The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling upholding the ban on partial-birth abortions is likely to lead to a push for enhanced “informed consent” laws in states, the New York Times reported. That’s because the court’s majority opinion said that because some women who have abortions can subsequently experience severe depression and loss of esteem, “the state has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed.”
But opponents argue — and the court opinion acknowledged — that there is no reliable data showing that abortions hurt women. As a result, requiring women to receive counseling or get a sonogram before they can get an abortion may be more ideologically than medically motivated.
For example, South Dakota’s informed consent law, which is currently being challenged, requires a woman seeking an abortion to be told that the procedure will terminate a “whole, separate, unique, living human being.”
That’s not about protecting women. It’s about trying to guilt them into changing their minds.
Posted by Andie Clum
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
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- charleskhyter on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Politico on Moore has had enough of House
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
225 Comments
The anti-choice, anti-woman radicals want people to believe that pregnant women don’t know that they’re pregnant. They want people to believe that pregnant women are somehow incapable of understanding what their choices are, and what the consequences of those choices are.
The so-called “informed consent” laws are nothing more than a way to attack and indoctrinate women when they are at their most vulnerable. The people behind these laws have zero compassion; it’s all about finding new ways to extend their dogma into law. It’s all about finding new ways to control the lives of others, for no purpose other than their dogmatic views of their own faiths.
So what if it guilts them into changing their minds?
I thought almost everyone was in support of fewer abortions. I have been told by almost all those pro choice people that they would like to see fewer abortions, but believe it is a womans right to choose.
Well? Then what does it matter if we pass laws which encourage women to not have an abortion or to really think about it before they do?
The only thing you should care about is that it is still her choice, not that we are trying to talk a woman out of it.
Right?
Nathan,
You prove my point for me when you say “So what” about a tragic time in a woman’s life. This is the attitude that I’m talking about; it’s the attitude that a woman is just a containment vessel for a fetus.
Do you really think that women don’t already struggle with the most extreme emotions possible in the time leading up to this decision? Do you really think a woman just wanders into a clinic, bored with her pregnancy, and all it takes is some guilt-tripping to convince her not to terminate it?
The amount of disrespect for women encapsulated in your “So what…” is jaw-droppingly stunning. I pity the woman you eventually marry.
Personally, I’d rather have had close confidantes, who really knew me well, and would be there for me either way I’d choose, to help me decide; not some government paid nobodies who might not necessarily have my interests in mind, only that she may keep her job and comply with the state law. Besides, that’s so faux-conservative to have gov’t intrude upon such intimate detail. Where’s my right to intimate privacy?
Change it a bit, Nathan and see how you feel about it.
In addition to going through a background check to own a firearm, we pass a law that requires that you receive “counseling” on the dangers inherent in owning a gun, statistically speaking, of course. Further you are required to wait for some period of time (over the week required by Wichita) so that you can contemplate your choices.
After all, we all want fewer suicides, accidental shootings, and gun violence.
You think you could go for that?
Why not apply these same laws to guys who get Viagra? I wonder how many of these anti-choice men would be upset by having to have a 24 hour waiting period, signed consent from both parents, release their records to every state agency, have no funding from their insurance programs, then have some yokels protesting outside their pharmacist every time they pick up their little blue pills?
“there is no reliable data showing that abortions hurt women”
I know someone who had an abortion and possibly that contributed to her paranoid schizophrenic condition. She often hears “voices” that tell her what to do. She hasn’t held a job in years. Is it just possible the guilt from the abortion is too much for some women?
Tom is correct that pregnant women know they’re pregnant — and they know they’re carrying another human life. Eliminating that human life, often for convenience or out of embarrassment, has no psychological effect on the woman? The many gene expression pathways that are abruptly halted in a woman’s body at the time of an abortion have no effect on her health? There is “no reliable data” because as a society we don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t research, don’t report? Perhaps as a society we don’t want to know?
As humans we felt pain when we heard about the horrific murder of Bobbie Jo Stinnett in Missouri for her child by Lisa Montgomery from Kansas ( http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/19/missouri.fetus/ ) . Yet, as a society we look the other way when as a “choice” an unborn child of the same age dies in Wichita nearly everyday when the mother’s life is not in danger. “Temporary depression” is the reason a child dies and no seems to care, even when state law is violated.
Why is it “radical” to promote a “Culture of Life” and try to promote a way for both the child and mother to live? As humans why don’t we have more compassion for all human life? Why can’t we find a way to find a place at the table of humanity for all humans? (Even an unborn child has unique DNA, half from the mother and half from the father. If a fetus is only property, why doesn’t the father have any rights since half the DNA is from him?).
Eagle Intern Anie Clum, a Democrat, is showing her political agenda by the inflammatory wording of her posting. She really isn’t interested in a civil public discussion of this matter.
Abortion is a woman’s choice by law by Andie Clumhttp://media.www.lanternonline.com/media/storage/paper297/news/2003/02/20/Opinioneditorial/Pointcounterpoint-376537-page2.shtml
But what infanticide and the Kansas law that protects viable unborn children?
Did only “radicals” support the value of all human life during the anti-slavery days 150 years ago? Wasn’t the U.S. Supreme Court wrong for years until slavery was made unconstitutional?
Isn’t forcing a woman to continue to bear and give birth a type of slavery?
This is where men don’t understand. Once a woman has a child, she’s a mother forever. “Dad” can go off and do whatever he wants. Oh, he might have to pay some child support, but he isn’t required to be a part of the child’s life. If “Mom” did the same, people would call her unfit. When will fathers be called unfit?
These laws are not informed consent laws, they are enforced propaganda laws.They assume that women are idiots who must be told what to do and do what they’re told; in other words, the role of constant motherhood and obedient wife is what the christian church has assigned to women, and deviance from that role must be punished. We’re headed back to the Dark Ages, folks!
RD,I couldn’t agree with you more. Having been a single parent, and wishing the mother could have been told by the court to not see her son, I know the opposite can be also true.
A woman who wants an abortion should be able to walk in to a doctor’s office or clinic, plunk down her money and get it with no delay and no questions asked. She should not have to be subjected to bullcrap propoganda either outside or inside the clinic nor should she be sent home “to think about it for 24 hours”. Women know what they want and have thought about it well before showing up at a clinic.
“In addition to going through a background check to own a firearm, we pass a law that requires that you receive “counseling” on the dangers inherent in owning a gun, statistically speaking, of course. Further you are required to wait for some period of time (over the week required by Wichita) so that you can contemplate your choices.”
I don’t agree with that either. The monute somebody shows up and asked for a permit, their criminal record should be instantly checked and they should leave with their permit. If people feel the need for a gun, the feel the need for it NOW- not a week or a month from now. Perhaps it is a woman being stalked and under threat by an ex. Perhaps it is a store clerk who is being terrorized and robbed. They don’t need their gun next week, they need it now!
No matter how much the Republicans don’t like it- the days of enslaving and abusing women are OVER. Get it? If you cannot keep her happy, she is free to leave your neo con ass and she need not be chained to you with a baby!
Nathan nailed it. The decision to abort a child is profound in its consequences. We should do everything we can to make sure the mom has all the information necessary and an opportunity to consider it.
What harm does a “cooling off” period do? And it may save the life of a child, and the conscience of a mom to be.
I agree!!! When a woman has made up her mind to slaughter another human being,they shouldn’t have to wait. I mean, someone doesn’t just kill the life inside them without already thinking it through.
But wait….could it be possible that the poor woman is not thinking clearly? We all assume a person trying to commit suicide must not be thinking clearly. Who in their right mind would want to take their own life?!! So, I guess the question to ask is, “Who in their right mind would want to take the life of the child (completely human and completely alive)that grows inside of them?” Could the circumstances that led to the creation of that life be hindering their judgment? Is the prospect of sacrificing some of their creature comforts to care for this child too scary?
Speaking of the Dark Ages…explain to me how abortion on demand is different than the Chinese government’s drowning of babies for population control.
“Speaking of the Dark Ages…explain to me how abortion on demand is different than the Chinese government’s drowning of babies for population control.”
Umm, one’s a personal decision, the other is government enforced?
Meadowlark, you and I have discussed at length your friend who ended up with Schizophrenia after her abortion. The fact is…and you should absolutely know this to be true…that she would have ended up with it anyway. Stress TRIGGERS the disorder, but it is already present beforehand. Please do a little research on schizophrenia. It is almost assured that she would have developed it after giving birth to the baby…and then what? She becomes the next Andrea Yates?
This might surprise everyone, but I’m fine with reasonable informed consent. Every practicing doctor has the duty to inform their patients on what the adverse effects of any procedure is. So why do we need another law?
These women do not need additional guilt. The right wing factions are trying to delay the woman’s choice, hopefully forcing them past the deadline where they won’t be able to have an abortion.
If they want abortion counseling, fine. Pass a state law so that she can receive post abortion counseling for free from any mental health facility. But don’t patronize them about not knowing that they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t try to delay their decision.
Once again the true nature of the prochoice people comes to the surface.
We have been told and assured by almost all those on the pro-choice side that they don’t like abortions, they would rather their be fewer than more, and that they only support a womans right to choose.
Except, now we see the true nature of them. They not only support a womans right to choose, but they don’t support measures to educate women on their decision in an effort to reduce them.
Very telling.
You are not pro-choice, you are pro-abortion.
BFAH,
The difference is that I am not saying that I don’t agree with the anti-gun assessment on guns being a problem.
In this case, I thought many if not most to all pro-choice people have said that they support fewer abortions.
“Nathan nailed it. The decision to abort a child is profound in its consequences. We should do everything we can to make sure the mom has all the information necessary and an opportunity to consider it.
What harm does a “cooling off” period do? And it may save the life of a child, and the conscience of a mom to be.”
Very simply put- the woman has already thought about it and made her decision and we should accept her decision. She is not a child and knows what she wants. And a fetus is not “a child”.
Why do we teach children about safe sex and how to use condoms?
Do we think they are too stupid to figure it out?
How insulting it is to them to teach them about the consequences of their actions.
I don’t think women are stupid. I think that many of the women who do recieve abortions may not have been made aware of all the other options available to them.
I wonder if Dr Tiller offers women any material or encouragement on the other options besides abortion?
I wonder how many abortion doctors do that at all?
Nathan: “I wonder if Dr Tiller offers women any material or encouragement on the other options besides abortion?”
Gee, a big boy like you should not be afraid to visit the clinic and find out for yourself… :)
YOu know it is funny to me that these bawling cons always talk about the “life of the child” and “concern for the mother” when they talk about trying to limit a woman’s access to abortion YET they love to cut funds for WIC, Head Start, education and other programs that help poor American children. And then they talk about “reducing abortions” while they make contraception almost impossible to get. They kept Plan B off the market for years after it was proven safe and effective and allowed in Europe and Canada. Then they made sure it was only available to women over 18- thus insuring that thousands of teenagers will end up pregnant and in abortion clinics. The whole agenda here is NOT NOT NOT about “saving unborn babies” but about returning women to the dark ages of enslavement and domination by men “as the Bible intended” I am sure. As I have stated before, I can go along with REASONABLE restrictions on abortions past 4 months of pregnancy including bans on late term abortions except to save the life of the mother. But up to 4 months should be the total choice of the woman and her doctor and everybody else should BUTT the HELL out of her decison!
As an adoptive father, I can tell you first hand how a delay in a decision saved my son’s life. Our son’s birth mom had made the appointment to have her baby aborted. But a local minister found out about it and asked her to reconsider. The appointment was cancelled and she reconsidered. She decided on the adoption alternative.
So now we have a bright, full of life 11 year old. And his birth mom is doing well in her life. She is now a nurse. She has no doubt she made the right choice, rather than a hasty one she would have regretted.
“I wonder if Dr Tiller offers women any material or encouragement on the other options besides abortion?
I wonder how many abortion doctors do that at all?”
I wonder if any doctor offers material or counseling on other options besides removing the ingrown toe nail? After all the toe nail is a living thing and removing it will certainly be painful and will kill the toe nail. I think doctors should be required to provide options and send you home for 24 hours prior to getting your toe nail removed!SIMPLY PUT… it is NOT the doctor’s job to propogandize his patients. It is his job to safely perform the medical procedure requested of him.
Kev,
The Bible didn’t intend to enslave women or have them dominated by men.
If you are going to go off on a rant, please be a bit more informed and less prejudiced when you do.
Kev,
I take it you are NOT one of the many pro-choice people who claim to desire fewer abortions then?
It is sad that abortion lovers never admit that many women suffer tremendously after coming to regret their abortion. It is the pro-death ideology that prevents them from accepting that. Thankfully, the supreme court has acknowledged that it exists.Many women think that if they had more information before they made their decision, they would change their mind. Women considering abortion are in a delicate mindset and pro-abortionist want only their propoganda fed to them. What is the harm in giving them more information about a subject as controversial abortion? What is so scary about that? Maybe liberals are angry since the type of information is an indictment of their ideology, so they don’t see it as useful information. Forget that women may suffer after regretting their abortion and this information might have helped at that time, but since liberals want to feel cosy the information must be hidden from women.In addition I hope that the Eagle will grow a brain of its own instead of parrotting fears that the liberal NYT propogates.
