enough experience to know that some people take advantage of work place friendships. (One woman I worked with in my early 20’s wanted me to cover for her when her husband would come in for lunch while she was “out” with her boyfriend.)
I choose not to put myself in those types of positions anymore and have a vast compliment of friends from high school and college so I’m not hurting for social outlets.
I really don’t find it confining to not talk about my personal life at work and frankly see people who do so as somewhat lazy. I mean I need a break from work too but I’ll go across the street and grab a coffee. The women I have and do work with spend literally HOURS chit chatting and then b*tching because someone asked them to do their job.
I guess it’s just preference but I don’t see the problem.
tp,
you wrote.
It makes no sense to compare abortion to rape or molestation, because rape and molestation are both crimes committed against unwilling victims. Abortionists do not sneak up on unwilling women and attack them; women willingly seek out abortionists and pay them to perform abortions.
Posted by: tp at November 30, 2007 4:59 PM
The baby is not willing. While some might be willing to die for you, most aren’t. So we can reasonably assume the baby is a victim an unwilling.
I never meant to insinuate anything about your personality; it just seemed from your posts that your workplace was so strict as to confine friendships.
Kristen,
Who has time to chat at work about anything?
I could barely get it all done and I often stayed late!
My perspective is that the millions of women who choose abortion are not necessarily victims. Are there some women who are pushed into making the decision? Absolutely. And trained women’s health advocates should always be on the look out for those cases. But the majority of women – and this includes the thousands we saw come through our doors at the clinic I worked at – are grateful and relieved to have a safe, legal procedure available to them when they need or want it. Women have abortions around the world – legal or not, safe or not because we know that man-made laws may take away our rights but we’ll always fight for and seek out freedom.
Whether you believe that women should or shouldn’t access abortion isn’t the issue. The issue is whether you should have the right to force women and girls in this country to carry a pregnancy and birth a baby. If you feel you have the right to force women to do this, then where will it stop? Believe me, women who access abortion KNOW there is a growing baby in their uterus. This is not a mystery to most women. We know that abortion “stops a beating heart” – some women we saw at the clinic wanted to take the fetus or embryo home with them to bury it – this is obviously akin for some women to burying a child. It’s terriby sad sometimes; it’s terribly relieving at other times depending on the woman. But when women send you cards YEARS later with photos of their children saying, “Thank you” or “You gave me back my life”, you don’t think “Oh, well, there’s another victim!”
MK, I don’t understand your comment. I don’t want to see women prosecuted because they are making the decision they feel they have a right to make about their own bodies and lives and with the lives of their families in mind. Why is this so hard for people to understand? You can make all the laws you want telling women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies but all it will do is hurt women and families.
I’m not sure why engaging in this argument about whether or not women could be penalized for obtaining an illegal abortion is not applicable. On this commenting thread there are people who have said that women should be prosecuted for murder in the above scenario. So why shouldn’t we, as advocates for womens’ lives, be on the defensive and seriously consider this scenario?
Jill, the Colorado measure is one that was affirmed by the state supreme court to bestow constitutional rights on fertilized human eggs. Which means that if a woman miscarries and the embryo “dies” she is an accessory to murder. We want to bestow personhood on fertilized eggs?!
I’m in favor of giving women AND men the tools and information and education and access to care in order to reduce unintended pregnancies and ensure healthy pregnancies but far too often anti-choice legislators and anti-contraception advocates are unwilling to do this.
And, Jill, I agree there are those on both sides who behave disrespectfully and spew anger and hatred. No question. But as someone who has advocated for women’s health and lives for many years, and as someone who came to work everyday to a security guard, locked doors, security cameras and on MANY occasions threatening phone calls, letters, emails and bomb threats, I have to say there is a reason why I feel for Journey right now. As a mother of two young children, I have been amazed at how easy it is for many who do not know me or hold my position to tell me that I should be prosecuted for murder or that I should just be killed. I know that not all “pro-lifers” agree with this position and in fact vehemently disagree but I have to say that I’m not always willing to completely let down my guard!
On RH Reality Check, we have spirited discussions. But we have had to delete many comments – most from those who hold anti-choice perspectives – because they are extremely hostile, even threatening. Like this one that is still up on our post about Colorado’s measure:
“Personally, I am in favor of retroactive abortion for all who support “choice”, thereby eliminating the implicit threat to untold numbers of innocent future human beings, not to mention the curse on our land which has resulted from the present devil-inspired “law”.”
I don’t think Journey deserves the anger and threats for being a concerned citizen – I just don’t. She asked a question as a concerned American citizen and she’s getting ripped into. Her impetus wasn’t to become some kind of internet star or get closer to Anderson Cooper. Her impetus was a strong desire to support a cause she believes wholeheartedly in. Just as all of us feel that way.
