National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers

posted by Katha Pollitt on 03/09/2009 @ 2:00pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (149)

Subscribe Now

March 10th is National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers, and man oh man could they use some love. Obama's victory may protect Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court, but state legislatures are doing their best to pile on the obstacles and restrictions: mandatory ultrasounds are the latest fad, with bills being considered in eleven states ( because apparently women are so stupid they might not realize they're having an abortion because they're pregnant). And then, as Michael Winerip reported in an unusually thorough piece in Sunday's New York Times (in the Style section, sigh, along with the rest of the girlynews), the women's health activists who form the backbone of many clinic staffs are retiring and proving hard to replace in the more conservative and rural regions, like upstate New York, the South and Midwest. Doctors, nurses and technicians are reluctant to work in clinics in anti-choice places where they will be picketed, socially ostracized and forced to protect themselves daily against possible violence. Low pay is another factor: anti-choicers love to talk about abortion as a business, but adjusted for inflation, the price of a first trimester abortion is about what it was thirty years ago, although security-related costs have skyrocketed -- one reason why clinic staffers make about half what they would in another specialty.

Will the next generation step up to the plate? Sally Burgess, head of the National Abortion Federation, thinks that growing up with legal abortion, too many lack "the fire in the belly." Then too, med school policies mean only a small proportion of medical students are even learning how to perform this relatively simple procedure.

You can show your support for the selfless people who make more than words on a page by making a donation to the Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project (WRRAP) , an all-volunteer group which helps low-income girls and women around the country pay for their abortion care. As the economy sinks and unemployment rises, more and more women will find themselves both needing to terminate a pregnancy and unable to come up with the cost. Help WRAPP be there for clinics and for women.

Donations of any size are more than welcome (and yes, the rather odd name on the Paypal account is correct -- I checked), but if you send me your receipt for $50 or more, I will mail you a signed copy of Learning to Drive: and Other Life Stories, my collection of personal essays.

Comments (149)

A "National" day? This must be a joke!

Posted by Happy at 03/09/2009 @ 2:05pm
On a more positive note....how about, National Days for:

State Exectioners (tough work & like Abortion providers, people die!)

Emergency Room Staff

Butchers

SPCA Executioners

Dr. Death (starts w/K)

Posted by Happy at 03/09/2009 @ 2:09pm
HAPPY, do you want to convict abortion providers for "murder" or not?

(No, he can't answer this. Say "Yes" and the next question is "With the same sanction you USUALLY provide for the charge of murder...aka the death penalty?" and he'll start looking like a Taliban.

say "No" though...and his outrage seems a bit disengenuous, huh?)

Posted by Mask at 03/09/2009 @ 2:11pm
I think we need a national recognition day for the retrograde if not outright silly knee-jerk "conservative" Republicans (who are neither conservative nor republican) for without them, we'd go without our frequent doses of gratingly stupid commentary and Caligula-vs.-the-Sea policies.

Posted by syfriendly at 03/09/2009 @ 2:34pm
Happy

You left one off!

A national day for MEN guilty of physically causing a woman to abort! They are performing free "reproductive assistance" unlike the abortion doctors and nurses who charge!

(Oh I forgot, they are murderers that can be executed under law no matter the stage of pregnancy!) Say isn't that discrimination?

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/09/2009 @ 2:38pm
Mar 8 2008 by Neil Hodgson, Liverpool Echo

THE first National Butchers' Week takes place from Monday until next Sunday and Old Swan's award-winning Bexleys butchers has a week of activities to support the event.

Martin Brereton, business director at the Prescot Road shop, said: "We are planning to start with tasting sessions of sausages and our range of special recipe ready meals along with other refreshments."

The week is the brainchild of the Meat Traders Journal magazine and its editor, Ed Bedington, said: "Local butchers have

got so much to offer their customers, not just quality products but expert advice, and we want to encourage them to share it with a wider audience."

http://www.live rpoolecho.co.u k/liverpool-news/lo cal-news/2008/03/08/s ausages-for-tas ting-100252-20580553/

Posted by HonestLiberal at 03/09/2009 @ 2:54pm
Posted by Happy at 03/09/2009 @ 2:09pm

I even have to admit that a national day for abortion clinicians is a bit over the top. No matter your opinnion on the subject a "national day" is a bit much.

How does one aquire national day status? Is there a registry you have to go and apply? Or do you just claim a day? If the latter, I claim Feburary 29th as Extraneous day!

Posted by Extraneous at 03/09/2009 @ 2:55pm
"National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers "

You're shittin me, right?

Does Hallmark got a card with a picture of the bloody aftermath of a partial birth complete with a nice witty rhyme to go with, maybe a box of chocolates?

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/09/2009 @ 2:56pm
"Obama's victory may protect Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court, but state legislatures are doing their best to pile on the obstacles and restrictions: "

It belongs in the states anyway.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/09/2009 @ 2:57pm
I claim Feburary 29th as Extraneous day!----Posted by Extraneous at 03/09/2009 @ 2:55pm

I claim April 1st "National RIO/comanche Day"! (no conflicts)

Posted by Mask at 03/09/2009 @ 2:58pm
I'm sure y'all have heard by now about the 9 year old girl in Brazil who has been raped repeatedly by her stepfather since she was six.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7926694.stm

The 80 pound girl was pregnant with TWINS. Her life was in danger if she delivered so her mother followed the doctors' advice and authorized an abortion.

The Catholic church excommunicated the mother and the doctors, BUT NOT THE RAPIST STEPFATHER!!!!

There certainly SHOULD be a day of appreciation for the heroes who staff abortion clinics.

There should also be a day of National Day of Shame for the likes Jomamma and Happy to contemplate the snot on their auras.

Posted by bookmanjb2 at 03/09/2009 @ 3:16pm
Talk about a convoluted phrase; "Appreciation for Baby Killers".

What's next, "National let's euthanize a Senior Day"?

Posted by antisocialist at 03/09/2009 @ 3:24pm
Posted by bookmanjb2 at 03/09/2009 @ 3:16pm

Bookman, did you not read Ms. Pollit's blog? This isn't about about another country's problems. It's about a shortage of abortion service providers". Try to stay focus on this one, K?

Posted by ACook at 03/09/2009 @ 3:25pm
Posted by bookmanjb2 at 03/09/2009 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

So....three WRONGS make a righteous right in lefty land?!

Shouldn't our leftist friends be quoting their favorite biblical scripture out of context? You know, the "judge not least ye be judged" part? Where does God's judgement come in with purposeful abortion according to the left?

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/09/2009 @ 3:27pm
Where does God's judgement come in with purposeful abortion according to the left?----Posted by comancheamerican at 03/09/2009 @ 3:27pm

Hey, RIO, when "God terminates a pregnancy" via natural spontaneous abortion or "miscarriage"...is He doing it "purposefully"???

Posted by Mask at 03/09/2009 @ 3:34pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/09/2009 @ 2:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

If the issue were left to the states: How, under Doctor/Patient confidentiality, would the States' AG prosecute an offense? Would the Doctor and Patient be held liable? What type of sentencing/crime? Should the state be allowed to prosecute a resident of Missouri who traveled to Illinois to get an abortion? Would a doctor, who had legally performed abortions in Illinois, be allowed to obtain a license in Missouri if (s)he decided to move from Chicago to Kansas City? Would a company that is based in Missouri, but provides abortion services in abortion-legal states be held culpable in Missouri? What about civil protections?

I am not necessarily disagreeing with you on it being a state issue, but, I am having a hard time getting around the Right to Privacy issue and the practicality of it.

Do you think the Republican Party would win another national election in the next 16 years without having the Abortion issue to stir up Social Conservatives? The base would shrink by as much as a quarter, changing the phrase "28 percenters" to "21 percenters".

Posted by BizarroRio at 03/09/2009 @ 3:36pm
@ACook

Who appointed you to be the blog-comment nazi? My post concerned abortions and the idiotic comments of the dumb-as-a-stump "conservatives" like antisocialist who lurk here. Your self-righteous, schoolmarmish tone is asinine and presumptuous.

Posted by bookmanjb2 at 03/09/2009 @ 3:36pm
Posted by Mask at 03/09/2009 @ 3:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

No mAsK, you answer questions not just repost them!

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/09/2009 @ 3:46pm
Who appointed you to be the blog-comment nazi? My post concerned abortions and the idiotic comments of the dumb-as-a-stump "conservatives" like antisocialist who lurk here. Your self-righteous, schoolmarmish tone is asinine and presumptuous.

