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
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Liberal Feminists Support School Shootings
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


This week the mouthpiece of the modern feminist movement - Ms. Magazine - demonstrated for the world why the heartbeat of modern feminists is as corrupt, jaded, and evil as that of Charles Carl Roberts - the person who wished to sexually assault and kill ten Amish school girls in Pennsylvania.

And before you begin to hyperventilate, turn purple face, and spray spittle across the room, let me assure you - it's a more than fair comparison.

This coming Tuesday, Ms. Magazine will release its new issue with the cover story, "We Had Abortions (and we're glad we did)." The purpose of the piece according to the editors is to refocus the spotlight of the abortion issue "back on the lives of women." I don't wish to speak on their behalf, but I believe they merely mean all grown women.

The story is intended to gloss over the millions of women who have had negative reactions to the abortion experience in their own life and choose to instead highlight a petition in which 1000+ very misguided women signed a statement affirming their belief that their lives were infinitely improved because they snuffed the life out of the most vulnerable person they personally had ever known - their unborn daughter (or son, or both).

The belief embodied in the magazine's efforts shows to everyone the madness involved in our ever increasingly "morally relevant" culture. It also demonstrates how our society is neither moral nor relevant most of the time. Could there be a worse week to make such an announcement?

To add insult to injury the Ms. Magazine website boasts more than 5000 signatures to the petition. So there you have it 6000 women saying abortion is great vs. millions who dare to disagree. And as a demonstration of total fairness the organization 'Silent No More' which includes the magnificent work of Dr. Alveda King (niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) was shunned completely by the editors of Ms. when they asked if they could contribute data on women who reject abortion after experiencing one.

So back to my premise, the modern feminists - as bad as Amish school shooters...

Yes! Absolutely!

But the more interesting question is, "where's the outrage?" And a worthy question it is.

This past Monday a relatively calm man, struggled with demons that weighed in on his soul - in other words, "no one could tell him how to deal with his problems, because they hadn't been in his shoes." He had certainly done things in his past that he was not proud of. He felt there was literally no where to turn. And for all of his wife's prayer groups - he still did not see how he was going to be able to go on with life if he didn't make a choice that relieved him of his mental torture. After all it was his life, and no one should be allowed to dictate to him how he should deal with his painful choices - even if he made them years ago.

Yet if you took that entire last paragraph and put it into the mouths of those who have stood face to face with you and argued about the need for the availability of abortion - have they not made the exact same reasoning?

What modern feminists will never admit is everything ugly about what they claim their "choices" entitle them to. But with Charles Carl Roberts the ugly evidence could not be hidden. If Planned Parenthood put a disclaimer in all of their African-American neighborhood targeted locations that read something along the lines of, "upon completion of your abortion today you will have exercised the same willful, and deranged murder as the man who shot the school girls in Amish country," I wonder how much more business they would continue to be able to do.

By all accounts the coroner and those who were sent to clean up the damage in Pennsylvania saw some of the most horrific sights imaginable to the human mind. And yet these are the same sights that every nurse practitioner sees every day in a "women's health clinic."

The big difference of course is that the majority of Americans will not stand for this, once they have mental awareness of the substance of the act involved. After all, what is more humane - a bullet through the back of the skull, or having the skull crushed then vacuumed, or sent through a series of chopping mechanisms, or washed in potent acids?

I wonder which of these methods Cindy Sheehan would have used against President Bush, if she had been able to travel through time and kill him as an infant, as she explained she would have been all to eager to do this past weekend at a book signing in Huntington, Long Island.

It is no mistake that the left sees the utility in child murder, thus why they are so conflicted when they see a story like the Amish shooting. In their heart of hearts they already understand that killing an innocent young girl in an old fashioned school house is little different than killing and even more innocent girl in a place that was designed by God to be a womb of safety, comfort, nourishment, and life.

The modern liberal feminists of our day completely embrace the concept of child murder; they have 6000 signatures to prove it. And of those, they've taken the lives of 5995 more innocent children than did the Amish school shooter just this week.

Really something to brag about isn't it?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

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

it still comes down to one thing...
I've said it a hundred times- the issue is Personal Responsibility. If our government didn't subsidize poor choices, then people would make better decisions for themselves.

As far as the article- the argument is valid. A man was bothered by something happening in his own body and the solution was to extinguish life. Same holds true for women who abort.

Someone mentioned that this is comparing one person to a social movement and, therefore, faulty. But isn't the entire basis of the left's argument that abortion is an individual's choice?

The irony that the left is pro-abortion and anti-death penalty is amusing. It's one of the reasons I gladly escaped the femi-Nazis a long time ago. "Kill the innocents. Spare the guilty. And no human being has the right to self-defense. It's okay for our elected officials to rape and murder as long as they support my right to do the same." Murder is okay if it is done in a sterilized room with bright lights (or the inside of a water-logged, sinking car).

P.S. My guns and I talked about this article. They agree with me. I'd still rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy.

ahjil
ahjil writes:

"In case you didn't fully understand my point, let me amplify it:
My dog is as dear to me as anything you can imagine. Rather than suffer the least harm to come to her, I'd see you and your entire tribe, root and branch, ground into dust and washed into oblivion."

Hey, where's that much-vaunted liberal love and tolerance?! It's a myth, that's where it is. You're a hate-filled, self-loving person who is lost and knows it. You know, don't you, that your dog will live on average, 13 years, and then you're alone again...and again...and again...until you die the same way. Then you'll see whether you're right about the "superstition" of faith in Christ...or not.

Photo Of 21 Week Baby Grasping Surgeon's
http://www.michaelclancy.com/story.html

Here's that glorious picture..All true..

Women *are* more than "incubators", and men more than animals, and the two more than "breeders"..

But our "wishes and desires" should be thought about before we decide to open our legs and casually act like God does not see and does not have say about fornication, and adultery and all those things..that blur lines and call evil good and remove restraint and right living.

Chosing to wait until the healthy, God-ordained, (there's a reason) bounds of a committed marriage ensure the love, and protection, a Mother and child needs..And, men get blessed in this too..

Despite what lies media and the papers say..True love waits..

More women should know the Truth, instead of playing the lying game of sex out in the marketplace..

It never belonged there anyway..

Being pregnant never made a woman an object like an "incubator"..

That's a thing she does to herself if she continues to live a life that's not God's way..

Men joining her are less than men in this.

But pregnancy is not the thing that made her an object to begin with..

It makes her a Mother..and the man, hopefully her Husband, a Dad..

Tragic beginning to live that kind of life based on not facing we humans are all made in the very image of God..

Built for greater things..

Guess that's another column, though it's related..


But, anyway..

If You've Had An Abortion,There's Still
Mark Ruffolo is right..about Femanism..

But.if you've had an abortion and this guilt is plaguing you, there's still time to make it right with God..

I personally know a very wonderful human being who is an amazing good and loving soul, and one of the best human beings I know..

This person choose to be part of aborting their child..They were a teen at the time and they were scared and couldn't fathom the ramifications of what they were ok-ing..and they were scared..

Around that time, this person gave their life to Jesus Christ, and since then has become a real advocate for a good and Godly life and pro life concerns. This person is now happily married and living a life that is exemplary as a soul..

Although the memory is still hurtful, this person knows because they have repented and given their life to Jesus Christ, they have become a new creation and all the old sins have passed away..They have become new..

Fortunately, this person is not me, but someone I've known in my life..

If you have read this long list of comments here calling you a "killer" and a person who has murdered your child, please understand we can never be good enough for a holy God, that's why we need Jesus, but that no matter how much you may feel you've messed up, there's room at the Cross for you.

Don't forget it was saint Paul who was a religious Jew who murdered Christians..

After becoming a child of God he was swept clean of all these things and become a completed Jew, and not just a converted man.

I had to come back and say, all, this for the benefit of anyone reading this and feeling remorse, and terrible dismay..or worse..

God understands and will forgive your sin, if you do repent.

But you need to want to..

In any case, whoever you are, take it to heart, we will be praying for you..

I'd like to leave you with 2 more amazing stories about God's grace..

One is the stroy of Gianna, a young woman who was aborted , but lived..

http://www.amazon.com/Gianna-Aborted-Lived-Living-Books/dp/1561797111

The other is a story about young Samuel Alexander Armas, who, at 21 weeks old, reached out to grasp a surgeon's hand during an operation on his Mom..


http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1012548/posts

Please don't urge another living soul to take the life of their child, or anyone else's, until and unless you prayerfully read these stories and investigate these things..

The life you save may be your own..

Feminism

Feminism destroys family - pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-divorce, pro-adultery, anti-housewife, and anti-male.

A popular movement based on selfishness. It ought to fail in the long-run as the proud always fall.

Ajhil
Good Riddance.

Why can't you call a human a human?

What's your hang up?

Who is benefitting from abortion? Certainly not the child being aborted. It is a child, whether or not that fits your perceived notion of how life is.

Through your education, you fail to see some important truths.


ahjil
I am curious why your faith in Sam Harris and his book is somehow better than my faith in the man from Galilee?

When you don't have a point yourself its easy to toss monikers like 'superstition' around. No matter what you say it all boils down to who and what you believe.

Either Christ is dead or He isn't. The rest is simply handwaving.
PS. Mohammed is dead, buried in Saudi Arabia.

Right..and thanks
justaguy writes:

"Question for all pro choice folks:
Who benefits from abortion?"

Right!

All this talk about "science" and nano babies, and sound bites and blips and 'sorta-kinda-coulda-been-human' is just a bunch of bells and whistles and do da and bruha so folks can talk a thing down to teensy bits and talk circles around sacred realites like
"Life, human life.."

So they can jump around bed hoping and kill (literally) what responsbility they have for not keepin' their skivvies on..

If we're going to call a "spade" a spade (and not "a black colored figure prominent in certain card games of chance"..)Then let's do!

You get pregnant, or your lady does. One of you, both perhaps, don't like it..

30 years ago someone sold someone, maybe your folks, maybe you, a lie about a "right" to do with your body- so Kill the fruit of human intimate relations-and call it a thing..

(Don't forget to make sex quite common and uncommitted on the way)

Live this selfish life based around the trinity of stupidity ("me myself and I")..

Keep buying all that stimulant cream, the pills, and another lonely night trying to live like
"Sex and the City" is normal, or right..

Then talk yourself into saying a "baby" isn't a baby until 'you' say so..

Then delude yourself, or someone else, into killing that life because you have been duped into believing a lie..

This always comes back to hurt the one doing the killing..unless there's personal repentance..

The ramifications for such posturng and confusion and selfishness are profound..Not to mention the lies told to our youth..

But, I will let you back to your storytelling about "acorns" and "trees" and zygotes and "when" a "human" is a human..

For all this talk of "humans" I see little humanity on the topic..