Today the laws do not recognize some people as worthy of protection. Those who are bigger and stronger simply get away with murder. Just define them as not being a person and it’s just a ‘choice’. The same logic has been used for centuries to justify genocide/slavery/caste systems.
This is one reason not trust government. This is one reason why it must be limited.
Genesis 3:16: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, _and he shall rule over thee._”
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvGene.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=3&division=div1
And which part of “rule over” is not meant for subordination of women?
How horrible, wanting for a patient to be informed by their doctor. What is the world coming to?
“As an adoptive father, I can tell you first hand how a delay in a decision saved my son’s life. Our son’s birth mom had made the appointment to have her baby aborted. But a local minister found out about it and asked her to reconsider. The appointment was cancelled and she reconsidered. She decided on the adoption alternative. ”
See how well the concept of CHOICE works? She talked to a minister- not because she was forced to at the point of the government’s guns but because she was having second thoughts and, after talking to him, she HERSELF on her own free will changed her mind- as many woman do without the LAW telling them they must. As I recall hearing somewhere about 20% of women who make appointments for abortions cancel them (and unlike most doctors, abortion providers usually do NOT penalize women who cancel even on the same day).
“Kev,
I take it you are NOT one of the many pro-choice people who claim to desire fewer abortions then?”
Abortion is not desired in most circumstances and I am personally opposed to it but the fact is that me- nor any man- will ever have to worry about having one of having a child. We men, as fathers, can and do simply walk away from our children and never see them again. It is the WOMAN that is stuck with having to fend for herself and her child in a hostile world that curses her for having the children “without a father” while the father is off doing whatever he wishes. Me and my wife have raised 4 of them and it ain’t easy even with 2 of us. What I desire is more FREEDOM including the freedom of woman to choose their own lives without us men sticking our nose into their decsions.
Meadowlark,
Your 2:35 post is full of context-dropping, assault on the
English language, propaganda masquerading as evidence,
personal attack, and ultimately, a naked disrespect for women
that like Nathan’s 1:16 post, proves the point.
You open your post with a partial quote – “there is no
reliable data,” and drop the context of the quote. This was
the position of the _majority_ in Gonzales v Carhart, in which
the Nebraska “partial-birth” ban was upheld.
“KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.
THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA, J.,
joined.”http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf
Your argument against this lack of evidence is anecdotal. You
“know someone” who became “paranoid schizophrenic” after her
abortion. Where’s your evidence that the abortion had any
causal effect on this person’s mental illness? Have you
considered that she may have been severely ill _prior_to_
terminating her pregnancy, and would have been unable to care
for a new baby? Or are you okay with people like Andrea
Yates, Dena Schlosser, and other women who “hear God” tell
them to murder their children?
Your disrespect for women is painfully obvious when you accuse
them of terminating a pregnancy “often for convenience or out
of embarassment.” That’s a ridiculous assertion, and yet
another example of the radical-conservative assault on
evidence by equating propaganda with fact. You go on to say
that we “don’t research” out of willful ignorance, yet peer-
reviewed research on abortion is widely available. What
you’re upset about is that your propaganda can’t get peer-
review, and isn’t respected by the scientific and medical
community.
Your assertion that the man who provided the sperm, and hence
half the DNA, for a fetus and therefore has parental rights,
is absurd. It’s especially absurd given the industry you
yourself work in: biomedical and pharmaceutical research. As
you well know, but other readers of this blog may not, this is
an industry that makes millions of dollars patenting specific
DNA and genetic sequences, and then selling the rights to test
for specific genes and/or DNA sequences. That you earn your
living doing this, and then claim the “father” has rights to
half a DNA sample willingly, or forcibly, deposited into a
woman’s body, is the height of hypocrisy.
Finally, you launch a personal attack on the Eagle intern who posted this blog entry. How much online stalking did you have to do to find her political affiliation? Did you look her up in the state voter file? Why post it here? Why are you posting a link to an essay she wrote as a college student four years ago? What’s your point in attacking her?
You claim women’s rights supporters have turned abortion into a political issue. THAT IS LAUGHABLE. It’s YOUR people who protest daily outside clinics. It’s YOUR people who protest AT THE HOMES of clinic employees. It’s YOUR people who shoot at clinic workers, who bomb clinics, who murder those they disagree with. It’s YOUR people who, every session, turn the Kansas Legislature into an anti-choice, anti-woman circus. This session, YOUR people managed to repeal THE ONLY TWO STATUTES that specifically protected pregnant women from harm. What did YOUR people do? They replaced it with a statute that does NOTHING except declare a fetus to be a person.
Nice work.
Kev,
I don’t know what world you are living in, but around here men are forced by the courts to pay for the children they have.
Men don’t just get to walk away.
Either way, what does that have to do with abortion?
You support abortion because a man can walk away from his child?
So can a woman.
Meadolark: “I know someone who had an abortion and possibly that contributed to her paranoid schizophrenic condition. She often hears “voices” that tell her what to do. She hasn’t held a job in years. Is it just possible the guilt from the abortion is too much for some women?”
My response: Anectdotal, and speculative at that. That’s not reliable data, and the truth of Andie’s statement remains reliable.
Meadolark: “Tom is correct that pregnant women know they’re pregnant — and they know they’re carrying another human life. Eliminating that human life, often for convenience or out of embarrassment, has no psychological effect on the woman? The many gene expression pathways that are abruptly halted in a woman’s body at the time of an abortion have no effect on her health? There is “no reliable data” because as a society we don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t research, don’t report? Perhaps as a society we don’t want to know?”
My response: Let’s remember what we are talking about here. Because of Tiller there is a lot of obessive talking about third trimester abortions. First trimester abortions are by far the most common, however. You want fully informed consent, let’s talk about embryology, including the documented differences between blastocysts, embryos, early fetuses, and late term fetuses. Some of the developmental information is information that, freed of the claim that genetic individuality equals personhood, “pro-life” fanatics don’t necessarily want focused on. The flip side of “abortion equals murder” is “women should be legally compelled to carry a pregnancy to term”. The second proposition is widely considered distasteful and rightfully considered to be wrong. If you want “informed consent”, the informed consent should not be provided by the National Right to Life committee, and especially by the large numbers of individuals associated with that who also think that the world is less than 10,000 years old or that first people were molded from dust and a rib and led astray by a smooth talking snake.
Meadolark: “Eagle Intern Anie Clum, a Democrat, is showing her political agenda by the inflammatory wording of her posting. She really isn’t interested in a civil public discussion of this matter.
Abortion is a woman’s choice by law by Andie Clumhttp://media.www.lanternonline.com/media/storage/paper297/news/2003/02/20/Opinioneditorial/Pointcounterpoint-376537-page2.shtml“
My response: Well, I will give you this Meadowlark, at least this time you’ve actually replied to a post here instead of your original opening post and run. That being said, are you entirely unaware of the irony of your statements about Andie Clum, not to mention others that you have made? You seem to think that posting a polite point counterpoint response from Ms. Clum is a smoking gun of bias that immediately draws into question her intent for posting here. Never mind the fact that your own biases and opinions are very clear in your posts. And by the way, both the post headlining this thread and the post you linked to were, I believe, quite civil. Strong positions are not necessarily incompatible with civility. On the basis of your claim about Ms. Clum, I would be forced to conclude that, from the basis of your own clearly identified point of view and biases, you also are not interested in civil discussion on this matter. It appears that bias to you is scandalous only when it runs counter to your own. Do you not realize how silly you make yourself look when you do this? Do you see the trouble that irony impairment gets you into here?
Before this heats up anymore I would urge pro-lifers to consider this:
There may be girls and women out there who may be considering abortion and reading this thread. What we need to convey, is our sense of concern for the Mom’s best interests and for the life of her child.
I think that if we do that it compares favorably to the one track “women’s right to an abortion” talk by the other side. We need to keep in mind that these moms are facing difficult emotional decisions and we want to demonstrate our concern and recognition of what they face.
Oh Nathan, if you feel that men don’t get out of their obligation, you are SO very wrong. They get out of it. Trust me.
Who says that we pro-choicers don’t want informed consent? I’m just saying that we already HAVE informed consent.
Two things to remember about anecdotes:
1) like some unmentionables, everybody has one2) anecdotes are NOT data
SCHIZOPHRENIA IS:
A brain disease, with concrete and specific symptoms due to physical and biochemical changes in the brain
An illness that strikes young people in their prime — age of onset is usually between 16 and25
Almost always treatable with medication
More common than most people think. If affects 1 in 100 people worldwide
Stress — Stress does not cause schizophrenia. However, it has been proven that stress makes symptoms worse when the illness is already present.
SCHIZOPHRENIA IS NOT:
A “split personality”
Caused by childhood trauma, bad parenting, or poverty
The result of any action or personal failure by the individual.
mentalhealth.com/book/p40-sc02.html#Head_3
“Jane Doe” of Doe V. Bolton has changed HER mind.
“Roe” of Roe V. Wade has changed HER mind.
Must I prove that THEY are both women? Please stop it with this “anti-woman” cheap, lazy argument.
The truth is, men support “abortion rights” in larger numbers than women. This is probably due to the fact that abortion gets rid of child support obligations and destroys evidence of other misdeeds.
First of all, Doe was probably the last person who should have had children. Have you seen her record? To say now that she regrets, was lied to about it, is a joke. She was denied an abortion the first time around, but now denies that she knew anything about an abortion. It’s almost the same story Roe says.
hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=7725&bheaders=1
It’s just like the rest of the women out there who needed that abortion so much for themselves, and now say they want to end that choice for others.
Ms magazine published the names of women who agreed that their decisions were important to them. It’s a hard decision to make. Nobody says they take it lightly. I believe many do regret…but there are just as many who regret making a different decision as well.
To go back after and say that they didn’t know what they were getting into is ridiculous and wrong.
Perhaps I should say I didn’t know what I was getting into when I decided to have my children. Perhaps I should go back and say now that ALL women in my situation should not be able to be given the choice, and be forced into abortions?
Well said outlander.
It is hard to have any type of discussion whenever we try to say something opposing the pro-abortion stance we are bombarded with the we hate women and we want to enslave women and all the anti-women crap.
I suppose we could just as easily turn this into calling them baby killers, murderers, and supporters of genocide?
However, you are right in this being about the well being of the mother and providing her with knowledge of her actions in regards to choosing an abortion.
To Proudman, “And which part of “rule over” is not meant for subordination of women?” Perhaps you would have a better understanding of Christian marriage if you read the New Testament, also. It makes it quite clear that the husband is commanded to love his wife, treat her as his own flesh (because no man harms his own flesh), treat her gently as the weaker sex, and honor her as a co-heir to the Kingdom. It’s a much better deal than the “everyone-for-his/herself” marriage that is so popular today.
As to abortion, I do know many women who’ve aborted with almost no thought to the life they destroyed…until it was too late. Many women still mourn those children, especially when they look at the ones born afterward. Having been through more than one crisis pregnancy in my 5, I can also attest to the fact that an unwanted pregnancy does NOT equate to an unwanted child. I thank God every day that I never chose to deliberately murder any of my beautiful babies.
I once saw a site that had all of these ’stats’ on women post abortion syndrome. The one thing that site either didn’t report on, or failed to ask…was how many would do it differently if they had it to do over again.
Of course women are going to regret. There is guilt with every choice you make regarding this decision.
How about this…for the informed consent. Included in the mandatory informed consent, how many fathers abandon the children. How much poverty and single parenting is correlated. How much suicide and criminal activity is tied in with poverty.
If you want informed consent, make sure it’s both sides. Include the statistics on what can go wrong with the mother and with the baby. Include what the chances are of having a child with a disability that will require a lifetime 24/7 extreme care. (For autism alone, 1 in 166 kids, imagine how much higher the stat is for ALL other disabilities). Include how hard it is when you don’t have money for diapers and formula and you’ve gotten NO sleep and there is nobody you can call to come help.
Sure, we’ll make it so that all of the ‘what ifs’ are included into the decision. How about that?
Mom5:
It wasn’t Proudman’s post, but mine. I posted it in response to Nathan’s question further up the thread. That is to say that the Bible CAN be used to justify the inequality of the genders.
Mom_of_5, I believe you are responding to someone else.
First — In the Bible, women were treated no differently than cattle… Old AND New Testament.. One or more “churches” who stand in opposition to abortion, STILL do not ordain women as ministers/priests…
Second — Pro-Choice is just that.. Pro Choice… It is NOT Pro Abortion… Because Pro Choice believes that if a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to full term, then thats terriffic… But if, for whatever reason, she chooses to abort the pregnancy.. Pro Choice believes that choice should be up to the woman, her doctor, and perhaps family/close friends…
Anything ELSE added on to what Pro Choice believes is just a bunch of propaganda by the Anti-Abortion groups..
