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



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

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

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

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

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

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

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jon Sanders is a policy analyst and research editor at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, N.C.

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

The outrage
IMO, is nothing more than staged. The dems are allowed to take children and use them for whatever reason, but God Forbid, someone else do it. This girl is living proof of a miracle, but rather than praise it, they find a way to demean it...and all because their abortion beliefs get trotted out. Don't call the Dems on anything they believe...it isn't allowed!

You're right, patriotdefender ...
I already forget the families name, but just recently the Dems trotted out this kid as an example of the success of the SCHIP after he received medical care from a sever automobile accident. When it turned up the family wasn't as poor as first made out to be, those mean old nast Republicans were picking on a kid. NO, the Dems used him as a prop for their rediculous expansion of a program and got called out on its merrits and couldn't stand to be had.

Their shallowness is very sad.

Fred Thompson Would Not Ban Abortions

I agree with Fred Thompson this is a State issue not a federal issue. Does Fred have a point about what should be the penalty?

WATCH VIDEO


http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/fred-thompson-woul d-not-ban-abortions

my 2 cents
Life begins at conception. No matter how small it is when it starts it begins to grow, and at some point "it" becomes "he" or "she".

Life begins at conception and if it's growing it's alive.

Therefore, abortion is .....

On the other hand
My morning paper a couple of days ago ran a story about twin boys conjoined at the top of the head who were surgically separated four years ago. I didn't take notes on the article and have thrown the papers away so I don't have the details available but the point of the article was that the children don't have anything like a normal life. Neither of them functions normally or can speak normally. They can't even eat normally but must be fed overnight through stomach tubes. In the description they sounded like profoundly mentally retarded children. No mention of how the cost of care is borne but before writing this post I googled and found that the cost of the separation surgery and immediate after-care was projected to be $2 million.

So what good was done by allowing these children to be born in the first place? They are out of the loop, the family is permanently overwhelmed, and the enormous financial cost must be borne somehow. But those who would preserve all life in all circumstances no matter what are often the same folks who don't want to pay taxes. Few families could possibly handle the needs of such children. For many, "no abortion" is a prime social value. But what happens when a social value is unaffordable?

Abortion NOT banned pre Roe
It was basically a state-government issue prior to 1973--meaning that Roe was EXACTLY an example of the causus-belli of the US Civil War (despite of the popular notion that the Civil War was about slavery, it was actually about federal interference with states; but this was exploited unsuccessfully as "proxy" by UK, which supplied nearly cent-percent of Conferates' armaments).

I am opposed to abortion
and I am opposed to confiscatory taxes, but I would happily pay taxes to support the life of the truly handicapped.

When I was a child, I use to see an old man sitting on the sidewalk downtown who had no legs. He sold pencils. I always thought that these were the people for whom welfare was created. Then I became an adult. Guess what? Most of the people who receive welfare are able bodied people who simply can't get their butts out of bed in the morning.

The handicapped? They run advertising campaigns begging employers to hire them and give them a chance because they want to prove that they can be useful. "Hire the handicapped" is their motto. And don't give me that crap about all the people on welfare who work hard or are just down on their luck. I am 58 years old and I have seen it all my life. From personal experience with people that I knew well to dead-beat dads who wouldn't pay the rent on the rental house I owned but could afford beer and cable TV. Most welfare recipients are not deserving, and most taxes go to buy votes not help the truly needy.

Addendum
Also 17 out of the 50 states had potential loopholes in state abortion laws anyway due to having international borders (13 to Canada and 4 to Mexico):
(1) violation of Mann Act? That only works for INTERSTATE--not for INTERNATIONAL
(2) once an abortion seeker is outside of US, US state laws obviously are inapplicable anyway.

For M Sederoff
Your comment reminds me of one made by my sponsor/mentor (Amway/Quixtar reference--I'm no longer in it, due to it impinging on prayer time), "if a person is able-bodied and asking for handout, nada from me; if the person is selling flowers or any other product , I may buy--as the exchange of money is NOT a handout).

I've actually seen in Memphis, at mid-ramp of an exit from I-240, a man (able-bodied) with a "will work for food" sign. Guess what was at the top-side of the ramp? An IHOP, a Mickey-D and a BK (all of them with "now hiring" signs)!

svpallava
That's a hoot! I once saw a man who looked to be about 70 standing at a ramp holding a sign that said "Help. Six kids, hungry!"

I thought, buddy if you have six little ones at home at your age, you definately need a hobby.

Maybe if he had been working instead of making whoopie he wouldn't have the six kids.

Getting back to Gabriel Jones
Some details leave me scratching my head, like, how is that the docs were unable to sever Gabriel's umbilical cord, assuming that they gave it their best effort? How could Gabriel survive for five weeks more on a damaged cord?
.
It appears that the docs did not believe that dividing the placenta would provide any survival benefit to Gabriel, since he was deemed the "expendable" one and was supposed to die, yet doing this in all likelihood saved Gabriel's life, it is speculated. The docs don't know for sure. They are, in a word, flabbergasted.
.
(For believers in divine intervention) Man proposes, God disposes. It may well be that God saw Gabriel fighting for life against every attempt at initiating "fetal demise," and said to him, "Live!" Gabriel lived, and God (not to mention the Jones family) saw that it was good.

lilly
You ask what good was done by "allowing these children to be born in the first place", referring to conjoined twins with multiple (and you note expen$$ive) defects).
Apparently then, the purpose of life is to control everything so that it comes out according to someone's (whose?) ideal.
Some of us do not believe that.

Abortion survivors
more articles like this need to be out there in the printed media. It astounds me that the interpretation of telling the truth on Planned Parenthood clinics should be considered a political grandstand. May God have mercy on us all for allowing such a beast to grow into an organization that preys on the weakest moments of both new "mothers" and their children, just because the children are yet unseen. One day it will all be clear. The Truth will cut through all the jargon and verbal vomit that clutters the reality of the murder that happens at each abortion. No politician can argue with the Truth, and one day each one will meet Him face to face. The Truth has a name . . . Jesus! I pray that when we do meet him, He will say, "Well done, good and faithful servant", instead of, "Away from Me evildoer, I do not know you!"

Speaking of Gianna Jessen
I used to have a bumper sticker on my car that read, "Equal Rights for Unborn Women," but someone found it intolerably offensive and peeled it off, probably an ACLU sort who ardently believes in free speech rights except when the speech in question is "amazingly rude," to quote the Honorable Majority Leader Alice Madden...Is she related to John?


