Goodman’s deceitful abortion stance
Given its content, the headline over Ellen Goodman’s April 28 column — “Only women know needs in motherhood” — is deceitful, because the right to choose to kill one’s child isn’t motherhood. It’s not for the good of the child. It’s bad for the fetus. It’s homicide — even if legal.
Motherhood means having and raising a child, not aborting her or him.
Goodman uses the term “so-called” when referring to partial-birth abortions. What more precise term does she have? If she could label it euphemistically, or in technicalspeak, does that make it less horrific, violent, bloody and miserable?
Another Goodman deceit is that pro-abortion folks care about women’s health, or more so than abortion opponents. Of 30 million humans slaughtered in the womb since 1973, a large percentage have been female. It’s treacherous waters to use “women’s health” as a way to justify convenience or preference killings.
Walter Smetana, Highlands Ranch
I pray for this nation. How can anyone think it is ok to murder a baby? PArtial birth abortion is horrible. The baby is fully formed and HAS A HEART BEAT, BUT IS NOT ALIVE?
Posted by on May 9, 2007 06:24 AMWalter,
She uses the term "so called" when referring to partial-birth abortions because it is NOT a medical term. Never was.
The term "partial birth" was cooked up by some guns-for-hre lobbyists working for the pro-life we-know-whats-best-for-everyone faction. They obviously felt that they had to resort to such deceitful methods of propaganda and false rhetoric in order to get their way.
I've said this before but I'll say it again...just for you Walter.
I question your sincerity or your intelligence. Maybe both.
You lament the "30 million children slaughtered in the womb since 1973".
Quick, Walter...since you seem to have so many statistics so close at hand...how many millions of living, breathing children have died in warfare since then? How many have died of starvation and malnutrition? How many of AIDS, cholera, malaria, dysentery?
How many have died of abuse or neglect?
How many, Walter?
I'll bet you don't have those numbers, do you?
How did the undeniable suffering of all those children escape your attention? You seem to care so much about children!
The truth is that their statistic and suffering don't matter to you because it doen't fit into your political agenda.
This isn't about caring for the lives of unborn children. It's about exercising control over the lives of the women who carry them.
The religious right uses the issue of abortion for political and financial gain. They have no real interest in seeing abortion be outlawed. That would take away one of the main avenues of recruitment and fundraising.
If they and you, Walter, really cared about the welfare of children you'd focus all the time, energy and finances you have spent on abortion to helping the children that are already here.
But apparently pro-lifers only really care about children when they're still in the womb. Once they're out of the womb, they're on their own and not your concern.
Hold off on lecturing about motherhood, Walter. Being a baby receptable does not make a woman a mother any more than being a pro-lifer makes you an altruist who cares about the safety and well being of children.
Posted by Thomas on May 9, 2007 06:39 AMYou Pro-Life folks prefer slavery. You want to use the government to compel a women to do something against her will. KInder and gentler slavery?
The government may only compel a person to do something against their will if that person has broken the law. A women who terminates her pregnancy breaks not law, moral or legal. She does not want to continue her pregnancy. She does not want to "rent" her uterus. She does not want to risk complications that are involved in pregnancy. What a woman does or doesn't do in her pregnancy is none of your business.
I am waiting for you Pro-Lifers to compel people to give blood. It is small act with less risk than carrying a baby, and it can save lives! Even better, how about opposing the killing of thousand of Iraqis (many Pro-lifers, Roman Catholics, already oppose the death penalty and our killing people in Iraq so join them and be consistent). Or how about saving millions of sick, starving and dying children in the world?
Really, Pro-lifers want to punish and enslave women. You have the rapist's attitude. You just don't respect women and the choices they make. My God, allow women say "NO"?
Posted by Dave on May 9, 2007 06:51 AMWow. Thirty million (30,000,000) "slaughtered" since 1973. Whoa baby that's a lot of murders.
Wonder how many have been "slaughtered" since 2001. Sorry we don't know because the Bush administration politicized the Center for Disease Control and they stopped publishing statistics regarding medically performed abortions after 2001. Wonder why? Could it be that our "Pro-Life" killer in the White House doesn't want his record compared to the 400,000 annual decline in medically performed abortions during the Clinton Administration. How horrible would it be to have actual statistics to show that "Safe, Legal and Rare" was more effective in reducing unwanted pregnancies than "Reward the Rich and Punish the Poor".
