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, January 20, 2008
Steve Chapman :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Growing Aversion to Abortion
by Steve Chapman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The abortion debate has raged since 1973, when the Supreme Court gave abortion constitutional protection, but the basic law of the land has proved immutable. Abortion is legal, and it's going to remain legal for a long time.

Laws often alter attitudes, inducing people to accept things -- such as racial integration -- they once rejected. But sometimes, attitudes move in the opposite direction, as people see the consequences of the change. That's the case with abortion.

The news that the abortion rate has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years elicits various explanations, from increased use of contraceptives to lack of access to abortion clinics. But maybe the chief reason is that the great majority of Americans, even many who see themselves as pro-choice, are deeply uncomfortable with it.

In 1992, a Gallup/Newsweek poll found 34 percent of Americans thought abortion "should be legal under any circumstances," with 13 percent saying it should always be illegal. Last year, only 26 percent said it should always be allowed, with 18 percent saying it should never be permitted.

Sentiments are even more negative among the group that might place the highest value on being able to escape an unwanted pregnancy: young people. In 2003, Gallup found, one of every three kids from age 13 to 17 said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. More revealing yet is that 72 percent said abortion is "morally wrong."

By now, pro-life groups know that outlawing most abortions is not a plausible aspiration. So they have adopted a two-pronged strategy. The first is to regulate it more closely -- with parental notification laws, informed consent requirements and a ban on partial-birth abortion. The second is to educate Americans with an eye toward changing "hearts and minds." In both, they have had considerable success.

Even those who insist Americans are solidly in favor of legal abortion implicitly acknowledge the widespread distaste. That's why the Democratic Party's 2004 platform omitted any mention of the issue, and why politicians who support abortion rights cloak them in euphemisms like "the right to choose."

But some abortion rights supporters admit reservations. It was a landmark moment in 1995 when the pro-choice author Naomi Wolf, writing in The New Republic magazine, declared that "the death of a fetus is a real death." She went on: "By refusing to look at abortion within a moral framework, we lose the millions of Americans who want to support abortion as a legal right but still need to condemn it as a moral iniquity."

The report on abortion rates from the Guttmacher Institute suggests that the evolution of attitudes has transformed behavior. Since 1990, the number of abortions has dropped from 1.61 million to 1.21 million. The abortion rate among women of childbearing age has declined by 29 percent.

Those changes could be the result of other factors, such as more use of contraception: If fewer women get pregnant, fewer will resort to abortion. But the shift is equally marked among women who do get pregnant. In 1990, 30.4 percent of pregnancies ended in abortion. Last year, the figure was 22.4 percent.

Pro-choice groups say women are having fewer abortions only because abortion clinics are growing scarcer. But abortion clinics may be growing scarcer because of a decline in demand for their services and a public opinion climate that has gotten more inhospitable.

This growing aversion to abortion may be traced to better information. When the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, most people had little understanding of fetal development. But the proliferation of ultrasound images from the womb, combined with the dissemination of facts by pro-life groups, has lifted the veil. In the new comedy "Juno," a pregnant 16-year-old heads for an abortion clinic, only to change her mind after a teenage protester tells her, "Your baby probably has a beating heart, you know. It can feel pain. And it has fingernails."

"Juno" has been faulted as a "fairy tale" that sugarcoats the realities of teen pregnancy. But if it's a fairy tale, that tells something about how abortion violates our most heartfelt ideals -- and those of our adolescent children. Try to imagine a fairy tale in which the heroine has an abortion and lives happily ever after.

The prevailing view used to be: Abortion may be evil, but it's necessary. Increasingly, the sentiment is: Abortion may be necessary, but it's evil.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Pro Abort Feminazis don't have babies
...They kill them.

Pro Lifers DO have babies, and pass their commitment to life along to the next generation.

It is no surprise that the children and young adults, who are aware that such a huge number of their classmates were killed by their own mommies, are anti-abortion.


Lefties ought to confess their hypocracy
regarding women.

On the one hand, they say we are too weak to be able to handle a tiny baby.

Then on the other hand, they tell us that we are just as strong as men and can compete on the same playing field.

Of course, the liars then want the standards to be lowered so that they can play with the big boys.

That way, they can whine and cry like Shrillary if they don't get what they want.

Then to hide their whiny weakness, they try to convince men that they ought to whine and cry as well.

They tell women that they are as sexual as men, and then they tell them to cry "rape" at the drop of a hat.

No wonder Lefties are so confused.

2004 DNC Platform "PROUDLY" pro-choice!


Steve Chapman writes: "Even those who insist Americans are solidly in favor of legal abortion implicitly acknowledge the widespread distaste. That's why the Democratic Party's 2004 platform omitted any mention of the issue..."


Omitted any mention of the issue? That's not what I found:


2004 DNC Party Platform

(http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Abortion.htm)


"Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."


-Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004


(see this link also, performing a word search for "Roe" will take you to the same paragraph copied and pasted above: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex =D2004 )


I would be amazed if it's not in the 2008 Platform too. It's who they are.



Lies, D**n Lies, and Chapman Statistics
http://www.reason.com/news/show/35013.html

American public opinion remains as divided as it was when Roe v. Wade was first decided. In 1975, a Gallup poll found that 54 percent thought abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances; 21 percent thought it should be legal in all circumstances; and 22 percent thought it should be illegal. In 2003, another Gallup poll saw these numbers shift to 57 percent; 24 percent; and 18 percent, respectively.

But when push comes to shove, 65 percent of Americans don't think that the government should interfere with a woman's access to abortion. (A poll this past summer found that 62 percent agreed with that sentiment.) Nearly 60 percent oppose a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion and 60 percent also think that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Most Americans believe that abortion is wrong, but they also believe that it would be more immoral for the government to interfere with their fellow citizens' private reproductive decisions.

------


Quite so, Post holer
"Most Americans believe that abortion is wrong, but they also believe that it would be more immoral for the government to interfere with their fellow citizens' private reproductive decisions."

You'd have thought a "conservative" would believe that too. But if this site is any guide, that would be a big No.

Reason vs. Hysteria
What's telling about the Reason magazine article is that it illustrates the insanity of the right-wing message (insanity defined as doing the same thing over-and-over again and expecting different results).

Since Roe v. Wade the right-wing has been calling abortion murder and has been accusing liberals of not recognizing the murder. Since Roe v. Wade nothing has changed with respect to American attitudes. Insanity.

What Reason Magazine clearly illustrates is that the American people believe the decision is private.

This is consistent with polls taken during the Terry Schiavo incident. Some 75 percent of Americans believe the government has no business interfering with the families decision to pull the plug and murder a loved one.

Pulling the plug on somebody is murder. Just ask the Vatican. Yet everyday, some 100 Americans are removed from life-support by family member request. The Catholic Church is strongly opposed to removing people from life support.

The right argument, the sane argument, is for the right wing to convince the general public that the Federal government has the right to interfere in personal decisions. Liberals are Americans and they do believe that abortion is immoral, always have. It's just the emotional, knee jerk need of the right wing to pass judgment on others. The love feeling sancitmonious and better than others.

So right argument: abortion should be a public decision not a private decision. Insane argument that gets no results because its not true: liberals do not believe abortion is murder. Liberals know its murder.

The right wing wants the power to be God and judge others so as to condemn them to h*ll. That's what its all about. It's not about saving lives. It's about feeling superior. That's the only explanation that is consistent with the facts at hand.

I get a kick out of
I get a kick out of the libs who write in answer to Chapman's column and try to downplay whether abortions are wrong or are becoming fewer because people in general believe abortion is wrong. Yes, there were comments from a religious nut who says abortions condemn any womnan having an abortin to hell, but that is way off in the realm of insanity. Chapman's whole point is to state that the numbers of abortions are lessening, period, and that is inarguable and it may be due to people finally realizing that while some few abortions may be necessary in some cases, it is morally wrong, the killing of a human life and it is beginning to turn people off. I believe as the years go by, more and more people, especially young women, will realize abortion is wrong and this will lead to fewer and fewer abortions.

Government funded abortions
Like most people, I think abortion ought to remain legal, but it's certainly nothing to celebrate. However, it should be very, very illegal for the government to use my money to pay for abortions for women that I did not impregnate. Every abortion should be paid for by the two people whose chosen behavior made it necessary. In the rare cases of pregnancies caused by rape, the rapist should be caged like the animal he is for the rest of his worthless life, and all his assets be given to the victim. In most cases, that should cover the cost of removing his defective progeny from his victim's womb.

Get a kick out of this
"that the numbers of abortions are lessening, period, and that is inarguable and it may be due to people finally realizing that while some few abortions may be necessary in some cases, it is morally wrong, the killing of a human life and it is beginning to turn people off. I believe as the years go by, more and more people, especially young women, will realize abortion is wrong and this will lead to fewer and fewer abortions."

This is an argument for letting women choose.

Read it again: "it is beginning to turn people off"; "realize abortion is wrong and this will lead to fewer and fewer abortions."

Not a law in sight!

Doug for President
.

Right to Abortion.
There may be questions about abortion but finally if this is banned then what we will have done is taken control of women's bodies, taken away their freedom and made them into brood mares, a sort of breeding slave, where is the morality of that, particularly in a world that is heavily overpopulated?Much of the anti abortion lobby is composed of men that do not have to bear children and we do know that men get an instinctive sexual buzz out of control of women, so this may not be about morality and ethics but about stag male dominance.There is a strong Catholic Lobby but since the sole evidence for the Apostolic Succession is one sentence of supposition by Athanaeus AD180( a spin doctor of his time) there is no provenance for Papal Authority or Infallibility which seems arrogantly to claim to know the mind of God.Belief in a Supreme Being is not sanction for Religious Doctrine, which itself has very questionable standards.

Post Holer
Terry Schiavo was not removed from life support
she was denied nutrition thru I. V. commonly refered to as starved to death. It was not the family that did this, it was the cheating husband that did it.
So are you for Baby killing or not?

When to choose--timing is critical
"Most Americans believe that abortion is wrong, but they also believe that it would be more immoral for the government to interfere with their fellow citizens' private reproductive decisions."

If the subject weren't so tragic, the pretzel-logic emphasis on post-conception decision making (while ignoring pre-conception decision making) would be comic.

Here are some stats for you, Post Holer:

Fewer than 20% of abortions are performed on teenagers. The remaining 80% are performed on women aged 20-45 who have few legitimate excuses for not using restraint, better birth control, or just plain common sense.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm#tab4

To Doug
You don't want your money used to pay for abortions for poor women?

I don't want my money used to blow up and maim Iraqi civilians or, the heart's desire of many of you, to drop atomic bombs on Iran or any other nation.

I don't want my money used to pay to fly Congressmen back to Washington on a Sunday night so an emergency act can be passed that interferes between a physician and the patient's family, contradicting a court order.

I don't want my money used to build a full surgical operating room in the Vice-Presidential mansion when Mr Cheney lives five minutes by ambulance from three hospital emergency rooms.

I don't want my money used to shrink-wrap and seclude documents that, by law, should be in the National Archives available to historians and other scholars.

I don't want my money used to transport the Vice-President on a duck-hunting trip with the same Supreme Court Justice who, the following week, will rule on Mr Cheney's case.


Abortion is history
Why? The left keeps encouraging trends that will destroy it.

1. Vegetarianism. What is the difference between killing a cow and killing a fetus? No difference, and if you think it's terribly wrong to kill a cow and that it should never be done, then you can easily be made to think the same about abortion.

2. Immigration. The left keeps thinking that immigrants from the Third World have the same values that they do, but these cultures are generally more conservative than ours is, and multiculturalism (which is promoted by the left only) encourages them to keep their values.

Abortion will be illegal in fifty years.

I'm pro-freedom
The one thing I am most averse to is telling people what to do. Whether a particular fetus is aborted is not a concern of our government, as it is not and never was a part of its charter to care.

You Bible-bleaters can't even seem to manage your own lives; what gives you the right to insinuate yourselves on others?

Lilly
The conversation is about abortion, not justified war. Stay on topic or shut up. Your asinine liberal qualities get in the way of your good sense. And, you have a ill-concealed hate for anyone not of the Democrat persuasion, dont you? Other than that, you're just a lovable liberal.

FreedomKnight
Dear FreedomKnight,

My dearest FreedomKnight, I do soooooooooo agree with you! Before I got to your response, it sounded like only men were responding to this column, and since they can neither get pregnant, nor can they have abortions, it would seem that they might not be so quick to make judgements. As a teacher in an Adult Ed Department, there is a class for pregnant teens. Most of them live with Mom and don't know who the father is. And for a large part of these teens, now that they have one child and are getting money for that child, they will go on to have another, and another, and may never complete their GED. It's a sad cycle, but maybe it could be stopped if the girls could just be counseled to ...

No, they won't give it up, and all that money, once they have it. Would you, at 15? We make it too easy to make a living out of having babies, and too hard to stop an originally unwanted pregnancy. In any case, the money they get is too little to provide a substantitive lifestyle for the child so that it may have the advantages in life that will keep it up with the average child once he/she gets to school. Born into poverty, behind in kindergarten, never to catch up, and the cycle just repeats itself. Oh, I just love it when you men, with your business degrees have the answers for social and ethical problems. Not religious problems, that's a conflict of the separation of church and state. It must be physical and mental health of the mother and child, and if the state wants you to have that child, then they better be ready for the next 21 years to support that child in such a way that the child does not live in poverty which would be cruel and abusive. And you men never see it after the moment it took to let loose your sperm cells. Well, you done your part already, and if you were responsible you would have been prepared. So I don't expect much more responsibility out of you. So keep your tongue, unless you're willing to have a vasectomy.


