[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST LETTERS

100 percent unsafe

Friday, October 26 at 12:01 AM

The story "Abortion rates same despite legal status" (Oct. 12) states that 48
percent of all abortions worldwide are unsafe; abortion accounts for 13 percent
of overall "maternal mortality." (Maternal? Doesn't that imply that there is a
child? Sometimes the truth accidentally slips out.)
The article forgot to mention that 100 percent of abortions are unsafe for the
child.

John Schola, Lone Tree

READER COMMENTS

What you're forgetting, John, is that a lot of people don't regard an unborn embryo/fetus/baby as a person with the rights guaranteed by our Constitution, and instead regard it as a mass of biological matter that should be used for the good "of the people/person".

Posted by Taking someone's life/rights/free will reeks a lot like socialist policy on October 26, 2007 12:20 AM

TSLR etc.

if we grant rights to those frozen zygotes in some labs freezer, will that make you happy?

Your are mixing abortion and stem cell research into such a mess. Pick one or the other, please.

And tell us how to dispose of excess frozen ones. Funeral, memorial service, what?

Posted by Sharon B. on October 26, 2007 03:26 AM

Sharon B. said, "And tell us how to dispose of excess frozen ones. Funeral, memorial service, what?"

How about a cure for cancer or alzheimers?

Posted by Tom on October 26, 2007 05:59 AM

this is why schip needs expanding so that the child will have insurance to pay for its own abortion. anything past that and the progressive liberals still consider it a blob.

Posted by on October 26, 2007 07:00 AM

...a lot of people don't regard an unborn embryo/fetus/baby as a person with the rights guaranteed by our Constitution...

According to many who post here, the "unborn embryo/fetus/baby...persons" in the wombs of women arriving across are southern border are "illegal" and thus not entitled to Constitutional protection. For these illegal immigrant moms, presumablly abortion would be okay (if privately funded), or at least not Constitutionally barred based upon the rights of the unborn.

Posted by on October 26, 2007 07:02 AM

Those damn women! How dare they mhave control of their own bodies.

Posted by rick on October 26, 2007 08:19 AM

inconvenient truths (like the recent reports on the inevitability of abortion) always bring out the thumpers.

I've always wondered how one can justify throwing something in the garbage vs. recycling for the good of mankind. Great point Sharon.

Posted by jay on October 26, 2007 08:41 AM

Love the fetus, hate the baby

Posted by GOP mantra on October 26, 2007 08:43 AM

If a person isn't "born" or naturalize in the US, he or she, or it, is not a citizen.

Why is it that the Republicans want to give these non-citizens constitutional rights?!? Next thing you know, the Republicans will be handing out welfare benefits to these fetuses.

Posted by StrictConstructionist on October 26, 2007 09:04 AM

"if we grant rights to those frozen zygotes in some labs freezer, will that make you happy?"

Perhaps you should do a little more research on the terms you use, and not try to use jargon which you don't understand to sound smarter than you are. You don't seem to know what a zygote is. The idea of giving rights to sperm or eggs is absolutely ridiculous, I don't really see how you get to that from anything in my post. So do you think that they unfreeze some sperm or an unfertilized egg and implant it into some woman and it spontaneously develops the ability to grow into a person? If so, it would seem that you need a developmental biology primer. There is a big difference between embryos and zygotes, one will typically develop into a human given proper conditions, the other never will in the case of sperm, and only in very rare, artificially induced cases, can mammal(read: human) eggs undergo parthenogenesis and develop without fertilization, the first known artificial induction of human parthenogenesis occurred only a couple years ago in South Korea.

"Your are mixing abortion and stem cell research into such a mess. Pick one or the other, please."

What, is your mind too simple to think about both at once? I think that both are intimately linked through the concept of "when does life begin?", a very controversial, and SUBJECTIVE, issue. There is no scientific consensus about the beginning of life, and as I've stated on other posts, I prefer the "innocent until proven guilty" position, or to put it into words you might be better able to understand, "human until proven otherwise". IMO, far too much of the ES cell research proponent's argument is based Josef Mengele-type reasoning, "Let me butcher you for the good of everybody else, when I pour bleach in your eyes, you are helping to cure a disease, being non-Aryan." Our definitions of what is/is not a disease change all the time, which ones justify potentially killing someone to save others? Do you think that people in vegetative states should be sacrificed so that their organs can be used to save people dying of a multitude of diseases that just need replacement parts to be corrected?

