Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Jon Sanders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Aborted and Lived To Tell About It
by Jon Sanders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



England is abuzz about "The Boy Who Lived," and no, his name isn't Harry Potter, but he did survive a deliberate attempt on his life. Two, in fact, while still in his mother's womb.

The boy, Gabriel Jones, was the weaker twin and had an enlarged heart. Doctors told his mother that they believed he would die in the womb, and if he did, they said, that would cause his brother to die, too.

The despondent mother, Rebecca Jones, agreed to terminate Gabriel to save his twin brother, Ieuan. First doctors attempted to sever his umbilical cord, but according to published reports, the cord proved too strong. So they halved Jones' placenta to allow Gabriel to die without harm to Ieuan.

Instead, the tiny boy thrived, and both children were born by caesarian section five weeks later. They are happy, healthy children, with the bright eyes, gummy smiles and wispy hair of adorable infants.

Gabriel and his family are thrice blessed. Many children who survive "failed abortions" face lifelong health problems or disabilities. And unlike Gabriel, they are born to mothers who didn't want the child to see the light of day. Likely unaware that failed abortion was a risk, they live with a potent brew of mixed emotions, including anger at the doctors, anger at themselves, maternal love and obligation to the children, and guilt and shame over the abortion and any after-effects the children suffer.

Some states even allow "wrongful birth" lawsuits in which mothers of "abortion survivors" have sought to recoup the costs of the abortion procedures, of care for a child facing medical problems owing to the failed abortion, and in a few states, of caring for a healthy child.

In 2004, a study in Great Britain found that 50 babies a year live through abortion attempts there. In the U.S., in 2002 Congress passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which made it the law of the land that a child who survives an abortion attempt is immediately entitled to emergency medical treatment and is not to suffer neglect until he dies, as some hospitals had reportedly dealt with abortion survivors.

The most well-known abortion survivor is Gianna Jessen, who survived saline injection at seven and a half months. Jessen suffers cerebral palsy as a result, but she sings, runs marathons, and uses her example to fight abortion, traveling the world speaking out against the legal medical procedure that very nearly killed her. She has testified before state legislatures, Congress, and the House of Lords. Her amazing story can be read in Jessica Shaver's book Gianna: Aborted … and Lived to Tell About It.

Last year Jessen made a memorable appearance before the Colorado House of Representatives. She was invited to sing the national anthem there by Rep. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch. Her affliction caused her to lose her balance, and her nerves caused her to falter, and everyone present joined with her to encourage her.

When she was done, Harvey introduced her to the chamber. He spoke of her cerebral palsy from a traumatic birth, her life in foster homes before being adopted, how she struggled even to lift her head, then crawl and walk, and how she now runs in marathons to raise awareness of cerebral palsy. Harvey called her a modern day hero, and Jessen received a standing ovation.

Harvey wasn't done. On the docket that day was a resolution to honor the 90th anniversary of the Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood clinic. Harvey then revealed the cause of Jessen's cerebral palsy: the failed abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic. He was gaveled down, of course, but he told the Speaker, "I just wanted to put a face to what we are celebrating today."

House Democrats fumed. Majority Leader Alice Madden told the Denver Post that Harvey had been "amazingly rude to use a human being as an example of his personal politics."

Jessen, who presumably would have known she had been used, told the Post, "We need to discuss the humanity of it [abortion]. I'm glad to be able to speak up for children in the womb. If abortion is about women's rights, where were my rights?"

It's no coincidence that we speak of the miracle of childbirth. But it is especially miraculous when God preserves the life of a baby whose mother chose to abort only because it seemed the only way to preserve the life of his twin -- thus out of her despair seeing her hope and joy divinely restored. And it is awe-inspiring when he raises up another miraculous abortion survivor to go to the halls of power across the world and speak out against the grisly practice.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jon Sanders is a policy analyst and research editor at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, N.C.

Be the first to read Jon Sanders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Abortion,Reality and Perspective
The abortion of a potential life of any promise or quality is sad and revolting to me. However, I have been through the death of a baby son that was a "pre-ordained" death, if you will. His disease is detectable at 11 weeks of pregnancy and is a fatal rapidly degenerative disease (SMA - look it up). We did not know to test for it in his case. Therefore, I have a somewhat unique perspective on abortion.

All I can say is that whenever there is hope and potential for a life of any promise, choose life!

Pain, complete immobilization and death from an incurable and fatal genetic disease, as in the case of my son, is not a life of promise or quality. If there is no hope, only struggle, pain, suffering and/or death for a child, then and only then, should abortion become an option.

As far as this article goes, plenty of babies have heart defects and go on to live lives of great potential. This family should have gotten a second opinion! It sound as if the doctors and hospital were trying to "cover their a$$" by cutting out the problem fetus. Doctors can be so wrong many times, so ALWAYS question their authority and be an advocate for your family!

Len wrote:
"abortion in early stages are very safe"

For who? The child?

Len
No, I would not ask my child every night if they were having sex IF I had no reason to believe that they would engage in it (no boyfriend), or have the opportunity to engage in it.

If my daughters were in "serious" relationships at the age of 14, I would try to keep track of it, but not in a threatening manner. My mom should write a book on it, because it is only now that I realize that she "checked up" on me, but was never invasive of my privacy.

I would do the same with my daughters. And, no, I would not ask about masturbation. That's a ridiculous question for most reasonable people. I would be happier that they did that, then go and have sex unprotected and before they were emotionally ready to handle the situation, including the risks.

I'm thinking that parental consent laws can be tweaked to make sure that underage girls can get their problem seen to by judges before it's too late. I think that's the best way to go right now.

Like agenT said, you need a note so they can take aspirin, but a major medical procedure, no. They can just do that without you knowing.

I'm just not for it. I understand what you are saying about abused children, etc., but I think there are other ways to get around that while leaving parental rights intact.

Like I said before, it's one of those things that the left might want to compromise on, because they would gain more support from centrist Americans, then doing it the other way.

len & ladyk
Hi len

I do see (and understand) your point with the "word" selfish. From our POV though we gave nothing and received so much. It is really goes much deeper than I have words to explain. We really didn't understand ourselves until we experienced it first hand. Anyway I guess it still boils down to perspective.

As far as the sex/privacy issue. I disagree. First off abortion is not sex. It may be a result of sex but abortion by definition is a medical procedure. Parents need to sign an okay slip for their kid to take an aspirin in school but not for a medical procedure that ends a newly formed life. To me this is just insanity.
This law to "protect" the child in my view does much more to endager her. Parents need to be informed. They know the childs history. They know much more than the school nurse or counselor. It may be safe early on, but what about later. Plus the emotional factor involved.

hi ladyk- I agree what you are saying on the parental consent issue. That whole mess in Maine really sort of boggles the mind. It's coming down the pipe though.

len
It's mellor. Mellors is a gardner in a DH Lawrence novel :)

You write: "however, i think unfair to brush all christians or even most;

the nuts like partick who post here are i would imagine a minority

many of the others lady paddy dont have that viscious streak"

I agree. Being xian is not bad per se. However, it provides cover for a huge amount of nastiness.

I see three types: The non-vicious (my best friend is one such); the crazy (patrick etc... there are so many), and the middle of the road bible quoters who honestly believe that a quote from the bible buttresses whatever (often insane) point they are trying to make. Desk jockey is one these, so is scott. Talent scout is probably one of the middle group too, except that he believes himself to be a Prophet...

"many of egs in aborion problems are really dysfunctional; that they also maybe be xian is secondary"

I don't think it's 'primary' or 'secondary'. I think that these laws are in place to help young girls do what is necessary without being bullied by their parents, just plain dysfunctional or dysfunctional xian.

And anyway, if these people have such great relationships with their kids, what are they afraid of?

"the support or rudy in the south suggest that craziness is over represened here in TH
i dont run into such characters and never have in ny and now phila;"

Agreed. I won't travel anywhere south of a line from New Orleans to Richmond VA. Too sickening.

mellors
however, i think unfair to brush all christians or even most;

the nuts like partick who post here are i would imagine a minority

many of the others lady paddy dont have that viscious streak

many of egs in aborion problems are really dysfunctional; that they also maybe be xian is secondary

the support or rudy in the south suggest that craziness is over represened here in TH
i dont run into such characters and never have in ny and now phila;
i have a jamaican 20 year old across the street from me who i took under my wing; very shy; but religous; born again; but low leyed; knows nothing about politics

melllor
sure; but i read one case of chinese girl; i dont if christian

lady
it appears that 61% of those under age do tell their parents; primarily the younger ones. The rest tend to come from dysfunctional homes.

Len writes
"many do not go for parental consent come from violent homes; threats of being thrown out. If lucky, there are people to help;if lucky; and each day that passes makes the abortion more risky"

True.

But you may also just as well written "many do not go for parental consent come from xian homes; threats of being thrown out [etc]"




lady
Would you ask your 14 yr son or daughter every nite if they had sex that day in the name of parental supervision; would ask them what their masturbation fantasies were? Yet, you might ask if they did their homework

I would not ask about sex. Sex seems to demand privacy like going to the bathroom. I grew up with immigrant parents who knew from nothing what I did outside the house; and we came out fine because we picked up a sense of responsibiity from our parents without the kind of supervision that goes in today in middle class families


abortion in early stages are very safe; it not a heart transplant;

i see it no different than not prying into a child's sex life; if you are a good parent the child will either come to you or know what they are doing;

it is the incompetent parents that make life difficult for a child when she gets pregnant

The issue is do these laws do more harm or do they do good

lady
we live in different worlds; my children have done very well in life;
the last thing in my mind was concern about parental consent; i know they dabbled in drugs without going overboard; they did not ask me;
they had sex before 20; they did not ask me;

my daughter at 20 mentioned to me that she doubled up birth controls after she thought she messed up and might be pregant;

they did not tell me about their sex lives;
i suspect that if pregancy occured while in teens, they would told me because they see as problem solver; i could care less in my own case about parental consent; my son at 13 rode his bike from phila to vermont by himself; slept in jail during this trip


you bring up children strong and to be thinkers, you have little worry

there is something not right if a child cannot go to his parents;

many do not go for parental consent come from violent homes; threats of being thrown out. If lucky, there are people to help;if lucky; and each day that passes makes the abortion more risky


Len
If what you say is true about Maine, then that is a problem for the Somali community, not EVERYBODY! And if 13 year old kids from Somali think it's okay to have sex and probably know nothing of birth control, what makes you think that they'll ask for it anyway? I think it's a knee jerk, blanket reaction to a problem and still think it's wrong. I'm sure there is a better way to handle it and hopefully they will change the policy.

I don't follow your reasoning - sex is private, yes, I agree, but my child is a "child" and I'm responsible for them until they are 18. What if the parent was a good parent and the kid gets pregnant anyway, does that mean I forfeit my rights anyway? Nonsense.

