Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Woo-Hoo! New Pope Book! | Main | Sorry, Grunerites »

May 25, 2007

Comments

 Jared

A very positive step.

Rebecca

Well, that's one way to straddle uninsured and underinsured women with troubled pregnancies.

bill912

Rebecca is right! Let's kill! Kill! Kill!

BillyHW

Rebecca, shouldn't people have a right to choose whether or not to pay for someone else's abortion?

Brian

Why are states funding abortions in the first place? Isn't the whole goal of the pro-abortionists to keep the government out of their "private" decisions to murder their children.

Cajun Nick

Rebecca,

What a terrible thought. You are suggesting that we put a price tag on human life.

"Troubled pregnancies" for the insured or rich are okay; but, as soon as one can't afford to pay for the pregnancy, then let's just kill the burdensome child.

What about those pregnancies that are not "troubled" but where the child is nevertheless born with health problems that could be "troubling" later in life? Should we go ahead and relieve these uninsured and under-insured mothers by killing their children right there in the maternity ward?

What about when a five-year-old is involved in an accident that will leave her crippled and require "troubling" care for the rest of her life? Do we relieve the poor mother of the burden at that time by "euthanizing" the child?

No, Rebecca, we don't do those things - thank God! (Although maybe you want to return to the barbaric practice of the early Romans who left their unwanted babies to die of exposure.)

Babies - whether still in the womb, in the birth canal, or born - are human. They deserve our utmost respect despite their "troubling" physical circumstances.

Terry

This was a frustrating "victory" for pro life though.

The original bill was more stringently worded but the governor vetoed it and it failed one vote of a veto override.

When this adjusted bill came through it had enough support that the gov could see it would stand up to his veto. In Oklahoma a bill can become law if after 5 days the governor fails to sign it. Henry would not sign the bill so it came into law by default.

It is the first time in over 20 years, I believe, that a bill has passed in this way.

Tim J.

"Well, that's one way to straddle uninsured and underinsured women with troubled pregnancies."

So much doublespeak in one short sentence...

First, pregnancy is only very rarely imposed on people by strangers. Denying tax-funded abortions is not straddling anyone with anything they don't already have. If anything, it helps keep the little baby from being unfairly straddled with the consequences of his/her parents' lack of responsibility.

Second, while talking about "troubled pregnancy" may be a comforting euphemism, it denies the facts of abortion. All pregnancies end, troubled or not... it's all about HOW they end. Some end with miscarriage, some with babies, and some with murder. Using abortion to deal with troubled pregnancies is exactly like using nuclear weapons to deal with urban sprawl.

Abortion workers do not carry Troubled Pregnancies out the back door of the clinic in trash bags... they carry dismembered babies... little murder victims.

Tragically enough, for the women who undergo abortion, the troubled pregnancy never really goes away. It will always remain, and will always be troubled.

Leo

An additional pro-life approach would be to divert the funds used for death to life, eg to support families during pregnancy and childhood.

StubbleSpark

I for one hope this idea catches on in all states.

I cannot understand how a million dollar a year profit industry needs my coin to survive. It is like subsidizing the tobacco farms so they can turn around and make a (literal) killing in the market. Are you telling me with 3,000 plus served daily in the US that these people cannot make ends meet? Maybe Planned Parenthood could tighten up its ad budget a bit and make fewer pro-abortion cartoons.

Either abortion is a great idea or it is not. Let the idea try to stand for itself for a change and not for this amorphous cloud of supposed civil rights that have been invented to prop it up.

How many other rights are also industries -- much less ones that require taxpayer support? There is nothing in RvW that says the dissenting free American has to pony up 90% of PP's budget to keep this atrocity alive.

If I do not want to pay for the killing of 3,000 innocents a day, I should not have to. It is just like the pro-aborts always say: "Stop pushing your beliefs on me."

We can keep abortion in politics but I am a firm believer in keeping the government out of a woman's womb. This is not China, after all. Talk about benchmarks, how old is the American Culture of Death Holocaust Machine?

The best way to get rid of abortion, however, is to change the culture and get people educated on what abortion really entails. Have them watch the ultra sound of an abortion on the Silent Scream on Youtube.

Rebecca

Rebecca is right! Let's kill! Kill! Kill!

Who said that? This bill doesn't stop abortion. It only denies paying for it to the poor. Rich and poor will continue to abort, but the poor will be straddled with the additional costs. The bill just shifts the problem around, with no provisions to solve it.

Tim J.

Rebecca, Rich and Poor will also continue to snort coke... is it terribly unfair to refuse taxpayer funded coke to the poor?

You make no sense.

Abortion is immoral. No one should be doing it. The fact that rich people enjoy a financial advantage in this regard is no surprise... is it? If you find the inequity intolerable, then I agree we should work hard to make abortion impossible for rich people, too.

