Those who think overturning Roe v. Wade will stop most abortions should consider research published Friday. A study of abortion trends from 1995 to 2003 by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization found that women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, the Associated Press reported. “The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy,” said Beth Fredrick of the International Women’s Health Coalition.
Of particular concern of the study was that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, nearly 97 percent of which occurred in poor countries.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- DavidB on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/7
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/7
239 Comments
Abortion is a fundamental right and we will NEVER stand by while the Republicans and so-called religious right nutcases take it away. Yes abortions happen when it is illegal. The rich pack a bag and head for NYC or California and get it done. The poor have to resort to home remedies that often infect and even kill women. That is why abortion on demand must remain legal and safe.
True Kev, recently I watch a program that talked about at one time Lysol was market as a home Birth control remedied! Before the true natural of sperm was known they thought of it more like a common germ!It over use cause many women to suffer damage and in rare cases death. I said it before, abortion is a symptom and not a disease. The cause of the symptom is known and has been for thousands of years, the cause can not be stopped no matter how many claim the answer is simple. The cause falls just short of saying “well if you only stop breathing!”. Natural instinct is not that simple to avoid, but facing that drive and taking the realistic approach to it is needed. When every man, woman and child feels a natural instinct, the only answer is to accept it and educate to prepare for it. Either then shall we just stop breathing?
I recall hearing somewhere that, in the United States in the year before Roe v. Wade, more than 400 women died following illegal abortions, from complications. This statistic reinforces why it is so impottant to preserve abortion as a procedure available for doctors to offer to patients in an environment that will be safe, sanitary, private (subject to HIPPA) and legal.
I have pissed off the liberals for standing in a favour of gun rights. I wrote this in another subject about school shootings but it covers my thoughts on the subject of abortion too:
Actually most of us- (I am an NRA member) would probably be willing to accept some restrictions. We already do when it comes to fully automatic weapons and sales to minors or ex felons. The problem is that the other side has the ultimate goal of taking away ALL of the people’s guns and their RIGHT to have a gun. They use these small restrictions as a way to tighten the ultimate noose on the right to have arms. If we did not oppose them and they got their way on the small stuff, they would say “oh that was easy, now let’s go for something bigger”. It is like a war- if I knew for sure that the enemy was only going to establish a beach head and stop there, I probably would not waste men and money fighting him. But we all know that once the enemy establishes a beach head, he starts marching towards the capital. Although gun rights is considered a “conservative” issue, I am very much a liberal on most things. But being a liberal does not mean I am a passivist. I intend to do the best I can to live to see another day and if that means I need a gun, so be it. The anti abortion religious nutcases work the same way. I can accept some restrictions on abortion. I do not believe in late abortions like Dr Tiller does. I also believe that, before a doctor touches my daughter, I should be notified if not required to give my consent. But the reason that ANY restrictions have to be fought is because, once the anti abortion people get a small victory, they are gonna keep marching for their ultimate prize which is the banning of all abortions and all birth control for that matter.
While I happen to agree with you that abortion must remain safe, sanitary, legal and affordable, it is interesting that you criticise the anti-abortion advocates as having an all-or-nothing – almost fanatical – agenda, yet you perpetrate the same kind of fanatical demonization of gun safety advocates . . . curious. Not every gun owner and hunter is an NRA member. Not every gun owner and hunter opposes background checks and laws against “straw man” purchases, which is what happened with the 14-year-old school murderer whose mother bought him firearms.
Of course unplanned pregnancy can be inconvenient and very frightening, and may significantly change one’s plans, but that is never an excuse to take innocent human life. The life destroyed is unequivocally both human and alive until an abortion ends the alive part. Then it becomes a dead human. Make no mistake about that fact by lying to yourself or us that it isn’t exactly what it is.
“”"Of course unplanned pregnancy can be inconvenient and very frightening, and may significantly change one’s plans, but that is never an excuse to take innocent human life.”"”
It is not “an innocent human life”. It is not a human at all. It is just a mass of cells that are dividing and will eventually become a human if not aborted. A fetus is NOT a person.
I don’t lie to myself, and in this country you are certainly still free to judge who is telling you the truth as you see it. But I only hope and pray that the government – like the Anglican Church in England that some of our ancestors fled – never orders me OR you which book we must follow for spirtual guidance.
I would still like to see all of us – on both sides of this issue – work togather to decrease demand for abortion. Birth control, education, ‘life’ alternatives, adoption, etc etc etc all need to be fostered.
Kev: “It is not “an innocent human life”. It is not a human at all. It is just a mass of cells that are dividing and will eventually become a human if not aborted. A fetus is NOT a person.”Oh? Jeremiah 1:5″Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose.”
“A study of abortion trends from 1995 to 2003 by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization found that women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, the Associated Press reported”
So the holocaust continues. What a horror story in Eastern Europe. More abortions than live births. But I don’t believe the above words from the lead in by Brownlee, quoting the article. Let’s look in the article.
——————–”In North America, there are 33 abortions for every 100 live births, while in Africa, where abortion is illegal in most countries, there are 17 abortions for every 100 live births.”
Well I’ll be. The article itself shows THE ABORTION RATE IS LOWER WHERE IT IS ILLEGAL. So about 16 babies per 100 pregnancies were saved by laws making abortions illegal. So laws can make a difference.
The AP writer is either stupid or a liar.
Kev,I’m not wanting to inflame you but you must please tell me what it is if it is not “innocent human life”, if it is “not human at all” as you claim?Is it a dog? A whale? A mole? Do you need to check its DNA?Is it not truly alive, growing and changing, just as it will continually after its birth and for the rest of it’s life?A developing child more resembles a neonate and baby physically than it does an old man or women.It most certainly is human, and it is most certainly alive until abortion ends that life.Just because you don’t like that fact does not change that fact.If you support abortion you certainly have that freedom, it’s the law, but honestly face what it is, admit fact and justify as best you can.
I have argued here before, it’s all about the definition. Throughout history genocide has been justified by defining the targets as ‘not human’.
What is interesting is that a far left wing organization is all buy saying that laws don’t work. People do it anyway.
Justification that it should be legal because it will happen if legal or not? Then I don’t think any law would stand. Murder is illegal but people still murder, etc. Not a human? Same rational was used for slavery, blacks were not consider human. The law should be based not on if it will still occur, but is it right to take a life, or when is it legal to take a life. Why is the cut off at birth? Why not give parents a couple of years after birth to dispose of unwanted children? Does not make sense to me to chose a date if Mom has a right to kill me why should it stop at any time?
Last November it became a crime for a woman to have an abortion in Nicaragua, even if her life was in mortal danger. So far it has resulted in the death of at least 82 women. Rory Carroll reports on the fight to have the law changed here:
http://tinyurl.com/2gqp6m
There is no logical, scientific, or moral justification for legal abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk. Whether or not women are just as likely to get an abortion when it is illegal does not gloss over the heinous reality of what really happens when an abortion is accomplished.
Also, its demeaning and insulting to women who get pregnant to be ordered by their boyfriend or parents to have an abortion.
Until Rowe v Wade was passed, women didn’t have abortions.
…
If men were the ones having babies, we’d have abortions as often as we change our socks.
That’s why in all our efforts to tell women they don’t have a right to control their bodies, we say absolutely nothing about the responsibility of men in assuring unplanned pregnancies don’t happen.
WE aren’t going to control our bodies. Why would we? We’ll never take any of the consequences. We’re never even going to make any consequences for ourselves. There will never be an Anti-Rowe v Wade that addresses male responsibility.
We’ll go on gratifying ourselves and telling women what they have to do with the “fruits of our loins.”
It’s Saturday night and I’ll be making it with some girl from a club. If she gets pregnant, it’s her problem.
Abortions were almost as common BEFORE Roe v Wade as they are now.
The difference was that poor women couldn’t get abortions.
Well-off and well-connected women could always get an abortion.
Just look at GW Bush’s knocked-up girlfriend. She got an abortion a year before it was legal thanks to W’s family connections.
No one, at least not me, is wanting to tell women they don’t have the right to control their own bodies. Control them…then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.But once another human being’s life is involved no one should have the right to control that second life’s very existence, at least for simple convenience sake.And though this is a separate and distracting topic there most certainly are consequences for men. It’s call legal child care law.
I think the problem here is that people simply don’t listen.
I am not going to stand here and preach about what I think is right or wrong or when life begins or any of that. This is all an OPINION – MY opinion. Kindly remember that.
That being said – I think that overturning Roe V. Wade would be a MONUMENTAL mistake. And here are the reasons why:
1) As said before, it will not do away with abortions. It WILL make them unsafe and increase the mortality rate. For all of you arguing that abortion is murder – so it isn’t okay to take one life, but it is okay to take two?
2) Personally, I feel that men have no place in this argument. In only RARE occasions does this have anything to do with you. It is NOT your body, YOU are not the one who has to be pregnant for nine months. And nine times out of ten, YOU are not the one who is going to be supporting this child after it is born.
3) Tell me, if your daughter was RAPED and got pregnant as a result, would you feel comfortable forcing her to have a child, regardless of what it will likely do to her mental health and well being? What about if attempting to carry this child to term would cost your daughter her life? Who becomes more important then? Chew on that one for a while.
4) Who are you to judge anyways? I have heard the tired argument of “they use it as a form of birth control” time and time again. Given the PROVEN emotional and physical implications of abortion, are you so damn sure that a woman would CHOOSE to put herself through that simply as a form of birth control? Yes, I am sure there is the rare woman out there who does – but honestly people, the generalizations you make of people who get abortions would put them more in line with people who have MORE children so they can get more welfare money than women who have an abortion. And if you don’t think that these women agonize over this decision, maybe you should try it some time. “Judge not lest ye be judged” – words we should ALL take to heart. Because those of you who are out there passing judgement on women who have had abortions (women you don’t even KNOW, I might add) are going to be facing the fire every bit as much as they are with your judgemental attitudes.
5) So many very important women’s rights legislations regarding domestic violence and the like, have used precedents set in the Roe v. Wade ruling as their basis, that if you overturn this ruling you are throwing the door WIDE OPEN for those to be overturned as well, along with creating the possibility of trials, etc, using this precedent as their basis being thrown out of court. And if you don’t think someone would do it, think again. There are all kinds of people out there just WAITING on this to be overturned so they can appeal their convictions, or get their case thrown out of court… People are self-serving and they will take any chance they can get, including this.
You have to open your eyes, put yourself in that position, and look at the big picture. And before you get all pious and “I would never be in that position” on me, stop to think that a LOT of these people thought the same thing before it happened to them.
And PS Mark -
Yeah there are laws in place for child support. HOWEVER, First you have to prove they are the father if you are not married, which if they claim they are not requires an expensive DNA test that YOU, not the courts, have to pay for. THEN, You have to find them! If they went running, good luck with that. THEN, they have to have a job in order to garnish wages, and if they don’t willingly sign an order takes months and even YEARS (TRUST ME I KNOW, AND HE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED HIS CHILD) to get any kind of action on from the courts. THEN, you have to spend the money on a lawyer and sometimes even a private investigator to find him, file a contempt of court charge against him, and MAYBE, just MAYBE you MIGHT manage to get him locked up for non-payment of child support, which doesn’t help because if his sorry butt is in PRISON, how the hell is he going to pay child support? Yeah it sounds good in theory, but not so much in reality, and there are enough deadbeat dads out there to prove it…
You are never going to get rid of abortion, even if you ban it, it’s not going to stop women from committing abortion.
