Jivin J’s Life Links 8-18-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Ross Douthat writes about the failings of liberal bioethics with the NY Times selective twin reduction article as a backdrop:… [T]hey find reasons to embrace each new technological leap while promising to resist the next one – and then time passes, science marches on, and they find reasons why the next moral compromise, too, must be accepted for the greater good, or at least tolerated in the name of privacy and choice.
You can always count on them to worry, often perceptively, about hypothetical evils, potential slips down the bioethical slope. But they’re either ineffectual or accommodating once an evil actually arrives. Tomorrow, they always say – tomorrow, we’ll draw the line. But tomorrow never comes.
- A New Orleans abortion clinic was robbed by two men who were buzzed in after one man asked if his girlfriend had an abortion last week:Afterward, police said, the men produced a gun, forced 3 employees in the back office and demanded money.
Police said one victim gave the men money from her purse, took another’s cellphone and struck a victim in the head with the gun.
- African-American pro-life leaders have a new billboard campaign which calls out Jesse Jackson for his support of abortion:
The ad hints at the groups’ primary charge – that civil rights leaders who support abortion are betraying the black community – and directs onlookers to visit AbortionInTheHood.com.
“Something is wrong,” said Catherine Davis, founder of the Restoration Project, a co-sponsor of the billboard, “when those elected to protect the interests of their constituents turn a blind eye to the horrific impact that abortion is wreaking on the black community. In New York City, for every 1,000 black babies born alive, 1,489 are aborted. In Washington, D.C. for every 100 black babies born alive, 165 are aborted! Something is wrong!”
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.
Does Jill blog daily anymore? She use to have five or six updates a day a year ago. Now it’s scarce.
I’ve been wondering the same thing. I miss Sunday Funnies the most though. ;_;
I miss Sunday Funnies too.
I miss Sunday funnies too but I am even more grateful for all the Sunday funnies that I had a chance to read. God bless Jill’s blog and the moderators for their dedication to educating people on pro-life issues and speading the truth about abortion. Partial birth abortion is no less heinous then jabbing a baby in the head with a scissors one hour after delivery. Bothe are heinous and barbaric acts; a sickness and evil that permeated our society for 35 years; the only real difference is that one was legal. Hopefully some day soon we will be able to say the same about all abortion and understand to be the barbaric and heinous act it is.
Rep. Waters to Frustrated Black Voters: ‘Unleash Us’ on mr. bo-jangles
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/17/rep-waters-to-frustrated-black-voters-unleash-us-on-obama/#ixzz1VNqm9KVt
[‘Walk In The Water’ playing in the back ground, followed by ‘Somewhere’.]
U.S. House Rep. Maxine Waters is asking black voters who are struggling with an unemployment rate nearly twice the national average to “unleash” her and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus on President O‘bama [aka, b o/mr. bo-jangles].
The unemployment rate African Americans is 15.9 percent while nationwide it stands at 9.2 percent.
“We [overseers on the liberal plantation] don’t put pressure on the president,” Waters told the audience at Wayne County Community College. “Let me tell you why. We don’t put pressure on the president because ya’ll love the president. You love the president. You’re very proud to have a black man [Kenyan]–first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us.”
“If we [liberal black democrats] go after the president too hard, you’re [‘The Help’] going after us,” Waters said. “When you tell us it’s all right and you unleash us and you’re ready to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation.”
[If a conservative (even a densely pigmented conservative) said something like this it would be called a threat against mr. bo-jangles and another example of the outright ‘racism’ being promulgated by the ‘Tea Party’. Heavily armed agents from the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the Secret Service would descend on them like jihadists on a Jew.]
”We’re getting tired y’all,” she said. “We want to give him [b o/mr. bo-jangles] every opportunity. But our people [‘The Help’] are hurting. The unemployment is unconscionable. … When you [‘The Help’] let us know it is time to let go, we’ll let go.”
[I suggest missy Water’s constituents don’t need to ‘unleash her’, they need to ‘let her go’, as in not re-elect her bony butt to congress.]
At her town hall meeting, Waters questioned why Obama hasn’t gone to any black neighborhoods during his bus tour.
“We don’t know what the strategy is. We don’t know why on this trip that he’s on in the United States now, he’s not in any black communities,” she said.
[The ‘liberal plantation’, aka., Matha’s Vineyard, is well known for it’s grapes the size of water melons and the ‘soul food’ there is world renowned. It’s where all the members of the ‘Rainbow Coaliton’ go to eat short ribs and collard greens.]
Two former supporters of mr. bo-jangles, the neo racist black PBS host Tavis Smiley and black Princeton University professor Cornel West, went on a poverty tour last week highlighting how they believe b o has failed the nation’s most vulnerable citizens, including low-income blacks.