“treat her gently as the weaker sex”
I think I’m going to barf. Women aren’t the weaker sex. Genetically it has been proven that boys are far more fragile. And they don’t handle stress as well as women do.
I guess God made an error in that statement huh?
The undisputable fact is, there are many religions and factions that do use these biblical statements to keep women subjugated. I’m dealing with one woman right now who endured years of abuse because this was her religion- her Christian religion. A good marriage relies on equal partners.
What, nobody has a comment on my version of informed consent?
Nah, Pmom. Too reasonable a suggestion…
Unfortunately, you could pick and choose any verse in the Bible, take if out of context, and then twist and pervert it to say just about anything you want it too.
However, doctrines are not based on those methods.
The Bible paints a clear picture throughout that simply because God placed Man above the Woman it doesn’t grant him authority to treat her badly.
Far from it. The Bible tells of how Man is supposed to love his wife as Christ also loved the church.
When you sit here and drag these verses out of context trying to say that the Bible or Christians condone abusive behavior towards Woman you are no better than the abusers who do the same.
I would hardly equate doctrines on women in the priesthood as anywhere near the disparity in sexs some of you claim in Christianity.
The simple fact is that during Biblical times, CULTURE, had more to do with the way women were treated than anything the Bible had to say about it.
This is the same typical anti-Christian rhetoric used for no other purpose than to further your misconstrued views about Christianity.
Political Mom,
Women are weaker than men physically.
It is not a faux pas to say so either.
You don’t have to be a genious scientist to see that the average male is stronger than the average female.
Easy to say that, Nathan. The point is that many other so-called Christians view the verses differently, some more literal than others. How about the “dual-seed” concept of Cain (Serpent’s) and Abel (Adam’s) that often used to justify anti-Semitism, and racism?
Christians non support for abortion has nothing to do with dominating a woman or the woman at all.
It is about LIFE.
How hard is that to understand?
We believe that the unborn child is a human life worthy of protecting.
It has nothing to do with our sexist desires to subjugate women. That is some bogus argument made by those who refuse to debate the actual issue of protecting life.
Ach, Nathan. Men vs Women strength wise. Let me see you give birth, than we can see who’s tougher. :)
“It has nothing to do with our sexist desires to subjugate women. That is some bogus argument made by those who refuse to debate the actual issue of protecting life.”
Hehehe, so you do admit having these “desires”?
Anyway, time to see dear beloved ones of mine. I’m outta here…
“Oh Nathan, if you feel that men don’t get out of their obligation, you are SO very wrong. They get out of it. Trust me.”
You are right because mine did it to me. After they divorced, at first he was interested and supportive and used to take us in the summer to his home in Oklahoma but after he remarried and had 2 kids with his new wife, that was it for us. He wanted zero to do with me. That is why I feel strong about this matter of men telling women they MUST have children. Screw that! Maybe if most of them were not PIGS there would be less abortions!
Lapin,
Once again, there is no theme or verse you could use without seriously distorting it or taking it out of context to support racism and anti-semitism.
I don’t know what “many” Christians you are talking about.
Kev,
So have you given much thought to killing your children because you don’t have a man to support them anymore?
Nathan,
No matter how much you may wish it, your version, and no other version, of the Christian Bible is the “law of the land.” This is a secular nation, and in fact, it is written into our Constitution that it be so.
Article 7:”The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Pmom,
If we’re going to have legislated “informed consent,” your approach looks good.
However, if what’s happening in North Carolina is any guide, here’s the way it’ll probably come down: Physicians performing abortions won’t be allowed to be the ones giving the information. A woman will have to pay a separate doctor, or counselor, or whomever has no ties to a clinic where abortions are performed, to provide that information. This is going to be yet another mandated financial barrier to women who are already at a crisis point in their lives.
J M Walker,
Sorry to come in so late, but I agree with you, too. There are so many facets that making the broad statement I did wasn’t completely fair. My apology to you and other fathers who have been there and continue to be.
Proudman,
Your method of limiting government is to give same said government MORE access to women’s private lives? MORE government access to women’s private medical records?
Do you realize that the American people are catching on to your double-speak?
Tom,
What does the Christian Bible have anything to do with wanting to save life before it is destroyed?
Answer: It doesn’t.
So why did you bring that up?
Nathan,
Please re-read your 10:56 and 11:01 posts. You may also wish to recall when you’ve made statements on other days that there should be public policy that bans choice, attacks gay Americans, and so on. You base these arguments on your Biblical world view.
You’re free to believe what you choose, Nathan, but I and others grow weary of people who try to insert those beliefs into the private lives of others.
Wait a minute…
What Article 7 are you using?
Article 7:
“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
“political_mom” wrote:
“…How about this…for the informed consent. Included in the mandatory informed consent, how many fathers abandon the children. How much poverty and single parenting is correlated. How much suicide and criminal activity is tied in with poverty.
“If you want informed consent, make sure it’s both sides. Include the statistics on what can go wrong with the mother and with the baby. Include what the chances are of having a child with a disability that will require a lifetime 24/7 extreme care. (For autism alone, 1 in 166 kids, imagine how much higher the stat is for ALL other disabilities). Include how hard it is when you don’t have money for diapers and formula and you’ve gotten NO sleep and there is nobody you can call to come help.
“Sure, we’ll make it so that all of the ‘what ifs’ are included into the decision. How about that?”
P-Mom, please stop introducing logic and rationality into this debate. It drive abortion abolitionists crazy; makes ‘em bat their heads like a dog eating ice cream.
As we’ve seen in this thread (and just about every other reproductive rights discussion ever) it doesn’t take too long before theology and dogma dictate the abolitionists’ arguments.
*THEY* think *THEY* speak for “God,” and that *THEIR* “God” is the only true “god,” and since you and I might have another concept of “god-ness” we are automatically wrong and *THEY* are automatically correct about anything and everything they think.
Forget for a moment that’s not how God works; the important issue at hand is that’s not how the Constitution of the United States of America works.
You have the right to believe whatever Bible or Koran or tea leaves or goat entralls you think is “God’s” way of speaking to you; but you do not have the right to impose those beliefs on others with the power of government.
Despite what revisionist historians might want you to believe, slavery was not abolished in 19th Century America for moral reasons; it was an economic, sociological, political and (since it occurred during the Civil War) a military decision. Doesn’t mean moralists weren’t involved, but their contribution to abolition of slavery was minimal.
Religious-based abortion opponents are playing a losing game because religion does not have a place at the table when it comes to constitutional rights. It’s not that the Constitution is anti-religion, it’s quite simply and eloquently non-religious.
If “Nathan” wants to spend $7,000 for an open-casket funeral for every spontaneous first-trimester miscarriage, groovy. But in civil law, a kid doesn’t get a driver’s license until 16 years after birth; not 15 years and six months for a premie; not 16 years an three weeks for a late delivery.
All this must seem pretty arbitrary for folks who claim to speak for “God.” But them’s the breaks when you’re dealing with the Constitution of the United States of America. It’s jam-packed with aribitray deliniations. Yes, you have the right to free speech but you don’t hive the right to scream “Fire!” in a crowded movie house. Yes, you have the right to free assembly but you cannot incite a riot.
Does the Constitution sometimes fall short of perfection? Most certainly; all human-constructs will and do. If I thought I were speaking for “God,” I’d shoot O.J. Simpson in the street for the rabid dog I think he is. But he’s been adjudicated by a constitutional jury and is protected against my personal morality and can’t be prosecuted again by the government. On my own, based on my own definition of morality, I can choose to not ask O.J. over for dinner.
These arguments tend to be distilled into bumper-sticker slogans; not particularly a good thing, but that’s the way it is.
One that seems appropriate in the reproductive rights argument is this one: “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”
Nathan,
Sorry, that was a typo. Scroll up two lines to Article 6.
Tom,
My belief that the unborn child is a life worthy of protecting has nothing to do with my forcing religion on you.
There is nothing I am quoting from the Bible or using in this discussion to say you can abort.
Yet you still insist on making this about Christianity.
It is a very weak tactic. If you can’t debate the facts on your own, I guess this is what you resort too…
Tom,
My faith doesn’t attack gay Americans.
Why is it that the only thing you can do is purposefully distort and mischaracterize Christianity?
LTPFTL,
I fail to see yet where I have based my argument against abortion soley on a religious belief that it is wrong. Yet somehow this is the constant defense used by many here today on supporting abortion and refuting those who oppose it.
The Constituion also protects life.
If the unborn human is a life worthy of protecting then this is a constitutional matter indeed.
By your logic then all abortions are perfectly ok all the way up until birth?
Is that your stance?
The simple question is this, if you support abortion then please answer:
When does life begin?
Wow, Nathan.
You wrote two posts on this abortion thread that used your faith to justify your opinion _on_ abortion. I’m not attacking your faith; I’m just tired of it being seen as something you may impose on others. You’ve used the same faith-based arguments on other days, on other threads.
If your faith tells you it’s wrong to terminate a pregnancy, fine. Don’t terminate your pregnancy. If your faith tells you homosexuality is immoral, fine, don’t date gay men. The same is true for any other lawful activity adults may engage in.
Tom,
I have not yet once used my faith to justify my posistion on abortion.
I clarified why many Christians hold the view of being opposed to abortion.
There is a difference. One you seem to find incapable of grasping.
So tell me, when does life begin?
What does the Christian Bible have anything to do with wanting to save life before it is destroyed?
Answer: It doesn’t.Posted by: Nathan | May 28, 2007 at 11:43 AM
To borrow a word from a poster who shall remain anonymous (but who uses this word constantly, irritatingly even):
Your “it doesn’t” is disingenuous.
For example. Let’s assume the Bible has *nothing* to do with abortion. To do so we have to subtract all Christian-influenced thought and decision from our existing law.
Ok. Why do I give a fig what happens to a single fetus?
It’s only one. There will always be more. What’s the problem again?
ANS: The problem with your calculated “this has nothing to do with religion” is that all respect for life owes everthing to religion. Wherever humans congregate to talk about things they perceive to be larger than the self (ie, organized religion), they have to confront the loss of life and how it’s lost. This is perhaps the root of religion, in fact: life and death. The very prohibition against taking life that you swear owes nothing to religion is in fact directly due to the commandment in all Aramaic religions “you shall not kill.”
Apparently you are so clueless about the philosophy of law that you aren’t aware of where the respect for life comes from.
Go figure.
Tom,
My faith also tells me that murder is wrong.
So should we strip the law of punishing murderers because it is based on Christianity?
Are you beginning to comprehend yet?
Pedant,
No. I understand completely.
I am trying to seperate the faith based argument from this. I was a bit unclear in that post in trying to bluntly make the difference in arguing against abortion based not on Christianity but on the unborn child being a life worthy of protecting.
Nathan,
First of all, laws against murder existed before Christianity, and before Judaism.
Secondly, “murder” is the unlawful killing of a person. A) Abortion is lawful; B) blastocysts, zygotes, fetuses, etc are not people.
Thirdly, when you kill a person, you are certainly imposing your values on them, at the expense of their life. This is exactly why I would agree that murder is wrong.
And in answer to your earlier post, “when does life begin,” the PEER REVIEWED scientific consensus is that life on earth began ~3.9 billion years ago. But we’ve already established you don’t believe in “~3.9 billion years ago,” so further conversation on _that_ topic is pointless.
I think abortion should be legal. I also think prostitution should be legal as well. Physician assistant suicide should be legal. And I believe that it’s ok for people to sell their own organs, dead or alive, including women should be allowed to sell their own eggs.
“So should we strip the law of punishing murderers because it is based on Christianity?”
Murder is against the law and customs of every society, every religion and every country.
The prohibition against murder is not unique to Christianity by any means.
And I am arguing that you can’t separate Christianity from making murder illegal, not in the US. You can in Iraq, you can separate Christianity from laws against murder in China, but you can’t in Europe and the Americas.
Aramaicly derived religion is at the heart of the anti-abortion movement everywhere, however.
Tom,
Really, life began 3.9 billion years ago?
How Tom? What was that first life and how was it created?
Talk to me about faith, will you, when you start talking about how science explains the beginning of life that take some faith to believe.
The point is that in the US Christianity cannot be removed from any discussion of abortion.
Can’t be done. If you want to discuss abortion, you’ll have to include the importance of Christianity.
WS Clark and Tom,
It was an analogy which still seems to evade you.
Let me try it a bit differently:
Simply because Christians support a particular law or view point doesn’t mean that law or view point is based soley on a religious decree.
It is possible that I, as a Christian, hold many views and support many laws which I do not feel compelled to do so soley based on what the Bible says or my belief as a Christian.
Your arguments would exclude Christians from supporting anything or any law because we are simple Christians.
That is a farse.
This is about when life begins and protecting it.
“Can’t be done. If you want to discuss abortion, you’ll have to include the importance of Christianity.”
Why?
This is a secular country by Constitutional degree. YOU may vote based on YOUR Christian beliefs, but the law cannot be written in deference to Christianity.
People during the beginning of Christianity had no idea how a baby was conceived or how a fetus developed inside the womb. Hell! They even thought that Mary was a virgin. The masses were really illiterate back in the day. All Christianity did for those poor people is take advantage of them and allow the Clergy class to control them.