We can only TEACH our children and PREPARE them, not completely control them. Nonetheless, the law will still hold me responsible for my children's negligent or tortious acts under certain circumstances. Therefore, major medical decisions should still be under the purview of the parent with the child.

I think that PP or ACLU or whatever will jump right in and most kids can figure out they need help like that. They might not be able to get the abortion without consent, but they can seek the legal advice of counsel, school counselor, nurse, doctor etc. who is willing to help.

The world isn't perfect and therefore no solution will be perfect. I stand by a parent's rights at this point.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Frankly laws that allow girls access to birth control and abortions without parental consent contribute to the lack of communication between parent and child. Even a well-meaning, open parent might find their child hiding more from them because they can, rather than confiding in them. "My parents won't find out" is always a good excuse for doing something, don't you think?

lady
going to court; sounds good; when you read the references not so simple;

take a 15 year old; what to they know about going to court; i dont know if pp helps; and then what about if farway from the court; and given the kid immature from a screwed up family; the kid is lost

lady
privacy
think about; your 14 year old daughter or anyone's can sex privately without you knowing it.

So, sex by its very nature is private; and parents cant do anything about it except lock the child up; and of course, bring them up so they delay such until 17 or older.

So given sexual activity is private and beyond parent's physical control it is not unreasonable to take one of consequences of sex,pregancy, as private

it is a peculiar thing; tatoos need a mother to sign off; ear piercings; aspirin at at school; but no signing off on sex; hence, not far fetched to have one of the consequences of sex, abortion, private.

In a sense, the parent gave up their rights when they did not train their child properly not to get pregnant or have sex; did create an atmophere where child can come to them.

Now off of a sudden to give them power after their own screwup; ought to make you think

also, if you read references, it seems when parents know they push the child to abort even if child does not want to.

lady
the danger of reading headlines. Maine giving out birth control pills.

Not so simple. That is why I suggest knowing facts. There is a big group of immigrants; with I think 30 different language; those from somali are used to getting married at 13; most likely parents do not speak English;

they had a few kids get pregnant; the parents sign off medical care to school

So you are not dealing with a normal situation with parents like you.

The school is trying to prevent pregancies in a culture where sex at 13 was the norm where they came from.

Always be careful what you hear. There is no simple solution to this; you just dont take kids away from their parents willy nilly unless physcial neglect

you will do more harm than good

So, you would have to be there; examine the situation; and come up with a solution; sitting far away does gives us the wisdom to solve a particular problem

maybe there was a different way than birth control to selected students who asked for it; i dont know sitting here; and either do you

Len
As a parent (even though my children are only 3 and 5), I am disturbed by the way that increasingly "right of privacy" is used to take parents out of the equation (and put the state in its place) when it comes to important things about their children. Maine, for instance, and the giving out of birth control pills to ELEVEN YEAR OLD GIRLS WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS' PERMISSION! If the parents in that state are so horrible, then the children should be taken away and made wards of the state. Because, by the same token, and by the laws of most states, I can still be responsible for my child's negligent and intentional torts under certain circumstances. But I can't get information about them under the privacy acts (even though they are UNDER 18 and therefore still legally MY responsibility).

In this day and age, all a child has to do, even in the "country" is call the ACLU or NOW or even just child services or the TV stations, and see how fast they'll get help and for free.

I haven't read your links, and I appreciate that you make informed decisions because so do I (I just don't have time this very second to read them, but I will), but for now I will stand by what I said - parental consent to ANY MEDICAL procedure unless the child can provide facts to get a waiver of that consent.

I think this is one of the issues that the pro-choice people need to give a little on, because it will seem that they are not as "lefty looney" as the right thinks they are if they remember that family and parenting is still important to a majority of Americans. The more parental rights get taken away, the angrier Americans will get, especially when their parental obligations still stand. Why should I be responsible for what my child does AT ALL, if I can't even have a say in their health and well-being?

research on parental consent
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pare3.htm

http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_mandconsent.html
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pparentalconsent.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/national/06abortion.html? _r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2007/nov/02/court-allows-st-luci e-county-girl-abortion-without/;
________________________
My conclusion after reading all this is not to have such laws;they do no good and only harm.

There is something wrong with family that sees sex as evil or sinful; it is a matter of good judgement; and there is something wrong if a child does not trust his parents. Laws dont help; it is for parents to create the right atmosphere

it appears those that dont tell parents come from less than ideal families



parental consent
Stop having opinions on this in the abstract until you examine the data and see how it has worked out.

It is very easy in the abstract to form opinions; people do that all the time; but i was trained as a researcher and so I dont jump to opinions without knowing the facts.

Bypassing parents who are whackos aint easy if you live in the country; getting to court is no easy thing; plus it delays the abortion and increases danger to child.

the point is before one takes an opinion on this one ought to look how parental consent laws have worked out; after all the purpose of these laws is supposedly for the benefit of the child not the parent; and if it turns out, it is not benefitting the child, then that should affect your thinking

Research before pontificating.

agent
here are some pros and cons and facts on parentla consent

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pare3.htm

The child does get parental consent to engage in sex; the child does not get parental consent to buy condoms, or spermicides;; the child cat get an 18 year old friend to purchase the morning after pill

it seems to me that the parent who does not what is going on has already abandoned any responsiblity

it is sort of arbitrary to demand this for abortion; most children do tell one of their parents

Len and AgenT (and Sun)
I think the three of us are all on a similar page, and one that the average American probably shares with us.

Len, I liked your analysis of the abortion situation, because it is similar to mine, especially about the fact that you acknowledge that the embryo is "life" or "human". The opposite argument has always bothered me because unless you were implanted with a gorilla embryo or your husband was somehow not human, then, yeah, the embryo is human.

Anyway, your point about "value" (which mirrors my point about "legal") is exactly right. And this goes to SUN, too: Sun said that my hypo would not take place even in a pro-life world because even when abortion was illegal, there were medical exceptions. That PROVES my (and Len's) point in two ways: First, you cannot deny that there are some out there that would ban it COMPLETELY. Yes, there are nutters out there like that. Second, if you are willing to admit that there are "medical" exceptions, then you have already determined that this "life" is not exactly the same as a born child, that it does NOT in fact have the same rights as a born child if you would allow for a medical exception to save the life of the mother. You are valuing the life of the mother OVER the life of the child.

As to parental consent - my feeling is this: it should be required, but a child should be able to go to court and get a waiver if they can prove that there is going to be a real serious dangerous problem having to consult with their parents about the issue - abuse, etc. The burden should be heavy enough so that you don't have just whiney kids or kids that want to thwart their parents for other reasons.

agent
education for you: you say you were selfish in adopting since you wanted an additional child; you say as a negative. Your selfishness benefitted someone. Selfish is not the word; selfish had idea of keeping something to oneself and not sharing in an unfair situation. You might say it was not concern for an orphan as much as it was the pleasure for yourself of having another child. Regardless, the child benefitted.

The whole rationale of the free market system is that each person benefits from an exchange; the mother benefitted in getting rid of responsiblity she was unable to handle; the child gained; and you gained in the pleasure of child. So selfish is not appropriate. Just say thank you when you get praised and move on.



len
Another quick comment.

In an earlier post, you commended me for adopting. I thank you for those kind words although I deserve no praise.

There was nothing noble about our decision to adopt. My wife and I chose adoption out of pure selfish reasons. Simply put, we wanted more than one child. We now have three. I think we probably are done but who knows?

One thing that surprised us the most after adpopting is the amount of praise people throw at us. Maybe we were naive or ignorant but our perspective was we did it as I stated earlier, we wanted more children. Our view is that selfishness deserves no praise.

But for some reason people keep sending praise our way and I always try (in face to face situations anyway) to turn that praise where it belongs back on birth moms who choose life despite their situations and do make a difference in the life of their child by placing them for adoption. They deserve SO much more praise than anything I or my wife have done.

Anyway you are the first poster to offer praise to me about this issue and I just wanted to thank you for that praise and I will pass it on to those who really deserve it.

len
Hi len, just checked the posts thread again this morning.

len-As to parentel consent. I am surprised at you; that is a knee jerk response. There is something wrong if children cant talk to their parents.

I think if you look at the data, many kids have good reasons not to consult the parents. There is something wrong if one is scared of one's parents and does not trust them. It is so foreign to me

agenT H- For me it boils down to perception and in a child's mind (not fully matured yet), they can conjure up some major excuses NOT to talk to mom or dad. Not all fear is created equal. There are many good kids and families that have built relationships on trust and love but because of that nasty word FEAR, kids may simply not go to mom or dad for support even though mom or dad are there and willing to give it. This can be a huge mountain before them and peer pressure adds into the mix as well. They end up making the decision based on a peer or "HS guidance counselor's" advice. I think parental consent would help bridge this gap and give authority back where it belongs.

I honestly have never seen any data on this.

I wonder how many parents would answer yes to the following question.

"As a parent, would you want to know if your underage child was pregnant?"

My guess is most (from all across the spectrum of social classes) would answer yes. Turn the question around and ask all underage children. As a child, would you want your mom or dad to know you were pregnant (or got someone pregnant for the boys). My guess is more would say no than yes or maybe about half and half. I don't think most would answer yes as in the parent scenario.

But for some reason, the government says it knows better than parents because "responsible" parents will never be in a situation where they are faced with abortion. That must mean the "rest" of the parents are irresponsible so we'll just make that decision for the child.

agenth
o how do you create that kind of culture; much more important as I see it than worrying about abortion. Abortion is a side issue but for many like porno it gets attention; it is a hot topic. Voters are not equipped to concentrate on more complex issues like soc sec reform; entitlements;
I tell you what; if the country just consisted of people like me, we would be in good shape. how do you like that.

We have problems with this spoiled culture of ours; entitlement culture;
lousy schools; we have to import engineers from india; and the morons, excuse me, are all hot and bothered about abortion; it does not take much brain power to take sides; it does take brain power to evaluate the economic conditions of this country and which party is best; i have disdain for the pro life crowd because they are limited and pick an easy issue which takes no thinking. The new opiate of some of the masses to rephrase marx.

enough

agenth
Everyone has their own priorities; for me it is not stopping abortion; to the extent that abortion is due to people not socialized like you and me, then the problem is more basis than that. People I know are agnostic or nominally religious; are not chaste and rarely get themselves into an unwanted pregancies.

People like me do not give sex lectures to their children; they know all about it; what they learn from people like me is self-control; thinking before you act; concern about your long terms goals. That general attitude takes care of all the specifics. I assume that there is a class bias to those who rarely abort.

So the issue is how does one change things. I dont know. I have mentored a few people who were my neigbors and shaped them up but they were pretty good to begin with. Stable families.

REligon. Probably no worth much unless a good family.

As to parentel consent. I am surprised at you; that is a knee jerk response. There is something wrong if children cant talk to their parents.
I think if you look at the data, many kids have good reasons not to consult the parents. There is something wrong if one is scared of one's parents and does not trust them. It is so foreign to me.