Black voters were crucial in helping elect mr. bo-jangles in 2008 and b o will need as much support from the demographic voting bloc in his re-election bid as support falls off elsewhere due to the weak economy.
A Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 86 percent of blacks approve of mr. bo-jangles performance. But only 54 percent said b o‘s policies have improved the economy, a steep drop from 77 percent last October.
mr. bo-jangles is also getting heat from Latinos, another significant electorate, who protested his immigration policies in six cities Wednesday and threatened to abandon him on Election Day.
[Everyone knows those latinos/latinas are all racists.]
mr. bo-jangles “has repeatedly blamed Republicans in Congress”… [for this outbreak of unbridled bigotry].
[It’s africans like b o‘bama who give the Irish-Americans a bad name.]
“Something is wrong,” said Catherine Davis, founder of the Restoration Project, a co-sponsor of the billboard, “when those elected to protect the interests of their constituents turn a blind eye to the horrific impact that abortion is wreaking on the black community. In New York City, for every 1,000 black babies born alive, 1,489 are aborted. In Washington, D.C. for every 100 black babies born alive, 165 are aborted! Something is wrong!”
Well, yet again – is there some massive increase in the number of African-Americans in the US that’s really “required” for the black community, especially given that the black birth rate is already higher than that for whites? Is it somehow “required” to the extent that the rights and desires of the individual black woman are made less important? I don’t think so, and I bet old Jesse doesn’t, either, to say nothing of the individual women themselves. If the birthrate now is 2 kids per woman, transforming all those abortions into babies born alive would raise things to 5 kids per woman – are people pretending that is some “necessary” ingredient for Washington, D.C.?
“If the birthrate now is 2 kids per woman, transforming all those abortions into babies born alive would raise things to 5 kids per woman”
In theory maybe, but in practice, probably not. It would more likely be that the women would just have the babies when they are younger, thereby reducing their breast cancer risk. Older women with a child or two get to be really good at using birth control effectively partly because mother nature has it worked out that fertility falls with age. Birth control failure rates fall with increasing age.
If the birthrate now is 2 kids per woman, transforming all those abortions into babies born alive would raise things to 5 kids per woman – are people pretending that is some “necessary” ingredient for Washington, D.C.?
No Doug, not pretending. Ending the destruction of babies in the womb is a very necessary ingredient to the healing of the soul of DC and black America.
Doug
Your guile is showing. ;(
Another grit-your-teeth-and-squint-an-eye comment from Ken. Mostly true and mostly nerve-wracking. :)
However Doug’s was close-your-eyes-and-slap-your-forehead. We do not judge someone’s life by monetary worth. That’s the leftist’s creed.
If some disease were plaguing the preborn and killing them at the same rate as abortion, it would make all the news & media outlets and the CDC would be in total panic mode.
“If the birthrate now is 2 kids per woman, transforming all those abortions into babies born alive would raise things to 5 kids per woman”
Hippie: In theory maybe, but in practice, probably not. It would more likely be that the women would just have the babies when they are younger, thereby reducing their breast cancer risk. Older women with a child or two get to be really good at using birth control effectively partly because mother nature has it worked out that fertility falls with age. Birth control failure rates fall with increasing age.
Well, Hippie, the births and abortions are already happening, as things are now, i.e. it’s not like the pregnancies are just “in theory” (as many a pro-lifer might note ;)
“If the birthrate now is 2 kids per woman, transforming all those abortions into babies born alive would raise things to 5 kids per woman – are people pretending that is some “necessary” ingredient for Washington, D.C.?”
Truthseeker: No Doug, not pretending. Ending the destruction of babies in the womb is a very necessary ingredient to the healing of the soul of DC and black America.
I question that, TS. I don’t see any waving of any magic wand from that. I’d rather see those unwanted pregnancies prevented, versus having them ended by abortion, but there too don’t see any big change for D.C.
Myrtle: Doug, Your guile is showing. ;(
No Myrtle, ain’t no guile at work at all. Good morning, by the way. : )
It’s just my honest observation and feelings – and you are certainly free to agree or disagree. Last I heard, the black birthrate was 2.1 per woman. Okay, taking the figures for D.C., out of 265 pregnancies, 100 are currently resulting in births. Were none of them aborted, the birth rate would thus be 2.65 times as high, and multiplying that by 2.1 puts us at 5 and actually a little over, almost 5.6.
Going somewhat with Hippie’s approach, I do think that it would not entirely be that simple, i.e. that women having more kids would start to cut down on the number of later pregnancies they had. Would it really change the overall birth rate much? I doubt it. And in the end, what I’m saying is okay – let’s assume no more abortions at all – now there are obviously a *lot* more births (regardless of the exact number). How can we state that things will automatically be significantly better in the black community?
Really not even addressing the morality of abortion, more of a “just what would really happen” question.
