May 14, 2008 9:18 AM
Is a fetus a person? Anti-abortion groups split
Some people who oppose abortion rights aren't on board with Colorado's proposed "Personhood" amendment, which define a fertilized egg as a person.
David Montero reports:
While those who predictably support abortion rights line up against the measure, it has fractured the usually rock-solid line of those who oppose abortion. Among them are Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput and Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer. Also not supporting it is National Right to Life.Their reasoning closely hews to Schaffer's logic.
"He believes it would ultimately set the pro-life cause back because it would not meet judicial tests and would be struck down," said Schaffer's campaign manager Dick Wadhams.
And the Catholic bishops of Colorado said in a statement that while they "admire the goals" of Amendment 48 "it does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado."
However, the political arm of Focus on the Family has chosen to encourage people to vote for it.
"A pro-life measure is on the ballot and, as a pro-life organization, we think it's important to be consistent," said Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of public policy at Focus on the Family Action.
But she said some legitimate concerns have been raised about it as well - which is why the group is asking people to support it while falling short of formally endorsing it.
May 14, 2008
9:51 AM
Mark writes:
What else is a fetus but a person? If left alone, it is not going to become a tiger, an elephant or a chair. It is a unique individual at the earliest stage of life. Was I not a person when I was a fetus? If I had died in the womb, I would not be. I am a person.
May 14, 2008
9:59 AM
Shaggy writes:
This is so easy even a jay or JW could figure it out.
If it is an egg from a female Homo sapien fertilized with the sperm from a male Homo sapien and the heart of the egg is beating it is a human being.
May 14, 2008
10:01 AM
PJ Pulitzer writes:
Mark: Perfectly stated. You're argument is logical and therefore bulletproof, which is why they will now proceed to call you names.
May 14, 2008
10:07 AM
JW writes:
"If it is an egg from a female Homo sapien fertilized with the sperm from a male Homo sapien and the heart of the egg is beating it is a human being."
Heart isnt beating at conception. Takes a while to develop the heart, actually. If that is your definition, the fetus isnt a person for 7-9 weeks.
What happens if your wife has an entopic pregnancy?
May 14, 2008
10:18 AM
Marcus Welby writes:
I think you mean Ectopic Pregnancy there, genius.
Entopic means the fetus develops normally in the uterus.
Idiot.
May 14, 2008
10:24 AM
jay writes:
"If left alone, it is not going to become a tiger, an elephant or a chair."
if left alone, it is not going to become a person either.
the pathetically ironic thing about the antichoice movement is that their position won't actually decrease abortions...leaving one only to surmise that it is archaic dogma, not the well-being of humanity, that fuels this paradox.
May 14, 2008
10:27 AM
JW writes:
"I think you mean Ectopic Pregnancy there, genius.
Entopic means the fetus develops normally in the uterus. "
Run a quick google search on "entopic" jackass. Then do the same for "Ectopic." I didnt just throw it out there. There are sites saying "entopic" is what turns out to be "ectopic". I am not a doctor, so I was fooled. God damn me to hell.
May 14, 2008
10:27 AM
history buff writes:
Under our current system, when a baby is born, a birth certificate is issued. A footprint and hand print are taken for further identification. The date and time of birth are recorded along with the names of the parents, if available.
Under the personhood amendment, would a woman be forced to go to the doctor everytime she has sexual intercourse to determine if she is now carrying a person? And would the state require her to report if she had a miscarriage? And since the unborn person is supposed to be protected by the constitution, would the state be required to investigate all miscarriages to make sure that there wasn't anything like negligent homicide? And if the woman was raped, does that mean she must give birth to the rapist's baby?
It makes me glad I won't be a woman in this brave new society.
May 14, 2008
10:29 AM
Anonymous writes:
The only problem the femdems have here are the people are finally getting to have a right to vote on this issue. Roe Vs. Wade was a travesty that took away state rights and needs to be corrected. If states want to allow abortions, that should be up to the people. Lets face it, minorities and the poor do not seek out abortions, they shit out babies so they can collect a check and goverment cheese. Statistically white liberal women with careers who would probably make decent mothers are the ones who get abortions so they can have sex without any responsibility. Its not birth control people. I think your right to "choose" should be before you run out and have sex, not oops, lets kill it.
May 14, 2008
10:30 AM
Holier Than Thou writes:
The initiative to call a fetus a person is nothing more than a naked assault on women's reproductive freedom.
If it's approved, then miscarriage could be legally construed as negligent homicide or manslaughter, even if the blastocyst is nothing more than a collection of a hundred cells. The real crime is done by those who insist on imposing their religion on everyone else.
Ironic that the same people who want to criminalize abortion certainly will not accept a national health plan that would offer obstetric or neonatal care. Thus they would force women who were raped and cannot pay for a doctor to bear children into poverty or face prison.
That looks like slavery to me.
May 14, 2008
10:36 AM
Anonymous writes:
Listen to you lunatic femdems, you worry about religion being imposed on you, but you have no problems imposing your moral compasses on everyone. Goddamn pot calling the kettle black.
May 14, 2008
10:40 AM
Anonymous writes:
Things you can count on in life:
Death
Taxes
JDumbya posting crap when he has no clue what he is talking about, and is too lazy to do any homework.
Idiot.
May 14, 2008
10:42 AM
JW writes:
" Now ont JW the great dipshit of the blogs: The heart is developing during the first four weeks you moron. It is the basic life support system. Further more, Gender is already determined at 2-3 weeks. Week 5 the first heart beat starts"
The site I found said 7-9 weeks shitbag. But if we go with your stats, by shaggy's definition the fetus isnt a person for atleast 5 weeks.
On the flip side, its fairly clear that aborting YOU would have been a great benefit to society. Too bad your mom and her brother decided to keep the baby.
May 14, 2008
10:48 AM
JW writes:
"Listen to you lunatic femdems, you worry about religion being imposed on you, but you have no problems imposing your moral compasses on everyone."
Standard BS. Your religion says all women must make the choice you prefer.
Liberals say that you can make the choice to do what you want. There is no imposition of making any choice for you based on their religion or anything else.
The day liberals start forcing you to have abortions, then you'll have an argument.
May 14, 2008
10:54 AM
jay writes:
why are the crazy ones always anonymous?
May 14, 2008
10:56 AM
Captain America writes:
I'm no abortion advocate (who is?), but I can't stand the idea of the state mandating what a woman chooses about her own body. If you look past the semantics of this idea, it's all about dismantling a woman's right to choose.
Insofar as Kristi Burton's desire to make sure "every child in Colorado is protected by law and love," I'd like to know how she proposes to accomplish that. Or does she, like most anti-choice crusaders, only care about a child until they're born? After then, you're on your own.
It's a hard fact that some people shouldn't be parents. Some people shouldn't be parents yet, and some shouldn't be parents at all. What sort of world would we live in if we forced every pregnancy to carry to term? We'd have a lot more Aarone Thompson cases on our hands, for one thing.
This is a tough debate, I realize, but it's the sort of thing that should be personal choice, and not legislated.
May 14, 2008
10:59 AM
Holier Than Thou writes:
Perhaps Anonymous needs to lay off the sauce.
May 14, 2008
11:09 AM
Shaggy writes:
I never knew we had so many Gynecologists on RTL...Who would have thunked it?
Here is some interesting info.
"Week 1: Getting ready
It may seem strange, but you're not actually pregnant the first week or two of the time allotted to your pregnancy. Yes, you read that correctly!
Conception typically occurs about two weeks after your period begins. To calculate your due date, your health care provider will count ahead 40 weeks from the start of your last period. This means your period is counted as part of your pregnancy — even though you weren't pregnant at the time."
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112
You are right about the heart beating after four weeks JW, the second week is when fertilization occurs, after the third week a pregnancy test will show positive, the fourth week the heart begins to beat.
I would say during the first two weeks it could be considered an egg but after the third it is definitely a person.
May 14, 2008
11:16 AM
RMN Readers Everywhere writes:
Shaggy -
Thank you for a scholarly, well researched and well thought out post. Thank you also for not somehow blaming this issue on "illegals".
Please take JW with you on your way home later.
May 14, 2008
11:17 AM
JMH writes:
"On the flip side, its fairly clear that aborting YOU would have been a great benefit to society. Too bad your mom and her brother decided to keep the baby." - JW
Too funny JW... Made me laugh out loud in the office! Pretty good one there... haha...
...now in seriousness, as far as this topic goes, I find it ironic that it always seems to be men who are the strongest opponents to letting a woman make a choice. This choice is never made easily like some of the wingnuts out there would like to believe. People don't just have abortions for the hell of it. What ignorance... besides doesn't it seems kinda strange to think that a woman isn't responsible enough to make a decision about her body and her future life in general but this same woman is then perfectly capable of being a mother for the next 18 years?
This is for woman to decide. Plain and simple... Believe me, I'm pretty sure if men were the ones who had babies, abortions would be celebrated!
May 14, 2008
11:20 AM
JW writes:
"I would say during the first two weeks it could be considered an egg but after the third it is definitely a person."
Then you shouldnt have an abortion after the third week.
Others disagree. Dont you think they have as much right to their beliefs as you have to yours?
Dont you think other people should have the same right to chose what to do over this issue as you do?
"Too funny JW... Made me laugh out loud in the office! Pretty good one there... haha..."
glad to hear it.
May 14, 2008
11:31 AM
history buff writes:
Shaggy, you are already pointing out the vagueness of the amendment's language. What about my question concerning reporting the presence of a person in a woman's body? If a woman doesn't report in time, would it be like a failure to report a death, or a hit and run accident? It seems the only way to make sure that all persons are reported so that their rights may be protected would require women to report all sexual intercourse.
I like 1034s reasoning. The number of women forced to bear a rapist's child would be a small percentage of all pregnancies. By the same reasoning, over 90% of people accused of murder are guilty, so why do we need trials for murder charges if only a small part of the population will be affected?
Apparently, the brave new society will emphasize cost / effective solutions over basic human rights. Beam me up, Scotty...
May 14, 2008
11:46 AM
PJ Pulitzer writes:
Holier: Unless a woman has two beating hearts then it's not about "her body". The 2nd beating heart belongs to the separate life inside of the woman. It has its own heart and its own separate blood supply. If she decides to kill it she herself continues to live, proving therefore that it's a separate life. So it's not about "her body".
May 14, 2008
11:51 AM
Anonymous writes:
If you libtards are so sure that women support and want abortions so bad why are you so scared to let them vote on it? Besides, the majority of aborted babies would probably grow up to be good little do what their told libtards who cant think for themselves. Between drugs and abortions your party should be decimated by 2050. JHM, I am positive you have other cock to suck besides Jay and JW. They sure seem to distant themselves from your insane ramblings
May 14, 2008
11:53 AM
This explains a lot... writes:
So jay, what will you net after taxes and attorney's fees?
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/16257249/detail.html
May 14, 2008
11:53 AM
Kevin writes:
Whenever equal rights are applied to a person who has not had them before someone loses power. The people losing power usually react violently. It has caused wars before. This case is no different. If a fetus is a person and is granted rights then the mother will lose some power. Gaining rights and losing rights is serious business. We as a society have to decide what carries the most weight. The mothers rights or the childs life. This will have to be decided legislatively because this forum has proven that most people are incapable of debate without hate and name calling. I for one pray our legislators are more clear headed.
May 14, 2008
11:57 AM
Shaggy writes:
"Dont you think other people should have the same right to chose what to do over this issue as you do?"---JW
Never said they didn't. But usually my suggestions are the more logical and intelligent ones so it would be in the best interest of everyone to listen to me:)
"If a woman doesn't report in time, would it be like a failure to report a death, or a hit and run accident?"---Buff
I don't think we need the intercourse police in on this.
If we outlawed abortions completely we wouldn't have these problems.
If people were responsible during sex we would only have a very few unwanted pregnancies and if someone was so intent on not having a baby they shouldn't do the deed.
People need to be responsible for their actions.
11:16, you don't even want to get me started with all the illegals who come here to deliver babies at our expense and try to become anchor babies and bankrupt hospitals cause they don't pay a flipping dime.
The anchor baby Law is what needs to be aborted.
Good point Pulitzer, never heard it that way before. If someone uses drugs during their pregnancy they can be charged with child abuse too.
May 14, 2008
11:58 AM
CpatainObvious writes:
No. They are not people.
May 14, 2008
12:00 PM
Anonymous writes:
This talk of murder for miscarriages is idiotic. It is simply a straw man argument with no merit what so ever. Another libtard with no intelligent way to defend abortion. Why dont you yokels just say it, you simply want sex without responsiblity. You dumbasses are all for "natural" shit. So when animals start aborting their young I will support a right to choose. Furthermore, when men are allowed to kill a baby since we are forced to pay child support wheter or not we wanted the child its unequal. Get a grip libs, you simply yell so loud on here cause no one supports your causes. You dont want anything voted on cause the support is so small you know its going to pass. Wheres all your talk about the will of the people now you dipshit femdems?
May 14, 2008
12:10 PM
JMH writes:
"JHM, I am positive you have other cock to suck besides Jay and JW. They sure seem to distant themselves from your insane ramblings" - Some moron who can't even come up with a name...
Haha.. too funny... Hey jay, it looks like I've got a little NeoCon wussie with a man-crush on me now too. Been following me around for a few day now... Wonder if it is the same punk? Sorry jay, if I'm stealing your bitch! haha...
May 14, 2008
12:19 PM
primafacie writes:
Courts have long held that a fetus has legal standing and, therefore, legal rights. A fetus may be a crime victim, subject of a contractual dispute and a legal heir. Drive drunk and kill a pregnant woman, it's double murder.
Yet, these same courts have also held that if a fetus is willfully killed by its mother, drunk or sober, it has no legal standing.
Until that incongruency is resolved, the rest is just calisthenics.
May 14, 2008
12:24 PM
Anonymous writes:
Is a fetus a person?
Let's ask one.
May 14, 2008
12:35 PM
JW writes:
"If we outlawed abortions completely we wouldn't have these problems."
There is TONS of data that says this simply isnt true. Outlawing abortion has no affect on the rate of abortion, just the rate of women experiencing health problems (it goes UP).
May 14, 2008
12:37 PM
Anonymous writes:
prima .... that is one of the great hypocrisies in our laws ... along with things like it being legal to drink intoxicating beverages, but weed is just too dangerous ... in most states a person can drink until they're 21, but they can go kill people in war at 18, and a number of others ..... wish we'd get that crap taken care of
May 14, 2008
12:41 PM
Anonymous writes:
If we outlaw abortions, only Outlaws will have abortions.
Do we really want Outlaws to breed anyway?
May 14, 2008
12:42 PM
Michael writes:
An undeveloped fetus is not a person. A fertilized egg is not a person. For those who read the Bible literally, it states very clearly
"Life is in the blood" no blood, no human.
I would argue further that without brain activity there can be no life. The magic and mystery of life cannot begin until the brain begins to function.
This entire debate about a fetus being life is when religion, philosphy, and science diverge into the invariable he said/she said. Religious beliefs have been forced onto all of society through various "laws" that are somehow supposed to "protect" us from ourselves.
