Thirty-five years after Roe v. Wade, it’s rare to find a Republican willing to point out the apparent contradiction in Republicans opposing abortion rights yet favoring small government and privacy rights. “They turn away from those principles. I wonder if they can see the inconsistency in their position?†Senate Vice President John Vratil (in photo), R-Leawood, said this week. He also called abortion an “issue that government has no reason to get involved in.â€
Meanwhile, Eagle columnist Brent Castillo argues on today’s Opinion pages that science has made the case for the pro-life movement.
206 Comments
Actually I’ve seen very little evidence that Conservatives Republicans actually beilive in the small government rhetoric they use to get elected. I could literally fill these pages with big government conservative proposals
If not for Roe V. Wade and Doe V. Bolton, we would probably NOT be discussing abortion nearly as much as we do, today.
The reason the issue will not go away is that the Supreme Court of the United States violated the Constitution, overturning State laws that had been in effect, and working for years, and did so withoug regard to true science.
The public would support a complete ban on abortion, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.
The public would support expanding the parental rights of parents, over pregnant teenagers.
The public would support a complete ban on late term abortions, except to save the life of the mother.
The Roe and Doe are tyranical decisions by SCOTUS. Many liberal legal scholars, who support “abortion rights” agree that these decisions were not sound, legally.
There is no, true, “trimester” demarkation in a pregnancy. Even if their was, “Doe V. Bolton” pretty much says that the “health” exception to late term abortions can cover just about anything.
This issue will, eventually, be returned to the political arena. It is the Courts who should stay out of it. A simple Act of Congress, passed by majority vote, and signed by the President, would be enough to tell the Supreme Court that they no longer had any jurisdiction over abortion.
If Vratil is too much of a wimp to handle the Democratic process, we can find a replacement for him.
Senator Frist used his expansive knowledge about medical science to determine that Terri Schaivo was going to walk out of her bed any moment and become a legendary tap dancer. Like Brent’s embryo, she had no brain but a beating heart therefore she must have been completely alive.
Science can be misused by those who don’t understand it and want to use it for political purposes. Brent did that in today’s column. It makes me wonder how such a knuckle dragger can get a job with the Eagle.
Hey Senator
What is “smaller government” — 50 individual states or the Federal Government, through unelected judges?
“The public would support a complete ban on abortion, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother”
No they wouldn’t – polls have shown that the public supports a woman’s right to choose. It is only in the last trimester that the view changes.
Even in South Carolina, that bastion of liberalism, only 28 percent support a ban on abortion in all cases.
You view is distorted and wrong, again, Rossell.
Paul, the majority of the public is pro-choice:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Funny thing how Republicans instantly becomes fans of Roe v. Wade when they don’t want their private records to be seen by anyone else. Rush Limbaugh became a huge advocate of Roe v. Wade and the ACLU when they argued the state couldn’t have access to his medical records. But you are an advocate of Big Brother government so you think the 4th Amendment should be overturned.
Doug, I congratulate you. You were able to apparently read the whole thing; I didn’t make it past the first sentence.
Econ, I understand you violently disagree with SCOTUS on its abortion decisions. Good luck in your never ending quest to change the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS, which, in my opinion and only my opinion, won’t happen as you desire.
In his remarks, Sen. Vratil reminds me of remarks on this topic I’ve read attributed to the late Senator Barry Goldwater, remarks with which I totally agree.
Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the Courts:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/11815.html
See Article III, Section II, United States Constitution.
“Article III, Section 2 clearly states: “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress small make.”
Didn’t south Dakota enact a total ban on abortions with a life of the mother expection only to have it rejected by the voters
VT
Not violently
I know it was a figure of speech, on your part, but —
Paul, since the majority of the people are pro-choice:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
How do you figure that the public (that would be 100%) would be supportive of your views?
I know and understand that, Econ. It’s my opinion that what you seek “ain’t gonna happen”.
Logically you would think that conservatives would be in favor of abortions after all its much more cost effective than paying out government funded healthcare, welfare, education and so on.
Yeah, Econ, I could have used a better figure of speech. To anyone who might have been misled: I know Econ will not resort to violence to evidence his disapproval of the SCOTUS abortion jurisprudence.
Speaking of Brent Castillo, how come he never gets to make a WE Blog topic?
I mean, after all, the Interns do.
Is Brent one of the caste system “untouchables” at the Wichita Eagle?
OK, this is an NRLC website, but you can go directly to the polls, cited, if you wish:
“First, when the 1,015 respondents were queried in early January whether abortion policies should stay the same or change, only 39% opted for the status quo. Nineteen percent wanted policies less strict but 39% wanted abortion policies more strict!
Second, beyond that, nearly three-fourths of the public rejects the reasons for all or most abortions. The impact of the congressional debate over partial-birth abortion in moving the public in a more pro-life direction would be difficult to exaggerate.”
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL02/polls.html
I thought Brent quit the paper but still has his weekly column
More opinion polls:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL06/pres.html
Econ, do you have anything more recent than 2002? Polls, that is.
So Paul, you have concluded that 39% represents the entire public. Even when you see reality for yourself you still manage to miss it somehow.
VT
The only reason that Congress might not restrict the Courts, in this area, is because the Pro Life radicals do not like this option.
The radicals, on BOTH sides, want one NATIONAL law to settle the matter.
Telling the Court to stay out of it would simply let the States figure it out for themselves.
There IS no “inconsistency in [their] position.” Said inconsistency is there only if one focuses on one, and only one facet of conservative thought.
Roe is, as a matter of constitutional law, a mess, and difficult to defend legally. Further, it grew from Griswald, a decision which made the right ruling for the wrong reasons; those wrong reasons (and the fantasy of “penumbras” to the constitution) grew into the stepchild which was Roe. The proper ruling in Roe would have been that the matter was a subject on which the constitution is silent, and thus was a political matter for the states to decide for themselves.
That said, I likewise doubt it will be undone, and at this point, I can accept that. That said, in addition, I will also NOT get involved in a long thread on abortion; such discussions are rarely illuminating and counterproductive. I’ve said my peace, and on this subject it will be all.
I’m much more interested in how some defend Roe, based as it is on imaginary “penumbras,” as protecting an individual right and then argue with a straight face that the 2nd amendment, which uses the clear words “the right of the people” does not.
You’re right about the radicals on both sides wanting a national law on abortion, Econ. That is one of the factors underlying my opinion that the jurisdiction of SCOTUS on this issue will not be restricted by the Congress.
Let the States decide on abortion. If your state doesn’t approve, go to another one. If you have to pay more for it, so be it. Otherwise, you can get it done for free…
VT
Hard to find good polls on the issue, or recent polls.
However, the partisans on BOTH sides always insist that the numbers don’t change much, over time.
Informed Consent is very popular.
Parental Consent is popular
Parental Notification is very popular.
No taxpayer funding is very popular.
Partial Birth Abortion bans are very popular.
More thant that, if you poll ONLY the people who claim that abortion is their “most important” issue, you come up with a prolife advantage of 4% to 8% in nearly every area of the country.
I do not put much stock in polls.
However, the “Pro Choice” side knows, full well, that more restrictions are comming.
If they thought the public was “with” them, why on Earth do they need the Supreme Court?
GMC,
I’ll not try to defend the “penumbra” underlying the explication of a “Constitutional right of privacy” in Griswold, found controlling in Roe. Your position on the Roe decision is one of consistency to other Constitutional principles you have espoused. I am not comfortable with the supposed Constitutional basis of either decision, but from a bit different perspective than you. Either there exists a “right to privacy” or there doesn’t. The drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not specifically single such out for protection from the federal government. Given that such right was not so protected, then perhaps the best approach under our federal system of government would be, as you suggest, to leave it to the states as a political question. I believe that there should be a uniform federal position on the matter, but I cannot justify my belief on any Constitutional basis other than one about which we both would laugh.
Now, I could go off on some pretended Commerce Clause analysis on why the federal government may be permitted to be involved in this question, but in the interests of my sanity (and hopefully yours) I won’t.
Hmm, I must have deleted my brilliant exposition of the difference in my perspective from that of GMC70. Now, if I can just remember it….
It is not Hypocrisy at all.
The “size” of the government has little to do with whether or not you feel the governments job at a minimum is to outline laws which safegaurd the lives of individuals from destruction for the mere conveinence of another.
Once again, you will NEVER be able to understand why someone is Pro-Life if you can’t grasp this concept:
Pro-Life people believe that the unborn child is a human life worth protecting.
You don’t have to agree with it to merely acknowledge what it is those you disagree with actually believe.
So when you look at the issue of abortion with the premise that the unborn child is a human life worth protecting then it is not a matter of big government or large government.
All these arguments against abortion have absolutely nothing to do with the actual premise that those who are Pro-Life believe.
Oh, yeah, it was that prescribing contraceptives (Griswold) and a woman obtaining an abortion (Roe) are things in which Government has no business being involved at any level with reference to proscribing.
For the life of me, I cannot understand what the government is doing messing in a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor.
What life were the “pro-lifers” protecting when they wanted contraceptives made illegal? For that matter, what life were they protecting when they banned distribution of sex ed materials?
Values boy says life before rights.
Over my dead body will you have a say over my rights.
You still breathing mama? Cause your rights have been TRASHED over the past 20 years.
Mega-dittos, Taz!
Political_Mama, fortunately, your rights stop at my life.
Science has shown that unborn babies are as much human as any of us blogging right now. Of course if I bring that up, you are suddenly not in favor of science anymore are you. They are of course defenseless, infantile, undeveloped and of can not vote. Which is why we should reqlinquish our power from terminally ending their life based upon our selfish wishes. It is in our own selfish interest to have power of life and death over another human being.
During the days of slavery and even reconstruction in the south, there was no penalty for killing a slave. Should we have left it up to the southern slave owners to decide whether or not black people are people? How then should we expect ourselves to respect the life of the unborn that threatens our hallowed convenience?