For Lex @ 08:36
A correction: Haven't-A-CLU only believes in free speech when it's THEIR right, never anyone who opposes them.

Lily
Let's just kill off, born or unborn any human being who doesnt meet your standard of "usefulness to society". You would be appointed as death czar. That make you happy?

A Example for Dems
Rep. Ted Harvey has just shown the Dems how to correctly and effectively perform "Political Theatrics". You must actually find someone whom has indisputable credibility to appear in the starring role! Problem for Dems has always been in the use of imposters in the Casting of their actors!...and it is infuriating!

PS-Life is sacred! It is to be protected...what don't they get?

lilly
Sorry--Hitler beat you to that idea. All you have done is simply preface his murderous thoughts with "low quality of life". Which begs the question--who are you to judge the quality of life?

There goes
silly lilly again. Keep it up, silly lilly.

beyond the pale
lil's comment gave me the willies too! I don't think she realized it. I saw Barbara Boxer on CNN...during the whole Sadaam was better period the Dems were going thru... and watched her say..."At least Sadaam had the trains running on time!"

MOTHERS DAY CARD

.....Dear Mom ...

.....Thanks for not aborting me when friends and relatives were telling you that you were too young to be a single parent ...

.....Thanks for biting the bullet and giving me a chance at life ...

.....I know things were tough growing up without much money and you had to struggle to pay the bills and put me through school ...

.....I know at times the burden must must have seemed too much to bear but you were always there for me mom and I just want you to know how much I appreciate it ...

.....And now that I am grown I want you to know that I will be there for you ...I love you mom ...thanks for giving me life ...

Love/Son/Daughter

.....COLOSSUS

lilly: planned parrenthood
Ms. Sanger established “Planned Parenthood” IOT address the “problem” of mixed race children because she was convinced, in her own mind, of the fundamental inferiority of people who share your “hue.” . Both Ms. Sanger and Mr. Hilter were part the same “mutual admiration” society WRT racial eugenics.

COLOSSUS
Your Mothers day sentiment is heart felt when taken at face value...It is also chilling... when read as sarcastic from beyond the grave!

Roe v Wade
Even if “Roe vs. Wade” is overturned for being “bad law,” the issue will be transferred to the individual state legislatures as per the US Constitution’s original framers, i.e., 13 different little experiments. Hence, if you’re rabidly Pro-life, you can live in the Dakotas. If you want to employ abortion out of convenience (IAW 96% of the 1.4M annual abortions performed per year) , and feel morally superior for doing so, go live in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, i.e., a woman-child sleeps around, gets pregnant despite having access to dozen forms of birth control & uses abortion as retro-birth control. They can then wear a Ms. Magazine "I had an abortion" tee-shirt as though killing their child for convenience was some sort of sick feminist right of passage. You know the type.

Roe vs. Wade
Even if “Roe vs. Wade” is overturned for being “bad law,” the issue will be transferred to the individual state legislatures as per the US Constitution’s original framers, i.e., 13 different little experiments. Hence, if you’re rabidly Pro-life, you can live in the Dakotas. If you want to employ abortion out of convenience (IAW 96% of the 1.4M annual abortions performed per year) , and feel morally superior for doing so, go live in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, i.e., a woman-child sleeps around, gets pregnant despite having access to dozen forms of birth control & uses abortion as retro-birth control. They can then wear a Ms. Magazine "I had an abortion" tee-shirt as though killing their child for convenience was some sort of sick feminist right of passage. You know the type.

I met Gianna
at a Pro-Life meeting some time ago. She positively glowed with joy- she is a blessing to the human race.

On the other hand I know a female professor who, though married and financially secure, chose to abort her first child.

She and her husband subsequently had two more children,when it was convenient for her to do so.

She brags to her students about her abortion choice, which has always made me wonder how the two "lucky children" deal with the knowledge(since the mother goes out of her way to broadcast it) that "it could have been them."

A touching story
And I mean that sincerely. But I mean it
sincerely because the child was wanted.

The story is not so touching, or touching at
all, went the child is not wanted. What a way
to go through life.

Aborted and Lived To Tell About It
Back to the subject of this article: What would have been the public reaction had this child not been born healthy? Something tells me that the parents MIGHT want someone to shoulder some of the overwhelming financial responsibility caused by the doctors' 'failure' to abort as prescribed. But, that he survived and will (hopefully) live a long and healthy life, tells me his purpose is to be helpful in the understanding of medical professionals when these situations arise again, which would prevent some unnecessary terminations.

As for abortion in general: I was in the position of having to make that choice, many years ago. Not once have I regretted the decision I made. It was the best possible solution for everyone at that time, and all these years later, it still is. NO ONE can or should make such a decision for another. I know that I will face judgement one day, and not the judgement from sanctimonious hand-wringers, but the only judgement that counts.

All abortions should be performed in the first trimester, since the gestation point at which a fetus is viable outside the womb keeps dropping due to medical advances. Late term abortions 'for the health of the mother', remain legal...where is the liberal outcry for these viable infants? If it's "murder" at 4 weeks, it's "murder" at 34 weeks.

PatriotDefender-Frog
Severing umbilical cords and allowing newborns to bleed out, saline injections to kill a newborn and Partial Birth Abortion?! I thought Liberals were OPPOSED TO TORTURE!

Lilly
I've seen your postings on townhall in the past, and most I tend to agree with. But Lilly, your 7:21 a.m. post wasn't your finest hour. If I may, allow me make one request of you.

Please, reread the post and tell us, is that really the way you meant that post to come across? Like I said, your posts are usually so enlightning and thought provoking that I find it hard to believe you can post one that callous.

lilly morality
lilly writes: Wednesday, November, 07, 2007 7:21 AM
So what good was done by allowing these children to be born in the first place? They are out of the loop, the family is permanently overwhelmed, and the enormous financial cost must be borne somehow. But those who would preserve all life in all circumstances no matter what are often the same folks who don't want to pay taxes. Few families could possibly handle the needs of such children. For many, "no abortion" is a prime social value. But what happens when a social value is unaffordable?
--
California judges forced the taxpayers to pay for million dollar operations for heart transplants for lifers convicted of multiple felonies. We can apparently pay for your personal influx of illegal aliens. How about we allocate resources to support innocent American citizens to not be murdered by their parents and the state?

Georgetwin
Thats because they hate "unwanted children" and want to kill them. They love terrorists and want to protect them.