No scientist, religious scholar, or poet has ever been able to say when life truly begins. So now a law based on a belief and not upon fact is supposed to ensure that all life is treated fairly. These types of arguments will always bring about a passionate response.
In the end, what kind of punishment do you bring upon a person who has an abortion. Should the mother go to jail, pay a fine, or have a red "A" tattoed upon her arm? What kind of sentence do you impose on someone who was raped and cannot bear the thought of bringing into this world a creation derived from hatred and not love. Does an expecting Father have to hear that his wife will die so that a child can be brought into the world?
The mystery of life is still in the hand of a being more powerful and omnipotent than any creature ever created on this planet. So when the edict comes from the Omnipotence on high, then I will be more inclined to listen, until then a woman still has the right to choose.
May 14, 2008
12:56 PM
JMH writes:
Well said Michael. Very well rounded post. Thanks...
May 14, 2008
12:57 PM
Ben-Former Fetus writes:
I was a fetus. I am a person.
May 14, 2008
12:58 PM
Just My Opinion writes:
Abortions should be manditory. It seems only stupid people are breeding today anyway!
May 14, 2008
1:01 PM
Tbone writes:
Is a fertilized breakfast egg a chicken?
May 14, 2008
1:04 PM
David M. writes:
Is a fetus a person one minute before traveling down the birth canal or being delivered by C-section? How about five minutes? One day? One week? One month? 8.99 months? Those who deny personhood status to a fetus must arbitrarily define a point in time after conception at which point that fetus becomes a person. To do so is not only illogical, but morally wrong -- most of those who do it know it's wrong.
May 14, 2008
1:07 PM
Tbone writes:
I don't have kids (yet), and I'm not a woman, so I admittedly don't know much about pregnancy.....
But don't some fetuses miscarry?
Not all fetuses develop into people, do they?
May 14, 2008
1:18 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) former fetus writes:
All people start out at conception. The real question is when does society want to begin protecting its most vulnerable members? When do you think it would have been OK to end your life? The one thing for sure is that people should be allowed to settle this at the voting booth. All Americans should have their say on this issue, not just nine unelected Super Legislators.
May 14, 2008
1:30 PM
Anonymous writes:
"in most states a person can drink until they're 21"---???
So once they hit 21 they cannot drink legally anymore?
May 14, 2008
1:31 PM
Michael writes:
Dave M brings up an intersting point. However, what is being proposed cannot define life as a beginning. A fetus is a group of unfertilized cells that are no different than skin cells or hair follicles until sperm and egg join to begin the growth process that will change into the life process.
To enact something into the constitution of our State just to be able to say that all life is precious is not logical. Our actions and interactions with each other in our everyday lives should state clearly how much each and every person respects the sanctity of life.
May 14, 2008
2:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
yes rump roast,
Some women miscarriage, it is natures way of thinning Liberals from corrupting the world.
May 14, 2008
2:20 PM
mjsimmons writes:
Is a fetus a person?
No a Fetus is not a person. It is at start a group of cells that are starting to form and/or make a person
Does a featus deserve to be protected in Colorado's constitution?
As the Constitution covers those people that are citizens of a state and country; and a fetus is not a citizen/person then no.
Is this initiative an assault on birth control and other reproductive issues?
It is an assault on personal liberty and choice of a citizen by people who wish to impose thier views and ensure that "No Choice" is left.
Do you think it has a chance to pass?
Yes sadly I do.
Would you vote for it?
No
May 14, 2008
2:23 PM
Tbone writes:
So if some fetuses miscarry, then they don't become people.
So how is a fertilized egg a person, if not all of them become....you know....people?
May 14, 2008
2:23 PM
mjsimmons writes:
Is a fetus a person?
No a Fetus is not a person. It is at start a group of cells that are starting to form and/or make a person
Does a featus deserve to be protected in Colorado's constitution?
As the Constitution covers those people that are citizens of a state and country; and a fetus is not a citizen/person then no.
Is this initiative an assault on birth control and other reproductive issues?
It is an assault on personal liberty and choice of a citizen by people who wish to impose thier views and ensure that "No Choice" is left.
Do you think it has a chance to pass?
Yes sadly I do.
Would you vote for it?
No
May 14, 2008
2:25 PM
Anonymous writes:
rump roast...that's pretty good!
May 14, 2008
2:31 PM
is a fertilized sees a plant? writes:
Is a fertilized seed a plant?
May 14, 2008
2:35 PM
is a fertilized seed a plant? writes:
A fetus is not a person. Is a fertilized seed a plant?
May 14, 2008
2:43 PM
Shaupeen writes:
Remove the passion and the anger, and simply ask yourself if you want someone else making decisions about your body for you. THAT is what this issue boils down to--some people are trying to force their belief on every woman in this state. I'm not even a female, and I'm offended at such an idea.
May 14, 2008
2:50 PM
sharon b writes:
It doesn`t matter what we call a fetus, what matters is what legal rights we give it. Lately, pregnant women have been killed, with their fetus in traffic accidents. If someone caused the accident how many people did they kill? What will be their punishment for the fetus?
May 14, 2008
2:51 PM
sharon b writes:
It doesn`t matter what we call a fetus, what matters is what legal rights we give it. Lately, pregnant women have been killed, with their fetus in traffic accidents. If someone caused the accident how many people did they kill? What will be their punishment for the fetus?
May 14, 2008
2:54 PM
just sayin' writes:
Is a shoe a foot? This is obvious to anyone that this is an attempt to start down the road to banning abortions. Common sense solutions are to provide education and birth control to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Study after study has shown countries with the most liberal policies have the fewest abortions. Anyone on the other side please explain why you would oppose this very simple common sense solution? Do you ever feel any guilt that by opposing these solutions that you are in a sense creating more abortions?
May 14, 2008
2:57 PM
Shaggy writes:
Let me help you all out a little.
An egg is an egg is an egg all day long.
A fertilized egg is an egg that starts growing and develops into a fetus thus signaling life at conception.
A Doctor does not abort eggs, he aborts fertilized eggs/fetuses/babies.
This is like saying a baby is not an adult yet, but it is a living person that will grow into adulthood.
Same thing, a fetus is not a baby yet, but it is a living person that will grow into babyhood.
That ends todays lesson...take notes...a pop quiz could occur at any time.
May 14, 2008
3:00 PM
Dr. Suess writes:
A person's a person, no matter how small.
May 14, 2008
3:08 PM
Name With-Held writes:
There is this mysticism and myths about women's rights to their bodies. The baby a woman aborts is the brother or sister that their only child never had. This same only child will someday have to make decisions about their mother's body when she is no longer able to. How sad if that only child treats mom the way she treated that lost brother or sister.
Put another way, a normal pregnancy is not like a diseased gallbladder or a lump in the breast. It has been trivialized and depersonalized for too long to the point that in today's society, a woman's rights has been the shield for contraception in the form of repeated abortions.
That is just wrong. And as a woman, I recognize that.
May 14, 2008
3:08 PM
Jack writes:
Stop vandalizing Dr. Seuss' legacy by misquoting him like it was his original intent. It shows disrespect to the man, and frankly undermines your own argument.
May 14, 2008
3:15 PM
Kevin Jones writes:
"No scientist, religious scholar, or poet has ever been able to say when life truly begins."
Reasonable arguments can certainly be made for when a human being begins. There is a lot of self-interested and ideological corruption in the abortion debate. Inconsistent reasoning and untenable philosophical presuppositions can be refuted.
I suggest taking a look at Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen's book Embryo: A Defense of Human Life.
A former fertility/IVF doc who now works for CU's Health Sciences Center highly recommended it to me, and some of their shorter work has been top-notch.
May 14, 2008
3:17 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Republican, because not everyone can be on welfare. writes:
js,
I am not opposed to sex ed as I experienced it. The problem is that these days so many schools try to sneak in all kinds of training into sex ed classes which violate a parent's authority. When my kids were growing up I let them stay in some sex ed classes while pulling them out when the material went beyond human phisiology and into the sort circus like the so called classes in Boulder.
May 14, 2008
3:17 PM
Anonymous writes:
What happened to the blog about that prosecutor who got the cop to tear up her boyfriend's speeding ticket because he was uh, her boyfriend?
May 14, 2008
3:17 PM
am 760 writes:
When a person is born and is actually giving a name he becomes a person. For the religious kooks, I will state this again. In revelations it says, those people whose names are written in the Book of Life will be saved. Thus, you must actually be born and given a name by your own Bible's standards.
This might interest some, a little wake up call, and a little scary. Why protect a fetus when we can't protect ourselves.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/11/8875
May 14, 2008
3:18 PM
Dr. Suess writes:
Hey there Jack,
You're a hack.
Just stay in your stall and whack.
Tap your shoe,
find a friend
when he gets there,
over you'll bend.
May 14, 2008
3:19 PM
Jon Penk writes:
Isn't it interesting... when a person is a suspect in female murder case,he or she maybe guilty of one count of murder. However, when it is learned that the female was pregnant, why does the count go to two counts fo murder if the fetus isn't a person?
May 14, 2008
3:21 PM
Jack writes:
Name With-held I don't think most women would consider their right to decide what to do with their own body "myth and mysticism". Maybe you're one of the few who don't much care what other people force you to do with your body. And that's fine, for you. But why force your decision on every other woman?
I've never met anyone--ANYONE--who's in favor of using abortion as birth control. That's a complete straw man argument. Abortion is a tragic thing, but far more tragic than that may well be the life into which that baby is forcibly brought. But then, most anti-choice folks don't give another thought to the rights of a baby once it's born. They won't want to pay for its education, or make sure that it's raised well, or fund any social programs to help. No, just being born is the important thing. After that, suck it up and take care of your own damn self.
The rights of the existing individual supercede the rights of a potential individual. Make your own decisions for yourself. Support those you know in making what you consider the "right" choice. But force abortions to once again be done in secret, and you'll have a society in which only the wealthy have access to it as an option (since they can go to other countries), and the poor end up being injured, sterilized, or killed by botched procedures.
Making abortion illegal won't stop abortion. It's as simple as that, and anyone who thinks that it will doesn't remember the lesson of Prohibition.
May 14, 2008
3:23 PM
Dr. Suess writes:
Hey there Jack,
You're a hack.
Just stay in your stall and whack.
Tap your shoe,
find a friend
when he gets there,
over you'll bend.
May 14, 2008
3:23 PM
Scooter writes:
I know plenty of parents who name their babies before birth.
Jayem760 is just being a typical moron with another lame attempt at logic.
No wonder your radio show is a desert.
May 14, 2008
3:27 PM
Dr. Suess writes:
Hey there Jack,
You're a hack.
Just stay in your stall and whack.
Tap your shoe,
find a friend
when he gets there,
over you'll bend.
May 14, 2008
3:30 PM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
I hope you all know that Obama voted TWICE against giving medical aid to babies still left alive after a botched abortion?
The more I learn about him the more I can't stand the SOB!!!!
May 14, 2008
3:31 PM
Name With-Held writes:
Sorry you don't get around Jack, but on-demand abortion as a convenience has been around for ages. Your lack of knowledge on the subject should not be the basis of any opinion on the matter.
I don't advocate giving up control over my body or my health decisions. What I do point out, as an inconvenient truth, is that a normal pregnancy is not comparable to most of the other instances or ailments where a women, or a man for that matter, asserts control over their body and health.
A normal pregnancy is a life in progress. It should be afforded extra protections, and more importantly, respect.
May 14, 2008
3:31 PM
Anonymous writes:
You libtards crack me up, its always religous kooks when you dont agree with them right, but never can you ever see the emtional kooks you douchebags when you are defending your arguments based on your moral compasses, etc. AM760, I dont even know why you speak, you are clearly the dumbest person on this blog. JW and Jay are light years ahead of your intelligence. You continue to cite wrong facts, or quote AM 760, while saying people who listed to other radio shows are stooges. You are exactly what you hate, only not religous and plainly more stupid then most of the people I meet on a daily basis. Really my only question for your dumbaass is: how can you so passionatley have opinions on things you know nothing about?
May 14, 2008
3:41 PM
Dr. Suess writes:
We know the truth,
It's in the bag,
We all know Jack
to be a fag.
Give him a buck,
you'll get a suck.
Give him two,
he'll let you screw.
Of pretty girls,
he has no use.
His favorite ride
is the caboose.
He likes to blog,
he likes to preach
Adolescent boys,
he likes to teach.
He likes to smoke,
He likes to drink,
But on his knees,
He'll always sink.
Abandonment is
his biggest fright,
give him some weed,
he's yours for the night.
May 14, 2008
3:49 PM
Anonymous writes:
Hey Suess,
I heard Jack's favorite pick up line in a gay bar is, "may I push your stool in".
May 14, 2008
3:54 PM
Bam Bam writes:
Anyone think that this whole arguement would be differenet if it were men who got pregnant?
I would say if men got pregnent, that there would be a totally different outlook on this subject.
I would bet abortions would be a right of passage of sorts... probably with a party and well wishers.
All you people against letting women have the freedom to choose their reproductive options should be ashamed!
Take your Bible's as shove them where the sun don't shine... it was written by men too... not God. Abortions have been performed since the beginning of time. Making it illegal just makes it unsafe. Mind your business... all of you!
May 14, 2008
3:57 PM
Dr. Suess writes:
Jack's a queen,
his favorite lay,
and favorite friend,
is Larry Craig.
May 14, 2008
4:16 PM
Anonymous writes:
Is a donut without a hole a donut?
May 14, 2008
4:26 PM
Jack writes:
Name With-held, abortion on-demand, as you put it (though this, too, is purposefully pejorative, as it implies thoughtlessness, which isn't the case in most procedures) isn't the same thing as the advocation of abortion as a form of birth control. Even the most staunch of pro-choice supporters will say that it's a serious decision and shouldn't be made lightly. No woman I've ever known has used abortion as birth control. That's a reductio ad absurdium argument. No one's arguing for it, so it's pointless to argue against it.
Likewise, no one's comparing a pregnancy to a diseased gallbladder. You're trying to, but the argument makes no sense, because there's no advocate for the position you're opposing.
It's a lot more complicated than you suggest. It's not so simple as to say it's a "life in process"--no one agrees on when that life begins, which is the crux of the issue that you're glossing over.
I respect your choice not to have an abortion because you don't believe in it. Until real science can offer real and convincing proof of where life begins, how is it not better to err on the side of the rights of the individual that's here and breathing now, as opposed to that bunch of cells that might become a person later?
May 14, 2008
4:31 PM
James Runavich writes:
Have you ever seen a fetus? It has a head, arms, legs, toes, fingers, a body. Why it looks just like you would expect a person to look like in the womb! Fetus is just a word to take it easy on the concious of people who have no problem murdering babies. BABIES. It is much harder to abort a baby than a fetus. We have murdered over 30 million babies in this country and we thought Hitler was a bad guy.