Indeed human somehow lost in the quotient here..
when there's no God..



Fed up.
justaguy - A spade is a spade. A human is a human. And you are an idiot! I can't and won't waste any more time addressing your apparently endless stream of meaningless, pretentious drivel.

Noelegy - Before you invest too much more energy in a "deep respect" for Christian belief, I suggest you read Sam Harris' extraordinary book, "The End of Faith." It's not an anti-Christian work per se, but rather a deeply thoughtful analysis of the human costs involved in an uncritical acceptance of all ancient superstitions.

cedarbend -
In case you didn't fully understand my point, let me amplify it:
My dog is as dear to me as anything you can imagine. Rather than suffer the least harm to come to her, I'd see you and your entire tribe, root and branch, ground into dust and washed into oblivion.

Liberals
ajhil wrote: "* To other humans? Not always! (You’d better hope I never have to choose between your life and my dog’s!)".

Just when I think I've heard or read it all, liberals somehow manage to surprise me with their adolescent vacuity. Can any decent human being agree with the statement by ajhil I quote above? It shows the left's disdain for life and their complete misunderstanding of what it means to be human. It's sickening.

One other point to those who blather on about rape and abortion. Why on earth would you kill someone innocent (the baby had nothing to do with the crime of rape) that is half you?! 9 months is all that is required of you and then choose adoption to bless the lives of parents longing for a child. Kill the baby and there are two tragedies.

David S
I agree that that is the issue. I will also add a subtle but important aspect: convenience, personal convenience.

It is not convenient to pay the consequences.

Women and men increasingly think they are not to be held to them, and especially if they radically change their life.

Feminism and Abortion
Perhaps a severly abbreviated history of the development of abortion would be illustrative.

1. In the recent past a double standard existed where women bore the brunt of unwanted pregnancy. At the same time men would frequently absent themselves from the responsibility of caring for the infant that resulted. Additionally, polite society looked down upon the young women whose 'loose morals' obviously put her in that position. The tragic inequality of this situation beggars further description.
2. The legal environment at the time made it illegal to seek an abortion. As a result, illegal methods were utilized by desparate women to terminate the pregnancy. This process became known collectively as the "back-ally" abortionist method.
3. Roe v. Wade provided the legal environment more conducive to abortion.
4. Modern science has since provided a way for a fetus to be aborted in just about any trimester.
5. A social movement evolved to provide further options for women in desparte circumstances to deal with pregnancy up to and including the now legally approved abortion.

I find it troubling that both sides skirt the main issue - people appear to want sexual relations withouth consequeces. It is almost universally understood that the process of human sexuality can have predictable consequences. To ignore them is folly of the highest order. With the plethora of birth control remedies available the need to have abortions should have declined significantly. But they have not...and the reason is - the persons involved either cannot or will not take responsibility for their actions. Ironically, modern feminism has the right term but obscures the point. It IS all about choice. The CHOICE is whether to abstain from relations altogether or if you must, responsibly utilize birth control.
Until modern feminism, indeed, until all parties involved recognize, acknowledge, and address this fact - this societal problem will never improve.

Question for all pro choice folks:
Who benefits from abortion?

Also...
I think I'm going to bow out on this topic for a while, because I doubt I'm going to change any minds and while I have respect for your beliefs, it's going to be a bit like teaching the proverbial pig to sing. I can recognize when to stop banging my head against the brick wall. I hope to engage you all in (lively, respectful, rational) discussion on other topics in the future; there are a lot of bright minds and eloquent writers here.

Ajhil
Resisting the urge to give you a high five for your response, I have to point out that while I wouldn't have put it exactly the way you did, I had the same thought about the "Because the Bible says so" response.

I was raised Christian (Church of Christ to be specific). I have a deep respect for those beliefs. However, I've nearly gotten myself disowned by my sister-in-law because I've debated her in the past over the issue of allowing public prayer at high school football games, because I was unable to make her see that while an individual or individuals are allowed to pray ALL THEY WANT, what they can't do is take the taxpayer-funded PA system and lead the group in a prayer.

I realize that there are those here who do not believe in the validity of separation of church and state, and indeed the very concept is often misunderstood. What it means is that the state cannot take a position that endorses or favors any religion over another. Therefore, it's safest to remain neutral in matters of religion. It does NOT mean that kids can't pray privately at school, for example. It means that the teacher can't lead the class in a prayer.

But anyway, I'm getting off the topic. Although laws are made in the US for reasons that reflect Biblical commandments (against stealing, killing, perjury, etc.), it should be noted that not all Biblical commandments turn into laws. And as I said to my sister-in-law, once upon a time we might have been little communities of all-Christian, all-Protestant citizens where leading a prayer was a safe bet, now we're getting pretty darned diverse. And if it's the Christian (Baptist, CofC, Presbyterian, etc.) turn this week, whose turn is it next week? And the next?

Well, I've heard people say, Christians are the majority in this country and if those other weird religions don't like it, they can go back where they came from. Ah, but that's the nub: our Constitution serves to protect minority as well as majority, unpopular ideas as well as popular.

And therefore we cannot impose a Biblical Christian morality on our lawmaking, because the lawmaking, just as any other state institution (public schools, for example) has to serve the greatest number of people the most fairly.

Don't hand me the old saw about the Founding Fathers founding the country on Christian principles; they were Deists almost to a man. They wanted to get away from the idea of a state-sanctioned religion and foster and environment where ANY religion (or no religion) could flourish.

And that's why I can't accept anti-abortion attitudes on Biblical basis alone. It really boils down to the issue (I think) of when life begins and at what point that life is viable on its own.

Lydia
"Removing a TOOTH won't prevent someone from having a baby if they get pregnant either let alone removing a bone spur. That is kinda of silly, don't you think?"

I was making a silly point in response to a silly point, to prove that not all human tissue constitutes "a human," even if it contains human DNA.

"What next? Shooting the stork?"

Nah, I'm pretty sure storks are endangered species.

"How would you like it if someone told you they wished YOU had been aborted?"

Considering that most of the abortion debates I've had start out reasonably enough and end up with someone wishing exactly that, I'm sure I'll get over it. :)

By the way, I've told my own birth mother, a woman for whom I have tremendous respect and consider myself fortunate to have been allowed to meet, that although I'm glad she chose life for me and giving me up for adoption, I would not have denied her that choice.

AJ
So the embryo is only part human? However...

It has hardly had a chance to be anything beyond what it is. And the egg and sperm are living, but they are not life. There is a distinction that you fail to recognize. An acorn is hardly alive, just as a human egg is hardly alive. It needs another part to become alive, the sperm. Without sperm, it just is. With sperm, exciting things happen to it and it becomes human. It may not have had time to grow all human parts, but that's what its doing from the beginning, when the sperm and egg come together.

Humans are the makeup of all the parts. When you say human, you mean the person, the whole. You do not mean the hand. The hand is just a part of the human. I am not distorting anything. It is you who are playing with definitions.

DNA is the chemical that allows you to have a hand. DNA is not human, and the point in saying that an embyro has DNA is to say that it is that DNA pushes life forward. It begins the process of growing all the parts. I never once said that DNA is human. DNA gives life, but is not life.

You yourself said that it is because of DNA that the little ball of cells (actually your words from a previous thread) becomes the complex human. You brought up DNA when I intentionally asked what allows the little ball to become human. This question followed your assertion that the little ball was not human.

So, what's the point with the above paragraph? The point is to show that you yourself admitted there is something distinct about the ball of cells, namely, human DNA. It holds human DNA, and becomes human. The only difference between that and you is that you have had a chance to grow.

If you, or anyone, are willing to use the definitions you use, you open many doors to many evil things. Do you deny this as a possibility or dimiss it as a problem? Or do you think it is a good thing?

Abortion is the killing of a human. Chopping off a hand is chopping a part of a human, and killing part of a human, but not killing the human. By changing the definitions as you are, you rob yourself and all of us what it means to be human. It cheapens it.

A spade is a spade. A human is a human.

Skrak!
Justaguy -

“Calling a spade a spade?” I don’t think so!

(1) You made a point of asking when “life” begins during human reproduction, until I pointed out that there is no such transition, that sperm cell, egg, and zygote are all alive.

(2) You do the same thing with the term “human” by stating that if something has human dna, then “it is human.” Noelegy deflates that balloon by noting that many things have human dna (a severed thumb, a tumor, white blood cells …) which cannot be considered human by any stretch of the imagination.

(3) You try to make some distinction between acorns and human zygotes by calling the former “seeds”, unaware of the fact that in botany a zygote is equivalent to a seed.

In other words, as I’ve mentioned before, you’re sloppy with words and their meanings. Whether this imprecision is deliberate or a result of ignorance doesn’t alter the basic fact that you don’t by any means call a spade a spade.

You claim human life is “more valuable” than the lives of other animals. On what basis?
* To the animal itself? Certainly not!
* To other humans? Not always! (You’d better hope I never have to choose between your life and my dog’s!)
* Economically? Wrong again: the great Triple Crown winner, Secretariat, was surely worth many tens of millions of dollars. I doubt that you could command such a price!
* Because the Bible says so? Ah, there we are! As usual the only justification for your statement derives from that repulsive collection of superstitious claptrap! What a joke!
* No, wait! You also adduce the fact that humans kill animals in order to eat them and that we keep them as pets. In other words, our crimes against animals prove that we’re more valuable than they are. What a disgusting perversion of logic that is! I assume you would extend the same principle to value Nazis over the Jews!

As for your last statement, in order to avoid killing a human being, I need not identify the precise point when a fetus becomes a person. I need only determine the period during which fetal development has not proceeded far enough for it to become a person – i.e.: the first trimester – and restrict abortions to that period except for extraordinary circumstances.



Slacker

Superb piece! You’ve expressed the liberal outlook on abortion with grace and precision. I hope to see more of your posts in the future.

Noelegy
The objections to abortion stem mostly from the belief that it is murder, not that we are playing god. There is a distinction.

And yes, human life is more valuable than that of an animal. It is laid out in the Bible, but that alone is not the only proof of that. Do we grill other humans, for instance? Or do we keep other humans as pets? Ownership of another human is slavery, which we all agree, I hope, is not good.

A lot of heat but little light
That's what I get out of reading the article and all these posts.

The posts that seem most real to me are the ones by FREEDOM and MOUNTAIN ROSE.

I am quite liberal but I agree with conservatives that abortion is a very bad thing.

However being a liberal, I see both sides of the debate. There are a lot of VERY bad things in this world like abortion. We can't prevent them from happening even if we try to pass laws against them. We can only educate ourselves and our children about the consequences of doing or participating in them. We can also do our best to help people who are hurt by tragedy and to prevent it in the future.