Posted by bookmanjb2 at 03/09/2009 @ 3:36pm

Well, aren't you the paragon of virtue and class (not). Thanks for keeping the stereotype of ignorant is as a liberal does" going.

For "liberals" like yourself, conservatives are not merely those with opposing political and cultural views; no for neanderthals like yourself, we are illiterate red-necks who inter-breed.

Well, you better get off of the internet now before the nurses find out you are not in your bed.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/09/2009 @ 3:47pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/09/2009 @ 3:47pm:

For "liberals" like yourself, conservatives are not merely those with opposing political and cultural views; no for neanderthals like yourself, we are illiterate red-necks who inter-breed. >>>>

You very well might not be interbred; I allow for that possibility. On the other hand, your comment was so lacking in wit and intelligence, I couldn't help but think it likely your parents were first cousins or closer.

Posted by bookmanjb2 at 03/09/2009 @ 4:31pm
The Framers would be soooo proud.

Posted by freiheit1 at 03/09/2009 @ 5:12pm
OK, seriously? This is just getting pathetic. Come on, people, let's try having an actually civilized discussion. And no, "he did it first" does not constitute a defense.

Also, this should be an obvious point, but...your appreciation could hinge either largely or completely on how you view the abortion issue. If you think it's murder or at least somewhat reprehensible, you probably wouldn't conclude that these people are heroes. If you don't think that, then they probably are. In other words, when we have people sacrificing particular gains for a goal, part of our evaluation of any claimed heroism is the nobility of the goal itself.

So, while I can acknowledge the sacrifices these doctors go through, I still think that, at least in many of the cases, what they do is wrong. I can't regard that as heroism, simple as that.

Posted by Thrawn at 03/09/2009 @ 5:14pm
I agree with Katha Pollitt, although a "national day" is probably not a good way to support these providers. Send the clinic a thank-you note. Donate to Planned Parenthood or. Write letters to editors supporting reproductive freedom. Stuff like that.

Posted by DavidSpero at 03/09/2009 @ 5:42pm
When Eichmann went to trial in the 60's one of the most disturbing aspects was how normal he was. He was a basic guy. His evil wasn't visible.

I thought of that while I read Pollitt's piece here. She is so detached as she pens, "legislatures are doing their best to pile on the obstacles and restrictions: mandatory ultrasounds are the latest fad, with bills being considered in eleven states (because apparently women are so stupid they might not realize they're having an abortion because they're pregnant)". It doesn't even seem to dawn on her what the ultrasound proponents are trying to achieve, so great is her distain for innocent life. I wonder if she can even comprehend it as she glibly writes, "...more and more women will find themselves both needing to terminate a pregnancy and unable to come up with the cost".

Pollitt's article to me is a perfect example of what the world would be without God's light.

Posted by freiheit1 at 03/09/2009 @ 6:00pm
Posted by BizarroRio at 03/09/2009 @ 3:36pm

Each state would decide if they want it or not(abortion). In the end, the states that have legalised abortion would preform them and the states that didn't allow them wouldn't. It would take the heat off those doctors who do not want to actualy perform abortions...they could practice in the states that would not force them to do so.

Some states allow gambling and others don't..there is no issue when one wins from a state that disallows it,....so I don't see a problem here.

I,myself, tend to lean against abortion, but I can see circumstances when it is necessary, so I do not want it illegal. I also have a daughter, and would want to reserve the right for her to make a decision without the state involved....it would be between her and Godergo, keep it legal in areas that want it legal. I am sure NY and CA will have holidays for it someday along with a Natrional Holiday for being gay, so no one should worry about it being reversed. The pro-abortion voices have been screaming "it will end if you elect______",..which never materialises. And never will.

Gotta change the culture and that will never happen. The culture is already gone over the cliff with so many things it is hard to watch.

Could we also have a Holiday for all the Executioners who saved us from the murderers who didn't get out for good behavior?

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/09/2009 @ 6:33pm
Hey Katha;

Your parents were "anti-choicers "; that is why you are here and can write such mindless drivel.

Posted by OldRedJoe at 03/09/2009 @ 6:34pm
That...didn't even make sense.

Posted by Thrawn at 03/09/2009 @ 7:01pm
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/09/2009 @ 3:46pm

So it's "okay" if God aborts the 'baby'?

Or do you subscribe to somethings being "Nature"? In which case, if it's Nature, then you can't object since there is no morality to natural events.

Posted by Mask at 03/09/2009 @ 7:06pm
A national day of recognition sounds a little callous and smug given that this issue is considered by many to be an extremely difficult moral issue at best. Still, the anti-choice crowd has largely determined rules of engagement, and they have used criminality at times to push their agenda, including terrorism. Pro choice supporters must maintain the high ground at all times. If this means going without accolades of public recognition and appreciation, so be it. Private support and thanks is totally appropriate.

Posted by OneVote at 03/09/2009 @ 7:19pm
"Pro choice supporters must maintain the high ground at all times."

Uh, the high ground is killing babies?

What is the 'low ground'?

The lack of moral tension in the pro-choice crowd is, well, chilling.

Posted by OldRedJoe at 03/09/2009 @ 8:26pm
It's threads like these that make me laugh when liberals say Jesus was a liberal...yeah, he would be so proud of the 50 million murdered babies...

Posted by usc1 at 03/09/2009 @ 8:44pm
Posted by usc1 at 03/09/2009 @ 8:44pm |

Curious...can you cite a few verses where Jesus mentioned abortion?

Posted by Mask at 03/09/2009 @ 9:07pm
"A young mother has accused a Florida clinic of botching her abortion, allowing her child to be born alive - then putting the baby into a plastic bag and throwing her out with the trash."

"Now Sycloria Williams is suing Dr Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique and the abortion clinic's owners in a case that has shocked both sides of the abortion debate.

"Aged 18, Ms Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy...."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews /article-1137486/Newborn-baby-thrown- trash-ALIVE-botched-abortion.html

Posted by gangpapist at 03/09/2009 @ 9:22pm
Sally Burgess, head of the National Abortion Federation, thinks that growing up with legal abortion, too many lack "the fire in the belly."

uh, that's not the best choice of metaphor...

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/09/2009 @ 11:16pm
Yea, noted that was really a stupid one by burgess, but what can you expect!

Posted by comancheamerican at 03/10/2009 @ 12:02am
Ignoring the anti-abortion folks...

I wonder how many of my fellow supporters of abortion rights (pro-choice is such a weaselly term) have actually either been in a clinic, escorted a woman into one or defended them? I don't idealize abortion providers since even the decent ones are not perfect and can sometimes book so many clients that a waiting room looks like a cattle car. On the other hand, the level of harassment and more that they take - and I'm not just talking about the doctors, I might add - ranging from being followed, threatened with death and having their clinics blockaded to acid attacks, fire bombs, invasions by armed gunmen and honest to God assassinations, has taken a toll. So, I'm glad Ms. Pollitt is recognizing abortion providers and I salute the best of them, and the toughest of them, and I hope more young doctors decide to provide this service (and that the morning after pill obviates the need for many surgical abortions).

I'm also proud to have spent four years defending clinics from the blockades of Operation Rescue and escorting clients, abortion-seeking or not, past so-called "sidewalk councilors," and to have donated more recently to a couple of funds recommended by Ms. Pollitt that help women of limited means get abortions. I'm pro-abortion rights and damn proud of it.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 01:19am
Briefly, to the anti-abortion folks: When the human soul is a proven scientific fact, then we can talk about when it populates a body and if that is the beginning of life or not. Until then, the closest we have to marking the beginning of life is determining when the fetus has developed enough to have formed a human consciousness, somewhere in the area of week 25 or 27, if memory serves. So the vast majority of abortions are only murder under your RELIGIOUS definition of life, not under any truly scientific standard.

Most late-term abortions are of either severely developmentally defective fetuses or when the mother's life or health (and not just her feelings) are at risk. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to tell anyone that they must, MUST carry a baby to term that could harm the mother or won't live for more than a few hours after being born. That would be a violation of the mother's individual liberty and her right to control her own body and healthcare.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 01:29am
note to frosty: women don't have babies in their "belly"

Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 01:30am
cka2nd, well spoken.

"I wonder how many of my fellow supporters of abortion rights (pro-choice is such a weaselly term) have actually either been in a clinic, escorted a woman into one or defended them?"

well, i sure have, but everyone else here is MALE, and most are conservative, so i seriously doubt it.

Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 01:33am
This is, in the same sense ,the dread scott decision. They're not people ! Well maybe 2 thirds a person. they dont have a soul ! Either way ,it's legal !

Posted by Fathers at 03/10/2009 @ 02:21am
One comes to The Nation website and after a while you think you have seen everything - then someone like Katha Pollitt comes up with something even more bizarre, and in this case, sick.

She wants a day of appreciation for abortionists?

Her mind is warped beyond belief.

Posted by sjchermak at 03/10/2009 @ 03:20am
Or we could celebrate the extortionists that picket and blow up medical clinics and kill doctors!!

I know you cons are against extortion and murder, right?

oops, no. You have situational ethics, just like the rest of us.

80,ooo kids need homes right now.

Where are you, new daddy?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 07:15am
A "National Day of Appreciation" for people that kill babies. How perverse.

Anyone that's intellectually honest can see that a fetus is clearly a person. It has DNA unique from the mother (and father!). It engages in life processes like growth, metabolism, etc.

There are only really four ways a fetus differs from what even those that are pro-abortion identify as a human being: Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency.

Which of those characteristics distinguishes life from non-life? As the young grow and the old shrink, they don't cease to be a human. You don't consider yourself more of a human being than a less developed toddler. We don't consider the elderly, who can often depend on us as much as fetus does, to be inhuman.

That leaves abortion defenders needing to explain exactly what's so magic about a fetus's exit from the womb, that it suddenly imparts it with humanity. And does this magic happen when the first centimeter of the child has left it's mother's body, or does the child's entire body need to be out?

I know those on the far edge of the pro-abortion side must think it's not until the child's entire body has left the mother, since otherwise how do you justify "intact dilation and extraction" (partial birth abortion) where the fetus is removed from the mother, up to it's neck (!), and then has it's brains literally vacuumed out of it's head. But - why? What's so magic that the centimeter before the fetus's head is out of the mother's body, it's still a non-life who's brains can justifiably be literally vacuumed out, but then after the next centimeter, it's a bona-fide human being with rights?

Abortion providers cause DEATH. The should NOT be celebrated or appreciated.

Posted by kazoolist at 03/10/2009 @ 07:34am
Abortion providers cause DEATH. The should NOT be celebrated or appreciated.----Posted by kazoolist at 03/10/2009 @ 07:34am

What should happen to them, kazoo?

Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 07:42am
Posted by kazoolist at 03/10/2009 @ 07:34am

no more Memorial Day or Veterans Day for you?

I don't know your life story, but an abortion provider likely saved my wifes life. Why do you want my wife dead?

Why do you want The State making your reproductive choices?

Indeed, I will celebrate that my wife and I live in a country that allowed her the freedom to make her own decisions, that we are free from the overt influence of mullahs and clerics.

---

JOMMAMMA- what is Chinas abortion policy? Forced, I believe. Next time you visit I expect to read about your protests outside the state funded abortion clinic. Let me know how that works out for you.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 08:44am
JOMMAMMA- what is Chinas abortion policy? Forced, I believe. Next time you visit I expect to read about your protests outside the state funded abortion clinic. Let me know how that works out for you.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 08:44am

China abortion policy is 1 child per family...and most of the abortions are girls. They also have 1.5 billion people..

In the last 5 years or so, the Chinese have move 300 million from the rural areas to the cities...thats the equivelent of our entire nation....and there are 4 more "sections" of 300 million people to transition to the city...now with their exports down over 50% they are in for some problems that we can not even fathom...plus, the have N Koreans pouring over their borders to survive...who ever would have thought people go into China for better times, but then, the Chinese did figure out capitalism...

We never did discuss abortion very much...but they did quiz the hell out of me as to why we let our border to Mexico "disapper" as they called it....

I told them the socialists Democrats wanted voters to become dependent on their party for everything and therefore perpetual power while Repubs wanted cheap labor to keep the prices and taxes low so they could have power...they blinked a few times and asked what the average American thought about the rush of illegals, as they called it(since they have a smaller scale problem with NK) and I told them the average American hated the whole idea, but no body in govt gave a shit about what the average American thought. They said they round theirs up and dump them back where they came from. And were generous by not charging them with breaking Chinas laws. The local Chinese citizen hates the illegals

I blinked a few times...what an interesting idea.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 09:00am
Next time you visit I expect to read about your protests outside the state funded abortion clinic. Let me know how that works out for you.

Posted by crabwalk

You must not have read my many positions on abortion here or the one on this site above....

and your failure to read what others post DOES explain many of your ill informed positions regarding those you refute and despise because of their ideas...apparently you really don't know what they are, havinmg never tsken the time to red asnd think about what they were(or me) was saying. I have noticed you do this quite abit. You must just skim the posts looking for an aha! moment out of context.

Too busy typing , I guess..

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 09:04am
but then, the Chinese did figure out capitalism...----Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 09:00am

Sorry you've been fooled, John...but ask lvlib/anti-socks...

they're STILL Commies! It's all a plot with the Russkies to make it SEEM as if they're not Maoists anymore!

Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 09:04am
crabwalk,

You ask ".....Why do you want The State making your reproductive choices? ...."

There are no such things as "reproductive choices". What makes you think there are?

What lib talked you into believing there are?

Posted by sjchermak at 03/10/2009 @ 09:18am
they're STILL Commies! It's all a plot with the Russkies to make it SEEM as if they're not Maoists anymore!

Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 09:04am

Can't find anything Mao over there(China) any more than one can find God over here.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 09:30am
I blinked a few times...what an interesting idea.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 09:00a

Or we could go after the people that hire illegals. Imagine that! blink blink.

["We never did discuss abortion very much...but they did quiz the hell out of me as to why we let our border to Mexico "disapper" as they called it"[

It was to facilitate the free movement of goods and capital, if I recall. Globalization is a term that comes up when discussing borders, a business term I believe.

What is your opinion on Chinese abortion? Is it different than American abortion? The unanswered question is why do you give China such leeway when you hold your neighbors to such high standards?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 10:22am
"Or we could go after the people that hire illegals. Imagine that! blink blink. "

I have been screaming for that for years.

"at is your opinion on Chinese abortion? Is it different than American abortion? The unanswered question is why do you give China such leeway when you hold your neighbors to such high standards?"

I think it should be legal although my personal feelings have great reservations..I have posted this forever, so you section above proves you do not read what others actualy post..which us why you generalised and are always...wrong.

"It was to facilitate the free movement of goods and capital, if I recall. Globalization is a term that comes up when discussing borders, a business term I believe"

So much for your beliefs and recalls...the same border exists with Canada and has for centurys..we actualy deport Canadians with no papers or expired papers..Globaliation is a business term....but illeagl iommigration is not..it remains a crime to me. It should to you, too.

China sends the NKs back..we have "Community Organisers" register them to vote...even the brilliant orator of the SENATE..Reid one time refered to illegals as.."undocumented Americans"..I shit you not...and it won't belong before the Dems give them all amnesty and American Passports complete with a forgivness of taxes...

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 10:34am
And a Dem voters registration card...of course, with a map of the services available to them and a free ride to the polls

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 10:35am
Can't find anything Mao over there(China) any more than one can find God over here.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 09:30

Really?

Having a tough time finding God in your neighborhood?

http://www.usachurch.com/nebraska/

lincoln/home.htm

10 mile vicinity of Lincoln Nebraska- Results 1 - 10 of 214

Vs:

Chinese Communist Party Headquarters AND Chinese government, interesting that they are one and the same in a non-Maoist country.

"Zhongnanhai, Beijing - Headquarters of CPC and Chinese Government

Wall Banner on the left-hand side: "Long Live the Great Chinese Communist Party!" Wall Banner on the right-hand side: "Long Live the Invincible Mao Zedong Thought!"

in 2002 there were 66 million registered communists in China.

Hu Jintao- Leader of the Communist Party of China.

"Long Live the Invincible Mao Zedong Thought!"

bzzzt bzzzt.

I think you have it backwards, John. You cannot find Mao here, and God in china. Unless one registers ones God with the communist party, then one would be "free" to meet.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 10:37am
Posted by kazoolist at 03/10/2009 @ 07:34am

Anyone that's intellectually honest can see that a fetus is clearly a person.

- So, the Catholic Church was not being intellectually honest when it supported abortion until the point of quickening? One can argue that they were incorrect in holding that position well into the 19th Century, but do you really want to argue that the Church was somehow dishonest (or what, lazy?) in holding this view?

It engages in life processes like growth, metabolism, etc.