May 14, 2008
4:32 PM
Sohan V. writes:
Why not adoption? There are still many parents who cannot conceive and would give anything to have a child. Why doesn't society create a national adoption service so that women who are not victims of rape or incest can give the baby up for adoption rather than kill it? it seems so much more humane.
And to the usual suspects, don't throw that line out about a woman should have control of her body. Having sex means you can get pregnant. It is a choice for the vast majority of those women who then change their minds about the consequences.
May 14, 2008
4:35 PM
James Runavich writes:
Have you ever seen a fetus? It has a head, arms, legs, toes, fingers, a body. Why it looks just like you would expect a person to look like in the womb! Fetus is just a word to take it easy on the concious of people who have no problem murdering babies. BABIES. It is much harder to abort a baby than a fetus. We have murdered over 30 million babies in this country and we thought Hitler was a bad guy.
May 14, 2008
4:37 PM
PoolMaintenanceGuy writes:
Based on these posts, it seems the GENE POOL could use a little chlorine!
I say let the process work. Let the proponents have a vote. It will fail. Then the case can be made that the people have spoken on the issue.
May 14, 2008
4:39 PM
Name With-Held writes:
Again Jack. Your lack of experience on the subject really does disqualify you from having an opinion. Just because there is disagreement as to the exact point where life begins does not make it OK to advocate the killing of a human being. There are other choices.
As a man you must understand that when you decide to have sex you might become a parent. Women should be held to the same standard.
Despite the uncertainty about the point where life begins, I happen to know when it begins. It begins when I know that I am pregnant. It is confirmed when I hear my baby's heartbeat and fell its movements inside of me.
Sorry Jack. You just don't know what you are talking about.
May 14, 2008
4:41 PM
PoolMaintenanceGuy writes:
Based on these posts, it seems the GENE POOL could use a little chlorine!
I say let the process work. Let the proponents have a vote. It will fail. Then the case can be made that the people have spoken on the issue.
May 14, 2008
4:43 PM
Dan writes:
For me, I was brought up going to church and being taught that a human being is made of body AND soul. I believe that the human spirit or soul is received at birth. Again, this is my belief and if you don't agree with me, prove me wrong.
May 14, 2008
4:48 PM
Anonymous writes:
Don't go too hard on Jack. He's had a rough day and just had to buy himself some flowers for a little pick-me-up. Later he'll go home, have a good cry, and watch "Beaches" until "Sex and the City" comes on.
May 14, 2008
4:50 PM
Jack writes:
You seem very focused on taking away my right to have an opinion, while I've come out and said that I respect your right to have yours. Sad that you can't offer me the same courtesy.
Again, you're basing your argument on facts not in evidence. The disagreement as to when life begins is the very bedrock of the argument as to whether abortion is "killing a person" or not. Until that's decided, it's presumptuous of you to make a choice as big as this for anyone but yourself.
Sorry, Name With-Held, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. The difference is that I'm not advocating that everyone live by your philosophies; you are.
May 14, 2008
4:52 PM
Jack writes:
I don't think the pro-choice position wants to prove you wrong, Dan. I sure don't. Believe anything you'd like. Just don't ask me to believe it just because you do.
May 14, 2008
4:52 PM
am 760 writes:
3:31 go F yourself. So if a woman drinks and smokes during pregnancy and her newborn comes out w/ birth defects is she guilty of child abuse. Or is she trips and kills the fetus accidently is she guilty of murder.
I'll Im saying is that most people who support this stuff, read into the Bible things that aren't there, which is a sin.
All your ranting gives me a laugh though, I must really bother you. PS I did not list anything about other radio programs, hosts, etc... so not sure what your talking about.
Please list your name next time though so I know which dumbass you are. Thanks.
May 14, 2008
4:54 PM
Help Us writes:
People like Jackoff like to think of a fetus and an amorphous bunch of meaningless cells. It is exactly why the process of aborting a life has been reduced to a sound bite.
This world is in real trouble.
May 14, 2008
4:59 PM
Name With-Held writes:
Jack, you should be advocating for the weakest among us and decide to err on the side of caution and let the babies live until the big uncertainty (as you put it because you cannot know) is finally settled.
May 14, 2008
5:05 PM
Tbone writes:
Jay Marvin is indisputably the single largest loser in the history of these blogs.
Satisfied?
May 14, 2008
5:07 PM
Jack writes:
Seriously, do you all think the name-calling and the homophobic attacks and all the rest is really supporting your side of things? Amazing.
May 14, 2008
5:12 PM
Name With-Held writes:
And Jack - its too bad that you cannot see some basic differences between you and me.
On this subject your opinion is not equivalent to mine and never will be.
Sorry Jack.
May 14, 2008
5:12 PM
Jim R. writes:
Dan, not sure what church you go to? Ephesians 1:4
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.
God knows us before he even created the world. We don't get our soul at birth, we have had it since before time.
May 14, 2008
5:18 PM
Anonymous writes:
Jack - Sorry about that. Whatever you do, please don't cry. If there is anything I have no patience for it is women crying in the workplace.
May 14, 2008
5:23 PM
Jack writes:
Name With-held, that's the conundrum, I agree. Are bad choices made sometimes in regard to abortion? Undoubtedly. But sometimes I believe that it's the best choice for a specific person in a specific instance, and even if I wouldn't advise my daughters or my wife or someone that I love to do it--even if I might help them find another way to deal with it--I don't think it's my place to legislate that for every woman. Not everyone has the same opportunities that others do.
May 14, 2008
5:27 PM
Dan writes:
Jack, thanks for your response to my email and I appreciate the civility with it. I am the same way when it comes to respecting other opinions. As I said this is my belief and I don't try to shove it down the throats of those that might disagree. There's nothing wrong with a disagreement but there should be the respect for someone to say it.
May 14, 2008
5:28 PM
Anonymous writes:
I'll Im saying is that most people who support this stuff, read into the Bible things that aren't there, which is a sin. by am 760 (local dipshit)
isnt that like saying most black people gang bang? most mexicans are illegal and mooch off welfare? most liberals are retarded? You are nothing but a religious bigot and I am not even religious. You are simply every bit as ignorant and dim witted as the people you try to slander on this blog. Which makes you JUST LIKE THEM only you try to blame everything on religion. You are probably just upset that a preacher never put the moves on you cause you were the nerdy fat kid. Your arguments on this subject are also borderline retarded. If you accidently kill a man there is consideration, you dont get life for drunk driving and killing, you get like 6-10 years and are out in 3-4. If you are sober you wont do time dipshit. Just like a women who falls and kills her kid, which is probably the dumbest statment yet as the dumb bitch would have to fall pretty hard, would fall into the accident thing, a misscarriage is not a crime you idiot, so no charges would ever come. You libs are the most retarded morons ever, the slippery slope argument against gays you tools say there is none, but on this you claim there is one. you morons are rednecks that just happen to live in a city and hump your dogs instead of your sisters.
May 14, 2008
5:32 PM
john writes:
ALL HUMANS ARE PEOPLE!!!
Basic science tells us that at fertilization a new human has been created! A fetus is a little human.
May 14, 2008
5:49 PM
Anonymous writes:
When my wife became pregnant, I was scared and didn't really want to be a dad. But I can honestly say that when I heard my baby's heart beat for the first time, it changed all that. I now have four children and they, along with their beautiful mother, are simply my everything. I believe there should be a law that would make it a requirement for mothers to hear their fetus's heartbeat before making the decision to abort. I'd bet abortions would be cut in half just by doing that. This is me betting on the instinctive response of a mother that comes from God and God alone. I won't even try and argue this from a Biblical standpoint because the Bible is just words printed on a page without the faith in the God who inspired it.
May 14, 2008
5:59 PM
dan writes:
Jim R. Thank you too for your response. But I respectfully have to say that you still haven't given me any proof of what I believe as to when the human spirit or soul is received. Just as doctors and scientists look under a microscope and see cells multiplying and dividing and according to some the beginning of life, you are quoting words from the Bible that are written by men about God. In some religious sects the spirit is received at birth. So, who is right? It is our belief system. I consider myself a very spiritual person but when it comes to organized religion, that's another story. Organized religion has been the root of a great deal of trouble throughout history because of words written by man and if people would just relize that there are multiple paths to the creator, the world would be a much better place.
May 14, 2008
6:08 PM
Joe Bloggs writes:
if your lily-white sister/daughter/wife was gang-raped by a small horde of Mexicans, and/or Negroes gang-bangers, and pregnant as result,
(and let's say the child-to-be was badly deformed as well), which of you right-wingers will stand up, and volunteer to raise that child once born?
(Don't all jump up at once, now...)
if, instead your lily-white sister/daughter/wife should choose an abortion in this case, what form of capital punishment she be sentenced to? (lethal injection, electric chair, gas, hanging, or firing squad?).
or perhaps a beheading would be best, on prime-time TV, (not unlike Saudi-Arabia)
May 14, 2008
6:20 PM
Jim writes:
I always wonder why Christians get so worked up over abortion and hardly say anything about clothing the naked, feeding the hungry and caring for the sick (the things that Jesus actually talked about). Could it be that they want to feel that they don't feel like they are good unless they feel persecuted? Suppose they spent this energy trying to stop things we all agree are wrong like starvation, poverty and war? Imagine going around the state and getting 100,000 signatures to pass a law that takes care of sick people.
I've noticed that many people, particularly fundamentalist religious people, tend to look at the world as black and white, good and evil, etc. What if life is a continuum? What if there is ambiguity about the moment when human life begins? There is a lot of ambiguity about a lot of things and many people would rather have some black and white law instead of having to think about things.
May 14, 2008
6:26 PM
Jim writes:
I always wonder why Christians get so worked up over abortion and hardly say anything about clothing the naked, feeding the hungry and caring for the sick (the things that Jesus actually talked about). Could it be that they want to feel that they don't feel like they are good unless they feel persecuted? Suppose they spent this energy trying to stop things we all agree are wrong like starvation, poverty and war? Imagine going around the state and getting 100,000 signatures to pass a law that takes care of sick people.
I've noticed that many people, particularly fundamentalist religious people, tend to look at the world as black and white, good and evil, etc. What if life is a continuum? What if there is ambiguity about the moment when human life begins? There is a lot of ambiguity about a lot of things and many people would rather have some black and white law instead of having to think about things.
May 14, 2008
6:32 PM
Jack writes:
Dan, on that, we can both agree. Thanks to you too.
May 14, 2008
6:37 PM
Anonymous writes:
Jim, you are an idiot. It is statictiscally proven christians, those without give more then rich liberals who just talk the talk and say the goverment should do it. Look it up dipshit, it will suprise you. Obama and Michelle gave next to nothhing last year, the Cheneys, yeah 30 million went to charities. Just a simple google will do it for you cocksucker
May 14, 2008
6:38 PM
Speak Up! writes:
Good post, Jim. I agree with you, but I'd hasten to add that there are some Christians (just like there are some Buddhists, etc.) that do put their money where their mouth is, and do great work to support humanity in the larger sense and aren't just one-issue myopic.
I usually stay away from debates like these, and some of the ludicrous posts here are part of the reason. This debate is a hot-button issue for sure, and brings out the worst in some people. No one convinces anyone of anything. Still, I think the conversation is valuable, and for those of you actually trying to have a rational debate about this (on both sides)? Good for you.
May 14, 2008
7:33 PM
just sayin' writes:
you answered part of my question Hogar and I appreciate your position. I noticed no one else touched eat. Very weak in fact the rest of you got nothing.
May 14, 2008
8:05 PM
Bob writes:
Here is a bigger question to ponder. Many undergo amniocentesis to look for genetic defects and inherited disease in pregnacy. Many of these are terminated.
Under this definition what would happen?
May 14, 2008
8:22 PM
Mark writes:
Hitler called that the preservation of the Aryan race.
Very slippery slope.
May 14, 2008
8:42 PM
Captain America writes:
So Mark, you're comparing a husband and wife who decide to terminate a deformed or fatally flawed fetus in utero... to Hitler and his Master Race? Here's hoping you never find yourself in that position, buddy. You'd realize then just how callous that comparison is.
My niece did that exact thing some years back. Her baby was technically viable, but had a kidney defect that would have allowed him to live--barely, and with massive medical costs and 24 hour care--for perhaps a year or so. He would have had no quality of life, no future at all. She and her husband decided to terminate the pregnancy. They were crushed, but they believed (and still do) that they did what was best.
I say this because I used to be solidly pro-life. Since the situation my niece went through, I've become pro-choice. I saw a lot of what they went through, and I'm sure didn't see a lot more sorrow and pain in the privacy of their own home. The issue is so complex, and such a personal decision. I'm still very much against casual abortion, but there's so much gray area in the issue that I can't imagine making the procedure illegal. It's just the wrong way to go about solving the problem.
May 14, 2008
8:47 PM
blake30 writes:
i dont agree with abortion, but i will be handing out condoms and the morning after pill on halloween.
May 14, 2008
8:52 PM
Sis writes:
Yes, the fetus is a person. At the time of conception unique DNA is present. This person has never lived before, will never live again and deserves the right to life. This is NOT an assault on birth control. With all the sex ed info out there there is NO way individuals do not know how to prevent pregnancy! I hope the "personhood" amendment does pass. I would vote for it. We have become such a disposable society that we just dispose of anything with no regard.
May 14, 2008
9:53 PM
Conventional Wisdom writes:
Why the double standard? If you have sex, you can get pregnant. You have to live with the consequences. That is certainly what the courts tell reluctant fathers. Why make an exception to kill the problem if a woman changes her mind?
And I am not referring to rape or incest so don't even go there.
May 14, 2008
9:58 PM
jayisanidiot writes:
Sure jay - I mean Captain.
You always have a convenient illustrative relative in the wings to try to convince us of your sincerity. What a joke you continue to be. Thanks for all the goofy entertainment you loser.
May 14, 2008
10:22 PM
Civility writes:
I don't believe in abortion and I think that the technology is to the point where abortion can be avoided. If the mother cannot take care of the baby then it is upon us to make sure that the baby is put in a nurturing home. That said, I don't think that we can force our principles on anyone. It is still up to the mother to decide what to do after she is aware of all of the options that are available to her. Wouldn't it be nice if no one ever showed up at an abortion clinic?
May 14, 2008
10:24 PM
Jon writes:
Jim,
for your information, Christians do care about the poor, it's called Denver Resue Mission. For your information, Christians do care about the sick. It's called St. Joseph's Hospital. For your information, Christians do care about the poor and needy. It's called food banks and clothing banks. Some people just don't want help.
May 14, 2008
11:52 PM
Sharon b writes:
If this passes, I want another law that makes sperm 1/2 a person and egg 1/2 a person, under the law.
Strictly for their own protection.
Also I want another law requiring all women who know they are pregnant, to wear an arm band letting the rest of us know to keep at least 15 feet away from them.
May 15, 2008
5:35 AM
Jim writes:
I think there are a lot of Christians who do a lot of good work, just as I see a lot of non-Christians who do a lot of good work. But I don't see fundamentalist Christians trying to use political pressure for anything except getting cuss words off TV, stopping abortion and trying to get evolution out of the classrooms. And they seem to think that anyone who is a Democrat or doesn't agree with them is not a Christian.
