Democrats & Liberals Archives

Ohio Adoption Ban Proposal

Ohio State Senator Robert Hagan writes in an e-mail to fellow Ohio Democrat lawmakers, “Policymakers in Columbus have ignored this growing threat to our communities for far too long.” Sen. Hagan’s memo seeks co-sponsors of his bill that would ban adoptions by a certain group of Americans.

In justifying his bill Sen. Robert Hagan writes, "Credible research exists that strongly suggests that adopted children raised in Republican households, though significantly wealthier than their Democrat-raised counterparts, are more at risk for developing emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, an alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves, and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities."

"In addition, I have spoken to many adopted children raised in Republican households who have admitted that 'Well, it's just plain boring most of the time,' " he continued.

The proposed legislation would prevent Republicans from adopting children.

Seems that "credible research" can be found to be used by any group against any group.

Read the full story here.

Posted by JayJay Snow at February 27, 2006 12:31 AM
Comments
Comment #129800

Well, I give Hagan credit for doing something to try and show how truly ridiculous the gay adoption ban is. Thanks for pointing that out JayJay.

I just stumbled across the following:
Whistleblower Charged With Three Felonies for Exposing Diebold’s Crimes
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-soby-jr/whistleblower-charged-wit_b_16411.html

I know it’s completely off-topic but it actually shocked me a little bit.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 27, 2006 2:35 AM
Comment #129812

Jay Jay, it would appear that our country is headed for a time when certain states will countenance certian religious, political, and social rules, while other states will countenance opposite rules. And a migration is already beginning to take place based on these state sanctions for certain views.

This is a very, very dangerous trend for America’s future. We saw this happen once before, and it resulted in an immensely bloody civil war between the North and South. Those who want the Supreme Court to remand the abortion issue to the states, will push us further down that road.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 27, 2006 6:44 AM
Comment #129818

David

I could not disagree with you more. The idea of states being able to make decisions on their own, without the interference of the Federal government, is one of the cornerstones of the American idea. The Constitution plainly states that states are to have autonomy in many areas.

If states make stupid decisions, that is their right, just as it is the right of individuals to make stupid decisions. If a state decides to make a decision that the rest of us consider wrong, that state will pay a price, but it is still up to the state.

There is a remedy to all this, and it still resides in the states. If a state adopts a policy that hurts the state economically, or any other way, the state can change the policy. It is up to the citizens of that state. In fact, it would probably be better for the state to have this power since states can make decisions at a lower level and say what is good for the state, not the Feds.

I admit it. I am a libertarian and the idea of some faceless bureaucrat or unresponsive elected politician in Washington making decisions for me, decisions that may not be in my best interest, is anathema. The cry of the ‘60’s “Power to the People” still rings true for me amd my household.

Posted by: John Back at February 27, 2006 7:19 AM
Comment #129821

David:

At one point, abortion was illegal and the Supreme Court changed the law and made it legal. It’s possible that someday in the future, abortion will have been legal and the Supreme Court will change the law and make it illegal once again.

Seems to me the process is the exact same one, but with a different outcome. Why would one group of people create a “bloody civil war” over the issue NOT going their way, when the opposite side did nothing ofthe sort when the issue was decided against them? Sounds like a case of
‘soreloseritis’.

Please note that I’m not talking about the issue of abortion, the morality surrounding abortion, when abortion is acceptable etc. I’m talking only about how you see one group reacting to a potential decision by the Supreme Court.

It’s interesting to me that some want to claim that the Supreme Court does a good job only when the SC rules in agreement with them. I’d think its the PROCESS that’s the most important thing.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 27, 2006 7:54 AM
Comment #129826
Seems that “credible research” can be found to be used by any group against any group.

The senator would have had a great point if he really had statistics he could use to suggest the point claimed above.

I dont disagree with his position, but his argument is weak.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 27, 2006 8:10 AM
Comment #129828

The senator would have had a great point if he really had statistics he could use to suggest the point claimed above.