I have a bias; no 12 -18 year old should be having a child; another drag on the society and not good in general for good. So for me abortion is he best option for everyone except the theoretical concern for what is inaide.

It is a joke; i am first generation; worked since 13; grad school and all that; my children are very successful in 99% of income. It comes from culture; a way of life; my grandchildren 15,17 good atheists, will have sex before 18; wont get pregnant or cause one; and end up in some professional capacity. Very loose but polite kids; responsible and not up tight. Of course by pass the public school system; hence, kids are very well educated.

S

len
Sorry it is late and I don't have a much time right now to respond to all of your comments.

But I will say this and be done for the evening.

Always remember that this issue deals with real people. You mentioned that this is not a one size fits all situation. I agree and there is no one size fits all solution. My solutions may not lower abortion rates much, but they are real world solutions and they are not just throwing out theories about rights of fetuses and womens liberty, religious issue, on and on... that pro choice and pro life arguments tend to shoot back and forth.

Before I sign off how about one more solution at helping lower abortion. Give parents back their children. Underage abortion should not be allowed without parental consent. Drinking age is 21 why not make that an abortion age as well. Under 21-a parent or legal guardian needs to be there at the procedure. This is do-able and it would help lower abortion.

Done for now.

ladykrystyna-
Sorry for the late post. Had other duties that were more pressing.

ladykrystyna-Back to the twins - I would hate to have to be told that not only can I NOT abort one twin in order to save the other, but the babies and I were also, therefore, consigned to DEATH, all in the name of "PRO-LIFE". That decision should be MINE to make, not the government's.

Still no other takers on that question though.

Interesting.

agenT H- You get no argument from me here. This poor woman had a tough choice. It no doubt was made with much council from doctors and family and the government can keep their nose out of it.

If only all pregnant women facing abortion were to have this kind of council and support in each individual situation. I know in the adoption field, potential birth moms are treated with respect and dignity, no matter what they choose to do (at least in most of the reputable agencies. Not sure in private situations).

As far as the woman I know who was raped and chose to keep her child. You are right. Not every woman has that kind of strength, but I am sure today she is glad she did have it (her son is too I am sure).

Quick side note. Did you know that most people can hold their breath LONGER when they have a group of people cheering them on to hold their breath, then if they simply hold their breath on their own with nobody cheering for them. This is a fact. Never understimate the power of positive encouragement. I think more women if given the right support (should come mostly from their own family) would not be so quick to jump into the easy way out scenario that PP likes to promote so quickly.

Sorry to post and leave but I need to get some sleep now.

Len
We basically agree on the fundamental points.
I think that the privacy issue is solid - now, if it could just be applied to one's private right to die on their own terms, How one chooses to medicate themselves, where one wants to travel, etc., etc.

Len
I understand the point you are making, that criminalizing abortion will drastically reduce it, but I have to tell you from personal experience, that just isn't going to happen. Abortion was not only illegal most of my life, it was socially stigmatized even as premarital sex was during my early years.

I probably knew of more abortions during those years than in the time since the law was changed. It cut across socio-economic lines, age, marital status and anything else you can think of. I knew of motel abortions, country doctor abortions, and I even knew of an abortion performed by the chief of surgery at a presitigious hospital in Chicago. I had a cousin who died from septicemia following an abortion in the back room of a small town pharmacy. She was young, incredibly religious and "proper" and chose the abortion because she could not bear the disapprobation of her family and friends. Her family kept the cause of her death a secret for 40 years, saying that she died from a sudden virus. How many women have been the victims of stories exactly like this?

I think that suggesting that draconian laws, (like life sentences, executions?) is not useful in this debate, and it will never happen anyway, because even the most religious, conservative, evangelical women get abortions. This is the dirty little secret in America.

Making drugs illegal puts a stamp of disapproval on drug abuse, but it has done nothing to change it; in fact it has created a dark economy that supports entire families and neighborhoods. So who has that disapproval helped?


touj
evaluation of what is moral, right or wrong may change. But what is fixed so far in our country is constitutional protection of privacy.

So unless a huge majority sufficient to pass a constitutional amendment came to see a person at conception, there wont be any change.

It is the privacy argument that carries the weight of pro choice; not yours.
After all when abortion illegal, abortions were occuring; everyone knew it and no change in law


Personal liberty has expanded; unfortunately economic liberty has contracted

touj
The immediate goal of the pro life movement is to make abortion more difficult; so anything they can do to cut it down in their minds is good; after all we have drugs laws and joint readily available, but if legal, it would seem more available to those not prone to get things from street corners.

They have a long range view. So first get rid of Roe; then each state; they keep quoting that pro life is gaining among younger ones.

With draconian laws, there is no doubt they would cut it down.

Sure, at present they live in fantasy world.


Regardless, making drugs illegal puts a stamp of disaproval on it;
and that is goal of pro life

I would be careful about those statistics; much of that comes from where birth control not easily available as here

Where birth control easily available less abortions; os if abortion illegal here one would expect some number of people to be more careful and us birth control since easy to get knowing abortion not so easy.











Len, This
refers to your entire post to me, but ended with the sentence

"You would end up arguing that the conceptus is not a person. And that is the point. One must resort to the moral argument which is timeless; yours depends on circumstances."

But first of all, my citation of the study showing that law has no bearing on the amount of abortion performed was to people who think that a law against abortion will somehow reduce abortions. It's a practical argument, it depends on whether you want to be legally and philosophically pure or whether you just want to reduce abortions and are willing to be pragmatic about it.

Second, moral arguments always depend on circumstances - human moral arguments have changed, reversed themselves, and been altered thousands of times just in the past 2,000 years. It is interesting to me that you seem to be assuming that we are at the pinnacle of some kind of evolutionary process that has been marching toward totally enlightened morality, and to the extent that it ever changes in the future it will be a simple deviation from the present perfection.

Our morality is, for the most part, the rationalization, romanticization, and intellectualization of a process that is a combination of evolution, physical hardwiring, and survival instinct. If we ever see an apocalyptic event in which there are too many incipient children competing for the resources needed for survival of the living, abortion will become a sacrament.

eddy
Under current law, when the fetus is viable, that is supposedly can live outside the mother's body, it attains special value in that now the states can pass laws regulating abortion except cannot ban it if health of women is involved. But still not a person with rights.

eddy
"homo sapien' is the technical word for those who have a specific DNA pattern; in the vernacular we call us human beings, persons.

The zygote, a diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes; a fertilized ovum. contains the Dna that eventually will be in every cell of his body.

Some in the anti-choice or pro life movement call the zygote a person or human being. Not quite accurate anymore than calling an acorn an oak tree or a pumpkin seedsee a pumkin.

What they are attempting to do is give the same value as a borne human being.

Fair enough; To each his own how one assigns value. Most of us do not give that value; hence, I will not call it a human being or a person. Like the acorn it has the potential to develop given certain conditions.

It is a question of assigning rigths; the anti choice want to give the same rights as a borne person.

It is like the question, when do we give rights to vote or drive; it is a judgement call; pretty universal here in US to pick ages between 18 and 21.

But there is no universality of assigning rights to the conceptus; the older it gets the more apt we are to give it greater value.

eddy
The scientific study of human evolution encompasses the development of the genus Homo, but usually involves studying other hominids and hominines as well, such as Australopithecus. "Modern humans" are defined as the Homo sapiens species, of which the only extant subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens; Homo sapiens idaltu (roughly translated as "elder wise man"), the other known subspecies, is extinct.[5] Anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago.[6][

Len
What is your definition of a homo sapien?

more on poland
it is of interest that in poland birth control very hard to get thanks to the catholic church. Birth control pills are very expensive; and most people are poor. Although socialized medecine, guess what, the govt does not include birth control pills as "free" whereas other medecines are.

Leave it to the catholic church to promote abortion just as they are promoting AIDS in africa by arguing against condom use.

the problem with the catholic church in Rome is that is run by people who should be in a nursing home.

Talking about nursing home, I read where a priest gave a lecture on the evil of birth control to a nursing home residents. Since when can 80 year old people have children. Nothing surprises me about that church.

abortion is a religious issue 2
Here is an example of what I mean by value. After the communists were overthrown in Poland they passed a severe restrictions on abortion in a country where Catholic church had power unheard of here.

They had to modify the law because of the housing shortage; there is at times an 18 years wait for an apartment. They modified the law so that if you had some children and were in poor economic straights, you could get an abortion in he socialized medical clinic.

What that said was that the value of your economic stated superseded the value of the conceptus; no less in a striclty catholic country.

We differ here because we have no popes; we believe in the liberty of the individual in which the individual determines the value of the conceptus in this ambiguous moral situation, not the govt.

Many who post here prefer the polish idea of liberty where a majority decides what is of value; ;but our tradition is that individual decides value where there is lack of consensus; not the majority. That is what divides the pro and anti choice people; a different concept of the meaning of liberty.

abortion is a religious issue 2
We or the vast majority assign super value of controlling your own body to the point that the govt cannot force you to donate blood even to save your own born child; or to even donate organs when you no longer need them; i,e, dead.

So given that there is no consensus on the value of the conceptus and given the absolute value of controlling your own body and govt prohibited from forcing to use your own body to sustain the life of any borne person, even if you are dead, then the concept of liberty would require to treat abortion a matter of conscience; that is how each individual assigns value to their pregnancy.

Fair enough for those who are pro life to convert others as in religion to their beliefs; but that is not govt.

What privacy protects, as in religion where no agreement, is privacy of conscience in abortion in how one assigns value when there is no consensus.

We don't use majorities to force religious values on us; and the same applies to abortion.

The pro-life will prevail when the conceptus at one month starts singing hip hop and screams out to mother: "Put that cigarette out; you are screwing up my health; you ho!" Then the rape exception goes out and we have a constitutional amendment defining a person at one month or earlier. PRo-life will morph into pro-person. Who knows what evolution will bring. Until then, pro-choice or pro-conscience.


abortion is a religious issue 1
By religious I don't mean any particular religious belief in God; but a moral issue of what we consider right and wrong.

The facts are clear: At conception, you have a living cell with the computer dna code that if everything goes right will eventuate into a borne person. The cell is alive just as any other part of the body with difference of having potential for a homosapien.

The issue is, what value should we put upon it. That is what divides the anti choice from the pro-choice. Few of even the pro-life people would equate its value to a borne person with rights. So the vast majority do not put that value on it; if they did, there would be no exception for rape and health.

This is why I call it a religious/moral issue because moral issues are assigning value to actions or things including live unborn organisms(fetus, embryo, unborn baby; whatever word). Leave that aside for the moment except to remember we do not assign it the value of a borne person with rights.



touj
Re: Your argument for pro choice based on that there would be still same amount of abortions.