BTW, comments like "Jim, you are an idiot" and "a simple google will do it for you cocksucker" just don't strike me as things Jesus would say.
A simple google yielded this information: President Bush reported taxable income of $719,274 in 2007 and contributed a total of $165,660 to churches and charitable organizations. Vice President Cheney and his wife earned $2,528,068 in 2007 and donated $166,547 to charity. Sentator Barack Obama donated $240,000 to charity in 2007 and the Clintons gave $1-million of earnings from Bill's book to charity in 2007.
May 15, 2008
7:10 AM
sis writes:
I still say that we have become such a disposable society that we now dispose of human life as if it were yesterdays garbage. I would say that rates right up there with cannibalism as a disgusting human behavior. Women know about birth control and it is readily available. In most instances there is no excuse to kill "another persons body," no matter how small other than a disregard for human life.
May 15, 2008
7:46 AM
Anonymous writes:
This entire agrgument about women being raped, kids deformed is bullshit. Less then 10% of abortions are for rape, retardation, heath concerns. That leaves 90% of all aborted babies simply being thrown out cause lefties want sex with no consequence. You libtards are simply using a straw man argument. This isnt a religious view, its how you lefties say, "a moral compass". how can you dipshits talk about human rights when you are open to killing the most basic of life?
You continue to state how the supreme court already ruled this. Yet they also ruled drugs are illegal yet you continue to want to change those laws???? Every issue you femdems think you will win on you start with this "will of the people" yet every issue you know people are going to vote overwhelmigly against you on you dont want a vote. You are the party of lunatics and even your party leaders dont take you seriously, they continue to cater to you to garner votes and then pay no attention to you the rest of the time. Terrorists deserve to be left alone, close guantanamo but kill babies!!! No wonder you dips are so divided, its pretty hard to get insane people to agree on anything.
You libs bash christians over and over yet you want rights for muslims?? Its okay to draw Bush as a monkey but now that people are doing it for obama cause his ears everyone is a racist. Where does it end?
May 15, 2008
7:51 AM
Mary writes:
"I will not rest until every child in Colorado is protected by law and love,"
Fine - but a fertilized human egg is no more a person than a fertilized chicken egg is a chicken. Unfortunately, that is the debate that this woman-child, who has no real life experience is provoking. Just as I would never tell her she can't attempt to carry a pregnancy to term, even if it is the result of rape, tests show the "baby" to be born will be anencephalic (literally born without a brain - and if not put on machines would die within hours as it couldn't even breathe for itself), or would kill her - and the baby-to-be (like a fallopian implantation) - before the fetus has an outside chance of surviving, she has no right to tell other women what their morality should be. Perhaps, since she is so concerned about children, she & her ilk should start adopting the kids who are available - and start with the older ones, as they are considered most "unadoptable". Wait - that might actually require a lifelong emotional commitment, financial investment & real work on their part.
Wouldn't it be nice if no one ever showed up at an abortion clinic?
Absolutely - so - invent a 100% effective form of birth control. None is - from "Catholid roulette" to the pill to "sterilization" forms (vasectomy and tubal ligations have both failed). Or are you suggesting that even in marriage, a couple should abstain unless they want a child?
This is NOT an assault on birth control.
Want to bet? There are methods which prevent implantation of the fertilized egg - which of course would have to be banned. By the way, this is also an assault on in vitro fertilization (used by many who cannot seem to conceive "naturally") - no more "multiple egg" fertilizations making it affordable for middle class folks who want children. I suppose that's all good - the Catholic church is opposed to any form of "assisted fertilization" except basal temperature checking.
Christians do care about the poor, it's called Denver Resue Mission. For your information, Christians do care about the sick. It's called St. Joseph's Hospital. For your information, Christians do care about the poor and needy. It's called food banks and clothing banks. Some people just don't want help.
PLEASE - every year - especially during the coldest, worst weather places like this are overflowing and have to turn people (including families) away. Does this mean that Christians have chosen to ignore Christ's teachings about the poor and only give when it suits them? They sure a shooting ignore the teachings that indicate that wealth conflicts with spirituality.
The bottom line is that God is the most prolific abortionist of all - many fertilized eggs naturally don't implant and - depending on age and health of the woman - 15% to over 50% spontaneously abort. Does this mean pro-lifers should start picketing churches?
May 15, 2008
7:57 AM
Anonymous writes:
Jesus Jim, what left wing BS site did you get those numbers from? From 2000 to 2004 the Obamas who anual salary was 350k a year gave less then 1%, thats 3500 to charities.
In 2005, however, that total jumped to $77,315 (4.7 percent of annual earnings), and to $60,307 in 2006 (6.1 percent).
The money went to several organizations. More than $27,000 total was given to Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ, whose former pastor Jeremiah Wright has dominated recent news coverage. Other charity gifts included: Muntu Dance Theater, a Chicago-based company that performs contemporary and classic African dance, which received a $5,000 donation; The Rochelle Lee Fund, a literacy organization, which received a $20,000 donation; the Illinois Reading Council, which received a $25,000 donation, and CARE, the poverty fighting organization, which received a total of $31,000 in donations.
Obama also classified a $13,107 contribution to the Congressional Black Caucus as a charity gift.
Taken as a whole, these disbursements made up a small portion of Obama's annual income. According to TaxProf Blog, the Illinois senator gave "well short of the biblical 10% tithe for all seven years."
"As new parents who were paying off their large student loans, giving $10,000 to charity [from 2000 to 2004] was as generous as they could be at the time," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
The release of Obama's tax returns represents another step in the campaign's effort to push the issue of transparency in the nomination battle against Sen. Hillary Clinton. The New York Democrat has not released her tax return information from the years following her departure from the White House (she has released returns corresponding to the 20 years prior). Her campaign promised to make her tax information public at least three days prior to the Pennsylvania primary on April 20.
While political observers are eager to see how former president Bill Clinton's profited off his post-White House fame, the Obama disclosures underscore the story of a relatively obscure and unknown state senator rising rapidly to national prominence.
Indeed, perhaps the only other of interesting news to be gleamed from a review of the Obama tax returns is that Michelle Obama made $12,000 more than previously known from the organization Treehouse Foods.
Why is that significant? Treehouse, an Illinois food-processing company on which Michelle Obama served as a board member, is one of the biggest suppliers of pickles and peppers to WalMart, the retail giant that is often loathed in progressive circles.
According to Obama's 2007 tax returns, Michelle earned $51,200 from the company and 7,500 Treehouse stock options. This is relatively minor stuff considering the degree of separation from WalMart itself (Sen. Hillary Clinton, for one, served on WalMart's board while she was first lady of Arkansas), but already Obama's critics have used it against him.
"The Obamas would have us believe that, when it comes to money and ethics and compassion, he is a different kind of politician," Chicago political consultant Joe Novak said in a May 2007 article in the London Telegraph. "[But] defending Treehouse while attacking Wal-Mart is a blatant example of personal hypocrisy."
Arthur C. Brooks presents research showing that religious conservatives are more charitable than secular liberals. He says people who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others. Included in his book is an analysis of 15 sets of data that he says all came to the same conclusion
In one of the largest sums ever donated to charity by a U.S. public official, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne gave away nearly $7 million last year to help the poor and to medical research.
According to income tax information released by the White House on Friday, the Cheneys' adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006.
The sum was largely the result of Mr. Cheney's stock options from Halliburton and royalties from three books written by Mrs. Cheney.
The Cheneys gave more than three-quarters of their income - $6,869,655 - to several charities, including George Washington University's Cardiothoracic Institute and a charity for low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area, Capital Partners for Education.
The Cheneys' charitable generosity stands in marked contrast to that of their predecessors, whose sometimes stingy donations became a national embarassment.
In 1997 for instance, Al and Tipper Gore contributed just $353 to charity, a sum that raised eyebrows even in friendly media circles.
The Los Angeles Times noted, for instance, that the Gores' slender donation "caused some bewilderment in philanthropic circles because of the vice president's 'good guy' image as an advocate for public service and social causes."
The same year the Gores gave $353 to charity, they reported $197,729 in adjusted gross income.
I can keep going if you like Jim, but the reality time and time again we see the stingy libtards insisting the rich should subsidize their lives while rich femdems refuse to give and think the goverment should do it for them.
May 15, 2008
8:11 AM
JW writes:
"Reasonable arguments can certainly be made for when a human being begins."
Reasonbable to YOU. Others disagree.
"There is a lot of self-interested and ideological corruption in the abortion debate."
Yes, and your continued insistance that legal bans to abortion are any kind of solution is one of them. Youve seen the data, but its not changed your ideological, self-interested desire for legal bans.
"Inconsistent reasoning and untenable philosophical presuppositions can be refuted."
Agreed. Unfortunately, for those of you who "Believe" you can proscribe a quick fix for society by forcing your particular brand of morals on others and attempting to take away their choice to do as they see fit, well, inconsistent reasoning and untenable philosophical presuppositions is the order of the day.
"Women know about birth control and it is readily available."
You would like to think so. Unfortunatley, the push in this country has been for "abstinance only" sex ed. Thats all the government has funded for the ENTIRE Bush administration. And you can see the consequences in the data.
The lowest rates of abortion on the planet are in the Netherlands and Belgium. Both have liberal laws on abortion, combined with excellent sex ed and access to contraception. THERE is your solution to this problem, but my bet is you will continue to push legal solutions which, according to the data, are not solutions at all.
May 15, 2008
8:36 AM
sis writes:
"Women know about birth control and it is readily available." You would like to think so. Unfortunately, the push in this country has been for "abstinence only" sex ed. Thats all the government has funded for the ENTIRE Bush administration. And you can see the consequences in the data."
Lame excuse for the disgusting actions of the chopping, sucking and/or poisoning of humane life and glossing it over by calling it pro-choice.
May 15, 2008
9:03 AM
Anonymous writes:
The push for abstinence? There is not program where abstinence only is being taught you tool. It was shot down years ago but you lefty twats. Every women knows about birth control. We have all been taught how to use condoms since 7th grade. Another idiotic straw man argument with no merit.
May 15, 2008
9:09 AM
JW writes:
"Lame excuse for the disgusting actions of the chopping, sucking and/or poisoning of humane life and glossing it over by calling it pro-choice."
Its DATA, not an excuse. Do you understand the difference?
Again, Belgium and the Netherlands (Holland) have the lowest rates of abortion in the world. Yet they have LIBERAL abortion laws. The reason this works is that they actually do have good sex ed, and access to contraception, which lowers the rate of unwanted pregnancies. The DATA says the USA is WAY BEHIND in this regard.
If you have a problem with abortion (and it is fairly CLEAR that you do) you should be pushing for these kinds of policies here in the USA, instead of burying your head in the "They know about contraception, and so should pay the price" ideological argument which has NO SUPPORTING DATA.
Do you know what the DATA says about legal bans on abortion? Or are you just pushing that as a solution in total ignorance because it fits with your emotions on the subject?
"The push for abstinence? There is not program where abstinence only is being taught you tool."
BULLSHIT. There have been several articles in the last months where programs have given up federal funding because it REQUIRES abstinance only training, so that they can teach real sex ed.
"It was shot down years ago but you lefty twats."
No. It wasnt.
"Every women knows about birth control."
The DATA says otherwise, and your ideological need to believe doesnt change that.
"We have all been taught how to use condoms since 7th grade."
I was. Kids now arent.
"Another idiotic straw man argument with no merit."
This just cracks me up. First, because you pulled this from ME. Before I started talking about formal fallacies, you didnt know the first fucking thing about them. Second, because you misuse it on a regular basis. As its a pretty simple concept, that speaks to your fundamental lack of intelligence.
May 15, 2008
9:31 AM
jay writes:
why are the crazy, uneducated ones always anonymous?
the bottom line we always come back to on this issue is that the anti-choice, religious right position won't decrease abortions, but rather increase risk to the woman involved.
there is no way to get around that fact.
it's just data as JW says.
now that we've once again established that, it is hard to take the fundamentalist position seriously, considering it holds the best interest of a 2000 year old fairy tale over the best interests of humanity.
May 15, 2008
9:56 AM
sis writes:
"Again, Belgium and the Netherlands (Holland) have the lowest rates of abortion in the world. Yet they have LIBERAL abortion laws."
What you fail to give is the data on other factors that play into this data such as, a lower rate of teen pregnancy, parenting styles that give their children a healthy outlook, etc, etc.
"If you have a problem with abortion (and it is fairly CLEAR that you do)
YOU BET I DO IT IS A HUMAN LIFE
you should be pushing for these kinds of policies here in the USA, instead of burying your head in the "They know about contraception, and so should pay the price" ideological argument which has NO SUPPORTING DATA"
I have devoted the last 20+ years working with pregnant and parenting young Moms and I talk from EXPERIENCE when I say they know about contraception. You are wrong when you say that abstinence education doesn't work. I know it does work and I speak from experience unlike you!
May 15, 2008
10:05 AM
jay writes:
"You are wrong when you say that abstinence education doesn't work."
come on, do we really have to keep debunking these same religious right myths?
May 15, 2008
10:06 AM
Anonymous writes:
Heres the hundred thousand dollar question.
Are jay and JW fetuses or babies?
May 15, 2008
10:12 AM
Captain America writes:
Just for the record, anonymous insulter at 9:58PM, I'm not Jay, and I'd appreciate you not claiming that I am.
That "illustrative" was absolutely true, and for my family, far from "convenient". Believe me, we all wish it weren't.
May 15, 2008
10:17 AM
Captain America writes:
"why are the crazy, uneducated ones always anonymous?"
I don't know, Jay. They're also primarily the ones making up the most offensive names they can think to call people, and even worse, making bad-poetry attacks on people just trying to have a conversation. It's a pretty small way to present yourself, if you ask me.
And since you and I are apparently the same person, I know you agree with me. :)
May 15, 2008
10:20 AM
JW writes:
"What you fail to give is the data on other factors that play into this data such as, a lower rate of teen pregnancy, parenting styles that give their children a healthy outlook, etc, etc."
Lets say this is correct. It STILL says that there is a way to lower the abortion rate (your goal) without institution of a legal ban on abortion and maintaining the freedom to chose. The data on abortion bans STILL says that they dont lower the abortion rate at all, but do raise the rate of medical problems for women.
So, why do you want a legal ban on abortion, rather than seeking to emulate Holland and Belgium? Hell, the "pro-choice" movement wouldnt fight you tooth and nail, and you would get what you want in lower abortion rates!
"I have devoted the last 20+ years working with pregnant and parenting young Moms and I talk from EXPERIENCE when I say they know about contraception. "
Some do. But the DATA says that the main reson for having an abortion is unwanted pregnancy, PERIOD. Why do people get pregnant when they dont want to? Some are irresponsible, that is true. But the DATA says that most women who have unwanted pregnancies are uneducated about contraceptives, or those contraceptives were not easily available to them for some reason. This isnt my opinion, its what the relevant scientific DATA says.
"You are wrong when you say that abstinence education doesn't work."