StubbleSpark

Considering the fact that abortion clinics specifically target the poor and dark-skinned not only in their advertising but also in their location, I think you have missed the point.

Abortion is social engineering ala eugenics, naziism, and communism.

It is how governments keep the population of the poor down so they do not make demands that would tip the status quo. Baby killing as population control has been the method of choice since Pharaoh threw baby Jews to the crocodiles.

The racist nature of abortion clinics has been a part of the movement since the eugenicist Margaret Sanger started them with the explicit intention of keeping the unfit children of unfit parents from polluting the gene-pool. And that is exactly what PP is doing today.

The fact is, rich people simply do not abort as much because they are better human beings and entitled to their progeny. When a PP was opened up in a swanky neighborhood strip mall in a rich city, did it offer its trademark service of abortion? Not on your life!

Somewhere along the way, people bought into the lie that having children is unending financial burden when in fact children are a great wealth. This is illustrated in the recent trend of One-Child Policy Liberals having fewer options in their old age for care. Most of them are ending up unsupported and lonely in homes.

In reality,
children=wealth
big families=clout (ask the Kennedys)

Like so many of the "progressive" ideas of the past century, abortion runs counter to its proclaimed purpose. In limiting the size of the families of the poor, it exacerbates their poverty and keeps them locked in a vicious cycle. The only way to break the cycle is to have them question the rationality of their faith in abortion as a cure-all.

Rebecca

Rebecca, Rich and Poor will also continue to snort coke... is it terribly unfair to refuse taxpayer funded coke to the poor?

Taxpayer money already pays the costs of the poor snorting coke.

Considering the fact that abortion clinics specifically target the poor and dark-skinned not only in their advertising but also in their location, I think you have missed the point.

The point is the same doctors will still recommend abortion. They will simply send them to the private abortion clinics, and the poor will pay for it through legal and illegal means. And in the end, taxpayers will pay just as much or more as before.

Cajun Nick

Rebecca,

You seem to have chosen to focus on a lesser important point that Tim J. made. He made a much more important point. I will repeat it here:

Abortion is immoral. No one should be doing it. ... If you find the inequity intolerable, then I agree we should work hard to make abortion impossible for rich people, too.

Now, that should be something we can all agree on.

Leo

A culture where individuals are encouraged and enabled practically to choose life, will probably save more lives than de jure measures. Not an either-or of course.

A society with legal abortion on demand which also provided effective family support might have fewer abortions per capita than one where abortion was illegal but which did not support families and stigmatized illegitimacy. (It's difficult to be sure as we can't know the number of illegal abortions).

We, pro-lifers, should also promote policies which reduce family poverty and social stigma and improves biological and moral education even if it means paying higher taxes. Perhaps pro-choicers might concur with this.

StubbleSpark


In America today, almost as many African-American children
are aborted as are born.
A black baby is three times more likely to be
murdered in the womb than a white baby.

Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.

Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from
AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.

Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than
have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.

Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and
almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

About 13 percent of American women are black, but they
submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.

What the Ku Klux Klan Could Only Dream About
The Abortion Industry is Accomplishing

Source: http://www.klanparenthood.com/History_of_Abortion_Statistics/

Paul

A society with legal abortion on demand which also provided effective family support might have fewer abortions per capita than one where abortion was illegal but which did not support families and stigmatized illegitimacy. (It's difficult to be sure as we can't know the number of illegal abortions).

We, pro-lifers, should also promote policies which reduce family poverty and social stigma and improves biological and moral education even if it means paying higher taxes. Perhaps pro-choicers might concur with this.

That's worth repeating.

Jamie Beu

Excellent point, Brian.

If we're supposed to keep the government out of our bedrooms and "hands off the womb", then let's keep the government's money (read: taxpayers' money, i.e., my money) away from the womb as well.

(Oh, I'm sorry... I forgot. That would interfere with Hillary's whole plan for socialized medicine.)

Aaron

read: taxpayers' money, i.e., my money

Once it's paid to the government, it's public money. It belongs to everyone, including those who don't pay taxes.

Dr. Eric

www.blackgenocide.org

Kevin Jones

Simply requiring abortuaries to maintain a high sanitary standard could close dozens of these so-called clinics. Outside of Mississippi, no legislature has the guts to do so.

Loretta

Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.

The black population of the United States grew almost three times as fast as the white populace in the decade of the 1990s, according to U.S. Census reports.

Blacks increased 16 percent from 1990 to 2000 -- faster than the total U.S. population, which grew 13 percent.

The white population increased only 6 percent.

Dr. Eric

Loretta,

What is your point?

Loretta

Just setting out the facts.

Esquire

Facts may be facts, but useful facts are those related to the topic being discussed. It is not apparent, Loretta, how your facts have any relationship to the topic of abortion or its effect on the population, black, white or other.

