The Freakonomics of sex
From the Seattle-Post Intelligencer, November 11:
Freakonomics lesson: What is the most powerful incentive in the history of humankind?
“Freakonomics” co-author Stephen Dubner posed the question Thursday to about 230 people at the Washington Policy Center’s statewide small business conference luncheon.
The audience members began to shout things. Money. Fear. Pain. Love. Sex?
Bingo. Someone said what Dubner was waiting to hear, and gave him the segue to talk about how legalizing abortion had eliminated sex’s biggest disincentive — unwanted children — thus leading to a present-day decrease in violent crime.
“What happens to the unwanted pregnancy?” he asked. “In the history of the world, there wasn’t that much to do. And then abortion happened….
“Unwanted children are much more likely to become criminals. What happens, then, when your population pool has removed from it a big chunk of the unwanted children?”
It’s a controversial message that Dubner is used to giving, but one that Washington’s business leaders were clearly not used to hearing.
The lunchtime clinking stopped. No one in the banquet room moved. They didn’t rub their eyebrows or sip their iced teas or even glance at their peers. They just stared straight ahead.
Dubner drew the wrong conclusion from a true point: sex may very well be “the most powerful incentive in the history of humankind,” at least for men, the dominators of humankind.
If that is true, then the lure of sex, just like the lure of money and power, can lead to wrongdoing to sate it. If sex is one’s focus, can one ever get enough? Boundaries must be created to confine it.
God’s boundary for sex is marriage. This used to be the U.S.’s boundary as evidenced by its laws and what its citizens considered a societal norm.
Of course rights are sometimes wronged. Should we then give wrongdoers carte blanche? Not usually. If the lure for money causes leads someone to steal, we don’t condone it. If the lure for power leads someone to anarchy, we don’t condone it.
Yet somewhere along the way, we condoned illicit sexual behavior and have since tried to alleviate its consequences.
One alleviation is abortion. Interesting that Dubner and his co-author concluded the lowered rate of abortion has led to a lowered rate of crime.
This means that aborting mothers are ne’er do wells who would raise criminals.
This also means those supporting abortion to preclude the birth of little criminals advocate conducting prebirth interviews and terminating those they predict will be problematic by reading tea leaves and without giving them a chance to defend themselves.
I wonder how many of these people would have survived such a prebirth interview?
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.
Amy Grossberg and Jeffery Dahmer were wanted children. What excuses do they have?
“I wonder how many of these people would have survived such a prebirth interview?”
LOL!!! no kidding!
Being an “unwanted child” doesn’t necessarily lead to criminal activity. There could be lots of reasons for that. Maybe drug addiction, greed, hanging out with the wrong crowd of people. These things can all be contributing factors. The person just might be a sociopath.
The Freakonomics assertion has been discredited and can not be asserted as an undisputed fact. One major issue is the data has not been replicated. For example, when the UK legalized abortion there was no corresponding decrease in crime. Also, “crime” is very localized but before Roe v. Wade women were flying to liberal states to get their abortions, so the data has to be skewed on a state by state basis.
It never did smell right and sounds like someone with an ax to grind to promote abortion. Adoption eliminates the “unwanted” aspect. The whole thing sounds counterintuitive and impossible to correlate statistically. You might have killed a criminal….or the doctor who was going to cure cancer.
Lynn, excellent point!
That’s weird, I’m literally reading that book NOW, as we speak.
Lyssie, that’s wild. Is it a good book, cuz it looks like a bore.
Lyssie,
Please share any interesting bits
Amy Grossberg and Jeffery Dahmer were wanted children. What excuses do they have?
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 12:16 PM
……………………………………………………..
Well Heather, the Amy Grossberg case really does support the concept that unwanted pregnancy leads to crime now doesn’t it. As for Dahmer, he was abandoned first by his father then abandoned to his father’s care by his mother. Doesn’t sound like a wanted child to me.
A few reasons that abortion may be better than single motherhood from Fathers.com (Note the crime stats):
1. Poverty
– In 1996, young children living with unmarried mothers were five times as likely to be poor and ten times as likely to be extremely poor.
Source: “One in Four: America’s Youngest Poor.” National Center for children in Poverty. 1996.
– Almost 75% of American children living in single-parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11 years old. Only 20 percent of children in two-parent families will do the same.
Source: National Commission on Children. Just the Facts: A Summary of Recent information on America’s Children and their Families. Washington, DC, 1993.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census.Statistical Abstract of the United States 1994. Washington, DC: GPO 1994.
2. Drug and Alcohol Abuse
– The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states, “Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse.”
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC, 1993.
– Children growing up in single-parent households are at a significantly increased risk for drug abuse as teenagers.
Source: Denton, Rhonda E. and Charlene M. Kampfe. “The relationship Between Family Variables and Adolescent Substance Abuse: A literature Review.” Adolescence 114 (1994): 475-495.
– Children who live apart from their fathers are 4.3 times more likely to smoke cigarettes as teenagers than children growing up with their fathers in the home.
Source: Stanton, Warren R., Tian P.S. Oci and Phil A. Silva. “Sociodemographic characteristics of Adolescent Smokers.” The International Journal of the Addictions 7 (1994): 913-925.
3. Physical and Emotional Health
– Unmarried mothers are less likely to obtain prenatal care and more likely to have a low birthweight baby. Researchers find that these negative effects persist even when they take into account factors, such as parental education, that often distinguish single-parent from two-parent families.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing. Hyattsville, MD (Sept. 1995): 12.
– A study on nearly 6,000 children found that children from single parent homes had more physical and mental health problems than children who lived with two married parents. Additionally, boys in single parent homes were found to have more illnesses than girls in single parent homes.
Source: Hong, Gong-Soog and Shelly L. White-Means.”Do Working Mothers Have Healthy Children?” Journal of Family and Economic Issues 14 (Summer 1993): 163-186.
– Children in single-parent families are two to three times as likely as children in two-parent families to have emotional and behavioral problems.
Source: Stanton, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics.”National Health Interview Survey.” Hyattsville, MD, 1988.
Source: Zill, Nicholas and Carol Schoenborn. Child Developmental, Learning and Emotional Problems: Health of Our Nation’s Children. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Advance Data 1990. Washington, DC: GPO, 16 Nov. 1990.
– Three out of four teenage suicides occur in households where a parent has been absent.
Source: Elshtain, Jean Bethke.”Family Matters: The Plight of America’s Children.” The Christian Century (July 1993): 14-21.
4. Educational Achievement
– In studies involving over 25,000 children using nationally representative data sets, children who lived with only one parent had lower grade point averages, lower college aspirations, poor attendance records, and higher drop out rates than students who lived with both parents.
Source: McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.
– Fatherless children are twice as likely to drop out of school.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. Survey on Child Health. Washington, DC; GPO, 1993.
Source: McLanahan, Sara and Gary Sandefur. Growing up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.
– After taking into account race, socioeconomic status, sex, age, and ability, high school students from single-parent households were 1.7 times more likely to drop out than were their corresponding counterparts living with both biological parents.
Source: McNeal, Ralph B. Jr.”Extracurricular Activities and High School Dropouts.” Sociology of Education 68(1995): 62-81.
– School children from divorced families are absent more, and more anxious, hostile, and withdrawn, and are less popular with their peers than those from intact families.
Source: One-Parent Families and Their Children: The School’s Most Significant Minority. The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One-Parent Families. National Association of elementary School Principals and the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a division of the Charles f. Kettering Foundation. Arlington, VA 1980.
5. Crime
– Children in single parent families are more likely to be in trouble with the law than their peers who grow up with two parents.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey. Hyattsville, MD, 1988.
– In a study using a national probability sample of 1,636 young men and women, it was found that older boys and girls from female headed households are more likely to commit criminal acts than their peers who lived with two parents.
Source: Heimer, Karen. “Gender, Interaction, and Delinquency: Testing a Theory of Differential Social Control.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59 (1996): 39-61.
Source: Ryan, Gail et al.”Trendis in a National Sample of Sexually Abusive Youths.” Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry 35 (January 1996): 17-25.
– A study in the state of Washington using statewide data found an increased likelihood that children born out-of-wedlock would become a juvenile offender. Compared to their peers born to married parents, children born out-of-wedlock were:
1.7 times more likely to become an offender and 2.1 times more likely to become a chronic offender if male.
1.8 times more likely to become an offender and 2.8 times more likely to become a chronic offender if female.
10 times more likely to become a chronic juvenile offender if male and born to an unmarried teen mother.
Source: Conseur, Amy et al. “Maternal and Perinatal Risk Factors for Later Delinquency.” Pediatrics 99 (1997): 785-790.
6. Sexual Activity and Teen Pregnancy
– Adolescent females between the ages of 15 and 19 years reared in homes without fathers are significantly more likely to engage in premarital sex than adolescent females reared in homes with both a mother and a father.
Source: Billy, John O. G., Karin L. Brewster and William R. Grady. “Contextual Effects on the Sexual Behavior of Adolescent Women.” Journal of Marriage and Family 56 (1994): 381-404.
– A survey of 720 teenage girls found:
97% of the girls said that having parents they could talk to could help reduce teen pregnancy.
93% said having loving parents reduced the risk.
76% said that their fathers were very or somewhat influential on their decision to have sex.
Source: Clements, Mark. Parade. February 2, 1997.
– Children in single parent families are more likely to get pregnant as teenagers than their peers who grow up with two parents.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center for Health Statistics. National Health Interview Survey. Hyattsville, MD 1988.
– A white teenage girl from an advantaged background is five times more likely to become a teen mother if she grows up in a single-mother household than if she grows up in a household with both biological parents.
Source: Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. “Facing the Challenges of Fragmented Families.” The Philanthropy Roundtable 9.1 (1995): 21.
The Freakonomics assertion has been discredited and can not be asserted as an undisputed fact. One major issue is the data has not been replicated. For example, when the UK legalized abortion there was no corresponding decrease in crime. Also, “crime” is very localized but before Roe v. Wade women were flying to liberal states to get their abortions, so the data has to be skewed on a state by state basis.
It never did smell right and sounds like someone with an ax to grind to promote abortion. Adoption eliminates the “unwanted” aspect. The whole thing sounds counterintuitive and impossible to correlate statistically. You might have killed a criminal….or the doctor who was going to cure cancer.
Posted by: Lynn at November 13, 2007 12:26 PM
………………………………………………
The book is an exercise in economic theory. American economics. Data from the UK is redundant. Where a woman might have ended an unwanted pregnancy is also redundant to the premise since the ending of the pregnancy is the reason for the decline in crime. Levitt has a PHD from MIT. I believe his theories hold more weight than you or Jill’s opinions of his work.
Neither of you have attempted to explain the sudden decline in crime that this portion of the book addresses.
Laura’s post points out that single families and being born out of wedlock result in an increase in the likelihood a child will become a criminal. Isn’t it more logical to promote responsible parenthood and fatherhood and marriage to improve crime rates as opposed to just killing off all the children? You are condemning innocent children since not all become criminals.
Sally – point one is the data can’t be replicated, which is a pretty basic proof needed for a theory to be accepted. Point two would be that just because someone has a PHD doesn’t mean they are right. PHDs disagree on this Freakonomics issue. The PHD in your “corner” is not better than the PHD in mine. It’s great that there is a decline in crime but that could be due to change in age population etc. To ask me and Jill to somehow prove why crime went down or else you and Freakonomics is right is absurd.
http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm and Google Freakonomics and abortion and you’ll learn there are actually opposing views to what you and the book present as “fact.”
Laura,
I swear you’re a closet Catholic. Do you realize that you just cemented our argument that sex should be reserved for married couples. It is in the best interest of the children, and in turn for society.
Now if you’d just admit that it is better to refrain from sex until you are married and willing to accept the responsibility of the children you will most likely create, I’d enroll you in RCIA classes.
Abortion is not the answer to out of wedlock unwanted pregnancies. Responsibility is.
A few reasons that abortion may be better than single motherhood from Fathers.com (Note the crime stats):
Why isn’t abstinence til your ready to parent better than single motherhood?
A. Every child is wanted by someone. 10 million couples wait to adopt.
B. Death is not preferable to being raised by a single mom. Ask my friends who lived that life. My friend Rochelle has 8 siblings from 6 different dads. Since she was the oldest, she raised them all, being forced to take off school everytime her mother had another baby. It was rough living on government cheese with a drunk mother. She saw sexual abstinence and school as her way out. She married in her 20’s as a virgin to another virgin and is raising her little sister. She is the only one in her family to finish high school and she has a master’s degree (her husband also became a doctor). She, and all who know her, are ECSTATIC that she is alive.
C. Abortion doesn’t create the loving two-parent households. Laura says children need that to be successful. Abortion just kills children. Now that you see my point about why abstaining until marriage and having the ability to provide that structure is imperative, perhaps you’ll see abstaining a better option that baby parts in a jar.