Why? The scientific DATA says I'm right. What makes you think I'm wrong? Your personal experiences? Why is it that the DATA says teens who take an abstinance vow are more likely to engage in pre-marital sex than those who do not? Why is it the DATA says that teens who attend abstinance only education are far more likely to end up pregnant than those who attend regular sex ed classes?
"I know it does work and I speak from experience unlike you! "
Your personal experience doesnt negate scientific data. Sorry. You may WANT it to, but your personal experience ammounts to what is called "a statistically irrelevant sample size". Continuing to refuse to recognize the scientific data and rely on your "experience" ammounts to nothing more than an ideological stance that has you pushing for failed, detrimental policies. Thats not meant as an insult. This whole conversation is meerly an attempt to show you that you dont have to take away people's freedom to get what you want in lower abortion rates, and if you dont have to take away what others see as their rights in order to get what you want, it makes getting what you want A WHOLE LOT EASIER. Just a small change in your beliefs, and you can start pushing policies that WILL lower the abortion rate, rather than banging your head against a wall and accomplishing...nothing. In that regard, I do a hell of alot more to lower the abortion rate even though I am pro-choice than you do as a pro-lifer even though I am clearly not as invested in the issue.
"Heres the hundred thousand dollar question.
Are jay and JW fetuses or babies?"
Meanwhile, there is no question whatsoever that you are a mental midget.
May 15, 2008
10:23 AM
Anonymous writes:
All the liberal ranting aside, you femdems continue to talk about Overwhelming Majority that you assume favors you, so let the voters speak nimrods. you already know this will get 75-80% of the votes to pass which is what you fear so much, letting people vote. Again, you cant have it both ways, its not "lets vote when we think we will win". and not allow votes when the left knows they will lose.
Its funny how abortion and pills seem to be the answer to everything for you loony lefties. How about teaching kids that they need to take responsibility for their actions cause the dems cant an election and goverment fixing everything for them is not coming?
May 15, 2008
10:33 AM
am 760 writes:
Why don't the people who support this put there names on a list and deliver it to Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinics and when someone comes in for an abortion those working there, can tell that person that these people are willing to adopt your child or they will find someone that will.
Would you be willing to do that, those who support this. Wouldn't that be a more pro-active way to solve this.
May 15, 2008
10:44 AM
Shaggy writes:
10:23 AM,
You hit the nail on the head very squarely on that one.
The Democrats are always trying to shove issues thru Congress or just make rules/Laws w/o giving the people a chance to vote.
Amnesty bill comes to mind and does the recruiting station down in Mexico.
Look at their own election process, if the delegates don't like who their lemmings pick for the nominee, they can come in a change it.
It's all about control with the Democrats.
They don't give a shit if it's for the good of the country or not.
Look how they are catering to the illegals just to get their votes so they can be in control.
May 15, 2008
10:53 AM
Shaggy writes:
AM760 wins the stupidest post of the day award with that one.
Sheesh man, think before you post.
Maybe they should think about the consequences before they decide to have meaningless sex...oh no..according to you, you want the aftermath of the selfish act to be punished by death.
I don't even know why you still post here anymore.
And quit posting links to commandreams and moveon and all the other wacked out radical left wing web sites.
May 15, 2008
11:10 AM
sis writes:
Am760
"...can tell that person that these people are willing to adopt your child or they will find someone that will."
Would you be willing to do that, those who support this. Wouldn't that be a more pro-active way to solve this.
That is exactly what I, and others I know, have been doing. What I fail to see are the anti-life crowd out there supporting the women who make the CHOICE to carry a baby to term. The anti-life crowd call themselves pro-choice but fail to support the choice for life. Data can be presented from both sides of this argument. The pro-choice/anti-life data fails miserably when it comes down to the fundamental respect for human life. All your arguments and DATA continue to exclude the life of the defenseless unique unborn human. We all have unique DNA and that is present at conception and THAT AM760 is when a unique human life begins.
May 15, 2008
11:13 AM
Anonymous writes:
We know that the Republicans are constantly trying to "social engineer" the country, to conform to the beliefs that "they think" are correct.
It's pretty pathetic, actually.
May 15, 2008
11:19 AM
jay writes:
shaggy/sis/crazy cruton at 10:23/et al
how do you rationalize your antichoice position considering that it won't actually decrease abortions but increase risk to the woman?
May 15, 2008
11:45 AM
Anonymous writes:
How do you know jay? That's right you don't.
May 15, 2008
11:45 AM
sis writes:
Jay, where does the unique human life of the unborn come in? Your argument fails to even consider this life. The first step in preventing abortions is to recognize that this is a human being and defenseless. The pro-choicers/anti-choicers always use the risk to the woman argument and continue to leave out the huge risk, death, of the small and defenseless life.
May 15, 2008
11:50 AM
jay writes:
sis, i'd appreciate if you'd answer the question
crazy cruton...is your answer willful ignorance?
May 15, 2008
12:17 PM
JW writes:
"The first step in preventing abortions is to recognize that this is a human being and defenseless."
And how do you suppose you will get everyone to agree with this?
Abortion exists in every society on earth. If the only solution you will tolerate is that everyone on earth choses to believe as you do, you will be waiting forever.
Again, if your stated goal is to reduce the abortion rate, the best course of action is to look at the relevant data and chose the best known method on earth. Currently, that method is one that the pro-choice movement will not resist.
If your goal is to get everyone to agree to your beliefs and consequently stop chosing to have abortions...well, thats not going to happen.
May 15, 2008
12:42 PM
sis writes:
Soooo Jay you have resorted to name calling?
I did answer your question.
"The first step in preventing abortions is to recognize that this is a human being and defenseless." "We all have unique DNA and that is present at conception and THAT is when a unique human life begins." "I have devoted the last 20+ years working with pregnant and parenting young Moms "
Jay, RISKS is an ambiguous word there. In my experience the risks to Mothers in this day and age are very small. Maybe what you are referring to is the risk the women take when having unprotected sex?
May 15, 2008
12:51 PM
jay writes:
sis, i don't think i called you a name at all...furthermore you still haven't answered the question. how do you rationalize your position considering it won't actually decrease abortions?
May 15, 2008
12:53 PM
sis writes:
JW
"Currently, that method is one that the pro-choice movement will not resist."
The anti-life movement method is to kill the human life. It works because the life is DEAD.
May 15, 2008
12:53 PM
JW writes:
"In my experience the risks to Mothers in this day and age are very small."
And why is that? Because, legal abortions are safe. The Data shows that when legal bans are instituted, the rate of abortion does not go down, meaning number of legal abortions changes to the same number of illegal abortions. Illegal abortions are far more likely to be UNSAFE, resulting in a rise in health risk to women. And of coure, as the rate does not change, there are the same number of abortions resulting in not ONE SINGLE BABY SAVED.
This just points out the central fallacy of the Pro-Life movement;
The idea that you can force others to believe as you do, or short of that, force them to behave as your beliefs dictate they should through law.
You cannot do it. All you can do is make their choice to have an abortion result in safe or unsafe scenarios. And that is one reason why I call the pro-life movement's insistance on legal bans "Failed Policy". It doesnt save any babies, but it maims and kills more mothers. Hardly a "Pro-Life" stance.
May 15, 2008
1:00 PM
JW writes:
"The anti-life movement method is to kill the human life. It works because the life is DEAD."
Sigh. MY god. You people and your ideological beliefs. Do you realize it causes you to lack even understanding of debate? You CANNOT rationally deal with the issue, and thus talking to you is a waste of time.
Have fun screaming at people that they should agree with you, beating your head against that wall, and in the end, achieving NOTHING.
Meanwhile, I will vote for politicians that push for better sex ed and contraception access, and stop some abortions.
May 15, 2008
1:07 PM
Anonymous writes:
Shag, FU, you have to be the biggest moron on this blog, as evidenced by your daily rants. Why don't you get you chuckles again by calling us femdems and go sit on your ass for the rest of the day like you always do. What a worthless piece of Shit you are. You have no education so all you do is spread fear, smear and hate. God you pathetic.
Posted by am 760 on May 15, 2008 12:59 PM
My god where do even begin with this douchebag? You cant spell, you are clearly a drop out, you get ALL your info from a radio station and far left radical sites. You are a know nothing never was waste of sperm. Do we need to run spell check for you nimrod? Being stupid and angry is no way to go through life son.
May 15, 2008
1:07 PM
jay writes:
"The anti-life movement method is to kill the human life"
not even close to being accurate.
the prochoice movement is about effectively preventing the need to kill a life...unlike your position, sis, which as we know will not decrease abortions.
May 15, 2008
1:14 PM
AM 760 writes:
I love rock and roll and hate god so clearly I am a democrat, WOOOO!!!!!!
Even though I have never read a book and dropped out of school at age 10, I know whats best for this nation cause Randi Rhodes and Ed Schultz and Jay marvin are truth tellers!! They speak truthiness to power!! Right wingers are just rich racists that are full of hate!!! WOOO!!!!! Abortions good! This way I cant knock my boyfriend up! Which is totally possible, I should know, I am edumacated!!!! WOOOO!!!!
May 15, 2008
1:17 PM
Shaggy writes:
Don't be bitter liberal boy.
Just don't make stupid post's like saying we should adopt the babies of the people who can't be responsible enough to avoid a pregnancy so they don't have to kill them.
Maybe we should sterilize the people who can't be responsible enough to avoid killing innocent babies so they can get their jollies off.
Thats a more realistic solution.
May 15, 2008
1:20 PM
jay writes:
well shaggy, considering your position won't actually decrease abortions, i'd say you're not necessary equipped to credibly discuss the effectiveness of others' positions.
May 15, 2008
1:24 PM
Shaggy writes:
Looks like they had to remove another post from you 760.
You still don't get it do you?
That hateful radio station you listen to is brainwashing you...,
Another job well done by our hateful friends on the left.hehehehe
May 15, 2008
1:26 PM
JW writes:
"Just don't make stupid post's like saying we should adopt the babies of the people who can't be responsible enough to avoid a pregnancy so they don't have to kill them"
LOL! In other word;
We are going to force these irresponsible people to raise children, and hell no we arent taking any responsibility for forcing them to do it!
May 15, 2008
1:27 PM
sis writes:
That is your opinion Jay. Look at how people have changed the way they look at an endangered mouse. Respecting life is fundamental.
Rationalize: to make something appear rational or reasonable.
What makes a human being a human being is his unique DNA. Their DNA is not that of a mouse.
You did not answer my question. "where does the unique human life of the unborn come in?" The problem with the anti-life movement is the failure to recognize the life of the unborn. They rationalize to themselves so they don't have to deal with it. It is much easier to call it a fetus.
May 15, 2008
1:35 PM
Observer writes:
That's right sis, slap jay around. He likes it.
May 15, 2008
1:42 PM
jay writes:
"That is your opinion Jay"
it is not my opinion that your position doesn't decrease abortions. that is what the data concludes.
so...again...how do you rationalize your position considering it doesn't actually decrease abortions?
i didn't think it was that hard of a question
May 15, 2008
1:45 PM
just sayin' writes:
sis, Shaggy etc. Do you support sex education and the availability of birth control? Seems like a common sense solution for avoiding unwanted pregnancies. If you do not support them, do you feel any responsibility in the number of unwanted pregnancies and consequently the number of abortions? In this day and age there really is no good reason for anyone to have an unwanted pregnancy.
May 15, 2008
1:57 PM
Anonymous writes:
just sayin,
So killing babies is acceptable?
May 15, 2008
2:06 PM
Shaggy writes:
"Do you support sex education and the availability of birth control?"---JS
How old are we talking here and who is doing the teaching?
I don't want schools like Boulder hiring groups to teach that is is good to do drugs and good to have sex.
I do not want any School regardless of grade to hand out condoms.
I have no problem with a certified teacher holding a couple hour class on sex education.
I went thru it when I was in HS but it was just a couple of hours not some all year class and we did not get credits. It was also dived by gender.
"Seems like a common sense solution for avoiding unwanted pregnancies."---JS
I totally disagree, the best solution comes from HOME.
Schools should not be parents yet many parents choose to have the Schools do their jobs.
Thats where the real problem lies in humble.
BC should be used for consent ADULTS to avoid pregnancies not by kids as an excuse to have sex.
But if I had to, I would choose contraceptives to abortions
May 15, 2008
2:06 PM
sis writes:
Just Saying
Yes, I do support sex ed. The sex ed needs to be well rounded and include abstinence as well as birth control.
Jay, your DATA may show "Because, legal abortions are safe. The Data shows that when legal bans are instituted, the rate of abortion does not go down, meaning number of legal abortions changes to the same number of illegal abortions." However, we call all dig around for DATA that supports our case.
When abortion was illegal in the US, Birth control was not taught in the schools, now it is.
Persuasion in the media can be a strong force. Look at the way the media has persuaded the public on this issue. The media makes the pro-life movement appear to be zealots by the choices they make to represent the movement. The media can be just as effective in bringing about a respect for life.
I don't have to rationalize my position since I do not agree with you that it is not possible to lower the abortion rate.
May 15, 2008
2:22 PM
jay writes:
sis we try to keep the willful ignorance to a minimum here as it speeds up debate.
are you saying that you don't believe the fact that your position doesn't decrease abortions?
is that why you've refused to answer the question?
i'm not attacking you as you're not alone in this dilemna. i have yet to see someone from the religious right justify the paradox of their position.
shaggy you don't believe in providing teens with access to contraception in order to reduce unwanted pregnancies and std's?
do you not believe in teen seat belt use either?
May 15, 2008
2:32 PM
JW writes:
"However, we call all dig around for DATA that supports our case."
Nice statement. Now back it up with scientific data that shows legal abortion bans lower the rate of abortion. BTW, I said that, and I am not jay.
"I don't have to rationalize my position since I do not agree with you that it is not possible to lower the abortion rate."
I certainly never said that. In fact, its pretty obvious I was saying THE OPPOSITE. Ideology. It just blinds you to any alternatives, and in this case its made it impossible for you to debate coherantly. You cant even keep the arguments straight. Hell, if the above is any indication, you cant even UNDERSTAND whats being said.
"The media makes the pro-life movement appear to be zealots by the choices they make to represent the movement."
It doesnt require the media to make you appear to be a zealot, youre doing that yourself just fine.
You ignore scientific data that presents ways to lower the abortion rate that wouldnt be resisted.
Instead, you favor an ideologoy that wont even accomplish what your stated goal is, and would result in MORE death. And above it all, you have some crazy belief that you can get everyone to believe the same as you do. Thats zealotry alright.
Again, calling yourself pro-life when you support abortion bans is ridiculous in the extreme. Thats pro DEATH. You want to kill the same amount of babies, and add the women who get abortions to the death toll. That you refuse to accept this is what abortion bans do doesnt absolve you.
May 15, 2008
2:34 PM
Shaggy writes:
"sis we try to keep the willful ignorance to a minimum here as it speeds up debate."
OMG I just fell out of my chair....this coming from you is the single biggest hypocritical statement of the year.
jay I do not think schools should be giving our kids BC of any kind.
