- Cattle responsible for global warming
- Abortion should never be acceptable
- Bronco “fans” go too far
- Electoral college comments
- Ft. Collins A.K.A. Grinchville
- Paul Campos & the Constitution
- U.S. now tortures
- Chandler Grafner’s parents want to sue
- Denver Election Commission
- Makes me want to vote Republican
Hope for the unborn
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that “hope springs eternal” for women’s access to abortion (“Ginsburg says wealthy will always have abortion access,” Oct. 22).
Is there any hope for the unborn females?
How can you place hope in the death of our most defenseless citizens?
Jay and Dianne Moyers, Centennial
maybe jay and Dianne should move to a country controlled by the Taliban? They have the laws you want.
Posted by on November 12, 2007 10:47 AMThe problem with the religious reich position on this matter is that it won't actually reduce abortions...it will just make them less safe for the mother.
Posted by jay on November 12, 2007 11:00 AM"Religious reich"???
Sounds like some bigotry to me. David Duke would be proud.
Posted by jay is still a bigot on November 12, 2007 11:09 AMSweethearts, I'll take you seriously when you start caring about the children already here on this earth. No matter who their parents are.
Posted by on November 12, 2007 11:13 AMoh goodie the it takes a village idiot is here to tell us the village is responsible for the kids.
not in my life time I will take care of mine and you take care of yours. If I want more and would like the adoption method over abortion.
if you cant care for your child then dont have one as there is a lot of free birth control out there besides abortions.
jay,
In 1967 Colorado passed legislation regulating abortion to provide for a three-doctor panel to approve abortions in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal defects, to save a woman's life or if the pregnancy threatened her physical or mental health.
If Roe were overturned that law would be re-instated.
What's the problem with that?
Mr. Jones, I think "the problem with that" is women who did not recieve the approval of this "panel" likely would seek an abortion elsewhere, leading to many of the pre-Roe problems, i.e., back-alley butcherings, clothes hangers, etc.
So, really, what problems would this panel really solve? What kinds of doctors were these, and how would they even begin to assess a threat to "mental health?" I think the biggest problem with what you're proposing is how strongly people feel about the Roe-v-Wade decision. It's hard to picture the nation suddenly regressing in this area.
You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
Moyerses.
Unborn fetuses are not citizens.
The US Constitution grants many constitutional rights depending on time and place of birth, none at conception.
JJ (Man without a moral conscience),
The problem with that is:
1) It is more restrictive than most of present day Colorado would approve, and would likely be revised to a more liberal position.
2) Women's rights to reproductive self-determination would be subject to their geography. A three doctor panel at Rose Hospital in Denver is more likely to approve abortions than Saint Mary's in Grand Junction. Probably not a problem for you since you think the fetal right to life ("the most important moral issue of our time"!) is different in California from Texas.
You state Roe will be overturned because there is no mention of abortion in the constitution nor a right to privacy?
Are you ready for the electoral consequences of your position that the government can interfere in all private medical decisions including denying women prescription contraceptives?
The constitution does not mention cell phone text messaging, and since that is neither speech nor press, is that communication not constiutionally protected?
Is there a moral, ethical or logically coherent argument left in you after unsuccesfully arguing for torture?
Posted by Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men! on November 12, 2007 01:16 PMMr. Jones, how about you see a three doctor panel when you decide you need Viagra. Of course the doctors would probably all be women. And of course you would have to reveal very personal information about yourself (for the mental health angle) to three TOTAL STRANGERS WHO WOULD THEN PASS A JUDGEMENT ON YOU! Yes he can, no he can't......... Would you have a problem with that?
Grown women do not need three other adults second-guessing their medical decisions. Just like grown men do not need three doctors second-guessing theirs!
Posted by Fuming on November 12, 2007 01:19 PMWhat's the problem with that?
Posted by James Jones
geez, I don't even know where to begin. First of all would you be comfortable with a panel of 3 doctors telling you what you can and can't do with your own body? What if you were raped but they did not believe you? Are you required to bring the baby to term? How will this stop unsafe back alley abortions? The whole issue is really simple. Stop unwanted pregnancies and you will stop abortions. How do you feel about education and birth control? Seems like if you are really serious (not just using it for a political purpose) about reducing abortions you would support this very logical response. Don't forget the Norway has the most liberal laws about abortions and sex education and they also have the lowest rate of abortions.
Posted by just sayin' on November 12, 2007 01:25 PMYou're missing the larger point James. There is a reason that the majority of Americans don't want Roe overturned. More than likely many understand the fact that such a counterproductive minority position WON'T DECREASE ABORTIONS.
