- Audit raises questions for Episcopal Church
- Where will they stop?
- What they expect
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Why oppose reforms in ‘lower ed’?
- War with Iran
- Bush has failed our children
- Sovereignty of our nation at stake
- Vote no on all Denver bond issues
- “Ghettorize” shouldn’t have been a factor
- Bottled-water woes
Still flogging the abortion deaths lie
In 1979, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a founder of NARAL and later director of New
York's Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, the largest abortion mill in
the world, wrote Aborting America, telling of his role in the legalization of
abortion.
On Page 193, he wrote: "In NARAL ... when we spoke of [statistics] ... it was
always '5,000 to 10,000 deaths [of women] a year.' I confess I knew the figures
were totally false ... but in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful
figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest
statistics? ... In 1972, the total was only 39 deaths."
On the Jan. 19, 1989, CBS This Morning TV show, Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett
Koop said, "Remember, in order to get Roe v. Wade passed, the number of
back-alley abortion deaths had to be exaggerated by one hundred-fold."
Yet the Rocky, on Oct. 12, 2007, carried an Associated Press story bemoaning the
fact that abortion is still illegal in some countries, with the result that "70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions." Not
surprisingly, the source of this story is the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the
public policy arm of - you guessed it - Planned Parenthood, the leading abortion
provider in the world.
Gee, do you suppose Koop's charge of a "one hundred-fold" exaggeration (read:
lie) still applies? You can bet on it!
Tom Longua, Westminster
So how many deaths would be acceptable to you, Tom?
How do you suggest we deal with ectopic implantations?
What about teratogenisis, Tom?
Shall we just ignore those little, inconveniences?
Posted by Bangalore Skank on October 29, 2007 04:36 AMThe statistic of 70,000 deaths is a WORLD WIDE figure not an American figure. If you look at the countries that are underdeveloped and in what we call a second or third world statis. Then these figures are more then likely low.
Look at the those who are doing the abortions, then ask yourself where they earned their medical credentials.
Look at the aftercare provided to the women who recieve this procedure. Then ask yourself again if this figure is low or high.
Posted by The Shadow on October 29, 2007 05:20 AMI say abortion good to rid us of the unwanted
death penalty is bad as it takes the life of a valuable member of our society.
Skank,
When Roe is overturned, abortion for health purposes will continue under the old Colorado law just as before.
But of course you know that.
What will change is that child in the womb will have the same civil right as you do not to be killed.
So what's the problem Skank, are you concerned that we might save just one of the little ones?
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 07:14 AMWhat about those brown babies Bush has vaporized. He made Hitler proud.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on October 29, 2007 07:25 AMAbortions are caused by unwanted pregnancies. The best way to limit them is throught sex education and the availability of birth control. There is no reason in this day and age for someone to have an unwanted pregnancy.
Posted by just sayin' on October 29, 2007 07:26 AMTom Longua, Until your name is ,JEAN, or JANE, I'd like to suggest you BUZZ OFF !!!
I refuse to have a MAN tell me what I can or cannot do ..especially with MY OWN BODY !!!
Those people demonstrating ,trying to prevent a planned parenthood clinic from being built ,are an UNEDUCATED bunch of BIGGOTS !!
Using little children in their stupid demonstrations is disgusting !!! All they're doing is raising another bunch of HATE MONGERS !!! They should be ARRESTED !!!
just sayin'
Right - young people today don't know how babies get made.
At least not the young who live in caves.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 07:39 AMi bet marilyn would like to know the feeling of being a mom but is to busy in her life to have one so her option is abortion as birth control removes some of the feelings she might get on a weekend.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 08:10 AMJimmy Joe do you have a solution? Just keep having unwanted pregnancies and praying that abortions are illegal? How many abortions do you think are caused by wanted pregnancies? Gosh the idea of educating people is scary to the GOP.
Posted by just sayin' on October 29, 2007 08:19 AMThe study also showed that in nations where abortion is safe and legal, and where birth control is readily available, the rate of abortions is less. Less abortions where its legal and birth control is available. Get it? Criminalizing birth control and abortions cause the rate of abortions to increase. Making sure abortions remain safe and legal, and that birth control is widely available, is the best way to reduce the number of abortions.
Posted by Oliver on October 29, 2007 08:41 AMjust sayin'
Rihgt. What we need is for the entertainment industry to give up its Victorian restrictions and start providing graphic sexual information in movies, on TV and in music.
Then our schools must break down and finally agree to incorporating sex education programs into the lessons.
Once we've done that, perhaps we can convice the grocery stores to stock birth control devices. Maybe one glorious day we will see entire grocery aisls just brimming with rubbers and birth control pills.
But pending these liberating cultural advances, we'll just have to go on putting the young in the their mother's womb to the knife.
You're right about one thing though - it is a matter of education. Moral ignorance is the cause on one million abortions annually in the US.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 09:11 AMOlvier,
Abortion has been safe and legal and birth control has been readily available in the US over the last 45 years and yet we're still using abortion for birth control in about one million cases per year.
Why is that?
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 09:15 AM
Why is that?
Posted by James Jones
It's simple really. Because we keep having unwanted pregnancies. Perhaps if we educated people (I know this scares Republicans) and have birth control readily available we could greatly reduce the number of abortions. I know that abortion is a handy wedge issue come election time but if you are really sincere about reducing the number of abortions why would you oppose greatly reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies?. This wouldn't be a case of just wanting to impose your beliefs on others would it?
Posted by just sayin' on October 29, 2007 09:28 AMIf about half the aborted children since Roe-Wade were not prevented from entering our workforce, then we wouldn't need the 15-20 million illegals to fill the void in our labor force.
Isn't it funny how bad law--legislating from the bench--always manages to turn around and bite you right on your ass. There is no predicting the outcome that is always provided by the law of unintended consequences.
Posted by Hank on October 29, 2007 09:42 AM
Marilyn, until you decide that men have no responsibility for child support or child rearing, you have no right to totally ignore a father's relationship to his unborn child.
When a woman gets pregnant, it is ridiculous to expect the father to wait for the mother to decide whether she wants the baby to decide whether he loves it.
Yes, it is your body Marilyn. But the law prevents you from smoking marijuana, restricts your choice of medical practitioners to licensed doctors, and will prevent you from committing suicide. Some people want to make smoking illegal. If those don't interfere with your right to privacy, why does forbidding abortions?
I object to your attempt to label a man who loves his unborn child more than his ex-wife a bigot.
Our whole discussion of abortion is simplistic. As anybody who has been involved knows, it is a complicated situation. The only sane approach is to acknowledge the rights and obligations of the mother, the father and the child.
And yes, the child can have obligations. If a floor breaks in a well maintained house and injures someone, the homeowner is unwittingly liable. If the child is unwittingly to be the cause of the mother's death, the child has obligations, just like the homeowner does.
Posted by freethinker on October 29, 2007 09:43 AMjust sayin,
This wouldn't be a case of just wanting to impose your beliefs on others would it?
You mean by advocating for my values?
That must be another thing that just shouldn't happen in this day and age.
If I am a Bible-thumping, right-wing, bigoted Republican then you can safely ignore my voice. And if you can ignore me then you can avoid taking a critical look at the issue. That would require you honeslty evaluating your pat answers - We need more education - and that's not going to happen in this day and age.
So no, this isn't a case of my imposing vaules. It's a case of you ducking the real issue of why we have one million dead in this country every year with your complacent anctimony.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 09:47 AM"Perhaps if we educated people (I know this scares Republicans) and have birth control readily available"
These things are already true, sex education does occur in public schools, and last time I checked, there wasn't ab age limit on buying condoms(especially true with self-serve lines at stores), yet there continue to be far too many abortions, at least for a country like the US. Could it be that you offer people every opportunity to be responsible, and they still sometimes choose not to be, and often will then whine about how they need a helping hand for choosing to be an ass? You can lead a horse to water, you can't force it to drink.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 09:51 AMUntil I see the pro-lifers, the same ones who want to deny comprehensive sex-ed to children and who wat to make the very subject of birth control verboten, actually take steps to decrease the number of abortions such as promoting birth control, promoting legislation such as maternity leave, health care and adoption, they will always be Christain facists.
Posted by Sean on October 29, 2007 09:53 AMgood talking points from the liberal left, just sayin'. the republicans have talked of sex ed but low and behold it included avoiding banging your brains out with a different person every weekend and the liberal dems cried foul saying absentness wont work because all the kiddies cant ignore their needs to get laid.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 09:55 AMfeethinker,
Are you aware of the legislation regulating abortion that was passed in Colorado just prior to the Roe decision?
In not you should google and read. It is instructive on how the community was dealing with the question prior to the judicial fiat.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 09:56 AMSean,
So the available options are a) agree with you or b) be a Christian facist.
You are awfully generous. Let me think it over and I'll get back to you.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 10:01 AMJames Jones,
Outside of making abortions illegal (which won't stop them from occurring), what are your practical solutions for eliminating unwanted pregnancies?