So I can understand why conservatives want to prevent abortion. I can understand why liberals like me believe there are certain rare circumstances where an abortion is a very bad choice but not having one is worse and want that to be THEIR decision, not the state's.

That's why I like the posts by Freedom. I can understand the situation she was in and the choices she made. She chose not to have an abortion. I can understand the feelings of son and daughter. I can respect the work she did to build her own life and to raise her children to be good people. And most of all she makes me understand the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy for a young woman, the child, and the agony of the decisions the pregnant woman has to make. I can understand that none of the decisions have predictable outcomes.

I like the posts by Mountain Rose, because they make it incredibly obvious how important parenting is. The decisions we make as parents affect our children's lives in more ways than we can ever know at the time we make them. Her parents made incredibly bad decisions, ones it almost seems to me should have landed them in jail for child neglect and abuse. I can understand her dogmatic point of view that somehow liberalism is the root of all evil in this world if she thinks that reading feminist literature somehow turned her mother from being a good parent to a bad one. I think her mother would have been a bad parent no matter what she read. Her mother sounds like the kind of lost soul many liberals feel sorry for, may and should try to help grow up, and actually look down on. She doesn't sound like some one any liberal I know aspires to be or to have others emulate. Nor do all liberals agree with all feminists on all topics. Heck, feminists don't all agree with each other.

As for my personal liberal opinion on Abortion:

Abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control. I have no problem with a law that properly enforces that.

I CANNOT agree with a law that makes ALL abortions illegal, because I don't buy the argument that they are never medically necessary to "save the life of a mother". I also, much as I respect life, do not agree with a law that prevents abortion in the case of rape or incest.

If my daughter were raped and became pregnant I would want the terrible decision about whether to raise or even allow that rapist's child into the world to be my daughter's decision, and I want the option to give her my advice. It is not the state's right to take that from us. She (and I) would be the ones who have to live with the consequences of that decision. And I do not believe that the state is wiser than I am on things that have deep impact on my personal life.

What about cases where pre-natal testing reveals with certainty that the child will be significantly handicapped in some way that will be life threatening and very expensive for the parents and society to care for that child? I again think that is a personal choice that the parents have to make. Liberal that I am, I do not trust the state to make these decisions for me or my daughters.

So what are the consequences of my opinion, should the rest of society agree with me?

1. Abortion should never be required by the state under any circumstances.
2. Birth control technology should be freely available to everyone and as cheap as possible. Any child male or female, who is physically capable of producing a child of their own, should understand the consequences of sex and have access to birth control technology. So I am in favor of "sex education". Lack of access to birth control should never be an excuse for pregnancy.
3. Its OK with me if the social consensus is that abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape, incest, or "medical necessity". It is NOT OK with me if those exceptions are not permitted.
4. Abortions that do occur should be rare and safe.
5. Society has to reach consensus on the meaning of "medical necessity". That meaning will to evolve over time as medicine advances and society evolves. My stake in the ground is when there is reasonable certainty by qualified doctors that the life of the mother is in danger or when there is indisputable evidence that the child will be "severely handicapped".
6. Society has to define what "severely handicapped" means. Like medical necessity it can't be cast in concrete, and technology will make handicaps that are "severe" today quite livable tomorrow. Parents do not have a right to expect that their children will be "perfect" and there are real risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. But if the technology that enables a handicap to be classified as "not severe" has significant costs associated with it, those costs should not be only the responsibility of the parents of the child or the child themselves. The state that declares the the handicap as "not severe" or not on the list of "severe handicaps" needs to help the parents gain access to it without bankrupting themselves.


Reply to justaguy
I'm asking this: if the objection to abortion is that we're "playing God," in that we're imposing our will over that of God, then THAT reasoning is faulty because we as humans impose our will all of the time.

The point of my post was to examine some of the objections I've seen and to apply them to other situations where we don't seem to have the same objections.

Is any human life intrinsically more valuable than any animal's? Because we, as humans, say so? Who appointed us the judge of that?

Mr. McCullough what are you doing?
I cannot believe the comparison you are making. I mean how can you compare the horrible acts of an obviously bad man (I mean everyone says so), to the obviously good acts of so many good productive women. It's as if you are trying to say their acts and ideas are the same, but I know your are only saying that because you are comparing them to some objective "supernatural" standard. Of course, if you use some "religious" standard you might make them sound the same, but that would be imposing your morality on other people.

Don't you know that it is the community, by which I mean the really smart people (like scientists and professors and stuff) who actually set the practical standard. The 6000 women are not just guiltless, but rather they are good because the community says so. They have practiced the ultimate good by doing what was best for themselves! The dumb bad man who hurt the Amish girls was bad because he tried to make himself happy by hurting people that have parents that can cry on TV. What an idiot, he should just have gone to Thailand or something where he could have hurt kids for his own benefit without anybody in the community knowing about it.

He should have learned the golden rule of the community, do whatever you want for yourselves as long as you don't make me feel bad.

Noelegy
In short: first: a human life is indeed more valuable than an animal or plant. Also, an acorn is a seed, not a separate life.

CPR vs abortion? That is a truly faulty question. And saving an embryo from abortion is equivalent with CPR. Abortion is equivalent to letting the person die. And playing god, by that logic, anything we do is playing god.

Amen, Mrs V
So true.

They play around with definitions so they can have children fit into their view of what life should be FOR THEMSELVES.

This misses what life really is for all of us and that child.


Applying the logic across the board
Please understand before I ask any of these questions that I mean no disrespect to anyone on either side of the issue. I'm just offering food for thought.

By the logic that a blastocyst or embryo or fetus is a human being, can the acorn then be said to be the tree? The egg the chicken? I realize that one of these examples is vegetable and the other animal, and therefore not human, but if you take the logic of "human DNA=human" to its conclusion, that's what you get.

I saw a preview for next week's "Nip/Tuck" last night in which they're growing a human ear on a mouse's back (technology I'd heard of before), eventually to be transplanted to a human. Whose DNA is it? Is it part of the mouse? Part of the human? Who does it belong to?

There's an uncommon medical phenomenon known as a teratoma, in which tumors are found to contain hair, teeth, fingernails, eyes, etc. It's thought that the human who hosts this "monster tumor" once was a twin, but the stronger twin absorbed the weaker in the womb (this is explored in the book and movie "The Dark Half"), and the weaker may never resurface at all, but instead existing inside the stronger for years. That was once a human being. Does the stronger twin have the right to have it removed? Regardless of its current potential to become, it once had the same chances as its twin.

I had a bone spur removed from my foot six years ago. I had injured my foot and chipped a bone, and when it healed it formed a spur. That was causing me much pain and inconvenience, and even though it was a "part" of me and I'd grown it inside me, I had it removed with no further thought. I've also had kidney stones, something my body grew without my permission.

But that's different, you say. I didn't choose to have those things happen. But it's still my DNA. In the future, I might be cloned from these things (scary thought!).

Now I'm thinking of a "Heavy Metal" story in which a neurotic artist saved EVERYTHING that her body cast off--skin cells, hair, fingernail clippings, even going so far as to extract her own teeth--and unveiled a hideous life-sized statue made of her own cast-off DNA.

Maybe I'm participating in a little reductio ad absurtium here, but I'm trying to figure out the magic combination. Is it human DNA alone that makes it worthy of protection? Or is it the notion that the woman obviously chose to get pregnant by engaging in sex without protection and she should thus be willing to pay the piper?

If a woman who chooses to abort is "playing God" by imposing her own will over that of God's by choosing whether the fetus is to live or die, don't we do that all the time? By that logic, something as simple as CPR or the Heimlich maneuver is imposing one's will over God's in the matter of life and death. One is taking a life and the other saving a life, but it's still the same concept: saying No, I know what's best in this case.

It seems so hard to have a reasoned discussion about this very heated topic without one side shrieking "baby killers" and the other side screaming "fascists." I'm just curious about some of the shades of grey that exist between black and white.

about life..for those who are pregnant..
For what it is worth (and I hope a lot, this topic..) we heard our baby's heart beat on a vaginal ultrasound at 5 and 1/2 to 6 weeks..

When our first baby passed away, in utero, last June, the last scan of him, again, showed a very small baby with the details of a human body only a bit smaller, or course..

As I stated earlier, he looked just like a baby only mini. But for all intents and purposes, he was MUCH more fully formed than any of the descriptions here which suggest that a baby at these stages is "not" human.

But he WAS! Quite clearly so!!!

Just picture a smaller version of a regular baby..from head to toe..

A little head, and face, a little neck, torso, arms and legs, and little eyes, face, smile, and expression. Add, of course, the umbilical cord..

I need to also add that every baby and pregnancy experience is different..

I had different symptoms with each child, and, because they were attached to us, and me, I had a good sense of their dispositions and temperament early on..

This part may not happen to all Mothers, but it happened to me..

Anyone reading here..DON'T BELIEVE the LIE that a child at 5 weeks or less, or more for that matter, does not have all that goes into making a tiny growing human!!!!!!!!!

Believing such a LIE would cause you to think of them as non human or sub human and therefore, possibly not worth human rights, like the right to life..

But, once more I say, those tiny little beings ARE a gift, they are yours, as an act of favor from God, and they ARE QUITE HUMAN..

Do yourselves a favor and don't just buy what some say here, avail yourselves of accurate information, if you can find it, about the growth of a child in the womb..

What you will find is more miraculous than you can ever imagine, and much more glorious and lovely than some of the things that are written here..Excluding mine there, of course :^)

Aj
For what its worth, I prefer to call a spade a spade, and what you are telling me is that you are playing around with words, not I. And to call me dumb because I am not catering to your use of words is pretty shallow. I do, believe it or not, have an understanding of how life begins, though admittedly I am no expert.

My take, and I think the right take, is that if it has human dna, it is a human. Otherwise, you are playing with words and definitions. It may be in a different state, but it is a human. That embryo does not form a dog, or a horse, or a mosquito-- it forms a human.

I think it is dangerous to start excusing things on the basis you give.

There is a magic answer, but you don't like the answer. It is more clear cut than you prefer. If you can't answer when human life begins, then you risk killing a human life. That is pretty clear cut, don't you think?

justaguy
Read your post again! You asked:

"And at what point does it become something called life?

Why does a little ball of cells that is barely discernible, turn into something like you?"

I answered both these questions. If you want to add another, that's fine.

The problem, justaguy, is that you've been convinced you can play around with words like "human" and "life" and trap us poor dumb liberals into making compromising admissions; but you have neither the knowledge nor the sophistication to do it - not with me. You want to earn my respect, then stop with the juvenile subterfuges and discuss issues seriously.