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
Posted by Wes on May 9, 2007 07:03 AMI notice that the defenders of abortion here so far are all male names. Could that be because the REAL beneficiaries of abortion on demand are males (notice I don't say "men") who want to weasel out of their responsibility for fathering a child?
Well, Walter, when you become pregnant, you can carry that fetus full term.
Posted by shaupeen on May 9, 2007 07:52 AMMark,
I have been through both an abortion and an adoption, both my CHOICE. I will tell you that knowing that I have a son in this world that I gave birth, well, it is very hard somedays. My abortion was due to extreme Medical reasons, but, if it was up to the Pro-Lifers, I would be dead now. There has to be a line. For women with serious risk of life must be afforded options for her life. For women and young women that are raped or incest that find themselves pregnant should not have to suffer through 9 more months of hell. They are going to have those horrific memories the rest of their lives, what , let's inflict more life time painful memories by making them carry a child for 9 months to put up for adoption only to satisfy the Pro-Lifers.
Posted by Pam on May 9, 2007 07:55 AMSuppose that a million women each had ten abortions then fell in love with with a wonderful man and had a heterosexual marriage in a evangelical church by an ordained minister and had two wonderful and wanted children. What's the math? Do you see ten million murders or do you see two million children? Of all the embryo's that a woman produces in a lifetime, does she get to decide which ones will result in a viable pregnancy?
Posted by Wes on May 9, 2007 08:15 AMTo Mark, Walter and other pro-lifers...
Please tell us what your true goal is?
To criminalize abortion?
Or eliminate the need for it?
Because if your goal is just to punish women for having them or doctors for performing them, you're really not doing anything to eliminate the demand for them.
If you want to eliminate the need for abortions, then treat the cause instead of symptom and address the issue of unplanned pregnancies.
Let's get honest here, there aren't alot of pro-lifers out there who are taking the lead in teaching kids to be more sexually responsible, covering everything from astinence to prophylactics.
And by the way, Walter...a few years ago, Gov Bushasskisser Owens used a very convoluted reasoning to deny funding from Planned Parenthood. All audits had determined that no public funds were being used for abortion services per a citizen passed initiative, but Owens decided to take it a step further and decided that by giving any funds to PP, even if they didn't use it for abortion, it helped them offset their costs in order to provide abortion services.
The result of this very unethical abuse of his power for political currency? It didn't eliminate the demand for abortions or the number being performed. But it did cause Planned Parenthood to lose funding for clinics in rural areas of Colorado where they provided health services like mammograms and pre-natal care to poor women and their families.
Again, pro-life isn't about morality or the sanctity of live. It's about politics and power.
If you really cared about life, your first concern would be taking care of the children who are already here. Their suffering is obvious and deserves more attention!
But I guess until someone turns their suffering into an "us vs them" struggle for control and power, it will go unchecked.
Posted by Thomas on May 9, 2007 08:15 AMI notice that the defenders of abortion here so far are all male names.
Posted by Mark on May 9, 2007 07:44 AM
So does this Pro-Birther really believe that men should not be involved in helping reduce unwanted pregnancies? It is strictly a female problem?
What a misogynist.
Posted by Wes on May 9, 2007 08:18 AMAs a father of 2 daughters, if either of them were in a life-threatening situation related to a pregnancy, and their doctor said it was a choice between their lives and the unborn child, it would be a tragic situation but an easy decision: I would do whatever it took to save the life of my child. If they wished to die so that the baby could live, I'd regretfully support her decision. However if she didn't want to die, I'd help her get this procedure, whether that meant breaking this particular law by finding a willing doctor, or going to another country.
I would make the same choice between my daughter's life over another living-breathing human be it a stranger, or even my myself. I have yet to meet a parent who would choose otherwise. I regard this instinct as a God-given, hard-wired family value and a cornerstone to the survival of our species.
