Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
101, you're not very good at debate. It's foolish to play the Nazi card in this case: the Nazis were strongly anti-abortion. It's the eugenics thing---killing off the undesirable Jews while forcing the "Aryan" women to reproduce.
Likewise, the "slavery used to be legal" argument works against you. If forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy and give birth against her will isn't enslavement, I don't what is.
right
FORCING a woman to carry her pregnancy is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to pay their mortgage is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to pay for the meal they just ate at a restaurant is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to pay their car note is SLAVERY.
FORCING someone to provide for their kids is SLAVERY.
Heaven forbid we FORCE anyone to carry out the obligations they have entered into freely and willingly....
I'll concede one point-
some peoples' kids are better off dead.
What percentage of the babies you killed over 22 years were elective abortions?
You talk about women who die in abortion; fair enough. What about the fetuses who survived abortions, like Gianna Jessen? Isn't her suffering also worth noting?
I love it when pro-lifers ask me 'What if your mother had an abortion?' and I tell them she did - and it saved my life.
But, while being very Pro-Choice, I know I could never have an abortion myself. I had a pregancy scare right after I was in a terrible car accident. I learned I'd been using the pill incorrectly, and the initial urine test came back positive. All my doctors insisted I have an abortion - if I kept the pregancy to term, I'm probably be paralyzed from the waist down [I had broken my back], and the fetus had been exposed to mutagenetic drugs and x-rays. If I was lucky it would only have a hare-lip or spina bifida, but the most likely course is that I'd miscarry and be paralyzed anyway. Thank God a second test came back negative.
I couldn't do it. But it made me realize just how difficult a decision it really was. And I became more Pro-Choice than ever.
For those of of you saying that women should "Take Responsibility" for the consequences of having sex... abortion IS taking responsibility. When my dog gets truly sick, I am responsible for his life, suffering, and death, so I do the responsible thing and have the vet put him down with as little pain and suffering as possible.
As for a fetus... it is made of living human tissue, I'll grant you that... left inside a woman's body, allowed access to feed on her bloodstream for the full nine months, it does have a percentage chance (NOT a guarantee) that it will develop from a parasite into an infant. But that is not what makes us human beings special. The mind, the will, the ability to to think, all of those things that we value in humans over animals are not present yet.
Oh, and if you bring up the question of why we should not "abort" the mentally handicapped: they are NOT inside someone's body. Anyone can take care of them.
YOU consent to drive a car. YOU assume all risks when you step out on to the road. If a drunk driver hits you (your fault for choosing to drive and being in his way, rather than walking as God intended) shall we make it that law of the land to take a few pints of your blood? A kidney? 50% of your liver? HE needs them to live, and YOU consented to that risk when you got behind the wheel.
Shall we play it that way?
By the way, I think it rather hyperbolic of you to say that even considering something like ectogenesis is a crime against humanity. To be sure we consider war and sanctions which have a far clearer death toll (and no life toll), and those are far clearer crimes against humanity than ectogenesis, or for that matter (assuming it's the technology that scares you), cloning and genetic engineering of humankind.
To answer your question, yes, I do want to mess with humanity on that level. One of the great problems of the abortion controversy is that, as Jon Stewart well put it*, of sovereignty. A woman's body is her own, and shouldn't be regulated by the state. Ectogenesis, especially if we could create a safe, cheap transition from natural pregnancy to artificial womb, could save every viable pregnancy and eliminate every abortion while simultaneously preserving the sovereignty of every woman over her own self.
So please be specific: what is particularly criminal or irresponsible about ectogenesis? To the contrary, I think it is an elegant solution.
* Jon Stewart's discussion with Mike Huckabee on abortion. Here's part 1 and part 3.
admirable.
Taking Responsibility!
"step aside, Doctor.
I made this baby;
I'll kill it myself!"
Yep. The doctor does the procedure, just like, oh, what was it... the vet does the procedure when you take the responsibility of putting a pet down.
You don't respect life. You fetishize it.
I'll make you a deal: you help me prevent unwanted pregnancies and I promise I won't terminate a single one that you prevent.
Because, as the Guttmacher report makes plain, if you really want to stop abortion, THAT is how it's done.
Biologically 'Life' is a simple concept, but it doesn't mean what you think it means, even through you try really hard to emphasize your point in couplets. I take you didn't follow my links. You didn't study did you? Without your premise, which you consider axiomatic, but the rest of us don't. The rest of your argument is founded on sand.
You make a relevant point; where moral philosophy fails us, law can be arbitrary. Some day we might make the same argument regarding artificial intelligence, or man made sentient creatures, or intelligent aliens, since human law only preserves full rights to human beings. But in the case of the unborn, we've thought about it more thoroughly than you think.
The elective abortions you so vehemently oppose do not feel pain when they are extracted or terminated. They don't yet have the nervous system to process their own destruction, let alone the cerebellum by which to process their brief lot in life. You'd do better to argue the rights for your laptop computer, or a refrigerator.
And in the meantime, who mourns for the mother you so eagerly villanize? What about her pain, her loss, her emotional lot?
Frankly, you don't give a damn.
This documentary (albeit from the pro-choice perspective) is from before the assassination of Dr. George Tiller which preceded my awareness Bill O'Reilly's thirty-odd segments on Tiller, The Baby Killer (he said it verbatim, multiple times, every segment) that didn't show any indication or recognition of the extreme conditions of all cases that came to Dr. Tiller (our regulations of late term procedures are rather strict). I went onto the pro-life sites and saw a complete absence of the condemnation Scott Roeder as an extremist who went too far -- indeed mostly he was heralded as a hero -- nor any consideration that Tiller served a function, at very least, by saving the lives of mothers who were endangered by their own pregnancy. It was at this point that I believed the obstructionist movement is intrinsically misogynistic. I still am pretty sure it's peopled mostly with misogynists
Randal Terry's nonchalance about Tiller's murder (complete with hot-wings and beer) didn't help to slow the slide of my opinion.
I still think of it, as I mention above, a matter of sovereignty. I, personally, consider personhood to begin as it ends, based on the presence of higher brain functions (cadavers lacking these, including mine, should I be so fated, are open to harvest for organ transplants), which happens around twenty-two weeks. We say twenty to give a window of safety.
Also of interesting note is this article which, while merely anecdotal, reflects the Guttmacher statistic that about a third of all abortions in the US are performed on women of right-wing (typically anti-abortion) religious backgrounds.
