Passing Through

Huckabee Visits Crisis Pregnancy Center

posted by Jessica Valenti on 01/14/2008 @ 1:46pm

I'm a bit late on this, but I think considering how horrifying Crisis Pregnancy Centers are--definitely better late than never.

Last week Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee toured the Carolina Pregnancy Center in Spartanburg, South Carolina:

"Sometimes those of us in the pro-life community have been known for what we're against -- that we don't want to see an unborn child have his or her life ended prematurely and unnecessarily. And yet it's not enough to be known for what we're against. We have to be known for what we're for, which is being for life," Huckabee told volunteers after touring the center.

That's true, you should let voters know what you're for. If Huckabee stands by the work of pregnancy centers, here's what he's for...

Telling young and low-income women that they shouldn't worry about the financial burdens of caring for a child: "It can be very scary to have financial difficulties, but there are a lot of possible solutions...Today's schools often give aid to single mothers or a job could always come through...A lot can change financially in nine months!"

Lying to rape survivors: "You are in a very unusual circumstance (conception from rape is extremely rare) and it is understandable that you would be frantic. But don't allow the rapist to further impact your situation by causing you to end the live of an innocent child."

Downplaying the reality of pregnancy: "A normal pregnancy lasts only 40 weeks, a relatively short amount of time in your whole life."

Shaming women considering abortion: "If you get the abortion, you will always remind him of something [your partner] isn't proud of."

Crisis Pregnancy Centers lie to women. They intimidate women. They manipulate women. No candidate should support their work--no matter what they believe about choice.

Update: This post has been updated to clarify that Huckabee visited the Carolina Crisis Pregnancy Center in Spartanburg.

Comments (364)

  1. There's a lot to dislike about Mike, but let's not forget the basic facts. He's probably a bit less dangerous than the other Repugs, and if he's the nominee he'll be a major longshot.

    I say, Support the Huckster!

    By the way Nation readers, here is a fantastic piece by Ishmael Reed that showed up at CounterPunch.org today. It's a bit lengthy, but well worth the time.

    Here's just one excellent excerpt:

    Bill Clinton's orchestrating his wife's being more personal, was a brilliant stroke. One that might doom Obama's candidacy, but will doom the Democrats' chances to win the 2008 election as well. As a southern demagogue, Bill Clinton calculated that no black man can compete with a white woman's tears, a left over from Old South thinking. Black men have been lynched as a result of the tears of white women. While Jesse Helms, another southern demagogue, used a black man's hand in an ad that criticized Affirmative Action, Feminist Bill Clinton, who exploited a young woman, who held him in awe, and cost Al Gore an election, used his wife's tears, so desperate was he to achieve a third term and redeem his being impeached. But judging from angry black callers into C-Span's "The Washington Journal," the day after the New Hampshire primary, and the following day, and my own non-scientific survey, many blacks finally get it. That they have been snookered by the Clintons.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2008 @ 2:40pm

  2. My personal favorite: "If you get the abortion, you will always remind him of something [your partner] isn't proud of." I think if someone said that to me I would punch them in the face. Honestly..whats wrong with these people?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 2:48pm

  3. Do these crisis centers make sure the women get some sort of child-care. You can't work if noone credible can look after your child. It's funny that alot of pro-lifers only care up to birth. After the birth of the child, they don't give a damn. Okay, so it's not that funny.

    Posted by k330k at 01/14/2008 @ 3:04pm

  4. Prepare, Ms Valenti, to be swamped by our local "pro-lifers" with this...

    "So what? What's wrong with giving the women the information that your baby-killer friends WON'T give them?"

    And if you dig a little, you'll see that they also find NOTHING wrong with out-and-out LYING to women to get them to not have an abortion, as well as even a little intimidation.

    After all, to THEM, they're "saving a baby's life"!

    As with PETER ROTHBERG's article on Honaker...ask some of those who say "It doesn't matter which 'corporatist' wins in November...I'm staying home!" ....if the issue of choice matters to them at all?

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 3:05pm

  5. Okay, they missed on the "Maxim" girl, but is anybody else seeing this BANNER AD above this particular column....for "Pro Life Products" and "Help Save the Unborn" and www.hh76.com?!?!??!

    Ms Valenti, you might need to check with "The Nation's" webmaster. I realize they take ad money from everybody (including Ann Coulter), but......geez!

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 3:08pm

  6. MASK -- The vast, vast majority of folks asociated with The Nation buy the distinction you're making.

    Posted by Peter Rothberg at 01/14/2008 @ 3:18pm

  7. But the real truth is in abortion an innocent life is extinguished. No amount of yelling changes that.

    ~Freiheit @ 3:20pm

    Following your iron clad logic, Frieheit, I assume you're donating a good sum of your own money to research into preventing miscarriages because the number of innocent lives lost to such circumstances is even more staggering than the number of voluntary abortions.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2008 @ 3:34pm

  8. And let's not forget, by following the logic that "abortion is the murder of innocents", in theory someone who smashes petri dishes with fertilized embryos in them is guilty of mass slaughter or even genocide perhaps.

    Balderdash.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2008 @ 3:38pm

  9. "But the real truth is in abortion an innocent life is extinguished. No amount of yelling changes that." - yes, and everyday countless innocent animals die in slaughterhouses (why don't they count as life?), innocent people in crises or war zones die (and we happen to be the cause of a certain war right this moment), countless amounts of innocent Americans die on our highways and roadways... but I don't see any pro-lifers tackling these problems. Probably because they really aren't pro-life, and no amount of yelling changes that.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 3:40pm

  10. Isn't every menstrual period another lost egg, another potential life lost?? What about when a man masterbates? millions of sperm die that could've fertilized eggs...is this mass genocide?? I mean honestly... why aren't pro-lifers insisting we all get pregnant and keep pumping out babies until we reach menopause?? doing otherwise is just killing off potential lives.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 3:44pm

  11. Nice post Freheit. How the hell are you, anyway?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/14/2008 @ 3:48pm

  12. thanks for the link to the great article by ishmael, b kool66!

    Posted by loveloki at 01/14/2008 @ 3:48pm

  13. jr055, i think you pretty much summed up the catholic view on reproduction.

    :)

    Posted by loveloki at 01/14/2008 @ 3:49pm

  14. the woman's egg is also innocent life. and is there such a thing as guilty life?

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 3:51pm

  15. "While we can debate whether an abortion is right or wrong, the fact remains the fetus is innocent." :: As with most people, this particular scenario is a sensitive one. I still don't understand, as a young female, how a man forcing his sperm inside me and cursing me with half of his genetic pool can be seen as making the fetus "innocent". Half of this potential child has half of the genetic code and quality of an evil mad man who violated me in the most violent and cruel way. That resultant baby would have his eyes...would have his hair, his temper, his voice... how could any woman live day to day, being reminded by this child the pain she had to endure?? Its incredible to think anyone would even ask a woman to endure this.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 3:54pm

  16. Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 01/14/2008 @ 3:18pm

    PETER, less concerned with that (that "TN" folks are going to "stay home rather than vote for the lessers of...") than the OTHER thing.

    Here is Ms Valenti discussing the Orwellian named "Crises Pregnancy Centers"...and "The Nation" is taking ad money from a website that helps SELL items (and no doubt supports via those sales) promoting the VERY THING she is oppossing. www.hh76.com

    I realize the Ann Coulter thing is too hard to resist and you probably figure most "TN" bloggers aren't fans of Ilsa She-Devil of the Adam's Apples so why not take her money and give her little return for it, but ....taking ad money from "Heritage House" "pro-life" merchandisers?!?!?

    And then your webmaster puts it in the banner and it shows up OVER Ms Valenti's column??!?!? (Yes, yes, "turn off JavaScript"...but that's not the point, FROSTY)

    Thewe's somethin scwewy awaound heh, as Elmer Fudd would say.

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 3:58pm

  17. Frei- aw, well that really hurts. I'm glad to see a woman defending her position to abort a rapists baby is pathetic in your eyes, its quite telling. What I would consider pathetic is that someone actually is keeping count the number of years they blog at the Nation, wow two years?!?! whens the next anniversary? I'll send you a card :)

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 4:00pm

  18. FREIHEIT,

    What KIND of life is the "innocent life" taken? Define it.

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 4:01pm

  19. the word innocent life is a loaded one. it implies that the woman is guilty life. she has sinned and must therefore be condemned to a forced pregnancy. and the ones using that expression would be too glad to do the forcing.

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 4:01pm

  20. ohh oops, I forgot, you're not talking to me anymore. No hallmark for you!

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 4:03pm

  21. Posted by MCQ 01/14/2008 @ 4:01pm :: indeed, good post.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 4:04pm

  22. There's a lot to dislike about Mike, but let's not forget the basic facts. He's probably a bit less dangerous than the other Repugs, and if he's the nominee he'll be a major longshot.

    I say, Support the Huckster!

    This guy is a NUT!

    I don't know if he is any easier to defeat than any other Republican (I personally think Giuliani is the easiest), but the more I know about this guy, the more dangerous he seems as a serious candidate.

    Did you know he doesn't even support the two-state solution agreed to in the Middle East, and wants to grab "all" of the land from Palestine and send all of the Palestinians to Arab Countries?

    He also wants to invade Iran and has the same loony Christian theology that says a a much larger and more powerful Israel will hasten the second coming of Jesus!

    With these sort of radical Christian beliefs, it really is surprising that he is a serious candidate at all.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/14/2008 @ 4:11pm

  23. I make no judgement for or against abortion. I simply state the ONLY truth is in abortion an innocent life is terminated.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/14/2008 @ 4:08pm | ignore this person

    this is not5 true. by adding innocent to the term life you are loading the dice so to speak. it is also a code word for the anti abortion people

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 4:14pm

  24. how in the hell is jro55's post pathetic, freiheit?

    Posted by loveloki at 01/14/2008 @ 4:15pm

  25. I think if he won the nomination though he'd be the easiest to defeat...no democrat would even consider him. Although a Hillary vs Huckabee election would be scarily close, seeing as how both seem to be very polarizing figures.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 4:16pm

  26. love- don't bother. I dared consider the fact that fetuses and babies are half from the mother, half from the father. I suppose Frei would like us to think that all fetuses are completely "innocent"- and therefore have no relation, not even genetically, to their guilty and sinful parents. In my humble opinion, what makes our children so valuable is the fact that they are the combination of ourselves and our loved one. When you remove "loved one" and insert "evil rapist" in this equation, I am sorry to admit that this imbalance causes me great repulsion.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 4:19pm

  27. Most Disengenuous Post of 2008 Award Winner (doubtful ANYBODY will top this)

    "Reread my posts. I make no judgement for or against abortion. I simply state the ONLY truth is in abortion an innocent life is terminated."----Posted by FREIHEIT 01/14/2008 @ 4:08pm

    So in saying "it's Truth, abortion is the termination of INNOCENT LIFE"...you are "making no judgement for or against abortion"?

    Geez, FREI, atleast have the balls to stand up for what you believe and don't try to pull THAT kind of b.s.

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 4:20pm

  28. Jeez, JR I just read your 3:54 post. I absolutely do not understand how anyone could make such a distinction between the purveyor of such a despicable act and the absolutly innocent creation, stemming from it. The hatred ignited by the act must be directed at the source and must stop there. The closest thing I can think of to what you've suggested is the old practice in more primitive parts of China where the baby girl is killed because she was born female, as if the very birth itself was the crime. Unbelievable!

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/14/2008 @ 4:29pm

  29. FREIHEIT

    apropos innocent life. catholic dogma states that there is NO innocent life, a concept known as original sin. so while they agree with your "morals" they do not seem to agree with your innocent life trope.

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 4:36pm

  30. chip- I'm I allowed to talk back, or would this offend you and put me on your ignore list?? I can see how my post could be construed in such a way. For the record, I am not claiming that the resultant child of a rape is GUILTY of anything. Of course they aren't. What I am saying however, is that they are half of their father, this is the unavoidable truth. And what is usually considered endearing ( "aw, she has her fathers eyes") becomes an insurmountable (in my humble opinion) reminder of the crime committed against the mother. I think every child born should be born from a loving mother and a loving father, period. A woman should not have to give birth to a child she regrets or never wanted- it just hurt everyone in the equation, innocent babe included.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 4:45pm

  31. Posted by JRO555 01/14/2008 @ 4:45pm | ignore this person

    your posts on this subject have been uniformly fine.

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 4:51pm

  32. post 3:54 shall forever live in infamy!! a harlot wench suggested rapist-produced babies may have characteristics of their genetic father! and she even said some mothers of this crime might relive pain and agony by said baby!! burn her!! burn the witch!! burn her!!

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 4:53pm

  33. Posted by MCQ 01/14/2008 @ 4:51pm:: thanks for your support...it seems I have made more enemies than friends today. so be it.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 4:54pm

  34. Innocent or not, the question is biological and spiritual. On the biological side, we must answer for ourselves when life begins and ends. On the spiritual side, we must decide what we believe and follow our faith. But this is not a theocratic state. Here, we have a constitution that is currently interpreted to provide a primary right of privacy. This privacy is extended to include the right over the care of our bodies. It is limited, but includes the right to terminate a pregnancy. Until it is overturned, which I hope for all our sakes that never happens, each person must grapple with the spiritual question on their own. I celebrate your right to privacy and your right to your spiritual faith. Please respect each others.

    Also, murder is a common law term and defines illegal homocide. Since abortion is legal, it can't be murder. It is, however, killing living tissue and in some cases, killing a human being capable of sustaining independent life at the moment of death, but very very rarely and never in this country (legally). Let's keep it that way.

    FYI: I am pro-choice and pro-life. I hate abortions, killing and war. But they are a fact of life and death that I have to accept in a free society that wants to protect its interests, whether I think they are selfish or not.

    Posted by Cannonball at 01/14/2008 @ 5:01pm

  35. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Cannonball

    good straddling, and you make some valuable points. Right to life ignores the rights of the woman.

    they like to throw in the "innocent life", perhaps to cover their inconsistency with regards to the death penalty and above all, war.

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 5:05pm

  36. I'm a bit late on this, but I think considering how horrifying Crisis Pregnancy Centers are--definitely better late than never.

    Not nearly as horrifying as JV's talent for taking phrases out of context and "spinning" them to her liking. I just read the link she provided and while a little "dumbed down," the website was providing information for options besides abortion. The Q & A format was a little on the simple side, but I imagine these are the questions that they commonly get. Yes, the information was skewed, but that's not unexpected given the Center's purpose.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/14/2008 @ 5:28pm

  37. Ms Valenti, you might need to check with "The Nation's" webmaster. I realize they take ad money from everybody (including Ann Coulter), but......geez!

    Posted by MASK 01/14/2008 @ 3:08pm

    my ad tells me i can make $1,000 an hour!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2008 @ 5:42pm

  38. wow. imagine trying to raise the child conceived in a rape.

    talk about punishing the innocent.

    "mom, why are you yelling at me again".

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2008 @ 6:01pm

  39. MASK,

    if you're interested in web ads:

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_13/b3977401.htm?chan=sea rch

    "search"

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2008 @ 6:08pm

  40. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=frosty%20zoom

    rape or not, imagine the life of an unwanted child.

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 6:18pm

  41. I love the way the abortion debate brings out the silliness in people--you can't buy this kind of entertainment.

    Point 1: Pregancy Crisis Centers have every bit as much right to promote their agenda as Planned Parenthood has to promote theirs--free speech, remember everyone?

    Point 2: Sperm and Eggs are just cells, not life. Life is not created until sperm and egg join and a brand new individual with their own unique DNA comes into being--in fact, it is mutations in this process the contribute to the evolution of a species (unless you are in Kansas, then angels do it)

    Point 3: We generally don't hold children accountable for the misdees of their parents in our society. The attitude that a child created through rape is somehow "tainted" gives me a very queasy feeling--eugenics anyone?

    Point 4: It really isn't inconsistent to be pro-life and support the death penalty. In the former case the individual involved has not done anything to offend anyone (except by existing). In the latter case the individual has been convicted of willfully taking the life of another--behavior has consequenses.

    Point 5: I don't really see the connection between abortion and the consumption of meat. I don't think most people equate an animal's life with a human one (except for PETA maybe)

    Posted by vertigoskippy at 01/14/2008 @ 6:21pm

  42. Ms. Valenti really takes the cake with this one.

    Listen, I don't know anything about "Crisis Pregnancy Centers." I ONLY have to go by what Ms. Valenti reports. As it turns out - and since she's on a roll with this with 4 or 5 articles now - she turns out to be the emperor - or emperoress - with no clothes on all. I almost feel sorry for her serious confusion if she wasn't consciously trying to do so much damage with it.

    To wit:

    Telling young and low-income women that they shouldn't worry about the financial burdens of caring for a child: "It can be very scary to have financial difficulties, but there are a lot of possible solutions...Today's schools often give aid to single mothers or a job could always come through...A lot can change financially in nine months!"

    I know 3 or 4 single mothers well. There actually IS a lot of financial aid for single mothers, whether it be schools or whatever. Not only that, at least here in CAlifornia, there are food grants, rent grants, all kinds of grants for all kinds of things if you are a single mother. Most of my friends take advantage of these programs to help get by. While the phrase, "a lot could change financially in 9 months" - while certainly not a lie 'cause it's obviously true on its face, a lot COULD change - is certainly a lead-on, the rest of it is more true that this New York feminist - who's what, been in school for about 12 years now? - can obviously grasp.

    Lying to rape survivors: "You are in a very unusual circumstance (conception from rape is extremely rare) and it is understandable that you would be frantic. But don't allow the rapist to further impact your situation by causing you to end the live of an innocent child."

    Why is this a lie? I am not advocating a woman impregnated by rape to have a child. I would never judge her under any circumstances no matter what she does. But if one of the results of the rape is that you do indeed abort, then indeed an "innocent" child has lost its chance at life. Why is that a lie?

    Downplaying the reality of pregnancy: "A normal pregnancy lasts only 40 weeks, a relatively short amount of time in your whole life."

    Valenti calls this "downplaying". Others would simply call it obvious. Even a cave man or woman knows it (obviously feminists are too advanced at this point to understand it). A pregnancy DOES take approximately 40 months. It IS a relatively short time in the period of a usual human life. Not only that, for most women it is one of the most amazing 40 months of their life, if not their MOST amazing, carrying a little life in their belly like that. A gift from God (though at this point I would guess Valenti is a big fan of Hitchens and Harris & all their rubbish). For Valenti, this somehow qualifies as a "lie".

    Shaming women considering abortion: "If you get the abortion, you will always remind him of something [your partner] isn't proud of."

    Well, only the woman would know or not whether her partner would shame her for this. Maybe they're simply saying there are two "parents" involved in this. Gee, you haven't forgotten all about the males tied up in this, have you? Maybe you should ask you co-blogger Ann about it.

    Crisis Pregnancy Centers lie to women. They intimidate women. They manipulate women. No candidate should support their work--no matter what they believe about choice.

    This may or may not be true. Like I say, I have no way of knowing. I'm not in the obvious "dungeon" these places are, or that Valenti would have us believe. I don't know whether they're places of intimidation or not. I don't know anything about the Crisis Pregnancy Centers other than what Ms. Valenti has told me. But given what Ms. Valenti has said, she is wrong on every count, on their face. She is literally a NY Feminist Emperess without any clothes on. While many of her blogger fans might like to see her without any clothes on, all they have to do is read this essay. Not one whit of truth about it. How pathetic. You went to Masters School for this? Maybe when you turn 30 you'll finally get that inch of wisdom you've been trying to pass on us Nation readers for a month now. Maybe then you won't disseminate a bunch of meaningless jibberish which is a 180 degree the reverse of how you paint it. On its face.

    Anyway, Happy Birthday when it does get here, and good luck.

    Posted by Scrub at 01/14/2008 @ 6:22pm

  43. That is the only real FACT in the debate. That's my only point on the issue.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/14/2008 @ 5:34pm | ignore this person

    not really. rape is often a fact. incest is sometimes a fact. the inability of the parents to properly care for another child is a fact. abandonment of the woman by her partner is often a fact. defective fetusses are often a fact.

    the fact is that you do not know what is in a woman's life or mind when she chooses an abortion.

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 6:25pm

  44. Point 1: Pregancy Crisis Centers have every bit as much right to promote their agenda as Planned Parenthood has to promote theirs--free speech, remember everyone?

    they do not have the right to lie and mislead. Right To Lie-fe.

    isn't that the expression?

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 6:27pm

  45. "Point 1: Pregancy Crisis Centers have every bit as much right to promote their agenda as Planned Parenthood has to promote theirs--free speech, remember everyone?" :: sure thing, free speech is good.

