Abortion
Of Mr. Smetana I would like to ask: How many unwanted pregnancies have you experienced?
How many children have you adopted?
How many children have you fostered?
As you are so deeply concerned for the lives these unwanted and aborted children I am curious what you have done for the ones who were born and unwanted?
This letter has not been edited.
Amen, Ms. Gray!
The problem is that very few of these right-to-lifers will ever put their money where their mouths are.
This isn't about LIFE, it's about POLITICS.
If they really cared about the welfare of children, they would take care of the children who are already here!
Posted by Thomas on May 15, 2007 03:03 PMIf the mother is given 9 months prior to birth to abort, the father should be given 9 months after birth to abort using the same methods.
Posted by Bob on May 15, 2007 03:26 PMBob, why do you hate women?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 15, 2007 04:23 PMActually, that idea is from a woman. Except, she thought that abortion should be permitted up until the child could care for itself because it was just a parasitic life form. When I followed up on the comment, she thought around 5 years. I thought 9 months was more reasonable.
Posted by Bob on May 15, 2007 04:50 PMDuring the 1960’s a handful of activists embarked upon a marketing campaign which was twofold: capture the news media and eventually the public, and then change the abortion laws.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, M.D. now admits the following: “We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favor of permissive abortions. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1 million.
“Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.”
Dr. Nathanson went on to say, “Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500% since legalization.
Their brilliantly deceitful marketing brought about by use of fraudulent research gained them rapid and total success that resulted in the legalization of abortion in all fifty states for virtually any reason at all. Since 1973 there have been well over forty million babies aborted in America.
It’s just about the weakest argument I have ever heard to ask someone who is opposed to abortion how many unwanted pregnancies they have experienced or how many children have they fostered or adopted. Why not do something about unwanted pregnancies BEFORE the pregnancies? And denying that the fetus is a living being does nothing but justify killing it. I mean, you can call a butterfly an office desk all you want, but that doesn’t keep it from being a butterfly.
The point is it’s a sick practice to kill because it’s too inconvenient to have a child. What is almost as sick is saying this is about politics and not about life.
Why, in this country do couples unable to conceive their own children go overseas to adopt? I don't have the answer.
Good points, Ms. Gray and I agree wholeheartedly.
But I also abhor abortion and wish it did not exist. The choice, however, should remain with the woman and/or with the father. If the woman does not wish to raise the child, let the father. Otherwise, put the child up for adoption.
The party against big government intrusion in our lives can't seem to recognize the hypocrisy of their positions.
They justify their anti-abortion stance by their belief in the rights of the unborn. I agree that the unborn have rights. I disagree with government coercion or use of force to enforce those rights. This is a decision that should be made by parents and not the government.
You are correct that most of the anti-abortion crowd has no desire to adopt or foster unwanted children.
What I hope we will see is a decreasing use of abortion as a form of birth control by irresponsible people and use of it only when the life of the mother is in danger.
Bob - what is wrong with you? With the right to have sex is the responsibility that may well come with it. If you don't understand that, you, sir, are a neanderthal.
Posted by RU Serious on May 15, 2007 05:00 PMUntil the fetus if viable, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the woman. This a unique position for a person to be in, completely dependant on another persons body for life.
We needed to make abortion legal, if it took torqued statistics to do it, well our opposition doesn`t always play fair, why should we?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 15, 2007 05:53 PMPat quoted in part "...abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. "
Really?
More women abort than use the pill, the patch, have lovers who wear condoms, or use the Catholic Church approved rhythm method all combined?
That just doesn’t sound likely.
'"abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. "
You take offense with the inaccurate description of frequency of abortion as birth control, while attempting to sum the totals of other birth control methods for some inexplicable reason, without ever mentioning the fact that using abortion as a form of birth control is quite irresponsible and despicable. Why?
Posted by on May 15, 2007 11:54 PM'"More women abort than use the pill, the patch, have lovers who wear condoms, or use the Catholic Church approved rhythm method all combined? "
You take offense with the inaccurate description of frequency of abortion as birth control, while attempting to sum the totals of other birth control methods for some inexplicable reason, without ever mentioning the fact that using abortion as a form of birth control is quite irresponsible and despicable. Why?
Posted by No use on May 15, 2007 11:54 PMOne thing at a time 11:54. Can`t argue with fuzzy facts.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 16, 2007 04:34 AMWow!
The double posting anonymous writer uses one five (count 'em, 5) syllable word and another of four (count' em, 4) syllables to describe abortion.
Guess that ought to hold all those folks out there who are pointing out the inacuracies - not to say total falsification - of what the anti-abotionists call "facts".
Facts? Who needs facts in an anti-abortion sermon?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 16, 2007 06:41 AMBob, you need many years of therapy.
Posted by Pat on May 16, 2007 06:42 AMBango Shank, you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I did not say abortion was THE primary method of birth control. I said it is A primary method of birth control.
Sharon B, you are not to be trusted because you are willing to lie and cheat to get your way.
Old Grouch, you cannot hold a reasonable conversation about topics (and cannot spell), so your only recourse is to be sarcastic.
Unfortunately, this is a political issue. That’s a disgusting reality. Most people not in favor of abortion are on the political right and most of the one who are in favor of abortion are on the political left. A majority of the people involved in public education is on the left and they will scorn anyone opposed to increasing funds for schools by accusing them of being selfish and insensitive toward children. But when it comes to abortion suddenly it’s not at all about the children. Suddenly it’s all about the mother and it’s okay to be selfish. You cannot get much more narcissistic than that.
The political left champions themselves as the ones most supportive of civil rights. Why aren’t those same civil rights people speaking out against the intentional killing of innocent people by abortion?
Mr.No Use, I don’t think I was “taking offense”, but when somebody quotes something I parse the quote for signs of error as a matter of professional habit. When a direct claim of fact is being made, I do a quick mental check to see if the order of magnitude and direction seem likely before carrying on with what they are arguing.
Since this anomaly popped out, that will be my first question.
I am under no obligation to you to first do a little pantomime about the dimensions of morality or irresponsibility of abortion.
Perhaps you would like to restate whatever your argument is without the extravagant claims of magnitude?
Bob, you already have all the same rights that a woman does with respect to choice.
