Operation Rescue isn’t just against abortion; it’s also against Wichita. The group has two billboards south of Oklahoma City on I-35 declaring that Wichita is the “abortion capital of the world.” The signs are meant to steer those who oppose abortion rights away from visiting Wichita and to change the minds of out-of-state women who are coming to Wichita to get abortions. “We’re hoping to establish these billboards on all the major routes leading into Wichita,” Operation Rescue West’s Troy Newman of Wichita told The Eagle. What isn’t clear is why the group is blaming Wichita for having a legal business that performs a legal medical procedure.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- kansasdem on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- ANTI on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
148 Comments
Yeah; I saw those on the way back from Austin. ‘Abortion capital of the world’? What the hell does THAT mean? The fetus people are nuts–foaming at the mouth, rabid American Taliban.
On the flipside, South Dakota can forget about getting a dime of my money now or in the future. I used to drive through on the way to the West Coast; no more.
They have the right to say what they want. I just hope somebody counter protest and puts up a billboard on the busiest interstate in the US, which says that: Operation Rescue is a terrorist orginization.
If they get their way, they can change the billboard from “1 dead, 1 wounded” to:
2 dead.
Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions.
CF, you have a great way with words. rabid, foaming. perfect descriptions
I’ll file this under “Who cares”.
Yeah, I’m not to bugged about this either. It’s not like someone will scream “LOOK AT THAT SIGN! TURN AROUND, TURN AROUND, TURN AROUND!!!” and it’s not like some 15 year old with no other options will see it, slap herself on the forehead and go, “Oh! Now I get it! Abortion is wrong! I better get home and start popping prenatal vitamins!”
Non issue, IMO.
This interesting group known as the “maggotpunks” are atheist pro-life activist harassers. The MP have put together this extensive report on Troy Newman – the man behind the sign campaign. The first picture they have of Troy is especially supportive of his alleged Christian commitment.
I don’t know if any of this is true. If their allegations of property ownership and fraud are correct, you would think this boy might be in some trouble. Not advocating these folks’ position and they make me realize how old and out of touch I am. (There are some things to be grateful for).
http://www.maggotpunks.com/antis/files/017.html
On one of their pages they have a link to a bio on the rumored wife-beater Mark Gietzen. (Gietzen attorneys: Note the qualifications in the previous sentence)
Meanwhile Fred Phelps has been on national news showing America what Kansans are like.
Haven’t there been similar reports about Terry Fox’s kid?
Fred Phelps speaks for Fred Phelps, thank you. NOT Kansas. The only reason he’s going to other states is that Kansas media have largely ignored him, recognizing him for the piece of dirt he is. Sooner or later the rest of the country will catch on (I hope) and ignore him too.
The baby in the billboard picture is obviously a premie, I wonder what gestational age she was at birth. So much for the myth that the fetus is nothing but a “clump of cells”.
CF, The reason Wichita is considered the abortion capital of the world is that George Tiller specializes in late term abortions, and does more than anyone, anywhere else in the country. Between Fred and George, there’s certainly no shortage of cruelty in our state. Makes you proud to be a Kansan, doesn’t it?
Hmmmmm . . . it could backfire on them. More people see the sign, think abortion in Wichita is as easy as marriage in Las Vegas, and head for the clinics. Of course, these morons never think of the consequences of their actions. They just want to rule the world. Gee, sounds like taliban, dosen’t it?
I should read up on the abortion laws in Kansas. I was under the impression that late term abortions were NOT performed for reasons other than severe fetal disability or to save the life of the mother. Did I get that wrong? I hope not.
HEY! WE’RE NUMBER ONE AT SOMETHING!
Cool . . .
If a fetus has ANY diability it can be aborted in the 3rd trimester. Now the pro-partial birth abortion advocates are trying to include a clause that allows for the “mental health” of the mother, so all a woman has to do is say she’s giong to kill herself and she can have an abortion right up until the time she goes into labor.Am I right or wrong on this….experts?
He: Who is this calling?
She: It’s Lisa.
He: Lisa who?
She: You know . . . Lisa. You met me a party about six to eight weeks ago. You said I was a “good sport.”
He: OH, OH, right. Well. How are you, uh, Lisa.
She: PREGNANT! And I’m going to KILL MYSELF!
He: Say, you ARE a good sport, aren’t you, Lisa.
*****
Thanks to George Carlin for that one.
I don’t agree that Operation Rescue is “against Wichita”. They are against what goes on here. The truth can hurt.
Ben, why are you advocating bringing a person’s family problems into a political debate? If you are a parent, count your lucky stars if one of your children is not rebellious at some point.
CF
“American Taliban” indeed.
Drawing a moral equivalence between the Taliban- a bunch of wackos who advocate that a family kill a wife or daughter who has been brutally raped in order to save the family honor- a bunch of wackos who treat women like cattle, preventing them from getting an education, forcing them to dress in a manner which would make Gitmo prisoners cry to the ACLU, using them as baby factories to pump out more babys to be converted to more extreme wackos- you make a moral equivalence between them and a group who wants to end the butcher of unborn humans?
Says more about you CF than it says about Operation Rescue.
Heckler–
There is that unfortunate similarity though, isn’t there?
The Taliban believe that their possession of the exclusive and absolute truth gives them the right, nay, the DUTY to ram that truth down everybody elses’ throats.
So do the religious zealots in our country.
The REAL Americans–Franklin, Jefferson, Madison–who founded this country knew all about religious fundamentalist wack-os. They had seen Anglicanism rammed down people’s throats in England. They had seen anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish inquisitions. They had seen (or at least heard about) Puritan witch burnings.
That’s why they so vehemently insisted on the concept of the “wall of separation between church and state,” why they wrote into the Constitution that no one need to adhere to any religion to hold office in the U.S.
That worked for 200 hundred years until the new Puritans–you and your ilk–insist on ramming your “truth” down our throats.
If you don’t like what America was founded on, why don’t you move to Iraq?