Clear?

RE: lillymurderer
"So what good was done by allowing these children to be born in the first place?"

After all, anyone who doesn't have an IQ of at least 140 and can run a marathon in under 4 hours doesn't have the right not to have a rusty pair of scissors rammed into the base of their head and their brains sucked out.

I guess you would have to conclude, then, that YOU, lilly, don't have the right not to be murdered as well?

Lilly
I am not a religious conservative, but my belief is that we must value all life. When it comes to saying that a disabled child is too costly and too much work to be valued, we are not far from the cleansing and the attempts for a superior race of the nazis. Many parents of the disabled will tell you how their growth as a human being has been heightened by taking on the responsiblity of a handicapped child.

Bumper stickers
For Lex: Re some ACLU type scraping off your bumper sticker: I'd believe it. I've always wished I could think of a snappy way of putting something like this on a bumper sticker: "I'm pro-life and I'm producing more future voters than you are!"

The pro-murder set cannot replace itself by giving birth, but they are trying as hard as they can to replenish their ranks by conversion of the young--and that means keeping the truth from vulnerable young women.

For viruddh: "Wanting" an unborn child is not a sure moral guide. Every pregnant woman experiences moments of doubt and even panic. Most women overcome these moments--and reap the rewards for their leap of faith. It would be interesting to go through history and note what has been accomplished by "unwanted" babies who nevertheless were allowed to grow to adulthood. Wasn't Leonardo da Vinci, for example, born out of wedlock? What if his mother had been encour

For baseballdoc: I was very moved by your post. My family has gone through this very situation. My precious younger daughter became pregnant out of wedlock and was promptly deserted by the bio-dad. She chose to bear her baby--my precious grandson--and is currently engaged to a wonderful young man who (unlike many men) is prepared to love a child he didn't sire. I thank God daily for this small miracle--and reminder that there can be happy endings (especially for the baby).

Re: Jon Sanders' Article
Appreciate your article. Lots to think about, here.

oops!
I see I didn't finish a sentence in my post. It should read:
"What if his (Leonardo da Vinci's) mother had been encouraged to abort her unwed pregnancy?"

Need another cup of coffee this morning :-P

The mother
I think the mother is a terrible person for trying to abort the baby. She doesn't deserve the kids.

It's wrong to kill one person to save another. Yet, one who risks his own life to save another has done more than many others.

Has anyone noticed?
Those people who support a woman's right to "choose" have all been born. In a nation so damn concerned with everyone's rights real or immangined how did the right to be born fall through the cracks. Every wierdo out there thinks the taxpayer has the obligation to pay for his/her sex change, tattoo, tattoo removal, body piercing and God knows what else. But some un-born baby doesn't have the right to live. And they call conservatives hypocrites! Go figure.

the other side of the coin
Here in Phila a week or so go, a a person from the inner city shot a cop in the back of the head and killed him; 50 yrs old, 20 year veteran with a family.

The murderer just caught in Florida looks demented on TC screen; no mother and father; a grandmother; one of those single incompetent woman who gets pregant and gets her welfare check; you know the story

well, just as in the case of CP girl who was born; in this case, it would have been better had he been aborted.

That is what is wrong with sob stories; they are to make a point; but avoid the other side of the coin.

My take . . .
While it was some kind of miracle for the "lesser" twin to survive, I have a question for all the pro-life people: Would it have been better that the mother have done nothing to save either twin and let them both die? IMHO, the twin situation is a bad example to use to defend pro-life decisions. What would you have done? And just because you would have done differently, does that make you better?

Gianna's story is a bit more moving since, even though she survived, her mother still decided not to keep her.

Please do NOT respond with religious fervor and call me a crazy liberal. I wouldn't be on this website if I were, even though I still lean toward being pro-choice. As the example I gave above about the twins - how can anyone judge what the mother would do in that situation? For every abortion that's done for callous reasons, there are ones that are done for heart-wrenching reasons, for reasons that, but for the grace of God, YOU don't ever have to make.

When those type of decisions have to be made, I leave it up to God to judge that person. Life is more complex than "this or that". Yes, there are some times when the line is clear and you know when you've crossed it, but for all of those times, there are just as many times when it's not so clear. Sometimes you can't save every life, and in the twin situation, the mother was left with a horrible decision - she must sacrifice the "weaker" one to save the other.

As fallible human beings, I think we are only expected to do our BEST under the circumstances and not be perfect. For if God created us, knowing that we were not perfect, how could He expect otherwise?

Babies in Heaven with Sweet Jesus
Christians I talk to say aborted/murdered pre-born are all now joyfully in Heaven with sweet Jesus.

Christians tell me they are almost alone as a blessed group, assured of happy heavenly home, compared to other murdered who do not necessarily have such assurance.

Why the grieving for the pre-born who, unlike you, are this very instant basking personally & joyfully in the radiated glow of Jesus Himself? Jesus said "Suffer little children to come unto me"? Is Jesus happy to be in the presence of millions of totally innocent undefiled babies? Are they equally joyful and fulfilled in Jesus?

One might wonder if abortionists are "saving for Jesus" more choice souls than preachers, ministers, televangelists?

Grieving for the pain a fetus consciously experiences in abortion? Because you personally lost a known beloved family member to abortion? Are you grieving because society lost the cure for cancer? (God could raise up such a cure anytime even from a stone.) Grieving the loss of a totally unique genetic combination? (Practically an infinite number of such combinations.)

I am bothered if/when a preborn experiences conscious pain and by the loss of genetic uniqueness. (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, James Jones, Christian Inquisitors.)

If the preborn consciously experience pain on their way to Jesus, do we not yet tolerate and/or participate in millions of horrible and painful deaths around the world (including in Iraq, far more now than under Saddam Hussein)? Which dead have no such assurance of going directly to Jesus? (Many Christians believe all Iraqi Muslim killed by Americans, or in American-created chaos, goes straight to Hell, compared with the preborn going straight to Jesus.)

What really is being lost when the "lost" preborn are not really lost at all, but reaping joyous heavenly reward in Jesus?


Ron
By that logic, Terrorism would cease if ALL Muslim Women aborted ALL pregnancies! TRUE?

Precious Life is not lost
No precious lives are "lost" through abortion.

The lives of the precious pre-born are not lost, they are merely transported in the twinkling of an eye from this perishable and imperfect world of pain and sin into the glorious eternal presence of sweet Jesus.