Roe v Wade (like slavery) is a human rights disaster. Which is why it is not an issue to be decided by the states.
hypocritical is when you want abortion to be considered murder, but don’t support the same harsh penalties for women who have them, and don’t support police investigations into miscarriages. If a 5 year old child were suddenly dead in the parents’ home, there would be a police investigation, so why not use some of those enhanced interrogation techniques on any woman who loses a pregnancy. Also, pregnancies should be registered with the government as soon as they are detected so the fetus can be given a SSN and full rights under the law, no more waiting for the second trimester to tell people.
I’d like to see a pro-lifer defend that logical conclusion of their position.
Conservatives will only defend freedom as long as people use it in a manner of which they approve, which does not include the right to have an abortion or marry a same sex partner. Conservatives believe that freedom is the right to do as you are told. Their small government rallying cry only applies to unbridled captitalism, they love big government oppression when it comes to fundamental personal liberty.
rfl, funny how you bring up slavery when the descendants of slave owners are again arguing in favor of states’ rights.
Abortion is a mere “medical procedure”????
That’s a euphemism if I’ve ever read one. I can think of a few “medical procecures” performed by at Auschwitz during WWII. Too bad those “medical procedures” got the perpetrators hanged!
On the other hand, I don’t often agree with Brent Castillo, but I thought today’s column was far and away his best ever.
If you don’t want to read the whole thing, this paragraph is the basis of his argument:
“Knowledge about newly formed life has come a long way since Jan. 22, 1973, when Roe v. Wade became our legal standard. Science has shown that the DNA of nascent life is unique. We know that the heart forms at about three weeks. At nine to 11 weeks, the fetus can squint, swallow and move his tongue. Some scientists believe a fetus as young as eight weeks can feel pain.”
I don’t agree with the tacit approval Brent seems to give abortion protestors who use graphic images in their protest activities. It is difficult for me to see how such could influence opinions on this subject.
Ron Paul endorsed by Jane Roe, yes, THAT Roe
TJ,
You can not legally prosecute people for a crime that was not a crime when they committed it. Do remember anybody being charged with Slavery solely for owning slaves before the 13th amendment was ratified?
Didn’t happen.
I shouldn’t have to state the obvious but then if that is what you need to catch up to the rest of civilization, I try to oblige.
How many men involve themselves in their wife’s, girlfriend’s, sisters, or mother’s medical care decisions? There are all kinds of medical choices that women decide for themselves every day without a brouhaha from others, such as contraceptives, natural family planning, pap smears, breast exams and on. If one is truly pro-life focused wouldn’t being involved in (or demanding) procedures that detect cancer fall into the pro-life category? Where is that bandwagon?
Let’s let women make their own health care decisions with their physician, sans men’s input. No disrespect to any men, I just don’t see you asking women to get involved in your medical decisions..
TJ,
EVERYONE of us are either descendants of slaves or of slave owners.
I DON”T OWE ANYONE ANYTHING for a past that I had no part in creating.
Don’t try and pull that crap, get over it.
And here we are, several posts later, and people still look confused about why people who are Pro-Life get involved in a “medical prcedure”
READ CAREFULLY:
Pro-Life people believe that the unborn child is a human life worth protecting.
That is it. Plain and simple. Most all of our thoughts and actions on abortion are formed from that premise.
Once again, you don’t have to agree with it to at least understand it.
” “They turn away from those principles. I wonder if they can see the inconsistency in their position?” ”
Referring to the republicans, of course. For example: Pro-life until after birth, then you’re on your own. As in not overturning Bush’s veto of the child health insurance act.
Small government? How about the department of homeland security? Just a blip on the beltway, huh.
“Pro-Life people believe that the unborn child is a human life worth protecting.”
But don’t vote FOR SCHIP because that is socialism.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……………………
But don’t vote for SCHIP because it is a STATE’S responsibility.
On abortion: Science has made it for the unborn to survive earlier and earlier in the pregency. The so-called government opinion that the “fetus” isn’t human until birth line is getting finer and finer all the time. So if a “fetus” is birthed at 6 months, and survives to adulthood, I guess it really ain’t human?
Roe V Wade was a bad decision by SCOTUS, and should be overturned, with the whole thing turned over to the states. That’s what the Constitution is all about.
Most chicks I know that have had them have had numerous abortions. If folks would grow up and quit getting knocked up whilst drunken in the backseat of daddy’s car we wouldn’t have to have to much of this argument. I couldn’t care less if you want to do it, hell have a dozen of em. that’s what you have to live with, not me.
And if it’s about women’s lib, y’know, I’m an asshole enough to say that the truth is that “women’s lib” was engineered to get our kids away from the family and to be raised by the state. And it added the bonus of getting to tax both parents for their labor.
Taz
As to this post:
“Taz
Posted January 24, 2008 at 2:21 pm | Permalink
For the life of me, I cannot understand what the government is doing messing in a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor.”
—–
How about the doctor in Haysville, who is up on charges for the drugs that he gave his patients?
Hey, that was “between patients and a doctor” was it not.
WS Clark and Sol,
What does SCHIP have to do with the unborn child being a human life worth protecting or not?
Using your backwards application of logic:
You support SCHIP for those that are not killed, but you don’t support not killing those SCHIP could help if they hadn’t been?
I’ll make you a deal:
We will support SCHIP if you support ending most abortions except in the most extreme cases involving the life of the mother, rape, or incest.
Nice misogynist view there Pleefer.
BIG effin’ eyeroll.
Nathan,
With all due respect to your opinion, my vote is you don’t get to decide anything for me.
Wichi,
Does that also apply for when you kill a 5 year old too?
It’s not misogyny, it’s fact, Wichi, deal with it. Why can’t folks see that it is the mother’s job to nurture the child? Is it that friggin’ complicated? I’m a firm believer that women are more intelligent than men yet are the weaker in strength. Women and men are not equal, that is something you’ll have to come to terms with. I’m the farthest thing from a “misogynist”, I am a speaker of self evidence though. I just can’t hang with the idea that SOME women want to be lazy and selfish and rely on trivial friggin science in order to cover up their stupidity. Try a rubber.
Brent Castillo apparently does not read his own paper.
Just a few days ago, the Eagle ran a story that showed the primary force in a woman exercising her right to choose is economics.
The majority of women seeking abortion have already been through the process of gestation, birth AND parenthood. They choose not to have another child in order to care for the ones they already have.
Given the attitude of many so called “pro life” people as to social spending? Who can blame them?
Oh yeah, men’s lib here…I’m rolling my eyes too.
The laws, concerning abortion, will be much more strict, in 10 or 20 years, then where they are now.
I mostly get frustrated with the prolife radicals who won’t allow us to return this issue to the states, in a more direct manor, through simple legislaton. Orin Hatch (another Mormon) first thought of this idea, and the prolife radicals ate him alive.
Radical prolifers thought it was GREAT when Phil Kline went after abortionist George Tiller.
The irony is that the radical prolifers attacked Democrat Governor Joan Finney, and a number of prolife legislators, when Finney signed the bills into law that Kline used, agaisnt Tiller!
We would have fewer abortions, in this country, if the prolife radicals would learn from other political movements.
Learn from history, my friends.
Lincoln did NOT free all the slaves.
Lincoln’s “emancipation proclamation” only freed the slaves in the rebel states, in order to help the North win the Civil War.
There were still slaves in 2 “loyal” states until the 13th Amendment was ratified.
“Small government with a big asterisk”
I’ve always thought hemmorrhoids should be named asterisks.
Anyway, Rhonda’s got it backwards. “Roe” made abortion a national issue. Conservatives would like to see it returned to the states for regulation.
JR,
So, if we provided state care for the child after birth would you then be against abortion except in the most extreme cases involving the life of the mother, rape, or incest?
“The laws, concerning abortion, will be much more strict, in 10 or 20 years, then where they are now.”
This is called wishful thinking.
It is not for me to make such a deeply personal decision for another human being Nathan.
I offer only some remedy. Remedy beats rhetoric any day.
JR,
So, basically, it is little more than a red herring to keep bringing up all this stuff about state funded care for a child when trying to attack someone who is Pro-Life.
That is what I thought.
Hey Wichi,
Ever hear the term Social Engineering?
Truth can sometimes be very painful.
Nathan, we are not discussing 5 year olds. I happen to believe that although an embryo may be a human life form, it has yet to be developed into a fully functional human being. A zygote, embryo or undeveloped fetus is not sustainable outside the womb, period. I feel that a woman has the right to make a decision based on those facts.
Naturally, once a baby IS born it is a live human being.
You ain’ta gonna get me on some politically correct nonsense.
As soon as a heart beats, it’s working.
Not at all Nathan.
Women choose abortions for lots of reasons. Economics is a big one but not the only one.
What about a woman in her 40’s who accidentally gets pregnant and the baby has Down’s syndrome?
Also? If you outlaw abortion except for cases of rape, I promise you the number of “rapes”: will skyrocket. I’ve never been one for prosecuting the innocent.
But if we removed the economic reasons behind a woman making this choice. Maybe we would do much to limit the need.
JR,
Should we also allow murderers to go free and only offer economic reasons for people to not kill each other?
“What does SCHIP have to do with the unborn child being a human life worth protecting or not?”
The anti-choice conservatives are only concerned about a child until it makes it’s way down the birth canal and the doctor declares the time of birth – after that, the “I have mine” mentality takes over and any assistance given to that child is considered socialism.
Those are the facts.
To my way of thinking, this is all about sex – if you have sex and end up pregnant, then – in the minds of conservatives – you are to be punished by having to have a child, whether you had intended that or not.
If the anti-choice folks really, truly wanted to reduce or eliminate abortions, they would be SCREAMING for comprehensive sex education and the open availability of birth control.
The fact that they do not only tells me that they have no REAL consideration for the unborn, only condemnation of the mother.
Just read Pleefers post up thread and you will get the true ideology of the anti-choice movement.
At least one con had the guts to post his true agenda.
Even if it was stupid.
econ101,
By allowing states to decide for themselves the legality of abortion, you are allowing for a split in the 50 state union on the scale of the civil war era.
The idea that some states could allow slavery and others not, flopped in the 1860 Republican primary and it will flop today. This is an human rights issue not to be won over by trying the please all sides. Either an unborn human is a human or it is meaningless tissue. Which is it?