Loretta

It gives perspective. There are no valid numbers as to how many white babies are aborted vs. black babies. The only reliable numbers we have are in regard to the number of the living.

BobCatholic

Why are states funding abortions in the first place? Isn't the whole goal of the pro-abortionists to keep the government out of their "private" decisions to murder their children.

---------------

Yeah, hypocrisy is a good thing :)

Remember, the left wants to impose their views on others, and what better way than to impose on taxpayers again and again and again and again....

Tim J.

"Taxpayer money already pays the costs of the poor snorting coke."

No... unless you figure that unemployment checks are the equivalent of handing out Official U.S. Coke Stamps. Question; If that's true, and welfare already pays for coke for the poor, why can't they just as easily use that money to go to a private abortion clinic? I mean, they are already using the money illicitly (according to your theory), so why not just consider welfare checks to be Abortion Stamps? No need for any official state funding of abortion, in that case.

Your comments are just terribly inconsistent.

Tim J.

"There are no valid numbers as to how many white babies are aborted vs. black babies"

Really? I doubt that.

Inocencio

The website Dr. Eric pointed has many important statistics.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dr. Eric

Inocencio,

How did you do that?

Inocencio

Dr. Eric,

I learn how here. Under How to create hyperlinks

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Inocencio

Dr. Eric,

Sorry I was trying to do two sperate links.

I learn how here.

Under How to create hyperlinks

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Dr. Eric

Inocencio,

Thanks! :-)

Inocencio

sorry everyone for all the typos.

I am trying to do too many things at once.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Rebecca

If that's true, and welfare already pays for coke for the poor, why can't they just as easily use that money to go to a private abortion clinic?

They can do that. Like I said, the poor will pay for it through legal and illegal means. And in the end, taxpayers will pay just as much or more as before. They will have their abortions and their cake... I mean coke... too.

Your comments are just terribly inconsistent.

My comments are completely consistent with reality. You live in a fantasy world thinking that the poor will grow money on trees. It comes out of taxpayer pockets.

Loretta

Really? I doubt that.

FACTS:

Reporting of abortions in California is enjoined by court order, and not required in D.C., Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey. Only 29 states include medical (nonsurgical) abortions in state-prepared reporting forms.

And in no states do reported statistics include deaths due to use of birth control pills.

trying to switch off italics

off off

Ital

italics off

Caritas/Veritas

From wikipedia:

Abortions and ethnicity


"Abortions are much more common among minority women in the U.S. In 2000-2001, the rates among black and Hispanic women were 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women.[5]


Reasons for abortions


"(A study in 1998) revealed that women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:[7]

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other

91.8% of abortions are done out of utter selfishness or out of lack of funds to raise the child, in which cases adoption is a perfectly viable (and far less financially burdensome) choice.


[1] http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/characteristics.html

[2]http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2411798.html

Caritas/Veritas

I made a mistake. the footnotes labeled "[5]" and "[7]" should've been labeled "[1]" and "[2]", respectively.

Wendy

91.8% of abortions are done out of utter selfishness

Clearly, such a remark is not a neutral point of view that Wikipedia supports. Further, if you look at the individual numbers which add up to 91.8%, one can find many categories which can include causes not necessarily out of "utter selfishness". For example, if the mother was unsure why, was mentally ill, or felt she wasn't worthy or capable of raising a child, which reason would the mother report?

Tim J.

"such a remark is not a neutral point of view that Wikipedia supports"

And?... This is not Wikipedia.

There are numerous ways to collect information on abortion statistics. It might be convenient to consider them "invalid" if they add up in a way you don't like, though.

Wendy

And?... This is not Wikipedia.

Nor is what he posted "from wikipedia" expressive of the Wikipedia's claimed neutral point of view.

It might be convenient to consider them "invalid" if they add up in a way you don't like, though.

The problem is, they don't add up, except to those who find it convenient for their purposes.

Mary

A society with legal abortion on demand which also provided effective family support might have fewer abortions per capita than one where abortion was illegal but which did not support families and stigmatized illegitimacy

On the other hand, it might have more abortions, because mothers and fathers can't afford to have their own children because all of the "effective family support" they have to provide to others.

Mary

Once it's paid to the government, it's public money. It belongs to everyone, including those who don't pay taxes.

Balderdash. No citizen has a claim to own "public money."

Sarah

On the other hand, it might have more abortions, because mothers and fathers can't afford to have their own children because all of the "effective family support" they have to provide to others.

"in which cases adoption is a perfectly viable (and far less financially burdensome) choice," says another poster.

Oh, but wait, as how would we afford all those adopted children if we, as a society, can't afford what we already have?