Hans: However Doug’s was close-your-eyes-and-slap-your-forehead. We do not judge someone’s life by monetary worth. That’s the leftist’s creed.
Hans, I wasn’t even bringing “monetary worth” into it, either. Rather, just thinking, “Okay, now (were there no abortions, for example) there are a whole lot more kids.” How, exactly, is the black community going to benefit from that? In the past couple weeks there was a really good post from Marysia or somebody else – certainly not saying that “abortion is good” – but noting that there’s a big downside to to having kids in single-parent families, etc., things to that effect. So, take abortion out of the equation – then really, what does this do for D.C., NYC, etc.?
15.9% unemployment for African-Americans, now double or more the number of kids that the average black woman has. Has there been some magic wand waved, therein, making that unemployment better?
Ninek: If some disease were plaguing the preborn and killing them at the same rate as abortion, it would make all the news & media outlets and the CDC would be in total panic mode.
For known, wanted pregnancies, I agree. What is the rate for failed implantation for fertilized eggs? I’ve seen a wide range of figures – 60%, 50%, 25%, 15%… At any rate, it’s substantial. Is there “total panic mode” about that?
Doug
Good morning to you too. Black women are often pressured not to have more babies as are economically disadvantaged women. You have been coming to this site long enough to know there are segments of society that are targeted. Sorry thats the very definition of guile or duplicity. Really good morning and a month ago could you predict what kind of morning you were going to have today no more so than you are able to predict what ingredient more black children would have on Washington. Next time black history month rolls around you my friend need to pay close attention.
Ken: Black voters were crucial in helping elect mr. bo-jangles in 2008 and b o will need as much support from the demographic voting bloc in his re-election bid as support falls off elsewhere due to the weak economy.
Ken, what do you think Ms. Waters wants Obama to do, exactly? What do you think the President can really *do* for the economy?
IMO the last President to really, directly affect the economy in a big way was FDR, and that was via “stimulus spending” and the Keynesian approach. Obama takes big heat for that very thing now – it’s the direct opposite of what most conservatives want.
The President can propose things, but without Congress going along, he most certainly has no “magic wand” for the economy. We have been many decades getting to our present point; no easy way out now.
If Obama loses the next election, it won’t surprise me. Back when the polls had it a close race, prior to the last election, I said that neither Obama nor McCain could “fix” the economy, and that the next President would likely be a one-termer. I said that right here on Jill’s site. Tell you what, it ain’t gonna be a picnic for the next Administration, either, Obama or not.
Black women are often pressured not to have more babies as are economically disadvantaged women.
Okay, Myrtle, but how does that bear on what we’re talking about?
____
You have been coming to this site long enough to know there are segments of society that are targeted. Sorry thats the very definition of guile or duplicity.
Without arguing about that – how would it be any “guile” on my part? ; )
____
Really good morning and a month ago could you predict what kind of morning you were going to have today no more so than you are able to predict what ingredient more black children would have on Washington. Next time black history month rolls around you my friend need to pay close attention.
Well, uh…okay. No, I could not predict this morning, and I am saying we can’t predict any “magic cure” for D.C. by increasing the black birth rate.
Let’s say I was a black woman with an unwanted pregnancy. What are you going to say to me that somehow proves that not having an abortion will make the city a better place?
You can say that “well, things are bad now,” and you can say that “abortion is bad” – people do it all the time. My point is that it’s hardly a direct connection between the two, and that changing one would not necessarily change the other.
For known, wanted pregnancies, I agree.
Doug,
Would you use the same analogy to justify very poor treatment of other segments of society? An example would be what was occurring at Walter Reid hospital and what often occurs at charity hospitals do you think that because value is often not attibuted to these individuals that they should be targeted as the unborn are and that it would be o.k.? And I will bring up intrinsic value again but this time when you google it google the ethical definition of intrinsic value. What I would say to a black woman that has an unwanted pregnancy I would say that no one knows but God what tomorrow holds. Don’t let your present sorrows rob you of tomorrows joy. Your baby is a good thing.
Doug
I would never ask someone to prove how them having a baby would improve the city. If you need to know how African Americans benefit any city pay attention when black history month rolls along. It’s really you that needs an example so I’ll give you one. There was an African American women who was told by her son’s educator that he was slow and would need to be put in special ed.. His mom went to the library and got him a library card now he’s a I want to say a neuro-surgeon. Anyway research it for yourself.
“For known, wanted pregnancies, I agree.”
Doug, Would you use the same analogy to justify very poor treatment of other segments of society?
Myrtle, I wasn’t trying to justify anything, just saying that yeah – if 50% or 60% of wanted pregnancies had the unborn being killed by a disease, as Ninek mentioned, then it would be a big, prominent deal causing a lot of concern.