IMPROVED ACCESS TO CONTRACEPTION DECREASES ABORTION RATES.
If you can't get behind that, you don't care about kids, babies, fetuses, embryos, zygotes, or poor little eggs and sperm-- you just want to punish women for having sex without wanting to have a baby.
How many of the babies you killed over 22 years were elective abortions?
If there is nothing wrong with abortion why bother preventing unwanted pregnancy?
Why strive to make abortion 'rare'?
I'd advocate improving abortion procedures to make them easier on the patient. I'd also advocate better and readily available contraceptives to everyone who wants to not get pregnant (or get someone else pregnant).
If only you asked that question out of genuine interest to learn and understand, rather than as part of your usual routine of seeking to provoke logical missteps.
Late term abortion is already very rare and very necessary when it happens.
harsh
http://www.covenantnews.com/babyaborted2…
http://www.whateveristrue.com/holocaust/…
http://giovanniworld.files.wordpress.com…
http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/wo…
I'd advocate improving abortion procedures to make them easier on the patient.
easier....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jrOvvFDVS4s/SP…
"The elective abortions you so vehemently oppose do not feel pain when they are extracted or terminated. They don't yet have the nervous system to process their own destruction, let alone the cerebellum by which to process their brief lot in life. You'd do better to argue the rights for your laptop computer, or a refrigerator."
THIS WON"T HURT.....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__Sj-cVJmmxQ/SC…
Some thoughts:
~ Firstly, are you aware of how your fellow obstructionist allies use pictures like this? They blow them up on the sides of trucks and parade them around town, in school districts. They shove them under the noses of vulnerable teens at your alleged Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Your willingness to attack kids on the subject does show that indeed nothing is beneath the obstructionist sector, and your interest in post-born kids is nonexistent. I sometimes suspect abortion provides your cronies with a reason to behave badly (i.e. bomb buildings and murder people) and is worth nothing else to you.
~ Secondly, you're aware that all of these are old photos, right? Once one has seen the same bit of gore for the third time, it starts becoming just an annoyance. Once I've seen them over five times here on SLOG, it begins to smell as if you only have a handful of biohazard loot to pass around. Yes?
~ Thirdly, shock content such as this doesn't say crap about an issue. Sure, it's great emotional punctuation, but some things are disgusting while quite benign (i.e. compost) while other things are all clean and nicely packaged while dangerous (i.e. junk food). All the dumpster gore in the world doesn't justify taking rights and quality of healthcare away from over half the population.
~ Lastly, and foremostly, elective abortions don't generally look like that. It's the late-term ones that provide the best photo-ops for your purposes of grossing people out, since they look most like neonates, and this means most of your gore pictures are non-elective abortions, i.e. ones performed due to fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Those images are of babies doomed despite abortion, possibly ones that would kill their mothers.
So, in the future, when you're going to post such inconsiderate trash, please mark them NSFW, and while you're at it, make sure to cite the circumstances surrounding the specific procedure of which it was the result. Otherwise it's just a lie.
It seems to me that what this whole criminal hypothesis that you seem to naively be in favor of is being introduced by people with ulterior motives like eugenics (like the Nazi try to do (do you favor that?)), human cloning, the creation of human-animal hybrids or attempts at producing offspring between homosexuals. All of which are clearly against nature because if nature had intended for such things to become a reality they would happen without having to be concocted on a lab. There is no telling what kind of detrimental consequences such creations would bring about but it is safe to say that these things would render humanity as we know it non-existent in the long run.
I honestly believe that no human being with a clear conscience and a clear moral compass would be in favor of or attempt to these types of affronts to nature. I sincerely hope you are one of those Uriel-238. I know you are an atheist but i'll still be praying for you to God, now more than before, to guide you and channel your apparent intelligence for the good of humanity and not its destruction.
What does that tell you? That that's NOT what abortion looks like. Most of what I do looks kind of like a pink spongy thing, about the size of a hen's egg. Sorry to disappoint you.
Of course that's just my first-person, twenty-two year, right up there in your face anecdotal experience.
Now I have seen some late-term stillbirths, intrauterine deaths occurring spontaneously, that looked like some of your pictures, but you'd never try and pass those off as abortions would you? Sure you wouldn't. That would be dishonest.
What does that tell you? That that's NOT what abortion looks like. Most of what I do looks kind of like a pink spongy thing, about the size of a hen's egg. Sorry to disappoint you.
Of course that's just my first-person, twenty-two year, right up there in your face anecdotal experience.
Now I have seen some late-term stillbirths, intrauterine deaths occurring spontaneously, that looked like some of your pictures, but you'd never try and pass those off as abortions would you? Sure you wouldn't. That would be dishonest.
"A tendency to mess with nature...."
You mean like doing C-sections? Or using antibiotics? Or putting broken arms in casts?
Or building houses? Growing food on farms?
Look, Loveschild, if you think that interfering with Nature is always immature and evil, then please stop using your computer, stop taking medicine, and stop trying to live past age 30.
Without medicine interfering with Nature, God aborts 75% of fertilized embryos, and kills the majority of children. God wants you suffer through life that is "nasty, brutish, and short."
There is nothing intelligently designed about a reproductive system that puts women through more pain than any other animal suffers during childbirth, and that was the major source of adult female death until the 20th century.
If God did not want abortions to happen, they would not be possible.
Until then, women should have a right to determine what does or does not happen to or with their bodies.
If God did not want abortions to happen, they would not be possible.
Until then, women should have a right to determine what does or does not happen to or with their bodies.
If God did not want abortions to happen, they would not be possible.
Until then, women should have a right to determine what does or does not happen to or with their bodies.
Again, you disparaged ectogenesis, referring to it as a criminal hypothesis. To the contrary, there is no law against pursuing such sciences. Yes, new technologies get abused, but this is no new thing. Even antibiotics are used recklessly by our meat industries, but to a greater extent by magnitudes, antibiotics save lives. The same will be the case with cloning, or our present experiments with grafting animal genes (including human ones).
Obviously you threw in eugenics to disparage the rest of your list. (It wasn't singularly a German idea, either; the US had its own eugenics programs and also believed in racial purity at the time, but we also believed in phrenology.) I, therefore, won't bother to ask your question. You've read enough from me to know what I feel about things.
But while the ways cloning and genetic engineering can be frightening -- indeed dozens of stories have been told speculating their dangers -- I'm still not sure what there is to fear of ectogenesis, or homosexual reproduction. Since I don't believe in the angry wrathful god that you do, since I don't believe that women are a perfect womb (just one that doesn't have to be manufactured), you'll have to come up with a better answer than a melodramatic It'll doom us all!