David

Wow....When did Wikipedia become an actual recognized indisputable source of fact? LOL

Germaine

A growing number of black babies are exported to other countries for adoption. Some white people adopt black babies, but a number of black people complain that the practice is tantamount to genocide. So we have people claiming that it's genocide for blacks to abort and genocide if they're adopted by white families. Many adoptive parents are open to biracial babies but not to babies that are "all black." Not surprisingly, many adoption agencies charge lower fees for black babies. A white baby may be $35,000 but a black baby $4,000. So alongside the yells about black genocide, others are saying that the practice discriminates against white babies and people who seek to adopt them.

Aaron

Balderdash. No citizen has a claim to own "public money."

I said it belongs just as much to the non-taxpayers as to the taxpayers, not personally but publicly. It was the other poster who was claiming it was HIS money. Do learn to follow the story.

Mary Kay

So it boils down to being able to "afford" to have a child.

Here's a news flash: Your parents very likely were not at a point of being able to afford to have you. But they managed. Parents do.

Doug

People manage. Some manage to end up in jail, on drugs, stabbed, etc.

Tim J.

"The problem is, they don't add up"

Oh, but they do.

Tim J.

Children do not cause violence or drug abuse. Those are just symptoms - along with abortion - of an immature, narcissistic culture.

Wendy

Oh, but they do.

As vague as they are, they add up to whatever you want them to.

Doug

Children do not cause violence or drug abuse

Didn't say they did. It's the so-called adults who "manage" to end up in jail, on drugs, stabbed, have babies, etc.

nutcrazical

Did anyone catch this?

Strong opposition also comes from the Roman Catholic Church and some other religious groups.

Are they suggesting the Church is leading the fight against abortion, and that the other religious groups are pretty much just sidekicks? Awesome.

Delayne

No, it says, "Its staunchest opponents include evangelical Christians." The RCC has a lesser position as an "also".

nutcrazical

...and that's what happens when you skim through an article because you find it too biased.

That photo with the dude silenced by "Life" - how silly is it?

StubbleSpark

I find it utterly disingenuous to come into here quoting statistics that do not disprove mine (ie, that black babies are far more likely to be aborted) and then say "See? I have other numbers. That means numbers do not matter. So we can NEVER know!"

I hope you realize how your argument and your tactics undermine each other.

You use similarly nonsensical tactics to disprove the abortion genocide debate by introducing another topic that has earned the tag "genocide" by some black people. "See? That means the abortion holocaust could not possibly be genocide because OHMYGOSH LOOK! LOOK! A RED HERRING!!"

Of course, there is a remarkable difference between adopting a black baby because s/he is black and killing a black baby because s/he is black. And if you cannot tell how one actually IS genocide and the other is not, then I seriously think you should go back to Kindergarten and work on your shapes and colors.

"One of these things is not like the other ..."

The thing about moral relativism is that, not only is it a logical fallacy, but people who ascribe to it do so because they need to avoid making hard moral decisions. It is a way of muddying the waters or clouding the issue.

If you are a relativist, that is. To the rest of us, it looks absolutely insane.

A: "I think Planned Parenthood has a racist agenda and violent means that amount to genocide."

B: "Some say Chewbacca is racist genocide."

A: "I never thought of it that way before. I guess we really can't say either way."

StubbleSpark

Sincere question for the pro-aborts:

When was the last time your understanding of morality led you to a life-changing course of action which required a certain degree of permanent loss of personal comfort, status, identity (ie, some sort of continual sacrifice)?

I am not trying to imply to that you guys do not have such moments, I would just like to know what kind of data pops up.

Loretta

I find it utterly disingenuous to come into here quoting statistics that do not disprove mine (ie, that black babies are far more likely to be aborted) and then say "See? I have other numbers. That means numbers do not matter. So we can NEVER know!"

Who said "numbers do not matter"? I posted facts (to include numbers!) which give perspective on the other numbers. The numbers you posted cannot be properly understood in the absence of the information I have posted. They are complementary.

You use similarly nonsensical tactics to disprove the abortion genocide debate by introducing another topic that has earned the tag "genocide" by some black people.

Who? You make a mockery of the subject without any help from anyone else, with all your paranoid accusations and talk about "tactics" and "Klan" conspiracies. You would seem to be a ripe candidate for a mental health exam.

In college, I was into the UFO conspiracy and thought the TV show The X-files had a secret agenda to inform the American populace of impending take over by aliens aided by top level officials in our government.

I don't believe you are yet fully recovered.

Loretta

Sincere question for the pro-aborts:

Why don't you go to a "pro-abort" forum and ask your question. You might have better luck finding the people you seek to answer your question.

Or, you could put on your tin foil hat and imagine you see them talking to you here.

Ed

The fact is, rich people simply do not abort as much because they are better human beings and entitled to their progeny.