____
An example would be what was occurring at Walter Reid hospital and what often occurs at charity hospitals do you think that because value is often not attibuted to these individuals that they should be targeted as the unborn are and that it would be o.k.? And I will bring up intrinsic value again but this time when you google it google the ethical definition of intrinsic value. What I would say to a black woman that has an unwanted pregnancy I would say that no one knows but God what tomorrow holds. Don’t let your present sorrows rob you of tomorrows joy. Your baby is a good thing.
I’m not saying there should be any “targeting.” I’m for leaving it up to the individual pregnant women themselves.
____
I would never ask someone to prove how them having a baby would improve the city.
That’s my point, here – that (for simplicity’s sake) just having “more people,” per se, or if the abortion numbers drastically declined, is no guarantee that things would improve in the cities. Nor, IMO, is there logical reason to think they necessarily would.
____
If you need to know how African Americans benefit any city pay attention when black history month rolls along. It’s really you that needs an example so I’ll give you one. There was an African American women who was told by her son’s educator that he was slow and would need to be put in special ed.. His mom went to the library and got him a library card now he’s a I want to say a neuro-surgeon. Anyway research it for yourself.
I’ve never said anything to the effect that that’s not true or that it doesn’t work out that way, sometimes. Totally agree – we can’t know ahead of time how a given individual will turn out.
My point is that essentially just “dropping in a bunch more people” is no guarantee, at all, that things will be better. When we are talking about a high unemployment rate, then it’s a matter of not enough demand for their labor. “More people,” by itself, won’t fix that, nor is it guaranteed that it won’t actually make that problem worse.
It’s absolutely monstrous to divide the preborn into categories of “wanted” and “unwanted.” It is hideous, ugly, and inhumane.
No it’s not, any more than is stating many different truths, even if some people don’t like all or part of them. It is fact that some pregnancies are wanted – even to a huge extent – and also fact that some are not wanted.
but there too don’t see any big change for D.C.
Doug, lets talk about change to the soul of DC since abortion was made criminal.
1) No more women having to go through the torture of having babies sucked from their wombs in DC.
2) There are no more buidings in DC where babies are routinely tortured and ripped apart in bloody pieces on a daily basis.
IMO, these activities bring a ‘darkness’ into any community that sanctions them. Just the buildings themselves eminate death and become temples of torture of mother’s and killing their unborn children. Do you disagree? If so, then why?
On a side note; there are some in DC who object to the outlawing of abortion which leaves open the possibility that the soul of DC could be corrupted again in the future should they ever decriminalize these hedonistic practices again.
Who hasn’t heard of “unwanted pregnancy”?
Not sure Elmer. It seems to me that the term ‘unwanted pregnancy’ could be used by all people. Most people who use the term and actually find themselves in an ‘unwanted pregnancy’ do not kill their offspring as a resolution. It is a mental illness if somebodydoes not feel wrong about killing their unborn children.
truthseeker, if people are finding themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, then don’t you think they will call it what it is? I don’t know the percentage of women with unwanted pregnancies that choose abortion, but I’m not sure you’re right that most go ahead with gestation.
Remember folks – we are talking about ending human lives here. Aren’t we a society that has better solutions to a woman being overwhelmed than abortion? Help for the family? education? Job skills training?
women are sometimes overwhelmed. But I heard it best from a Sister of Life who was visiting the U of I, and joined me with sidewalk counseling: “Circumstances Change.”
For every ‘need’ for abortion, help is available and Circumstances Change. What does not change is that human children die when an abortion is successful. Children do not come back. When they are dead, they are dead.
Let’s look for better solutions than death. We are smarter, more loving and creative enough to do better than abortion.
Joy – kudos for being one of the most persuasive pro-life posters ever. And thanks for being you – I know that sounds a bit weird – but it gladdens my heart: your truly good nature comes through.
Truthseeker: Doug, let’s talk about change to the soul of DC since abortion was made criminal.
Yeah, it really went downhill. And that’s continued since it was made legal. ;)
____
1) No more women having to go through the torture of having babies sucked from their wombs in DC.
2) There are no more buidings in DC where babies are routinely tortured and ripped apart in bloody pieces on a daily basis.
I know that you think that, about abortion. You are projecting your feeling of “evil” onto the circumstances of the city, and that simply makes no sense to me.
____
IMO, these activities bring a ‘darkness’ into any community that sanctions them. Just the buildings themselves emanate death and become temples of torture of mother’s and killing their unborn children. Do you disagree? If so, then why?
Well my friend, I do disagree about the “darkness” versus what would otherwise be the case. Hey – if nobody had any unwanted pregnancies, then I’d be cool with it. That, unfortunately, is not reality. The real deal is that unwanted pregnancies, a lot of them, do happen. Again, your feeling is one thing, but what if there were no abortions in Washington, D.C.? I think it’s mighty far-fetched to maintain that things would automatically be “better.”