If your child needs your body parts or the use thereof to survive, you can say no at any time, and your wishes must be respected. Your wife cannot compel you to give that child, whose conception you are responsible for, so little a thing as a pint of blood. Right?
So what makes you think that you, or anyone, ought to be able to compel a woman to lend her entire body to another person for nine months, with no regard for her wishes, feelings, any permanent consequences she might suffer, or any changes in her circumstances during that long nine months?
Pat, my apologies then, I will follow your advice with regards my reading comprehension. I assumed that you were making a bigger claim.
What exactly do you mean by “a primary method” if not that it is the “method of choice”?
You asked ” Why aren’t those same civil rights people speaking out against the intentional killing of innocent people by abortion?”
The answer is relatively simple in my case, I don’t regard personhood as starting at conception, so to me no second person is involved. I also think that in many cases any choice between the life of the mother and the life of the unborn falls to favouring the mother.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 16, 2007 08:35 AMPat,
The reason that the left will not acknowldege that the humantiy of the fetus is simply that the fetus is not able to claim her right to live.
Leftists believe that rights come not from the creator but from society. Life in this view is not an inalienable right but a privilege subject to the will of the community. The will of the community is expressed through the government and it is the government from which all blessings flow.
So government becomes their religion and abortion is one of the principle sacrements. After all, what purpose does any of us have but to serve the will of the government?
The fetus has no voice to them ask for the privilege of life. So if her death becomes expedient her life becomes expendable.
That is a voice none of them want to hear. So they ignore it.
Posted by James Jones on May 16, 2007 08:42 AMDon't know if Mr.Smetana has experienced an unwanted pregnancy,but millions of men have.Their names are on file at your local Child Support Enforcement office,along with the amounts of money extorted from them by the government.....In a related development,today's Rocky used lots of ink on the neglect-based drowning of Jose Jauregui,Jr.The coverage makes no mention whatever of Jose Sr,which indicates that the mother saw fit to start a family under the feminist mantra that a father's rights cease at the moment of ejaculation.
Posted by Jimminy on May 16, 2007 08:45 AMBango Skank,
You might notice that Ms. Gray's letter has nothing to do with the life, or health, of the mother.
Ms. Gray's postion, as stated in her letter, argues for abortion for the purpose of birth control. Why is it that you have ignored her position that abortion is a useful eugenic tool?
Kathryn Gray,
Question 1: I had one unplanned pregnancy at age 17, became a single mom and put myself through college.
Question 2: Number of children adopted 2
Question 3: Number of children fostered 3
Unasked questions: Opened my home to four young women with unplanned pregnancy and helped them before during, and after birth of their baby until they were self-sufficient.
Supported 100's of women in unplanned pregnancies through emotional and tangible support at local facility.
Helped 1000's of women by donating to non-profit organizations that provide real, tangible, and practical support to women with unplanned pregnancies.
Number of friends who were forced to go oversees after dealing with insane US adoption 8.
I am not alone - there are thousands of families like ours that "put our money where our mouth is".
Posted by AnnL on May 16, 2007 08:58 AM Abortion: Matter of Responsibility
A simple application of the serenity prayer, asking our higher power to help us accept what we can’t understand, change what we can and give us wisdom to know the difference would seem a reasonable answer to the abortion issue. In short, if we don’t like abortion, don’t have one. However as every good crusader knows, in direct contradiction to Clint Eastwood’s advice in the first Dirty Harry Movie, “man’s got to know his limitations,” the fight for injustice means never surrendering until evil is conquered. Thus, the decades old argument between “pro-choice” and “right to life” takes on a circular struggle, with both sides making this contest a “rights” issue.
Moderates a.k.a. most Americans, hope for a reasonable compromise so this issue and the associated animosity, would go away. This is available if we adhered to the rules of both government and Catholic Church of a century or so ago, which allowed abortions before the period of “crystallization,” when the fetus was still a cell like merger and there was no body formation. Unfortunately puritans of thought will force those in the middle to take sides, and we are left with this collision course.
A possible solution is to correct the agenda of both sides from a “rights” issue to one of timing and responsibility. Women obviously have control over their own body, as physics would dictate, but the decision of choice should come prior to conception, not when an overwhelming decision has to be made because someone had a lapse of responsible judgment, or a passionate loss of control. This adjustment would mean that responsibility should be one’s guide, in the same way that one doesn’t leave their apartment without an umbrella after seeing storm clouds. The possibility of rain is a reasonable and responsible expectation. In more hardened terms we have the legal advice – if one can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
This of course is a real kill joy approach, being responsible for one’s own actions, as opposed to the hard earned “if it feels good do it” method which leaves many intellectuals later pondering “how could this have happened?” This is the same procedure followed since the mid sixties that has seen a wallop in the size of unwed mothers and fatherless children, along with the increase in sexually transmitted diseases. If this belief system was categorized as an addiction, we be waiting, begging, that one finally hit bottom to terminate this horrific result.
There still is an unsolved portion to this equation – control of male behavior. If a woman gets pregnant and wants an abortion, no matter how much a man pleads, he will never control another’s actions, rightfully so. Ironically, if a woman gets pregnant and a man wants no ownership, he is still on the hook for financial support if a woman so seeks. The only way a man can assure his stake in any claim is again timing – taking responsibility for possible outcomes prior to conception.
In the sitcom “Empty Nest,” the doctor, portrayed by the late Richard Mulligan, was about to ask a young girl if she surrendered her virginity when she suddenly blurted out, “have I done it yet?” At this point the doctor responded, “The word love was going to appear in my question.” What a novel solution.
Katja - I don't. I'm not a pro-lifer. But I do believe in pain management for the fetus. And, I think there is really no difference between the baby the day before birth or the day after. So, why can't a man decide to abort for some time after birth? You know, for the health of the father.
Posted by Bob on May 16, 2007 09:36 AMJJ, you are once again mucking up a discussion of abortion, with the "where do human rights come from, from God (if there is one) or from our fellow man in the form of comminity.
If God exists and our human rights come from that source, then what are they?
If God is a figment of our imagination, then where do our rights come from?
Every time you address this issue you mix human communities with government. Every time you link Government=leftist.
Many leftists are Humanists and do not worship government nor do we say people must serve the government to have value.
Until recently, men controlled all aspects of society, including womens health and reproductive lives. Now that is no longer true and many men resent that they can be held responsible for a baby, but not given any decision in the pregnancy. The tables have turned, and oh how they whine.