- A human being is the sum of all of its life processes in a very complex soup. Just listing some of those life processes does not distinguish a fetus from any other bodily growth.

There are only really four ways a fetus differs from what even those that are pro-abortion identify as a human being: Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency.

- And "Level of Development" is the crucial matter. A fetus is not a fully developed human being. During the course of a pregnancy, it develops to a point whereby most pro-choicers can only support an abortion in exceptional circumstances. But the vast majority of abortions take place well before that point. The development of some basic human consciousness can at least be investigated and hopefully determined by science; the population of a body by its "eternal soul" is a fundamentally religous, not scientific, concept that relies soley on faith and cannot be determined by investigation and empirical research. Until that basic level of consciousness is reached, a fetus is merely just another human growth in the body of an actual, living human being, and that person's rights trump those of a group of cells or non-conscious body parts.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 10:40am
Or a map to John McCains house.

oops, forgot, McCain is a liberal dem.

How many Canadians did the food service industry hire last year?

Did we stop deporting Mexicans? I missd that memo.

I do see illegal immigration as a crime, are you not reading what I write? Shame on you! What kind of person does that?

I also see the hiring of illegals as a crime. Do you support tougher penalties for tose that hire illegals? Would you support jail time for a CEO whose company knowingly hires illegals?

Why do you seldom bring up the businesses that hire these illegals, John? Contrary to what you may think, most don't come here for welfare, they come here because someone pays them to work for less than Americans will work for, in conditions Americans will not tolerate.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 10:45am
China supports N. Korea

They send back the "illegals" that make it to china, from the slave state of N. Korea.

I am sorry, were you not arguing that Elian should be kept in the USA, last week?

So, what you are saying is that all N. Koreans should stay in N. Korea where they belong? They do not have the right to the same freedoms as Iraqis?

I am sure I have that wrong. I find it hard to believe that you WANT N. Koreans to stay in Communist N. Korea under the watchful eyes of the Dear Leader, all because they did not fill out the correct paperwork supplied by the Communist Party of China.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 10:52am
Many people understand the concept of allowing a woman to make her own choice regarding such a dark act: That sometimes it is necessary, and thankfully there are competent people to safely complete the procedure for them.

Only people like Katha Pollitt have the soullessness to "appreciate" it.

Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 03/10/2009 @ 10:53am
China supports the Burmese junta, the N. Korean dictator, The Sudanese war criminal and the continued repression of Tibet.

And John Maasch supports China.

He also claims to support freedom around the world.

Fascinating.

But, I am always wrong and I have a mental disease, liberalism. So what do I know?

You know what's really, really funny? That you guys spend so much time here arguing with the mentally ill liberals. Does that make you proud, to debate with mentally ill people?

Do you go down to state phsych hospitals and poke fun at the inmates when not online? If not, why not?

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 10:58am
" Until that basic level of consciousness is reached, a fetus is merely just another human growth in the body of an actual, living human being, and that person's rights trump those of a group of cells or non-conscious body parts"

and yet we have conservatives here who say:

"You must not have read my many positions on abortion here or the one on this site above...."

that's cuz conservatives don't have any positions on abortion. they only have:

"Abortion providers cause DEATH. The should NOT be celebrated or appreciated"

look for yourself, conservatives. do you actually contribute something meaningful to the debate, or do you just troll around (daily) and pollute it?

Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 10:58am
"Only people like Katha Pollitt have the soullessness to "appreciate" it."

if nobody provided abortions, then we would live in an extremely soulless place.

so, yes, abortion providers do something we should actually appreciate (for lack of a a better word).

we do have a little thing called 'veterans day', remember.

and that did our veterans do? kill people.

Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 11:02am
Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 10:37am

When was the last time you were in China?

How many times have you been there?

Are you speaking from experience?

Had to goggle Lincoln to find info on churches? I could tell if you needed to ask.

Or are speaking from your own views cultivated from the left version of truth regarding China? And the business world.

Typical.

I return to China in April or May...

BZZT BZZZT

I traveled 200 miles in different directions from Beijing, China..to cities large and small..had dicussions with Chinese guys in a train staions and on the street about Christian churhes I see across the street....

I, too, see the slogans on walls out side the homes and villages through out the country...all faded and barely legible...and when I asked what they said..I was given the translations..."Work hard for the glorious Revolution and the progress of the people"...and all laughed, as we drove by miles of these..not relevent to a society that is opening up for growth and the modern life.

I also see slogans on our govt buildings and memorials..take Jefferson Memorial or Lincon...and sadly, all their slogans are ignored by the left for generations..even on our money, so spare me the posting of Chinese slogans in the capitol on their govt buildings, or anywhere else.

I also asked why they were still there and faded..he said, no one wants to waste paint on a wall when it can be used on the house..too, expensive.

But to be fair, I am willing to listen to your first hand experiences in China. Or anywhere else.. I have been there 4 times, in 4 different sections of the country..

BTW, you build homes for profit, corrrect?

There are thousands of Ameroicans living in China ..building cul de sac homes for the Chinese mid

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:04am
cont,..

the Chinese and Indian, middle class... by American construction companies...and the car of choice by sucessful Chinese middle class.....?

the Buick.

I will await your posts of your experince, first hand..of the times and events you learned while in China, India, Europe, Latin or South America?

and not from...Vermont...been there and left.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:07am
jommama, crabwalk---

can we please stay on topic?

thanks

Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 11:08am
BTW, you build homes for profit, corrrect?

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:04am

nope.

I move houses and rent them out, for profit.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 11:08am
can we please stay on topic?

thanks

Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 11:08am

sure thing.

abortion.

safe and legal.

please.

No state control of reproduction. Unlike China.

but, I digress, again.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 11:13am
Crab,

"But, I am always wrong and I have a mental disease, liberalism. So what do I know"

Good point...never thought of that but it might explain a few things...

You know what you have read and sounds realisticv and sensable to you...I have posted from experience...

And because I do some business with China(selling OUR products there, and creating jobs HERE) does not mean I carte blanche support all things Chinese..to make that leap to me is a...mental disorder, perhaps.

I do not support the Chinese in Tibet, Burma(I saw the border,have you?) and I do not support most things the Chinese do...but I do not support all the things the US does....nor do I support the things Iran does...think we should engage them?

Go to China some time and then we can talk and share our experiences...but until then, you are reduced to lefty talking points on this subject and no experience.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:13am
I move houses and rent them out, for profit.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 11:08am

I think that is really cool...literaly move a house off the foundation and set it up on a new one somewhere else? I saw a house "going down the road" once and was amazed...how do you prevent the house from "bending" and not cracking all the walls?...even on a bump in the road?

Darlaloon...

We are on task..Abortion and it was questioned on my opinon of it in China...

and my opinon is the same here...govt should be out of it.

I do not protest it here nor would I protest it there.

Get off drugs now...treatment for you..not jail is my position.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:18am
Can't find anything Mao over there(China) any more than one can find God over here.----Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 09:30am

Lvlib says it's a sinister plot...they're still Commies! Mao, Little Red Book, Das Kapital, the whole smash.

Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 11:22am
"I think that is really cool...literaly move a house off the foundation and set it up on a new one somewhere else? I saw a house "going down the road" once and was amazed...how do you prevent the house from "bending" and not cracking all the walls?...even on a bump in the road?"

Sometimes we do not prevent that. It happens. We then go back and repair any craks. My dad moved one with a stone chimney attached, he wrapped a cable around the whole house and chimney. Mainly we prevent cracking by going r..e..a..l..l..y slow.

what is bad is when one get's stuck on a RR track. We had that happen once, the gate started to come down and the lights started to flash. The RR guy stood there and said "There isn't supposed to be a train coming!"

There wasn't, the sensor was set off by all the equipment we had around, but it was scary, scary for a while.

the first two my dad moved, he paid a buck for both houses!

Recycle, reuse. Make profit. the new capitalism.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 11:27am
"and my opinon is the same here...govt should be out of it."

that's an utterly insane opinion, and you know it.

Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 11:27am
Oh, My, G-d!!!

Has YourJomama learned how to use spell check?

Bravo, John, Bravo!

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 11:27am
Go to China some time and then we can talk and share our experiences...but until then, you are reduced to lefty talking points on this subject and no experience.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:13a

You make a point.

I will visit China when they stop supporting the above mentioned dictators. I don't go to Cuba either.

My loss.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 11:29am
Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 11:27am

I would love to see you move one...invite me..I will pay my own expenses and buy you dinner for the experience....:)

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:30am
Oh, My, G-d!!!