As for science destroying humankind as we know it, this has been said about dynamite, the radio, the bicycle, the telephone, the refrigerator, the automobile, the telescope, the printing press, the typewriter, the television, the digital computer, the word processor, and, for goodness sake, the Nintendo Game Boy. It isn't naïveté or immaturity that lends me to believe the technologies above will not spell our extinction, but the consistency of history: We are still here.
...I, therefore, won't bother to answer your question...
But then again I tehed earlier in this thread. Meh.
Why?
Because ii reduces infanticide.
Because it reduces deaths from illegal abortions.
Because it reduces the number of single mothers.
Because it saves tax dollars (less single moms needing well fare = less money spent on well fare)
Because it reduces poverty.
And if you don't believe me, open up a fucking history book.
Young developing humans don't really look cute or cuddly yet and they don't cry so if you kill them it's really not that bad.
A lack of empathy and imagination are very handy in some fields.
opponents of abortion want WOMEN who have sex to be punished, specifically. but otherwise spot-fucking-on, thank you thank you thank you.
you would much rather watch them being born and then strangled or dumped in the toilet or in the garbage bin;
being born cocain-addicted and die after a short painful life,or to see a woman bleed to death after a botched back alley abortion, etc.
You are one sick animal.
Although it is horrifying to think that any of these women died in the first place (ALL life is sacred, mother AND child). They would NOT have been a fatality due to a botched abortion if they had not tried to have an abortion in the first place.
Having said this, I realize that many women in countries where abortion is illegal are also much more exposed to rape, incest, and other heinous crimes wherein unwanted pregnancy is a result. My heart goes out to these women. No matter what the outcome, death of an unwanted baby, death of a woman through abortion, having to live with the progeny of an evil man, etc, it is NEVER pleasant. In these circumstances, abortion is not going to fix everything. The only thing that will fix the situation is professional counseling, and loving support. Imagine having to not only deal with the memory of a sexual assault, but then having to live with the guilt of having killed a defenseless baby. It's not a quick fix.
Legalized abortion results in cold-hearted women, trying to find satisfaction in fleeting pleasure and justifying the death of their children to keep them from having to ever grow up and accept responsibility for their actions.
As for the argument that some women would die in childbirth... this is a grossly over-used and unprovable argument. The only way to know if a woman would actually die during childbirth is to have a trial of labor. I was told that I would have to have a hysterectomy if I had more than 3 cesarean sections... I have had 4 and my uterus is not only intact, but my OB told me it actually looks surprisingly healthy... that said, I am not having any more children, and the man I am in a monogamous relationship with (i.e. husband) has had a vasectomy. Medicine has come way too far to substantiate the bulls--t that a woman should abort her baby because she "might" die during labor.
Although it is horrifying to think that any of these women died in the first place (ALL life is sacred, mother AND child). They would NOT have been a fatality due to a botched abortion if they had not tried to have an abortion in the first place.
Having said this, I realize that many women in countries where abortion is illegal are also much more exposed to rape, incest, and other heinous crimes wherein unwanted pregnancy is a result. My heart goes out to these women. No matter what the outcome, death of an unwanted baby, death of a woman through abortion, having to live with the progeny of an evil man, etc, it is NEVER pleasant. In these circumstances, abortion is not going to fix everything. The only thing that will fix the situation is professional counseling, and loving support. Imagine having to not only deal with the memory of a sexual assault, but then having to live with the guilt of having killed a defenseless baby. It's not a quick fix.
Legalized abortion results in cold-hearted women, trying to find satisfaction in fleeting pleasure and justifying the death of their children to keep them from having to ever grow up and accept responsibility for their actions.
I personally have volunteered time, finances and other resources to help women with unwanted pregnancies. This information seems lost on those who would like to black-ball anyone who disagrees with their pro-death (abortionist) viewpoint. I am currently seeking adoption (specifically of children who are older and less likely to be adopted) of these children who weren't desired but somehow made it into the world unscathed. Not sure yet how many I am going to be able to help.
And racial eugenics? Yes, quick, warn pregnant young women of color that if they voluntarily seek out an abortion provider and choose to have an abortion, they will not give birth to a happy, healthy baby! I'm sure they will thank you for bringing this heinous conspiracy to their attention.
Abortion has prevented TENS of BILLIONS of babies being born? Meaning our entire planetary ecosystem has not yet collapsed under the weight of overpopulation? Now that is something to thank God for!
your posts made me laugh :)
As you were told many times on this thread, anti-choice nazis and people like you lose all interest to what happens to those babies after they are born.
"Caring" for those babies by offering a adoption counseling is not real caring.Newborn babies (esp. white and healthy) are always in demand. Even without your so called "care" there are enough people and agencies that will adopt/find adoptive parents for those babies.
Before you get too involved, you might want to read up on what's already been said, so that we don't have to retrace ground already covered. You also may want to study the actual statistics, rather than making up numbers, indeed ten billion abortions (let alone tens of billions) would be (roughly) three for every woman and girl alive on earth, sterile or otherwise. In the future, if you want to quote statistics, feel free to provide links. This will help.
You also may want to read what's been said already, so we don't have to retrace ground already established. For example, one of the issues that is still not yet established is the point of personhood, i.e. when a prenate is considered legally (or morally) separate from the mother. Despite the beliefs of most who oppose abortion access, it is not axiomatic that this moment is conception as opposed to the many other logical alternatives. Even scripture is conspicuously vague about it.
It, of course, would follow that an abortion does not kill until after the point a fetus reaches personhood. Yes?
As I'm sure you know, low income mothers (the homeless, those on welfare and those who rely on contingent work) and teens who have tenuous family lives are the demographics that are most likely to have abortions, and to visit a CPC. Indeed, this is especially the case, since they have the least access to contraceptives and health services (including abortion), exasperated in recent years since obstructionist pharmacists have taken it upon themselves to deny (and often fail to return) birth control prescriptions.
I take, when you personally volunteered time, finances and other resources it was to an CPC, yes? You may have the stats yourself: How much postnatal relief does an CPC typically provide to a mother with a newborn, and what are the qualifications to be granted such a benefit? Again, links would be awesome.
No? Riiight.
The reality remains as it has for over 200 years: In this nation, liberty is more important than life. Patrick Henry had it down. It's baked right into the founder's documents. Stand up for your country!