Immoral for the Government to interfere?
The government interferes with murder,theft,not paying taxes,jay-walking,etc., etc.. The question everyone has said "it's wrong", but apparently, not that wrong! Just picture in your mind the act, the saline, the cutting, and see that little form with a head, body, legs and arms, and see the heinousness that our society has permitted! Where does life come from? What an amazing process the inticracies of conception, the chances of fertilization, attachment to the womb, the miracle of it all. Who designed this? The big bang? Or did the great creator God? He gave life, didn't he? What does he say about it? See list of moral injunctions for created human beings that are hooked to our very God-given consciences--the 10 commandments! May God have mercy on this country!

The killing of children ...
...through abortion is as unconstitutional as killing an adult without due process of law.

And by the way,this is an English speaking country.Please do not use a foriegn dead language like Latin (fetus) when discussing the issue.If you mean a child,please use "child","infant","baby".Got a problem with that?

Government and abortion
tom: "The government interferes with murder,theft,not paying taxes,jay-walking,etc., etc.."
-------------------------------
Yes. And the government has a charter.

The government can only do what it is authorized to do; nothing more, nothing less. The common law has always held that, while fetii were not protected by its precepts, live humans were.

The way to fix this is simple: pass a constitutional amendment so that this is no longer true. Imagine the fun in the HOV lanes, where the single girl in a hurry claims she is two months along.... :)

Post Holer
Post Holer at 2:07am "So right argument: abortion should be a public decision not a private decision. Insane argument that gets no results because its not true: liberals do not believe abortion is murder. Liberals know its murder."


So you're saying Liberals condone murder as long as it's private.

Abortion - conflicting morals
Abortion is not as simple as either fanatical side of the argument would have us believe - and the problem will not be solved at the fanatical extremes. There must be some rational discussion and acceptance of the reality of our humanness before we can hope to have consensus.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2007/10/16/abortion-conflicting- messages/

b-boy,
True enough, but what I'm saying, why don't we elect people to correct this horrible 1973 decision of 5 created human beings in black robes!

Jeanne-Marie...
When you women stop talking about the military draft(which you are not eligible for),then come and preach to me about the killing of children through abortion.It's been 2000 years since the last virgin birth.

And I am sure that all those babies born into poverty would just as soon be DEAD!

REALITY CHECKS
Roe v. Wade has not been reversed. However, much has happened to change basic attitudes since January 22, 1973.

The right education can persuade pro-abortion people to become pro-life. Former Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush took a more pro-life position after President Reagan showed him the video "Silent Scream". How many other people have changed their position because of this video?

Former nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer initially had no objection to abortion. However, when she went to work in an abortion clinic and saw what was actually happening, she quit her job. "What the Nurse Saw" has had its effect on attitudes.

Sonogram pictures have advanced to the point that they are first baby pictures.

Since 1973, the abortion on demand has inevitably meant fewer babies born in the United States and other industrialized nations than were born in previous generations. Birth rates have been at less than replacement rates for most of the last 50 years. The effect is obvious with the reality of a larger population of people over age 55 and smaller numbers of younger people coming along to pay into social insurance systems.

Catholic aliens as a group are generally pro-life. However, there are other alien groups from societies that place a high value on boys. How many alien women from these societies are having abortions because the babies are girls?

REALITY CHECKS
Roe v. Wade has not been reversed. However, much has happened to change basic attitudes since January 22, 1973.

The right education can persuade pro-abortion people to become pro-life. Former Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush took a more pro-life position after President Reagan showed him the video "Silent Scream". How many other people have changed their position because of this video?

Former nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer initially had no objection to abortion. However, when she went to work in an abortion clinic and saw what was actually happening, she quit her job. "What the Nurse Saw" has had its effect on attitudes.

Sonogram pictures have advanced to the point that they are first baby pictures.

Since 1973, the abortion on demand has inevitably meant fewer babies born in the United States and other industrialized nations than were born in previous generations. Birth rates have been at less than replacement rates for most of the last 50 years. The effect is obvious with the reality of a larger population of people over age 55 and smaller numbers of younger people coming along to pay into social insurance systems.

Catholic aliens as a group are generally pro-life. However, there are other alien groups from societies that place a high value on boys. How many alien women from these societies are having abortions because the babies are girls?

Question
Since every pro-lifer considers abortion to be murder, how come not all pro-lifers want women who abort prosecuted for murder?

I respect pro-lifers who have the courage of their convictions. Murder is murder, they say. Those involved in the murder (the mother and abortionist) should be treated like any other murderer.

I have no respect at all for pro-lifers who wriggle their way out that conviction because it isn't politically palatable.

The Left yammers on about "privacy"
rights and "penumbras" in th Constitution - Roe v. Wade is not why George Washington crossed the Delaware. Blackmun authored a stupid and terrible decision that has cuased the coarsening and cheapening of life in America and that includes for the disabled and the elderly and infirm. Speak to nurses who work in hospitals and they can tell yoiu about that! IN the Netherlands sick babies are euthanized in the name of "Humanity". The Nazis did the same thing. Think about it and think about what kind of country Roe has created. A poor woman who has an abortion remains poor after the abortion and spiritually poor to boot. The feminazis wanat women to behave as cavalierly as men do.

Lily
If you are making a list of where you don't want public money put how does it suit you public money was built to build a house on the Clinton's property (for the secret service) and then what do you know, the 10,000 per month to rent it is just the cost of the Clinton's mortgage.

Interesting perspective
on abortion from since it was legal.I asked most of my pro-abortion friends if they would have an abortion. Most said "no" but think a woman should have the right to abortion." Oh, I forgot. It isn't the right to abortion. It is the right to choose. Sounds better doesn't it???

LILLY

.....Since a woman has a choice to deliver her baby and give it up for adoption or to kill it ...please explain to me the moral justification for killing it ...

...BTW ...I don't like the Federal Government taking my money for any reason .....COLOSSUS

The kinds of words
you use to describe people's positions on abortion are so judgemental although you have no judgement yourself on whether you approve or disapprove. You seem to say it exists and will exist. This kind of mushy nonjudgemental attitude exists on too many levels in this vulgar society.

Only one way to solve it
MM: "But I agree with you sir! It is time for a constitutional amendment. Too long has the battle between left and right been fought. It is time to end this war and let the people decide. We must remember the words 'and that government of the people, by the people, for the people'."
-------------------------------------
This is the solution our Constitution dictates. If you can get enough people to say that abortion must be outlawed, then that is and ought to be the end of it. My guess is that many conservatives, when put to it, will agree with me that this is none of the government's business. I don't tell other people how to live their lives, and don't like it when others do the same to me. Matt. 7:12, for those Christians following along.

abortion is murder
and war also brings about murder. They are all collective sins and we all participate in them because of our LACK of freedom. Sin denies us of freedom. God invites us to a life of freedom--free from sin. It is to that end that we all should aspire to. It is to that end that we are all failing and it is to that end that we all, if we love God, will be eternally free. That is, in my opinion.
For those who have no belief in the concept of sin--it is not too late to learn how to be truly free.

Roe and judicial activism
tom: "True enough, but what I'm saying, why don't we elect people to correct this horrible 1973 decision of 5 created human beings in black robes!"
-----------------------------------
Legally speaking, Roe v. Wade was not only the right decision, but an inevitable one. Our common law did not and has never protected the lives of the unborn. Given that inconvenient fact, the State can have no interest in the transaction we call an abortion.

The law can be cold, and it can be a rat's biblical transport. But if we eschew judicial activism and all its attendant problems, we must do so even when it would result in an outcome we desperately want.

Nam 65-66
Dear Nam,

I assume that your title means that you were over in Vietnam in 1965-66. I was still in grade school, but when I graduated high school I did the Army Reserve. I did boot camp at Ft. Mc Clellan in Alabama, and was posted to Ft. Devens in Massachusetts to intelligence, cryptology.

Well, I married a South Vietnamese refugee and for 6 years we tried to have a child, and finally I got pregnant, but around the 12th week I had a miscarriage. I was devastated, utterly devastated. I know it was my body's abortion, but it was an abortion to me, anyway, one over which I had no control. It was a whole baby, finger and toenails and all. I passed the fetus at home, accoreding to the doctor on call, who was risking my life with a potential hemmorhage. But I got to spend some time with my fetus, which really made it hard to give up when I finally got to the hospital at a time that was convenient for the doctor. He sent me a bill; I sent him a warning that if he billed me again I would write Harvard, it was Harvard's teaching hospital, and tell them how he treated me. That was that. My husband could't bear to be with me while I was aborting the fetus so he went to his brother's for the night.

Well, all I want to say is being pregnant, miscarrying, abortion are all things men can't really understand, feel, or know, like giving birth, even blowing is just a distraction, you know. So why do you all feel so qualified to speak on behlaf of women and their sexual issues? Wouldn't you do much better to take care of your own male young and teach them to sexually responsible? Now, that's a job you can really understand.

Constitutional Amendment
There's been some discussion below about a Constitutional Amendment regarding abortion. A Constitutional Amendment is not a nationwide referendum. The process that has been used in all but one case is: A bill must be passed by Congress, by a two-thirds majority in each house. Then it is sent on to the 50 states and must ratified by three-fourths of states by majority vote in the stae legislatures.

It is very unlikely, IMO, that, given the current divisiveness of this issue, these kinds of super majority approvals would ever happen. This is why the battle has been over the votes in the Supreme Court, where only 5 votes are required.

Beastie Boy
"Legally speaking, Roe v. Wade was not only the right decision, but an inevitable one."

It was done in the wrong way. It should have been done through legislation rather than the court.

As for judicial activism, it has never done anything for me, so why should I support it? Let's take the case of William Kristol being invited to write for the NY Times. What bugs me about it is not that he's conservative, but that he's another product of an elitist institution (in this case, Harvard). The Times would never invite someone from my alma mater to write for them. They only want people from elite schools, or at the very least, eastern schools.

Would those who support judicial activism want judges to correct this situation? I suspect not.

Lilly,
I agree with you on all those things you mentioned. Every last one of then is unconstitutional. In answer to your question, no, I don't think I have any obligation to pay for abortions for poor women. I don't go around knocking them up, so why should I have to pay for their abortions? Perhaps if they were held responsible for half the cost (just a few hundred bucks in most cases) of their own behavior, they'd be a bit more careful whom they share themselves with. And go after the lechers who used them for the other half. Aborted fetal tissue can be tested for paternity. Charge them for the test as well. Learning to take responsibility for one's actions is the first step a poor person needs to take in order to cease being poor. And I'm not just speaking theoretically; I was poor until I stopped blaming others and took a good hard look in the mirror. That was in Y2K. I am now debt-free and have plenty in the bank.

baseball doc
Dear baseball doc,


I wrote back to Nam 65-66 about my
experience with an involuntary abortion, also known as a miscarriage. It's 10:51 if you want to read it. I talked about after the fetus passed, and the doctor on call said it was so late just wait till the morning. So I had this perfectly formed fetus, 6" or so. I found a shoe box and lined it with tissues and placed him in it and covered him up to his chin I guess so he wouldn't be cold, and I named him Steven. I put the shoe box with Steven in it next to me, and I was amazed at how beautiful he was, And after hours passed I got closer and closer to this dead little fetus, and when I had to give it up at the hospital, and they told me they don't usually contact the mother with the results of the autopsy, I didn't want to let it go. But I did finally give up my shoe box.

You talk about keeping the baby to term and giving it up. Well, you know each woman is going to have her own reaction to that.While there are other options, I never, in all 6 years of waiting, did consider anything else but getting pregnant myself.

Maybe some women can carry a baby and then give it up; I know I couldn't, even if I didn't know how I could take care of it, but I just couldn't give up my own child. I didn't even want to give up a dead fetus.

Well, baseball doc, that's just one female voice among thousands, it's just so personal. That's why men can't answer it for women; women can't answer it for other women either. It's a matter of love, when it begins for each woman. You can't legislate that. For me, it was a 6" fetus, or the sonogram 3 weeks before even. I don't know when men relate to it as a baby. I don't pretend to guess.

But I do know that carrying the fetus puts you in a uniquely close position. You cannot know what is in a woman's heart, or why she chooses what she chooses. But trying to understand is a start.

And again I say

As I said before, and will repeat just as often as you Johnny one-notes keep screaming about something that is none of your business.

I am sick and tired of this screaming. Get off of it, you men will never get pregnant, and if anyone else is pregnant, it is none of your business, unless you caused it.

There are a few women who constantly scream about this, but they have no business screaming about abortion unless they are the one who is pregnant, and they want an abortion. Other wise it is none of your business.

Again I didn't study the posts, but I bet the biggest complainers are male, and I bet not one of you put the blame, and asked for punishment for the one to blame for the pregnancy.

Remember, there is absolutely nothing that a women can do to make herself pregnant, there must be an idiot helping. So she should shoot him, if she didn’t want the pregnancy.

You would wish a terrible life for several already existing people, and a miserable life for the about to be born.