Posted by jay on November 12, 2007 01:47 PMIt's a question of recognizing that the human life in the womb has rights both prior to and subsequent to birth. That has nothing to do with religious conviction. It has everything to do with recongizing that all human life is fully entitled to the protection of civil rights at every point in life.
There is a danger in dehumanizing life that none of you take into account.
The three judge panel is society's way of providing protection to the human life in the womb while taking into account the health of the mother in this unique circumstance. If this is a medical question , there is no reason to discount the integrity of the medical profession in making a determination.
If the abortion is proposed for health reaons, society has no brief. If the abortion is for the purpose of birth control, which is the primary reason, and is unrelated to the health of the mother, then society has an obligation to protect the life in the womb in the same way that we do what we can to protect the life in the crib.
Posted by James Jones on November 12, 2007 02:20 PMJames Jones,
One of Denver's newspapers polled both judges and attorneys on the effects of Roe being overturned. It's not at all clear that Colorado's pre-Roe abortion law would then control.
Second, what's wrong with that scenario is the assumption that adult women are too stupid or too emotional (all those hormones!) to weigh the matter of abortion for themselves, and that they're too selfish to take into account their partner's point of view. Virtually the entir right-to-life movement's leadership is male, while I suspect the volunteers at the ground level are female. I'm tired of the chauvinism, paternalism, and outright male superiority of the right-to-lifers.
The editorial cartoonist Oliphant started out at the Denver Post. One of the best commentaries on the abortion debate was a cartoon of his. It showed male state Senators debating Colorado's 1967 abortion law, and saying "Well, if I got pregnant, I wouldn't have an abortion." with sanctimonious looks on their faces.
In my mind that still sums up the thinking of the right-to-life leadership.
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.
jay,
The way we find out what a majority thinks in a deomcracy is by legislation. The current status of abortion on demand has not been legisated but implemented by judicial fiat. That's the larger problem.
If you think that a majority of Americans like the status quo then overturn Roe and put it to a test with legislation. The larger point is that is the way democratic republics are supposed determine the will of the community.
In a constitutional democracy, the rights of the people are enshrined in the constitution, not subject to popular vote
If a majority of americans think the right to vote should be limited to white men, does that make it right?
"Society has an obligation to protect the life in the womb in the same way that we do what we can to protect the life in the crib."
Posted by James Jones on November 12, 2007 02:20 PM
Why?
Because you say so?
Posted by Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men! on November 12, 2007 02:40 PMSo James how do you feel about the well-proven methods of lowering abortions? Education and birth control availability. Are you serious about abortions or is it a convenient political tool? In my opinion, it is ridiculous that in this day and age people continue to have unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by just sayin' on November 12, 2007 02:41 PMJust so there's no confusion, James:
"On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?"
Pro-life 37%
Pro-choice 48%
Both/Mix 8%
Unsure 7%
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3
"Do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases, or illegal in all cases?" Options rotated
Legal in All/Most Cases 53%
Illegal in All/Most Cases 39%
Unsure 8%
"In general, do you agree or disagree with the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that established a woman's right to an abortion?"
Agree 62%
Disagree 32%
Unsure 6%
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 17-23, 2007. N=2,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 2.5
Mr. Jones, you never responded to my question regarding the intrusive second-guessing of your personal medical decisions. Why not? You OK with strangers deciding your medical fate?
You don't like abortion, be very careful with whom and how you practice your sexuality, and make sure that you use birth control.
My body is not subject to Majority Rules.
There is NO COMMUNITY VOTE that will control my decisions regarding my body, my sexuality or my reproductive choices.
How dare you.
Posted by Fuming on November 12, 2007 02:43 PMOnce Romney gets elected, we will be able to get the one more justice nominated that will finally end this barbaric practice.
Posted by Voter on November 12, 2007 02:59 PMI don't know anyone that has changed their position on this issue. Will we argue about it forever? Will we ever have a situation where it is no longer an issue?
Posted by curious on November 12, 2007 03:02 PMFuming:
Jimmy Jesus doesn't answer questions.
He makes moral pronouncments and expects others to answer his questions.
Posted by Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men! on November 12, 2007 03:33 PMlets have a small law put in effect that requires all of the progressive liberals to abortions and never bring a baby to term. problem solve fairly soon.
Posted by on November 12, 2007 04:01 PMcurious,
The reason that the issue seems intractable is that the currrent state of the law was imposed by judicial fiat. I don't know that this question, like many others, will evaporate entirely but we achieve more harmony when we settle questions as the ballot box.