I stated that is not a good argument because we do not pass laws on the basis of whether they will be obeyed. You come on what society should value; and in your prior posts that comes out in your supporting taxing those who bust their chops to support those who do not. I come from a different approach expressed very well on these thread by lonestar. That is you own your own body as property. Hence, the govt is prevented from interefering with your liberty, life and property. In the case of the abortion some argue we have another person which creates a difficulty. But we can dispense with that difficulty because most do on define it as a person; hence, the choice belongs to the adult.

Your approach ends up giving the majority the right to make a determination. In your case it does not pay to make it illegal because it has no effect. I do not like the idea of majority making those determinations because it creeps to more and more the majority encroaching on rights on what they think best.

In addition, we could make the abortion laws very strict as done in Nazi Germany. Prior to Nazis abortion legal. When they came to power the death penalty was instituted for abortion. Now, if the vast majority took the position that we have a person at birth and instituted death penalty or life or 20 years for both both and abortionist and carried it out zealously with undercover agents, we would cut down abortions dramatically.

You would end up arguing that the conceptus is not a person. And that is the point. One must resort to the moral argument which is timeless; yours depends on circumstances.

agent
on the rape situation: that is the whole point of pro-choice. It is the individual's choice regardless of what others may think; and if it went the other way, the same thing.

As to why a woman gives up her child up for adoption, I am not so teary eyed as you when you say "she loved the baby"

We all have vivid imaginations. I would be more impressed if I saw a woman who raised a child for 5 years in a warm relationship and decided the child would be better off with the husband in Europe 3000 miles away. That would be a sacrifice because of the relatonship already built up.

It could be that some women at giving birth and really wanting the child ,they think about it and come to a decision at to what is best for the child. I am not so sure it is love which is blind for many; but someone who thinks very rationally beyond herself.

And then again,there are others who want nothing to do with raising a child.

One size does not fit all. Sorry to pour rain on a happy ending; but it did end happy regardless, because the child has a good home with you; again i presume; but i am probably right!!



touj and lady
i did not miss the point. You had a triage situation where one child very well might die and then both would be dead.

It is no different than in war with limited personell, you make the choices with the best probability of success and they are all humans.

It is the same situation with the twins. you made a choice with best probability of one life being saved vs no lives being saved.

Two of your children are drowning but at opposite ends from where you are at;
if you choose to save the farther one first, you may not get there in time and then lose both children. Then again you might not.

It is tough choice but has nothing to do with the personhood of the children. IT is cutting your losses.

In the piece, there is no mention of probabilities; but assuming a hi probability what choice would a rational person make.

ladyk
You wrote:
"Back to the twins - I would hate to have to be told that not only can I NOT abort one twin in order to save the other, but the babies and I were also, therefore, consigned to DEATH, all in the name of "PRO-LIFE". That decision should be MINE to make, not the government's."

No pro-life agenda would have an effect on the situation you cite (cited in the article). Even when abortion was illegal, this procedure would have been considered medical.
Early up there I objected to the article using this situation to advance a pro-life argument because it is unusual. I object when pro-abortionists use unusual examples to advance their cause. Fair is fair.

touj
I'm afraid you took my comment a bit out of context. In fact Len had thrown out the example of the pilot, and I was responding. I did not, as you imply, pull it out as an example.
Like you, I am not "challenging whether someone chooses to abort or not", I am challenging the "rhetoric", or the honesty with which it's undertaken and debated.
I agree with you that life is full of decisions and choices, and that we (most of us) make them with a searching conscience.
I do believe that the pro-choice movement seeks to remove conscience from the decision (not that all who are pro-choice do). A decision unexamined, if you will. That has somehow been interpreted as a desire to punish women, but nothing could be further from the truth. It's apparently what someone would like to think I believe. If you read my posts, perhaps you will see otherwise.

AgenT H - Thanks
It's also refreshing to hear that someone else is thinking outside the box - it's not denying your morality, it's not becoming a liberal nut. It's about realizing that there are situations that people get into that do NOT have easy answers and that the GOV'T is not the institution to tell a person what to do in situations like that.

I like what Sun said about Catholicism (I am a former Catholic) - it's one of the things that I still admire about that religion - Personal conscience. I was always taught, despite the Church's teachings on birth control and such, that the decision was an individual one. That YOU had to search YOUR soul and make the decision for YOURSELF.

As to your friend that kept the child - kudos to her. But, as you kind of said, not everyone can make that decision. Right or wrong, some women would be too traumatized to carry such a child to term at all, or even if they could, to keep it. That is a PERSONAL decision for God to judge. Yes, the unborn is an innocent, but I would not judge your friend any differently if she decided not to have the child at all.

That's why I remain pro-choice, even though I've relaxed my stand on "narrowing" the right to have an abortion.

Back to the twins - I would hate to have to be told that not only can I NOT abort one twin in order to save the other, but the babies and I were also, therefore, consigned to DEATH, all in the name of "PRO-LIFE". That decision should be MINE to make, not the government's.

Still no other takers on that question though.

Interesting.

searching your conscience?
Sun posted that the pilot of the plane that dropped atom bomb searched his conscience. It was a quick search. Tiibets was pilot

Paul Tibbets, too, had a clear conscience. "Why be bashful?" he told the Columbus Dispatch in 2003. "That's what it took to end the war." Tibbets needed no instruction in the cruelties of war. But he also understood that awful things would have to be done in order to be spared greater harms. One senses Judge Mukasey understands that too--further evidence of his fitness to serve as attorney general.
http://us.f570.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?MsgId=2472_3671 838_782904_1626_3808_0_80111_16512_4116872705&Idx=14&YY=247 24&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&inc=25&order=down&sort=date&pos=0& view=a&head=b&box=Inbox
A woman who abort thinks about or 99% do; maybe not much longer than Tibbets above. And the person aborting is weighing the alternatives whether consciously or unconsciously; and for she does what is necessary for life to go on as she sees best. Remember, what is inside is not a person with rights, but something most normal people value; the value will vary with the circumstances the woman finds herself and probably how long the pregancy has gone on.

agent
First, you are to be commended for adopting; the most i adopted was a dog.

agent
You make the point the pro choicers grasp for rape. You miss the essential point of the argument.

the essential point is the status of the conceptus. An insignicant few see it as a person with rights as evidenced by almost 100% allowing for rape but not for terminating a borne child of rape. And then you various opinions on other reasons for abortion.

So what you have is no consensus on the value or status of the conceptus except that is not the same as a person with rights.

Given the super value of owning your own body and not being required anywhere else to use it, even one pint of blood, to sustain the life of another, then the value is a matter of one's private thoughts. That is what privacy protects in an ambiguous moral situation; the same as whether to believe or not believe in God and what religion to choose. As in religion where there is no sure thing, so in pregnancy there is no sure thing that all agree upon except not a person with rights.

In a country that protects individual rights in such a situation we leave it to the person.

OF course, you are free to dream of passing a constitutional amendment defining at conception a person with rights. Wont happen.

len
len- I have about a dozen more balloons. Keep posting. Thanks.

Sun and Len
Sun said,

"Sometimes killing is justified or necessary. The pilot of the Enola Gay undoubtedly did not drop the bomb for joy-ride or sadistic reasons. He's searched his conscience about it.
That's exactly what the pro-choicers are avoiding: searching the conscience."

Sun, now you are selecting out the most singular, rare example, and using it to prove that pro-choice people have no conscience.

The fact is, life is full of contradictions and difficult choices. OUr consciences guide us all the time when we make everyday, perplexing decisions that have no clear answer. Should I get a divorce? Should I visit my grandmother? Should I go hunting with my husband and blow the head off a deer? Should I tell the bank they credited me with $500 too much just as I'm about to have my house repossessed?

Anyone who thinks that conscience isn't in overdrive for all of us, every day, is constructing a false world to accomodate their ideologies, which shift as much as social norms.



agent
Last year I had an operation to remove a small malignant tunor in my bladder. they stick tools up your pen*is.

I would not have wanted to see a film of this; i am sure I could a teaching film somewhere if i wanted to. It is not a pleasant thought to have something inserted in that organ thru a tiny orifice.

the point is clear I hope relative to ultra sound.

ladykrystyna
Thank you for your posts here. I have been reading them and I agree with much that you say as well.

WARNING FOR LEN: The following statements include some "should be's" Read at your own risk.

I agree with you that reducing abortions "should be" a common goal for both sides. Abortion "should be" rare by anyones's standards.

Not wanting to start a new argument here but rape and incest are two things that a lot of pro choicers grasp for when advocating choice. My thought on that is that two wrongs don't really make a right. Sometimes a right can actually outdo the wrong (ie rape) done in the first place. I know of one woman (I know it's only one person but...) who was raped and got pregnant.
She was surprised at how quickly people assumed she was going to have an abortion as if she had no other choice. Nobody talked to her about adoption. Nobody talked to her about keeping the child. Her son is probably 10 or 11 now. She kept him. I know this is only one situation however it does show just how the culture affects how we think and feel as individuals.


When my wife and I adopted, the most common question we receive is "How could any mother give up their baby like that?" This is the world's perception of adoption. My wife and I always answer. "Because she loved her baby. That's why. She did if for her child."

I know what you mean by forced choice or guilted choice. It's one reason this issue is so messy. I used to be a firm Pro Lifer. I have since softened my stance considerably so to speak after we adopted. I think mainly because I realized first hand what these birth moms are faced with. I view myself now as reluctantly pro choice.

Anyway glad to see someone with an "out of the box" view of this issue. Thanks.

agent
Here is the equivalent of your shoving ultra sound without her asking for it.

The zealous religious person remnds their children from day 1 that if they masturbate they will go to h*ll.

I am sure you dont approve. But it is no different than what you are trying to do in using emotion to control the would be abortion.

Sun
I forgot to put your name in the "subject" window...again, I'm not challenging whether one chooses to abort or not - I'm challenging the rhetoric.

Len
YOu said

"Second, of course it was anomaly; it was a biological accident and a triage situation. These are not run of the mill. In triage situations we are forced to make decisions that we do not have to make otherwise."

I think you are still missing the point. The question was not about making the decision, it was about why would one always choose the five year old if both five year olds and fetuses are defined as "children".

The question proves that both are not "children", as much of the pumped-up rhetoric that comes from the right suggests. If both were "children", equal in importance, then half the responders would answer one way and half the other way.

agetn on ultra sound
Sure, when the lady is found to have breast cancer shove a movie in front of her showing a breast being cut off. And when a guy is intending to join the army, show a picture of brains being splattered of soldier with arms and legs
flying.

If the woman asks to see the ultra sound, fine. But dont shove on her anymore than you do in my above examples.

offering choices?
People misunderstand what pro-choice is. It means it is the woman's choice.
She knows what these choices are: abort, keep the child, or keep the pregnancy and adopt out. She is not a moron.

Don't push your agenda on her. You are not a missionary out to convert the heathens. Maybe you are?