Pedant,
My point is not to remove it, but to make the point that actions to outlaw abortion are not soley based on Christianity in regards to seperation of church and state as many abortion proponents keep trying to argue.
Their argument is that we can’t outlaw abortion or support things to limit it because it is based on Christianity. Which is what I am arguing against.
It is not “based” on Christianity any more than Christians don’t support murder.
Nathan,
See, once again, this is about how you wish to have your literalist, Biblical world view turned into law. Again, our Constitution says “no” to your wish.
I’m not going to have a discussion with you about the particulars of your faith, or the particulars of mine, or of anyone else’s here. I _will_ criticize anyone who thinks their faith should become public law and public policy, simply because they believe God/Allah/Buddah/L Ron Hubbard said so.
Nathan, peer-reviewed science is not faith, and it’s not taken on faith. It’s open to criticism, it’s open to new facts as we discover them, it’s open to re-interpretation and revision as we, as humanity, learn more. It’s not a carved-in-stone dogma that brooks no disagreement. Your literalist view of the particular version of the Bible you use, according to you, is not open to question. We’ve had this conversation, remember?
“Your arguments would exclude Christians from supporting anything or any law because we are simple Christians.”
You are being highly disingenuous, Nathan. I never said that YOU could not vote based on YOUR beliefs, I said that the law should not be written in deference to YOUR religion.
Just as Creationism should not be taught in public schools because it is a religious belief concept, abortion issues should be based on medical considerations, not religious beliefs.
Joe Williams,
Figuring that Christianity was born into oppression under the Roman Empire and non acceptance by most Jews I don’t see how you draw your conclusions on it being nothing more than a way for the Cleregy Class to control the people.
At one point, people in power did abuse their power, but that is not what Christianity is based on.
Thanks for you comments though Mr Stalin.
Oh, and one more thing, Nathan.
When you use the phrase “when was life created?”, you’re begging the answer: That life was purposely created.
A more accurate question is this: “When did the first living organism come into being?” That’s the first question that has to be asked. Only then is any question about that organism’s “creator” valid.
WS Clark,
Fair enough. My point is that the stance on abortion is not based on religious beliefs.
When does life begin WS Clark?
Legalizing abortion is about women having the privacy to control their own reproductive choices. If a woman is pregnant and did not want or doesn’t want the pregnancy, then she should have the right to terminate that pregnancy if she wants.
This isn’t murder! Trying to make abortion illegal is just having the government control women’s reproductive choices. Basically, you shall have the baby, regardless.
You know how this all started? From Birth Control Pills! Yep! You got it! Having the government ban birth control pills, just for the sake of control.
Read: Supreme Court Case – Griswold v. Connecticut
Joe Williams,
So you support abortion all the way up until birth?
Tom,
Fine Tom. A mere fruedian slip on my part.
How did the first life come into being according to science?
This is a secular country by Constitutional degree. YOU may vote based on YOUR Christian beliefs, but the law cannot be written in deference to Christianity.Posted by: WSClark | May 28, 2007 at 12:16 PM
First off, I am at best a lapsed Christian. I havn’t attended a Christian church for any reason other than weddings or funerals since 1994. And I quit my church then because the elders allowed the Christian Coalition to include voter guides in the hymnals the Sunday before November elections that year.
That said, the US is a country where the establshment of a state religion is unconstitutional. That’s not the same as secular, however. The US is decidedly sectarian.
Look around you.
I’m simply saying that Nathan can’t separate Christianity from any discussion of abortion in order to talk about “protecting life.” Laws against murder in this country derive from English common law, which in turn was shaped by the idea of natural law. Natural law in the US has been shaped by Christian principles, especially at the state level(s).
He also can’t make that separation because the US is steeped in Christianity, as is the movement to overturn Roe v Wade.
A person becomes a human being at birth, prior to that the are a fetus in utero or a blastocyst prior to implantation.
And don’t twist my words to say that I support abortion on demand up to the time of birth.
I do not support abortion at all – I support a woman’s right to choose and to make that choice with the counsel of her doctor.
LTPFTL,
You forgot one in your list.
The IRS does not recgonize a fetus. You cannot claim an unborn child on your Income Tax Return.
Nathan,
If you’d been paying attention to my earlier posts, I already answered your question as to “when.” For us to have any further conversation, do you agree that the earth existed 4 to 4.5 billion years ago?
“He (Nathan)also can’t make that separation because the US is steeped in Christianity, as is the movement to overturn Roe v Wade.”
I agree Pedant. My comments were directed to Christians in general, no offense to you was intended.
I do Nathan. Although it should be done within the first trimester, but if later on the woman finds out that the baby will have autism, development disorders or other genetic diseases, they should be allowed terminate that pregnancy all the way up to birth.
RD,
Not only does the IRS not recognized a fetus for income tax purposes, but the 14th Amendment to the Constitution pretty clearly states that a “person born” is entitled to rights. Nothing there about “pre born” or “unborn” or “mostly born” or any other silliness.
“recognize”
Dyslexic fingers.
Now we are getting somewhere.
So, scientifically speaking, what is the difference between a baby just born and a baby 1 minute prior to birth?
Tom,
The question was HOW not WHEN.
Interesting RD andTom are using the IRS as a source as to when human life begins. That is what as known as hard up.
BTW, I have heard it said that IRS agents themselves are not human life.
Any IRS agents out there. That was a joke.
WS Clark,
Why, if you don’t regard the fetus as life, would you even care if a woman had an abortion at all?
Outlander,
I used the United States Constitution as my source. Are you having trouble distinguishing between posters?
One is still attached to the mother and dependent on the mother, once born, cord cut and baby breathing on their own, then it’s recognized with a birth certificate, which is a legal recognition of that person.
The baby doesn’t get one unless it’s on it’s own. Doesn’t get one if still in the mom’s belly.
One minute, the absence of a uterus, and the cutting of an umbilical cord.
Oh, the the ability of others to physically see the newborn for the first time. It doesn’t seem like much, but then again it’s a big deal. Just ask the mother (always) and father (usually).
I believe that’s about it.
“Not only does the IRS not recognized a fetus for income tax purposes…” – Tom
Someone trolling you today Tom?
Joe,
So the only difference between a life being recognized for protection or not is location in the Mothers womb?
Nathan,
Again, the peer-reviewed scientific consensus is that life first appeared on earth ~3.9 billion years ago. Do you agree that this planet existed then? Again, if you don’t agree the earth is ~4 to ~4.5 billion years old, and that it was possible for life to have appeared on it in the time frame scientific consensus postulates, there’s not much point in discussing HOW, is there?
Remember our conversation about “basic premise?” It still applies.
Actually, rephrase:
So, until the cord is cut you have no problem with killing the fetus?
Outlander, I was offering my comments as compare/contrast to RD’s. Are you having reading comprehension difficulties today?
Yes Nathan!
Just like there is a difference between being alive and dead. There is a fine line that defines it.
Nathan! I have no problem what that at all.
“Why, if you don’t regard the fetus as life, would you even care if a woman had an abortion at all?”
Did you read the part where I said I basically DON’T care – that it is NONE of my business?
Because I support gay rights, don’t mean that I am going to “turn” gay. What gays do or want to do is their business, I merely support their rights.
In that vein, I support a woman’s right to choose – I have no right to participation in that decision.
I do not own a gun (currently) but I support the rights of those that do.
What’s your point?
Because I am personally opposed to abortion, doesn’t mean that my view should be imposed on someone else.
Uh no Tom. But if you don’t want to stand up for what you write, it’s OK with me. It’s no big deal.
Maybe you could just put the stuff you really mean in CAPS.
Inigo Montoya: He’s dead. He can’t talk.
Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There’s a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there’s usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What’s that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.
(sorry, I couldn’t resist)
Because I support gay rights, don’t mean that I am going to “turn” gay.Posted by: WSClark | May 28, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Damn. Another one lost.
Because I am personally opposed to abortion, doesn’t mean that my view should be imposed on someone else.Posted by: WSClark | May 28, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Okay – in all seriousness. When our daughter was a teenager in high school, we made it clear that if she became sexually active and pregnant, an abortion would *not* be a choice for her. As her parents, we reserved that choice to ourselves until she turned 18. Now, as an adult, she is free to do as she chooses, whether we agree with it or not.
Tom,
Limited government does not mean ‘no government’. One of the proper roles of government is to ensure that the strong do not go around abusing the weak. Protection of life, liberty, and property. For instance, you should not be able to define another person as a lesser being and simply kill them to prevent some inconvenience.
It’s very consistent with my view of limited government.
Now I’m interested in reading some double-speak from you. Please tell me why you seek super-protection in law for gays yet refuse to grant even basic rights (like the right to life) to children.
Proudman,
I don’t seek “super-protection” in law for gays. I seek the same treatment under the same laws as already exist for all other Americans.
I seek the right to marry the consenting, unrelated adult of my choosing.
I seek the right to work, without being fired, in the same way people of different faiths or national origins may.
I seek the right to be free of intimidation, harassment, and violence because of an innate characteristic, the same as others are protected.
I do not seek “special rights.” There’s no such thing. There are “equal rights,” and every American deserves them.
I do not refuse to grant the right of life to children. How dare you accuse me of wanting to see children murdered!!
I *do* support the right of a pregnant woman to control her own body, and to terminate a pregnancy if she chooses. That zygote or fetus growing inside her is *not* a child. It’s a *fetus.* It does not have rights, it does not and cannot live separately from its mother. In previous threads, I have made it clear that I accept that the state has an interest in protecting viable fetuses, but only in certain limited circumstances.
Poor “Nathan” wrote:
“…what is the difference between a baby just born and a baby 1 minute prior to birth?”
Ya see, “Nathan,” this is what people call reducto ad absurdum and it’s a fallicy in logical debate.
It falls into the same level as a college freshman staring at his thumbnail and imagining all the atoms therein and noticing that atoms apparently look like solar systems so maybe there’s a tiny race of people on one electron and the next time some big extraterrestial giant clips her nails it’ll be the end of *our* universe. And hand me the bong.
Even if *your* faith, “Nathan,” gives you universal understanding to all the infinite mysteries of the universe, we here in America are constrained by the Constitution to deal with issues of the here and now. We got started with a compromise and all the guys who signed the Constitution were dead and buried when the little matter of calling persons-of-color 3/5ths of a human being turned into a bloody civil war.
Perhaps — just maybe perhaps — Americans have learned there might be better ways to resolve our differences than a bloody civil war.
But I digress…
To the point of your question, I am pro-choice.
If a woman were to carry a perfectly normal and healthy pregnancy to 8 months, 29 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes before delivery — and were to choose an abortion at that minute — I’d have to say she might not be good mother material.
But who’s gonna make that decision, “Nathan?” You!? The attending physician? A show of hands from farmers and ex-insurance salesmen and political hacks in the legislature? Appointed judges? “God?”
If you believe the government that governs least governs best, you’ve gotta come back to the person who’s most affected by the birth of a child. And that’s the woman “1 minute” away from giving birth. Not you. Not me. Not the legislature. Not the courts.
The last figures I read revealed that abortions performed on women under the age of 15 ammounted to less than one-half of one-percent of procedures performed in Kansas. One-half of one-percent. If that isn’t the textbook definition of a fringe issue, tell me what is.
Those same reports revealed there were absolutely *no* so-called “partial-birth abortions” performed in Kansas during the reporting period. If that isn’t the definition of a non-issue, tell me what is.
Your theology, “Nathan,” tells you that life begins at conception. Fine. Practice your faith. Buy a $7,000 open-casket funeral for every spontaneous miscarrage and ride in the herse and cry over the grave. You’re free to do it and the only real consequence will be that most of us will consider you to be a certifiable nut. But if it’s what “God” tells you to do… go for it. It’s your constitutional right. (and morticians will *love* you!)
Constituional law is full of quirks. A fetus conceived in Mexico who happens to be born this side of the Arizona border is, constitutionally, an American citizen. A baby born to American Citizens on a cruise ship in international seas has options. A child conceived and gestated until your “1-minute” before crossing the border might not be an American citizen after all.
Part of the law, civil law… you know, *constitutional” law… makes seemingly arbitray distinctions. But the key to constitutional law is that it’s not supposed to be tainted by any religion’s dogma.
Tom,
As I originally posted, it’s sad in this country that some people can justify murder simply by redefining someone as a lesser being. We shouldn’t kill Jews just because someone defines them as less than human. Same with blacks, same with gays.
I suggest you keep a sharp eye out to see if anyone is going to try to define gays as less than human. It would be a sad day if, like you, they go out and decide it’s OK to kill those non-humans.
In the meantime I’ll keep a consistent position that murder is wrong.
Proudman,
I’m afraid it’s the anti-choice crowd that’s busy redefining the English language, not I. Zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are not children.