Rich people are better human beings? What religion is that?

bill912

Loretta, do your mommy and daddy know you're playing with their computer and posting snotty, childish remarks?

Eileen R

*ignoring the bizarro posts*

Leo:

We, pro-lifers, should also promote policies which reduce family poverty and social stigma and improves biological and moral education even if it means paying higher taxes. Perhaps pro-choicers might concur with this.

Leo, I'd agree with this, except that I've found through experience that the pro-choicers do not concur with this in practice, though they accept it as abstractly stated. It turns out that our ideas of what these policies *are* can be so different! Take better biological and moral education. I'd totally agree with that, and most pro-choicers would too, but when we settle down to work out the education, they usually come up with something that I see as *worse*, and they'd think my proposals were worse too. The problem isn't just abortion. As terrible as it is, you might say that abortion is actually just a symptom.

And the same could be said for social support. I'm a Canadian. We basically all are keen on our government interventions, often to our detriment, many would say! Be that as it may, the government's method of helping out parents is *still* in dispute. I think the current push for "family support" is helping to destroy families, making children a huge expense that only the rich can really afford. If lower-income parents are forced to put their children into daycare to survive, no matter their own preferences, how does it help that the daycare is subsidized?

I actually work at a daycare right now, which serves very poor families, often single mothers. People who are working so hard to make both ends meet. It's a very good place, trying to look after these kids as best we can, but I get the feeling that we're playing catch-up to problems that should have been solved earlier and in better ways. That our best is very second-best. That even if a single mother needs to work, she's often working *way* too long hours to survive, and government-subsidized childcare is helping in one way but it isn't addressing that.

It's a thorny issue, not to be resolved here, but you can see that what sounds like a simple way to combat societal ills like abortion just isn't.

BobCatholic

You live in a fantasy world thinking that the poor will grow money on trees. It comes out of taxpayer pockets.

====================

This makes the false assumption that the poor only gets money from taxpayer pockets.

Remember, jobs don't exist. It is only a fantasy :)

It is interesting how adoption costs no money for the mother, but you're not promoting that. Poor women CAN give up their unwanted children to adoption. There is no-body stopping them, except the pro-abortionists.

StubbleSpark

Ed, the comment about rich people being more deserving of life was an attempt to portray the inherent ugliness of the "abort what you cannot afford" crowd and is not meant to be an delineation of the Church's or my attitude towards the disadvantaged.

Caritas/Veritas

wendy,

add these numbers:

25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children

I ask you: are these not selfish reasons to destroy innocent human life!?! (not that it's ever right to kill) Over 90% destroyed the child because of personal desires and ambitions. for the 21.3% who couldn't afford to raise the child, adopting the child out has a good price tag: zero. It has nothing to do with bias. these are the facts.


Caritas/Veritas

"Wow....When did Wikipedia become an actual recognized indisputable source of fact? LOL"

While the facts were recognized by Wikipedia, the studies were done by outside, reputable sources. read the post.

Caritas/Veritas

Sarah,

Oh, but wait, as how would we afford all those adopted children if we, as a society, can't afford what we already have?

Do you know who all the adoption waiting list for newborn babies is in this country? But never mind the truth, anything counts in the effort to kill babies.

StubbleSpark

Loretta: "Who said 'numbers do not matter'?"

Wendy: "As vague as they [numbers] are, they add up to whatever you want them to."

And Loretta: "The numbers you posted cannot be properly understood in the absence of the information I have posted."

My numbers showed how being black makes you far more likely to be aborted than if you are white.

Your numbers simply stated the black population has grown.

But that does not change this fact: more blacks are aborted than whites.

In fact your numbers only underscore the fact that, were it not for abortion, the United States would be a far more black population today -- perhaps sharing an even majority with whites.

Now if your numbers demonstrated how many black babies' lives were SAVED during that time period, then you would have data that could counter the data I offered you from klanparenthood.com

By the way, websites like klanparenthood and blackgenocide are not my creation so it would be unfair to call this StubbleSpark's klan conspiracy. These sites are created, maintained, and run by blacks. You may think it is a silly little conspiracy but the numbers do not lie and you have yet to offer any data that would call the original data into question.

If you really are compassionate and loving about the plight of blacks in this country, then you should take it to heart what ALL blacks say about racism and not just those whose views coincide with your own. That is not compassion. That is using other people to get what you want.

StubbleSpark

In the statement about how many black babies' lives were saved, I meant "saved by Planned Parenthood".

Sorry about the confusion.

StubbleSpark

Loretta, I have to congratulate you on going to another thread to search my name and posting the statements I made about my past belief of/involvement with various conspiracy theories to attack my person without addressing the points I raised.