If it were not so, He would have told you.

At least that's what Christians tell me. Are they wrong?

If God can raise up children of Abraham from stones, then certainly He can raise up a Leonardo da Vinci or a curer of cancer from stones.

Georgetwin
Took me a while...OMG!

M Sederoff & svpallava
I asked a guy who had a will work for food sign standing who usually stands on a busy corner looking for handouts, regarding what work experience he had and if he was interested in finding work. He stated that he wasn't interested in working, he averagely made more $'s begging on the street then if he worked at an hourly rate, plus he got to pick his own hours. His job of choice was begging. Basically, the signs are a LIE. A majority of these beggers aren't interested in work. We should outlaw all begging and bring back the work farms of the past. Our Demonratic Liberals once more have violated what is best for America.

Embrace the gray
It's time this debate moved from its childish impasse to a more intelligent discussion of practical ways to reduce the number of abortions while not infringing on individual rights. Not possible, you say? Then you're part of the problem, not the solution.

It must start by ending the name calling. There's no way we can become more united if one side believes the other is full of murderers and accomplices, while the other side believes the other is full of fascists and their apologists.

I know a few women who have considered abortion, did not have one, and are now very happy they kept the baby. I also know one woman (very close to me) who got pregnant in 12th grade, had an abortion, went on to be a doctor, marry, and now has two beautiful children. While she may still be dealing with her own guilt from her actions 15+ years ago (and maybe not), she sure is happy now the way everything turned out.

The world is gray. The abortion debate has only gotten blacker and whiter. And that's not getting us anywhere.

Frank Rows A Velt
No dispute...Just wished your last example could have been...

"I also know one woman (very close to me) who got pregnant in 12th grade, allowed new born to be adopted by loving family, went on to be a doctor, marry, and now has two beautiful children. While she may still be dealing with her own guilt from her actions 15+ years ago (and maybe not), she sure is happy now the way everything turned out.

Lily
I know a family with a severely handicapped child who will never walk, talk, see, hear, eat without a tube, have any kind of "normal" life. He gets sick a lot and is in the hospital 3 or 4 times a year. I listen to his mother talk about how when he was a baby she felt really cheated because she couldn't do all the normal mommy things. Now, he is 13 and I listen to his mother talk about how their family is blessed because he is part of it. His younger brothers and sisters involve him and care for him and they are genuinely upset if he is not fully involved in all activities (which means that it is unwise to ignore him just because he may not participate as normal people do.)
I see the other children at church learn great kindness in dealing with him. He goes to class with his age group and they are pretty good at manouvering his wheelchair. He is part of their group.
Just because he will never have a normal life or function on a normal level doesn't mean that his life has no value. It is of great value to all who know him, just as I'm sure the conjoined twins' life can be if allowed.

WOW talk about focus
What about AIDS?

What about world wide human trafficking, in slaving, sex slaves?

What about people dying of starvation.

What about people dying of simple illness like diarrhea and having clean drinking water.

What about letting brain dead people die in peace verse Conservatives getting involved to make some moral grandiose stand on HUMAN LIFE!

How about not sending KIDS to die in Iraq.

How about S-CHIP, making sure the health of KIDS who are NOT RICH (but not in poverty) are taken care of. We are talking KIDS.

Conservatives are obsesed with DNA globs and brain dead vegetables, but ALL OTHER LIFE, Ho HUMM who cares. Once a person is born, WHO CARES.

I'm sorry but abortions will NEVER be illegal. However cutting down on unwanted pregnancies, GOOD. How about Birth Control and education? No we can't have that either right. This is where the RIGHT TO LIFE folks lose me.

Right to life folks are not practical and are RADICAL. They can't work towards the good, only complete ideological domination based on what they THINK God told time to do.

I'm all for enforcing strict abortion code, making sure underage girls are not being raped or having sex with adult men. I'm all for making sure no LATE term abortions happen, except for only REAL and serious medical reasons, not this I FEEL BLUE sad and blue reason.

I'm all for more adoptions. However not many people want a retarded, handicap or defective black crack baby. DO YOU? All you right to life folks out there should all have at least ONE adopted crack black baby, RIGHT?

Ron
Don't get me wrong, I am STAUNCHLY Pro-Life! I was tring to think like a Liberal. WOW, what a TERRIBLE Headache I got!

You win an argument
by basing the question on which it's based.

"When does life begins?"

Someone earlier stated life begins at conception.
I disagree.

When life begins is the wrong question, because life doesn't end. The sperm is alive, the ova is alive. They come together in the womb to create a human being.

Next time someone asks you to defend anti-abortion by asking you to define when life begins, just ask them, when exactly did life end?

Shelama
Your comment"If God can raise up children of Abraham from stones, then certainly He can raise up a Leonardo da Vinci or a curer of cancer from stones."

The only "stones" that God has chosen to create human life are the ones between a father's loins. You are confusing the Christian God's universe of free will with the fatalistic universe of Islam. God gave man free will, and the travails and indigiities suffered by us are due to our choices. Wars, cancer, natural disasters, are all situations where man can choose among infinite possible courses of actions. Things don not happen because they are all the "will of Allah", in Christianity.

Aborted children have not been baptized, and original sin still stains their souls, so no, they do not instantly go to heaven and abortionists are not God's tool for populating heaven. Although I am sure the devil is loving the physicians and women who have aborted 43 million human beings since Roe.

Georgetwin...
...Please kept your intelligence and wit pointed down range at all times! I still have not recovered.

Frank Rows A Velt's gray
I agree that the world is gray, which is the devil's fovorite color BTW. But even in a gray world there are still black and white issues. You cannot be just a little pregnant, for example. You are either alive, or you are dead.

But, I do agree that neither side is going to win any friends by circling their wagons. I propose a compromise:

I would be willing to allow an exception to the ban on abortions for all cases of rape and incest, or where the imminent death of the mother should she continue to carry the child to term. But the pro-choice side must also give, by allowing the remains of the aborted fetus to be used to convict the rapist or incestual relative. If, the DNA of the child is not that of the rapist (although his semen DNA from the rape kit still convicts him), then the mother should be convicted of volountary manslaughter.

If that is not pallatable, then how about making the mother, who believes that the fetus is not a human life, to be required to press the button on the vacuum pump during the abortion procedure and being forced to watch it on ultrasonography to prove their conviction and belief in "choice"?.