    "Point 2: Sperm and Eggs are just cells, not life. Life is not created until sperm and egg join and a brand new individual with their own unique DNA comes into being--in fact, it is mutations in this process the contribute to the evolution of a species (unless you are in Kansas, then angels do it)" :: eggs and sperm are the key, they are what determines life. You can't have life without one or the other, and every single one of them have a unique genetic make up, no two are alike. Therefore each time an egg is fertilized, the door is closed, and all those other dna possibilities are lost forever. I understand why you hold heavier importance on the formation of a zygot, why it is seen as a pivotal moment, but why such disregard for the two building blocks that make it all possible? I think to write them off as irrelevent kind of goes against the reverence held for their culmination.

    "Point 3: We generally don't hold children accountable for the misdees of their parents in our society. The attitude that a child created through rape is somehow "tainted" gives me a very queasy feeling--eugenics anyone?" :: again, the infamy of post 3:54. I do not hold fetuses guilty of their parents misdeeds. I am expressing what I would feel as the victim of such a crime, and how negatively it would affect my ability to bear a child under such circumstances. The fetus is not guilty of its father's crime, but this potential mother does not understand why anyone would ask a woman to honor such a despicable man the precious reward of a baby. Only the most respectable and most cherished man in my life will have such an honor.

    "Point 4: It really isn't inconsistent to be pro-life and support the death penalty. In the former case the individual involved has not done anything to offend anyone (except by existing). In the latter case the individual has been convicted of willfully taking the life of another--behavior has consequenses." :: what happens when an innocent person is killed by capital punishment? I don't see how anyone can trust our justice system to be unequivocally right in every single case.

    "Point 5: I don't really see the connection between abortion and the consumption of meat. I don't think most people equate an animal's life with a human one (except for PETA maybe)" :: well PETA certainly does. But why don't we have respect for all life forms? How do they not count as "life"? How are they not innocent? I think to argue our lives are more important and of more value is akin to the kind of arguments that plantation owners used to validate slavery (bible references and all).

    glad you're entertained, me too :)

    Posted by jro555 at 01/14/2008 @ 6:46pm

  46. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Freiheit

    read it again. I said it wasn't the only "fact"

    my dictionary defines someone and somebody as a "person"

    I don't believe a fetus is a person. and neither does the law.

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 6:48pm

  47. just because I am FOR a woman's right to choose, does not mean I am pro-abortion. I believe Cannonball has articulated that position.

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 7:02pm

  48. FREI....you contradicted yourself...first it's-

    "I make no judgement for or against abortion."----Posted by FREIHEIT 01/14/2008 @ 4:08pm

    Then you say...

    "Mask, I am serious. Morally I do believe abortion is wrong."----Posted by FREIHEIT 01/14/2008 @ 4:28pm

    Are you saying something is "morally wrong" is NOT "making a judgement for or against it"?!?!??!

    This is the kind of namby-pamby "pro-life" stuff, whereby you don't want to get caught as a die-hard'er (like LVLIB,etc.) and want to sound "open-minded" but are just as opposed to abortion as them.

    And if you're not prepared to either support abortion rights....or even OPPOSE abortion rights...then your opinion is worthless (since you will do nothing to back it up)...OR your morality is worthless since you offer no physical courage (as in willing to actively stand up) for what you believe.

    Either you support abortion rights and support people working for them....or you don't and support people opposing them....

    or "don't like abortion, but won't make any judgements against it, but will comment on the pro-life side, but not come out strongly in opposition of it in the political realm."...which is rhetorical vapidness.

    Frankly, take a stand...or don't say anything. But you can't do BOTH!

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 7:22pm

  49. FREI, comment Time-Warped to before Posted by JRO555 01/14/2008 @ 4:53pm |

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 7:23pm

  50. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Freiheit

    yes, but it's none of your business. nor that of the state. it is a medical procedure that is between a woman and her doctor.

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 7:50pm

  51. "yes, but it's none of your business. nor that of the state. it is a medical procedure that is between a woman and her doctor."

    so it takes a Village to raise a child but only "a woman & her doctor" to kill it?

    jeez. the hubris.

    Posted by Scrub at 01/14/2008 @ 8:13pm

  52. You really are a sick case.

    ~Reverend Run @ 8:13pm

    Just another stellar example of what we've come to expect from the religious right --projection, par excellence.

    I can detect the rotten stench of your hypocrisy from several states away, "Libertay".

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2008 @ 8:21pm

  53. In case you missed my point, Reverend.

    Projection: The attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially, the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2008 @ 8:26pm

  54. You May be a Fundamentalist If...

    10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

    9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

    8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

    7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" -- including women, children, and trees!

    6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

    5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of generations old.

    4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

    3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

    2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% failure was simply the will of God.

    1: you want to appoint judges that will overturn a womens right to control their own bodies, and will uphold the right of the president to torture suspected criminals.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/14/2008 @ 8:52pm

  55. How many "innocent lives" can we sign all ya'll fundies up for?

    Lots of financial assistance available, so that should not be a concern.

    SCRUB- 10

    FREI, he's allegedly successful, why don't we say 15?

    Luvvy, I know, you take care of a couple somewhere, so we will only bring you 8 new innocent lives to raise for 20 or so more years.

    OK kids, go out and find some more parents for the innocent lives, lots of work, get off line.

    and once again, REV, a fetus is not an infant. Nor is a petri dish with 8 cells.

    but a beef cow is life. Sacred too.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/14/2008 @ 8:59pm

  56. rape or not, imagine the life of an unwanted child.

    Posted by MCQ 01/14/2008 @ 6:18pm | ignore this person

    Didn't know you could see into the future and didn't know you were the grand poopah of determing the life quality of someone else.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/14/2008 @ 9:03pm

  57. OK, I gotta jump in again...

    Several posts have mentioned the issue of women having control over their own bodies and I agree--100% Everyone should have complete control over their own bodies. If you want to shave your head, pierce yourself in odd places or even shove beans up your nose I say "Go for it!"

    There is a logical hiccup that I run into on the abortion issue though--there are actually two bodies inolved here. Here's the thing I have trouble getting past: a pregnant woman is really two different people; i.e. two genetically unique individuals that can be distinguished from one another by their DNA--one located inside the other.

    So when people say women should have control over their own bodies the Libertarian in me shouts "Hell yeah!" Then the logical conundrum kicks in because in exercising the control the women is obliterating the existense of another individual.

    And I never really bought the "it's just a lump of tissue" argument either--especially after seeing those famous photos of a developing fetus several years back.

    So, I'm torn. It's too bad there's not a way to terminate a pregnancy without destroying the fetus.

    Posted by vertigoskippy at 01/14/2008 @ 9:11pm

  58. a pregnant woman is really two different people; i.e. two genetically unique individuals that can be distinguished from one another by their DNA--one located inside the other.

    this is too glib. the fetus and the woman are not like those russian dolls. the fetus is not separate from the woman. the fetus cannot survive without the woman. in the first two trimesters, which is when most abortions happen.

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 9:20pm

  59. Ultimately, the "pro-lifers" have lost the war, if not all the battles yet.

    RU-486 and Plan B can't be banned anymore than pot or coke.

    If it goes to the States, you'll have legal abortion in Nevada, a day's drive to any Utahan. You'll have legal abortion in Florida, a day's drive from South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Etc., etc., etc.

    Even the "pro-lifers" admit they can never stop it. (Some, like LVLIB, have switched to the "win hearts and minds" way...which is FINE, if kept really honest.).

    But the "We'll make abortion illegal" guys?...you lost years ago. And I think you know it. So why keep fighting a war you lost decades ago?

    Posted by Mask at 01/14/2008 @ 9:37pm

  60. who said anything about me being a fundy? your (mis)conceptions are indeed serious.

    i just sent $10 to kucinich. what did you do with your last $10?

    Posted by Scrub at 01/14/2008 @ 9:43pm

  61. RU-486 and Plan B can't be banned anymore than pot or coke.

    ~Maskot

    By the way, do you realize where the moniker RU-486 came from?

    Think "86" in the slang sense, "to get rid of", and you'll quickly realize what a crude name the drug was given.

    I'm staunchly pro-choice, but like most of us I believe that some dignity is called for here as well.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/14/2008 @ 10:45pm

  62. Has anyone seen the movie Citizen Ruth? A story about how silly people get over the abortion issue.

    Posted by jaded at 01/14/2008 @ 10:53pm

  63. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=b_kool_66

    you made that up, right?

    remember these were FRENCH people. notbloodylikely.

    Posted by McQ at 01/14/2008 @ 10:58pm

  64. Think "86" in the slang sense, "to get rid of", and you'll quickly realize what a crude name the drug was given.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/14/2008 @ 10:45pm

    hey there, mr. kool:

    the drug originally comes from france. ru = Roussel Uclaf, a phrench pharma company.

    i doubt they use the idiomatic expression "to eighty-six s.o." in france.

    my sister's friend's cousin got bit by a spider in mexico. the bite swelled, and we she got back home, it opened up and thousands of baby spiders came out...........................

    ;+]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/14/2008 @ 11:02pm

  65. I think current posters have already pointed out the abundant fallacies in Jessica's post. I want to make one really brief point, though, on the "lying to rape victims" argument. Presumably, the "lie" Jessica refers to is that abortion terminates an innocent life. The problem with this is...drumroll...this is the anti-abortion position! By her standard, anyone who advocates an anti-abortion viewpoint is not only wrong, but a liar.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/15/2008 @ 12:19am

  66. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM @ 11:02pm

    Frosty,

    I'll concede that I don't have a convincing backstory to point to on this one, just the words of a pharmacist friend. But most Europeans do speak English, including many French, and the pharmaceutical industry is a heavily culturally cross-pollinated industry.

    I find it just a bit unlikely that the name, RU-486, is just a "funny" coincidence.

    In any case, it'd be an interesting fact whether it is coincidental or contrived.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 01:37am

  67. And another thing, Frosty.

    The drug industry has some history of choosing drug names that are sometimes sly and even a bit unseemly.

    Premarin: A popular estrogen hormone drug derived from horses. Pregnant mare's urine becomes, voila, Premarin.

    Or how about Cialis: A male erectile dysfunction drug that conjures the lyrics from Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit". You know, "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small, And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all; Go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall".

    There are more examples, but you get the idea.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 01:48am

  68. I think current posters have already pointed out the abundant fallacies in Jessica's post.

    ~Thrawn 01/15/2008 @ 12:19am

    Your posts here often sound strangely in thrall:

    When logic and proportion

    Have fallen sloppy dead,

    And the White Knight is talking backwards

    And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"

    ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 01:59am

  69. And Thrawn,

    I 'spose you can Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar Has given you the call.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 02:02am

  70. Frosty Zoom,

    A brief snippet on drug branding:

    Pharmaceutical branding is more prevalent than many consumers realize. When you think about it, it becomes pretty apparent. There is no way that a drug company could sell a product by the scientific version of a drug's name, such as Sildenafil.

    Sildenafil is the generic name for Viagra by the way, which makes it sound more vigorous.

    Better than mycoxafloppin I 'spose.

    ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 02:18am

  71. Regarding Big Pharma, here is just another prime reason to be keenly alert:

    Drug Has No Benefit in Trial, Makers Say

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 02:34am

  72. One more on the topic of pharmaceuticals:

    The Pentagon and Big Pharma

    Excerpt:

    Posttraumatic stress injuries can devastate the lives of soldiers and their families. The suicides that are so often the result of such injuries make it clear that they can be every bit as lethal as bullets or bombs, and to date no cure has been found. Treatment and disability payments, both for injured troops and their families, are a huge budgetary concern that becomes ever more daunting as these wars drag on. The Psychological Kevlar Act perhaps holds out the promise of a prophylactic remedy, but it should come as no surprise that Big Pharma has been looking for a chemical intervention.

    What they have come up with has already been dubbed "the mourning after pill." Propranalol, if taken immediately following a traumatic event, can subdue a victim's stress response and so soften his or her perception of the memory. That does not mean the memory has been erased, but proponents claim that the drug can render it emotionally toothless.......

    But is it moral to weaken memories of horrendous acts a person has committed? Some would say that there is no difference between offering injured soldiers penicillin to prevent an infection and giving a drug that prevents them from suffering from a posttraumatic stress injury for the rest of their lives. Others, like Leon Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, object to propranolol's use on the grounds that it medicates away one's conscience. "It's the morning-after pill for just about anything that produces regret, remorse, pain or guilt," he says. Barry Romo, a national coordinator for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is even more blunt. "That's the devil pill," he says. "That's the monster pill, the anti-morality pill. That's the pill that can make men and women do anything and think they can get away with it. Even if it doesn't work, what's scary is that a young soldier could believe it will."

    It doesn't take a neuroscientist to see the problem with both of these solutions. Though both hold the promise of relief from the effects of an injury that causes unspeakable pain, they do so at what appears to be great cost. Whatever research projects might be funded by the Psychological Kevlar Act and whatever use is made of propranolol, they will almost certainly involve a diminished range of feelings and memory, without which soldiers and veterans will be different. But in what ways?

    I wish I could trust the leadership of our country to prioritize the lives and well-being of our citizens. I don't. The last six years have clearly shown the extent to which this administration is willing to go to use soldiers for its own ends, discarding them when they are damaged. Will efforts be made to fix what has been broken? Return what has been taken? Bring them home? Will citizens be enlightened about what we are condoning in our ignorance, dispassion or indifference? Or will these two solutions simply bring us closer to realizing the bullet-proof mind, devoid of the inconvenient vulnerability of decent human beings to atrocity and horror? And finally, these are all questions about the morality of proposals that are trying to prevent injuries without changing the social circumstances that bring them about, which sidestep the most fundamental moral dilemma: that of sending people to war in the first place.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 03:07am

  73. i just sent $10 to kucinich. what did you do with your last $10?

    Posted by SCRUB 01/14/2008 @ 9:43pm

    Sent it to Planned Parenthood.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/15/2008 @ 07:10am

  74. Tue Jan 15, 1:48 AM ET DENVER - Carrying a family Bible, a state representative-elect kicked a photographer who took a picture of him during a statehouse prayer -- then was sworn into office.

    Bruce, an anti-tax crusader, was chosen by El Paso County Republicans last month to fill an unexpired term. He delayed his swearing-in until Monday, when the House was not in session. That allowed him to take advantage of a loophole in state term limits that would allow him to serve eight more years instead of six.

    But it irritated Democratic House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, who said Bruce should have taken the oath sooner.

    Bruce said he had done nothing wrong and demanded that he be allowed to take the oath of office with the House in session.

    He finally gave in after members of his own party threatened to start the process of replacing him if he didn't take the oath on Monday.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/15/2008 @ 07:11am

  75. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/15/2008 @ 02:18am

    but BKOOL, "Nobody knows how advertising works."

    They just spend $57,000,000,000 a year because...

    It has the effect of getting people to walk into a Dr's office and ask about their drug, sometimes demanding to be put on it.

    But, "Nobody knows how advertising works."

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/15/2008 @ 07:14am

  76. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/14/2008 @ 8:13pm

    LUVVY, pro war

    Pro torture (oh, he will deny it, but then back the should have been aborted idea of the "Unitary executive" who uses torture)

    Pro nookyular bomb

    Anti women's LIBERTY-1 the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views

    Ohh the irony of a screen name.

    No cons have stepped up to take in some of the mere 80,000 kids languishing in foster care.

    so much for their deep concern for children.

    Guess when the neo-cons supported MFN status for China? During the "One Child " program. So, state sponsored abortion by the communists is OK, freedom to choose on ones own, bad.

    Posted by crabwalk at 01/15/2008 @ 07:27am

  77. JRO555,

    I have remarked on here before on the oversensitivity of society today the worrying about whether someone or group is "offended", and the basic threats to free speech we see almost every day when authorities try to teach us the "correct" way to think and talk, so you don't have to worry about my getting offended and using the "ignore" button. I don't do that. Say what you want.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2008 @ 07:29am

  78. In fact JRO55, the bumper sticker on my car reads: REAL Americans don't get "Offended" It sits right next to the one that says "Screw Diversity-Celebrate Competence" They love me down at the County School Board :)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2008 @ 07:33am

  79. well Chip, I thank you for having the courtesy to hear my ugly words, and I'm glad to see someone from the other side of the argument understands that the silent treatment really isn't the answer.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/15/2008 @ 08:19am

  80. Hi - I'm new, so I should probably state a couple of things first: a) I'm a 22 year old woman, and b) I'm from Europe.

    I find both the original post and the debate here very informative, so thanks everyone for that :)

    To comment on the first misinformation pointed out by Jessica, I'd say that statement is factually wrong regardless of any opinion on pro-life/pro-choice. The UN estimates that one in five women worldwide will become the victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime. So, 'victim of a rare occurrence'?...if only.

    Also, just to add my 5 cents to the points that are made about unwanted children, in my country there was recently a high-profile case of a father (happily married, upstanding citizen, perfect garden, bla bla bla) who kicked (!!!) his five-year old daughter out through the 4th floor window, killing her. Apparently, he never wanted to have her in the first place. That is somebody's innocent life being taken away. And it is not the same thing as deciding to get rid of a cluster of cells in your uterus that might (provided there is no miscarriage) have the potential to become a person.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 08:56am

  81. Sorry, B_KOOL, FROSTY is right. Mifepristone or RU-486 was created by the French pharma Roussel Uclaf (the "RU").

    It's pretty unlikely that they would use an AMERICAN slang term (one quite archaic by even the early 1980s) to label a product.

    Buzz www.snopes.com...bet they'll disprove it.

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 09:15am

  82. You post yesterday struck me as rooted in a strong belief in Eugenics and my work with physically and mentally handicapped children has biased me against that Hitleresque world-view. Hey, I overreacted.

    Friehiet, Eugenics was preached and practiced in America as well as in many countries, so the Hitleresque description is misleading. no one is off the hook in that subject.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 09:26am

  83. Posted by DEADRA 01/15/2008 @ 08:56am | ignore this person

    good post. stick around, you are badly needed in the fight against know nothing reactionaries here.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 09:27am

  84. DEADRA,

    As a sidelight, I do hope someone then presided over the Defentresation of the father as well. Bastard.

    Where are you from in Europe?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2008 @ 09:42am

  85. Okay, Godless world-view.

    Friehiet, NO NO and again NO. you are smearing atheists and agnostic who are godless and have a godless world view.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 10:03am

  86. Thanks MCQ :)

    CHIP - Nope, no further defenestration. But he will spend a very long time in jail with guys who I suppose would be willing to remedy that.

    I'm from Austria, which happens to tie in ever so nicely with the topic of eugenics that has come up. I wanted to ask a question on that note anyway. I know that some countries here differentiate between healthy and disabled feti (fetuses?) on abortion. So, for example, it can be legal (or illegal but not penalized) to abort a healthy fetus during the first term, but later (after the amnio, or even until the very end of the pregnancy) if the baby would be born disabled. This is very controversial (for obvious reasons, I guess), so I wondered what the situation looks like in the US. Does the law differentiate?

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 10:03am

  87. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/15/2008 @ 09:42am | ignore this person

    if ya gonna use big words, at least try to spell them correctly. I use google to find out how something is spelled.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 10:04am

  88. Why is it called Planned Parenthood? After all, isn't it Parenthood that is being avoided in most cases? Shouldn't it be called Planned Unborn Kid Elimination----OR PUKE for short.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/15/2008 @ 10:32am

  89. Freiheit...whoa...okay:

    1. What agenda would that be? I'd criticize the UN on any number of issues, but I give credit where I think credit is due - they do know how to crunch numbers, that is what bureaucrats do best, after all.

    2. (Forgive me, but I have to say this...) How can God be pushed from the public square? (That conjures the image of roaring atheist stampede...) Or are you talking about the public SPHERE, in which case I would probably disagree with your assessment.

    3. the drive to make the sexes exactly the same ? Why would anybody want that? Freudian 'penis envy' not withstanding, I'd settle for equality, not sameness.

    4. Yes, abortion is legal. And if it is carried out by trained medical personnel, and based on an informed and free decision, I would not define it as violence anymore than any other surgery. Comparing that to rape...I lack the words, frankly.

    5. No, it is not a consequence of the erosion of morality. Much less a logical one. If you want to get into a morality/atheism debate, I suggest we do this per e-mail, because it is way off topic. But while I really don't know US law that well (Jerry Bruckheimer-shows can only impart so much wisdom), I know that abortion was legal in the UK before 1861 - a time around which all the things to which you refer as 'erosion of morality' began to gain momentum.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 10:34am

  90. MCQ,

    I know how to spell it,old boy, and its meaning, or I would not have used it. On review, though, I do seem to have butchered it fairly well, though: Got my es's & tr's all screwed up!

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2008 @ 11:00am

  91. DEADRA,

    I'm afraid I must plead ignorance regarding your question regarding disabled vs healthy fetuses, "time limits" on their destruction or whether its based on eugenics in any way. I'm sure its controversial, but I'd direct the question to someone else on this thread perhaps. Sorry :)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2008 @ 11:04am

  92. Sorry, B_Kool, Frosty is right. Mifepristone or RU-486 was created by the French pharma Roussel Uclaf (the "RU").

    Buzz snopes.com, I'll bet they'll disprove it.