"Picketing and protesting contractors doesn't achieve their purpose, which is to try to stop abortion," Durgin said, adding that accurate information and access to birth control just might do that
Posted by Smarter than James on October 29, 2007 10:20 AMMarilyn is absolutely right, although we must add the father to that picture. However, beyond the two people whobegan the pregnancy, it is no one else'e business, ever.
Posted by atticus on October 29, 2007 10:25 AMLowest rates for abortion are in countries with the most liberal laws. Educate people, provide birth control and the number of abortions will decrease. If the anti-choice people were really serious about reducing abortions then they would support this solution. That is a big "if" and why I have such a hard time respecting the position of people like James Jones. Honestly, do you want to reduce the number of abortions? Then do the right thing, the smart thing. Stop playing politics with the fetus.
Posted by just sayin' on October 29, 2007 10:29 AMDan said:
"Outside of making abortions illegal (which won't stop them from occurring), what are your practical solutions for eliminating unwanted pregnancies?"
Does making rape illegal stop rape from occurring? What about burglary? Or murder?
Making abortion illegal will dramatically reduce abortions.
Now, how to "eliminate unwanted pregnancies"? I don't have all the answers. And I don't think that is the government's business.
What we are seeing is exactly what conservatives predicted would happen 40 years ago. If we abandon social mores, religion, traditional family values and replace them with a do whatever feels good, self-centered, non-judgmental, highly sexualized culture, we get the results we have now: the decline of the black family, abortion on-demand, AIDS, drug abuse, high divorce rates, and high crime rates.
And now, liberals ask, well if we can't kill the life in the womb, how will we stop unwanted pregnancies?
Hm, I wonder.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 11:01 AM"However, beyond the two people whobegan the pregnancy, it is no one else'e business, ever."
Is that how you feel about your own life? It would probably explain some things.
"Lowest rates for abortion are in countries with the most liberal laws. Educate people, provide birth control and the number of abortions will decrease. If the anti-choice people were really serious about reducing abortions then they would support this solution."
That's a pretty broad brush. First off, when you say liberal countries, what do you mean and which countries? Are you referring to the classical liberalism of the founders of our country, or the social liberalism more prevalent today? You seem to think that all anti-abortionists are of the same mold in any way besides their distaste for abortion, and that is a very limited view. I completely agree that education and available birth control must be a part of the solution. However, I think both of those things are fairly available to kids in our public schools, my first does of sex ed came in fifth grade, and I received two additional sections regarding the subject in high school, so I don't think of them as a complete solution. To me, the woman's/man's choice in the matter comes prior to the sex act, in the form of condoms, diaphragms, pills, etc. The education piece IS important in that matter, not only to get people to use birth control, but how to use it properly(antibiotics mess up the pill, proper orientation of a condom) Once the woman is pregnant, it is no longer only her choice, there are two lives involved as soon as the sperm and egg fuse completely. As someone else posted on this subject recently, "If you have to stop it, it has already started", which is a damn good way of putting it. I would love for one of the "it's a part of her body" crowd to explain why Rh incompatibility would occur if the fetus is just an extension of the woman. It is completely ludicrous to me that people, on these forums and elsewhere, will try and argue that abortions are a solution to "accidental" pregnancies. As others have stated, there is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy unless there is such a thing as accidental sex, which I don't think is possible, and until it is, I don't think that the child should pay for the irresponsibility of its parents.
Posted by drew on October 29, 2007 11:07 AMJames and his ilk do not support health care for children, do not support public education, do not support increasing access to birth control, do not support teaching safe sex in schools, in fact they do not support any policy that might actually reduce the number of abortions in this country. The only policy they do support is teaching abstinence, which like many other right-wing policies, is a failed one that has been proven through scientific studies and research
Posted by Sean on October 29, 2007 11:14 AMDan
It's not about making abortions illegal. It's about regulating the practice.
My practical solution is to have Roe overturned and re-instate the regulations Colorado legislated prior to decision.
If you are interested, then google and read up on that legislation - it was signed into law by Governor Love.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 11:14 AMJohn II
Excellent response. The liberals are the ones responsible for the so- called unwanted prenancies in the first place. They opened up the Pandora's box and now have the nerve to ask the right and Christians this idiotic question that they already know the answer to.
After all it was their policies of immorality. Their so-called unwanted pregnancies or "Un-wanted Babies is someone elses blessing. Who would not adopt a baby or take one in. There are millions of people in this country who would give them a home. It's just another liberal lie and excuse to murder the unborn for convinience sake.
James,
Thank you-- I will read up on the legislation.
However, regulating the practice doesn't account for the core issue of how do we eliminate unwanted pregnancies?
My opinion is that, despite the heated rhetoric, neither side of the debate wants abortions. The crux of the problem is, how do we significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies without intruding on the personal rights and health of the mother, using practical and realistic methods?
Preaching abstinence cannot be the sole solution. So what else can both the pro-choice AND pro-life groups do together to accomplish the mutual goal of reducing unwanted pregancies?
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 11:26 AMJohn II says:
"What we are seeing is exactly what conservatives predicted would happen 40 years ago. If we abandon social mores, religion, traditional family values and replace them with a do whatever feels good, self-centered, non-judgmental, highly sexualized culture, we get the results we have now: the decline of the black family, abortion on-demand, AIDS, drug abuse, high divorce rates, and high crime rates."
This is highly debatable, John II. Anecdotally 40 years ago we had potentially more spousal abuse, child abuse, hate crimes, etc.... however, since statistics were not kept (and incidents weren't as reported) on such matters, it's difficult to statistically compare. Also, what evidence do you have that drug use and crime rates are, per capita, higher than 40 years ago? This seems to be a dubious argument, considering the 60s culture.
As far as highly sexualized culture, how would you account for European countries that are more liberal and open about sexual practices, who seem to do better in all of the key stats of pregnancies, abortions, STDs, etc.? I would agree our country is far less mature and adult about sex, but I would debate you whether conservative policies are the solution.
John II says: "Does making rape illegal stop rape from occurring? What about burglary? Or murder?"
That was my point, John II. My question was, assuming the ultimate solution is to stop abortions, what can we do besides prohibition, which will have a doubtful impact?
Thank you for acknowledging you don't have the answer. I don't either. But instead of name-calling and screaming "screw you liberals" and so on and so forth, can't we all acknowledge we have one mutual goal (eliminating unwanted pregnancies) and brainstorm solutions that both sides find palatable?
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 11:41 AMDan,
First, you are confusing the issue. The main issue is that abortion is the willful destruction of human life. It is wrong. Will the banning of this brutal act completely eliminate the cause of it? Of course not. Just like making theft illegal does not completely eliminate the act of thievery.
Do we then say that we should kill thieves because making thievery illegal was not 100% effectual? No. Should we allow the killing of the unborn because the ban on the act does not completely eliminate the need for the act? No.
The topic of how to reduce unwanted pregnancies should be separate from the discussion abortion's legality. Abortion kills human life. This is true regardless of whether or not you figure out how to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
Now, you said "neither side of the debate wants abortions". My question to you is this: Why do you not want abortions?
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 11:46 AM"The main issue is that abortion is the willful destruction of human life. It is wrong."
So is taking away a woman's rights to her own body. That is also wrong.
"Abortion kills human life."
No kidding.
"My question to you is this: Why do you not want abortions?"
Are you trying to be an ass?
You keep dodging the question, John II. How do you eliminate the killing of unborn children without infringing on the rights of the mother? Dodging the question by making me your enemy doesn't solve the problem. Would you like to solve the problem, John II, or will you act like the rest of your ilk-- meaning politics over solutions?
As much as you feel certain about yourself and your narrow world view, this issue won't be solved until both sides start acting like adults and deal with the problem in an intelligent, thoughtful, and practical manner.
I'll bet you $100 on when THAT will happen.
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 12:01 PM11:21AM says: "It's just another liberal lie and excuse to murder the unborn for convinience sake."
Very thought-provoking response, 11:21AM. Have you actually sat down with women who have had abortions? Contrary to what you believe, women do not take the decision lightly, and it is not something they just "go do", like shoe shopping or buying Starbucks.
Turn off the Limbaugh a little bit and you might learn things.
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 12:06 PMAfter a woman becomes pregnant, if she saw a society that accepted her pregnancy as a good thing, no matter how it happened, and she saw a society that would help her keep her baby and not live in poverty, she might avoid abortion.
Since any birth control method can fail, and young women are easily manipulated into sex, thinking it means love, we can also attack the problem of unwanted pregnancies by doing all we can as a society, to make women able to have and keep their children..
I know of a few unwed mothers who didn`t opt for abortion because everyone around them is helping them to stay together. And the fathers are involved in the care of the children.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 29, 2007 12:07 PMThe real problem is trying to justify holding one person hostage for the benefit of another, in this case a woman and her fetus. If the fetus is to be accorded individual rights it must be able to survive on its own - remove it from the woman's body and provide it an environment if you want, just do not hold a woman hostage to carry a child to term if she does not want to.