Heckler,
I absolutely stand by the moral equivalence between Operation Rescue and the Taliban.
I see NO exception in the South Dakota law for cases of rape or incest. Sounds pretty Talibanish to me. Add in the murder of Dr. Bernard Slepian in Buffalo, and I’ve got my American Taliban.
Folks belong together who would take away the freedom of others while claiming to act in the name of God, whether Christian or Islamic fundamentalists. Even more so when both groups are demonstrably misogynst and anti-woman. Both groups want women to stay home and pump out babies in keeping with what they construe as God’s will.
For example, ‘Christians’ like these.
http://www.christiangallery.com/dronekillingabortionists.htm
Be warned: this site is EXTREMELY grusome.
Here again the issue of third trimester “partial birth” abortions rears its head. The anti choice crowd ALWAYS falls back on this one.
Can anyone show me ANY proof that there are actually any women at all who have this procedure unless the fetus is severely disabled or not even viable? I don’t buy it. No woman goes through the massive physical changes that pregnancy brings and then suddenly decides to bail for no reason at all. The only way I see a case like that happening is if a woman had not had access or funding for an abortion PRIOR to late term…Which is of course what we are talking about.
Show me otherwise or the whole partial birth abortion thing is just a straw man non issue and distraction meant to gin up feelings and distract attention from the key issue: a womans right to choose.
Operation rescue lost their credibility during the “Summer of mercy” when they chained children to the gate and to cars pulling up to the gate. Then shouted that they were there to protect children lives! As to the billboards, I think the point has been made. If someone is looking to have an abortion they now know where to go for a abortion. There is the mistaken Idea, that if people only knew what abortion is they would stop it. But they do, much like the slaughter house if people saw the daily operation of a slaughter house they would stop eating meat. But it is one of those things that is needed for now so people will not think about it.
CF: There are approximately 1.3 million (1,300,000) abortions performed in the U.S. every year. I was shocked when I saw that figure. Since pro-lifers believe that most of these are unjustified killing of human life, the murder of one abortionist, although not justified in any way, pretty much pales in comparison.
And as you well know, it’s not about keeping women down, it’s about trying to protect innocent human life.
And never the twain shall meet.
To those on the pro-life side I invite you to join with me in writing checks to Gerard House.
Outlander–
Your concern for protecting innocent human life as long as it’s an unwanted pregnancy is touching.
As far as Operation Kill Iraqi Children, you’re all for it.
Your figures are basically right, but they don’t mention the drop in recent years from 1.3-1.5 million abortions to about 850,000 according to the CDC.
A lot of this reduction is likely due to the availability–DESPITE RIGHT-WING STALLING AND LYING–about finally providing emergancy contraception (EC). This article is old but it gives you the idea:
“The Anti-Abortion Pill–EC has tremendous potential for reducing the number of induced abortions in the United States and may in fact already be doing so. From data collected in their 2000 — 2001 survey of women receiving abortions, the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated that 51,000 fewer abortions were performed in the United States in 2000 because of the use of emergency contraception.5 It has been estimated that half of the over 5 million pregnancies per year in the United States are unintended, and that half of these end in abortion (approx. 1,300,000 in the year 2000). There is no reason to think that widespread EC could not further reduce this number.”
http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/articles/womens_health/ec_12/
What is “Operation Kill Iraqi Children?”
I must have missed that.
Strange that those who claim the moral high ground in the “pro-life” movement are the first to condone raining bombs down on the heads of the innocent. Life is only sacred when it’s in the womb. These “Pro-lifers” support politicians that take away the social support that would feed mothers and children. They build more and more prisons to house the children they refuse to help (Tallulia). The sanctity of life is set aside as they send our children to die in an illegal and unjust war.
Hey kid, once you’re out, you’re on your own.
”Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8·1-419) than in the period before the war.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00025.htm
XXX,
Nobody supports “raining bombs down on the heads of the innocent”
Why don’t you stick to making some sort of logical, fact based argument instead of mischaracterizing those you disagree with?
You don’t seem to know the first thing about the “sanctity of life” either.
This war might be illegal and unjust in YOUR opinion, but not mine and not our Presidents.
You might be able to make a case for it being unjust, but not illegal.
“They tried to change the crime scene, so they blew up the house to make it look like it was an air strike that killed them, but we have papers and pictures that show they were executed.”
“Iraqi police and human rights groups say 11 people were killed in a dawn raid on a village just north of Balad. They say the dead included at least five children and four women.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml
Nathan, It’s against international law to attack another country. Re-read the UN charter that the U.S. is signatory to. We agreed to international law, and we broke it. You and the president may think it’s legal. I and the rest of the world don’t.
I’d say you and the pres are trumped.
Nathan, at the risk of stating the obvious, you’re part of a shrinking minority.
I forgot to take into account the “Coalition of the Bribed and the Cowardly”.
They’re on your side.
My bad….
What does that diatribe on Iraq have to do with abortion, PL? XXX? Wrong thread guys. Try to focus.
“XXX,
Nobody supports “raining bombs down on the heads of the innocent”.
Nobody in their right mind. Makes one question the sanity of anyone who supports an unjust and ileagal war.
Oh come on, Outlander, it makes my head hurt when I focus.
The point is, you claim to be pro-life, but you support killing people.
Try to keep up, Outlander.
If the “pro lifers” who put up the signs were REALLY concerned with life, the signs would say “Come to Wichita! Your baby and you will be cared for and all your needs provided for as long as necessary!”
Hmmmm Nobody refutes my take on “patial birth” abortion?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
As to the war. It is not my war. bush said today “It’s my job to protect you.”
My response? “Please, please, please get off my side!!” “With friends like you I’d take my chance with the “enemy”"!
I have my own personal views about abortion. However, I do know one thing for a fact. I am a 53 yr. male. I will never be pregnant, nor will I be faced with the choices a young woman will have to face, know matter which side of the fence she decides to go. For all of you folks so dead set against abortion. Show up at your next “gonna change the world” rally with adoption papers in hand and the money to pay for said adoptions. Put actions in you words!!!!! And if you are for abortion, start a support group for the women who have faced this decision and would like to have a non-critical friend. Finds some common ground to actually help those around you for a change.