Good post, “anon.”
But don’t expect any rational argument to sway the religionist absolutists who think they speak for “God.”
They’ve done an excellent job to veil and fog their arguments — often resorting to out and out lies — in their quest for conformity to *their* moral fantasies. But their bottom line is always based in their fundamental belief that *they* and *only* they speak for God.
The abortion issue is, perhaps, the ultimate corruption of the concept of separation of church and state.
Liberals believe lies paraded by abortionists like the Alan Gutmacher Institute which is a ‘research’ arm of planned parenthood whose very livelihood depends on killing babies and siphoning public money. Obviously there is no conflict of interest here, and there will be no monetary benefit to the ‘researchers’ when abortion is legalized in countries where it is now rightly banned. They seem to have no ulterior motive to parade propoganda.
I mean what kind of a fool you have to be to believe in this. Does this mean before and after Roe vs. Wade the number of abortions in america were the same? Obviously not. In countries where abortion is banned, the number of abortions is much much less than in countries where it is not. There maybe an couple of exceptions and the ‘researchers’ looked at them and generalized it to all countries. Liberals are masters at doing that. Also, look at the European countries where abortion is legal, their population is decreasing partly because of the widespread abortions.
Another thing liberals howl about is botched abortions when illegal. But after abortions became legal, it did not stop abortionists from screwing up and killing women. The only thing that stopped was the liberals howling. As long as women died from botched legal abotions it was okay.
If you want to stop killing babies, “john_s,” then you should support expanding the S-CHIP program George WMD Bush just vetoed.
Of course, that would mean expanding your definition of “babies” to include those who’ve been born.
How can you say that there are less abortions when it’s ban? The only reason why we know how many abortions are done in counties, such as ours, that is legal is because we record it.
If it’s illegal, it won’t be recorded, unless a mother gets caught. Women will go underground and have it done or they will resort to knives and metal cloth hangers.
I suspect that there were plenty of abortions going on in the USA long before Roe vs. Wade.
Legalizing abortion has positive effects for our society. It has brought crime way down and this is a recorded fact. I can go on in detail about this, if you want.
Abortion is an ugly procedure and should not be taken lightly. Women should be encouraged away from an abortion procedure. I don’t mind people trying to do that at all. But Abortion should remain legal.
What I find funny is that the loudest advocates of making abortion illegal are men. They want to control the reproductive lives of women. Why? This is strictly a women issue and men need to stay out of it. It’s none of our business. And that is why the Supreme Court made it legal, because it was a privacy issue. It’s none of anybody damn business and especially men on what women do to their reproductive choices.
You want to talk about people who make money on the abortion debate? It is the so called “Pro-lifers”. They make millions and staff thousands of people for their advocacy. If you ban abortion, what would they do? It is such a lucrative and money making enterprise in advocating a ban on abortion that I doubt seriously that the higher ups in the organization really want abortion ban. They would be out of a job and out of a new BMW in their driveway.
Does this mean before and after Roe vs. Wade the number of abortions in america were the same? Obviously not.
Correct, John.
They increased about 20 percent, from 800,000 to about a million a year.
That increase was from women who didn’t not have access to abortion before–poor women.
Abortion will always be available for those who can afford its cost illegally, just like it was when it was illegal.
More women, per capita, die during pregnancy and childbirth than from so-called “botched” legal abortion.
If we outlawed abortion then there would be no more abortion. Just like how Prohibition stopped drinking, and the war on drugs stopped all illicit drug use.
If we allow governments to force women to give birth, then we will have conceded to government the power also to tell us which gender for newbornsis to be preferred, and when it is time to die. These kinds of decisions – just like the right to use birth control or for consenting adults who are not married to have sex – should not belong to the government. Just like laws against miscegenation should continue to be unconstitutional. This is basic freedom – the kind that fueled the population of this great nation – pardon to my native american brothers and sisters.
Of course, “Doug” –
It’s so absurd to think, say, if marijuana were suddenly leagalized all those Baptists and bank presidents and televangelists would scamper out and start toking up.
Likewise, the anti-abortionists have their own flocks to tend to. If they can sell their religiosity and moral vision with enough people through the power of their faith and what they claim the believe in, maybe there won’t be any abortion anymore.
Desperate women will always — indeed, have always — sought ways to terminate pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies will always occur, even in nations such as Nicaragua (see my post & link above) which has outlawed all abortions; a law which has killed at least 83 Nicaraguan women (just those who’ve been recorded by the government) since last November.
Pregnancy is a condition which can only be experienced first-hand by females. Ultimately, the politization of pregnancy is just another effort to make women second-class citizens.
If the pregnancy is not in your body, you’ve got no say in the matter.
Just look at GW Bush’s knocked-up girlfriend. She got an abortion a year before it was legal thanks to W’s family connections.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | October 13, 2007 at 10:49 AMCap how is it that every discussion for you is an opportunity to spread lies. Back this up.
Anon as women we have the untimate protection. Unless it is rape we need to do a good job of picking our sperm donors. As macho man said he will pick up some girl at a club tonight and have sex. When did women start thinking that they didn’t deserve anything better than this.
Abortion is the topic today but ultimately the real problem goes much deeper.
Nice try anon. Men have a lot to gain in perpetuating the myth that its a women’s right. Ask any girl who gets pregnant under less than ideal circumstances. What kind of “advice” (aka pressure) do you think she will receive from her boyfriend? Selfish men love legallized abortion. How else can you get what you want without any long-term commitment?
—–
So Joe,If abortions are illegal and they are not recorded from where did the Guttmacher Institute get their numbers from? They felt that way and so they put that as fact in their study?
You say legalizing abortions has brought down crime. Since the new ’studies’ show that the abortion rates are the same in countries where abortion is legal and countries where it is illegal, does that also mean the crime rates came down in all countries where abortion is illegal?
Compared to the money pro-aborts like NOW and PP have, pro-lifers have significantly less. They are motivated to help the woman and the unborn child because they recognize the humanity of both. When abortion becomes illegal I am sure they will devote themselves to other humanitarian causes. It is NOW, NARAL and PP that have a profit motive to keep abortion legal and spread it to other countries. You know that they do not give their services free of charge. They charge thier clients or they get money from the government.
You yourself say that abortions is an ugly procedure. Precisely because a life is taken it is murder, and many women and men who abort their own child are negatively affected by it. Even with the blessings of liberal horde (politicians, media and their followers) and their best efforts to portray it as a right, it is still the taking of an innocent human life.
Dear Anon,I sincerely wish you the best in getting what is rightfully your child’s rights to support. I realize there are some real trash guys out there that run off and evade their responsibility anyway they can. I still can not justify the ending of a innocent beginning life except to protect the physical life of the mother, even from a strictly secular perspective, separated from a ‘religious’ one. The time for responsibility for both is before not after life is created. I’m know it sounds like I’m preaching, not so, that’s just a statement of my conviction. I realize this is not an ‘ideal’ world and bad things happen, we all make many mistakes, me more that most, but my mistakes do not justify ending another’s life for my convenience or to escape the consequences. There are always consequences, good and bad, to life’s choices. Trying to escape the bad at another’s expense, especially ending their very existence, is just not right.Best wishes Anon, I totally agree with your post about the difficulties involved.
“ksgrm” –
If your womb weren’t a withered old hunk of useless meat, you might have a different perspective.
Sometimes the act of sexual congress isn’t about selecting a “sperm donor.” You may have missed out on it, but for many people sex is fun!
Birth control can fail. Vasectomies can reverse. People can fall in love at a moment’s notice and still not be ready or able to experience childbirth. Oh, and there’s rape and incest and ectopic pregnancies and any number of exigent circumstances which might lead a woman to determine that a horribly-deformed or retarded offspring might not be in the best interests of her family and her life.
So who made *you!*, “ksgrm” the ultimate decision-maker for those women who consider terminating a pregnancy? If you think you have the right to dictate your morality to people whose circumstances you don’t know or care about, shouldn’t I have the right to dictate to you how you run your life?
Newsflash to Monkey:
The US government is exercising moral judgement by convicting murderers of murder, rapists of rape, pedophiles of pedophilia.. and the list goes on. Who is the ultimate decision maker that those things are wrong? Morality is dictated everday in the courtrooms across this country and for good reason.
“They increased about 20 percent, from 800,000 to about a million a year.”
More likely that just reflects better reporting.
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=159
Was George W. Bush “Involved”
in an Illegal Abortion??
On CNN’s Crossfire on October 20, 2000, Larry Flynt exploded a bombshell: that he has evidence that George W. Bush was “involved in an abortion in Texas” in the early 1970’s – when abortions were still illegal.
Here are the details, as reported by Bartcop:
In the winter of 1971 George W. Bush was dating a woman named Robin Lowman (now Robin Garner). Miss Lowman became pregnant by W. and he arranged for her to have an abortion – which in the great state of Texas in 1971 was very illegal. Not to mention that George W. is running as a pro-life candidate for the presidency.
The unnamed source of this story, was a friend of Robin Lowman’s and the girlfriend of the man who arranged the abortion. His name is Robert Carl Chandler.
Chandler is a Bush friend and supporter from way back and he made the arrangements for Miss Lowman’s abortion at the Twelve Oaks Hospital in Houston, TX (now the Bayou City Medical Center). The source overheard the call by Mr. Chandler to arrange the abortion and the source visited Robin Lowman at the Twelve Oaks Hospital after the procedure.
The source meanwhile, is afraid of coming forward, saying that she was threatened by Chandler and another Bush friend and supporter named Jim Bath. Bath has longstanding intelligence connections, and played a role in the BCCI scandal. Robin Lowman (now Garner) is married to Jerry Lee Garner who is an FBI agent.
So, that’s the story: an illegal back room abortion arranged by the Republican party Presidential candidate who is running on a pro-life ticket.
The CNN Coverup
Amazingly, CNN scrubbed its own story.
This has all the markings of a cover-up by CNN – just like the cover-ups of Bush’s many other scandals, from going AWOL, to using illegal drugs, to corruption in Texas government, to lying under oath.
Here is the original transcript that was published by CNN, but has now been scrubbed.
[ROBERT] NOVAK: Mr. Flynt, never let it be said that we censor any of our guests here on CROSSFIRE, and you said you wanted to talk about the election. Tell me what you wanted to say.
FLYNT: Well, during the impeachment debacle, we did an investigation which resulted in the resignation of Bob Livingston and others and we have continued this investigation and for eight months we’ve been looking into George W. Bush’s background. And we’ve found out in the early 1970s he was involved in an abortion in Texas, and I just think that it’s sad that the mainstream media, who’s aware of this story, won’t ask him that question when they were able to ask him the drug question without any proof at all, and we’ve got all kinds of proof on this issue.
NOVAK: Well, you’re…
FLYNT: You know, the guy admitted he was a drunk for 20 years, and if the abortion issue is true then that puts him lower on the morality scale than Bill Clinton.
NOVAK: Mr. Flynt, you said if it’s true and you have no proof of that. I gather you are a very strong…
FLYNT: The hell we don’t have proof.
NOVAK: Sir, I gather you’re a very strong Gore supporter. Is that correct?