I dont disagree with his position, but his argument is weak.

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

you didn’t take him seriously did you man? the whole thing was a jab at the repuglicans and quite humorous i may add.

i think you could find more evidence to back up his claim opposed to evidence that proves that same sex couples make bad parents.

Posted by: tree hugger at February 27, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #129830

“Seems to me the process is the exact same one, but with a different outcome. Why would one group of people create a “bloody civil war” over the issue NOT going their way, when the opposite side did nothing ofthe sort when the issue was decided against them? Sounds like a case of
‘soreloseritis’.”

… and how do you classify the various shooting of doctors and clinic bombings?

Posted by: tony at February 27, 2006 8:43 AM
Comment #129836

tony:

Those acts are on the fringe, no matter how much you’d like to consider them mainstream. We’ll always have fringer elements like Eric Rudolph who think that violence is an acceptable strategy.

Truth is that those kinds of acts are denounced from pulpits all over the nation. I’d ask you to document anything from the inception of Roe v. Wade that would compare to what David refers to.

I certainly understand that each side can and should fight with fervor for their position. But of course, there is an acceptable way of fighting. Violence is not acceptable.

I probably overstated David’s ‘bloody civil war’ comment—he was likely just referring to another great divide in our country’s history.

But it does appear to me that many look at the outcome of a SCOTUS decision to determine the merits of the SCOTUS. When they voted against Al Gore in 2000, many people decried the Supreme Court, calling it partisan and evil. I uphold the Supreme Court always, even when I disagree with their decision. They are the highest arbiters of law under our Constitution. I can disagree with the decision while still agreeing with the institution.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 27, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #129840

Jim Brown, an avid slavery abolitionist, also used violence in fighting for what he believed was right. I disagree with the violent option, but I do consider myself a modern day abolitionist. Roe v Wade is an eronious decision, just like Dredd Scott, that legalizes an immoral injustice by claiming certain people are not fully human. Slavery and abortion are both relics of the barbarian age and have no place in modern American, or world, society.

Posted by: Duano at February 27, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #129841

“… and how do you classify the various shooting of doctors and clinic bombings?

Posted by: tony at February 27, 2006 08:43 AM”

Ditto that Tony. You beat me to the punch.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 27, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #129844

I love these types of arguments. e.g.

When they voted against Al Gore in 2000, many people decried the Supreme Court, calling it partisan and evil.
Noone in this thread said any such thing, it is not germaine to this thread, and yet, is intended to support the point:
They are the highest arbiters of law under our Constitution. I can disagree with the decision while still agreeing with the institution.
By this would it be fair to interpret that you came out in support of the Roe v Wade decision by saying: “I may not agree with them but I will support their decision” or would it be more fair to say you felt “They were wrong, now I have to change their mind”?

Duano,
Your arument is that even an embryo is a person. Polls state that most people do not agree with you. You could argue that most people felt slaves were only property. But, your abortion argument is based only on your religion, not a universal philosophy of human dignity. Other religions define the start of life very differently and most other nations allow abortion.

I’ll state my perspective, should anyone be interested:
In Roe v Wade, the SCOTUS established that a womans right to reproductive control over her body was paramount to any state’s rights. This isn’t a Federalist issue, this is telling the gov’t it can’t tell a person what to do with their body.
What needs to happen is to attain a balance between the womans rights & when does the “proto-person” get rights. It is a religious argument that the embryo is human and a religion has no right to determine our laws.

Posted by: Dave at February 27, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #129846

Do you think we could get support for a ban on Republican Marriage? Give ‘em civil unions… same thing, right? KEEP MARRIAGE SAFE!

Posted by: tony at February 27, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #129850

“Roe v Wade is an eronious decision, just like Dredd Scott, that legalizes an immoral injustice by claiming certain people are not fully human. Slavery and abortion are both relics of the barbarian age and have no place in modern American, or world, society.