Lincoln argued forcibly against Douglas over how illogical popular soverignty is regarding the human rights issue of slavery. Lincoln was right.
I see your point that he held is cards close by not alienating those border states so that they stayed loyal to the North. But his intent was never to allow for a long term state by state slavery policy.
I am offering a solution Nathan.
It isn’t perfect.
And you are offering what? You never say.
You may not like it. Certainly I don’t like it. But abortion is part of nature. In the wild, a stressed (by hunger, danger, etc.) pregnant female often spontaneously aborts.
In human beings, thinking and analysis enters the picture. The majority of women who choose to end a pregnancy do so for economic reasons. They spare what resources they have for their children already born. You can make all the laws that you like. But all you will do is make a bad thing worse.
“you are to be punished by having to have a child, whether you had intended that or not.”
Having a child is punishment? How do your kids feel about that?
————-
“If the anti-choice folks really, truly wanted to reduce or eliminate abortions, they would be SCREAMING for comprehensive sex education and the open availability of birth control.”
Says who? The strategy of changing hearts and minds seems to be having an effect, since the number of abortions is down significantly. Most people believe in further restrictions for abortions too. It should never be done for convenience or for economic considerations.
———–
“they have no REAL consideration for the unborn, only condemnation of the mother”.
So opposition to abortion is condemnation of the mother????
——————
“Even if it was stupid.”
That wasn’t the smartest post that you’ve ever written either WS.
The reason abortions are down is contraceptive use is up, more than likely. There is no hearts and minds b.s.
rfl
You are looking at this the wrong way.
“States Rights” actually prevented slavery, in the Northern States, for nearly 100 years, until the whole country was ready to follow.
I’d say WS was spot on outlander.
And I’d say he hit a sore spot on you.
Here is what gives you away.
“Most people believe in further restrictions for abortions too. It should never be done for convenience or for economic considerations.”
Unless you are more clear? I take this to mean YOU mean: “I don’t care if you do not have the resources to care for another baby! You WILL have it and you WILL raise it. Or you WILL be punished.”
WS,
You’re a dolt. I’m not “anti-choice”, I care less what people do. If it doesn’t affect me, do what you want. I personally don’t like abortion. Don’t even try to act like you know me. You know nothing about me. I’m not a Republican nor a Democrat, to me all of you are fighting over scraps. I represent NO ONE but myself, do not try and pigeon-hole me. I find all politicians equally sickening on both sides. I speak from my heart, a heart which has no hatred for anyone in it. All you people want to do is fight and keep propelling divisiveness. This is exactly what I was talking about with the social engineering and you, WS are not awake enough to understand it. We are all supposed to be fighting over race, sex, creed, religion while the pieces of dog squat in power take what they want.
All over the news today, not one channel agreed on what kind of stimulus package we were going to get. We are the most dumbed down population in the world (third world countries have it made, at least they don’t have any real education) and we are being taken advantage of while we argue bs. You all want discord here, fine, then have it. Fools.
No JR. Here is what I mean:
Life trumps economics.
“Having a child is punishment? How do your kids feel about that?”
If a woman accidentally gets pregnant, she should be forced to have a child by denying her access to abortion?
None of my children were unwanted, Outlander, the question is moot.
“The strategy of changing hearts and minds seems to be having an effect, since the number of abortions is down significantly”
Most likely abortions are down due to some comprehensive sex ed and the availability of RU486 and the fear of STD’s, hence more condom use.
“So opposition to abortion is condemnation of the mother????”
So why are (most of)those that oppose abortion also those that are opposed to the expansion of SCHIP?
Because they want the absolute best for the mother? Not likely.
“It should never be done for convenience or for economic considerations.”
That is not what the majority of Americans think.
As for stupidity – read Pleefer’s post once again.
I’m providing my thoughts from my own beliefs, understanding, and views. Nobody contributes to these thoughts but myself.
Life begins at some point, and that point is conception. Wichi, you are correct in that at the moment of conception the life is still forming and by itself it could not live outside the womb. However, that same statement says this is a life, but not worth protecting, for a variety of reasons when defending the right to have an abortion.
This is where those of us who are pro-life disagree with abortion, in so far, that the unborn have the right to live no matter where in development that person is.
WSClark, I respect your opinion on the most vocal of many prolife groups, seemingly in that they are all words and no action. Not all of us believe that just being political is enough, but some people are better at that than others and both political activists and action are necessary in order to reduce the need for abortion. I volunteer my time tutoring single parents in college(this includes those mothers who are pregnant). It isn’t very much and I realize that. However, if the parent graduates, the goal then is that this person has a chance at a job and a chance at raising their child(ren) without the need for further assistance. At least, that is what I would hope would be best.
JR, I’ll address the issue of the 40 year old who gets pregnant and the child has downsyndrome. I have a relative in that exact position, who at 44 became pregnant and their son has down syndrome. He is simply the most adorable child their is and requires every bit of their attention. Why should down syndrome be a reason for abortion? I ask this because I view life beginning at conception so I can easily equate this line of thought to Nazi Germany in killing of Jews and others who “weren’t perfect.” I know not all share my view of where life begins, I’ll accept that as reason enough for the moment anyway. ;)
With that said, I’ll defend abortion for those when medically necessary. Much of this stems from murdering someone in self defense. If the unborn is threatening the life of the mother, then I believe she should have that medical necessity clause present to save her own life.
WS
You are absolutely wrong on public opinion.
Please show me a poll that says that abortion should be used for birth control.
The majority is clearly against abortion except for cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother.
Stupid WS?
You’d need a friggin Rosetta Stone to try and decipher what the hell you are talking about.
“Life trumps economics.”
You only have to convince all the mothers who are acting in the interest of their already born children outlander. That or legislate YOUR judgement on them. Me I’d like to offer them a carrot and not a stick. You will only hide the problem in criminal secrecy.
“You know nothing about me”
And I thank God that I don’t.
Yeah, the feeling is mutual.
“Please show me a poll that says that abortion should be used for birth control.”
Huh? Since no one has said that, why would you pull that nugget out of your hindmost orifice, Paul?
For obvious reason I do not know the exact figures (no one could possibly know) but I would guess that 99.5% of the time that when folks have sex, it is not because they want to procreate.
They want the pleasure and the love of the sex.
Birth control is not 100% – accidental pregnancies occur all the time – I would guess that at least 50% were not intended.
It is noteworthy to mention that the anti-choice folks were also the ones against RU486 and are also against comprehensive sex education.
Jeez, are you folks also against masturbation and cold showers?
“Yeah, the feeling is mutual.”
Thanks, Pleefer, now I don’t have to worry about you dropping in for coffee in the morning.
Wow Rhonda, how intellectually shallow.
Small govt conservatives, like me, believe that what the govt does should partly be about protecting those who can’t proect themselves, like unborn fetuses.
Given your logic above, then you must think the small govt. conservative no longer want courts or the police either.
Brilliant analysis!
With the logic of “people just want to f%$k and damn the consequences”:
I love driving fast and drinking much whisky at the same time, I should be able to get left of center, ram head-on with a family of four, kill them and be legally protected.
And yes, WS, jerk off all you want.
Abortion should be safe and legal. Abortion on demand – without apology.
My own opinion (thanks for asking) is abortion is wrong on too many levels. I am a firm believer the fetus is a child. It then is not the child’s fault it was conceived, whether by rape, incest or drunken night out. Killing the child solves nothing and, again, in my opinion, cheapens mans’ inner spirit.
That said, I can’t condemn those who do get an abortion for the simple reason I don’t read minds, nor is it my duty to judge; that belongs to a much higher Spirit than myself. Bit, also, if a law, such as that proclaimed by SCOTUS, were to come up for state vote, I would have to vote no. If the law were to pass. I would also have to accept it, while at the same time condemning it. A few out there might be able to understand that.
JM Walker, a person of reason.
Don’t be offended that I agreed with you, please.
JM,
I can accept that reasoning. Don’t judge the mother for having an abortion, because nobody really knows what was in her head. Doesn’t mean though that trying to do ones best to reduce the need for abortion is a bad idea.
“And yes, WS, jerk off all you want.”
Actually, Pleefer, I don’t need to since I have a girlfriend to help me with that, but thanks for your concern.
“With the logic of “people just want to f%$k and damn the consequences””
And consider that MOST folks faq for reasons other than procreation, it is obviously stupid to suggest that folks “damn the consequences.”
Or are you just jealous that you ain’t getting any?
As usual, your post is stupid, but thanks for trying.
Yeah, jealous. Quite adroit of you bro.
Danny, of course not. If none were ever needed, in my opinion, man would finally reach the age of reason.
JM,just being an eavesdropper on your converse, you are sounding like you might be enlightened.
I’ll go back to my own business now.
“JM,just being an eavesdropper on your converse, you are sounding like you might be enlightened.”
Nahhh . . . just too damn old:-)
Regardless, when you start throwing the line, “Age of Reason” out there, my ears perk up.
Who said we need small government? We need big government to take care of us.
And abortions, they should be free.
If you have sex with some jerk you shouldn’t be forced to have his baby.
Happened to me 3 times. 3 jerks and 3 abortions.
Jeez, when will guys ever learn?
The scum bags should be happy their is free abortion clinics for girls to go to when they make stupid mistakes like I have.
Who said we need small government? We need big government to take care of us.
And abortions, they should be free.
If you have sex with some jerk you shouldn’t be forced to have his baby.
Happened to me 3 times. 3 jerks and 3 abortions.
Jeez, when will guys ever learn?
The scum bags should be happy their is free abortion clinics for girls to go to when they make stupid mistakes like I have.
Hope I never need another one.
Well, hello, Mr. McCluer, I see you have a new nic – Monica – is this an expression of jealous or are you just thinking of days gone by?
James is a hater in particular in this area.
Me and Walker, we had it out on this one time.
Of those who are against abortion, I call only he and Mary pro life. But that is just me.
Nobody here will believe it. But I USED to be “pro life”. Went to the protests and everything.