The answer to your newest question is that nobody knows exactly when a fetus should be considered a functional human being. It's clear that a blastocyst can't be considered functionally human. It's "just a ball of cells." A full term baby obviously must be. Judging from anatomical development and what is known of fetal behavior, a reasonable estimate of that transition would put it somewhere in the early second trimester. That's why most thoughtful people, including me, are in favor of liberal abortion policies only during the first trimester and increasingly restrictive policies as gestational age increases thereafter.

Sorry, there's no magic answer. Like most real world issues, it's not as clear cut as most people would prefer.

Ajhil
You did not answer the question: what is different about such a grouping of cells, at any point in the process, that allows it to become a human? You did a fine job in explaining the process by which it grows, and in acknowledging the fact that its dna causes it to become human. But stop there, please. It has human dna from the start? So when does it become human if it has human dna from the start? Or does it develop this dna, or code to become human, later?

I'll ask again-- at what point does this life (you yourself said it was life) become human?

What I hear you saying is that it becomes a "true" human when it can feel, if you will-- when it can live on its own. Is that accurate?

And thank you also for proving to me right that you cannot go through this without insult.

Yours truly, your favorite fourth grade thinker.

to ajhil..
I am going to-at this late hour, bear with me-attempt to reply to you point for point. ajhil, you said:

".. Mrs V Having lived through two weeks with my wife, when she was pregnant with our daughter and spotting, when it wasn’t clear whether our first child would live to be born or not, I have some understanding of your grief, but only some (and I wouldn’t want to know it better!)"

If your child lived, or your wife is in an advanacd state of pregnancy, then you might have a slight understanding of the loss of one's child, but not much..You went on to say..

"I can also understand how you must resent those who would in your eyes squander the treasure that you lost."

Actually, I don't, neither of us do..My marveling at God's grace to offer a gift of a child to women who had previous chosen to kill their earlier offspring via abortions in no way makes me "resent" them ajhil, that is untrue and a lie..

For the sake of argument, I will simply say, No, I don't resent anyone nor them, you are wrong..You follow your comment to me with:

"However, my understanding and my deep sympathy don’t change what I know. Neither at six nor at twelve weeks is a human fetus capable of the experiences and responses that identify us as human; the neurological structures that support this activity simply have not developed at these stages."

Well, you're wrong. You happen to be very wrong.
Countless information and study backs up the fact that you are wrong. As does our ultrasound alone..Our child was quite alive and well and as I described, we saw him and so did the medical professionals. His smile was very lovely and large at the time he passed away. But I am not going to debate reality with you..

If you fancy yourself one who has more knowledge than all men, or simply those who have had such experiences as we have, then you place yourself in a position of more than even a mere medical professional, you, advertently or not, place yourself in a position as God.

The last time I checked with Him, friend, you're not..You then go on to say:

"Thus the personality and identity with which you and your husband imbued each of those tiny incipient people were the productions of your own imaginations and hopes, nothing more."

Well, I suppose those who are the parents of this child should know a bit more about him than a stranger from off of the Internet Don't you think ajhil?:-) (We do..)And I know God does ;-)

I think it is *you* who "embue"s others ajhil, talking about "resentment" I don't have and fancying your self an expert on people and things you have no knowledge of..

I daresay you have rigged yourself up to be quite the ultimate spokesmen here on *our* pregancy. Why, I am not sure..It's not like you have any ultimate authority, nor any knowledge to know the realities of which you speak..

If you were attempting to be "kind" or let me down "easy" by breaking something to me which would be hurtful that I 'don't know', in front of a large body of people no less, you have failed on both counts..

Finally, you add:

"This was just as true of my wife and me, but we were lucky. Our daughter survived and grew up to be an extraordinary person – not what we had dreamed she would be, but everything we hoped."

Well, with due respect sir, we are not your wife and you..While we are glad for you and your child living to an older age, she is not our son..

You close your comment and palm leaves to me by sharing:

"It breaks my heart to think of your loss. I hope that you and your husband will be blessed with children, because from what I can see they’ll be born into a family of love and caring and a home where they’re truly wanted. If only this were true for every developing embryo, you and I would have no disagreement. In fact, when it becomes true, as I’m sure it someday will, our disagreement will end."

Well that *is* very kind of you ajhil, and I do thank you, we do. It was also thoughtful of you to take the time to write such kind, at the end anyway, words..

Life can seem kind of arbitrary at times ajhil.
We don't always have a perfect vision or understanding of how things will work out. But, we must believe, those with faith, that God is good and works all things to our good-for we who love Him..(Not that things are always so good, or seem so in and of themselves..but not my point..)

Ironically, you are the only person who has heard of our losses in a public forum who has actually been decent enough to apologize!

(Recently I mentioned our loss as a caller on a radio show, no one who spoke to me on that show said a thing about our loss. Though I wasn't looking for that in the call, the lack of response left me stunned..)

I stand by your being a decent soul to say those kind things..SO much of such losses is counted as almost not worth noting today..That never means it isn't..As if life, life at any stage, and its miracle, or loss, is just a thing to shrug off as if it is not important..

The pain softens over time, but I assure you, even with my God and faith, it never fully goes away..Thank God I do have a loving family and we help each other..

Sorry if I seemed hard on you above ajhil. I have no disrespect towards liberal thinkers, only a sadness for, some, of their lack of awareness of Truths.

Thanks SO much again for being 1 decent soul to speak out so kindly..

As for you other comments, well, they really can't take the place of what God has shown us and
what Mothers and Fathers know, and the special things God does to make His presence known..

Like in a scan meant for our eyes to see..

You are all free to debate this til the end of time.

It changes nothing of our experience, or what we have seen and know..

Lunatic? No, just bad logic.
Beowulfe

False premise leads to false conclusion; it’s a classic error in logic.
Your premise: “Any biologist or geneticist, etc.”
This is false. I can assure you of this, because I trained in biology (PhD, Caltech – 1978) and was a research biologist myself, before I went into medicine.

The various developmental forms that you mention – zygote, embryo, fetus, infant … - are not equivalent human life forms. They differ drastically in their characteristics and abilities and are not each identifiable as a “person” to the same degree. In fact, many of the stages in that progression aren’t identifiable as human in anything other than a strict genetic sense.

The criteria for recognizing a human being – that is, a person – in terms of cognitive ability, capacity for experiencing emotion and other abstract mental states – can be defined in a straightforward way. Thus the living body that was known as Terry Schiavo a few years ago was no longer a human being. That person died many years ago, as evidenced by the extensive and disastrous brain atrophy that was revealed on autopsy.

For obvious reasons you have chosen to regard the mere possession of a human genome as dispositive in determining whether an organism is human.. However, this is by no means the prevailing view among scientists, physicians, jurists, or ethicists, as the Schiavo case demonstrated.


A palm leaf for ...
... Mrs V
Having lived through two weeks with my wife, when she was pregnant with our daughter and spotting, when it wasn’t clear whether our first child would live to be born or not, I have some understanding of your grief, but only some (and I wouldn’t want to know it better!) I can also understand how you must resent those who would in your eyes squander the treasure that you lost.
However, my understanding and my deep sympathy don’t change what I know. Neither at six nor at twelve weeks is a human fetus capable of the experiences and responses that identify us as human; the neurological structures that support this activity simply have not developed at these stages. Thus the personality and identity with which you and your husband imbued each of those tiny incipient people were the productions of your own imaginations and hopes, nothing more. This was just as true of my wife and me, but we were lucky. Our daughter survived and grew up to be an extraordinary person – not what we had dreamed she would be, but everything we hoped.
It breaks my heart to think of your loss. I hope that you and your husband will be blessed with children, because from what I can see they’ll be born into a family of love and caring and a home where they’re truly wanted. If only this were true for every developing embryo, you and I would have no disagreement. In fact, when it becomes true, as I’m sure it someday will, our disagreement will end.

sloopy
I have no difficulty identifying myself as “pro-abortion”, even though the term isn’t strictly accurate. None of the people who favor keeping abortions legal like the procedure. We’re just convinced that it’s better than the alternative in many cases. To claim that we take some kind of sadistic satisfaction from abortions is an absurd notion, designed to demonize those who disagree with you. Like most ad hominems, it indicates that you have no confidence in your own arguments.

I find it curious that most anti-abortion zealots know next to nothing about abortion, except for the distorted propaganda they absorb so uncritically and spout so unthinkingly. Most don’t understand the physiology of reproduction well enough to use accurate terminology in debating the issue. Most have never seen an abortion performed or talked to real individuals who’ve had abortions. If they did, they’d realize that no one is happy about abortions, no one enjoys them. And, while there may be unsophisticated individuals who don’t recognize what a profound choice is involved in having an abortion, they’re a distinct minority.

Your argument for capital punishment is meretricious. In the day of super-max prisons, no one can realistically claim that the only way to prevent a murderer from killing again is to execute him or her. On the other hand, capital punishment does make it virtually certain that innocent people will be put to death by mistake, as they have been in the past. Even if neither of these statements were true, however, claiming to respect life by taking it is patently ridiculous.

I’m glad you dispensed with the worthless biblical justification for hunting. After all, the Bible also recommends killing people who violate the Sabbath and stoning women for sexual infractions. I’m sure you agree that sensible people don’t subscribe to those practices either, so why should they be guided by superstition regarding their treatment of animals.

Recognizing that Darwin’s theory successfully describes the mechanics of evolution has nothing at all to do with making moral choices. Where did you get that idea?

Converting carnivores into herbivores may someday become feasible through genetic engineering. If you’ve ever looked – really looked into the eyes of a gazelle, as it’s slowly throttled by a lion that’s just pulled it down, then you’ll be in favor of such a change. For now, the natural world is filled with great cruelty that can’t be altered; but, even if we can’t yet change this unhappy fact, we can certainly change our own behavior. After all, this is what ethics is all about.

Your point about lettuce is completely fatuous, as I’m sure you realize. Lettuce isn’t sentient, can’t experience pain, fear, despair … so there’s no moral problem in consuming it. (By the way, your fellow conservative, justaguy, becomes indignant when I point out stupid or ignorant statements that he makes. So don’t respond here by asking how I know that vegetables can’t experience emotions. If you can’t figure that out by yourself, then you won’t understand my explanation either.)

One last suggestion: I’ve encountered remarkably few individuals on this website who have the wit to employ satire effectively … and you’re most assuredly not one of them. Do yourself a favor and stick to straightforward rhetoric.



justaguy
Having had similar exchanges with you in the past, I suspect you aren’t really interested in genuine answers to your questions, but I have a few minutes to spare, so here goes.
1 – An abortion “eradicates” an embryo or (after eight weeks of gestation) a fetus from a woman’s uterus.
2 – There is no such transition. A (living) embryo is created, when a (living) oocyte is fertilized by a (living) spematocyte. It’s all “life”, as you put it. [I know I’ve explained this to you before. Just what don’t you understand about this?]
3- The “little ball of cells” – a blastocyst around day 5 of gestation – turns into a viable, functioning human being because of information encoded in its nuclear (and mitochondrial) DNA.
4- As for words, I prefer people to use their proper grammatical and scientific meanings. If you can suggest another criterion that supports effective communication, I’ll consider that.
5 – Any well-educated grade schooler could answer your questions directly or at least find the answers within a few minutes on the internet. I'm going to assume that you're intellectually not much inferior to an average grammar school student (See, I can say something nice about you!) Given enough time, you could answer these questions for yourself, so what is your point in asking them of me?