Remember, if the baby was really wanted, they would not be looking for an abortion, so for this baby to be born, would cause many problems for the baby, and several other people who are not in the physical, financial, or social position to raise a healthy, happy child.

And that is more important than any of you wanting to feel great by forcing someone to live by your dictates.

And again I ask, "Are you one of those who watch TV news stories of starving babies and cheer, and say, At least she didn't get an abortion!"

Questions ????
I find it fascinating that there is greater public outcry against the placing underwear on the head of a prisoner at Abu Ghraib, then there was about prisoners who had no head. I guess Daniel Pearl et al deserved their fate ????

I find it interesting that Congress wants to obtain video tapes of prisoner interrogations and see the videos of waterboarding. Have they ever requested to see a video of partial-birth abortion? Have they ever requested a video of an actual abortion? Have they ever asked for videos or picturs of what happens to a fetus or a child (choose your preference).
after the abortion?

If the American people are to vote for individuals who support or oppose abortion, should we not have the right to see on national television what these things are, so we can vote for our favorite candidate?

Tibby

Consider the alternative


Jeanne-marie writes: Sunday, January, 20, 2008 12:49 PM
============

What a wonderful touching story. My Most Beloved Sweetie had a miscarriage, at a much earlier point, and it certainly was not a pleasant situation, as we wanted a baby. She delivered a girl a couple of years later.

Your story tells about a child that was wanted, and the word abortion would never have crossed your lips, nor the lips of my Sweetie, unless the miscarriage was noted as an abortion on the medical papers.

But since there is such a difference between a wanted and an unwanted baby, I say abortion should only be considered if the alternative is worst — an unwanted, to be miss-treated, perhaps starving baby, and several existing people who will have their lives disrupted, how ever stupid they were for a few moments, a few months earlier.

AVERSION
When we use the word aversion,we are speculating on something ,which no evidence can support.At this time.What can be said is, that the gay movement and the advent of various methods of abortion such as pharmaceuticals(RU4)have reduced the events of pregnancy to some degree.To use the word AVERSION,is disingenuous.There has been no conversion from the concept of abortion.

Jim
Dear Jim,

I grieve for you and your Sweetie, for the loss of your fetus. From my own experience, I believe you may have both felt great pain in the wanting and waiting for your greatest creation and your greatest gift from God. I will cry for you when I am done.

For me the involuntary abortion thing was so brief with the doctor. He was an intern from Harvard at Brigham and Woman's Hospital in Boston, and if I had done what I was wont to do, I would have ruined his career for telling me to stay home while I was bleeding, and for the nonsense of telling me to put up my legs to stop the fetus being aborted, even while I had read at least 5 books that told me to go straight to the hospital. Then the hypocrisy to tell me to call him when the feus passed! Then when I called him and he said, well, ok, I'm pretty tired, so let's wait until I've got some sleep, around 7am. Then to call me at 5 and say I'm already here so come on over now. And then I had to give up my shoe box baby.

You know he committed almost every faux pas in the medical books. Maybe he could have saved my fetus; maybe not. But I'll never know for his negligent behavior to the point of being abusive, we, both my fetus and I, could have died. But okay I threatened to tell on him, and maybe he'll never do it again, and Harvard will never have to know what slime balls they have for doctor interns.

I am so happy for you that you finally had a baby girl. Love her so straight to your heart and don't listen to anyone who tells you you are spoiling her. He blessed me with a son finally, who graduated college with honors, who works to take care of his dad with such loving care, his dad is now quite sick, and he takes such good care of him, so the love is just returned. He is everything and more that any conservative/liberal could want in a son and more. So be so happy with your girl and enjoy every ounce, every moment with her. You have been blessed, as I was. God bless you.

Breeder, Brood Mare, & Opinions

To the concept of making a woman into a breeder or brood mare if abortions are illegal I have to ask, does the woman have an option to say "no" to sex? If the act is voluntary on her part, then from where does the idea that the woman is merely a breeder or brood mare come? A woman that spreads her legs for any Tom, Dick, or Harry wears any such title voluntarily. If a woman wants to known in an honorable manner, then she must act in an honorable manner.

If abortion is none of my business, as some here suggest, then in the case of a man raping a woman should I just tell the judge selecting a jury for his case that I must not sit on jury duty since it is none of my business? I think not.

I tend to think that an event of any wrongful action is everybody's business. If it wrong for a man to rape a woman, then it is wrong for a woman to abort her child. As a matter of fact, if a woman performs an abortion on herself, she is found guitly of murder because society finds it wrong. If the woman has been raped, I will be the first to volunteer to pass judgement on the rapist.

There is no excuse for today's woman to voluntarily participate in sex and get pregnant. Knowing that sex is designed to procreate means that the sex act will produce results unless conception of a child is prevented. To conceive a child and then abort it is against all things natural. Even in the case of rape, conception can be prevented.

miscarriage

A miscarriage is not an abortion. Calling a miscarriage an abortion simply muddies the waters in an attempt to obfuscate the issue.

Obama will Unite us
First let us start by discussing whether its ok to kill a baby(s) and our next generation of kids.

Mr. Obama you go first.

JEANEE-MARIE

.....I am sorry for your loss ...did you considered suing the Doctor for mal practice? ...

.....When my ex-wife was about 5 months pregnant with my son she began bleeding heavily about 3:00 AM ...I called her doctor and he told me it was normal to stain during pregnancy and to make an appointment to see him in the morning ...I told him that if he knew what was good for him he would meet me at the Hospital as fast as he could get there ...

.....My ex spent three days in the hospital but my son was saved ...

.....I know that only a mother can understand the loss of her child but my point was ...wouldn't giving it up for an adoption be a better alternative than killing it with an abortion? ...I asked LILLY what was the moral justificaton for an abortion rather than giving the child life and a good home? ...you will notice that LILLY never answers those kind of questions .....COLOSSUS


Abortion
Reasons for abortions in the United States
by Wm. Robert Johnston
Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding "hard case" abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. Most sex leading to pregnancy is consensual. It seems that, in spite of all the sex education and the availability of contraception, too many girls and women get pregnant when they do not want to become pregnant.
I usually do not quote Democrats "Abortion should be safe and legal and rare."
Of course, he did not mean it, but I do.
When does person hood begin? Is it just after the baby emerges from the birth canal? Is it just before the head emerges and the rest of the boy is already outside the mother's body? Is it at the time of quickening (when movements by the baby can be felt)? Is it when a heartbeat can be detected? Is it when implantation of the fertilized ovum occurs? Is it when the sperm cell enters the ovum? Show me a biological marker to show the beginning of person hood.
I am not Catholic, but Pius XII proclaimed a doctrine, "Always choose the leswer of two evils." I believe that all these serious moral questions should be approached with that view.
That includes capital punishment, war and, of course, abortion.
Donald W. Bales, M.D. retired.

Jeanne-marie
So, are you for pre-born organism termination?

A little of this and a little about that


Jeanne-marie writes: Sunday, January, 20, 2008 1:47 PM
Jim
Dear Jim,

========

Thank you for your sweet note. When our daughter was about 5 years old, she asked me, “Since I was born in Dallas, does that make me a Texan?” I replied, “If you were born in a barn would that make you a cow?”

But over 50 years later, when my Sweetie was suffering from Alzheimer's, our daughter remodeled her home, so I could bring Sweetie there, so I could have help if needed, as I wasn’t getting any younger either. Now that Sweetie has left to take on her new profession — “Now the Angels have a Role Model” — our daughter has me to put with, for only a short time, I hope.

As I discovered one day as I tried to write a story about my Sweetie, “The Eye can See, And the Heart can Love, What the Word can not Describe.”

===========

A little off the subject, I have proposed that a patient take out liability insurance, to protect themselves, just like some people take out an insurance policy when they fly in a plane. If the Doc does something wrong, and just makes a mistake, he is human, so that is your problem. If he does something wrong on purpose — as it appears yours did — then it’s a criminal offense, a problem for the government.

I know, I know, I don’t like the Government involved in Health Care or much else of my personal life, but there appears to be no way out, in the near future, at least.

re: goldilocks writes:
Oh please, get off your high horse.

Americans condone murder, not just liberals: or are you going to claim that conservatives don't get abortions?

Conservatives condone murder legally, its called capital punishment. You will never see an ethical debate by conservatives in this country arguing against the murder of innocent people by capital punishment.

Innocent people get convicted, sentenced to death, and killed. Yet nary will Town Hall or any other conservative outlet host a debate on this topic because conservatives condone murder. If a few innocent people get murdered? oh well.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan our military dropped bombs on wedding parties accidentally and murdered scores of innocent people in each case and subsequently apologized. Doesn't matter if it was an accident, it is still murder.

Did the right wing even pause and take a breathe discussing the morality of "collateral damage"? Ha! No, the right wing is extremely comfortable with murdering innocent people in war time. Not a tear shed for the 100,000 plus dead Iraqis and definitely no moral debate about the killing of innocents required to protect this country and prevent another attack that might kill 3,000 here. If it takes 100,000 dead Iraqi's to secure our own lives, so be it.

Murder is simply defined as the taking of life of those who are innocent. Happens every day by our government in Iraq. Do you have a problem with that? Nope. You could care less and there will be no moral debate on the subject. Not ever by conservatives.

You have to give the Vatican its due. When it promotes a "culture of life" these days that means they are against war. Conservatives? Pre-emptive strike! Kill them on just a suspision before they kill us! wooo hooo!

I think when it comes to war, the right doesn't just condone murder, they think its moral.


Birdman II
Dear Birdman II,

I think that you are confusing the issue with she who carries the child is she who is totally responsible for the child. I would not wish that any of my children should have an unwilling father, having been the victim of that myself. Unless there is a parental bonding, it is nothing but a burden on the child to find a way to become acceptable. That is pure torture. But my dad was Italian, and as you know, Italian men don't leave their wives, they just find other women and make other families. So, of course, there was no potential for ever making my father love me. Better that my mother had aborted me, except for my son, my blessed son.


Dear Birdman, you are so naive, my father was having sex with my mother while my mother knew he was having sex with this other woman and having children with this other woman. My mother wanted to win him back, but it was too late. And He was so involved in his new family, he forgot his legal family. You are as innocent as the birds.

He divorced my mother after 25 years of marriage, left nothing to her and I had to get a job in my senior year, quit school, and help my mom take care of us kids. My dad had no regrets. My mom was devastated. They still let me graduate with my class. My Stanford Binet IQ was 135, my Weschler score was 151, while I was working to help my mom. He had 2 families, his other familiy lived in a nice home and had new clothes. We lived in an old apartment and got our clothes at thrift shops. Now you want to tell me about living an unwanted life.

You are one in plenty with lots of ideas, and condemnations. What life have you lived that qualifies you to question others? Surely you have lived with Him and know Him better than anyone to have the answers. I don't. I struggle with doubt. But I am blessed with one wonderful son. That's how I live. Amen to that.

Abortion rates down
If the rates are down, good but are the children cared for? Before jumping in to ban abortion read the articles below. Abortion rates are about the same in countries where abortion is legal vrs countries where it is banned. The differences is the maternal death rates from botched illegal abortion compared to legal abortions.

Legal Vrs Illegal abortions
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?ex= 1349841600&en=37c9f942c1d9d2d7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland& emc=rss

The high cost of illegal abortions
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BEK/is_11_13/ai_n15 866972

MellorS32
Dear Mellor,

You understand you are still holding the responsibility for procreation in the hands of the woman, now, don't you. You are not taking any of the responsibility of this act in the hands of the male partner, not at all, not one even ounce. \

So it is convenient to place all the blame for abortion in the hands of the womem. Alright, I get where you're coming from. The males of this society do not have the capacity to be responsible for their sexual activities, so it remains upon the women's role to guard the sexuality of the female and the potentiality of fertility on her own guard, and the male may perpetute his sxuality repeatedly over and over again with various and different partners, as his potent sexuality comands, with no responsibility at all, because he is the MALE. It is his job to fertize, and nothing more, so if women want protection, thten they must protect themselves, because males are still working on an instinctive, prehistoric basis to which their sexual demands must be satisfied.

Ok, as long as we get it straight and we know what the rules are, or know that there aren't any rules, we're ok. We can handle the situation.
Just gets a little confusing when the male of the species starts to talk romantically, but really only means for tonight. We'll, as females, get it straight sooner or later, and put you males in your primitive places. And while we are making more money and realizing more benefits, you males can go your way and have your appetites fulfilled, and we can have our babies and create 2/3 of a family, but no one in those smaller families will be unwanted. That's the saving grace. And you all can just go about and do your male thing, and be happy as clams. So it's all good. Right!!!

Government paid abortions
My experience with having an abortion is limited. BUT I do know that many women go to Planned Parenthood clinics for abortion as well as birth control information etc. PP is private and supported by donations.

My daughter worked in a private abortion clinic and they did not bill the government. She spoke of poor women taking out loans to pay for their abortions. Just where are these Government paid for abortions occurring???

And one more thing my health insurance does not include abortion.

I would like to be enlightened on this topic.

@jeanne-marie
First of all, I am sorry for your loss. That was a heart-wrenching story.

But I think you have confused me with someone else. You write: "You understand you are still holding the responsibility for procreation in the hands of the woman, now, don't you."

Er, no. I'm not, er, "that way." I leave procreation to the breeders.