FLYNT: I’ll vote for the lesser of the two evils. I don’t like either one of them.
[BILL] PRESS: All Right, Larry Flynt, a man who speaks his word, but we remind you they are Larry Flynt’s words and not ours. Larry Flynt, thank you very, very much for joining us.
This was followed by an online chat, in which Flynt went into greater detail:
CNN – Mr. Flynt, I would like to know how you plan to protect yourself from a law suit by claiming to have the goods on GWBush.
Flynt: Because we have them and the truth is an absolute defense.
CNN; When and where are you going to publish information about George W. Bush?
Flynt: When I said that we had the proof, I am referring to knowing who the girl was, knowing who the doctor was that pereformed the abortion, evidence from girlfriends of hers at the time, who knew about the romance and the subsequent abortion. The young lady does not want to go public, and without her willingness, we don’t feel that we’re on solid enough legal ground to go with the story, because should she say it never happened, then we’ve got a potential libel suit. But we know we have enough evidence that we believe completely. One of the things that interested us was that this abortion took place before Roe Vs. Wade in 1970, which made it a crime at the time. I’d just like the national media to ask him if abortion is okay for him and his family, but not for the rest of America. We’re not looking at it as a big issue, we’re looking at it as a situation of people not being told the truth. I think the American people have a right to know everything there is to know about someone running for President.
BTW, that’s was a HILARIOUS joke you pulled on us yesterday, Ksgrm.
Saying that you thought Chas. was W. S. Clark and letting the accusations rage for 12 hours before you said you were . . . “just kidding.”
WHAT A KNEE SLAPPER!
My sides ache, I tell you what!
Hey, I hope you get cancer and die.
Just kidding.
See how fun it is!
Since Flynt has never been sued for defamation by the Prez, I guess he was telling the truth. Good documentation, Cap’n.
john_s: You say “The time for responsibility for both is before not after life is created.” No where in your comments do you mention rape. When raped, women aren’t generally given the option of using birth control nor do they “escape the consequences” forced upon them. Women frequently become pregnant as a result of the rape, and you are telling them there is no “justif[ication] [in] ending another’s life for my convenience or to escape the consequences.” Neither convenience or consequences are in the minds of rapists, but the victim faces both the inconvenience of pregnancy (as you expect) and the consequences (again, as you expect) of an uncaring rapists and an uncaring society which does little to nothing to support mothers, whether working outside the home or not. Because women rarely report these crimes, rape continues to be a crime about control, power, and hate.
I am always amazed at the mindset of men who willy-nilly make decisions for women. They haven’t a clue about what it is to be a mother or a wife but they have, as john_s does, an opinion as to what a woman should do. And for no other reason but they “said so.” Which is about control, power, and hate.
Lord save me from a clueless male!
I have never found any credible source for that story. I would really like to no more.
But doing a search, it only comes to Democrat.org or other Democrat websites.
Reading it on some of them, the story seems to be a bit different from the others. Some say that Robin Lowman was 15. Some say she was 14. Some say she was 22. Some don’t have an age. There tends to be some variation on the story, that is why you can’t trust Democrat websites.
But the theme is that Bush fathered an aborted fetus. And I can’t find anything that disputes it.
I tried Snopes, Wikipedia and other article search sites and came up with nothing. Not a single entry.
Either there is a grain of truth behind this story or it’s all bullshit because it coming from Democrats.
Although Larry Flynt has a campaign against politicians and the hyprocacy they commit. And he did successfully out that one Republican down in Louisiana. And there were a few others, so I commend him for doing that. I like what he’s doing. There is no criticism from me about Larry Flynt. But I’m sure he’s been wrong a few times. And nobody going to go after Larry Flynt for defamatory, he’s a champion of freedom of speech.
But I also heard that the Flynt digged a lot of dirt on Harry Reid. I can’t wait till that comes out. I heard this from his chief investigator that works full time on investigating politicians. He was interviewed on NPR.
But he will walk a fine line. Outing Harry Reid will make a lot of people turn on Larry Flynt and he knows it. Democrat sheep have the thought that having a “D” beside your name means you do no wrong. And the firestorm that will come him way will be 1000X worse then the hate they put on Joe Lieberman.
my apologies to john_s for attributing quotes to him he didn’t write. however, he and mark seem to be on the same page so my comments stand.
Saying that you thought Chas. was W. S. Clark and letting the accusations rage for 12 hours before you said you were . . . “just kidding.”
WHAT A KNEE SLAPPER!
My sides ache, I tell you what!
Hey, I hope you get cancer and die.
Just kidding.
See how fun it is!
Posted by: CapnAmerica | October 13, 2007 at 01:21 PM
Cap show me where I said that. And don’t give me Chas’ old ‘assertion’ argument. He tries to assign meaning to others words.
MonkeyHawk you are entitled to your opinions as am I. Sex is fun as you said but one night stands are degrading for most women and if they result in babies financially draining. Women invest emotionally in relationships much more than men. I have worked with many women with self respect issues or the lack therof.
Sorry we don’t agree on this. I suppose this means you will be going out with macho man tonight.
Newsflash to Monkey:
The US government is exercising moral judgement by convicting murderers of murder, rapists of rape, pedophiles of pedophilia.. and the list goes on. Who is the ultimate decision maker that those things are wrong? Morality is dictated everday in the courtrooms across this country and for good reason.
Posted by: rfl | October 13, 2007 at 12:45 PM
—
Certainly, “rfl,” you’re not trying to assert that your religion has a monopoly on proscribing murder, rape, etc.
There are plenty of civilized reasons, far beyond any theology, that prompt every culture in the world and every civilization in history to act against such crimes.
Civi courts exist to ajudicate civil law, not some sect’s tunnel-vision version of what’s moral or not.
ryan0916:Facts:Number of abortions per year, Alan Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood)2004 1,293,000
Pregnancies resulting from rape:In 2004 and 2005 combined total, according to the 2005 National Crime Victimization Study (PDF, 287KB), 64,080 women were raped.
According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 4.7% to 5%.
That’s approx. 32,000 per year x 5% = 1600/yr.Approx. 1600/1,300,000 = 1.23%1.23% of abortion due to rape.Rape is tragic and I’m not going there.I am talking about all the other abortions not resulting from rape, or for that matter actual medical reasons that truly endanger the mother.The vast majority are for convenience.
No monkeyhawk, religion does not grant me a monopoly to believe that abortion is wrong, Science does. I don’t have to be religious to believe the scientific evidence that an unborn child is alive and in fact human.
You can believe your own theology that worships the god of your freedom and suppresses the right to life of the unborn who have not voice. Its not hard to find evidence in history of religous sects who have sponsored infanticide to please some god. So why is your religion better than science?
This latest Guttmacher “study” is just another pack of lies from the abortion lobby, aimed at prompting more legalization and liberalization of abortion on demand, and more funding for the abortion lobby.We will continue using every legal tactic and weapon against abortion mills and abortionist quacks, until the abolition of the Kansas abortion industry, regardless of who does not approve of our pro-life actions. The brutal, ruthless greed of abortionist quacks started this war on babies, and pro-lifers will finish it, one way or another.The grand juries being impaneled now in Kansas to investigate abortion mill crimes are only the beginning. We will have justice. We will have truth. We will have abolition.
Excuse me, that was not 1.23% but 0.123%. I misplaced the decibel. The fact remains, even more so by a power of 10X that few pregnancies result from rape compared to the number of abortions.
Wow, what must it be like to live in Parkay’s mind?
Scary.
So pro-abortion organizations spread propaganda and the Eagle blog reports the “findings” as fact. What else is new?
Monkey,
To clarify:As far as the origin of moral laws that all civilizations enforce, they all have to have some kind of goal. The highest aim of an advanced society is to protect the rights of all people, even those who have no voice or vote or who can not defend themselves. This should be applied consistently regardless of religion.
Applying this principal of fairness to the legality of abortion, it is clear to see why the unborn (who are human and alive as any newborn infant) need an advocate.
“rfl” –
But it is your religion or personal moral code that leads you to believe that a cluster of cells that comprise a fetus are worthy of all the rights society recognizes for the pregnant woman it depends on.
And, as a practical matter, civil law makes arbitrary deliniations as to when life begins. You don’t get your driver’s licese at 16 years and two months simply because you were born prematurely. If you were an overdue birth, you can’t vote at age 17 and 50 weeks.
A different law kicks in when you’re born. It’s just as aribtrary as the speed limit or what blood level constitutes a DUI. You can’t drive 50 in a 30 mph zone, even if “God” tells you to.
You can choose to believe as your religion or or god or your personal moral authority leads you to belive that *human* life begins at conception. But civil law doesn’t have the luxury of your personal connection with the almighty truth. Civil law (in America, anyway) must deal in non-supernatural, not theological, parameters.
As sincere as I believe you are in your opposition to abortion, I venture to assert that you are not advocating the death penalty for any woman who seeks or gets a pregenancy terminated? Explain to me how you rationalize not enforcing your strict moral code. Could it be that you realize Death for All Abortion Seekers just might not be a politically viable position?
If your moral or theological belief is that “life” begins at conception, then you should be as steadfastly moral to demand every woman who uses contraception that prevents a fertilized zygote from implanting into the uterus be tried for murder.
“”"” Jeremiah 1:5″Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose.”"”"
Old testament stuff. Jesus did not address this issue.
“”"”Kev,I’m not wanting to inflame you but you must please tell me what it is if it is not “innocent human life”, if it is “not human at all” as you claim?Is it a dog? A whale? A mole? Do you need to check its DNA?”"”
Fetuses are fetuses. It is a potential human just as a doggie fetus is a potential dog but neither are people or dogs. And a dog fetus and a human fetus are much the same for the first few months- just a clump of cells.
Monkey,No different than an unborn child, we are all a cluster of cells that comprise a fleshly blob. By undermining the humanity of a unborn child you can question and then strip away the humanity of any defenseless or dependent human being.
I agree, that there is a fine line of delineation that we as a civil society must agree upon and enforce. The goal in this delineation being to protect life and to be fair and not using our own personal considerations as the supreme arbitrator of what is right.
There is no reason why a woman needs to have an abortion when there is the adoption option.
No I do not believe the death penalty should be given to a woman who seeks to end her pregnancy, and no I do not believe that is inconsistent. Society today has been brainwashed to believe that unborn children are inhuman, so they can easily justify killing it. It is not entirely their fault that they lack this moral compass so I would not accuse them of murder the same way I would accuse say Scott Peterson.
As a product of the old Baltimore cathechism I was told as a boy that “God breathed a soul into the baby as it was born”. When did this get backed up to conception? No one is for abortion, I hope, but in light of what I was taught as a Catholic child and what I hear now, I’m just plain confused.
“rfl” –
If you can’t understand the distinction betwen an egg and a chicken, you’ll never make it as a fry cook in the real world.
The difference between a fetus and a baby is important in the real world, too.
You’re well with your rights to believe in the humanity of a developing blob of a fetus. I and civil law are stuck here without the benefit of a “god” or theology or your unerring moral compass to force such spiritual prejudices onto everyone else. All I or civil law can do is deal with the realities of a multi-cultural, nonsectarian, issue with differing interpretations of right and wrong.
When faced with the interests of a real live walking talking human being and the potential baby growning insider her, common sense tells me the mother’s interests are worth more to civil society than what might develop into a full-fledged human being.