Rasta..When human life starts..
Rasta, you said above on abortions

"While there is no doubt the callous disregard for human life by pro-choice feminists is tragic. Especially in their refusal to acknowledge that 2nd and 3rd trimester babies (viable outside the womb) are even human..."

But FIRST trimester babies are human TOO.

Have you ever heard a heartbeat at just short of 5 ½ to 6 ½ weeks?

We have...my Husband and I...

It is an awe inspiring, miraculous and beautiful sound!

And that little person we dearly loved and lost was REAL, with a little face, head, body, spirit and limbs.

He, also, had an amazing smile when he passed.

He, however nascent
or small, was a person, with all the mechanisms and blueprints inside him at conception as any long living individual.

We lost 2 this past year. One at 12 weeks, one at 6.

I don't care about semantics or splitting of hairs with words here...

Tiny fetuses are still people.

Tall talk by those who, through God's grace, got a chance to live means nothing in the light of the reality of who they are and were...

I gasp at the hard-hearted ignorance of women who abort their babies to this day...

I marvel at God's grace to then, often later, still allow them to conceive and have living children again...

If anyone knew, or was not concerned about facing the truth in these things, they would see what a miracle life is and how fragile it can be...and how hard it can be for some to have or bear a child, let alone keep them safe and alive...

Please DON'T talk of stages in pregnancy as if a time limit makes a life less real, less human, less in existence..

I find it hard to bear such lies...

I understand you were probably quoting some statistic, but still...

editedThat Word Was Sanctity-These Fool.
That Word Was Sanctity, in my last post here with the link. I've edited my post previous to it for easier reading here.

These Foolish Things *You* Make My Do...

Oh the contentions here for self defense of such actions as abortion. There should be a sub title here on the Ms. article: "These Foolish Things *You* Make Me Do (Like 'Forcing' Me to Take the Life of My Child...)

Two points in reply to some words here...Audio10 said:

"Comparing a mentally ill monster to a woman who makes a medical decision is shameful."

I doubt that one. There is no shame in making an honest analogy as Mr. McCullough makes. There *is* shame in calling evil good while glazing it over like a rotten ham hock with sweet gravy for Christmas...
This is simply what you're doing by calling killing "a medical decision"...And this trend continues.

Liberal elites, the "Diabolical Dagger Society", new world odor, whatever you want to call those seeming societal engineers who try to use their money/'power'/influence to fashion a licentious, carnal, and hooked consumer base, keep filling their satanic dictionary with new words and "rights" that should not exist. They place an idea in the public square, rile up what they deem as an "oppressed" 'minority', 'gay's, women, what have you, and then use ads and academic propaganda to sell these folks a bill of goods based on a lie about what "rights" they "ought" to have..

For example, new words get used and instead of infanticide, abortion gets named as "choice". While it is actually the killing one's own seed, it gets fashioned as a coveted "right" or a "need". It then gets renamed so it glosses over the evil and seems acceptable...This, of course, makes it easy, in some ways, for women to close their eyes to indiscriminate sex, (i.e. sex outside of committed marriage 1 man 1 woman for life, because they are further sold lies that this is "normal, healthy fine") while most women walk away with a soiled feeling and a vague sadness, loneliness, emptiness. There is no depth or permanency there for her, no safe haven. No real protection. No true love...

It, calling evil good and using word games to make mock rights, has been done in society, increasingly, for about 40 years...Most recently, an example of the same technique, by way of satanic agents like Feminism (never truly *for* the woman if it is *against* the man. and not really for her anyway...) and others, is placing a lie about needs for a, supposedly, disenfranchised group like gays. Telling them they can/should "marry”. While deep down anyone in this 'life' style knows that what they seek to do is very different than the ACTUAL definition of Marriage...

Hitler used such propaganda techniques by telling lies over and over again until society's resistant wore thin...as he fashioned them as truth...A confused and worn out public, with no moral compass, who is told the lie that they are "merely" a "blob" and not made in the very image of God, will go on to lie to themselves and do these things, such as infanticide. Here is the textbook example of this word:

in•fan•ti•cide (in-fan'ti-sid')
n.
The act of killing an infant.
The practice of killing newborn infants.
One who kills an infant.
[Late Latin infanticidium, the killing of a child and infanticida, killer of a child : Latin infans, infant-, infant; see infant + Latin -cidium and -cida, -cide.]

I see no difference...between "abortion" and this, above... While there may be many good and otherwise kind decent souls who do such things to their own kin, I highly doubt it was with no flinch of conscience or with happiness with that they approached this...

Just remember the formula though, misguided and miseducated public, deficient in the truth, gets lied to about "rights" they are sold on that they are "supposed" to have, while adding words that are sinful deeds fashioning evil as good, and you have it right there.. One can also add "an affair"=Adultery "Living together"=fornication, "mercy killing"/"euthanasia"=murder. The list goes on and on...

And people wonder why such things go on in schools today...when our children and babies are treated like things and trophy objects or nuisances. People wonder why marriage is hurting for some so much out there when God's seed has been dispersed abroad amongst those who do not honor their marriage bed...

When media pummels us with all sorts of sordid lies and imagery of the basest kind, meant to bring a man to the basest places in his being and sully and darken his imagination. While some marriages are ruined and marriage is challenged because so many are too busy "loving" themselves to really love anyone else...

Sex is sold and used to trap others, and smeared as a word all over magazine covers, but it has nothing to do with what God truly intended and the purpose He had by making it spiritual, and meant to be in a holy and committed context, for life.

Anything less is chaos. The energy meant to grow and hold a family together is thrown out to a place it was never meant to be...

Hence the confusion for people, their isolated experience, their mistrust, their despair. Ripe for the picking for anyone who would like to hook them into a life of endless hedonism, arrested development, and/or a materialistic single state...Alone, but a hooked consumer, forever. A lover of "things" and "self" and "sex"-but not the true...

Life is sacred. It is a gift. Truth is at a premium and these days should be coveted...Marriage and its bed is also a gift. As our children, God says so...How far can we go as a society when we keep fashioning fake rights for lies and closing our eyes to the evil we do?

Man was meant for woman and woman for man, the fruit thereof for them and all for God.


Mom Accused of Swinging Baby As Weapon..
Mom Accused of Swinging Baby As Weapon

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/09/D8KL9F287.html

Above, just one of the myriad of examples about a true lack of honor for the santity of life, marriage, not to mention others, one's self, the fruit of one's womb, appropriate boundaries!

P.S. You GO Mountain Rose! :-)
Have not read all 250 comments, but what I have in yours are very good replies and so true! :-)

These Foolish Things *You* Make My Do..
Oh the contentions here for self defense of such actions as abortion. There should be a sub title here on the Ms. article:

"These Foolish Things *You* Make Me Do (Like 'Forcing' Me To Take The Life of My Child..)

Two points in reply to some words here..

Audio10 said:

"Comparing a mentally ill monster to a woman who makes a medical decision is shameful."

I doubt that one. There is no shame in making an honest analogy as Mr. McCullough makes.

There *is* shame in calling evil good while glazing it over like a rotten hamhock with sweet gravy for Christmas..

This is simply what you're doing by calling killing "a medical decision"..

And this trend continues.

Liberal elites, the "Diabolical Dagger Society", new world odor, whatever you want to call those seeming societal engineers who try to use their money/'power'/influence to fashion a liscentious, carnal, and hooked consumer base, keep filling their satanic dictionary with new words and "rights" that should not exist.

They place an idea in the public square, rile up what they deem as an "oppressed" 'minority', 'gay's, women, what have you, and then use ads and academic propaganda to sell these folks a bill of goods based on a lie about what "rights" they "ought" to have..

For example, new words get used and instead of infanticide, abortion gets named as "choice". While it is actually the killing one's own seed, it gets fashioned as a coveted "right" or a "need". It then gets renamed so it glosses over the evil and seems acceptable..

This, of course, makes it easy, in some ways, for women to close their eyes to indiscriminate sex, (ie sex outside of committed marriage 1 man 1 woman for life, because they are further sold lies that this is "normal, healthy fine") while most women walk away with a soiled feeling and a vague sadness, loneliness, emptiness..There is no depth or permanancy there for her, no safe haven. No real protection. No true love..

It, calling evil good and using word games to make mock rights, has been done in society, increasingly, for about 40 years..

Most recently, an example of the same technique, by way of satanic agents like Feminism (never truly *for* the woman if it is *against* the man..and not really for her anyway..)and others, is placing a lie about needs for a, supposedly, disenfranchised group like gays.

Telling them they can/should "marry"..While deep down anyone in this 'life' style knows that what they seek to do is very different than the ACTUAL defintion of Marriage..

Hitler used such propaganda techniques by telling lies over and over again until society's resistant wore thin..as he fashioned them as truth..

A confused and worn out public, with no moral compass, who is told the lie that they are "merely" a "blob" and not made in the very image of God, will go on to lie to themselves and do these things, such as infanticide..

Here is the textbook example of this word:

in·fan·ti·cide (in-fan'ti-sid')
n.
The act of killing an infant.
The practice of killing newborn infants.
One who kills an infant.
[Late Latin infanticidium, the killing of a child and infanticida, killer of a child : Latin infans, infant-, infant; see infant + Latin -cidium and -cida, -cide.]

I see no difference..between "abortion" and this, above..

While there may be many good and otherwise kind decent souls who do such things to their own kin, I highly doubt it was with no flinch of conscience or with happiness with that they approached this..

Just remember the formula though,
misguided and miseducated public,
deficient in the truth,
gets lied to about "rights" they are sold on that they are "supposed" to have,
while adding words that are sinful deeds fashioning evil as good,
and you have it right there..

One can also add
"an affair"=Adultery
"Living together"=fornication,
"mercy killing"/"euthanasia"=murder. The list goes on and on..

And people wonder why such things go on in schools today..when our children and babies are treated like things and trophy objects or nusiances.

People wonder why marriage is hurting for some so much out there when God's seed has been dispursed abroad amongst those who do not honor their marriage bed..

When media pummels us with all sorts of sorid lies and imagery of the most base kind, meant to bring a man to the most base places in his being and sully and darken his imagination.

While some marriages are ruined and marriage is challenged because so many are too busy "loving" themselves to really love anyone else..