Sally, you really didn’t understand what I meant. Amy Grossberg had parents who adored her. She’s now a convicted felon.
Why isn’t abstinence til your ready to parent better than single motherhood?
Why isn’t abstinence til your ready to parent better than abortion?
Laura,
76% said that their fathers were very or somewhat influential on their decision to have sex.
Source: Clements, Mark. Parade. February 2, 1997.
Sounds like a vote for those much maligned “purity balls”
Unfortunately asking girls their opinion about why teens get pregnant is about as scientific as asking those who post here.
As for the other items, I think saying abortion is better is terrible.
I think encouraging responsible behaviour starting in kindergarten is better.
Here is a true story for you. My friend’s son went to a privatic islamic school K-4th. One day the teacher told the kids to wait for him to returm to start using the computers. Some kids started before he returned. When he saw that some didn’t do what he told them, the entire class lost their privileges. My friend was so mad, she went and complained to the teacher that it was not fair to her son. He said it is not about fairness, it is about teaching kids to care about what others are doing, about not allowing rule breaking, about showing the person next to you that everything they do matters. It is about recognizing that we are all in this together. This was a boys school and they felt their mission was to teach the boys to be better people than they were. I am not muslim, but I think that a cultural ethic where we support others in doing what is right includes social pressure in the form of voicing opinions and forthright communication discouraging bad behavior.
In this country people don’t like saying that someone is wrong or being judgemental. Like telling them to get married and support their kids. For every child who is suffering because his mom can’t do it all, there is a liberated man who hasn’t met his obligations and a society that is letting him get away with it. Much as we like to assign all the responsibility to moms, morally the dads share the responsibility. Interesting that Freakonomics it written by a couple of men. Abortion has been very very good to men, I guess, according to them.
Please don’t remind me that some are single moms because dad died. Obviously some are widows. The vast majority are not widows.
title for Laura’s post,
TEEN MOMS AND THE MEN WHO DON’T LOVE THEM
Sally, I can’t seem to find evidence of Jeffery Dahmer being mistreated as a child. As far as I’ve heard, he had a decent childhood. Even his dad stuck by him while he was incarcerated.
Sally,
Have you read Freakonomics?
Sally, are you saying that loving parents breed convicts?
A few reasons that abortion may be better than single motherhood from Fathers.com (Note the crime stats):
Why isn’t abstinence til your ready to parent better than single motherhood?
Posted by: mk at November 13, 2007 1:24 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, how about the fact that I like sex more than chocolate, and I have no intention of ever being a parent.
Abstinence is not an option. I honestly believe that physical intimacy keeps me sane, and works better than Lunesta on my life-long chronic insomnia.
What kills me is when people actually think that abortion patients are acting responsibly!!!! How so? Since when is sleeping around responsible?
Sally, I can’t seem to find evidence of Jeffery Dahmer being mistreated as a child. As far as I’ve heard, he had a decent childhood. Even his dad stuck by him while he was incarcerated.
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 1:33 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He was abandoned by his mother. She and his sister moved away one day while he was at school.
Please post a link! I can’t find that info anywhere.
What kills me is when people actually think that abortion patients are acting responsibly!!!! How so? Since when is sleeping around responsible?
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 1:37 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What makes you think that all abortion patients sleep around?
Lyssie, does Freakonomics address the increase in child abuse since Roe? If he is saying that abortion is the reason for the decline in violent crime, what does he think of the huge increases in child abuse since Roe?
Sally – point one is the data can’t be replicated, which is a pretty basic proof needed for a theory to be accepted. Point two would be that just because someone has a PHD doesn’t mean they are right. PHDs disagree on this Freakonomics issue. The PHD in your “corner” is not better than the PHD in mine. It’s great that there is a decline in crime but that could be due to change in age population etc. To ask me and Jill to somehow prove why crime went down or else you and Freakonomics is right is absurd.
http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm and Google Freakonomics and abortion and you’ll learn there are actually opposing views to what you and the book present as “fact.”
Posted by: Lynn at November 13, 2007 1:17 PM
………………………………………….
Don’t be silly Lynn. Neither Levitt nor myself have described his economic theories as fact. It is dishonest of you to assert otherwise. From what I read in your link, these two economists are working to debunk the theory rather than replicate it. As is their right of course. It would be interesting if they came up with alternate theories for the decline in crime. Don’t you think?
The women that I know sure did!!!! BTW, Where is your JD link?
Laura,
I honestly believe that physical intimacy keeps me sane, and works better than Lunesta on my life-long chronic insomnia.
If I had a hammer…
sorry,
Lots of people ride bikes or play rugby?
How ’bout picking one guy and stickin’ with him for the duration?
This is a biographical page about Jeffery Dahmer.
Why I like the One-minute Page builder:
In Milwaukee during the Beltane of 1960, Joyce and Lionel Dahmer gave birth to their eldest son, Jeffery. Jeffery Dahmer was a happy young child that enjoyed playing with his stuffed bunnies, his wooden blocks, and his dog, Frisky. Although he was unusually sickly, Jeff seemed to take a sincere joy in life. His father, Lionel, recalled that once the entire family took part in nursing a small bird back to health after an injury. When they released the bird, Jeffery was elated.
Soon a different interest in animals came forth in Jeff Dahmer’s personality. When Jeff was four he help his father sweep the remains of some small, dead animals out from under the house, and apparently he was quite fascinated with them. Jeffery began to play with the bones, which set off a warning signal in Lionel Dahmer’s head. Naturally, this mental caveat was only in retrospect.
In 1966, at the age of six, Dahmer had surgery for a double hernia, and he was apparently never quite the same again. Jeff became more isolated from his environment than he had previously been. He seemed weaker, somehow vulnerable.
Also in 1966 Joyce and Lionel had their second child, David, and the family moved to Akron, Ohio so Lionel could attend graduate school. At this point, Jeffery became a little bit afriad of others, and a he displayed a general lack of self-confidence.
In 1967 the Dahmer family moved into a new house, and things began to look up for Jeffery. He developed a close friendship with his neighbor, Lee, and found a liking for one of his teachers. Jeff gave the teacher a bowl of tadpoles he had caught, which she then gave to Lee. Dahmer found out about the transfer of his gift, so he poisoned all of the tadpoles with motor oil.
Dead animals excited the young Dahmer. Contrary to rumor, he apparently did not torture living creatures; he just waited until they were dead to play with them. By the time he was fifteen, he would strip the flesh off of roadkill, and once he even mounted a dog’s head on a stake. Throughout this period off his life Jeffery became less concerned with his surroundings, and his fantasies obviously took over to a certain extent.
When Jeffery was eighteen his parents’ rocky marriage ended in divorce. That next summer he first killed a man. The two had been drinking and making love, and when his partner wanted to leave, Jeff clubbed in the head and buried the body. Only years later would Dahmer return to pound the rotten corpse with a hammer.
Jeffery Dahmer was an alcoholic at a very earlier age as such things go. After failing out of college his first semester because he was never really sober, his father and new stepmother gave Jeff the ultimatum of sobering up or enlisting in the Army. Jeff became Private Dahmer in January of 1979. He was discharged for alcoholism shortly thereafter.
After getting out of the Army, Jeff moved in with his grandmother, and used her basement to hide a few bodies.
In 1989 he was convicted of child molestation, but convinced the judge to take it easy on him. Dahmer spent one year in a program where he would go to work during the day and return to jail at night. He was released to his grandmother’s house with the provision the he find a residence of his own.
On May 14, 1990, Dahmer moved to 924 North 25th Street, Apartment 213 and a true killing spree began. Dahmer murdered and raped twelve men in his apartment before his apprehension in 1991.
Jeffery Dahmer’s conviction was by no means drawn out, and the serial killer was murdered during a work detail on 28 Nov 94 by a fellow inmate, Chritopher Scarver.
Jeffery Dahmer
Laura,
Your post was about teens. People are suggesting abstinence for teens on up who have no visible means of support until marriage when they are ready. It would definitely help the children according to the stats you posted.
Child abuse is a violent crime and that has increased since Roe. Not all violent crimes have decreased.
Back to: “Abortion patients sleep around” Chris Rock agrees. I knew a woman who aborted 7 times. These pregnancies resulted from sleeping around. Another girl aborted 9 times. She exclaimed, “I was a crack whore.” That came straight from the horse’s mouth.
Sally, I can’t seem to find evidence of Jeffery Dahmer being mistreated as a child. As far as I’ve heard, he had a decent childhood. Even his dad stuck by him while he was incarcerated.
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 1:33 PM
…………………………………
His mother completely abandoned him taking his brother with her. I don’t believe he ever saw either of them again. He was molested by a neighbor as a child. He was left alone with no money or food and a broken refridgerator. Obviously the whole story will never be known.
The lady who aborted 7 times told me that she had become pregnant from several men. She’s now sterile because of her repeat abortions. Don’t tell me that abortions don’t do damage to a woman’s reproductive organs.
From the NYT:
Mr. Dahmer complained to the police after his arrest in Milwaukee that as a high school senior his parents left him alone in the house when they were divorced. His father had moved out, and his mother, in defiance of a court order, surreptitiously moved with his younger brother to Wisconsin.
It was at this time that he began having fantasies of killing people. Mr. Dahmer told the police that these fantasies overcame his feelings of frustration and emptiness.
The lady who aborted 7 times told me that she had become pregnant from several men.
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 1:54 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that proves it.
All women who have ever been pregnant are big whores.
You know who you are…
Laura, yes. You know who they are.
Laura,
Your post was about teens. People are suggesting abstinence for teens on up who have no visible means of support until marriage when they are ready. It would definitely help the children according to the stats you posted.
Posted by: hippie at November 13, 2007 1:42 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The stats I posted today were not about single teen mothers, it was about single mothers overall.
Check it out at Fathers.com
Sally, I did find your source. However, he was abandoned at the age of 17!!! We are considered adults at the age of 18! So, what should we do with children when one parent leaves?
How ’bout picking one guy and stickin’ with him for the duration?
Posted by: mk at November 13, 2007 1:42 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve had three sexual partners in my entire life.
I’ve been with my latest for almost 10 years, and my first – my FLING – and I were together almost seven years.
Laura, your attitude sucks! You don’t have the solution. If a person is not born into the ideal circumstances, do we just kill them? When? Before birth, or after? Shania Twain grew up poor. Look at her now. Model/actress, Tawney Kitean grew up poor. Look at her now. Barbra Streisand grew up poor. Look at her now.
Barbra Streisand’s mother treated her like sh*t! She overcame it.
Shania Twain’s parents died in an auto accident. The woman took charge of her life, and she raised her siblings.
The lady who aborted 7 times told me that she had become pregnant from several men.
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 1:54 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that proves it.
All women who have ever been pregnant are big whores.
You know who you are…***************************************************************************************************************** Again, you can’t refute my post. Can you prove that abortion patients DON’T sleep around?..Prove it! I know what they tell me. Their words! Not mine!
Posted by: Laura at November 13, 2007 1:57 PM
So, I guess that you believe that abortion patients are whores. That’s what abortionists call them behind their backs anyway.
The stats I posted today were not about single teen mothers, it was about single mothers overall.
Check it out at Fathers.com
Single motherhood is difficult at all ages.
I know I am 27 and I don’t want to struggle as a single mom. Not having sex while single pretty much takes care of that.
OK, I’m not going to argue about whether being poor and/or abandoned leads to a life of violent crime. The question is, if a 3-year-old were poor and abandoned, would we choose “termination”? What about a 1-year-old? What about a baby 23 weeks gestation in the NICU? NO. It’s a baby. It’s another person. You can’t decide whether another person is better off dead. You also can’t decide, looking at a 3-year-old or a 1-year-old, whether s/he is going to get by ok or become a serial killer. No more can you figure that out for a baby in the womb.
EH
Hi Heather!
It seems your examples go back to the choice of having a “victim” or “victor” attitude…This is the US…land of opportunity…where there is a will, there is definately a way. Too many try to take what they “think” is the “easy” way out. No one said that being a single mom would be easy…however, I’ve never heard anyone say that their life was “a piece of cake” either!
No one said that being a single mom would be easy…however, I’ve never heard anyone say that their life was “a piece of cake” either!
Even kids from loving, stable two-parent families end up with issues, although likely much less intense issues and fewer in frequency.
Since kids are not going to make it to adulthood without scars even in the most ideal situation, I think it an obligation to provide that most ideal situation rather than saying, “You’re gonna be messed up. It’s inevitable” and making bad choices on their behalf before they’re even conceived.