Has YourJomama learned how to use spell check?

Bravo, John, Bravo!

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 11:27am

:)

I am on my laptop...and can type better than on iphone....but I spend as much time correcting as I do typing.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:32am
Darlaloon,

My advice is the same...

I do not protest for or against abortion anywhere....

Get off drugs now...treatment for you..not jail is my position.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:33am
ycle, reuse. Make profit. the new capitalism.

Posted by crabwalk at 03/10/2009 @ 11:27am

I love it...I hope you get rich..and I want you to get rich and keep the fruits of your labors...

And I would have traded with Cuba 50 years ago..Castro would have been in a museum by now.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:35am
so john, if making sure abortions remain safe and legal isn't the government's role, then.....?

Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 11:52am
Actually, we should cut MAASCH some slack....he's broken with right-wing orthodoxy now on TWO occasions (three if you include Larry's "China isn't capitalist" paranoia)--

1. "treatment for you..not jail is my position."---Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:33am |

And 2. "And I would have traded with Cuba 50 years ago..Castro would have been in a museum by now."---Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 11:35am

Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 12:17pm
To get back on topic . . .

The National Day appears to have been called by the National Abortion Federation. In other words, it's the abortion providers' appeal to others to appreciate them. Anyone can call such a day. It has no official standing, but it's a free country.

". . . man oh man could they use some love." With this I can wholeheartedly agree. We should be able to agree on that without approving of how they make their living.

Research has shown that those who perform abortions suffer from Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress, as do combat soldiers and executioners. (See Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress : The Psychological Consequences of Killing by Rachel M. MacNair, Praeger, 2005) I don't agree with what any of these people do, but I do think we are called to love them and recognize the traumatic stress from which they suffer.

I would like to live in a society where everyone was loved, and no one at any stage of life was killed.

Posted by Bill Samuel at 03/10/2009 @ 1:08pm
If the biggest argument against abortion is the "religious belief" claim in exactly when the "soul" is sent down by "god," then those arguments should just be ignored. How do you intelligently argue with something that cannot be proven or unproven?

If their argument is the "sanctity of life," then they should be redirected to issues of capital punishment, domestic violence homicide, and war. There are people dying every day. Where is their outrage?

The states should not be allowed to decide for themselves to what extent they feel like making abortion hard for a woman to obtain, any more than the states should be allowed to pick and choose which types of discrimination are "okay" with them. So, you'd have some civil rights in Missouri, but not so much in Virginia? That's ridiculous, and undermines the purpose and intent of a Republic, and a "United States."

Bottom line = people who are against abortion should not have one. Roe vs. Wade guaranteed a RIGHT TO PRIVACY. That right is violated every time an anti-abortionist opens their mouth. That right is violated every time a state passes a law interjecting "some people's" moral beliefs on a pregnant woman. Her right to privacy is violated every time threats, coercion or pressure are employed to try and change her mind.

Like it or not, pregnancy is not a social condition. It is an individual condition. Only the individual to whom it applies has the right to decide whether or not they wish to bring a life into the world. Not God, and not You.

Posted by Tava at 03/10/2009 @ 1:09pm
Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 11:52am 

Wait, what? Keeping abortions legal is equivalent to the government staying out, isn't it? It means the government does nothing to punish X action.

As for keeping them safe...the government doesn't do that in the status quo. There's no regulation, as far as I know, except maybe a requirement of registered physicians.

Posted by Thrawn at 03/10/2009 @ 1:14pm
See Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress : The Psychological Consequences of Killing by Rachel M. MacNair, Praeger, 2005)---Posted by Bill Samuel at 03/10/2009 @ 1:08pm

Okay...WHERE can I "see" that?

Posted by Mask at 03/10/2009 @ 1:23pm
Keeping abortions legal is equivalent to the government staying out, isn't it? It means the government does nothing to punish X action.

Posted by Thrawn at 03/10/2009 @ 1:14pm

That would be my interpretation.

Posted by YourJomamma at 03/10/2009 @ 1:23pm
and that did our veterans do? kill people.

Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 11:02am

If you can find a veteran with as many confirmed kills as an experienced abortionist, let me know. I want to meet that bad MFer!

BTW, most veterans have never killed anybody, which is why I'm starting a new holiday for the only veterans worth their salt. Killers Day!

Posted by gangpapist at 03/10/2009 @ 2:10pm
"Keeping abortions legal is equivalent to the government staying out, isn't it?"

no, it's not.

Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 2:16pm
How? The only way that's not the case is if you're specifically talking about the FEDERAL government. If you are, then keeping abortion legal would require government involvement, by making sure that state governments don't ban abortion.

However, if you're using "government" in the more broad, natural way that includes all levels of government, then keeping something legal definitionally means not taking action with regards to it. Why? Because acts are presumed legal until the government acts to make them illegal.

Posted by Thrawn at 03/10/2009 @ 3:00pm
Posted by Tava at 03/10/2009 @ 1:09pm

I agreed with almost everything in your post, Tava, but I just think you went a bit too far in claiming that the right to privacy is violated "every time an anti-abortionist opens their mouth." As much as I despise them, even so-called "sidewalk councilors" have a right to free speech.

You're right on the button, though, when you say "Her right to privacy is violated every time threats, coercion or pressure are employed to try and change her mind." I just think we can make the distinction between speech that crosses the line into "threats, coercion or pressure" and speech that tries to change public policy or the mind of a woman on a sidewalk or in a parking lot. Depending on what the woman wanted, as an escort I have both tried to drown out or screen said speech and stepped back and let her listen to it. Just as it is her choice to have an abortion or not, it is her choice whether she wants to listen to the anti's or not.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 4:39pm
One of the best organizations in the world is "Planned Parenthood". When most of the uninformed think of them, they only remember the word "Abortion". But P P is also supreme in family planning and sex education for teens and other vulnerable groups. And man, do we need a lot more of these things now.

Posted by Guitar Man at 03/10/2009 @ 4:47pm
That right is violated every time an anti-abortionist opens their mouth.

Posted by Tava at 03/10/2009 @ 1:09pm

Yep. Another example, along with Muslims, Palestinians, college students, that must be protected from speech they disagree with or that "offends" them.

Can we just get these right-wing fascists in the ovens already? It's us or them.

Posted by gangpapist at 03/10/2009 @ 6:04pm
Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 4:39pm 

I'll narrow it further. I think threats and things like that are clearly problematic, but I don't understand why persuasion is. Obviously, this doesn't mean "lots of people should just scream a lot and look angry," but if someone is genuinely trying to persuade someone to change their mind, why on Earth is that problematic? Persuasion is a large part of why we protect speech to begin with.

Posted by Thrawn at 03/10/2009 @ 7:11pm
. The development of some basic human consciousness can at least be investigated and hopefully determined by science; the population of a body by its "eternal soul" is a fundamentally religous, not scientific, concept that relies soley on faith and cannot be determined by investigation and empirical research. Until that basic level of consciousness is reached, a fetus is merely just another human growth in the body of an actual, living human being, and that person's rights trump those of a group of cells or non-conscious body parts.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 10:40am

Since you cannot know when human conciousness begins, it seems then criminal to make an arbitrary decision based upon purely subjective terms.

Should we euthanize Alzheimers patients because they don't appear to recognize anyone or anything?

With newer technologies, I got to witness first hand a few years ago when one of my grandson's was still in his mother's womb at 12 and 13 weeks. We watched him respond to stimulus, suck his thumb and even smile when touched.

So I prefer to stand on the side that the life in the womb is precious and should not be dependent on the emotional state of mind of the mother.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 8:26pm
Posted by Thrawn at 03/10/2009 @ 7:11pm

I agree, as I thought I made clear in the following:

"Depending on what the woman wanted, as an escort I have both tried to drown out or screen said speech and stepped back and let her listen to it. Just as it is her choice to have an abortion or not, it is her choice whether she wants to listen to the anti's or not."

Whether she wanted to listen to the attempt to persuade here was what governed my actions.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 4:39pm

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 8:54pm
Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 8:54pm

Do you have any children?

Posted by ACook at 03/10/2009 @ 8:57pm
Since you cannot know when human conciousness begins, it seems then criminal to make an arbitrary decision based upon purely subjective terms.

Should we euthanize Alzheimers patients because they don't appear to recognize anyone or anything?

With newer technologies, I got to witness first hand a few years ago when one of my grandson's was still in his mother's womb at 12 and 13 weeks. We watched him respond to stimulus, suck his thumb and even smile when touched.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 8:26pm

New research is making advances in determining the existence of human consciousness, both in the fetus and in those in comas. The latter is one of the several reasons I am very queazy over euthanasia.