MellorSJ2
Dear MellorS,

You know I have been inspired by the hoardes of women who have gotten pregnant and knowing the minds of the fathers have chosen not to inform them of their paternity, and whose children never knew a day of remorse from a father who has been held to parental support or involvement in any way, because they never even knew they had a child they didn't want!!!!!!!!!!!! Imagine that!!!!!!!!! What an incredible relief for these fathers, and what a wonderful achievement for these mothers!!!! And their children will never know a day of rejection, what a tremendous relief !!!!!!!!!!!!

From where I come from, that is the greatest gift a mother can give a child. Sorry, Dads, but the sorry dads you make, with all your complaints about child support, and your too busy schedules to involve yourselves, well inasmuch as we (the kids) weren't a welcome addition to your lives, you weren't an especilly addition to our lives, either. At least Mom tries to make a birthday cake.

So what I'm trying to say here is, women's lives, even their very professional lives, are changed by having a child, let's say accomodated; but men's lives, well let's say are rarely touched by the lives of their children, and happy they are that way. It's mostly ok, because there's a mother somewhere who would raather have that child than leave it to you.


So abortion isn't the only answer, and raising the child is getting a better rap these days among professional women. And why bother with unwanted fathers? It's a lot worse to have an unwanted father than no father at all. I can attest to that,

Ok, but so what?
As I said previously, I think you're talking to the wrong person, but what the heck?

You write: "So abortion isn't the only answer." No it's not. But abortion is an answer for some women, and the fascists have no right to impose their 'morality' on those women.

Abortion industry and plan B
I've worked with many girls who have had abortions, and beside the emotional and physical ramifications, its a cash on the barrelhead operation; no exceptions. The average cost for an early term abortion is $350.00, and it goes up from there.

I believe plan B has had a significant impact on the reported abortion rate. I also think that we don't know what long-term plan B (which is massive doses of hormones) may usher in. I feel this way about the HPV vaccine as well. Time will tell.

Old Social Worker
Dear Old Social Worker,

What is this HPV medicine that your are talking about? What kind of illness does it cure? I am greatly interested> Please do respond. I have great personal interes.

This might help


I know that, and I am sick and tired of all of the complaints about the female, and no comment about the male. Did any one in this column even mention the male? No abortion should be permitted (except for reported, but unidentified rape) where the male has not been identified.

If that male can't properly support, financially, socially, and otherwise, the “about to be abused” baby, he will be castrated. But let's do that in a humane and fair manner. Prior to the operation a short ceremony will determine that “heads” he gets an anesthetic, “tails” he doesn't.

Hi, Jeanne-marie
There is now an HPV vaccination that some physicians are encouraging young women (13-25) to get. It is supposed to prevent the contraction of the Human Papiloma Virus, which often precedes cervical cancer

However, I notice a general hastiness to market products that promise the suspension of negative consequences to behaviorally based illnesses. In my opinion , there are not enough longitudinal studies on the vaccination, so I am not at all sold on its safety.

Post Holer - Part 1 of 4


Post Holer writes: “Americans condone murder, not just liberals: or are you going to claim that conservatives don't get abortions?”


Unless you intend to argue absolute 100% agreement on either side, your argument is disingenuous. One of your fellow leftists pointed out this research (inadvertently, I’m sure) the other day.


Newsweek Poll - Princeton Survey 2006:

Republicans 62% pro-life
Democrats 25% pro-life

Democrats 69% pro-choice
Republicans 31% pro-choice


I already posted the 2004 DNC Party Platform on abortion in the 4th post of this Thread.


Here’s the 2004 GOP Platform for comparison:

“We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.”



~~~



Post Holer writes: “Murder is simply defined as the taking of life of those who are innocent.”

No, that’s just your definition.


American Heritage Dictionary:
mur•der
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.


For future reference, the *key words* here are “unlawful” and “premeditated malice” with regard to “killing”.



~~~



Post Holer writes: “Conservatives condone murder legally, its called capital punishment.”


Wrong. Those Conservatives who support capital punishment do not condone murder (i.e., “unlawful killing”), but the lawful putting to death of a person convicted of a crime worthy of death, only after having received due process of law.



Post Holer - Part 2 of 4


Post Holer writes: “You will never see an ethical debate by conservatives in this country arguing against the murder of innocent people by capital punishment.”


I have never heard of any Conservative (or any human being, for that matter) who argues IN FAVOR of capital punishment for *innocent* people. I think everyone is against that, posthole.



~~~



Post Holer writes: “Innocent people get convicted, sentenced to death, and killed.”


And guilty men are set free, who then brutally murder more innocent people. It’s an imperfect system in an imperfect world.



~~~



Post Holer writes: “Yet nary will Town Hall or any other conservative outlet host a debate on this topic because conservatives condone murder.”


This intentionally dishonest characterization that conservatives condone murder has already been refuted.



~~~



Post Holer writes: “If a few innocent people get murdered? oh well.”


I don’t know anyone who takes that possibility lightly, certainly not the way you disingenuously portray it.



~~~



Post Holer writes: “In both Iraq and Afghanistan our military dropped bombs on wedding parties accidentally and murdered scores of innocent people in each case and subsequently apologized. Doesn't matter if it was an accident, it is still murder.”


You’re wrong again.


You acknowledge lack of intent when you say “accidentally”. You will notice that “accidentally” is not part of the English language definition of the word *murder*; that’s just your misunderstanding of the word.


You see, “accidentally” violates the “premeditated malice” component of the actual, real world definition of *murder*.


And it *does* matter.



Post Holer - Part 3 of 4


Post Holer writes: “Did the right wing even pause and take a breathe discussing the morality of "collateral damage"?”


Despite the bogeyman you have created in your head, the “right wing” is not a monolithic group thinking and acting in lock-step; that’s just a psychological projection of your own experience with Liberalism. I am not aware of any Conservative who is happy about collateral damage or who does not wish it was not an unfortunate reality of war.


On the other hand, I know many conservatives who would very much like to hear better real-world solutions to the real problems our country faces. If you have any of those, rather than your typical whining and foot-stomping, then please, do share.



~~~



Post Holer writes: “Ha! No, the right wing is extremely comfortable with murdering innocent people in war time. Not a tear shed for the 100,000 plus dead Iraqis and definitely no moral debate about the killing of innocents required to protect this country and prevent another attack that might kill 3,000 here. If it takes 100,000 dead Iraqi's to secure our own lives, so be it.”


We have no way of knowing exactly how many civilians have been killed. Soros’ research said 650,000 and you say 100,000. Whatever the actual number may be, we also have no way of knowing *how* they died, whether as a direct result of coalition military activity or other cause (mob violence, terrorists, internal factions, Iranian activity, Syrian activity, etc., etc.).


We also have estimates about how many people Saddam Hussein used as canon-fodder in his war with Iran, and the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of his own people he intentionally murdered; and if people like you had your way, he would still be doing it.


Would it be fair to apply your logic, and conclude that you and your fellow Leftists were “comfortable” with Saddam’s rape-rooms and torture chambers (where real torture was used, not just a little water up the nose)?



Post Holer - Part 4 of 4


Post Holer writes: “You have to give the Vatican its due.”


You may give the Vatican whatever you like, as long as you speak for yourself; the Vatican follows its own moral compass and rules, which change with the times.



~~~



Post Holer writes: “When it promotes a "culture of life" these days”


Exactly… “these days”… thanks for making my point about the Vatican and its changing standards.



~~~



Post Holer writes: “that means they are against war.”


Yes, but since their decisions on these and other issues are based on the wisdom of men, tomorrow their position may be different (just like the wisdom of men).


Incidentally, I don’t know anyone who is “for war”; everyone is “against war” and would seek to avoid it when possible. Men of good conscience may disagree about when and under what circumstances avoiding war is possible (or prudent), but almost everyone is “against war”.


To suggest otherwise is, once again, disingenuous.



~~~



Post Holer writes: “Conservatives? Pre-emptive strike! Kill them on just a suspision before they kill us! wooo hooo! I think when it comes to war, the right doesn't just condone murder, they think its moral.”


I have seen a few of your posts over the last couple of days. Comments like the one above demonstrate that you are not a serious person, postholer. Taken together with your other posts, you have wasted no time establishing a reputation as an unserious individual.


I see (Part 1 of 2)
Scott



~~~


is


~~~


back.



Who is serious?
Scott writes: "Post Holer writes: “Conservatives? Pre-emptive strike! Kill them on just a suspision before they kill us! wooo hooo! I think when it comes to war, the right doesn't just condone murder, they think its moral.”


I have seen a few of your posts over the last couple of days. Comments like the one above demonstrate that you are not a serious person, postholer. Taken together with your other posts, you have wasted no time establishing a reputation as an unserious individual."

Sorry, Scott, but Post holer *is* serious. He believes that conservatives have a double standard when it comes to killing. A lot of people agree with him. I agree with him.

Now, his line may be over the top, but I ask you to consider whether the denizens of TownHall are not just a little gung-ho about this war?

Plus, it made me laugh.

Scott; Well done!

No double standard. Just a better, more in depth understanding of reality...



thank you mom
for giving me life. My 14 year old daughter said this to me at the Pro Life rally after listening to a 17 year old tell her story of how her father and step mother tricked her into aborting her baby. The baby she wanted to keep.

How many young girls are forced to having abortions? The numbers would be down if it weren't for selfish parents and boyfriends not wanting to be inconvenienced.

As for government paying for abortions; the vaccines that are being used on our troops, they are embryonic based. The military has admitted they used embryo based vaccines. So yes -- to all you nay sayers, it is happening.

http://www.cogforlife.org
http://www.sbstruth.com

This has a lot of information about almost all vaccines today using embryo tissue in their vaccines.

Remember this; when an organ transplant is done there are certain DNA matches that must be made other wise the transplanted organ will be rejected. Embryos have the same DNA they will have when they are 50 years old. When embryo tissue is incorporated into the vaccine the DNA is there.

This Pandora's box of unmatched DNA is causing unknown health problems that are going to show up years from know. Yet will then be to late, some health issues can not be undone.

Legalized murder
Abortion is murder, pure and simple -- murder, homicide, barbaric savagery. But why should that bother those on the left who hold no regard for human life, values, dignity or rationality? Pro-murder advocates talk of the woman's rights, what about the fetus' rights?

Free Ramos and Compean
If evolution were true, liberals would be extinct

Jeanne-marie

I am sorry you had such a hard life. Did someone promise you a bed of roses? Anybody you ask will tell you of the hardships they have endured. Does your hard life justify taking an innocent life?

Most abortions seem to be procedures of convenience. Most of the men in those relationships are looking for convenient sex with no responsibilities attached. But sex has consequences. Women get pregnant from sex. I cannot see any justification for aborting a child of a woman who inconveniently gets pregnant.

Marriage is supposed to be the vehicle by which the products of sexual union (children) are protected. Does this mean that all marriages end happily ever after? NO! Why? Well, IMHO it all started at The Fall of Adam and Eve. People keep trying to test God and make their own rules. Your father tried to make his own rules and you suffered. That does not justify terminating another innocent life. Rather, the one that was responsible for your suffering should have been held accountable. The only justice you can be sure of is the Final Judgement. God said that the sins of the father would be visited upon his children for 4 generations. Surely, you can attest to that can't you? But what could possibly be the reasoning that says we can kill our children?

I am sorry you find me naive. Not all men are the same as your father. And there are women who cheat too. It is a human condition. Is cheating on your marriage approved in the Scriptures? Perhaps more men should take my stand to correct these problems of society. I would appreciate your help to correct the problem without killing the innocent.

Suppose you got cancer and condemned God for not sending a doctor to cure it. And suppose you find out from God when you stand before Him on that day that He says, I did send that doctor; but he was aborted in 1978.

What could you say?

I oppose abortion. Our children are our heritage and our future. We are killing them off.

Leftist hate-mongers
Excellent job, Scott. Looks like Post Holer has lived up to his moniker and dug himself a deep hole. The left is the monolithic and hate-filled group, witness Media Matters, the Daily Kos, etc., etc.

Free Ramos and Compean
The Darwin diet: bananas and rhesus pieces

Post Holer
"Conservatives condone murder legally, its called capital punishment. You will never see an ethical debate by conservatives in this country arguing against the murder of innocent people by capital punishment."

Back in the 1950s when I was a kid, capital punishment was going out of fashion. Do you know why it came back? It's because crime spiraled out of control, and our criminal-justice system wasn't dealing with the problem very well. Ordinary people brought back the death penalty in order to get some kind of control on crime.

If conservatives don't want an ethical debate on capital punishment, liberals and leftists don't want one on crime. In fact, they think that those claiming that crime increased in the 1960s were just making racist comments in a hidden way.

What's pathetic about this is that the people who were making this kind of comment were generally poorer whites, that is, the very people that Democrats needed to win important elections. The Dems just threw away all those votes instead of taking their complaints seriously.

Question
Why is there not equal outrage over in-vitro fertilization that on average creates 5 lives to every one that actually realizes life?

Is it perhaps because Government cannot force motherhood on any woman?

Any
argument against abortion should be a strictly constitutional one. Religion should never be merged with government and government should keep out of private life. When government tries to control private life, it becomes autocratic and repressive.

Although conservatives pretend that they want smaller government, they argue for the legal control of our most private lives: how we procreate, how we die, the decision we make for our own bodies (including how we choose to medicate ourselves), where we can travel, whom we can marry, what we decide for loved ones who cannot decide for themselves, etc.