You are perfectly within your rights to preach to her, to convert her to following your personal interpretation of your particular moral compas.
That’s the consequence, and the beauty, of a Constitution that was steadfastly written to avoid religious dogma. It’s not as if we’re perfect about it, but religion should have no place in civil law anymore than a place kicker belongs on an ice hockey team; they’re two separate arenas and they should stay that way.
The interests of a real live walking talking human are not greatly altered by bringing a pregnancy to term. However, the interests of the potential being who is aborted is greatly altered before it has the chance to have any interests at all.
If there is such a big difference between an egg and a chicken, then why is it illegal to poach the eggs of turtles when only turtles are on the endangered species list? Looking on the list, I do not see “Green Sea Turtle Egg” on the list right under Green Sea Turtle. The Turtle is on the list and therefore so is the egg. Both are recognized as being turtles. They are synonumous. It is illegal to kill both because they are both turtles.
Therefore unborn human = human
Sea turtles are endangered. This status is the result of human activity. Thus, proactive measures to protect the species.
Human beings are not endangered.
Be truly pro life. Fight for universal health care and the repeal of welfare “reform”.
Folks,
You need to face some reality here:
“Fly off to New York” ???
People fly from New York to Wichita, since our laws are more liberal than the laws in New York!
The United States, in general, and Kansas, in particular, have the most open “abortion on demand” policy in the world.
Nearly every other country controls the proceedure more than we do.
Even European countries have more restrictions than we do!
KevThere are plenty of LIVING “human beings” — by YOUR definition, BORN, living outside the womb — who were born at a very early gestational age.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that babies have survived at 22 weeks gestation, or roughly 5 months. That isnt even the “end” of the 2nd “trimester”.
Change is comming.
American law is radical.
American law has not kept up with science.
American law on abortion is out of sync with the rest of the world.
(That usually makes a difference to liberals, why not here, on this issue?)
For the record, I don’t think abortions will be made entirely illegal, either, but the status quo will not survive much longer.
“I’d just like the national media to ask him if abortion is okay for him and his family, but not for the rest of America.”
Yeah, that’s what I’d like to know too.
Nobody had any trouble asking Clinton if he had sex with Lewinsky.
But when it comes to Bush, the national media can’t summon the will to ask him anything except how he spent his summer vacation.
CapnPeople DO change there minds on this issue.
In fact, many of the leaders of the anti-abortion groups are former abortionists and women who have had abortions and regret it terribly.
For most who are involved on the prolife side, it is not about “passing judgement” it is about true compassion for our fellow human beings, mother and child alike.
Therefore, ignoring the opinion of someone who has experienced abortion is like, well —
Telling AA counselors that they have had to be Tea-totalers their entire lives, or their opinions don’t count.
Its not realistic.
How the religious people got involved in the abortion debate, is because they believe that a human is not saved unless they are baptized and if not, their soul will be in purgatory.
Same reason why they ban Physician assisted suicide, because their religion tells them that if you commit suicide, your soul will be in purgatory.
When they say they want to save a life, what they really are saying is that they want to save another soul by getting them Christianized, meaning to have your head dipped in holy water. (What a strange custom that is).
If a woman wants to have an abortion, just let her have one. Forcing somebody to endure pregnancy for 9 months just for you to satisfy your own religious conviction is pretty cruel. You can’t own people like that. That unborn fetus doesn’t belong to you nor the government.
Now you have the idea of imprisoning millions of women because the committed abortion.
Chas you weren’t here when I came. Sorry to disappoint you. When was this meet up you didn’t go to? I definitely would have remembered when you came. It dumbed down the entire blog.
So far you vouched for JR, Cap vouched for you – I see a conspiracy here. The fact that you call me Germie, vintage WS tells me a lot.
You are definitely melting down Chasss. Take a couple of aspirins and don’t call me in the morning.
Posted by: ksgrm | October 12, 2007 at 04:12 PM
I want to know one thing Chas – Do you have green eyes?
Posted by: ksgrm | October 12, 2007 at 04:14 PM
============================
There’s one time KsGrm… Asking me if I have green eyes… Thats what Clark said he had… Guess your memory is failing… ;-)
OKAY – You all missed the point of my statements. Pretty much proved the first sentence.
rfl – why do YOU get to say when life begins? NOBODY has a concise answer on this – not scientists, not even different religions identify the “beginning” of life the same. So why is it that YOUR definition should stand? It’s the same thing as telling me that I can’t wear black because your religion sees it as representative of the devil. It’s YOUR beliefs. Great. So YOU believe it. Doesn’t mean I have to. And it certainly shouldn’t mean that I or anyone else should have to follow a law based on YOUR beliefs.
Mark – I still think you don’t see what I am saying. And I like how NOONE had an argument for point 5 – let’s just all blow right past that one, shall we? It may be the most important point of all.
Ksgrm – you know what, hold whatever opinion you want to of me or any other woman who has had a child out of wedlock or an abortion. You don’t know jack about anyone else’s situation, so who the hell are you to sit in judgement? MANY MANY pregnancies are the result of long-term relationships where the man goes running as soon as he hears about the pregnancy. A friend of mine was ENGAGED, with the date set, the dress bought, etc… Her fiance convinced her it would be okay since they were engaged to go ahead and consummate the relationship even though they werent married yet. They had NEVER slept together until that point. When two months later (4 months before the wedding) she finds out she is pregnant, he left tire marks on the damn pavement on his way out… Unplanned pregnancies are not just the result of one night stands – in fact, I bet if you did a little research you would find that comprises a VERY small percentage of unplanned pregnancies! So before you open your hypocritical mouth, perhaps you should THINK about what you are saying, and consider whether or not you have the right to be judging anyone else.
For those of you that STILL don’t get it – personally, for ME, abortion is not an option. But I am sure as hell not going to stand there and tell some other woman that she doesn’t get that choice either. It isn’t my place.
unborn human=human.
I often get a lot of flack from both sides because I accept the premise that the fetus is a human being, and yet I still support the right to legalized abortion.
The right to an abortion comes from a woman’s right to control her body. It doesn’t come from issues of financial hardship, 18 years of parenthood, the painfulness of giving a child up for adoption, or cutting of career options, although those are all very important concerns.
Who owns the uterus?
The woman owns the uterus.
It is her property.
If she doesn’t want a fetus residing insider her uterus, she has the right to get it removed, even when that removal results in death.
If I leave the front door open and a man comes into my house, I have no legal obligation to let him stay and eat my food and use my bathrooms. I have a right to kick him out on the street, even if he ends up dying on my front porch. If a fetus is a person, there is no difference between it and this homeless person.
Next up: Abortion is immoral
If I were to walk down a path by a river and see a small child drowning in the river, I have a moral obligation to stop and save the child’s life. Even if it means I’m going to end up disfigured from scars received from low tree branches, even if it means injuring my leg so badly that I’m unable to resume normal activity for 9 month. Even if I’m wearing a $450,000 Valentino dress. I have a moral obligation to save that child’s life even though I will be sacrificing some of my comfort. The value of that child’s life is more than the value of 9 months of my work, my pricey dress and my unsightly scars.Continuing on the assumption that the fetus is a person, if a woman has an opportunity to save a child’s life (by allowing the fetus to reside in her body and use her resources for 9 months, so it can live on its own), then she is morally obligated to do so. The value of that child’s life is greater than the comfort of being able to drink alcohol, carry on normal activities and not suffer from the numerous ailments that pregnant women have to go through.
In both cases, the moral obligation is clear. However, there is no law that says that if I see a child drowning, that I must stop and save its life. My moral obligation is just that—a moral one. The law values autonomy over the life of another. Shrimp v. McFall is a good example of this.
Banning abortion would create a special case in which bodily autonomy is superceded by the rights of another. It would create this special case only for women of childbearing age. This is discrimination: Men will never have to experience having their bodily autonomy violated in order to save a life. Not unless we also set a precedent for forcing someone to donate bone marrow to a matching patient: we won’t do that because our laws value independence over everything else.
Abortion is terrible and the number of them should be reduced. But not by legislation.
Note that my second post is simply my opinion. I don’t agree with abortion, but I see that I have no right to deprive other women that right.
TaraVery thoughtful posts.
My strong beliefs in property rights and my strong beliefs in the right of self defense would obviously make me consider your point of view on this.
However, my kidney is also mine.
If I tell my doctor that I want him to remove my kidney because I think it would make a very nice discussion piece, if I pickeled it and put it on the living room table, would I have the absolute “right” to do this?
Hey, I can live with one kidney, what business is it of YOURS if I want to do something crazy with the other one?
Nope, in medicine, the “customer” is NOT always right.
And it matters of body parts, we do NOT let people do whatever they want with their bodies.
Sympathy for your arguments, yes, but your arguments do not prevail, when compared to other “body part” or “body ownership” issues.
Joe Joe Joe… When you write anything about religion or the motivations of the faithful, it is both painful and funny because you are so badly misinformed.
If you need help, please let me know. I will be happy to explain things to you so you don’t end up embarrassing yourself again.
Medical science has learned to transplant hearts, kidneys, corneas, livers, pancreases (pancrea?)… seems like a logical extention for true anti-abortionists to fund research that would facilitate embryo transplantation.
It’s the perfect technological compromise between those who think every fetus in everyone else’s womb will be carried to full term, and women who are not prepared physically, mentally, emotionally, financially, morally, or medically, to bring a pregnancy to term.
There are plenty of women who want to eliminate abortion. And every one of them has a uterus just waiting to be a recipient of a fetus transplant! Right?
Even “ksgrm” in her dotage could have a fetus implanted in her sorry ol’ womb and (with enough hormone therapy) carry a transplanted fetus to term and raise it as her own.
I mean, why should the adoption option wait until the unfit mother (and she has to be unfit, doesn’t she, if she even *considers* abortion?!) carries a pregnancy to term?
Perfecting fetal transplants into the wombs of anti-abortion activists would solve everyone’s problems with current reproductive policies.
Wouldn’t it?
I will say, for the religious “correction”
Martin Luther did not believe in Purgatory, so he removed those books of the Catholic Bible that might have given support to Purgatory — even though those Books were in the Temple at the same time as Jesus.
Ok, sorry for the Catholic lesson.
Class dismissed!
Econ, actually, like it or not, you COULD do that with your kidney… IF you wanted to… You might have to really hunt for a surgeon that would do it, but it is NOT something illegal to do… Better check your talking points on that one…. :-)
ChasThe surgeon would be crazy to do it.Malpractice law, alone, would stop him.His malpractice carrier would drop him for doing a proceedure that was not medically necessary.The ethics board, in his State, would not be happy.Finally, the private or government insurance carrier would not cover the operation.
I never said the surgeon would go to jail for doing it.
It is highly likely that the surgeon would be forced out of his practice for doing so, however.
And, if my other kidney went bad on me, I would have a lawsuit ready, even if the whole thing was my idea to begin with!
I actually wouldn’t give two poops if some rich old crackpot wanted his kidney pickled, as long as its not coming out of my pocket.
But I think the bodily autonomy argument is more of a “I don’t have to sacrifice my comfort in order to save someone else’s life”, not “I can demand a doctor to do anything I want even if it’s harmful to me”.