Laura,
You’re right single motherhood is not the answer but neither is single fatherhood. I’m a single mom (my husband walked out because he “wanted to let it all hang out”) with 4 kids. ONe of the solutions is to do away with no-fault divorce,help couples in struggling marriages and preparing young adults for marriage better (which means no pre-marital sex, and growing up in a loving family which is THE training ground for marriage).Stats show young women without a strong father figure in their lives become sexually active sooner – likely seeking the male love they need but don’t have and should have from their fathers.
Aborting a child is NEVER an answer. It’s not the child that’s the problem it’s the SEX.
AB Laura, thank you!! We could go on and on about this. The fact remains that you just never know. Have you ever met a family where 4 siblings were fine, and the 5th suffered from mental illness? So, who are we going to blame that one on?
EH- you nailed it.
Killing people is not a solution to social problems.
Wow, it’s getting a bit snippy in here, today.
The reason that public health experts and economists alike both attempt to gain clearer pictures of the situation with statistics is that anecdotes are completely useless when you are dealing with millions of people.
Heather, you may well have one acquaintance that aborted 7 times and is now sterile. But you probably have quite a few acquaintances who have quietly had abortions on their own, but haven’t ever told anyone about it, most especially someone as vocally opposed to it as you. You may deny it, but depending on whose numbers you look at, about a third of all women in the US will have an abortion in their lifetime. The vast majority of these women wil emerge from it just fine.
The analysis of the Freakonomics guys may not be 100% accurate, but I think that their thinking points in the right direction. It is certainly a novel and conversation-provoking way to look at the data.
Patricia,
Amen! I agree completely!
Patricia, you are so right!
Any statement by Sally concerning Jeffrey Dhamer is true. This is from Sally knowing the mind, motivation, thinking of Dahmer intimately, and from both being the ecstacy of Deathsex worshippers. Do not disagree with Sally on any words Sally writes about Dahmer.
The vast majority of these women wil emerge from it just fine.
Maybe they won’t end up with permanent physical damage, but what about emotional and spiritual damage. Let’s not forget latent consequences like prematurity in future pregnancies and breast cancer.
That’s what abortionists call them behind their backs anyway.
That is a sweeping and ill-informed statement. Have you heard this firsthand? From one abortionist? Two? Twenty?
Ray, Ray, Ray, Homework!! Do it! I’ll even find the sites for you.
Let’s not forget latent consequences like prematurity in future pregnancies and breast cancer.
Ah, the breast cancer canard. Why do we waste time running around in circles like this?
Heather, you may well have one acquaintance that aborted 7 times and is now sterile. But you probably have quite a few acquaintances who have quietly had abortions on their own, but haven’t ever told anyone about it, most especially someone as vocally opposed to it as you. You may deny it, but depending on whose numbers you look at, about a third of all women in the US will have an abortion in their lifetime. The vast majority of these women wil emerge from it just fine.
Ray, you are incorrect. People don’t know how I feel about abortion at all. That’s why they confide in me. Once they tell me, I respond with compassion. I have friends who claim to have NO post abortive regrets. I pray for them.
Ray, do you really believe that abortionists respect women?
Ah, the breast cancer canard. Why do we waste time running around in circles like this?
Posted by: Ray at November 13, 2007 2:38 PM**************************************************************************************************** Circles?
Ray, one more thing. I can be vocally opposed to anything I choose to be. I am opposed to abortion, and I shouldn’t ever be ashamed to say so. People who don’t like me because of this, were never my true friends to begin with. That’s life.
Amen, Heather!
EH, great post. Not all unwanted children start off as unwanted. Circumstances sometimes change that. The status of being wanted or unwanted is not set in stone. The right to life should not hinge upon desire,which can and often does change.
Coming from a difficult background doesn’t always condemn one to a life of criminality. This Freakonomics theory,however, is condemning children before they are ever born. It is like giving the unborn the death penalty because of who their parents are.
Like I said earlier, Freakonomics states the violent crime has decreased. I don’t see a decrease in child abuse since Roe. There has actually been a big increase. Isn’t child abuse considered a violent crime?????
Jill’s article, “Of course rights are sometimes wronged. Should we then give wrongdoers carte blanche? Not usually. If the lure for money causes leads someone to steal, we don’t condone it. If the lure for power leads someone to anarchy, we don’t condone it.
Yet somewhere along the way, we condoned illicit sexual behavior and have since tried to alleviate its consequences.”
I think it’s because alot of people are making alot of money off of abortions and illicit sexual behavior..i.e., abortionists, pharmaceutical companies, etc., who, in turn, donate to politicians who propose and vote on laws. Wherever alot of money is in play, poor behaviors are condoned because of power & greed! Pleas note: The first two words in my post are” “I think”
Executioners (Abortionists) Speak
Stuart Sitzman – Just don’t call me an abortionist
In the LA Times September 22, 1991, it was reported that Dr. Stuart Sitzman, a gynecologist who has performed abortions for his private patients before, told them he’d be happy to be quoted by name.
But, he requested,
“Just don’t call me an abortionist”
——————————————————————————–
Brian Finkel on Planned Parenthood
Abortionist Brian Finkel’s antipathy toward Planned Parenthood dates back many years, according to the Phoenix New Times’ June 17, 1999, article. Finkel criticizes Planned Parenthood for everything from the amount of Valium it gives its abortion patients (10 milligrams by mouth compared to 15 milligrams intravenously, as Finkel does) to the group counseling it offers before patients see the doctor individually.
Finkel said, “I will not interact with Planned Parenthood at all.”
And went on to say:
“That’s unfortunate, but they’re such a bunch of disingenuous miscreants, and I really don’t want to have anything to do with their alternative-health-care universe that they run. They’re taking advantage of their patients, and they’re taking advantage of their tax-exempt status, and I don’t want to lower my health care standards to theirs.”
Finkel during his trial for sexually assaulting patients
——————————————————————————–
Ralph Bundy – Being an abortionist and friendship
Abortionist Ralph Bundy, medical director of The Women’s Health Center Inc. in Orlando and Daytona Beach, had his face on the cover of the May 1990, Florida Magazine, labeling him: “The Abortion Doctor.”
In an interview with the Orlando Sentinel 09/17/1991, he said he lost a friend because of the story,
“I did lose one really good friend that I’d had for 20 years. She sent me a couple of books, and the message -both from the books and from her was that I was going to burn in hell. . . . She pretty much blew me off.”
He had told reporters that he does not tell many of his friends that he does abortions. He tells them only that he works in a clinic.
“I don’t hit people over the head with it. I don’t go to a party and say, Boy, I did a tough abortion today.”
——————————————————————————–
Warren Hern – Abortionist is a degrading epithet
Abortionist Warren Hern
In the November 21, 1994 edition of the Canadian Business and Current Affairs, Western Report, ?Why doctors are fleeing the carnage (What keeps doctors from performing abortions)?
Abortionist Warren Hern candidly states:
“Doctors have been made to feel irrelevant, feminist abortion clinics treat doctors like technicians, and are especially contemptuous of male physicians.”
“Among the problems are loss of prestige and disrespect of their peers, professional ostracism, verbal confrontation with other physicians, denial of hospital privileges and difficulty in recruiting or keeping office staff.”
Once, abortionist Warren Hern said, that he telephoned a friend to arrange to deliver a gift. “He is one of my best friends, a medical colleague, who is strongly pro – choice and who has done abortions himself,” recalled Hern. “I called him late Saturday afternoon and said I wanted to come over. He asked me where I was and I told him I was at my office. The friend replied: ‘Still killing babies this late in the afternoon?'” Hern states, “What it conveys is that no matter how supportive people may be, there is still a horror at what we do.”
“We have reached a point in this particular technology where there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by the operator,” he allowed in a paper he presented to a meeting of Planned Parenthood physicians in 1978. Hern continues, “It is before one’s eyes. The sensation of dismemberment flows through the forceps like an electric current.”
According to the Rocky Mountain News article, ‘Abortionist’ a thorn in thicket of issues, 10-9-1994. Hern has been campaigning to have the media stop calling him an ”abortionist,” which, he told the Rocky Mountain News is a ”degrading epithet.”
Hern felt that the paper transgressed when it published an article with this headline: ”Abortionist / threatened / in letters.”
Acknowledging Hern’s objections, the News issued a clarification that the headline was not meant to imply he was doing anything illegal. The paper said that in a telephone interview later for Molly’s space, Hern explained why he was angry when The Rocky Mountain News referred to him as an abortionist:
”For me it’s like a racial epithet – your editors wouldn’t consider running a headline that said ‘Nigger hit by car.’ It’s offensive. (As for the word abortion) of course that’s not offensive. I’m proud of what I do. It’s a straightforward description of an operation, OK? ‘Abortionist’ is like many terms in history laden with meanings – like ‘final solution,’ which will never be separated from the hideous death camps of World War II.” Hern continued, “One of the reasons ‘abortionist’ has become offensive is that it’s used as a propaganda term . . . part of the anti-abortion people’s Orwellian approach to language. There’s a whole range of linguistic questions that have to do with the power struggle over abortion . . . over giving women power over their lives . . .”
Hey all, sorry I didn’t get to respond…I was at class and such. Let me read back over the sections pertaining to abortion and I’ll get back to you…If I’m not mistaken, the authors don’t SOLELY pin the decrease in violent crime (rapes, murder, and robberies/burglary) on Roe V. Wade, but they found it to be unbelievably uncanny that 18 years after it was instituted that these crimes dropped dramatically. This correlation led them to propose that legalized abortion may have played a part, not that it was proven.
Off I go to do some reading. :D
Someone said what Dubner was waiting to hear, and gave him the segue to talk about how legalizing abortion had eliminated sex’s biggest disincentive — unwanted children — thus leading to a present-day decrease in violent crime.
“What happens to the unwanted pregnancy?” he asked. “In the history of the world, there wasn’t that much to do. And then abortion happened….
“Unwanted children are much more likely to become criminals. What happens, then, when your population pool has removed from it a big chunk of the unwanted children?”
Gee, how horrible is that? Yes, a decrease in violent crime is really bad….
??
I haven’t reached the part about abortion yet….when I get there, I’ll let you guys know…
I thought I passed the part because a small snippet about it was mentioned earlier in the book. :D
There it is. From one abortionist to another..”Still killing babies at this hour?”
Lynn: Laura’s post points out that single families and being born out of wedlock result in an increase in the likelihood a child will become a criminal. Isn’t it more logical to promote responsible parenthood and fatherhood and marriage to improve crime rates as opposed to just killing off all the children? You are condemning innocent children since not all become criminals.
There’s no “condemning,” Lynn, unless somebody is actually advocating that all pregnancies be ended. If you find somebody saying that, then you’ve actually got somebody that is pro-abortion.
I think we’re all in favor of people being good parents, and we’re all in favor of less crime. That hasn’t even gotten to the abortion debate yet. Pro-choicers are not saying the pregnancies should be ended against the will of the mother in order to lessen crime.
Doug
Laura,
Thanks for making the point about single parents vs. teen parents. If many of the women who are single moms started as married or living with the father of the child, then many of the kids were wanted, at least at first. That means abortion is irrelevant. Dads’ lack of commitment seems to be the bigger problem. How would a responsible committed woman know in advance that her spouse would end up leaving? Is it her fault if he does leaves? Or is it his?
Jacqueline: I know I am 27 and I don’t want to struggle as a single mom. Not having sex while single pretty much takes care of that.
Watch out for those toilet seats!
Doug,
pro-abortion means “for abortion” “in favor of abortion” “in support of abortion”, etc. Are PC’s none of these things, or are we just sugar-coating yet another label for their dispicable stance again?
AB Laura:
I suppose to be completely correct, pro-choice encompasses two things: pro-pregnancy and pro-abortion. For both, leaving the choice to the woman at hand. Thought that would be clarifying.
AB Laura, to add to what you’ve said, why do abortionists [above] have a problem with being called “abortionists?” That’s what they are!
Lyssie,
You mean, Pro-life & pro-abortion????
Heather,
I guess for the same reason pro-aborts don’t like being called that either…
AB Laura, you aren’t PL Laura, are you? If not, it’s nice to meet you.
Warren Hern must be a nut too.
Heather,
I am formerly PL Laura (posts from yesterday killed my alias) I kill spiders, eat meat, etc…so I guess I’m not really pro-life…However, I am anti-abortion, but couldn’t go with “AA Laura” cuz it makes me sound like an alcholic (or recovering one) So, my lack of creativity went with “AB” – go figure!
Choice. Choice. Choice.
Doug, Doug, Doug.
A choice to select from a number of possible alternatives and make a decision from those alternatives. Pick one alternative and it is abortion. Pick another alternative, and it is not a abortion.
Pick one, or pick the other,but picking is the sacrament of Doug.
Doug is for picking and deciding.
Kill it, don’t kill it, he doesn’t care about the killing, just being able to kill or not kill.