Oh. Well thanks for telling me what I support XXX.
The first part is true, I am pro-life. The second, you will have to be a little more specific.
“Hey kid, once you’re out, you’re on your own.”
It does seem like a preverted example of the so-called “ownership society”.
Unwed pregnant mother,While your child is a fetus, we own it and you can’t touch it. When your child is born, you own him/her; don’t bother us with your problems.
Respectfully Outlander
You are anti-choice. Someone like J M Walker or kanasasam or Damoon is pro life.
Symantics JR. I could, but don’t use the term pro-death, because it unnecessarily inflames an already touchy subject.
I usually stay out of these abortion debates despite the fact that I am generally pro-life. However, the hypocrisy of the leftists is galling! The same leftists who revel in the 30+ million aborted Americans are usually the first to demand stays of execution for scum like tookie williams and da carr brothas! looney tunes
V.L.R.B!!
There is no confusion at all.
You didn’t stick around the last abortion fight (ya know, like Damoon and J M Walker) long enough to answer a very simple question.
If a woman wants or needs an abortion, should she be allowed to have one?
And my sense is Outlander that you will not answer that question and will in fact quit the field.
I still feel that rape, incest and the life of the mother exception sould be the only circumstances under which abortion is allowed.
V.L.R.B!!
Well then Ian, one hopes that we can see you and Outlander and all the other “pro life” folks at the forefront of any post that calls for more social welfare programs!
But I’ll not hold my breath.
What ever happened to the concept of personal responsibility? It is very easy to prevent unwanted pregnancy and if you can’t afford to care for children then don’t have them, simple!
V.L.R.B!!
JR: I don’t think that I will let you assume the role of inquisitor.
But since you are interested, I will clarify my position. I am in favor of additional restrictions in the ability of woman to obtain an abortion. Why? Because the unborn baby is a human life who, as soon as that woman makes the decision to abort, has no one to advocate for them. I start from the premise that the child’s right to life trumps the woman’s right to choose.
I believe it is necessary to have exceptions. When the mother’s life is in danger is one. For pregnancies that do not result from voluntary conduct (rape) is another.
So how about you JR? Should a woman be able to terminate her innocent unborn baby under any and all circumstances? Maybe she just found out it was a girl and she wanted a boy?
“If you cannot afford to care for children don’t havethem.Simple!”
Uh……MOST abortions are because the woman cannot afford the edical expense of the pregnancy let alone caring for the child.
You seem to be making my case for me Ian.
Nice dodge outlander. And just how many women decide so arbitrarily? Got any figures on that? Oh and you can also address the straw man “partial birth abortion.
JR,
My comment was in response to your mention of social welfare programs or lack of them. As for expense, condoms and other means of contraception are much cheaper than an abortion.
V.L.R.B!!
JR: I answered quite clearly. You answered a question with a question. Not cool, or terribly impressive. My question is hypothetical. So what do you think?
Not good enough Ian. You are pro life …..REMEMBER?
I think you are judging a behavior you do not approve of and not addressing the issue.(typical “pro life”)
Pro life is a term given to those of us who don’t support abortion.
It is not a literal title which is all encompasing.
3 men and (now I see a 4th) arguing abortion.
None of us is ever gonna get pregnant guys.
Oh Out? A woman is entitled to an abortion any time she wants one…with one exception.
Boy, it’s a regular sausagefest in here. A buncha dudes arguing about abortion.
Symptomatic, methinks.
That’s OK JR, I’m advocating for the unborn girls too.
Yes you folks do quite the job for the unborn. You are a little derelect on the born.
Hypocrisy?
“You are a little derelect on the born.”
JR, now come on. You have no idea.
It’s late for me and this thread has fizzled. Later.
Nighty night outlander. I answered your question and you dodged mine. Doesn’t lend too much to your credibility as to this issue.
But then the last abortion thread cleared that up didn’t it?
JR: Jeesh! Are you one of those who have to get the last word and claim victory no matter what?
OK, I’m really going now. And if you really think that I dodged anything, I suggest you reread what just went on.
I think I did get the last relevant word sir thank you.
Your question was”Should a woman be able to choose to end her pregnancy under any circumstance” (paraphrasing) I answered YES with one exception that I have posted elsewhere and that you did not ask for.
My question” Should a woman who needs or wants an abortion be allowed to have one” went unanswered by you with no qualification.
And STILL no one addressed the straw man of “partial birth” abortion.
And so as ever. Right to life… until ya get born.
I decided to give up abortion debates. No one’s ever going to budge.Instead of trying the change each other’s minds with the abortion war, why don’t we all work towards reducing the demand for abortions? Frederica Mathews-Green, a very pro-life Christian author, got it right in this essay:http://www.frederica.com/writings/from-pro-choice-to-pro-life.html It’s a wonderful read. I don’t agree with all of it (obviously) but it’s a refreshing point of view.
Heh, I guess I’m a starry eyed idealist. See me waving my lighter?
Pro-lifers are not pro-life, they’re pro-birth. Once they get the terminology correct, they might be more acceptable.
How about a billboard with a picture of Mr. Phelps holding a coat hangar explaining that he wouldn’t be able to do what he’s doing if he hadn’t dodged that coat hangar his mother used during her pregnancy.
JR: As you have pointed out, you didn’t finish your answer. Since I refuse to be led around, that remains the status.
I agree with Tara, the idealist. The goal should be to reduce the number of abortions. Can I safely asssume you are for that JR?
Outlander says: “I start from the premise that the child’s right to life trumps the woman’s right to choose.”
I guess that is why he is called is anti-choice, not pro-life.
Nathan’s comment about “pro-life” being basically an honorary title and not an “all encompasing” truth is the most telling of the thread.
RD, I would modify your comment a little:
“Pro-lifers are not pro-life, they’re pro-birth.”