Shelama
By your reasoning, the man who did the most to help humanity was Judas Iscariot, because it was through his betrayal that Christ was killed and made a sacrifice for sins. But that is not how the Bible judges Judas' actions.

That God shows mercy to aborted babies says quite a bit good about God, but says nothing good about abortionists. Just as Christ said of Judas, "It would have been good for that man if he had never been born." Which in this discussion is ironic, I suppose.

for dave:
When does life end? A sperm or ova is not a human being so it's death is no different than the death of a skin cell or the loss of red blood cells when you nick yourself shaving. Besides, those cells are yours and yours alone. No DNA test could ever convict another of a crime if you left them at the crime scene. But once egg and sperm combine, the unique DNA is that of a different and separate life. Didn't you learn about sexual reproduction and meiosis in biology class?

The fact that a woman thinks she can abort a fetus because she has the right to have control over her own body of which she THINKS the fetus is a part of, doesn't make it so. Injecting cells from an aborted fetus under the skin of its mother will produce a severe reaction as the mother's own immune system attacks this invasion of foreign cells. It would not attack an egg from her uterus delivered in a similar manner.

Abugbabe and Frank Rows
Abugbabe: how wonderful for that family. But, does that mean that every family should do that, even if it means that that family may not be able to handle it, or thinks that they can't? Not ALL families are as strong enough to handle such a situation and telling them they will be, or hoping that they will be doesn't seem fair. Faced with such a situation, families should be able to make those decisions on their own. As I said before, for every story of hope and love, there are other stories that are not so great. That's why I would leave it up to individual families to make the decision - not the government and not society at large.
-------------------------------------------------
Frank: you and I are on the same page. My thinking is also that abortion will never be illegal, but we can work to reduce it by doing the things you said.

In other words, there is a middle ground and some people are trying to work toward that (See, Time magazine article within last 6 months where conservative church was working with family planning clinic on this very issue. It was very heart-warming to hear that the two sides, usually so opposed, had found a way to work together toward the same goal.)

Wow, so much to think about
I agree with Frank Rows A Velt. It's so difficult to have a reasoned conversation on this subject when people on both sides of the fence feel so passionately about it, and as you said, name-calling short-circuits the whole debate process.

I vowed to stay out of abortion debates on TH for that reason, and especially now that something in my own family has had an emotional impact upon me. My nephew was recently married, and he and his fiance were expecting a baby in January. And if you've got any scathing remarks regarding the fact that she was pregnant when they got married...well, just save them, OK? They won't do anybody any good right now.

Two weeks ago, she was in a rather horrific car accident when we were having heavy rains. Her truck was demolished. She has a broken hip, and they had to go ahead and take the baby by C-section. He was born three months early and at a weight of three pounds even. Possibly because of the seatbelt cutting into her at impact, the baby has suffered bleeding on the brain and is at risk for future problems of all sorts. He's in the care of a neonatal unit and we are hoping he will be able to come home for Christmas.

As you can guess, this puts a rather human face on the whole thing for me. I was once staunchly pro-life, and migrated over time to a pro-choice, "I don't want to do it but I don't have the right to tell anyone else not to" philosophy. Now I look at the pictures of my tiny grand-nephew and think about the old "viability" argument. As Frank said, it is clearly not all black and white.

It is tragic that there are babies who die before they ever draw breath. It is even more tragic that babies are born only to be abused and even killed at the hands of their parents. It is very difficult for my family to wait for each new day's developments in the life of this little one, who was very much wanted.

the flash
it is very nice of you to allow women to abort for what YOU think is important egs rape, incest. A very kind man.

The catholic church has another view.

And mary jane has another view.

So, what are you, some dictator.

Clearly, the conceputus is not a person with rights since you will allow its "murder" which you could not do if a person. IF that is the case, then it only makes sense to allow each individual to make his choice on her values; not yours.

So you better give up the rape exception if you want to be taken seriously.

re: jetpilot
I love when kooks like you post to blogs like this. It makes my job of making you twerps look silly all the more easy.

So because this particular column didn't detail each and every ill on planet Earth, you conclude those who oppose the assassination of the most innocent among us are "radical"? Uh huh.

And we don't care? It is you kooks who are hell-bent on wasting money. You abhore any sensible reforms to social programs, like, say, means-testing. Instead you think "who cares" if all the money that is SUPPOSED to be spent on helping the needy is instead spent on funneling money to campaign contributors and administrative overhead.

But abortion is even worse than that. The concept of abortion is the ULTIMATE in left wing thinking. Morons like you and your ilk essentially believe that irresponsible behavior should NEVER have any ill consequences.

Drop out of school and get convicted of a few crimes? Don't worry, just vote for Democrats and they'll swoop in and give you all kinds of free stuff!

Live in a place that gets flooded on an anual basis, and fail to get flood insurance? Don't worry, just vote for Democrats and they'll swoop in and rebuild your house for you!

Run around screwing everything that moves and get yourself knocked up? Don't worry, vote for Democrats and they'll pay to have some Mengela-wannabe run in and ram a pair of rusty scissors in the back of the unborn baby's head!

Here's a smash-bang idea: take responsibility for your actions, and stop expecting others to always take responsibility for them!

Liberals
By Lilly's own logic, I have to question whether she should live

the flash
sperm 134975 resulted in you; if your father did not have sex on day 234,
sperm 134975 would have died;

and you would not posting here.

So dont make light of the sperm; if not for the specific sperm, no you.

So should we have a funeral for each dead sperm that did not have chance to actualize itself with a partner.

Lily
Put simply, you make me sick to my stomach. Hitler would have been proud to call you "Daughter"

RE: dave
When does life begin?

According to every single biologist and geneticist on planet Earth, REGARLESS of their views on abortion, a zygote constitutes an individual and unique human life.

This is something that cannot be said of a sperm cell or an egg. They only have half of the genetic information to constitute a human life.

The abortion debate is not over whether abortion terminates a unique and individual human life or not. It is an incontrovertible FACT that, by definition, abortion terminates a unique and individual human life.

Nay, the debate is over the VALUE of that human life.

I agree that not all human life is equally valuable. Those who we are waring against are not as valuable as our own soldiers' lives (and I expect that those who are waring against us think the same of us), for example. The life of someone threatening my life is not as valuable as my own, which is how I would justify blowing such a person's head off.

However, the examples above are of those who are intentionally trying to bring harm to myself or others for whom I care.

The same cannot be said of the unborn.