I believe what you saw were autonomic reactions, not conscious ones.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 9:02pm
I believe what you saw were autonomic reactions, not conscious ones.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 9:02pm

But you don't know that, and that is the critical factor.

When I see a baby in the womb smile because it is touched, it is very much a stretch to say without evidence to the contrary that it has no emotions.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 9:04pm
In fact, unless we have good reason to believe otherwise, don't we generally presume consciousness rather than lack of emotions? It seems like that's why no one credibly believes that all other "people" they see are robots imitating people.

Posted by Thrawn at 03/10/2009 @ 9:48pm
You are THE MOST sick, THE MOST TWISTED, and THE MOST to-be-pitied people on the face of the planet.

I cannot believe the teh depth of the abyss you baby killers have sunk to. You make me puke.

At least NAZIs wore uniforms.

Posted by HisMan at 03/10/2009 @ 9:59pm
All this talk about women's rights... what about women's duties? If women have the right to decide what happens to their bodies do they not also have a duty towards those happen to share those bodies? After all, let's not forget that in the vast majority of cases pregnancy is the direct result of a woman's choice to have sex. Once again, if women have the right to choose whether or not to have sex, and what protection to use, don't they also have a duty to accept the consequences of their actions if they do get pregnant?

I do think that women who've been raped should have the right to get an abortion (I'm not part of the "pro-life" crowd, as you Americans call it), but that's because it wasn't their choice.

Posted by sand-12 at 03/10/2009 @ 11:22pm
note to frosty: women don't have babies in their "belly"

Posted by darladoon at 03/10/2009 @ 01:30am

darla, por favor.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 03/11/2009 @ 12:06am
"So I prefer to stand on the side that the life in the womb is precious and should not be dependent on the emotional state of mind of the mother"

and yet the fetus is, with certainty, wholly dependent on the mother, in ways that should alone redefine what dependence means. that fetus is even getting air from the mother. and that same mother, hell most mothers, can quite easily have more and more fetuses. in fact, we can just use women for that purpose (done it for thousands and thousands of years, in fact).

so, why is *every* single f*cking fetus so valuable? the answer is simple: no fetus is valuable, even the one that "smiled" in your friend's womb.

but i appreciate your story, antisocialist.

"After all, let's not forget that in the vast majority of cases pregnancy is the direct result of a woman's choice to have sex. "

oh, really? "direct result of the WOMAN'S choice to have sex"......with........WHO?

and thrawn, perhaps you right.

Posted by darladoon at 03/11/2009 @ 12:59am
@ Darladoon

Well... the guy she decided to have sex with, obviously. What did that question even mean?

Posted by sand-12 at 03/11/2009 @ 01:06am
you know what always gets me about this abortion debate? that nobody seems to engage the deepest of questions: does life have value?

i say it doesn't.

if a man and a woman plan to engage in intercourse, for the express of having a baby, and that get going one night, and start doing it. the man is just about to let out a huge load, the mother load, and all of a sudden the phone rings, and their distracted. she answers it, and it's her mother (deep conversation awaits). the intercourse is over, for the night.

was their not a clear potential for a specific lifeform in that moment, which was then aborted?

what makes this type of abortion any different from a late term abortion (in terms of the value of the life)?

another question: if most women can make babies, a seemingly infinite amount of babies, then doesn't this diminish the value of life?

final question: if i plant a seed, and i don't nurture it, is that a crime?

Posted by darladoon at 03/11/2009 @ 01:08am
Oh right, you were doing the feminist man-hating thing! Now I get it... and it still makes no sense. The woman chooses whether or not to have sex.

Posted by sand-12 at 03/11/2009 @ 01:08am
If there's no difference between not shooting your load and getting a late term abortion, how is smothering your child any different?

Posted by sand-12 at 03/11/2009 @ 01:09am
sand-12, the point is: it's never just one person's choice to have sex. in fact, women are far less likely to initiate sex than men. that is a fact.

and, gee, i wonder WHY women would be far less likely to initiate sex (uh, pregnancy, duh).

Posted by darladoon at 03/11/2009 @ 01:10am
"how is smothering your child any different?"

because a child is not a fetus.

Posted by darladoon at 03/11/2009 @ 01:11am
First, is "no" not in a woman's vocabulary?

Second, a child is not a fetus but it is alive, and you said that life has no value (thus implying that you accept that fetuses are alive).

Darladoon, I have nothing but respect for the intelligent supporters of the pro-choice campaign. Unfortunately you're not one of them.

Posted by sand-12 at 03/11/2009 @ 01:19am
"First, is "no" not in a woman's vocabulary?"

better question: is "no" in a man's vocabulary? men are far more aggressive and more demanding. in the heat of the moment, men often control a situation. and there are TWO people involved.

"Second, a child is not a fetus but it is alive, and you said that life has no value (thus implying that you accept that fetuses are alive)."

the first part of this makes no sense.

"I have nothing but respect for the intelligent supporters of the pro-choice campaign. Unfortunately you're not one of them."

"intelligent supporters" = ones who agree with you

Posted by darladoon at 03/11/2009 @ 01:41am
Ugh...

Sod this, I'll be back in the morning. Perhaps there'll be someone with some basic reading comprehension skills who I can discuss this with.

Posted by sand-12 at 03/11/2009 @ 01:42am
sand, why does life have value, if any woman, at any time, can produce it?

if something is infinite, how does it have value?

are these intelligent enough questions for you?

Posted by darladoon at 03/11/2009 @ 01:43am
Since you cannot know when human conciousness begins, it seems then criminal to make an arbitrary decision based upon purely subjective terms.----Posted by antisocialist at 03/10/2009 @ 8:26pm

So does a embryonic blastocyst made up of a few dozen cells have "human consciousness"?

Posted by Mask at 03/11/2009 @ 08:00am
Posted by darladoon at 03/11/2009 @ 01:08am

There is a real difference between a fetus that never was or an early stage fetus, on the one hand, and a late-term fetus or baby on the other. Because of your focus on the dependence of the fetus on the mother - a legitimate line of argument (ever read the late Ellen Willis on the subject?) - you seem to be drawing a line at the baby's birth, which is certainly important, but are ignoring the development of the fetus into a baby. A late-term fetus has greater value than an early-term one precisely because the latter is more fully developed and closer to being a full-fledged human being. Which is not to say that late-term abortion is never justified, but most women would never want to go through it if they could avoid one, for both the increased psychological and physical trauma of the surgery.

And I could understand sand-12's confusion over "does life have value? i say it doesn't." Sounded pretty nihilistic to me.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/11/2009 @ 09:47am
Do you have any children?

Posted by ACook at 03/10/2009 @ 8:57pm

No, but I come from a big family (and I love big families) and a bunch of nieces and nephews, including adopted ones.

But please, don't try to pull the trick of claiming to trump reasoning with emotional connections. Reason and principles can and should trump personal emotion, both in making public policy and in responding to personal crisis. That's why I have enormous respect for the families of murder victims who oppose the death penalty for their loved one's killer.

Not saying that the emotions should be ignored, but we've allowed people to wallow in them and society to be swayed by them.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/11/2009 @ 09:54am
...Reason and principles can and should trump personal emotion, both in making public policy and in responding to personal crisis...

Posted by cka2nd at 03/11/2009 @ 09:54am

Spoken like....Dr. Spock!

"can...trump", sure, and almost always, it does....as the vast majority of murder victims' families do not kill the accused outright.

"should...trump"? The endless Breakdowns in this, is what make us human....think going Postal as one extreme.

You have no children, and sorry, coming from a big family don't mean jack. You can't conceive of yourself doing whatever it takes to save any child while I can easily see myself doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to save mine....so long as my child is not some psychopath like the Columbine killers or the one in Germany today.

Posted by Happy at 03/11/2009 @ 10:17am
" Sounded pretty nihilistic to me"

it's actually more buddhist than nihilist.

Posted by darladoon at 03/11/2009 @ 10:47am
so, why is *every* single f*cking fetus so valuable? the answer is simple: no fetus is valuable, even the one that "smiled" in your friend's womb.

but i appreciate your story, antisocialist.

"After all, let's not forget that in the vast majority of cases pregnancy is the direct result of a woman's choice to have sex. "

oh, really? "direct result of the WOMAN'S choice to have sex"......with........WHO?

and thrawn, perhaps you right.