Sex is sold and used to trap others, and smeared as a word all over magazine covers, but it has nothing to do with what God truly intended and the purpose He had by making it spiritual, and meant to be in a holy and committed context, for life.

Anything less is chaos. The energy meant to grow and hold a family together is thrown out to a place it was never meant to be..

Hence the confusion for people, their isolated experience, their mistrust, their despair..R

Ripe for the picking for anyone who would like to hook them into a life of endless hedonism, arrested development,
and/or a materialistic single state..

Alone, but a hooked consumer, forever..A lover of "things" and "self" and "sex"-but not the true..

Life is sacred. It is a gift. Truth is at a premium and these days should be coveted..

Marriage and its bed is also a gift. As our children, God says so..

How far can we go as a society when we keep fashioning fake rights for lies and closing our eyes to the evil we do?

Man was meant for woman and woman for man, the fruit thereof for them and all for God..





Kimberly
I have known about women who have been raped and conceived (LESS than 1 percent of ALL abortions)--so a pitiful excuse to condone abortion in the first place. They have gone on to find that the baby they carried to term and gave birth to (rather than have a full term abortion) was the single most meaningful, love-filled event of their lives. That's because (through Grace granted by God to those who love Him and seek Him)it is simple, and easy to see that God does not make garbage. And that's why the bible tells us that what God reveals to the merest of children, he withholds from the wise. God is simplicity and truth. Not convoluted thinking that allows almost 300 posts to one single article.

finer points of morality
You know women are jailed and prosecuted in this country for abandoning their babies after they are born. My question to the abortionists- why?

You know if only a baby-killer(abortion doctor) had been nearby to make it 'legal' then she could have avoided jail eh?

This is exactly why hate-crime legislation is so idiotic. Somehow thinking different thoughts while committing some act makes it better or worse. As long as the mother 'thinks' she should not have the child its perfectly ok, right?

Keep making excuses, but you are still supporting the right to murder ones own children-period.

Moral Minority
You are in touch with the MSM, not the mainstream moral majority. Most people still think of 1st trimester abortion as murder. You never hear of an expectant mother, even in her 1st trimester, refering to her unborn as a fetus, embryo, etc... Nope, it's her baby. Using different language to connotate it doesn't change it, it only shows that you are embarrassed to call it what it is. An abortion is a "procedure", Planned Parenthood is an abortion clinic, abortionists are medical facilitators, etc... This is Newspeak as Orwell prophetically described. It doesn't change the meaning of the words. It just makes it sound nicer.

liberal dialog
Please read C.S. Lewis', The Screwtape Letters, to see how satan messes with us.

liberal dialog
You are in COMPLETE agreement with satan!! Totally duped! I guess God was only kidding when he said that he knew us BEFORE we were formed in the womb. If that gets you through your life, so be it. Try God. That will ALSO get you through the afterlife!!!! As always, those of us blessed with Grace will be praying for your conversion. In regard to your statement it is : There, but for the grace of God, go I....God bless you and keep you.

Malou,
no, nothing wrong with that. In fact, I wish blessings on you and your future child. I do think that you having only one child meshes with jaydee's stats (it was jaydee, not mountain rose, who brought up the stats). And the point of mountain rose's hyperbole still stands. At the present rate, eventually there will be quite a few more conservatives than liberals (if it continues to hold true that most children grow up to adopt their parents political persuasion). A lot of "ifs" I grant you, but there it is.

Moral Minority
wooo hooo!

Gotta love all these self-righteous indignants.

http://www.pkblogs.com/tigtogblog/2006/05/fetal-brain-development-myths-and.html

"Without a cortex, there can be no cognition, and the cortex doesn't develop until after 20 weeks gestation. No one aborts a post-20 week gestation foetus on a whim, it is only ever done for severe medical problems either with the foetus or the mother, so I really don't see the problem either with earlier terminations or with continuing to allow late-term terminations for medical reasons."

And that sums up the American moral reality better than I could. If you don't agree with the above assesment you are out of touch with mainstream America morality. You are in a minority with any statement that all abortion is a legal human murder. You may be killing, similar to pulling the plug on a terminally ill patient, but murder? Nope.


"The CDC estimates that 55 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.4 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2000)."


Ultimately I think this country will gravitate to the perspective of the U.K. where abortions are unrestricted in the first tri-mester, legally restricted in the second and illegal in the third.


linkenlogs,
Did you read the quote you highlighted?

"AS IT TURNS OUT, MR. FOLEY HAS HAD ILLICIT SEX WITH NO ONE THAT WE KNOW OF, AND THE WHOLE THING TURNED OUT TO BE WHAT SOME PEOPLE ARE NOW SAYING WAS A -- SORT OF A JOKE BY THE BOY AND SOME OF THE OTHER PAGES."

Maybe I'm behind the news, but certainly Dobson wasn't at the time. Who did Foley have illicit sex with? Also, notice witht the page joke part of the quote, Dobson said that "some people" were saying it. Is that the only part of the Dobson quote you had a problem with?

Also, go back and see what Josue was replying to. jsh said, "BTW, notice how Dobson, Focus an the Family and that crowd have been silent about 54 year old gay predator Mark Foley picking up 16 year old boys?" Josue responded. By Josue's response, would you say that jsh was correct?

Kimberly
And lets not forget the symbol for the Democrats: a BIG JACKA**.

I am the one who keeps talking about the slippery slope! It stemmed from our blatant disregard for life at the start. I'm not saying that both sides of the aisle disregard life in its many stages. I'm just not going to align myself with a party that is so cavalier about climbing the slide that led to this slippery slope. As Ann Coulter so aptly puts it: Abortion is the "holiest" of sacraments to the dems. They are so into Planned Parenthoods hip pockets that they may as well diddle around in each other's pants too. And then solve the "problem" of the babies that are conceived by murdering them.

You are sick!
If your barnyard standards were par for this site, I would be out of here in a minute.

Feminests & the Amish School
Unlike many of the readers who wrote about their abortions with pride in Ms Magazine, the girls who live the Amish way of life don't have to look back on their abortions because their Christian beliefs tell them that abortion is evil.

Abortion is the deliberate taking of a human life. At least the people who regret their abortions had the courage to say so.

By the way, Margaret Sanger's racial views would surprise many people; especially the African American community.

Poor Lydia,
“The ethnic cleansing of "white" European descendents in America continues at lightning speed.”

Every time I hear “white” European descendents in America complain about the immigration problem in these terms, I can’t help picturing old “Iron Eyes Cody”.
http://www.kab.org/uploadedFiles/KAB/crying-indian-512k.wmv

Joshue is a liar
How odd that you quote Dobson, but cut off the quote at the most relevant part. That is where Dobson spins out Drudge bs about the whole thing being a "prank" by the pages. (This was flatly denied by the page in question through his lawyer.)

So Josue, either you are a liar, or of you prefer, your response was genuinely "Clintonian". Either way, Dobson downplayed the incident and tries now to pretend it was all a "prank" by the pages.

For those who want Dobson's actual quote in full (the part omitted by Joshue), here it is:


DOBSON: We condemn the Foley affair categorically, and we also believe that what Mr. Clinton did was one of the most embarrassing and wicked things ever done by a president in power. Let me remind you, sir, that it was not just James Dobson who found the Lewinsky affair reprehensible. More than 140 newspapers called for Clinton's resignation. But the president didn't do what Mr. Foley has done in leaving. He stayed in office, and he lied to the grand jury to obscure the facts. AS IT TURNS OUT, MR. FOLEY HAS HAD ILLICIT SEX WITH NO ONE THAT WE KNOW OF, AND THE WHOLE THING TURNED OUT TO BE WHAT SOME PEOPLE ARE NOW SAYING WAS A -- SORT OF A JOKE BY THE BOY AND SOME OF THE OTHER PAGES.


beowulfe
Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent child. I don’t hide behind euphemisms and I don’t kid myself about death either. When you write how dropping the atomic bomb was wrong then I’ll consider you point. You can argue that we were at war and that the bomb was necessary; but we weren’t at war with babies and unborn children. Surly many of them died as a result of the bombing. You must understand, I truly dislike the idea of killing another person or homicide in the literal sense; but sometimes it’s necessary. I agree with dropping the bomb because it was necessary even knowing that the innocent would be killed to accomplish our purpose. Sometimes, the ends do justify the means and the innocent pay the price for mistakes of the guilty. To clarify the situation, we have laws, due process and ritual. There are many times when the killing of a person is legal and acceptable. Abortion, while not acceptable to you, is legal. What that lunatic in PA did was not. No amount of equivocating can alter that fact. Kevin’s point in this column is flawed. It is not the truth. It is an attempt to build a bridge of rationalizations to a personal opinion.

MikeR
As a graduate of a LR, AR high school in the height of bussing, there were 65% blacks in my school. You are trying to make it sound as though I am racist, when in fact I have never really thought about the color of one's skin, except when told the above info. I have more black friends than white now that you've forced me to think about it. Luckily, we think about things like trust, kindness, morals, when deciding who we hang out with. My children have friends of all races, and don't know that they are supposed to view other races differently. If affirmative action causes them to not get a job they deserve, they may think otherwise. I hope we have true equality of all men ( and women) by then. In the meantime, I will not let you goad me further into defending my lack of racial discriminatory views.

RE: Kimberly's "Right to Choose"
That madman that walked into the Amish school and gunned down those children also made a choice -- a choice that resulted in the very same thing that a "woman's right to choose" results in every day. I guess, Kim, you're sympathizing with him, too?

As I already pointed out, there is no rational and logical way to claim that intentional abortion is anything less than homicide. Use all the deceiving euphemisms you want, that does not change the fact that you are killing a human being.

And finally, you really expose yourself for what you are when you go down the "pedophilia apologizing, gay-bashing...". Point in fact, 1) no one of note has apologized for Foley, 2) Foley never had sexual relations with a minor, let alone someone prepubescent, and 3) according to the records that have been released, anyone he e-mailed was over the age of consent, and according to Gerry Studds and the millions of Massachusetts voters, that is in and of itself grants him the right to have such a sexual relationship. Claiming Foley was a pedophile is as accurate as claiming Bill Clinton himself was a pedophile.

The bottom line is Foley got the boot, but the Democrats who have been embroiled in similar types of scandals -- from Gerry Studds' sexual relationship with a minor to the prostitution ring ran out of Barney Frank's home to the 3 women who accused Bill Clinton of raping them -- have seen their electoral margin of victory increase.

Your desperate dishonesty really makes it more and more clear than those of your ilk litterally have NOTHING to contribute.

MissouriPA
One of your best friends is black? That’s pretty cool. What’s it like?