I personally think this particular procedure is gruesome and should be rarely performed. However, by failing to make an exception for the health of the mother the government is elevating another life over the life of my child, and as a parent I regard it as morally repugnant on that basis alone.
Posted by on May 9, 2007 08:23 AMTo the father above,
This procedure IS rarely performed. Less than one-half of one percent of all abortions performed in the U.S. are so-called "partial birth" abortions.
But as soon as the pro-life movement realized they could coin a term for the procedure that would scare and horrify people into action, they leapt on it.
Most of these procedures, referred to by the medical profession as "dilation and extraction" not "partial birth abortion" are performed when the mother's life might be endangered by carrying the baby to term.
The pro-lifers have falsely painted this procedure as "late term birth control" for irreponsible women when in reality most of the women having them are facing a potential life and death crises.
The fact that the pro-life movement has resorted to this kind of deceipt and chicanery to forward this agenda speaks volumes about their lack of integrity and ethics as well as their insincerity about their concern for the welfare of children.
Posted by Thomas on May 9, 2007 09:05 AMThomas and Wes are right. To hell with the baby. If motherhood doesn't fit a womans ideology then just kill the darn thing. Even if it means crushing the skull and sucking the brains out. I mean, what's the big deal here?
Posted by on May 9, 2007 10:00 AMIt's not about the "culture of life" or anything else - it's all about power and control. Why do you think the same people who get all misty eyed about "the unborn" don't turn a hair when tens of thousands of real children get maimed and killed in Iraq.
It's about having control over women and society & one of the best ways to do this is to control reproductive rights.
Notice that these are the same people who are always talking about "less government" but they are the ones that are always attacking gays, sticking their noses into peoples bedrooms & personal lives (remember Terry Schiavo?) & inserting themselves & their crackpot religious mythology into womens reproductive systems.
These are patriarchal misogynists who need to get out of people's personal lives & take their ridiculous biblical nonsense with them .
Posted by Drew on May 9, 2007 10:00 AMMy impression, which may be wrong, is that all of the posters are on one extreme or the other, all or none. They represent a rather low percentage of the American people, the big majority of whom favor abortions with various limitations. That doesn't mean that the extremists shouldn't voice their opinions, but it does mean that the more moderate views of the great majority of Americans do not get aired and are not represented by them.
It is much easier to argue an extreme than a position in between. You can speak in absolutes rather then have to speak in more moderate terms. It's easier to say "they are wrong" than "some of them are wrong" because the latter opens you to discussion whereas the former closes the door to discussion.
I don't know that it would serve any purpose to state my own moderate views. For one thing, they are not cast in concrete as extreme views usually are. I admit to being conflicted about what the right thing to do it, something that extreme views avoid. In all of the endless posts that have appeared on the various abortion threads on the forum, I think you could count those espousing a moderate view on one hand, and have fingers left over. That, of course, is typical for forum discussion of most topics, which detracts immensely from the value of them. They aren't really discussion forums but are more diatribe or soapbox forums.
There, now I'll get off my soapbox, but I would like sometime to see a discussion forum in which all extreme views are aborted.
Posted by Truth on May 9, 2007 10:29 AMTruth
OK - I and the other guilty parties are duly chastised - so instead of reprimanding us why don't you just express an opinion on the topic? Since "moderate" views are apparently the most legitimate ones?
Posted by Drew on May 9, 2007 10:35 AMWhy is there no pain management for the fetus? It's sick not to require it. Why do pro-choicers resist anestesizing the fetus before ripping its limbs off and crushing its skull?
Posted by Bob on May 9, 2007 10:44 AMYears ago a friend of mine was pregnant and eagerly awaiting the birth of a daughter, she and her husband already had two sons. My friend was diagnosed with fast moving skin cancer, but, no cancer treatment for a pregnant lady, not in Florida where she was living.
In another post a man, bless him, refered to women having an abortion to start cancer treatment. Well that wasn`t allowed for her either.
She miscarried, late in the pregnancy, which i would not wish on any woman, and died later after two operations for brain cancer.
She never wanted an abortion until she thought it might give her time for treatment. No where in this did she have any "choice"
Power and control is the issue, all you men, you wonderful thinking men have the right idea.