I would say they are pro-FORCED-birth.
Uh Outlander …..
Let me save you a scroll up. I’ll repeat my answer to your question.
Yes, I believe a woman who wants an abortion should be allowed to have one.
I make one exception: If a woman in her 8th or 9th month suddenly was demanding an abortion for apparently no reason; in other words she was irrational, I would say the matter should be looked into. The number of such instances would be vanishingly small.
The billboard makes Operation Rescue look worse than Wichita. Like the kid who, after a fight, complains that the other kid started it.
Anyway, can we all agree that abortion is bad? It seems the real question is does the government have any business making decisions for us which impact our personal lives and privacy. Tara had a great point about pro-lifers working to reduce the demand for abortions. They might have much better luck with that agenda than just trying to ban it or making women feel like second-class citizens.
Most anti-abortion activists support their view on religious grounds, but forget everything Christ said about not judging anyone, forgiveness and not pointing out others’ sin until you have none yourself.
Logically, there is a flip side to the argument you “pro-choice” people are making about us “pro-life” people.
If you are going to try to extend the literal meaning of “pro-life” to bash us over the head instead of actually debating the topic I can do the same.
Since you claim to be “pro-choice” then that would mean you are for choice in all matters…correct?
Are you for choice when it comes to people carrying guns concealed?
ARe you for choice when it comes to school vouchers?
I could go on all day.
The point is that this has nothing to do with the abortion debate rather your weak attempt at changing the subject to attacking those of us who are pro-life, anti-abortion, anti-choice, pro-birth or whatever you want to call it.
I am for the sanctity of life. If you have any clue to what that means then you would understand that life must be taken sometimes in order to protect life.
Tara-Thank you for posting that link to the essay by Frederica Mathews-Green.Guys for you this really is a moot point. Until you are a woman facing this decision it really doesn’t matter.It is the woman’s decision (if she feels forced to get one, she needs help standing up for herself) because ultimately it is HER choice to terminate a pregnancy or not. Personally I would rather have abortion legalized so that no backalley abortions are needed. At least there is less risk of infection or something going wrong.
I think that Operation Rescue needs to think out where and how they protest. They have their wagon that shows graphic photos. Kids see those and ask questions. (Try answering a 5 year old on what those pictures are.) Too many OR people are confrontational and in your face and that negates whatever message they are trying to pass on. To me the seem like they will protest the “sin” but won’t do anything to help the “sinner”. It’s bad that this poor girl is going to kill her baby but no I’m not going to support her so she can raise the baby and I’m not going to adopt the baby I’ll just shout and seem all righteous.Of course that’s just my opinion.
Nathan, that sounds suspiciously like john kerry saying he “voted for it before he voted against it”. Why do you think when we repeat your words or make fun of your meme arguments we are attacking you personally?
Once again, this is not about me. Why do you keep making it so?
Do you support the choice to carry concealed ksfarmgrl?
Well Nathan don’t bother to delineate choice in anything but black and white absolutes, let me help a little.
Being anti choice as to vouchers simply means not wanting to divert funds from the public schools to fund unproven (check their track record in Texas) unmonitored and largely religious schools.
Here the “anti choice” addresses the greater good.
Being “anti-gun” means (for me and most people) wanting regulations to reasonably restrict the availability and carrying of guns. Again with concerns to public safety, the greater good.
Being anti-abortion or “pro life” would seem to be directed more to a personal freedom and not greater good. No one is pulled off the streets and forced to have an abortion. But there does seem to be an effort on the pro life side to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.
I met someone recently who told me that on this matter it is hearts that need to be changed. I’d agree. Devote the considerable energies of the “pro life” effort at welfare and other programs to insure that every child is wanted and can be cared for. Those babies need you lots more after they are born then before.
“I met someone recently who told me that on this matter it is hearts that need to be changed. I’d agree. Devote the considerable energies of the “pro life” effort at welfare and other programs to insure that every child is wanted and can be cared for. Those babies need you lots more after they are born then before.”
Amen JR!
Nathan
Vouchers do not equal choice. We already have choice. You can home school or send your kids to private school.
If the “choice” you want is about how your tax dollars are spent for public education, tough luck. I want the “choice” to withdraw my tax dollars from the military industrial complex but I am not going to get my choice either.
You can choose to not fund schools, and I will choose not to fund the military. Deal?
I figured both of you would miss the point.
I am not trying to argue for vouchers or concealed carry here.
I am trying to use the absurd to show how absurd it is to try to say that because we call ourselves “pro-life” we are hypocrites for supporting the war in Iraq…
Next time I will just draw you a picture since that seems to be the only attention getter around here :)
As nasty as these pro/anti/abortion/war/ect. debates get, it’s a surprise anyone’s opinion might be changed by them.
But I’ll post, anyway.
1. Comparing abortion to the war in Iraq, I think, is not the subject for this thread. Whether or not Iraq is a just war is extremely debatable. Whether Iraq is justified or not, EVERY war is a tragedy. That much, I think, we can all agree on.
2. Society depends on the premise that human life must be defended and protected. The societies which didn’t protect life eventually wound up failing.
3. So, this all depends on what point human life begins. If it begins at conception, then abortion is the killing of another human being, and therefore, murder. If a baby in the womb is NOT a human being, then abortion is not wrong.
4. It’s been said for years, by many people, including pro-abortion doctors and scientists, that human life begins at conception, and not later. I’m sorry, but I can’t cite a source for that statement, since I don’t have the source handy. I believe “Catholicism and Ethics,” by Rev. Edward J Hayes (among others) made this statement.
5. So, if human life begins at conception, then aborting it is murder. That’s my position. Abortion is wrong. It’s a pity that a thread like this really doesn’t have the space for a civilized, in-depth discussion on this topic.
6. Operation Rescue, I think, is trying to do a great good: save lives. Tiller’s clinic is infamous in the pro-life camp for what it does, and Operation Rescue is trying to evict it (and all other abortionists) from Wichita, by causing Wichitans to be ashamed that Tiller is in their city.