We will be on the path to resolution with an approach that conforms to the idea of just rule being determined by the consent of the governed as opposed to a 5-4 ruling of judges becime Princes.
Fuming:
Also notice the strict adherence to right wing talking points (tyranny of unelected judges) at the expense of a consistant logical or moral framework.
What is it that makes the ballot box in California adequate to void the Jones-stated-as-gospel-fact that "all human life is fully entitled to the protection of civil rights at every point in life" when the will of the pregnant woman in Texas who would rather not be is inadequate?
All this from the fellow who trusts the US government to engage in torture, but not women to enact their right to reproductive freedom.
"Once Romney gets elected, we will be able to get the one more justice nominated that will finally end this barbaric practice. "
That's just the point about your ridiculously counterproductive stance on this issue...it won't reduce the number of abortions performed in the US.
Posted by jay on November 12, 2007 04:53 PM4:01,
There is a movie close to what you are talking about, having all the Liberals have abortions or have no children at all, then all the Cons would have all the babies, problem solved. Check the movie out it's called Idiocracy, I'm sure you will relate to it.
If you don't have a womb, your opinion doesn't count.
Posted by DJ on November 12, 2007 05:24 PMJay >>>>>>"The problem with the religious reich position on this matter is that it won't actually reduce abortions...it will just make them less safe for the mother.
Posted by jay on November 12, 2007 11:00 AM "
So, with your way of thinking, we should provide better access to murder weapons so they can be committed more safely?
Posted by Gail K on November 12, 2007 05:38 PMGail I never said anything about making it EASIER for folks to get abortions...just correctly stated that your position is ridiculously counterproductive in that it won't reduce abortions, but rather simply make them less safe.
Seems like you need to go back to the drawing board.
Posted by jay on November 12, 2007 06:52 PMjay,
The way we find out what a majority thinks in a democracy is by legislation - not by poll reading.
Posted by James Jones on November 12, 2007 08:49 PMJay do you take a poll to see how many friends you have?
Here is one for you
95% say jay is a poll geek who lives and dies by opinion polls
Posted by on November 12, 2007 09:13 PMNow considered some of the ramifications of a zygote, that has implanted in the womb, having full citizenship rights.
In each pregnancy, even those in the early weeks when the women may not know she is pregnant, all the woman's diet, medicine and alcohol use can harm the as yet unknown attached zygote. That makes the woman liable for the condition of a born baby, that may have suffered, say from heavy doses of medicine, before the pregnancy was suspected.
We need not worry about unimplanted zygotes, they are not detectable.
If anyone harms a fetus, even to just causing the mother to fall and miscarry, that will be a criminal matter.
Every miscarriage will be a crime scene especially in lower income groups and for young unwed girls.
Any woman or girl can then be accused of causing the miscarriage, and there are old fashioned methods that will do this. Not always successfully, but many times so.
The police will need additional people, government will undoubtedly get in the mix with more bureaucrats and more workers.
Taxes will have to rise to cover the women going to jail for causing a miscarriage and men who inadvertently cause one.
This sounds like more government, and more taxes and more people in prison.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 12, 2007 10:48 PMThe way we find out what a majority thinks in a democracy is by legislation - not by poll reading.
Posted by James Jones
must not have been here in 2000
Posted by on November 13, 2007 08:00 AMAppears as if I've been kicked off and locked out again. Seems to happen every time I try to reply to a Jones comment. Does he now run the blog?
Posted by Old Grouch on November 13, 2007 08:03 AM"The way we find out what a majority thinks in a democracy is by legislation - not by poll reading."
James you can't spin your way away from the fact that the vast majority of Americans don't want Roe overturned.
Posted by jay on November 13, 2007 09:47 AMSharon B, you're right. I think it would be so because of the increase in any population. The unborn would have to fit into a minority category, which obviously can't have a representation in the seats of government, etc.
I'd say they are more than a "zygote," having the genetic characteristics of a human. We know they aren't some other specie. Scientifically, aren't they human? Or can we have an "opinion" about that?
Posted by Gail K on November 13, 2007 10:57 AMGail how do you respond to the fact that your position won't actually reduce the number of abortions in the States?
Posted by jay on November 13, 2007 11:10 AM08:00 AM
The Geat Florida Myth still lives?
The fact is those ballots were counted so many times the chads were worn completely off. The problem was the every count showed the wrong result. - Gore loses.