It is she who has to live with pregnancy or child and the consequences; not you. Respect her choice and help her with it if you are a friend; dont impose yours.

agent
Pro-choice in abortion means the same thing as in religion; choice of mate. None of the govt's business. PP is not in the business of trying to convert people. It offers a service. It is not Jehov witness trying to convert someone. When someone comes to PP for most they have already made a decision. Respect it. I do not expect when I go to eat a Pizza for the manager to tell me to get a salad. I am a big boy; and so is the girl who decides to abort.

IF a friend approached me about abortion and was undecided, I would not try to convince her one way or other; i would help her get out her thoughts; the implications of doing one or other. My concern is the friend; not the embryo. That is where we differ. You come across or it seems that you know what is best for Jane Doe. I do not.

IF were a counselor at PP and a girl came in; all i would ask her if she is sure. And that is it; no third degree; no suggestions. If not sure, I would tell her to go home and think more about it. I am not the the pope and do not want to push her into what I or you think is the "right" decision.

AgenT H
I partially agree with your suggestion about offering CHOICES, especially to young, unwed girls and women. You are right that you can't really claim to be pro-choice if you are only offering women ONE choice.

However, in offering all the CHOICES, it should be done in a non-judgmental, non-pressuring manner. Because a CHOICE is not a CHOICE of it is forced upon you or you are made to feel horrible about making a different CHOICE.

worth reading
an article by female Dr who only does abortion and had one when a teen.
Worth reading. One of these links will work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/health/06abor.html?_r=1&n =Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/A/Abortion&oref=slog in

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/06/health/06abor.html?th&emc =th

TWO EXCERPTS BUT READ WHOLE THING

On the other hand, Dr. Wicklund has little use for requirements like 24-hour waiting periods, or for assertions like those of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who said in a recent Supreme Court decision on abortion that the government had an interest in protecting women from their own decisions in the matter.
“It’s so incredibly insulting,” Dr. Wicklund said in the interview. “The 24-hour waiting period implies that women don’t think about it on their own and have to have the government forcing it on them. To me a lot of the abortion restrictions are about control of women, about power, and it’s insulting.”

“In fact, the women are so grateful,” Dr. Wicklund said in the interview. “Women are so grateful to know they can get through this safely, that they can still get pregnant again.
“It is one of the few areas of medicine where you are not working with a sick person, you are doing something for them that gives them back their life, their control,” she added. “It’s a very rewarding thing to be part of that.”

READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE SEE LINKS ABOVE

len
len-"Adoption is a solution", somewhat less empty since, I guess you can stand outside an abortion clinic with like minded people with signs saying you will adopt and pay $20,000 for it. Now, are you willing to do that. IF so, then a partial solutoin in that you might get 10% if that many.

agenT H- 10% is a lot of living children otherwise aborted. But still not a practical solution. I was referring more to PP actually trying to change it's image and maybe promoting other "choices" for the women besides just abortion. Pro Choice is supposed to be about choice right. Why not honestly give pregnant women more than one option.

len- Why is adoption a hard sell? Those who promote adoption are telling a pregnant girl that pregnancy is no big deal; just some extra weight; no sweat; go thru with it; you will of course feel some bonding as the baby kicks; no sweat; when born just give it up.

agenT H- It's a hard sell because they promote it truthfully(quite opposite of your claim) and they have the PP marketing "easy way out" propaganda going against them.

You want another solution? Planned Parenthood places ultrasound devices in every clinic to truly inform pregnant women of their situation. Statistics prove that pregnant women who had ultrasounds, often change their mind on abortion and don't go through with it. Both adoption and utlrasound devices WILL lower abortion rates. Both practical and doable.

len claims agenT H said-I have no solution except people to be like me.

agenT H- I never said that. However, I do need some balloons blown up for my middle son's (yes he is adopted) birthday party coming up. I am sure your next post will fill plenty of balloons for me. Thanks.

Let's put it this way . . .
If pro-lifers are going to insist on ZERO abortions (no matter the reason) by criminalizing it and if pro-choicers are going to insist that someone can have an abortion for any reason up to and including the due date, then we are no better than the Islamofascists who come to the bargaining table with the following opening line: "Israel should be wiped off the face of the planet."

You simply can't do that. If you WANT a SOLUTION, you have to be willing to bend because the only way things get done the way YOU want them is to create a dictatorship, or a caliphate, or a theocracy. If you are not willing to let the Islamofascists make a theocracy out of America, then you should be unwilling for right wing Christian conservatives to do the same thing because it's basically the same thing - fascism, ultimate government control over EVERYTHING YOU SAY AND DO.

Again, force yourself to think OUTSIDE THE BOX. Force yourself to think past the bumper sticker slogans.


ok len
I don't consider it any of my business whether a woman chooses to use an IUD, or for that matter to have an abortion. That's between her and her conscience, as I have said above. Perhaps you did not read all of my posts-- we rather did cross over a bit.
And I have never claimed that my words came from "on high" or even that they were "the truth". You don't need to dissemble or misrepresent me.

I agree that the person who tortures to find a fugitive slave is different than one who tortures to prevent a 9-11. In fact, you make my point: That's motive and conscience.
My only point has been that motive and conscience should be part of the equation, should be examined in making decisions, and that some would attempt to remove those from the decision by obfuscating them.


Len and Sunthe
Your dialogue back and forth about "semantics" is an example of why the issue will never be formally resolved.

I don't care what you call it, but I would say that the majority of Americans believe in choice (even if they believe it's wrong), but wish that the number of abortions would decrease as close to zero has possible.

Based on that premise, both sides should come together, without name calling and decide how best to decrease the number.

Criminalizing may decrease the numbers, but it may, inter alia, increase the numbers of poor single mothers that require help from the state and the deaths of mothers doing back-alley abortions.

For the health of EVERYONE the best solution is to keep the choice (including because of rape/incest), but narrow it (thereby protecting against late term abortions that are otherwise unnecessary) AND teach proper healthy sex education (again, not radical weird left sex education), abstinence first, and provide information and access to birth control.

If young people (especially girls) have a healthy attitude about their bodies, including their self-esteem, they will be less likely to engage in dangerous sexual behavior in order to attain high esteem.

There is also nothing wrong in teaching them that before they are adults (18), having sex is not a good choice because of all the risks and because they are not emotionally ready for such things and that sleeping around is also not safe, either for your mental health or your physical health.

Then we make sure that EVERYBODY of child-creating, child-bearing age knows about and has access to birth control, because to ASSUME that if we teach abstinence in any form (rigid or not), that people of any age still won't engage in sex is just ludicrous. It's the same mentality as liberals claiming that if we make peace with the islamofascists they'll leave us alone - IT IGNORES REALITY.

How's that for a solution to the problem?

Mrs. Paddy
I think we do agree on alot of points.

I also think that there are actually more abortions than statistics suggest, for many reasons..one of which is that there is a huge population of women who will never admit to it, even in surveys. (But somebody voted against N. Dakota's take-no-prisoners abortion bill, didn't they?)

Also, as for people who think that contraceptive use is the blanket answer to abortion, I'm assuming that only men say that, since they're not the ones taking the hormones that can cause migraines, high blood pressure, and an increased risk for stroke and heart attack.

(Strange that a drug hasn't been invented that would temporarily blot out sperm counts, isn't it?)

I have to also ask, when shrill Republicans talk about not wanting their tax dollars to go for poor people, what are they suggesting for people too poor to raise a child?


On the subject of
asked questions that never get answered, why would someone who opposes abortion so deeply also oppose sex education, contraception, morning-after pills, etc.?

I really believe that as a culture we are very, very confused and childish on the subject of sex, our popular TV shows and movies are a perfect example of what exists on the flip side of our puritanism, and are a reflection of it. So are the virginity cults that are promoted by various religious organizations, and which have been proven to be meaningless.

I don't know it could be done, but it seems to me that we need to grown up and stop all the fervent hyperbole when it comes to sex, and to stop conflating a normal human experience with morality and evil.

Len
The fact that criminalizing abortion does not prevent abortion is not a bad argument at all, if you are trying to reduce the number of abortions. It suggests that there are better solutions.

The laws against murder, rape, robbery, are based on social rules among independent "agents", or people who are individuals capable of existing outside of another individal's womb. They were made as early as 40,000 years ago to protect the survival of group life, which was necessary for the surivival of individuals. This is a major difference.

It seems to me that as society has changed the imperative for saving every pregnancy as important to the group survival has changed; we are not as dependent as we once were on making new hunters and gatherers.



sunthe!
more atempt to see the point.

both of us would feel some kind of emotion if we saw our neighbor kill his dog and put it on the grill.

And you would say "We should"

But in korea and china they eat dogs. We eat cows, Hindus worship cows.
So, according to you"They should". And the Hindu would say "you should feel guilty for slaughtering(kill?) cows.

Abortion is one of those things like the above where people see it differently; you want to impose your view on all that we should feel like you.



sunthe!
Assume your sister or a good friend is using an IUD; causes about 4-6 abortions per year. Now everytime you see them, do you tell them they are killers and that they should cease using it. Why not?

sunthe!
A language lesson for you. the doctor does not say to the patient, "you have cancer of the breast, and I lop off your breast; i will cut your breast off, i will deprive you of your breast, i will use a sharp knife to rid of your breast.

They are all accurate as is your "killing". He says a masectomy.

The word "killing" has surplus meaning such as killing a borne person; and a good number of us do not see the equivalence of abortion and killing of a borne person. That is it. So one uses a word that does not have surplus meanings.

After all: what is wrong with : I just took a sh*t as opposed I did #2 or whatever.

It is only because you see an equivalence between the conceptus, a perfectly good word since i covers all stages, and a borne child that you are so hot on pushing the word "killing". /you are trying to make people feel guilty; i suppose you have a right to do so. But dont speak as if you the word from up on high that you have the "truth"

In war time, we invent new vocabulary that aseptic such as collateral damage.

Someone who tortures a person to find out where a fugitive slave is hiding is quite different than someone who tortures someone to avoid another 9/11. Do you get the point. How one sees an event such as abortion depends on how one looks at it. You think everyone should experience as you do. The sin of pride.

agenT H
I have no solution except people to be like me. That is empty rhetoric.

"Adoption is a solution", somewhat less empty since, I guess you can stand outside an abortion clinic with like minded people with signs saying you will adopt and pay $20,000 for it. Now, are you willing to do that. IF so, then a partial solutoin in that you might get 10% if that many.

Why is adoption a hard sell? Those who promote adoption are telling a pregnant girl that pregnancy is no big deal; just some extra weight; no sweat; go thru with it; you will of course feel some bonding as the baby kicks; no sweat; when born just give it up.

That is pie in the sky for most people. For a few it will work. But a drop in the bucket in terms of cutting down on abortions.

So, when are you going to volunteer to adopt.

Len
With all due respect, that's some of the most convoluted squirming around I ever saw! Tops the definition of IS.