I don’t think we can legislate a pro life position as to a woman’s right to choose until ours is a pro life culture at large. Consider the cruel treatment in our country of the aged. We shove them into warehouses to wait for them to die. Look at attitudes to the homeless and poor.
See on the thread next door how some would deny even basic health care to our nations’ kids.
It aint the most appealing society to look around and think of bringing a baby into. Until it is, I don’t think we have any business intruding into a womans decision based on what she sees when she looks around.
You’re sure a paranoid putz, aren’t you William?
I’m not monica or any other poster. Get over yourself and take your hand out of your pants.
Whomever Monika L is, was or will be . . . he/she/it . . . I am prone to believe, is/was/were an abortion:-)
What do pro-aborts feel when they come to know that they are going to becoming parents?
What do the pro-aborts feel when they come to know that they are becoming parents?
Monica is James McCluer……………….the TROLL-BOY!
john_s is James McCluer……………….the TROLL-BOY!
Well…
Thank you WS Clark and JR for telling me what I actually believe when I have never said anything close to that.
WS Clark,
You select one of the most obviously crazy posts by someone who is not a representative of all people Pro-Life and then you arbitralily declare that opinion and more to be the “actual” opinion of people who are Pro-Life.
I am trying to think of a nice and politically correct way of saying that you are full of shit, however, nothing is coming to mind.
You have at least two people here, myself and outlander, who have routinely argued about abortion here on this blog and NOTHING we have ever said or posted comes close to the crap you claim that us Pro-Life people really believe.
There are only a few extreme cases of people in the Pro-Life movement that actually believe that crap.
Not hardly Apophis. What I post as with this nic, this is what you get.
I do hope that your paranoid delusions get better though.
I offered an imperfect solution Nathan.
Now I know that as a Republican you see everything as black and white, yes or no, legal or illegal.
You’ve criticized my imperfect solution.
Where was yours?
“I am trying to think of a nice and politically correct way of saying that you are full of shit, however, nothing is coming to mind.”
Well, Price, as usual you are the one that is full of shit. Of course, you prove that every single day.
So, Price, just what DID I say that offended your delicate sensibilities?
Did I say that you were going to shit yourself?
(Naw – that is one of the lines from your side.)
Did I say that I was going to make you wet your pants?
(Naw – that is your line.)
Just what was it that I said that hurt your delicate feelings?
JR,
I support educational programs which help women understand their pregnancy and the decision they are making when it comes to an abortion.
I support providing women who are considering an abortion material which will show them the groups and various organizations which will help them with their pregnancy.
I support getting women who are considering an abortion all the information they need to help them consider adoption instead of abortion.
There are various other things I support as well.
I completely agree with finding ways to help reduce abortion.
However, those things do not change the fact that I believe abortion is killing a human life that is worth protecting.
As I have always said and most of the time am ignored, The ULTIMATE difference is this:
Either the unborn child is a human life worth protecting or it is not.
If you don’t believe the unborn child is a human life worth protecting then why do you care? Kill it.
If you do believe that the unborn child is a human life worth protecting, then allowing the child to be destroyed for economic reasons or for whatever inconveinence it might be on the mother is wrong.
“There are various other things I support as well.”
The one thing you do NOT support is comprehensive sex education and availability of birth control.
Until you do that, you are just an anti-sex hypocrite.
WS Clark,
You didn’t hurt my feelings at all.
It was your complete and gross mischaracterization of what someone who is Pro-Life thinks which I was pointing out to be wrong.
“It was your complete and gross mischaracterization of what someone who is Pro-Life thinks which I was pointing out to be wrong.”
Jeez, Price, when I read that post from Pleefer, I thought it was YOU that wrote it.
My bad.
Sorry.
WS Clark,
Patronizing someone is obviously not your strong suit.
Don’t worry about it Nathan, da Dems on this blog haven’t come to reality that they are in a Red state with conservative values.
“Patronizing someone is obviously not your strong suit.”
So, Price, are you going to condemn what Pleefer said or are you going to stand by it like the good little anti-choice fellow that you are?
Either you agree or disagree – which is it?
There is no middle ground.
WS Clark,
Pleefer has written so much in the way of generalities on a variety of subjects here.
I generally don’t agree with what Pleefer says.
Please highlight the specific comments you are asking about.
Come on Price, maybe you can get some talking points from one of the irregular Republicans on the blog, but you gotta have an answer!
Given that 60% of women that have abortions have already had at least one child, you must have an opinion that doesn’t condemn those that choose to engage in sex, right?
Or do you really believe that sex is for procreation only?
Or do you believe that only women that have sex in backseats have abortions?
Having had sex with a few (several) women in backseats, I can tell you that we USED appropriate protection from pregnancy and they would not have opted for abortion.
Actually, I have never had a woman that I impregnated opt for abortion.
Can you say the same, Price?
Nathan
I was truly surprised to learn the other day that women who have already HAD babies are choosing to terminate their pregnancies. And this is not the isolated case or few. It’s the majority of women choosing abortion.
I’m hardly a “baby killer”. No you didn’t call me that. But the extreme on your side of things would. I screamed the taunt myself once. I’ve been a single parent since my son was 1. I have experience what it is to be a parent. I’ve seen what pregnancy does to a woman’s body. I was in the room when my son was born.
I’ve also seen what happens when a woman who HAS given birth to a child she THOUGHT she wanted changes her mind.
I’ve had employers tell me the job has to be first and my kid second.
That’s for starters.
I don’t pretend to understand what is in a womans heart or situation when she chooses not to carry a baby to term. I don’t think it is my place to interfere without such understanding. I don’t understand people who do or would want to.
“Pleefer has written so much in the way of generalities on a variety of subjects here.”
Read it yourself, Price. He made a comment about people faq’ing without regard for the consequences.
Hint – it is up thread.
Do you agree or disagree?
Easy, right?
Here is MY solution to the problem…We have the technology available now to implant embryos into women, so let’s go for the middle ground. If a woman wants to have an abortion, she reports to a facility where the “unwanted” embryo is removed, then implanted into the womb of a “pro-life” supporter (or in the case of a male supporter, into the womb of his wife, girlfriend, sister, daughter, etc., although to be truly fair, we need to develop the technology to implant the embryo into a male’s body). At that point, the embryo becomes the responsibility of the “pro-life” supporters, and they can provide for everything from there on and give the resulting child all of the love they claim to have for all of the unborn children.
It is amazing that Swallow always shows up at the wrong time – imagine, if swallow was around at the RIGHT time, there never would have been a stained blue dress.
That was Clinton’s mistake – he didn’t hire an intern that swallowed.
WS Clark,
In some ways yes. I don’t think being pregnant is a punishment. I don’t think having sex is only for procreation.
Do I think that getting pregnant is a consequence of having sex? Well duh! How else do you get pregnant unless it is artificially done?
Do I think that if you are going to have sex you should be aware of what could happen, i.e. getting pregnant, when you do? Yes.
If you support sex education, isn’t part of that education learning that having sex can lead to getting pregnant? Of course.
If you are having sex without any protection then yes, you are indeed taking a risk that pregnancy will happen and you should be man or woman enough to take responsibility for that.
If you are having sex at all, you should be prepared that birth control can fail and that pregnancy can happen.
This is all common sense stuff, no?
WS, I’m around more than you know…I just usually don’t say much.
So, Price, when birth control fails, a woman MUST have the child, right?
And…………..
“If you are having sex at all”
Adults have sex, Price, that is a normal part of a healthy adult relationship. Birth control does fail, but that does not mean that the obvious solution is that a woman MUST carry the child to term.
What is the difference between an EARLY term abortion, the RU486 pill and the birth control pill?
Answer please?
Price, what is the difference between a EARLY term abortion, the RU486 pill and birth control?
Huh?
“WS, I’m around more than you know…I just usually don’t say much.”
And, who cares?
“So, Price, are you going to condemn what Pleefer said or are you going to stand by it like the good little anti-choice fellow that you are?”
And your answer IS?
What’s that Price?
No answer?
WS Clark,
Before I continue playing 20 questions with you, do you admit now that not all Pro-Life people believe what you said they did earlier?
William is on a kick (along with JR and Capn) calling posters by their last name. It is usually interpreted as a sign they want to be superior and/or show no respect by calling the user by the name they have posted with or requested to be called by.
Condemn my comments?
Who cares? I don’t need a buttress, thanks. These are my “obviously crazy” notions and I stand by them, tooth and nail. I don’t need science or religiosity to help me to understand that a beating heart is a beating heart (within or without the womb). You zealots (on both sides) make it very tricky to be YOUR BRAND of “normal”.
I’ll always call a spade a spade, if that’s offensive to either of you, sorry. Some folks don’t like anothers’ opinion’s and I can live with that, can you? Don’t try and put me in between your little squabble for I represent myself, no one else.
If someone wants to have an abortion, let them have one safely, that is the woman’s choice. It’s not in any way mine or anyone else’s place to have a say. The effects are hers and hers alone to deal with, if she’s a God-fearing person, she will meet him and answer for it. If she is not, then it would seem victimless.
“Before I continue playing 20 questions with you, do you admit now that not all Pro-Life people believe what you said they did earlier?”
Huh? What the Hell are you referring to, Price?
Why argue WS Nathan?
You’ve a position of your own to defend.
A woman who has already HAD children is choosing an abortion. As it now seems is the majority in abortions.
What do you tell her? She’s lived experiences you can never know.
How will you convince her to “choose life” when everything around her is telling her otherwise?
You are, as usual, wrong James. About me anyway.
I have called no one here by their last name. Not even you.
And please do not post as to respecting nics.
You have called them irrelevant and worked very hard to make that so.
Price, even if you yank the pilot out of the cockpit before the plane lands, or even if the pilot is wearing a raincoat, some times the plane crashes anyway.
Are you suggesting that there is no time that it is appropriate for air traffic control to abort the landing?
Huh?
I’m outta here – can’t get any straight answers – so this is getting really boring.
I don’t need anyone agreeing or disagreeing with me, no buttress or pat on the back. These are my cold, hard “obviously crazy” notions. I call a spade a spade. I do not represent any “group”, no science or religiosity needed here to understand a beating heart is a beating heart.