7. Most people aren’t forced to get pregnant. The idea that there will be unwanted pregnancies, no matter what, really takes our FREE WILL out of the debate. It lowers us down to the level of animals, unable to control our own actions. I say this: If someone doesn’t want to have a baby: don’t get pregnant (men and women are both responsible here). I might also say that the Catholic Church promotes Natural Family Planning. The Church is opposed to artificial contraception, as well as sex outside of marriage.
So… since life begins at conception, it needs to be protected. A society that doesn’t protect life will fail, eventually. So abortion needs to end. Otherwise, we’re burying ourselves.
As for concealed carry…it isnt a matter of choice, it is a matter of safety. We have always had guns on demand, er, concealed carry…it just wasnt safe and legal.
Just like abortions. We have always had abortions on demand, but they just werent safe and legal.
Do you see any similarities here?
We have always had guns on demand, (concealed carry) but now they are just too easy to get.
We have always had abortions on demand, but now they are just too easy to get.
Or how about the similarities here?
“I dont want to abolish guns, I want those guns and the people who carry them to be restricted and regulated so it isnt easy to get a gun.”
“I dont want to abolish abortions, I just want abortions and the people who have them to be restricted and regulated so it isnt so easy to get an abortion.”
And how do you propose to make abortion unnecessary?
“I also want to restrict sex education so there “will be no need for abortions”. This is how we protect innocent lives”.
Would that reasoning also make guns unnecessary?
“I also want to restrict gun education so there “will be no need for guns”. This is how we protect innocent lives.”
I am sure this is way too complicated for a black and white kinda guy. So let me eliminate the gray area and ask this:
I dont want to take away your choice regarding guns. Do you want to take away my choice to have an abortion?
I am in way more danger from the u.s. government than from another gun toting person.
Personally, I would feel much safer with a FREE and OBJECTIVE media to protect me than with a gun to protect me.
I just love that daniel only cites a catholic publication for the “abortion is murder” meme.
So…is CF correct? Should women who have abortions, and the men who know about those abortions, be charged with murder?
If it is murder, then let’s act like it. If it is not murder, than quit treating women and their doctors like murderers.
Daniel,
And if I don’t buy your theology of conception, then the whole argument collapses. Doesn’t it?
ksfarmgrl,
YOU MISSED THE POINT!
And nathan, you knew we would miss the point before we even posted. Why ask the questions if you already know what we are going to say?
And you know what we say is wrong even before we say it! You missed your calling dude. I hear kreskin is looking for a successor.
A dialog in your head is not a dialog. It is a monolog, unless you have multiple personalities.
But a monolog in your head is the only sure way ti know there will be no disagreement, and that you get the right answers, yes?
I wonder why bush didnt think of that…lolololol.
I am pretty sure you missed my points too nathan. ALL OF THEM!!
I’ll hazard a guess here and say that MOST folks who are “pro life” are mostly the same folks who are against government entitlements and welfare programs. You know…. those programs that keep people fed and housed and stuff. Anybody on the “pro life” team wanna dispute me on that?
Thank you Daniel for that long derivative post. I think by citing “Catholic family planning” you define where you really stand fairly well. Catholic family planning consisting basically of “sex is only for making babies and is otherwise bad and naughty.”
Ksfarmgrrl:Yes, I’m Catholic and only cited a Catholic publication. Obviously, I’m biased in favor of my own religion. But I researched my faith, and I believe it to be true. And yes, if life doesn’t begin at conception, the whole argument collapses. But I believe that life does begin at conception. I also believe that science supports that. I didn’t overtly state my Catholic bias in my prior post because I thought it was already obvious enough. :)
J.R.:
I realize that people don’t like long posts, but I thought I might as well make my voice heard and back it up with my reasoning.
As far as Catholic belief goes, if sex was “only for making babies and is otherwise bad and naughty,” then the Church wouldn’t be supporting NFP. What the Church teaches is that sex outside of marriage, and artificial contraception, are wrong. This topic could go on, but I’ve already made one long post. :)
And they say no one wants a theocracy…
…no one, meet daniel!
Sorry Daniel, it is not your fault. Anytime you say anything somewhat related to or based on your faith it is immediatly attacked and belittled here.
Should have warned you.
J.R.,I’m pro-life, but not against the welfare programs. I think that welfare is a poor solution, and it could be done better, but it’s better than no solution at all. I’d rather see people get a decent living, but that’s not always possible. So yes, I’m in favor of keeping welfare around.
ksfarmgrrl,Yes, I’d be happy if government followed my ideals. But I also realize that it’s possible for one state religion to be replaced by another. That wouldn’t make me very happy. So I’m in favor of religious freedom. :)
Good to hear Nathan! THAT makes you pro life……at least as I define it.
And this issue is all about that isn’t it? How each of us define it? That’s also why it will likely never be completely solved.
By the way, Julie and all? The person I mentioned upthread who said we needed to work to change hearts on this issue? That was Hank…..Nathans dad. The part after “changing hearts” is my own addition.
So a pro life arguement …with pro choice qualifier!
And maybe that is a good beginning.
Didya notice I took the ” ” off of pro life in that last?
How can anyone say that human life begins at conception? I have yet to see a fetus that is able to sustain itself without sucking life from the mother like a parasite. When you feel sunlight on your skin and breathe the air, you are human. I think it is only common sense that life begins at birth. I do not look forward to the day that Catholics are allowed to define moral standards that govern the rest of us, they have their own issues to deal with and should mind their own business. If altar boys could get pregnant the Church might have a different opinion of abortion.
Ok daniel, I get that you favor freedom of religion.
Now how about freedom FROM religion?
Funny stuff Scott:
“If altar boys could get pregnant the Church might have a different opinion of abortion.”
It isnt the pregnancy they worry about Scott. It is the dna test to determine the father that they fear! Cha ching cha ching.
Of course, the register is ringing NOW while they pay off the molestation victims.
But…IOKIYAAC
Scott,Quick comment: If I’m understanding you, since a fetus can’t sustain itself, it isn’t human life.