Look, when a life ends (whether it's a rat or a person or a plant, or a cancer cell), it DIES. When something causes it to die, it's killing.
You can try to back around it by using different words, but that only changes the sound of it.

So I think what you're saying is that if we kill a rat, we don't feel bad. If we kill a person, we do. Since it is forbidden that we feel bad, we must call the baby something other than a person (like a conceptus).

You have, unwittingly I think, made my point, which is that the end goal here is "at all costs not to feel bad". In my view, there are things we SHOULD feel bad about. All of us.

sunThe1
Let me try another way to get my point across. The bomber pilot who dropped bombs on civilian targets looks out hi window and sees woman, children scattering about; he does not perceive them as his mother,father, children, else he might not drop the bomb.

And similarily, the pregnant woman who aborts does not perceive or experience what is inside her that she does not even feel in early stages as a person just like the pilot above; the pilot is in a more difficult situation because those people on the ground look like people; the preganant woman does not experience that.

And it how we experience the world, not absract conceptions, that control behavior in abortion and unfortunately in stupid choices in marriage.

IF you look at a 3 celled embryo in a petri dish with a microscope, it is not easy to see it as a person although you know conceptually it is alive as opposed to dead tissue and it has potential to grow into more.

No one experiences eating pumpkin seeds as eating a pumpkin.

len's solution?
Hey anybody on TH see any "solutions" in len's postings? If so, point them out to me because I am not seeing them anywhere.



Hey len, in case you didn't understand my solution earlier here it is again.

A D O P T I O N is a solution.

SunThe1
"It is killing"

IT depends on what word you want to use; and that depends on what your purpose is like all propaganda; and all propaganda is not bad.

When we say, we killed a rat, it does not bring forth guilt.
But, when we say we killed a person, it bring forth emotion

A conceptus, embryo, fetus as time progresses is not a person. Using the word, "killing" makes into a person pschologically. So, we find the word, termination. Which is the "right" word; it depends on which side you are on.

Those who use IUD's don't have the experience of killing or terminating or anything. They know abstractly how it works.

So what it comes down to is not some "fact"; but how you perceive and experience it. You experience it as killing; i notice you don't use murder; but others do.

A cancer is alive; it is not dead; it will grow; so some may experience a pregancy especially an early one as one perceives a cancer.

There is no way to experience what you call a fact; people experience sex differently; people experience death differently; and people experience pregnancy differently.
It has nothing to with science.

Let me clarify . . . Part 2
Maybe other people don't think like I do - I try to take the argument out to its conclusion and not just stop at the "Save the [fill in the blank]!"

I used to be a die hard environmentalist. I voted for Clinton/Gore the first time around for heaven's sake. Now I know better because I took the time to read and realized that the debate isn't over, that saving the "fuzzy bunnies" is not necessarily a good thing or something that could actually be done, or even that it's the fault of humankind.

I ask you all to do the same because this "twin" case is the perfect example - what if it had turned out the other way - the weaker twin did die and the other twin lived and was healthy and the mom was fine. What then? What if the mother decided to do NOTHING and she and BOTH of her twins died, living a widower with nothing but memories?

Let yourself THINK it out! Even if the answer makes you feel slightly uncomfortable. It's okay. In the end, only GOD can judge the decision because only HE knows all and sees all. And I think 9 times out of 10, God will understand that certain decisions, on this plane of existence, have to be made. That life here on Earth isn't all Kumbaya and happy times. That's for later. I think God will ultimately be forgiving of most of our transgressions, even a young 13 year old girl that makes a mistake and gets pregnant and has an abortion. If you use it ONLY for birth control and don't otherwise protect yourself, be ready for a very WARM room for eternity.

Let me clarify . . .
"I do not believe that it automatically gets SEPARATE legal protection because in doing so, it will effect MY legal protections and result in chaos."

I didn't want to sound cold. I have 2 children, immensely enjoyed being pregnant both times, and I love my children dearly. And I'm not a Dworkin or a MacKinnon who believes that being pregnant is akin to having your kidney attached to a famous violin player for 9 months.

But the fact is that if that embryo has LEGAL status at the moment of conception, that means that laws would have to be made to PROTECT it from anything and everything since it is so vulnerable. Essentially, it would probably have MORE protections than you and I do, especially healthwise. As a pregnant woman that would impede my basic rights to make decisions for myself about what I eat and don't eat, and other things that could effect the pregnancy. I might be required to quit work (as my mother-in-law had to when she was 7 months pregnant with my husband in 1971).

If conservatives don't believe in gov't handouts, how will that effect families nationwide if, along with these legal protections for the embryos, the pregnant women don't get paid to be sitting at home allegedly protecting the baby? You think you are just protecting the life of the unborn, but you are not; you are bringing in just as much gov't into the private lives of citizens as the liberals do with their pet projects.

psychopaths & guilt
LEN:
You mentioned psychopaths, and you are also concerned about guilt. Interesting, because psychopaths by definition do not have the capacity for guilt. That's what makes them dangerous and intractable.
It's been given a bad rap, but maybe guilt isn't such a bad thing after all. (Actually I think that "guilt" is different than conscience-see below)

Oh, I might also add, since you brought up catholicism a couple of times, it might interest you to know that everything in catholicism is ultimately an issue of personal conscience. Catholicism does not seek to make people feel guilty, though undoubtedly there are people around who profess to be christian or catholic who do, they just don't know or practice their theology. Catholicism in fact teaches that no person can judge--that would be God's job.
As for guilt, the catholic church has confession, so as to help the person face and atone for wrongs so that they do not become crippling guilt.

TH discriminates
against those who like to see sexy things.

Note the ad on the left with girl with prominent top is cut with shirt stating I survived Roe Wade.

I saw the ad on another site, however it goes down to her ankles and she is wearing a skimpy almost G string.

Does TH think we are prudes that they censor? We are not 100 years old and do enjoy, or some of us, exciting photos which might be called soft as opposed to hard.

Come on, TH, don't treat us as if we are chlldren!!

touj
I'm not aware of the answer I'm supposedly "avoiding". I do think this article is disingenuous because it takes an outlier and uses it as an example (in this case that abortion is wrong). I find it the same as when people use the extreme outliers to justify abortion. If I call foul on someone who uses that tactic to purport something I'm against, then I feel bound to call foul on someone even if he's using to purport something I favor. Fair is fair.
My comment had nothing to do with the right or wrong of abortion, but about the quality of the argument one uses.

Len
You say it is not clear to you why a woman who aborts should feel guilty, unless you believe it is killing.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it is killing.
My point was that women should make this choice with that knowledge, not with a whitewash cover provided by the pro-choice ethos that essentially sayd "you don't have to think about it"). I think they should think about it. It is a serious, life-or-death decision.
Sometimes killing is justified or necessary. The pilot of the Enola Gay undoubtedly did not drop the bomb for joy-ride or sadistic reasons. He's searched his conscience about it.
That's exactly what the pro-choicers are avoiding: searching the conscience.

Look, we live in a culture where "guilt" is a very bad word. That causes us to rationalize, rather than face, the wrongs we've done. Promoting a very shallow cultural ethic, if you ask me.

Part II
What I'm saying to you is, get past the "fluffy bunny" part of it. Think it through with your LOGICAL brain - pregnant women will become virtual prisoners in their own bodies. If you think that can't happen, know this: in Calabasas, CA, YOU CAN'T EVEN SMOKE IN YOUR OWN APARTMENT!

Of course women should take care of themselves while they are pregnant, but read the "What to Expect" books - it's like food fascism! It's ridiculous. I avoided things that I KNEW for certain were detrimental to the baby. But if the medical community couldn't agree, why should I worry about it?

All I'm saying is that you should allow yourself to be "contradictory" about it, allow yourself to step out of your comfort zone and really think the issue through. Then I think we can all work on a solution; that being that we try to PREVENT the "unwanted" pregnancies in the first place, thereby making the necessity of "on demand abortions" virtually non-existent.

We can NEVER rid the world of ALL risks and ALL bad things happening, but we can try to keep the numbers down. As human beings, that's the best we can do.

Only a few . . . Part I
I've gotten two answers to my question about the "twin decision". No one else seems brave enough to give a response. Remember, there is no WRONG answer (except that "God's Will" is a non-answer). I just want to know your perspective. I want to make you think it through past point A. I like it when others do that to me. That's why I've become more of a conservative on fiscal issues and government involvement in social programs - I've let people take me from my comfort zone, from my bumper sticker slogans, from the "fluffy bunny" feelings and into the next step. I went from someone who believed that the government could solve it all, to someone who realizes that it can't and never will.

People are afraid to hold what they consider to be a contradictory position on this issue, but in my mind that's okay. I believe that it is "life" from the moment of conception. A biological life. I do not believe that it automatically gets SEPARATE legal protection because in doing so, it will effect MY legal protections and result in chaos.

If embryos are given such protection, what do you think will happen to pregnant women - my doctor said one can of a caffeine drink per day was good. Other doctors say its detrimental. If I'm pregnant, whose going to decide how to protect the embryo - you have the government coming in telling you what to eat, and what not to eat because everything a woman does MAY impact the baby in a negative way. But doctors aren't in agreement on everything, just as the medical community isn't in agreement when all these stupid studies come out about what thing will cause cancer or kill us.

agenT H
Promoting your opinion. I guess I am sarcastic about such because it is empty rhetoric. IT is like my saying people should wait to marriage for sex.

It may make me feel good or moral, but t is blowing in the wind and will influence nobody here at TH.

Well, I guess like barroom talk where there is pleasure in shooting the breeze, it serves a purpose.

I suppose I am very task orientated and a problem solver rather than just stating how I feel; and so I am more impressed with practical solutions.

To me the basic problem is that people are not like me. That is people like me who have no problem with pre marital sex, hardly ever have unintended pregancies and hence hardly ever abort.

So, if we want opinions, I would say that people should be like me and others like me, and we would have few abortions.

Now, how is that opinion helpful although no doubt true.

touj
"This is what conservatives say when they don't dare answer a question because it will topple their case.The point is not that it is an anomaly, the point is, that like my question, it forces conservatives to look at the consistency of their own argument."
_____________________________________
First all conservatives, that is free market people, are not anti-choice.

Second, of course it was anomaly; it was a biological accident and a triage situation. These are not run of the mill. In triage situations we are forced to make decisions that we do not have to make otherwise.

So, in this particular case there is no inconsistency in accepting the decision here and still be anti-choice for the usual situations.

len
Dictator? Now who is using words that don't apply?

Yes my "should be's" are my opinion. If I am not allowed to express my opinion, then whose do you suggest I express?

I had a whole list of other opinions on here but decided not to post them because I wouldn't want anybody "forced" to think like I do.

Your McDonalds comment is actually parallel of what PP does. Market product to the masses. Convince them they need it. High obesity rate. High abortion rate. Both results of marketing products to the masses. At least McDonald's has recognized this and started putting "healthier" choices on the menu.