"And tell us how to dispose of excess frozen ones. Funeral, memorial service, what?"

Many of these embryos could still be implanted in other women and given a shot at life, but being the greedy Americans that we are, raising someone else's kid is unacceptable, we need our own genetically distinct embryo even if it means taking 10-20 human lives to get it. I would prefer to see the development of more effective IVF techniques that don't require generating more than one embryo for artificial reproduction, but technology develops at its own pace.

"Those damn women! How dare they mhave control of their own bodies."

Those damn government types! How dare they prevent a woman taking her umbilically attached newborn and caving its skull in with a rock?

The principle of individual liberty on which much of our culture is founded depends heavily on the idea that one individuals rights stop where another's begin, yet thousands of people's right to attempt to live is taken from them everyday as the result of subjective standards set by someone else. That is the monstrous arrogance of the collectivist mind in action, "we can rob/rape/kill you because the group comes before the individual, and if the group decides that you need to die for the benefit of the collective, tough shit." I guess not too many of you bother to research the nations which have adopted the principles you advocate, I, for one, don't want to see a Great Purge in the US.

Posted by Taking someone's life/rights/free will reeks a lot like socialist policy on October 26, 2007 10:01 AM

"if we grant rights to those frozen zygotes in some labs freezer, will that make you happy?"

"Your are mixing abortion and stem cell research into such a mess. Pick one or the other, please."

"And tell us how to dispose of excess frozen ones. Funeral, memorial service, what?"

"Those damn women! How dare they mhave control of their own bodies."

Those damn government types! How dare they prevent a woman taking her umbilically attached newborn and caving its skull in with a rock?

Posted by Taking someone's life/rights/free will reeks a lot like socialist policy on October 26, 2007 10:02 AM

Zygote:

Derived from the Greek meaning ‘yoked’, a zygote is the cell that results from fertilization.

Taking...do you agree with that definition?

Posted by jay on October 26, 2007 10:06 AM

My mistake, you are correct jay, for some reason I still mix up zygote and gamete in my head, which is pretty sad at this point in my life. Pretty foolish of me, my apologies Chas.

Posted by Taking someone's life/rights/free will reeks a lot like socialist policy on October 26, 2007 10:15 AM

If you have to stop it, it has already started. (i.e. life)

Posted by GH23 on October 26, 2007 11:35 AM

Here's my fear: Removing a woman's right to choice wouldn't be the last step. How long before pro-life zealots start wanting regulations on what a woman eats, drinks, and does for the nine months she carries?

Would they want to prosecute her for drinking wine while pregnant? For going mountain biking? ANY activity that might potentially be harmful to the fetus? Would these people prefer to lock women up in breeding facilities for nine months, to insure that the fetus is getting the utmost care?

I know-- it sounds like an extreme scenario. But a lot of these zealots are pretty extreme.

Posted by Dan on October 26, 2007 12:09 PM

Dan,
You worry about policies that the Democratic party loves to implement already.
No Trans fat -
Eliminating sugary and fatty foods from school vending machines
Heavy taxes & the eventual abolishment of smoking
Seat belt laws,
Etc.

You are right The anti-abortion crowd is extreme. They bomb the clinics where these procedures are enabled, thus taking them down to the same level as the provider of the service.

However those who want to eliminate an unborn fetus/baby - even though they have no idea when life truly begins, are pretty extreme as well.
And the partial birth abortion crowd - How is it ok to do a partial delivery of the baby, with the legs hanging out and kicking - the "Doctor" punctures the childs skull and sucks the brains out? Isn't that pretty extreme? Murder maybe? especially when the child is viable? Not in the pro-abortion crowd it isn't.
I think the women having this kind or for that matter any abortion procedure should have to watch what actually happens to the fetus/baby so they have an understanding that a beating heart and life have been stopped.

I don't believe it is a "right" to end a pregnancy due to inconvenience or an "accident".
Having consensual sex is not an "accident " Not using birth control is not an "accident"
There are solutions for women who have been raped (emergency contraception, EC which I believe is a better alternative than abortion)
Otherwise, in the case of rape it is not the childs fault that the rapist did what he did, just as it is not the womans fault this occured to her - does it make it right for her to be able to end the life of the innocent child? I suppose to you pro-abortion people it does. I don't believe this to be the case.