That's why we had to keep counting unitl the grownups showed up and said enough already.
Posted by James Jones on November 13, 2007 11:59 AMjay,
None of my posts contain any spin. All of my posts contain a challenge. You invent the former so you can ignore the latter.
Tell you what, you like polls? Let's you and I conduct one.
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 12-14, 2007. N=1,212 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Regardless of whether you think abortion should be allowed or not, do you personally believe having an abortion is wrong?"
Your choices are Yes, No or Unsure.
Gail K,
Here's something I have learned - if you ignore them they have no power.
Posted by James Jones on November 13, 2007 12:11 PMThe Geat Florida Myth still lives?
Posted by James Jones on November 13, 2007 11:59 AM
Never mind the insult that your opponents are children, the point is that the way the political structure is organized is not "most votes wins." Even if Bush won Florida, Gore got more votes yet is not president, because the way the Constitution mandates presidential elections.
The US Constitution also mandates civil rights which are not subject to popular vote and experimentation by the states.
If a fetus is endowed with the unalienable right to life from the moment of conception, there is no moral or political framwork that allows a popular vote to remove that right.
JJ, your moral and intellectiual weakness is showing again.
Posted by Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men! on November 13, 2007 12:38 PMHey OG,welcome back........May I channel Jonathan Swift for a moment? Seems like all the women who aren't having abortions probably should be lining up for the procedure.
Aside to DJ-If my opinion about your womb doesn't count,why does the product thereof start life by reaching for my pocket?
Let's keep the record somewhat straight. I did not say my opponents where children. I said they were childish - big difference.
Posted by James Jones on November 13, 2007 01:54 PMGail, I missed your point somewhere. A zygote that implants in the womb then would be a fully human being under our laws. Under our laws. Of course it is fully human, but fully human in all aspects of the legal system.
Think of the things that can go wrong in a pregnancy, things that now are personal for the mother and known only to her family and doctor, being a criminal matter with investigators and the whole criminal justice system coming down on a young woman who miscarries.
I am looking at the increase in law enforcement and legal problems stemming from damage to an unborn human. I see higher taxes to run these investigations, more prisons for people who have or cause miscarriages.
I once read that pregnant women should refrain from taking too hot baths as it could harm the fetus.
So here come the fetal police task force to test the bathwater. Or the judge who decides that indeed the mom hurt the baby with her home sauna.
That was my point.
But I love your idea of representation in the House and Senate for unborns. That is classic. A whole new legal field for more lawyers.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 13, 2007 03:47 PMLet's keep the record somewhat straight. I did not say my opponents where children. I said they were childish - big difference.
Posted by James Jones on November 13, 2007 01:54 PM
To keep the record straight, you said neither; you contrasted them with grownups.
Perhaps you meant fetuses ;-)
Posted by Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men! on November 13, 2007 05:43 PMHey Queen friend, go back to the news article about calling a fertilized human egg a "person" and see what that group is trying to do. Under the law, a person gets all kind of unintended rights.
Too funny, if they have their way, those petri dishes and test tubes will need little blankets for the tiny human beings inside them. Of course, there is no woman present to control but the clilnics will howl.
I am just ornery enough to want this to pass, and see the confusion it will cause, while probably not preventing abortion, it will make pregnancy so complicated most women will sterilize the men in their sleep.
The men who scream about paying for their own "sexual side effect,", will really pitch a fit if every pregnant woman around them carries a "fully protected human" and all the risks that represents.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 13, 2007 06:00 PMI wonder if the fertilized egg will get the vote. Or if a pregnant woman votes, will it count double. Or if those ovoid things bought by the dozen in supermarkets will suddenly be known as "chicken abortions."
Anyway, what I dropped by to say is that in the Speakout section, Pam Myyers asks ten very good questions on the subject at hand, and so far the results have been disappointing: just one answer to one question, ending in an anti-abortion sentiment (from a man--big surprise!), and a "good luck" from yrs. truly. If any of you have a moment and haven't checked this out, it's worth doing so. It's a change of pace, anyway.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 13, 2007 06:18 PMHCB I tried to post on that and it went by by. Most of the questions are fine, if the answer is "yes, let`s have more government and law enforcement people involved in our pregnancies."
Transplanting human zygotes would probably result in birth defects that do not matter in live stock. Very risky procedure if the fetus is damaged for life, who pays then?
Forcing sterilization on people opens the door to a new bureau, more lawyers, reversible medical procedures.
The law now protects the most of the un-born and the women who carry them, that any civilized society can.