    ~Maskot @ 09:15am

    Not that it really matters a great deal either way, but Frosty is only "right" about the fact that RU stands for the manufacturer. As I pointed out in my argument earlier, the pharmaceutical companies have a history of choosing "cute" drug names to brand their products.

    How many other products from Roussel Uclaf are named RU-xxx?

    If I had to place a significant bet, I'd be pretty confident that RU-486 is an intentionally created name by some goofball(s) who thought it was a funny idea. The likelihood of a bland brand name like RU-486 being selected essentially by a random process doesn't pass the smell test.

    Buzzing an urban legends website isn't likely to produce a definitive answer unless the offending name makers at Roussel Uclaf have decided to spill the beans on the issue.

    But remember this, Maskot Lauer. You don't know the history of the pharmaceutical industry. I know the the history of the pharmaceutical industry.

    ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 11:22am

  93. Repost for Maskot:

    The drug industry has some history of choosing drug names that are sometimes sly and even a bit unseemly.

    Premarin: A popular estrogen hormone drug derived from horses. Pregnant mare's urine becomes, voila, Premarin.

    Or how about Cialis: A male erectile dysfunction drug that conjures the lyrics from Jefferson Airplane's "White Rabbit". You know, "One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small, And the ones that mother gives you don't do anything at all; Go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall".

    There are more examples, but you get the idea.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 11:29am

  94. Frei- well, howdy-do :) I can understand how my words will seem callous and insensitive, especially if someone should have a very personal experience with the subject matter, so I don't really take too much offense to being exiled to the ignore lists of countless internet bloggers. But I welcome your adding me back into the conversation. Posted by DEADRA 01/15/2008 @ 10:34am :: excellent post, through and through.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/15/2008 @ 11:39am

  95. All advocates of eugenics are atheist. Not all atheists are advocates of eugenics. No smear.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/15/2008 @ 10:24am | ignore this person

    this is just pure crap. Hitler was Christian, as were many of his followers. you can'tt seem to post anything that doesn't smear a whole class of peiple. you are disgusting.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 11:47am

  96. I know the the history of the pharmaceutical industry.

    ;-)

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/15/2008 @ 11:22am | ignore this person

    c'mon now, you know the pharma industry in France? you speak French fluently I gather. give it up.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 11:50am

  97. on eugenics- my 3:54 post seemed to invoke these feeling among posters. From what I know of eugenics (admittedly, very little)it seems the aim of eugenics is to erase certain attributes from society through sterilization of individuals possessing said attributes. I do not see rape as an "attribute", it is simply a criminal act. Every man (and I suppose in some cases women) has the ability to commit this crime, despite their race,religion, genetic code, etc etc. I fail to see how refusing to give birth to a rapists child is similar to eugenics. Sterilizing deaf people- eugenics. Forcing blond hair, blue eyed people to copulate to create a "superhuman"- eugenics. Refusing to have a rapists baby- NOT eugenics.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/15/2008 @ 11:51am

  98. But hey, abortion is legal, right? GIven the violence of abortion and the loss of a life, what's the problem with rape eventually being legal? Isn't that a consequence of the erosion of morality?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/15/2008 @ 10:02am | ignore this person

    this is just unbelievable shit. you are fucking crazy. an abortion is a medical procedure. you've turned out to be a real creep. too bad.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 11:53am

  99. c'mon now, you know the pharma industry in France? you speak French fluently I gather. give it up.

    ~MCQ @ 11:50am

    Blow me, mcQueen. I fart in your gener'al direction.

    ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 11:57am

  100. "But hey, abortion is legal, right? GIven the violence of abortion and the loss of a life, what's the problem with rape eventually being legal? Isn't that a consequence of the erosion of morality?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/15/2008 @ 10:02am | ignore this person

    Arguing pro-life and then condoning rape may not serve your interests well. I think the biggest mistake pro-lifers make is to incriminate women- since we have the right to abort, we deserve to be raped...?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/15/2008 @ 12:04pm

  101. in abortion someone loses a life.

    ~Freiheit

    I'm tryin' to stay out of this one, but that point is the bone of contention in many important aspects.

    When does a mass of developing cells suddenly become someone?

    There is not a simple answer to that question, and simply crossing one's arms and asserting that life begins at conception is not helpful to the debate.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 12:07pm

  102. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Freiheit

    you are distorting my views, and yours. Sanger, was she a christian?

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 12:08pm

  103. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/15/2008 @ 11:22am

    I think I get it, B_KOOL.

    You said, you THINK it's right ("sounds right"), and therefore you're sticking with it, despite logical evidence to the contrary.

    Keep that in mind next Right-winger Fundy you take after about global warming or evolution!

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 12:10pm

  104. The abortion movement in the United States is rooted in eugenics.----Posted by FREIHEIT 01/15/2008 @ 12:08pm

    FREI, are you ready to admit that this was disengenuous at best....a LIE at worse?--

    "I make no judgement for or against abortion."----Posted by FREIHEIT 01/14/2008 @ 4:08pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 12:13pm

  105. When does a mass of developing cells suddenly become someone?

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/15/2008 @ 12:07pm | ignore this person

    What do you think these masses of developing cells become...Chrysanthemums?

    Posted by dscott at 01/15/2008 @ 12:13pm

  106. there is no abortion movement. there is a movement to keep abortion legal, and the gov't out of a woman's womb, surely the place most private.

    it's called Planned Parenthood, because a woman may choose an abortion one year and bear a child the next. she is given help planning her family in either case.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 12:15pm

  107. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/15/2008 @ 12:08pm :: Frei, forgive me if I am mistaken in this notion, but racism seems to be most alive and thriving in the south. We are led to believe that southerners are devoutly Christian and overwhelmingly pro-life. This contradicts the notion that racists are in support of abortion. I'm sorry you see abortion as eugenics, in its most negative aspect. Where you see eugenics, I see my womb protected from forced pregnancy. I do not mean to belittle you or your argument one bit, but I think being a woman really makes a huge difference in perspective.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/15/2008 @ 12:18pm

  108. Freiheit -

    1) Okay, I stand corrected on the bureaucrats, I guess. So they allocate funding to people who are good with numbers. I still fail to see the agenda, but I'm having a very slow day today.

    2) I'm afraid your point about the ACLU is probably lost on me (foreigner, remember ;) ) - but I would raise you one Mike Huckabee and five 'God bless [insert great nation of your choice]'-speeches.

    3) I'm glad we agree on equality. As to what Jessica is interested in, you could refer to her books...or to Feministing.

    4) The fetus has no brain at that point that would enable it to disagree with anything.

    5) Slippery slope...upwards?

    CHIP, thanks anyway :)

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 12:19pm

  109. "Claiming I condoned rape is slander, JRO555. Sorry you got that impression."- Frei, I added the big question mark (?) at the end there specifically so you could clarify. Hope you don't take me to court for my slanderous questioning :P

    Posted by jro555 at 01/15/2008 @ 12:20pm

  110. hey b kool:

    for what it's worth (yes, MCQ, i know, nothing) i found these other products:

    RU 22974 (Roussel Uclaf) -- insecticide

    RU 1697 -- cow hormone

    RU 965 -- antibiotic

    maybe you're right. people can be pretty morbid.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 12:23pm

  111. The abortion movement in the United States is rooted in eugenics. One horrible reality is there are racists thrilled at the prospect of legal genocide of minority populations in our nation, and laugh at the far left's cry of "keep your hands off my body." Useful idiot ring a bell?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/15/2008 @ 12:08pm | ignore this person

    what a bunch of unbelievable crap. minority women are in the minority in abortions as well. most women are white. you are a useless idiot.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 12:23pm

  112. despite logical evidence to the contrary.

    ~Maskot

    Since when have you been the arbiter of what constitutes "logical evidence".

    Evidence, in this case, is largely in absence. But most of us know about the importance of branding and the silliness of the pharmaceutical industry when choosing drug names. RU-4 86ing your pregnancy? Or does it really make any sense to name a drug by the manufacturer's abbreviation followed by a 3 digit number? PF-666, say?

    But enough of this nonsense, who agrees with me that a superlative Super Bowl story would be Brett Favre beating glamour boy Brady in a dramatic 4th quarter comeback?

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 12:24pm

  113. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=frosty%20zoom

    what is this drive by?

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 12:24pm

  114. What do you think these masses of developing cells become...Chrysanthemums?

    Posted by DSCOTT 01/15/2008 @ 12:13pm

    Sometimes they become nothing at all, sometimes they're miscarried. So much weight is put on "potential", people forget that there isn't only one outcome of a pregnancy.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/15/2008 @ 12:24pm

  115. DSCOTT - Do you have the training, the knowledge and the technical equipment to tell whether any given 12-cell cluster placed before you in a petri-dish will turn out to be a human being, a chrysanthemum, or a hummingbird? I sure don't.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 12:26pm

  116. What do you think these masses of developing cells become...Chrysanthemums?

    ~D Scott @ 12:13pm

    Well, for quite awhile these masses of developing cells don't have any thoughts, so they might just as well be chrysanthemums at that point.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 12:27pm

  117. Freiheit:

    are you going to bring up Sanger, again?

    women of all colours have abortions. they have them because they need them, not because they want to exterminate their own race.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 12:28pm

  118. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/15/2008 @ 12:28pm | ignore this person

    you are a reasonable guy. there, satisfied?

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 12:36pm

  119. Posted by DEADRA 01/15/2008 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person

    I believe medical science has pretty much determined that the development in the uterus in not a hummingbird or a chrysanthemum.

    Posted by dscott at 01/15/2008 @ 12:45pm

  120. Posted by DEADRA 01/15/2008 @ 08:56am

    A couple of responses, briefly. One, the rape statistic is somewhat deceptive. While the UN may be absolutely correct in saying that 1 in 5 women have been raped worldwide, that doesn't falsify the claim that these crisis centers make, because their claim is almost certainly US-specific. I have a strong suspicion that a huge portion of the rapes the UN is referring to come from countries where rape (in one form or another) is used either as a weapon of genocide or simply a systematic abuse of power by police or gangs of one sort or another. Many African countries are examples of this, as are some countries in the Middle East and the former Soviet Union. So again...Jessica's attack proves to be untrue.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/15/2008 @ 12:50pm

  121. DSCOTT - So just the fact that something is growing in a uterus makes it a person? Because there could also be a cyst, or a tumor. What about ectopic pregnancies?

    Just for the record, I'm not actually eager to have this discussion. I'm just trying to tell you that you are oversimplifying a very difficult matter that greater minds than ours (mine, at any rate) have not managed to resolve in several centuries.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 12:52pm

  122. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Thrawn

    there are way too many rapes in this country. are you in denial about this?

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 1:06pm

  123. MCQ, this goes back a little, but your earlier statement that Hitler was Christian is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. He may have been BORN Christian, but thats all.

    Were you just trying to subtly make a connection between Christianity and the way some have perverted it, or do you get your history from you're subscription to Marvel Comics or something?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2008 @ 1:08pm

  124. THRAWN - My apologies for not thinking in US-specific terms. While I agree that the states are not North Kivu, rape is still not rare. While this is really not my area of expertise, here's what 5 minutes worth of googling got me: your DOJ counting an average 366,460 attempted and completed rapes and sexual assaults of women annually from 1992 to 2000. And those are just those the police knows about. And just the women. Sorry...I wouldn't call that rare.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 1:19pm

  125. Posted by THRAWN 01/15/2008 @ 12:50pm

    well, nine out of the top ten countries are anglo colonies. and 12 of the top 15!!!

    hmmmm????

    Crime Statistics > Rapes (per capita) (most recent) by country

    VIEW DATA: Totals Per capita

    Bar Graph Map Correlations

    Showing latest available data.

    Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)

    #1 South Africa: 1.19538 per 1,000 people #2 Seychelles: 0.788294 per 1,000 people #3 Australia: 0.777999 per 1,000 people #4 Montserrat: 0.749384 per 1,000 people #5 Canada: 0.733089 per 1,000 people #6 Jamaica: 0.476608 per 1,000 people #7 Zimbabwe: 0.457775 per 1,000 people #8 Dominica: 0.34768 per 1,000 people #9 United States: 0.301318 per 1,000 people #10 Iceland: 0.246009 per 1,000 people #11 Papua New Guinea: 0.233544 per 1,000 people #12 New Zealand: 0.213383 per 1,000 people #13 United Kingdom: 0.142172 per 1,000 people #14 Spain: 0.140403 per 1,000 people #15 France: 0.139442 per 1,000 people #16 Korea, South: 0.12621 per 1,000 people #17 Mexico: 0.122981 per 1,000 people #18 Norway: 0.120836 per 1,000 people #19 Costa Rica: 0.118277 per 1,000 people #20 Venezuela: 0.115507 per 1,000 people #21 Finland: 0.110856 per 1,000 people #22 Netherlands: 0.100445 per 1,000 people #23 Denmark: 0.0914948 per 1,000 people #24 Germany: 0.0909731 per 1,000 people #25 Bulgaria: 0.0795973 per 1,000 people #26 Chile: 0.0782179 per 1,000 people #27 Thailand: 0.0626305 per 1,000 people #28 Kyrgyzstan: 0.0623785 per 1,000 people #29 Poland: 0.062218 per 1,000 people #30 Sri Lanka: 0.0599053 per 1,000 people #31 Hungary: 0.0588588 per 1,000 people #32 Estonia: 0.0547637 per 1,000 people #33 Ireland: 0.0542829 per 1,000 people #34 Switzerland: 0.0539458 per 1,000 people #35 Belarus: 0.0514563 per 1,000 people #36 Uruguay: 0.0512295 per 1,000 people #37 Lithuania: 0.0508757 per 1,000 people #38 Malaysia: 0.0505156 per 1,000 people #39 Romania: 0.0497089 per 1,000 people #40 Czech Republic: 0.0488234 per 1,000 people #41 Russia: 0.0486543 per 1,000 people #42 Latvia: 0.0454148 per 1,000 people #43 Moldova: 0.0448934 per 1,000 people #44 Colombia: 0.0433254 per 1,000 people #45 Slovenia: 0.0427648 per 1,000 people #46 Italy: 0.0402045 per 1,000 people #47 Portugal: 0.0364376 per 1,000 people #48 Tunisia: 0.0331514 per 1,000 people #49 Zambia: 0.0266383 per 1,000 people #50 Ukraine: 0.0244909 per 1,000 people #51 Slovakia: 0.0237525 per 1,000 people #52 Mauritius: 0.0219334 per 1,000 people #53 Turkey: 0.0180876 per 1,000 people #54 Japan: 0.017737 per 1,000 people #55 Hong Kong: 0.0150746 per 1,000 people #56 India: 0.0143187 per 1,000 people #57 Qatar: 0.0139042 per 1,000 people #58 Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of: 0.0132029 per 1,000 people #59 Greece: 0.0106862 per 1,000 people #60 Georgia: 0.0100492 per 1,000 people #61 Armenia: 0.00938652 per 1,000 people #62 Indonesia: 0.00567003 per 1,000 people #63 Yemen: 0.0038597 per 1,000 people #64 Azerbaijan: 0.00379171 per 1,000 people #65 Saudi Arabia: 0.00329321 per 1,000 people

    SOURCE: Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

    excellent site, btw

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 1:21pm

  126. Were you just trying to subtly make a connection between Christianity and the way some have perverted it, or do you get your history from you're subscription to Marvel Comics or something?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/15/2008 @ 1:08pm

    do you make the same distinction for islam?

    and that bin laden is not an islamofacist (my fingers feel icky after typing that),

    but merely a lunatic asshole?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 1:24pm

  127. Kudos to you, FROSTY for these stats. Unfortunately, they come from a UN survey and are therefore 'full of agenda' ;)

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 1:25pm

  128. Posted by DEADRA 01/15/2008 @ 1:25pm

    don't thank me,

    thank nationmaster.com.

    the cia is also a good source. seriously.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 2:00pm

  129. Why is it called Planned Parenthood? After all, isn't it Parenthood that is being avoided in most cases? Shouldn't it be called Planned Unborn Kid Elimination----OR PUKE for short.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/15/2008 @ 10:32am | ignore this person

    Actually, Len, PP offers a lot more services than just abortion. In fact, not all PPs even offer it. In my state, abortion is only available via private clinics and private physicians.

    PP offers a wide variety of health services including gynecological exams, birth control, emergency contracption, etc. Do your homework first, ok?

    Posted by ldn at 01/15/2008 @ 2:11pm

  130. RU 1697 -- cow hormone

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/15/2008 @ 12:23pm

    Oh, okay, I see it now...B_KOOL is right. See right there... 1697, the cow hormone. "69"? "hormone"? Coincidence...HA! Of course it's a reference to mutual oral sex!

    Plain as the nose on B_KOOL's face!

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 2:12pm

  131. Why is it called Planned Parenthood? After all, isn't it Parenthood that is being avoided in most cases? Shouldn't it be called Planned Unborn Kid Elimination----OR PUKE for short.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/15/2008 @ 10:32am | ignore this person

    Sorry, didn't finish the post before. Anyhow, those routine gynecological exams can actually help a woman have a child. You guys tend to forget that pregnancy isn't the only thing that affects the female reproductive system. Regular pap smears and STD testing aid in the early detection of cervical cancer and other ailments that can cause infertility if left untreated.

    Posted by ldn at 01/15/2008 @ 2:30pm

  132. FROSTY -

    I know the CIA Factbook isn't bad, but it's not updated frequently enough for my work. I use the Economist ;) Thanks anyway.

    One caveat on the stats, though - don't take those at face value. These numbers depend on what constitutes rape in the respective country (Saudi rape legislation gives me nightmares), whether it is socially acceptable to report rape, whether there is a rule of law at all, ... So I'd say the numbers are probably closer to reality near the top and move off into the land of make-believe as you move further down.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 2:31pm

  133. Yes, Frosty, I think IBL's a lunatic asshole and not a reflection on Islam. Islam has a tendency to get a little more excited over things than Christianity does, at least now, but I don't see them as fanatics like the Bin-meister.

    And Islamofacists? Thats another non-word (you know,like sexist and homophobe) designed by a fruitcake (in this case the rabid anti Moslem David Horowitz) to get us all to think a certain way.

    Anyone who has studied Moslem history (and as a student of Medieval & Mongol history I can't help it) knows better than what the likes of Horowitz will tell you.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2008 @ 2:33pm

  134. Sorry, thats OBL

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2008 @ 2:35pm

  135. Posted by DEADRA 01/15/2008 @ 2:31pm

    Also wanted to add in that the stats FZ provided were for reported rapes. According to RAIN, approximately 59% of sexual assaults in the US go unreported each year.

    Posted by ldn at 01/15/2008 @ 2:39pm

  136. ~Maskot @ 2:12pm

    I think Frost's point, without his own elaboration, is that a company can feel free to use bland RU designations for a cow hormone, a pesticide, and an obscure macrolide antibiotic used to treat genital Chlamydia infections. But in the only case in which an RU designation is used for a blockbuster product, mifepristone, --let's not lose sight of how unusual it would be for Big Pharma to name a blockbuster with casual disregard-- it just happens to be RU-486.

    Stranger things have happened of course, but only a fool would just assume that the name must be only a coincidence.

    But then you are the master of misapprehension, incomprehension, and bald-faced assumptions that so often make an ass of yourself, Maskot.

    ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 2:40pm

  137. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=b_kool_66

    only a fool would post something he knows nothing about, like French. vous etes fou

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 2:44pm

  138. and that bin laden is not an islamofacist (my fingers feel icky after typing that),

    but merely a lunatic asshole?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/15/2008 @ 1:24pm | ignore this person

    my hunch is that Bin Laden is more intelligent than Bush and Cheney.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 2:49pm

  139. only a fool would post something he knows nothing about, like French. vous etes fou

    ~mcQueen @ 2:44pm

    And only a fool would assume that a knowledge of the French language is pertinent, or even germane to the argument.

    Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 2:59pm

  140. The hatred ignited by the act must be directed at the source and must stop there. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/14/2008 @ 4:29pm

    Chip,

    Unfortunately, rape is an extremely traumatic event that forever changes the way that you perceive the entire world. The reactions to rape and the recovery process are extremely complex, and it often takes years for victims to even begin to deal with what they have experienced. You may believe that the above reaction is possible, but the fact of the matter remains that rape affects its victims on both a deep psychological and physical level that someone who has never experienced this type assault will never understand. Because all victims react differently, what will work for one (not terminating and giving the resulting baby up for adoption) is not an option for someone else.

    Posted by ldn at 01/15/2008 @ 3:00pm

  141. You're right, of course, especially the last point

    Chip

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2008 @ 3:08pm

  142. I could just periodically post 'What LDN said'.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 3:08pm

  143. Better than mycoxafloppin I 'spose.

    LOL!