I don't think there is anyone out there who would force a father to give a kidney to his child under any circumstances - such a gift must be voluntary, even if the child will die without it. I believe women should be given the same consideration - the choice to carry a child to term is the woman's, even if it means the child will die if she chooses not to.
and that's my $.02
Posted by connieszeflinski on October 29, 2007 12:10 PMDrew says: "As others have stated, there is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy unless there is such a thing as accidental sex, which I don't think is possible."
Drew, I agree on the semantics of "accidental sex". My question though is, are you privy to the dynamics of every sexual relationship out there? Are you aware there are women in relationships where their significant others refuse to use condoms, etc., but would beat them if they became pregnant? What about daughters afraid of parents?
People live lives vastly outside your perspective of the world, Drew.
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 12:12 PMDan said:
""Abortion kills human life." No kidding."
Good. I'm glad we can agree on that matter.
""My question to you is this: Why do you not want abortions?" Are you trying to be an ass?"
No. I'm assuming you are a liberal that supports keeping abortion legal. If so, then why do you feel abortion is wrong? Although, you already answered that question by acknowledging that abortion kills human life.
"You keep dodging the question, John II. How do you eliminate the killing of unborn children without infringing on the rights of the mother?"
Had I known that was the question, I would have answered it directly. Can you show me where you asked that question?
If we both agree that abortion kills human life, then what right does the mother have to kill. She is infringing on the rights of an unborn child. She has no right to kill.
"As much as you feel certain about yourself and your narrow world view, this issue won't be solved until both sides start acting like adults and deal with the problem in an intelligent, thoughtful, and practical manner."
Did you not just call me an ass? Did I call you any names?
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 12:17 PMYou "pro-life" people really confuse me:
- You wish to condemn a child to a life of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for, growing up and living with the knowledge that they were an unwanted accident and the only reason Mommy and Daddy even got married.
- You condemn a child to the lottery of being adopted, and if they aren't "perfect", their chances go to near zero.
- You condemn a young woman to the pain and misery of an unwanted pregnancy because some guy told her he loved her just so he could have a few nights of fun. And now both she and that child must suffer for the rest of their lives.
- You are the first to talk about the sanctity of life, but your lobby repeated opposes health care for child and parent, well funded public schools, welfare and other forms of support for these 'sacred lives' once they leave the womb.
- Your lobby also repeatedly opposes sex education outside of abstinence, which doesn't actually stop 'children' from experimenting with sex, but does stop them from getting the facts from a proper source, rather they have to rely on the myths and misinformation spread by their peers who don't know any better either, only what they think they've figured out.
I don't see how you are the grownups in this issue, where you like to say we'll all become a bunch of hedonistic monkeys if we are allowed proper birth control and sexual education. It seems that you are the ones who want to bury your heads in the sand and we are the ones willing to take responsibility for our reproductive lives.
Posted by Roger on October 29, 2007 12:26 PMconnie said:
"If the fetus is to be accorded individual rights it must be able to survive on its own"
That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Our rights do not come from our physical ability. Otherwise, the elderly, children up to about the age of 14, the severely handicapped, and the mentally disabled would have no rights.
Forcing a father to give up a kidney is the same as telling a woman she cannot kill the life growing inside of her. The fact that you would make such a comparison is sick.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 12:28 PMRoger said:
"You wish to condemn a child to a life of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for, growing up and living with the knowledge that they were an unwanted accident and the only reason Mommy and Daddy even got married."
Do you honestly believe that is what we wish for? Even if that were true, your solution is simply to allow the destruction of that life. Now that is sick.
Grow up Roger.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 12:33 PMDan,
"However, regulating the practice doesn't account for the core issue of how do we eliminate unwanted pregnancies? "
You may as well ask how we will eliminate poverty or human suffering.
We Christian Fascists don't concern ourselves with these matters - Utopia is the special provenance of the left.
The serious answer is - we don't. We do the best we can to mitigate the problems by constructing just communities.
I have no intention of "intruding on the personal rights and health of the mother." At the same time, I insist that we take into account the rights of the life in the womb. Again - take a look at the legislation Love signed.
We teach, and practice, morality consistent with our values. For instance, I value human life and personal responsibility.
In the case on an unwanted pregnancy the individual circumstances, which will vary from disaterous to convenience, have to be taken into account. However society must make it clear to everyone that while the parents may not want this baby, but they are personally responsible for its life.
That is how we assert our values of respecting life and personal responsiblity.
Killing the young is not an unrestricted option in a just society. The young, even when unable to speak up for herself, does have rights that a just society will protect.
Joh II's question in not at all assinine. We all hear quite frequently the statement "While I am personally opposed to abortion, I think it's the mother's right to choose." The obvious question then is, "Why are you personally opposed?"
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 12:35 PMDan and of course drew,
Just like all liberals, you do not want to except blame and responsibility for the mess they created and instead try to put the right on the defensive with his supposed interest how would we stop all the unwanted pregancies and then throwing out more questions to throw the conversion off track.
Just like all the straw men they put up so they can knock them down.
The left and liberals need to stop corrupting our children with all the sexual content in the movies that the Hollywood crowd can't seem to leave out of the majority of their films. Public schools need to teach kids the the three R's instead of worring more about teaching our kids about sexual education,birth control and handing out condoms and finally telling them about planned parenthood when their sex education classes failed miserably.
Besides it is not the public schools place place to do any of these thins. Goverment schools think they own our children. Instead how about the public schools teaching our kids moral responsiblities and the consequences of immoral behaviour. Oh no they cant do that but teaching immoral behaviour is fine.
What hypocrites they are. Mostly it is up to decent parents to teach their children morals and to make them aware of the liberal lies and if all possible change the current policies of the public schools that the left has infilcted on them for the past 35 yeasr or so.
If not then take your kids out of that enviroment. Home school them or send them to a good private school if possible. We as parents have to set a good example so they can learn from our mistakes the public schools and Hollywood and the immoral left wingers and Democrats helped us to make.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 12:48 PMThere's that liberal tolerance and sensitivity we all know and love. Liberals are tolerant of everything except men, white men, the wealthy, the conservative, the religious, and those who oppose killing the unborn.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 01:08 PMif we could just have our ex sex addict president teach the fine art of getting a BJ to all teens the problem would be solved. remember he is the one who told everone that oral sex is not sex. but he also questioned the meaning of is.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 01:34 PMAs a white, wealthy, conservative male, John II sure plays the victim card. I guess all the doors must be shut to him.
Posted by Obvious on October 29, 2007 01:43 PMOblivious
Typical liberal game of words. Liberals are intolerant of white ,wealthy, consevative males. But sure are tolerant anything immoral, moochers and the Godless. It's you're group that plays the victim card to the hilt. Another liberal tactic is to get away from the original issue which was abortion when you are losing the argument. Your 2 cents worth for the day will not even buy 1 piece candy
Posted by on October 29, 2007 02:24 PMHoly Hypocrite Batman!
Johnny II:
The main issue is that abortion is the willful destruction of human life. It is wrong.
But pre-emptive war on Iraq and the destruction of those innocent lives is not wrong right John? After all, you're on record as favoring "carving out large swaths of the Middle East and taking their oil".. and damn the collateral damage.
You're a piece of work alright Johny II. Destruction of human life is wrong unless it affects Johny's bottom line, which is his sole guidline for forming his opinions.
I guess Johny II isn't making any money off the dead "lives" he so feverishly defends.
Those Iraqi kids though, they can rot/burn/explode/die for all Mr. Compassion cares.
What a rotton person.
Posted by Charles B. on October 29, 2007 02:26 PMJohn II says:
"No. I'm assuming you are a liberal that supports keeping abortion legal. If so, then why do you feel abortion is wrong? Although, you already answered that question by acknowledging that abortion kills human life."
War also kills human life. So is war wrong? Do you not acknowledge that war kills human life?
And no, I am not a liberal, and I do not "support" keeping abortion legal. However, I also do not support government authority over a woman's body (which seems to me to be a "liberal socialist commie" thing to do).
John II says: "Had I known that was the question, I would have answered it directly. Can you show me where you asked that question?"
My post was at 11:26AM.
James Jones says, "Joh II's question in not at all assinine. We all hear quite frequently the statement "While I am personally opposed to abortion, I think it's the mother's right to choose." The obvious question then is, 'Why are you personally opposed?' "
Yes, James, the question is indeed asinine, and insulting. It would be no different walking to a conservative and asking, "You support the War in Iraq, so do you support war in general? Why do you personally like war?" I AM assuming that you and John II are not personally FOR war, right?
One can be dismayed at the evil of abortion. However, taking a woman's rights to her own body, regardless of how she got there, are equally repugnant.
James says: "However society must make it clear to everyone that while the parents may not want this baby, but they are personally responsible for its life."
Agreed, but we all know everyone is not always responsible 100% of the time, and preaching that we all should be isn't working. Solutions?
12:48 says: "Goverment schools think they own our children. Instead how about the public schools teaching our kids moral responsiblities and the consequences of immoral behaviour. Oh no they cant do that but teaching immoral behaviour is fine."
Please direct me to documented evidence that schools are indeed doing this. Overblown exaggeration does not lend to credibility.
Charles B.