Once, in an abortion forum a man asked me what I would say to a 28 year old married women who won a trip to the Caymens and wanted an abortion to look good in a bikini. That opinion of women, unexpressed but clear as water, disgusted me. Another man refered to a 6 months pregnant lady who "changed her mind". These men just hate women who have more to say on abortion then they do.
Partial birth abortions should be called partial delivery abortions since the birthing process has not started. The womans body is not in the birthing a full term baby mode.
Men like Walter need to talk to some real women who have had abortions, not for life saving reasons, but for lilfe enhansing reasons, like getting away from an abusive husband.
I really thought we had beaten this subject to pieces but I can still get riled up about it.
Regarding sucking out the brains and pain managment: sometimes no brain in the skull, just tissue, no brain, no pain. Sometimes the brain is outside the skull. If using pain killers really was important to the fetus, then these women who have carried their wanted child for months would ask for it. Maybe they do, maybe the Doctors tell them it isn`t necessary.
Boys, why don`t you research this and get back to us. Enlighten instead of annoying us.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 11:11 AMA conception is a parasite; it is not human, sayth the Book of the Demon (Bible) until it breathes on its own. How many billions of conceptions has the Demon taken through its tool of spontaneous abortion? Both Jehovah and Allah claim to put a conception in the mother's womb along with a soul but don't explain who adds souls if the egg splits 2 to 6 times. Rent or buy a womb and then you can determine what stays and what goes.
Posted by Richard Grimes (Risen Ape) r22037@yahoo.com on May 9, 2007 11:13 AMObviously this is a polarizing issue, but let's get something straight...
Nobody is PRO-abortion.
I think abortion is a sad and desperate choice.
I am disgusted by people who use abortion as a last resort form of birth control. They're irresponsible, senseless and just plain stupid. If you know how babies are created and you're having unprotected sex, you should have the integrity to deal with the consequences.
With that said, I will not be a moral nazi and try to enforce my beliefs on others through creation of divisive laws.
I can exercise my free speech rights and tell someone what I think of their actions but I would never pervert the laws of our country to turn someone into a criminal just because they don't agree with me or share my values.
Drew, Richard, Sharon, Thomas and Wes are right. To hell with the baby. If motherhood doesn't fit a womans ideology then just kill the darn thing. Even if it means crushing the skull and sucking the brains out. I mean, what's the big deal here?
Posted by on May 9, 2007 11:58 AMThe big deal here is your use of "womans ideology".
That tells me : You probably resent women who will not have sex with you, especially if they get pregnant by someone else and you have NO SAY, personally in her decision.
Pregnancy by another man should be punishable by 9 months where you can say nananan, you can`t get rid of it.
Also your opinion of womans ideology on motherhood, leaving out fatherhood, puts you in the group of men who want to pretend women get pregnant on a whim, without men, and then are unfit for the decisions regarding health, lilfe and economic realilty that many women face.
Many late term aborted babies DO NOT HAVE A BRAIN. Can you finally read this or are your eyes clouded by the fine red mist of anger at all those women who turned you down?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 12:15 PMThe folks who give legal status as a murder victim to an unborn child killed by a drunk driver or spousal batterer also deny the same legal status if the killer happens to be the child's mother.
Just saying....
Posted by prima facie on May 9, 2007 12:35 PMHow has the abortion rate done under your chimp master, Wally?
Posted by B. Drunk on May 9, 2007 12:52 PM"The folks who give legal status as a murder victim to an unborn child killed by a drunk driver or spousal batterer also deny the same legal status if the killer happens to be the child's mother."
True. Because it's not the same thing at all.
If a child needs to use your body or body parts to live, and you say no, you are exercising your legal prerogative to control the use of your own body, and are not a murderer.
If, however, you agree to donate said body parts, and someone else meanwhile shoots the child, they ARE a murderer.
See the distinction?