Hidden Agenda?
Is it that hard to see how racist liberals are? They are pushing Planned Parenthood , aka abortion clinics in predominantly minority areas. Margaret Sanger, the founder of this organizaton, was very open about this agenda. She even went so far as to suggest that people who were "retards or imbeciles", or unfit for other reasons which included racial, be sterilized or forced to live in a colony segregated from the rest of society, so as not to contaminate the gene pool. They tend to leave this history out. Sanger and others of her ilk are the founders of the liberal movement. Lincoln was the 1st Republican president, Martin Luther King-Republican, George Wallace- democrat. The Republican party has placed minorities in the top offices in history, yet Afican Americans, or blacks as some like to be called, see the democratic party as the party that represents their interests and view black republicans as "Uncle Toms". I don't mean disrespect by saying black people vs. African Americans, but one of my best friends (black) says that while she considers herself an
American, she has never been to Africa, and would find it exhausting having to refer to me as Scottish-British-Irish-Native American. We agreed that if the NAACP (which still calls them COLORED PEOPLE) or the ACLU walks in we will use the ridiculous PC connotations, but in the meantime, we know who we are.

Wow ...
More and more, every day, you liberals reveal just what kind of fascists and control freaks you really are. Freedom, who decides the "cut-off" IQ, to be allowed to have their baby? Why not just go a step further and just have mandatory IQ tests and sterilize those who aren't "smart" enough? Do you see how ridiculous what you said is? I wonder how many of us know that our parents don't have a very high IQ, and yet they managed to be excellent parents and raise decent and even smart children. I don't think IQ has a thing to do with being a parent; I think the "missing ingredient" is a lack of SELFISHNESS.

I can't think of anything funnier than knowing that someone would take the time to post some of this inane drivel in response to an excellent column. Thanks, Kevin, for your usual insightful point of view.

Response to Lydia
Lydia writes:
LYDIA: After a half century or so of liberal insanity and the seeing that country on the brink of various destructions, I am smart enough to see that LITTLE can be done in the political realm anymore.

LINDA: I believe that MUCH can be done in the political realm – but first we need to clean it up. That means we need to vote the vast majority, if not all, politicians out of office and start with a new crew who know that doing business as usual in Washington and in state houses around the country will not be tolerated by the voting public. Power corrupts. No doubt about it. But politicians respond like frightened rabbits when the electorate takes a hard position.

It won’t be perfect, but what is? It would have to be a process of imposing limits for politicians of all stripes, and then gradually working our way back to sanity in government.

It’s not really the conservatives or the liberals who destroy the country. It’s the extremists in both camps doing the damage - in cahoots with the crooked politicians who carry their water and use their extremist rhetoric to gain some (usually hidden) item on their toy list (usually money).

We all need to concentrate on tossing out the spin machines, lobbyists, and politicians who cannot answer a straight question with a straight answer.

LYDIA: It no longer matters how many times you vote people into office, it won't get better until the "cultural" issue are solved--destroying liberalism.

LINDA: Clearly this country is almost evenly split between liberals and conservatives, with independent preferences seeming to split evenly on the two positions as well. It’s interesting that you feel destroying the voices and lifestyles of half the country is the way to solve the problem.

Democracy is a complicated, unwieldy entity as you well know. Actually, it’s amazing that we have survived this long. Anytime you put two people together, the only way to have a productive relationship is to engage in negotiation and frequent compromise. Multiply that times a billion or so to make your head spin, especially when you throw thousands of middle men and women (politicians) into the mix who are devoted to their own pocketbooks.

There are no easy answers. But what do you offer as an alternative? Crush all people who do not agree with you?

I welcome the culture war. Most of the troops are in the middle which portends a sane outcome.

LYDIA: And I doubt that many [liberals] are subordinating emotion [self-hate/white guilt] to rational thought [self-preservation].

LINDA: Perhaps you should know more moderate conservatives and moderate liberals.

LYDIA: I'm not giving up without a fight here. The enemy is liberalism; liberalism in both parties. The liberalism of the Clintons and the liberalism of the Bushes. The secondary enemies are the immigrants who come here…

LINDA: I do not share many of your views on immigration, but I am in agreement that flooding our country with (even legal) immigrants is one of the most destructive things we have ever done. I find it appalling that politicians, corporate-loving conservatives, corporate-loving liberals, and extremist liberals welcome this ridiculous influx of foreigners to drain our national treasury and splinter our national face. Without unity, even when we disagree, we are hopeless as a nation.

I believe in extremely limited immigration – maybe even a moratorium for a while. Those who bring up the “we are a nation of immigrants” rhetoric are either disingenuous or too liberal to have any common sense.

We should make it a priority to empty this country of illegals – no matter how sad their story is. We don’t have to spend a dime to do it. We just need to whack those who employ illegals with huge fines, even private citizens employing nannies and yard workers. Establish a six-month deadline for employers to clear their businesses and a two-year deadline for illegals to clear the border. And let these law-breakers find their own way back to where they come from, at their own expense.

Lydia, while I almost entirely disagree with your positions, I appreciate your resourced discourse.

Mike R: LOL
I wasn't referring to the guns. He11, I considered that a compliment.

now, now...
....no insult has ever fed a hungry child...

Response to jsh
> BTW, notice how Dobson, Focus an the Family and
> that crowd have been silent about 54 year old gay
> predator Mark Foley picking up 16 year old boys? I
> guess power trumps morality and protecting
> children for these so called "Christian" leaders.

From here: http://family.org/cforum/extras/a0042242.cfm

"What Congressman Foley did was inexcusable, reprehensible and morally depraved," Dobson said. "Let there be no question about the position we have taken on this."

And: "In fact, it does outrage me..." Dobson said. "We condemn the Foley affair categorically."

All clear now?

My dear BrianR,
I know you support limited abortions. My comment to you was not about abortion at all. It was about an earlier comment.

Sex and guns
Tired of those ads on TV for Viagra and Cialis?
Try Smith and Wesson! That's right, S&W is the "all the time, any time" cure for what ails you!
See your local gun dealer now! Mention this ad for a 5% discount.
And for the distaff side: the Lady Smith now comes in 3 designer colors!

That why it made no reference of any kind about abortion. Aside from that, in most all of your comments, you speak in glowing terms about weapons and their use. I was commenting about that and how aggressively you speak about taking action. I don’t call people names or make insults accept in the lightest term. I can’t imagine what kind of reprehensible person would call a name, employ an insult and then accuse some one of a failing that they themselves commit. You claim such actions are the product of a liberal mind. That’s odd; I always thought you were a conservative.

i dont agree
to compair what that monster did to thous little amish girls to abortion is horrible. i dont see abotionist sexually assulting the unborn baby before or while they are terminating it. That is what the guy in the amish shchool shooting did so are you saying abotion is worse then a sexual assult and a murder. This is just an emotionally charged editorial with the sole purpose of making people mad.

Mike R: well, doof
If you'd read all my posts before zooming out the insults, you'd have noticed that you and I happen to agree on the subject of the legality of abortion.

But, naaaah. It's much easier for the liberal "mind" (if there is such a thing) to shoot from the lip.

Sorry but......
Mountain Rose: You have really explained your character and demonstrated the pride you take in it too. I know how you feel. I had a huge dinner on Saturday and after my morning coffee on Sunday, I felt particularly proud.

BrianR: I feel the same way about those Viagra and Cialis commercials. I wonder who buys that stuff. I’m sure you don’t. I always figured Smith & Wesson was Viagra to you. Hey, when are you and NRAlifer going to form that posse and take on the bad guys like Phelps?

Lydia: Yes, you white folks are in trouble. It won’t be long before all you fear becomes common and that sea of white faces on TV all turns brown. Don’t worry though. I hear NRAlifer and Brian R are forming a posse. Maybe you can join up and really fight against ‘liberalism’.

Folks: Calling abortion murder doesn’t make it murder. Not as long as it’s legal. Children, including the unborn, are innocent of the world they live in. The death of any child is a sad thing; a true tragedy. Unfortunately, in a world where the ends justify the means, the innocent die. It makes no difference whether it happens during a nuclear flash, a bomb induced fire storm, small arms fire or a medical procedure. To say otherwise is hypocrisy. The theme of this article is that of a fool and it seem to have provoked other fools in its wake.

reply to jd
I'm not sure which event at Columbia you have in mind, but if laws were violated, I'm not a supporter of those who violated them.

What I tried to do in my posts was to claim that if abortion is the evil conservatives believe it to be, constitutional limitations on laws and actions should be set aside. Consider Lincoln's setting aside of habeas corpus during the Civil War. His defense was that he could hardly allow the government established by the Constitution to remain in danger of destruction merely so he could adhere to one part of the Bill of Rights.

For conservatives abortion is murder on a scale exceeded only by the Holocaust and the murders of millions more by the Communists, both Soviet and Chinese. As such, abortion deserves a suitable response. I guess you don't want to think through your own position.

Mountain Rose
You cite a study suggesting that liberals have fewer children than conservatives--not that they have none. Why would you conflate "20% fewer" with "none"? Is it because you enjoy incendiary rhetoric?
To Cynewolf: yeah, probably just the one. Something wrong with that?

coloborfan, cat trapper: ROTFLMAO
Well, that's certainly the first time in my life I've ever been called a lefty.

Well, coloborfan, it's interesting that after calling me a lefty, you're the one who uses the standard liberal tactic of drawing analogies with Nazi Germany.

Further, whether you like it or not, as the saying goes we are a land of laws, not men. And the law is that abortion is legal. Had you read my posts, you'd also see I made reference to Roe (terrible decision), States' Rights, and the political path to changing the law.

And, to be fair, I also said I believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester under certain circumstances, and strongly discouraged.

If that's Lefty, so be it.


RE: Conservative lunatic ranting
On the one side, there is a group of people who are pleased to be a part of systematic extermination of their fellow human beings.

On the other, there are those who condemn such extermination.

The irony is that those who oppose said extermination are often the ones labeled "lunatic".

The bottom line is that abortion IS the intentional slaying of a human being. This is a fact that cannot be disputed.

Any biologist or geneticist, regardless of their opinion on abortion, will tell you that a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus are just as much an individual human life form as an infant, a toddler, an adolescent, or an adult. The only difference is the stage of development.

The argument, then, comes in at what value do you place on humans based upon rather arbitrary definitions of the stage of their development.

No matter how you try to rationalize it, there really is no logical way to consider abortion anything less than an immoral act of assassination of another human being.

Dear Mountain Growth,
I, like you, could have been one of Roe vs. Wade's earliest victims. My mother, who was about to begin her 2nd year of college, found herself in a dilema. My father was just graduating HS. Luckily (thank God for my grandparents!)they were raised in Christian homes, and neither considered abortion as anything other than what it is, murder. They got married, and here I am. I'm sure a lot of lefties would prefer I weren't here, but both of my parents, despite the "inconvenience" continued to have hopes and dreams even with a child (who would have thunk it possible?), and were even able to say "no" to welfare. They have both been very successful financilly, intellectually, and most importantly, spiritually.