From Random House Unabridged Dictionary:
zy•gote n. Biol.the cell produced by the union of two gametes, before it undergoes cleavage.
em•bry•o n., pl. -os, adj.— n.1. the young of a viviparous animal, esp. of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month. Cf. fetus.
fe•tus n., pl. -tus•es Embryol. (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.
in•fant n.1. a child during the earliest period of its life, esp. before he or she can walk; baby.
child n., pl. chil•dren1. a young boy or girl2. a son or daughter3. a baby or infant.
birth n.1. an act or instance of being born2. the act or process of bearing or bringing forth offspring; childbirth; parturition:
We are committed to reducing the nubmer of abortions, and we know that enforcing informed consent in abortion mills is one of the few ways we can do it. (Cutting taxpayer funding and enforcing parental notification and consent will also reduce abortions.) Most mothers who get a good look at a quality ultrasound will refuse an abortion, cutting into abortion mill profits, which is why the abortion lobby is adamantly against informed consent. Unfortunately, often whoever is coercing the mother by threatening eviction, job loss, education or scholarship loss, assault, or attempted murder will be unmoved by an ultrasound, so we must also prevent coercion of the mother, if we are to prevent the unfair consequences of birthing her child being forced upon her.
Nathan,Okay, let’s make this real easy for you. Think of birth as a graduation ceremony when a fetus receives it’s people papers.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time talking to a lot of anti’s, and at the root of every case, it wasn’t about cute little babies or protecting deranged mothers from evil doctors; their bottom concern was their own bottoms. They thought that by loudly opposing abortion, they were buying THEIR OWN ticket to heaven!
There are numerous Christians who SUPPORT a woman’s right to choose.. So, Nathan, please stop saying what “Christians” believe in your posts… Instead, please state what YOUR brand of Christianity believes… That seems only fair, since there are wide,and varied views amongst Christians on this most important subject.
ALSO, we must ALL remember that our Constitution is so written as to PREVENT one religious view from ruling over ALL others, by the fact that it states, “Congress shall make NO law regarding the establishment of religion.” That would seem to be extremely clear.. Congress CANNOT propose laws based on a particular form of religion… NOR can the Courts make rulings based on a particular form of religion…
WHY is that so darned hard for some folks to understand?? In other words, Nathan, you and folks who believe your ways, have a RIGHT to believe those ways. But… I and others who believe as I do, have the SAME RIGHT to believe the way WE believe… And not YOU, or a legislature, or a Court, can keep us from it… THAT is why we have the rule of law!!
Congratulations Tom, don’t define it as a human and you can kill ‘it’.
However don’t worry that we disagree on this issue. If anyone comes along and tries to define gays as not being people I’ll look out for you.
After all, I think murder is wrong.
Proud Man, last time I looked, gays are full grown, developed human beings FAR beyond the embryonic stage… If anybody killed them, it would just be murder.. not even related to abortion, or dont you all get that??
Well Proud Man, are you also in favor of criminalizing contraception? After all, contraception prevents a pregnancy from beginning. How about masturbation? It does the same thing.
Where do you draw the line?
Proudman, I did misquote. I was not responding to you.
In a quick glance through the rest of these posts, it quickly becomes obvious that this is a typical abortion argument…that is, every pro-life argument is somehow twisted to be “religious” regardless of the actual argument…and every pro-choice argument assumes that pro-life people are all weird control freaks who would love to subjugate all women.
The plain fact of the matter is that everyone knows abortion kills a human being…at least one, sometimes more than one. Everyone knows they can be safer for the mother than giving birth, but aren’t always.
The problem is that so many people do not consider the life of the unborn child to be equal to the health of the mother, while pro-life people consider the life of the unborn to be equal with the LIFE of the mother. IF there is a reasonable chance that the mother’s LIFE will be lost, then the unborn child will likely die, also, so it is best to save at least the one life of the mother. IF it is unlikely that the mother will die, what is it that makes her HEALTH, especially her MENTAL HEALTH, worth MORE than the LIFE of the unborn child?
Just as the Supreme Court was wrong when it declared that black people should have fewer rights than white, it was wrong when it declared that unborn people should have fewer rights than born people.
Jed, you said, “I’ve spent quite a bit of time talking to a lot of anti’s, and at the root of every case, it wasn’t about cute little babies or protecting deranged mothers from evil doctors; their bottom concern was their own bottoms. They thought that by loudly opposing abortion, they were buying THEIR OWN ticket to heaven!”
That has to be the biggest lie I’ve ever seen.
So, Mom ‘o’ Five, are you against abortion in cases of rape and/or incest? Do you feel that a raped woman should carry the child of her attacker for nine months?
After all, it wasn’t the fetus that was raped.
Proud:
I don’t want to get into an abortion argument, as it is perhaps the most pointless of arguments. But, the use of zygote/fetus/ etc. language is disingenuous. It doesn’t matter what label is attached to that life. That life, at any stage once implanted and growing, is exactly what a human being is supposed to be at that stage of it’s development. Attaching the “zygote” label to it makes it no less human.
But the label makes the reality easier to rationalize.
Well…..
If one were to actually LOOK at Old Testament law and the other ancient laws upon which the OT law was based to see what they say about the death of a fetus or of a young child, one might be surprised…
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely or she has a miscarriage but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.” Exodus 21:22-23
This would imply that the death of the fetus was not considered to be the death of a human person. If it were, then the man responsible would be tried for murder and executed. However, because the fetus had possible future economic worth to the father, he would have to be reimbursed for his loss.
OR
“Tamar’s pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at that time. This was positive proof that she had been sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar’s twin fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.” Genesis 38:24
OR
Code of Hammurabi (209, 210) which reads: “If a lord struck a[nother] lord’s daughter and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally, caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman had died, they shall put his daughter to death.”bullet Hittite Laws, (1.17): “If anyone causes a free woman to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if (it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5 shekels of silver…” The phrase “drives out the embryo” appears to relate to a miscarriage rather than to a premature birth.
So, if a baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence — it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death. Clearly the fetus, and even the young infant are considered more as property than anything else.
I’m not claiming that the Bible condones abortion or that the life of a child is unimportant, but Chritians should be aware that the early Hebrews’ view of God and his laws were very different from our own. In fact there is evidence that the Hebrews, among others, sacrificed their first born child, if male, to God.
AS Long Time Poster, First Time Lurker so eloquently said, “Constituional law is full of quirks… that … make seemingly arbitray distinctions.” So it is with most issues in life. When there is a concensus of opinion about an ethical or moral issue of communal importance, society is justified for putting in place laws dealing with the issue. If there is no concensus, there should be no law. If one accepts this, then it is clear that ethical and moral “laws” will change from society to society over time.
Since there is no concensus on the abortion issue, we should be very careful in legislating on it.
The further this argument goes, it’s as obvious as always that the hard-core anti-choicers view women as containment facilities for fetuses. It’s clear that the anti’s believe the Government has the power to take over women’s lives, and control them for 40 weeks, without any crime being committed, without any due process being afforded to them, without any concern for THEIR lives and THEIR wishes.
Look what’s happening in other states with so-called fetal protection laws. Women are being prosecuted and jailed for “harming” their fetus, through substance abuse or other means. Wisconsin passed a law that gives the state the power to jail a woman for the full 40 weeks of her pregnancy, even when that woman has been convicted of no crime and is engaging in otherwise lawful activities. All it takes is a judicial “finding” that her “behavior” presents some “risk” to the “unborn child.”
This is government interference in the individual rights of citizens taken to the extreme. A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON. It’s part of a woman’s body, and until viability, can no more live separately from that woman’s body than her liver or her left arm.
If the state truly has an interest in preserving fetuses that have become viable, fine. Let the state *immediately* induce labor, and *immediately* take custody of any live-born child. If that’s the state’s choice, then the state can bear the cost of the labor, delivery, and subsequent upbringing, or adoption or foster placement, of the child. But stop ignoring the fact that you’re requiring a woman to be a slave to the interest of those who deny her the right to control her own life.
Add to your OT Law list — If a woman is caught in adultery, she and the man shall be stoned…
Now, IF she should be pregnant from the adulterous affair, then the OT Law of God allows for the termination of the pregnancy along with that of the mother…
However, all of that Biblical stuff being said, Abortion MUST NOT be permitted OR denied based on the religion that the government sees fit to use… That is the glory of the Constitution that we are THIS DAY remembering those war dead who have fought and died to protect this most precious of documents…
Let us not allow the religions of human kind disgrace this great document of Freedom!!
Oh, BTW, I am a Liberal, and I am patriotic, and damned proud of it!!!
I respect the Freedom of Religion of every person… But, I do not respect the Religion that demands that it’s Belief System become the Law of our Land!!
Perhaps we also need “informed consent” laws that prosecute males who have not provided the woman they are about to have sex with all the necessary details about their life and their ability to support a child concieved from their union.
Hell…why not go further and just make it a law that any male who has sex with a woman automatically gives half of everything they own and will own to the woman if she concieves?
“and the man shall be stoned”
Where? Can I sign up? What do I plead guilty to?
WS,
You can plead guilty to saying “JEHOVAH!” In the documentary “Life of Brian,” anyone saying “JEHOVAH!” was immediately stoned to death.
I don’t follow your question. I do support my children- 3 of them still live at home
“Kev,
So have you given much thought to killing your children because you don’t have a man to support them anymore?”
“IF it is unlikely that the mother will die, what is it that makes her HEALTH, especially her MENTAL HEALTH, worth MORE than the LIFE of the unborn child?”
As a mother of 5, maybe you would like to answer your own question, while keeping in mind the children you already have.
I’m not condemning your statement, but I don’t think it was well thought out.
23 of 50 states already have some form of Informed Consent law.
It continues to amaze me how mental health is taken so flippantly, as if it’s a wart or something so minute. Mental heath can be as- if not more -incapacitating than a physical limitation.
Unborn have fewer rights than do adult living breathing humans, just as living breathing children do. They are the responsibility of the parents until age of consent- for example, kids can’t go around saying whatever they want to and be protected under the constitution from their parents. They can’t consent to anything.
A baby en utero is at the discretion of the person who has to carry them. You propose we put the life of the fetus above the woman. And that isn’t right.
And yes, some of those protesters out there are doing pentance for their own abortions. They are trying to make up for it and pray their way into heaven.
Parkay, you want to limit funding for women who choose that path. You want to force sonograms on them so they’ll have to pay more- you know they’re already likely poor in the first place, so admit it that you’re trying to force women to not abort simply by limiting their financial options.
I’m part of the lobby to keep choice available, and if I’m earning money off of it, I’ll be darned if I knew where it was going then!
Tell me, what evidence do you have that MOST women will change their minds when they see an ultrasound? Guilting them into keeping the babies isn’t helpful to them at 2am after the baby’s been born.
I’ve seen an ultrasound, many times over, and it hasn’t changed my opinion.
political momback to doe and roe —
— so you think YOU have the right to choose abortion for mothers YOU deem to be unfit?
Where is the “choice” in that?
Mexico City, a predominantly Catholic area, recently voted to legalize abortion in the first trimester, much to the ire of the Pope.
But it doesn’t stop there. From the Associated Press today:
SAO PAULO, Brazil – Just weeks after Pope Benedict XVI denounced government-backed contraception in a visit to Brazil, the president unveiled a program Monday to provide cheap birth control pills at 10,000 drug stores across the country.President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said the plan will give poor Brazilians “the same right that the wealthy have to plan the number of children they want.”
Brazil already hands out free condoms and birth control pills at government-run pharmacies. But many poor people in Latin America’s largest country don’t go to those pharmacies, so Silva’s administration decided to offer the pills at drastically reduced prices at private drug stores, said Health Minister Jose Gomes Temporao.
The price for a year’s supply of birth control pills under the new program would be $2.40, and anyone — rich or poor — can buy the pills by simply showing a government-issued identification card that almost all Brazilians carry.(snip)Temporao also said the government plans to increase the number of free vasectomies performed at state hospitals.
During his visit to Brazil earlier this month, Benedict repeatedly railed against legalized contraception as a threat to “the future of the peoples” of Latin America.
But advocates for women’s rights applauded Silva’s decision, saying it was long overdue in the world’s largest Roman Catholic country, although some worried whether the government would follow through.
“Too often, Brazil makes really wonderful laws that remain on paper because there is no political will,” said Mary Luci Faria, who coordinates women’s programs in Sao Paulo.
Faria said the program could reduce the 800,000 illegal abortions that Brazilian women have each year. About 4,000 women die from the back-office procedures annually, making it the fourth leading cause of maternal death in Brazil after hypertension, hemorrhages and infections.
Benedict also harshly criticized abortion during his visit, just weeks after Mexico City lawmakers legalized it. While abortion is illegal in most situations in Brazil, Silva said shortly before the pope’s visit that it should be considered as a public health issue, and Temporao wants a national referendum on the issue.
Polls show Brazilians overwhelmingly oppose changing abortion laws, but women’s advocates attending Silva’s speech Monday said they were glad the president took a stand on the theme with the pope. While Silva says he personally opposes abortion, he favors a national debate on it.