Posted by darladoon at 03/11/2009 @ 12:59am

1st of all, the "friend" was my daughter-in-law, and the child in the womb is now my 2 year old grandson.

And your post actually made me feel sorry for you that you don't find the babies that women carry to have value.

Why don't you ask any expectant mother if she thinks that the baby she is carrying is worthless?

I don't think you will like the answers.

So, as I said, your comments really made me feel sorry that you have such a lack of appreciation for one type of human life when you are always talking about views that are polar opposite of that about most human life.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/11/2009 @ 12:09pm
Abortion providers should be thanked everyday because without the provider, you have no choice. Legal abortion is an empty notion without the doctors, nurses, clinical staff and owners/operators who, despite ongoing harassment and having to live in the shadow of the murders of doctor's and staff in the 1990s, continue to provide caring and compassionate service to women. Abortion is about enabling women to live lives of their choosing - and what could be more worthy of appreciation than that!

www.ontheissuesmagazine.com

Posted by OnTheIssuesMagazine at 03/11/2009 @ 12:31pm
Posted by OnTheIssuesMagazine at 03/11/2009 @ 12:31pm

You may think that murdering babies is progress for women, but the reality is that it is a dehumanizing choice.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/11/2009 @ 12:35pm
I'm pro-abortion rights and damn proud of it.

Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 01:19am

May God have mercy on your soul...but I wouldn't count on it.

Posted by fram at 03/11/2009 @ 12:37pm
*sigh*

I hate it when these discussions just go around and around and around. Darla tries to chart a new course, but then realizes that the question still revolves around one crucial premise, as she admits here:

<<"how is smothering your child any different?"

because a child is not a fetus.

Posted by darladoon at 03/11/2009 @ 01:11am>>

This means, I think, that the "does life have value?" analysis is completely irrelevant. Why? Because she refuses to defend smothering a child. The relevant question, then, as it has always been, is whether or not a fetus counts as a human being in the same way as a child does, or at least enough to have some claim against being killed. If it doesn't, then the discussion is clearly over and the pro-choice side is just correct. If it does, however, I think your only real alternative is to look to the "violinist" hypothetical that one feminist pro-choicer defends (though I can't remember her name to save my life).

That, it seems to me, is what the debate ultimately becomes about. Is the fetus human in a morally relevant sense, such that it reaches the moral brightline for rights, and if so, does it have a claim despite its imposition (though often chosen, unless you actually believe that all sex is rape) upon another full human being.

Posted by Happy at 03/11/2009 @ 10:17am

Or, perhaps, Captain Spock?

Posted by Thrawn at 03/11/2009 @ 1:35pm
As a young woman who had to make the decision to have an abortion, I DO appreciate providers. I especially appreciate and will always appreciate Planned Parenthood for helping me when I truly needed help. No, I did not need help making my decision to terminate. That was not difficult. All I know is PP saved my life.

Now, as a mom of two wonderful daughters who I love, cherish, value and WANTED, I am worried about their future and the future of other young girls and women if there are no providers and staff available. I always wished I had the desire and knowledge to study medicine and become a doctor. If I could have, I would have been a gynecologist and I would provide abortion services.

As for escorting women at clinics, I've wanted to do it, but feared my temper when dealing with the so called side walk counselors and other so called pro lifers. I have so little patience and tolerance for them. So, no I haven't done it. To those who have I appreciate your service in protecting women and women's right to choose. To the article author, thanks for writing this. It's makes me realize that unfortunately there is still so much to do and I need to get active.

Posted by Yucie at 03/11/2009 @ 10:00pm
BOOM......BOOM......BOOM! The rockets red glare. The BOMBS bursting in.......

Posted by uPay2Play1 at 03/11/2009 @ 10:14pm
Game over...

Michael Steele, RNC Chair...just said abortion should be an individual choice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/11/ steele-abortion-is-an-ind_n_174092.html

Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 08:56am
Donate to Planned Parenthood Posted by DavidSpero at 03/09/2009 @ 5:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

works for me.

and go to the ballot box.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/12/2009 @ 3:25pm
such mindless drivel. Posted by OldRedJoe at 03/09/2009 @ 6:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Posted by emile duBois at 03/12/2009 @ 3:28pm
such mindless drivel. Posted by OldRedJoe at 03/09/2009 @ 6:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person I'm pro-abortion rights and damn proud of it. Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 01:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

very fine. my compliments.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/12/2009 @ 3:32pm
such mindless drivel. Posted by OldRedJoe at 03/09/2009 @ 6:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person I'm pro-abortion rights and damn proud of it. Posted by cka2nd at 03/10/2009 @ 01:19am | ignore this person | warn this person

very fine. my compliments.Or, perhaps, Captain Spock? Posted by Thrawn at 03/11/2009 @ 1:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Thrawn, Thrawn, your ignorance is showing. there was only ONE captain on the Enterprise. Spock was known as Mr. Spock.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/12/2009 @ 3:34pm
May God have mercy on your soul...but I wouldn't count on it. Posted by fram at 03/11/2009 @ 12:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

such mindless drivel.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/12/2009 @ 3:38pm
A few thoughts...

Being pro-life isn't a matter of religious belief - it's Biology 101 that a new human being exists at the moment of conception. Our Declaration of Independence says all human beings are created equal & endowed by our Creator (NOT our mothers' choices) with the right to life. We often haven't lived up to that noble ideal, but as a 60s teenager I saw the civil rights movement making great strides to value all humans equally. From this perspective Roe v. Wade, by putting a whole class of human beings outside the laws' protection, is a tragic setback for human rights.

Many argue that abortion is necessary to protect women's health. But we aren't doing that if we don't hold abortion providers to the same high standards as all other medical providers. What Ms. Pollitt sees as "obstacles" can also been seen as safeguards to ensure women are fully informed about the procedure, risks, alternatives, etc. If abortion is "between a woman and her doctor," why can't we require that she consult her own gynecologist (who knows her medical history and cares about her health) before she puts herself in the hands of someone she's never met, who will offer her only one choice? If commercials for Viagra and Lipitor are required to list all "possible side-effects," no matter how unlikely, why can't we require the same of abortion providers? Why do we let them dismiss women's doubts & fears with rationalizations like "it's only a blob of tissue"? Maybe pro-life demonstrators are performing a needed service by informing women about things the abortion providers would rather they didn't know.

So I won't be celebrating abortion providers, or donating to Planned Parenthood - they get too much of my tax money as it is.

Posted by anyafontaine at 03/12/2009 @ 4:22pm
Posted by emile duBois at 03/12/2009 @ 3:34pm 

Au contraire. From The Voyage Home:

Federation Council president: Captain Spock, you do not stand accused.

Spock: Mister President, I stand with my shipmates.

Federation Council president: As you wish.

Official rank of Captain, even if not always called it; I believe someone has just been out-trekked :D

Posted by Thrawn at 03/12/2009 @ 6:10pm
First, nice smack down of our know-it-all Professor JOHANNES, Thrawn.

Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 6:35pm
This is the RNC Chair from less than 3 years ago--"Meet The Press"

MR. RUSSERT: But you hope that the Court keeps Roe v. Wade in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: I think the Court will evaluate the law as society progresses, as the Court is supposed to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But what's your position? Do you want them to sustain it or overturn it?

LT. GOV. STEELE: Well, I think, I think, I think Roe vs. Wade, Roe vs. Wade is a, is a matter that should've been left to the states to decide, ultimately. But it, it is where it is today, and the courts will ultimately decide whether or not this, this gets addressed by the states, goes back to the states in some form or they overturn it outright.

MR. RUSSERT: Is is your desire to keep it in place?

LT. GOV. STEELE: My desire is that we follow what stare decisis is at this point, yes.

Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 6:37pm
This is the RNC Chair from less than 3 years ago--"Meet The Press"

Posted by Mask at 03/12/2009 @ 6:37pm

And here's Steele from today. Suppose it's a bit hard to keep up with all the news. Especially American news:

On Thursday morning, Mr. Steele issued a statement that read:

"I am pro-life, always have been, always will be.

I tried to present why I am pro-life while recognizing that my mother had a "choice" before deciding to put me up for adoption. I thank her every day for supporting life. The strength of the pro-life movement lies in choosing life and sharing the wisdom of that choice with those who face difficult circumstances. They did that for my mother and I am here today because they did. In my view Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be repealed. I realize that there are good people in our party who disagree with me on this issue.