Betty Friedan, does not support the more radical ideas of the modern feminist movement. Since she started the whole thing, you would think she would get a little respect from her progeny. As it turns out, she was a commie nut job to begin with. Roe (as her alias goes) also later admitted to lying about her reasons for needing an abortion, and no longer supports the movement, but you don't hear pro-abortionists quoting her either. Even the leaders of these movements have abandoned the monsters they helped create. And yes, pro-abortion is the proper term, how else do you defend the stance that women should not have a 2 day waiting period after being educated of all of the options available to them before going through with the actual "procedure"? Afaid they might change their mind? It is also aimed at African Americans with a vengeance for those out there who think liberals support you.

Liberals ARE abortions ...
-- People over 40 should be glad that they were born when all life was considered precious.
-- People under 40 should be glad that their mothers chose life instead of abortion.
-- Most liberals support abortion. Are most abortions done on liberal women? Hmmmm .. Maybe they will abort themselves out of existence? We can only hope ...
-- Sex is the process by which the human race replenishes itself and pregnancies are to be an expected result of sex and anyone not realizing this is brain-dead. If you don't want the child that could come of it, women should keep their legs together and men their flys zipped!
-- "Queens" don't naturally reproduce for which we should be eternally grateful!

my two cents
life begins at conception

if it's growing it's alive

therefore ....

Total Agreement with the Article.
There is no way around the fact that abortion is murder. These people have signed a confession, not a petition, admitting they have murdered their own children.

What the point of this article?
Abortion has been around for a lot longer than a generation and people managed it even when the methods were far more unsafe. To pretend that it didn’t happen when it was illegal is like those hypocrites who pretended that prohibition prevented drinking. It didn’t, it just made some campaigners show voters that they were doing something and it didn't matter to them what the actual results were.

This argument is silly and pointless now. Even if it is murder it is impossible to police. Abortion is now technically so easy and safe in early pregnancy that in other countries they are arguing whether it even needs any medical supervision any longer. So why are you wasting your time to request a law that will only make illegal safe abortions more widely available and profitable – as the only option.

Like drinking the only way to prevent abortion is to persuade people that they don’t need or want them and the only way to do that is to give the facts and moral arguments not the horror stories which are becoming more and more incredible. If abortion is illegal that will mean that women who need one can get one for cash and never have to have counselling or the alternatives talked over with them. Does that make any sense?

Sex Comes Up!!!
We don't have to go to Gay pride parades, we don't have to talk about sex, sex, sex, because in the natural family sex comes up, in everyday life. A Mother a Father, a daughter a son we don't have to empasize sex, because it is there, naturalely. As natural as can be. The children see it, in a mothers love, a fathers love, a daugther's love, a son's love, it just comes natural. No thougths of gay, transgender, transexual, no perverts here just a family of natural love, respect, selfdiscipline, and many heart felt thank you Lord for our family, God has Granted to a Mother and Father!!! Praise Jesus!!!! God Bless!!!!

feminism-
Sunday morning I got up and gathered the laundry together at 4 A.m., went to the laundry mat, came home, put clothes away, washed floors, dusted, did dishes, made coffee and breaskfast, got my husband up. Then called my daughter and grandchildren, invited them to my mother in laws birthday party, we were giving her at an exculsive resturant. Went to walmart bought gifts and cards, for my motherinlaw and grandchildren. Traveled to my motherinlaws, meet with my daughter and her husband and kids. Then all of us went to the resturant. Had a very nice meal and a very loving family get together. Family is very important, greatgrandmothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, and everyone makes up the natural family- You have to be one He11 of a lady to live a whole, complete life myself married over 1/4 a century, and my motherinlaw 1/2 century. We know about love, respect, caring, self-discipline, hard work, God's love and all the really life long skills and rules and laws that make a family work- get back to the basic's. Now that real life and a life that worth everything.

white female psychopaths and feminism
hey islamo-wackos: if you're looking for your equivalent in the western world, just run into a few white women; it'll be as if you were all separated at birth.

BTW, its the cancer within, not the danger without, that often destroys societies.

coloborfan: Your reading list awaits.
coloborfan writes:
"Linda. The reason conservatives couldn't fill the eye of a needle with what they know about feminism is because of the lack of substance to be known about it."

Just because YOU don't know the substance of feminism doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What you don't know, you clearly don't know.

A google search will yield you 19,500,000 hits on the word feminism. An Amazon search lists 40,356 books on the subject. KeepMedia.com will give you 1,050 free articles on feminism. That's what I turned up in under 60 seconds. Surely there's a tidbit of substance in there somewhere.

Your post is a nice attempt at being cute - I hope.

coloborfan
BrianR is NO LEFTIE! Perhaps you did not understand his post?

ajhil
ajhil writes:
"Regarding the term “pro-life”, you might be pro-life, if you oppose capital punishment, hunting, animal experimentation and testing, and if you’re a vegetarian. Otherwise you’re just an anti-abortionist and ashamed to call yourself that. Ever wonder why?
Probably not."


Puh-lease. We all know why 'pro-abortion' was changed to 'pro-choice' just as we all know why 'anti-abortion' was changed to 'pro-life'. Both sides wanted name-tags with a positive sounding message.

Or are you just afraid to admit you are pro-abortion?

As for capital punishment, I'd say you have that one backwards. No one who is pro-life would be willing to give a murderer another chance at the taking of innocents' lives. There is only one way to be CERTAIN a murderer will never take another innocent life again. It is IMMORAL to give him the chance. Respect for the value of human life demands that we protect it. Capital punishment is absolutely consistent with a pro-life stance.

As far as your hunting malarkey, I won't bother with arguing the biblical validity of sustaining human life through the sustenance of animal flesh. That should be obvious even to you. Even if you can't see any other purpose for it, I thought you were a proponent of Darwin's Theory.

Are you suggesting we should work on converting lions and tigers to vegetarianism too? Or do you only care about cows if we humans eat them?

Besides, what exact grudge do you hold against a head of lettuce? It is alive, too. If you have you found some way to sustain life without the heretofor UNIVERSAL necessity of eating living things, you should tell the rest of us about it. It'll make you rich as well as proving that you are a great 'humanitarian', 'animalarian', and 'vegetabarian'.

Re: Well Done!
Vox o' Europe: in order to have weapons when one needs them, they have to be around when you *don't* need them . . . or do you socialists think you can plan everything, even as to when you're going to have a war?

Europe, the land where so many anencephalic children survive into adulthood . . .

Abortion is Still Murder
I got to say, hosekuervo you are one sick distorted puppy. After reading your comments I am appalled you even exist, but you do prove one thing, God does have a sense of humor.

First, first lets get one thing clear...murder in any form is a sin. Abortion is the willful murder of an unborn child. Since we as a nation allow abortion to continue, we all carry the sin of murder. The events leading up to the conception of that child are not even important until you accept that point. But I will take it even further, in most cases of conception the woman had her freedom of choice and took it when she agree to have sex with the man who impregnated her.

It was an informed choice given the fact we have had sex-education force upon us all. The risks of sex are well know, but are minimized by condums on demand at local high schools, clincs and planned parenthood. Now with abortion on demand, the consequence of that choice to have sex in the first place is removed.

We as a nation have lost our moral compass.

Have you seen the population estimates?
Call me a murder, a sinner, whatever. I'm a realist. When I'm looking at a population explosion on a UPWARD curve. I'll support what it takes to reduce the population count. I'm going to get a vasectomy when I have the money. It's your religous extremists that want 9 kids from every breedable female on the planet that causes problems. Science offers spermicide, condoms, the sponge, etc. You rail against it as evil, wrong, etc. Yet when a woman is facing the prospect of raising a child in destitution, and adoption isn't really a viable option.... Well, abortion has existed in various forms through out human history. It was legalized for the protection of the woman. I like the idea of a trained proffessionals insuring that a woman won't bleed to death because of a back alley coat hanger job. You older folks remember that right? You have to make a choice. Accept abortion or encourage safe sex. When the vatican finally says yes, use condoms, prevent unwanted pregancies will I support shutting down the clincs.

BrianR
"Abortion, like it or not, is legal; murder isn't."

I notice that with nearly all liberals/lefties, the question of whether something is right or wrong is a tertiary concern.

Using your reasoning, Hitler gassing the Jews was okay, because the Nazi regime passed some rules and regulations...

Linda
The reason conservatives couldn't fill the eye of a needle with what they know about feminism is because of the lack of substance to be known about it.

Ms. a Fraud to Real Women's Rights
Ms. magazine has been a fraud for a long time. Yet this columnist declares it to be the "Mouthpiece" of feminism. Why can't this columnist even mention that there are many people that support legitimate women's rights but also support the pro-life movement?

I am a supporter of women's rights. I include unborn boys and girls in the list of people who should be protected. Why is it assumed that "modern feminists" all support abortion? Has this columnist ever heard of "Feminists for Life" and the "Susan B. Anthony List"?

Furthermore, in the nineteenth century, abortion wasn't very rare, and wasn't frequently punished. Guess who called abortion murder and demanded tougher laws against it? Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, anf other true women's rights heroines. Some people born before 1973 could even owe thanks to (gasp) earlier feminists for helping strengthen pro-life policies.

Please Townhall writers, do your research before you slander everybody with columns as extreme as this.

As for Ms. Magazine, please stop claiming to carry on the true legacy of women's rights. Your pro-abortion views have opened the door for hostile people to malign us as murderers.

Back to reality
McCOuouloough's title somehow linking feminists with the recent murders of those poor Amish children illustrates how a crazed, impotent "conservative" will turn anything he can't control into tasteless, politically-motivated tripe.

Thanks to the horrifically despicable Foley/Hastert revelations exposing the cover-up of who knows how many years of secret Republican child predator clubs, there's going to come a time very soon when folks like McCuhhhglugglug won't be able to convince anyone that they have anything valid to contribute to society.

Right now, folks like him still seem to be able to get those who can't or won't think for themselves all riled up.

Ask yourselves: how can someone like McCulogughgh, who endorses the cover-up of the Republican Octopus with its slimey tentacles groping young boys in the halls of government--how can someone like him possibly have anything credible to say when it comes to patriotism, family, women and child-protection?

The Republicans have failed the parents of the United States and they have failed the children of the United States. They have failed at war, failed at homeland security, failed our troops fighting for our freedoms. They've had six years holding the reins of power in the White House, Congress and Senate and yet they still can't get it right and they still blame Liberals.feminists. Democrats, Commies, Moonbats, Eddie Haskell, the Klingons and what-have-you for all of their failures.

Next thing you know, the Republicans, while they deny it even exists now, will be blaming everything they