“The church has no right to interfere with what a woman decides to do with her body or her health,” said Dr. Eleonora Menicucci, a professor of preventive medicine at the Federal University of Sao Paulo.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070528/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_birth_control_7;_ylt=AiRFLfl_fHtkH6zWK0iBEQEL1vAI
This one might work better:
http://tinyurl.com/2k6onn
Oh come on Econ. Sure I say some women shouldn’t have babies. But you will NEVER see me say that decision should be forced upon anyone.
Mother of 5: “In a quick glance through the rest of these posts, it quickly becomes obvious that this is a typical abortion argument…that is, every pro-life argument is somehow twisted to be “religious” regardless of the actual argument…and every pro-choice argument assumes that pro-life people are all weird control freaks who would love to subjugate all women.”
My response: While I would actually agree that the sloppy logic of “they just are a bunch of religious control freaks who want to control women” is all too common among those who claim the “pro-choice” mantel, that doesn’t mean they don’t have a point. After all, legally compelling a woman who discovers that she is pregnant to carry that pregnancy to term comes down to controlling women.
Mother of 5:”The plain fact of the matter is that everyone knows abortion kills a human being…at least one, sometimes more than one. Everyone knows they can be safer for the mother than giving birth, but aren’t always.
The problem is that so many people do not consider the life of the unborn child to be equal to the health of the mother, while pro-life people consider the life of the unborn to be equal with the LIFE of the mother. IF there is a reasonable chance that the mother’s LIFE will be lost, then the unborn child will likely die, also, so it is best to save at least the one life of the mother. IF it is unlikely that the mother will die, what is it that makes her HEALTH, especially her MENTAL HEALTH, worth MORE than the LIFE of the unborn child?”
First of all, you are wrong. Most people actually consider it a stretch to consider a zygote, embryo, or fetus (early term at least) a human being on the same par as an infant. Really, what we are talking about is personhood, and a ball of undifferentiated cells, or a very small group of differentiated cells, is quite different from an infant or a late term fetus (I do not and will not defend the logic of some here who are drawing the line of personhood at being born. There is a continuum however, and one difference between a fetus and an infant is that one is biologically tied to the mother in a way that the other isn’t.). As for the health issue, let’s keep all this in mind. Late term abortions are usually done on WANTED pregnancies, and usually something horrible has happened, either to the fetus or the mother. If carrying a pregnancy to term is going to significantly impact the mother’s health (mental or physical, and guess what, mental health is actually a form of physical health), then that impacts the mother’s ability to function (and in many cases, she already IS a mother of dependent children). I truly doubt that any woman entering into a late term abortion is doing so for less than extreme reasons, and health is not a small concern. That being said, that doesn’t mean in my case that I don’t agree that the state does have a compelling interest in making sure that an emergency exists. However, in the case of late term abortions, requiring such reasons is usually redundant. If those reasons didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be the late term abortion in the first place.
“Just as the Supreme Court was wrong when it declared that black people should have fewer rights than white, it was wrong when it declared that unborn people should have fewer rights than born people.”
So, I am assuming that by “unborn” (prior to birth) you see no difference between a fertilized egg, an embryo, an early fetus, and a full term infant; they are all persons. I don’t doubt you believe that, but honestly, I find such beliefs, if enforced into policy, to be utterly reprehensible. The result of such simplistic and dubious reasoning is that attempts are then made to compel women to carry pregnancies to term. Look at Brazil, or for that matter significant portions of this country early to mid 20th Century, to see how well that works.
Just thought I’d share a couple of letters that my brother recieved this month.
Rob ~ I know it’s not normal to sendthe “thank you’s” along with the announcements, but this is a special case . . .
5/2/2007
Dear Rob .. Just a little over 18 1/2 years ago (July of 1988) you, along with Betty …. interviened for my unborn son .. I was 17 years old myself and a frightened, pregnant girl .. I was walking toward the entrance door of the abortion clinic on Central Street . .If this mail has made it to the correct address & found you .. well .. you know what this is all about . . . My son .. Aaron is graduating from . . . Academy .. He is starting at xxx State University in the fall and has been accepted into the engineering program there. He has grown into a respectful hard working young man .. He has been a true joy & blessing in my life – as well as others — >
——————————————————————————–
I cannot thank you enough fot taking the time out of your life that summer day in 1988 . . . you not only helped to save his life .. but mine too ! .. I have dedicated the last 9 years of my life helping others who find themselves facing unplanned pregnancies as God called me to work full-time @ xxx Medical Clinic .. where the testimony of the story that began the day I met you & Betty has given many others the courage & strength to make a decision to give life to their baby (ies).I just wanted you to know that I think of you often & am so very thankful that you took a stand for Aaron.
Many blessings .. Tammy2007-05-23 .. Hi, Rob . . . Thank you for coming to Aaron’s graduation. That meant more to us than you know. I had forgotten to tell Aaron that I sent that out to you..I guess I never knew for sure if you had even received it.
Aaron had a priceless look on his face when I told him who you were. He had a look of awe and appreciation on his face as he looked at you standing there at his graduation….knowing that you had intervened on his behalf almost 19 years earlier.
He has been aware of his story since he was about 10 years old. I had to tell him then, because pastor Joe Wright was at the ground-breaking ceremony for Choices Medical Clinic in 1999 and remembered that I had shared that testimony 8 years before in front of the congregation one Sunday morning. He (Joe) had asked me to return once again to share with the congregation and asked me to bring Aaron along.
I was worried about how to tell my son that I had intended on aborting him. I didn’t want him to think that I didn’t want him now, or to always think that I almost hired someone to end his life while in my womb.
So, after some input from friends and lots of prayer, I sat Aaron down one day and asked him if he knew what abortion was. He said, “That’s when someone doesn’t want their baby and they give it to someone else.” I told him that “that was adoption..kinda”. I then went on to explain to him what abortionists do for a living and why I think they do it. I also told him what I thought some of the reasons were for women choosing abortion…whether it be that they were forced to by their parents, felt pressured by the father, or had felt like having the baby would interfere with their goals, baby not the gender they wanted, etc.
Then I told him, “Aaron, I was one of those ladies, and you were one of those babies.” He immediately, without pause, stated, “WHEW! That was a close one for me!” I had to chuckle a bit out of amazement for his understanding of the reality of the situation and for realizing how close that really was for him that day back in 1988.
Many others at the graduation were also touched by your presence Sunday. I hope we didn’t overwhelm you too much with all of our boo-hoo’ing :)
I’m not sure how much you know about what has gone on with Aaron’s story/my testimony over the years, but it has been much more than I would have ever imagined. Including speaking for the parental consent law at the House of Representatives when I was 8 months pregnant with him and then at the Senate when Aaron was only 6 days old. We were also asked to be involved in a panel discussion on the Focus on the Family radio program about 3 years ago, as well as the story being printed in multiple articles.
I’m telling you this so that you may know more of the impact that giving Aaron life has had. I am so very thankful for the privilege to be his mother.
I also wondered if you could fill me in on something that I just remembered today…the first task force mtg I attended for CMC was two years before we actually opened and I had heard at that mtg that the house @ 538 S. Bleckley had some sort of tie to your sister? Did she live there? I’ve been very curious about that.
The main reason I am writing you today is because I not only wanted to thank you again, but wanted you to know that Monday there was a girl who came in to Choices with her mom. She was undecided about what to do with the pregnancy and was considering abortion as an option. They met with a counselor and then I attempted to show her the baby inside her womb. I was a bit concerned when I realized that she was too early in her pregnancy to show her the babies heartbeat, fingers and toes, etc. As I was doing the sonogram, I began telling her my story about Aaron and then proceeded to tell her about his graduation that had just been the day before. THEN, I told her that you had shown up and how I just started bawling as I hugged your neck and I told them of Aaron’s reaction. The girl and her mom were both visibly moved by the fact that you had shown-up to meet and congratulate Aaron after almost 19 years.
…Well, today that girls mom called and left a message with the receptionist to let me know that she and her daughter were extremely moved by my sharing of the story and said, “After that graduation story, my daughter decided that there was no way she could abort this baby.”
So, another life was saved yesterday….because God has used you again…and this time it was directly related to the fact that you cared enough to take time out of your life and came to meet Aaron at his high school graduation.
I have been telling anyone who will listen about what happened Sunday. Every single one of them has had tears and smiles at the same time.
All of the Choices staff/volunteers absolutely loved the story of what happened Sunday!!!
Please feel free to come by the clinic sometime and have a quick tour. I am generally there Mon-Fri, 8:30-4. I will have quite a few days off soon, due to the fact that I am getting married the end of June..but, you are welcome anytime.
I’m sorry for all of the rambling. It’s getting late and I am tired….I just wanted to make sure that you knew how much that it meant to me ( and to Aaron) BOTH of the times that you have shown-up on his behalf.
I’ve never met a woman who regretted not having an abortion…but I’ve met plenty who got one and later regretted it. Maybe the’s no study to prove women can be hurt by abortion…but I’ve met plenty who have been.
I’ve never met a woman who regretted not having an abortion…but I’ve met plenty who got one and later regretted it. Maybe there’s no study to prove women can be hurt by abortion…but I’ve met plenty who have been.
Yeah! I’m sure women regret it. People regret getting tattoos, boob jobs, marriage, drugs and etc.
But should abortion be an illegal procedure in the USA?
I think it interesting, no, actually very sad, to see the tortured gyrations that the the pro-abortion side is going through to deny the humanity of a child in the womb.
They use scientific language to impersonalize the life. Fetus, zygote, embryo. Anything to avoid stating what it really is. To avoid admitting the fact that an abortion terminates a human life. Not a dog, not a cat, not a monkey. A human life.
I hope that any young lady considering abortion who views this thread takes an honest look at what an abortion is and what it does. You have hope and you have alternatives to killing your child. Call the Pregnancy Crisis Center. There are people who want to help you make the right choice and to assist you after you do. God bless you.
Joe: Do you realize what an unfeeling, uncaring ass you sound like?
Read right choice as having the baby…no matter what.
Probably so Outlander. But lets just say I care more than you think. I believe liberty is one of the most caring virtues instilled on humanity. For those you wish to take away the free will and choice from the individual, to me is a heartless bastard.
But! I guess I look at from a different point of view.
Hey! I’m all for reducing abortions, intervention, parental consent, grace periods or whatever. But I’m not for banning the procedure. And since, in America, the home of the free and brave, we don’t ban abortion in our country, does that make the USA unfeeling, uncaring ass that it is?
Do you believe I’m posses by Satan Outlander?
I don’t know Joe, why? You spewing green stuff this evening??
Good, Mary, tell your brother I need a sitter tomorrow.
Since he’s so helpful in those lives who chose to keep their babies and all.
“I’m all for reducing abortions, intervention, parental consent, grace periods or whatever.”
Actually Joe, that position will get you labeled an anti-choicer in this lefty blog.
I am a pragmatic about this. I want to see the number of abortions reduced and I want to see the spin stop as far as what an abortion actually is. I want the mom to go away feeling crappy and guilty about her decision. If she is honest, she should.
Sorry to call you an ass, but comparing the regret of an abortion with the regret of getting a tatoo or a boob jobs perturbed me.
” I want the mom to go away feeling crappy and guilty about her decision. If she is honest, she should.”
See, there it is folks.
There what is PMom? If a Mom is given the truth about what she is doing when she has an abortion, there is no other way for her to feel. It should be a very tough decision to kill your child.
Maybe not so tough if you kill a zygote or an embryo.
Mary, That’s a very touching story… but, if room permitted, I could write just as much of a tear jerker about a woman who had an abortion, and who didnt want to, but decided it was best for ALL concerned… And she is NOT sorry 20 years later, that she made that decision…
So, the emotions run high on both sides of the issue…
My best advice for ANYbody is very simple — If you dont believe in abortion, DONT have one…
If you believe in choice, make the choice best for you…
As for us men, we should keep out of it, unless we are the husband/boyfriend/doctor…
It is still LEGAL to have an abortion… As I posted above in this thread, RELIGIOUS beliefs should NOT be the deciding factor… including the religious argument for “life begins at conception” RELIGIOUS belief is NOT the foundation for LAW in this country, or in our Constitution…
Please note — GOD is not mentioned in the Constitution… neither is Bible, or Jesus, or Mohammed… or L. Ron Hubbard, or any other religious leader…The Founders MEANT it that way!!
Long Live the Constitution!!!
Happy,”Hell…why not go further and just make it a law that any male who has sex with a woman automatically gives half of everything they own and will own to the woman if she conceives?”
Nice idea, and works well until that third woman conceives. Guess she’s out’a luck!
Mom’o'5,”That has to be the biggest lie I’ve ever seen.”
Hey gal, I was there, and I’ll admit it took a lot of talking, but that was where it ended up every time.Besides, even if I was lying, which I’m not, as a mother of five, it couldn’t possibly be the biggest lie you’ve ever seen!
You have so proven my point outlander. You want to create guilt even when it is the best decision. You want her to see it as murdering a baby in the same way you see it.
Boy how I wish you were the one who had to walk a mile in her shoes. But as far as wishing, I can no more wish you that and make it true, than you can wish her decision to be easy, and her life to be full of joy from that point on.