I (and I emphasize "I"), believe that most women having abortions are doing so as way of birth control due to a having unprotected sex. There is EC for those irresponsible women.
If a condom brakes there is (EC).
How is getting pregnant "accidentally" a reason to end a life? (or potential life for you lefties out there)

Posted by on October 26, 2007 02:06 PM

The anti-choice crowd has a tough road ahead of them....considering that the vast majority of Americans want abortions safe, legal and rare....coupled with the fact that outlawing abortion has been proven not to decrease the number of abortions performed.

Posted by jay on October 26, 2007 02:26 PM

"The anti-choice crowd "

This is lovely. When you say something like this, whose choice are you referring to? Are you implying that aborted kids would have chosen to suicide if offered that choice? Doesn't seem like that is evidenced given the relatively low number of suicidal people in the population, but maybe you are one of those types that mistakes their feelings and ideas as being shared by everyone. You pro-abortion types love those inflammatory labels, don't you?

Posted by on October 26, 2007 03:02 PM

"If you have to stop it, it has already started. (i.e. life)"

One of the best single sentence arguments I've ever heard/read on this subject. Bravo

Posted by on October 26, 2007 03:04 PM

Taking, how about a big fat huggy apology to me, the one you went after?

The vast majority of fertilized eggs in labs will be destroyed. They can`t keep them forever.

What human rights should we give them? If they are implanted in a womb, should we give them greater or lesser rights.

Can you answer these questions this time in a more calm, rational manner? Without worry over my simple mind?

Posted by Sharon B. on October 26, 2007 03:50 PM

"aborted kids"

save me jebus.

No one is aborting kids, babies, etc.

you wonder why no one takes you folks seriously

Posted by jay on October 26, 2007 03:51 PM

JJ,
I have yet to meet a single pro-choice person who is FOR abortion. Nobody likes it, nobody enjoys the thought of it, and in an ideal world, there would be no need for it. And certainly no woman is thrilled at the idea of undergoing one. The pro-life movement needs to get ove the rhetoric that this is what some women like to do for fun, like shoe shopping or getting their nails done.

And your answer did not address what I proposed. What is to stop the pro-life crowd from demanding that the life of the fetus supercede the life of the mother? Yes, I agree the mother should be responsible if she chooses to engage in sexual intercourse, but we live in a country that is not supposed to enact government oversight over individual responsibility. That would be a very "Democrat" thing to do. (And as far as your assertion that Democrats are the only party with nanny tendencies, you are travelling through life with blinders on).

What is to stop the pro-life crowd from enacting "fetal abuse" legislation, that prohibits what a woman can eat, drink, or do during her pregnancy?

We need to stop with the rhetoric, and have a real discussion on how we can eliminate the need for abortions without taking a woman's rights to her own body away. Otherwise this problem will never be solved, and the lives of babies AND mothers will continue to be in jeopardy.

Posted by Dan on October 26, 2007 04:08 PM

Dan, if I was a betting women, I would bet that none of my questions, or yours will be answered. They never have been, why should this thread be any different.

I want to know if fertilized human eggs, wherever they are, should have full citizenship rights granted by our society.

Posted by Sharon B. on October 26, 2007 04:24 PM

Sharon,
Agreed, and I would like the answer to your question as well. But just like almost every other topic these days, it's much easier to demonize those who disagree with you than do the hard part by sitting down at a table and hashing out the issues. We can thank our nation's leaders for setting such a blazing example on that front.

Whether we as citizens are just too lazy, immature, or unintelligent to thoughtfully discuss important, complicated topics is another debate.

Posted by Dan on October 26, 2007 04:45 PM

Dan, people get their ego bound up in their opinions. To question their ideas is to question their mentality. It is hard to let go of an idea that is invested with that much personal feeling.

Intelligent people know the joy of changing their minds when they have different information or learn to think of a problem a different way.

Posted by Sharon B. on October 26, 2007 04:59 PM

Sadly, many people have no different information to disseminate to help us change our minds. Getting the typical "You leftie commie terrorist-loving liberals suck" response is hardly the information that would help me form an alternative viewpoint.