Right wing Christians want us all to be governed by their religious beliefs.

calm.Touj
What you say is true about some r.w. Christians.

On the other hand, many left winger want everyone to subsidize the results of their beliefs. And pay. And pay. And, oh hell, just hand over ALL your income; we'll redistribute it as we see fit!

What a world, what a world!

OldSocial Worker
Yes, but isn't it Bush who is proposing huge give-aways to stimulate the economy? (The same economy that he was supposedly stimulating when he gave away your tax dollars to rich people less than three years ago?)

Also, remember, the welfare laws were static until Clinton changed them.

Calm
It is important to consider what is being "given away". The money comes from those who earn it and pay it in ; so it is the govt' that takes that which is generated- it "gives" nothing because it generates nothing. Still, I think the rebates are a feeble response. We need policy that enables businesses to grow . We were discussing this very matter the other day in Trenton- that we need to encourage commerce to come back into areas that have been reduced to ghettos.

As for welfare, the laws weren't exactly static- they varied (and still do) from state to state. There were some federal program train wrecks (like AFDC), that simply shifted the allocation of funds. Not alot was done about the ideological base of the welfare state. I think the beast is way too big now- way too big.

calm.Touj

"Any argument against abortion should be a strictly constitutional one."

Then the unborn child has all the rights as the born.



"Religion should never be merged with government and government should keep out of private life."

Do you mean that the government should not have anything to say about legalizing homosexual marriage?



"When government tries to control private life, it becomes autocratic and repressive."

No disagreement. Can we get you to stay out of our lives?



"Although conservatives pretend that they want smaller government, they argue for the legal control of our most private lives"

Somehow, I think you are the controllers here. It is your goal that I must submit to every whim you have. Further it is your goal that I must pay for those whims.



"Right wing Christians want us all to be governed by their religious beliefs."

Well, I do think that America would be better off if you would follow our religious beliefs. You on the Left have demonstrated the (lack of) quality of life under your religious beliefs. We definitely are sliding down the tubes under your guidance. All I have to do is look to the total abortions under your ideals, the rise in crime, the increase in homosexuality, the loss of respect for others, and the general rudeness of the population. Thank you for your contributions.

Time for the adults to take over.

Abortion
Abortion should me left up to the woman who is pregant. If you take care of your own business you want have time to worry about someone else.

Calm, here's how it works:
Supposing a given division that falls under health and human services needs to be "reformed" or "eliminated" for whatever the reasons; corruption, inefficacy, underfunded, rsing need in another division, etc... What often happens is the particular service is simply overseen by another division. I've been overseen by the department of corrections, health and human services, department of education, and now the dept. of children and families over the past 24 years. Each shift would be called a "cut". BTW- when a budget in government isn't increased, its automatically called a "cut" in funding.

So, its like a shell game Govt programs move about and end up in different locations, but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER go away. Never. The job and service- regardless of what is produced- become entitlements.

Hi Gene

"But that is no more a euphemism than 'right to life' is a euphemism for 'anti-abortion rights'."

Unfortunately, we all have the "right to life". We just extend to its logical conclusion that the unborn share in that right.

No where it there listed an 'abortion right'. So just the fact that I claim there is not such a right means that I am 'anti-abortion right'.

Maybe your post makes sense in your world. But here on earth, I find it confusing and illogical.

A language must be meaningful


I guess the dictionary and our language does not matter to some. Some of you want to say that the word murder does not have a different definition than the word abortion and the words capital punishment.

Words have meaning, and without a meaning, there is no understanding of a language.

Do you not agree that Marriage is a union of a man and a woman? When a few Qu**rs want to join together, find another word, marriage will not do, it is already taken.

If you think the death penalty doesn’t work, next time the doctor prescribes medicine for a serious illness, don’t take it, just put it on a shelf. Occasionally look in the bottle, shake it once in a while, and after 15 years of suffering, take the medicine. Then you’ll say, “That medicine didn’t help.”

On February 15, 1933, a bricklayer, Giuseppe Zangara attempted to assassinate President-elect Roosevelt. He killed the mayor of Chicago, Anton J. Cermak, instead, and Zangara was executed a month later, March 20, 1933. The death penalty was swift and effective. Zangara never killed again!

Both medicine and the death penalty work best when used immediately, not 15 years after the fact.

If we find that we have executed an innocent person, or have acquitted a guilty murderer, we will just immediately execute all lawyers involved, because their only concern was The Legal System and their own ego and pocketbook, not the Justice System.

Most lawyers don’t like the idea of a Justice System especially when they are the so-called defense attorney. They want their client found innocent, even if he is guilty. No way does a defense lawyer want Justice — that is, convict the guilty, acquit the innocent.

As you hear on a so-called conservative’s radio program, “Friends don’t let friends plead guilty,” of DUI. That is terrible, how can a conservative say such a thing. If you are guilty, you must be convicted, who ever you are, and whatever traitor you hired as your lawyer.

Full court KOS press
I'm still waiting on the evidence the women somehow have a mystical right to privacy while men still do not.

How about this? We legalize abortion for rape/incest victims that choose to terminate and the rest assume the responsibility of their passions.

Oh, and lest you think I would let men off their responsibilities, I'm very much for forced labor camps for deadbeat dads, too.

If the government cannot hold a women responsible for her voluntary actions then no woman should ever be convicted of any crime whatsoever.

All the "teen" pathologies are
down:

teen pregnancy rates have been dropping since the early 90s;

teen "self-reported"--so no one knows how good they are or have ever been--drug use peaked in 1996;

abortion (not all teens) is down maybe because many of the young people today are the children of, or children's friends of, the first wave of "single parenthood" in the 70s and 80s and saw the problems of mothers, or their friend's mothers, who experienced shouldering the "feminist" ideal of having children without fathers or male support;

I am also going to guess--altho' some studies suggest otherwise--that an increase in abstinence ed. in the sex. ed. field has strongly influenced young person's choices.

I've been involved with high school and college students professionally since 1975, and I can attest that huge numbers of young people go through their teen years without dates, without boyfriends or girlfriends, and even go to proms with arranged partners.

Even if a statistic like 50% of all adolescents are sexually active (again self reported numbers), there are an estimated (US Censue) 41-42,000,000 teens, which would mean 21 million are inactive or virgins.

I personally think both the teen sex and drug figures have always been skewed high because no teenager wants to admit he/she is so "uncool" or "dorky" that he/she isn't living the sex, drug, and rock'n'roll life from the time they're eight.

Pagan America Will Be Punished!
Its just a matter of time. If pagan, baby killing America continues the savage genocide, America will be brought down.

If America repents and stops the genocide, the gravey chain will continue.

I think America will be brought down for the evil genocide they support. And they deserve it!!!

RA
You might want to go on and watch the Packers/Giants game and have a nice cup of valium, uh, I mean, decaf tea.

Oldsocialworker
I'm glad you're still on the job.

Why should abortion be rare?
I hear this often and have to laugh.
If there is nothing morally wrong with abortion, what difference does it make if it is rare or if a woman wants to have a hundred of them? If abortion is the answer to all women's problems, why are those problems still as prevalent today as they were before 1973?

As information is made known with 4D sonagrams, women who thought they were aborting a glob of tissue (technically a zygote)found that their child had a heartbeat and fingers and toes. I am pro-life, not a euphemism but what I stand for, the life for those who are the most vulnerable.

A woman is not controlling her body through abortion, she is controlling the body of her unborn child. The chance to control her body came before pregnancy. The government does not wish to force women to be mothers, she became one as soon as she conceived. The only question is, will she be the mother of a live baby or dead baby?

So, when does personhood begin? At birth? At conception? When did yours begin? I believe it is at conception when the fertilized egg has all the DNA and components it needs for life. In the immortal words of the elephant Horten, "A person's a person no matter how small!"

Finally, if the victim of an abortion is not human, no justification is necessary. If the victim is human, there is no justification.


One last thing.
This is for all of the pro-choicers out there. Why is it the only choice you support is the one that ends in the death of a living human being?

All across America there are clinics and other private charities that help these poor young women who are frightened and alone. Planned parenthood receives huge donations of federal funds and funds from private organizations, yet these charities scrape by with very little but the generosity of committed Christians. Why not truly support choice and donate some time and money to those women who choose to accept, with courage, the life of the tiny unborn person within her?

Hi, Renny!!
You know I love it! Its soooo gratifying to watch faces light up when they finally understand that there IS life off of the plantation and that society doesn't have to change its alleged attitude to have personal success! Granted, it doesn't happen all or even most of the time, but when it does.... what a slice of heaven!

I hope you are well and watching the Packers and Giants. GOOD game! GB just got a first down. $h!t!

Abortion, Some Times Is Post Birth
RA offers, "I think America will be brought down for the evil genocide they support. And they deserve it!!!"

Maybe so, but, if so, God's hands are plenty full running down mass societies around the world that practice abortion on their children even if they have grown up. The world is full of dominant societies where a man can kill or maim his wife or children for any number of "shames". So, good luck with the pre-birth abortions on the spiritual revenge front.

For my part, no one in my family has had an abortion. We love kids, planned or just lucky. Bring 'em on!

Abortion, Some Times Is Post Birth
RA offers, "I think America will be brought down for the evil genocide they support. And they deserve it!!!"

Maybe so, but, if so, God's hands are plenty full running down mass societies around the world that practice abortion on their children even if they have grown up. The world is full of dominant societies where a man can kill or maim his wife or children for any number of "shames". So, good luck with the pre-birth abortions on the spiritual revenge front.

For my part, no one in my family has had an abortion. We love kids, planned or just lucky. Bring 'em on!

Immoral equation of fetus with person
Recognizing the plain differences between a person capable of feelings, thought, and self-awareness and an embryo or fetus capable of none of that, I see a sound basis for treating the former with the Golden Rule ("treat others as you would like to be treated") in mind and no basis for supposing the latter warrants the same consideration. The fact that both "beings" are comprised of cells with human DNA hardly warrants a conclusion that ethics requires them to be treated equally.

Indeed, such a notion could lead one to decidedly unethical conclusions, such as requiring doctors to "save" an embryo and foster its growth into a fully formed baby even though the woman in which the embryo is embedded chooses not to have a baby. Similarly, it could lead one to anti-social behavior like hounding and heaping scorn on those making the entirely ethical, even if difficult choice to abort a fetus.

I propose
not a new law but a new government mandated requirement. Abortion is protected by a "right to privacy." The Woman has full control of her body. She must sign a waver for the abortion clinic to perform the proceedure. This new requirement would mandate that all biological material removed during the proceedure be tested and must match the signee's cheek swab DNA. If the DNA does not match the clinic must have a signed waver from the owner of that DNA or his or her legal guardian.

''But sometimes, attitudes move...''
--
"...in the opposite direction."

That was certainly the case with Prohibition (of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages) in the first decades of the 20th Century, and its showing to be the case with the idiot "War on (Some) Drugs" declared by Richard Nixon back in 1969.

(If there'w a single "Rockefeller Republican" responsible for the deep-seated schism at the heart of the present GOP political vulnerability, it's that psychopathic tool, Milhouse.)

The trend in the incidence of voluntary abortions (and I wish you religious dumbpucks would make the proper distinction; abortion in pregnancy can be - and by far most commonly *IS* - spontaneous) is indicative of the power that moral persuasion can have.

You self-appointed police thugs masquerading as "good neighbors" and "pro-life advocates" have got to get it through your overheated skulls that just because something is sinful - or even just ugly as hell - doesn't give you some Goddamned mandate to criminalize it.

--

Just some thoughts from the other side
1. 13-17 year olds opinions don't predict the future very well. Most people I know are in their early twenties or older before they have a consistent view on anything substantial. Also they might suffer the most as a result of an unwanted pregnancies, but they're probably the least likely to think it will happen to them or comprehend the true implications it would have on their lives. Everyone's six feet tall and bullet proof in highschool remember.

2. What is misleading about "the right to choose" you don't see pro-choice people at maternity wards trying to talk girls out of having a babies. They believe people should have the "right to choose" an abortion if they believe thats the right choice for them. If you don't realize that someone is talking about abortion when they use that phrase either you don't care about the issure very much or you're not real intelligent.

3. Contraceptions reduce "accidental" pregancies. People who want to have chilrden don't use them and thus become pregnant in roughly the same amounts. The people who don't want to get have children use them and become pregnant far less often (accidents still happen). I wish I could explain this more clearly and concisely but if you do the math you can see how increased contraceptive use is a realistic explanation for decreased abortion among pregnant women.

4. The people who want to change things are always more active than those who enjoy the status quo. If RvW ever gets over turned the exact opposite thing will happen. Assuming we're not all brain addled tv junkies by that point.

Doug
Like you, I do not want one dime of my money used to pay for anyone's abortion.

I differ with your choice of words, as in, the two people's behaviour "made it necessary". How can this action be necessary when scores of married people, unable to have a child, would be thrilled to adopt an infant?

I tend to believe that many choose abortion rather than "give" their child to a couple who can care for that baby, cherish and provide him/her with loving parents.

You describe an unwanted child as "defective
progeny". If the same child is permitted its God-given right to born, do you continue to describe the baby as "defective progeny".

If not, why not? We're referring to the same child, the one the mother planned to abort but, for some reason, changed her mind.