Another liberal going off track trying again to use one tragedy to justify another. Your fake concern for the innocent children of Iraq obviously doesn't extend to the innocent children in the womb.
Look in the mirror if you what to see a rotton excuse for a human being and with lack of "Compassion" you hypocrite.
Charles B. calls me a rotten person because I want to fight evil and protect the innocent. Yet, he tolerates the killing of unborn babies while he advocates for the protection of evil cultures. Interesting.
Charles B. is mad because I said we should take hold of Iraq's oil since we are already being blamed for doing so anyway. He prefers that these backward, brutal and noxious cultures retain the oil profits that are used to suppress their own people simply because a few of their ancestors wandered to the land thousands of years ago.
Dan,
I would not be in favor of any war that did not meet the Just War criteria. But even if a proposed war met that criteria, I might still be opposed to it on tactical or strategic grounds grounds - as in, you have to be careful in choosing your battles.
So yes I do like war, but only when the options are worse.
Comparing that to asking you why you support abortion for others but are personally opposed to abortion if a false analogy. This is why.
Either the fetus is a person or not. The justification for abortion is that a fetus is not a person - that's why you can terminate its life. But if you are personally opposed to abortion you must think that the fetus is a person.
Do you see the inherent contradiction here?
You would not say, "I'm not personally in favor of killing a spouse but if others think it's right for them, then who am I to complain?"
You would speak up on behalf of the spouse. That's what we're doing on behalf of the fetus.
Did you look into the Love legislation yet?
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 02:48 PM"Another liberal going off track trying again to use one tragedy to justify another."
I think Charles is just looking for consistency, both in terms of policy and moral compass, from the conservative base that supports one and not the other. I also don't see where Charles B. was "justifying" anything.
"Your fake concern for the innocent children of Iraq obviously doesn't extend to the innocent children in the womb."
How do you know this, 2:38PM? Have you spoken to Charles B. before on this exact topic, and asked him that exact question, and received that answer from him?
Charles' attack on John II, I agree, was too personal, but they seem to have a long history on these forums, which is their business. Calling him a hypocrite for bringing to light a philosophical discrepancy is just plain inaccurate.
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 02:50 PMWhen confronted with simple facts about the abortion issue the Republicans have no thoughtful response. It has now turned into an argument about the war. Abortion is not a good issue for Republicans because they show no logic in any type of consideration for a solution. One more reason that I cannot support the Republican party. Wrong side of this issue, wrong side of war issue etc etc etc.
Posted by Obvious on October 29, 2007 02:54 PMJohn II,
Have you forgotten our World Series bet?
Since the Rockies were swept, you have to explain the Just War criteria to Charles B.
I told you you should have just made it the $500.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 02:54 PMJJ:
This all comes down to your expectation that people will do the wrong thing (according to you) if they are given the freedom to choose their own path. It has been pointed out that countries with liberal abortion laws, early sex education, easy access to birth control, and liberal attitudes about sex have much lower instances of teen pregnancies etc.. This is evidence that the kind of prohibition you favor isn't effective in a quantitative sense toward achieving the ends you claim to desire. And save the line about only wanting States to construct their own regulations, because it's quite clear that you favor Draconian prohibitions on abortion and would lobby for such. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
All of your profoundly vapid and typically condescending pontifications on this subject avoid the central question: When does the "life" of a human begin?
You think it begins at conception and all your positions flow from there. Others think differently, and therein lies the rub. Your premise requres a scientific (factual) underpinning that you simply haven't presented.
What evidence can you present James?
Posted by Charles B. on October 29, 2007 02:58 PMObvious,
Did you happen to notice that it was Charles B who turned it to war?
Is it obvious that he's a Republican?
You really ought to re-think the moniker.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 02:59 PMThe war issue is a non sequitur anyway. Even if I were the biggest two-faced, insensitive, hypocrite on the planet, that still does not justify killing unborn babies.
Dan agreed with me that abortion kills human life. So, what I don't understand is how privacy issues come into play when an innocent life is at stake. When other lives are affected privacy is voided.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 03:02 PMCharles B,
All good questions are considered.
The Evidence of Irrefutable Logic:
Every human fetus becomes a human being.
Every human being was a human fetus.
Ergo - the fetus is a human being.
Now you tell me at what point that's not true giving you the ability to kill it.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 03:05 PMI still find the naivety of the religious right amazing in regards to this issue. As has been established many times over, their stances don't/won't cut down on abortions/unwanted pregnancies/std's...and yet they simpy don't care...leaving us with no other choice than to bellieve that they care more about furthering their archaic dogma than they do about actually reducing abortions or unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by jay on October 29, 2007 03:05 PMJames Jones,
Thank you.... I did review the premise of the legislation. On a personal level, I support it. In terms of public policy, I cannot. Let me explain:
"Either the fetus is a person or not. The justification for abortion is that a fetus is not a person - that's why you can terminate its life. But if you are personally opposed to abortion you must think that the fetus is a person. Do you see the inherent contradiction here?"
I do. But it still does not assuage my fears of the government allowed to influence the biological functions of its citizenry.
James, I can be opposed to something personally, but not opposed to it in terms of public policy. I am against drug use, but feel legalizing it would be better libertarian policy. I personally would rather support public schools, but I believe school choice is better public policy. I myself am not with any organized religion, but I see no harm in voluntary studies for religion in public schools.
My point here is and always has been-- what we have now isn't working. So what's the answer? What policies can both sides be comfortable with? How do we reduce and, ideally, eradicate the incidences for abortion without intruding into a woman's personal decision to have or not have a child? Should the left and right continue to do nothing but continue to insult each other, and meanwhile more unwanted babies are killed while all sides banter like children?
Mr. Jones,
I don't recall making any bets with Charles B. I don't think he would make wagers with a heartless war-monger like myself.
Charles B. said:
"And save the line about only wanting States to construct their own regulations, because it's quite clear that you favor Draconian prohibitions on abortion and would lobby for such."
Isn't it possible to be in favor of State's rights and lobby for one's State to adopt Draconian prohibitions on abortion?
Jay said:
"As has been established many times over, their stances don't/won't cut down on abortions/unwanted pregnancies/std's..."
You mean to say that making abortion illegal would not cut down on actual abortions? If making murder illegal did not cut down on actual murders, would you change your mind about the legality of murder?
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 03:14 PMDan
What's the matter? Exposing hypocrisy and telling the truth doesn't sit well with you and the rest of the left wingers. Good! Everytime you respond in your usual manner it just exposes you even more. Don't you you know that you can never justify your upside down view of life and immoral views on an informed public and your weak arguments for child killing show you and your kind for what you are. Insensitive lying advocates of child killering and there will never be any excuse for that no matter how much try to decieve people.
The truth will always stand on it's own even if you were not here to dispute it or I was not here to testify to it.
John II says: "Dan agreed with me that abortion kills human life. So, what I don't understand is how privacy issues come into play when an innocent life is at stake. When other lives are affected privacy is voided."
John II, the same can be said about the Iraq War. It is not a non-sequitur-- we are establishing whether your position, both morally and philosophically, is consistent. If Charles' assertion is true, that you did admit to wanting to "carve out large swaths of the Middle East and take their oil", how can you credibly demonstrate that your position is truly about saving children and not because of your partisan inclinations?
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 03:19 PMThe fact remains John that the byproduct of your stance on abortion is that the actual numbers won't decrease...and the actual procedure will become less safe.
There's no way to spin your way out of that.
Any thoughts on that?
Posted by jay on October 29, 2007 03:20 PM3:18PM:
And meanwhile, you proposed nothing of substance other than to insult me. If I was bored enough to debate any of your flaccid assertions, I seriously doubt you have the intelligence to adequately spar. Go back to your Playstation and let the big kids talk.
Dan
I think you're the one that plays on a gameboy.
You think this is a video game and sparring is involved? The truth is insulting you, not me.
Talk about imature and arrested devoplopment. Look these words up and you'll probably see your picture next to them along with accomplice to murder. Methinks thou do protest too much on "Flaccid Assertions" because they obviously have have you preoccupied enough to keep coming back for more.
You liberals are so easy when you go up againt the truth. A regular glutton for punishment. You guys are always such a treat but time to go. You bored me enough for onr day.
Dan - you are correct - as the Clintons said "that abortion should be kept safe, legal and rare." There are unplanned, unwanted pregnancies for a variety of reasons - including pharmacists who CHOOSE not to fill birth control prescriptions because of their religious beliefs (never heard of a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for Viagra or Cialis - nor have I heard of a man dying because he couldn't "get it up" - but women even in this country die regularly from childbirth complications), lack of coverage for birth control in health insurance (although again, the guys who dream up these plans believe guys should have covered access to ED drugs), rape, failure of birth control, and yes - naiveite (or do you honestly believe the preteen or young teen mothers really planned to get pregnant?). In point of fact, some pregnancies which have been terminated by abortion have been planned and/or wanted - but the parents to be found out that there were such severe birth defects (such as anencephaly - in other words, the spinal cord ends without a brain) which would mean the only way the child to be would survive is a short lifetime on machines. I don't feel that I have the right to butt into that parental decision
The ultra right not only has an anti abortion agenda, they have a an anti birth control agenda. How many of you are going to choose other health care than Kaiser if/when the hospitals they use go from Exempla to the Catholic church (currently under negotiation). The hospitals are supposed to give information about where to get emergency contraception, prescribed birth contol, vasectomies and tubal ligations - but - will they? Of course, the Catholic church also claims that fertility treatments such as in vitro are counter to church teachings, as are "Do Not Resuscitate" orders by terminal patients, which means those courses of treatment (or lack thereof) will also be out of scope for those hospitals.