___
On a side note; there are some in DC who object to the outlawing of abortion which leaves open the possibility that the soul of DC could be corrupted again in the future should they ever decriminalize these hedonistic practices again.
You havin’ a few, Truthseeker?
Sure and of course – there are some in D.C. who object to outlawing abortion. But I gotta say, you get fast and loose after that. ;)
Not being too critical – after all, had a 1995 Chateau Rauzan-Segla and am working my way into a 1995 Chateau Climens Sauternes-Barsac as we speak.
What do you mean fast and loose Doug? You need to be more specific about that of which you blog. Are you denying abortion is a hedonistic practice?
The point I was trying to make is that abortion mills are houses of murder and torture that carry a bad karma and that karma permeates throughout the entire community that sanctions such barbaric behaviour.
How deep into relativism are you? Are you able to discern that murder and mutilation are gravely evil?
What do you mean fast and loose Doug? You need to be more specific about that of which you blog.
Truthseeker, I indeed was specific, and referred directly to your comment. You were hypothesizing about abortion being made illegal, and then being made legal again. Holy crow – that’s going out there a bit.
_____
Are you denying abortion is a hedonistic practice?
Yeah. It’s no more hedonistic than is getting a liver transplant or some antibiotics for an infection. You may object to some things that led to the situation, like “All those nasty dirty people having sex, gosh!” but as for itself, it’s a remedy for what may be an unwanted situation.
____
The point I was trying to make is that abortion mills are houses of murder and torture that carry a bad karma and that karma permeates throughout the entire community that sanctions such barbaric behaviour.
How deep into relativism are you? Are you able to discern that murder and mutilation are gravely evil?
I’m able to discern that the above is rhetoric, and that you not liking something in no way makes it “murder.” Your idea of Washington, D.C., for example, would improve if all or most of the abortions were births, instead, but I remain unconvinced that the city itself would automatically “get better” as Catherine Davis and others in this thread are stating or implying.
Elmer: I don’t know the percentage of women with unwanted pregnancies that choose abortion
It’s right about 50%, isn’t it?
Yeah. It’s no more hedonistic than is getting a liver transplant or some antibiotics for an infection.
Doug, huh? getting antibiotics doesn’t require killing another human beings in order to help yourself. Hedonism connotes a narcissimsm and pathological egotism. Please explain to me how you determine getting antibiotics is hedonism?
Doug,
I’ll ask you again in hopes that you will actually answer it this time.
How deep into relativism are you? Are you able to discern that murder and mutilation are gravely evil?
Truthseeker, I indeed was specific, and referred directly to your comment. You were hypothesizing about abortion being made illegal, and then being made legal again. Holy crow – that’s going out there a bit.
Doug,
I was referring specifically to partial-birth abortion where they deliver the baby to the shoulders and slide a scissors up the baby’s spine to the bottom of the head and jab a Metzenbaum scissors into the baby’s skull. The baby kicks until they open the scissors wide and stick a vaccuum in to suck the baby’s brains out. That specific ‘procedure’ was deemed legal in the US in 1973 when Roe V Wade passed and then was outlawed by the SCOTUS again a few years ago. It may seem to be ‘really out there’ but sometimes truth is stranger then fiction. In your opinion is DC (or all of America for that matter) a ‘better place’ since we outlawed partial-birth abortion. IMO opinion yes. And IMO all abortion is just as grave cause it is the intential destruction of a human being. I’ll never be able to grasp any logic that would make a person think partial-birth abortion is OK just because the baby’s head is not delivered. It is really twisted that people think that way. BTW – We elected as our leader Barack Obama who held fundraisers and fought to keep partial birth abortion legal right up until the day SCOTUS deemed it infanticide. Life is starnger then fiction that anybody could vote for such a person as their leader. God help the USA.
There are pro-aborts left who still wish partial birth abortion was legal but since it has been deemed to be infanticide they will no longer admit it publicly. We still have such a person as our leader. God help the USA.
R. Be merciful, O Lord, for we have sinned.
Have mercy on me, O God, in your goodness;
in the greatness of your compassion wipe out my offense.
Thoroughly wash me from my guilt
and of my sin cleanse me.
R. Be merciful, O Lord, for we have sinned.
For I acknowledge my offense;
and my sin is before me always:
“Against you only have I sinned;
and done what is evil in your sight.”
R. Be merciful, O Lord, for we have sinned.
That you may be justified in your sentence,
vindicated when you condemn.
Indeed, in guilt was I born,
and in sin my mother conceived me.
R. Be merciful, O Lord, for we have sinned.
A clean heart create for me, O God,
and a steadfast spirit renew within me.
Cast me not off from your presence,
and your Holy Spirit take not from me.
R. Be merciful, O Lord, for we have sinned.
Elmer: I don’t know the percentage of women with unwanted pregnancies that choose abortion
Doug: It’s right about 50%, isn’t it?