A baby can’t sustain itself after birth, either. It takes years.
As far as Catholics minding their own business goes, the argument could be made that all law is legislated morality. And religion has a tendency to define morality.
ksfarmgrrl:Freedom from religion… yes, you can have freedom from religion. This assumes that atheism or agnosticism aren’t religions, of a sort.
Wow. I’ve gotten in deeper than I had ever intended. Should have expected that, with this kind of topic.
Daniel, you mentioned you believe life begins at conception. I’m not going to argue with you on that point. But I disagree that any taking of life is “wrong.” Is abortion wrong JUST because it is taking of life? What if you killed someone in self-defense, would you be okay spending the rest of your life in prison? What if you were in the military and killed someone in battle? Should you receive the death penalty?
My point, arguing the ethics of abortion on the grounds that it takes a life is a shaky position. There are much deeper issues and pro-life’s attempt to make it black and white is pretty lame.
“…the argument could be made that all law is legislated morality. And religion has a tendency to define morality.”
True, law is codified ethics, but somethings are legal that aren’t ethical and somethings are ethical that aren’t legal. It seems to me that morality defines religion instead of the other way around. In some ancient religions, human sacrifice was accepted and encouraged. Roman religion called for temple prostitutes. I’m not saying those are good things, don’t get me wrong, but each religion has its own set of morals. But religion is often shaped by the morals of its society. In Biblical times, slavery and polygamy were accepted practices and women were treated as property. You’d have a hard time finding Christians today who believe in any of these things, but it was not the church that instigated these changes.
Steve,You’re right. Basing “abortion is wrong” on the idea that you absolutely may not kill anyone, ever, is a shaky position. Because we are allowed to defend ourselves. The exceptions to “Thou shalt not kill” are generally instances where killing is required to defend ourselves against evil. These would be things like a “just war,” self-defense, or the death penalty, when the good to be achieved cannot be achieved any other way. But I fail to see how abortion would be defending ourselves against evil.
“Quick comment: If I’m understanding you, since a fetus can’t sustain itself, it isn’t human life.
A baby can’t sustain itself after birth, either. It takes years.”
The difference is a baby needs care from SOMEONE, ANYONE, in order to survive after birth. It can exist independently, but it can’t survive long periods of time without care.A fetus is unable to exist outside of one woman, and one woman only. Notice the distinction between survive and exist. You can’t hook it up to a machine. or transfer that responsibility to someone else. I’ve used the “before viability, it’s part of the woman’s body and therefore she has the right to remove it” argument, but many people have pointed out that the fetus’s DNA is different from the mother. So let me rephrase.The placenta is part of the woman’s body, and she has the right to remove it if she pleases. If the fetus dies as a result, that’s unfortunate, but we can’t have it any other way. The alternative is to force a woman to gestate this other life, and I disagree with that, because we don’t force any other humans to support other people’s bodily functions.Damn, I didn’t last very long on the whole bowing out of the abortion debate thing. I think I’ll shut up now.
Well, I’m losing my Internet connection. So I’m unable to continue the debate.
Hopefully, there will be a time in the future when everybody can just live happily with each other, and issues like these will be decided to the benefit of ALL. Something to work for and pray for.
Our Founding Fathers were amazing individuals, they knew that someday religious nutcases would attempt to create laws based on the “God said so” basis and so they created the 1st Amendment. It must be pretty disappointing for people like Daniel that the American Taliban is not allowed to take charge and purge the world of us wicked sinners. Let the stoning of all adulterers begin. Oh, I forgot that part of the Bible is not relevant anymore, but the parts referring to homosexuality is still good to go. BTW, I forget will I be stoned to death, burned at the stake or merely banished from God’s kingdom for eating lobster?
Daniel, what if the pregnancy or the birthing process threatens the woman’s life? Abortion in a sense is the woman’s only self-defense. It’s easy for us to play armchair quarterback and say abortion is wrong and should be banned (especially since we are guys), but put yourself in the woman’s shoes. What if your life was seriously in danger? Can you honestly blame her for protecting herself? I’m sure it would not be an easy decision for her. And I certainly have nothing but respect for her in whatever decision she would make. How can pro-lifers judge women, especially in situations like that, when Christ was amazingly clear about how people should not judge one another.
I will respect the pro-life position a lot more when they stop picketing schools, blowing up abortion clinics, blaming women for the difficult decisions they sometimes have to make, and otherwise disrespecting the words of our Lord who they claim to follow.
A friend of mine went away to college a few years back and started going to this church in that area. A girl at this church got pregnant, and wanting to be a good Christian, decided to have the baby and not an abortion. The “Christians” at this church basically ran her off because she had a child out of wedlock. Never mind she tried to handle the situation exactly like they would have wanted her to.
Does anyone besides me see the hypocrisy in this? I don’t get it. I consider myself a religious man, but Christianity in America is going down the crapper pretty quick. We hear what we want to hear from the Bible and disregard the rest.
If Jesus was in person on Earth today, maybe He wouldn’t be “for” abortion, but He would certainly have some strong words for the protesters and pro-lifers. Probably something along the lines of “he without sin cast the first stone…”
“Most people aren’t forced to get pregnant.”
That’s probably true. But some are. What about those women? The SD law doesn’t give them any rights to terminate their pregnancy even if it’s been forced upon them (rape or child sex abuse).
Also, the idea that everyone everywhere has the same ability to make “free will” choices is ridiculously simple-minded. What about people who have been subjected to abusive childhoods, sex abuse, utter neglect, people who abuse drugs, who need emotional contact and will do anything to get it, who are mentally ill?
What about people in bad relationships who have no financial resources to get out of that relationship?
Your notion of “free will” takes none of these circumstances into account . . .
Again, the Eagle is for free speech, so long as it is the kind of free speech the Eagle likes.