Furthermore - for you self-righteous, ever so smug jerks who blame it on "immorality" - are you aware that better than 80% of MARRIED couples use birth control at some point - and believe it should be easily available and covered under health insurance? Are you really in favor of going back to the bad old days where a woman was likely to die from bearing a child every year or so at the ripe old age of 30-35? And I love the right's policy that every pregnancy should end in a birth - but walk away from supporting those children (or have you noticed the screams especially from the right every time taxes go up to pay for children's health care, welfare or education).
Finally - in most European countries, all methods of birth controlled are covered, not just abstinence. Interestingly enough, not only do these countries have lower teen pregnancy rates, teens put off having sex longer than they do in the US (I believe one statistic is that the US age is as early as 14, while in Europe, it is closer to 18).
Posted by Mary on October 29, 2007 03:55 PMMary said:
"Dan - you are correct - as the Clintons said "that abortion should be kept safe, legal and rare." "
Let's see, Mary said Dan is right.
Dan said abortion is the killing of human life.
Therefore, we can accurately alter the Clinton quote as follows:
"the killing of human life should be kept safe, legal and rare."
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 04:04 PMDan,
We agree,
"My point here is and always has been-- what we have now isn't working. So what's the answer? "
So what is the status quo?
Abortion for all intents and purposes on demand. A popular culture free of Victorian restrictions. Sex education taught in the schools. Grocery aisles full to brimming with birth control devices.
You and I may not reach an agreement on this. The fundamental perspective that's missing is respect for human life in the womb. I have some sympathy with your views in regard to drug laws but, here again, this is not analagous because that case ignores the rights of the life in the womb.
If the fetus is a person, and I think it is, then it is entitled to same civil protections that you and I enjoy. I think the fetus one month prior to birth is entitled to the same protections as the child one month after birth.
As long as the fetus is regarded simply as a mass of tissue to be disposed of in the same way the mother would have an appendix out, then we will not develop a just approach.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 04:16 PMJJ,
At 3:05 you posted: Every human fetus becomes a human being.
Your assertion is refutable. Not all pregnancies last to long enough to result in a human being.
Posted by Stan B on October 29, 2007 04:16 PMJohn II,
As I have said before, I cannot advocate the government involving itself in CONTROLLING its citizens' biological functions. That leads down the road to some of the things you suggest are "evil and brutal", such as genital mutilation, abuse, and the suppression of womens' rights.
John II says: "I advocate taking land in the Middle East. Many of the cultures that hold this land are evil and brutal. They consider stoning girls an 'honor killing'. They mutilate female genitalia. They suppress women's rights. They force women to cover their face. They use the profits from selling oil to maintain their power. Why would any decent person not want to put an end to this?"
So you end this by going to war and forcing these people to assimilate to your will? Are you advocating genocide if necessary? Sorry, John II, but I don't believe you change a culture through force.
I have better understanding now of your point of view. I doubt we will see common ground on this issue.
Ha, go easy on Stan B., Mr. Jones. I think he's at least trying to have a discussion.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 04:21 PMStan B,
Yes and some fetuses miscarry. I'm fairly certain that word games notwithstanding, you see the point.
Or is your argument that nature's miscarriage authorizes man's abortion?
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 04:22 PMJohn II,
I was being nice.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 04:25 PMDan,
You still haven't explained why the government should not intervene where one human is killing another.
"So you end this by going to war and forcing these people to assimilate to your will?" Yes.
"Are you advocating genocide if necessary?" No. At worst, I would remove them from the land.
"Sorry, John II, but I don't believe you change a culture through force." Tell that to the Japanese, the Germans, and the American Indians.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 04:27 PMMr. Jones,
I know you were. I was anticipating a crushing logical blow to Stan B.'s argument. I'm trying to encourage him to put more thought behind his comments.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 04:33 PMDan,
I see you realize the futility of trying to deal with someone whose expertise is chicanery.
Posted by Stan B on October 29, 2007 04:40 PM3:54PM:
So what is the truth? What is your position besides "everyone else is wrong"? What have you provided to the debate except venom?
Go grab yourself a cookie-- you played with the big kids and you're all proud of yourself. Good job. Now go wash up.
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 04:42 PMStan B,
So you do think nature's miscarriage authorizes man's abortion?
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 05:03 PMJohnII: " 'So you end this by going to war and forcing these people to assimilate to your will?' Yes."
JohnII, by many definitions that type of imperialism is itself evil.
JohnII: " 'Are you advocating genocide if necessary?' No. At worst, I would remove them from the land."
And put them where?
JohnII: "'Sorry, John II, but I don't believe you change a culture through force.' Tell that to the Japanese, the Germans, and the American Indians."
My point exactly, JohnII, that reflects the darkest times in our history. You say you advocate their methods, if not the reasons for their methods, correct?
_________________________________________________
James: "You and I may not reach an agreement on this. The fundamental perspective that's missing is respect for human life in the womb."
And my retort could be that the fundamental respect you are missing is respect for human life outside the womb. James, we can go at this all day... your position being I want to kill babies and mine being you want women in servitude. Can we civilly agree that neither of us is for those positions?
James: "I think the fetus one month prior to birth is entitled to the same protections as the child one month after birth."
You and I actually agree on this point, except in cases of threats to health of the mother. A fetus evolved two months after conception, I am not in agreement with you.
James: "As long as the fetus is regarded simply as a mass of tissue to be disposed of in the same way the mother would have an appendix out, then we will not develop a just approach."
And as long as a woman is forced to have something grow inside her that she does not want growing inside her, and as long as the government can control what happens to her body, we will not develop a just approach.
Oh look-- we're at an impasse again. James, I appreciate and respect your position. You are right-- we cannot agree here as long as neither of us will acknowledge the validity of each other's core issues.
I myself believe, however, that somehow, someway, there is an answer to eliminating abortions that doesn't force women to lose control over their own bodies. Those answers will not be found here.
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 05:03 PMJohn II said misplaced assurance:
"Of course abortions would be reduced if we make it illegal. I think everyone on this thread would agree with that statement."
I hope not, since it's demonstrably false.
Posted by Charles B. on October 29, 2007 05:05 PMJohn posted this idiocy:
"Charles B. calls me a rotten person because I want to fight evil and protect the innocent. Yet, he tolerates the killing of unborn babies while he advocates for the protection of evil cultures. Interesting.Charles B. is mad because I said we should take hold of Iraq's oil since we are already being blamed for doing so anyway. He prefers that these backward, brutal and noxious cultures retain the oil profits that are used to suppress their own people simply because a few of their ancestors wandered to the land thousands of years ago. "
I just wanted to re-post it so everyone can soak in the pure stupidity and complete lack of intellectual honesty.
Thanks for showing us how low the bar can go John!
Posted by Charles B. on October 29, 2007 05:09 PMFU All,
Please... that type of post is no better than 3:18 / 3:54. That type of venom will not convince JJ or John II that your position is correct.
JJ tried as hard as he could to comprehend my question:
"Your premise (that life begins at conception) requires a scientific (factual) underpinning that you simply haven't presented.What evidence can you present James?
...and came up with this:
"The Evidence of Irrefutable Logic:Every human fetus becomes a human being.
Every human being was a human fetus.
Ergo - the fetus is a human being.
Now you tell me at what point that's not true giving you the ability to kill it.
JJ, your premise is still faulty. Not every human fetus becomes a human being, and not just because of induced or procedural abortions.
Try again....
Posted by Charles B. on October 29, 2007 05:16 PMDan,
Actually I find those posts amusing. Think of them as comic relief. In that way everything has value.
It seems to me that the Love legislation strikes the right balance. I think the woman has control to the extent it is a health issue. I think the feuts has rights to the extent it is a birth control issue.
I hope I never accused you of wanting to kill babies.
Charles B,
So not every human fetus becomes a human being, huh?
Does every giraffe fetus become a giraffe?
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 05:22 PMJJ asked:
"Does every giraffe fetus become a giraffe?"
No.
James Jones,
I could back the Love legislation if I felt more comfortable with a woman's choices of contraception and birth control, and if she still had the option to terminate the first two months. I know it is that last part of the sentence we are polar opposites.
I don't know what the answer is. Thank you for educating me on the Love legislation.
James: "I hope I never accused you of wanting to kill babies."
You haven't, but others on your side of the debate have. I take affront to that assertion, whether or not they agree with my stances on the topic. Thank you for being civil during our discourse.
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 05:38 PMDan,
I won't hold you responsible for the loonies that stand by you and you won't hold me responsible for the loonies who stand by me.