It's got nothing to do with when hearts start beating or women's rights or racism or zygotes. It's more important than the quran/bible/torah/kamasutra/LRonHubbard's plan. It's about humanity and our commitment to improve ourselves. It's about besting tyrrany. About freely thinking and praying. Choice = Freedom.
Therefore, despite how I might disagree with some specific abortions, I will always vote for freedom of choice. It is the safest default. Prochoice. It's the only patriotic choice. We must all vigilantly defend the right to choose what we each believe to be right.
Your claim of being 'pro-life' rings hollow. Your allegiance belies how you've settled for being ill-informed.
At best, you may agree with the above robust view of pro-liferism, and want to stop the wars, but instead of fighting the hard fights,... you pick on pregnant women. Shameless. Might as well pick on kids burning ants if you’re going to miss the point of being pro-life so readily.
Good Parenting and Sound Spirituality can change morality, not law. We have to guarantee the right to choose while simultaneously ministering to those in need. That's the good work to be done. Choice, freedom, a right to think how we think: It's how we vote, for goodness sake!
And yes, I'll even claim it's for the unborn's sake too: (I would rather die and ) I'd rather a viable 38-week fetus even die, than see a defenseless baby born into an America that's lost, or sold off to the highest bidder, the very soul of democracy.
"people with a clear theo-political agenda are operating ultrasound equipment and providing intimate information to women and teenaged girls about sexuality, prenatal development and medical issues outside the scope of public regulation or expert supervision."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/…
CPC's are interested only in convincing pregnant women to carry to term, them kick them out the door. They don't provide one lick of help to real babies, for they have commited the sin of being born. No help for you, kid, we have goo-blobs to save!
And, call me crazy... but wouldn't Planned Parenthood receive more funding for all the medical costs, tests, appointments, check-ups, and equipment associated with a full term pregnancy rather than an early term abortion? The entire idea that there is a financial incentive, that PP persuades women to have abortions, that they do it for money instead of to help women... that entire argument has always been a steaming crock of shit.
"As for the argument that some women would die in childbirth... this is a grossly over-used and unprovable argument."
Oh? Worldwide over half a million women die every year from complications of pregnancy (my source is United Nations stats from 2000). As I've said above 70,000 of those deaths are from illegal abortions.
You care about babies? Go to Afghanistan, where prenatal care is so poor that ONE IN NINE pregnant women dies in the post-natal period (source: UNICEF 2007). That doesn't shock you? How about this: if an Afghan woman dies in childbirth, the chance that her baby will survive to its first birthday is less than one in four. Do we have your attention now? Can you see why a mother of small children looking at that mortality rate might consider ending her next pregnancy? What will happen to her children if she dies? Oh I know: you're going to help them "with adoption counseling."
You think you can tell women around the world that what they need is "professional counseling and loving support?" Please grow up. What they need is safety, a stable society, the right to refuse arranged marriage, adequate nutrition, and access to contraception and skilled care. Sometimes they need abortions--and who are you to tell them otherwise?
You want to help babies? Help the moms. And if they want abortions they're going to get them. You can say your "heart goes out to them" but if you're making abortion unsafe, you're hurting them and the babies you claim to love so much.
An innocent mistake? Hmmm.....the typical eight-week fetus weighs about one gram and is less than an inch long, while at 16 weeks 100 grams and 5 inches are average.
We have often puzzled over where those specimens came from....
There is a huge difference between he typical eight-week fetus at one gram and less than an inch long and a 16 week old's 100 grams and 5 inches are average.
You sure want to catch the as early as possible-
they put up much less of a fight that way...
is it possible to kill a tree?
a dog?
a baby seal?
do any of these posses 'personhood'?
don't be a moron.
You're not really a Reverend, are you.
Also: @11 reproductive freedom doesn't mean we're allowed to have pregnancies, it means we are allowed to have control of our pregnancies.
http://ramahinternational.org/index.html
http://www.thereishope.org/content/tih_i…
These are links to two specific organizations I have donated to. The second (you will notice) does include reasonable information about abortion as an option, rather than scare tactics to try and manipulate a woman into keeping her baby alive.
http://local.botw.org/Georgia/Tifton/Pre…
This is one that I donated times to as a teenager. Items donated were diapers, formula, baby clothes, etc. They were different sizes which would speak to those who think that the women would be forcibly ejected once the child is born. If this was true, logic would follow that they would only need to stock newborn diapers and clothing.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.ht…
This link is a table of abortions performed worldwide. The years included are 1995 and 2003. Could not find a link with statistics for a more recent year.
http://voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/…
Here is another table showing the number of abortions that are performed for convenience vs those for the health of the mother, or post rape/incest. Unfortunately, some will not accept this information as true simply because it is from a pro-life website. Tried to find a less biased source, but didn't have time to get more in-depth.
I will stand corrected on my made up "tens of billions" (I was referring to a more general number over several years). Regardless I would still hold that 70,000 is significantly less than the 41 million babies who are now dead. Again, I am not saying that the mother's death was not unfortunate.
As per the idea that 10 billion is implausible. Look up Irene Vilar:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05…
All you'd need is a few more of these women and those who have only killed one of their babies would seem like mother Theresa.
Oh, and I'm sorry I didn't read everything that was posted before me, but some of the comments were so repulsive that I started skimming. If only people could use logic when they debate, rather than simply reverting to the juvenile practice of ridiculing a debater. It's so much more intelligent to offer actual information than simply say "you're wrong because you're stupid." It's like reading printed dialog of 6 year olds arguing.
Should read "This one I donated items to"
>>You care about babies? Go to Afghanistan, where prenatal care is so poor that ONE IN NINE pregnant women dies in the post-natal period (source: UNICEF 2007). <<
So, because I am human and at this point in my life I am unable to help every single woman on the planet, my validity is questioned? Really? Not to beat a dead horse, but Mother Theresa couldn't help every orphan in the world, yet she won the Nobel. I am not a silent activist who talks the talk but won't walk the walk. If you're such an advocate for women's health, why don't you go to Afghanistan and make sure that these women are getting the proper care?
>>You think you can tell women around the world that what they need is "professional counseling and loving support?" <<
I'm not trying to tell women around the world anything. I'm only trying to help women in my own backyard, because that is all I can do as a human being. Oh, and by the way, I wasn't saying that someone needs to go tell these victims anything, but rather that those in a position to offer counsel and support should be available to do so. Rather than seeing my desire to help my fellow sister, you would assume that I, like you, are more inclined to batter another human with cold cynicism and offer a quick fix to a complex situation.