And men who think women have abortions just because motherhood doesn't "fit their ideology", whatever that means, don't have a very high opinion of women. And you'd better be current on your blood donations - if ten minutes' time every eight weeks and a pinprick to save a life doesn't "fit your ideology", then you have no business looking down on a woman who doesn't want to go through nine full months of having her entire body occupied and used, with possible permanent, severe negative effects on her life and health - maybe even death. The two aren't even comparable in terms of difficulty or hardship - yet you take for granted your right to refuse the easy task, and sneer about the immorality of the woman who doesn't want to be forced to take on the difficult task if, in her judgement, she can't handle it then.
Posted by Katja on May 9, 2007 12:54 PM"A conception is a parasite; it is not human"
Not in the Bible. Grimes your a liar
Posted by Jake on May 9, 2007 01:24 PMGod aborts over 50% of all conceptions. Is that in the Bible?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 02:02 PMAhh,more posts,and a few from women.'Bout time.Us guys flaming each other doesn't clarify things a lot.....
I do think killing an unborn is a dreadful sin and anyone who can contemplate such an act better hope the atheists are right,BUT sin and crime are very different things,and as a nation we are sensible enough not to get government into the punishment-of-sin business,at least on this one issue.I'm good with a woman's right to say "Hands off my body".What I'm NOT good with on this issue is that while no woman can be forced into motherhood,any man can be forced into fatherhood,via the paternity statutes.This egregious defect in reproductive law has led to a lot of government mischief in the area of subsidized bastardy,largely among and to the extreme detriment of the African-American community,whose bastardy rate according to the Rocky is around 70%.Now,to anyone NOT offended by the foregoing statements,I do most sincerely apologize.To those that are offended I say"Ladies and gentlemen,start your flamethrowers".I'll be back later.
Sharon, you usually use your reason on these posts, except when it comes to abortion. I just can't see how you can argue that requiring pain management for a fetus impinges on a woman's right to control her body so much that it outweighs common decency.
Posted by Bob on May 9, 2007 02:22 PM"What I'm NOT good with on this issue is that while no woman can be forced into motherhood,any man can be forced into fatherhood,via the paternity statutes"
So true Jimminy. Once you've done the deed only the woman has any say with regards to your life and the life of the child. And the courts back her up.
Posted by KW on May 9, 2007 02:31 PMWhy do pro-choicers resist anestesizing the fetus before ripping its limbs off and crushing its skull?
Posted by Bob on May 9, 2007 10:44 AM
Because 91% of all elective medically performed in the first twelve weeks of a pregnancy when there is neither brain wave activity, a heart beat or limbs to rip off.
If a woman has ten abortions and then two wanted babies is she a mass murderer or a caring mom who waited for the right time to start her family? If a woman has ten miscarriages and the two wanted babies is she a mass murderer or a caring mom who waited for the right circumstances to have a family?
Posted by Wes on May 9, 2007 02:32 PMStill waiting for some statistics from the Pro-Birthers on how many medical abortions have occurred since that Pro-Birth killer George Bush has been in the White House. How come all these murders haven't been documented by this Unborn obsessed government. Can it be that just like the Justice Department, the government agency responsible for compiling these statistics has been corrupted by ideologues who don't want people to to know the facts. Ever wonder why they would want to suppress abortion statistics that would affect how their base voted? You can bet if it was positive to their positions they would be broadcasting through their spin machine. The fact that national abortions statistics are being suppressed during the Bush years is a clear indication that their abstinence only education and cutting funding to Planned Parenthood might not be the panacea that they claim it to be. There can be absolutely no comparisons to the decline achieved in medical abortions when "Safe, Legal and Rare" were practiced.
Here is the best statistics the Pro-Birthers can do. Notice nothing after 2001.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/aboramt.html
The answer to this problem is simple: prayer. Of course, those who don't believe in the power of prayer feel obliged to call on vain and pandering politicians and judges to do God's work for Him. I feel sorry for those people. Forget about electing this one or that one to solve what is God's issue - abortion is first and foremost a sin and God can handle sinners. Just say "YES!" to prayer.
Posted by Liam on May 9, 2007 02:54 PMWes, are you saying then that there have been 4 million or so abortions when there are limbs and brain activity where anesthesia was not used? That's even sicker than I thought.
And in response to your questions, I'd say the latter.