The big folks call that "ad hominum" and it is a logical fallacy wherein the debater choses to concentrate on some personal aspect of the opponent and to ignore the substantive issue at hand thereby undercutting the most foundational rule of debate. And yes, this qualifies as a "tactic". Nothing wrong with the word. Yet you seem to take personal offense. Maybe you would rather I call it your strategery.

Maybe you think my background matters in this debate about Planned Parenthood's inherently racist agenda.

Actually, I agree.

And in the interest of giving full disclosure of facts that may influence the argument (something I know you are fond of), I would like to add that at the time I was wearing my "foil hat" as you say I was also:

Once Saved Always Saved Protestant
Liberal
Democrat
Pro-abort
Pro-gay marriage
Politically active Clintonite

In other words, StubbleSpark 10 years ago would have jumped at the opportunity to defend what you having so much difficulty defending now.

Do you want to know what happened during those intervening years? Suffice it to say in the interest of discretion: there is a reason why it is called the Culture of Death.

StubbleSpark

Loretta: "Why don't you go to a "pro-abort" forum and ask your question. "

Because there is no such thing as a forum that just talks about abortion unless it is a pro-life forum.

You cannot really talk much about abortion without brining up what the procedure ENTAILS and none of the stuff that abortion entails is good for Planned Parenthood's industry of misery.

Can you imagine an pro-abort forum where people casually chat about their abortion experiences like they were vacation trips? Maybe even share pictures of ultrasounds. Maybe a moderator could butt in every time someone mentioned the lingering guilt or the nightmares and just kick that person out.

No negative feelings (unless directed at Christians)!

No it does not surprise me that someone so cowardly they will not even post their email would not want to have anything to do with answering a personal question about what they really believe. Though you had no qualms about making personal attacks.

I fully expected to be disappointed because in order to perform certain feats one must have acquired the muscles to do it and muscles lack ability in that which they are not accustomed.

You could no more make a morally critical assessment of your person than I could pole vault (and I say this knowing full well your intention to criticize my ability to vault).

When I was a pro-abort, my ethical worldview was like electricity: always following the path of least resistance. Not even human life was more important than me feeling put-upon or pressured by my moral obligations.

I suspect many if not most pro-aborts feel the same way though like I said we may never know because of a certain lack of muscle.

Rebecca

This makes the false assumption that the poor only gets money from taxpayer pockets. Remember, jobs don't exist. It is only a fantasy :)

You get that assumption because you're reading out of context. As I said several times already, the poor will pay for it (abortion, coke, etc.) through legal and illegal means. And in the end, taxpayers will pay just as much or more as before. Their legal means includes meager earnings from jobs, if any, but made all the more insufficient to cover the costs of day to day living when the costs of these "extras" are added in.

It is interesting how adoption costs no money for the mother, but you're not promoting that.

The word "adoption" does not specify who pays the costs for the mother in taking the baby to full term and birth. With problem pregnancies, those cost can be astronomical. It is therefore erroneous to claim "adoption costs no money for the mother." While it is not unlawful to pay the maternity-connected medical or hospital and necessary living expenses of the mother preceding and during confinement as an act of charity, it is not required and is illegal to make such payment contingent upon placement of the child for adoption, consent to the adoption, or cooperation in the completion of the adoption. Absent unusual and compelling circumstances, prenatal support if often limited to the last three months. And for many people who seek abortion, such details surrounding adoption can be overwhelming.

There is no-body stopping them, except the pro-abortionists.

Incorrect. For example, **IF** I were to choose an abortion over giving a baby up for adoption, it would not be because some "pro-abortionist" is stopping me. It would be my choice in respect to my then understanding of the matter. My understanding would be influenced by all sides, to include any failure of the pro-life crowd to honestly address the issues without resorting to distortion and misrepresentation as you and others have done.

Wendy

I ask you: are these not selfish reasons to destroy innocent human life!?!

Not necessarily. For example, "Want to postpone childbearing" or many of the other responses could be, as I already mentioned, because the mother was unsure, was mentally ill, or she felt she wasn't worthy or capable of raising a child. In that case, it's not "utter selfishness" as she's at least expressing a level of concern for the welfare of the child. You can, of course, argue that her choice to kill the child is not concern for the child's welfare, but "utter selfishness" must exclude all concern not just some, and it must also consider the mother's understanding which may be different than your own.

It has nothing to do with bias. these are the facts.

No, it's simply your opinion of a vague survey response.

JoAnna
Not necessarily. For example, "Want to postpone childbearing" or many of the other responses could be, as I already mentioned, because the mother was unsure, was mentally ill, or she felt she wasn't worthy or capable of raising a child. In that case, it's not "utter selfishness" as she's at least expressing a level of concern for the welfare of the child.

It still doesn't justify murder. So-called "mercy killing" is still killing.

Wendy

It still doesn't justify murder. So-called "mercy killing" is still killing.