    Posted by k330k at 01/15/2008 @ 3:12pm

  144. Better than mycoxafloppin I 'spose.

    LOL!

    ~K330K @ 3:12pm

    Hey, I'm glad somebody got it :D

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 3:18pm

  145. Is that like IBEPOKIN?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/15/2008 @ 3:29pm

  146. Posted by DEADRA 01/15/2008 @ 2:31pm

    sure thing. couldn't agree more. interesting thing though, anglo "europe*" has a higher incidence than non-anglo europe.

    *australia, canada, u.s., at least half the world (*sigh*)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 3:30pm

  147. Posted by CHIP THORNTON 01/15/2008 @ 2:33pm

    good for you.

    and us.

    and "them".

    hmmmmmm. "us and them" sounds like it'd be good title for a song.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 3:32pm

  148. Alright, enough of the funeral dirges about "abortion is murder", and all that shiit.

    Here's some comic relief from David Lynch on the iphone's utility as a movie screen

    Thanks to Counterpunch.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 3:33pm

  149. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/15/2008 @ 2:40pm

    And of course for a FRENCH company to use an AMERICAN (not even generically English language) SLANG TERM as PART of the name for a product that had YET to be marketed in the United States...

    of course, clear as a bell now...RU-4 EIGHT-SIX!!!..."eighty-six that flubber, youse mugs, the big palooka and his dame have taken it on the lam!"

    The French talk that way all the time!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/15/2008 @ 3:39pm

  150. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/15/2008 @ 2:59pm

    il faut ignorer les gens fatigantes. et les gens fauxes, aussi.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 3:40pm

  151. FROSTY -

    I don't know...really. I'd have to have a closer look at all these countries. As it is, I'm bound to be influenced by personal experience, which isn't really saying very much. It could be that this is just a rule of law-thing - British policemen are trusted, everything (and I mean everything) is reported. In other parts of Europe, it's more about not making a fuss. Or it could be about binge-drinking and loss of social cohesion. ... The list is pretty endless and I don't have the first clue.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 3:42pm

  152. Posted by DEADRA 01/15/2008 @ 3:08pm

    Thanks!

    You had previous asked about U.S. laws re: abortion and disability, right? As far as I know, the laws surrounding abortion are based on whether the pregnancy is viable. In Roe v Wade (the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision), the court ruled that a woman's right of privacy regarding her body outweighed the potential right to life of the fetus pre-viability. Viability is generally viewed as first or second trimester. Third trimester abortion is left up to the states, but so far, all third trimester abortion legislation has been overturned (as far as I know) due to certain aspects of the law being found unconstitutional (i.e. they lack exceptions for the health of the mother or they include spousal and/or parental notification laws). As far as I know, there are no laws specifically regarding terminating a pregnancy if the fetus shows signs of illness or disability.

    Posted by ldn at 01/15/2008 @ 3:46pm

  153. Thanks LDN! Good to know.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/15/2008 @ 3:49pm

  154. Posted by DEADRA 01/15/2008 @ 3:42pm

    well, let's pray that nobody we love has to deal with either of these topics on a personal level.

    abortion may be necessary in many instances, but i feel bad for days if i step on an ant...............

    poor plants, but hey, gotta eat!

    as to rape, human ugliness at its ugliest.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 3:52pm

  155. And only a fool would assume that a knowledge of the French language is pertinent, or even germane to the argument.

    Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/15/2008 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person

    the ones who named it were FRENCH, you knucklehead.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 5:25pm

  156. Posted by B_KOOL_66 01/15/2008 @ 2:59pm | ignore this person

    you are aware that they speak French in France?

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 5:37pm

  157. allow me a subject detour. Europe is dismantling its internal borders. great idea.

    the US? building a wall/fence. what was it that Reagan said? tear down that wall.

    and this is what we should do. tear down the border with Mexico and Canada.let everyone work where they wish. let capital flow. perhaps a common currency. that would be a way forward to the future.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 5:43pm

  158. this of course did not happen overnight. it took them a slow methodical progress and about 40 years.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 5:50pm

  159. Back to the original topic: Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

    The main problem I find with these centers is that they generally tend to be disingenuous. Words are carefully chosen to enhance the chances of what they view as a favorable outcome, and many do appear to be more concerned with convincing a woman to not terminate the pregnancy than actually helping someone in a state of crisis make an informed decision about something that potentially has a lifelong affect.

    These clinics advertize that they provide "abortion counseling" but the counseling pretty much goes as far as the following:

    1. Showing you an untrasound, putting it in a frame, and referring to it as "your baby's first picture!!!"

    2. Telling you it's unfair for anyone to pressure you to get an abortion (which is true, but it's also equally unfair for someone to pressure you to have a baby you neither want nor can afford)

    3. Insinuating that your partner will cease to love you ("He'll always be ashamed", bleh)

    4. Providing disingenuous information ("Did you know that last year x amount of women died from y infection after taking RU-486?" and leaving out the fact that more women died of the same infection last year after either a) having a natural miscarriage or b) after vaginal delivery)

    Women go to these clinics seeking answers, someone to listen, and to get accurate information so they can make an informed decision. Many do not realize what they are actually getting until it's too late and the loaded "counseling" has begun... or worse yet, when they've already filled out the patient information chart with their home address and phone number!

    Perfect example: the main "pro-life" clinic in my city is called "A Woman's Choice" and is right across the street from the abortion clinic. The abortion clinic is nondescript (except at 7:30 a.m. when the protesters are there with their picket lines and signs) and only references emergency surgery, but the "pro-life" clinic has extremely visible signage that advertises "Abortion Counselling", "Free Ultrasounds", etc. and people do walk into the wrong clinic by accident, especially out-of-towners.

    I think we need transparency in marketing. These centers should be named "Pro-Life Clinic Where We Convince You to Carry Your Unwanted Pregnancy to Term". Thus, women will know what they're getting before they walk in. Those that want the help of said centers will get it, and those who meant to get accurate information won't go to the "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" by mistake.

    Posted by ldn at 01/15/2008 @ 5:55pm

  160. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=ldn

    good posts all.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 6:00pm

  161. il faut ignorer les gens fatigantes. et les gens fauxes, aussi.

    ~Frosty Zoom @ 3:40pm

    Thanks, Frost.

    I read you loud and clear ;-)

    I'll take the advice.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/15/2008 @ 6:40pm

  162. I think it's detestable when the pro-life movement lies to get ahead (ex: Abortion could cause breast cancer). This sort of thing only severely undermines the pro-life movement.

    That being said, I'd pro-life.

    So why am I a progressive/Democrat? Well, like many other moderate and evangelical and Protestant Christians, I'm tired of the supposedly pro-life Republicans only paying lip service to us, and rejecting realistic measures to reduce abortions. Abortion reached an all-time high under Bush Sr., and it dropped to levels not seen since 1973 under Clinton (27% decline). While conservatives blab on about being against abortion, it's the Democrats, through contraceptive availability and comprehensive sex ed, who actually bring the rates down. Additionally, Republicans often support supposedly pro-life policies that, in the end, actually make abortion rates go up (ex: Mexico City Gag Policy).

    That being said, I completely agree with those above who said that to be pro-life, you must be in favor of life all across the board. You can't be truly pro-life and support unjust, bloody wars; or be against universal health care, or be in favor of systems that perpetuate poverty and violence, and, I think, you can't be truly pro-life and pro-death penalty.

    So I'd ask the rest of you progressives not to shun us just because of our disagreement on one issue. We're not on the extreme side of this issue, and we agree with you on pretty much every other issue: torture, war, the economy, foreign policy, domestic espionage, crime, etc. etc. etc.

    Posted by ChadS at 01/15/2008 @ 7:58pm

  163. Hucka wants to bring the constitution in line with the bible.

    he did not say which bible.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 8:13pm

  164. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=ChadS

    who is this WE you talk about?

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 8:20pm

  165. Posted by CHADS 01/15/2008 @ 7:58pm

    hey, i thought you didn't hang around here anymore.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/15/2008 @ 9:33pm

  166. Posted by CHADS 01/15/2008 @ 7:58pm :: hey man, you can be against abortions, and that's perfectly fine, but when you start insisting on legislating a woman's body that is when we part ways. I have my qualms against abortion too, but I wouldn't dare tell another woman what she can and cannot do with her body. And you are absolutely right: there is no better way to reduce the amount of abortions than comprehensive sex ed and contraceptives.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/15/2008 @ 10:32pm

  167. Posted by JRO555 01/15/2008 @ 10:32pm

    But JRO555, this response just begs the question. The entire issue at hand is whether the fetus IS just an extension of the woman's body. Presumably, those who are pro-life do not believe so. Given the basic pro-life premise, the already-dubious-constitutionally privacy argument does not apply because another person is involved.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/15/2008 @ 10:45pm

  168. Posted by THRAWN 01/15/2008 @ 10:45pm | ignore this person

    your logic is flawed. the fetus cannot live without the woman. it is not a person. it is a part of the woman's body. you used to make somewhat reasonable arguments.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 10:58pm

  169. the woman dies, the fetus dies. it is not a separate person.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 10:59pm

  170. Thrawn, you are trying to argue away biology. good luck with that.

    then there is jurisprudence.

    Posted by McQ at 01/15/2008 @ 11:13pm

  171. I think the Crisis Pregnany Center should also tell the women; and when you have your child (and no job, money, etc etc, etc.) place that child in a basket and leave it on the door step of a rich pro-lifer. They obviously know they can handle this situation better than you can and have the money to raise it that you don't.

    Posted by angelmom1 at 01/15/2008 @ 11:19pm

  172. your logic is flawed. the fetus cannot live without the woman. it is not a person

    A newborn baby cannot live without the woman either---unless another women or man takes care of it. The fact that a fetus needs a mother to survive does not make it any less human. Babies need an adult to survive and I don't think you are going to argue that they are not human.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/16/2008 @ 07:40am

  173. "resumably, those who are pro-life do not believe so" :: and some of us who are pro-choice do not believe a fetus is a person. You will also find many doctors make a distinction between a fetus and an infant. This age old debate can go on forever, and probably will. We may argue on whether or not a zygot or fetus is a person, but a living grown woman is FOR CERTAIN a person. To disregard her rights as a living being among us for a unbirthed zygot raises curious questions about freedom and the right to our own bodies.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 08:48am

  174. Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/16/2008 @ 07:40am ::: I think there is a big distinction between a fetus in the womb and a newborn baby however. A fetus relies on an umbilical chord for sustenance and life, hardwired right into the mother's vital organs. A newborn immediately starts feeding with the mouth, like the rest of us. Sure, a newborn will need someone to give it a bottle, but that chord of complete and utter dependence on the mother is removed. Once a baby is birthed, it no longer needs its genetic mother for survival. For me, this is a very significant difference.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 08:52am

  175. Reread my posts. I make no judgement for or against abortion. I simply state the ONLY truth is in abortion an innocent life is terminated.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/14/2008 @ 4:08pm

    That is complete B.S. So, by your reasoning, is the 48 hour pill taking a life? Where do you define the beginning of life? Could it be that the thought of sex is where that life begins? If that's the case, anyone not having sex if they thought about it is guilty of a potential murder.

    One side issue that's really not a side issue is what to do with the unwanted child when it's born. All these proposed "life lovers" aren't doing a damn thing for these children once they are born. If you don't have a solution as to how to take care of unwanted children, get the hell off your soap box and quit destroying already living peoples' lives. In short, if you wish not to have an abortion, then don't and leave others their own friggin decision. You aren't God.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/16/2008 @ 08:54am

  176. Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/16/2008 @ 08:54am

    WOLF, FREI is a dishonest OR cowardly pro-lifer. Sorry, but he is. He tries to sound "open minded" with that "I'm making no judgements against abortion" stuff...and then proceeds to talk about "taking an innocent life" and every other pro-life code-word out there and opposition to even "morning after" pills.

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 09:31am

  177. hey, i thought you didn't hang around here anymore.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/15/2008 @ 9:33pm

    -What do you mean? This is my first post ever on The Nation, and I hadn't even heard of it until two weeks ago...

    Posted by ChadS at 01/16/2008 @ 09:33am

  178. Posted by CHADS 01/16/2008 @ 09:33am

    hanging chads, get it? :+}

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/16/2008 @ 09:43am

  179. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/16/2008 @ 09:43am :: lol good one!!

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 09:46am

  180. Posted by CHADS 01/15/2008 @ 7:58pm

    I don't think that you're necessarily discounted from the progressive movement just because you're pro-life. For some reason, people tend to think of the abortion debate in terms of pro-lifers wanting to overturn Roe v Wade at the expense of privacy and that pro-choice proponents are out running around saying that everyone should have an abortion once in their life because abortion is just swell. In fact, as JR0555 wrote, most of us have our qualms regarding abortion. I don't like the fact that anyone has to have one, and I would really love to see the abortion rate drop.

    Again, both JR and you hit the nail on the head: the only way to see the abortion rate drop is to provide comprehensive sex education, affordable gynecology checkups for all women, and easy access to birth control.

    Of course, all of these things are provided by Planned Parenthood (as I mentioned earlier), but since they are tainted by the A word, a lot of people really only care about protesting Planned Parenthood and not celebrating the services they provide to women and families who would otherwise be without medical care.

    Posted by ldn at 01/16/2008 @ 09:57am

  181. I see Freiheit has been shooting off his moralistic mouth again.

    "pro-life" = TERRORISTS.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 01/16/2008 @ 10:59am

  182. I see Freiheit has been shooting off his moralistic mouth again.

    the worst part is when he poses as a reasonable person. but he has been demolished by many, let's not kick the corse.

    Posted by McQ at 01/16/2008 @ 11:04am

  183. A fetus relies on an umbilical chord for sustenance and life, hardwired right into the mother's vital organs. A newborn immediately starts feeding with the mouth, like the rest of us. Sure, a newborn will need someone to give it a bottle, but that chord of complete and utter dependence on the mother is removed. Once a baby is birthed, it no longer needs its genetic mother for survival. For me, this is a very significant difference.

    Posted by JRO555 01/16/2008 @ 08:52am

    I think this is a really interesting argument, but I'm not sure what the justification behind it is. Consider this (hopefully somewhat entertaining) analogy. Roughly 10 years after being expelled from his body, Voldemort inhabits the body of Professor Quirrell. His whole existence depends upon directly possessing other beings, living off of their physical bodies. Even with all of this, however, we would still say that Voldemort, as tightly connected and dependent as he was, was still a separate being from those that he possessed.

    The problem with the argument is that it conflates independence with separateness when these two are very much distinct.

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/16/2008 @ 08:54am

    I just want to briefly hit the "infinite regression" (you don't use the term, but that's still what you're basically arguing) argument that you make here, namely "how far back do you go?" . It's completely non-unique. In other words, the infinite regression could just as easily be taken the other way. How independent or rational does a being have to be in order to be considered human? When in the process does a person actually come into being? Why a baby, or a toddler, etc.? The difficulty of defining a threshhold would work both ways, and I would argue that it's generally reasonable to incorporate a presumption of life when there's any degree of reasonably uncertainty.

    That all being said, I think the second half of your post is absolutely right. We don't do enough to take care of babies that are born into very difficult circumstances of one kind or another, and I think that needs to be changed. Whether it's government or civil society that takes on the responsibility is, I think, a live question, but I think there has been far too little willingness from the pro-life movement to follow up.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/16/2008 @ 12:51pm

  184. So just the fact that something is growing in a uterus makes it a person?

    the fetus and the woman are not like those russian dolls. the fetus is not separate from the woman. the fetus cannot survive without the woman.

    A fetus relies on an umbilical chord for sustenance and life, hardwired right into the mother's vital organs.

    McQ/Deadra

    So, if a woman gets an abortion, do you see this as the same as if she got a haircut, trimmed her toenails, or donated a kidney? If not, then what is the difference?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/16/2008 @ 1:00pm

  185. Oops. Thrawn kinda beat me to it.

    Another interesting thing to mention. A while back during one of these debates, someone mentioned that "artificial wombs" are in the making. This will obviously change the "viability" or "dependence" debate. So will that change pro-abortionist's position at all?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/16/2008 @ 1:06pm

  186. So, if a woman gets an abortion, do you see this as the same as if she got a haircut, trimmed her toenails, or donated a kidney? If not, then what is the difference?

    Posted by USC1 01/16/2008 @ 1:00pm | ignore this person

    you have descended into absurdity. come back with a reasonable question and we'll talk.

    Posted by McQ at 01/16/2008 @ 1:06pm

  187. THRAWN - Did you just bring up Harry Potter to underpin your argument? I guess it's been that kind of a day anyway...

    Let's see...if a fully grown, middle-aged magician took over my body after a failed attempt to achieve world domination (or whatever) - YES, we would be two separate beings. Because he was independent for decades before that, we don't share DNA, and because he could change hosts at will and on his own initiative. You show me a fetus that can do that, I might be pursuaded to consider your argument.

    Incidentially, show me a fetus that can take over my body and mind, and you'll freak me out forever.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/16/2008 @ 1:15pm

  188. USC1 -

    1.) I am not pro-abortion. I'm pro-CHOICE. I have yet to meet anybody who is pro-abortion. 2.) What MCQ said.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/16/2008 @ 1:19pm

  189. "artificial wombs" are in the making. This will obviously change the "viability" or "dependence" debate. So will that change pro-abortionist's position at all?

    Posted by USC1 01/16/2008 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person

    ask again when they're here, then I'll think about it. you're getting really desperate, aren't you.

    Posted by McQ at 01/16/2008 @ 1:44pm

  190. "Let's see...if a fully grown, middle-aged magician took over my body" - HEY!! HE'S A WIZARD, not a magaician!! jeez get it right... ;)and you people dare speak his name!! "he-who-must-not-be-named" demands respect from you mud-bloods and muggles.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 2:09pm

  191. Deadra/McQ,

    Absurd? And yet you can't answer. Whasamatter? Afraid of what you might have to admit?

    BTW, should heroin be legal? DUI?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/16/2008 @ 2:10pm

  192. "Incidentially, show me a fetus that can take over my body and mind, and you'll freak me out forever." - I 100% AGREE. If fetuses had the ability to rob our minds and control our actions, abortion rates would go through the roof.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 2:11pm

  193. Crystal meth? Cigarettes?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/16/2008 @ 2:12pm

  194. Posted by USC1 01/16/2008 @ 1:06pm

    USC, a few years back, I mentioned artificial wombs as part of the paradigm shift in talk about abortion that would occur in maybe 20-30 years, but nothing in the near-future.

    The reason I brought it up was that it would mean, if we can also develop micro-surgical techniques, to remove the fetus or embryo without damage, then they could be frozen and/or put into AWs and brought to term for adoption.

    But the main point would still mean that you'd have a lot of FROZEN embryoes and fetuses on ice...and that would pose a philosophical dilemma to you on the "pro-life" side.

    If the fetuses/embryoes are not DESTROYED, merely frozen for all eternity (with probably less than 25% "adopted out")...then it's not "murdering a baby", is it? It's cryogenically preserving a "baby" and you should have no objections, should you?

    Of course as storage facilities fill up, eventually you'd have to discard ones that aren't being adopted out or whose "parents" aren't paying their storage bills...and then YOU guys will have to pony up collection plate money at the Triple Rock Baptist to build blocks and blocks of freezer space to "save the babies".

    But atleast you'll be away from the clinic doors.

    (BTW, yes, all of this is a futurist thought-experiment...since in all likelihood, safer and more available "morning-after" pharmas and the declining minority who are vehemently "pro-life" will render it moot anyway.)

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 2:16pm

  195. Posted by USC1 01/16/2008 @ 1:06pm

    Oh, and as I stated earlier...unless you go the LVLIB "hearts and minds" route, you've already lost the "abortion war".

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 2:17pm

  196. USC1 - Amusing as it is to sit by as you go further and further off the deep end to get a rise out of me...just let me get dinner and then I will try to answer you.

    JRO555 - Apologies...Wizard, of course.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/16/2008 @ 2:17pm

  197. Posted by LEN MOSSE 01/16/2008 @ 07:40am | ignore this person

    what nonsense. you're getting desperate too.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 2:18pm

  198. are you reposting? no, just paraphrasing.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 2:20pm

  199. BTW, should heroin be legal? DUI?

    Posted by USC1 01/16/2008 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person

    that's another discussion. quit trying to change the subject.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 2:22pm

  200. how about shooting illegal alien burglars next door? should that be legal?