But the Republican Party is and will continue to be the party of life. I support our platform and its call for a Human Life Amendment. It is important that we stand up for the defenseless and that we continue to work to change the hearts and minds of our fellow countrymen so that we can welcome all children and protect them under the law. "

(BTW noticed the suggestion for a Butcher's National Day. Why not have them on the same day?)

Posted by lrjones4 at 03/12/2009 @ 9:05pm
"...the price of a first trimester abortion is about what it was thirty years ago..."

Well, that one apparently made it past the censors. I wonder if Katha realizes she just made a great, one-line argument for removing as much government (and third-party payers) from health care as possible.

Posted by plainbruce at 03/12/2009 @ 10:09pm
Posted by Thrawn at 03/12/2009 @ 6:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

sorry, I was referring to the original Startrek. the one and only. who cares what happened in movie number five or is it 15.

in the very early seventies I had a friend who had all the Startrek episodes on tape. reel to reel color tape. most unusual. the fellow was most unusual too, dropped out of high school to work at the computer dept of AP. that's when a computer was the size of a minivan.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2009 @ 09:47am
syfriendly: Good one about conservatives resembling Caligula and the sea! If I weren't in the public library, I'd roll off my stool!

As for obstacles to abortion, I think they're not nearly as daunting as Katha Pollitt would have one believe. Still, they involve a lot disingenuity. I'd love to see those ultrasound squads be required to show pregnant women an image of their unborn child in its actual size. That would take the wind out of their sails.

Posted by DP in TC at 03/13/2009 @ 10:30am
I'd love to see those ultrasound squads be required to show pregnant women an image of their unborn child in its actual size. That would take the wind out of their sails. Posted by DP in TC at 03/13/2009 @ 10:30am | ignore this person | warn this person

sounds pretty stalinist to me.

how about making "prolifers" watch the results of back alley abortions. that would take the wind out of their sails.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2009 @ 12:26pm
how about making "prolifers" watch the results of back alley abortions. that would take the wind out of their sails.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2009 @ 12:26pm

No, it would just reinforce why abortion is wrong.

Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 12:58pm
how about making army recruits and their parents watch film of paraplegics and other permanently wounded GIs. that would take the wind out of their sails.

Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2009 @ 2:50pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/12/2009 @ 9:05pm

Yes, lr, that was AFTER of course the screaming started at him sounding like OLD Michael Steele.

But question...given what he ORIGINALLY said and his ambigious statements on Meet The Press as a Senatorial candidate 3 years ago....

you think pushing the "pro-life" agenda is going to be a "top priority" for him? Will he INSIST on strident "pro-life" candidates winning nominations? Or be more "flexible" in Purple Districts/States?

Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 2:51pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/13/2009 @ 12:58pm

Hey, Larry, our ol' pal SLIVER once said he could accept 200-250 women dying each year from botched illegal abortions...

you be cool with that figure or willing to go higher?

Ref: "True, to a point. 1,300,000 certain and deliberate deaths vs. 250 unfortunate and unnecessary deaths through ill-advised DIY surgery. Lesser of two evils...kinda like our voting process."---Posted by SLIVER 09/25/2007 @ 8:40pm

Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 2:54pm
you think pushing the "pro-life" agenda is going to be a "top priority" for him? Will he INSIST on strident "pro-life" candidates winning nominations? Or be more "flexible" in Purple Districts/States?

Posted by Mask at 03/13/2009 @ 2:51pm

From my observation there are people on both sides that are obsessive if not fanatical. Steele may have about the right approach.

Pro-lifers who resort to violence are inconsistent, particularly those with religious convictions, who should remember the injunction to not take vengeance on anyone as "vengence is mine" (God speaking) and every one will face a final day of judgment and in the end justice will be done. If abortion is murder then that will be a charge laid to the account of the unrepentant. That seems to me to be a reasonable position, which should hold in check those who hold religious convictions against abortion and want to cut God out of the final day vengeance (justice) bit.

The fanatics on the other side, it seems to me, are pretty intent on telling everyone else to rack off because it is a private matter. Some of these I'm pretty sure have never had children and are less likely to have been involved in abortion or assisting in its commission. They are social engineers who well know that the law is always didactic so they want to ensure the law teaches the community or nation nothing beyond the limits of their own moral sense.

Killing human fetuses in a woman's womb does not require any latent religious presuppositions to make even a rationalist ponder seriously the nature of a society that legalises and supports its practice with taxpayers money.

It seems to me then that it is a debate, we should keep having, because of its implications for where a society, without a cohesive moral perspective, is heading.

Posted by lrjones4 at 03/13/2009 @ 6:46pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 03/13/2009 @ 6:46pm

What is YOUR position, legallly/legislatively?

Posted by Mask at 03/14/2009 @ 09:29am
It is unfortunate that abortion happens, but the last time I looked, it is, with some guidelines, a legal and constitutional procedure.

Also last time I looked, Repubs were at the wheel in Congress 6 of the last 8 years, the White House 8 for 8, the Supreme Curt now benching Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, to wit: where the hell was the Human Life Amendment?

Or could it be the Repub Party is just USING you folks and your earnest desire to see this, admittedly, unfortunate procedure ended. (Though we all know it won't, in fact, ever be, will it, just pushed underground, like the results of our ever-successful war on drugs?).

Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/14/2009 @ 2:59pm
That's what it is, isn't it?

The modern day Republican Party just knows how to push people's buttons on this issue, but always, somehow, comes up shy on the delivery (no pun).

Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/14/2009 @ 3:07pm
What is YOUR position, legallly/legislatively?

Posted by Mask at 03/14/2009 @ 09:29am

Mask I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision is that in that 7-2 decision (and the dissenters were more at pains to point out a possible misuse of the Constitution rather than deal with the issue of abortion) the Court created a right of privacy for the fetus bearing woman and denied any rights to the fetus until "viability". That could and has been used to mean until birth.

What influenced the Court to grant that right may have been the claim that the fetus is part of the woman and thus in aborting it she is exercising a right over her own body. That is of course tantamount to a pre-scientific view of the fetus. At fault for the same reason is the position that determining the welfare of the fetus should also be a right exercised by the male sperm donor.

DNA testing tells us unequivocally that the fetus has its own unique set of genes so that it is not part of the woman's body but a unique human individual with the full potential to develop into a unique human person. The right granted to a woman by the Court is not solely over her own body (a private matter) as the justices ruled but also over a distinct, unique human being with potential for full person hood. Thus it is no more a private matter than a crime committed by a member of a family against another member in, say, the privacy of their own home.

Because of that implicit misunderstanding of what the fetus is, Roe v Wade is not only a fundamentally flawed decision but in my estimation is bad law that leads to bad legislation.

Over here it is a state rather than federal matter but recently all states have decriminalised abortion on the basis of a woman's "privacy right".

Posted by lrjones4 at 03/15/2009 @ 07:48am
That gives you my response to your question but I am a believer in the rule of law and whilst that legislation may in my opinion demean a society the only proper way to change it is through the democratic process. In our case it is the states that have the jurisdiction and that means having enough voters lobbying state politicians. I guess it is somewhat different with a Supreme Court decision but again if enough people cared enough about the issue it would mean getting judges elected that were cognisant of the will of "we the people".

However what I was espousing is something different and that is a demonstration that most pro-life and pro-choice arguments are based on the same premise viz that the life of a human person is special and it is (morally) wrong to snuff it out. (That in fact is a Christian premise, which, for example, you won't find it in the Greek philosophers. Was it not that great crusading atheist Richard Dawkins who said that culturally he is a Christian?).

The only argument between the opposing views is the question; when does a human being become a person? That shows the essential weakness of the pro-choice argument as Peter Singer of Princeton (formerly Melbourne University) so powerfully demonstrates.

His view is that a human person is not special thus a human has no intrinsic dignity and that man is just part of the animal continuum and it may, according to the circumstances be better to kill a baby or an intellectually impaired human than to kill a functioning animal like a fish.

That in essence is the basis of his argument in favour of abortion. That is a very logically sound argument whereas the pro-choice argument that depends on person hood is not. Singer shows it is virtually impossible to say when a fetus becomes a person.

Posted by lrjones4 at 03/15/2009 @ 07:57am
Singer shows it is virtually impossible to say when a fetus becomes a person and thus that pro-choice argument is fatally flawed.

That is another reason why Roe v Wade is bad law. It leads logically to the sort of amoral world that Peter Singer signposts.

Sort of comes back, Mask to the great Christian heritage that undergirds even the pro-choicer's argument, though most seem blissfully unaware of their inconsistency.

Posted by lrjones4 at 03/15/2009 @ 08:02am