Glad you're on the critical thinking team.

Posted by Dan on October 26, 2007 05:13 PM

Dan, you too, this could be such a helpful forum, so many people have information and personal stories, but the good ones mostly leave. Hang in there!

Posted by Sharon B. on October 26, 2007 05:20 PM

"I (and I emphasize "I"), believe that most women having abortions are doing so as way of birth control due to a having unprotected sex."

Thanks largely to a barbaric and repugnant church that fights against the use of contraception, therefore DIRECTLY leading to millions of abortions, which they then have the nerve to condemn.

Fortunately neither the Catholic church or Schola have the right to dictate policy in this country, and I for one will do my damndest to ensure they never do.

Posted by on October 26, 2007 10:02 PM

I wasn't aware that abortion had much to do or much in common with turning the means of production over to the public. You learn something new every day.

Posted by Kyle on October 27, 2007 06:25 AM

Dan,
It is called the legislature. NOT the supreme court. That is wa=hat is supposed to stop them from creating those kinds of laws.
You see Roe vs. wade was a legislative issue and not a court issue. Where in the constitution or bill of rights does it proclaim it ok to end the life of an unborn child? Nowhere - so why then did the Supreme court essentially make this procedure legal?
It is activist judges deciding the things that the legislature needs to decide. But they (our representatives)are too cowardly to do this so they defer to the courts.
Also, what is wrong with holding the unborn childs life in equality with the mothers? For you pro-abortionist everyhting is wrong with that.
And no Dan, I or anyone else in these posts don't need to convince you or change your mind - you are too far on the other side of this issue (as I am the other way) to ever see it for what it is (same for me).
I also never said "You leftie commie terrorist-loving liberals suck", I have a lot of lefty and right for that matter friends and neighbors and we can have the intelligent discussions you wish for on here, but it needs to work both ways on these sites yet never does.
And Sharon so proudly proclaims:
"Dan, if I was a betting women, I would bet that none of my questions, or yours will be answered. They never have been, why should this thread be any different."

First you need to take an english comp. class - it is "if I were an betting womAn", not women.

And a funny thing is most of the time when you have been presented with questions - they never get answered by you either- so I guess that makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?

And to anon at 10:02, yes it is the churches responsibility these wonen are getting pregnant - they preach to them to have unportected sex thus getting pregnant and so there in lies the responsibility. You are truely clueless.
You probably believe that is the responsibility of the government to take care of everyone as well don't you? Personal responsibility is not in your vocabulary and that is the main problem - it always somebody elses fault.

Posted by on October 27, 2007 08:56 AM

Taking, how about a big fat huggy apology to me, the one you went after?

I did, "Pretty foolish of me, my apologies Chas."

"What human rights should we give them? If they are implanted in a womb, should we give them greater or lesser rights."

We have a legalized caste system here now? They should have the same rights as any other American citizen no more, no less, at least until there is an OBJECTIVE measure that determines that humanity begins at 1 second/5 days/3 months/6 months/birth.

"What is to stop the pro-life crowd from demanding that the life of the fetus supercede the life of the mother?"

What exactly lead you to think this is a realistic possibility? The fact that you agree with the statement provided the words fetus and mother are reversed?

"What is to stop the pro-life crowd from enacting "fetal abuse" legislation, that prohibits what a woman can eat, drink, or do during her pregnancy?"

I'm pretty sure that a number of states have those laws. Being of the more libertarian bent, I generally oppose these kinds of laws, but only to the extent that no harm to either life is evidenced. I think that the differences between giving a toddler a crack pipe and lighting it for them, and doing the same thing to them through the placental membrane, are not significant enough to warrant very different criminal charges/sentencing, haven't certain states recently charged the murderer of a pregnant woman with the murder of two human beings, not a mother and fetus, to be seen as crimes of different severity?

"We need to stop with the rhetoric, and have a real discussion on how we can eliminate the need for abortions without taking a woman's rights to her own body away."

These statements are great. When does the baby become not a part of the woman's body? I think the argument could be made that until the umbilical cord is cut, the fetus/embryo.baby is still part of the woman's body, as she is still providing it with a variety of bodily functions. Do you support the notion that a woman should have the right to choose to bash in the skull of a newborn that has not been severed from her body yet, as a decision of what to do with her own body?