In the minds of many people who get an abortion, as well as the law of the land, a fetus is not a person, making issues such as "mercy killing" and "murder" theological only. Not everyone claims the same theology. With such diversity of thought, abortion can be justified to some and not justified to others. Apart from theology, what I express is facts and what you express is opinion.

 Jared

Wendy: It is a truth (not JUST of theology, nor JUST of science, nor JUST of "personal" ethics) but an absolute truth that these are human lives and human persons of which we are speaking.

It's not a carrot; it's human.

It's not dead nor inorganic, but alive.

It matters not one whit what the subjective laws of Man define. Those same laws failed to protect the Jews and countless other classes of human beings.

It is your OPINION that these are not muders happening day in and day out. But, though it be a fact that the law does not recognize these murders as such, it is a FACT that they are, in fact, murders no matter whose opinion has shaped the law.

Esquire

Actually, Wendy, if these babies in the womb are not "persons" in the eyes of the law, please explain the basis for laws that deem the murder of a pregnant woman to be a double homicide.

Just curious.

bill912

"You can, of course, argue that her choice to kill the child is not concern for the child's welfare..."

Now why would killing the child not be in the child's welfare? It's not like killing is harming the child.

Wendy

It is ... an absolute truth that these are human lives and human persons of which we are speaking.

Anyone can make such claims and say it's "absolute truth." Maybe you'll point to a pope or some old manuscripts, and someone else points to their pope or their old manuscripts, or maybe entrails of a slaughtered cow, or whatever. Insist you're right and someone else is wrong has got to be one of the oldest games around.

It is your OPINION that these are not muders happening day in and day out.

Really? If you have an opinion as to what mine may be, that's YOUR opinion.

Wendy, if these babies in the womb are not "persons" in the eyes of the law, please explain the basis for laws that deem the murder of a pregnant woman to be a double homicide.

Such laws identify the fetus as not the same as a human being, or expressly exclude interpretation in respect to abortions or are limited to "viable fetus."

Now why would killing the child not be in the child's welfare? It's not like killing is harming the child.

I said you can argue whatever point you want. I didn't say you'd make any sense.

In the minds of many people who get an abortion, as well as the law of the land, a fetus is not a person...

Well, that settles it! Whatever the law and our conscience say MUST be correct.

Wendy, I am going to replace a couple of phrases in your sentence. Tell me what you think:

In the minds of many people who owned a slave, as well as the law of the land, a slave was not a person...

Believe it or not, Wendy, but sometimes what is in our minds and, yes, even what sometimes is in the law is not a reflection of the true morality of a situation.

At the moment of conception, a human being is formed. That embryo cannot develop into anything else. It actually takes years for a human to fully develop.

You, yourself, were an embryo at one stage in your development. I don't know how old you are, but if you are a teen-ager, you are still developing.

Because teen-agers are not yet fully developed humans, should we be allowed to kill them when they become burdensome or "troubling"?

Cajun Nick

That last anonymous comment was from me.

Cajun Nick

juan

"Now why would killing the child not be in the child's welfare? It's not like killing is harming the child.

I said you can argue whatever point you want. I didn't say you'd make any sense."

His comment seems pretty common sense Wendy -- killing someone can't be for their own benefit.

bill912

Thanx, Juan. I don't think she got my sarcasm.

Tim J.

Every argument for abortion is logically untenable, and religion is simply irrelevant to the question, unless you consider "not killing people inconvenient to you" a religious proposition.

There is no point in the development of a fetus where it magically becomes a human being when it wasn't a few seconds before. Every attempt to establish this imaginary point is completely arbitrary and is not based on science.

 Jared

Anybody else find it ironic that Wendy seems capable of making an absolute statement (like the whole you have opinions and I have facts) and yet appears to also adhere to a relativistic philosophy.

Par for the course, I s'pose. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Wendy

Believe it or not, Wendy, but sometimes what is in our minds and, yes, even what sometimes is in the law is not a reflection of the true morality of a situation.

Believe it or not, Cajun Nick, but not everyone agrees as to what the "true morality" of a situation is.

Because teen-agers are not yet fully developed humans, should we be allowed to kill them when they become burdensome or "troubling"?

Not everyone believes teenagers and a handful of cellular matter are the same -- in a way similar to how you might believe your morality is more worthy of life than someone else's.

Thanx, Juan. I don't think she got my sarcasm.

Only because you didn't get mine.

There is no point in the development of a fetus where it magically becomes a human being when it wasn't a few seconds before. Every attempt to establish this imaginary point is completely arbitrary and is not based on science.

What you refer to is a soul, and science has nothing to do with it. There is no scientific view as to when cells are a human being, unless you have surrendered the authority for deciding what is a human being to that creation called science.