Over 50%of all known pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarrage). Maybe this natural event tell us just exactly how the real God of the Universe views each fertalized egg. Can`t argue with the facts, God doesn`t take care to have each egg live.
Jimminy, way to take a tragedy and use the death of that little boy for your own ends.
You are a sad, sorry excuse for a human being.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 16, 2007 10:32 AMBoy are there a lot of people trying to jam their beliefs down other peoples' throats on this issue. The fact is, abortion is legal, and it's a decision to be made by a woman, with the consultation of her doctor. Done. End of story. Deal with it.
In a related story, hypocritical zealots in organized religions (yes, you too, catholics) have killed more "innocents" than abortion.
Posted by shaupeen on May 16, 2007 10:38 AMPat,
There is no possibility of a "reasonable conversation about topics", because attempting to hold dialogue with someone who starts from a fixed premise such as yours - "intentional killing of innocent PEOPLE by abortion - is a futile and foolish waste of time.
You have made an assertion - actually several assertions - in the course of your posting. And anyone who would offer to disagree with that assertion - or any of the others - is left no room for "conversation"; since only total agreement with the assertions suits your idea of what a "conversation" should be.
If "sarcasm" be all you can come up with in answer to request for facts - as it appears from the rest of your posting to be all you, yourself, have for response, along with additional assertions, most of them equally lacking any factual support - then, as once was said: Make ye the most of it!
Posted by Old Grouch on May 16, 2007 10:42 AMShaupeen,
It was once legal for black people to sit in the back of the bus, not use white restrooms, and not eat in "white" restaurants.
Abortion was once illegal, then became legal, and now maybe society wants a change again.
What is legal or not is determined by our societal values. Cocaine is illegal (once it wasn't) yet alcohol is legal (think of the hundreds of thosuands killed every year because of alcohol).
This is the reason for discusion
Posted by David DiBello on May 16, 2007 11:04 AMWhat amazes me is that no one understands that we're all puppets on this issue?
If anyone here really believes that the pro-life organizations really want to win this battle and make abortion illegal is crazy.
For them, that would be the equivalent of General Electric creating a light bulb that never breaks or burns out. They'd put themselves out of business.
There are too many people, on both sides of this issue, whose jobs and livelihoods depend on an never-ending battle over the topic of abortion.
At least the abortion providers have the honesty to admit that they are functioning both as a service to those people who come to them AND a business.
The pro-life organziations do not have the same integrity. They have their followers believing that they are entirely altruistic. Well people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson didn't build their muti-million dollar personal fortunes just from their preacher salaries. They earned it by selling the drama. and capitalizing on the controversy and divison.
If anyone doesn't get this...you need to take a trip to any statehouse or Congress and watch lobbyist for both sides, pro-life and pro-choice, SCHMOOZING, throwing money around to try to buy influence.
It's a business folks. The demand for abortion will not magically disappear just by making it a crimel anymore than the oppposition to it diminished in 1973 when it became legal.
We are just hapless dupes in a deceitful marketing tug of war designed to keep us at each other's throats and giving our money to
one side or the other.
I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I will not impose my beliefs on another person. I may not agree with the choices they make but I will not take that choice away from them because someday they might disagree with a choice I make and turnabout is fair play.
Stop being pawns. Think for yourself and ONLY for yourself!
Mr.Jones asked ” Why is it that you have ignored her position that abortion is a useful eugenic tool?”
Simply because I am not answering her, but questioning or responding to what others have said here.
I also don’t see that she actually posed a position such as you describe, and nowhere does she mention eugenics or even talk about reasons for abortions.
So my question to you is: why are you misrepresenting her position and then accusing me of ignoring it?
Bongo Skank,
Your last sentence is rather self-answering if you follow all the postings over the past few weeks. That's Jonesy's form of "discussion", in a nutshell.
Never mind what you say - or have said. And never mind what someone else says - or has said - either. Answer the current skewed question. That's what keeps the line alive, and gives him an opportunity to run off another sermon.
His counterpart is good at it too. Sometimes I wonder if we don't have some kind of "split personality" there. But then again, which one would "clone" the other?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 16, 2007 01:25 PMBy the way, I'll admit to being awfully slow in catching on to the Guyana and Kool Aid references. It took me weeks to even notice what I came to think of as being possibly an odd coincidence.
Oh, well. We can't all be perfect. Now can we?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 16, 2007 01:34 PMShaupeen – Yes, abortion is legal. So what. Slavery used to be legal. It used to be legal to keep women from voting. It used to be legal to burn suspected witches at the stake.
Old Grouch – What else do you call abortion other than intentional killing? It’s not done by accident! And why is it so scary to call a fetus a person? It’s not an inanimate object is it? It has a heartbeat. It moves. It has brainwave activity. They even smile in the womb. Or are those just assertions?
You have done nothing in the way of disputing my “assertions.” All you contributed in your first post on this thread is sarcasm and simply offer your self-gratifying lampooning. I’m talking about “the double posting anonymous writer uses one five (count 'em, 5) syllable word and another of four (count' em, 4) syllables to describe abortion.” So, how would you know what reaction I would have to reasonable give-and-take? You wouldn’t because you have not tried.
Even with your second post you had the opportunity to, but still did not get specific about what you disagree with. You never asked me to answer any direct request for facts. But I already provided some facts in my very first posting. Those were not simple assertions. I wrote out a ton of facts that came directly from Dr. Bernard Nathanson.
Like it or not, this is a serious issue. Coming across as a smart aleck doesn’t contribute to a solution.
Yes Pat, it's a serious issue, but one with a solution. That solution was made in 1973. And it's law. It's unfortunate (for you) that you are not happy with that solution. It's unfortunate (for you) that not every person agrees with you. It's unfortunate (for you) that other people don't agree with your reasoning that a fetus is a person. It doesn't matter how people come across--smart aleck or religious fanatic--because that will not change the existing solution. You just don't like the fact that your opinion is not protected by law. "And so it goes..."
Posted by shaupeen on May 16, 2007 01:45 PMPat,
At what point in time does the fetus become a "person"?
You quote a Dr. Nathanson, whom you refer to as being one of a "handful of activists . . . (who managed to) . . .change the abortion laws".
Who is this Dr. Nathanson?