The idea of a three person panel judging woman on rape and incest is ghastly. The very idea of reducing women to "please adults, may I have an abortion"? is disgusting. Yes, even more disgusting than abortion.
But you have to give the pro-birthers credit, the idea of making zygotes fully human before the law, and reducing women to the standing of children, before that same law, must be conservative, Christian wet dreams.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 13, 2007 09:01 PMHi Sharon,
I'm all over the Kristi Burton petition from the get go.
They play it like it's just about "defining a constitutional principle", nothing about abortion or anything else.
Obviously it would make abortion illegal, but work at Colorado's fertility labs, which are some of the best in the country, would cease. The anti-choice (all choices including contraception) side likes to claim that the morning after pill, IUDs, and regular birth control pills are abortifacent (without any supporting scientific evidence), so they'd have to go too.
This measure which seems so simple that common-sense Coloradans might support it, is truly fundamentally radical in what it would change for Colorado women. Some think it's a political strategy to be played against something more moderate to come later.
"Oh the egg as person thing is too extreme for me, but I'll certainly vote for this parental consent law."
The best way to fight whatever comes down the pike is to support NARAL Pro-Choce Colorado and the Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Action Fund. They'll be the ones fighting the battle on our side.
Posted by Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men! on November 13, 2007 09:36 PMMy response to Momma Y's questions can be found at:
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/11/where_will_they_stop.html#comments
I got to it after everyone lost interest, but my thoughts echo Sharon's: A fascist welfare state unleashed for the cause of fetal rights at the expense of everyone else's.
Posted by Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men! on November 13, 2007 09:46 PMQueen thanks for the link, I went back and read a few posts and agree with who ever said that we all use the same arguments over and over again.
I also fear a fascist welfare state, especially when the issue of control is directed at the women only, nothing at all for the man. And still men bitch when they have to pay for a live baby.
Life isn`t fair, not to the men who casually bed anyone who agrees, even if that woman or girl isn`t who they want as the mother of their children, unfair to the men who have to pay and unfair to naive young girls.
Mostly it is unfair to the aborted ones, men how about you showing some responsibility for a change.
Educate boys, use birth control, pay if you play, and quit whining.
Leave abortion decisions to the one pregnant. You have no God/Goddess given right to decide and no legal right to decide for any one else before they are three months pregnant.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 13, 2007 10:02 PMIf we declare that a fertilized egg from the moment of conception is a 'person" for state constitutional purposes, then we get all sorts of legal fun.
If a pregnant woman was sent to prison for crimes committed, then an attorney could sue the state on the grounds that the fetus, an innocent person, was being involuntarily held without cause or due process. The attorney could demand that this person be freed immediately.
I wonder whether right-to-life politicians would demand that the state's official census figures be increased to reflect those persons who were living in wombs.
Finally, I think a lot of the right-to-lifers are enamored of the fetus because: The fetus can't be seen or heard; it makes no fuss, it causes no disruptions, it can't complain; it makes no demands on amybody except the mother, it's incapable of taking any independent action. it doesn't need changing or clothes or health care or food (other than that provided by the mother). It's a way to show concern for children without having to actually care for one.
peterpi
What makes it so easy to kill the life in the womb is the fact that it
can't be seen or heard; it makes no fuss, it causes no disruptions, it can't complain; it makes no demands on amybody except the mother, it's incapable of taking any independent action.
It's so easy to kill and a great topic to have fun with precisley because you don't hear the scream when the life is snubbed out. In fact, that is a small human voice that you make sure no one will ever hear.
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 08:25 AMJames again....there is simply no way that you can run away from the FACT that the VAST majority of Americans want to keep Roe just as it is and continue having abortions that are safe, rare and legal.
Once again we see those from the minority pulpit scream the loudest.
Posted by jay on November 14, 2007 10:09 AMjay,
You can't even answer a straight-forward question from one the polls you rely on to disguise what an empty suit you are.
Keep reading those polls. They will tell you what to think.
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 11:43 AMThere is no hope for the unborn if the Christian Taliban dogma is followed: 20. All the women therein that were with child he ripped up. II Kings 15 Lord Jesus says: Woe to pregnant women and nursing mothers at the end of the world Luke & John 2. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes. Isaiah 13
There is abundant scripture on the biblical god's sentiment towards children whom he has no problem aborting; he even orchestrates his own son's death making Jehovah a murderer. If god opts for abortion why shouldn't women be free to rid from their bodies a parasite?
I'm grateful my mom didn't abort the parasite in her womb and both my wives didn't abort the five parasites from their wombs; however, it is their womb and godless Constitution grants choice over servitude.