It just doesn’t work that way.
Outlander:”I think it interesting, no, actually very sad, to see the tortured gyrations that the the pro-abortion side is going through to deny the humanity of a child in the womb.
They use scientific language to impersonalize the life. Fetus, zygote, embryo. Anything to avoid stating what it really is. To avoid admitting the fact that an abortion terminates a human life. Not a dog, not a cat, not a monkey. A human life.”
My response: Translation: I think it’s a child no matter the stage of development, so the use of zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. are “tortured gyrations”. False assumption of motive. They are correct terminology for very different stages of development. Functionally, there is virtually no way to tell the difference visually between the zygote of a human or the other mammals you mentioned. It actually takes awhile to easily distinguish between a human embryo and another mammalian embryo. More to the point, at the stages of development where you CAN’T visually tell the difference between zygotes, blastocysts, or embryos, one species of embryo is no differently aware or responsive than the other. Eventually, there are differences. By the fetal stage of development a human embryo can be distinguished (even then, early on it would be difficult to distinguish from other primates). Genetically, it’s human, but so are any other cells in the human body, including the adult stem cells in our bodies.
Again outlander, here is the flip side of your argument: If you want informed consent, then all relevant information should be provided. That would mean not using loaded words like “child” to describe an embryo or early term fetus, but using the words embryo and fetus, and then providing ACCURATE information about development.
outlander: “I am a pragmatic about this. I want to see the number of abortions reduced and I want to see the spin stop as far as what an abortion actually is. I want the mom to go away feeling crappy and guilty about her decision. If she is honest, she should.”
My response: Translation: “Views of abortion contrary to my own are spin. I want to punish women who have an abortion.”
So, do you believe that a woman who discovers she is pregnant should be legally compelled to carry the pregnancy to term. I am quite aware that is not what you said above, but is that because you think guilt is a more achievable end than legal prohibition. If you thought it was, would you want ALL abortions to be illegal?
If that is the case, do you have the ability to step out of your viewpoint long enough to understand that people of good will and good conscience would consider your position horribly wrong? That they would be horrified by the idea of FORCING women to carry pregnancies to term? I AM aware that there are people who are pro-life because they genuinely identify with the embryo/fetus, and NOT because of a religious imperative to enforce sexual mores on woman (although let’s be honest, there are some people who on the basis of their conservative religious convictions DO wish to force upon women the full consequences of having sex as well as to “save the baby”-you appear, for example, to have both motivations).
Outlander: “We need to keep in mind that these moms are facing difficult emotional decisions and we want to demonstrate our concern and recognition of what they face.”
Me: “although let’s be honest, there are some people who on the basis of their conservative religious convictions DO wish to force upon women the full consequences of having sex as well as to ’save the baby’-you appear, for example, to have both motivations”
Posted to indicate my understanding that people’s motivations are rarely easily reduced to simple categories. I understand, outlander, that you may have genuine concern for the woman based in part on your “pro-life” convictions. However, I still think those convictions also lead you to make comments like: ” I want the mom to go away feeling crappy and guilty about her decision. If she is honest, she should.”
I think the woman should go away feeling like she made the best decision that she could have. Sometimes, it is NOT good against bad so much as bad against worse (apologies to Gino Vanelli and The War Suite).
Pmom…Yes, my brother will babysit for you. He’d rather do that than know you killed your child because you didn’t want to worry about sitters, no matter how disabled your children are.Every child that was born due to his effort is glad to be alive and thankful that he cared enough to help their moms, because it went beyond just talking to them before they entered the abortion clinic. Contrary to the myths spead by the pro abortion folks, many prolifers go above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to this issue, but of course people like you can’t acknowlege that because that would blow the image of prolifers only caring about fetuses and then hating those children after they’re born.Too bad there aren’t more people in the world like him.If you had surgery, wouldn’t you want to know everything there is to know about the procedure? Why do you think women should have blinders on when they get abortions? How is knowlege and honesty going to a detriment to them? Like I said before, I know many women who had abortions in desperation, only to realize what they’d done later and then regret it in a big way…why would you want a woman to live with regret and guilt the rest of her life when maybe it wasn’t necessary? I’m not saying that every woman does regret getting an abortion..but why not give them ALL the information and alternatives when they’re making such a critical decision that COULD affect them the rest of their lives…what do they have to lose? Abortion will always be legal…but people need to realize the full extent of their decision before they make it…not in an attempt to make them feel guilty..just in an attempt to give them the truth about abortion and all the risks of having one.This isssue isn’t black and white..people have the right to make INFORMED decisions, not just be kept in the dark in order to save them guilt or regret..because that doesn’t work.
Mary,
With all due respect, it’s Nathan and Outlander who want to guilt women. Pmom wants to support and respect them.
Mary I do so wish we had informed consent about everything. Even with my medical background, I wasn’t prepared for my daughter’s shoulder dystocia..she almost died. And then later, when I had my son by c-section because of my traumatic first pregnancy, I had sepsis and revision of the c-section which left my gut open as thick as my arm, from hip to hip, to heal from the inside out. Wet to dry dressings for months. I didn’t even know that could happen.
I have to face the very real fact…I was not meant to reproduce! My genes suck. One almost died, the other almost killed me, and they’re both disabled.
“Sometimes, it is NOT good against bad so much as bad against worse ” that’s the most accurate way to describe it I think I’ve heard ever. Can I borrow that please?
P. Mom: “‘Sometimes, it is NOT good against bad so much as bad against worse’ that’s the most accurate way to describe it I think I’ve heard ever. Can I borrow that please?”
If you do, credit goes to singer Gino Vanelli. It’s from his song “The War Suite”.
Mary: “Contrary to the myths spead by the pro abortion folks, many prolifers go above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to this issue”
I don’t necessarily agree with Mary on this issue, but she is absolutely right here. I can categorically state that there are people who live their pro-life convictions to the fullest by adopting and taking care of children who need far more than average care, and there are far more of them then some people in the pro-choice community might think.
This is an issue where fear of the slippery slope causes people on both ends of the issue to embrace extreme positions out of fear of the consequences of any compromise. Such a pity really.
ksag,Yes, there are some in the anti camp who do walk the walk, but there are also better than 10,000 kids at any given time just in this state who need adoptive homes. When they’ve all been adopted, and the demand for kids to be adopted continually outweighs the supply, then, maybe, we can talk about limits on abortion. Until then, anti’s are just whistlin’ Dixie!
Jed: “Yes, there are some in the anti camp who do walk the walk, but there are also better than 10,000 kids at any given time just in this state who need adoptive homes. When they’ve all been adopted, and the demand for kids to be adopted continually outweighs the supply, then, maybe, we can talk about limits on abortion. ”
My response: Jed, there ARE limits on abortion. Personally, as I have said before, most of those limits are redundant because late term abortions are only likely to occur because of dire circumstances. However, I don’t think that the position that there should be legal limits on abortion tied to levels of development is at all unreasonable, and the original Roe v. Wade decision allows for that.
I do think it is unreasonable to compel women to carry pregnancies to term. However, I also think it is also unreasonable to summarily dismiss ALL people who oppose abortion as people who are more concerned with their own souls or with punishing women for (in their eyes) sexual wrongdoing.
Your own comment:
“I’ve spent quite a bit of time talking to a lot of anti’s, and at the root of every case, it wasn’t about cute little babies or protecting deranged mothers from evil doctors; their bottom concern was their own bottoms. They thought that by loudly opposing abortion, they were buying THEIR OWN ticket to heaven!”
My response: Of course, if you are confronting clinic protestors, there is a selective influence for the most obnoxious, holier than thou types. My own experience, working with people with severe developmental disabilities, has brought me into contact with a very different kind of “pro-life” activist. I DON’T agree with them, but I DO respect them.
Here you go Mom of 5….yet another tragedy in the life of young mothers.
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070530/ap_on_re_us/children_killed
Still think mental health is silly?
Most of the child killings in recent memory have occurred in Texas…. strange coincidence..the president is from Texas…you think he might know anything about killing children?
ksagnostic: Just to correct a few of your faulty impressions. I personally don’t believe that abortions should be banned in all instances. Cases of incest and rape are examples. I do want to see further restrictions.
I also want to emphasize my contention that some on the left try to sanitize the whole sordid abortion business. They do this by trying to dehumanize the human life in the womb. For instance, by insisting on scientific terms that you would apply to any animal. Zygote, embryo, clump of cells etc.. All to make it more palatable for Moms considering abortion.
I think differently. I don’t want to sanitize the nasty business of terminating human life. I want the truth to be known. And the truth shall make you free, or in this case, quite possibly ill.
outlander: “ksagnostic: Just to correct a few of your faulty impressions. I personally don’t believe that abortions should be banned in all instances. Cases of incest and rape are examples. I do want to see further restrictions.”
My response: So, let me see if I have this straight. You would like to see women LEGALLY COMPELLED to carry a pregnancy to term EXCEPT in cases of rape or incest? Sorry, I still find that very wrong.
outlander: “I also want to emphasize my contention that some on the left try to sanitize the whole sordid abortion business. They do this by trying to dehumanize the human life in the womb. For instance, by insisting on scientific terms that you would apply to any animal. Zygote, embryo, clump of cells etc.. All to make it more palatable for Moms considering abortion.”
My response: The terms are accurate. Zygotes are more similar to zygotes of other species than they are to adult or even infant forms of their own species, embryos are more similar to other embryos than they are to adults or even infant forms of their own species, etc. Humans ARE animals, we follow the same patterns of development and that reality does not dehumanize us. You may not like that, but that is reality, and it is not “sanitizing” to point out that reality.
outlander: “I think differently. I don’t want to sanitize the nasty business of terminating human life. I want the truth to be known. And the truth shall make you free, or in this case, quite possibly ill.”
My response: I believe that you have confused your opinion with truth and objective reality. You take things as self evident which are not, and for that matter are not really true.
I have to remind folks that virtually any medical procedure is likely to make an observer sick. I am sure that an abortion is not a pretty sight, but I would imagine that a gall blander removal isn’t great theater either.
According to the “Morbidity and Mortality Report” (a real fun read at the beach, btw!), more women die during childbirth than when undergoing an abortion. Of course, the anti-abortion-rights people simply choose to lie about the facts.
There was an evangelist in the 1970s who used to preach a concept he called “divine deception.” He instructed his followers to say anything, do anything, promise anything just to get new potential converts to come to his meetings. Jim and Tammy Bakker’s theme park in South Carolina was a slick and subtle variation on that theme. Oral Roberts and Peter Poppoff’s faith-healing is manipulation of false promises which are determined to be acceptable if they can “save a soul.”
Firing up the rabble against killing “babies” is simply an indirect attack on poor, stupid people’s wallets. It’s been an immensely successful way for religious hucksters to fleece the flock. It’s distorted the issue beyond all reality.
In reality, abortion wasn’t an invention of Roe v. Wade. Some pregnant women have wanted to prevent childbirth for as long as there have been human beeings. (Millions of years, if you’re a realist; 6,000 years if you’re a Biblical literalist. But I digress…)
Outlawing medical abortions won’t stop women from seeking abortions anymore than Prohibition stopped drinking. And religious manipulators know this full well.
But abortion-prohibition is a cash cow for evangelists on radio and television. It rallies the rabble and gets them to send “love offerings” by the bucket load.
Believe what you believe. Teach your children what you believe. But stop giving money to hucksters who are manipulating your beliefs to fund their television networks, Learjets, and ego-centric “universities.” As soon as you act on your faith about abortion in a way that just might matter in your community, the modern-day Elmer Gantrys will find another hot-button issue to tap your wallet. Gay Marriage, perhaps; or three-ton monuments to the 10 Commandments in every classroom. Whatever generates the big bucks.