Posted by: Duano at February 27, 2006 09:17 AM”

Duano,

Allow me to draw a parallel to your logic:

I hate alcohol. I mean I really hate alcohol. I’ve seen it destroy far too many families and result in far too many deaths. So, in my personal opinion prohition of alcohol was and would be a good thing, right?

Wrong. History tells me that prohibition only resulted in more suffering and death, so, while I personally hate alcohol I choose to support educational programs that may help people (especially children) make wiser decisions.

I feel just as strongly about abortion. I personally find abortion as a means of birth control to be abhorent. But, there again, history tells me that making abortion illegal will do far less towards protecting the unborn than it will towards harming women (and girls).

The abortion issue is huge and I have many thoughts regarding the same, but getting back to JayJay’s original topic:

You say, “an eronious decision, just like Dredd Scott, that legalizes an immoral injustice by claiming certain people are not fully human.”

These “anti-gay” legislations do just exactly that. Whether it’s the marriage ban or the adoption ban, the proposed law would suggest that gay’s and lesbian’s are somehow “not fully human”.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 27, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #129851

It wasn’t that long ago that conservatives wanted the government to be out of people’s private lives.

But they want the government to decide who can marry who, adopt, have sex, etc? What could be more intrusive than that?

Conservatives, please stop campaigning for big brother style government control over peoples lives.

Posted by: Max at February 27, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #129854

Dave, The Bible doesn’t really state an opinion on abortion, so don’t say it has anything to do with my religion which is based entirely on the Bible. Who gets to determine who is a person and who is a “proto-person”? When did the SCOTUS become a biologist group? The “embryo“‘s DNA is that of Homo sapiens, so how can we determine that it is less than human? The Constitution doesn’t give the Supreme Court such power. It was Democrats who clung desperately to slavery, and contrary to popular propaganda, held onto segregation with a death grip. It is no surprise that they want to hold on to that last barbaric practice of infanticide. My religion says nothing about this issue, but it’s no coincidence that certain religious people have a moral conscience that cannot condone such evil.

Posted by: Duano at February 27, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #129856

For those who were posting at the same time I was, I really don’t care about the gay issue. I think politicians use this issue to get their voters to the polls. I know a lesbian who is a parent, and I wouldn’t want her child with anyone else. I don’t drink the red cool-aid, and you guys should cut back on the blue.

Posted by: Duano at February 27, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #129859

I think that there would be a lot fewer abortions if more sex education was taught. The conservatives don’t want abortion to be legal and they don’t want to teach anyone how to have protected/safe sex. The idea that you can keep some one in complete ignorance and they won’t have sex is just stupid.
To limit abortion we must educate, supply birth control freely, and accept that people have sex.
I think that the abortion issue is not about the embrio, it is about a womans rights. If a woman doesn’t have the right to dictate what she can do to her own body, then we need to create an equal limitation on men.
How about this: If a man gets a woman who is not his legal wife pregnant, he must be sterilized or put in prison. There…we are equal under the law once more.
As far as the adoption issue, I think that the memo is very funny. When Texas was trying to pass a ban on gay foster homes, a Congressman from Houston said that the kids would be better off in state run orphanages…but failed to realize that we no longer have any of those. Funding you know…
Anyway, nice to see something humorous here.

Posted by: terri at February 27, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #129860

Before the abortion question fades back to the original discussion topic, here are a couple rebuttals, starting with a mirroring of Dave’s 9:40am comments on the unborn.

—————

Dave,

Your arument is that even a negro is a person. Polls state that most people do not agree with you. You could argue that most people felt fetuses were only property. But, your slavery argument is based only on your religion, not a universal philosophy of human dignity. Other religions define the humanity of someone with dark skin very differently and most other nations allow slavery.

I’ll state my perspective, should anyone be interested:

In the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the government established that a master’s right to his slave was paramount to any state’s rights. This isn’t a Federalist issue, this is telling the gov’t it can’t tell a person what to do with his slave.