In any case, Jill, I am glad you feel strongly about your belief system and that you’ve provided a forum for your obviously intelligent perspectives. I need to get back to work but appreciate the discussion!
Amie,
You wrote,
As for the reasoning that the state laws pre Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have allowed for prosecuting women and so therefore that wouldn’t happen in the future isn’t nearly enough for me to feel confident penalizing women won’t be on the table. We are seeing some horrible legislation coming from the state and local levels that have terrifying implications for women – in Colorado, South Carolina and other places.
Laura, it’s terrifying that hostages have been taken at Hillary’s headquarters. What does that have to do with anti-choice violence?
Posted by: Amie Newman at November 30, 2007 2:26 PM
The reason there isn’t any interest in prosecuting women who abort is that it is not necessary. If the penalties for doctors are strong enough, the doctors won’t do it. Right now there is profit motive, so some will do it. If they had to face losing their license and significant jail time, that would be the end of it. Everyone knows that. Since no one has advocated prosecuting women, your concern over it is disingenuous.
We are advocating protecting every human life at every stage including the unwanted, the imperfect and the otherwise despised. That is what you call “terrifying implications for women” because our society would rather kill the unwanted, imperfect and inconvenient than provide for them. I don’t think you fear prosecution of women, rather you fear that a baby should have the same rights as every other human; the basic right to live.
Jill, the Colorado measure is one that was affirmed by the state supreme court to bestow constitutional rights on fertilized human eggs. Which means that if a woman miscarries and the embryo “dies” she is an accessory to murder. We want to bestow personhood on fertilized eggs?!
Posted by: Amie Newman at November 30, 2007 5:57 PM
That is NOT what it means and the fact that you stated that just makes you look silly. If you want to be taken seriously on this blog don’t make ridiculous statements like that.
Amie said,
“Believe me, women who access abortion KNOW there is a growing baby in their uterus. This is not a mystery to most women. We know that abortion “stops a beating heart” – some women we saw at the clinic wanted to take the fetus or embryo home with them to bury it – this is obviously akin for some women to burying a child. It’s terriby sad sometimes; it’s terribly relieving at other times depending on the woman.”
———————-
ATTN: SoMg, Sally, Laura, TexasRed, TP, & all other pro-aborts:
The above comments were NOT made by a pro-life person…this was someone that advocates choice, and WORKED at an abortion clinic for 7 YEARS: Thus, she stated that abortive women KNOW they are babies, they KNOW there is a growing baby in their uterus and they KNOW it stops a beating heart and that for MOST women it is not a mystery.
Do you guys realize that your myths have been debunked by a professional pro-abort?
What say you????
Sally said, “Laura, my friendly adversary, I take whom and what I support very seriously. If I don’t just ‘go with’ someone else’s answers. It’s difficult for me to understand anyone taking a strong position over things they don’t really understand. I hope that you will fully examine the ramifications of the PL stance.’
My dearest Sally,
My position is most certainly strong over the things I do understand. Innocent babies are dying, and I can’t stand it! However, I am not going to shoot my mouth off about things I don’t fully understand until I educate myself on the item in question. Based on what I have read from Jill’s posts, it seems as though it is a “non-issue”. So my position, if I had one, is probably irrelevant. (as I’m sure you’ll agree, anyway!)
Posted by: AB Laura at November 30, 2007 2:44 PM
………………………..
But Laura you are shooting your mouth off about things you don’t understand simply by supporting the PL position on this blog. Jill has as much as admitted that abortion is not murder and has never been. How can you simply take the word of such flip flopper on anything? Jill says it’s a non issue because some PL guy said it wasn’t and so you do too? Puuuleeeze!
Zeke wants the death penalty for women who have an abortion.
Tom Coburn wants the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions.
Jill etc say that doctors should be prosecuted but not the women.
Laura says that women should be considered accessory to murder.
This is why I think her question is valid. Not everyone looks at the issue the same way.
Sally, my honesty seems to get me into trouble. I wish it had an off button sometimes. I wish my bluntness had an off button too.
Posted by: Carrie at November 30, 2007 3:39 PM
………………………………
My mother always said the same about me. She called me tactless. A politician I am not!
Sally, Sally, Sally….
Boy how you read into things! I don’t think Jill has “as much” admitted to anything! However, I DID say that “based on what I have read from Jill’s posts, it SEEMS as though it is a “non-issue. Are my thoughts really that relevant to you?