There are areas that can be debated on the issue -- life of the mother concerns, pregnancies caused by rape -- but in the general question, abortion is nothing more than pushing responsibility for irresponsible behavior on to the most innocent among us.

Noelegy and some questions
I'm very sorry to hear about your tragedy. Without trying to use you and your story (I don't want to offend on such a tragic topic), I would like to fictionally change the outcome a bit and see if that changes anyone's opinion - what if the doctors had to make a choice between saving the mother's life or the baby's in that same situation? What then? Whose life trumps whose? (These questions are not directed at you Noelegy, by the way.)

A similar choice had to be made with the twins and no one has seemingly had the courage to answer my question: would it have been more moral for the mother to have done NOTHING with regard to either twin and let both of them die by her inaction? NOTE: You will not get points if your answer involves "God's will" (especially since keeping someone on life support is technically against God's will since the person can't die while they are on life support so we don't know what the result would be, do we? If it's God's will, then the person should be left off of life support so that God can make His decision, don't you think?)

Same with the second scenario I proposed above: whose life trumps whose? I don't think that the government or society at large can give an answer that will be right IN EVERY SITUATION for EVERY PERSON (and there are 300 million Americans and, what, like 6 billion human beings on the planet?). That's why I'm pro-choice, even if that means that some callous people get their way. That's where you can impose some limitations and also try to PREVENT THE ISSUE FROM COMING UP IN THE FIRST PLACE (it's called birth control! There is no commandment in the Bible that says you cannot use it, whatever the Pope may say!)

Ted Harvey is Running for Congress
Ted Harvey, who has been a consistent, conservative hero in the Colorado Legislature is running for Congress.

Harvey is running to replace the retiring Rep. Tom Tancredo.

You can read more about Ted's pro-life and other conservative accomplishments at http://www.tedharvey.com

RE: ladykrystyna
I'll answer your hypothetical of a choice between the life of the mother or baby with another hypothetical:

Imagine a pair of conjoined twins were born. Imagine they share a heart and a liver, thus if they were separated, one would, inevitibly, die. For argument's sake, let's imagine they even grew to adulthood (just to get any third party -- the parents -- out of the picture).

What happens one day if one of the twins no longer wants to be connected to the other? Does that give that one twin the right to slay the other just for her convenience?

Or what happens if, at some point, something happens...some injury occurs that requires them to be separated, killing one of them?

Let's assume both are equally "healthy" (or, rather, each has an equal change of surviving if the other is killed by being removed). How do you decide who dies?

The first hypothetical mimics the notion of "abortion on demand". The second mimics the notion of abortion when lives are endangered.

Aye, there's the rub!
"[Colorado House] Majority Leader Alice Madden told the Denver Post that Harvey had been "amazingly rude to use a human being as an example of his personal politics."

In the words of Shakespeare, "Aye, there's the rub!" Pro-abortionists don't want to be reminded that abortion does indeed involve the death of an innocent human being. That's why they get so bent out of shape whenever someone displays a picture of an aborted fetus.

If they are truly "pro-choice", why don't they want women to know the truth?

sorry len
Sorry len, but you cannot use my argument that life begins at conception as an argument against me.That I am willing to allow you to sacrifice a few unborn babies (as distusting as I find it) if it is the only way to save the many does not weaken my case, but it terrifies those on the pro-abortion side that as a compromise we would ever call your bluff.

This is an acceptable Catholic philosphy that when forced to make one of two unacceptable choices (all babies aborted or only the tiny percentage that are the results of rape or incest), it is acceptable to choose the far lesser of two evils.

As for what numbered sperm became HALF of me is irrelevant. Sperm are not little human beings because germ cells only contain half of the genetic complement.


One more thought
It will be a happy day indeed when all babies that are born are wanted babies. If that means that fewer babies are born...then isn't that acceptable? That's why I think we don't promote birth control ENOUGH. Like ladykrystyna said, make abortion a moot point by never getting to that point in the first place (or at least as rare as possible).

Beowulfe
I was trying to respond to your other post, but it won't let me post it and won't tell me why . . .

So let me try to respond to your hypothetical. First of all, you are dealing with BORN ADULTS that already have separate legal rights both from their mother and from each other. So, of course, if one wants to kill the other just for the hell of it, that would be a NO.

As for saving one life over the other, that is also a non-issue in terms of comparing it to abortion for the same reasons - if both were unconscious and the family had to choose or the doctors had to choose, what then? I have no idea since the individuals cannot answer for themselves. But here's a legal answer for you (I am an attorney), I would have them write up a document that would have them decide what to do up front so that doctors and family members wouldn't have to fret about it. That would solve part of that problem.

The same cannot be said of a fetus. Currently, it has no separate legal identity and until it is viable, I don't think it should. To me, the life of the mother trumps the life of the child (if life and death is the issue). At this point I also support having an abortion before viability as a matter of "choice". I believe that, as Frank Rows said, if we push for more of a middle ground to AVOID the situation that requires the "abortion on demand", then the issue will solve itself (fewer such abortions because there is less of a need of them). That's just MY solution, however.

Another Hypothetical for ladykrystyna
You asked"what if the doctors had to make a choice between saving the mother's life or the baby's in that same situation? What then? Whose life trumps whose?"

What if the mother had to make the choice, not the doctor?

Which mother is more moral in the following situation:

Two mothers are crossing the street with their newborns in strollers, both mothers see a large truck running the stop-light and directly in their paths. One chooses to save herself by leaping out of the path but leaving the stoller and her newborn to a surely gruesome death. The other mother pushes her stroller to safety and sacrifices her own life to save the child?

Every act of sex between a fertile man and a fertile woman has the potential of creating a new human being. Every pregnancy has risks, including that of conceiving an imperfect child, or miscarriage, or placental rupture, resulting in harm to mother, child, or both. Delaying pregnancy until after a working career, only increases those chances. Having a child in early teens dooms the child to a difficult life with little opportunity to break the cycle of teen moms becoming twenty-something grandmothers.

The rewards of facing those risks and giving birth to a new life, and having it love you unconditionally, and seeing him take his first steps, saying his first words, writing his name for the first time, and eventaully blessing you with grandchildren, is far greater than those risks. However, if such risks are unacceptable to you, then don't have sex. It's like drinking and driving, eventually something terrible is going to happen.


RE: ladykrystyna
"The same cannot be said of a fetus. Currently, it has no separate legal identity and until it is viable, I don't think it should."