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 2:29pm

  201. Huckabee aside - and I have my doubts about another evangelical president - I take umbrage with this blog's vitriolic reaction to crisis pregnancy centers. I suspect that these horror story quotes tend to reflect the viewpoints of individuals who choose to work in the CPCs out of a sense of passion for the cause rather than empathy for the individual woman. I have a family member who works at a CPC, and the attitude that I witnessed on the part of this particular group is an attempt to understand and empathize with the individual without pressure. I think they are a bit flawed in that there is no post-partum system for young and struggling women who do decide against aborting. However, this seems to me a reflection of our wider societal shortcomings that punish women for choosing motherhood in general. You know, patriarchy... There was an article last year in Newsweek, I think, that looked at the activities and interactions of an abortion clinic and its crisis pregnancy center counterpart in a town in North Carolina. It was interesting because there was dialogue between the individuals involved in both clinics, and an attempt at understanding. As other posts here have pointed out, differing views will always exist, but it seems important that in a local community opposing sides can at least attempt to understand one another.

    Posted by KidA78 at 01/16/2008 @ 3:03pm

  202. "The statement, which ran along with signatures from Huckabee, his wife and more than 100 other prominent figures, said that while "husband and wife are of equal worth before God," the wife "is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband[.]"" - can't wait for Valenti to rip on this. This stems from the recent Fox debate, when Huckabee was asked about his public endorsement of a controversial 1998 statement on family and marriage by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 3:26pm

  203. "I suspect that these horror story quotes tend to reflect the viewpoints of individuals who choose to work in the CPCs out of a sense of passion for the cause rather than empathy for the individual woman." - The quotes stem from the FAQ link Valenti provides in the article. Unless one passionate member hijacked the website, I'd say it seems to be the consensus of this particular CPC. "However, this seems to me a reflection of our wider societal shortcomings that punish women for choosing motherhood in general." :: could you elaborate? I'm not sure I know what you mean. "can at least attempt to understand one another." ::: Understanding and compromise is key.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 3:29pm

  204. that punish women for choosing motherhood in general." :

    hardly.

    other countries do much better at helping mothers. england for instance has decided rather than pay for childcare, while mom works, they make payments directly to the mother so she can stay at home and raise her kids. smart. and light years from our practice.

    why are we so backward? read the posts here, and you'll know.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 3:36pm

  205. USC1 - First off, I'd like to say once again that this reasoning is absurd and I'd much rather have a sensible debate, but if you insist:

    So, if a woman gets an abortion, do you see this as the same as if she got a haircut, trimmed her toenails, or donated a kidney? If not, then what is the difference?

    Where do I start? My hair and nails are growing, whether I like it or not (and for a while after my death, apparently - creepy). There is nothing I can do to stop them from growing - neither condoms, nor pills - and I can't choose to abstain from having them grow (apart from breathing, but see above). A kidney is fully developed living tissue and donating it is an individual, private decision that nobody has any right to interfere with. None of those, not even my kidney (which is living tissue), have the potential to become a person. ...This is not an exhaustive list of differences, but you probably get where I'm heading with this.

    artificial wombs

    That's the first time I heard of such a thing. If it worked, I'd welcome it. But no, it would not change my position in the slightest. I'd like to point out that you haven't actually asked what my position is. You are generalising and making assumptions.

    should cigarettes be legal?

    Where I live, cigarettes ARE legal. And damn popular, too.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/16/2008 @ 3:37pm

  206. Needless to say I'm flattered...but the differences between the Original and the Sequel are soon apparent!

    Posted by MASK2 01/16/2008 @ 2:18pm

    Posted by MASK2 01/16/2008 @ 2:20pm

    Posted by MASK2 01/16/2008 @ 2:22pm

    Posted by MASK2 01/16/2008 @ 2:29pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 3:48pm

  207. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Mask

    you are a paragon of virtue. think of it as a kind of homage.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 3:56pm

  208. this blog isn't big enough for two Masks....you guys are just gonna have to fight to the death I'm afraid.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 3:58pm

  209. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=jro555

    not to worry, the resemblance is only skin deep.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 4:02pm

  210. in Jacobean England there was an opera like entertainment called a masque. it was often accompanied by something called anti masques, kind of an intermission entertainment.

    think of me as the anti Mask, if you like.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 4:13pm

  211. this blog isn't big enough for two Masks..

    hey let HIM leave. he's been squatting here long enough.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 4:14pm

  212. ""However, this seems to me a reflection of our wider societal shortcomings that punish women for choosing motherhood in general." :: could you elaborate?" A specific example that comes to mind is that of a college-bound female athlete on scholarship, who upon discovering her pregnancy and deciding against abortion, promptly lost her scholarship. Why wouldn't the college delay it by a year? I wonder if a college-bound male facing fatherhood also stands to lose his scholarship? It doesn't seem that our society or government is interested in supporting or changing expectations about motherhood. When I look at the history of western feminism as a reaction against patriarchy, it reflects an equalization focus "we are good as men, we are strong as men, we are hard workers like men, anything a man can do, we can do (better)." Absolutely, a social movement had to take place for women's rights to bring us where we are today. But it was such an us-versus-them struggle; women pursued equalization as though the male is the ideal. As a woman, am I still to believe my body and its propensity for bearing children is a problem, and what has society done to make me feel any different? So, must it always be a choice? I realize there are untenable situations in which a woman would choose abortion. But for the woman who chooses abortion because she cannot afford a child, or because she wants to pursue an education and/or a career...what does our society actually do that would make her think having a child and accomplishing these goals are compatible, even complementary? If women ran the world, how would it be different? Would we have nine-to-five-jobs? Would we have the same power structures in the work place? Would the term CEO even mean anything? Right, right, now I sound like a real nutso, but see? Why is it that someone would think it's crazy to think a female collective could run the world?

    Posted by KidA78 at 01/16/2008 @ 4:31pm

  213. To favor the legality of abortion is akin to committing retroactive suicide. It is an absurdity. What is the difference between giving a woman the right to end the life of the human being growing inside of her and giving the woman the right to extinguish that life once it is outside her body? What is fundamentally different about the life that is taken? Location? Age? In any other situation would we consider location or age to be variables that could determine whether or not somebody is a human being? Is it "more acceptable" to murder a 2-year old than it is to kill a 60-year old, because the 60-year old is "more developed"?

    Posted by Dan Farnkoff at 01/16/2008 @ 4:54pm

  214. Posted by JRO555 01/16/2008 @ 3:58pm

    400 quatloos on the newcomer!

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 4:59pm

  215. Posted by DAN FARNKOFF 01/16/2008 @ 4:54pm

    DAN, besides trying to talk somebody out of having an abortion....

    do you think you can enact legislation outlawing it...and it work?

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 5:00pm

  216. What is the difference between giving a woman the right to end the life of the human being growing inside of her and giving the woman the right to extinguish that life once it is outside her body?

    you can't be serious.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 5:03pm

  217. "What is the difference between giving a woman the right to end the life of the human being growing inside of her and giving the woman the right to extinguish that life once it is outside her body?"- third trimester abortions are pretty much illegal and very rare. Most abortions occur in the first trimester. There is a very big difference between a zygote and an infant, don't be naive.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 5:14pm

  218. Lol good one Frosty :)

    Posted by ChadS at 01/16/2008 @ 5:20pm

  219. "Why wouldn't the college delay it by a year?" :: maybe because there are other female athletes who aren't pregnant who can still play? what good is an athletic scholarship if you can't play? players who do permanent damage to their bodies and can no longer play often lose their athletic scholarships. This is a sad fact of life. "As a woman, am I still to believe my body and its propensity for bearing children is a problem, and what has society done to make me feel any different?" I'm sorry you believe this way. Never in my life was I lead to believe I would not be a mother one day. Career, sports, other things were encouraged, but even then society, parents, and beyond always seem to insert the fact that motherhood is my greatest calling in life. I actually find it sort of annoying...who are they to say what MY calling in life is? "what does our society actually do that would make her think having a child and accomplishing these goals are compatible, even complementary? " are you kidding me? "super mom" is all we hear about it, she does it all!! she works, she cooks, she cleans, she raises kids!!! she's super mom!!! and society does nothing to aid supermom, least not here in the U.S.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 5:21pm

  220. Deadra

    This is not an exhaustive list of differences, but you probably get where I'm heading with this.

    So, then, are we in agreement that the unborn baby is not just a "blob of tissue?" And, if it is not "just a part of the mother" like toenails and hair then what exactly is it?

    artificial wombs

    At what point during pregnancy should abortion be illegal? 1st trimester? 2nd trimester? Never? IOW, when are you going to stomp on the rights of the mother and say she must have a "forced pregnancy?" If you say from the point of viability, that is something that is changing constantly (particularly if artificial wombs come into being, which is why I was asking). Will your reasons change along with it?

    heroin, crystal meth, DUI (I'll leave out cigarettes since that applies more to Americans)

    Are these things that you personally disagree with? Do you want them legal? How does that logic differ from abortion? (That's how it applies, Mask2).

    Mask:

    An admittedly ethical dilemma which I am still considering (but give me a sec. I'll come up with something.) :)

    Posted by usc1 at 01/16/2008 @ 5:38pm

  221. heroin, crystal meth, DUI (I'll leave out cigarettes since that applies more to Americans)

    Are these things that you personally disagree with? Do you want them legal? How does that logic differ from abortion? (That's how it applies, Mask2).

    not at all. it trivializes the subject. you're reaching.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 5:42pm

  222. Why use "artificial womb" when real ones are available? In the cases below, who `owns' the fetus? Imagine the future where career-focused women can `outsource' that pesky periods of pregnancies! Those that insist fetuses are a part of the women, how do you respond?

    CNN.com/Asia, updated 1:19 a.m. EST, Mon December 31, 2007

    Giving birth becomes the latest job outsourced to India

    ANAND, India (AP) -- Every night in this quiet western Indian city, 15 pregnant women prepare for sleep in the spacious house they share, ascending the stairs in a procession of ballooned bellies, to bedrooms that become a landscape of soft hills.

    A team of maids, cooks and doctors looks after the women, whose pregnancies would be unusual anywhere else but are common here. The young mothers of Anand, a place famous for its milk, are pregnant with the children of infertile couples from around the world.

    The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches.....have given birth to roughly 40 babies.

    More than 50 women in this city are now pregnant with the children of couples from the United States, Taiwan, Britain and beyond. The women earn more than many would make in 15 years.....

    Experts say commercial surrogacy -- or what has been called "wombs for rent" -- is growing in India. While no reliable numbers track such pregnancies nationwide, doctors work with surrogates in virtually every major city. The women are impregnated in-vitro with the egg and sperm of couples unable to conceive on their own.

    Commercial surrogacy has been legal in India since 2002, as it is in many other countries, including the United States. But India is the leader......

    Critics say...."It raises the factor of baby farms in developing countries,"......

    Young women are flocking to the clinic to sign up for the list....

    Posted by Happy at 01/16/2008 @ 5:59pm

  223. so what? that has very little to do with abortion. surrogate moms? in vitro? irrelevant to the discussion.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 6:03pm

  224. "So, then, are we in agreement that the unborn baby is not just a "blob of tissue?" And, if it is not "just a part of the mother" like toenails and hair then what exactly is it?" :: A parasite. I know you've been dying for some insensitive remark, I am happy to oblige :) remember, post 3:54 lives in infamy!! parasite- An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 6:19pm

  225. USC1-

    So, then, are we in agreement that the unborn baby is not just a "blob of tissue?" And, if it is not "just a part of the mother" like toenails and hair then what exactly is it?

    I think we're talking past each other here. Let me try again. Nails and hair are dead. There is nothing going on there. Otherwise hairdressers would probably have to be medical professionals working in a sterile environment. A fetus is made of cells and they are stuck together. So, technically, I suppose it is a 'blob of tissue' in exactly the same way as any other cohesive unit of cells is a 'blob of tissue'. I'm not a big fan of the word 'just' in any context. Except maybe to say "Just stop trying to put words in my mouth, please!"

    At what point during pregnancy should abortion be illegal? Will your reasons change?

    I'll assume that this is your roundabout, putting-words-in-my-mouth way of asking me for my personal view on abortion? In my ideal world abortion would always be legal but never necessary.

    I personally disagree with any number of things, none of which are an issue here or any of your business (how come cigarettes apply mostly to Americans, btw? do they only give Americans cancer? - don't answer that, I really don't need to know.). My ego is not so big to think that legality should be determined by what I agree with. Doesn't sound like a system worth living in if I were the one making the rules, and even less if I weren't. I find it very telling that you seem to make no distinction between harming oneself and knowingly risking/doing harm to others. Did you notice that?

    As for your tedious link with abortion...I fail to see it.

    Anyway...feel free to spew more vitriol, or try something new and present an intelligent argument (they do exist - I just happened to be convinced by the other side). I'm going to bed.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/16/2008 @ 6:25pm

  226. "Those that insist fetuses are a part of the women, how do you respond?" - Reproductive health and freedom are paramount. As a pro-choice person, I recognize that some people have a hard time and cannot conceive, and any route they can explore to meet their needs is up to them (and their wallet). "Imagine the future where career-focused women can `outsource' that pesky periods of pregnancies!" Those women who are that focused on their career can explore this option, sure (though maybe they should consider adoption instead). As a young professional woman, I actually kind of look forward to having a little lull in my career to raise a child one day. A mini retirement if you will, in good company :) I don't think its fair for you to assume working women hate children and child-bearing and want to outsource it.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/16/2008 @ 6:48pm

  227. An admittedly ethical dilemma which I am still considering (but give me a sec. I'll come up with something.) :)

    Posted by USC1 01/16/2008 @ 5:38pm |

    Take your time...not like you're going to outlaw abortion....

    ever.

    Posted by Mask at 01/16/2008 @ 7:28pm

  228. Deadra

    To clear up a few things quickly:

    1)Dropping cigarettes from the list had more to do with not knowing attitudes toward smoking in your neck of the woods.

    2)I have been through several debates about abortion on this website and learned long ago that "vitriol" is ineffective in changing people's minds.

    3)Please show where I've "spewed vitriol." I haven't. I have simply asked questions about your thoughts. Although I wonder if your perception of "vitriol" stems from your discomfort with the questions, or more accurately, the answers themselves.

    Posted by usc1 at 01/16/2008 @ 10:47pm

  229. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=jro555

    don't wait too long, life is short, and it's just more fun with children, or one.

    from a happy, happy dad.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/16/2008 @ 11:01pm

  230. Speaking of questions.

    I suppose it is a 'blob of tissue' in exactly the same way as any other cohesive unit of cells is a 'blob of tissue'.

    So how is it different than a tumor? (I'll drop the hair and toenail comparison since they're "dead") Both blobs of tissue. Both growing. Both removed with surgery. How is removing a tumor blob different from a baby blob? I come by the question honestly. As a pro-lifer, I see a distinct difference between the two...the baby having different DNA making it a separate life. Do you believe there is a difference and why (or why not)?

    In my ideal world abortion would always be legal but never necessary.

    Why not?

    (BTW, you didn't answer the original question...at what point during pregnancy do you think abortion should be illegal?)

    I personally disagree with any number of things

    Then why do you want abortion to be legal? You seem to suggest that it's wrong or at least something you disagree with (or else why would your care if it is rare?). Why not apply that "logic" to any number of things. This is where the connection to crystal meth, heroin, etc. is made...in the reasoning. You might think it's wrong to put it in your body, but why deny others their "right to privacy" and do what they want with their bodies?

    BTW, this also brings up a good question. In some states, a mother can be locked up if she is pregnant and abusing drugs/alcohol. This is done in order to protect the baby. Do you agree with those laws or should the mother be allowed to subject herself and her baby to any number of toxic substances?

    Posted by usc1 at 01/16/2008 @ 11:27pm

  231. THRAWN - Did you just bring up Harry Potter to underpin your argument? I guess it's been that kind of a day anyway...

    Let's see...if a fully grown, middle-aged magician took over my body after a failed attempt to achieve world domination (or whatever) - YES, we would be two separate beings. Because he was independent for decades before that, we don't share DNA, and because he could change hosts at will and on his own initiative. You show me a fetus that can do that, I might be pursuaded to consider your argument.

    Incidentially, show me a fetus that can take over my body and mind, and you'll freak me out forever.

    Posted by DEADRA 01/16/2008 @ 1:15pm

    I thought the discussion could use some comic relief :D

    That said, though, I think there is some depth there. My argument is that dependency, even complete and total dependency, does not preclude personhood. That's what the Voldemort example was supposed to show.

    As a sidenote, I think USC1 makes a very interesting point, not so much about abortion, but about the very strange legal standard from Roe. The notion of a generalized constitutional right to privacy would indeed make the things he cite virtually unconstitutional to ban, which seems intuitively problematic. Look, the constitutional notion of privacy was specific to particular situations and issues, not generalized in the way that the Court has understood it. The Constitution never prohibits the government from limiting an individual's ability to perform actions that only harm oneself, even if we believe that a democratic government shouldn't do that.

    Also, JRO555 is exactly right about one thing: he's a wizard, not a "magician." You better watch out, he might possess you.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/17/2008 @ 12:13am

  232. And I'm sure you may not be a huge fan of the constitutional analysis, but lest you believe that such legal issues are irrelevant...remember that Voldemort's demise came from a property rights dispute...

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/17/2008 @ 12:14am

  233. USC1-

    Re: 'vitriol' My perception of vitriol did not stem from any discomfort with the questions. It came from the fact that it was the end of a very long, very irritating day. I should not have taken that out on you - I apologize.

    So how is it different than a tumor? Both blobs of tissue - check. Both growing - check. I suppose that technically, a tumor has slightly different DNA, too - without a mutation it wouldn't be a tumor. The difference is the following: A fetus has the potential to become a person. A tumor doesn't. Also, a tumor is a horrible thing to happen to anybody, in any situation. The question of 'Would I like to be rid of that tumor' seems pretty much a no-brainer. The fact that I don't think a fetus is a person does not mean that I think it has no value.

    at what point during pregnancy do you think abortion should be illegal? Perhaps I should have made that more explicit: By 'always legal' I meant 'at any point during the pregnancy'. What should be illegal is forcing a woman to have an abortion and performing abortions without the training and equipment necessary to do it safely.

    Why not? I already said it - I'm not pro-abortion. I don't go around urging women to have unprotected sex and then go have abortions because they are so much fun and enrich your life. I'd start with good sex education. Basic stuff - 'No, you can't get pregnant from sitting in a chair a boy just sat in.' and 'No, using a a candy wrapper instead of a condom is not a great idea.' (Sadly, I'm not making these up.) There are so many ways to make sex safe and avoid accidential pregnancies. Educating people (not just women) about them and making them accessible and affordable would go a long way in bringing abortion rates down. But, no contraceptive is perfect, mistakes are made, stupid drunken nights happen, and, unfortunately, rapes and incest happen. I know that, even if I went out tonight and got completely wasted, picked up a guy for a one night stand and both the pill and the condom would let me down, I could have that baby. Why? Because I'm lucky. But not everybody is. So there should be safety nets, from families to communities, some form of social security...you name it - the more the better. But I still want abortion to be there as a last resort option, because people and societies aren't perfect...yet.

    Why else would you care if it is rare?

    I care about bringing the rates down because the fact that women would have to make that choice is sad. I suppose I see it as a failure of society. Maybe we didn't offer her enough information, or not enough support, or we couldn't prevent that somebody attacked her. That is sad, and that's why I care.

    why deny others their 'right to privacy' and do what they want with their bodies?

    I wouldn't, that's my whole point. Anybody has the right to do whatever they want to their own body, as long as they are not a danger to others. That doesn't mean I won't be trying to convince them otherwise - and that goes from bright pink hair all the way to using heroin.

    Do you agree with those laws

    Like FREIHEIT, I have experience working with mentally and physically disabled children, and some of those disabilities were a direct result of alcohol and drug abuse during pregnancy. I sometimes had to leave the room or else I would have done *something* to the mother. But I still firmly believe that women are capable of making informed decisions. So rather than be locked up, they should be informed of the risks they are taking. They should be offered support to stay sober. And if they still decide to do that to themselves, then their babies should have support when they are born. And I would try and take the mothers back to square one - how to avoid a pregnancy in the first place.

    THRAWN -

    re: right to privacy - please see above. re: constitutional analysis...sorry, but I can't offer anything halfway intelligent there. What I know about your constitution I know from TV, and that's no good. I'm really only here because I had to do some research on Helms Amendment and Gag Rule - that's what got me interested in your national policies. re: He-who-must-not-be-named...I know, I know, and I am very ashamed of myself right now. In my (feeble) defense, there is no clear difference btw 'wizard' and 'magician' in German. But I will re-read the canon or at least watch the movies at my earliest convenience. Also - I think that there is an important distinction of whether dependence was preceded by independence or not. And then there is that matter of choice again.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/17/2008 @ 05:17am

  234. Ooops...sorry about that epic post.

    Won't happen again.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/17/2008 @ 05:17am

  235. Ooops...sorry about that epic post.

    Won't happen again.