I’m waiting for the Operation Rescue billboards that say “Come to Wichita! Where all women have prenatal care and all babies are supported AFTER they are born”
I love the hear the inspiring stories from men and women who credit their success to their Moms, who worked and struggled to provide for their families and who in turn passed on the valuable life lessons learned in the struggle to their children.
JR,
The lack of a scoialist utopia for all after they are born is not an excuse for killing them before.
Either the unborn are human lives worthy of protecting to you or they are not.
Do you support going into the ghetto to kill all the poor people who are on welfare and use food stamps to survive?
Hello again…This will be my last comment on this thread… it’s a long one, so my apologies in advance.
1. In my first post, I cited “Catholicism and Ethics” as the source for point #4. Later, I looked it up, and found I was wrong: my source for this statement actually was page 96 of “Catholicism and Society,” by Rev. Edward J Hayes, Rev. Msgr. Paul J Hayes, and James J Drummey (C.R. Publications, 1997). Sorry about the slip, but as I said before, I didn’t have the book handy when I made the post.
2. If anyone wants to know my position on abortion, I suggest they research the positions of the Catholic Church. This has already been obvious, but I’d suggest that anyone interested check out http://www.catholic.com, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or any one of “Catholicism and Life, Catholicism and Society, Catholicism and Ethics, or Catholicism and Reason.” (all published by C.R. Publications.) These are all great resources for researching Catholicism, and will explain the Catholic position MUCH better than I’m able to.
3. A woman has a right to control her own body, but a baby is not part of her body. The Church also says that there has to be a VERY good reason for altering someone’s body. Sterilization, ect., usually doesn’t count.
4. The Church says abortion even in the case of rape, ect. is wrong. BUT… in a case like this, the woman is allowed to destroy the sperm before conception takes place! This is justified as defense against aggression. Even if this is not possible, it makes no sense to kill a baby because of the father’s sin.
5. On the issue of free will, yes, some people don’t have it. But this doesn’t legitimize abortion. In the Church’s view, the lack of free will removes moral guilt for the action. To be even more clear, for an action to be a “mortal sin,” three conditions must be present at the time of the action: the action must be a serious sin, the person must have full knowledge (be aware) of the seriousness, and that person must fully and deliberately consent to the sin. So, if a girl was FORCED to get an abortion against her will (driven to the clinic, pulled inside, ect..), she’s probably not guilty.
6. In the case of when a woman’s life is really in danger, there are instances when it is allowed to abort. Don’t get me wrong here: I’m talking about indirect abortion, where the death of the baby is a foreseen, but unintended consequence of saving the mother’s life, such as removing a cancerous uterus. This is where I’m getting on really shaky ground with my own knowlege, and I repeat that one of the books I mentioned earlier will be a much better resource here. I’d rather not take the risk of making a mistake on the Catholic position here.
7. On the issue of the people who’ve been rejected by Christians after they decided not to have an abortion, or the incidents where clinics have been attacked or abortionists murdered: These people give a bad name to the Christian and pro-life cause, but their not supposed to be doing these things. Also, a judgement can’t be made about an organization based on the people who don’t follow its rules. I don’t believe that those who kill abortionists, or who reject the women who’ve brought they’re babies to birth, are behaving correctly. But their actions do not make the pro-life position incorrect, because they’re not following the true pro-life position!
Wow. What a long post I just made. I just again suggest that anyone interested in debating me, research the Catholic position. Very well. Because I’m just a student myself, and don’t know everything. I’ve reached the limit of my knowlege, possibly passed beyond, and won’t risk making a mistake (again). I will not post again on this subject. I’ve made myself clear.
Several of my points (especially #4 and #6 of this post), are based on examples from the books by Rev. Hayes, Rev. Msgr. Hayes, and Drummey, mentioned in section #2 (probably “Catholicism and Society”, but unsure about that).
Hopefully in the future, all life will be respected.
So just because the Catholic Church says so, we all must believe it?
Stop telling me what I must think! I was born and raised Catholic. I know how the church operates.
The Constitution gives you the right to believe what you want to believe. It does not give you the right to force your beliefs into my life and my laws.
Morality is not necessarily based on religion. If it were, why do people kill in the name of their gods?
“3. A woman has a right to control her own body, but a baby is not part of her body.”
Uh, Daniel, the parts that made that baby possible are part of her body. Without that woman, that baby wouldn’t be. Unless cloning had begun milleniums ago.
“The Church also says that there has to be a VERY good reason for altering someone’s body.”
So that body belongs to who? The church? That woman? Some guy down the street? The government? Who?? What’s the Church’s position on face lifts? Isn’t that body-altering? What about hair dye? What about dieting? Yeah, that’s ridiculous, isn’t it? As far as I’m concerned, so is the Church’s position.
This is why I don’t like organized religion. It seems to be about nothing more than the controlling of its masses. “You must do this, you can’t do that, you have to do it THIS way or you’ll burn in the fires of Hell.” Uh-huh.
If you want to know his position, ask the church.
Big eye roll here. I think that is exactly what we have been talking about. Living in a theocracy. This is different from the taliban…how?
Voters dont need to think. Just ask the pope! Or better yet joe, terry and fred. Maybe the rabbi, or vishnu? I know, let’s ask allah! You wouldnt object to living under allah’s rule would ya daniel? I mean, we would be following god and a church, and all, wouldnt we?
Or again, is it all about YOUR god and YOUR church?
John Prine again. “Pretty good, not bad, I cant complain. But actually, all them gods are just about the same.”
You know the factual debate is over when they say “the bible says so”.
But when they say “the CHURCH says so”…that’s just SAD.
Notice also that he also took refuge in the “bad people are not real christians” comment. Who determines the real chrisitans?
YOU?
But of course, a real christian would never judge. Oh no, NEVER!
RD, there doesnt need to be any cloning when immaculate conception is available.
Maybe I should quote Billy Joel and not John Prine.
“I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. The sinners have much more fun, and only the good die young.”