Before you can even try and put a perventage on it you would need to define an “unwanted” pregnancy. Like if woman would rather not be pregnant but would never consider abortion, would you consider that an unwanted pregnancy? I would say that is an unplanned pregnancy but it is also a wanted pregnancy. Are you defining unwanted pregancies as those pregnancies where the woman chooses to abort? If so then it would be something closer to 20% because there are around four live births for every abortion in the US. Sickening that 20% of our babies are now killed in the womb.
Yeah. It’s no more hedonistic than is getting a liver transplant or some antibiotics for an infection.
Doug, huh? getting antibiotics doesn’t require killing another human beings in order to help yourself. Hedonism connotes a narcissimsm and pathological egotism. Please explain to me how you determine getting antibiotics is hedonism?
Truthseeker, no, getting the antibiotics isn’t hedonism, and neither is getting an abortion. Those are remedying unwanted situations. Now, you could say that “having sex for pleasure” is hedonistic – and that could lead to having an abortion, or the getting of antibiotics, for that matter. ;)
I’ll ask you again in hopes that you will actually answer it this time.
How deep into relativism are you? Are you able to discern that murder and mutilation are gravely evil?
Truthseeker, the problem is that you are pretending that your opinion makes something “murder,” and that is not the truth.
Many things are relative, indeed, but that’s not one of them. As for “mutilation,” I will agree that it’s “evil” if there is not a good enough reason for it. You and I don’t agree on the amount of “good reason” with respect to abortions.
In your opinion is DC (or all of America for that matter) a ‘better place’ since we outlawed partial-birth abortion. IMO opinion yes.
Truthseeker, sure, but your opinion may not reflect the reality of the city nor what the average person who lives there feels. It’s like people noting the unemployment rate and in the same breath worrying about the abortion rate. I’m saying that in effect “dropping in a bunch more people” won’t necessarily help, and it might even hurt.
I’m for elective abortion to a point in gestation. For those abortions, I’m for whatever is the best, safest procedure for the woman.
____
Elmer: I don’t know the percentage of women with unwanted pregnancies that choose abortion
Doug: “It’s right about 50%, isn’t it”
TS: Before you can even try and put a percentage on it you would need to define an “unwanted” pregnancy. Like if woman would rather not be pregnant but would never consider abortion, would you consider that an unwanted pregnancy? I would say that is an unplanned pregnancy but it is also a wanted pregnancy.
Valid question, TS. I answered that too fast – perhaps I was thinking of unintended pregnancies, or “unplanned” as you mentioned. If the woman would never consider abortion then I see that as a wanted pregnancy.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3002498.html
“49% of the pregnancies concluding in 1994 were unintended; 54% of these ended in abortion.”
–Admittedly this is from some years back, but I think it stays fairly constant, around 1/2 of unintended pregnancies being ended via abortion.
___
Are you defining unwanted pregnancies as those pregnancies where the woman chooses to abort? If so then it would be something closer to 20% because there are around four live births for every abortion in the US. Sickening that 20% of our babies are now killed in the womb.
Yes – there may be conflicting desires, but on balance if a pregnancy is wanted, it will be continued, and if unwanted, it will be ended.
“49% of the pregnancies concluding in 1994 were unintended; 54% of these ended in abortion.”
“Yes – there may be conflicting desires, but on balance if a pregnancy is wanted, it will be continued, and if unwanted, it will be ended. “
Doug, Guttemacher twists stistics and numbers all the time so I don’t believe a word they say. And that whole unintended/unwanted thing would need a lot of objective criteria before it could be of any value at all.
_______
In your opinion is DC (or all of America for that matter) a ‘better place’ since we outlawed partial-birth abortion. IMO opinion yes.
Doug, A simple yes or no would be fine. Why do you refuse to answer directly. Just come out and say it once. Instead of saying “I’m for elective abortion to a point in gestation”; just come out and agree. Make a statement that is pro-life. You can do it; I know you can. “. Let your humanity and love shine through sometimes. Just say ”The US is a better place now that partial-birth abortion is illegal.” Baby steps buddy.
Truthseeker, no, getting the antibiotics isn’t hedonism, and neither is getting an abortion. Those are remedying unwanted situations. Now, you could say that “having sex for pleasure” is hedonistic – and that could lead to having an abortion, or the getting of antibiotics, for that matter.
Doug, hedonism is acting in ways that pleasure yourself with less regard to how your actions effect the other people involved. I would say abortion definitely fits that criteria cause you are destroying a human life to make your own life ‘easier’. You could not say the same about getting antibiotics.
“49% of the pregnancies concluding in 1994 were unintended; 54% of these ended in abortion.”