Posted by Bob on May 9, 2007 03:04 PMBob, the either pain meds or womans rights zero sum game you made up is all yours sweetie. I never said, what you said I said.
Ask a mother who had to have a late term abortion, There have been any number of first person accounts in the papers in the last month. Ask a Doctor, I don`t know the answer.
Maybe we have both and we just don`t know.
Men can rarely be forced to be fathers. that is why we have condoms. No condom for personal gratification, no say later.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 03:06 PMSharon, I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you ok?
Posted by Bob on May 9, 2007 03:16 PMWes,"Because 91% of all elective medically performed in the first twelve weeks of a pregnancy when there is neither brain wave activity, a heart beat or limbs to rip off.
We can alwasy count on Wes to make things up as he goes along. Here's the facts of a baby's development in just the first 8 weeks:
Month 1Tiny limb buds, which will grow into arms and legs, appear.
The embryo looks like a tadpole.
The heart and lungs begin to form. By the 25th day, the heart starts to beat.
The neural tube, which becomes the brain and spinal cord, begins to form.
At the end of the first month, the embryo is about 1/2 inch long and weighs less than 1 ounce.Month 2
All major body organs and systems are formed but not completely developed.
The early stages of the placenta, which exchanges nutrients from your body for waste products produced by the baby, are visible and working.
The ears, ankles, and wrists form. The eyelids form and grow but are sealed shut.
Fingers and toes develop.
By the end of the second month, the fetus looks more like a person than like a tadpole, is about 1 inch long and still weighs less than 1 ounce.
It's hard to believe people like Wes, Old Grouch, Bango, etc... were arguing just the other day that an aborted baby is the equivilant of removing a wart.
Posted by KW on May 9, 2007 03:16 PMBob read your 2:22 post. You set up a direct confrentation between pain meds for fetus and womans right.
I don`t make this stuff up.
Esta Bien, et tu?
Posted by Sharon B. on May 9, 2007 03:32 PMJake: Calm down: Chill out: The demon speaks as follows:
Abortion was sanctioned in the Church until the soul became animated, a line set at 40 days after conception for the male fetus, 80 or 90 days for the female with those holy dudes determining sex before birth. The animation theory was abolished in 1869 by Pope Pius IX making abortion at any point murder and sin. Popes just like Mormon Prophets supersede each other as time marches.
No life for life here as no life was lost in Deut 12:23: If the woman dies as a result of miscarriage, the man at fault must die because he committed a murder; thou shalt give life for life. If a miscarriage occurs and the woman is unharmed, the man merely pays a fine; no life for like here, as no life was lost. Deut 12:23
The blood is life. For the life of the flesh is in the blood: Lev. 17:11. The fertilized egg cells have no blood and it is only when the umbilical cord is cut after childbirth that the fetus lives as more than a part of its mother: Ex. 37:6 Thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust,” signaling that it is the breath, not anything else that makes the difference between life and death. “To die one must first breathe,” after childbirth. Psa. 104
Jake: Aren't you sorry you posted your ignorance for all to see, Try "you're" as opposed to "your" in your posting.
Funny thing happened on the way to this forum. Back a few lines of letters ago, KW indicated: "Everything that grows is living."
In the process of attempting to get some logical progression, there were a number of things growing - including warts and fetus- that were listed as possibly occurring in the womb.
Using KW's own over generalization, it was logically demonstrated that.
Everything that grows is living.
A fetus grows.
A wart grows.
Therefore both fetus and warts are living.
Then an attempt was made to acquire a distinction concerning what KW was insisting was the "moral" position of ending the growth - "life" in context of the major premise - of both the particulars. The only reply was a religious one - or a superstitious one, take your choice - that, "Human life begins at conception."
Which, of course, does nothing more than beg the question, since the original syllogism established that, "Growth equals life."
In the context of the aforementioned basic premise - and only in that context - is there any conclusion extablished.
As with all anti-abortionists, KW declines logic, in favor of inuendo, when called upon to preent substantiation for his positions. But one can hardly expect logic to develop from superstitious/religious assertions anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 9, 2007 06:42 PMWalter, When you grow a uterus, you may participate in this WOMENS issue, till then, shut the hell up.