BTW: I was promoting another "choice" for unwanted pregnancies not advocating change in the law.



paddy and sun the 1
TEll me this: Why is your perspective any better than the catholic church which tries to instill guilt and worse in woman who do use the IUD, R 484,
and birth control. You probably disagree; but that is the point, there is no one perspective on the issue. And just as you might see the catholic church position as out in left field others will disagree with your position.

That is why we leave to the individual's own thought processes. That is what privacy so much demeaned protects in the same way it protects one's choice of how to think or not think about a God.

There is no one answer.

Sun the 1, Lady Krystyna
Sun said,

"I agree completely - this is a bad example, (choosing which twin to live) because it is an anomaly."

This is what conservatives say when they don't dare answer a question because it will topple their case.The point is not that it is an anomaly, the point is, that like my question, it forces conservatives to look at the consistency of their own argument.

These aren't hard questions to answer, they just take some intellectual courage.

paddy and sun the 1
continued from prior


Guilt only applies to a normal person if they perceive they have done something terrible to another person. And if you do not perceive the conceptus as a person, why should you feel guilt. Are you proposing that those who use the IUD and abort about 4-6 times a year should feel guilt because of your perspective on the issue. We have enough of the catholic church in the past making boys feel guilty about masturbation on some theory that they have committed a mortal sin. Most people who abort do not think they are committing a mortal sin.


paddy and sun the 1
"In the end, any choice is a matter of individual conscience. What is so wrong, in my view, with the pro-choice ethos is that it seeks to take conscience out of it altogether, an ethos that seeks to make it a decision on a moral par with say, a career change. Okay and guilt-free at all costs."

The pilot who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima where woman and babies were burnt to death with flames and radiation would have experienced a horrible sight if he or we could actually see it. HE just died. In an interview he expressed no regret; it had to be done or so our leaders decided. A difficult choice which took President Truman a few minutes to make the decision.

That seeing unpleasant things touch the emotions is not unusual. To have guilt over them does not follow. IT is not clear to me why a woman who aborts should feel guilty unless you assume it is equivalent to killing a borne child which those who abort do not feel. After all, they don't terminate the lives of their parents and borne children. I am sure some women who abort feel a sadness but not guilt; and some I am sure feel momentary guilt; and some burdensome guilt.

We are disturbed about the psychopaths such as OJ or Charles Manson who feel no guilt; but women who abort are not psycopaths and for the most part do not experience, especially in early abortions, that they are murdering someone. That is more of philosophical perspective that some anti-choice people feel; but I wonder since it is common knowledge that a few and maybe more than a few anti-choice people who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant opt for abortion.

(continued)


agenT H
Convenience: It is a strange word to use. Getting a heart transplant to change your life is not usually called convenient. It is nice we have that opportunity. Nor is silicone transplants called a convenience.

We usually use the word for rather trivial things; voice operated computer;
a rain coat. Microwave.

Pregancy and raising a child is serious business and life affecting event. the technique may be convenient such as taking Ru 84, but one does not opt for abortion because it is convenient as one opts for a hotdog when in hurry.

IT trivializes the decision.

You have a lot of "should be's"; fine, train your children to think like you; but, do you think it appropriate for you to be dictator. Why not advocate closing down MacDonald's because people should eat what you think is best.

And a rigid catholic would tell you if a protestant, that you should be a catholic because that is the only true church.

Everyone does not think like you. Do you to use law to force them to think like you?

Sun The 1
you 9:41 post is well done.

Thanks for saying it better than I did earlier. You cut to the heart of the problem with your statement:
"In the end, any choice is a matter of individual conscience. What is so wrong, in my view, with the pro-choice ethos is that it seeks to take conscience out of it altogether, an ethos that seeks to make it a decision on a moral par with say, a career change. Okay and guilt-free at all costs."

I totally agree!

len
len- adoption is a choice; but it is not your decision to make;you may suggest that as a friend or relative. When you become pregnant then it will be one choice available to you.

agenT H- Correct. Adoption is a choice. You just failed to mention it.

Your argument was that rape, finishing school, hardship of raising a child, etc... justifies abortion. Adoption answers this argument without aborting pregnancy.

Your claim that the word "convenient is not the right word" doesn't fly. Abortion IS "less burdensome" then pregnancy, birth, (adoption if decided), raising child into adulthood, RELATIONSHIP with them etc.... ie more convenient by definition.

Abortion should be "last resort". The money machine of PP markets to pregnant women in the situations you described as a way of keeping their life status quo. This is not "last resort" abortion but more like "only choice". Adoption should be marketed as a "better" option but it isn't.

BTW: I am a male. Pregnancy for me is not really an option.

Shelama
You have said several times here "What really is being lost when the "lost" preborn are not really lost at all, but reaping joyous heavenly reward in Jesus?"
I don't know if your posts are sincere or attempts at satire, but you seem to be saying that the aborted babies do not suffer (therefore what's the problem?)
I encountered this same line of thinking regarding the desire for human euthanasia: assisted suicide. The thinking is "What's the problem if I wish to die?" Here's the problem: it leaves out one whole side of the equation: the person being asked to "assist". For the "patient" it may be just about dying. For the assistor, it's about killing. So, even if the babies do not suffer in any way, there's still the part about those who commit the act.

You have also posted that Christians you know believe that Muslims are going to hell. I don't know who your Christian sources are, but I'm calling them out as frauds. (Or did you just make that up?)

Also, what is your evidence that more death and suffering has occurred in Iraq since Saddam than under his regime?

agenT H
adoption is a choice; but it is not your decision to make;you may suggest that as a friend or relative. When you become pregnant then it will be one choice available to you.

This article is intellectually dishonest
LADYKRYSTYNA asks(Wed 12:35pm)"Would it have been better that the mother have done nothing to save either twin and let them both die? IMHO, the twin situation is a bad example to use to defend pro-life decisions..."
I agree completely - this is a bad example, because it is an anomaly. Look, that tactic is the most used one by pro-abortion posters here (think Lilly): to cite some completely bizarre situation in support of their case. Disingenuous to say the least.
There are some situations that defy all judgement, and are best left to the mother and her physician. In this situation, both were trying to give a viable baby its best shot.
The more common situation (where the unborn is viewed as an inconvenient interruption) is easier to judge wrong.
In the end, any choice is a matter of individual conscience. What is so wrong, in my view, with the pro-choice ethos is that it seeks to take conscience out of it altogether, an ethos that seeks to make it a decision on a moral par with say, a career change. Okay and guilt-free at all costs.

len
len-Abortion for rape, for finishing your school, or easing your economic burden does not easily fit to the mold of being convenient since having and raising a child is big responsibility and a chunk of one's life; whereas rolling up the windows with your hand is not.

Find another word

agenT H- I found another word.... adoption.

aliveinhim
You can file this in the "so what" file if you
would like, but when I was young I thought often
about not being alive. What if I had never been
born, sometimes wishing I had never been born,
because hell was a strong concept in my family
and I was terrified of it. I thought that nothing was so great here that was worth the risk
of hell.

OK, I and probably most others in the USA today
no longer believe in the firey pit,
while still believing in God. But the question
still remains - what if I had never been born.
And the answer is - why would I care because I
would not know.

I am not going to pretend that those who use
abortion as a form of birth control are model
citizens. But I prefer that to those who bring
a child into this world, and then abuse it, ignore it, make it very clear to the child that
it was not wanted at the time of birth and is not
now. I would not want to be that child nor would
I want to be a child who, because of severe
handicaps, could not lead any kind of a normal or
productive life.

When I make a pro-abortion statement it is
ALWAYS because of the child, not the convenince
of the parent.

devout agnostic
"1) Torture is Un-American. What other American values do you hate? Apple pie and baseball? Oh, it's also un-Christian....You hate Christian values too?"

then our burning innocent children in Hiroshima and hamburg and Dresden is un-American. Try again. A naive argument which ignores the the purpose of such. I would be negligent if I did not use all means against a jihadist to save your life in spite of your being mad at me for so doing.

"2) Adopting a policy of torture plays into the hands of the terrorists...Are you trying to lose the WOT? Are you a terrorist sympathizer?"

So did the Danish cartoons and Rushdie's book. So to placate the terrorists we should adopt their way of life.

The terrroists are more apt to be upset if we foil a plot to blow up Washington DC than if we use torture to foil it

"3) The goal of the tactic of terrorism is to inspire terror (hence the term). You have obviously let fear override your American and Christian values. Why are you such defeatists? Don't you wanna win the WOT?"

The goal of torture for the US is not to inspire terror but to save lives.


"4) Torture is at best ineffective, at worst counter productive....Again, are you deliberately trying to lose the WOT????"

Torture is effective in certain situations. See Geo Tenet;s recent book

"5) Torture ruins (what's left) of our number one world status as a leader in human rights and human DECENCY. Again, why do you hate America so much?"

That is strange since many countries execute HS, rape a virgin so she can be executed; tolerate slavery and good members of the UN human relations commission. There is more respect for human rights in 99% of countries. Torture is an exception here that proves the rule.


M.Sederoff
I doubt he had six kids depending on him. Put him in the "victim" status.

baseball
I will suggest the other word: It is murder. I don't see it that way. But the only rationale for outlawing it is if we consider it equivalent to the killing of borne person.

IF is is not murder(as most dont see that way) then it is a matter of how one values the pregnancy; and who is to determine that?

Anyone is free to have their own take on it as we have on other issues that come under "moral" from HS, pre marital sex, believing in God, conscientious objection to killing etc.

It is only if we define the conceptus as a person with rights that we outlaw it; otherwise, one is imposing one's morality on others.

And the problem the pro-life have is that they cannot get the mass of people to see it as murder.

baseball
I suggest you use a better word than "convenience". Push button windows on a car are a conven. ; ipods are a convenience;

air conditioning(which i did not have growing up) is a convenience.

The concept "convenience" implies not necessary; makes life less burdensome; ie you dont have to exert energy to roll up the windows or shift your car or fan yourself

Abortion for rape, for finishing your school, or easing your economic burden does not easily fit to the mold of being convenient since having and raising a child is big responsibility and a chunk of one's life; whereas rolling up the windows with your hand is not.

Find another word.

touj
your argument that people will still abort at same rate and with more danger to health is not a good argument for choice.

if we take your position, one can argue we should have no laws on murder because people will murder anyway or steal cars or whatever.

The only argument that is appropriate one is how one looks at the status of the conceptus. And clearly no one sees at as a person as we can tell from 90% approval of abortion for rape.

So the determination of the value of the conceptus is a matter of each individual's take or conscience; what the court did was protect privacy of conscience in an ambiguous moral situation just as in religion given the extreme value we give control over your own body.

touj and mrs paddy
The issue is not whether abortion is morally wrong, the issue is who is to decide if a woman desires to abort.
Some will argue that pre marital sex is morally wrong or HS is morally wrong. One is free to have those values and in tightly knit community one can do the equivalent what was done in the Scarlet Letter; that is shun the person; and so the person moves to the city where he does not have those problems.