What is the source for the quotations from Dr. Nathonson?
What evidence do you have to show that Dr. Nathanson was one of the people who made up the "handful of activists', other than his own assertions?
How did he, and or his "handful of activists" - themselves quite anonymous - achieve this magnificent feat, aside from Dr. Nathanson's own boasts?
Did he argue Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court?
Was he one of the Justices who decided the Roe v. Wade case?
In cases of spontaneous miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy, who is "killing the innocent (person)"?
You quote Dr. Nathanson as saying that abortion IS a "primary method of birth control; yet you later deny that this statement was made. How do you reconcile this?
I'm on my way to work now; but I'll look in when I come back, just to see if you are really serious about a 'conversation", and have answered the questions.
Shaupeen, et al
Botton line is Roe V. Wade will very shortly be overturned, and its whole life (legalization period will be about 35 to 38 years).
Posted by David DiBello on May 16, 2007 02:43 PMWe need to remember that some women, while they may be eagerly awaiting the birth of a baby, find that their bodies cannot be pregnant for 9 months.
Some need medical treatments that would kill a fetus or severly deform it.
Some have previously un-known medilcal conditions diagnosed.
Some women become pregnant from failed birth-control methods.
Some are too young mentally or physically, for a pregnancy.
Some have to leave abusive relationships and pregnancy would make that nearly impossible.
I know women that fit all these cases. None of them "changed her mind" or wanted to look good in a bikini for the summer.
Where are all you manley men in this. Still refusing to "wear a raincoat in the shower"?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 16, 2007 02:46 PMPS
Justice John Paul Stevens was born April 20, 1920....
and I just heard him cough....
Posted by David DiBello on May 16, 2007 02:46 PMMaybe so, David, maybe not. But until then, it is law, and that's all that matters. But I have a good feeling you will continue to be disappointed--the pendulum is swinging and the "moral majority" is shrinking.
And David, for someone without a uterus, you sure are good at telling women how to live their lives. If the tables were turned, would you be OK with women telling you how to run your life and control your body?
Posted by shaupeen on May 16, 2007 03:22 PMDavid, do some research on the use of a speculum. Women are not going to go back, sorry guys, but law or no law, life is to complicated for complete control over women any more.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 16, 2007 04:19 PMPro-choice: A fetus is only a person if it is wanted. If it is wanted, the mother will do all she can to take care of said fetus so it will be born a healthy baby. Eat healthy, no smoking, no drinking, no drugs.
If she does not want a baby at the end of the pregnancy (that is what it is called when a fertilized egg is implanted in the womb) then she can make the choice to kill it at any time before it is born because it is not a person and that is her right?
How hypocritical is that? I'm tired of pro-choice people who throw the hypocrite label at pro-lifers to make themselves feel better about their own selfish, irresponsible agenda.
Posted by TEW on May 16, 2007 05:14 PMTEW, now that you have that bit of bile out of your system, do you actually want to say something useful?
It is complete rubbish to say that the pro-choice position is that "A fetus is only a person if it is wanted.", and if you start from there the discussion will amount to nothing more than trading insults.
Many pro-choice people do not regard conception as the start of personhood, whereas many pro-life people do. The pro-choice people also mostly want exclusions for the safety or health of the mother, and get uncomfortable with Church or courts dictating procedures to doctors. The pro-life folks are suspicious that this is a trick.
Why don’t you state your view from there rather than just hurling insults and outrageous misrepresentations?
Bago Skank,
Ms. Gray asked about unwanted pregnancy, adoption and fostering. She said nothing about health.
You on the other hand address solely the question of health and duck the question of abortion as uniquely a form birth control.
It's not a tough question - Does the healthy mother have the right to kill the healty fetus?
Posted by James Jones on May 16, 2007 07:27 PMPat,
A little over 5 and 1/2 hours, and several postings, later; and I see your interest in "conversation" still doesn't run to answering questions concerning the assertions you make, and call "facts".
Well, that was to be expected; and is certainly nothing new for those who who beat the anti-abortion drums.
Pleasant evening to all.
P.S. to James Jones.
In a word, yes.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 16, 2007 08:25 PMOld Grouch,
Since Pat may not come back to this posting, I thought I would answer a few of your questions and let you do the rest of the digging.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, is a former abortion doctor and a founding member of NARAL (used to be known as National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as the National Abortion Rights Action League). He has documented in interviews and in his book "The Hand of God" about the things Pat wrote in her post. If you research him on Google or another search engine, you will find a lot of first hand information from him and about him.
Whether a person agrees with Roe v. Wade or not, the politics and public relations/ press spin leading up to the Supreme Court ruling is a very interesting read.
Posted by L on May 16, 2007 09:28 PMOld Grouch,
Since Pat may not come back to this posting, I thought I would answer a few of your questions and let you do your own research.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, is a former abortion doctor and a founding member of NARAL (used to be known as National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, now known as the National Abortion Rights Action League). He has documented in interviews and in his book "The Hand of God" about the things Pat wrote in her post. If you research him on Google or another search engine, you will find a lot of first hand information from him and about him.
Whether a person agrees with Roe v. Wade or not, the politics and public relations/ press spin leading up to the Supreme Court ruling is a very interesting read.
Posted by L on May 16, 2007 09:30 PMSorry for the double post - website is moving slow and I posted it again thinking it didn't get it.
Posted by L on May 16, 2007 09:32 PMJames, not sure why you think I am “ducking” anything.
I am under no obligation to stay strictly to the original topic, and neither are you.
Since you asked, sure, in my view the mother can morally terminate the fetus at any point and for any reason she chooses until it has an independent nervous system capable of sensing and processing sensory data.
Furthermore, I regard it as a perfectly moral choice to terminate the fetus should that be deemed necessary to protect the mother’s life.
TEW brings up a good point, that it is up to the mother, or potential mother, to decide. If a woman bonds with her unborn child, then she protects it against everything, but the same is true for born children. Bonding is a process and not an event. Some women bond quickly, and some never do.
Those prom mothers who do not even acknowledge their pregnancy, have not bonded in any way.
Maybe we can post on this some other day.
My grandmother said not to fall too much in love with an unborn baby or even a born baby because it is so easy for them to die.