What needs to happen is to attain a balance between the owner’s rights & when does the “proto-person” get rights. It is a religious argument that the negro is human and a religion has no right to determine our laws.

—————

KansasDem:

… history tells me that making abortion illegal will do far less towards protecting the unborn than it will towards harming women

FYI, the year before RvW was enacted there were an estimated 100,000 back-alley abortions every year. The number of legal abortions the next year exceeded 700,000. Was this really an issue of women’s health?

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #129863
If a woman doesn’t have the right to dictate what she can do to her own body, then we need to create an equal limitation on men. How about this: If a man gets a woman who is not his legal wife pregnant, he must be sterilized or put in prison. There…we are equal under the law once more.

With the stipulation that this procedure occurs only when the woman denies consent, this sounds like an excellent idea to me. I’d certainly sign to it as part of a RvW reversal package.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #129865

Gandhi,
Nice to see a kindred spirit among all this madness. Sometimes I have a difficult time articulating my position, but you summed it up pretty good. Gandhi rules!!

Posted by: Duano at February 27, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #129866

Dave:

I used Gore v Bush as an example of how many people see the SCOTUS as good only when it arrives at a decision they agree with. And yes, many on WB did discuss it with comments such as I posted. Sorry the connection wasn’t clear for you—hope that cleared it up.

By this would it be fair to interpret that you came out in support of the Roe v Wade decision by saying: “I may not agree with them but I will support their decision” or would it be more fair to say you felt “They were wrong, now I have to change their mind”?

You and your assumptions!! :)

I do not support Roe v Wade, but I did accept it as the ruling of our country’s highest court. I would never claim the Supreme Court to be a bad institution, or the members to be bad people simply because I disagree with their rulings. For instance, I disagree with the Kelo decision and hope it gets overturned. But I also hope this happens through legal rather than violent means.

I’ll restate the point of my earlier comments for you. In response to David Remer saying that “Those who want the Supreme Court to remand the abortion issue to the states, will push us further down that road (towards a bloody civil war)”, I merely pointed out that I support non-violent efforts to change laws and abhor violent efforts. When Roe v Wade became law, I did not see mass violence, nor should we condone it if the law changes back. And of course, we should condemn those who commit acts of violence in the name of their cause (bombings, killings, hateful screaming at abortion rallies etc.)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 27, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #129868

The liberals always decry the obscene profits of BIG oil, BIG retail, BIG pharmacueticals. Abortion is a multimillion dollar industry, yet the libs want to protect and even subsidize it. Down with BIG ABORTION!!!

Posted by: Duano at February 27, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #129869

Duano,

My bad. My assumption comes from the notion that it is the christian religious right who promulgates the “human life at conception” foolishness. And that is where the abortion debate lies, when is it a person? SCOTUS never decided that question, only the right to self-determination. Kind of like a slavery argument, wouldn’t you say?

Your bad is assuming I’m a Democrat. Re-read your history by the way, the post war South was Democrat only because Lincoln was a Republican, in fact most of them started off with splinter parties but eventually merged. In 1860 it was actually the “Southern Democrats” who helped get a moderate Lincoln elected becasue they split with the (Northern)Democrats and really fractured the party.

But, I, like Kansas Dem, abhor the idea of “abortion as birth control” but I have no moral dilemas with 1st trimester abortions or even most 2nd term abortions. I am personnaly against 3rd trimester abortions because the fetus can survive by itself out of the womb (a pretty clear cut argument for “personhood”)

terri,
I think you have a point; the Bush motto seems to be “Ignorance prevents sex”

Ganji,
WTF does that mean? Did you actually read my post? Or perhaps better; do you have any understanding of my post? Better still: can we get a hit off that spliff (minus the psychoses)?