Wow, the Catholic Church controls every aspect of your life and yet that is still not good enough, you want to extend that out to every person that lives in the United States. It is sad when an adult has been so scared by the boogeyman stories of spending eternity in hell that they sacrifice all free will and reason to the self appointed emissaries of God. The one universal truth about religious people of all faiths is that they are a bunch of self righteous wackos that have taken a set of fairy tales way too seriously.
Hey Daniel,
Did you know that the ecumenical commission appointed in the late 60s to study abortion voted in favor of abortion for a wide range of situations. The results were presented to the Curia who quashed them. Kinda makes you wonder why you appoint a commission in the first place when you’ve already decided the outcome.
to bad your mom didn’t look at abortion the same way you do… maybe there would be one less person to attack when life starts and what deserves to exist and not exist
Gee, rockl, Was that a shot?
At least I can look back on my life and say that the highlight wasn’t the 9 months I spent dodging the coat hangar my mother was using to try to abort me.
Please welcome rock1 a poster new to our forum..She is late of the gay marriage thread and apparently branching out.
rock1 ?
I coulda predicted your position on this thread. I didn’t figure you would get quite so nasty quite so quick.
paraphrasing here
“It’s too bad you weren’t aborted so you wouldn’t be around to talk about abortion”
Uh………isn’t that kinda hypocritical? I wish you were not alive because I am pro life and you aren’t?
Well JR, she told you on the other thread how open minded she is and how she LOVES to hear the opinions of other people.
How dare you question her when the words dont match up to the actions!
Must be more of that oh so famous christian charity…
heheh
“what deserves to exist and not exist”
uh rockl, WHAT like gay marriage doesnt deserve to exist?
Or WHO as in which person gets to exist?
Religious zealot AND uneducated. Big surprise.
Ok Scott, now I have posting envy:
“The one universal truth about religious people of all faiths is that they are a bunch of self righteous wackos that have taken a set of fairy tales way too seriously.”
There are some exceptions though.
There are some very charitable religious people here, like XXX and Ben and some others. Of course, they are also educated and brilliant as well. I think that makes a difference.
Why can’t we all just get along?Remember we are civilzed (or we at least pretend to be) gentle people.
I expect you to be on your best behavior (ok that’s the mom in me)
Seriously there isn’t a need for personal attacks or name calling on this thread or any thread on this site.
Now be good kids!
DANIEL started it, Mom!
ok i should not have said that and I am sorry… just wanted to get you going… lolp.s. does gay marriage have to be part of every post???and just for the record I am personally for life in my choices but I do not believe I have any right to tell anyone what they have to do with their bodies.. again there right no matter what I think and as far as the signs go i hate them…i think that they violate the rights of people and scare children
KFG again with the slams!! you can do better than that :)
Here’s a sad story for ya that happened back in the 70’s.
There’s a small predominantly Catholic community not far from Wichita where the priest preached No Birth Control endlessly to his congregation, each and every Sunday. Unfortunately he didn’t mention enough about the No Sex Before Marriage part, because 15 girls in the junior class that year were pregnant. And that was way more than half of the girls. The majority, if not all, were Catholic.
Not all that long ago in the same community, a high school boy committed suicide. He had been molested by the priest. Different priest, but I still find it ironic and terribly, terribly sad.
RD,I don’t care who started it…Am I gonna have to seperate you kids?!? Don’t make me come back there!!!Mom
Don’t make me stop this car!
Don’t make me tell your father!
Yeah, I hear ya, Julie.
Priests having sex with young boys falls into a grey area of Catholic dogma. It is not necessary to upset God by using birth control and there will be no need for any abortion later, so it could be argued that it is just natural family planning in action. Why else would God put such a succulent young man in close proximity to a horny priest. It is not for man to question the will of God.
or in KFG car
Don’t make me tell your other mother!!!! LOL
Scott your sick!! :(
We may be a little behind the times here in Kansas however I think the encouragement of homosexual pedophilia was back in ancient Rome and Greece. And having authority figures like priests sexually abusing youngsters (male or female) is gross, disgusting and downright wrong! It doesn’t matter if it’s “birth control” because no child will be born of the union. Trust me, if some sick f^%$ing bastard tried that with my child, he/she would want to be no more. I’d find creative ways of “persuasion” to make sure that never happened again.
Just wait until your father gets home!
Choose life…..My friend’s grandbaby born at 25 weeks is up to 6 lbs now and smiles at his mom, he just has to get his apena a little more in control and then he can head home.
That’s wonderful, Damoon! My almost 2-year-old grandson was 6 weeks early, so I have a small clue how difficult and stressful this can be for parents.
I am pleased for your friend Damoon. Clearly this child has survived difficulty to go to a loving home.
May it be the goal of society that all children have the same opportunity.
Advocate life.
Damoon I am happy for the blessing your friends have received… it is scary having an early birth.. my oldest daughter was 2 months early due to a fall… may the lord watch over and guide that sweet little baby. :)
“Notice also that he also took refuge in the “bad people are not real christians” comment. Who determines the real chrisitans? YOU? But of course, a real christian would never judge. Oh no, NEVER!”
:) Good one farmgirl.
If bad people were not “real” Christians, none of us would be Christian. That’s what too many Christians too often forget. We are ALL fundamentally and irreversably SCREWED UP. Each one of us. We justify things and compare ourselves to each other, and attempt to label some people as “good” and others as “bad.” but to God, no one’s sin is any worse than any other’s. Any sin is wrong and separates us from God. To Jesus, the second greatest commandment was to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. If you are going to forgive yourself for the sins you have committed and accept yourself in spite of all of them, you better start treating the other “sinners” as people too. Stop protesting at the abortion clinics and start showing some compassion to these women. Invite them to your churches instead of showing them pictures of aborted fetuses. Give them counseling instead of chastisement.
Jesus never picketed the homes of prostitutes–he ate dinners there. He never hurled insults at tax collectors–he invited them to be his disciples.
From an inside perspective, Christians can be the most judgmental people there are. We know we’re saved and think no one else is. As the old hymn says, “they’ll know that we’re Christians by our love.” Yes, Daniel, people can and should judge an organization by its people.