Except for John II of course who is a knock out in tights.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 06:37 PMCharles B,
OK so John II is not, despite all my entreaties, going to explain Just War theory to you. So just to make up for his clear shirking of duty - I'll have a go. Here's the way it works;
Humans have humans, whales have whales and giraffes have giraffes. That's it.
You see it wouldn't do if say a giraffe had a whale because while all the other giraffes were eating leaves from the tall branches, the whale would be just laying there, starving on the desert floor. And giraffes, of course, are terrible swimmers.
I know you take great pride in your scientific acuity but actually all this is just elementary embryology. You must have dozed off at just the wrong moment in the lecture.
As a bonus, I'll throw in the First Princpal of just law: Do no harm to the innocent.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 06:48 PMTo All You Men.
Thank you for giving the male perspective on this primarily female problem.
Thank you for the responses to my post about society helping pregnant girls and women, have and keep their babies. I could have bet $1,000.00 none of the pro-birth crowd wants society to welcome, with open arms, children from unwed mothers.
Thank you for dominating this forum, as you usually do with a few new twists, John II now has developed care for women in oppressive countries, if there is oil around. I would assume that oil under the ground where women with equal civil rights live is off limits. Interesting justification for war. Kind, but confusing. Those women would probably prefer you to leave their countries alone.
James Jones horror of a supermarket with items to insure safe sex is howlingly funny. James, the tooth care isle has stuff for sate mouth care, so people can eat.
The major problem here is that abortion is unique. In no other condition is a human being completely dependant upon the body of another for all life support systems.
I want abortion safe, legal, and I really do not care if it is rare, until God herself stops all the misscarrages. Either She cares for the unborn, or She does not. It looks, from all the physical evidence, that She does not.
Thank you Dan and Charles B, even if you get upset sometimes, you still try to help women.
Thanks to all the other Knights of Womens rights who have posted.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 29, 2007 07:45 PMSharon B,
The eternal vulnerable femanist. I think your knights are watching the football game.
They'll get back to you soon.
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 08:05 PMSharon B.,
You are without a doubt the nuttiest broad on this forum.
I said:
"They consider stoning girls an 'honor killing'. They mutilate female genitalia. They suppress women's rights. They force women to cover their face. They use the profits from selling oil to maintain their power. Why would any decent person not want to put an end to this?"
and you reply
"Those women would probably prefer you to leave their countries alone."
You may want to talk with a woman named Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She wrote an excellent book called Infidel. You should read it.
And then, to top it all off, you thank two guys who defend those brutal cultures.
"Thank you Dan and Charles B, even if you get upset sometimes, you still try to help women."
Help women? How? By defending brutal Islamic cultures and making it easier for women to kill their unborn babies?
"The major problem here is that abortion is unique. In no other condition is a human being completely dependant upon the body of another for all life support systems."
Yes, because so many six month old babies are working for a living. And the mentally disabled, the paralyzed, the sick, the elderly are all completely self-sufficient. It's a good thing they are because according to the logic stated here, we'd be justified in killing anyone who depends on someone else to live.
Posted by John II on October 29, 2007 08:50 PMJames: "Except for John II of course who is a knock out in tights."
That was pretty funny.
James: "I think your knights are watching the football game."
Guilty.
Sharon: "The major problem here is that abortion is unique. In no other condition is a human being completely dependant upon the body of another for all life support systems."
Exactly, though John II tried to twist your point.
Sharon: "Thank you for giving the male perspective on this primarily female problem."
Agreed to a point. Though women are primarily affected, it is everyone's problem. It won't be solved though until each side acknowledges the others' perspective, including the female point of view.
John II: "You are without a doubt the nuttiest broad on this forum."
Show some class, mate.
John II: "By defending brutal Islamic cultures and making it easier for women to kill their unborn babies?"
I don't recall defending this. I recall being adverse to bombing the brown stuff out of them to "help" them.
Posted by Dan on October 29, 2007 09:08 PMDan,
Don't expect courtesy from J and J. The mysogyny drips from them.
Just watch.
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on October 29, 2007 10:38 PMSharon & Dan,
Sharon: "Thank you for giving the male perspective on this primarily female problem."
(Dan)Agreed to a point. Though women are primarily affected, it is everyone's problem. It won't be solved though until each side acknowledges the others' perspective, including the female point of view.
I agree that the woman's role in child birth is unique and that fact can't be ignored. But that doesn't make this uniquely a woman's issue e.g., about half a million of the young aborted yearly in the US are women and the other half are men.
Dan makes the point: Abortion is a human issue.
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 06:08 AMRepugnant
Misogyny -Me?
Sharon B says I sound like Ronald Coleman and he liked women.
One of the rewards of this page is being characterized as a misogynist by a woman who thinks of herself as a Queen of Spartan Women.
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 06:18 AMJimmy said ” When Roe is overturned, abortion for health purposes will continue under the old Colorado law just as before.
But of course you know that.”
Nope, I don’t know that.
I doubt that those laws would be regarded as sacrosanct by folks who want Roe overturned
We are back to your religiously-based fiction that personhood occurs at conception and your bizarre ideation that potential personhood should dictate what options other people should be restricted to.
If you view abortion as immoral then don’t have one James, nobody is forcing you to have one.
.
” I'll throw in the First Princpal of just law: Do no harm to the innocent.”
The term for this is “category error”, since “innocence” requires personhood, you cant claim that an embryo is innocent unless you first show it to be a person.
Heck, you threw in circular reasoning too, care to make it a hat trick by tossing up an ad hom?
John II,
You're all over the RMN this morning.
Well Done!
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 06:45 AMSkank,
Your dogmatic conviction that "a fetus is not innocent because it's not a person because that's the way I define it" has not been brought up for some odd reason. This "it's so because I say it's so" reasoning doesn't seem to have much of a constituency beyond - well just you actually.
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 06:55 AMBetter late than never:
"Do you honestly believe that is what we wish for? Even if that were true, your solution is simply to allow the destruction of that life. Now that is sick.
Grow up Roger." - John II
All things said on this forum, I'd say this is what you wish for. You wish to punish people for engaging in something you think should only be between two people in a union blessed by your church for the purposes of pro-creation ONLY. I personally don't like the idea of abortion, but it is a necessary evil in a nation where people are shamed into not exploring their birth control alternatives and where other people deem themselves to make those decisions for other people by not fill birth control prescriptions, not teaching sex education, and generally making a mess of things for the rest of us.
JJ - This has been said time and time again, but I'm repeating it in hopes that it might get through your skull: NOT EVERY FETUS BECOMES A PERSON.
Now you'll excuse me, but I have to co-ordinated meeting my family at the hospital where my sister has just given birth to her new daughter. She was in labor for over 24 hours and they finally had to cut the baby out of her because the baby got stuck in the birth canal. And during that surgery, they found my sister's bladder was torn and had to fix that. Mother and child are doing fine, though she's got some healing to do and I'm getting the impression this will be her only child.
She and her husband wanted this child. Imagine going through all that and you didn't want the child in the first place.
Posted by Roger on October 30, 2007 09:07 AMRoger,
Do you think nature's miscarriage authorizes man's abortion? If that is your point then make it. You're correct, simply repeating the same vague assertion is not persuasive.
Roger forgets he was a "Fetus" once. Fetus is Greek for baby. He had a right not to be dismembered. Doesn't also go for other "Fetuses" regarless of what a mom who thinks they are an inconvinience. What part of that doesn't Roger understand.
Posted by on October 30, 2007 10:47 AMKing of Kool Aid:
Perhaps you could help out Skank and the rest of us by finishing your thought process as regards all fetuses become human (or not.) It's not clear what you are getting at. Is your point that since it will ultimately be human (barring abortion, spontaneous or induced) it is always human from the moment of conception? Is a seed a tree from it's pollenization?
When your expectation of Roe's overturn comes true, on what grounds will that be?
There is no right to privacy from government interference in personal medical decisions? (Good luck in the legislative/political arena if that happens!)
The right to privacy exists but does not encompass abortion? I'm not sure what constitutional grounds that would squeak through.
The fetus is a fully fledged human being from the moment of conception entitled to all of the rights under the constitution?
Or is there a scenario for it's overturn that I have not listed?
Whichever of these were to happen, what next?
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on October 30, 2007 12:47 PMTo everyone on the forum.
Notice that John II and James Jones completely missed my remarks on having a caring society to welcome every baby and help the mother in any way to make her happy to be pregnant and happy to give birth, even if she does opt for adoption.
The reason I bring up societies responsibility to the unborn, is to show clearly, how these two men, and others like them, are more interested in women control, than birth control.
Anyone who read my two and especially my last post can see how John II picks and chooses what to answer.
John, because one woman is unhappy with her culture, does that mean that we must rush in and rescue her country? Would you do this if there is no oil?
In Iran they executed two young boys for homosexuality, should we attack Iran to cure their cultural deficits?
Please do not try to make us think you give a damn about Muslim women. Do not use them as an excuse to invade their countries. Even Bush didn`t sink that low.