Amie said,
“Believe me, women who access abortion KNOW there is a growing baby in their uterus. This is not a mystery to most women. We know that abortion “stops a beating heart” – some women we saw at the clinic wanted to take the fetus or embryo home with them to bury it – this is obviously akin for some women to burying a child. It’s terriby sad sometimes; it’s terribly relieving at other times depending on the woman.”
———————-
ATTN: SoMg, Sally, Laura, TexasRed, TP, & all other pro-aborts:
The above comments were NOT made by a pro-life person…this was someone that advocates choice, and WORKED at an abortion clinic for 7 YEARS: Thus, she stated that abortive women KNOW they are babies, they KNOW there is a growing baby in their uterus and they KNOW it stops a beating heart and that for MOST women it is not a mystery.
Do you guys realize that your myths have been debunked by a professional pro-abort?
What say you????
Posted by: AB Laura at November 30, 2007 6:45 PM
………………………………………
No one has said that any given embryo might not grow into an infant. No one has said that any given embryo might have a primitive heart.
While you single mindedly focus on romantic notions of babies, you completely ignore the very real women involved and what you are really advocating.
Do you have any realistic notion of the lives of women during abortion prohibition? Do you have any notion of how little concern the medical community exerted towards gestation or pre natal care? There were a great many reasons that anti abortion laws were found unconstitutional. And none of them have anything to do with making the world an Utopia any more than making abortion illegal would.
Annie,
As for the reasoning that the state laws pre Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have allowed for prosecuting women and so therefore that wouldn’t happen in the future isn’t nearly enough for me to feel confident penalizing women won’t be on the table.
Why? Because then these women would be “Victims?” Why wouldn’t you want them penalized? Why does that make you fearful? If we don’t penalize them because we understand that they were under great pressure and decided to break the law out of a feeling of panic, then we are treating women as victims. But if we prosecute them and say they are murderers the same as Jeffrey Dahmer then we are horrible brutes that are out to punish women and don’t understand how desperate they are. At which point you are the one treating women as victims. If they are “strong” enough to make a rational decision to abort while abortion is legal, why wouldn’t the women whose choose to abort when it is illegal, not be considered just as strong? What would you like us to do?
Posted by: mk at November 30, 2007 4:08 PM
………………………………
You forget that only poor women would be without abortion. Wealthy women can take a vacation to many a place in the world and get her abortion quite legally. Then she will come back and her evilness will cause the slippery slide of fellow Americans into the bowls of hell. Next thing you know, she’ll be taking all her inconvenient relatives—ok make that inconvenient anyones off to other countries to have them euthanized—ok outright murdered. When she tires of that, she will snatch people off the street and serve them for dinner a la Dahmer style. Next thing you know, everyone will be doing the same. Muuuuhahaha! @@
Sally,
So when Amie said,
“Believe me, women who access abortion KNOW there is a growing baby in their uterus.”
You are still trying to tell me that that is not a baby in their uterus? Amie, the professional, says they do know this. The women who abort don’t believe it will “grow” into a baby, they already believe that it IS a baby. The women are not aborting at birth.., they are aborting it. At what, 6 – 8 weeks? So, yes indeed, Amie, the professional pro-abort did say that at 6-8 weeks women who abort do know it is a baby! Just like we’ve been trying to tell you all along!
Sally, your generation may have fought tooth & nail for abortion, but my generation has learned from your generation’s mistakes. You passed us the torch…we have had enough with this nonsense! The generation after me, the young pro-lifer’s Jill spoke of, look out!
Sally, Sally, Sally….
Boy how you read into things! I don’t think Jill has “as much” admitted to anything! However, I DID say that “based on what I have read from Jill’s posts, it SEEMS as though it is a “non-issue. Are my thoughts really that relevant to you?
Posted by: AB Laura at November 30, 2007 7:07 PM
……………………………………..
Of course she didn’t say anything. She quoted someone else’s opinion as her own. He supposed that the laws would be the same as when abortion had been made illegal.
It wasn’t murder then. She obviously agrees. Therefore abortion isn’t murder and has never been. She talks out of both sides of her mouth. And she does that for herself. If she believes that the legal implications of abortion is a non issue she is sadly mistaken about the gullibility of the vast majority of Americans who are not singing in her choir.
And yes Laura. I think that you have tremendous potential to think for yourself. As you say, you are new to the subject matter but have shown a great deal of interest in understanding opposing views. That’s mighty open minded for a PL in my experience.
I think that you have adopted your stance out of idealism where I find many PL’s positions come from self serving personal reasons having nothing to do with the health of society let alone love for an unknown conceptus.
Therefore I respect you even though you don’t understand my point of view.