What happened to PARENTING?
May 15, 2008
2:34 PM
Anonymous writes:
Jesus christ jay is a moron. So teens, who can think for themselves must be forced to wear seatbelts, cause Jay knows what is best for them. Adults over 18 are forced to wear them as well, since its law and Jay agrees with the law, and motocyclists should be forced to wear helmets, whenever that becomes law here? Is that correct Crouton Jay? So when this baby issues becomes law, will you finally STFU?
May 15, 2008
2:42 PM
sis writes:
"are you saying that you don't believe the fact that your position doesn't decrease abortions?"
I do not agree with you that the rate of abortion will not decrease. You are saying that the rate of abortion would remain the same and I disagree.
May 15, 2008
2:56 PM
Anonymous writes:
why are gays and liberal men always the biggest supporters of abortion while 70% of women are against abortion?? I do know that 77% of the population says it should be remain legal but with much stricter guidelines and harder accessibility. So if you are all about the will of the people Jay, which we all know you are not, only when it fits your dumbass ideas, why are so against people voting for it? I am sure you and JW are jumping with joy now that the two of you can run off to California and marry each other since activist judges overturned the will of the people on gay marriage. So whats the big deal if activists judges over turn Roe V. Wade at some point? Oh thats right, only fits your opinion of the hour. Douchebag.
May 15, 2008
2:57 PM
JW writes:
"I do not agree with you that the rate of abortion will not decrease. You are saying that the rate of abortion would remain the same and I disagree."
Based on nothing more than your "Belief".
If you "believe" the sky is red, it doesnt make it so. And if there is a ton of scientific data that says the sky is in fact blue, you have to ignore the data to keep saying "the sky is red!"
And thats what you are doing with this abortion thing. Refuse to believe it all you want. If we as a nation or state institute a legal ban on abortion, the rate wont decrease. The same number of babies will die. More women will die. This has been proven. Its not philosophy. Countries have in fact implemented abortion bans, and the data on what happend has in fact been collected. You dont have to "Believe". You can actually learn, and end up KNOWING. See the gutmacher institute.
Youre obviously a decent person who really does want to save as many babies as possible. Thats admirable...untill you end up puting policies in place that kill more people than are killed today. Then, its called doing evil in the name of good.
May 15, 2008
3:00 PM
Anonymous writes:
Jay and JW are all about avoiding any personal responsibility so they are all about abortions. Their women love abortion as well as they know its someone elses and JW couldnt stand to have a little black kid running around his house. Its only the rest of us that have to embrace diversity
May 15, 2008
3:04 PM
JW writes:
"I am sure you and JW are jumping with joy now that the two of you can run off to California and marry each other since activist judges overturned the will of the people on gay marriage."
Well, first off this shows your fundamental lack of understanding of how law works.
That asside, jay is married and I just got engaged, so I doubt he and I will be running off to Cali. That said, Im happy about the decision, and Im betting jay supports it too.
And you should be PSYCHED! When you finally get past your homophobia and admit that those "feelings" you have for men do in fact make you gay, you can run get hitched! Slob the knob with the consent of God!
May 15, 2008
3:11 PM
jay writes:
sis, willful ignorance is an unfortunate response to a fair question.
crazy cruton...strawman arguments and emotional rants aside...let's make a few things particularly clear.
1. the antichoice position won't decrease abortions.
2. the majority of americans believe we should keep abortions safe, legal and rare.
3. the majority of americans do not want roe overtturned.
so we're back to the indefensible position we always eventually get from the folks on the religious right and the predictable pouting has starting to commence.
May 15, 2008
3:15 PM
Shaggy writes:
"Slob the knob with the consent of God!"
Lol
May 15, 2008
3:24 PM
jay writes:
hey congrats on the engagement, jw
May 15, 2008
3:24 PM
Shaggy writes:
Aborting theabortions most definitely will decrease the numbers if it becomes illegal and the clinics are closed.
Yes, there will be more tragic cases of women doing it themselves or by some underground operation but just like illegal immigration, just because it is out of control doesn't mean we just throw up our hands in defeat...you know..like the Dems want to do in Iraq
May 15, 2008
3:34 PM
Anonymous writes:
"Aborting theabortions most definitely will decrease the numbers if it becomes illegal and the clinics are closed."
Not according to the science. Again, it doesnt matter what you believe shaggy. Abortion has been made illegal before. And the results have been recorded. This isnt up for debate. You may "believe" this, but you are wrong. Period.
"Yes, there will be more tragic cases of women doing it themselves or by some underground operation but just like illegal immigration, just because it is out of control doesn't mean we just throw up our hands in defeat...you know..like the Dems want to do in Iraq"
Well, partisan bs asside, this is a false choice dilema. Its not; either we live with the amount of abortions we have now, or we ban abortions. There are no other choices!
There is a model for lowering the abortion rate here in America that does not involve a ban. We just look to holland and belgium. And it would actually be easier to implement, because the pro choice movement will HELP you instead of fighting you the whole way.
I dont really understand you people. You say you want to lower the rate of abortion because abortion is wrong. But then you refuse to look at ways to do it, and insist on policies that wont lower it at all. It leads to the conclusion that you dont in fact want to lower the rate of abortion. What you really want is to legislate your beliefs in the form of a ban, and dont give a crap about who suffers for it, or that the same amount of abortions will happen.
Thanks jay.
May 15, 2008
3:52 PM
Shaggy writes:
So JW, you are saying that even if we abort all the abortion clinics, the abortion rate will remain the same?
No way bro, your science is wrong!!! Sorry fella.
There is no way in hell millions of women are going to do the coat hanger trick or pay thousands(?) of dollars and to do it illegally if they can't get it done legally.
Hell, millions of women wouldn't know the first place to look to even find an underground baby killing clinic.
Hell, most women wouldn't do it solely because it would be illegal.
Not buying it.
Thats like saying building the fence won't stop illegal immigration so don't even bother with it.
No it won't stop it completely but it will cut down on the numbers and that has been proven on areas where the fence has been erected.
May 15, 2008
3:59 PM
Anonymous writes:
"So JW, you are saying that even if we abort all the abortion clinics, the abortion rate will remain the same?
No way bro, your science is wrong!!! Sorry fella."
Whatever. Like I said, other countries have instituted abortion bans and the data has been collected. You can refuse to deal with that. Par for the course really. But...youre wrong. Period.
"There is no way in hell millions of women are going to do the coat hanger trick or pay thousands(?) of dollars and to do it illegally if they can't get it done legally."
According to the data where abortion bans have been instituted, thats what happens. Refuse to believe it all you want.
"Hell, millions of women wouldn't know the first place to look to even find an underground baby killing clinic.
Hell, most women wouldn't do it solely because it would be illegal."
And you think this why? Common sense or some such? Yea, ignore the data from when its actually happened, and use common sense. Hell, with this kind of thinking, you'd be saying "What? Hitler wouldnt do that! No way. Not buying it. Put him back in charge!"
"Thats like saying building the fence won't stop illegal immigration so don't even bother with it."
If we had already built a fence and had tracked whether or not it stopped illegals for years, and it turned out it didnt, then youd be right.
As it is...
youre wrong. Again.
"No it won't stop it completely but it will cut down on the numbers and that has been proven on areas where the fence has been erected."
How do you know its been proven shaggy? Did you look at the DATA???!!!!
Why would you accept the data there, and ignore it with the abortion ban thing? Inconvienience? You want to believe a fence works, so you accept that data, but you dont want to deal with the fact that bans dont, so you ignore that data?
Thats using your head. For what I have no idea.
May 15, 2008
4:14 PM
Shaggy writes:
Jeez JW, I can't believe you compared pregnant women who commit their own abortions to Hitler who committed genocide against the jews.
That was one freaked out guy....are you saying all pregnant women are freaks willing to kill?
I think you just took the stupidest post of the day away from 760.
Common sense tells ANYONE that many women will opt out for the sole reason it is a dangerous procedure or opt out for the fact it is illegal or opt out for the fact they can't find an underground baby killing set up.
There are many reasons why abortions will be drastically reduced if it becomes illegal.
Like I said it won't eliminate it completely but will drastically reduced.
Another no brainer man.
May 15, 2008
4:42 PM
Anonymous writes:
You keep touting DATA but where is it? Did the women in the countries you refer to, the ones that banned abortion, have access to birth control? Were they educated in the use of the birth control? Did they have access to birth control and did they have the funds to purchase it? Is adoption in these countries an option? Who's data is it that you are referring to?
May 15, 2008
4:52 PM
am 760 writes:
Wow, the stupidity from the right is unbelievable. I should narrow that down to just shag, don't want to broadbrush all repubs as complete morons. Now I know why I don't waste much time here anymore.
And just to set the record straight, Im a college graduate who has worked in the health care industry for 24 years. You know helping the sick and needy on a daily basis rather than sitting on my fat ass all day getting rich off other peoples labor, the repubs way.
JW, congrats on the engagement.
May 15, 2008
5:36 PM
sis writes:
The amendment defines a person as including "any human being from the moment of fertilization."
Where does the unique human life of the unborn come in? Your arguments fail to even consider this life. The first step in preventing abortions is to recognize that this is a human being and defenseless. The pro-choicers/anti-choicers always use the risk to the woman argument and continue to leave out the huge risk, death, of the small and defenseless life.
What makes a human being a human being is his unique DNA.
May 15, 2008
6:32 PM
A Human Being writes:
Liberal hypocrisy at its height to say that babies should be killed because they claim the issue is controversial as to when the moment of life occurs in the unborn.
Instead of positioning on the side of caution because a human life hangs in the balance, they capitulate to the radical agenda of lunatics that think any abortion at any time for any reason is a woman's right.
WRONG. If you have sex, you accept the chance of a pregnancy. Abortion is not a do-over or an "oops". It has been trivialized and de-personalized to the point of absurdity.
If a woman chooses to have sex, she not not be able to choose to kill an unborn baby.
May 16, 2008
7:36 AM
just sayin' writes:
Wow this issue just makes my head spin. I really think we should adopt the successful policies that have been shown to lower the rate of abortions in other countries. People are going to have sex, it is human nature. It is a little like arguments over religion. We're never going to all become Christian or Muslim or whatever. Then the whomever at 2:56, it's liberal men and gays that want abortion and 70% of women don't??? Just making crap up. Yes all the gay guys I know want to have an abortion. LOL
May 16, 2008
7:42 AM
jay writes:
hb's strawman arguments and emotional ranting aside, you folks sis/shag/crazy cruton/et al have still not rationalized your position considering it WON'T DECREASE ABORTIONS.
May 16, 2008
7:56 AM
sis writes:
And JAY
"You keep touting DATA but where is it? Did the women in the countries you refer to, the ones that banned abortion, have access to birth control? Were they educated in the use of the birth control? Did they have access to birth control and did they have the funds to purchase it? Is adoption in these countries an option? Who's data is it that you are referring to?"
May 16, 2008
8:21 AM
jay writes:
sis....once again....let me remind you that willful ignorance isn't a valid answer to the question.
how do you rationalize your position considering it doesn't actually decrease abortions....thus lending us only to summarize that you care more about 2000 year old fairy tale than the health of our nation's citizens.
May 16, 2008
8:40 AM
JW writes:
"You keep touting DATA but where is it? Did the women in the countries you refer to, the ones that banned abortion, have access to birth control? Were they educated in the use of the birth control? Did they have access to birth control and did they have the funds to purchase it? Is adoption in these countries an option? Who's data is it that you are referring to?"
Ive posted it before. Its at guttmacher institute.
"Jeez JW, I can't believe you compared pregnant women who commit their own abortions to Hitler who committed genocide against the jews."
This is when I tell you, again, to go take a critical thinking class. That said, re-read the comment please Shaggy. Even you should be able to figure out that NO, I did not compare pregnant women who commit their own abortions to Hitler.
"Common sense tells ANYONE that many women will opt out for the sole reason it is a dangerous procedure or opt out for the fact it is illegal or opt out for the fact they can't find an underground baby killing set up.
There are many reasons why abortions will be drastically reduced if it becomes illegal.
Like I said it won't eliminate it completely but will drastically reduced.
Another no brainer man."
I think you have the "no brainer" part right. Again, whats with relying on the data for your proof that the fence works, but refusing to believe the data about abortion bans? You can refuse to believe it...but sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "NO WAY! ITS A NO BRAINER!" doesnt change the facts big guy.
BTW
Common sense would tell you cold water turns to ice faster than hot. Turns out...its not true. Hot water turns to ice faster than cold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
May 16, 2008
8:46 AM
JW writes:
You know what blows me away Jay? The fact that these people NEVER do their own research!
I mean hell, this issue is OBVIOUSLY more important to sis. Yet I'm the one who knows more about it. WTF is with that? She hasnt even researched it! You would think if you spent 20 years trying to stop abortions the LEAST you could do is go out and do some research to find out what is the best way to do it! But NO! She either refuses to believe anything counter to what she wants to believe regardless of its validity, or she's asking for research on HER most important subject from US!
Fucking amazing.
May 16, 2008
9:20 AM
Shaggy writes:
Your full of shit again JW.
If we close abortion clinics the number of abortions will be reduced...quit being an idiot...show me some factual data....
Link me up please
May 16, 2008
9:41 AM
sis writes:
Jay, I am not going to rationalize my opinion because it is not an irrational one.
May 16, 2008
10:05 AM
sis writes:
"She hasnt even researched it! You would think if you spent 20 years trying to stop abortions the LEAST you could do is go out and do some research to find out what is the best way to do it! But NO! She either refuses to believe anything counter to what she wants to believe regardless of its validity, or she's asking for research on HER most important subject from US!"
That is an assumption on your part Jay. Like I have said before we can all dig up so called scientific DATA to support our case.
Also, I have spent the last 20+ supporting the young mothers who have made the choice to carry their babies to term. The support ranged from housing to supporting them through the adoption process. I used to be extremely involved in the pro-life movement, rallys, letter writing etc. However it made better sense to me to get in the trenches and support the mothers who chose life.
May 16, 2008
10:09 AM
JW writes:
"Your full of shit again JW."
Saying it doesnt make it so, jackass.
"If we close abortion clinics the number of abortions will be reduced"
Not according to the scientific data.
"...quit being an idiot"
Hehe, Im not the one ignoring scientific data in a desperate attempt at supporting failed ideology, jackass.
"...show me some factual data....
Link me up please"
Jackass, Ive posted the links to the guttmacher institute and the specific data NUMEROUS TIMES. Im not doing it again for two reasons;
1. Either you didnt go the times I did, in which case its a waste of my time to "Link you up"....
Or
2. You've already seen it and refuse to believe it because it doesnt fit with what you WANT to believe.
Either way...if you DO want to see the data...
Guttmacher Institute.
Presumably you can use google.
May 16, 2008
10:19 AM
JW writes:
"That is an assumption on your part Jay."
Im not Jay. Im JW.
"Like I have said before we can all dig up so called scientific DATA to support our case."