It is the deciding of selecting options, that Doug preachs for.
Beyond that principle of Doug, lies nothing of interest to Doug.
Doug is for the killing of babies in the womb or not killing babies in the womb. But, killing is allowed by women, is a truthful statement, as Doug includes killing in his principle of selecting options.
Oh, okay. Had to make a run to the store. Hello there yllas.
I kill spiders too. I also eat meat. What of it? I never said I was a PETA member. LOL!
Heather,
Posts from yesterday..I believe the can of worms is closed & I don’t want to open it up again(if you know what I mean!) :)
got it!:]
How many times have we seen the worst people come from the best of homes and the best people come from the worst of homes? I’m certain we could find plenty of examples in our own families and communities.
Troubled children and teenagers have turned into stable, productive adults. Children and teenagers who were every parents’ dream come true have turned into criminals.
People with every opportunity have squandered their lives. People born into the most difficult situations have become persons of accomplishment.
Sociopaths can be born into any kind of a home.
If only predicting how each child would turn out was so easy and certain.
Hello Heather.
Got to go. Please ask Sally if she has, or is getting treatment for her PTSD. Or ask her to quit making up stories to advance her propaganda for killing from sexual union.
Mary, there are also situations where children from the same family grow into completely different adults-one a criminal and one not.
Single motherhood is not a choice I think anyone makes for themselves. I know that I certainly didn’t. But that’s how it happened. To be honest, I’m so glad my life is the way it is. The Feminists want to talk about women being empowered? Try raising a kid on your own and going to school. If THAT’S not empowering, I sure as hell don’t know what is. It wasn’t in the plan I made for myself, but I heard a quote once that I try to live by: “If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.” His plan for me was WAY better than any plan I made for myself. Time to go wake the baby up!!
Carrie, Very true. I think Ted Bundy had quite a few siblings. However, he was the only killer in the family.
Elizabeth, you’re right. What if you had a baby, and the child’s father was killed the day after his/her birth? Now what? We really don’t have any control over some things that happen to us.
Concerning Jeffrey Dahmer. I’m jumping into this discussion a little late. You’ll never convince me some people are not born deranged. Dahmer tortured animals as a chid, an early warning sign of sociopathy. How can anything like this be predicted before birth? OK, his life wasn’t idyllic. So who’s is? How many of us have become cannibals?
Compared to any number of people I know, all of them decent people, Dahmer’s childhood and teen years were idyllic.
We had a situation near us, a young man with devoted parents who was an eagle scout, honor student, and star athlete with a scholarship to a top college, was involved in a well planned thrill kill. So how does one “explain” that?
I’m convinced he was a sociopath on his way to becoming a serial killer.
I know some single dads too.
Carrie,
How true. I can think of any number of families where children have grown up to be so entirely different from each other. I’m convinced people are born pre-wired. I saw distinct personality differences in each of my children from birth.
Mary, me too. His father was even by his side during a prison interview. He doesn’t sound too unwanted to me. Someone cared. Even his grandmother cared. Some people don’t have a soul to care about them.
Oh Elizabeth, that’s wonderful! When I started reading your entry, I began to think of the movie Bella, and then I noticed you had that quote from the movie. That is absolutely right. God love you.
If anything, his parent[s] should have sought help for him at an early age, but were they even aware of his odd obsessions? I believe he was a true sociopath.
FAB, wow, you really need attention, don’t you?
Thank you Bobby, I hope to see Bella sometime soon..although my crazy life leaves little to no time to go to the movies. But I’m getting it definitely when it comes out on DVD!
Laura,
C’mon! Marry the guy and we can set the date for your confirmation!
You’re killin’ me here. You’re livin’ a clean life, no abortions, one guy…why don’t you want the same good stuff for everyone? Why aren’t you out there promoting monogamy, responsible sex and refraining from having children if you aren’t ready to parent them?
Why are you on the wrong side?
Okaaaaaay….we’ll just get rid of him….
YAY!
Bobby,
If it’s okay, I’m gonna delete your post too…
“If it’s okay, I’m gonna delete your post too…”
Nooooooooooooooooo! :)
Elizabeth, so what if you’re a single mom? I know plenty of them! They are great moms.
I agree Heather…but all the “statistics” out there say otherwise. Being a single mom is great for me personally. I’m pretty independent so it works out..I don’t know what I’ll do if I ever find a guy out there to marry. I might be too much for any guy to handle!
Where is John Landowski? Anybody know?
jasper?
Any word on Jill’s mom?
Elizabeth,
If you look at the numbers behind the statistics you find that they are percentages of percentages. Like 5 times more likely to….. So instead of 1 in a 1000, it is 5 in a 1000. That is still less than 1%. Not something to totally flip over, certainly not worth killing 1000 to avoid 5 doing something “bad”
Talk about throwing the babies (995) out with the bath water (5).
I have several single friends who adopted. Some choose single parenthood.
Sally, you really didn’t understand what I meant. Amy Grossberg had parents who adored her. She’s now a convicted felon.
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 1:26 PM
…………………………………………………..
Rather than have an abortion, she chose to gestate, give birth and then kill the infant. If she had availed herself of a legal abortion, there would have been no infant to muder. She wouldn’t be a convicted felon. Imagine how many infants were murdered the same way when the abortion procedure was illegal or simply unavailable and never ever found.
Sally, I can’t seem to find evidence of Jeffery Dahmer being mistreated as a child. As far as I’ve heard, he had a decent childhood. Even his dad stuck by him while he was incarcerated.
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 1:33 PM
……………………………………………………..
It’s in the biography written about him. There might be a copy at your local library if you are interested. He was one sick puppy.
Sally,
Have you read Freakonomics?
Posted by: hippie at November 13, 2007 1:34 PM
………………………………….
Economics doesn’t really interest me. I read mostly books with historical merit. I highly suggest ‘America’s Women. 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines’ by Gail Collins.
Sally, are you saying that loving parents breed convicts?
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 1:35 PM
…………………………………………………………….
I hope you didn’t hurt yourself making that leap. How did you come up with such a twist?
What kills me is when people actually think that abortion patients are acting responsibly!!!! How so? Since when is sleeping around responsible?
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 1:37 PM
………………………………
It is nothing but your opinion that every woman desiring an abortion ‘sleeps around’. Why do you feel the need to pass moral judgements and presumptions about people you don’t know?
Hippie,
I know about that…but I was speaking more about people in my situation who didn’t. I think that if I never wind up getting married and get my career set in place…I will adopt.
Sally said, “Why do you feel the need to pass moral judgements and presumptions about people you don’t know?”
No..you did not go there..you did not say that!!! Sally, tell me it isn’t so. you have got to be kidding me (or more importantly yourself)
Sally,
What about the women now who still murder their babies and abortion IS legal? Where’s your justification for that? There isn’t any basically. So saying that she would have never murdered her infant if abortion was legal is just ridiculous. What about HER personal responsibility? Ohhh right, there isn’t any..cause everything is somebody else’s fault. Typical.
Child abuse is a violent crime and that has increased since Roe. Not all violent crimes have decreased.
Posted by: Carrie at November 13, 2007 1:47 PM
…………………………….
Child abuse was not a public issue until the 70s. Reporting was not mandatory until then. The concept of children being the property of their fathers was being challenged and you can thank the women’s movement for that.
Sally, 6:16PM
Amy Grossberg was a legal adult who could have obtained an abortion if she wanted one. Also, since she chose for whatever reason to continue with her pregnancy, she could have contacted a social service agency to arrange for an adoptive couple to pay for her prenatal care and hospitalization. I know college girls that did just that. Their parents never knew. If everything went well, she could have left the hospital immediately after delivery with no one the wiser.
She also had the option of going to an emergency room when she went into labor and being admitted to labor and delivery, then signing over her rights to the child and leaving. Hospital social services would have given her any needed assistance.
She had plenty of options. She chose instead to kill her newborn infant.
Sally, I did find your source. However, he was abandoned at the age of 17!!! We are considered adults at the age of 18! So, what should we do with children when one parent leaves?
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 2:02 PM
………………………………………………………………
Heather, Jeff was clearly mentally ill by this time. Abandoning him was abusive and clearly dangerous. Do you consider child abandonment the appropriate measure for the remaining parent?
Sally,
The early abortion movement used child abuse as an emotional appeal for the legalization of abortion as early as the late 1960’s and very early 1970’s. Whatever the reporting being done, it was played up for all it was worth by abortion advocates to further their agenda by claiming that legal abortion was the answer to this serious social problem. People like simple solutions, and this certainly looked like one.
Just as abortion was seen as a solution to poverty, illegitimacy, welfare dependency, and even marital discord.
So, I guess that you believe that abortion patients are whores. That’s what abortionists call them behind their backs anyway.
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 2:19 PM
………………………………….
And you’re all about name calling eh Heather? How Jesus of you.
Sally and Heather,
This is Jeffrey’s Father, Lionel, talking about Jeffery’s Mother, Joyce, while she was pregnant with Jeffrey…
He describes Joyce as going through a difficult pregnancy, constantly vomiting, as if her body was being sickened by what was germinating, an early biological “rejection” by mother. While pregnant with Jeff, Joyce developed strange fits of rigidity: “At times, her legs would lock tightly in place, and her whole body would grow rigid and begin to tremble. Her jaw would jerk to the right and take on a similarly frightening rigidity. During these strange seizures, her eyes would bulge like a frightened animal, and she would begin to salivate, literally frothing at the mouth.”
As Lionel describes it, it’s as if a corpse was giving birth. Father Lionel remains detached and analytical while Mother Joyce is in the midst of a biological warfare, fighting hormones with drugs. Lionel asks, ominously, “Why was she so upset all the time? What was it that she found so dreadful?”
Sounds like someone was possessed…!
Hippie, 6:08PM
Kudos to your single friends for adopting. I once heard a black woman claim that there was a time that a black woman wanting to adopt as a single parent would have been laughed right out of the adoption agency.
One can can only imagine the children, black and otherwise, who lost out on a loving parent, a good home, and an extended family because of some dimwit prejudice.
I also have an issue with these celebrities who think third world orphanages are flea markets to pick out the child of their dreams. They could just call the nearest social service agency to find children of all ages, races, and ethnicities in need of homes.
Laura, your attitude sucks! You don’t have the solution. If a person is not born into the ideal circumstances, do we just kill them? When? Before birth, or after? Shania Twain grew up poor. Look at her now. Model/actress, Tawney Kitean grew up poor. Look at her now. Barbra Streisand grew up poor. Look at her now.
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 2:07 PM
………………………………….
I grew up poor. I’m still poor. But then I raised children rather than promoting myself. Tawny Kitean? Perhaps I should have posed for porn and beaten up my spouse. Then I’d be someone to look up to . @@
Heather, you may well have one acquaintance that aborted 7 times and is now sterile. But you probably have quite a few acquaintances who have quietly had abortions on their own, but haven’t ever told anyone about it, most especially someone as vocally opposed to it as you. You may deny it, but depending on whose numbers you look at, about a third of all women in the US will have an abortion in their lifetime. The vast majority of these women wil emerge from it just fine.
Ray, you are incorrect. People don’t know how I feel about abortion at all. That’s why they confide in me. Once they tell me, I respond with compassion. I have friends who claim to have NO post abortive regrets. I pray for them.
Posted by: heather at November 13, 2007 2:38 PM
…………………………………
Do you pray that they will develop regrets?
Heather,
You have to be highly wary of these celebrities and their “humble” origins. Jennifer Lopez, who appears to have had a very middle class upbringing, has often been portrayed as coming from “the hood”.
This “humility” is often a great publicity ploy.
About Tawny Kitaen, I must agree with Sally about finding a better example. I don’t think her origins were all that humble. She was also one of OJ Simpson’s numerous lady friends when he was still married to Nicole. Nicole objected rather strenuously to his giving her a gift(imagine), and he brutally beat her for it, including locking her in a closet.
Sally,do we know for sure that the increase is tied to just cultural shifts? I am sure that is a large part of it,but I don’t know if it is all of it. How do we know that even a small part of it isn’t tied to legalized abortion? Has the debate about when unborn children get “personhood” bestowed upon them devalued born children to the point that abuse has become more common?
Sally said, “Why do you feel the need to pass moral judgements and presumptions about people you don’t know?”
No..you did not go there..you did not say that!!! Sally, tell me it isn’t so. you have got to be kidding me (or more importantly yourself)
Posted by: AB Laura at November 13, 2007 6:43 PM
……………………………………………………………….
I most certainly did. Are you going to presume to answer for Heather?
Carrie,
I think the point here is that abortion was supposed to eliminate child abuse, period. It should be virtually non-existent now. It isn’t. Could it be perhaps that abortion will not solve this problem, something pro-life people argued 40 years ago?