“Yes – there may be conflicting desires, but on balance if a pregnancy is wanted, it will be continued, and if unwanted, it will be ended. “
Doug, Guttemacher twists stistics and numbers all the time so I don’t believe a word they say. And that whole unintended/unwanted thing would need a lot of objective criteria before it could be of any value at all.
TS, I haven’t really even seen pro-lifers arguing with that…. There *are* a given number of elective abortions in the US each year… It makes sense that more of them will be from unplanned pregnancies (a lot more, IMO) than from planned ones.
_______
“In your opinion is DC (or all of America for that matter) a ‘better place’ since we outlawed partial-birth abortion. IMO opinion yes.”
Doug, A simple yes or no would be fine. Why do you refuse to answer directly. Just come out and say it once. Instead of saying “I’m for elective abortion to a point in gestation”; just come out and agree. Make a statement that is pro-life. You can do it; I know you can. “. Let your humanity and love shine through sometimes. Just say ”The US is a better place now that partial-birth abortion is illegal.” Baby steps buddy.
TS, in no way did I refuse to answer directly. You want to think in silhouette, but it’s not that simple. Prior in gestation to when I think abortion should be restricted, I’m for whatever procedure is the best and safest for the woman. As I recall, D & X abortions were done fairly early at times – like 14 weeks….? After viability, they were the most common procedure, and at that point I’m not for them (along with other procedures). Prior to that point, I’m okay with any procedure if it’s what the doctor and the pregnant woman decide is best.
Not saying “it’s the end of the world,” or anything because of the “partial-birth” abortion ban. However, I don’t think the ban is necessarily a good thing, since the procedure was sometimes chosen at times in gestation when abortion is still entirely legal, for any reason. Aside from what we feel about abortion in general, if a woman is going to have an abortion, then the baby is going to die. For what may be the best procedure to be unavailable to her is not a good thing, IMO. Personally, were the ban for 22 weeks and after, then my objection would be removed.
“Truthseeker, no, getting the antibiotics isn’t hedonism, and neither is getting an abortion. Those are remedying unwanted situations. Now, you could say that “having sex for pleasure” is hedonistic – and that could lead to having an abortion, or the getting of antibiotics, for that matter.”
Doug, hedonism is acting in ways that pleasure yourself with less regard to how your actions effect the other people involved. I would say abortion definitely fits that criteria cause you are destroying a human life to make your own life ‘easier’. You could not say the same about getting antibiotics.
It’s really just seeing pleasure as the highest goal. No “effecting other people” necessarily involved.
It’s really just seeing pleasure as the highest goal. No “effecting other people” necessarily involved.
Doug, placing your own personal pleasure as the highest goal means placing your own personal pleasure above how it moght effect others. If you weren’t hedonistic then you wouldn’t kill your baby.
Personally, were the ban for 22 weeks and after, then my objection would be removed.
Doug, What is the difference in your mind between delivering a 21 week old baby to the shoulders and reaching inside the womb to puncture her in the skull and sucking her brains out so you can deliver her dead or delivering a 21 week old baby completely and then stabbing it in the head. According to the criteria you gave it would certainly be safer and easier on the mother and the baby ends up just as dead either way.
TS, I haven’t really even seen pro-lifers arguing with that…. There *are* a given number of elective abortions in the US each year… It makes sense that more of them will be from unplanned pregnancies (a lot more, IMO) than from planned ones.
I agree abortions come from the pool of unplanned pregnancies Doug but I disagree that 50% of unplanned pregnancies end in abortion.
However, I don’t think the ban is necessarily a good thing, since the procedure was sometimes chosen at times in gestation when abortion is still entirely legal, for any reason.
Doug, would you be against delivering non-viable pregnancies and killing them outside the womb at times in gestation when abortion is legal?
“It’s really just seeing pleasure as the highest goal. No “effecting other people” necessarily involved.”
Doug, placing your own personal pleasure as the highest goal means placing your own personal pleasure above how it might effect others. If you weren’t hedonistic then you wouldn’t kill your baby.
TS, you are reaching, here – you’re taking a thing that is caused, possibly, by hedonism, a thing that you don’t like, and trying to say it’s hedonism itself. You could do the same thing for getting antibiotics, or even continuing the pregnancy and giving birth.
People are not having abortions because “they are fun.” That was the sex part. After the fact, then comes getting antibiotics, possibly, having an abortion, possibly, continuing the pregnancy, possibly – by your logic you could say all these are “hedonistic,” but they’re really not.
I agree abortions come from the pool of unplanned pregnancies Doug but I disagree that 50% of unplanned pregnancies end in abortion.
Well Truthseeker, I can’t even remember seeing any other figures saying anything significantly different. Do you doubt Guttmacher’s figures on the number of abortions per year, too?
I gotta note that *some* abortions will come the planned pregnancies.