If a woman wants an abortion, do it safely. I have no right (nor does anyone) to have a say in the matter. the decision is left in her hands and the effects are there as well. I know some women are left sad afterwards, to others, it must be like getting her nails done. If the chick is religious, she’ll meet her maker and “answer for it”, if she’s not. then there seems to be no “victim”.
I just don’t like them, deal with it.
I find it highly amusing that the majority of comments on this thread are being made by men. And when those few (real) women speak up, the men either ignore them or basically call them stupid.
Thanks, guys. Now you know why we don’t really want your opinion on what we can or cannot do with our bodies.
Pregnancy=something you’ll NEVER have to deal with. Be happy about that.
A new poll finds that a majority of Americans oppose including coverage of abortion in any universal socialized health care plan put forward by presidential candidates.
61% of Republicans are pro-life, and 63% want all or most abortions outlawed. 43% of Democrats oppose abortion, but all elected Democrats will get arm-twisted into voting pro-abortion in any important vote, just as we have seen some recently-elected Democrats who campaigned on
pro-life issues betray their constituents, and turn and vote pro-abortion.
The Democrats’ Big Tent has a Big Stick inside it.
RD,
I have never simply ignored someone who posts with me in a discussion on abortion, except for those obvious trolls.
I have yet to simply call someone stupid here either.
I find it funny that you come here and make such sweeping generalities without actually adding much to the conversation yourself.
RD,
Would you say that only women should have an opinion on abortion?
I saw a poll a while back that revealed some 38% of people say they would never vote for a candidate that was pro-choice; and 38% say they would never vote for a candidate was anti-abortion. We’ve heard all the boilerplate arguments on Reproductive Rights from both sides. And it’s boring.
After all the pastic fetuses thrown at women, after all the self-righteous shouts of “Baby Killer” in Planned Parenthood parking lots, after all the televangelists milking money from the faithful for an issue that’s a certifiable loser, after 10,000 years of women seeking something, anything to rid themselves of an unwanted pregnancy… perhaps it’s time to agree to disagree and get politics out of the equation.
No woman seeks an abortion without considering her options. The abolitionists simply want to remove an option; safe, legal abortion. They’ve ended up tacitly promoting unsafe, illegal abortions.
Look, we’ve seen all the gory pictures, the amazing in-uterine photos of star babies developing from globs of cells into salamander look-alikes into human shaped things. We’ve seen the full-term Gerber Baby depicted on the floor of the Senate just before its brain gets sucked out in a so-called “partial birth abortion.”
We’ve let play the abolitionists’ fantasy that a woman might carry a perfectly healthy pregnancy for eight months and twenty-nine days then blithely decide on a whim to abort it.
After all those Gerber baby depictions, plastic fetuses, “Baby-Killer”-shouters, et al… if such a woman exists who would choose to termindate a viable pregnancy at the latest point, maybe she’s not mothering material, ya think?
As for the so-called “Human Life Amendment,” part of The Huckster’s agenda for amending us into a King James Version of the Consititution of the United States, people have been arguing about when “life” begins almost as long as they’ve been arguing how many angels can dance on a pinhead. And with about the same result.
As I write, my niece is recovering from a tubal pregnancy. She was using birth control but one of those sneaky sperm cells caught up with an ovum in her falopian tube — the beginning of “life” for some people. And instead of trying to attach itself to her uterus, the tiny little “life” stayed there and grew… and almost killed my niece.
For me, the whole “life begins at conception” argument tells me those advocates wanted my niece to die. You can’t talk your way out of this one, “pro-lifers.” That’s what your rhetoric means, whether you realize it or not.
And, frankly, I don’t think you do realize it.
It’s like the old ham-and-eggs breakfast anaolgy: to the chicken, it’s a contribution; to the pig, its a committment. In the Reproductive Rights argument, we males are mere contributors; females are the… (okay, I’m not gonna go there).
The real-world issues — and I won’t address rape and incest and a bunch of other issues in this post — make Reproductive Rights rightfully a female issue, which is why it’s all about “a woman’s right to choose. It’s as silly as expecting “Nathan” or “outlander” or “Econ101″ or “Regular (or whomever he is today)” dictating to women which tampon is most comfortable to use. (use any orifice you have handy to product-test, guys)
“Life” in a Constitutional America begins at birth. It’s arbitrary, I grant you that. But you get to drive 16 years after you leave the womb. You get to vote 18 years after you leave the womb. You get to drink 21 years after you leave the womb. To the day.
Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Convince everyone you know to not have one. That’s fine with me. You have the right to persuade anyone and everyone to believe as you do. But don’t go putting your personal and religious beliefs into civil law simply because you might be able to muster up a majority at the polls.
MonkeyHawk,
Almost all Pro-Life people I know believe that when the mothers life is at risk then it is not the governments job to determine who’s life is worth saving.
So, when you interject your little anecdotal story about your neice and then arbitraily say that we wanted her to die, you are full of crap.
When we believe that the unborn child is a human life worthy of protecting, it is not silly for outlander, myself, or anyone else to want to protect that life from being killed simply for the mere conveinence of the mother.
I think outlander is a married parent Nathan.
You are not.
Now outlander quit the field when I called him on his stand. I won’t bash it in his absence. Neither do you get to glom onto it.
“When we believe that the unborn child is a human life worthy of protecting”
We know now that women choosing GET you and yours Nathan. What is suspect is where you are for these women AFTER they give birth.
I cite another thread this blog TODAY as evidence that this nation is not pro life. Can a mother stop her caring when the baby is born?
How can you do so and demand she go on alone?
Nathan, I’d like to see your thoughts on my solution…since you’re on of the most vocal pro-life people on here.
for that matter, if the technology was developed for a male to carry a pregnancy to full-term, would you put your belly where your mouth is?
“Nathan” offers –
“Almost all Pro-Life people I know believe that when the mothers (sic) life is at risk then it is not the governments (sic) job to determine who’s (sic) life is worth saving.”
So it comes down to a pregnant woman’s right to choose?
Welcome to the club, “Nathan.”
Now get your so-called “Pro-Life,” “Life begins at conception,” “You got raped by your father, have the kid” maniacs to back off.
And then you add, “So, when you interject your little anecdotal story about your neice (sic) and then arbitraily (sic) say that we wanted her to die, you are full of crap.”
Uhm, no, “Nathan.” I’m merely responding to your abortion-aboilitionists’ rhetoric. Not that I believe you guys really believe what you say; but it’s a powerful political tool for the twice-born who thrive on people not really thinking things through to their logical conclusions.
“When we believe that the unborn child is a human life worthy of protecting, it is not silly for outlander, myself, or anyone else to want to protect that life from being killed simply for the mere conveinence of the mother.”
I spoke to several issues in the post you responded to, “Nathan,” and it speaks volumes that you’ve chosen to ignore those issue and tried to re-direct it toward “the mere conveinence (sic) of the mother.”
What do you know, “Nathan,” about motherhood? Tell me you personal experience with morning sickness, labor pains, how it felt when your water broke, what it was like to breastfeed. You don’t know squat. Neither do I.
That’s why I advocate a *woman’s* right to choose. No male should have a say, Nathan.
Tell me, “Nathan,” which tampon is most comfortable. You obviously set yourself up to be the God-chosen arbitor of women’s issues; you know all thanks to whatever got you in the mindset you’re at. Share with the class all those issues of womanhood you’re somehow endowed with. Or just shut up.
If my sperm has anything to do with it and I am aware of the pregnancy, you had better believe I’ll have an opinion about it. If I didn’t contribute, well then, what can I say?
The government does have a role in saving lives, Sen. Vratil, your indifference to this slaughter notwithstanding. It is not inconsistent for conservatives to see a role for the government in protecting the weak from those who would kill them.
Castillo: “Knowledge about newly formed life has come a long way since Jan. 22, 1973, when Roe v. Wade became our legal standard. Science has shown that the DNA of nascent life is unique. We know that the heart forms at about three weeks. At nine to 11 weeks, the fetus can squint, swallow and move his tongue. Some scientists believe a fetus as young as eight weeks can feel pain.”
First of all, the uniqueness of DNA from conception has been known since 1973. Most of what Castillo talks about here was known since 1973, but the assertion “some scientists beleive that a fetus as young as eight weeks can feel pain”, pain has two parts, peripheral and central. The central nervous system does not have the development to perceive pain like a developed nervous system does. According to the literature I have read, that occurs later.
Castillo: “Most fair-minded people, religious or not, would agree that life trumps choice. It’s logical, even scientific: Life precedes rights. One comes before the other. God, or nature (for unbelievers), made it that way.”
Bullsh*t. Castillo really is one of the shallowest commentators in terms of his analysis. Most people close to me, (which is showing my age) now having living wills, the expression of their choice not to have their life maintained in conditions of extreme illness. That is an example of where “right to choice” precedes “life”. I am aware, of course, that it is a person is asserting his/her own right over his/her own life, but it still invalidates Castillo’s simple and shallow math.
Nathan: “The ’size’ of the government has little to do with whether or not you feel the government’s job at a minimum is to outline laws which safegaurd the lives of individuals from destruction for the mere conveinence of another.”
Nathan has a point here. I get very, very annoyed at partisans of both “sides” of this issue in their assumptions about the “other” side. First of all, “pro-life” verses “pro-choice”, despite what people think, does not strictly fall down the partisan lines that people think it does. Mary Curuso and several other posters here are indications of that. I work with people with substantial developmental issues, and in my career I have come across several parents who have lived their pro-life convictions, including people who have adopted quite a few challenging children. There are pro-life people who are not out protesting in front of clinics and calling people “killers” and “murderers” who put their money where their mouths are.
On the other hand, I know people who have had abortions, and none of them made the choice impulsively or cavalierly. And they were all, as are the vast majority of abortions, within the first trimester.
To go back to Castillo for a second, his selection of “science”, quite predictably, is shallow. Here are some other things science has revealed (some also date back before 1973):
1) A fertilized egg can become one person, but it can also become two people, and for that matter in very rare occasions three or four. Nature clones in the womb.