Sally,
What about the women now who still murder their babies and abortion IS legal? Where’s your justification for that? There isn’t any basically. So saying that she would have never murdered her infant if abortion was legal is just ridiculous. What about HER personal responsibility? Ohhh right, there isn’t any..cause everything is somebody else’s fault. Typical.
Posted by: Elizabeth at November 13, 2007 6:44 PM
……………………………………………………………………………..
Her responsibility was to abort if she was simply planning on killing an infant. But the whole story isn’t that simple now is it. Do explain how you have come to the conclusion that her actions were anyone’s responsibility beyond her own.
Mary, good point. I know you have mentioned before that one of the things claimed early on was that abortion would eliminate child abuse. That certainly hasn’t happened. Just look at the stats for child sexual abuse-I think it is one in three girls and one in six boys?
Single motherhood is not a choice I think anyone makes for themselves. I know that I certainly didn’t. But that’s how it happened. To be honest, I’m so glad my life is the way it is. The Feminists want to talk about women being empowered? Try raising a kid on your own and going to school. If THAT’S not empowering, I sure as hell don’t know what is. It wasn’t in the plan I made for myself, but I heard a quote once that I try to live by: “If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.” His plan for me was WAY better than any plan I made for myself. Time to go wake the baby up!!
Posted by: Elizabeth at November 13, 2007 4:53 PM
……………………………………………..
You can thank the women’s movement for you being allowed to parent on your own. The best that you could have expected not so long ago was social ostrazation. You would be a soiled woman unfit for marriage to anyone accepted by society. Those good ole days! Your father or other male relative would have had every right to take the baby from you and do with it what he wished.
You’re killin’ me here. You’re livin’ a clean life, no abortions, one guy…why don’t you want the same good stuff for everyone? Why aren’t you out there promoting monogamy, responsible sex and refraining from having children if you aren’t ready to parent them?
Why are you on the wrong side?
Posted by: mk at November 13, 2007 5:09 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On the wrong side?
I’m an American. If you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you’ll find that this place is all about minding your own business. For instance, I’ve never demanded that all Americans buy a small flock of emus, nor do I make Harley ownership mandatory.
To each his own.
I don’t want strangers in my uterus OR my gun cabinet. It’s nobody else’s business.
Sally, 6:16PM
Amy Grossberg was a legal adult who could have obtained an abortion if she wanted one. Also, since she chose for whatever reason to continue with her pregnancy, she could have contacted a social service agency to arrange for an adoptive couple to pay for her prenatal care and hospitalization. I know college girls that did just that. Their parents never knew. If everything went well, she could have left the hospital immediately after delivery with no one the wiser.
She also had the option of going to an emergency room when she went into labor and being admitted to labor and delivery, then signing over her rights to the child and leaving. Hospital social services would have given her any needed assistance.
She had plenty of options. She chose instead to kill her newborn infant.
Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2007 6:47 PM
…………………………………………………..
I am familiar with the case. Heather stated that her being a wanted child did not prevent her from becoming a convicted felon. I made the point that not excercising her option to abort an obviously unwanted pregnancy did just that. Or is the case a little more complicated than that and really not a good example of how unwanted children are more likely to exhibit criminal behavior?
Sally,do we know for sure that the increase is tied to just cultural shifts? I am sure that is a large part of it,but I don’t know if it is all of it. How do we know that even a small part of it isn’t tied to legalized abortion? Has the debate about when unborn children get “personhood” bestowed upon them devalued born children to the point that abuse has become more common?
Posted by: Carrie at November 13, 2007 7:21 PM
…………………………………………………………………………..
That child abuse is even reported is a direct result of the women’s movement. Hardly just a cultural shift.
Personhood has always been bestowed upon children at birth. You would have to rewrite history and create greater value for the ‘unborn’ than ever actually existed to make your premise work.
The ‘unborn’ were not persons before abortion was made illegal. They were not persons when it was illegal.
Sally said, “I most certainly did. Are you going to presume to answer for Heather?” Posted by: Sally at November 13, 2007 7:23 PM
I am more than confident that Heather can answer for herself. I guess you just missed my point….again….(you know, pot calling the kettle black?)
Anyway, I will comment on Heather’s post: abortion patients may not ALL be sleeping around, but absolutely nothing about their decision to abort IS responsible.
Sally said, “I grew up poor. I’m still poor.”
Nice CHOICE, Sally…
Sally,
The early abortion movement used child abuse as an emotional appeal for the legalization of abortion as early as the late 1960’s and very early 1970’s. Whatever the reporting being done, it was played up for all it was worth by abortion advocates to further their agenda by claiming that legal abortion was the answer to this serious social problem. People like simple solutions, and this certainly looked like one.
Just as abortion was seen as a solution to poverty, illegitimacy, welfare dependency, and even marital discord.
Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2007 6:52 PM
………………………………………………………
That’s a bit twisted Mary. The women’s movement brought to light child sexual abuse and the plight of girls sexually molested and impregnanted by family members. Real life was not the Donna Reed Show.
Ignoring how few rights women of any age had to their own body doesn’t change the facts. Women are no longer forced to gestate pregnancies caused from abuse and lack of 100% reliable BC. They don’t have to have 14 children and die in child birth. They don’t have to watch their children die from lack of nutrition. You make light of the history of women and children and do no one a service. The issues were/are not simple nor were/are the solutions.
Sally, I do thank the women’s movement for their work on child abuse and domestic violence(you probably would be surprised to hear that I worked on a crisis hotline for a battered woman’s shelter and I have studied this issue so I am well aware of what the women’s movement has done in this regard). I guess my point was more of a thought that maybe all this debate on when life has value has devalued life in general.
Sally and Heather,
This is Jeffrey’s Father, Lionel, talking about Jeffery’s Mother, Joyce, while she was pregnant with Jeffrey…
He describes Joyce as going through a difficult pregnancy, constantly vomiting, as if her body was being sickened by what was germinating, an early biological “rejection” by mother. While pregnant with Jeff, Joyce developed strange fits of rigidity: “At times, her legs would lock tightly in place, and her whole body would grow rigid and begin to tremble. Her jaw would jerk to the right and take on a similarly frightening rigidity. During these strange seizures, her eyes would bulge like a frightened animal, and she would begin to salivate, literally frothing at the mouth.”
As Lionel describes it, it’s as if a corpse was giving birth. Father Lionel remains detached and analytical while Mother Joyce is in the midst of a biological warfare, fighting hormones with drugs. Lionel asks, ominously, “Why was she so upset all the time? What was it that she found so dreadful?”
Sounds like someone was possessed…!
Posted by: mk at November 13, 2007 6:59 PM
……………………………….
Sounds like an undiagnosed health condition. A man I knew has Barlow’s syndrome. A part of the brain that controls emotions develops at the same time as a part of the heart. There was some kind of disturbance that caused both this part of his brain and that part of his heart to develop inproperly. He is sociopathic. Unable to emationally relate to others. He also has sudden adrenal rushes that cause him to feel he is being attacked when he clearly isn’t.
Science wasn’t all that interested in the ‘magic’ of gestation and fetal development back in those days.
Sally said, “I most certainly did. Are you going to presume to answer for Heather?” Posted by: Sally at November 13, 2007 7:23 PM
I am more than confident that Heather can answer for herself. I guess you just missed my point….again….(you know, pot calling the kettle black?)
Anyway, I will comment on Heather’s post: abortion patients may not ALL be sleeping around, but absolutely nothing about their decision to abort IS responsible.
Sally said, “I grew up poor. I’m still poor.”
Nice CHOICE, Sally…
Posted by: AB Laura at November 13, 2007 7:48 PM
……………………………………………………………….
Ask my kids when they end up supporting me in my old age. And yes Laura, it was my choice. I’m very happy that I had the choice. It made the toughest times easier.
Sally, I do thank the women’s movement for their work on child abuse and domestic violence(you probably would be surprised to hear that I worked on a crisis hotline for a battered woman’s shelter and I have studied this issue so I am well aware of what the women’s movement has done in this regard). I guess my point was more of a thought that maybe all this debate on when life has value has devalued life in general.
Posted by: Carrie at November 13, 2007 8:03 PM
…………………………………………………………..
Well Carrie, I guess the valuation lies within the one doing so. OJ was brought up a bit ago. I hold absolutely no value for his life. Another person might feel the oposite.
Sally, that’s true. OJ certainly doesn’t value life.
Sally,
Not twisted at all. Feminists hardly brought to light the problem of child abuse. Abortion advocates, and that included feminists, played this emotional issue for all it was worth to promote the abortion agenda. I talked to several of these women. The argument was always that legal abortion would end child abuse, and the issue of child abuse was always brought into discussions of abortion. I’m well aware life was not Donna Reed. I lived with a mentally ill father and alcoholism.
Sally, please, the situations you describe are ancient obstetrical history. Abortion did nothing to solve the problems you describe.
Women were not having an average of 14 children, there was birth control. Women were not begging on the streets to feed their children or watching them die of malnutrition. Nor were women dying like flies in childbirth. In fact, even the number of deaths from illegal abortion in this country was already steadily decreasing and was at an all time low the year prior to Roe.
I make light of problems of women and children? No Sally, it was the leaders of the abortion movement who played on the emotional appeal of serious social problems, child abuse among them, to promote abortion as a solution to social problems. Their real agenda was abortion on demand for any reason. They knew emotional appeal would get them a lot farther.
Sally, 7:40PM
About Amy Grossberg. I can remember when abortion was going to solve this kind of problem too. No more abandonment, girls having unwanted babies, etc. Abortion advocates had a real hangup about poor women having babies,you should have heard how abortion was going to “benefit” the poor, but Amy was a child of privilege.
How could the loved and wanted child of privilege end up killing a child she could have aborted? None of this was supposed to happen once all children were planned and wanted.
Mary: >>The early abortion movement used child abuse as an emotional appeal for the legalization of abortion as early as the late 1960’s and very early 1970’s. Whatever the reporting being done, it was played up for all it was worth by abortion advocates to further their agenda by claiming that legal abortion was the answer to this serious social problem. People like simple solutions, and this certainly looked like one. Just as abortion was seen as a solution to poverty, illegitimacy, welfare dependency, and even marital discord.all of it.
Likewise, it does help with poverty, single-parent families, welfare, and marital strife. That’s not saying that it will “cure” any of them, because obviously some of each would occur regardless of our policies on the given situations.
Doug
AB Laura: pro-abortion means “for abortion” “in favor of abortion” “in support of abortion”, etc. Are PC’s none of these things, or are we just sugar-coating yet another label for their dispicable stance again?
Being for legal abortion is not being “for abortion, ” per se. Pro-Choicers are for what the woman wants, even if it is never to have an abortion.
Doug
yllas: Pick one alternative and it is abortion. Pick another alternative, and it is not a abortion.
Dang, yllas, there may be hope for you yet. ; )
AB Laura, you aren’t PL Laura, are you? If not, it’s nice to meet you.
Oh Heather, it is her. Now it’s not nice for you to meet her.
If you look at the numbers behind the statistics you find that they are percentages of percentages. Like 5 times more likely to….. So instead of 1 in a 1000, it is 5 in a 1000. That is still less than 1%.
Hippie, are you talking about the chances of getting breast cancer? ; )
Laura: For instance, I’ve never demanded that all Americans buy a small flock of emus, nor do I make Harley ownership mandatory.
I wouldn’t mind having an emu that could ride down the road with me.
Doug,
Abortion advocates played on the emotional appeal of these social problems to promote their agenda. I remember well because I actually suckered for it for a brief period. Believe me, it had great appeal and the public ate it up. Didn’t it make sense? No unwanted children means no abuse, poverty, welfare dependency, you name it. Just as they ate up the religious bigotry also promoted by abortion advocates. Abortion advocates played social problems for all it was worth, their agenda was abortion on demand, and they would stop at nothing until they had it.
People will grasp at what they see as instant solutions. Even today I hear arguments about abortion solving the problems of abuse, poverty, and teen pregnancy. I’m sure we all realize that problems are considerably too complex to be resolved by some simplistic solution. However, people always have, and will seek the “magic bullet”.
You appeal to people’s emotions, not their common sense when you want to promote an agenda.
ally, 7:40PM
About Amy Grossberg. I can remember when abortion was going to solve this kind of problem too. No more abandonment, girls having unwanted babies, etc. Abortion advocates had a real hangup about poor women having babies,you should have heard how abortion was going to “benefit” the poor, but Amy was a child of privilege.
How could the loved and wanted child of privilege end up killing a child she could have aborted? None of this was supposed to happen once all children were planned and wanted.
Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2007 8:39 PM
………………………………………………………………….
Obviously Amy’s pregnancy was neither planned nor wanted. Her parents didn’t become criminals, she did. The only point proven here is that not all continued pregnancies are planned or wanted. Outlawing abortion will not change that.