Posted by dmz on May 9, 2007 07:12 PMWes said: "So does this Pro-Birther really believe that men should not be involved in helping reduce unwanted pregnancies? It is strictly a female problem?"
Yes, Wes. I'm a firm believer in men's involvement in reducing unwanted pregnancies. It's called keeping your pants zipped if you can't be responsible enough to use contraception. If contraception fails for some reason, be enough of a man to accept responsibility for bringing a life into the world.
The nonsensical posts below make me wonder about the extent to which Jimminy and KW are misogynists.
Jimminy has this strange idea that it is the paternity statutes that makes a man a father rather than it being the result of sexual intercourse.
Jimminy: "What I'm NOT good with on this issue is that while no woman can be forced into motherhood,any man can be forced into fatherhood,via the paternity statutes"
It sounds like KW is privy to an unfortunate experience in which a man was forced to own up to his responsibilities as a father. Boy, is he bitter!
"So true Jimminy. Once you've done the deed only the woman has any say with regards to your life and the life of the child. And the courts back her up.
Posted by KW on May 9, 2007 02:31 PM"
I have to wonder how many fingers and toes KW counted as he sat on the couch and cheered on the "Shock and Awe" on Fox News.
We all know that KW loves justified killing. He couldn't have been be happier knowing that all those bombs being dropped were turning living breathing people into a bloody mist. Don't tell me how sacred life is to you you fraud when you believe in justified killing of people who never did us any harm. Every Pro-Birther who supports the killer in the White House is proof of the partisan nature of this debate.
Posted by Wes on May 10, 2007 05:16 AMJiminy - you can be required to support your child with money (as a mother can) - but not with your body or body parts. The two are not equivalent. The parallel situation would be a law allowing your child or her mother to require you to donate an organ, some bone marrow, or a pint of blood because your child needed it to survive. Obviously, a law like that would never survive.
Posted by Katja on May 10, 2007 07:09 AMWes - Thanks. It's nice to see you completely ingore my post that threw your abortion statistics in the toilet. Do you think people here are stupid enough to just accept your posts on face value.
Your opinion here is worthless when you make up stats to fit your mindset. With a little effort (and actual research) you might be able to salvage your reputation but I'd guess you'll just change your handle to avoid further embarrassment.
OG - You and Bango seem stuck on this wart thing that Bango originally brought up. You show me a wart with fingers, toes and a heartbeat at 25 days old and I'll concede this pointless argument. But until then quit obsessing on warts. Get it lanced already.
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 09:29 AMKW, seems you don't get the hint.
The wart thing was what your argument leads to. Other people were just pointing that out to you.
You said that "everthing that grows is alive" with no qualifications or reservations.
Get a clue man!
Correct Bango. I did say everything that grows is alive. YOU then took the argument to the ridiculous level by comparing killing a living child in the womb to being nothing more than removing a wart.
Why are you in such denial about this??? I can understand your embarrassment for making the comparison since it shows you have zero respect for a child in the womb but come on, those were your own words.
Tell me something, does this look the same as an 8 week old wart to you?
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 10:58 AMKatja, I found a book called " The Fourth Procedure" that I think you would get a real kick out of. Remember the movie "Twins"? this book is all about revenge .
The idea that a man can be forced to be a father is infantile. Forced to make child support payments, but not forced to be a biological father.
That is the result of the "choice" that men make not to "shower wearing a raincoat"
Someone should print out these posts and mail them to good old Walter. Get his heart rate up for the day..
KW
You owe me an apology bud.
The last time we traded comments you claimed that you weren't a war loving hypocrite who wanted a nanny government to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies. Now I find out that yes indeed you don't have a problem with people having their limbs torn off and suffer unimagniable pain for your glorious war but you believe you are a defender of the sanctity of life. I had you pegged the first time spot on. Killing is cool with you but letting people whom you will never know make their own health care decisions you can't stand. What a hypocrite.