JJ, and J2, I may be a nutty vulnerable female, but I am also your worst nightmare: A dedicated feminist/humanist, who never relents in her mission.
And on the issue of miscarriages and abortion. Women do not base their support in abortion laws on the amount of miscarriages, around 50% of all human fertilized eggs are miscarried, but on the need to give a decent life to the women. We put women first, fetus second and will raise up our daughters and sons the same way.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 30, 2007 01:26 PMSharon:
Keep on keepin' on. JJ and J don't answer your questions because it would reveal the shallowness of their thinking.
You are right to say that the dog they have in this fight is control.
They really can't provide any evidence to back up their assertion that a fetus is deserving of all the rights of a born person from conception on, so they play circular games based on false premises.
A good example of the way they work is when John II states that it's irrefutable that if abortion is illegal, the number of abortions will go down. This stands in direct contrast to the known facts, but since to John II that's what should happen, then dammit that's what is true.
I guess he feels it in what I'm guessing is a formidable gut...
And he has such a way with the ladies.. heh.
Posted by Charles B. on October 30, 2007 02:36 PMRepugnant,
You questions are disjointed and repetitive but I think I can hit the points.
I responded to Charles B on the question on the humanity of the fetus on October 29, 2007 03:05 PM. If you don't understand some part of that then you should just ask.
Roe will be overturned because abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. The question should have been left to the states. I don't know when - soon I hope. I do know that the community will not be able to work it's way through the question until the ruling is overturned and adressed through the legislative process.
There is no right to privacy in the Constitution or anywhere else. Especially when you invoke the right to terminate an innocent life.
"Skank and the rest of us" is certainly an interesting phrase. Are there many of you there? I guess that explains why you post under so many names.
That should address the questions that you, Skank and whoever else you may imagine is with you. Do they all ask you questions like this - or do some of them just sit in patient silence?
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 02:59 PMSharon B,
You know the rules. If you want me to answer a question you have to ask it. Unless I've missed something, I don't think that's happened.
Reading between the lines of you post I will offer this.
I am in favor of a caring society just as much as you are. You have no basis for your assertion that my interest in abortion is a reflection of my interest in controlling women. in fact, nearly everything I have posted refutes the charge. Even when I'm kidding around.
You can be as unrelenting as you please - I have never complained. But I do think you should be fair.
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 03:07 PMCharles B,
I take it by your silence that you understood my lecture in Elementary Embrology (you remember humans have humans and seals have seals and so on). But I do have to post the grades by the end of the week.
You don't have to type anything out. Just bang your forehead on you keyboard three times. I'll know it's you.
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 03:12 PMNice try James, but no coconut.
” Your dogmatic conviction that "a fetus is not innocent because it's not a person because that's the way I define it" has not been brought up for some odd reason. This "it's so because I say it's so" reasoning doesn't seem to have much of a constituency beyond - well just you actually.”
There is no reason that an organism lacking any of the necessary components for sensory processing or production of qualia should be regarded as a person.
This isn’t so because I or any other specific scientist “says so” but because that is what the science reveals. There are no minds without brains, and no persons either.
The dogmatism is all yours mate, although I agree you have a fairly big constituency – over half the American population are scientifically illiterate.
FU All,
Yes, you do have to put the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments into other words to create a Right to Privacy. In fact thats exactly what the Roe decision did. That decision asserts that the right to an abortion "emanates from a penumbra" of unmentioned rights in the Constitution. In laymen's terms that means they made it up.
It was a bad decision, has created bad law and the community suffers as a consequence.
You think John and I are discredet the Republican Party? That is a shame. I think you're doing a good job demonstrating the morality of the modern Democrat Party - cloaked obscenities and all.
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 04:01 PMSkank,
I see, so some disinterested science examined the question of when humans become persons and reached the finding "There are no minds without brains, and no persons either." Right - and you think half the population buys into that nonsense? If that's true then there must be more brains without minds then I thought.
This science has an agenda. This science answers to politics and this is not the first time science has been used to explain away some tyranny. In this case there is one, sole purpose for this science and that is to concoct a rationalization to exterminate life in the womb.
And lo and behold - it's done just that!
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 04:21 PMJJ can't answer Bango's or my request for scientific evidence supporting his claim that a just conceived embryo is already a person, so he attacks science itself:
"In this case there is one, sole purpose for this science and that is to concoct a rationalization to exterminate life in the womb."
Ahh yes, JJ just uses his handy ESP to get into the head of all the scientists and he's discovered that their motivations are MURDER!!!!
JJ doesn't bother attacking the results of scientific experimentation, he just attacks the scientists and science itself. It's much easier than proving his case.
And no, JJ, all human fetuses do not become human beings.
Change some to all and you have a case, but you know that already. It just doesn't fit into your simplistic rhetorical masturbation...
How much more feeble can you get? (I'm guessing you haven't hit bottom yet).
Posted by Charles B. on October 30, 2007 04:42 PMCharles B,
You flunked Elementary Embryology.
"JJ doesn't bother attacking the results of scientific experimentation, he just attacks the scientists and science itself. It's much easier than proving his case."
OK Mr. Science. Tell me more about the scientific experimentation examining when humans become persons. At the same time you can name the scientists who determined that point at which personhood dawns. Then you can tell me why they undertook the study.
James: "Tell me more about the scientific experimentation examining when humans become persons. At the same time you can name the scientists who determined that point at which personhood dawns. Then you can tell me why they undertook the study."
I would say that I disagree that the basis of this experimentation would be primarily politically motivated. Science's prime mission is to understand the world, including ourselves. Studying where and when exactly life and sentience begins within ourselves is a key element to understanding life itself, where we come from, how we become what we are. And the implications go far beyond the venomous abortion debate-- they made provide clues into cloning research, stem cell research, disease research, fertility research, and so on.
Plus let us not forget that the implications here would extend beyond the abortion realm, and would filter into the "Right to Die" (i.e. Terry Schiavo) debate as well, which is nearly as contentious as the abortion one.
I myself find it harder to believe the only reason these researchers took on such a study was to tilt abortion politics one way or another. Just my two cents.
Posted by Dan on October 30, 2007 05:23 PMAll these men who sound off about the alleged rights of the unborn are probably longing to return to the womb themselves.
Posted by Sigmund Freud on October 30, 2007 05:49 PMSigmund also proves that if you put a hundred monkeys in a room with 100 computers, in about five minutes one will type out a comment like his.
Posted by Dan on October 30, 2007 06:00 PMJames Jones, now don`t you take that tone with me. Thank you for your mealy mouth answer that you like a caring society. I am so excited to get an answer to my question of what society should do for pregnant girls and women, that I can hardly type.
We have worried this word game to pieces, but for one more try. The terms zygote, embryo and fetus refer to specific times in gestation, and there are probably more scientific terms. But person, individual, even the use of the word human, gets into emotions. If we destroy 10 cells in a cluster we have destroyed a human zygote, a potential person. Mix and match the words till you are purple, but the thing-we-need- to-discuss is still in the unique position growing inside another former zygote, human person.
See how using words does nothing to clear up this problem?
Who has human person rights and when do they begin?
If we ever fall into the trap of giving all human conceptions full human rights, be very careful you don`t bump a pregnant women and cause a miscarriage, which would then be manslaughter.
Who gets full human civil rights and when?
We should think long and hard about changing the situation we have now, which is probably the best solution, until they put something in the kids water to make them temporarily sterile.
And don`t forget that married women have abortions too, this is not just about un-wed girls.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 30, 2007 06:32 PMDan,
There is a lot of good science involving embryology but there is no scientific study examinging at what point the life in the womb achieves personhood. Skank's claim to a scientific basis for "personhood" is specious. He dresses up his opinion as science simply by pointing to some observable fact and drawing an irrelavent conclusion - all dressed up and no place to go.
I could just as easily claim that personhood dawns when the fingers are formed. He and I have been through this in great length in the recent past.
This is a diversion asserted of by those who don't want to face up to the moral parameters of the question and use science as an excuse for their laziness.
I think it would take more like three minutes - you're giving the man toomuch credit.
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 06:35 PMSharon,
If you kill a pregnant women you can be tried for a double murder.
And, no matter what you want to do with pregnant girls and women, it doesn't change the fact that abortion destroys life. We must deal with the problem in that context.
Posted by on October 30, 2007 07:00 PMJames Jones, and to think I gave that away free. Will I never learn to be a good capitalist?
Even for you with your tiny answers that "caring society" answer was slipshod. Almost no answer at all. Like pulling teeth with you, to get one little answer.
Yes abortion kills a human. Got all the right words in this time and we still have the problem.
How to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
One way is to turn them into wanted babies by letting the girls and women know there are services and help and government programs to help.
Now JJ, just say "Yes I agree there should be government programs to help girls and women have and keep their babies." Now you can go throw up somewhere.
If this doesn`t kill you I will work on getting you to say, "yes, to birth control" but not yet. Baby steps here, just baby steps.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 30, 2007 09:18 PMJames,
To continue with Sharon's line of questioning, I'd like to propose two others, since the theme of this thread has pretty much been that killing babies, for whatever reason, is morally corrupt.