Point in fact, several states DO, in fact, grant some legal protections to the unborn. Please recall a few years back when the guy was convicted in California for 2 murders: the life of the pregnant woman AND the life of her unborn baby.

Second of all, the "date of viability" is continuously being pushed closer and closer to the time of fetilization. We have babies being born before the 22nd week of their term growing up to live perfectly healthy lives.

However, I have not mentioned anything about the law. I was talking about the philosophical concept of right and wrong.

Abortion on demand is a reality right now, and a disgusting one. According to the CDC (which, by the way, doesn't require all abortions be reported), over 1/3rd of all abortions are performed on those who have previously had at least one prior abortion, and 17% of reported abortions have been performed on women who have had at lease 2 prior abortions. Also according to their records, only about 5% of all abortions are performed as a response to a pregnancy caused by rape (less than 1%) or because the life of the mother is at risk (the remaining ~4%).

Thus a full **95%** of abortions are performed because the woman is taking her irresponsible behavior out on her unborn child. That is a truly disgusting state of affairs.

Viruddh
A bit late in the day I know considering all the posts that are here but I had to remind you of a post you made to another column awhile back wrt your children either taking care of you in your eventual infirmity or having their taxes raised for government-paid care to do so. I remember how proud you were that they said "raise the taxes"; they didn't WANT to take care of you! One wonders just what their childhoods were like...and the example they had.

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


GENSFAN17

.....Was it the best possible choice for your aborted child who never got to draw a breath or see the light of day? .....COLOSSUS

The Flash
Your hypos, like beowulf's, are pointless because they do not involve fetuses, but rather already BORN children. Of course, in an emergency situation when there was no other choice but ME or the BABY, I would choose to save my BABY. I am the mother of 2 and that is definitely what I would do. But if there was a chance to save both of us, I would do that as well (just human nature to want to save one's own butt ;) ).

Neither of YOU answered my question about the twins though: what is more moral, for the mother to have chosen to save the other twin by aborting the weaker one, or to do NOTHING about EITHER and let them both die? (Remembering that I don't take "God's will" as a response).

If I were pregnant and the pregnancy was killing me and the only way to prevent that was to abort the pregnancy, I would abort the pregnancy. That's just MY decision. If I had to abort one fetus to save the other, I would do that as well.

The fact that you want the GOVERNMENT to make that decision for YOU is disturbing to me, especially from people who otherwise want LESS government. Mind you, not only am I pro-choice, I am also fiscally conservative and a supporter of the 2nd amendment. Explain that . . . if you can.

Abraham, Children & Stones
Matthew 3:9 Do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our ancestor'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.

Luke 3:8 Bear fruits worthy of repentance. Do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our ancestor'; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham.


Again ...NOBODY dies or is lost in an abortion. The pre-born simply go from living on earth, in the twinkling of an eye, to living in Heaven with Jesus (Praise Him.)


Matthew 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.


If you believe abortion is murder and a child is lost, then don't have an abortion. But the fact is, no child is lost except to this veil of pain, sorrow and tears, while being found in the presence of sweet Jesus in eternal Heaven (Praise Him.)

The Flash and Beowulf, Part I
Your discussion of the "risks" of pregnancy is pointless. Billions of women give birth each day and have been doing so for thousands of years. So what's your point? That because there is an inherent risk of death in ALL pregnancies and childbirth, I should just accept that risk and not try to save myself if that is possible. After all, the risk is not only to myself, but also to the fetus. Isn't it wrong then to get pregnant at all, since most pregnancies end up in miscarriages before the end of the first trimester?

As to "philosophical" concepts of right and wrong - they are pointless because no situation is black and white. Beowulf, you asked "How do you decide who dies?" That's an incomplete question - are you asking me that, as a fellow human being I have the right to decide which twin will die? Of course, I have no RIGHT to do so and so my answer would be, I would refuse to make the decision because it is not mine to make as to two adults that I have no legal control over. Now, how about the doctor? How about the family if both are in a coma and cannot answer the question? That's what I was getting at and the point you missed.

The Flash and Beowulf, Part II
You want black and white answers to things that simply are not always black and white. If you believe in the 2nd Amendment because you have a belief that you should be able to defend yourself and kill someone else if necessary, aren't you making a decision about the life of someone else. What if that person was not trying to harm you and you shot him anyway, thinking he was? The law takes all of this into consideration (imperfect self-defense, manslaughter). In other words, the law understands that life is not black and white.

This is no different. At all times, the fetus is innocent, I acknowledge that. But when you have twins and they'll either both die, or one of them has to die to save the other, what do you do? Let them both die? I would disagree with that decision, but I would not JUDGE you because of it. Why? Because that is a personal decision. Not even the Bible can answer that question (and reference to "Thou shalt not kill." doesn't count because I'm sure that elsewhere in the Bible there were exceptions to that rule).

That's why I'm pro-choice. God will wind up judging us all in the end. Humans are too imperfect to really judge each other, IMHO.

LADYKRYSTYNA

.....To answer your question ...if you knew that both twins would die if you did not abort the weaker one ...but by aborting the weaker the other twin would live ...then the obvious choice would be to abort the weak twin ...

.....This is not quite a "Sophie Choice" but it would be a hard choice nevertheless ...

.....Rational people realize that sometimes abortion is a medical neccessity ...I think what bugs most conservatives is that it is done as a retroactive birth control soley for the convenience of the mother ...this wanton disregard for the value of life cannot be good for society ...

.....Let's face it ...1.4 million abortions a year cannot all be medical emergencies .....COLOSSUS

Shelama
The verses you are quoting have nothing to do with killing children. What do you say to a culture that sacrifices its children? The prophet Ezekiel had to consider just that. He wrote:

"Moreover you took your sons and your daughters, whom you bore to Me, and these you sacrificed to them to be devoured. Were your acts of harlotry a small matter, that you have slain My children and offered them up to them by causing them to pass through the fire?"

And then, "Behold, therefore, I stretched out My hand against you, diminished your allotment, and gave you up to the will of those who hate you."

Ezekiel 16



Liberals whorship abortion as God
There is nothing pelosi or reid want more in life than easy, immediate access to abortions. The dems have slid so far into a sewage pit of liberalism this is only natural. They see nothing wrong in killing those that cannot speak or defend. Just think. When clintoon wins the aborted pieces of america's youth will litter sidewalks from overflowing dumpsters.

ladykrystyna
You asked:"If you believe in the 2nd Amendment because you have a belief that you should be able to defend yourself and kill someone else if necessary, aren't you making a decision about the life of someone else. What if that person was not trying to harm you and you shot him anyway, thinking he was?"