So, in abortion one is free to convince others of your morality.

Mrs. Paddy thinks that the states should decide; that is if 51% of the people or their representatives in state should be the boss of the woman. So, Mrs Paddy would like to give the majority of the state control.

I wonder what Mrs. Paddy thinks of this. In the 50's a case came before SCOTUS from Conn where Conn banned birth control and selling of it.

Now according to Mrs. Paddy the state is free to decide that. But SCOTUS ruled that that state had no business regulating private behavior; does Mrs. Paddy agree? And that was the basis of the abortion decision since the conceptus is not defined as a person with rights, the woman's decision is a matter of her own conscience as is birth control as is HS as is pre marital sex; as is eating junk food.

Viruddh
I apologise if I misread the post to which I referred, but the premise is still the same. Truly I do have a pretty good sense of humor, it just wasn't operative when I read that post. School for self gets in the way, as do other family obligations and I don't often have the time to read as carefully as I should! :)

I don't know of anyone who wants to be a burden to their children when old age comes along; wouldn't we all rather die in our sleep?

But the premise is the same; the help given/ life allowed to live is determined by the "wantedness" (convenience) of the individual involved, whether that be a baby or a frail old lady. All depends on and caters to the parent's (or offspring's) frame of mind rather than an overarching morality that insists that we treat each other kindly and not neglect the aged or the orphan. Such a mindset is the height of selfishness and irresponsibility.

Our eldest is a solid Republican who is unwilling to be tyrannized into paying yet more for others' medical care, or for that matter, insisting at the point of a gun that others pay for his. How about your kids?

I agree that being responsible for oneself is the wisest thing, but have never in 25 years of being a Christian met a fellow Christian who thinks that having insurance amounts to not having faith. Don't lump us all together, for heaven's sake!

On the Right Hand and the Left
"I realize you are just being a smartazz, but in your scenario suicide bombers who kill hundreds or thousands of small children are actually doing a good thing."

Actually, not necessarily, since those hundreds and thousands of small children are Muslims who were going to hell anyway. Or so my Christian friends tell me.

Shelama
I realize you are just being a smartazz, but in your scenario suicide bombers who kill hundreds or thousands of small children are actually doing a good thing.

And why invoke the name of Jesus when you are a non-believer? Because it is the smartazz thing to do.

Touj
I think you would be surprised that I don't really disagree with you.

I think the argument is over the wrong thing.

While I totally disagree with abortion on moral grounds, I don't think making it illegal is ever going to happen.

That being said, I think the major issue is it was mandated by the SCOTUS. It should be a state issue.

My major problem is with late-term abortions, and the use of abortion as a convenience to the woman.

Choice should require responsible behavior to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

I think it is hard to ignore the big-business aspect of abortion mills though.

Nobody thinks that women's health should be compromised, but once the pregnancy is there it is really hard for me to look at it from a totally 'it's the woman's choice' perspective.

This totally ignores the rights and responsibilities of the father and rights of the unborn child.

Having said all that, I agree that it is a thorny issue. It is also a moral one, and I know you can't legislate morality, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that it IS an issue that confronts ethics and morality.

I just don't buy the argument that every child deserves to be wanted. That is a weak and self-serving attitude. There are other options.

It is a screwed up world when we celebrate the survival of a 21 week preemie, and flush millions of potential babies away with nary an eye blink. That, to me is sad.


Jesus with His hands full
"...Although I am sure the devil is loving the physicians and women who have aborted 43 million human beings since Roe...."


43 million happy saved sweet shining faces in the arms of sweet Jesus. Praise Him.

Heaven is getting full
600,000 women experience pregnancy loss through miscarriage
1,200,000 women experience pregnancy loss through termination
64,000 women experience pregnancy loss through ectopic pregnancy
6,000 women experience pregnancy loss through molar pregnancies
26,000 women experience pregnancy loss through stillbirth

Mrs. Paddy
You know, I don't think there is anybody, no matter what side of the "choice " issue they take, thinks that abortion is a good solution for birth control.

But the post I wrote earlier, that referred to the study published in this month's Lancet, shows that criminalizing abortion will not change those statistics. If people REALLY want to reduce abortions, making them illegal or hard to get will not do it, so why not find another, more practical solution? Abortions are usually expensive, somewhat risky, - there are all kinds of reasons not to want an abortion besides religious persuasions, which obviously don't work.

Also, why is it that the same people who wring their hands over abortions are also the first to fight sex education, contraceptions, and morning-after pills?

That having been said, however, it's unlikely that all abortions will ever stop - for all kinds of reasons.

viruddh
Thank you -

If you knew what a lousy day I had today, you would know how much your comment means.

Here are some statistics
Of the following: Every year in the United States, there are 60,000,000 women in the childbearing years of 15-44 Of those 3,000,000 use NO contraception, accounting for 47% of unplanned pregnancies

Pregnancy:
There are approximately 6 million pregnancies every year throughout the United States:

4,058,000 live births
1,995,840 pregnancy losses
Pregnancy Loss:
Every year in the United States there are approximately 2 million women who experience pregnancy loss:

600,000 women experience pregnancy loss through miscarriage
1,200,000 women experience pregnancy loss through termination
64,000 women experience pregnancy loss through ectopic pregnancy
6,000 women experience pregnancy loss through molar pregnancies
26,000 women experience pregnancy loss through stillbirth

As you see, ectopic pregnancies (that threaten the life of the mother) are called out separately from terminations for other reasons.

These statistics should bother everyone, as it is obvious that abortion is used as 'birth control'

Touj
I am so glad to see you on Town Hall. You are
like a breath of sanity and fresh air.

And all while remaining polite. Thank you.

Lady Krystyna wrote to Baseball Doc
"They seem to think it awful that the mother would even consider aborting one of the twins, but what would they do in the same situation and do they think that is any better than what the mother tried to do? No answer yet, except from you."

Lady K, I have found over and over again that conservatives never answer difficult questions - Baseball Doc is the exception, he is the only one who has taken the time to answer mine, and he answered it honestly.

My hypothetical question was to all the posters who refer to aborted fetuses as "children" (as in "ripping children limb from limb"). I asked those people if, since all human cells are"children" and they had to choose a life between a five year old and a recently fertilized egg, which would they choose. Of course, the answer is the embryo, because it is not really a child.

Baseball Doc was the only poster who had the guts to answer the question, hooray for him.

aliveinhim
How does it feel, knowing that someday, you'll be abandoned because you'll be "unwanted" as well?


******
Lighten up.
My children have a sense of humor. Apparently
you do not. Trust me, I won't be abandonded.
But I am hoping against hope that my children
will not have to take care of me.

And as I said in another post under that same
column - all three of my children are voting
Democrats. They too hope that they will not
have to rely on their children to foot the
bills if and when they become infirm.

My mother told me that when she was young, people
bought insurance on the sly because there were
many (in fundamentalist circles) who thought that
buying insurance meant that you didn't trust in
God or the power of prayer. They eventually
faced facts too. Buying insurance is the
responsible thing to do if it is at all possible.

Also
Whether abortion is criminalized by state or federally, it will not make any difference to the detrrence of abortion - it is only symbolic, which is something conservatives love and always seem to be more than willing to settle for.

This is what makes me think that the abortion issue is only a symbol for something else, and that all it really does is satisfy the right-wing appetite for emotionalism and hyperbole.

Here's the part
whire I make my opbligatory reminder that a very important and recent study has shown that laws against abortion have absolutely no effect on abortion rates in any of the major countries. The only difference is the rate of death and damage to those choosing abortion, since illegality makes it dangerous.

Even for 10 year olds.

LL in LA asked
" Would somebody provide me the correct statistics of how many abortions are performed because of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother each year (not to save her "social" life) "

I don't know the national statistics, but my daughter-in-law spent many years in the high-risk pregnancy division of a large, major hospital.

According to her, between 1/4 and 1/2 of the patients who came to her (at least one a day) was below the age of 12, and had been raped, usually by a loving member of the family.

Since you are so compassionate and caring, I hthink you should know that these chlidren were not damaged by the loss of their "social life".

Flash
So, because no doctor can ever be 100% sure which twin is doing the damage, the mother, the father, and the unborn twins have to take the risk that one or all of them may DIE. Is that what you are saying?

If so, this is pretty cold, even compared with the choice of aborting an unborn fetus, especially considering how DEATH is kind of PERMANENT and a man may be left spouse-less and childless all at the same time (a rather traumatic experience I would imagine), but this is okay, because it's all in pursuit of the "pro-life" agenda, an agenda that says its okay for the MOTHER to die (I suppose you wouldn't call it murder to just let a mother continue with a pregnancy to her death) but not the unborn fetus, or at least the Mother has to take the risk of dying by doing nothing to save herself or any other unborn fetus that might be inside of her just because she let herself get pregnant, either because she wanted to or by mistake?

Is this what you are saying? I don't want to misunderstand you and start a war of insults for nothing.

Also, you responded to that hypo, but you never answered the question specifically about the twins. Are you ever going to answer that question?

Where does life begin?
At the very moment of conception, from living cells.

Anyone suppose if NASA found a single sperm cell and ovary egg on Mars they would not be saying they found life?

Of course they would call it life, it is and everyone knows it.

quote:
Where does NASA believe Life is likely to exist?
The search for life could ultimatly lead to findings anywhere. However, NASA believes the most likely places within our own solar system to harbor life may have been Mars, some time ago.
There may also exist underground tunnels of water and lakes which currently harbor life forms such as bacteria.

Birthdays
I began a tradition a few years before my mom died. When it was MY birthday I sent HER flowers. I don't know why I needed to tell her thanks, she never contemplated NOT having me, it just seemed like the right thing to do.

I certainly didn't do anything special just to be born. I still don't think celebrating my birthday is that important. But, celebrating my mom....oh yeah! That was important.

It is an idea that I wish would take off in the general population. Got life? Thank God and your mother...Don't wait for Mothers Day.

After all, after having my two kids, I know they don't remember their birth, but I sure do!

When does life begin?
Wrong question. A better question: When should individual human life be legally protected for its own sake? That is, when, IF EVER, can a right to life be ASSUMED as existing, since it is nowhere spelled out in the U.S. Constitution?
.
Consider that the legal value of human life should not depend on its manner of inception, place of residence, and state of dependency, since human life isn't private property -or at least should not be thought of as such- EVEN IF Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton can be so construed.
.
In a healthy pregnancy, why should "wantedness" trump all other considerations for the not-yet-born? We aren't supposed to judge persons, but we can certainly judge what they DO, especially if what they DO involves shedding innocent blood and appears on closer examination to be a completely selfish attempt at escaping responsibility for stupid choices, freely made. That is, no one has to fornicate without using birth control, right?