1. Should a woman who has been raped be allowed an abortion?
If your answer is no, then fine-- you are consistent with the position you have been defending, though I wouldn't want to be the one to tell her she is forced to give birth to this baby.
If your answer is yes, then how does that fit with your dogma? Why is a baby that is conceived through rape any less human, any less innocent, any less a person than one conceived through consensual sex? If your belief is ALL babies have rights, then, and pardon me if I am putting words in your mouth, your position would have to be that raped women can't have abortions either. Is this correct?
2. What if the mother's doctors determine that the baby will be so crippled and malformed that it will be a drooling vegetable once it is born? Should that mother be allowed to terminate?
Again, if your answer is yes, there's the same moral dilemma. After all, we don't go around offing disabled people. Why should we off a disabled fetus? Isn't it human too?
Posted by Dan on October 30, 2007 09:30 PMI have a better question.
If a fetus is a fully-endowed-with-right-to-life human being, why should its right be subject to plebiscite? If a fetus is a human then abortion is murder in New York and California as certain as Texas or Louisiana. Why would the right to life movement permit murder in states where the populace approves of it? How is that an intellectually tenable position?
Posted by Queen Gorgo (For only Spartan Women Give Birth to Real Men!) on October 30, 2007 09:43 PMJames said ” Tell me more about the scientific experimentation examining when humans become persons. At the same time you can name the scientists who determined that point at which personhood dawns. Then you can tell me why they undertook the study.”
You know James, if you weren’t offering the argument that personhood starts at conception as an alternative to the scientific position, this would be a really interesting conversation. We could discuss experiments by a whole range of researchers, and have a really rewarding exchange about so called “neurological zombies” and the various neurological correlates that would specify personhood.
However, your best shot is this primitive and simple-minded assertion that life and personhood emerge full-blown at conception, and so the task is much simpler but far less rewarding to discuss.
Human and primate neurology are well researched and we know that many of the neurological structures needed for cognition, awareness, and production of qualia are not present at conception. We also know when they start coming on line in the gestational sequence, so we have a fairly good idea when development had passed the point at which personhood could reasonably be claimed.
That is plenty enough to know that what you propose is just silly.
I don’t think you fare any better on a philosophical or religious front either.
Sharon supports a women's right to an abortion. She also says "Yes abortion kills a human. "
It's nice to know what kind of human scum we are dealing with on this forum.
Posted by on October 30, 2007 10:01 PMJames,
Here is yet another couple of questions (wow, are you under the spotlight):
3. Say a woman has a miscarriage. Should there be a full police investigation to determine the death of the fetus? What about an autopsy? If not, why not? Again, shouldn't a fetus be accorded the same consideration of any human being in determining the cause of unexpected death? Should the mother be considered a suspect?
4. Say a woman drinks wine while pregnant. Should she be prosecuted for, essentially, giving alcohol to a minor? Again, according to you, a fetus is considered a child "Under 21". A woman with a 3-month old infant would surely be prosecuted, why not this mother?
At face value, these questions seem over the top and ridiculous, but with what you propose about the moral absolute of this issue, are they really?
Posted by Dan on October 30, 2007 10:13 PM10:01PM,
The big kids are talking now. Go back to playing with your toys. If you're good, we'll bring you ice cream.
Sharon B
(Dan...you ask many good questions - thank you - and I will respond today as time allows.)
In re: How to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
You told me earlier that abortion wasn't just for unmarried young women and I agreed. I think a good number of abortions are performed on married women who already have children.
Presumably a woman with children has figured out how babies are made and, therefore, education is not the issue. Now I don't know what program it is you have in mind that will make birth control measures more available to this woman then already exist but, whatever it is - please go ahead with it.
In fact, if you want to go tripping up the 16th Street Mall handing out condomns like some reverse Johnny Appleseed - please do so.
You have my complete approval and may even use me as an authority if questioned. But I will make this prediction - People will still make foolish choices and unwanted pregnancy will still occur.
No matter how furiously you wave the wand of the dedicated feminist who is my worst nightmare, the moral questions surrounding abortion will not evaporate and the community will always have to find ways to deal with that reality.
Repugnant,
As a leftist you look to the central authority of the government for the solution to social problems. The heirarchal view has the federal government at the top with state and local governments serving below that level. And so important questions involving life and death should be referred to the most important level of government or, the federal level. I have a different view.
I see the different governments as having the same authority at different levels but with a different constituency and therefore a different purview. This view actually asserts the opposite in that the government that most directly addresses the concerns of the community is not the highest, but the lowest level.
In this view the different states would take differing approaches to the question of abortion. California may allow abortion on demand while Utah would restrict abortion to save the life of the mother. This approach creates what can be thought of as social laboratories with neighboring, self-governing communities addressing the same problem with different approaches.
The value in this is that all human action has unintended consequences. The social laboratory allows the evaluation of the results and adjustments can be made that will create more just societies based on the actual experience.
My point is that the overturn of Roe would allow communities to address abortion through their various legislatures and that would put us on the path to resolving what is, in my opinion, the most important moral question of this generation.
Posted by James Jones on October 31, 2007 07:13 AMSkank,
Do you recall?
If you view abortion as immoral then don’t have one James, nobody is forcing you to have one.
Posted by Bangalore Skank on October 30, 2007 06:43 AM
Superficial, innocuous, vapid? Yes - but brief, Skank, blessedly brief.
I have come to treasure those moments.
Posted by James Jones on October 31, 2007 07:23 AMDan,
You have gone right to the heart of at least three great questions which, owing to the pressures of business, I can't address right now. But I will before this day is out.
I like the spotlight - it give me a great fun tan.
Posted by James Jones on October 31, 2007 07:28 AMTime out!
Nothing like this forum when it really gets going, is there? Of all the newspapers that offer this feature in their Opinion sections, RMN has to win the prize for lively. (It loses ground in repetitive arguments on repetitive topics--not to mention repetitive letter writers--but oh well.)
What I'd love to see here is what the Arizona Republic and San Francisco Chronicle have: a voting option where readers can anonymously register agreement or disagreement to every post without actually writing anything. (It's thumbs up or down in the AR, "recommended" in the SFC.) It's understandable that many readers may hesitate to stick their heads, metaphorically speaking, in the weed-wacker of vitriol that this forum so often becomes, and that way we could all get a better idea of who's scoring more points.
So much for the commercial. Time in: start the weed-wacker back up.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 31, 2007 09:54 AM"Do you think nature's miscarriage authorizes man's abortion? If that is your point then make it. You're correct, simply repeating the same vague assertion is not persuasive."
Basically, yes it does. What we are doing is not unnatural, because Nature does it as well. A fertilized egg will not attach to the womb for a variety of reasons and an attached fetus will be flushed out of the system for just as many reasons. So your assertion is completely incorrect, every fetus DOES NOT become a human being and, in fact, many are simply destroyed, so it is obvious that your God doesn't hold the life of a clump of cells very sacred at all.
And to the coward who posted right after JJ got his clue, I was wanted, as were all of my siblings. No accidents, no rapes and my parents used birth control. But all it would have taken is one different sperm hitting that egg and you'd have a completely different person talking to you right now, legalized abortion or not.
Posted by Roger on October 31, 2007 10:27 AMJJ, remember all of those self evident truths about what we are endowed with by our creator?
That's the moral seat of your pro-life argument. You have claimed that the right to life is supreme to all others.
Too bad for your extreme view of federalism, but that right and all other civil rights are guaranteed by the US Constitution and each state does not get its own interpretation. They can nibble around the edges passing laws to push agendas through the courts, but in our form of government how the Supreme Court intereprets the Constitution is the final word.
History has demonstrated that you can’t hold my bra in matters of medicine or science, so I feel so bad schooling you on Constitutional Law when it’s only an area I dabble in, and (full disclosure for the schoolmarm JJ) have no training or expertise.
Your constitutional scholar and fellow federalist in tights abandoned you long ago, and I think that says something about the vacuity of your argument at the legal and moral level.
Do go run and see if you can find him. You’ll get much more candy together than you would separately.
Dan,
Science
Don't consider me "lazy" or "morally bankrupt" because I'm keeping an open mind with what science provides.
Posted by Dan on October 30, 2007 08:55 PM
I don't. My disagreement with Skank isn't over the value of science. It's about the manner in which the science is applied. Here's the background:
If you look back through my posts I don't think you will find anything that would offend an atheist on account of his atheism. Yet, Skank always characterizes my points not just as religious but as Christian. He then dismisses the argument as silly because it is based in religion which, in his view, is the same as saying a myth.
Next understand that Skank's working definition of science is: Everything that's not religious. You see the problem.
Skank ties personhood to neurological development and then picks a point of cognitive development when he asserts personhood begins. The only science interested in personhood is political science and that has nothing to do with embryology.
I might alternatively pick the formation of the fingers as an arbitrary measure with the same validity and still call it science because its based on observable, repetitive data. Also, I might point out that the conginitive disintinction between a fetus at 8 months is not appreciably different from a baby at 1 month and that the same argument