>>"Caring" for those babies by offering adoption counseling is not real caring.Newborn babies (esp. white and healthy) are always in demand. Even without your so called "care" there are enough people and agencies that will adopt/find adoptive parents for those babies.<<
First, I am offended that you would assume that I would only be willing to offer help to a white or healthy baby. The agencies I am looking into are specifically interested in placing mixed race, sibling group, and other "difficult to place" children. I'm not even looking into international adoption right now because there are so many children who need care here in my own country. It would be rather hypocritical of me to ignore those right outside my door in favor of one from an exotic location.
Oh, and... Just because you don't believe me, doesn't invalidate what I've said. Just because you decided to change the parameters of a debate to suit your own agenda doesn't make you right. How can you say that trying to get an unwanted child placed in a loving home is not real caring? Are you saying that proponents of a baby's right to live have to assume responsibility for every single child who is not aborted to prove that they really care?
>>Even without your so called "care" there are enough people and agencies that will adopt/find adoptive parents for those babies.<<
This just confuses me. Are you saying that there are so many people out there trying to help these babies that abortion shouldn't even be a consideration? What is sounded like to me is that you were saying that all the babies that are born will be adopted.
If you are not going to read the initial post by Dan Savage (which basically says that banning abortion doesn't prevent abortion but access to birth control does prevent abortion, and that women die from illegal abortion) then what are you doing in the discussion?
I suggested you examine worldwide statistics on maternal death because you said that it can't be proved that women die in childbirth. They do. Every day. Even in the USA. I compared those stats to world deaths from illegal abortions to show that more women die from pregnancy than from abortion.
Look, what you're doing, jumping into a conversation without even taking the time to understand what it's ABOUT is simply rude (not to mention foolish, what with the bunch of piranhas on THIS site).
@161, just forget it, you are not making any sense. Listen to what you are being advised. Let's rewind. Read the initial post, digest it, try to comment on it. Dont introduce any red herrings or deliberately play dumb, please.
Some thoughts:
Neither the Ramah International bookstore nor the Hope Women's Centers website suggest they offer any of the services about which I asked, saying only (in the latter case) We CARE. We want to HELP. All of our services are FREE. the sentiments of which are typical of any corporate or activist customer service center, and are commonly insincere. The Pregnancy Care Website (which may not have anything to do with the center to which you donate) offers One-On-One Mentoring, a number of internal education programs and Referral Programs which doesn't sound comparable to the kinds of professional, degreed counseling an expecting mother requires.
Low income women enduring an unintended pregnancy often require long term psychotherapy, benefits advocacy to secure food, shelter, parenting guidance and medicine for themselves and their child, and enough benefits for a sustained period of time no less than five years that will not only cover the cost of rearing the child but will offset some of the mother's cost of living.
Why such a toll? As a society, we cannot assume that any features of a loving, supporting family, or a paternal figure (a boyfriend or husband) will be available. Young expecting mothers are still often estranged from their parental homes, if that home was safe to them in the first place. Fathers of the pregnancy are often abusive, immature or otherwise unprepared to accept the responsibility of fatherhood, if he can be located and paternally established at all; the cases in which the father wishes to do his part are lucky ones.
If the Mom is single and (as is typical) no community manifests around her, that means the child will be a latchkey kid, and is likely going to grow up socially impaired. Children establish much of their sense of self by having their expressions reflected by parents, family and other community members. You can expect the child himself or herself will endure more difficulties than usual adapting to social interaction, finding work, establishing personal independence and functioning as an adult. Chances are increased, the child will repeat the process and get pregnant (get someone else pregnant) before she or he is ready for parenthood.
All this is exacerbated when the pregnant woman is a victim of rape or incest, in which case she has been no less than attacked and infected with a hostile parasite, one that will (should she choose to carry) assign her with nine months of misery (only in rare cases is pregnancy fun), and leave an permanent, living legacy. (From an evolutionary standpoint, it also encourages the continuation more aggressive, less cooperative genetic traits.)
More to follow...
It does make me wonder what, according to Dr. Michael Brown and his ministry, constitutes unwanted or inconvenience. Are non-life-threatening health issues (i.e. paralyzation) considered inconvenience? Are antepartum mental health issues considered inconvenience?, are threats to ones personal livelihood (i.e. work) considered, inconvenience even in the current economic situation, where the average length of unemployment is over a year (according to What Color Is Your Parachute) and when unemployment can easily result in homelessness? Is hardship inconvenience? How about preexisting mental disorders? Are they inconvenience? Drug addictions? Social stigma? If a teen is certain she'll be evicted and disowned by her family if she gets pregnant, and she chooses abortion, is that inconvenience?
Terminology is a common problem, and has become, by my observation a device of oversimplification of by the obstructionist community.
Further examples to follow...
As I was saying, oversimplification of terminology, something that the obstructionists seem to intend to do, is one of the divisive elements in the abortion controversy.
Another example, in fact a favorite of Allegedly's is confusion of terms like life, organism, etc. with personhood. Allegedly and I have dialogued about this issue ad nauseam in which I provided links to in-depth examinations of each word (here's a fix to the misdirected link, btw).
Case in point, Allegedly seems to believe waxing poetic and inappropriate or rough general comparisons can serve in place of a reason-based examination of the real world circumstances behind abortion cases. (This might, indeed, be quite convincing in much of the obstructionist sector). To respond to his most recent entry, a living dog has certain rights and protections that don't apply to them until they're born, so yes dogs has their own form of personhood. Trees are seldom so protected, but some old growth and reserved areas are. Usually a tree has to be a minimum height before transgressing on it is regarded as a violation, so again there's a point when a tree attains its rights and protections. Similar codes exist to protect seals as well, as a number of other flora and fauna. While human personhood is particular to humankind, the concept of a minimum degree of existence before protection is attained is not uniquely applied to human beings. (Not so moronic an answer after all.)
But considering an example from your own text, Bethimus, equating a zygote or fetus with a baby or child is just as fallacious. Indeed the natural chances of each transitioning to the next are far from absolute, and so presuming that one equates to the next in language such as 41 million babies who are now dead is regarded around here as sloppy hyperbole. Technically, they're 41 million babies who were never babies, assuredly some of whom would never have become babies.
Since I don't regard terminating a pregnancy as taking a life until 20 weeks (which I've explained above), I think very few deaths have occurred due to abortion, and none of those were elective cases.