Doug,
I mentioned suicide rates for post abortive women at 5-6 times the those of women who deliver.
Interestingly war veterans also have a suicide rate 2-3 times higher than non veterans.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml
I wonder if a both those who have had abortions and those who have served in armed conflicts were somehow predisposed to emotional problems.
Sally, 9:02PM
But legalized abortion did nothing to prevent it.
If you look at the numbers behind the statistics you find that they are percentages of percentages. Like 5 times more likely to….. So instead of 1 in a 1000, it is 5 in a 1000. That is still less than 1%.
Hippie, are you talking about the chances of getting breast cancer? ; )
Posted by: Doug at November 13, 2007 8:51 PM
Doug,
No, I was replying to Elizabeth regarding stats that say kids of single moms are 5 times more likely to …(fill in problem here).
Since the numbers are absent, they are hard to assess. Plus they are percentages of percentages, which generally means really small. Why do these articles not give the numbers? Then people could really see what they are talking about. I find this type of reporting annoying. You have to track down the studies and stats yourself if you want to understand them. If they spent a couple more lines giving the real numbers and a couple fewer lines of their “analysis” they would be educating the public far better.
Legal abortion does prevent considerable child abuse, but nobody is saying (or said) it would prevent all of it.
Likewise, it does help with poverty, single-parent families, welfare, and marital strife. That’s not saying that it will “cure” any of them, because obviously some of each would occur regardless of our policies on the given situations.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 13, 2007 8:41
Wow, Doug, I have not seen statistics supporting these assertions. If you remember where you saw that, would you mind linking to it?
That child abuse is even reported is a direct result of the women’s movement. Hardly just a cultural shift.
Posted by: Sally at November 13, 2007 7:48 PM
Interesting note, the first child abuse case in the US was prosecuted in NY city as an animal welfare case. Lawyers argued that a child should have the right to be treated as well as an animal.
Doug said, “Being for legal abortion is not being “for abortion,”
Surprisingly (LOL) not following your train(wreck) of thought here, Doug….
Anyway, your emu comment was pretty funny. I love them! :)
Abortion advocates played on the emotional appeal of these social problems to promote their agenda. I remember well because I actually suckered for it for a brief period. Believe me, it had great appeal and the public ate it up. Didn’t it make sense?
Mary, to an extent, of course. Had there been no legal abortion in the past 34 years, among the many, many more kids that would have been present there would have been many cases of abuse, so there would have been much more child abuse.
That is not saying that legal abortion would prevent all child abuse. Of course it wouldn’t since as along as there are kids there will be “some abuse.”
No different than thinking that banning abortion completely would “eliminate child abuse.” No sensible person would go with that.
Doug
“Being for legal abortion is not being “for abortion,”
Surprisingly (LOL) not following your train(wreck) of thought here, Doug
AB Laura, nope – being for the choice, either way, is not being for one choice, per se.
Anyway, you like emus, you ought to try sheep.
“Legal abortion does prevent considerable child abuse, but nobody is saying (or said) it would prevent all of it.”
“Likewise, it does help with poverty, single-parent families, welfare, and marital strife. That’s not saying that it will “cure” any of them, because obviously some of each would occur regardless of our policies on the given situations.”
Hippie: Wow, Doug, I have not seen statistics supporting these assertions. If you remember where you saw that, would you mind linking to it?
Why do you think you need “statistics” for it, Hippie? Think about it.
Had there been no legal abortion, don’t you think there would have been many more kids in the US? Isn’t it reasonable to think that among them, some (a considerable number) would have been abused? Thus, legal abortion has meant many less cases of abuse.
Same with poverty, single parent families, etc. Surely you can see that a single woman having an abortion prevents a single-parent family at that point?
Doug
I mentioned suicide rates for post abortive women at 5-6 times the those of women who deliver.
Interestingly war veterans also have a suicide rate 2-3 times higher than non veterans.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml
I wonder if a both those who have had abortions and those who have served in armed conflicts were somehow predisposed to emotional problems.
Hippie, sure – valid question.
Doug
Doug, 10:16PM
So, you do admit abortion advocates played on the emotional appeal of social problems to promote their agenda. Finally we make some progress.
However the argument that without abortion we would have more abuse doesn’t wash Doug. That’s a favorite ploy of abortion advocates who argue how much worse a problem would be without abortion, rather than acknowledge that abortion never solved a problem to begin with.
No different than thinking that banning abortion completely would “eliminate child abuse”. Whoever said it would? Pro-life people maintained legal abortion would do nothing to solve the problem of child abuse and were proven correct.
Doug 10:18PM
Does this argument apply across the board? For instance does being for the “choice” of stealing a car mean you do not advocate car theft?
Had there been no legal abortion, don’t you think there would have been many more kids in the US? Isn’t it reasonable to think that among them, some (a considerable number) would have been abused? Thus, legal abortion has meant many less cases of abuse.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 13, 2007 10:23 PM
Sorry Doug, that is just making the point that if you have less people, you will have less of everything that people do. It doesn’t affect the incidence rate.
Less people means
less child abuse,
fewer new home permits,
fewer crayons,
fewer butchers, bakers and candlestick makers.
That is hardly a grand benefit to individuals or society especially since abortion is child abuse anyway.
Also, without legal abortion, people might behave differently. People in other countries do. After abortion was legalized in Colombia the health ministry reported 50 abortions the first year. People can do better. We aren’t just like the other animals.
Sally, 8:04PM
An interesting point. I wonder if his mother may have been suffering an atypical form of eclampsia.
Hippie,
“fewer butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers…”
Haha. That made me chuckle a little bit.
:looks around: I think I’ll go to bed now. :)
I just want to let everyone know that it might take me a while to get back to you on the abortion part of the Freakonomics book…I have college biology and chemistry to do, and I have had this book for a few weeks and have found little time to read it. Sorry if I don’t get to that chapter in the next couple of days…it can get kind of busy around here.
But ya’ll know I love ya, right? :P
Sally,
Not twisted at all. Feminists hardly brought to light the problem of child abuse. Abortion advocates, and that included feminists, played this emotional issue for all it was worth to promote the abortion agenda. I talked to several of these women. The argument was always that legal abortion would end child abuse, and the issue of child abuse was always brought into discussions of abortion. I’m well aware life was not Donna Reed. I lived with a mentally ill father and alcoholism.
Sally, please, the situations you describe are ancient obstetrical history. Abortion did nothing to solve the problems you describe.
Women were not having an average of 14 children, there was birth control. Women were not begging on the streets to feed their children or watching them die of malnutrition. Nor were women dying like flies in childbirth. In fact, even the number of deaths from illegal abortion in this country was already steadily decreasing and was at an all time low the year prior to Roe.
I make light of problems of women and children? No Sally, it was the leaders of the abortion movement who played on the emotional appeal of serious social problems, child abuse among them, to promote abortion as a solution to social problems. Their real agenda was abortion on demand for any reason. They knew emotional appeal would get them a lot farther.
Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2007 8:28 PM
…………………………………………………………………….
The abortion ‘movement’ was begun in 1957 by a group of lawyers, law professors and judges calling for abortion to be legal in cases where there was “substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the woman, or that the child resulting from pregnancy would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.”
So much for the PL mantra that abortion has always been available in such cases.
1957 was the year I was born. BC was not available to my mother. Hardly ancient history Mary. While I never even insinuated that the average number of children a woman bore was 14, my mother was only pregnant 9 times, they certainly had no control over the numbers. Women could not say no to their husbands and were left to deal with the consequences. Regardless of their health or the viability of the conceptus.
Of course this ‘conspiracy’ included children as girl children can be inpregnanted. Where did a 12 year old girl go to report her father’s sexual abuse in the 50s or 60s Mary? A priest perhaps? @@ (Cheap shot) But do try to give me an honest answer. I think that you’ll find it was the same place a woman went to report an abusive husband. No where.
The women’s movement wasn’t the driving force behind discussion and acknowledgement of familial abuse? Please tell me who was.
And Mary, children still die of malnutrition in this country. To assert that children weren’t dying of matnutrition prior to 1957 is unsupportable. Delusional even.
Had there been no legal abortion, don’t you think there would have been many more kids in the US? Isn’t it reasonable to think that among them, some (a considerable number) would have been abused? Thus, legal abortion has meant many less cases of abuse.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at November 13, 2007 10:23 PM
Sorry Doug, that is just making the point that if you have less people, you will have less of everything that people do. It doesn’t affect the incidence rate.
Less people means
less child abuse,
fewer new home permits,
fewer crayons,
fewer butchers, bakers and candlestick makers.
That is hardly a grand benefit to individuals or society especially since abortion is child abuse anyway.
Also, without legal abortion, people might behave differently. People in other countries do. After abortion was legalized in Colombia the health ministry reported 50 abortions the first year. People can do better. We aren’t just like the other animals.
Posted by: hippie at November 13, 2007 10:52 PM
………………………..
Huh? 50 abortions were reported in Columbia after legalization. How many weren’t reported? How does this support your theory that illegalizing abortion would change behavior? And what behavior would that be? Not having sex unless the woman wants to get pregnant? I can’t imagine too many men being really happy with that.
I am skeptical of the claim that abortion reduces crime because the aborted would have been more likely to be criminals than the general population.
That’s not why we support abortion rights (those of us who do). It’s because the pregnant woman is entitled to control what goes on inside her uterus.
Sally, if you look worldwide, laws against abortion do not prevent abortions.
For instance, in South America, where abortion is mostly illegal, there were 33 abortions per thousand women in 2005; in North America, where abortion is mostly legal, there were only 24 abortions per thousand women in 2005.
The lowest abortion rate is in Holland, where abortion and contraception are legal and accessible.
The greatest decrease in abortions in the past decade or so has been in Russia and Eastern Europe, which have reduced their abortion rates since contraceptives have become generally available.
Sally, 9:02PM
But legalized abortion did nothing to prevent it.
Posted by: Mary at November 13, 2007 9:14 PM
……………………….
Well no Mary. If someone is hell bent on murdering an infant, an abortion would not be on the menu.
That child abuse is even reported is a direct result of the women’s movement. Hardly just a cultural shift.
Posted by: Sally at November 13, 2007 7:48 PM
Interesting note, the first child abuse case in the US was prosecuted in NY city as an animal welfare case. Lawyers argued that a child should have the right to be treated as well as an animal.
Posted by: hippie at November 13, 2007 9:41 PM
……………………………
Nice job! What was that?
The 1920s when children could be and were being sent off to work in dangerous factories and mines? Nice! Children were being considered as something less than slaves.
Who were those lawers employed by hippie? Some church? I don’t think so. Google some more and then actually read a book or two.
Yes mk, I’m all for actual learning rather than getting your ‘education’ from third hand sources. I have a library card. Do you? I bet that Jill doesn’t.
AB Laura, you aren’t PL Laura, are you? If not, it’s nice to meet you.
Oh Heather, it is her. Now it’s not nice for you to meet her.
Posted by: Doug at November 13, 2007 8:49 PM
********************************************************************** DOUG, Stop goofing around! You are kind of irritating me.
Okay, someone was complaining about my using Tawney Kitean as an example. The only thing I was pointing out was that she had grown up very poor. Despite her personal mistakes as an adult, would the woman be better off dead/aborted?
1. Married people have abortions too.
2. Just because you’re married, does not mean you want children.
3. Being married and staying married does not ensure the child will have a good life. My parents are still married, but that doesn’t negate the fact that my mother is emotionally and sometimes physically abusive. Would I have grown up better without it? Yes. I wished many times they would get divorced so I could live elsewhere.
4. Everyone agrees children should have a healthy environment. If every child was guaranteed one, I’d be pro-life too. But the fact is, marriage does not guarantee a healthy family.
5. Just because a person does not want children (married or not) does not mean they should abstain from sex their entire life.
6. Yes, I agree people should limit the number of sexual partners. The less, the better. But mistakes happen. Sometimes the person you loved changes. Sometimes things just don’t work out. Sometimes they don’t work out after a woman gets pregnant. S*** happens.
7. It takes a village… not a single woman. Once pro-lifers start advocating for better care for these women (which does mean welfare in some cases, sorry conservatives) during pregnancy AND the next 18 years, maybe 20-25 depending on whether or not you want those poor kids to get a college education, then maybe I’ll change my position on abortion. But right now, I don’t see you all doing a heck of a lot to help out the women, men, or children in need.
MK, I had not heard that about Jeffery Dahmer’s mom. Anyway, I still say, who could have predicted? RE: Amy Grossberg. Her parents planned her, and she was very much a wanted child. She was away at college while she hid her own pregnancy from everyone. She wrote letters to her b/f begging him to make “it” go away. She wrote “It has ruined my life.” “All I want is for “it” to go away.” “I wish I had my nice body back so we could “uh” “uh” again.”..”It will all be over soon.” She gave birth in a motel room, and she and the b/f, trashed the baby. She was suffering from preeclampsia. This is how her “secret” was finally discovered.