    Posted by DEADRA 01/17/2008 @ 05:17am

    not a problem.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2008 @ 08:18am

  236. The number of abortions performed in the United States dropped to 1.2 million in 2005 -- the lowest level since 1976, according to a new report.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 08:30am

  237. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/16/2008 @ 8:34pm :: "What do you and those like you"- first of all LV, I can only speak for myself, and trying to pin anyone else into this argument is irresponsible so please just address me alone. ""I'm having a baby or I'm having a parasite"?" - Generally, parasites are unwanted (unless in a symbiotic relationship, like those rhinos in Africa that have those birds to eat the bugs off of them). Most babies are wanted (all of them should be, but unfortunately not all mothers give birth to their child with love in their heart), unlike parasites. So I think calling an unwanted fetus a parasite is within the confines of the definition, and calling a wanted fetus a baby-to-be is also fair.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/17/2008 @ 08:33am

  238. I just want to briefly hit the "infinite regression" (you don't use the term, but that's still what you're basically arguing) argument that you make here, namely "how far back do you go?" . It's completely non-unique. In other words, the infinite regression could just as easily be taken the other way. How independent or rational does a being have to be in order to be considered human? When in the process does a person actually come into being? Why a baby, or a toddler, etc.? The difficulty of defining a threshhold would work both ways, and I would argue that it's generally reasonable to incorporate a presumption of life when there's any degree of reasonably uncertainty.

    Thrawn,

    I disagree with you here. People are talking about aborting an undeveloped fetus as if it were murdering a living, breathing, thinking person. A good majority of the people fighting on the "pro-life" side of the equation don't have a problem with the death penalty for a living, breathing, fully functioning person in violation with the law, but an undeveloped fetus has more rights than a convict, or a brain dead person in a hospital.

    If you are going to argue for life, then at least be consistent. Argue for the lives of everyone including murderes, rapists etc. if life is that sacred to you. You should also stand against war if life is that sacred to you. Otherwise, the argument put forward by the majority of right to lifers is nothing more than hypocritical and politically motivated hyperbole. Life isn't sacred, but rather controlling others is the thing that is sacred. Pretty un-American thinking there isn't it?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 08:59am

  239. "Life isn't sacred, but rather controlling others is the thing that is sacred." - bingo...its all a control game, well put wolf.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/17/2008 @ 09:47am

  240. Round and round, guys....if you like.

    The fact is that nobody on the "pro-life" side can come up with a scenario by which abortion is made illegal nationwide (and therefore pointless if neighboring states keep it legal), and NONE where it becomes unattainable (unless they plan to institute "ultra-sound check-points" at the Canadian/Mexican border and every international airport.

    So...what's the "end game" for them, except "winning hearts and minds" and AT BEST getting a small reduction. (Whereas the LOGICAL and most EFFECTIVE means of reducing abortion...is sex education and more contraception. Oh, but NO, we can't have that!)

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 10:17am

  241. Deadra- Is it true that you think abortion should be legal at any point during pregnancy? Even 8 months, 29 days? How this could not be tantamount to infanticide, especially considering the fact that fetal viability (the ability to live outside the womb with proper medical care) has been achieved in as little as six months, is difficult for me to understand.

    Posted by Dan Farnkoff at 01/17/2008 @ 10:29am

  242. Posted by MASK 01/17/2008 @ 10:17am :: exactly!! I think if someone truly cared for the well being of the unborn, they would advocate heavily for contraception, sex ed, demand every child have universal healthcare,demand that all pre-natal and pregnancy expenses be paid for or at least reduced, demand mothers have more paid time off and more childcare options (fathers too!), and make education a priority. All of these would encourage pregnant women to give birth to their baby knowing they have a society that will help them through their struggles. You know, a society that actually cared about the children after they exit the womb. Seems pro-lifers only care about babies who are unborn... once they leave the womb they're just a bunch of free-loaders.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/17/2008 @ 10:40am

  243. The fact is that nobody on the "pro-life" side can come up with a scenario by which abortion is made illegal nationwide (and therefore pointless if neighboring states keep it legal),

    this is myopic. do you not realize the hardship imposed on a woman when she must travel for needed medical services?

    rich women have always had safe, discrete abortions. it is poor women who were butcher3ed in back alley abortions.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 10:51am

  244. here are some effects of pregnancy on women from the lizlibrary. the small o's are astericks to note each effect. look at all the men here arguing for forced pregnancy when all they have to contribute to creating a child is 3 seconds of pleasure. its a massive cut n paste. that's because creating a child is a massive undertaking!

    Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy: o exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks) o altered appetite and senses of taste and smell o nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester) o heartburn and indigestion o constipation o weight gain o dizziness and light-headedness o bloating, swelling, fluid retention o hemmorhoids o abdominal cramps o yeast infections o congested, bloody nose o acne and mild skin disorders o skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen) o mild to severe backache and strain o increased headaches o difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping o increased urination and incontinence o bleeding gums o pica o breast pain and discharge o swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain o difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy o inability to take regular medications o shortness of breath o higher blood pressure o hair loss o tendency to anemia o curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities o infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases) o extreme pain on delivery o hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression o continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

    Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy: o stretch marks (worse in younger women) o loose skin o permanent weight gain or redistribution o abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness o pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life) o changes to breasts o varicose veins o scarring from episiotomy or c-section o other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty) o increased proclivity for hemmorhoids o loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

    Occasional complications and side effects: o hyperemesis gravidarum o temporary and permanent injury to back o severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies) o dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele) o pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies) o eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death) o gestational diabetes o placenta previa o anemia (which can be life-threatening) o thrombocytopenic purpura o severe cramping o embolism (blood clots) o medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby) o diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles o mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication) o serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis) o hormonal imbalance o ectopic pregnancy (risk of death) o broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone") o hemorrhage and o numerous other complications of delivery o refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease o aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures) o severe post-partum depression and psychosis o research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors o research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy o research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

    Less common (but serious) complications: o peripartum cardiomyopathy o cardiopulmonary arrest o magnesium toxicity o severe hypoxemia/acidosis o massive embolism o increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction o molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer) o malignant arrhythmia o circulatory collapse o placental abruption o obstetric fistula

    More permanent side effects: o future infertility o permanent disability o death.

    Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2008 @ 10:51am

  245. Deadra- Is it true that you think abortion should be legal at any point during pregnancy? Even 8 months, 29 days? How this could not be tantamount to infanticide, especially considering the fact that fetal viability (the ability to live outside the womb with proper medical care) has been achieved in as little as six months, is difficult for me to understand.

    Posted by DAN FARNKOFF 01/17/2008 @ 10:29am | ignore this person

    this is nonsense.no doctor would perform a late trimester abortion unless the woman's health is threatened.

    the decision is the woman's and her doctor's. that is what it is about. Not when "life" begins.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 10:54am

  246. "Even 8 months, 29 days? How this could not be tantamount to infanticide"- the term "infant" would indicate the fetus has already been born..hence why it's called an "infant". Infanticide is the killing of a baby or infant. So in my humble opinion, a baby just exiting the birth canal becomes an infant, and so any "late term abortions" that occur after that are in fact infanticide. But a baby still in the womb is a fetus, and abortion is an option. "considering the fact that fetal viability (the ability to live outside the womb with proper medical care) has been achieved in as little as six months" :: ah yes, is a woman being a tempermental incubator, demanding rights to her body (when of course, once a fetus is in it, its no longer her body now is it)?? remove the fetus and put it in a nice incubator machine that does its job without protest. Wouldn't that be ideal, if we could just remove women from the picture altogether?? and just have cute wittle babies, without those evil and cruel incubator machines that birth them??

    Posted by jro555 at 01/17/2008 @ 10:58am

  247. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/17/2008 @ 10:51am :: I don't know how they do it...whenever I see a list like this I often say to myself "maybe I should just adopt..."

    Posted by jro555 at 01/17/2008 @ 11:02am

  248. well, jr055, i have 4 kids. and the list is very true. my doctor told me it takes 7 years for your body to go back to normal, pre-pregnancy condition. i think it takes about 5 years. the loss of calcium from bones and teeth is very common and is not reversible. i had problems with my teeth after the first two children because i felt i was very healthy and did not take the pre-natal vitamins.

    baby formula is a relatively new development in human history. i did not use it at all. if you breastfeed, the wear on your body is even more extensive. the baby fully depends on you for life and growth for an additional 4-6 months. and they grow a lot during these months--all thanks to your body. in light of all of this, i think women need to rethink the 50-50 legal status of mothers and fathers. i love my dad. but i know what he didn't do to create me. my mother created me.

    Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2008 @ 11:14am

  249. Of course birth control (such as condoms, the pill, etc.) should be promoted, and sex education should be fully funded. Although it may be convenient to generalize pro-life people as Neocons or religious fanatics, it is not always accurate and can not substitute for trying to answer the philisophical or moral objections of anti-abortion individuals. Most people here have responded with reasoned arguments; however, others persist in stereotyping those who disagree with them. I know that not all pro-life people are fanatics, social misers, or bigots- I, for one, favor sex education, financial assistance for disadvantaged mothers, and jail terms for delinquent fathers- I also support gay marriage, loathe the violence and criminality of the Bush administration, and am usually opposed to capital punishment (sometimes my emotions get the better of me on this particular issue in the cases of aggravated murder)

    Posted by Dan Farnkoff at 01/17/2008 @ 11:20am

  250. The fact is that nobody on the "pro-life" side can come up with a scenario by which abortion is made illegal nationwide (and therefore pointless if neighboring states keep it legal),

    this is myopic. do you not realize the hardship imposed on a woman when she must travel for needed medical services?

    rich women have always had safe, discrete abortions. it is poor women who were butcher3ed in back alley abortions.

    Posted by MASK2 01/17/2008 @ 10:51am

    Point well taken MASK. But rich people have good, wholesome, faith based, values sex therefore they are entitled to top notch legal abortions performed in other nations. They only have sex because God said to be fruitful and multiply. Middle class and poor women on the other hand are just whores having sex for fun which makes any case of theirs null and void. For you bible thumpers out there, I just want to point out I'm being sarcastic here and not agreeing with you.

    Evidently women without the cash to afford this foreign medical care are of lesser value to the right to lifers and therefore should be subject to the backwards laws the rich in this nation don't follow but force upon the rest of us....and all in the name of God and country. What a tangled web THEY weave.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 11:24am

  251. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/17/2008 @ 11:14am:: 4 kids!??! you're amazing. the thought of one is scary enough. I pray for twins whenever I decide to have kids...just get it done in one shot and be done with it.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/17/2008 @ 11:30am

  252. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/17/2008 @ 10:51am :: I don't know how they do it...whenever I see a list like this I often say to myself "maybe I should just adopt..."

    Posted by JRO555 01/17/2008 @ 11:02am

    That's a great idea. I did adopt, twice, and I can say that my kids mean as much or more to me as any biological children mean to their parents. The parent/child bonds are the same. A child doesn't have to biologically be from your gene pool to be your child. When you also bring in the fact that there are millions of children in need of parents to love them and take care of them, it's an undertaking I wish more people would consider.

    So, once again I put this forward to the right to life folks. Instead of fighting against legalized abortion, why not give some of these already born children the right to a decent life? Put your efforts and life's work into these children instead of spewing out nothing but words put in your mouths by your pastors.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 11:33am

  253. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/17/2008 @ 11:14am

    the honey man in the market in mexico told us that if my wife had a little fresh royal jelly everyday, our baby would be born "squeaky clean". and there i was, out he comes, and lo and behold, not one of them fatty blob thingies. the nurses were impressed. poor kid didn't have a name for three months. we called him "bebé".

    if only indirectly, i also "manufactured" my son. i worked everyday to bring home the kilos and kilos of mangoes that critter's made from. that sure takes a toll. i guess i was like the parts supplier to the assembly plant.

    statistically men die younger than women. some of that is because more men work in shitty places. one day we'll be equal and get to die together.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2008 @ 11:35am

  254. Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/17/2008 @ 11:33am | ignore this person

    very nice. Loki too makes valuable points. what a relief to have a discussion sans the nutcases.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 11:38am

  255. "generalize pro-life people as Neocons or religious fanatics" :: who said anything about religion? "know that not all pro-life people are fanatics, social misers, or bigots" did you know that not all pro-choice people are baby murderers, liberal fanatics, and femme nazis? "Of course birth control (such as condoms, the pill, etc.) should be promoted, and sex education should be fully funded. " - what, no universal healthcare for children? no extra time paid off for mothers/fathers? no education initiatives? Caring for a baby in the womb is not enough, one must care about the baby all the way though adolescence to maintain some integrity to their "pro-life" argument. or is it that you don't care about the quality of life of the infant after it is born, just so long as it is born?? forgive me if it sounds like I'm putting words in your mouth, just curious as to what your stance is.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/17/2008 @ 11:38am

  256. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=frosty%20zoom

    I know of a family where they never got around to naming their boy. he was always referred to as "brother", and that finally became his name; Brother, and they called him Buzz.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 11:41am

  257. i guess i was like the parts supplier to the assembly plant.

    Frosty,

    That was pretty damn funny. Hey, check out this guitar solo and let me know what you think. http://youtube.com/watch?v=dKxhsd4x5u0

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 11:52am

  258. I care about the quality of life after the chid is born. Day care should be free. Health care should be free. 1 year paid maternity/paternity leave. How to pay? Cut the defense budget in half. The desire to control other people's lives has nothing to do with my opposition to abortion- it comes from the same instinct that recoils at the use of torture on POW's, abhors the killing of civilians in Iraq and elsewhere, and detests the usage of lies and misrepresentations by people in power in order to cover up their crimes or to take advantage of the vulnerable. Many pro-lifers are distressed by the inhumanity and cruelty of abortion, and feel the anguish of bearing witness to something horrible that you know you should try to prevent- the same inclinations that motivate some to vehemently oppose war for its cruelty and injustice motivate many of those who favor a curtailing of abortion.

    Posted by Dan Farnkoff at 01/17/2008 @ 11:58am

  259. "same instinct that recoils at the use of torture on POW's, abhors the killing of civilians in Iraq and elsewhere, and detests the usage of lies and misrepresentations by people in power in order to cover up their crimes or to take advantage of the vulnerable." - again, I apologize ahead of time for my assertions- but are you suggesting women who abort are liars, criminals, and murderers? "the same inclinations that motivate some to vehemently oppose war for its cruelty and injustice motivate many of those who favor a curtailing of abortion."- are you also comparing abortion to the Iraq War?? did it ever occur to you some women have justification for their decisions?? Women aren't aborting fetuses so their greedy contractor friends can make some dough, they aren't aborting for oil, they aren't aborting fetuses because "daddy didn't finish the job right", they aren't aborting to "export democracy". women don't abort fetuses because of terrorist attacks and possible WMDs. Women abort because we live in a society that doesn't care about its potential mothers, and therefore its potential babies.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/17/2008 @ 12:15pm

  260. "I care about the quality of life after the chid is born. Day care should be free. Health care should be free. 1 year paid maternity/paternity leave. How to pay? Cut the defense budget in half." - This however, I fully agree with you on. And I think incentives such as these would decrease the abortion rate more than a considerable amount.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/17/2008 @ 12:25pm

  261. Posted by DAN FARNKOFF 01/17/2008 @ 11:58am

    Dan, You put forth a good argument. But, sometimes, it may be more cruel in the long run not to have the abortion for all parties involved. Those parties being the mother, the baby, the mother's parents, the father, the father's parents etc.

    I don't think there's anyone out there who thinks that abortions are a walk in the park nor do women use them as birth control...it's a pretty damn painful form of birth control. I've been witness to one myself and it was indeed unpleasant and I was just there for support. Sometimes accidents happen and people should not be forced to have an unwanted baby, period. It's not fair to the parents nor the baby.

    In some cases, forcing an unwanted pregnancy can be more cruel than the abortion. Take a teenaged girl getting pregnant. Her life has just begun and saddling her with that kind of responsibility is not only irresponsible on the part of society, but also going to be detrimental to that girl's chances of succeeding in this more and more competitive job market. Then, consider what happens to babies when they are not welcome or wanted. Many are abused, beaten, burnt, tortured and some eventually die from this treatment. Forcing an unwanted baby upon people does and has caused bad outcomes to babies and young children.

    No doubt you've read about people beating their children to death, not feeding them and starving them etc. If these people chose to have their children, just imagine what they'd do if their children were forced upon them. I shudder at the thought. Though abortion itself is at best a bad situation, not having the abortion can yield even a worse situation. The individuals involved should be the ones making this difficult decision, not government officials, political parties nor pastors and priests. Not everyone shares the same religious or political beliefs, so we should not force beliefs on peoples' personal lives.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 12:29pm

  262. Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/17/2008 @ 11:52am

    hey that's great! on twelve-string, no less.

    i've an old pawn shop lp of pre-plastic glen campbell tearing up the twelve string. roy plays banjo on that one.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2008 @ 12:34pm

  263. abortion sucks, no doubt about it.

    (that was an unintended pun; thought i'd leave it for any of you "black humour" types.)

    not something i'd want to be involved with.

    and like any medical procedure, is better to be avoided by sound educational practices. but sometimes it's necessary.

    new thread, please.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2008 @ 12:40pm

  264. http://www.richardawaters.com/instruments.html

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 12:47pm

  265. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/17/2008 @ 11:51am

    FREIHEIT, I call you a coward because you waffle and try to "sound open minded" with your "I make no judgements for or AGAINST abortion"...

    and then load up posts with "the victim dies" or "an INNOCENT LIFE is ended"...

    which blatently show you ARE "making a judgement" "against" abortion...but are too cowardly or too dishonest to say you are a pro-lifer and are making rather solid and pronounced judgements about abortion.

    So if you don't like "coward"...how about "liar"?

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 1:00pm

  266. Posted by MASK2 01/17/2008 @ 10:51am

    In fact, BRANNIGAN, MQ, ROOSTER COGBURN, Sequel: Part Deux....that's my point.

    The pro-lifers claim that they're about "stopping abortions"...yet under ANY fantasy they have about re-criminalizing it, they CANNOT show how those with enough money can be stopped from getting one....or even how middle class folks can travel to Canada or Mexico....or even how the poor will simply be exploited by a "speak-easy" abortion provider (i.e. the old "back alley")....

    and the actual reduction in abortions will be few.

    Hence, they are fighting for something they KNOW is more about making themselves FEEL good, than actually "solving the problem".

    Many, like LVLIB, have figured it out...and no longer seek re-criminalization because they see how pointless that would be.

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 1:03pm

  267. some people prefer the sequel, as in Godfather. I know we are treading water.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 1:12pm

  268. and no longer seek re-criminalization because they see how pointless that would be.

    Posted by MASK 01/17/2008 @ 1:03pm

    and cruel..............

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2008 @ 1:12pm

  269. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/17/2008 @ 1:12pm

    Cruelty rarely matters. SLIVER said he'd accept "200-250" women dying a year, if that's what it took to keep abortion illegal.

    BLOG | Posted 08/07/2007 @ 6:50pm Comments for "Defend Dr. Tiller" by Peter Rothberg

    I'll help you out Mask:

    Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

    -Dr. Bernard Nathanson , founding member of NARAL who testified in favor of Roe v Wade.

    Read the rest for yourself : http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

    Posted by SLIVER 08/08/2007 @ 01:15am

    BLOG | Posted 09/25/2007 @ 5:52pm Comments for "Battle in Aurora" by Peter Rothberg

    That's not totally fair, JR. Just because SLIVER doesn't care if 200-250 women a year would die under illegal abortion....doesn't mean he hates them! ----Posted by MASK 09/25/2007 @ 8:15pm

    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 01/17/2008 @ 1:26pm

  270. 250 dead is fine as long as they're other people. put his mom and grandma and aunts in the picture... well we know what it would be then. what a slippery slope.

    check "the Third Man", novel or flick. has our Austrian Mädel seen that one?

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 1:36pm

  271. Froz, you too, great musical interest in that one, a masterpiece by Carol Reed who despite the name was a man.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 1:37pm

  272. i've an old pawn shop lp of pre-plastic glen campbell tearing up the twelve string. roy plays banjo on that one.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/17/2008 @ 12:34pm

    Ya, I remember seeing Roy play something like that on the old tv show the odd couple. Even as a dumb teenager who only liked hard rock and roll, I was blown away by Roy's guitar playing capabilities. Never saw anything like that on Hee Haw though, but then again, with Nurse Good Body, one didn't have to turn the volume up to enjoy the show.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 1:51pm

  273. i've an old pawn shop lp of pre-plastic glen campbell tearing up the twelve string. roy plays banjo on that one.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/17/2008 @ 12:34pm

    hmmm.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 1:58pm

  274. i've an old pawn shop lp of pre-plastic glen campbell tearing up the twelve string. roy plays banjo on that one.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/17/2008 @ 12:34pm

    hmmm.