Also, I doubt severely that Irene Vilar's condition will become epidemic. We have made fools of the state often enough legislating based on what someone speculated might happen, rather than what is happening.
Speaking of epidemics, though, I agree with you that the insults and hyperbole are pandemic conditions on internet debates. I've become desensitized, myself, but can understand how it can dispossess someone to actually read what has been said. In my own case, I tolerate the cross-talk since I seek to understand both sides of the issue, since I have difficulty believing so many folk who are adamantly, sometimes violently opposed to abortion access are that way without a valid reason, or a sense of reason. Still, the excuses typically given for abortion obstructionism often do not gel with the methods used.
I still don't see why a better tact would be to reduce unwanted pregnancies by making contraception easier, more reliable and available to everyone, including low-income families. Indeed, instead, the same activists who push to abolish abortion push to abolish birth control as well.
So far, from what I've seen, obstructionists can't be bothered to do anything but make a nuisance of themselves.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm a real live ordained minister (and by a real live person of the cloth, no less; not a website). I've ministered to the flock, dutifully married folks, had the honor of giving last rites, the whole schmear. Since 1996 or so. However, it's not my day job.
Happy to skew the occasional notion that all 'Reverends' are anti-choice, though.
"Since I don't regard terminating a pregnancy as taking a life until 20 weeks (which I've explained above), I think very few deaths have occurred due to abortion, and none of those were elective cases."
Please document all abortions past 20 weeks to verify your assertion that NONE of those were elective.
Not to worry, no disappointment at all-
'Reverends' lie somewhere below used car salesmen in my personal ranking of trades and scam artists.
Nor is the 'man of the cloth as abortion apologist' a surprise- our society is full of Liberals who find justification for every hue and shade of immoral behavior in their Personal religion.
We were more bemused by the whole wacky tinfoil-hat teabaggeresque take on life you espoused.
No need to wonder-
here is a handy formula so you too can ascertain what constitutes Inconvenience.
Mom comes to you and says:
"Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice, either I Kill you or I have to..."
Then fill in the blank with the hypothetical Inconvenience and ask yourself:
"Would I feel good about Mom making this choice?"
Let's try it out!
Mom: "Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice. Summer is just around the corner and I hate to think how I'll look in a bikini with a glob of fetal tissue on board so I'm afraid you'll have to 'go'..."
You: "No problem, Mom!- Besides, I'd hate an unsightly belly bulge to jeopardize your chances of getting knocked up again by some loser..."
See how easy it is?
Let's try another-
Mom: "Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice. The Dreamy Guy who I just knew was Mr Right and I was sure having a baby with would cement Our True SoulMate Love turns out to have a wife and three kids...."
You: "No problem, Mom!- But hey- keep your chin up. You keep putting out for all the guys at work and I'm sure you'll find True Love & Happiness eventually..."
OK. I know you're thinking;
"wait- these are trivial excuses and in the whole history of the human race no one has EVER had an abortion for anything less severe that the guarantee of
Total Full-Body Paralysis or
Unemployment leading to Being Thrown Out on the Street or
Criminal Insanity or
Not Making the CheerLeading Squad (gasp!).
Let's try the formulae one last time with a more
Typical and Serious
Inconvience as a Real Excuse for Abortion-
Mom: "Bub, I'm so sorry but I have to make a choice. I had a vision last night and if I carry you to term the Universe will be Destroyed."
You: "Wow, Mom- don't waste a second! Here, let me call the clinic and a taxi..."
You amuse me. You act as though the medical changes and dangers of pregnancy are trivial. Let's say you drive your car.
You are hit by a drunk driver.
Due to the accident, he will die without a new liver.
We shall take 50% of yours. Don't worry, it will grow back. It's just a little "inconvenient". Just like how you claim women get abortions because pregnancy is "inconvenient".
nothing about pregnancy is trivial,
least of all the act of ending one.
which is why men and women should be responsible in their behavior and choices and not create unwanted pregnancies.
choices carry consequences.
when people choose to engage in unethical behavior to avoid consequences of earlier freely made choices they always compound the problem.
America sacrifices the lives of millions of it's most helpless to in an unsuccessful attempt to sweep the consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior under the carpet.
taking life on that scale creates a huge due bill, that eventually will be paid.
centuries of slavery eventually exacted it's toll in blood and treasure.
the German attempt to enslave Europe and all the moral atrocities that accompanied it exacted a high toll as well.
justice may be delayed but not denied.
“Personhood”
Stripping or denying your intended victim of “personhood” is a precursor to LEGALIZE wholesale killings or extermination.
The racial policy of Nazi Germany asserting the superiority of the "Aryan race" (based on a specific racist doctrine which claimed scientific legitimacy) was based on the concept of Untermensch .
Untermensch (German for sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term from Nazi racial ideology used to describe "inferior people", especially the Jews. The German word Mensch literally means human.
The term "Untermensch" was utilized repeatedly in writings and speeches directed against the Jews,
The concept of people being "Untermensch" in particular served the Nazis as justification for their genocidal policies .
"Untermenschen" included the Gypsies, also subject to extermination. Includes non-whites from colonial African. Homosexuals and disabled people (based on physical and mental illnesses) were also considered to be part of this category.
“Personhood”
Stripping or denying your intended victim of “personhood” is a precursor to LEGALIZE slavery, wholesale killings or genocide.
Slave holders looked to science to justify their 'peculiar institution'.
Denying that Negroes were human was a favorite approach...
"What is so striking about the American experience in creating such an extreme conception of human differences was the role played by scientists and scholars in legitimizing the folk ideas. Scholarly writers began attempting to prove scientifically that "the Negro" was a different and lower kind of human being. The first published materials arguing from a scientific perspective that "negroes" were a separate species from white men appeared in the last decade of the eighteenth century. They argued that Negroes were either a product of degeneration from that first creation, or descendants of a separate creation altogether."
from- ORIGIN OF THE IDEA OF RACE
by Audrey Smedley
Anthropology Newsletter, November 1997
parsing genealogy and eye color and facial features to decide if one was Jewish
or declaring that even one drop of Negro blood contaminated it's owner in the eyes of the law or
or counting cells and weeks and ounces and neural pathways to declare "it is not a Person and it's DEATH need not concern us...".
Clutch any straws yet?
Regarding Allegedly @168, This defense rests, your honor.