Also, Amy’s b/f scheduled 2 abortion appointments for her. Amy wanted no part of them. Speaking of irony, Amy was worried that she would catch an infection, or die, while having the abortion. She told her B/F “I can’t do this.” “I might get sick if the place is dirty, and my mother will find out.”…It was the same abortion clinic that almost killed Rasheedah Dinkins.
My point is that Amy Grossberg grew up in the lap of luxury. She was a talented artist with excellent grades. How could someone so “bright” allow such a tragedy to occur? Do we blame her parents? I don’t think that’s always fair.
That’s not why we support abortion rights (those of us who do). It’s because the pregnant woman is entitled to control what goes on inside her uterus.
Posted by: SoMG at November 13, 2007 11:58 PM************************************************************************************************** Well, she’d better get a handle on her sex life. Don’t put the baby there if you don’t want it.
Why not? Isn’t it better for the little tyke to get conceived and then aborted, than never to be conceived at all?
The fetus that is conceived and aborted enjoys a short life in utero. But the one who is not even conceived enjoys nothing.
Sally,
Abortion was always legal in the event a woman’s life was in danger. It had to be established for certain her life was in danger. What the lawyers were saying was an attempt to expand this to include “mental health” a catchall term which would greatly expand the use of abortion. State laws varied and some permitted abortion for the reasons the lawyers mentioned. Also, determining fetal defect at that time, even fetal death, could be a hit and miss game.
The efforts to legalize abortion on demand really got going strong around 1967.
Sally, I was born before you and I know my mother had access to birth control. It was the diaphragm. I don’t know why your mother couldn’t have obtained one. Also condoms were around. Didn’t the pill come out around 1960? At the time of Roe was what I was referring to, and at that time there were plenty more birth control options.
Sally, sorry but medically, 1957 is ancient history. You can’t compare then to now.
I was talking about child abuse, not overall familial abuse, when referring to the woman’s movement. You’re correct feminists did bring the issue of domestic violence to light. I never disputed that. It was child abuse thaat was exploited to promote abortion on demand.
A little girl went to a priest if she was molested? Well nowadays Sally abusers who impregnante minor girls can take their victims to PP or an abortion clinic and have them discreetly aborted, and their crimes covered up.
I have no doubt children are still malnourished in this country, so abortion has obviously done nothing to solve this problem. This however is due more to parental neglect and indifference. A family in need can contact social service agencies or go to the Salvation Army.
Heather,
Excellent posts about Amy. I didn’t mean to sound like I was complaining, I’m just very wary of these celebs and their childhood sob stories. They make for great publicity.
MK,
Was any effort made to diagnose or treat Dahmer’s mother? These symptoms sound extremely serious, pregnant or not.
Doug,
Legal abortion does prevent considerable child abuse, but nobody is saying (or said) it would prevent all of it.
Sources, please?
Doug,
Surely you can see that a single woman having an abortion prevents a single-parent family at that point?
Abstinence prevents a single-parent family. Abortion ends one.
Interesting note, the first child abuse case in the US was prosecuted in NY city as an animal welfare case. Lawyers argued that a child should have the right to be treated as well as an animal.
Someone like Doug would have argued that children were always treated this way. Legally, since it wasn’t specifically written anywhere that children should NOT be abused, it must be assumed that they can. A parent’s need to abuse surely must be greater that the child’s need to be protected. It’s all about the parent’s suffering. (Dang kid, spilled his milk, AGAIN!)
Nowhere is it written that the unborn are “persons”, therefore they must not be.
How pathetic, that we, as a country, had to actually pass a law saying that children were as, if not more, valuable than animals.
How pathetic, that we, as a country, need to make a law stating that the unborn are living human beings.
What should be obvious to all, has been delegated to that far away land of denial, for convenience’s sake.
Doug,
Had there been no legal abortion, don’t you think there would have been many more kids in the US? Isn’t it reasonable to think that among them, some (a considerable number) would have been abused? Thus, legal abortion has meant many less cases of abuse.
Well, since I believe that ripping a child’s limbs off and flushing it’s remains down a garbage disposal is a form of child abuse, and since we have a million and a half abortions a year…I would reason that incidents of child abuse have dramatically gone UP!
Not having sex unless the woman wants to get pregnant? I can’t imagine too many men being really happy with that.
Poor Men. Told you abortion was a man’s idea. Talk about, (oooh I finally get to use the “M” word) misogynistic!
Cold showers, anyone?
Sally,
Yes mk, I’m all for actual learning rather than getting your ‘education’ from third hand sources. I have a library card. Do you? I bet that Jill doesn’t.
Huh? What is this in response to? Where did I mention libraries or “education”?
Doug,
There is hope for you too. Someday, your going to leave women alone and stop making them have the option of killing. Quit being pro killing and your pessimistic personality will lift away from you, and encouraging the gift of life will make you a optimistic personality . Old Doug, going down the road listen’ to Elvis and smiling about that momma crying, “cause another baby in the ghetto is the last thing she needs”. Imagine those thoughts coming out of previously poor white boy, who is well off and lost his way to pleasure. See what happens to a pessimistic personality who rejects the optimism of life being a unrevokeable gift , they screw up themselves, their family, and finally spread pessimsism to others such as you Doug.
Heather,
Sally is the expert on Dahmer. Like minds, think alike. There is nothing Sally knows about Dahmer that is not true or factual.
As for what I know about those Dahmer’s, is that a person with the same last name,aproximate same age, same sex, worked in the “body parts department” of a med university, and quit his job shortly after Jeffry Dahmer’s “preservation efforts” were discovered.
Which makes me wonder, is Sally a agent of Chinese or India companies, that sell bone sets and the complete human skeleton? Those plastic bone sets are just not the same as the real things. Hey, Sally what price a complete NEW skeleton? And why are 95% male bones being offered for sale to med labs?
What discount is there for imperfections in the bones, such as knife cuts, and small fractures within those bones?
Heather, ask Sally what Jeffery’s father did for work and was it around laboratories.
Mary, Please don’t take that personally [Tawney Kitean]…..I just thought I’d toss it out there. Perhaps not the best example.
MK, I agree that child abuse has gone up. Abortion has devalued the life of children, so women now abort them, or they abuse them. Today women are even allowing their boyfriends to abuse their children.
Why not? Isn’t it better for the little tyke to get conceived and then aborted, than never to be conceived at all?
The fetus that is conceived and aborted enjoys a short life in utero. But the one who is not even conceived enjoys nothing.
Posted by: SoMG at November 14, 2007 3:40 AM************************************************************************************************************************************************ Honest to God, sometimes I think you are just here for your own amusement. You’re quick to call others stupid. What you have written is totally stupid! You have also contradicted yourself AGAIN!
Somg wrote “A short LIFE in utero”…I thought it wasn’t human.
@ Edyt, Married people have abortions too……………. This should never be the case. The married couple who doesn’t want any children should look into a vasectomy or a tubal ligation.
Heather said, “Somg wrote “A short LIFE in utero”…I thought it wasn’t human.”
Posted by: heather at November 14, 2007 8:18 AM
SoMg said, “The fetus that is conceived and aborted enjoys a short life in utero.”
Heather,
She also said “enjoys” it….wow! the human LIFE has feelings, too?
I think we’re making progress!
And the winner of the most ironic post from lack of knowing onself is………
Sally.
“Why do you feel the need to pass moral judgements and presumptions on people you don’t even know”.
Uh, Sally, think about what you wrote. Indeed Sally, who are you to make presumptions and judgements about people you don’t know. You have been lectured about this form of fascism and thought control before. Please think before you write.
Eyewitnessed anymore death lately?
Seen anymore lonely eyes meeting yours?
Where is the “you” in you, Sally?
Why is the “you” in you Sally for women killing tiny human beings and knowing, you know it is right? Why are you soo judgemental and presumptous about other women you don’t even know?
Since your for death from sex acts, is that not nothing more then being insane and trying to convince others of your judgement and opinons of the fact that your insanity is a form of “normal insanity”?
You know Silly Sally, how those Nazi doktors convinced millions of normally sane Germans, to be for euthanasia from the principle that “death is healing”. Another history book you failed to read Sally, The Nazi Doctors, by Robert Lifton.?
Or do you read only books which confirm your opinions,judgements, of people you do not know?
Heather, 8:06am
My goodness don’t be concerned. Its a total non-issue as far as I’m concerned. I just happened to read that one incident involving her and OJ. As far as I’m concerned they deserved each other.
Also, these celebs love to embellish their “humble” origins, so I tend to be highly skeptical of their claims to childhood hardship. I have to laugh at Jennifer Lopez being portrayed as “from the hood”. Well if she’s “from the hood” I am too. The middle class neighborhood she grew up in looks a lot like the one I did.
Mary, I understand.. lol!
Mary: So, you do admit abortion advocates played on the emotional appeal of social problems to promote their agenda. Finally we make some progress.
Hey now, Mary, I already agreed with you that many people like “simple” stuff and bumper-sticker mentality. That applies, regardless which side on is one in this debate.
…..
However the argument that without abortion we would have more abuse doesn’t wash Doug. That’s a favorite ploy of abortion advocates who argue how much worse a problem would be without abortion, rather than acknowledge that abortion never solved a problem to begin with.
No, it’s just obvious logic – that had there been no legal abortion, there would have been X number of more kids, and among those there would have been substantial abuse, abuse that has not happened because abortion was legal.
…..
“No different than thinking that banning abortion completely would “eliminate child abuse”.
Whoever said it would? Pro-life people maintained legal abortion would do nothing to solve the problem of child abuse and were proven correct.
It was a hypothetical – hopefully nobody is silly enough to think that any social policy will magically “end” all child abuse. Legal abortion has partially solved child abuse, but nobody told you it would “end” with legal abortion.
……
Does this argument apply across the board? For instance does being for the “choice” of stealing a car mean you do not advocate car theft?
Well, I’m not for stealing cars.
Doug
HippieSorry Doug, that is just making the point that if you have less people, you will have less of everything that people do. It doesn’t affect the incidence rate.
Hippie, I agree that less raw numbers doens’t mean the incidence rate changes.
Of course, we weren’t talking about the incidence rate.
Doug
“AB Laura, you aren’t PL Laura, are you? If not, it’s nice to meet you.”
Oh Heather, it is her. Now it’s not nice for you to meet her.
“DOUG, Stop goofing around! You are kind of irritating me.”
Ha! You know I love you, kid.
……
Okay, someone was complaining about my using Tawney Kitean as an example.
Ahoy – I remember one MTV video. I will see that complaint and raise it three hundred thousand – you go right ahead with Tawney.
Meoooowwwwwwwwww
“Interesting note, the first child abuse case in the US was prosecuted in NY city as an animal welfare case. Lawyers argued that a child should have the right to be treated as well as an animal.”
MK: Someone like Doug would have argued that children were always treated this way. Legally, since it wasn’t specifically written anywhere that children should NOT be abused, it must be assumed that they can. A parent’s need to abuse surely must be greater that the child’s need to be protected. It’s all about the parent’s suffering. (Dang kid, spilled his milk, AGAIN!)
No, someone like me would not have said that.
……
Nowhere is it written that the unborn are “persons”, therefore they must not be.
Already dealt with, many times.
……
How pathetic, that we, as a country, had to actually pass a law saying that children were as, if not more, valuable than animals.
No argument that kids should not be abused.
……
How pathetic, that we, as a country, need to make a law stating that the unborn are living human beings.
That wasn’t what the law did, was it?
……
What should be obvious to all, has been delegated to that far away land of denial, for convenience’s sake.
Reading what you wrote, above, perhaps.
Doug
yllas: There is hope for you too.
yllas, more to the point, there is hope for you.
……
Someday, your going to leave women alone and stop making them have the option of killing. Quit being pro killing and your pessimistic personality will lift away from you, and encouraging the gift of life will make you a optimistic personality . Old Doug, going down the road listen’ to Elvis and smiling about that momma crying, “cause another baby in the ghetto is the last thing she needs”. Imagine those thoughts coming out of previously poor white boy, who is well off and lost his way to pleasure. See what happens to a pessimistic personality who rejects the optimism of life being a unrevokeable gift , they screw up themselves, their family, and finally spread pessimsism to others such as you Doug.
Heh – between the two of us, you are the grouch, by far.,
Doug, 7:30PM
Please, some studies to back your claim that there would be more abuse if abortion wasn’t legal. You don’t get it Doug, child abuse should be virtually non-existent. Abortion advocates didn’t claim that fewer children would mean less abuse, they claimed that the elimination of unwanted children would mean no abuse. This is like arguing that we would solve the problem of wife abuse by killing engaged women.