2) For that matter, a fertilized egg can divide and then have the division arrested, resulting in debilitating conditions where a person has a parisitic twin.
3) Failures to implant are actually quite common, more than was previously thought. From a strict life begins at conception viewpoint, that means that the greatest “killer” of human beings is this failure to implant. However, I have heard no one call this the greatest health crisis of our age. Not even “pro-life” people seem to spend time thinking about that.
4) There is no universal agreement on “personhood” and when it begins, either among scientists or ethicists.
The abortion issue really, from my point of view, comes down to bad against worse, not good against evil. The legal prohibition “pro-life” person might say that a zygote-embryo-fetus is a “human life” from conception, but what they are also saying to every woman is “once you find out that you are pregnant, you are legally compelled to carry that pregnancy to term”. I find that viewpoint to be utterly reprehensible. I am OK, with restrictions later in pregnancy, but quite frankly, those are redundant, because later term abortions only occur for extreme reasons anyway (because most of them are wanted pregnancies gone wrong).
The legal prohibition “pro-life” person might say that a zygote-embryo-fetus is a “human life” from conception, but what they are also saying to every woman is “once you find out that you are pregnant, you are legally compelled to carry that pregnancy to term”. I find that viewpoint to be utterly reprehensible.
-ksagnostic
ksagnostic, you act from a viewpoint that pregnancy is a cancer or a disease that just happens to to women and not men. If these women who are seeking an abortion had taken the neeccary precautions, there would be no need for them to take a pregnancy to term. There are specific actions taken by a complicit woman and a man that results in a pregnancy. You know that, so whay say “once you find out you are pregnant”. Wow big surprise.
Isn’t the main point of teaching about contraceptives to inform the public about what happens when contraceptives are not used?
If so, why shouldn’t a women be olbligated to take a pregnancy to term if the following conditions apply:
1. The women voluntarily had sex without birth control
2. The women knew what happens when you do no use birth control and you have sex.
3. The women know that an unborn human qualifies scientifically as a post utero human being and deserves the same rights.
4. The convenience of one human being does not trump the right of a human being to life. Ever.
Monkeyhawk,
“For me, the whole “life begins at conception” argument tells me those advocates wanted my niece to die. You can’t talk your way out of this one, “pro-lifers.” That’s what your rhetoric means, whether you realize it or not.”
Yes, I’m picking this particular piece out, because I do fully realize what that means. The fact of the matter remains, I’ll support abortion in medically necessary cases. And as I said in my first post here, I equate that to ones right to defend oneself. I do not want your niece to die such as would be the case in an ectopic pregnancy.
Where I think abortions are wrong are in cases of convience, social, and economic reasons. To that end I work to stop it by volunteering one hour a day tutoring single parents in math and science college courses.
rfl,
Are you male or female? My guess is male, but please correct me if I’m guessing wrong.
1. The women voluntarily had sex without birth control
2. The women knew what happens when you do no use birth control and you have sex.
These two could and should have been one point. But what will you do about those who DID act responsibly and use birth control, but pregnancy happened anyway? Should that woman bring in the broken condom? Cough up the birth control pill? To what length are you willing to go to have the woman provide proof? To what length are you willing to go to have the government make absolutely certain?
3. The women know that an unborn human qualifies scientifically as a post utero human being and deserves the same rights.
It seems you believe women are stupid. If I’m pregnant, I’m pretty sure I’m not going to have a giraffe (not human) or a chunk of rock. Women seeking an abortion are counseled for days.
4. The convenience of one human being does not trump the right of a human being to life. Ever.
Tell that to your President.
When an egg is fertilized it can be identified as human. There is proof of life as the cells multiply. Once this happens, the life inside the mother is no longer the woman’s property any more than a 6 year old is her property. End of story. If carrying or birthing the child will kill the mother, then yes, I support abortion. Rape? That is a tough one for me. But to simply dispose of a life is disgusting. I got my hopes up too when I heard that abortion rates were down. Don’t trust the numbers. They are only counting the surgical procedures, and not RU486 of which use is rising very quickly.
Nathan,
You seem to feel that I was attacking you, personally. I’d be interested in learning how many of the men discussing last night are fathers. How many of the men, when not married, have ever had sex without being absolutely, 100% sure that they and their partner are protected against pregancy and disease?
To address your question: Would you say that only women should have an opinion on abortion?
Opinions are like [fill in the blank]. Everybody has one.
But we’re not talking opinions here. We’re talking decisions. We’re talking about the decision of a woman and (if he’s involved at all) the co-decision of a man. But the end result is a woman’s decision about her body and her life.
Is quality of life not important to you?
Would you fight for or against the opposite end of the spectrum? For forced birth, no matter what? Take this far enough, and it will be the government, chosen by you and the rest of the country, that could one day force a woman to give up a child, if that government decided, before birth, that she should…for whatever reason they want to use.
I am not a proponent of abortion. I’ll repeat that. I am not a proponent of abortion. I am a proponent of letting a woman make the decision. She, and she alone, will have to live with it. And if your belief tends toward the eternal, she will be judged on that choice. But she won’t be judged by you.
Sol — You have a problem with RAPE??? Honestly!! That is pretty weak!!
“Once this happens, the life inside the mother is no longer the woman’s property…”
I’m sorry, Sol, but if the woman dies, that “life” will likely die with her. As yet, I don’t know of any way a 12-week-old fetus can live outside the mother’s womb. Maybe someday that will change. It would truly be wonderful if we could find another way.
Changing the law will not change things, except to end the life of those mothers self-terminating. But somehow I get the feeling that many would be happy about that. How sad.
end result is a woman’s decision about her body and her life.
Read the post above yours.
Is quality of life not important to you?
Is the quality of the baby’s life important?
But what will you do about those who DID act responsibly and use birth control, but pregnancy happened anyway?
-RD
RD,
I couldn’t care less if you believe I am an male or a female. So ask all you want, it’s irrevelant to the expression of ideas on this issue.
Do you have any statistics for how often a condom comes out of a sealed package damaged? How about how often does a women get pregnant while using the birth control pill correctly?
Nill.
Acting responsibly means exactly what it means. Using your brain when you use contraceptives If for some reason pregnancy is absolutely out of the question, either practice celibacy or have a hysterectomy.
“How many of the men, when not married, have ever had sex without being absolutely, 100% sure that they and their partner are protected against pregancy and disease?”
-RD
Rd, its called stupidity and it happens all the time.
Is the quality of the baby’s life important?
Sol,
I’ll forgive you for that one.
Considering what was mentioned in an article and has been posted here in the last few days, I think that is a point that is uppermost in the minds of some women. Wouldn’t that come under economic reasons?
As a mother of four (one a “surprise”), I can guarantee you that providing at least the basics if not the very best is one of the most important things a woman will think of when she learns she’s pregnant. For a single woman, this is possibly #1. She’ll be asking herself questions. Will I be able to provide a decent place to live? Food? Clothing? And if there are other children? Do you think she might be considering their welfare, too?
I keep getting the feeling that too many believe that abortion is a decision lightly and easily made. I assure you, it is not.
“Do you have any statistics for how often a condom comes out of a sealed package damaged?”
Would you like to meet my 3 1/2 year old grandson?
I know women who have been “sterilized” and become pregnant. I know men who have been “sterilized” and impregnated a woman.
So let’s all just STOP having sex. (I wish ya luck on that one.)
rfl,
Yes, it’s stupidity, at the very base of it. The problem is that we are human and have faults.
Personally, I’m not in favor of abortion as birth control. There, I said it. Is everyone happy now?
How about how often does a women get pregnant while using the birth control pill correctly?
Sorry, rfl, I skipped and didn’t mean to.
99% effective is the rate I’ve heard. So there is a 1% chance of pregnancy while on the pill.
My guess is (note: GUESS) is that it isn’t known who that 1% will be until after pregnancy is detected. Still, the odds are pretty good. Doesn’t mean it’s perfect or that everyone should or can depend on it.
The cheering section for values boy must be getting smaller all the time if Rhonda has to pimp his screeds on the blog.
But ya know, they cant get rid of him no matter HOW small his readership.
The wichita taliban would never stand for it…
Hehehehe. Brent Castillo. The most UNread writer in the paper….
When an egg is fertilized it can be identified as human. There is proof of life as the cells multiply.
And if that egg, those multiplying cells, don’t implant, whose fault is that? Nature’s? God’s? The mother’s?
Is it going to come down to implanting a microscopic camera into each and every female when she reaches puberty to view the fertilization and implantation and therefore have grounds for whatever WE want?
Up to this point, scientists have not found a way to bring that fertilized egg to maturity without artificial means. That egg will die without a host.
Up to this point, scientists have not found a way to bring that fertilized egg to maturity without artificial means. That egg will die without a host
-RD
I think you typo-ed, you post should have said:
Up to this point, scientists have not found a way to terminate a pregnancy without artificial means.
The woman’s body was designed (or evolved whatever you want to believe) for pregnancy. Being pregnant and carrying the baby to term is a completely NATURAL phenomenon. The women’s body is completely capable of providing the perfect environment for a fertilized egg to turn into the humans we are today.
An example of artificial means would be the use of a sharp object to terminate the life of the child before it is extracted from the uterus.
Brent Castillo. The most UNread writer in the paper
KFG
Actually farm girl, I only heard of him through your rants against him. I think you should be credited for increasing his readership by adding myself to the list.
You go girl!
…and have you noticed that until today, I’ve stopped talking about him and put his nonsense on ignore? It does no good with the WE, they are hopeless, and talking about him only encourages his like minded talibaners.
Like you.
Having been on both sides of this fight, I can usually pick out the reasons that motivate someone to be “pro life”.
My perception anyway.
Since we are judging here?
My take, rtl, is that you are not in fact pro life.
What you ARE is anti sex. Or in some similar way hung up some how.
Well, I call that your problem. Not nice of you to project your hang ups on others.
rfl,
No typo, only in your mind (imagined).
HOST
Mother Delays Cancer Treatments So Baby Can Live
“The baby came a week early and Allard, 33, gave birth on Nov. 18 to a healthy but premature boy she named Liam.