As far as statistics go you haven't provided any so what's your point. Show me the published statistics of total medical abortions performed during the years 2002-2006. There aren't any because of the political corruption in the CDC which is afraid to show that abstinence only education and bribes to faith based organizations doesn't decrease abortions. It is a failed policy and the only thing they have left is to keep pounding away that a nanny government will solve the problem. The post baby boom period combined with widespread use of contraception should have continued the decline trend into the Bush years but we don't know because national abortion statistics are being suppressed. If I'm wrong produce a government website that shows the numbers. Bet you can't.
Posted by Wes on May 10, 2007 12:18 PMKW said “YOU then took the argument to the ridiculous level by comparing killing a living child in the womb to being nothing more than removing a wart.”
Obviously I was unclear in explaining what an ex concessus argument is.
It works like this, I take your premises and assumptions and any logic you have asserted, and then I step through your argument to see what interesting things it leads to.
I also applied the principle of putting your argument in its best possible form.
So taking your bald statement that “everything that grows is alive” and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you meant “everything [found naturally in a woman’s womb] that grows, is alive”. (otherwise stalagmites, sand dunes, and so on would have to be considered).
However, this still leads directly to warts, fungus, tumors, etc. being alive and protected.
Obviously this is absurd, and I said so.
Therefore to help you once again, we need to tweak your argument to exclude such things by specifying that only fertilized human eggs count.
Having done all this ex concessus work to help your exceedingly sloppy and shoddy thinking, we arrive at the conclusion you wanted that says that since the embryo is alive from conception (since it grew and was a fertilized human egg), it would be immoral to kill it anytime after conception.
That is your argument in its cleaned up and best possible form.
Only problem is that it then directly leads to an inexplicable contradiction.
If all fertilized and growing human eggs in the womb must be protected, then why do you seem so unperturbed by the fact that a very high proportion of such eggs fail to implant securely enough to avoid being washed out and going down the toilet?
This is surprising since it means that you are unconcerned that millions of living beings are dying horrible deaths in the sewer every year.
I asked you to explain this paradox in your thinking, but you instead ignored the question and decided to accuse me of saying that infants were warts.
So in summary, I used an argumentative method that explores your argument from within, and your argument had obvious flaws which I tidied up for you to give you the best possible form of your argument, but it still leads to a contradiction, which you need to explain.
Clear now?
Wes, Bango, Sorry to have made the exposure of your lame arguments so painful. You have my apologies.
Posted by KW on May 10, 2007 12:36 PMi have looked all over for abortion stats and can`t find them. That makes me wonder if some very early abortions can be called other "procedures"? Such as menstrel (sp)evacuation. Also I read that certain pills will cause an abortion if two are put in the womb on two consecutive days.
This may not add up to much, but there might be others.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 10, 2007 12:43 PMer...
Ok, this is getting scary.
As I said copious times already KW, it is YOUR lame argument.
Do you really not get this, or are you just too fragile to admit that you dropped a clanger and got caught?
KW you old war loving pro-death fraud you should have taken me up on my bet.
Here is the place to look Sharon and I found stats through 2003
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/index.htm
I did a Google search for Center for Disease Control and then in their search box used the search term abortion statistics.
As I thought total abortions have declined to about 850,000.
Results: A total of 848,163 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2003 from 49 reporting areas, representing a 0.7% decline from the 854,122 legal induced abortions reported by 49 reporting areas for 2002. The abortion ratio, defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 241 in 2003, a decrease from the 246 in 2002. The abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2003, the same as for 2002.
My conspiracy theory was wrong so KW can call me on that but his BS about how every fetus was fully sentient and was ready to learn Chess right before it was aborted is just as bogus.
"The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were unmarried (82%), white (55%), and under 25 years (51%). Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 60% were performed at less than 8 weeks' gestation and 88% at less than 13 weeks. From 1992 (when detailed data regarding early abortions were first collected) through 2002, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at less than 6 weeks' gestation. A limited number of abortions was obtained at greater than 15 weeks' gestation, including 4.1% at 16--20 weeks and 1.4% at >21 weeks."
See that last statistic. Less than 1.5% of all abortions were performed after 21 weeks while the percentage performed before six weeks has increased.
There is a ton of statistics at the CDC website Sharon. Well worth perusing.
Posted by Wes on May 10, 2007 05:32 PM