No, you cant. Or you havent. And that "So called" is pretty typical of the ideological. When the data says youre wrong, question it. But it only works on those who are ignorant of how data is collected, and how to tell if its valid. Im not ignorant of that. You...apparently are. Thats not an insult, its just saying that you dont know enough about the scientific method, or data relevance from statistical analysis, to actually decide whether or not its valid.
"Also, I have spent the last 20+ supporting the young mothers who have made the choice to carry their babies to term."
This is whats called a "BIASED statistically insignificant sample size".
"The support ranged from housing to supporting them through the adoption process."
Admirable. It has no relevance on the subject of whether or not abortion bans actually produce results you want; IE decrease abortion rates.
"I used to be extremely involved in the pro-life movement, rallys, letter writing etc."
I cant explain how surprised I am (/sarcasm).
"However it made better sense to me to get in the trenches and support the mothers who chose life."
Again, that is admirable. You clearly have a good heart, and want to help others.
Youre just misguided where your ideological support of abortion bans is concerned, as it is a policy that is actually counter to your goal, whether or not you can accept it.
May 16, 2008
10:54 AM
sis writes:
"You keep touting DATA but where is it? Did the women in the countries you refer to, the ones that banned abortion, have access to birth control? Were they educated in the use of the birth control? Did they have access to birth control and did they have the funds to purchase it? Is adoption in these countries an option?"
Does your DATA answer these questions? Or is it not included in the scientific method or relevance? What the DATA includes would help one to actually decide whether or not it is valid?
May 16, 2008
10:59 AM
Shaggy writes:
I looked up Guttmacher Institute and couldn't find it....I looked back thru all these posts and couldn't find where you posted it.
Maybe I have over looked it but since you refuse to post anything to back your ridiculous statements up I am left with no option but to say you are lying...again.
If you do decide to enlighten us all with your gifted and unmatched intelligence, cough cough, I would like to compare it to a good point Sis made.
""You keep touting DATA but where is it? Did the women in the countries you refer to, the ones that banned abortion, have access to birth control? Were they educated in the use of the birth control? Did they have access to birth control and did they have the funds to purchase it? Is adoption in these countries an option? Who's data is it that you are referring to?"
Posted by sis on May 16, 2008 7:56 AM"
Can't you help us ignoramuses out a little?
We are Societies stupid people in the elitists minds.
May 16, 2008
11:29 AM
JW writes:
"Does your DATA answer these questions? Or is it not included in the scientific method or relevance? What the DATA includes would help one to actually decide whether or not it is valid?"
Youre not going to get this...but Ill try anyway.
All those questions you are asking detailing "Factors". When testing "Factors", you usually take one and change it, and see the effect. When you change many factors at once, there is no way to tell which factor (or factors) caused the change you get.
So, when testing the change caused by an abortion ban, that would be the ONLY factor you take into account.
Control group would be the rate of abortion with no ban.
Test group the rate of abortion after the ban.
This gives you the change caused BY the ban.
As to your other factors;
"Did the women in the countries you refer to, the ones that banned abortion, have access to birth control?"
How would access to birth control change the effect of an abortion ban? You could add aditional birth control access and that would have an effect on the abortion rate as well, but it wouldnt change the effect of a ban.
"Were they educated in the use of the birth control?"
Same as above.
"Did they have access to birth control and did they have the funds to purchase it?"
Same as above.
"Is adoption in these countries an option?"
Same as above.
Are you getting it? All those questions you asked would have an effect on the rate of abortion. But that doesnt change the fact that abortion bans have their own effect, and it is negative.
Get it?
Basically, all those questions are about things you can do to decrease the abortion rate, and they are what Ive been saying we should do.
The abortion ban, on the other hand, doesnt change the abortion rate. It just raises the level of women having health problems.
"I looked up Guttmacher Institute and couldn't find it"
Sounds like a personal problem.
"I looked back thru all these posts and couldn't find where you posted it."
This isnt the first time we have discussed this topic Shaggy. Ive posted it many times when we have discussed this topic in the past, but not here on this specific thread.
"Maybe I have over looked it but since you refuse to post anything to back your ridiculous statements up I am left with no option but to say you are lying...again."
Your choice. I have posted relevant data in the past, and you have either forgotten it, or ignored it. I fail to see why I should waste my time showing you yet again something youve either ignored or dismissed in the past.
"If you do decide to enlighten us all with your gifted and unmatched intelligence, cough cough, I would like to compare it to a good point Sis made."
And this shows your ignorance about the scientific method, which I have tried to enlighten you on above.
"Can't you help us ignoramuses out a little?"
Not if you refuse to accept relevant data. Sorry. I just cant do it.
"We are Societies stupid people in the elitists minds. "
Well, I dont think you are "stupid" in general, just where your emotional commitment to certain ideological beliefs is concerned, because they cause you to ignore relevant data, and you continue to scream what you believe even though its been proven wrong. I dont know what you would call that. "Stupid" seems to be correct.
But hey, here is an article you might want to read...
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html
"Social conservatives argue that more emphasis should be placed on restricting or outlawing abortion and on promoting abstinence for young and unmarried people. Although encouraging and enabling young people to delay the initiation of sexual activity certainly has a role to play in further reducing U.S. unintended pregnancy and abortion rates, abstinence as a method of pregnancy prevention will not work for all young people. Furthermore, it will rarely suffice for almost any individual woman over the course of the 30 or so years of her life during which she could be at risk of unintended pregnancy. As for making abortion illegal, our own history as well as experience from around the world amply demonstrate that if legal restrictions work at all, they do so largely by driving abortion underground—which does not end abortion, but makes it more dangerous for women."
May 16, 2008
12:42 PM
sis writes:
What your DATA says about abortion bans in other countries only demonstrates what happened there.
DATA that doesn't include all the factors that come into play in this country, does not prove that a ban in this country would not reduce the number of abortions.
May 16, 2008
12:49 PM
Anonymous writes:
"What your DATA says about abortion bans in other countries only demonstrates what happened there.
DATA that doesn't include all the factors that come into play in this country, does not prove that a ban in this country would not reduce the number of abortions."
Anything and everything to make sure you dont have to deal with reality, and can keep pushing what you WANT to believe. You dont care about lowering abortion rates as much as you care about pushing a ban, or this stuff would make you question, at the very least.
As for specifics in the USA, it was right there for you to read...
"As for making abortion illegal, our own history (Ours being the USA's) as well as experience from around the world amply demonstrate that if legal restrictions work at all, they do so largely by driving abortion underground—which does not end abortion, but makes it more dangerous for women."
Sis, again, you clearly have a good heart, and you clearly are commited to making a beneficial difference.
Its just too bad you let your ideology blind you to what actually makes that difference, and keep pushing a policy that wont help you lower abortion rates, but will hurt and even kill alot of women.
May 16, 2008
1:27 PM
sis writes:
Anything and everything to make sure YOU dont have to deal with reality, and YOU can keep pushing what you WANT to believe.
"A joint study published by the World Health Organization and the Alan Guttmacher Institute is coming under additional scrutiny for claiming that abortions are just as frequent in nations where they are prohibited as those that legalize them. A statistician at Texas A&M University says the study is full of gaping holes."
"In other words, the numbers in the report contain such potentially large margins of error and so many problems with the underlying data that were cobbled together that few, if any, conclusions can accurately be made," the statistician explained."
“We can’t even get an accurate number of abortions locally, aside from what Planned Parenthood self-reports," Schumann concluded. "I don’t understand how we can then get accurate numbers from a worldwide perspective.”
May 16, 2008
1:38 PM
Shaggy writes:
JW I am really disappointed in you man.
I really look up to you and expect nothing but an intelligent post coming from you but I have been let down.
The link you gave says just the opposite of what you are saying.
"Dramatic Results
Between 1988 and 2001, modern contraceptive use increased in Russia by 74%, while the abortion rate declined by 61%."---your link
"It Takes Time
Initially, rapid fertility decline in South Korea was accompanied by increases in both contraceptive use and abortion; over time, abortion rates turned downward while contraceptive use continued to climb."---your link
"Abortion rates in South Korea took so long to start their decline in large part because of women's continued reliance on less effective, traditional contraceptive methods. Above and beyond an overall increase in contraceptive use, a shift from traditional methods, such as withdrawal, to more effective, modern methods can have a significant impact on a country's abortion rate.
This can be seen in Turkey, where abortion rates dropped from 45 to 24 per 1,000 married women between 1988 and 1998, while overall contraceptive use rates remained essentially the same. According to an analysis by Pinar Senlet and colleagues published in the March 2001 issue of Studies in Family Planning, use of modern contraceptives in Turkey increased during that time, while use of traditional methods decreased. Between 1993 and 1998, the shift to modern method use was most pronounced among women in their peak reproductive years (25-39), the same age-group which had the most pronounced decline in abortion rate."---your link
And finally,
"Implications for the United States
In the United States, small families have been the norm since at least the 1920s, modern contraceptives are widely used and abortion rates—though higher than many countries in western Europe—have declined over the last two decades"---your link
Now I could have acted like you and called you a flipping stupid idiot, like you would do to me, for posting a link debunking your own theory w/o reading it first but I am trying to be a little more friendly to our confused friends on the left.
Another one bites the dust...
May 16, 2008
1:45 PM
JW writes:
Sis-
Here is the main difference between you and I...
I will ask;
where did you get that data and can I have the link so I can take a look at it.
In other words,
I havent just said I dont believe because it refutes what I think without looking at it.
You would have.
Anyway,
can you post the link? Thanks
Shaggy,
WTF are you talking about man? Ive been saying all along that contraceptives and sex ed reduce abortion rates. Everything you cut and paste from the article I posted validates that.
The point of argument has been whether or not ABORTION BANS have an effect on the abortion rate.
TAKE A CRITICAL THINKING CLASS!
May 16, 2008
1:51 PM
Shaggy writes:
Good job Sis,
If they, Guttmacher Institute, are indeed spreading false info, I don't think we can hold JW liable for repeating a lie but we can give ourselves Kudos for being smart enough to smell a rat when a rat was indeed present.
May 16, 2008
1:59 PM
Shaggy writes:
"Like I said, other countries have instituted abortion bans and the data has been collected. You can refuse to deal with that. Par for the course really. But...youre wrong. Period."---JW
Yawn....anything else or shall we bring this to a close?
May 16, 2008
2:12 PM
JW writes:
Well, I looked.
I found two other published stories that say the Guttmacher institute study is unreliable.
One on Lifesitenews.com
and another at Catholicnewsagency.com
Nothing from the science community.
Sorry sis, but thats why I was saying you don't know how to tell what info is reliable or not. If the accusations your guy from Texas A&M were true, a study this major with those kind of unethical mistakes and downright falsehoods would have caused the scientific communtiy to freak out.
Unfortunatley, the only people I can find that question the validity are very few in the pro-life community. No unbiased scientific review has leveled any of those charges.
May 16, 2008
2:13 PM
Anonymous writes:
Guttmacher styles itself the "research arm of Planned Parenthood," but it may more properly be called its lobbying arm.
May 16, 2008
2:18 PM
Anonymous writes:
Guttmacher styles itself the "research arm of Planned Parenthood," but it may more properly be called its lobbying arm.
Any attempt by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) to claim neutrality has been put aside by the appointement in 2004 of Sharon Camp as President and CEO. She was President and CEO of Women's Capital Corporation, a Planned Parenthood run group set up to market the abortifacient morning-after-pill Plan-B.
Under Camp's leadership, the public can expect the same biased and misleading policy analysis and research AGI is known for.
May 16, 2008
2:19 PM
just sayin' writes:
I have one last question for the anti-choice people. If abortion is murder then what is it in the case of rape? Justifiable homicide? What exactly is the unborn fetus guilt of doing?
May 16, 2008
2:32 PM
JW writes:
"Guttmacher styles itself the "research arm of Planned Parenthood," but it may more properly be called its lobbying arm. "
This is rank bullshit.
Guttmacher's research says what policy works.
Planned parenthood happens to be implementing that policy.
Their relationship is not based on Guttmacher trying to pimp planned parenthood's ideology. Its based on the science saying "this is what works to limit both the number of abortions, and the medical complications of those abortions that are performed" and planned parenthood saying 'fine, thats what we will do."
You people need an education.
May 16, 2008
2:50 PM
Anonymous writes:
JW is the only person except Obama that I know of who can be caught spreading lies and tell the people who caught him that they need an education.
May 16, 2008
3:16 PM
sis writes:
"Any attempt by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) to claim neutrality has been put aside by the appointement in 2004 of Sharon Camp as President and CEO. She was President and CEO of Women's Capital Corporation."
Like I have said, we can all dig up DATA to support our cause.
May 16, 2008
3:22 PM
JW writes:
"Like I have said, we can all dig up DATA to support our cause."
I guess youre right. Provided all data is as releveant as all other data, everyone can find some to support thier cause.
Im gona start arguing that the world is flat, because on the internet I can find historical data that says so.
Good god.
May 16, 2008
3:31 PM
JW writes:
"Sharon L. Camp is President and CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, the leading policy research organization in the field of sexual and reproductive health. Prior to joining Guttmacher, Dr. Camp was President and CEO of Women’s Capital Corporation, a start-up company responsible for the development and commercialization of Plan B emergency contraception. For many years the leading spokesperson in Washington, DC for international family planning programs, she was also largely responsible for bringing together the highly successful International Consortium for Emergency Contraception and served until April 1998 as its Coordinator. From 1975 to 1993, Dr. Camp was Senior Vice President of Population Action International, managing PAI’s professional staff involved in lobbying, media liaison, policy research and publications. She is a widely quoted authority on the national and international politics of contraception, a popular public speaker, and the author or co-author of more than 70 publications on family planning and related subjects, including articles on emergency contraception. Dr. Camp has chaired the boards of Family Health International, the National Council for International Health and the International Center for Research on Women and was founding chair of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, sponsor of the Emergency Contraceptive Hotline (1-888-NOT-2-LATE). She has served as an elected director of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), AVSC International, Management Sciences for Health and Population Action International, and currently serves as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Population and Family Health at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health. Dr. Camp is an honors graduate of Pomona College and holds an M.A. and a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University."
LOL. Yea, this lady was clearly hired to promote an ideology, rather than for her experience and education in the realm of womens health.
Keep pushing that ideology people. The facts sure as hell arent going to back up the policies you want.
May 16, 2008
3:33 PM
Shaggy writes:
"Im gona start arguing that the world is flat, because on the internet I can find historical data that says so."---JW
Link please!!
May 16, 2008
3:41 PM
JW writes:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
"The facts are simple," says Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society. "The earth is flat."
As you stand in his front yard, it is hard to argue the point. From among the Joshua trees, creosote bushes, and tumbleweeds surrounding his southern California hillside home, you have a spectacular view of the Mojave Desert. It looks as flat as a pool table. Nearly 20 miles to the west lies the small city of Lancaster; you can see right over it. Beyond Lancaster, 20 more miles as the cueball rolls, the Tehachepi Mountains rise up from the desert floor. Los Angeles is not far to the south.