Posted by Richard Grimes: Deicide and Misanthrope not to Christians but their dogma like Mitt's Mormonism on November 14, 2007 01:08 PMI have a serious question that I would love to have answered in a serious manner. No platitudes here, just from the heart.
Why do you pro-life people care? Now I am not being snippy here, I really want to know why the thought of the destruction of an embryo you do not even know existed, causes you so much anguish.
I work for causes that benefit born people and I have a hard time keeping up the emotions that make this possible, I often simply go on the idea of what helps human society exist in the best possible way. If I had to carry the emotional burden of such angst over the un-born, I do not think I could do it.
Please do not think I am putting you down, just the opposite, I am truly wondering how you all can have so much concern for the un-born children of people you don`t even know.
If I was still in college, I would talk to the psych profs to see what the scientific community has to say about this. But since I am not maybe you folks can explain this to me.
Thank you ahead of time if you choose to answer me.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 14, 2007 01:32 PMGrimes,
Your argument then is slavery is justified is the that's what the society legislates because a godless Constitution grants choice over servitude.
Sharon B,
Surely you too care about what happens to people you don't know. As for the life in the womb:
The communities first obligation is to do no harm to the innocent. Any form of child abuse is considered a horrific offence.
Those of us who argue for regulation of abortion do so to ensure that the innocent in the womb is protected against irresponsible behvaiour of the parents in just the same way.
Creating artificial, civil definitions of "personhood" that deprive the human being in the womb of social protection has no moral basis. The argument that the fetus is not defined as a person is exactly the argument made that black Africans were not persons that was used to justify slavery.
Now you can jump to all sorts of extravagant, and silly, arguments about cells in a petri dish being allowed to vote and so on. That is the moral cowardice that wants to ignore the reality that we abort around one million lives in the womb each year and only a small fraction of those have anything to do with health of the mother or the fetus.
It is possible to reduce any moral argument to some absurd point. That will not make the reality go away. The moral question remains.
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 02:24 PMThe answer remains that living breathing women have rights that trump those of potentially living fetal human beings who are neither sentient nor capable of living outside her.
Posted by Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men! on November 14, 2007 02:35 PMSharon -
You can judge much about a society by how we care for our weakest members. I am on the boards of two nonprofits, and I also have two volunteer positions in organizations that serve the poor and children.
I am against abortion because I have seen it used far too many times as a casual form of birth control. One lady I knew claimed to have had an abortion becuase "even though I wanted a baby at some point in my life, I had a vacation to hawaii planned for later that year, and I wanted to keep my figure"...That is an exact quote.
For all this and more, I do not believe abortion should be available unless it is a case of rape, incest, or when carrying the baby to term would endanger the life of the mother.
And for the record, I am married, and I have done the one thing that any man can to do ensure I'll never be the cause of one...had a vasectomy in 1993. Never regretted it.
Posted by PAjr on November 14, 2007 02:39 PMYo JJ: My thrust is the biblical god delights in killing the unborn and born why do you militate against those who rid their womb of the unborn? JJ: Your diabolical god confesses to being a fool for creating women: What an idiot you have chosen as your god.
Deicide Corner: 13. Women accused of adultery are brought before a priest and made to drink water mixed with dust in order to determine guilt. [ A form of abortion] (There is no test for men) Num. 5
“I am a fool for creating women." (Big J morphed into Little J laments that he created humans.) My plan for a content man and peaceful heaven is ruined. I am forced to send my son to earth to be tortured and nailed to a cross so as to provide an express for the return of man to my kingdom. Women because of your uncleanliness, I instruct Moses of my chosen people the Israelites to ‘come not at your wives,’ Ex. 19 in preparation for my visit to Mt. Sinai.”
Settle down there Grimey...
Posted by Grimeycide on November 14, 2007 03:01 PMpotentially living fetal human beings
Now there's a telling phrase.
Are fetal human beings easier to dispose of than just plain human beings? What exactly is this state of being potentially alive?
Abortion doesn't kill, it just stops life.
The plain truth is that the human fetus becomes a human being and that abortion kills the life.
This ongoing attempt to rationalize abortion with euphemisms demonstrates the fact that there is no moral case.
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 03:01 PMGrimes,
Lots of sound and fury but, you ducked the point. Even if my God is an idiot, that doesn't authoirze your immorality.
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 03:20 PMJames...still running?
Are you denying that the vast majority of Americans don't want Roe overturned?