The decision of killing someone defending myself was not my decision, but of the person invading my home and therefore by his actions, accepting the risk that the homeowner was a legal gun owner who would defend himself. If he wasn't "really" going to harm me but was just using the gun as a prop, it is still his fault because his whole purpose of brandishing it was to make me believe he would have used it. The law protects me in those situations because I have no way to acertain the invaders "intent" but any delay in my reactions could have resulted in my death. The moral of the story: don't do the crime if you can;t do the time.

ladyk's Hyperbole
Billions of women give birth each day and have been doing so for thousands of years.

Apparently you have never remembered any of your algebra classes. There are 6 billion humans on this earth. According to your statement, the earth's population would be doubling every several days.

Women have been giving birth for over a million years. That is how our species reproduced. Who gives a f*** about global warming and sCHIP for the children that we are aborting?

Abortion is not a right, it is a priveledge extended to American women temporarily because it has not become rampant enouugh it it's excercise to threathen our nation's future. Your "right" to an abortion must be balanced by those who chose not to abort in order to replentish the species. If every woman on earth decided to exercise her "right" to terminate every preganacy for 50 years, the human race would become exinct as there would not be enough woman living of child-bearing age to maintain the species. Long before the collapse of every economy on earth because of the lack of new citizens, laws wouod quickly be passed to force woman to carry their pregnancies to term. It's not a right, its a temporary priviledge. You watch what happens in Russia as their population begins to collapse.

Baseballdoc and The Flash, Part I
Baseballdoc: Thank you for answering my question, and I understand YOUR position. But my solution is not to ban abortion, but to create a society where there is virtually no need for it, just because there are a myriad of reasons (both good and bad) that people have them. No other poster here has been honest enough to give me an answer to the question I asked. They seem to think it awful that the mother would even consider aborting one of the twins, but what would they do in the same situation and do they think that is any better than what the mother tried to do? No answer yet, except from you.

The Flash: I apologize for the mistaken hyperbole. I keep having technical problems (posts won't post and no reason is given) so I forget what I write and start to babble. BUT, you still didn't answer my question, as baseballdoc did, and you didn't tell me what the point of your "risk analysis" was.

Most rational pro-choice people do not want everyone to have an abortion whenever they want. Remember only kooks get air time. Rational pro-choice people want the choice to remain in place, as well as ways to prevent the pregnancy in the first place if it is going to be unplanned (teaching healthy sex education [not radical leftist sex education], abstinence and access to birth control), thereby negating the need for "abortions on demand" in the first place, but leaving medically necessary ones in place. I think that is a fair middle ground.

Please no more stupid hypos though, okay. But an answer to my question would be very much appreciated.

Flash Part II
As to the self-defense argument I was trying to make: My point was not that the person was not at fault for trying to harm you. And I tried to keep it short as to the mistake you might make if he wasn't really trying to harm you. I wasn't thinking of a prop gun (that would be stupid). I was thinking of someone who was deaf or mentally slow, was trying to reach for identification and you thought it was a gun. In other words, an innocent person. The law requires that you have a subjective and objective belief about the danger to yourself. If one is missing than that's imperfect self-defense, or a manslaughter charge (this is in CA by the way). My point being that the law takes into account the fact that everything is not black and white. In your black and white world, the world of Thou shalt not kill, you should be immediately thrown in jail or put to death especially since the person was innocent. Period. Am I right? Or am I missing something?

Instead, the law takes into account the fact that YOU may have felt threatened AND any reasonable person may have felt threatened, thereby acquitting you of fault, even if the person was innocent.

In a somewhat similar way, if an expectant mother finds out that not only her life, but the life of one of her unborn children is being threatened by the life of the other unborn child, she should be able to choose to abort the unborn child that is causing the danger without being told that she's a murderer.

I believe that was the point I was ultimately trying to get at. It would have helped if you answered my question, too.

HEY JET PILOT
Where did you learn to Fly? Or is that just a big fib?

Unconscionable Tactics
How dare the Conservative Party champion the rights of a nearly aborted child in their never ending obfuscation of Truth and Reality! She WAS NOT aborted so you lose the argument!

Sorry, just trying to think like a Lib. Would somebody provide me the correct statisitics of how many abortions are performed because of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother each year (not to save her "social" life) and how many for "other" reasons which include promiscuity and convenience? Why do I suspect "other" reasons would have a much higher occurence than the extreme circumstances reasonable people might possibly consider agreeable exceptions? Truth, Reality . . . mutually exclusive in the Liberal mindset.

ladyk
You asked:"if an expectant mother finds out that not only her life, but the life of one of her unborn children is being threatened by the life of the other unborn child, she should be able to choose to abort the unborn child that is causing the danger without being told that she's a murderer."

As you just stated that in the self defense scenario, if the person was not really trying to hurt me, then I would be held responsible for his death. There is no doctor on earth that can 100% be positive that one of the two twins is the one whose life is threathening all three. The example in the article beginning this thread shows that to be the case. Making a baby is supposed to be a serious and conteplative act and all possible risks thought of and accepted by man and woman in advance. It is clear that the current abortion on demand laws have made that seriousness of thought a frivolous optional afterthought after "hooking up". The easy access to abortion encourages bad behaviour and even gives it the government's imprimature.

When sleeping around was a socially depraved act, and children born out of wedlock were called b@st@rds, and their mothers were ostracized, sex and unwanted pregnancies were far rarer. Given the choice between that 1950's version of morality, and today's, were were much healthier a society back then, even with the rare back-alley abortion. Sure, some still misbehaved, but holding those poor souls up for mockery was a better deterrent to promiscuity and reckless sex than any modern sex-education class.

HEY Jet Pilot
Where did you learn to fly? Or is that just a big fib?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even for 10 year olds.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And all while remaining polite. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

viruddh
Thank you -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I think the argument is over the wrong thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Find another word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Find another word

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I totally agree!

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

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

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

IT trivializes the decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(continued)


paddy and sun the 1
continued from prior


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


Sun the 1, Lady Krystyna
Sun said,

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

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

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

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

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

There is no one answer.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All I'm saying is that you should allow yourself to be "contradictory" about it, allow yourself to step out of your comfort zone and really think the issue through. Then I think we can all work on