Defective progeny. Really! If you must find someone defective in this scenario, don't tag the innocent child.

Jvette
Your 1/20 post (8:42 p.m.) should end every
pro-choice (pro-abortion) argument. Anyone capable of logical thinking cannot deny the facts.

The clincher is that no one has been able to prove the instant when life begins; no one ever will.

Common sense leans to what seems obvious. Birth begins at conception.

The far-fetched, ridiculous so-called reasoning heard for years by the pro-choice crowd is that a woman has the right to control her own body.
Let's look at another aspect of that right. If, for example, a woman's mother and sister died due to breast cancer, would a reputable surgeon agree to remove a healthy woman's breasts, at her request, to assure she would not suffer the same disease? It's HER body!

Every person on earth began their life in a
woman's womb, as individual human beings...not a part of our mother's body. We didn't will ourselves to be there...the union of our mother and father brought this about. They, in fact, created another person, outside themselves, and to kill that other person is murder!


Healthcare system anti-life?

Pro Birth or Pro Life?

MSNBC-Family sues insurer who denied teen transplant

17-year-old girl died hours after Cigna finally agreed to pay for new liver

The family of a 17-year-old girl who died hours after her health insurer reversed a decision and said it would pay for a liver transplant plans to sue the company, their attorney said Friday.

Nataline Sarkisyan died Thursday at about 6 p.m. at the University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center. She had been in a vegetative state for weeks, said her mother, Hilda.

Attorney Mark Geragos said he plans to ask the district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against Cigna HealthCare in the case. The insurer “maliciously killed her” because it did not want to bear the expense of her transplant and aftercare, Geragos said

WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/healthcare-system- anti-life


So, Lilly babe...
Is abortion killing, or is it not?

Stay on the subject, please...

What a bunch of wing nuts!
1) Abortion is not about a woman's body. Its about the body within her. If she's so concerned about HER body, she should take better care of it.

2) We know DEFINITIVELY when life begins. It is when the 23 chromosone sex cellof the father meets the 23 chromosone sex cell of the mother. At that point, the new living being, which by the way, is human, begins growing. It is growing because its living. If its living, when we make it stop living, its called "killing". Pretty simple stuff.

3) Most people do not want to keep unfettered abortion legal. Most want it either banned outright or with significant restrictions.

4) There is absolutely no excuse for abortion, in any circumstance, after the point of viability. That's just plain sick. If the mother's life or health is in danger, have a C-section.

5) It is absolutely the government's responsibility to protect all of its citizens, born and unborn. It protects us from murder, rape, drugs, obesity, smoking and all sorts of things. Abortion, since it ends a life, is murder and falls into the sphere of influence of the government.

The bottom line is that yes, we do have greater access to fetal development and, as a result, we have a greater understanding of what the act of abortion does to a person. We also understand the correlation between abortion and promiscuity. The left's BS about personhood, "choice" and any of the other canards they use are becoming more and more transparent and fewer people are stupid enough to fall for their bunk.

--Blood

BloodABoilin - not BrainsAWorkin, eh?
--
If "It is absolutely the government's responsibility to protect all of its citizens, born and unborn," where do you conceive "the government's" mandate to monitor and command the life of the fertile American female human being to begin and end?

Ah, yes. Another "Pregnancy Police" fan.

--

aversion or planB?
If the reduction in abortion numbers can be attributed to a growing aversion, that would signify a change in thinking about moral responsibility.
If on the other hand it's attributable to the availability of the morning-after pill, then it just signifies a new convenience.

SJ Doc
I notice you offer no rebuttals to "BloodABoilin"; just the usual insults. That doesn't say much for your intelligence.

SJ Doc, BrainsAWorking Overtime
I never said government should regulate fertility. Speaking of ignorance: Pregnancy is a term that describes the gestation of an infant. The government doesn't nor shouldn't give a hot damn if a woman becomes or never becomes pregnant. HOWEVER, once she is, a citizen of the United States of America is growing inside the woman. She is, in fact, no longer fertile. It is the governments responsibility to protect that human being as it is precisely the role of the government to protect its citizens.

If they won't let people smoke in my presence, they sure as heck have the obligation to be sure that the most vulnerable among us are not killed on a whim.

If you can give me a good reason why they should not protect that person, just let me know. I'm a waitin' while my brains a workin'!

I forgot,
Thanks Ken!

Ken - Round up the usual insults
--
For BrainsAFuddled - and for you - what more rebuttal than "Pregnancy Police" should ever be necessary?

The argument that "government" has an effectively unlimited duty (and therefore an unlimited *POWER*) "to protect all of its citizens, born and unborn" is to argue implicitly in favor of government's power to police the bodies and behavior of all females of childbearing age within said "government's" jurisdiction.

This discussion has been voiced repeatedly. If your own logical appreciation of the concept fails (and, if you're like BrainsALacking, it probably does), you can find it online simply by using any good Web search engine.

Or read the 2001 Novel *Hope* (Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith) with special emphasis on Chapter 21.

As a bonus, Hillary Clinton gets killed in a blazing mountainside limousine accident in Chapter 12.


--
"I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you that you're going to have to grow up, swallow hard, and do your best to accept the fact that, as fervently as you loathe abortion, a great many other people in this country disagree with you just as fervently."

SJ Doc
"I shouldn't have to be the one to tell you that you're going to have to grow up, swallow hard, and do your best to accept the fact that, as fervently as you loathe abortion, a great many other people in this country disagree with you just as fervently."

And your point is...?

Ken - My, you *are* obtuse, ain'tcha?
--
I could simply say that your desire (and that of BloodAClotting) to criminalize the voluntary interruption of pregnancy in these United States is an explicit advocation of pointing guns at people who are doing something they consider within their rights.

Do you expect them to accept this passively, or to resist?

Will there be evasion of laws designed to criminalize abortion?

Were there not evasions *BEFORE* Roe v. Wade?

You betcher prat.

Will there be evasions of your pet laws *AFTER* your self-indulgent idiocy gets enacted into the Criminal Code?

Are you stupid enough to deny it? Jeez, look what a sparkling success we've had with the War on (Some) Drugs.

Look forward to a mixture of corruption among your Pregnancy Police, rage coloring every election and session of Congress, and even greater contempt for the law as an institution throughout whatever years your stagnant witlessness runs.

Didn't Prohibition teach you normative dumbpucks *ANYTHING*?

Obviously not.

--

Pregnamc Police???
Some points are just never going to be absorbed. No one has at any time ever "policed" women's bodies. However, those with intellect recognize that a human being is a human being an therefore entitled to protection. The same women who don't want the alleged (and unheard of) pregnancy police to use their "power" (oy vey!) to police their "bodies and behavior" surely want protection from rape, assault and bodily injury. Why do you become hysterical (and defensive, I might add) when it is suggested that those same protections be extended to the people who live temporarily within their bodies?

The bottom line is this: Women who favor unfettered abortion do so at their own risk, emotionally and physically, so that they can enjoy sex without consequences. The same is true for men who favor unfettered abortion. It relieves them from any burden of responsibility for the lives they create.

How sad.

BTW, don't bother with the insults. They really are a waste of your time as I could care less what anyone thinks of my and my convictions. You haven't seeen me insult you, have you?

Thou Shalt Not Get Pregnant
I read in the paper this morning that a sexually active teenager in the United States is five times more likely to get pregnant than a sexually active teenager in The Netherlands due to more realistic sex education there. Reversing "Abstinence Education" programs to traditional sex education would address that problem.

Mountain Rose
"Pro Abort Feminazis don't have babies
...They kill them."

Good thing too. Perhaps, like the Shakers, who did not believe in Sex, the feminazis will die out. If only.

pack your bags, Lilly,
The Netherworld, I mean, Netherlands are calling you.

Not Best, but Least-Bad
There is not a month goes by, sometimes not a week, that my local paper doesn't carry the story of some rageful woman or man who has killed a baby or toddler. Usually the child's crime will have been that it cried or that it wet or soiled itself. For this it is stomped to death, thrown against a wall, whipped with an electrical cord, scalded in hot water, shaken until its brain rattles against the inside of the skull, or just plain beaten to death. There was one case in which the baby was dropped out the window. Emergency rooms and forensic autopsy rooms typically find that the lethal event was not the first abusive event. A frequent variant is that the child is killed by the mother's boyfriend while Mother stands by and watches.

Anti-abortion people argue that this baby-killing is no worse than aborting an embryo or fetus. I argue that it is. The group of cells that is a 6-weeks embryo is not the same as a sentient 3-year old screaming "No, Mama, no, I'll be good!". I would ten thousand times rather see the potentially murderous mother terminate an unwanted pregnancy than go on to torture a child to death.

And please skip the sentimental BS about all children being welcome at life's table. They aren't. To deny abortion is to guarantee many children's passage into a hell on earth.

lilly
Yes, sure it would. Before abortion became legal, experts told us it would reduce the number of unwanted, out of wedlock births. After Abortion was legalized, that figure exploded, debunking the pro choicer predictions.

Lilly do you really believe women in this country get knocked up so often because of abstinence education? What precentage of people having sex, dont know about birth control these days?

It continues to astound me when folks like you blame everyone else for the lack of responsibility that gets individuals in trouble. "I got knocked up because Christians said I should wait until I am married to have sex" Translation= "It is not my fault!"


lilly
In other words "Kill em early, so it does not hurt so bad" You are a genius.

lilly another thing.
There are certainly those pro-lifers who equate women having an abortion, to women drowning their toddler in the bath tub. Guess what? Most of us dont consider them the same at all. I routinely speak to pro life people, and contrary to what many pro choicers believe, we dont sit around calling you vile names and hoping you get criminally prosecuted.


But Lilly, abortion was suppossed
Abortion was supposed to ensure that each and every child was a wanted one. What happened? Surely abortion was available to these people since it has been legal without restrictions in this country for 34 years. Then, why pray tell, all this infant and toddler killing?

The answer is easy: We have made children a valueless commodity. They are either little options that we add to our lives to mirror ourselves or they are distractions that we'd like to get rid of. You know it, I know it, we all know it. The basic tenets of human life have been turned upside down. The most precious thing of all...life... lost its meaning when it became enshrined into our culture in January 1973.

So, you would much rather see an unborn infant killed (and btw, a 6-weeks gestation fetus is not a clump of cells...take a look at any sonogram picture and you will see the truth.) than a toddler that can speak. Why is that? Does the toddler have more value than the unborn child? Does the toddler have more value than a 6-month old? A one year old? Does a 78-year old man have more value than I do since I'm only 49? Is age the measure of one's value or is it simply by virtue of the fact that we are human. Because of we have gradations of humanity, then Dred Scott was really a good decision after all.

SJ Doc
"Will there be evasion of laws designed to criminalize abortion?"

Based on your "logic", why don't we legalize murder, rape, and robbery?

Lilly
"I would ten thousand times rather see the potentially murderous mother terminate an unwanted pregnancy than go on to torture a child to death."

So murder is justified if it is done in the earliest stages of life? Sorry, but I fail to follow your reasoning.

Ken, of course you follow her reasoning.
"Out of sight, out of mind". Its pretty simple really.

That's why people are OK with it in the first trimester then get squishy. If you can't see it, what harm is it?

In the early days, it also fulfilled the need to keep up appearances.

Lilly, your reasoning
is the height of hypocrisy.

I hate seeing children suffer at any stage of life. The infant that was just recently beaten by the boyfriend wasn't able to say "No!" so it must be OK with you.

You answered your own question when you said that it was the boyfriend or stepfather. It is our laissez-faire attitude toward sex and procreation where we shove non-related men into paternal roles that has caused the dramatic increase in child abuse. It is the easy access to abortion that has devalued children to the point where people don't give a darn what happens to their own offspring. We have raised a generation of monsters and it all comes back to one thing and one thing only.

Abortion.

Think about the message you're sending..
Consider some of the arguments in defense of abortion:

"Children are a burden."

"Children are an inconvenience."

"A woman has to think about herself."

"There are too many people in this world, anyway."

"It's better to let someone die than condemn them to a life of misery."

Have any of you pro-abortionists ever thought about the message those kind of comments send to kids? And you have the nerve to wonder why they don't respect human life!

lilly
Are you suggesting that all or most abortions are justified because they are just going to be abused as children anyway?

With that logic, why not just hand out arsenic pills to child protective services, that way when they witness the abuse first hand they can just slip the child a pill and end their suffering right there on the spot?




Gee, wish I would have thought of that
WesternBondBeam, that's a really good idea! It should accomplish the Left's goals in a very neat and orderly way while incorporating the State into the process. We could buil a shole beaurocracy around it.

Good job!

Lilly
Suppose you knew black woman in the Chicago projects who is so poor she has no furniture. She and her only son chase the rats out of the room before lying down to sleep on a wooden floor under a single moth-eaten blanket. And suppose she finds herself pregnant again. I'm sure you would advise her to have an abortion. Her second child has no chance at any kind of quality of life, right? Well, guess what? She didn't abort. She gave birth to a second son. His name is Farrah Gray. Google him.

Did you notice how they all just went
away???

No logical arguments, just the same old platitudes about us being Bible-thumbers, women-enslavers, brood-mare makers. Is Nat Hentoff a Bible-thumper?

All they can do is insult and try to degrade rather than put forth logical points...because there aren't any!!