It’s important to note that a women’s right to an abortion is a liberty right, not a claim right. That means if she says “I have a right to an abortion”, it doesn’t mean that someone out there is obligated to give her an abortion. It just means no one has the right that she NOT have an abortion.If a doctor decides, out of his own conscious, to perform an abortion on a woman who wants one, then it’s a decision between them.
Old Man Nutjob does has a right to an elective nephrectomy in that no one has the right that he NOT have one (sorry for all the double negatives)
You’d be hard-pressed to find a surgeon who’d perform an elective nephrectomy, for all the reasons you listed, Econ. The nutjob doesn’t have a right to demand a surgeon to comply. But if the doctor is willing and the patient is willing…break out the scalpel, hee!
MonkeyHawk,I’ve had that same thought experiment running through my head many times before.
I can only conclude that if we find a way to transplant fetuses into an artificial womb or an “adoptive” womb, than the woman’s right to an abortion would fly out the window.
She has the right to have it removed from her body, but she doesn’t have the right to ensure its death.
Catholics and Born Again Baptist are the ones against abortion procedures (there are others as well). Average, non-denominational type of Christians are for legalize abortion procedures. So its the religious faith that determines your involvement and viewpoint that abortion should be outlawed. And it all stems in your religious belief that the baby soul needs to be saved from purgatory or born again through baptism.
My reference to saving souls is right Outlander. You have never disprove anything I remark to.
You are somebody that honestly believes that if you have your pastor pour a picture of tap water on your head, you are saved. I don’t care what you believe in. That’s on you. But since I find it a strange custom and it actually does nothing to save souls, then you just call me stupid.
Oh well! I’m not calling you stupid for believing in what you believe. You just grew up indoctrinated into it your whole life. So it’s understandable.
But if you believing in saving the unborn, then you should also be a pacifist and condemn the War in Iraq. You should also not believe in the death penalty. As a matter of fact! You should let all criminals go. All they need to be is saved, right? You just have to pray harder.
God has a plan for the aborted fetuses! Don’t you know that?
Kev states:”Fetuses are fetuses. It is a potential human just as a doggie fetus is a potential dog but neither are people or dogs. And a dog fetus and a human fetus are much the same for the first few months- just a clump of cells.”Posted by: Kev | October 13, 2007 at 04:53 PM
Absolutely ridiculous! You’re putting me on, surely?Nothing ALIVE is “potential”. Life is life. Human is human.It is what it is.No human fetus becomes a “doggie”.
No human has ever given birth to a doggie or vice versa, though some people make me wonder.Because you are operating a keyboard I must assume you are alive, though barely, being a doggie may explain. Try being honest with yourself. If innocent developing human life means nothing to you admit that, but don’t try and convince anyone, including yourself, a fetus is not a live human being.
“Tara” –
This comes back to the old Anti-Reproductive-Rights meme that anyone who objects to the Religious Wrong’s position is somehow desperate to “kill babies.”
Bulls#it.
Anyone who’s seriously thought about the issue considers the “human-ness” of both alledged “souls” involved. But the whole concept of a “soul” gets into the realm of spirituality, theology, and (to be frank) the Republic Party’s margin of victory.
Even *if* the two individuals involved — the developing fetus and the adult woman whose uterus it occupies — have “equal” human rights, civil law tips the scales of justice to the woman. The fetus cannot vote, cannot own property, cannot drive a car, cannot marry (especially if it’s gay), cannot enter into a contract, cannot collect life insurance benefits if it miscarries….
Even if all the religion-based philosophies somehow are in play, the pregnant woman’s rights supercede those of the not-yet-human developing in her womb.
The only way the anti-reproductive-rights faction can tip the scales the other way is for them to declare a developing fetus has *more* rights than the woman whose uterus sustains it.
It’s against the law for me to kill a man. But if that man threatens my life, I have the right to plea self-defense. So the “moral” or “religious” or even “legal” definition of “murder” is relative to the issues at hand.
This relativism of indidual circumstances matters not a whit to right-to-life absolutists. Seems to me that any woman who actually considers abortion as an alternative to her situationi constitutes someone who just might not be “mother” material.
Do the anti-abortionists have no other argument than “Do the Crime, Do the Time”? Is this all about their “moral” and “religous” objection against loose women?
Sometimes it seems that way.
They don’t consider the humanity — with all its frailties, mistakes, and accidents — that might lead a woman to end a pregnancy. No, *they* know better because of how they’ve interpreted their “god.”
And — as I’ve expressed elsewher in this forum — the only-est thing about the Constitution of the United States in America is that someone’s idea of “god” doesn’t get a trump card in this cultural poker game. Jesus may love you, but you’ve got to draw into the inside straight regardless of your religious faith.
You don’t get the King (natural law) and you don’t get the Ace (”God’s” law)…, in a non-religious democracy such as ours, you’ve got to play without a full deck. It doesn’t mean you can’t play the religion card in your private life. Only, in America, the Kings and Aces aren’t supposed to be an issue.
In today’s (and other) discussions on the abortion rights issue I have clearly defined my position that those opposed to reproductive rights are free to take their message to others, to convert infidels to their way of thinking, to evangelize the unfaithful to come into the flock.
What you don’t have the right to do in the United States of America, thanks to the Constitution, is to impose your theology on those who don’t agree with you.
Being an American has its burdens. If it were up to me we’d send OJ Simpson across an NRA firing range and let him prove he can dodge all opponent. If it were up to me every obviously-guilty defendant of any felony would be turned out on the street to be shot like the mad dogs they probably are. But as an American, I have to abide by rules established by the constitution that gives even Dennis Rader a fair trial. As an American, I can expect that George WMD Bush wasn’t elected to office to invade anywhere on the planet that makes him cranky.
I respect your religous faith. Believe it, teach it, preach it, hope it converts all of us infidels. But I’m sorry, you do not have the right under the Constitution of of the United States of America to make your beliefs law.
If God has a plan for the aborted fetus, then why did God allow the abortion in the first place?
“…you do not have the right under the Constitution of of the United States of America to make your beliefs law.”
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | October 13, 2007 at 09:09 PM
=======================And that, of course, is the entire poiht of the First Amendment to the Constitution… Freedom OF Religion… AND Freedom FROM Religion and Religious intolerance…
And that, of course, is the entire poiht of the First Amendment to the Constitution… Freedom OF Religion… AND Freedom FROM Religion and Religious intolerance…
Chas, exactly, religous morality has no place in politics, now laws that deal with morality have to be what everybody agrees on, not just the religious right, I’m glad you and some other people on here know this.
“laws that deal with morality have to be what everybody agrees”
uh, right Tantor. It’s called voting. You vote your convictions, I’ll vote mine, and we will see how it comes out.
Vote all you wantk Outie… You still cant over turn the Constitution just because you dont LIKE it…
Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Chas since this is the real thing – how does this square with your ramblin..
AND Freedom FROM Religion and Religious intolerance…
Posted by: Chas. | October 13, 2007 at 09:33 PM
No, Chas. What you do is work to get bad constitutional decisions (like say… Roe v Wade) overturned.
But it is absolutely ridiculous to say that I have no right to vote my religious convictions into law. Where my views or convictions come from are none or your or anyone else’s business.
Watch me.
I vote for freedom from Chas interpretation of the Constitution.
Outlander,
Why do you even bother?
I am curious as to where Chas gets his morality and views from since he does claim to be a Christian…
If a fetus was a person then everybody should be 9 months older than they are!
This chas must be one of those feel good liberals. Only thing wrong with that it sure makes a lot of people fee bad. Especially that innocent baby.
Chas Being a Christian and all how do your square yur beliefs with not harming the little ones.
TaraI like the way your mind works.
Even when I don’t agree with you.
It is nice to find someone who has really thought this through, on the “other side” from me.
Jesus said pray in a closet outlander.
You “pro lifers” can convince me of your integrity just as soon as you come out in favor of national health care, government paid neo;natal care, and a living wage.
Nope, “outlander” –
Part of the beauty, the elegance, of the Constitution of the United States is that it’s gravely afraid of a tyranny of the majority.
I’m a cat person. Given the right financing and television campaign, I just might be able to declare dog people second-class citizens.
But, thanks to the Consitution of the United States of America, there are provisions that prevent me from imposing my personal prejudices against dog people. For one thing, I have no right to force people to kill puppies and let kittens live. It’s just not the job of the government.
Now, if I can preach to and convert infidels, and persuade the masses to be kitty people instead of puppy people… fine.
But my passion for kitties does not give me the right, even if I can build an electoral majoirty, to deprive you of your right to like dogs.
One of the problems of these kinds of forums (fora?) is that people sometimes spin the issue at hand into contrived specifics.
“If a Kansas City, Missouri 13-year-old gets pregnent due to incest rape should someone be able to take her to Kansas City, Kansas to get an abortion?”
Like that’s gonna happen.
Except, you know, it has.
What continually astounds me about this particular forum is how, as a so-called “lib,” I’ve been attacked for presenting traditionally *conservative* arguments to the issues that show up here. I’m astounded at how the NeoCons and Bushies turn their backs on traditional conservatism just to justify the Shrub Administration’s total defiance of traditionally conservative values.
Whatever happened to the Balanced Budget Amendment? That was what you so-called “conservatives” advocated in your “Contract with America.”
Whatever happened to term limits? You prosmised that, too, back in 1994.
Whatever happened to “don’t invade unless there’s an exit strategy?” In which George WMD Bush assured us in 2000 that he’d never send troops overseas without one?
Whatever happened to habeas corpus? To the Bill of Rights provision that the government cannot hold people without counsel, without a jury, without due process of law?
Back to this thread’s topic: One of the reasons Kansas has the abortion laws it has is because, back in the 1960s, we had a legitimately *conservative* legislature. And the tennants of *conservatism* acknowledged the right of a woman to determine what happens to her body, even if she’s pregnant.
You have the right to persuade her, to conjole her, to convert you to your religious beliefs as to the consequences of her choosing to not carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. But those conservatives back in the 60s determined that you do not have the right to leverage the power of the state against an individual woman’s right to determine what happens inside her body.
Ultimately, that’s about as conservative as you can get.
If by chance abortion became illegal, how is that going to be inforced? Are females beginning at age 11 through menopase going to be given a pregnacy test every month? What happens if that pregnacy test is positive? Will the prospective mother be jailed so as not to attempt an abortion? Next question who is going to pay for all this big brother intervention and how can we justify this kind of sex discrimination?Just speaking hypothetically.
monkeyhawk
Though the founders didnt have to deal with nukes, the internet or scores of other issues, the word “Conservative” as it applies to American Conservatives, primarily means that we try to adhere to the original intent of our founders, and the legally adopted Amendments.
Conservatives are generally against the courts amending the Constitution.
We know what we believe.
Thanks for telling us what you want us to believe.
Sheryl
I am irritated with the extremists on both sides of this issue, though I admit I am prolife.
Your fears are unfounded. Laws must have support from the people or they can’t and won’t be enforced.
The public would oppose a taxpayer financed, 3rd “trimester” abortion, 14 year old without the knowledge or consent of the parents.
I admit, backing off from that hypothetical, public support would start to increase for each troublesome issue that was dropped off the list.
Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton must be and will be overturned, eventually. They are preventing our country from resolving these issues in the political arena, where the issue belongs.
However, overturning Supreme Court rulings will not make abortion illegal.