She lived through the Flu epidemic. She said not to love a little one too much for the first few years, but she never said she could do that.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 16, 2007 10:19 PMBango Skank,
I undersatnd your position to be that once the fetus has developed an independent nervous system, then she becomes a person endowed with the same rights as she would have following birth: that is, the right not to be killed. That leads to two questions.
How do we know when (at what point during development) the fetus is sensing and processing data?
What is the moral (as opposed to the judicial decision in Roe) basis for the determination that the development of nervous system activates personhood?
Posted by James Jones on May 17, 2007 05:41 AMMr/Ms Skank , you said:
"Why don’t you state your view from there rather than just hurling insults and outrageous misrepresentations?"
I apologize if you were offended by my previous post but was it really more offensive than the handle you CHOOSE to call yourself?
Even after a good night's sleep I stand by my "outrageous misrepresentations".
For the record, and I have posted this before, I believe that if the mother's life is in danger she should have the choice to end the pregnancy. I object to the use of abortion as a method of birth control and I don't buy the argument that a large number of women end their pregnancies because their lives are in danger.
As for bonding with the fetus, I appreciate your view , Sharon B, but from my own experience, I didn't bond with any of my kids until after they were born and two of them were unplanned. I had never wanted to have any children.
Yes, I was old enough to know better and I certainly knew about birth control but I felt responsible for the results of my actions, and even as young as I was and as much of an inconvenience as it was, I now have three beautiful and productive children two of whom are now adults. I raised them, not my parents or the government.
Choice is a wonderful thing as long as it is used responsibly, something that is sadly lacking these days.
Posted by TEW on May 17, 2007 08:23 AMJames, nice questions, thanks.
1. The sequence and staging of sensory development is fairly accurately known from both knowledge of how the sensory and conductive apparatus works, as well as how it is established both from theoretical models and anatomical evidence. Same holds for the processing since we know what brain components are involved and the developmental sequences.
2. The moral basis for personhood in this case is a rejection of Cartesian Dualism in favor of mind and qualia as epiphenomena of neurological functioning. So once the apparatus is developed, awareness and sensory processing are the natural outcome, and awareness and sensory process is what is taken as the foundational basis of personhood.
TEW, I wasn't offended, I was suggesting that the discussion could be more productive.
I agree completely that aborting a pregnancy for frivolous reasons of convenience is disgusting, but the "solutions" to this that are usually offered would do more harm than good and usually ignore very cogent reasons why a woman may want to abort.
Posted by Bango Skank on May 17, 2007 08:51 AMProlifers and prochoicers have the rhetorical advantage over the great majority of us who are in between these two positions. Those who take an absolutist position usually do. Black or white is always easier to argue than gray. And the big majority of Americans are gray about abortion, they approve of it but they also approve of limits to it. While I haven't seen a poll on it, I'm sure that most Americans think that we should do what we can to reduce the number of abortions, but outside of legal prohibitions, which, to me, is a rejection of both extremes. While certainly some moral questions are also legal questions, in many cases, such as abortion, there are moral issues which are not also legal ones; they too have abandoned an absolutist answer.
Leaving it up to man to decide when human life begins is a vulnerable position to take because it somehow doesn't seem right that when life begins is something people vote on. Man is somewhat awkward in dealing with such weighty questions. I think there is in us a desire for an absolutist answer which will take the matter out of our hands, and relieve us of the mental burden of taking a position and then justifying it against all comers. We'd like for God or nature, or somebody, to answer the question for us.
For me, the question is, does man have a right to take away a life, whether born or unborn, or is it true that all life is precious, that is, inviolable?
And to me it is clear that man's answer to that question is a resounding, yes, man does have that right. I give you war as the prime example.
So then, the question becomes, when does man have that right? And here, those trying to answer it are deprived of being able to take an absolutist position. They cannot justify a prolife position by saying that all life is precious because by approving of war in certain circumstances they have abandoned an absolutist answer. And surely there are not prochoices who think that man is free to take the lives of others with no limitations.
But, in my opinion, most of the "answers" to the question are couched in absolutist terms, and, again in my opinion, because it is so much easier to argue in absolutist terms despite the fact that no one is really absolutist about the right to life. In other words, if we were to delete the false claims to an absolutist answer, if we were to delete the hypocritical claims, we would narrow the focus of the debate sharply.
The debate would than focus on the pragmatic answer. People, especially, in my opinion, shy away from pragmatic answers to such powerful questions, which is, in my opinion, why prolifers shy away from trying to justify the killing of born humans while condeming the killing of unborn ones. What answer gives a sufficient amount of respect to both the born and the unborn? Yes. there is a right to take human life, but what limits should be imposed on it? The debate would change from the specious to the realistic. It would change from the hypocritical extremes to the realistic in betweens.
Last paragraph corrected:
The debate would than focus on the pragmatic answer. People shy away from pragmatic answers to such powerful questions, which is, in my opinion, why prolifers shy away from trying to justify the killing of born humans while condemning the killing of unborn ones. What answer gives a sufficient amount of respect to both the born and the unborn? Yes. there is a right to take human life, but what limits should be imposed on it? The debate would change from the specious to the realistic. It would change from the hypocritical extremes to the realistic in betweens.
Old Grouchy Pants,
Before we go any further I want everyone to realize that I am not a religious fanatic. I’m just about as non-religious as one can get. So, my views do not stem from Christian beliefs.
Gouchy wrote: A little over 5 and 1/2 hours, and several postings, later; and I see your interest in "conversation" still doesn't run to answering questions concerning the assertions you make, and call "facts Well, that was to be expected; and is certainly nothing new for those who who beat the anti-abortion drums".
My reply: I don’t sit by the computer 24/7 just waiting to answer YOUR questions. Sorry I didn’t realize the high level of your importance. From now on I’ll put my job tasks aside to tend to your questions. Just don’t take three postings to finally get around to actually asking questions.
I feel a person is created at the time of conception, just like as soon as hydrogen meets oxygen the two create water. I don't understand why is it so hard to make that natural conclusion.