Query: Why treat fetuses as persons?
I gather that much of the difference of opinion on abortion pivots on whether one believes that a fetus warrants the same ethical considerations and treatment as a person. By "person" in this context I mean a human who has been born. (If anyone doesn't like that definition, spare us a debate on semantics and just substitute the phrase "a human who has been born" for the term "person.")

My question: Why? Why should I accord a fetus the same ethical considerations and behavior I accord to my neighbor Bob or some stranger walking down the street?

I realize that some may be tempted to yell at me that it's obvious and I'm defective if I don't already know--but spare me that and do me the favor of a serious response. It's a serious question.

Doug Indeap
You ask: Why should I accord a fetus the same ethical considerations and behavior I accord to my neighbor Bob or some stranger walking down the street?

Well, why SHOULDN'T you? What does it cost you to treat all life with ethical consideration?
It's not as if there's a limited supply of ethical consideration that must be rationed... is it?

Why not?
SunThe1,

If one tried to do everything unless one found a reason why not to, life would be pretty confusing and difficult. No, the question has to be "why?", not "why not?"

To be sure, the admonition to treat all life ethically has some merit. Certainly, those in the vanguard of the animal rights movement think we, as a society, haven't gone far enough in that regard. And many would extend ethics to all life and the planet itself.

General calls to treat life ethically, though, do not answer the question of what behavior ethics calls for with respect to a worm or a fish or a lizard or a bird or a cow or a dog--or a fetus. Should I treat all of them as I would my neighbor Bob? Some of them? None of them? Ethical treatment of a cow may differ, I suppose, from ethical treatment of Bob. And that get's back to the question: Why? What is it about each of these beings that either does or does not trigger an ethical obligation to treat them in particular ways?

The question with respect to abortion is: What is it about a fetus that would trigger an ethical obligation to treat it in the same way I would treat Bob?

Sanctity of life
Doug Indeap, since you characterize a person as a human who has been born, you evidently view a fetus as a human who has not been born. Since a human is a person (otherwise, they aren't a human), each of us is the same person before we are born as after we are born. Therefore, it follows that we deserve the same treatment with respect to sanctity of life before we are born as after we are born. I hope this answers your question, because I think you would agree that every human has an inalienable right to life.

Not really
KenG,

By defining a person as a human who has been born I didn't mean to characterize a fetus in any way--and certainly not as a human/person who has not been born. The point of my question is to try to get beyond or behind semantics and get to the actual, specific characteristics or attributes of a fetus that would prompt one to think that we owe it the same ethical obligations we owe Bob. Simply labeling a fetus--whether fetus, human, person, unborn baby, or whatever--does not get to the nub of the problem.

DougInDeap, you answered your own
question.

You should afford the same rights to a human who has not been born that are afforded to a human who has been born because both are living HUMAN beings.

Its that simple. Living human beings. If its human, it has rights. Whether or not it is born makes no difference. Us moms know that to be true. The kicking in your belly isn't that of some nebulous thing. Its a person, its a human being, its your child.

A fetus is a human life
(Doug Indeap): "The point of my question is to try to get beyond or behind semantics and get to the actual, specific characteristics or attributes of a fetus that would prompt one to think that we owe it the same ethical obligations we owe Bob."

How about this - a fetus is a product of conception brought about by two humans and possesses everything that makes a human a human. It is not a cat or a dog or a clump of cells. It is a distinct life that will continue to exist until its existence ends either by natural means or at the hands of another. Either you're open to recognizing that conception results in a human life that abortion terminates, or your mind is simply closed to that reality.

Here's a question for you: Since a baby that has just been born is unable to walk the way Bob can, is a baby a human? See how easy it is to play games with questions about when is a human a human. We begin our lives at conception and our right to life is inalienable. Abortion is an act that is a willful violation of that most fundamental of rights.

Hmm, let's go deeper
BloodABoilin,

I read your response and basically got that you labeled a fetus a "human" and then accorded it the rights typically accorded humans because . . . it has that label. I understand it strikes you as that simple.

While you may think me dense, I want to probe deeper though and get to the underlying question. Affixing a name to a fetus does not offer any explanation why one thinks it should or should not be treated in a particular manner. I understand that by choosing to label a fetus a human you perhaps have implicitly chosen to treat it as you ethically would treat a human. The question is why did you do that. What is it about a fetus that would lead one to do that?

Doug Indeap
Why wouldn't a fetus be considered any less human then a human in any other stage of development. Why would a toddler be considered human or an adolescent.

It appears you want to avoid any substantive discussion and are intentionally turning this discussion into silly word games.

Tell us why a fetus is not human in your eyes. So we can move forward.

Good start
KenG,

I think your response gets to two important ideas.

First, you try articulating what it is about a fetus that would lead one to think we owe it certain ethical obligations. You offer a number to thoughts: 1. It is a product of conception between two humans. 2. It possesses everything that makes a human a human. 3. It is not a cat or dog or clump of cells. 4. It is a "distinct life" that will continue to exist until that existence ends.

Taking a closer look at these, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by #2. What are the things that make a human a human? Depending on the stage of its development, does a fetus really possess all of them? Regarding #3, a fetus plainly is not a cat or dog, but depending on its stage of development, it may well be a "clump of cells." Indeed, that label is plastic enough that some might think it applies to me as well. That it is a clump of cells does not necessarily mean that it does not also possess attributes warranting certain ethical treatment.

Once the meaning of the four points is made plain, the next question--yet to be answered--is why that point should trigger ethical obligations. For instance, what is it about being the product of human conception that would lead one to think that product warrants ethical treatment?

I see I've gassed on so long that I need to discuss your second thought in another comment.

Good start - 2
KenG,

Second, in your last paragraph, you get to the questions of where and how to draw the line. These are, no doubt, difficult questions. Actually, one would think that the "how" would emerge from the answers to the "why" question discussed above. For instance, if after some reflection, we come to realize that the reasons we think ethics calls for us to treat a being a certain way are X, Y, and Z, we can use X, Y, and Z to guide us where to draw the line between beings that warrant the same treatment and beings that don't. (I chose the term "being" advisedly. You can read the foregoing sentence with any number of beings in mind. Try it, for instance, with "cow" or "human" or "fetus.")

I must sign off for awhile; work beckons.

Doug Indeap
"Why should I accord a fetus the same ethical considerations and behavior I accord to my neighbor Bob or some stranger walking down the street?"

Because the evidence is overwhelming that an unborn baby is human. Study the various stages of development and you will see for yourself. That's why the pro-abortionists always scream foul anytime someone shows a picture of an aborted baby. One picture is worth a thousand words.

Think about it this way: suppose a hunter accidentally kills a person in the woods. He defends his action by saying, "I didn't know it was a person. He didn't prove he was human." Would you buy that argument? Of course not! A wise hunter always knows what he's shooting at before he pulls the trigger. Should any less be required of a doctor?

It seems to me that the burden of proof is on you. Let's see your proof that an unborn baby (or a "fetus") is NOT a human being.

Chasing our tails
Ken,

Again, labeling something, whether you label it "human," "cow," "fetus," "X," etc., DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

For the purposes of ascertaining what ethical obligations are owed to a particular being, we should be able to say what it is about that being that we deem pertinent to that question and why.

For instance, why do we think it would be unethical to kill Bob, an innocent human being? Is it because he is the product of human conception? Or is it more because he is a self-aware being capable of seeing itself in time and experiencing happiness and suffering? Picture Bob standing next to cute ET. Do we not have any ethical obligations to ET because he/it is not the product of human conception? Few would endorse that I think.

I'm not suggesting that the foregoing illustration addresses all factors relevant to the question, but it shows the type of inquiry we should consider.

Lily and others who support abortion
No person should be able to determine that another's life is not worth living.


DougInDeep, I didn't label a fetus human
YOU DID. You called it an unborn human. I'm just using your words.

However, that being said:

An unborn child/fetus/person is of the genus homo sapien sapien. That's science. That means it is human. It is not dead. That means that it is living. Ergo, it is a living human.

You can figure out the rest. And knock off the insults. They get you nowhere.

Doug, don't take this the wrong way
but to use ET in a discussion of human life is ridiculous. Fantasy vs. reality is a very important distinction.

Characterization is not analysis
BloodABoilin,

Call it whatever you want as often as you want, and the question remains: why? I think you should think about that.

What insults? I've endeavored to civilly address comments without remarking on the commenters.

No science is analysis
Homo Sapien Sapien. Not my label, it is what human beings are called. Examine the DNA of a fetus and you will always come up with Homo Sapien Sapien.

Once it is identified as a Homo Sapien Sapien as a result of examining the DNA, then it is what it is...a person, a human being, a little boy or a little girl, a citizen of the United States entitled to all the protections thereof.

It isn't being labeled or characterized. It is being correctly identified. That is why I call it a human person...because that's what it is. I'd call the furry rodent witl the long furry tail that jumps from tree to tree a squirrel if its DNA matched that of a squirrel.

Your interpretation doesn't change a thing. Science says what it is and it is not up for debate.

Let's go at this differently then
BloodABoilin,

Okay, if you are stuck on labeling, let's go at it this way: Why do we owe ethical obligations to persons? It is not because of their DNA, I submit. Ethics certainly preceded our discovery of DNA.

If we put the question in the form of whether to label a being a "person," we need to explore the concept of "personness" to tease out what it is about a person that leads us to think we owe certain ethical obligations to him or her.

Jvette (your 3:56pm post)
Beautifully, elegantly and profoundly said.
Salute.

The issue is not
about women's rights, it's about the rights of the child. The child's right to life supercedes the right of a woman to choose. She had that right before she got pregnant.

Avoiding Analysis?
So far, those opposed to abortion here seem content to call a fetus a name (human, person, or whatever) and then simply assume that it warrants the same ethical treatment we commonly accord beings of that name. Notwithstanding much coaxing, none appears willing to venture beyond such labeling to explore the actual, underlying basis for our ethical decisions. What's up with that? These are not trick questions, so there is no need to fear getting tripped up or whatever. It can only help to understand what's really behind our choices.

No conception = no persons
Indeap: "If we put the question in the form of whether to label a being a "person," we need to explore the concept of "personness" to tease out what it is about a person that leads us to think we owe certain ethical obligations to him or her."

Indeap, if you think a human has to be born to be a person, then I guess that settles it for you, doesn't it? There's nothing anyone can say that will convince you that that which is unborn is identical with respect to its innate worth to that which is born. You need to give serious consideration to the fact that life is a continuum that begins at conception. It is integral to our existence as human beings, and it marks the moment we begin our lives. There are no persons apart from conception, which makes it indispensable to being the persons we are. If this isn't enough to convince you that a fetus is a distinct human life, then there is no way to satisfy you as to the question you have posed.

Just searching for the principles
jeffjenn,

I haven't said I would draw the line at birth. All I've done is ask if anyone wants to explore what I consider interesting, important questions to get at the real, underlying basis for reaching conclusions about ethics. And so far, no one wants to play.

The differences between a single-cell embryo and a baby at birth are many and profound. As the embryo develops over nine months, those differences obviously diminish. Depending on what drives ones ethical decisions, I suppose those considerations may lead one to draw the line at one or the other end of the spectrum or somewhere in between.

Refusing or failing even to identify and discuss those considerations, though, leaves the real basis for our conclusions unknown and unexamined.

Simply naming something does not suffice. I learned back in high school debate that "characterization" is among the weakest of arguments. It entails characterizing the thing in question as a fill-in-the-blank and then assuming implicitly or explicitly that it shares all the attributes of fill-in-the-blank. The validity of a characterization argument may be explored by looking past the label and examining the assumption--which has been the aim of my questions.

clarification
Actually, I didn't describe "characterization" very well. It generally entails calling the thing in question a something-or-other and then assuming that it makes sense to treat the thing as a something-or-other for some or perhaps all purposes. It is that assumption that I think we should explore here.

DougInDeap
We, as a Judeo-Christian society have,since time immemorial, valued human beings. We have never, unti quite recently, made the distinction between those born and those unborn as warranting the value afforded to human beings.

Yes, there have been exceptions, most notably slavery, (which still exists today, although not in Judeo-Christian societies)but it was "Bible-thumber" such as myself and my fellow pro-lifers, who formed the abolitionist movement, precisely because of the value of human life.

If one needs an explanation of why we value human life above all, then one should join PETA.

Defining a human life
DougIndeap (Just searching for the principles): "I haven't said I would draw the line at birth. All I've done is ask if anyone wants to explore what I consider interesting, important questions to get at the real, underlying basis for reaching conclusions about ethics. And so far, no one wants to play. The differences between a single-cell embryo and a baby at birth are many and profound. As the embryo develops over nine months, those differences obviously diminish. Depending on what drives ones ethical decisions, I suppose those considerations may lead one to draw the line at one or the other end of the spectrum or somewhere in between."

What an embryo shares in common with your fictional "Bob" is that both are a product of conception, both are of the human species, and both are alive. The fact that they are at different stages of development does not in any way diminish their shared identity as individual human lives. On this basis, they both deserve the same ethical treatment with regard to the sanctity of their lives and their right to be secure in their lives. Since no one has a legal right to kill "Bob" on the basis of choice, neither should there be a right of choice to take the life of a pre-born.

For the record, I originally posted under the name of KenG, but changed it to jeffjenn to avoid confusion with another poster who posts under the name of Ken.