Sally,
I respect you and your point of view, but I cannot comprehend it, as you cannot comprehend mine. I thank you for respecting me, though.
I am very fascinated with everyone’s point of view. I had no idea 3 months ago that there were so many viewpoints on each side of this debate. I had no idea how strongly each side viewed their positions. I thought it to be a simple, “for it” or “against it” kindof thing. I guess in reality, it still is, but there are so many facets to it that I was ever aware of.
Anyway, in Jill’s defense, I still do not have a clue as what you are referring to. I read it three times, and nowhere did I read that she either agreed with what Clarke said or even said that abortion was never murder, she simply quoted his statement to Aime’s statement.
I think you are the only one who thinks that it’s “obvious”…but I could be wrong.
Sally: “I think that you have adopted your stance out of idealism where I find many PL’s positions come from self serving personal reasons having nothing to do with the health of society let alone love for an unknown conceptus.”
unknown conceptus? Sally, you nuttier than a fruitcake.
unknown conceptus? Sally, you nuttier than a fruitcake.
Posted by: jasper at November 30, 2007 9:51 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really Jasper?
Have you met any conceptus? Maybe CELEBRITY conceptus? Do tell…
At what, 6 – 8 weeks? So, yes indeed, Amie, the professional pro-abort did say that at 6-8 weeks women who abort do know it is a baby!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, she said that SOME women feel that it is a baby. These women are unglued.
Oh Laura, the insults towards women are just abundant with you aren’t they? So because a woman admits that it actually IS a baby makes her crazy or “unglued?” I think you’re the one who is unglued dear with all the woman-hating rhetoric that you spew.
Oh Laura, the insults towards women are just abundant with you aren’t they? So because a woman admits that it actually IS a baby makes her crazy or “unglued?” I think you’re the one who is unglued dear with all the woman-hating rhetoric that you spew.
Posted by: Elizabeth at November 30, 2007 11:09 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t want women who believe it’s OK to kill babies to walk freely among us. They’re dangerous.
If I woke up tomorrow and truly believed that I had consciously and knowingly killed a baby, I would do the honorable thing and take my own life.
What you believe and what is TRUTH, Laura are obviously 2 different things as you have so blatantly pointed out. Go back to your land of denial now. Taking your own life would not be honorable, it would be yet another act of cowardice by someone who can’t even deal with their own “choices.” Don’t you think you should stand up and start being a woman for a change, better yet, maybe a human being. Yeah, let’s start with the baby steps here.
Sally: “I think that you have adopted your stance out of idealism where I find many PL’s positions come from self serving personal reasons having nothing to do with the health of society let alone love for an unknown conceptus.”
unknown conceptus? Sally, you nuttier than a fruitcake.
Posted by: jasper at November 30, 2007 9:51 PM
……………………….
Keep communing with the ‘unborn’ Jasper. It’s gotten you so far! @@
Yay! I met the coolest gay guys tonight! I’m so excited.
we were all at a party and we got into a discussion about project runway, and now we are all friends!
I love making new friends ;)
we were all at a party and we got into a discussion about project runway, and now we are all friends!
I love making new friends ;)
Posted by: prettyinpink at December 1, 2007 12:53 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And now, you must RUN – not walk – to the pettiest, bitchest, cattiest, FUNNIEST Project Runway blog on the web: http://projectrungay.blogspot.com/
What you believe and what is TRUTH, Laura are obviously 2 different things as you have so blatantly pointed out. Go back to your land of denial now. Taking your own life would not be honorable, it would be yet another act of cowardice by someone who can’t even deal with their own “choices.” Don’t you think you should stand up and start being a woman for a change, better yet, maybe a human being. Yeah, let’s start with the baby steps here.
Posted by: Elizabeth at November 30, 2007 11:58 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’re babbling again.
I have no clue what you’re talking about.
Tp.
My point is therapy, therapy, and more therapy.
The abortion provider will be caught. My mention of rape and molestation are only examples of what happens when laws change and education makes one aware of exactly what rape is. Rape was committed on women and excused as the women asking for it, she wanted it as much as me, and hundred of other defense lawyer techniques to blame the women, and not the rapist.
What changed in the matter of rape was education and the women’s movement. Credit due there.
And for molestation, again education, and awareness, made the “child victim” understand that the molested was the victim, and not a willing participant in the crime.
Which is what a molester does to children, to shut them up. Especially if another child is involved in their activities. Such as, the adult molester showing them previous molestations he/she has performed on other children. Remember, little child, your as guilty as me for not “turning me in” when I showed you those pics,vid,etc.
Is that what you mean by the women not turning in a criminal abortion provider TP?