Dr. Nathanson, as L has pointed out, served as chairman of the executive committee of NARAL (originally the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws and later renamed the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) as well as served on its’ medical committee. He was one of (Grouchy, I said ONE OF) the principal architects and strategists of the abortion movement in the U.S. He started up an abortion clinic, the Clinic for Reproductive and Sexual Health (CRASH), in Manhattan. It had 10 operating rooms, 35 doctors, and 85 nurses. It operated 7days a week, from 8 am until midnight. Nathanson said, “We did 120 abortions every day in that clinic. At the end of the two years that I was the director, we had done 60,000 abortions. I myself, with my own hands, have done 5,000 abortions. I have supervised another 10,000 that residents have done under my direction. So I have 75,000 abortions in my life. Those are pretty good credentials to speak on the subject of abortion.”
After two years Nathanson resigned from CRASH. Coincidentally, it was also in 1973 (the year of Roe v Wade) that a lot of new technologies and apparatuses became available to the medical community for viewing the womb of the mother. Real-time ultrasound, electronic fetal heart monitoring, fetoscopy (an optical instrument put into the womb through which they can actually see the baby), and cordocentesis (sticking a needle into the pregnant mother’s uterus and, under ultrasound, locate the umbilical arteries and actually put the needle into the cord to take blood samples to diagnose any illnesses and to treat with medication).
Nathanson: “…as a result of all this technology – looking at this baby, examining it, investigating it, watching it metabolic functions, watching it urinate, swallow, move and sleep, watching it dream, which you could see by its rapid eye movements via ultrasound, treating it, and operating on it – I finally came to the conviction that this was my patient. This was a person! I was a physician, pledged to save my patients’ lives, not destroy them. So I changed my mind on the subject of abortion.”
The source is an article written in a publication called Whistleblower, with much assistance from Nathanson by providing his story surrounding the abortion topic. The evidence you asked about are the words that he produced.
He teamed up with a man named Lawrence Lader. The two of them plotted out the NARAL organization along with the help of a woman named Betty Friedan. NARAL was one of the groups that spearheaded the movement to change the laws on abortion. That is not an assertion. That is not his “boasts.” It’s a fact. It actually happened.
Not everything that you don’t agree with is an assertion. Sometimes life dishes out things that don’t taste so good, Grouchy. That doesn’t make them any less real.
I don’t know if he argued Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court. Why would that be significant? No he was not one of the Justices who decided the Roe v Wade case. He is a doctor, not a lawyer.
Grouchy asked: In cases of spontaneous miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy, who is "killing the innocent (person)"?
I don't know that there is an actual “who” involved. Sometimes the mother does not take proper precautions to ensure the fetus stays healthy. Soemtimes there are genetic abnormalities. Sometimes things naturally don’t pan out.
Grouchy wrote: You quote Dr. Nathanson as saying that abortion IS a "primary method of birth control; yet you later deny that this statement was made. How do you reconcile this?
My reply: Here is the direct quote from Dr. Nathanson and exactly how I wrote it in my first post: “In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500% since legalization.” Note that there is the word “a” in front of the word “primary.”
I am at work now and need to do my job. Hope you don’t mind. I may not get back to you for a while. In fact, if it’s alright with you starting this afternoon I will be away on vacation until next Wednesday. Don’t get irritated by those pins and needles you are sitting on.
Born humans have the chance to fight back or run away from danger or be saved by other humans. The unborn will not even be saved by their own mothers if they are not wanted,.
War is usually instigated for a perceived greater good. Abortion is for the greater good of very few no matter how it is perceived.
Posted by tew on May 17, 2007 09:52 AMDear shaupeen,
The last Reubplican Presidential victory showed a landslide of red states over blue, so unless there is a drastic change, which there won't be with Hillary or Mr Obama (too polarizing), we will have another Republican President, and thats what matters, not the wished for shrinking of the "moral majority," which has only occured in terms of financial contributions due to scandal, not on principle of those who believe that way.
If that happens, the next round or two of justice nominations will happen and viola!
But there will be no drastic change in the law anyway, since it is physically impossible to evict 12 million illegal aliens, it is also impossible to arrest doctors and patients. I forsee abortions being restricted to first trimester. As a moderate I can live with that, even if I think abortion is genocide and really a matter of responsibility.
As for responsibility, if you read what I wrote at the beginning of this discourse, I beleive procreation is a matter of responsibility for both women AND MEN.
Don't need a uterus, just sound logic, and adherence toi the golden rule.
Thanx!
Posted by David DiBello on May 17, 2007 10:04 AMDear shaupeen,
The last Reubplican Presidential victory showed a landslide of red states over blue, so unless there is a drastic change, which there won't be with Hillary or Mr Obama (too polarizing), we will have another Republican President, and thats what matters, not the wished for shrinking of the "moral majority," which has only occured in terms of financial contributions due to scandal, not on principle of those who believe that way.
If that happens, the next round or two of justice nominations will happen and viola!
But there will be no drastic change in the law anyway, since it is physically impossible to evict 12 million illegal aliens, it is also impossible to arrest doctors and patients. I forsee abortions being restricted to first trimester. As a moderate I can live with that, even if I think abortion is genocide and really a matter of responsibility.
As for responsibility, if you read what I wrote at the beginning of this discourse, I beleive procreation is a matter of responsibility for both women AND MEN.
Don't need a uterus, just sound logic, and adherence toi the golden rule.
Thanx!
Posted by David DiBello on May 17, 2007 10:04 AMBango Skank,
We can disagree on Descartes and still reach agreement on the question.
We observe that at 24 weeks the fetus responds to sound evidenceing neurological capacity.
Would you be opposed to the healthy mother aborting the healthy fetus following the 24th week?
What conservatives and Christians won`t admit is that nature, Evolution, or God, take your pick, disposes of over 50% of all human conceptions.
The proof is right there before our eyes, individual human life is only valuable to the person, not to God., or chance or whatever runs the Universe.
So when things naturally don`t pan out or a woman aborts, which is wrong and which is right?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 17, 2007 10:14 AMSharon B,
We are all mortal. Miscarriage cannot authorize induced abortion any more then death authorizes murder. Your position is irrational.
Posted by James Jones on May 17, 2007 10:27 AM"Would you be opposed to the healthy mother aborting the healthy fetus following the 24th week?"
Yes
Posted by Bango Skank on May 17, 2007 11:14 AMtew: "Born humans have the chance to fight back or run away from danger or be saved by other humans. The unborn will not even be saved by their own mothers if they are not wanted,.
War is usually instigated for a perceived greater good. Abortion is for the greater good of very few no matter how it is perceived.