Allegedly @174, your Freudian slip is showing. So you agree that abortion access obstruction is about punishing the irresponsibly promiscuous by inflicting them with child, not about the preservation of life. That makes sense giving the obstructionist interest in also denying contraceptives: You think non-procreative sex is icky and thus don't want anyone having any.
Way to go trying to legislate your own sexual repression.
Allegedly @176 There you go again, crossing the Godwin threshold. That never speaks well of your situation, and insults the victims of the Holocaust, simultaneously.
We have never said a word about contraceptives- you are confusing your straw men with the Real World.
We guess citing Godwin has to make do for you for an answer when you have no other answer-
using Nazi terminology and arguments to justify your position speaks well of it.
No slip (although I don't know which post you are actually referring to- your numbering system seems different from the one I see)
Behavior that results in an unintended pregnancy is by definition irresponsible and careless.
And in this day and age, inexcusable.
It is not proponents of life who are "inflicting" anyone "with child"- if there is any punishment involved it is that natural punishment that inevitably follows irresponsible careless behavior.
It is typical however that those who have willfully engaged in behavior that made themselves pregnant would accuse opponents of killing with "inflicting them with child".
Denying responsibility right up to the bitter end...
Does your face twitch when you assert that No abortions performed after 20 weeks have EVER been elective?
Even your friend attitude deviant would tell you how ludicrous you sound...
A fetus has none of these things. We are not "de-humanizing them" to justify this. They already lack EVERYTHING that makes a human being special and deserving of rights. Abortion is no worse than putting down a sick dog.
YOU claim they have personhood? PROVE IT.
I have the POTENTIAL to become president, but I do not have the right to secret-service protection NOW.
Likewise, a lump of tissue that has the POTENTIAL to develop into an infant does not trump the rights of the woman.
As I have said before, getting the abortion IS a form of taking responsibility. You would drag us all back into the dark ages and slap us all in chastity belts, make women into nothing more than breeding chattel. Perhaps you wish to start practicing female genital mutilation, it would certainly discourage woman from "irresponsibly seeking pleasure".
I would rather see my sister, my wife, my daughter, and my granddaughter choose to responsibly terminate a pregnancy rather than suffer through it before they are ready.
As for this continuing search for the "inconvenient pregnancy" which you seem to confuse with the term "elective abortion," what IS that all about? It's like the "baby-killing Hun" of WWI, or the witches of Salem, Massachusetts. You're convinced she's there and that presence justifies your persecution of the larger group. Nothing personal against the larger group, you see, just the bad one. And you get to decide.
When I offered my experience (which is not small) to say that women agonize over this decision, you said that was anecdotal evidence. If I directed you to one of the many websites where women left tributes to Dr. Tiller after his murder (a more heart-breaking bunch of stories you will never see) you would claim that those were self-reports and thus not credible.
The interesting thing to me is that even the most virulent anti-choicer has some place where he draws the line, and says, OK, that one gets by me. Rape, incest, life of the mother, are common ones, but other people would add chromosomal abnormalities, health of the mother, spousal abuse, mental illness....
Here's where it gets sticky: once you concede that there are acceptable reasons for abortion, who gets to decide who gets one? You want a committee? Or a judge? The worst night I ever spent on call I took care of a mom with twins at 21 weeks who had developed a terrible uterine infection. Those were wanted babies. We had only hours to terminate her pregnancy or she would die. It was 2 a.m. when she got sick. Can you imagine having to appeal to a judge in the middle of the night to save this lady's life? Can you imagine having to tell her frantic husband that you were waiting for the judge to get back to you? One of Dr. Tiller's cases was a 15 year old girl impregnated by her stepfather. Would you put your teen in front of a committee to be cross-examined? And if a judge in Louisiana can refuse a marriage license to an interracial couple as reported on Slog THIS week, can you trust a judge to make the right decision for your sister, or your daughter, or your mom? Would they know all the particulars about the one you love?
If you work with these women and you care about them and you listen to them you'll know that THEY must decide. Who else has that right? I am not their judge and jury; neither are you. I've had patients carry babies with horrible birth defects, incompatible with life (and yes, we can tell them that) to term, knowing that their babies would die in their arms within days, but to them that was the RIGHT thing to do. I've had others faced with the same situation who felt that allowing the pregnancy to continue beyond 20 weeks was an immoral choice since it condemned their baby to pain and suffering. These were loving parents with miserable choices trying to do their best by their children. There was no one right answer to their situation. Just the answer that fit best with their beliefs --- not with yours or mine.
I think most of us really do try and do our best. Some of us, our best is not so good. We are frail, our birth control methods fail us (even vasectomy Bethimus!), we screw up. We are lucky to live in a country where most women have access to choice. In other parts of the world, screwing up can be fatal.
I grew up in the South too. It's a place to start.
Those who would deny Liberty and Life to others scarcely deserve it themselves.
Has there ever been an elective abortion past 20 weeks?
So... you deny women the liberty to decide what is medically best for themselves? You deny life to the thousands that die in childbirth each year?
A woman is a person. You have not proven that a fetus is.
189,
Probably. But that does not mean were going to deny a right to all women because of 1 or 2 very rare poor decision maker. The vast majority of women are not going to go through all the morning sickness, the weight gain, the swelling, the nausea, the hormones, for 20 weeks just to change her mind at the drop of a hat.
I doubt you're willing to pull your head out of the hole in the ground you've dug for yourself long enough to look up the medical conditions that make late term abortion necessary in some cases. Harlequin ichthyosis is a favorite of mine.
Even when it will live no more than a few hours in agony, a late term abortion is an agonizing decision, and your claim that some women will take it lightly is an insult to every woman on the planet.
I'll repeat, or expound upon my answers with corrected and linked indexes as to make avoid further confusion.
Allegedly @171, as I said before I don't need to provide documents that medical procedures were done in propriety. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. Your Operation Rescue friends tried to drum up charges on Tiller before you guys murdered him. The results were (for your purposes) rather disappointing.
Back to @182, Allegedly, I take your use of the word irresponsible (irresponsibly, take responsibility for, etc.) is code for having non-procreative sex of which you personally do not approve?
I take, therefore, you believe those that do not want children should simply not have sex. Yes?
When Dr. George Tiller was gunned down by your man Roeder, I looked, myself, through Tiller's cases (those that were publicized) to see if the prevalent belief amongst obstructionists, that Tiller deserved to be murdered had even a modicum of legitimacy. It didn't. As I mentioned before Operation Rescue did such a search and took him to court on what little they found might not be in order. It was. Tiller was acquitted.