Anybody else find it ironic that Wendy seems capable of making an absolute statement (like the whole you have opinions and I have facts) and yet appears to also adhere to a relativistic philosophy.

In the post you refer to, it was my intent to cite the following as facts:

#1. In the minds of many people who get an abortion, as well as the law of the land, a fetus is not a person.

#2. Not everyone claims the same theology. With such diversity of thought, abortion can be justified to some and not justified to others.

If you do not see those as facts, you are welcome to attempt to show that they are not.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Projection at its finest.

Eileen R

In in the interests of advancing this discussion a bit past finger pointing:

Wendy, I think that part of your point is to make people aware that "Some people don't agree with you."

I can see where that can be shown to be fact, but I'm not sure how it contributes to the discussion. I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that people disagree on the subject.

There may be an objective truth nonetheless. Or perhaps you don't believe that anyone can make an absolute case for an objective truth even if it exists?

Anyway, the discussion you seem to be interested in then isn't specifically abortion, but how we can know that we know things.

What you refer to is a soul, and science has nothing to do with it. There is no scientific view as to when cells are a human being, unless you have surrendered the authority for deciding what is a human being to that creation called science.

Good point. The case against abortion obviously rests on a philosophy and/or theology. But I'd submit that while the theology might be a bit harder for people to examine, the philosophy is more easily examined and argued.

This doesn't mean you get unanimous answers from philosophy if you apply yourself, but public policy debate *is* in philosophy's realm already, so those of us who do argue about what is best are already committed to philosophical enquiry, really.

Or in short, just because the abortion question can't be answered ultimately by science doesn't mean religion is the only thing that can provide possible answers.

 Jared

Okay, Wendy, here's a fact: not everyone understands or believes that Jewish people are worthy of protection under law.

Yet, legitimately, objectively, without using any religious or theological standard (I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that this has almost nothing to do with theology), we know that they are deserving of the same legal protections as anyone else.

Wendy

I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that people disagree on the subject. There may be an objective truth nonetheless. Or perhaps you don't believe that anyone can make an absolute case for an objective truth even if it exists?

No one on this forum has made an absolute case that abortion is murder.

Anyway, the discussion you seem to be interested in then isn't specifically abortion, but how we can know that we know things.

Oh please. I only need to open up the dictionary to find that it's NOT "an absolute truth" that abortion is murder:

Main Entry: abortion
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

Not a single one of those definitions mentions or necessitates a malicious intent to kill. Simple examples include everyday birth control pills which are abortifacient in people who have no malicious intent to kill anyone. Even devout Catholics suffer spontaneous abortions. But the posters on this forum insist it's "an absolute truth" that abortion is murder.

I bet a case can even be made for people who sign up for surgical abortions of a "fetus" with no malicious intent that a person be killed.

Okay, Wendy, here's a fact: not everyone understands or believes that Jewish people are worthy of protection under law.

Yet, legitimately, objectively, without using any religious or theological standard (I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that this has almost nothing to do with theology), we know that they are deserving of the same legal protections as anyone else.

Who is "we"? I don't believe that everyone feels that way. And I don't believe people agree as to the meaning of "same legal protections." It's a fact that people don't feel all groups deserve the same legal protections.

Wendy

italics off

Wendy

And again.

Wendy

Reposted for ease of reading...

I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that people disagree on the subject. There may be an objective truth nonetheless. Or perhaps you don't believe that anyone can make an absolute case for an objective truth even if it exists?

No one on this forum has made an absolute case that abortion is murder.

Anyway, the discussion you seem to be interested in then isn't specifically abortion, but how we can know that we know things.

Oh please. I only need to open up the dictionary to find that it's NOT "an absolute truth" that abortion is murder:

Main Entry: abortion
Function: noun
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

Not a single one of those definitions mentions or necessitates a malicious intent to kill. Simple examples include everyday birth control pills which are abortifacient in people who have no malicious intent to kill anyone. Even devout Catholics suffer spontaneous abortions. But the posters on this forum insist it's "an absolute truth" that abortion is murder.

I bet a case can even be made for people who sign up for surgical abortions of a "fetus" with no malicious intent that a person be killed.

Okay, Wendy, here's a fact: not everyone understands or believes that Jewish people are worthy of protection under law. Yet, legitimately, objectively, without using any religious or theological standard (I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that this has almost nothing to do with theology), we know that they are deserving of the same legal protections as anyone else.

Who is "we"? I don't believe that everyone feels that way. And I don't believe people agree as to the meaning of "same legal protections." It's a fact that people don't feel all groups deserve the same legal protections.

 Jared

Who is "we"?

"We" = civilized people.

I don't believe that everyone feels that way.

And those people who don't are wrong.

Wendy

Good thing the abortion laws give the "same legal protections" to all women and their fetuses regardless of their religion. Perhaps then they were written by "civilized people."

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31