Near Lancaster, you see the Rockwell International plant where the Space Shuttle was built. To the north, beyond the next hill, lies Edwards Air Force Base, where the Shuttle was tested. There, also, the Shuttle will land when it returns from orbiting the earth. (At least, that's NASA's story.)
"You can't orbit a flat earth," says Mr. Johnson. "The Space Shuttle is a joke—and a very ludicrous joke."
His soft voice carries conviction, for Charles Johnson is on the level. He believes that the main purpose of the space program is to prop up a dying myth—the myth that the earth is a globe.
"Nobody knows anything about the true shape of the world," he contends. "The known, inhabited world is flat. Just as a guess, I'd say that the dome of heaven is about 4,000 miles away, and the stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston."
On a side note, I fucking hate FoxNews. Its those assholes who decided ANYTHING is debatable, and calling data "biased" is a viable way to invalidate it, even when there is no reason to think so whatsoever. In a society as gullible as ours, and as reliant on base ideoology for our beliefs, its freaking death to the process of figuring out what good policy is. This entire debate has been one big example.
May 16, 2008
3:59 PM
Shaggy writes:
LoL,
Charles K. Johnson must be a wacked out Liberal in my humble.
"Its those assholes who decided ANYTHING is debatable"--JW
Strawman fallacy.
Truth is Fox is the most fair and balanced and most watched news outlet....Period.
First, congrads on your engagement.
Second, None of my business and I don't mean to bud in your privacy but does she know this side of you?
I sure hope you two have discussed Politics!!
You just seem so angry ALL the time.
May 16, 2008
5:12 PM
just sayin' writes:
you anti-choice people got nothing. At least Hogar is thoughtful and he tries to explain his logic and beliefs. The rest of you? You got nothing
May 16, 2008
5:18 PM
JW writes:
Shaggy, Im not even gona comment on that bs regarding fox.
Yes, she knows. She doesnt see what I blog, just when I debate in person. She doesnt like it that much, but its because the OTHER person gets pissed.
On this forum there is an element of dehumanization because of the nature of blogs. I dont see you. We cannot have discussions of the same caliber that face to face discussions have.
In face to face, I would have either decided you were worth continuing to relate with and stopped talking politics with you...or you would HATE me for intellectually kicking your ass every time we talk.
May 16, 2008
5:30 PM
Shaggy writes:
"or you would HATE me for intellectually kicking your ass every time we talk."---JW
LoL,
What do we call that one...a strawman prediction?
Anyhoo...I doubt it but I agree that very few of us treat people face to face like we do annon and on and on a blog....at least I would hope so!!
Anyhoo hoo...have a good weekend and have a cold one on me, chill a little....out.
May 16, 2008
5:38 PM
JW writes:
You too Shaggster.
BTW, That guy who thinks the world is flat? Yea, he talks about the heavens being right there, and the world being flat. That sounds more like some whacked out fundie to me. Not a religious person, a FUNDIE whacko ala "Jesus is coming tomorrow so let me screw your children and ye shall be saved".
May 16, 2008
6:28 PM
Shaggy writes:
JW,
Lol tooo funny....and btw w/o sounding mushy...I meant it on my congrads..I have a feeling you both will do fine and I have a feeling I will be O.K. as well...even though I only have a GED and no critical thinking skills:)
If I could give you any advise I would say to always have a plan "B". Not on the relationship part but on finances....I have several and one of them is I have kept my truck, tools of the trade and knowledge.
Never know....something could happen anytime to anyone...no work...accident..health..........
May 16, 2008
7:26 PM
Anonymous writes:
The UN published the World Mortality Report 2005. According to the UN, “it is the first of its kind” effort by them, and they’re very proud of it.
One of the main arguments of abortion industry, and that of the United Nations, has been that if abortion is illegal, more women will die from illegal, back-alley abortions. Further, women’s health in general would suffer without unfettered “reproductive rights,” i.e., abortion-on-demand.
Now even the United Nation’s own study shows this isn’t the case.
Let’s look at some of the countries where unborn babies and their mothers are protected from abortion. Then let’s compare them with countries known for legal abortion throughout pregnancy. If the pro-abortion theory is correct, women’s mortality rates should be higher in countries that ban abortion.
There are two countries in particular that have been targets of the abortion industry and the pro-abortion United Nations — Poland and Ireland. Both have laws protecting their most vulnerable citizens, preborn children. But according to the UN study, women’s mortality is actually low in these two countries. Poland has only 13 deaths of women for every 100,000 births. Ireland is even, better with only 5 deaths per 100,000 births.
Now, let’s compare that with countries known for unlimited abortion. Russia has a whopping 67 deaths of women per 100,000 births. China, where forced abortion is regularly practiced, has 56 deaths per 100,000 births.
Here’s something else. When we compare the life expectancy of women in countries without legal abortion with those who have abortion-on-demand, the abortion-free nations win every time, even when compared to the United States.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldmortality/WMR2005.pdf
May 16, 2008
7:38 PM
Anonymous writes:
PROFESSOR: CHILDREN BORN AFTER ABORTION BANNED HAD BETTER LIVES, EDUCATION. A university professor says children born after a nation banned abortion have better economic and educational success, showing abortion prohibitions help children. Cristian Pop-Eleches, a professor at Columbia University in New York, makes the observation in an article published in the Journal of Political Economy.
Pop-Elches says children born after a nation bans abortion have "significantly better" educational and labor market achievements than children born just before. To back up his contention, Pop-Elches points to Romania, which, as a communist nation, saw dictator Nicolae Ceausescu issue an executive order banning abortions and contraception. Previously abortions were a part of the nation's socialized health care plan and done at no cost. The next year after the ban was in place, the birth rate doubled. "Urban, educated women working in good jobs were more likely to have abortions prior to the policy change," explains Pop-Eleches. "So a higher proportion of children were born into urban, educated households after abortion became illegal."
Looking at births from before and after the abortion ban, Pop-Eleches found that children born after the ban were more likely to finish high school and to work in a more highly-skilled job. "The apparently surprising result of superior educational and labor outcomes of children born after the abortion ban can be explained by changes in the composition of women having children," writes Pop-Eleches.
"[The study] indicates that the positive effect due to changes in the composition of mothers having children more than outweighs all the other negative effects such a restriction might have had," he says.
Pop-Eleches accounts for the difference in short-term and long-term outcomes, suggesting that educated women in Romania changed their behavior more drastically as a result of the ban.
May 16, 2008
9:52 PM
Mike Woodson writes:
One of the most convincing arguers for the achievement of humane treatment among human beings was a philosophy professor of mine named Mark Bernstein. He argued that if we could learn to treat animals with kindness and dignity then that would be prerequisite to man's humanity to man. How much more is this true for living, unborn human lives?
Mother Teresa reasoned that if we could not treat the most dependent, needy and defenseless among us with love, then we could never progress to treating peers and authorities with love and dignity, either.
It is clear that the current cultural dream is to pretend that unborn human life is not human and if it is, isn't useful enough to be considered "life." It is a utilitarian definition of life. If someone isn't useful to us, then they are expendable. Isn't that also the premise of slavery?
May 16, 2008
11:50 PM
R writes:
A collection of human cells is no more a person than a small handful of nuts and bolts being a Buick Skylark.
May 17, 2008
7:03 AM
Anonymous writes:
It is barbarous to kill a human life and call it choice. Glossing it over won't change the fact of the act itself.
May 17, 2008
9:44 AM
jay writes:
are we done with the clinging to willful ignorance?
can someone please rationalize the far religious right position on abortion considering it WON'T DECREASE ABORTIONS?
May 17, 2008
11:46 AM
A Human Being writes:
The reverance for life or lack thereof is epitomized by R's statement. It astounds many ethicists how we can have such polar opinions driven by politics and political correctness - on the one hand there is rabid discourse about controversial issues such as global warming and it possible affect on human life in future centuries while there is epidemic destruction of human life each day in the present.
We are in deep trouble.
May 17, 2008
7:21 PM
R writes:
'Human Being' I guess by your definition one commits murder every time they clip a toe nail, get a hair cut, or pick thier nose - all these things contain a collection of human cells.
Hey I mssterbated last night and flushed all those defenseless sperm cells down the toilet - millions of them!
BwA HA! HA! HA!
Better call the 'christian morality police' on me!
This issue isn't about when human life begins - it's about when rationality and common sense ends and fanatisism begins.
May 17, 2008
7:32 PM
Anonymous writes:
To rationalize that human life begins at conception would be saying that it is irrational that life does begins at conceptionon. Are you trying to make a point Jay?
May 18, 2008
2:51 AM
Anonymous writes:
R, I wasn't sure if you were an asshole with your past post, but after reading you most recent one I am assured that you are an asshole.
Ignorance of basic science is no excuse for your stupidity.
Get a life loser.
May 18, 2008
7:48 AM
sis writes:
If we do not intrinsically know right from wrong do we look to the media to tell us?
It is quite obvious that the media is used as a tool of persuasion by the anti-lifers and they, the media, allow it. The media has successfully persuaded some into the deluded thinking that it is acceptable to kill another human life.
The media presents the prolifers as cold and uncaring when in fact it is the prolifers who are out in the trenches caring for women and children. If the term the anti-life crowd likes to use, pro-choice, were really about choice they would be supporting ALL the choices.
May 18, 2008
2:09 PM
A Human Being writes:
Women need to play by the same rules as men. If you have sex, you can get pregnant. Abortion is not a choice or some kind of right for those you willingly take that step.
May 18, 2008
6:37 PM
Ben-Husband and Father writes:
To add to the women playing by the same rules as men theme:
Since women by law, can involve a man in a child's birth (the father) and demand support, they should also, by law, have to have the father's consent to abort the father's child. No paternal consent, no abortion. If they get an abortion without father's consent and illegally, they would then pay the father due compensation for the loss of his child.
To add: I do not condone abortion. I do support birth control.
May 18, 2008
6:37 PM
Ben-Husband and Father writes:
To add to the women playing by the same rules as men theme:
Since women by law, can involve a man in a child's birth (the father) and demand support, they should also, by law, have to have the father's consent to abort the father's child. No paternal consent, no abortion. If they get an abortion without father's consent and illegally, they would then pay the father due compensation for the loss of his child.
To add: I do not condone abortion. I do support birth control.
May 19, 2008
12:31 PM
Anonymous writes:
All sexual contact must be reported to the authorities so that the existence of all persons will be known. The failure of a woman to report sexual contact will be punished by appropriate penalties.
May 19, 2008
1:08 PM
Anonymous writes:
I agree with you Ben-Husband and Father, "Since women by law, can involve a man in a child's birth (the father) and demand support..." Where are all the outraged men out there?
May 19, 2008
2:29 PM
Joseph V. Seifert Jr writes:
Yes!
May 19, 2008
4:40 PM
Curious writes:
So if a man rapes a woman he should have the right to force her to have the baby? If abortion isn't murder in the case of rape, then what is it?
May 19, 2008
5:56 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) Republican, because not everyone can be on welfare. writes:
JW,
Your link shows a clear relationship between the use of contraception and abortions. In one of their graphs, the show that very clearly with data from South Korea. But when you look at legal abortion and illegal abortion, there is no data regarding contraception. Why is that? Could it possibly be that in countries with illegal abortion, contraception is also illegal and that is the controlling factor and not the fact that abortion is illegal?
May 19, 2008
8:16 PM
JW writes:
"But when you look at legal abortion and illegal abortion, there is no data regarding contraception. Why is that? Could it possibly be that in countries with illegal abortion, contraception is also illegal and that is the controlling factor and not the fact that abortion is illegal?"
Ugh. I really dont want to talk to you any more Hogar. You dont matter. Not because youre irrelevant. Because nothing matters to you. Its not debate. Its just you putting your fingers in your ears and screaming "THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE!"
That said, those are EXCELLENT questions. Since the data appears to say that abortion bans dont bring down the rate of abortion, but do kill more women, dont you think MAYBE you should ANSWER THOSE GOOD QUESTIONS before you BLINDLY ADVOCATE for the policy?
Do you really need to push for an abortion ban out of ignorance, and then find out that yep, more women are dying and no babies have been saved. Or do you think MAYBE checking it out first, as it has happened in other places, might be a smart idea. You know, so you dont end up being responsible for KILLING WOMEN with NO BENEFIT.
May 19, 2008
9:09 PM
Anonymous writes:
"... so you dont end up being responsible for KILLING WOMEN with NO BENEFIT.
If there is no proof that the other factors, such as contraception, were taken into account then it is an assumption/belief on your part to say there is no benefit. Also, it is a belief on your part to say that women will die. What you are saying is lets just keep killing human beings because this is what I believe.
May 20, 2008
8:16 AM
JW writes:
"If there is no proof that the other factors, such as contraception, were taken into account then it is an assumption/belief on your part to say there is no benefit."
You'd be right...if there was no proof. Just becaue HOGAR hasnt seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist. I have. Hell, Hogar is NOTORIOUS for having not the first clue as to what graphs and charts are actually showing. The fact that they put out a chart showing the effect of abortion bans without adding in the effect of contraception doesnt mean they simply ignore the effect of contraception. It means they were showing you the effect of an abortion ban, without cluttering the data to confuse you. Hogar just got confused anyway.
"Also, it is a belief on your part to say that women will die."
No, thats proven as well. You cant take the decision to have an abortion from them. All you can do is make it unsafe.
"What you are saying is lets just keep killing human beings because this is what I believe."
No. I didnt say that at all. I said the idea that an abortion ban will stop abortions is wrong according to the data. Thats different than "lets just keep killing babaies".
I also showed what works according to the data, as I dont like abortions anymore than anyone else.
Im just more practical than you ideological folks. Im concerned with cutting the abortion rate down as low as we can.
You are concerned with implementing a policy, regardless of whether or not it lowers the abortion rate.
May 20, 2008
5:16 PM
jay writes:
"You are concerned with implementing a policy, regardless of whether or not it lowers the abortion rate."
yes. this boils down the religious right's position on abortion perfectly.
jw...you have the patience of an oak. good thread.
May 21, 2008
4:41 PM
A Human Being writes:
One sure fire way to reduce the abortion rate is to hold women to the same standard as men. Have sex willingly and deal with the foreseeable consequences. If you don't want to keep the baby you made, let the other parent raise him/her or put him/her up for adoption. There are MANY wanting parents who would show that little person the respect you will not.
May 21, 2008
5:42 PM
sis writes:
Does a fetus deserve to be protected in Colorado's constitution?
Yes, we should recognize the value of innocent unborn human beings and protection should be given to them. The unborn person is a class of innocent human beings whose lives can be taken from them. It is an injustice that the unborn are not recognized as fully human and deserving of protection.
May 31, 2008
9:09 AM
Jeff Johnson, Collegeville writes:
God bless all who are behind this.
It is really interesting to see that on the coasts morality is relative, and this is strongly pointed up this week by California and New York's bizarre views of traditional marriage. Meanwhile, in the center of the country, states like South Dakota, Kansas and Colorado prove that our moral imagination is not dead.
Abortion is the darkest evil being committed on this planet, and perhaps the bloodshed will stop soon.