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/briefly-unplanned-in-the-united-states.pdf
There’s some more information, and Figure 6 is showing 36 to 46% of unplanned pregnancies ending in abortion (though it doesn’t cover women older than 34).
If nothing else, I’d say just look at the total number of pregnancies in the US each year. How in the world are you going to account for the number of abortions – unless you think there are not nearly as many as Guttmacher says – if not by allocating a lot of the unplanned pregnancies as ending in abortion? Again, surely it makes sense that more unplanned pregnancies would end in abortion than among the planned, eh?
Doug, What is the difference in your mind between delivering a 21 week old baby to the shoulders and reaching inside the womb to puncture her in the skull and sucking her brains out so you can deliver her dead or delivering a 21 week old baby completely and then stabbing it in the head. According to the criteria you gave it would certainly be safer and easier on the mother and the baby ends up just as dead either way.
TS, if the abortion would take place due to the woman not wanting to be pregnant, then if the baby is out, there’s no need for abortion.
However, “the difference” of your examples is not much at all – and I know this is what you were getting at. Aside from legal issues, it’s very much the same for the baby.
I also don’t think it matters all that much, there. Frankly, at 21 weeks, being delivered is a death sentence for the baby, anyway. No need for any scissors, etc. In the whole history of the world, one baby has survived at 21 weeks, 6 days of gestation. It’s senseless to assume that a given baby, delivered at 21 weeks, could do anything except die, period.
____
Doug, would you be against delivering non-viable pregnancies and killing them outside the womb at times in gestation when abortion is legal?
Delivery = death, there, TS. No other actions or “more active” or “gruesome” things must be done.
I’m not saying there is any really “good” way that late in gestation. I would *much* rather the pregnancy had been prevented in the first place, or, failing that, that the abortion would be early versus so much later.
If, at that point in gestation, an abortion is going to take place, then I’m for whatever procedure is the best for the woman.
Doug, you are treading on the ground that caused Jill Stanek to quit her nursing job at Christ hospital. It sounds like you are ok with a place like Christ hospital delivering 21 week old babies alive and then leaving them to gasp for life till they die in soiled linen closets. Or would rather jab them in the head with a scissors? Or are you indifferent as to how the baby is treated? To recap your choices:
1) leave baby in soiled linen closet to die naturally.
2) jab the baby in the head with a scissors.
3) indifferent to how the born alive baby is treated.
Doug, you are treading on the ground that caused Jill Stanek to quit her nursing job at Christ hospital. It sounds like you are ok with a place like Christ hospital delivering 21 week old babies alive and then leaving them to gasp for life till they die in soiled linen closets. Or would rather jab them in the head with a scissors? Or are you indifferent as to how the baby is treated?
TS, I thought of that. Really, the only question is how the baby is treated, as I see it. If we are thinking that they can suffer, at that point, then I’m all for making them comfortable.
While I’m not totally sure of this, I think the examples Jill gave were later-term babies, where there would be more reason to think they could suffer.
I don’t know how much of a real-world example this is, either. Here too – not totally sure – if we are talking about 21 weeks, isn’t there some problems with getting the cervix open far enough for the baby to be born whole?
I don’t know how much of a real-world example this is, either. Here too – not totally sure – if we are talking about 21 weeks, isn’t there some problems with getting the cervix open far enough for the baby to be born whole?
Huh? at 21 weeks the baby’s weight is only 12 ounces.
While I’m not totally sure of this, I think the examples Jill gave were later-term babies, where there would be more reason to think they could suffer.
Doug, a healthy 21 week old baby doesn’t just up and die as soon as they are delivered. Sorry but you are gonna have to take responsibility here for killing the born-alive baby or leaving it to suffer. Are you willing to do that?
I don’t know how much of a real-world example this is, either. Here too – not totally sure – if we are talking about 21 weeks, isn’t there some problem with getting the cervix open far enough for the baby to be born whole?
Huh? at 21 weeks the baby’s weight is only 12 ounces.
TS, as I recall, the reason for doing D & X’s was due to the size of the head, 12 ounces or not.
___
Doug, a healthy 21 week old baby doesn’t just up and die as soon as they are delivered. Sorry but you are gonna have to take responsibility here for killing the born-alive baby or leaving it to suffer. Are you willing to do that?
Neither. Why have the baby suffer, (if it even can suffer), regardless of how long it’s going to live? I personally don’t want to kill it or have anybody else kill it.
The survival rate is essentially zero, so the baby is going to die. I don’t know how long such babies would live, but hey – legally it’s a born person so it’s supposed to be kept alive, within limits. Furthermore – there is the “Baby Doe” law that says unless it’s a case of an irreversible coma or unless treating the baby to keep it alive would be “virtually futile” as far as its survival, then treatment is not supposed to be withheld.
Now, with a 21 week preemie, the doctors could well say, “This baby is going to die, no matter what,” and not treat it….?