Divine Deception.
ksag,Yes, a lot of my experience with anti’s comes from clinic protesters. A lot, but certainly not all.I spent seven years taking care of a friend with MS. I spent six years before that taking care of my wife following a severe stroke. In the course of all that, I ran into a number of bornagins in positions of power who couldn’t for the life of them understand why I fought so hard to improve their quality of life. To them, it was enough that they were breathing. As one of her nurses so patiently explained to me as she denied my dying friend her morphine, “pain is God’s way of cleansing the soul. If we ease her pain, we endanger her soul.” Needless to say, I took that up with her doctor, and we never saw that nurse again, but she was only the worst of a number of bad examples.Other self-identified christians, whom I had considered close friends of my wife, to a person simply disappeared off the face of the earth when she had her stroke. No visits, no flowers, not even christmas cards. Luckily, we also had quite a few gay and lesbian friends who were quite happy to fill that void and then some.Certainly not all christians we came into contact with were so cruel; I have great respect for the Mennonite volunteers we got to know at Lorraine House when my wife was there. Terrific, wonderful people, but unfortunately exceptions to the rule.I’m not a generally hateful person, but I am sick to death of the crap far too many people buy into in the name of religion, and then demand that it be enshrined in law for everybody else. I’ve been there, seen what it does, and I won’t put up with it!
ksag,Yes, a lot of my experience with anti’s comes from clinic protesters. A lot, but certainly not all.I spent seven years taking care of a friend with MS. I spent six years before that taking care of my wife following a severe stroke. In the course of all that, I ran into a number of bornagins in positions of power who couldn’t for the life of them understand why I fought so hard to improve their quality of life. To them, it was enough that they were breathing. As one of her nurses so patiently explained to me as she denied my dying friend her morphine, “pain is God’s way of cleansing the soul. If we ease her pain, we endanger her soul.” Needless to say, I took that up with her doctor, and we never saw that nurse again, but she was only the worst of a number of bad examples.Other self-identified christians, whom I had considered close friends of my wife, to a person simply disappeared off the face of the earth when she had her stroke. No visits, no flowers, not even christmas cards. Luckily, we also had quite a few gay and lesbian friends who were quite happy to fill that void and then some.Certainly not all christians we came into contact with were so cruel; I have great respect for the Mennonite volunteers we got to know at Lorraine House when my wife was there. Terrific, wonderful people, but unfortunately exceptions to the rule.I’m not a generally hateful person, but I am sick to death of the crap far too many people buy into in the name of religion, and then demand that it be enshrined in law for everybody else. I’ve been there, seen what it does, and I won’t put up with it!
Jed,
Unbelievable story!! There are too many Christians who replace Jesus’ tenderness and joie de vie seen in the Gospels with a dour, self-flagellating, view of man and creation. While I think that “God” (I don’t know what God means) will not look at our medals, but at our scars, those scars shouldn’t be self-inflicted nor should we inflict pain and suffering on anyone else. Rather, the scars should come from being beaten down as we try to change the world for the better. Christianity is the only major religion where virtually all of the founding members were executed by the state. They weren’t executed because they preached love and forgiveness, but because they coupled love and forgiveness with changing the world for the better through compassion and opposition to the “way things are”.
LTP,”There was an evangelist in the 1970s who used to preach a concept he called “divine deception.” He instructed his followers to say anything, do anything, promise anything just to get new potential converts to come to his meetings.”
Actually, that concept is thoroughly Catholic and dates back to at least the 14th century. Its extensive use in attempts to stamp out protestantism eventually resulted instead in the loss of Vatican political power.Something about he who does not know history…..?
Interesting that I’m not a Christian and most of you pro abortion people claim to be.I wonder what your Jesus would say about this issue if he were here today?I’m always somewhat amazed how many of you spout Christian values unless it’s a value that causes inconvenience or requires personal sacrifice..then somehow that value isn’t valid anymore. ..we call that “ala cart” Christianity.
“we call that “ala cart” Christianity.” Hehehe, that’s why I left Catholic Church because I can’t agree to some of the dogmas. Though I did go some years ago to All Saints invited by a friend in College Hill to celebrate Christmas Eve with her grandmother.
Mary,I’m not christian, and never have been, but I spent a lot of time discussing religion in all its aspects with my mother who was quite interested in comparative religion.What would Jesus say? Truth to be told, nobody alive today has a clue. Jesus has been reinvented so many times to fit so many agendas over the past 2,000 years that the original Jesus (Yeshua ben Yousef) is irretrievably lost. Some early christians did practice intentional abortion for theological reasons, but whether that was from Jesus or a hold-over from something else, we’ll most likely never know.
well, I am a Christian, and I think I could make a guess as to what Jesus would not do. He would not protest outside abortion clinics, he would not drive a van around with ugly pictures on it. He would not call people babykillers. during his time, as a Jew, he would have no rights for political redress in the Roman empire, so he probably would not rail against the law or the civil judges. His words “my kingdom is not of this world”
I do think that people have a right in this country to petition for laws that include or come from their morality system. Freedom of religion (Constitutional) and a wall of separation between church and state (extra constitutional but used as a standard) does not require that laws based on morality systems –including Christianity- cannot be called for or even put in place. There is a different between behavior based legislation and dogma based legislation. After all, all laws are founded in someone’s morality. Most likely, the collective morality of those governed. That also changes, by the way, based on new evidence or new philosphies and discoveries
LJ,Given the general lack of hard evidence on what Jesus did or might do, we tend to re-create him in our own image (note the popular image of Jesus as northern European so many christians hang on their walls). That you wouldn’t drive around in the “Truth Truck” and Troy Newman does says a lot more about you and him than it does about Jesus. I’m just glad there are decent people in the world.
“Given the general lack of hard evidence on what Jesus did or might do, we tend to re-create him in our own image (note the popular image of Jesus as northern European so many christians hang on their walls”
Agreed. I alwasy thought northern european look was laughable, since he was hebrew. However, I think you can possibly discern the “character” of Jesus if you start from there and not start from your own position. Of course, that is always open for interpretation! :)
LJ,”However, I think you can possibly discern the “character” of Jesus if you start from there and not start from your own position. Of course, that is always open for interpretation! :)”
Yeah, possibly, if you put it in context with the times and subtract 2,000 years of propaganda- not an easy thing to do. Even then, most of what you’ll have is speculation, which is all right as long as you recognize it as such. It’s when speculation is assumed to be absolute fact that most christians get into trouble.
Yeah, Nathan, you want to go after my son’s father and force him to pay child support? Because the courts sure as hell haven’t done it, even though I have court-ordered child support and a caseworker with Child Support Enforcement – I have been trying for over TWO YEARS now to get my child support, and I STILL HAVE NOTHING – so while great in theory, not so much in reality… AND DID YOU KNOW – in the state of KS if you are not married to your child’s father at the time of birth, you can’t list them on the birth certificate unless they are PRESENT and sign IN FRONT OF A NOTARY PUBLIC? Which means that if Jackass has disappeared before the baby is born, you have to track him down, get a DNA test to prove paternity (which YOU have to pay for) before the court will even hear a case for child support at all? Now, explain to me again how we force fathers to pay?
“AND DID YOU KNOW – in the state of KS if you are not married to your child’s father at the time of birth, you can’t list them on the birth certificate unless they are PRESENT and sign IN FRONT OF A NOTARY PUBLIC? Which means that if Jackass has disappeared before the baby is born, you have to track him down, get a DNA test to prove paternity (which YOU have to pay for) before the court will even hear a case for child support at all? Now, explain to me again how we force fathers to pay?”
By tracking the jackass down, paying for a DNA test to prove his paternity, and sueing him for child support. It’s done all the time.If the jerk is going to dance to the music, he needs to pay the piper.It might be a wise idea not to have sex with a jackass in the first place, that would avoid a lot of hassle down the road.
Well, sometimes Mary you have to take whatever you can get!
If you’re dumb enough to be with a Jack Ass, then why should a judge believe your opinion as to who the father is? Do you think you have the right to NAME any man you choose as the father of your baby? How can you be sure?
If you don’t know who the father is, how can the judge possibly know without a DNA test?
And why should the father pay? Why doesn’t the father get custody with the mother paying child support? You feminists want to have your cake and eat it too!
Sounds like you have some experience with Jack Asses disappearing on you. Who can blame them?
That why there are DNA tests…so the paternity can be established…believe me, many men would deny the baby even if they KNOW it’s their’s if they thought they could get away with it.It takes two to make a baby, both parents should take responsibility…it’s not the child’s fault.
Max just proves the point I made waaaaay back at the beginning of this thread.
Anti’s have no respect for women, and see them only as containment facilities for fetuses.
Tom, I’m not pro-abortion, and I have as much respect for women as I do for men.
I do think these special legal rights that women have need to be brought down to an equal level with the rights given to men, and to unborn children.
Mary never answered my question:
And why should the father pay? Why doesn’t the father get custody with the mother paying child support? You feminists want to have your cake and eat it too!
Answer: The courts have granted SPECIAL rights to women. The right to kill or not kill the baby inside of them, (men don’t have the right to kill or not kill what they helped to make with the consent of the mother) The right to custody of children (men rarely get this), the right to force fathers to pay child support (mothers rarely have to pay child support), etc…..
Men have no rights.
Well Max,If men have no rights, then they need to be careful, choose their partners wisely and always wear a condom, or keep it in their pants. You father it, you get to pay the tab.
If men have no rights, then they need to be careful, choose their partners wisely and always wear a condom, or keep it in their pants. You father it, you get to pay the tab.
Posted by: Jed | June 01, 2007 at 01:54 PM
Basically what my father said, 35 or so years ago. He added this comment
Well, Max (and Mary both since you so kindly implied I don’t know how to keep my legs shut) Let’s see, I had been in a committed relationship for the better part of two years. We were engaged to be married – I find out I am pregnant, everything is hunky-dory, until along about 5 months later, I find out said Jackass is CHEATING on me so I leave the relationship, because how is that going to be good for my child? Jackass claims he wants to be involved and be a good father yada yada yada – my son is born, daddy just wants to make a verbal agreement to pay child support. Me, being smarter than that, says no, we are going to court, where i get court ordered child support. Fast forward two and a half years, and I still have not gotten any child support. Now, this man KNOWS he is the father, and knows I will provide the DNA test to prove if necessary, but he SIGNED the birth certificate all on his own. He SAID he wanted to support his son, so we got a child support order… he still has not paid it and no matter how many times i call the court trustee or CSE, I still am not getting any – THAT was my point Mary, and it is ALSO my point that many women who are single mothers can’t afford the cost of hiring someone to track the guy down and then paying for a DNA test – I mean, hey, if you can afford it, why don’t you pay for it for them? Because from my position, I am working hard to provide a life for my son without any help from his so called father… and I didn’t get pregnant all on my own, so why should i have to pay for it all on my own???????????????????
Well anon, last 6 years I’ve been paying 1/3 of my income as alimony/child support to the Ex, 1/3 to the government in taxes, and I GET to keep 1/3 of what I actually make.
Maybe we both had crappy lawyers.
Max, I’m not saying the system is always fair – I KNOW it’s not… But you know, my son’s father got away with $250 a month in child support and he can’t even pay that! So really, saying that ALL women abuse the system is unfair, because I am here to tell you that not all of us do – SOME of us get abused by the system. I have a court system that won’t deal with me at all even with a court order, because I have a case worker with CSE and said case worker won’t return my phones calls even though I have been leaving messages since OCTOBER – so the thing is, I get a little mad when people say this state FORCES fathers to pay, because THEY DON’T – and he was just as much involved in the making of this baby as I was, I feel like he should have to pay too…
Men WILL get out of it in many ways, not just that way. And I know I agree with anon, they usually only go for the money when it’s the state that has something to gain back from it. If anon had been on AFDC, they’d have likely gone after him like a shark.
My granddaughter is seven years old and her father and yet to pay a nickel of child support and the State of Kansas does nothing about it.
Zero – my daughter can’t even get the case worker to call back.
Now, if my daughter were to go ON welfare, you can damn well bet that they would do something.
Because she is not a ADC recipient, the State just looks the other way.
All my granddaughter receives from the State of Kansas is medical – something that her father should be paying for anyway.
The system is rigged to favor those that actually go on welfare, not working parents.
AMEN! And here’s the kicker, at least to me – I make $500 a year too much to qualify for any assistance… EVEN medical… $500 bucks… right, like it only takes $500 to raise a kid…. which, even if i had the option, the only assistance I would seek would be the childcare subsidies (becuase childcare is RIDICULOUS!) but still, I can’t even get that… It just makes me SOOOO mad…. Luckily, I have some “contacts” in CSE that I will be calling on next week, and that should light a fire under my case worker – nobody likes to get in trouble with the boss, and since said boss just happens to be one of my fathers best friends and a man i basically grew up with, I’m pretty sure some work will be done… I just don’t like using that card, you know? But at this point I haven’t got a choice….
Gosh Clark, we may even have some common ground if your not a socialist after all!
“The system is rigged to favor those that actually go on welfare, not working parents.”
Not that it matters, but I was a single parent for sixteen years. I was awarded custody of my son when he turned two. I also had custody of my children from my first marriage for some of that time.
I never received a nickel from anyone during that time, no medical assistance, no child support and no food stamps.
HOWEVER, when I was behind on my child support payments, the state went after me like I was a cross between John Dillon and Osama bin Laden. Even after my obligations were completely paid off, they still harassed me, forcing me to go to court to PROVE that my debt was completely paid.
I do have one confession to make. This pains me a great deal and you folks are the first to hear of it. I am so ashamed, but they say that confession is good for the soul.
…. I still owe the State of Kansas $0.16.
Now you all know the horrible truth about me.
Max,When YOU decided to father a child, YOU took on a financial obligation to YOUR CHILD, whether or not you stayed married to the mother. I’m sure at the time it felt more like an orgasm than a financial obligation, but now it’s time to pay up. It’s not costing you any more than if you’d stayed married, probably less, so quit your damn whining and fulfill your responsibilities to your child!
And my grandpa is a train finatic.
I really enjoyed your page.
Glad to see other.
And my grandpa is a train finatic.
It’s fine.
I just want you to know that I think you did a terrific job on this websight.
Lovely, informative site, thanks