    Posted by MASK2 01/17/2008 @ 1:58pm

    What's that all about MASK2?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 2:05pm

  275. doesn't make one pro life any more than pointing out that innocent life is lost in war makes one anti war......Posted by FREIHEIT 01/17/2008 @ 2:03pm

    I'll take the plunge and come right out and say that I am anti-war.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 2:07pm

  276. What's that all about MASK2?

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/17/2008 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person

    he was bitching about others having a private conversation, while certainly not practicing what he preached.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 2:11pm

  277. good postings on your part Wolfgang.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 2:12pm

  278. back to the innocent life again.sigh.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 2:17pm

  279. i don't know about the parts supplier metaphor, frosty....or the "research" that shows men dieing so much younger than women because they work so so hard, much harder than women.

    there are many women who not only feed their own pregnant mouth but many other mouths as well. an extreme example is a friend of mine who had 7 daughters in 10 years. she did a lot of that time as a single mom. she also began college after she already had 5 of those daughters. she graduated in and works as a hydrogeological engineer. while she was having and raising daughters, working as an lpn and attending college, she remodeled her house including building an additional bathroom, installing laminate and tile flooring and updating wiring and plumbing. through all this, she keeps an upbeat and optomistic attitude. she is an endless source of inspiration to me.

    as to your second point with mens' earlier deaths: could it possibly be that men party harder and dabble in violence and risk-taking at a far higher rate than women? evel knievel, goddess rest his soul, is an extreme example of this. he lived an awful long time with a severely broken body.

    Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2008 @ 2:19pm

  280. jro55, i don't want to give you the wrong idea about having kids. i am thrilled with my choice to be a mom. i grow more in awe of my children with time. wolfgang brought up the beautiful choice of adoption. if i ever decided to bring more kids into my home, i would adopt.

    Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2008 @ 2:23pm

  281. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/17/2008 @ 2:23pm

    i guess lots of people have brought up adoption on this thread. crabwalk eloquently mentions adoption in a number of his posts. i should have said wolfgang most recently commented on the beautiful choice of adoption.

    Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2008 @ 2:37pm

  282. Posted by KIDA78 01/16/2008 @ 3:03pm

    The situation in North Carolina only occurred after much work was done on both sides of the argument. The physician at the clinic where abortion was provided contacted the pastor of the church that ran the CPC because several members of his congregation were harassing her and because the CPC was providing false and/or misleading information. After the pastor did some investigating, he realized that the physician was correct. The physician and the pastor came to an understanding of each other's points of view, and the pastor reorganized the CPC and changed their entire process. Had the physician not contacted the CPC, I do not doubt that their employees would have continued to carryout their previous practices.

    Although it took a lot of work on both sides, the North Carolina example does provide a good example as to how both sides can work together to benefit their community by focusing on the individual woman who enters the center.

    It's also good to hear that other centers, such as the one at which your family member works, do a good job of helping without judgment or pressuring the woman one way or another. However, these cases are rare.

    JRO555,

    Have you read Courtney Martin's book "Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters"? There is a really interesting section on the whole Super Mom phenomenon and the idea that you're just expected to do everything - work, cook, clean, laundry, cookies and cupcakes for the school party, practices, lessons, costumes, etc. Great book, really...

    Posted by ldn at 01/17/2008 @ 2:47pm

  283. Btw, KIDA78, are you a Radiohead fan?

    Posted by ldn at 01/17/2008 @ 2:52pm

  284. MASK, I must say all this "liar" and "coward" stuff is making you sound a little like a certain professor from New York who no longer posts here. I meant to tell you once that it seemed the level of discussion seemed to go up a notch in civility overall (including me) since we lost that Objective Personage (heh heh). We should try to keep it that way, yes?

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/17/2008 @ 3:54pm

  285. oh come on chip! johannesrolf contributed greatly to all threads he participated in. i found his comments usually elevated or attempted to elevate the discussions. and i enjoyed his input.

    Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2008 @ 4:23pm

  286. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/17/2008 @ 2:27pm :: is this some sort of metaphor for abortion? an invading army? If it is (and please do tell me if is not, by all means)wouldn't a zygot or fetus be the invading force, taking away a woman's free will? think I just fell into that descent of absurdity...

    Posted by jro555 at 01/17/2008 @ 4:25pm

  287. good postings on your part Wolfgang.

    Posted by MASK2 01/17/2008 @ 2:12pm |

    Thanks and likewise.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 4:25pm

  288. Posted by LOVELOKI 01/17/2008 @ 2:23pm :: not at all love (haha hope you don't mine me calling you love). I'm just far too young to even consider it at this point, but I do see it happening sometime in my future.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/17/2008 @ 4:27pm

  289. evel knievel, goddess rest his soul, is an extreme example of this. he lived an awful long time with a severely broken body.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 01/17/2008 @ 2:19pm

    Please don't lump all of us guys in there with Evil Knievel. The guy made his living riding motorcyles off jumps, in short, he may not have been playing with a full deck. Now, Mozart died young and was a party animal and probably died more like the modern day men you were talking about. Anyway, he's much better company than Mr Knievel.

    There are obvious differences between men and women and it could just be a physiological reality that women just outlive men on average. All I know is I want to die before my wife. I'd rather that she burn my ashes versus my having to bury her. It's selfish I know, but that's the sequence of events I would like to have happen knock on wood.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 4:36pm

  290. if i ever decided to bring more kids into my home, i would adopt.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 01/17/2008 @ 2:23pm

    Cool!!!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 4:39pm

  291. You know Wolfgang, I'm also anti-war. We have the luxury to be so. I bet, though, if we were attacked militarily and an invading army representing a power that would take away our freedom marched down our street, we would fight them together. You don't strike me as someone who would lay down and hide.

    In reality, we are not anti-war. We are anti-injustice.

    Can you see the distinction?

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/17/2008 @ 2:27pm

    Agreed. And yes, I do see the distinction.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/17/2008 @ 4:44pm

  292. hey wolfgang, sweet that you two adopted!

    :)

    and evel wasn't all bad. he was somewhat a product of his environment. i liked him.

    Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2008 @ 4:46pm

  293. Posted by MASK2 01/17/2008 @ 1:36pm

    Sure I have. Come visit and we'll do the guided tour of the tunnels.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/17/2008 @ 5:21pm

  294. People are talking about aborting an undeveloped fetus as if it were murdering a living, breathing, thinking person. A good majority of the people fighting on the "pro-life" side of the equation don't have a problem with the death penalty for a living, breathing, fully functioning person in violation with the law, but an undeveloped fetus has more rights than a convict, or a brain dead person in a hospital.

    If you are going to argue for life, then at least be consistent. Argue for the lives of everyone including murderes, rapists etc. if life is that sacred to you. You should also stand against war if life is that sacred to you. Otherwise, the argument put forward by the majority of right to lifers is nothing more than hypocritical and politically motivated hyperbole. Life isn't sacred, but rather controlling others is the thing that is sacred. Pretty un-American thinking there isn't it?

    Posted by WOLFGANG1 01/17/2008 @ 08:59am

    There are a few problems with this. First of all, I don't think it's fully responsive to my argument that the "infinite regression" point is completely non-unique, which is important when you add in the premise that in situations of strong uncertainty, you should presume in favor of rather than against life. Second, though I think you have a valid point, I think it goes too far. Those who favor life should absolutely favor life at all stages, but I don't think that automatically entails a categorical opposition to war and capital punishment (since one could argue that both of these involve losses of life on either side of the "equation"). That said, though, I still think the core of what you're saying here is absolutely right. We often have a tendency to devalue or undervalue life at various stages, and that's unacceptable.

    I think that there is an important distinction of whether dependence was preceded by independence or not. And then there is that matter of choice again.

    Posted by DEADRA 01/17/2008 @ 05:17am

    Why? Why does it make a difference whether a being is dependent now and independent in the future, as opposed to independent in the past and dependent now?

    Also, I think Loki's actually added a very interesting twist to the discussion on abortion, one that she probably didn't intend. She points out that post-pregnancy care of a child involves both intense dependence and a fair amount of hardship. Even given that, though, we still don't think that infanticide is okay. How, then, can you possibly justify abortion at every single stage of the pregnancy? Chip's absolutely right when he says that the difference between the fetus immediately pre-delivery and the baby immediately post-delivery doesn't seem nearly significant enough to justify killing it in the one circumstance and not the other. If the being involved is a person, you need a whole lot more than just "choice" to ever justify killing it.

    The fact is that nobody on the "pro-life" side can come up with a scenario by which abortion is made illegal nationwide (and therefore pointless if neighboring states keep it legal), and NONE where it becomes unattainable (unless they plan to institute "ultra-sound check-points" at the Canadian/Mexican border and every international airport.

    Posted by MASK 01/17/2008 @ 10:17am

    This argument doesn't seem the least bit compelling, and to see why, let's take a Harry Potter analogy again. Let's say you have a society where there are like, 90% regular people, but also 10% wizards, which are just super-powerful. The police can't stop them, or anything. Even if you couldn't stop them from murdering people (indeed, the police can rarely prevent murder in the status quo), laws against murder are still valuable because they express society's condemnation against murder.

    If abortion really does involve the termination of a life, then, I'm not sure why this practicality argument really matters. Even if you have a rich subclass of people that can get easy access to abortions, or even if everyone can, that doesn't make their actions justifiable, and it doesn't mean that society shouldn't inscribe that condemnation into law.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/17/2008 @ 5:50pm

  295. Freiheit -

    Danke vielmals :) Ich wohne derzeit wieder in Österreich, habe aber 3 Jahre lang in England studiert. Ich surfe außerdem zuviel im Internet ;)

    Posted by Deadra at 01/17/2008 @ 5:52pm

  296. THRAWN -

    Why does it make a difference whether a being is dependent now and independent in the future, as opposed to independent in the past and dependent now?

    To me - and I have yet to find a way to articulate this properly - it's the difference between a potential and an actual person. A fetus, to me, isn't a person, but it can become one, and that makes it very precious indeed. But I would still value the actual over the potential.

    As for abortion at every stage - Firstly, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor who will abort a healthy fetus at 8 months 29 days, because I can't imagine a medical reason for that. I also don't think you'd find a woman who, when given the option of having a C-section and the baby being given up for adoption immediately afterwards, would choose to abort. And if you do, that woman needs a shrink, not an attorney. And, again this is me not thinking in US-specific terms, what about a desperately poor woman living in a remote area, who's already struggling to feed her 5 children. She's eight months pregnant when the mobile clinic comes to the nearest village, where she learns from the ultrasound that the baby will be severely disabled. Would you put her in jail for taking what she might see as her only option?

    Posted by Deadra at 01/17/2008 @ 6:19pm

  297. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a doctor who will abort a healthy fetus at 8 months 29 days, because I can't imagine a medical reason for that.

    there are instances, I'm told, when during a birth the mothers life is threatened and the doctor finds it necessary to abort the fetus to save the mother's life.

    who would you rather have make that decision, Liberty and Thrawn or your doctor? this is a very general "you", I already know where you stand.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 6:52pm

  298. Nope, Mask, I'm not a liar either.

    Pointing out that an innocent life is lost in an abortion

    the lie is claiming to be even handed. the "innocent" part gives it away.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 7:04pm

  299. if the fetus is innocent, who is guilty? the woman? the doctor? a permissive society?

    we all know where you stand Friehiet.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 7:29pm

  300. Here's the thing that I don't understand about the whole antiabortion movement. Of all eggs that are fertilized, 80-90% never implant, of those that implant, at least 50% don't stay attached long enough for the woman to suspect something is up. Of those that stay long enough that the woman notices, up to 1/3 don't survive til pregnancy. Now that we have better genetics tests, the idea that the majority of failed fertilizations are the result of tragic gentic flaws turns out to be false.

    If egg + sperm = no baby is so offensive to the creator of the universe, why is that the most common outcome?

    Also, before the era of modern medicine, women's life expectancy was about half of what it is today, largely because of death in childbirth [which more often than not killed the child as well]. There was also "childbed fever", which killed women - and babies - a few days later. Also, of babies that survived birth before 1900, about half died before age 5. Even with legal abortion, more babies survive birth, and almost all American babies survive til adulthood [deaths of children in the era of modern medicine aren't measured as x out-of-ten, but x-out-of-100,000]

    Posted by TrishR at 01/17/2008 @ 7:31pm

  301. if everyone is innocent why make a point of innocent life when referring to the fetus?

    you are fooling no one.,

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 7:49pm

  302. how about one of your girls gets pregnant in middle school, say at 13, kids do the darndest things. still "uncommitted"?

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 7:55pm

  303. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/17/2008 @ 8:05pm | ignore this person

    you may accuse me of smugness, but you may not make assumption about me, as they would reveal you as an ass. you just don't have enough information, silicone alley boy.

    it seems much more likely that I make YOU uncomfortable.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 8:11pm

  304. Posted by FREIHEIT 01/17/2008 @ 2:03pm

    Okay, FREI...then show some honesty and tell us that you are "completely neutral" on the issue of abortion...

    and your "I make no judgements for or against abortion" comment was truthful?

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 8:20pm

  305. Care to answer my question about if you are a fellow parent?

    I actually have answered in a post above on this very thread.

    in any case I would be careful in making assumptions.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 8:32pm

  306. Posted by THRAWN 01/17/2008 @ 5:50pm

    Sorry, THRAWN, didn't realize you espouse a "divine right of kings" or some "Soviet apparatchik" kind of law...whereby we uphold our "morality" by arresting the poor and allowing the rich to get away with the "baby killing" as long as they have the cash to travel to Toronto or Paris.

    But I guess we'd show how righteous a country we are by making abortion only available to those who can afford it, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 01/17/2008 @ 8:33pm

  307. Posted by MASK 01/17/2008 @ 8:33pm | ignore this person

    sorry if I misinterpreted your earlier post. on this subject, as in others , we are in complete agreement.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/17/2008 @ 8:37pm

  308. he was bitching about others having a private conversation, while certainly not practicing what he preached.

    Posted by MASK2 01/17/2008 @ 2:11pm

    i hope that's been cleared up.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2008 @ 9:37pm

  309. as to your second point with mens' earlier deaths: could it possibly be that men party harder and dabble in violence and risk-taking at a far higher rate than women? evel knievel, goddess rest his soul, is an extreme example of this. he lived an awful long time with a severely broken body.

    Posted by LOVELOKI 01/17/2008 @ 2:19pm

    yeah, that, too.

    i was just talking about our experience, nothing more.

    i must relinquish computer.

    ciao.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/17/2008 @ 9:38pm

  310. ciao frosty. have a great night!

    :)

    Posted by loveloki at 01/17/2008 @ 10:16pm

  311. LOVELOKI, I really don't like engaging in conversations about individuals without their knowledge, although anything I could say to you here I've already said to him or when he was on here. Suffice it to say our opinions regarding his contributions must forever remain at odds, I guess.

    One irony, though, is that JR's decision to leave here, if I remember correctly, was his outrage over the lack of reaction to one specific bloggers anti semitic hatred and general racism-real racism. But if JR had waited long enough he would have seen almost everyone on here, libs, cons, everybody, jump down this clowns throat. It was the greatest display of unity I'd ever seen on here. But JR didn't wait, so off he went.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 01/18/2008 @ 07:44am

  312. "I think a pro-life advocate would likely agree with an abortion in most of those extreme cases." - Wrong. The very term "pro-life" is imperiled when you make concessions, especially for rape seeing how no one but an "innocent" fetus dies. It is all or nothing, otherwise you must find another catchy name for your movement.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 08:32am

  313. "Nov. 2,2006, Nicaragua's legislature had voted to ban all abortions, eliminating long-standing exceptions for rape, malformation of the fetus and risk to the life or health of the mother." Is this the kind of country we want to live in?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 08:34am

  314. "Explain to me how the aborted fetus is not innocent please." :: Let's assume the fetus is indeed innocent. Ok...innocent from what? what is the crime being committed against it? who is the criminal implementing it? how should justice be served? ...This makes me wonder, why do fetuses get rights? and if they do, why do they trump the rights of a woman?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 08:46am

  315. But hey, to the pro-choice crowd, that is acceptable collateral damage.

    Just like the loss of innocent life in Iraq is acceptable collateral damage to those who support the war, many of whom are pro-life.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/17/2008 @ 5:02pm |

    Freiheit, I'll join Mask on one account. You are far from the neutral standpoint you claim to hold. You are pro-life period. Everything you point out takes the choice away from the individual. You keep assuming that the fetus is a living entity and will not listen to any reasoning. From what I gather, you feel that the fetus is a living person upon conception. There is no way in hell you can tell me sperm cells and an egg are a living person. Sorry, but I can't buy into that.

    That argument holds less water than the point I brought up earlier about determining exactly when life begins. If conception is the point just because of the sexual contact, then it can be taken to the point where not having sex is in fact aborting a potential life. This goes round and round, but if you are going to hold that a fetus with an undeveloped brain or underdeveloped brain holds status as a living citizen, then my argument about holding people accountable for not having sex as possible murder holds as much water. The intent was there, it just wasn't carried through therefore a possible life was denied it's chance. That potential for life is there, just not in the physical sense. Sounds kind of like the Catholic Church. Birth control is bad, bad, bad....what a bunch of B.S. that is.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 10:26am

  316. Folks, the scenario game of what to do with a severely disabled unborn, or the unborn result of rape, etc are weak pro-choice arguments. Want to bet those scenarios number in the 1,000's? Abortion numbers in the 1,000,000's....FREIHEIT

    Freiheit, The rape arguement or incest claim are actually quite lame based on the right to life position. If you claim that in cases of rape or incest it's alright to perform an abortion, you are appointing yourself as judge, jury and executioner if you truly believe that the fetus is a living person with full protections under the law. The fetus has not committed a crime. So, the religious folks out there accepting the point that it's ok to abort a fetus because of incest or rape are not putting forth a logical arguement whatsoever.

    Once again, if the life of the fetus is that precious with the right to life argument, then it would follow that the fetus should be allowed to live. Now, please tell me who will take care of that baby after the fetus has grown into a person? These types of arguments must be followed by a solution. Since we don't have orphanages in the U.S. and foster care has proven to be a mess for many children that has caused many kids to be beaten, molested, raped etc. I think we can say that the foster care program in the U.S. is at best marginal.

    Before we take on forcing unwanted babies onto the population, we'd better figure out just exactly what in the hell we do with these unwanted babies when they are born. That's a more pressing matter. We have kids on the streets, in foster care, without parents etc. Someone needs to be in their corner fighting for their rights before we start fighting over potential future children don't you think?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 10:41am

  317. The consequence of an abortion is a life (or potential life) is terminated.

    this is an example of your straddling, Frei. there is a huge difference between "an innocent life" and a "potential life"

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 10:44am

  318. "The consequence of an abortion is a life (or potential life) is terminated. This is a fact, the only fact in the debate. That life is innocent by definition. "

    by what definition?? One only declares "innocence" when there is a crime or some sort of misgiving occurring. There are the "innocent" and then there are the "guilty". Innocent: free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless. Thats the definition- so in this context Frei, what is the "legal or specific wrong", what is the "innocent fetus" "guiltless" from? This is a rehashing of MCQs posts..."innocent" is a loaded term and its definition and the context in which it is used cannot be ignored. "This is a fact, the only fact in the debate." - Fine, an "innocent fetus" dies in abortion. "an innocent life is lost"- when we use your term, when we add definition and context back into the equation, every time you say "innocent life" you are also saying "murderous, criminal woman".

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 11:12am

  319. Stop treating me like some pro life advocate. I want the government out of it. The decision is between the woman and God.

    you are beyond hope. and GOD? who do you think you are? with this crap. GOD? who the fuck cares about your imaginary friend up on high?

    it's between a woman and her doctor.

    this is just another instance of your phony protestations. you are a Vatican plant.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 11:54am

  320. "Somebody doesn't be." - if somebody doesn't be, then how could they have died, or be "terminated"?? Your rhetoric has slowly evolved; from "innocent" to "potential", from "termination, killed" to "never exist, doesn't be" - and I welcome that. I prefer these terms, they are more truthful. I will whole heartedly agree with you that "somebody doesn't be". I will not agree that an "innocent" life is terminated/extinguished/killed/murdered.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 11:58am

  321. somebody doesn't be? somebody means a person. the fetus does not become a person until birth.

    these are all loaded words.

    Friehiet, you just can't help exposing yourself for what you are.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 12:09pm

  322. Funny to me how you are unable to admit the only truth in the abortion debate. Somebody doesn't be.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 11:40am

    Freiheit,

    I understand full well that aborting a fetus obviously is destroying a potential life. No doubt or argument on the point. Nor do sugar coat anything. I simply refuse to allow the rights of a fetus to trump that of the mother carrying said fetus.