Drugs are illegal, we dont give you random drug tests without just cause, like a DUI.
Relax.
Trust our system.
I think abortion is almost always morally wrong, but I realize that law can not reflect my views completely.
Many reasonable prolifers feel the same way.
Heres my take on the issue, abortion should be allowed for the first month or two, then after that it shouldn’t be allowed, because the fetus has developed too much. But, I suppose the right still can’t agree with that.
I’ve already done this before… BUT, I will do it one more time…
IF I have the guarantee of Freedom OF Religion… and IF I have NO religion, then that NO religion is my right under the Constitution…
Therefore, Since I have NO Religion, I then have the right to my Freedom FROM Religion being forced on me, if I dont choose to have it…
Therefore, the first amendment guarantees both freedom OF and freedom FROM religion… It is actually all one and the same…
IOW, Freedom FROM religion is covered in the Freedom OF religion phrase in the first amendment…
Talk about an example of some of the worst logic I have seen in ages…
What, you think we shouldn’t be free to choose what our religion is Nathan, or our non beliefs in religion. Sounds kind of facists, or hitlerish to me.
And now we have a perfect example of a straw man argument…
Yeah that’s the trap I am afraid they are laying.
“Your rights come from God. God being my interpretation of it. If you de not believe in my interpretation of God, you HAVE no rights as you have rejected the giver of them!”
Nathan thinks we dont have freedom of religion??? or freedom FROM religion??? And what planet is Nathan living on today???
And yet another straw man argument…
JR that might work, IF the Constitution actually mentioned the source of our “rights.” But since the Constitution never even one time mentions GOD, that is a far reach… even for the right wingnuts… Therefore, our rights come from the Constitution itself, our rights as Human Beings… And so, religion is a moot point when it comes to determining the source of our rights as Citizens…
However — It is the right of any Church/Synangogue/Mosque/meeting hall…. to claim that their rights come from God… They just cannot impose those beliefs on anybody else, because of the First Amendment…
There IS no straw man argument, when it comes to the Bill of Rights… Either it covers all of us, or it doesnt… Apparently, Nathan is of the belief that the Bill of Rights doesnt cover ALL citizens… I have no idea WHY Nathan would want to make such a claim, but, yet, there it is in print!!
Rights are not created by the Constitution.
Rights are recognized and protected by the Constitution.
So you say, Econ… So you say… However, What does the Constitution say about the source of our Rights??? as citizens???
Can you find anything in the Constitution that says our Rights are given by GOD???
I”m so glad that Brownlee posted this. When I say anti-woman in regards to taking away reproductive freedom, that’s exactly what I mean. It IS anti-woman, as it will not stop abortions but rather end up taking the lives of desperate women. Even highly Catholic societies have found this is the reality and have turned their backs on anti-abortion legislations. It led to the deaths of their women.
It is especially needed in cultures where women are shunned for having out of wedlock births. Where women are devalued, and rape is common.
I bet if there was a way to find out of Muslim women have abortions in high numbers….we’d see a correlation between girls who were raped, and had abortions-likely extremely dangerous ones. These girls are lighting themselves on fire for less. Their alternative: death by stoning.
Not to dignify the proven liar econ Paul
But there is that ol’ creator of rights arguement.
The end of which is theocracy.
Now, we may well SAY that about our rights, etc., in our CHURCHES… And that is our Constitutional Right to do so…
But we simply cannot force that upon those outside of our Churches… It’s very simple, really….
Has anyone heard the term:
Inalienable rights
I sugest you look it up before trying to have a discussion on rights…
Especially when discussing the Bill of Rights.
I see that someone still doesn’t understand what a straw man argument is and continues to make them…
JR — Thats fine, except for the simple fact, that the Constitution does not define a “Creator of Rights” — So, I dont see where the argument is valid, Constitutionally speaking…
Good post Econ101.
“Inalienable rights” — Yep, I am sure we have heard of that phrase, Nathan… Right out of the “Declaration of Independence”
But, guess what??? That document is not a part of the Law of the Land…
White E- the left won’t stand for it either. There are reasons women seek later term abortions, and I’m not willing to put them at risk either.
Chas is pretending he is a constitutional attorney tonight. I wondering if Law Schools across the land are snickering.
Inalienable rights
You just shot yourself in the foot mentioning that Nathan.
Inalienable?
No need for a God for that.
Society can agree on what they think inalienable.
How so WhiteElephant?
Very true JR… You are right on that one…
political mama
Nope, you are wrong in Moslem countries.In a Moslem country, the family of the victim will, often KILL the victim, to protect the “honor” of the family.
Beyond that, as I posted, previously, ALL OF EUROPE has STRICTER abortion laws than the United States.
US abortion laws are the most extreme in the world.
Outlander, it is wrong for you to get your religious convictions passed into law. Would it be ok for Muslims to get stoning women laws passed? No- because it interferes with the rights of others.
YOUR beliefs end where it imposes on my life. I’m not telling you to have an abortion. You can’t tell me I can’t.
Paul, That’s pretty much what I said. Stoning them to death.
Chas
The Declaration HAS been cited by the Supreme Court, in the past.
It is part of our legal history.
It is part of our culture.
It is part of our law.
Rights come from God. Just governments recognize those rights.
its says creator, not God, in the declaration, the creator could be anything you want it to be, including your parents
mama
What I meant was that they dont get abortions in Moslem countries. They just kill both mother and child.
An awful lot of the abortionists in Europe are Moslem, however, though they are pretty much restricted to doing 1st trimester abortions, by law, and not doing abortions on Moslems, by culture.
“It is part of our law.”
Econ — There is no way, not anywhere, will you find the Declaration to be a part of the LAW of our Land… Being cited by the Supreme Court does not make it so… If it did, then Plato, and others long dead would also be part of our Law… But go ahead and argue that point…
Your argument still will not make it true…
creator could be anything you want it to be, including your parents
Posted by: WhiteElephant | October 13, 2007 at 11:17 PM=======================
You got that one right on the head, White Eleph. WTG!!
What about Mary?
She doesn’t agree with abortion and it doesn’t have anything to do with religion.
It is a red herring.
It is just an attempt to make the arguments of those who oppose abortion illegitimate.
Something you do instead of actually debating the topic with reason and logic. You resort to those types of fallacies.
I wonder where “Seperation of Church and State” came from since some here seem to think that other documents are not cited in constitutional law…
Obviously someone needs to do some more research on this topic.
Chas
LOL, you are wrong.
If the Court turns to any document for guidance, that is obviously part of our law.
Nathan
Is the phrase, “Seperation of Church and State” in our Constitution?
If not, that it is NOT law.
(The phrase WAS in the SOVIET Constitution, I believe.)
Nathan, nobody on this Blog that I can see is saying that you have no right to believe that abortion is WRONG… YOU have that right…. However, those who believe that women have the right to choose… Those folks have the SCOTUS on their side…
NOBODY is forcing women to get abortions…
However, there are many who would like to force women NOT to get abortions… Those folks are — legally speaking — wrong…
Do not hide behind Mary Nathan.
She is not here.
I would call her truly pro life.
SHE is in favor of national health care and she works every day with the unfortunate.
This is NOT the case with much of the “pro life” community.
Econ101,
Look at who we are talking to?
Obviously some people simply have no clue.
Nathan, you were complaining about straw men… That doctrine of Separation of Church and State, is NOT in the Constitution, in those exact words…
However, the First Amendment is pretty darned clear that the intention of Separation is what is meant there.. The Courts have ALWAYS said that… Check it out!!
JR,
I wasn’t “hiding” behind Mary. It was an example of how religion doesn’t have to have anything to do with what someone thinks about abortion.
Either the example is valid or it is not.
Saying I am hiding behind her is simply you resorting to ad hominem instead of actually addressing the topic.
I have read somewhere around 500 First Amendment decisions relating to Church and State… I have yet to see ANY Court in this land that has said there is no such thing as Separation of Church and State intended by the First Amendment…
Any of you have any Court decisions that say different??
Monkey, no it wouldn’t solve everything. I’ll give you an example.
I had a baby brother born with a horrible genetic mutation- his little short life was tragic and horrible. As the sister, I was highly concerned about the daughter I was carrying. If she had the same problem, I would have had an abortion. There was no way I’d let my child suffer like that. I firmly believe some things are worse than death.I’d have been fine with her going to be with God. That’s MY religious belief, and I’m entitled to it.
Thankfully through genetic testing, I found that my brother’s disorder was merely a mess up in the womb…a mutation that it wasn’t supposed to be hereditary. That was 17 years ago when I was told that. Through the ages though, I”ve found out that isn’t necessarily true. Although my baby brother in 1982 was only the 9th child ever diagnosed with the disorder, since then, we’ve seen two or more children in the same family born with the same condition.
Perhaps I was lucky…but now I worry about if my daughter ever gets pregnant.
I would tend to agree with Nathan on that point, JR… well, except for the ad hominem part…
Religion does not have to be taken into consideration for someone to be opposed to abortion…
Unfortunately (or fortunately) most all of the rantings against abortion have some kind of religious leaning to them…
When the Supreme court was making those decisions regarding the 1st Amendment what do you think they were citing?
Hmmmmm…..
Think long and hard about it before you answer.
Econ101,
Do you ever get the feeling that some people failed all their government classes?
But, “Econ101″ –
*Every* SCOTUS decision, even the ones I don’t agree with, has been written by the supposed most gifted legal minds in the land with some substantiation of what they think the authors of the Consitution *intended.*
You can whine all you want about the Mirranda Decision… that there’s nothing written in the Constitution that *requires* Jack Webb to recite, “You have the right to remain silent….” But the SCOTUS made it clear and no one has come up with an argument that’s overturned it.
Was that what Ben Franklin and John Adams were considering when they wrote the Constitution? I doubt it. But that’s how life and law enforcement and reality turned out to be. And let’s thank whatever Powers that Be that Adams and Franklin and Hamilton and Madison constructed the Constitution so as to assure that just because the government thinks it can hold you without trial, without jury, without counsel… it’s not allowed to. (Except, of course, until George WMD Bush took office with “The Big” Dick Cheney).
So your premise, all the way from Plessy v. Furgeson to Brown v. Topeka Board, is basically bulls#it.
Even with a pliable, political SOCTUS, you cannot escape what the Constitution says just because it’s “what you believe.”
What you believe (and what I probably disagree with) regarding the 2nd Amendment has not been brought before the SOCTUS for only one reason: the people who believe one thing are sorely afraid even the most conservative SOCTUS in the last 100 years might not agree with the NRA’s fundraising mantra.
What you believe (and I probably disagree with) has not led to an overturn of Roe v. Wade because the essence of Roe is a highly *conservative* concept of privacy from government interference with an indivdual’s life choices.
What you believe (and I probably disagree with) is that any court decision you don’t agree with is somehow “amending” the Constitution.
I have enough patriotism and belief in the Constitution to accept, even if I disagree with, the decisions of the SCOTUS. Even when I think they’re not deciding on the basis of law or the Constitution, but on political prejudice, I am enough of an American to accept what they decide and, if so compelled, to bring a case before the SCOTUS that results in a better-determined decision (as with Brown v. Topeka Board).
Even those court decisions I don’t agree with (and there have been plenty) I, as a patriotic American, accept because that’s how the Constitution is written and applies to reality (even political reality).