"I want to know if fertilized human eggs, wherever they are, should have full citizenship rights granted by our society."

You just skim through a lot of these words, don't you? I already answered that in an earlier post, and I just did again in this one.

"Sharon,
Agreed, and I would like the answer to your question as well. But just like almost every other topic these days, it's much easier to demonize those who disagree with you than do the hard part by sitting down at a table and hashing out the issues. We can thank our nation's leaders for setting such a blazing example on that front.

Whether we as citizens are just too lazy, immature, or unintelligent to thoughtfully discuss important, complicated topics is another debate.
Posted by Dan on October 26, 2007 04:45 PM

Dan, people get their ego bound up in their opinions. To question their ideas is to question their mentality. It is hard to let go of an idea that is invested with that much personal feeling.

Intelligent people know the joy of changing their minds when they have different information or learn to think of a problem a different way.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 26, 2007 04:59 PM"

You don't see how the ideas in these posts pertains to the posts themselves, do you? 143 words and not one of them does "the hard part by sitting down at a table and hashing out the issues", you just pat each other on the back for having the same viewpoint.

"Thanks largely to a barbaric and repugnant church that fights against the use of contraception, therefore DIRECTLY leading to millions of abortions, which they then have the nerve to condemn."

Seems to me that plenty of non-religious women get abortions too, but I'm sure you have a reference with statistically significant data to support that statement. And on that note...

"the good ones mostly leave."

Sad, but true. Yet don't play the victim, Chas, as I remember you being quite vituperative towards DanII, who was one of the only posters who wrote well-thought out posts where he stated his opinion, his reasoning, and provided links to the information he was using(rather than posting long cut-and-paste blocks, which doesn't accomplish the same thing at all). But hey, didn't one of your other pseudonyms have this gem on another thread "That's where I stand and all of your objections will not change the conclusions I have reached."?

Posted by Taking someone's life/rights/free will reeks a lot like socialist policy on October 27, 2007 10:06 AM

Same old, same old. There's an opening here for a line about putting the bore in abortion, but I'm not touching it. Wake me up when somebody has something new to say, or--less likely--somebody manages to win over somebody of an opposing viewpoint.

Posted by Hans Christian Brando on October 27, 2007 11:35 AM

The far religious right's stance on abortion one of immense hypocrisy.

They claim that they want to reduce or stop the number of abortions performed in the US, but it's been established many times over that an anti-choice environment won't decrease abortions, but rather just make them less safe. Their positions on contraception and sex education INCREASE the number of unwanted pregnancies....thus increasing the need for abortions.

I am constantly amazed that, considering these facts, they still insist on furthering their counterproductive stances.

Posted by jay on October 27, 2007 01:33 PM

Taking, apologize to Sharon, not Chas.

I want to keep abortion safe and legal, I know that hurts you and I am sorry you anguish over those lost little ones.

i am primarily asking what human civil rights we grant an embroyo, in a dish, a tube, a womb, or frozen away.

I can not see how we can grant them rights without turning every miscarrage into a crime scene.

No states regulates a mothers diet and behavior, if it is legal, before childbirth, but if the fetus becomes a legally protected person, they will have to. Too much coffee, too hot of a bath, all these things have shown adverse effects on the unborn.

Now if you can start a letter to me, Sharon, on what we do, besides using the law, to reduce abortions, tell me.

Posted by Sharon B. on October 27, 2007 01:52 PM

I know for some people it’s hard to comprehend, but knowing that every one of us in this room at one time was an embryo, would you support aborting your self?

Posted by Uno on October 27, 2007 09:00 PM

Uno, first, we wouldn`t know and secondly, if we have a soul, we would be in Heaven without the risk of living and going to Hell. Looks like a pretty good option to me, but then I don`t believe in an afterlife.

If we give civil and legal rights to a fetus, what would they be, and would they apply to all fertilized human eggs, in dishes, tubes, frozen in wombs, or in fallopian tubes on their way to implantation.

Taking, what would you suggest as legal protection for them all?

Hans, notice the law deciding this monumental event on the care of human eggs is named ROE?

Posted by Sharon B. on October 28, 2007 01:49 PM