Posted by: Dave at February 27, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #129870

jbod,

I do not support Roe v Wade, but I did accept it as the ruling of our country’s highest court.
But, what do you do about it? Posted by: Dave at February 27, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #129871

Dave - the quality of your rebuttal to my comments speaks for itself.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #129872

As most of you know, I favor Women’s rights when it comes to abortion. I believe I’ve harped on my personal feelings enough in my previous post, so I’ll add something different.

Duano,

Slavery and Abortion are both relics of the barbarian age and have no place in modern American, or world, society.

I agree with you about slavery, however I don’t see how you can equate slavery with abortion. I think that any policy passed in the 70’s up would still be considered “modern America”.
How would the men\boys here like having to have a court ordered vasectomy before they can have sex?
Why aren’t scientists working harder to figure out ways to control the sperm coming from men?

When are the FATHERS going to start taking responsibly for the babies they ALSO created. It does take 2 to make an baby. (at least usually)

Abortion should NEVER be used as form of birth control. It is a drastic measure that I truly believe is not an easy decision to make. Some people seem to think that having an abortion is an easy way out. Believe me, it isn’t!

I myself could never have an abortion, but I do not walk in the shoes of the women who find themselves in a position of having to make a choice. At least for now.
I have worked with women trying to make this difficult decision. No not Planned Parenthood, but with a Suicide\Crisis Prevention phone line.
Women who are seriously considering suicide should not be penalized for seeking an abortion. Fathers who have no idea how they are going afford the hospital bills, let alone the additional bills that come with a newborn.
It is NOT that THEY don’t want a new baby - they are just drowning from the reposiblities they already have and simply don’t see how they can make a good life for the children they already have let alone another one.

I just wish that people would ease up on the abortion issue. What if your daughter was beaten and raped and got pregnant? I truly believe that one of the first choices that would at least cross everyone’s mind would be the possibility of abortion.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 27, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #129874

Gandhi,

This abortion issue comes up here constantly. A few weeks ago someone pointed out that the vast majority of posts on both sides of the issue come from men. BTW check out the makeup of the SCOTUS.

So I just had a thought. Since most vasectomies are now reversable all american males could be required to have a vasectomy at the age of twelve. Once they decided to have kids they could have their wealth, sexuality, sense of commitment, etc. all evaluated by a government agency and if they passed all the tests then they could proceed with a reversal.

Their, problem solved. It’s now become a truly male issue.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 27, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #129878

Linda,
I’m going to plagarize here (source unknown): Why would an embryo that’s the result of rape be given lesser consideration than one that was simply unwanted?

Kansas,
Don’t we lose control of our gonads once we get married anyway :-)?

Ganji,
You must mean my lack of respect. You got that part right.

Posted by: Dave at February 27, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #129881

Linda - how about those men who ARE responsible? Shouldn’t they get to have a say in whether their child lives? It is commonly known that the vast majority of abortions are for convenience.

Since you say that abortion should never be used as a form of birth control, answer me this: If NRTL were to conceed the 1% of abortions performed due to rape or incest and the 2-3% performed due to the mother’s health, would you conceed rights to the other 96% of abortions? Let me know what you think of this new bill. I’m eagerly sitting at my computer, waiting for you to post a reply :)

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #129883

KansasDem -

1) The reason that the vast majority of comments on abortion comes from men is that we are disenfranchised. We have no rights on the abortion issue, and thus we have grievances - the murdered masses of our siblings and children whose deaths we were unable to stop. When you give men rights over abortion, I guarantee you that you’ll start seeing more posts from women.

2) When you can demonstrate that abortions are reversable to the same percentile that vasectomies are reversible, I’ll consent to one.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #129884

Gandhi,

This makes no sense to me:
“When you can demonstrate that abortions are reversable to the same percentile that vasectomies are reversible, I’ll consent to one.”

You’d consent to a vasectomy after abortion becomes reversible? Never mind.

You asked Linda about the SD bill (soon to be law). I cut-n-pasted the following from another thread. It should give you a pretty good idea that I consider it to be about as worthless as one-ply toilet tissue.