Exactly two months later, Allard died. She’d begun chemotherapy just after her son’s birth. But in the end, it was too late.”
“She had strength for both of us. I can’t begin to describe how brave she was. Towards the end we knew things weren’t going well, but she was overjoyed that she had given life to Liam.”
==============================================
This story is proof that life isn’t fair. But it is to be valued! I really respect that woman.
Thanks for the encouragement ksfarmgrrl!
Up to this point, scientists have not found a way to terminate a pregnancy without artificial means.
No, but God has.
Up to this point, scientists have not found a way to terminate a pregnancy without artificial means.
-rfl
No, but God has.
-RD
Post-utero humans die from natural causes as well. God’s fault? Perhaps. Blame God if you choose but don’t try to be him by passing judgement on which people are favored and which are to not.
rfl,
Do you think I don’t have respect for Allard’s decision? But guess what? She was given the right to make that decision. If she had decided the other way, what would you think?
Blame God if you choose but don’t try to be him by passing judgement on which people are favored and which are to not.
I don’t take it upon myself to pass judgement on others nor do I blame God. You missed the point, as I suspected you would. If anything, God gave humans the right to choose. You want government to take that away. It won’t work. Never has, never will.
I’m outta here. Time to get to work so I can keep a roof over our heads, food in our stomachs and clothes on our backs. Not to mention gas in the car…
As Chas says…Blessings
“ksagnostic, you act from a viewpoint that pregnancy is a cancer or a disease that just happens to to women and not men.”
I didn’t say that, that’s you projecting. However, pregnancy does only happen to women.
“If these women who are seeking an abortion had taken the necessary precautions, there would be no need for them to take a pregnancy to term.”
Again, this is YOU telling women that they need to take a pregnancy to term. This is YOU creating that need. Women get abortions. Women have died getting illegal abortions. You go back to old graveyards in this very state (100 years or more) and you will see lots of graves of young women, far more than now. Why, because childbirth, particulary repeated childbirths, are risky. This is because you and Sol and people like you arbitrarily have decided that a zygote-blastocyst-embryo-fetus equals full blown legal personhood. Except that I really don’t think you have except for the purposes of abortion (otherwise, the failure of fertilized eggs to implant is the number one cause of loss of “human life”).
“If so, why shouldn’t a women be olbligated to take a pregnancy to term if the following conditions apply:
“1. The women voluntarily had sex without birth control
“2. The women knew what happens when you do no use birth control and you have sex.
“3. The women know that an unborn human qualifies scientifically as a post utero human being and deserves the same rights.
“4. The convenience of one human being does not trump the right of a human being to life. Ever.”
You know, in my last post I indicated that I had a lot of respect for some people who are strongly pro-life. There is little doubt in my mind that they actually strongly identify with the fetus. I think those folks are worth listening to, even though I don’t necessarily agree with them.
Then there are people like you.
The short answer to your question is “no”. The long answer is for your presumptions 1 and 2, the consequence/punishment far outweigh the act. Ooops, the woman made a mistake (often within a committed relationship), therefore, she has to carry a pregnancy to term with all the attendant risks and consequences. That kind of impose your morality on others crap (and that is what it is) is reprehensible. As for your presumption 3, your claim that a “The women know that an unborn human qualifies scientifically as a post utero human being and deserves the same rights”, BULLSH*T (in the fully Harry Frankfurt sense). That’s you making a claim as to what reality should be, not what it is. Most embryologists would completely dismiss your claim (for some of the reasons I outlined in my previous posts). If YOUR so-called scientific qualification was as evident as you seem to think it is, then embryologists as a field would be up in arms about abortion. They are not. The claim that “an unborn human qualifies scientifically as a post utero human being and deserves the same right” is not in the least scientific.
“4. The convenience of one human being does not trump the right of a human being to life. Ever.”
Very clearly, you completely lack empathy for a woman who finds herself with an unplanned pregnancy. She is the person who is in a position to evaluate the effects of carrying that pregnancy to term. You, with your simple and flawed math of life=life, are exactly the sort of arrogant and moralistic jerk that pro-choice activists wrongly dismiss everyone who opposes abortion as being.
“When an egg is fertilized it can be identified as human. There is proof of life as the cells multiply. Once this happens, the life inside the mother is no longer the woman’s property any more than a 6 year old is her property.”
Sol, you sir, are as full of it on this issue as ever. When an egg is fertilized and the cells start to develop, every one of those cells could become a potential “human being”, and in fact sometimes the cells to break off and do become just that. To draw an equivalence between that and a 6 year old is nothing more than your form of “truthiness”, saying what you want and believe to be true. Besides the obvious fact that while a 6 year old child is dependent, it is not biologicaly dependent upon the biological human system of one individual human being.
Again, be honest, you want the states to have the power to compell women to carry a pregnancy to term (rfl has said he wants the federal government to have that power).
Nice to know where you stand. I think your stands are as evil as all get out. On the scale of “bad against worse”, you are worse.
There were abortions in the time of Jesus, and before. Women decided if they wanted to stay pregnant or not.
Apparently it was not a big enough issue to be addressed directly in the Bible. It did not even make the top ten list.
I would support Allard’s decision either way.
I do not envy her for being in such a difficult situation. However, would it have made news if she had made the opposite decision? The fact that she made the self-less decision is what is so shocking. We immensely respect people who think of others first because that is a trait to be encouraged because it results in a more enjoyable society. Abortion’s legality perpetuates the cancerous mentality that human life does not matter unless it is my own.
When you plead the case that unwanted pregnancies can be disasterous to a woman’s life and yet here is a woman who has cancer and chooses to avoid treatment to protect her unborn baby, you have to be reconciled with the fact that IF there ever were justification for a medical procedure that terminated a pregnancy then this would be the case.
This case makes the decisions made by women who abort for all other reasons look mighty selfish and petty in comparison. You defend the right to abortion because of “economic” concerns yet this lady chose to protect her child even when her own life was at stake. Clearing demonstrating that having a child isn’t as detrimental as the pro-choice crowd would have us all believe.
“This case makes the decisions made by women who abort for all other reasons look mighty selfish and petty in comparison. You defend the right to abortion because of “economic” concerns yet this lady chose to protect her child even when her own life was at stake. Clearing demonstrating that having a child isn’t as detrimental as the pro-choice crowd would have us all believe.”
Cerebral inertia. Remarkable. Of course, Allard’s choice was her own, but let’s be clear. It. Was. Her. Choice. You have already indicated that you would take that choice away from millions of women. As for your last sentence, are you really that clueless? Allard DIED. Having a child was clearly detrimental to her ongoing health. You would compell other women to assume the risks of pregnancy.
Oh, and your dismissal of “economic concerns”. Excuse me, but “economic” concerns involve a woman prioritizing the children she has over the embryo/fetus inside her, not herself.
“Oh, and your dismissal of “economic concerns”. Excuse me, but “economic” concerns involve a woman prioritizing the children she has over the embryo/fetus inside her, not herself.”
Should be:
“Oh, and your dismissal of “economic concerns”. Excuse me, but “economic” concerns more often than not involve a woman prioritizing the children she has over the embryo/fetus inside her, not herself.
ksagnostic, I have empathy for all women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. However, I believe that all life is to be protected so therefore I have empathy for the life of the unborn just as well as with any post-utero human being. Nowhere does that make me a jerk.
Thanks for the name calling however. I’ll take it with the source. If a slave owner called me a jerk for insisting that he has no moral right to own slaves, I would understand as I would consider why he would be so emotionally attached so such a self gratifying human hierarchy.
Allard DIED. Having a child was clearly detrimental to her ongoing health. You would compell other women to assume the risks of pregnancy.
-ksagnostic
Yes Allard DIED. In contrast to 99.9% of most women who choose to abort. Would they have died if they brought the child to term?
I said in my previous post:
“you have to be reconciled with the fact that IF there ever were justification for a medical procedure that terminated a pregnancy then this would be the case”
rfl
Posted January 25, 2008 at 12:54 pm | Permalink
RD, thanks for noticing the way things were going.
To all, You cannot legislate morality no matter what the subject. Regardless of how any of us feel about this issue, whether all abortions are wrong or should stipulations be applied, we will never come to consensus. We all adamantly believe in our own viewpoint. so, rather than beat each other verbally, what CAN productively be done? Is there a common goal towards reducing the need for abortion that can be found? JR made some good points about possibilities upthread. There are many positive things that we can focus on:
1. Sex Education, starting at a young age.
2. Free or low cost birth control…to anyone that wants or needs it.
3. Positive support and mentoring to young women who are either pregnant or struggling. I think Ben has mentioned a couple of places that do this
4. Safe, legal and hopefully rare, abortion.
If you always do what you’ve always done, nothing changes. So besides standing and screaming at people at a clinic or shouting at each other on a blog I would ask each of you to get involved in positive manner any way that you can. Find out what programs are available for at risk women and support them. And not just the ‘fringe’ or radical groups. Do something that will make a positive difference in a young woman’s life today.
Combined effort to make positive changes for young people can do a lot more good than screaming “you’re wrong!” at each other. Think about it.
“When an egg is fertilized it can be identified as human. There is proof of life as the cells multiply.” {posted by somebody upthread}
I am reminded of the story posted yesterday, I think, about the woman who almost died from an ectopic pregnancy… Where an egg is accidentally fertilized inside a fallopian tube… It is almost certain to cause death if not removed!! Who among the Pro Lifer’s wants to take THAT choice away from women??
I understand that the ectopic pregnancy thing happens more times that most people are aware!
Chas,
As has been stated several times in this thread by those of us who are Pro-Life, we believe that when the life of the mother is in jeapordy an abortion is acceptable.
Well, Nathan, it is the others who dont agree with you that worry me terribly!! I recall in recent years when an Abortion in one of the Dakotas didnt allow for ANY abortions, for ANY reason AT ALL!! Not rape, or incest, or life of the mother… NONE!! I think that is extremely narrow minded, and has no place in this great country we call America!!
correction — Abortion LAW in one of the Dakotas… sorry bout the typo!!