Roe v. Wade protects abortion access on demand up to the point of viability (neonate survivability on life support) after which only non-elective abortions are legal. However, the interaction between federal law and state law is complicated. Most agencies and states consider late term abortion anything after either 16 or 20 weeks, after which the restrictions on reasons one can abort become quite prohibitive.
So, yeah, Allegedly, I'm probably wrong making the general statement that none have ever occurred, it being a big world with lots of people and all. More likely so outside the US or regarding non-current cases. But within the US today, I'd wager the one-thousand-or-so late term abortions we do carry out each year are due to a fetal anomaly incompatible with life.
So it's not so much ludicrous as a modest stretch. But, Allegedly, it would be good exercise for you to find a link to a case of an elective abortion after 20 weeks, or a statistic indicative that they happen.
Oh, the link to @171 in my previous post should have gone here. I'm still getting used to this.
PS: Getting back to my evangelism regarding ectogenesis, another effective way to roll back the period regarded late term is to develop life support devices that will sustain a younger fetus (and, of course, a safe transfer system). But, Allegedly, I get the feeling you and your ilk woudn't want to spare a single woman the pain of childbirth, if you could possibly help it.
uh huh.
couldn't take the twitching anymore, could you...
As attitude devant noted, when you say in defense [I] have never said without an identity, you not only have to assure you personally have never crossed that line, but those people who wear the same hood as you haven't either.
In fact, since you're not openly representing the Queen, your pronoun We not only refers to you, but to the obstructionist community at large, in which there are plenty of contingents who oppose birth control access as well as abortion access, including The Roman Catholic Church, President George W. Bush, Pharmacists for Life International, Pro-Life Wisconsin, Women Influencing the Nation, Human Life International, One More Soul, The Pill Kills, et. al.
Until you exclude them from your We, they're included, despite the fact that some of them are the proverbial furry geeks of the obstructionist community.
A more useful thing to say would be I, personally, want everyone to have access to contraceptives, and think effective birth control is a great way to reduce abortion. But when I mentioned it long before you made it clear how you couldn't care less if you tried.
I'm still waiting on that example to the contrary, though. C.mon Allegedly, show me you know how to research on the web.
Relax.
Roeder wasn't our man.
Tiller's murder says no more about the pro-Life movement than Lennon's murder said about readers of 'The Catcher in the Rye'.
In a functioning democracy the laws can be changed within the system by convincing a majority of the people to your point of view.
People who believe abortion is wrong can and should and do work within the system to change the laws.
America kills a million babies a year because a sufficient number of Americans with enough political power want it to happen.
We have the greatest system of government the world has ever known.
But it doesn't guarantee us good or fair or wise or moral government.
It guarantees us the government we deserve.
We may, if we inform ourselves and participate and choose well, have fair, wise, moral, enlightened government.
Or we may choose selfish, shortsighted, immoral government.
Or through our inaction and apathy allow someone else to choose it for us.
But we always get what we deserve.
Good or bad.
We may choose to enslave our brothers.
For hundreds of years.
Eventually, however the bill comes due.
We may choose to kill a million babies a year.
The bill tab grows.
It will be paid at some point.
Pro-Life seeks to convince America that abortion of convenience is morally wrong and to change the laws to reflect that.
By working through the system.
The Left cheats-
Roe, for example.
Courts don't make law or policy, the elected legislature does that. Roe was a monstrous abuse of the courts power and very unwise (it would have been better for everyone to let the states pass their own laws and reach a national consensus)
And laws that single out and restrict Pro-Life ability to protest or demonstrate also break the rules.
But we are not petty.
And we are patient.
We still will work within the system.
As long as there is half a chance to change the nations laws by working through the system that is what we will do.
Don't fret, U-boy.
Roeder wasn't one of ours.
He broke the law and should be punished.
The Left should not cheat too much, however.
The Left is fond of using judges to circumvent the will of the people.
The people's will is often imperfect, but it is the will of the people.
Change it.
Don't go around it.
That is a dangerous game.
When judges become tyrants the people will exercise their right and responsibility to end the tyranny.
Remember, "..., Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED,..."
not from the philosophy of unelected judges.
Remember, "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,..."
We are patient- "experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
But not inexhaustibly so: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
It Is Their DUTY.
Patrick Henry and Jefferson got it.
That's what the 2nd Amendment is for.
It isn't about hunting.
Or burglars.
The NRA won't tell you that out loud.
But everyone on this side gets it.
The Left doesn't get it.
Dan and his whiny bitch fanboys squeal for judges to ignore the will of the people.
SCREW THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED!
It is a dangerous game.
Dan is a two-year old.
You ignore the tantrums of a two-year old.
But the adults on the Left should be cautious about using judges to IGNORE THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
It is a dangerous game.
Roeder wasn't one of ours.
We are playing by the rules.
If we decide not to anymore Slog won't have to speculate, U-boy.
You'll know.
You already admitted you were wrong.
Why would I rub it in?
You'll have to Bing it yourself if you want to wallow in the magnitude of your error.
Good luck with that rock, Sisyphus.
Courts are there to prevent Tyranny of the Majority.
That means you cannot use a majority vote to get between a woman and her doctor.
An embryo is not yet a baby. You are a fool to think otherwise.
is the embryo alive?
is the embryo human?
But your presumption that I did may belie your problem, that you believe everything is absolute. Or it could be, as I've indicated recently, you just couldn't be bothered to lift a finger.
But it wasn't Roeder's actions that I find most intriguing, but the ticker tape parades throughout the web. The hot-wings and beer celebrations you couldn't bother to wait until behind closed doors to begin. On the obstructionist chatboards, not a single Hey! Not cool! The absolute conviction with which I saw they all believed that Tiller really did nothing but cacklingly rip perfectly healthy babies from the wombs of unsuspecting mothers. They really couldn't imagine that even one of the abortions Tiller performed was justified, was done because the fetus was doomed, or the mother was doomed if the pregnancy was left on its own.
These are your people Allegedly. Your allies. The ones you call brothers and sisters and friends. The ones you include when you say we. So call them as they are. Call Roeder your man, your hero. He forfeited his life, after all, to close down an abortion facility. Aren't you proud of him for that? Roeder did good, yes?
How many of Dr. Tiller's procedures do you believe were elective, eh, Allegedly?
Could you help but let out a hoot when you heard Dr. Tiller was murdered at his church, Allegedly?