    What I am afraid of is the clock stoppers rolling back time to where woman have to go to back alley abortionists because people ram legislation into laws incrementally until all abortions are illegal. Huckabee is one such politician who would appoint supreme court justices as one George Friggin Bush has done. Neither of these men have to live with the consequences of their power grab using abortion as an issue to be elected, but the women of this country do unfortunately. If you can't see that, you are the one sugar coating the issue and blinding yourself to that reality.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 12:28pm

  323. Friehiet, I take your handle to be ironic.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 1:02pm

  324. Friehiet: believer in god=good

    nonbelievers=very bad.

    you too have Taleban pretensions. sharia forever.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 1:04pm

  325. "f one can say that, one can say they understand the true issue of abortion." - that abortion is the prevention of an "innocent" life being taken, because if it never existed then how could it be taken?? **you have entered the twlight zone....do do do dodo**

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 1:26pm

  326. I have a huge respect for all life. In giving that respect, I give the right of each of you to think for yourself and to make your own decisions governing your body and your life and request that same right for myself. Abortion should be the last resort for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, but it is the right of the individual to make that decision and to live with the consequences, whatever they may be. I think that abortion should be discouraged when possible, but that there are many things which would cut down on the number of abortions that the same people who are so "pro-life" actually discourage, such as easy access to birth control, clear information from adults on ways to prevent pregnancy besides denying one's biological urges as 'impure' or 'sinful' and telling people to remain abstinent. Support should be a given for those who choose to continue an unwanted pregnancy in the form of child care, employment and counseling. Children who have children and no social support are a problem for all of us. How dare we, as a nation, allow such imbalances to continue while paying trillions to deal in death?

    Posted by dzychase at 01/18/2008 @ 2:20pm

  327. I feel sorry for you Mask2. You come across to me as a very bitter, lost individual. I do wish you luck in finding whatever it is you seek.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 1:36pm | ignore this person

    you patronizing prick.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 2:22pm

  328. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=dzychase

    of course. did you see my post that abortions in the Us are at their lowest since the 70s? there are many ways to lower the number of abortions. making them illegal is not one of them.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 2:25pm

  329. I'm sorry, sanctimonious patronizing prick.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 2:26pm

  330. The numbers would drop significantly, so be careful of how you frame things if you actually want to influence anyone outside of your choir.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person

    not exactly. when abortions were illegal they were still very common. and dangerous. many women died.

    you misstate my position. I am not pro abortion. I am for the woman's right to choose.

    an abortion is a medical procedure, which even in a doctor's office or a hospital carries some danger for the woman involved. my interest is not some ideology but a practical respect for the safety and well being of the woman.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 2:58pm

  331. By the way, I doubt you will engage this, but I really am curious why lowering the number of abortions would be an issue for you at all.

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 2:42pm | ignore this person

    what is this crap of supplying my answer as you ask the question?

    I doubt you have a sane idea in your head. hows that?

    and god does not belong in this discussion.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 3:00pm

  332. I am familiar with a great many words, more than you, you fake freedom.you may take your god and shove it.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 3:21pm

  333. FREIHEIT - Actually, it is highly doubtful that making abortion illegal would really lower the rates. The statistics would show a marked drop, sure, but abortions would still happen, just as they always have. Do you guys have the term "angelmaker", too? or is that a Brits-only thing? What would go up, at a horrifying rate, would be the number of women dying as a consequence of unprofessional abortions. Those women would most likely already be mothers... ...it just doesn't seem like such a good idea. Btw...Ich glaube nicht, dass Sie Anspielungen auf Ann Coulter und sonstige passiv-agressive Äusserungen wirklich nötig haben.

    MASK2 - Breathe.

    WOLFGANG1 - First of all, I enjoy reading your posts. Just permit me one small comment on the Catholic Church and contraceptives: (And I'm mentioning this only because I danced around the living room singing 'Only 300 years to go until they catch up with modernity!' and stuff like that when that papal letter came out...) The Church is fully in favour of contraceptives (except plan-B, of course) for women (married women, obviously) in cases where another pregnancy would be dangerous for the mother, because they recognize that existing life must come before potential life. So, progress is glacial, but it's happening.

    Posted by Deadra at 01/18/2008 @ 3:31pm

  334. The Church is fully in favour of contraceptives (except plan-B, of course) for women (married women, obviously) in cases where another pregnancy would be dangerous for the mother, because they recognize that existing life must come before potential life. So, progress is glacial, but it's happening.

    Posted by DEADRA 01/18/2008 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person

    when did this happen? when I was a catholic that wasn't so. you are too young to remember but contraceptives were illegal in many European countries. I remember folks smuggling contraceptives into France from Scandinavia.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 3:36pm

  335. I volunteered at a crisis pregnancy center and there were many young ladies who just needed some help with finding out what agencies and groups were around to help them keep their baby. I was happy to be able to help in that small way. Putting down ALL crisis pregnancy centers is being ignorant. Noone at my Birthright office ever judged anyone who came in and said they wanted an abortion. We listened, made sure the woman was informed of the agencies that were around to help her. She was then able to make an even more informed decision. What's wrong with that?

    Bruce

    Posted by brucemcwill at 01/18/2008 @ 3:43pm

  336. you continue to mischaracterize my views, just as you mischaracterized yours. that is why you were called a liar by some.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 3:44pm

  337. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Freiheit

    unlike you, I can actually produce Umlauts.

    and I never use a Thesaurus.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 3:53pm

  338. MASK2 -

    Well, I might not remember those times, but I do know about them. And I'm actually a bit crushed right now...Seems like I heard only what I wanted to hear, and he never said that. Damn. So, sorry, I take it back.

    But Ratzinger has a working group looking into contraceptives right now.

    ... oh why do I even bother getting my hopes up?

    Posted by Deadra at 01/18/2008 @ 4:00pm

  339. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Deadra

    the last decent pope was Roncalli.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:04pm

  340. "Mask2, thanks for once again proving Ann Coulter right about liberals" - frei, why would you stoop to this?? especially in the new Valenti thread accusing others of "blatant partisan bias"- what are you exhibiting here? I find political pundits of all backgrounds as offensive hate mongerers, you will never see me going "oh Franken is so right, republicans are jerks" "oh Olberman is so right, republicans are stinky". Seriously...is this what you are reduced to?

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:05pm

  341. Posted by MASK2 01/18/2008 @ 1:04pm

    This sad statement reveals an utter lack of familiarity with religion due to its massive essentialization of "religion" as "the Taliban." When "it's between the woman and God" it taken as "OMG Sharia!!!"....wow...

    Sorry, THRAWN, didn't realize you espouse a "divine right of kings" or some "Soviet apparatchik" kind of law...whereby we uphold our "morality" by arresting the poor and allowing the rich to get away with the "baby killing" as long as they have the cash to travel to Toronto or Paris.

    But I guess we'd show how righteous a country we are by making abortion only available to those who can afford it, huh?

    Posted by MASK 01/17/2008 @ 8:33pm

    This is very nice rhetoric, but it's not the least bit responsive. If abortion actually does constitute murder, or at least a meaningful crime of some form, your claim that it's easy to get is wholly irrelevant. The murder example, which you totally failed to respond to, makes this point really nicely. If murder were virtually impossible for law enforcement officials to prevent (which, arguably, it is in the status quo), that wouldn't invalidate the justification for punishing murderers. Why does it do so here?

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2008 @ 4:06pm

  342. "It never existed BECAUSE it was taken."- but how could it be taken if it never existed?? see, we can play this word game all night :)

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:06pm

  343. Posted by BRUCEMCWILL 01/18/2008 @ 3:43pm

    Just wondering... what type of information did you provide to women seeking abortion services? You don't have to be judgmental to provide misinformation. No one called the CPC workers judgmental. What we did criticize are the methods they use. In fact, it would be silly for CPC workers to be judgmental because they don't want to tick off a pregnant woman before the convince her to "not murder her baby". You know, it's that whole "change their hearts" argument.

    FYI, not all CPCs were derided. Making such a statement is ignorant. What were derided were CPCs that provide misinformation both about abortions and the type of services they offer. CPCs like the one referenced earlier in North Carolina are exceptions to the rule.

    Don't be ignorant :)

    Posted by ldn at 01/18/2008 @ 4:12pm

  344. OK, a couple of clarifications that are probably necessary.

    On "innocent." Look, the word has meaning outside of a criminal context. In just war theory, for example, people talk about civilian casualties as "innocent lives." I'm pretty sure that's the same sense of "innocent" that Freiheit is using here.

    Second, on the apparent paradox. Here, I think, is the argument Freiheit is making:

    The fetus is a potential life, a living being that would reach its full potential as a human were it not terminated by abortion. Therefore, when the fetus (a living being in its own right) is killed, the fully-fledged human being that would otherwise have lived is effectively destroyed.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2008 @ 4:15pm

  345. "Oh, and before you pop out your thesaurus to call me another name, I still wonder how you justify a woman's right to choose with a desire for lower numbers of abortions (stances we agree on, by the way) yet, you refuse to admit that in abortion a life, or potential life is lost? If nothing is lost, there is absolutely no downside or victim, why would the quantity of abortions be of any relevance? "

    Frei, I know this may come as a surprise, but some people have concern for WOMEN. Most pro-lifers only give a crap about the cute wittle baby, not the incubator. I care about women, I care about my sisters, and abortion is no cake walk. I would be happy if no woman ever had to have an abortion ever- for HER sake and no one else's. so why would a PRO-CHOICE person like to see a decrease in abortions? it means a decrease in women having an unpleasant experience, it means less women being harassed by angry pro-lifers, it would mean less women being assaulted and labeled as "baby murderers", it would mean less women feeling alone and shunned. I have never met a person who is "Pro-abortion"...you should really drop the term.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:15pm

  346. MASK2-

    I did some more reading. The church is still hung up on "lethal indication"...so basically, what they say is that, if there children in a family, but another pregnancy would risk the life of the mother, then it's ok to use contraception, because children need their mother.

    Apostasy beckons...

    Posted by Deadra at 01/18/2008 @ 4:17pm

  347. "people talk about civilian casualties as "innocent lives." - Yes because a crime was committed against them. Their lives were taken by an enemy, by some soldier killing in the name of war. Unless you are prepared to call women who abort criminals or murderers, the term "innocent" is misused.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:19pm

  348. Posted by THRAWN 01/18/2008 @ 4:15pm | ignore this person

    change would to could. many things terminate fetusses.

    innocent is a code word in this discussion. kind of like southern tradition and southern custom.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:20pm

  349. "Therefore, when the fetus (a living being in its own right)"- a fetus is NOT living in its own right. It lives only because the mother lives- it cannot do without her and the umbilical cord. "the fully-fledged human being that would otherwise have lived is effectively destroyed." what about the fully fledged human that could've been made from the egg that I menstruated last month? and the month before that? Those unique genetic codes ARE GONE FOREVER. what, no tears? What, my eggs only mean something when sperm is around? otherwise...who gives a crap?? The devaluing of the building blocks of a zygote or fetus only helps to devalue the fetus itself.

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:23pm

  350. Reply to: Posted by LDN 01/18/2008 @ 4:12pm

    "Crisis Pregnancy Centers lie to women. They intimidate women. They manipulate women."

    LDN, you said that not all CPCs were derided. I don't see any specific CPCs mentioned in the statement I quoted from the sentence above so I took it as referring to all CPCs. I never lied, intimadated or manipulated a woman in my life.

    The information I discussed with the women who came to our CPC was what local agencies could help them like the Women, Infants, and Children - better known as the WIC Program as well where they could get free prenatal care.

    Posted by brucemcwill at 01/18/2008 @ 4:57pm

  351. "JRO555, This may come as a surprise, but I have a wife and three teenage daughters." - no, no surprise you already stated this earlier. The surprise is then, surrounded by your lovely family, why you still don't understand why they have a right to their bodies and that your daughters well being is more precious than any formation in her uterus. Forgive my delving into your personal life...however, you did put yourself out there.

    I'm off for the weekend...but I do say with complete sincerity thank you for this riveting discussion. Despite your initial repulsion...I've found our discourse illuminating and hope that despite our differences, you are like me and harbor no ill-will or hurt feelings. Enjoy the weekend!

    Posted by jro555 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:14pm

  352. Posted by JRO555 01/18/2008 @ 5:14pm | ignore this person

    bon weekend to you too. good posting.

    Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:20pm

  353. and I never use a Thesaurus.

    Posted by MASK2 01/18/2008 @ 3:53pm

    how about phone books?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 5:21pm

  354. I am familiar with a great many words, more than you

    Posted by MASK2 01/18/2008 @ 3:21pm

    not THAT again....................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 5:24pm

  355. how about phone books?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/18/2008 @ 5:21pm | ignore this person

    only to reach the keyboard.

    well it's true. does that bother you?

    Posted by johannesrolf1 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:28pm

  356. Posted by JOHANNESROLF1 01/18/2008 @ 5:28pm

    you change your name one more time and i'm gonna drop my "FRANKGRITS" moniker forever!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 5:37pm

  357. and there ain't nothing you can do about it.

    there is method to my madness.

    that's kind of catchy. where have I heard that before?

    Posted by johannesrolf1 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:45pm

  358. "people talk about civilian casualties as "innocent lives." - Yes because a crime was committed against them. Their lives were taken by an enemy, by some soldier killing in the name of war. Unless you are prepared to call women who abort criminals or murderers, the term "innocent" is misused.

    Posted by JRO555 01/18/2008 @ 4:19pm

    Not really. Does everyone who has ever fought in a war deserve to be labeled a crimianl or murderer? The only thing "innocent" requires is that they were not deserving of the act which was taken against them. It does not automatically entail a label applied to those who took said act against them.

    Also, have a good weekend!

    a fetus is NOT living in its own right. It lives only because the mother lives- it cannot do without her and the umbilical cord.

    I already addressed this earlier: I don't have to be fully independent from another being in order to be a distinct being. Even if you knew nothing about Voldemort's history (in the but-this-series-is-still-fiction sense), and just saw him on the back of Quirrell's head, I think you could safely call him a separate being and not just a deformation of Quirrell.

    what about the fully fledged human that could've been made from the egg that I menstruated last month? and the month before that?

    I agree that this can get murky, but I still think some delineation can be made on grounds of probability. Look, though it's always possible for a fetus to be miscarried (and yes, I do think this is something we should try to prevent), I believe that a fetus will generally make it to birth. More importantly, though, we are describing a distinct medical operation that is outside of the "natural norm" of the human body, meaning that a pro-life position would not require the kinds of fundamental overhaul that your hypothetical extension would.

    change would to could. many things terminate fetusses.

    innocent is a code word in this discussion. kind of like southern tradition and southern custom.

    Posted by MASK2 01/18/2008 @ 4:20pm

    Are there many things that could terminate fetuses? I'm not sure, I didn't think so, but even if true, it's irrelevant. People die from lots of things every day, but we never use that to excuse killing people. How many people have gotten off on an alibi of "but that guy could have been hit by a truck anyway, so what harm did i do him?"

    And on the "innocent life" thing...see above; it isn't a code word, it actually means something.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/18/2008 @ 6:05pm

  359. Thrawn, you used would be born. I objected to that, preferring could. I have not changed my mind.

    Posted by johannesrolf1 at 01/18/2008 @ 6:06pm

  360. I enjoyed it too JRO555. Thanks

    Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 6:12pm | ignore this person

    me too.

    Posted by friehiet at 01/19/2008 @ 10:21am

  361. Thrawn, you used would be born. I objected to that, preferring could. I have not changed my mind.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF1 01/18/2008 @ 6:06pm

    I still don't get what the huge significance of it not being a guarantee is. Like I said, people can die from all sorts of things, but we never excuse a murderer's actions by virtue of the fact that their victim just might have died in a subway accident or something anyway. The fact that a being had no guarantee to maximize its potential or to continue living at all is no justification for termininating its existence.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2008 @ 1:47pm

  362. I still don't get what the huge significance of it not being a guarantee is.

    I did not claim that. it's just that could is more accurate.

    as for the word innocent.there are at least three entities involved in an abortion, the woman, the fetus, and the doctor. if all three are innocent why single out the fetus? it is an attempt to ratchet up the sympathy for that human being in the making.

    there is of course most times another entity involved the father. he's innocent too.

    let's look at a real life scenario. 14 year old girl gets pregnant. she carries to term and a baby is born. it is the birth that bestows the description baby. back to the mom. she likely will have to set aside any thought of education or career. the father too, as he will have to work to support the girl AND the infant. the baby? well he/she is in a household where both parents are immature and likely poor and condemned to stay that way. result? three damaged lives.

    this why it's called PLANNED PARENTHOOD. in all cases of abortion the "parenthood" is unplanned.

    Posted by friehiet at 01/19/2008 @ 3:43pm

  363. There are three actors involved, that's true, but the fetus is the only actor against whom action is taken (i.e., being killed). The argument that an unplanned pregnancy can lead to an unhappy child isn't nearly sufficient so long as some alternative (i.e. adoption) exists. Does adoption also need to be improved? Absolutely. Moreover, as difficult as raising the child could be, people knowingly risk those consequences when they engage in an action that has a decent chance of bringing those consequences into being.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/19/2008 @ 5:28pm

  364. Freiheit,

    "If egg + sperm = no baby is so offensive to the creator, why is it the most common outcome?" is EXACTLY the point.

    Fertilization occurs all the time, and nearly always doesn't result in a live birth. This doesn't seem to be offending any creator/controller superbeing. Why would a desperate woman choosing to not give birth be any more morally repulsive to a creator/controller being than a fertilized egg - or gamete or zygote or fetus - dropping off the endometrium? Remember, the number of fetuses whose gestation is purposefully disrupted by a woman's choice are the vast minority of those that don't grow long enough to be born. [Also, the pregnancies that fail because of severe genetic abnormailties are exccedingly uncommon. Most fertilized eggs that don't proceed to birth have completely normal genes]

    If abortion is so offensive to the creator/controller superbeing, how come he didn't mention it to any of the Old Testament Prophets [who made quite explicit & detailed lists of violations]? Why was abortion not mentioned by Jesus? Why did the Catholic Church [one of the engines of the current antiabortion movement] not say anything on the subject for centuries, and why was it, until the 1850s, ok with the Catholic Church until the fetus moved?

    If the creator/controller superbeing so wants live human births, why was it that before modern medicine & sanitation, childbirth itself was the # cause of death of women? Why did so many babies die in childbed with their mommies? Or both, a few days later, when bacterial infections set in? And, of the babies that survived the dangers of pregnancy, birth and infancy, half died before age 5.

    And what about women who have birth defects that make them able to conceive but unable to carry a fetus to term? It's not unheard-of for a woman to have functioning ovaries yet have a deformed or damaged uterus, or such weak muscles that carrying a couple of pounds of fetus would cause them to rupture and die. Forcing a woman in that situation to stay pregnant is basically sentencing her to death for being too weak to support another human. If we can identify a situation in which it's morally ok to sacrifice a fetus to save a grown woman's life, then it's hypocritical to say "fetus uber alles" in other situations. If we would permit women who have a fetus-incompatible uterus to abort, then what about women with cancer? Lupus? Rape victims? Incest victims? Women with no ability to support a child?

    Also, on the issue of egg + sperm = no baby: human fetuses are not independent once conceived, like chicken eggs. They require the functioning of another person's organs for some months. How far will we take the demand that one person give over use of their organs to another person? "You're a blood-type match, hand over that kidney?" We allow people to refuse to be living - or even deceased - organ donors. The difference between giving an organ and sustaining a pregnancy is that only women can do the latter. Hmmm. Interesting how there is nowhere near the social pressure to even sign up as an organ donor after death as there is to not have an abortion. If it's about innocent life, then what about law-abiding, living beings that develop diseases that are deadly without a new kidney, a piece of a liver, or bone marrow? Why aren't people holding up signs and shouting guilt-inducing slogans outside drivers' licensing offices?

    On the other hand, if it isn't about asking questions about the morality of choices in light of all available data, but it's about punishing girls/women for being "naughty" [either for having sex, or for not wanting to be mommies, or not accepting mommyhood after a birth control failure], then egg + sperm = no baby might thwart the punishment of women that some people would enjoy seeing.

    Posted by TrishR at 01/20/2008 @ 01:48am

About the Authors

Archives

  1. November 2009

  2. October 2009

  3. September 2009

  4. August 2009

  5. July 2009

  6. June 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

Another Helping of FDR Please | Obama should follow the New Deal president's example and make his Thanksgiving Proclamation a call for economic justice.
John Nichols
50 Comments

» Editor's Cut

Filibuster Follies | "The filibuster has become a cancer growing inside the world's greatest deliberative body."
Katrina vanden Heuvel
85 Comments

» The Notion

Bad Black Mothers | For African American women, reproduction has never been an entirely private matter.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell
95 Comments

» Act Now!

Coal Country | Stunning film reveals new dimensions to the cost of America's over-reliance on coal.
Peter Rothberg
107 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

A Kingdom of Bicycles No Longer | China's ambassador for climate change speaks on the eve of the Copenhagen summit meeting.
Robert Dreyfuss
59 Comments