Chas,
That law also allowed a provision for the protection of the life of the mother.
It was called:
Women’s Health and Human Life Protection Act
Section 3 of said act stated:
No licensed physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant mother is guilty of violating section 2 of this Act. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of her unborn child in a manner consistent with conventional medical practice.
Well, then, they must have ammended it since it was originally passed… Because I remember very well the horror that happened when it was originall passed!!
If it has been amended, thanks for the correction…
“Thanks for the name calling however. I’ll take it with the source. If a slave owner called me a jerk for insisting that he has no moral right to own slaves, I would understand as I would consider why he would be so emotionally attached so such a self gratifying human hierarchy.”
I would seriously reconsider the slavery analogy, rfl. You are the one saying that you want to legally compell a woman to carry a pregnancy to term as soon as she discovers that she is pregnant. To me, that comes much closer to slavery than abortion. You are saying (acknowledged with the exception of the mother’s life) that an embryo or fetus the size of an small insect or smaller (and size matters for two reasons, first, the central nervous system is NOT developed, and the peripheral nervous sytem is not integrated with the central nervous system, most of which still has to develop, and two, the “brain” of a early embryo/fetus supports no greater awareness than that of any other creature of comparable absolute size, and actually less so because it is no more developed than the embryo/fetus of any other animal at a similar stage of development) should be given the same consideration as the welfare a developed human being (including any other children that woman may have), and indeed greater consideration than the mother except in an extreme situation where carrying a pregnancy to term is likely to be fatal. And because a woman forms the embryo/fetus’s life support, she should be legally forced to carry that pregnancy to term, and if she decides to end the pregnancy she is a law breaker (increasing the risks of maternal death). Because you and people like you make that equivalence. As I said before, and you ignored, such an equivalence is not supported scientifically, and it is not supported ethically. If it was, then the greatest health crisis facing us is the failure of fertilized eggs to implant in the uterine wall, and there should be a major initiative to address this epidemic. I’ve yet to see anyone call for that.
“1. The women voluntarily had sex without birth control
“2. The women knew what happens when you do no use birth control and you have sex.”
and
“If for some reason pregnancy is absolutely out of the question, either practice celibacy or have a hysterectomy.”
I see nothing empathetic whatsoever in that attitude, which can be paraphrased as “ou have sex, that’s the consequences”. That’s what I read, that is what you chose to post first in your list of objections to my statement:
“The legal prohibition “pro-life” person might say that a zygote-embryo-fetus is a “human life” from conception, but what they are also saying to every woman is ‘once you find out that you are pregnant, you are legally compelled to carry that pregnancy to term’. I find that viewpoint to be utterly reprehensible.”
Regarding my name calling. Sorry, rfl, it didn’t just come out of the blue, I stated my reasons. I was actually differentiating you from other people who argue for a “pro-life” attitude who do NOT even go with the sort of “that’s what they get” crap that you have posted here. They honestly and entirely focus on trying to make carrying a pregnancy to term a “win-win” situation. I honestly see the “that’s what you get” attitude you expressed as a “jerky” attitude, and I was being understated about it at that.
Therefore, the name fits. Curious that you focused on my name calling rather than addressing the specific arguments I made in reference to your ealier posts.
“ksagnostic, I have empathy for all women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. However, I believe that all life is to be protected so therefore I have empathy for the life of the unborn just as well as with any post-utero human being. Nowhere does that make me a jerk.”
That’s not why I called you a jerk. In fact, I called you a jerk to differentiate you from other people who are pro-life who focus on trying to make carrying a pregnancy to term a “win-win” situation and rather than giving lectures on sexual behavior.
Here are your specific comments that elicited my use of the term “jerk”:
“1. The women voluntarily had sex without birth control
“2. The women knew what happens when you do no use birth control and you have sex.”
and “4. The convenience of one human being does not trump the right of a human being to life. Ever.”
1 and 2 exhibit a “That’s what you get” attitude. 4 dismissed the reasons why a woman would get an abortion as “convenience”. Those are not empathetic comments. I stand by what I said.
Here’s another winner.
“If for some reason pregnancy is absolutely out of the question, either practice celibacy or have a hysterectomy.”
By the way, I would consider changing your slavery analogy if I were you. You are the one who wants federal intervention to legally compell every woman to carry a pregnancy to term from at least the time she finds out that she is pregnant (and probably as far back as implantation or conception). Sounds a lot like a form of slavery to me.
… but saying that the unborn child is not human and hence has no rights does not sound as slavery to you?
“… but saying that the unborn child is not human and hence has no rights does not sound as slavery to you?”
See above my comments about the fallacy of drawing a full legal equivalence between a fertilized egg etc. and a developed human being.
But then again, on this issue you seem to be like a “pro-life” Turing machine. Put something in, get something predictable out.
Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, much less limiting forms of birth control for women because it MIGHT stop an egg from implanting, as some of the most extreme “pro-life” people would do, sure sounds like a form of slavery to me. On the other hand, a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/early term fetus doesn’t have the neuroarchitecture to be aware of its status at all. A later term fetus is probably a different story, but for the most part that is not what we are talking about here.
Ummmm Ksag… how much can trolls comprehend??
Chas,
I don’t think John_S, whoever he is, appreciates being called a troll.
You are just too frickin paranoid to realize that there are other people who post here.
I post on this nic alone.
There are those I think, who are truly pro life.
Oddly? No one I would call that advocates for the outright ban of abortion.
Having been on both sides of the argument, I submit the following take on how those who are “pro life” can be broken down.
Well, first of course you have your folks hung up on sex. They either aint getting any or they’ve been burned in the past. To them, being “pro life” is a weapon.
rtl demonstrated that here. I think this is also where “Regular” comes from.
Another type of “pro life” person is one who is stridently Libertarian. Their defense of the defenseless is based on concentrating rights to the individual so much that the individual is allowed to have rights over others.
sol would be a good example here.
Now maybe the least respectable type of “pro lifer” is the “it’s all your fault!” crowd. We usually call these people mainline Republicans.
If they could ban or restrict this very fundamental right of a woman to choose? Why very little else would be beyond assault. A woman is pregnant? She got herself there! It’s called personal responsibility!
Now if this last group could have their way, “personal responsibility” would be the fall back for….everything and anything. Result? No perceived responsibility to their fellow man at all. paulthecon would be one of these.
It’s really easy folks. If you are TRULY pro life, then you HELP women choose life. You don’t force them to give birth to an unwanted baby for your personal agenda.
I don’t think the people I have been discussing this issue with on this thread are trolls.
And guys, ksfarmgrrl seems to know who john_s is, and it is not Regular.
Again ksagnostic you try to connect the dots in one way because it supports your ideology but the other way applies better. The neuroarchitecture keeps on developing even after birth, so if you go by that even a child is not fully human. You go through contorted logic to try and exclude the fetus so that you can feel good about yourself for supporting abortions. Sounds like logic used to legitimize slavery.
If you want to talk about extremes, they pro-aborts even terminate viable fetuses. I also wonder why there was a need for the ‘Born alive infant protection act’. Tells you what planned parenthood was upto.
“Again ksagnostic you try to connect the dots in one way because it supports your ideology but the other way applies better. The neuroarchitecture keeps on developing even after birth, so if you go by that even a child is not fully human.”
You misunderstand. I did not say fully developed, I said:
“a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/early term fetus doesn’t have the neuroarchitecture to be aware of its status at all”
If there is no cerebral cortex, and no connections between the peripheral nervous system, the linkage between pain and pain and distress is not there yet. In a more fully developed fetus, and a newborn baby, there are such linkages. Futhermore, as you say there is quite a bit more development for the next 20 years or so. But it is a continuum. That is quite different from assigning equal status for fertilized egg/blastocyst (no neural architecture at all), an embryo and early term fetus (very basic neural disk to the bare beginnings of brain development) and something further down the line (the brain of a newborn infant is several times larger than the entire body of a late first trimester fetus, synaptic connections between neurons begin to really develop in the second trimester).
“You go through contorted logic to try and exclude the fetus so that you can feel good about yourself for supporting abortions. Sounds like logic used to legitimize slavery.”
Project much? Obviously so.
“If you want to talk about extremes, they pro-aborts even terminate viable fetuses. I also wonder why there was a need for the ‘Born alive infant protection act’. Tells you what planned parenthood was upto.”
There are legal restrictions on late term abortions. Whether you think those restrictions are adequate is a seperate issue. Furthermore, most of these are moot because late pregnancies are not terminated for less than extreme reasons (because these were wanted pregnacies). The position I am arguing against, once again, is the position that when a woman finds out she is pregnant, or even before when she MIGHT be pregnant, she is legally compelled to bring that pregnancy to term. That position is odious. Because a woman is compelled to carry a pregnancy to term, that woman is essentially enslaved, she has lost decision making over her body and her life. That is what happens when a fertilized egg etc. is assigned full, equal legal status to the mother and, in many cases, the born children she is already caring for.
So, john_s, to get something clear. Do you support making abortion illegal across the entire pregnancy? Do you support prohibiting women from having access to certain forms of birth control because such birth control MIGHT prevent a fertilized egg/blastocyst from implanting in the uterous? If so, I stand by my comments. You are far closer to an advocate for slavery than I am.
11 Trackbacks
Life Insurance UK: One Mighty Help…
One thing that goes into making the present times the most comfortable one to live in is the emergence and availability of plenty of utility services. Indeed, they have gone a long way in reducing the worries and tensions from our lives. Well, talking …
Eric…
Truer word have never been uttered, indeed. Your point is sound and excellent. Thanks for sharing….
James King…
…
ebony eve gallery…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
Jessie…
Love the blog. Ive dugg you in my digg account for future reading!…
Eric…
I?ll admit it. i have been to your blog SIX times since your last post looking for a new post?….
Jessie…
Man, your mind fascinates me. Thanks again for sharing….
bb king biography…
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..
search affordable term life insurance…
That got me thinking……
Jessie…
Your article is very good…
Gerber Life Insurance…
Found your blog on yahoo – thanks for the article but i still don’t get it….