For example, Bush v. Gore in December 2000 was a decision that ran counter to everything the 5-4 majority of the SCOTUS *said* ie believed regarding federalism and states’ rights. If that 5-4 majority had decided based on their previously-expressed views of the Constitution, the Florida Supreme Court would have been able to determine the winner of that, admittedly, too-close election.
But the 5-member majority of the SCOTUS defied their stated belief in federalism… even to the extent they stated that their December 2000 decision should not be considered a precedent… to subvert the powers explicit to the State of Florida. And I lived with it. It was a wrong SCOTUS decision, but I’m enough of a patriot to accept it.
The alternative would have been something like riots in the streets. In retrospect, that might have been preferable. But the Bush Dynasty played the SCOTUS and the Constitution exquisitely. And those of us patriotic Americans accepted the SCOTUS decision, rather that foment a justified revolution.
Abbey Hoffman used to *hate* liberals because we were so damned accepting of other points of view. Abbey was a radical.
And I’ve lived to see true radicals dominate the Republic Party. They’ve moved political discourse so far to the right even we moderates are branded as “leftists,” “socialists,” “pinko-commie-Stalinists,” just for thinking that, perhaps, poor children in America might deserve access to basic healthcare.
I’m the worst kind of Abbey Hoffman liberal because I’ve spent most of my life trying to understant and process what “conservatives” say they believe in. But every time I acknowledge what “conservatives” *say* they believe in, they move the goal posts.
Does a woman have the (highly conservative) right to control what happens in her body?
Is the right of a living, walking, independent, talking, thinking, individual have a modicum more constitutional rights that a blob of cells in her uterus?
Do you or I or anyone (even a “democratic” show of hands) have the right to impose our personal morality onto other people?
Show me, “Econ101,” where that’s written in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Econ, I bet money that abortion exists in Muslim countries. You’ll probably never ever hear of anyone admit to it though. Just like it was around in the roman times….women have ways.
As far as the phrase “separation of church and state” that came from Jefferson in a letter explaining the position of the government.
They are citing the First Amendment, primarily; and secondarily, they are citing Jefferson’s Letter
oh no! another scroll over post by monkeyhawk!
Does he actually think anyone reads those?
Other logical problems:
Where does the Constitution spell out political parties?
Where does our Constitution say that the Supreme Court is the SUPREME judge of Constitutionality?
No matter what your answer to the above questions, you can not claim that our system can not include that which is NOT in the Constitution, and accept our present system regarding Supreme Court power grabs, and concerning political parties.
I think mid- to late term abortion is not pretty. But I think women should have the right to choose. It’s always been a touchy subject made even more touchy by the religious right. I just don’t understand why, its situations like these where it makes it apparent how the religious right feel about non-beleiver so they call. They look at non-beleivers as almost sub-human or something, I guess we should just surrender our rights to Christians then, huh.
And another straw man argument.
Nathan?
Econ Paul has led you down the garden path before.
Why don’t you ask him about the email he says he has from someone else about me?
I was at the “Summer of Mercy”
Unless and until you “pro life” folks value all life, it is all just self satisfying religious bluster.
Nathan with all of your straw men, you better be careful playing with matches…
I wonder why some states have “fetal death certificates” if it was not considered a viable living being.
They don’t make death certificates for amputated body parts or diseased organs.
I have morals, but I’m not Christian, why do Christians repeatedly mention their religion or God when anything moral comes up, makes me think if they didn’t have Christianity they wouldn’t have any morals. Try an argument without mentioning the G’ word.
Uh, Econ…that’s how the govt works. Congress and the pres make the laws, and the supreme court determine whether or not they’re constitutional. That’s why they’re the smartest judges that the US has to offer. They all have power- which is why it works so well. Just like you can have 90% of the vote to pass a law, but the minute it infringes upon the rights of the constitution, the SCOTUS has the duty to strike it down. It’s worked for centuries, I’m not about to question it now. It’s probably why our governement is so great that others have sought to emmulate it.
JR,
What on earth are you talking about?
The term Pro-Life is used to describe our stance on abortion.
It is no more an all encompasing term than people who call themselves pro-choice actually having to believe in choice no matter what.
They are terms used to describe a political stance on the issue of abortion.
You should probably try to figure out these basic things.
mamaWell aware that Jefferson coined the phrase.Jefferson, however, did not attend the Constitutional Convention.He was in France, as Ambassador.
Econ — What the SCOTUS might use as “aides” in reaching a decision, just because they are cited by the Court, does not make those citations a part of our LAW… It does make those citations a part of the decision process of the Court… The Court takes all of its deliberations into consideration when reaching a decision… They are very Learned Men/Women…. They READ what other sources even from other lands, and other periods of history have had to say…. They include those citations as a part of their decision…
AGAIN — Those citations do NOT become part of the Law of our Land… That Law, is still the Constitution of the United States….
If you cannot understand that, I would recommend a refresher course in United States Government… I understand WSU has several very good offerings in that area…
I wonder why Abortion Rights advocates aren’t called “Pro Death?”
Oh I did figure them out Nathan.
That is why I quit the movement.
“Pro life” is only so until birth. Then they don’t give a damn.
I cite pResident george veto of the SCHIPS bill.
Do you think people are actually pro-death, Nathan.
If a 14 year old girl is raped by a child molesting crack head, you would want to make her, have his baby. Why?
I cite pResident george veto of the SCHIPS bill.
Posted by: J R | October 13, 2007 at 11:47 PM
A Republican led Congress created SCHIPs in the 1990s.
He was in France, as Ambassador.
Posted by: Econ101 | October 13, 2007 at 11:45 PM
========================
Once again Econ, you are partially right… Jefferson may have been in France at the time of the Constitutional Convention… HOWEVER… At the time of the debates over the “Bill of Rights” He was very much at home, and very much a part of the debates…. Check your history on that one again!!
The Bill of Rights was added subsequent to the Constitutional Convention…
mama
Try this, from someone who was a DELAGATE to the Constitutional Convention, and holds far more weight, therefore, than Jefferson:
“”We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams, to the Officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798.”
If a 14 year old girl is raped by a child molesting crack head, you would want to make her, have his baby. Why?
Posted by: WhiteElephant | October 13, 2007 at 11:47 PM
You need to stop using extreme cases.
Let’s bring up all those millions of cases where abortion is used just for “birth control” only.
Yeah, “Kansas” –
I was mistaken to think my “scroll-over” post might be read by you, whose attention deficit disorder interferes with your irrational posts.
Y’know, sometimes important issues need to be explained and explored.
You apparently lack the ability to hold a thought beyond a couple of sentences.
Or, perhaps, you depend on that to keep getting your government check.
JR,
Who is this “they” that doesn’t give a dam after birth?
I wouldn’t want to be a part of their group either.
ChasDid you just call Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, et all, “learned” — thanks for being so openminded and tolerant.
So, Kansas, you are a proponent of irresponsible parents giving their child up for adoption they didn’t want, only for them to jump from foster home to foster home their whole lives, and end up an unstable adult, likley to lead a life of crime, so then you can pay more taxes to house them in prison.
You apparently lack the ability to hold a thought beyond a couple of sentences.
Or, perhaps, you depend on that to keep getting your government check.
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | October 13, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Naw, just say what you need to say and leave out the fluff. Ninety percent of what you write is whitewash on mud.
So, Kansas, you are a proponent of irresponsible parents giving their child up for adoption they didn’t want, only for them to jump from foster home to foster home their whole lives, and end up an unstable adult, likley to lead a life of crime, so then you can pay more taxes to house them in prison.
Posted by: WhiteElephant | October 13, 2007 at 11:53 PM
Wow, life of crime…
Talk about extreme slippery slope thinking…
I take it then Nathan that you favor national health care and repeal of welfare “reform”?
Hey if so, cool.
I demand of the pro life crowd that they concern themselves beyond fetuses.
J R is part of the “Pro Death” crowd.
Yup, the CONs are desperately concerned about the health care of babies from age zero right up until birth . . .
Somebody is lying again.NO way, now how, that person was EVER a prolifer.
He pulled this before, when you said that you “used to be Republican” but you could not name a Republican you voted for, and you stood up, strongly, for FDR and every other Democrat President in history.
Nope, we dont believe you. I dont even have to mention his name.
He is the “Seminar Blogger” — Claim that you “used to be” “Republican” or
“Pro Life” or whatever, and you left because ______ Fill in the blank.
BS
CapnAs stated upthread, correcly, the S-chip program was started by Republicans.We just think that those making $50K ought to buy their own health insurance for their kids.
JR,
You choose to limit what “caring” for people beyond death means.
Don’t try to Pigeonhole me to your limited view of the world.
There are other ways of caring for what happens to someone after birth than supporting liberal social welfare policies.
By the way, someone needs to point this out:
A large number of the Freshman Democrats in Congress are Prolife.
This is part of the reason Pelosi and Reid are having such a hard time.
They have a bunch of “blue dog” Democrats to work with.
People who, basically, think like me.
Oh come now Paul econ
You were not afraid to post ourtright lies on me before.
You afraid of my nic now?
I cannot prove it. I DID vote Reagan in 1984. I WAS at the “summer of mercy”
People like you, Paul are the reason I bailed.
Econ — ALL of the Justices of the Supreme Court are very learned men/women…. If they werent, they wouldnt BE Justices of the Supreme Court… I dont have to agree with their every decision, to know full well that they are learned people….
As to the John Adams quote, I believe Snopes.com has explained many of those supposedly accurate statements quite a accurately before…
If memory serves me correctly, Adams was not so much in favor of the Separation argument as was Jefferson, and in final look, the rest of the colonies at that time…
Give some money to the Knights of Columbus outside the grocery store, by the way.
It all goes to a very good cause.
Rainbows United does not give money to fetuses.
They have a bunch of “blue dog” Democrats to work with.
People who, basically, think like me.
Posted by: Econ101 | October 14, 2007 at 12:02 AM
The Democratic Party is being adulterated with former Republican “types.”
They will be assimilated and the Old Dems will have to create a new party of insignificance. A party like the “Green” party. Squeaking wheels in search of grease.
Most of the individual states HAD official, STATE religions at the time of ratification.
Nobody even commented, at the time, that this was a problem.
Econ, you really think a family of 6 people can get along very good on $50K per year??? Have you seen prices lately??? And mortgage payments, and vehicle prices and maintenance??? Add to that a family of 6??? Yea, sure, $50K is a whole lot of income to work with….
Econ, you really think a family of 6 people can get along very good on $50K per year??? Have you seen prices lately??? And mortgage payments, and vehicle prices and maintenance??? Add to that a family of 6??? Yea, sure, $50K is a whole lot of income to work with….
Posted by: Chas. | October 14, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Tell us wise one, how many families in the U.S. have six kids and make 50,000 dollars/year which is by the way, above the national median for wage earnings.
Straw man anyone?
Enlighten me Nathan
How is no health care and no welfare pro life?
The strong survive? The rich survive?
Get them fetuses strong and rich?
My friend, you are arguing from hypocrisy.
“Former prolifers” and “Former Republicans” like to sign their emails this way:
“From the tips of your fingers…..to the depths of a distant soul…..words touch hearts
type carefullyJ
Most of the individual states HAD official, STATE religions at the time of ratification.
Nobody even commented, at the time, that this was a problem.