Posted by tew on May 17, 2007 09:52 AM"
The average civilian in war-torn areas, such as Baghdad, have no real opportunity to fight back. And babies and children, along with the unborn, clearly have no chance to fight back. The fact that this clearly specious argument is used reveals the vulnerability of pro-lifers. They either present such specious arguments, or, as in the case of people like James Jones, the pretend the issue does not exist.
Jones and crowd are a little like the guy who searched for his keys under the street light where he did not lose it because it was easier to search there. Pro-lifers try to restrict the discussion to the unborn because it is easier to argue there.
But the way to determine if a purported position is absolutist is to test that position against various fact situations. That is why I test the absolutist views of James Jones against the killing of born humans. It fails miserably there.
The perceived "good" is that your life is more valuable than the innocents who are killed. Your life is precious, theirs are not.
Why are pro-lifers so reluctantly to admit that their stance is not a stance based on the principle that all life is precious?
I am in favor of self-defense but I don't need to pretend that it is something that it is not. The right of self-defense, insofar as it includes the right to kill innocent people in asserting that right, is a purely pragmatic, practical and selfish right. Pro-lifers surely recognize that but refuse to admit it. In order to condemn what they see as the selfishness of others, they have to avoid admitting to their own selfishness.
Unselfishness may exist in heaven, but it predominates here on earth. Even the tutoring I do is an act of selfishness since I do it because I enjoy doing it. Pro-lifers are in general no less selfish than the rest of us However, they choose to rail against what they see as the selfishness of a class they are not in rather than to admit to their own selfishness. It's certainly more comfortable, and egotistical, to approach selfishness in that fashion.
Sharon B.
I wonder where you got the figure of “over 50%”. Miscarriages are a completely separate issue. And there are a variety of reasons why there are miscarriages and still born babies. Some, not all of course, but some of which are the neglect of the mother. But you seem to feel that since, as you put it, “over 50%” are disposed of in this manner then it’s perfectly okay to purposely dispose of as many others as anyone feels they need to.
I guess if you’re trying for a zero population growth, that’s a great way to help it out.
Bango Skank
Thank you. That clarifies your position and our differences.
I'll leave it at that for now.
Posted by James Jones on May 17, 2007 01:37 PMTRUTH;
I agree with much of what you have written. I agree that we are all selfish in one way or another. It is our nature.
As one who believes that a fetus is a child, I also believe that unborn children are the only true innocents there are in this existence.
Killing of any kind , including capital punishment, is not something that appeals to me and certainly the killing of children and bystanders in war is a horrific tragedy. I don't believe that one life is better than another or that one deserves to live while another deserves to die. Ideally, everyone would get a chance to live a nice, long, peaceful life.
But we just keep screwing it up.
No pun intended..
Short form of the fundamental philosophy of anti-abortionism:
1. Women are nothing more than the human form of brood cattle.
2. More babies = more cannon fodder.
3. More babies = more cheap labor.
4. Keep them breeding.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 17, 2007 07:17 PMShort form of the fundamental philosophy of anti-abortionism:
1. Women are nothing more than the human form of brood cattle.
2. More babies = more cannon fodder.
3. More babies = more cheap labor.
4. Keep them breeding.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 17, 2007 07:17 PMShort form of the fundamental philosophy of anti-abortionism:
1. Women are nothing more than the human form of brood cattle.
2. More babies = more cannon fodder.
3. More babies = more cheap labor.
4. Keep them breeding.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 17, 2007 07:18 PMJJ, I asked which is wrong and which is right, without drawing any inferences.
Pat, neglect of mother, please back that up or you are left looking lilke a a woman-hater to me.
50% is a conservative number, JAMA article on infertility, read years ago. Have heard the same number and higher on NPR.
Zygots are fairly fragile and implantation very tricky. Mothers body treats egg like invader and disposes of it.
How can we decide abortion issue without Bible or religion? That is what I find interesting.
Without authority of some "super-natural" source, how as humans, do we decide what do do in this and other "morals" issues?
Answer the how please.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 18, 2007 04:54 AMSharon B,
Miscarriage is never wrong and abortion is wrong in some cases.
Posted by James Jones on May 18, 2007 07:47 AMMiscarriage is involuntary death of the fetus over which there is no control by the mother or anyone else.
Abortion, whether legal or not, is voluntary killing of the fetus.
Posted by TEW on May 18, 2007 08:29 AMPS.
Mr. Old Grouch, I hope you live a nice, long and peaceful life.
Posted by TEW on May 18, 2007 08:37 AMTEW, so is your objection one of the intent rather than the outcome?
Posted by Bango Skank on May 18, 2007 09:15 AMFirst, my apologies for the multiple posting. I went to the phone; and when I came back, the original still didn't show; so I did hit the mouse key again. Then, it stuck adding another impulse.
TEW,
Thank you. There is - or was, since I haven't checked to see if it has been pushed into the archives as yet - another posting on the subject where I attempt to clarify the abruptness of what was posted above.
I cannot - and do not - quarrel with personal beliefs concerning the matter. However, as I am rather certain is true of others also, there comes a time when the constant and repititous sermonizing, and critique of other's "morals" in the matter, reaches a saturation point with me. Especially when the "moral" position is taken for granted as being both the necessary premise from which the question is asked, as well as the position from which the answer is expected to come as well. There are enough pulpits around already for that. (Indeed, at the risk of offending even further, too damned many!)
Posted by Old Grouch on May 18, 2007 01:02 PM"TEW, so is your objection one of the intent rather than the outcome?"
I don't feel I can object to something that cannot be controlled. Whine and bawl, yes, but object? No.
The voluntary killing of a fetus/baby is definitely intentional and and yes, I object to that and I will whine and bawl about it too.
The outcome of both miscarriage and abortion is the same: a dead fetus/baby. Miscarriage is a sad occurrence, as is abortion, in my opinion. There is nothing uncontrollable or honorable about abortion and concerning it, I object to the intent as well as the outcome.
There are so many variables these days. I've heard of people who after having tried for months to get pregnant, finally got pregnant, and then after the third month it was found that the baby was not growing as expected. The Dr. gave her a heavy duty shot of hormones and told her that if the child didnt survive then it was not meant to be. It didn't survive.
I wondered if the loss of the baby would be considered a miscarriage or an abortion. Would it have survived if it had not been shot up with hormones? What if it was just a little person?