Posted by jay on November 14, 2007 05:09 PMjjay,
OK, I'll stop running
Are you denying that the vast majority of Americans don't want Roe overturned?
Yes, and I have a poll to prove it:
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Sept. 4-9, 2007. N=1,263 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. OR, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. OR, Abortion should not be permitted."
Generally Available 34%
StricterLimits 39%
Not Permitted 25%
Unsure 2%
So obvioulsy 64% think Roe should be overturned.
Now what jay? I know, lay down with a damp cloth on your face until the room stops spinning and then go find a poll with different results. That will make you feel better.
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 06:10 PM"I tried to post on that and it went by by. Most of the questions are fine, if the answer is 'yes, let`s have more government and law enforcement people involved in our pregnancies'."
I suspect that was the point of Pam Myyers' questions: Would government sanctions or restrictions make abortion more acceptable to those who oppose it?
Sorry to read that one of your posts disappeared, Sharon. I always enjoy reading them, and occasionally learn something. Old Grouch, it seems, has been banished from the forum. (I wondered why he had suddenly gone quiet.) If indeed there's some form of censorship going on here, it's too bad the more blatantly abusive posts don't go "by by" as well.
Incidentally, do you think that if James Jones could be fixed to carry a fetus full term, would he volunteer?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 14, 2007 06:18 PMJames and PAjr, thank you for answering. I know what you believe and what you do, it is the "why do you care" part that still gets me.
James, I can care for people I do not personally know, but it takes work and effort. Charities say they can`t get help for starving children if they mention the number, say one million, but they can get help if they show one picture of one specific child in need.
A study I particularly like is called "Human Sympathy Groups" by Christian Byes. In it he discovered that 30 to 40 is the number of people the average person cares enough about to be sad if that person dies. Beyond 40 or so, our ability to care is too diffused.
I care that the abortion laws stay as they are because many of my friends are women and they might need an abortion some day. In that sense I care, and also in the sense that men mostly run the pro-life movement. And I am not fool enough to think that the issue of control of girls and women and their sexuality, is not part of the interest to many men.
If a woman wants an abortion for whatever reason, and I am not going to pick the sensible from the frivolous, that should be her choice.
PA, when a woman wants an abortion for a frivolous reason does that make you mad? Do you want to stop her, to "show her"?
Do you want her to be forced to continue the pregnancy to make some point to her? To punish her for her sexuality?
I personally do not care if she wants an abortion because she woke up un a grumpy mood. Why do you care? That is my question to people, mainly men.
I am trying to get at the root cause of this feeling of responsibility for the un-born that so many people feel.
I want to protect my sex from outside control of their lives. For that I care. I know exactly why I care, and how much. I know how much came from a lifetime of having men in religion and medicine control, or try to control my life and the lives of my female friends.
So, in this case, I care and I know why.
I care for real people, not the theoretical kind.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 14, 2007 06:21 PMHCB thanks. I also learn something from what you post. Makes my mind work better. And I always look forward to your barbed humor.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 14, 2007 06:34 PMIt takes a moron to think that 25% makes a majority. And James Jomnes is that impotent moron...
Posted by on November 14, 2007 08:19 PMMr. Wisdom,
You have to add the 39% who think there should be stricter limits to the 25% who think it should not be permitted to get to the number who think Roe should be overturned. Just watch this:
39% + 25% = 64%
See how that works!!!
You and jay are in pretty bad shape when you have to read polls to know what to think. But if you can't even understand the polls you are really in a lot of trouble. Then you have no idea why you think what you think.
You might even be considered a moron.
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 08:48 PMSharon B,
So if a woman wins a trip to Bahamma and decides she wants to have an abortion because she doesn't like the way she would look in her swim suit, then it is okay for the real person to kill the theoretical person.
But, what if instead of three months before birth the same situation occurs three months after birth and she doesn't want to lug a baby around on the beach?
Presumably you would be opposed to mom strangling the infant in the crib, right?
Is that because the theoretical person becomes a real person after birth? How come?
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 08:54 PMJames Jones, I am trying to understand the passion you and others feel for someones unborn child.
I don`t want to get sidetracked into reasons for abortions, leave that aside. I am looking for an honest appraisal of your feelings, thinking, and logic as to "Why You Care So Much"?
Follow this scenario: Some one tells you a neighbor girl had an abortion, and you feel sad. Next day they say, "sorry, I was wrong, she had a miscarriage", and you feel sad for her and not sad for the unborn.
Next day the person says "sorry, I made an awful mistake, there was no abortion or miscarriage, now you feel good.