Nobody is silly enough to think any social policy will “end” all child abuse? I have a news flash for you Doug, that is exactly what people were silly enough to believe, and wanted to believe, and abortion advocates milked it for all it was worth.
While I’m very glad you do not support car theft, you didn’t answer my question as to whether one can support one’s “choice” to steal a car, but still not support car theft.
Please, some studies to back your claim that there would be more abuse if abortion wasn’t legal.
Mary, think about it. Had there been no legal abortion as per Roe, how many more kids would there be? 50 million? There’d be not just more kids but the kids of kids and even the grandkids of kids by now. 40 million? 20 million? Within that number, whatever it is, there would have been many kids that were abused. Thus, a lot of such cases of abuse were prevented by having legal abortion.
You’re still trying to impugn the pro-choice message by straw man arguments, but no big deal.
And no, if one is against car theft, then one is very likely against the choice of car theft.
It’s not like the car to be stolen is in the body of a person, after all.
Doug
Doug,
Again, abortion advocates argued that when unwanted children were eliminated, child abuse would end. They did not argue that reducing the number of children born would reduce the incidence of child abuse. That wouldn’t have sounded very appealling. Abortion meant no unwanted children, no unwanted children meant no child abuse, period. I remember abortion advocates parading pictures of abused children and arguing that pictures of abused children were as horrific as pictures of aborted babies. It was a widely held assumption that abused children were unwanted. People were, and still are, silly enough to believe this argument.
Also, your claim that there would be more abuse than there is now is an assumption, just like the assumption that abortion would end child abuse.
Also Doug you said that you are for “choice” with abortion but not be for abortion. Please answer my question as to whether or not that same rationale applies to car theft.
Mary, you can “say” that (heck, you can say anything) but the truth is that nobody is saying or said that legal abortion would end all child abuse.
It’s obvious that without legal abortion there would be many more kids, some of whom would be abused.
Nope, the same rational doesn’t apply to car theft. I don’t want people stealing cars – the cars are not theirs. People ending pregnancies is a different deal – the pregnancies are theirs.
Doug
I’m not so sure that there would be more kids without legal abortion.
Remember, in South America where abortion is mostly illegal there are more abortions (33 per thousand reproductive-age women in 2005) than in North America where abortion is mostly legal (24 per thousand reproductive-age women in 2005).
Laws against abortion do not prevent abortions.
That means they probably do not raise the total number of (abusable) kids.
Doug,
How pathetic, that we, as a country, need to make a law stating that the unborn are living human beings.
*
That wasn’t what the law did, was it?
No it didn’t. That’s my point. It should be OBVIOUS to everyone that child abuse is wrong. So it is a sad statement that we had to actually write it down to get the message across.
Likewise, it should be OBVIOUS to everyone that killing your child in utero is wrong. So it is a sad statement that we need to write it down to get this message across.
It hasn’t been written down. It shouldn’t HAVE to be written down. It should be a no brainer. How pathetic that we will have to make a law about something that is so self evident. Something that even a small child understands innately.
Laws against abortion do not prevent abortions.
That means they probably do not raise the total number of (abusable) kids.
SoMG, that higher rate of abortion may be the case in South America, but I’d say that conditions there are different than in the US, often, i.e. less access to contraception, etc.
I also think it’s obvious that abortion being illegal in the US would induce some women to continue pregnancies where otherwise they would not, i.e. more kids would result.
For South America, despite the raw numbers, was abortion to be legal it’s not unreasonable to think there would be more.
Doug
Doug,
Just as a lawyer will appeal to the emotions of jurors to get a murderer off the hook, abortion advocates used the emotional appeal of child abuse to push their agenda. Emotional appeal has nothing to do with logic and good sense, you don’t want people to use that. It was so simplistic, unwanted children=abused children. Eliminate unwanted children and the problem is solved.
So the supporting the choice and not the action rationale only applies to what you personally condone? Thank you for answering my question.
MK: It should be OBVIOUS to everyone that child abuse is wrong. So it is a sad statement that we had to actually write it down to get the message across.
Part of it is that attitudes about abuse and just what is abuse have changed.
……
Likewise, it should be OBVIOUS to everyone that killing your child in utero is wrong. So it is a sad statement that we need to write it down to get this message across. It hasn’t been written down. It shouldn’t HAVE to be written down. It should be a no brainer. How pathetic that we will have to make a law about something that is so self evident. Something that even a small child understands innately.
MK, there I’d say that you want everybody to think like you do. I won’t bother with the obvious stuff, but many people, most people, in fact, do not.
Doug
Mary: Just as a lawyer will appeal to the emotions of jurors to get a murderer off the hook, abortion advocates used the emotional appeal of child abuse to push their agenda.
Some do, Mary, and of course that’s true of some pro-lifers too. That’s human nature.
……
Emotional appeal has nothing to do with logic and good sense, you don’t want people to use that. It was so simplistic, unwanted children=abused children. Eliminate unwanted children and the problem is solved.
Again, you’re mischaracterizing the pro-choice position, but even aside from that this argument is about emotion – you can’t get away from that. Some unwanted kids will be abused, but that alone is not the pro-choice argument nor does it have to be any necessary part of what a pro-choicer thinks.
Wanting women to keep the freedom they have in the matter is plenty.
……
So the supporting the choice and not the action rationale only applies to what you personally condone?
No, of course not. There are things I would not personally choose, but that I also support other people being free to do. You’re the same way.
Doug
Doug,
Wanted children will be abused as well. The problem of child abuse has never been, nor will it ever be simplistic. However, 40 years ago this issue had huge emotional appeal. Unwanted children=abused children, period. Abortion advocates played this for all they could to push their agenda. Eliminate unwanted children and you solve the problem.
Hopefully the public has gotten smarter. Also, this may not be the PC position today. I don’t know if early abortion advocates truly believed or cared whether child abuse would be eliminated. If it furthered their agenda, they would go for it.
Doug, PC people say one can support someone’s right to do something but still oppose it. Fine. But this logic is selective. Why do PC people insist they do not support abortion, what is wrong with it? I have no problem telling you why I oppose cigarette smoking, I don’t insist on being call “pro-choice” on cigarettes.
Doug,
MK, there I’d say that you want everybody to think like you do. I won’t bother with the obvious stuff, but many people, most people, in fact, do not.
On matters like which beer do I prefer? no.
On matters like ending innocents life for convenience? yes.
Actually, I don’t even care if they “think” like me. Just act like me. Don’t kill your children.
Not even for the non-existant right to complete personal autonomy that you all seem to believe that you have.
Doug,
Let’s just say I get a huge laugh out of “pro-choice” Rosie O’Donnell opposing the “choice” of gun ownership while hiring armed guards to protect her family, guards she claimed she didn’t know were armed. Did she think they used fly swatters?
Apparently “pro-choice” Rosie doesn’t see that one can oppose gun ownership but still support one’s right to own a gun.
Mary, LOL! I’ll bet that left Rosie a wee bit red in the face.
There is an edifying movie out now entitled Bella. It is a tribute to the unmitigated value and dignity of human life. Go see it this weekend!
Virginia, yes. We have talked about that before. Jill had a post up about it.
Mary: 40 years ago this issue had huge emotional appeal.
Well, I’m sure that is true to varying extents, same as we see any number of common emotional pleas/arguments from pro-lifers.
……
PC people say one can support someone’s right to do something but still oppose it. Fine. But this logic is selective. Why do PC people insist they do not support abortion, what is wrong with it? I have no problem telling you why I oppose cigarette smoking, I don’t insist on being call “pro-choice” on cigarettes.
You’re generalizing incorrectly. Not all pro-choicers feel the same way about that. Some would not choose abortion for themself, but some would, and some have.
If you want to view abortion in a vacuum, then it’s more costly than pregnancy prevention, it does have some risks, it takes more time, etc. There are many reasons why a pro-choicer may not like it by itself. They may think that all other things being equal, that they’d like the unborn to live.
Then comes the consideration of the pregnancy woman and the situation she may be in, and those are weighed against the above.
Doug
Actually, I don’t even care if they “think” like me. Just act like me. Don’t kill your children. Not even for the non-existant right to complete personal autonomy that you all seem to believe that you have.
MK, “complete personal autonomy” isn’t the deal – of course that’s not going to be the case within a society. The question is if women should legally have it in the matter of choosing to continue or end pregnancies.
Mary: Let’s just say I get a huge laugh out of “pro-choice” Rosie O’Donnell opposing the “choice” of gun ownership while hiring armed guards to protect her family, guards she claimed she didn’t know were armed. Did she think they used fly swatters?
Apparently “pro-choice” Rosie doesn’t see that one can oppose gun ownership but still support one’s right to own a gun.
Marty, agreed that Rosie has been hypocritical. I’ve never liked her anyway – I feel she’s a big-mouth who “shoots from the hip” verbally, often in a silly manner. If I’m flipping through the channels and I happen upon her donkey-like braying, you can bet I go right on by.
If one “opposes gun ownership” then I don’t think that is supporting the right to own guns. One might not want a gun themself while still being pro-choice on guns, but that’s different than opposing gun ownership.
Doug
Oops, Mary, sorry for that “Marty.”
Doug,
Well I’m glad to hear that we all share the same desire to see the unborn live. No offense on the Marty, heaven knows I’ve been called worse!
Heather,
I seriously doubt Rosie was born with a sense of embarassment.
Doug,
MK, there I’d say that you want everybody to think like you do. I won’t bother with the obvious stuff, but many people, most people, in fact, do not.
On matters like which beer do I prefer? no.
On matters like ending innocents life for convenience? yes.
Actually, I don’t even care if they “think” like me. Just act like me. Don’t kill your children.
Not even for the non-existant right to complete personal autonomy that you all seem to believe that you have.
Posted by: mk at November 15, 2007 8:05 AM
……………………………………………………..
My choice to have children at a young age and without a decent education set me up for a very difficult life. It would provide me no pleasure to encourage anyone else to do the same unwillingly.
Mary, I love the part about the fly swatters…LOL!!!! Sad part is, I really kind of like Rosie. I think she’s just mixed up at the present time.
Heather,
I used to enjoy her. I thought the woman was a real talent. She used to play bit parts on a soap opera I watched many many years ago. In one episode she was the substitute maid with an attitude, on another she was a flustered florist on Valentine’s Day. The woman was a scream.
I don’t know what’s happened to her either, but she’s gone down the tubes.
Now I better get ready for work. No thanks to YOU DOUG I went to work yesterday minus may mascara because I just had to get one last post in to him and wound up way behind schedule. When a few people steered me toward the morgue I got the message! (Smile)!
Have a good day everyone.
Mary, lol again! I agree. Rosie seems to be lashing out a lot these days. It’s sad, because she really is funny.
Heather,
If I walked into a doctor’s office to day and said I wanted a hysterectomy, they would deny me. As they deny other women under the age of 30-35 who say they don’t want children.
I would be denied the right to control my reproductive organs on the basis that a doctor decides that I should or will want to have children.
My friend had two children, and they still wouldn’t let her have a hysterectomy until her uterus was practically falling out (some disease or damage, I’m not sure exactly what).
Yeah, I’d agree with you that it should never be the case. Regardless, I’m not allowed to have a hysterectomy, despite how I feel about children.
Anonymous,
How about a tubal ligation? A hysterectomy is major surgery and should only be done when medically necessary, not for sterilization. Your doctor’s decision to refuse to remove it for sterilization purposes only is medically sound. I can’t imagine why he/she would deny you a tubal ligation if you want one. You could have it done in the morning and be out the door by lunchtime.
Mary, I agree. I think that if a woman does NOT want to ever be pregnant, she should be allowed to have a tubal ligation….No matter what her age. 30 something is not too young. I’d rather see this than abortion.
Besides, with TL, you will never murder anyone.
Heather,
You’d often be surprised the guff women are given, and why I don’t know. My former neighbor, “Donna” had two children, her first at 17y/o, a husband on disability, an emotionally troubled second child, and a limited income. Since she was in her late 20s her doctor gave her quite a hassle. She felt terrible, since she sincerely thought she was doing the most responsible thing under the circumstances, and I certainly agreed. She didn’t want to take any risks of birth control failure and did not believe in abortion. Finally he relented and much to her relief, Donna had it done and has never regretted it. Looking at how troubled her family situation has become over the years since only reinforces my belief she made the absolute best choice.
Like you, I have absolutely no problem with TL, and quite frankly wish that certain women would be more responsible and have it done. Because of her mental illness, I hope my daughter will, as I know she has absolutely NO capacity to love or nuture a child.
Nicely said, Mary, though those are some tough situations.