Having had three kids, I have come to believe that there are no convenient kids even if they are planned. Kids are not convenient. They are work, they hardly ever do what you tell them to, they are expensive to raise, and they demand to come first on your list of priorities. But there was no doubt in my mind that I would continue on with my pregnancies because my own laziness and lack of self-control canceled any "rights" I had.
Posted by TEW on May 18, 2007 02:27 PMTEW - I'm with you on this. To claim a miscarriage is no different than abortion simply because the outcome is the same is ridiculous.
That's like saying a heart attack and being shot in the heart aren't any different.
Posted by KW on May 18, 2007 03:53 PMYou see, I never said "no different". What I want you to see, if you believe in God, is that God doesn`t let every egg develope, perhaps God doesn`t value every egg the same.
So why should we? Are we trying to be better then God?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 18, 2007 07:24 PMSharon- Perhaps God has nothing to do with it. I don't believe in God and I am against abortion. It's not necessarily a religious issue.
Following your logic (or lack thereof).
God doesn't stop all car accident deaths- should we get rid of traffic laws?
God doesn't stop all child drownings- should we still watch our children while they are in the pool?
God doesn't stop all murders- why should we?
Are we trying to be better than God?
Mike,
Sharon B is not trying to be better than God. She's trying to be the same as God.
That's the problem and it is unnerving.
Posted by James Jones on May 19, 2007 07:51 AMJJ, take a nerve pill, you said some abortions are wrong, well who decides , you? and which would you allow?
Mike, all those things you listed do not equate with abortion, which is unique.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 19, 2007 09:44 AM"Mike, all those things you listed do not equate with abortion, which is unique."
As usual, you miss the point. Your logic said that since God doesn't let every egg develop, He doesn't value every egg so, why should we? You don't see a distinction between an egg not attaching and intentionally destroying the egg after fertilization. You don't see the distinction between a miscarriage and the destruction of an embryo or fetus. You try to equate them to rationalize abortion.
I was trying to show you the logical flaw in your argument.
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 10:02 AMHi Sharon,
Ever notice how Jonesy always accuses others of his own "faults"? My favorite is the one - which actually, in its left-handed way, is something of a compliment - in which he makes snide reference to the "Great Moral Thinkers" (GMT). At least, he indicates that we THINK.
Someplace along the line of one of these long, long, long sermons, he does - or at least someone using his posting name does - give us a two sentence answer to your question. Now, he doesn't assert any particular "divinity" for himself there; but he does manage to boil down all the sad whining about "no respect" - reminds me of the late Rodney Dangerfield - and pietistic foofaraw of his usual presentations, into a flat out statement.
However . . . !
Anyway, in the line dealing with his own letter on the subject, he's now off on a "general agreement" with his position shtick, from which . . . well, whatever. I did offer a bit of an exercise in logic - the more fool I - but that's just the result of not enough caffeine yet.
Ah! Well! Not much worth the time to answer showing up lately; so I guess we're stuck with the old familiar merry-go-rounds and mulberry bushes we've all been around, and around, and around, and . . . before.
Anyway, it's nice seeing you here. Have a good day.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 19, 2007 10:11 AMHey OG, going yard sailing.
Mike you skipped my question, why should we value all eggs is God doesn`t ? Does he deliberately destroy these eggs, or is it chance?
People who use God are thinking God of the Bible, not God of the Universe, who may operate diferently then OT and NT God.
Humans need to fingure this out on our own !
Once we stop using judgemental terms lilke right and wrong or murder etc, then we can have a rational diologe.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 19, 2007 10:42 AM"Mike you skipped my question, why should we value all eggs is God doesn`t ? Does he deliberately destroy these eggs, or is it chance?"
I already said that I don't believe in God, so I would say it's chance, biology, a defect, whatever.
Just because there is a percentage of pregnancies that don't make it to term (for whatever biological reason), doesn't make it okay for us to end the others.
Now, answer my question that logically follows your position:
Sometimes innocent children die due to disease, accidents, or murder and, God doesn't prevent it. Does that make it okay to kill children, since God doesn't value all children's lives?
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 11:40 AMMike that is the same non related question. All people have to die, so obviously God is ok with death and ok with death even before birth.
To answer you, no , is not alright to kill children because of Gods indiference or non-existance. Killing humans hurts the human community, and that is what I think should govern our actions as often as possible. But killing unborn humans is something we can prevent through birth control and education. Not laws directed at the woman.
I am just looking for guidlines that exclude religion and bias toward women. Guidlines that allow abortion, with limits, and gives some respect to the women involved.
If I had the answer, I would quit asking and just get rich selling advice.
Women have abortions with the ease of a coyote chewing its leg off to get out of a trap.
I love that quote. I t describes the few women I know who had abortions. You think you don`t like abortions? Actually, neither do we. So help us get more responsibility from men. Men love to chat on these abortion forums, but I hardly ever hear them lambast men who carelessly get women and girls pregnant.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 19, 2007 02:55 PM"Men love to chat on these abortion forums, but I hardly ever hear them lambast men who carelessly get women and girls pregnant."
Ultimately, it's women who decide if sex occurs. Don't say it is, "men who carelessly get women and girls pregnant." Excluding rape; it takes 2 responsible parties and women have the final say. Otherwise, it's rape. Yes, there are a lot of careless men out there, too. Perhaps they would be more cautious if it was they who got pregnant. That's not the way it is, though.
"But killing unborn humans is something we can prevent through birth control and education. Not laws directed at the woman."
Wrong. UNWANTED PREGNANCIES can be lessened (not prevented) through birth control and education. Killing unborn humans can be lessened by not having abortions.
Those laws aren't directed at the woman; they are directed at the action of aborting fetuses.
Posted by Mike on May 19, 2007 03:08 PMAh yes, the pregnant pre-teens decide on sex. The young teens descide the guy doesn`t wear a condum.
Lests make plan b, and all other birth control methods available, asap
Chat later Mike, don`t think we are that far apart. Both of us look pretty much like caring people.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 19, 2007 03:55 PMMike: "UNWANTED PREGNANCIES can be lessened (not prevented) through birth control and education."
Does that mean that if the man wears a condom the woman will get less pregnant?
Posted by Truth on May 19, 2007 04:34 PM