See all that feeling is what I am trying to understand.
How many abortions last year? Do you feel varying amounts of sadness if the number goes up and slightly better if the number goes down?
Every day that minister who hates gays, gets up feeling mad at gays and this country. He spends his days calling people, writing letters and picketing funerals over something that has no effect on his own life. I would like to know why he is so committed to this cause, or why anyone gets committed to a cause that has no effect on their lives or the lives of their friends and relatives.
I can understand sending money to help real living children who are in need, I can`t see spending any amount of time on the unborn children of other people.
After the babies are born everything changes, yes. And to save you another segue, seeing the ultrasound does make the baby more "real" to the woman, and yes I said baby. So skip over these areas and go back to my original question.
Now please explain in detail your reasons for caring so much, and maybe how you got to this point.
And that old saw about looking good in a bikini is the tiredest, overused one in the book. You would go to that extreme to bolster your point.
This is not about me, it is my attempt to get some honest thoughts from pro-birth people who can always say what they want changed, but not WHY.
Posted by Sharon B. on November 14, 2007 10:02 PMSharon B
"I don`t want to get sidetracked into reasons for abortions, leave that aside. "
If we leave that aside there is no discussion. I care about others because one of my values, in fact my central value, is that you should care about others as you care about yourself.
If that seems mysterious to you than there is nothing I can say that you would find helpful.
Posted by James Jones on November 15, 2007 07:06 AMSharon - Actually, I could not possibly care less about "showing" anyone...my sympathy goes to the unborn baby who cannot speak for itself.
When you think about it, empathy is one of the qualities that differentiates the human species from animals. I feel empathy for your condition of emphysema even though I've never met you. Why do you ask? Because you seem like a decent human being, and I wish I could spare you this condition. Likewise, I wish all babies were wanted, supported and loved. My wife and I are in the process of adopting a baby simply because we want to provide a loving home for a child who would not otherwise have one. We also believe that the world has enough already on it. Let's take care of those already here.
Posted by PAjr on November 15, 2007 08:20 AMJames Jones,
IF you "care about others", why then do you support "waterboarding" - and such other forms of what everyone else in the world calls "torture" - as "interrogation" in the Iraq quagmire? And, why do you support Bush and the Iraq quagmire in the first place?
Your "caring about others" is just as real as your actual ability to construct a logical syllogism in support of your positions, ZERO. Tell us, O Pluperfect Pundit of the anti-abortion cult, what SCIENTIFIC evidence is there that the union of an ovum and a sperm constitutes a "person", entitled to "legal rights", in or out of a petri dish? And, tell us further, when there be a spontaneous aborting, or miscarriage, what "legal rights" are thereby "violated"? And, since it is now out in the open, by way of things said at the photo-op surrounding the admission of the measure to the ballot, what will really happen to the Colorado Law concerning admissible abortions when this monstrosity of religious nonsense gets passed? Since it was among the proponents of this ill conceived monstrosity that there was heard the hope that even that - the Colorado Law - would NOT RETURN, or survive the effort to give "legal rights" to a clump of cells. And, since contaceptives are held by some to be abortifacients, what is your position on birth control?
Your pusillanimous blurbs about "caring for others" in these matters don't "cut the mustard any more". OR, CAN YOU BACK THEM UP WITH HONEST FACTS - for a real change - and not just phony piosity?
Posted by Old Grouch on November 15, 2007 11:59 AMIs that because the theoretical person becomes a real person after birth? How come?
Posted by James Jones on November 14, 2007 08:54 PM
Because my religious tradition tells me so. How 'bout that?
http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm
Or because it now gets oxygen from its own lungs instead of the umbilical cord.
Piss and moan about morality all you want, but at least my position is intellectually consistant. Yours is moral relativism and fetophilia at its worst.
Posted by Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men! on November 15, 2007 12:33 PMAnd since you're so sure your opponents are morons, let's note that the current status of Supreme Court Jurisprudence on abortion allows stricter restrictions without the overturn of Roe.
Always, predictable, when outflanked on the facts, JJ resorts to name-calling.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
Posted by Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men! on November 15, 2007 12:41 PMThank you, Queen Gorgo @ 11/15 12:33pm.
To have society declare that an embro/fetus is a "person" from the moment of conception causes one particular philosophical/theological viewpoint to trump all others. Not all religions believe that a person exists from the moment of conception.
Also, it amazes me that right-to-lifers not only oppose abortion, they oppose birth control, even barrier-type birth control. Women aren't just walking wombs.