Posted by: Econ101 | October 14, 2007 at 12:06 AM
==========================
Since the Bill of Rights came AFTER ratification, I would suspect that would be one of the reasons for the First Amendment… to make sure that the new government could NOT force people to believe in certain ways…. By the time of the Bill of Rights, religious dominance was most certainly a problem…
But, if all of those colonies had their OWN religious preference, they WHY do you think they didnt want to have GOD, or Christ, or Christian, or even BIBLE included in the Constitution???
These were very smart people who put together this very important document in world history… They had the insight to know that if they allowed religion to have control of laws (like it had in England) that they would only be repeating the history they had given up all to leave!!
Warning!! DNFTUT!!
Hey Paulecon?
GO find that email you SAY you have from a girlfriend I don’t have.
And yeah that was my tag line. You could have gotten it anywhare.
It is not at odds with what I believe. How’s about you?
JR,
You are trying to have an argument about something which has nothing to do with someone valuing the life of another.
Just because YOU think those things are the ONLY way to care for life after birth doesn’t mean that we all do.
It is simple, answer this:
Is supporting national health care and welfare the ONLY way to show that you care for people after birth?
It is the least hypocritical way Nathan.
This is why I found myself at odds with the “pro life” movement.
There are other ways of course. But they are tests of faith. “If you believe this, I will help you with that.”
Well, morning comes early tomorrow… since it is Sunday again…
Good Night; Good Luck; God Bless, whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings all!!
JR,
How is it the least hypocritical way?
Because you say so?
Nathan?
One is either pro life and in every way…
or not at all.
That’s the black and white thinking of my original conservativism Nathan. I can’t parse or package my compassion.
I’ll see your answer in the morning.
JR,
Once again, the term Pro-Life is used to describe someones stance on abortion.
It IS NOT an all encompasing term.
This is nothing more than the typical red herring argument from the pro-choice side. Instead of debating the issue of abortion you try to pervert the term Pro-Life and attack the Pro-Life person with ad hominem attacks on why they are not even Pro-Life…
What does any of it have to do with abortion?
Nothing.
Dang it Nathan I was trying to go to bed.
You say,
Once again, the term Pro-Life is used to describe someones stance on abortion.
It IS NOT an all encompasing term.
Your words.
It isn’t? How do you parse that? One is either pro life or not. Otherwise you prove the charge that most “pro life” folks are only pro life…pre partum.
Perhaps you need to share the limits and definitions of how you are “pro life” and your attendant qualifiers.
Good night.
—–
JR,
I couldn’t say it any clearer:
The term “Pro-Life” is used to describe those who do not agree with abortion.
It is not complicated.
Let me try to use an example:
Those who support abortion call them selves “Pro-Choice.”
You support abortion.
Do you also lump yourself in with those who call themselves “Pro-Choice?”
Now, do you support a teacher having the choice to carry a gun to school if they want?
Do you support people having the choice on what school their kids will go to with school vouchers?
The point:
Is that calling yourself “Pro-Choice” has nothing to do with you supporting choice in EVERYTHING.
It is a TERM used to describe your stance on abortion. Nothing else.
And as you yourself have shown here Nathan, “pro life” is subjevtive to you.
You are pro life for the fetus.
Where are you an the poor sick child?
Where are you on the homeless?
Where are you on those who do not believe as you?
JR,
None of those things has anything to do with abortion.
You try to attack me instead of discussing abortion.
It is a very weak tactic in debate.
Calling myself Pro-Life in regards to abortion is no more subjective than calling yourself Pro-Choice in regards to abortion.
I notice you didn’t respond to my questions or example…
I’ve not attacked you once Nathan.
You are feeling defensive.
Because your position is indefensable.
You are either pro life or you are not or you are pro life provisionally.
Please to share with me? Who should live and be healthy and who should suffer and die.
‘Cause deal is? I’m on the losing side of that equation. So is my son thanks to YOUR president.
You;ve kept me long enough.
I need to sleep.
Damn, “Nathan” –
Just when I think you couldn’t sound any more foolish, you astound me.
So the term “Pro-*LIFE*” only applies to the unborn?
All other bets are off?
That puts you even further off the chart from Sam “The Sham” Brownback’s claim to be “pro-life and whole life.”
One can only imagine what reality must be for “Nathan.”
He seems to be so out of sync with the real world, nothing short of his religionist fantasy of Heaven on earth will ever be good enough. Oh, poor “Nathan,” poor poor “Nathan,” your delusions are overwhelming.
If only God had your insight! What a wonderful universe it would be!
JR,
Don’t bring your son into the discussion unless you are prepared to face him being used in the discussion by all sides.
JR,
Don’t play coy with me.
You and I both know what your intent is with those questions. You are trying to make this about me and what your redefinition of Pro Life is.
Either way, you are not discussing abortion and are changing the subject.
Since Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, loved the Nazi teachings and practices back in the 1930s and early 1940s, it’s no wonder that these things are still happening. So many people don’t check things out. These are the books and materials that Sanger wrote:
The Pivot of CivilizationWoman and the New RaceThe Birth Control Review
Another lie by the right on Planned Parenthood. Look it up. I’ve already argued this with Catherine, she knows she’s lying.
We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams, to the Officers of the First Brigade, Third Division, Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798.”
Posted by: Econ101 | October 13, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Meaning, that only good people could make this work. Think deregulation and why that can’t work. Even if they are religious you can’t expect them to just do the right thing. But he already knew that…didn’t he? Considering the whole reason why America became independent of England in the first place. John Adams regularly spoke out against religion in government as well….more often than he spoke in support of it.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm
Geez Nathan,
I wasn’t being coy. I went to sleep and you got MORE defensive.
I’m sorry if it hurts you to face your own hypocrisy. It’s really very simple. You are either pro life or you are not.
I was once “pro life”. I could not sqaure that with most “pro lifers” attitudes as to the poor and disadvantaged. Thus my switch.
Were you ever pro choice?
Nathan, I guess I’ll call myself pro-life then…as I support the life and rights of the mother. That’s the entire premise of this thread, that being anti-abortion leads to more deaths than not….twice as many actually. Death of mother, and death of baby.
See, I can play this game too.
I could go farther and say that I’m pro- quality of life….as I want women to choose when to have their babies at a time when they can provide good life.
So when did you become a supporter of the culture of death and despair?
Pro-choice is choice….I don’t tell women they have to get abortions. I say that option needs to be available to them legally. NOBODY is pro-abortion.
Speaking of pro-life. Can someone tell me why it is that of all my ‘pro-life’ family members, I’m the only one stepping up to take care of my elderly grandparents?
If it weren’t for me, they’d 1. Starve or eat spoiled food, 2. Get bad doses of medication if they got them at all, 3. Be bedridden some of the time laying in wet clothes and feces.
I want to know. I’ve spent 50 hours with them this week on top of my jobs, on top of my kids. If I’m the one who values life so little, where the F*** is everyone else?
Good point, “political_mom” –
One which has been made before but needs to be reiterated more.
The epethet “pro-abortion” is a rhetorical device the anti-rights faction uses to demonize those of us who advocate the rights of a woman to choose what happens inside her body.
In fact, no one is “pro-abortion” anymore than someone is “pro-amputation.” But sometimes amputation is the only choice.
The bottom line in every abortion rights debate is that women are second-class citizens and cannot be allowed to determine what happens in their bodies. Anti-choice legislation constitutes the most sexist, authoritarian, and oppressive state policy imaginable.
That’s hardly “conservative.”
JR,
Ive asked you once to explain why I am a hypocrite.
I’ll ask you again.
How am I a hypocrite?
Nathan,
You are a hypocrite because you are not truly pro life.
If you were, you would be in favor of government support for women with child. You would also be in favor of national health care.
You Nathan, by your posts here, are pro fetus.
It is a matter of perspective and semantics to be sure. I cannot square forcing a woman to carry a baby to term in a society that does not support her and her decision and her and her child. You concern yourself only with the pre partum fetus.
THAT is hypocrisy.
JR,
Since you seem to have a completely different definition of what Pro-life is that is your problem not mine.
Fine, I am not Pro-Life. I am against abortion.
Whatever you want to call it, my stance is that abortion is wrong.
All you crap about trying to say I am a hypocrite is just that. The typical JR more interested in labeling me and making this about me rather than actually debating the issue.
Here I thought you finally got it in the concealed carry for teachers thread.
Guess not.
I am not Pro-Life and you are not Pro-choice.
Since we are taking the words literally instead of as terms used to describe our stance on abortion…
In this thread and the conceal carry thread you go defensive Nathan.
Why?
I have my definition of pro life and you have yours. You seem to need to justify yourself to me.
Why?
Benjamin Franklin: “The sting in any rebuke is the truth”
I don’t like abortion Nathan. No one does. But I learned to look to cause and not effect. This was also your loss on the conceal carry teachers thread.
Open your mind.
JR,
I am merely pointing out that you seem to have a fixation on making things about the poster rather than discussing the topic.
When you attempt to set up your straw man argument by making statements about me which I have not said then that puts me on the defensive.
Then you sit here asking why I am on the defensive.
Are you really that incapable of seeing what you are doing?
Straw man?
You just made the topic us and not the topic.
I know you are instinctively defensive Nathan. Try to get past that.
YOU want abortion limited or gone. Maybe by legal fiat. You do not say.
I would like abortion unneccessary by a truly pro life society.
Here as on every thread Nathan, I am trying to understand and work with you.
Let the record show, Nathan went back to a gun thread.
And I followed him there.
And here we still are.
Nathan do you not understand that to be truly pro life you have to be pro life beyond the womb?
JR,
Who said anything about being truly Pro-Life?
This topic is about abortion.
I do believe in the sanctitiy of life though.
You have a very narrow view of what being Pro-Life is beyond the scope of abortion. I don’t agree with it.
Pointing out the fallacy of your statements is not making the topic about us or you.
It is pointing out the fallacy of your statements.
And folks like you Nathan are why I am no longer “Prolife”
One either supports life or not.
You support life provisionally.
“beyond the scope of abortion”
your words.
Your focus and the extent of your comittment to pro life,
JR,
Once again with your crap.
YOU think that supporting life after abortion means having to support welfare and national health care.
I don’t.
So enough with your saying I support life provisionally.
You base that on YOUR qualifications on what supporting life is. Which in my opinion is total BS.
You make my point Nathan.
You are not pro life.
You are “pro life” based on your own judgements and conditions.
As with your father, your arguement fails when you bring “crap” to it.
JR,
When you set the unrealistic standard of what being pro-life means and then try to apply it to others of course they are not pro life.
I say I am Pro-Life.
I am not Pro-Life by your judgements and conditions.
Key here Nathan is you say you are pro life
Those are your words.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
Saying is being. Is that your position?
Pretty weak. Not worthy of you.
That is not my position.
Is it yours?
I say I am pro life and I live accordingly.
You say you are pro life.
PROVE IT.
Stand for repeal of welfare “reform” Stand for national health care.
JR,Nathan is pro-life because without life, how can there be the misery God requires from us? To that end, he joined USMC and bought lots of guns, and opposes anything that alleviates suffering.
When are men going to get it? Until the baby is born, men are simply semen donors. Then and only then should a man have rights over a baby. Men shouldn`t have the right to vote on the issue clear up to and including the Supreme Court.