A kinda blackmail, which rapist and child molesters did before the women’s lib made them aware of them not being guilty of anything, but the act of rape, or molestation.
Remember women, you came to me, a criminal abortion provider and you better always keep your MOUTH SHUT.
When she tells someone years later(and she will), and the person informs her that she was a victim of a criminal, she might just sue that criminal and also turn the criminal in to the law.
They will be caught TP.
OMG laura. Thanks so much. Been looking for a place to get the scoop.
Oh guys it’s time for my latest discovery.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28151
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28812
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28251
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28144
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38673
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/26919
Mods,thanks for posting this!
Amie’s gone now, but I do want to thank her for the healthy debate.
I also thank MK, Kristen, and others for their great, thought-provoking responses to Amie.
Amie responded to my question as to which impending laws in CO, SC, etc., she was referring to that would have “terrifying implications for women”:
Jill, the Colorado measure is one that was affirmed by the state supreme court to bestow constitutional rights on fertilized human eggs. Which means that if a woman miscarries and the embryo “dies” she is an accessory to murder. We want to bestow personhood on fertilized eggs?!
I knew that was what Amie would say. Just wanted her to say it out loud. Because, as Kristen said, that is ridiculous. Clearly someone as intelligent as Amie doesn’t believe that but is, again, fear-mongering. In the case of miscarriage, the child dies a natural death.
And they’re not fertilized eggs. They’re human embryos, if you want to speak scientifically correctly.
I said, “At what, 6 – 8 weeks? So, yes indeed, Amie, the professional pro-abort did say that at 6-8 weeks women who abort do know it is a baby!”
Then Laura said, “No, she said that SOME women feel that it is a baby. These women are unglued.
Going back to what Aime said, “Believe me, women who access abortion KNOW there is a growing baby in their uterus.”
——————
Laura, I know how to read, and I most certainly do not put words into others’ mouths. Unlike you, of course, who will twist what others say for your own gratification of making an absurd statement. If you have a problem with what Aime, the professional pro-abort said, take it up with her. I’m sure she’d be glad to hear from you.
I don’t want women who believe it’s OK to kill babies to walk freely among us. They’re dangerous.
If I woke up tomorrow and truly believed that I had consciously and knowingly killed a baby, I would do the honorable thing and take my own life.
Posted by: Laura at November 30, 2007 11:22 PM*********************************************************************************************** Some women who have abortions DO take their own lives.
@Jill: I do have concerns with the rights given to fertilized eggs and what not as it would more than likely lead to the illegalization of hormonal birth control pills due to the hypothetical third “mechanism” of pregnancy prevention.
Quite frankly, that doesn’t sit well with me, as I do take the pill for hormonal reasons and it would be most unpleasant if I were no longer able to take them for a reason that is basically irrelevant to me.
Selfish yes, but who isn’t?
I don’t want women who believe it’s OK to kill babies to walk freely among us. They’re dangerous.
If I woke up tomorrow and truly believed that I had consciously and knowingly killed a baby, I would do the honorable thing and take my own life.
Posted by: Laura at November 30, 2007 11:22 PM*********************************************************************************************** Some women who have abortions DO take their own lives.
Posted by: heather at December 1, 2007 11:23 AM
…………………………………..
Women that don’t have abortions kill themselves. What is your excuse for the pretend of interest in suicide?
The suicide rate of women who have undergone an abortion is six times higher than those that don’t.
The suicide rate of women who have undergone an abortion is six times higher than those that don’t.
Posted by: MCAnthony at December 3, 2007 12:50 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cite your source.
(By the way, if your source contains the words “Finland” or “Reardon,” you will be eaten.)
Okay, you’re right. What’s wrong with David Reardon’s study? Was it discredited?
“Dr.” David Reardon’s Ph.D in Bioethics comes from Pacific Western University – a diploma mill with no actual campus or faculty. PWU didn’t even offer a degree in Bioethics when Reardon claimed to have earned his. (For $2500.00 you can be a doctor JUST LIKE DAVE!)
His “Elliot Institute” has no facility – just a PO box.
Here’s a very good article about the quack:
http://nerofiddled.blogspot.com/2005_07_19_archive.html
…whew, and here I was prepared to plead with you to spare the mustard ;)
That does seem strange that there hasn’t been a legitimate study done on the subject. I might note that the article didn’t disagree with the data, only that the population samples were too small, which, I realize, kind of renders it useless. Oh, well.
dr. reardon is not a quack..*yawns* for the 10000th time.
dr. reardon is not a quack..*yawns* for the 10000th time.
Posted by: heather at December 3, 2007 9:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really? What would YOU call a guy who lies about his mail-order degree?