A quick digression
BloodABoilin,

Perhaps those joining PETA do so because they have explored why we value human life and have come to the conclusion that the reasons apply equally to at least some other beings on our planet.

Actually, my ET hypothetical above was designed to get past the "because we're human" pronouncement and explore--without regard to DNA--why we feel ethical obligations toward certain beings. I chose a "fantasy" being well known to most rather than a real earthly being in order to avoid diversion into peripheral issues like the scientific knowledge of chimpanzees or porpoises, their comparability to humans, and the politics of animal rights.

Hypothetical questions--regardless of their "fantasy" or "reality"--often help shed light on real-world issues. It would be enlightening, I submit, to consider: If a being like ET actually arrived on our planet, what ethical obligations would we owe that being and why?

follow up
jeffjenn,

Thank you for your response.

It occurs to me that the ET hypothetical may have something to offer in view of the points you raised: 1. product of conception. 2. human species. 3. alive.

ET (indeed nearly all earthly animals) would present #1 and #3, but not #2. But would it be okay to hit ET over the head and cut him open just to see what's inside and how this new species works?

indeap
The differences between a newborn and a ninety year old person at the end of life are many and profound.
Just as a newborn does not remain in that state but becomes a toddler, a child, an adolescent, a teen and finally an adult, the one celled zygote becomes an embryo, a fetus and finally a newborn.

Life is not static, it is constant growth, change, discovery and development. The awareness one has in utero is different than that one has at birth, as a child, as a young adult, as a parent, a grandparent and eventually as one who knows that they are closer to the end of life than the beginning.

Each of these stages is just one step in the whole process. The beginning is necessary, the end uncertain. What is certain though is that no one alive today started any differently than as a one celled zygote.

There is no characterization here, it is what it is. Life begins,life ends. There is no time from conception to death that it is anything other than life.

Stages of life
Jvette,

Thanks for your thoughtful response. With one exception, I see it as you do.

Life certainly goes through many stages, those you mentioned and then some. Each stage naturally has characteristics in common with some or all of the other stages and some characteristics unique to itself. (If there wasn't something different or unique about a stage, we likely wouldn't bother to call it out as a separate stage.)

My only quibble with what you say concerns semantics. Identifying and naming something, whether a being or a stage of life, is characterization. That's simply the meaning of the word. There's absolutely nothing wrong with characterization. It's quite useful to identify and name things so we can more readily communicate with each other about those things.

My point is that characterization is not an argument or a reason or an explanation. It's but the beginning of analysis, not the end. Characterization provides a vocabulary, but says nothing about "why" we lump things together or split them apart for one purpose or another.

Calling a zygote and a 90-year-old "life" is true and, for at least some purposes, useful. But does that simple characterization in of itself explain whether and why we should treat a zygote and a 90-year-old similarly or differently in various respects? Obviously not. For instance, in rendering medical assistance, it would be useful for a doctor to know more than that he or she was treating "life." Similarly, in ascertaining our ethical obligations, it may be useful to know more than that we are dealing with "life."


indeap
Oh but it is the answer to why. It is you who seem caught up in semantics and characterizations.

It's simple, those who value life understand that all stages of it are invaluable.

Is it true that the ninety year old has contributed more to society than the zygote? Most definitely yes. But it is equally true that at the start of that ninety year old life, no one could have predicted what those contributions would be. What if those contributions have been detrimental to society? Can we erase that life and therefore its harm? Of course not.

Conversely, one cannot predict what contributions the zygote might make to society. What if its contributions would be hugely beneficial to society? If we erase that life before birth haven't we done more harm to society than good?

So who's life is then more valuable? Neither. Society should not treat them any differently. If we allow society to determine a person's value on any criteria other than that of life, we invite a dangerous principle which can be used against any one of us for whatever reason those in power may choose to use it.

BTW, a doctor saves "life" he does not treat it. What a doctor treats are individuals and hopefully does so without judgment regarding
value.


Understand? On what basis?
Jvette,

Perhaps we just think so differently we're having difficulty understanding each other's mindset. And that may just be the end of it.

To my way of thinking, to say "those who value life understand that all stages of it are invaluable" begs the question "why are all stages invaluable?" That assumption remains unexamined in your discussion so far.

You posit that one might propose to treat a zygote and a 90-year-old differently based on their potential or actual contributions to society and reject that as a valid basis for doing so. I'm with you on that.

This issue
is ridiculously simple. Those who support abortion constantly avoid the issue by trying to make it complex with words such as fetus and zygote and base their position on technicalities instead of the larger issue. I've noticed liberals and unbelievers pull this crud on many of their stances.

Indeap ventures into deep space
Indeap: "It occurs to me that the ET hypothetical may have something to offer in view of the points you raised: 1. product of conception. 2. human species. 3. alive. ET (indeed nearly all earthly animals) would present #1 and #3, but not #2. But would it be okay to hit ET over the head and cut him open just to see what's inside and how this new species works?"

Before we try to assess the ethical worth of aliens from Mars or wherever, do you agree that the comparison I made as to the human essence shared by an embryo and "Bob" demonstrates their essential oneness as members of the human family? You asked your original question about the level of the ethical treatment that each deserves for a reason, so where do you want to go with this? Do you not agree that the shared human essence of both an embryo and "Bob" requires that they receive the same ethical treatment?

Answer
jeffjenn,

I see the answers to the ET hypothetical informing our inquiry about zygotes and 90-year-olds, so I'm wondering why/how you would want/expect an answer to that question before even addressing the ET hypothetical.

In an event, if you want to put the cart before the horse, my answer to your question is "no"--for now at least. To answer otherwise would moot the entire line of questioning I have posed.

CT,

The answer is simple--if you don't look beyond the labels and slogans. If that suffices for you but not for me, we can leave it at that.

Last post on this
in deap,

Each stage is invaluable because the succeeding stages are dependent on the prior. One cannot grow to be a ninety year old person without having first been that one celled zygote.

Its simple, once the process starts, at conception, then the rest naturally follows, unless unnaturally halted, e.g. through abortion. Life begins at conception, it is not our right to decide whether that life is worthy to exist or to use our circumstances as justification to end it.

In the movie Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood tells the young "gunslinger" after he kills a man for the first time, "When you kill a man, you take all he ever had, and all he ever will have." Life.

Examining ET
Indeap: "I see the answers to the ET hypothetical informing our inquiry about zygotes and 90-year-olds, so I'm wondering why/how you would want/expect an answer to that question before even addressing the ET hypothetical. In any event, if you want to put the cart before the horse, my answer to your question is "no"--for now at least. To answer otherwise would moot the entire line of questioning I have posed."

You're asking me to address a what-if that we have no evidence even exists, and then you refuse to answer a question that pertains to the real world that we know exists. Anyway, I'll play along a little longer and answer your question about an ET. If an ET can do the things humans can do, like build complex machines and communicate through language, then ET is on a par with humans and deserves the same ethical treatment. Even if an ET has threes eyes and different kinds of organs, he/she/it would be a life that is of equivalent worth to that of a human.


Understood
Jvette,

Thank you for the dialogue. I understand your position--but still not your reasons. To my way of thinking, noting that life entails a process with a beginning and an end and declaring we have no right to decide whether to end it leaves unanswered the question "why"? While I have no doubt that at bottom there are reasons for beliefs that you plainly hold deeply, I'm not yet sure they've percolated up to a level of consciousness allowing for them to be articulated and examined.

That powerful Clint Eastwood scene is one of my favorites too.

Follow through
jeffjenn,

Thanks for playing along. I sense that you think it idle game-playing while we set aside the real serious stuff, but I think the hypothetical could reveal some of our underlying thinking on the serious stuff.

Like you, I (and most of us I think) intuitively recognize that if we encountered a non-human species that was sufficiently like us, we would feel it only right to treat it much as we would treat ourselves. The harder trick, I think, is to try to identify the critical aspects of ourselves that a non-human species would need to exhibit in order for us to reach that intuitive conclusion.

With respect to ET, aspects that occur to me include: Physical appearance. Notwithstanding plain differences, ET shares a basic body structure with us--a body with a head, two legs with feet, two arms with hands, etc. Plus he has two big eyes and a small nose that makes him look cute. Mental capabilities. ET is self-aware, intelligent, communicative, empathetic, etc. Rare or unique. ET is the first and only of his species on our planet; we may feel him even more valuable then, much as we do endangered species. I suppose there are other aspects that don't occur to me at the moment. What comes to your mind? Which of these or other aspects are important to us in reaching our conclusion about how we should treat ET would be useful to know.

Waiting for an answer
Indeap: "With respect to ET, aspects that occur to me include: Physical appearance. Notwithstanding plain differences, ET shares a basic body structure with us--a body with a head, two legs with feet, two arms with hands, etc. Plus he has two big eyes and a small nose that makes him look cute. Mental capabilities. ET is self-aware, intelligent, communicative, empathetic, etc. Rare or unique. ET is the first and only of his species on our planet; we may feel him even more valuable then, much as we do endangered species. I suppose there are other aspects that don't occur to me at the moment. What comes to your mind? Which of these or other aspects are important to us in reaching our conclusion about how we should treat ET would be useful to know."

I already gave you certain qualities that I believe put ET on a par with humans. Your enumeration of these qualities was even more comprehensive. They are all qualities what separate from species that lack them. I say they are sufficient to accord ET the same ethical treatment as humans. All that remains is for you to either agree with this conclusion, or enlighten us as to why it falls short in your eyes.

I'm back
jeffjenn,

Thanks for playing along. I sense that you think it idle game-playing while we set aside the real serious stuff, but I think the hypothetical could reveal some of our underlying thinking on the serious stuff.

Like you, I (and most of us I think) intuitively recognize that if we encountered a non-human species that was sufficiently like us, we would feel it only right to treat it much as we would treat ourselves. The harder trick, I think, is to try to identify the critical aspects of ourselves that a non-human species would need to exhibit in order for us to reach that intuitive conclusion.

With respect to ET, aspects that occur to me include: Physical appearance. Notwithstanding plain differences, ET shares a basic body structure with us--a body with a head, two legs with feet, two arms with hands, etc. Plus he has two big eyes and a small nose that makes him look cute. Mental capabilities. ET is self-aware, intelligent, communicative, empathetic, etc. Rare or unique. ET is the first and only of his species on our planet; we may feel him even more valuable then, much as we do endangered species. I suppose there are other aspects that don't occur to me at the moment. What comes to your mind? Which of these or other aspects are important to us in reaching our conclusion about how we should treat ET would be useful to know.

Try again
Hey Indeap, your "I'm back" post (1:27 pm) is identical to your earlier "follow through" post (11.04 am)???? I'm assuming that wasn't intentional, so I'm still waiting.

Here's copy of my previous post to you (with two minor corrections to fix a sentence I botched): "I already gave you certain qualities that I believe put ET on a par with humans. Your enumeration of these qualities was even more comprehensive. They are all qualities that separate us from species that lack them. I say they are sufficient to accord ET the same ethical treatment as humans. All that remains is for you to either agree with this conclusion, or enlighten us as to why it falls short in your eyes."

Reload
I'm sorry about that. I dashed off a response earlier as I only sporadically have access to my computer today--and somehow managed to resend that earlier message and lose my latest one. I'll take another stab.

While I doubt that our quick list is comprehensive, I agree with you that these qualities (all or some of them) suffice to warrant treating ET as we would a human. I suspect that we intuitively come to this conclusion largely because ET is sufficiently "like us" that we can empathize with him and recognize out of a sense of reciprocity, if nothing else, that we should treat him as we would want to be treated.

To the extent that some or all of the qualities we've mentioned are, at least in part, what underlies our determination of whether or what ethical obligations we owe to particular beings, perhaps those qualities can inform our effort to determine our ethical obligations to all life forms--whether an ET, a cow, Bob, or a zygote.

Analysis of these ethical issues plainly is not as simple as compiling a list of qualities and tallying up each being's corresponding "score" to determine our ethical obligations. It's one place to start though.

Doug Indeap
Though you might disagree, many pro-lifers would say that at the moment of conception a human soul is created. For the Christian, this is what makes us human.

To end this life, even in the earliest stages--is the same as ending the life of an 8 year-old child, or a 35 year-old adult--even though the person is in a vastly different stage of development.

Now if many of us also agree that God asks us to love our neighbor as we love ourself (it is the golden rule); we simply can't end that life. For myself, it would be murder--which is not loving my neighbor.

One more point: I believe we are called to be good stewards to the creation and earth God has given us. This means we don't treat His creation cruelly.

Even if one doesn't believe that an unborn baby is human or has a soul, it is a being apart from the mother (even though the baby is dependent on her for life--which is also the case after he/she is born, just not as extreme).

This unborn baby develops nerve endings in the womb and can feel pain. To tear it apart, or puncture the skull for extraction, or burn it alive from saline is horribly cruel (read Gianna Jensen's story; she is a survivor from such a procedure), especially since these procedures do not administer pain killers.

Also, in some cases the baby survives and is born. The baby (for me), will placed in a room and left to die--sometimes this takes hours. To me this is unspeakably cruel--even for a mouse, a cat, or your ET.

Many of us are compelled to stand up against abortion for these reasons; the same way we are a compelled to report child abuse (even by law!).

I don't expect you to agree. But this is why I, and anyone who follows