****

“In the Neo-Con Zone the Theocrats create laws that defy logic.

Case in point: South Dakota has just approved the nation’s most far-reaching ban on abortion.

The South Dakota bill (soon to be law) is meant to serve one purpose: the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Anyone that’s read my previous post’s regarding abortion know that I feel abortion as a means of birth control is abhorent, but that’s not the point of this post.

South Dakota’s legislature and senate decided to push forward an equally abhorent bill with the sole purpose of overturning of Roe v. Wade.

So, I don’t like abortion on demand, South Dakota seems to agree, what’s the problem? The problem is these lawmakers are actually “lawbreakers”.

This bill (soon to be law) contains an inadequate exception to protect a woman⦣x20AC;™s life and no other exceptions - not for rape, not for incest, not even to protect the woman⦣x20AC;™s health.

Just imagine:

(1) You’re an 18 year old (or younger) girl that was inpregnated by her stepfather or whoever - nope no abortion for you, not only were you violated, but now your body belongs to him for nine months. Have a good life honey!

(2) You’re a 30 year old woman working to support two children she’s raising with little or no support from their deadbeat alcoholic father and the same deadbeat father breaks his restraining order and rapes her. Nope, no abortion for her. Sorry honey, you’re just a receptacle! Daddy just left you with another reminder!

(3) You’re 25 years old and confined to a home because you’re “retarded” or “brain damaged” and someone “took advantage”. Oops, sorry babe you’re just a receptacle/delivery device!

(4) Your doctor tells you that your health may be threatened if you continue your pregancy, but sorry we’ll just have to wait and see if it actually threatens your life. If you die we can’t help it it. The f***ing government say’s so.

This is a true trip into the Neo-Con Zone!

I would hope that if one single woman suffers harm (or dies) due to a delay in medical care while this stupid law is being appealed that it results in a lawsuit against every member of the South Dakota house and senate that voted for it.

I do realize that would set a new precedent. Most, if not all, state laws protect “lawmakers” from the results of legislation. I say it’s time to make our lawmakers responsible for their actions.”

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 27, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #129888

I’m sure in the nineteenth century the slave owners thought they were in the modern world as well. A woman has full control over her body, but once she becomes pregnant, there is another person involved in her “choice”. No one should have the right to say when a living organism with 100% human DNA and a beating heart is or is not human. Why is it the libs try at all costs to protect the life of convicted murderers, but fight for the death penalty of the most vulnerable, completely innocent people in our society for the sake of convenience? Who has the real compassion?

Posted by: Duano at February 27, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #129890

Thanks fo the spell-check, but imagine if the people who felt that slavery was morally wrong had minded their own (insert expletive here) business. If I, being a guy, were to murder a man who you love, should you not even have the right to an opinion since it’s between two men?

Posted by: Duano at February 27, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #129891

KansasDem - as is typical, your arguments for legalized abortion-on-demand come from the 4% of controversial abortions that I mentioned earlier. Give me my 96% and I’ll give you your 4%.

My comment on vasectomies is a logical and intelligent one, but since you didn’t get it, I’ll explain it to you. Since - obviously - no abortions are reversible, neither should potentially nonreversible vasectomies be imposed on the entire population as a way of preventing the less-than-4% of abortions which you are trying to defend. Imposing them on convicted rapists, however, would probably help.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #129892

And it’s the right to lifers who are in a constant whining refrain about the “welfare mamas”. Well their childhood sucked, their parents abused them, so what fire up the electric chair boys.

Posted by: sndyrmony at February 27, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #129894

Sndyrmony -

As to abortions, men have no right to even voice an opinion… mind your own f***ing business

Not very nice to jump into a thread with profanities before you’ve read what other people have written. I DO have a right to a voice on abortion. I’ve had siblings and cousins murdered from the post-RvW industry.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #129896

sorry gandhi but you aren’t footing the bill for the kids and you don’t have a vagina end of story. While it may bother you that some are aborted it bothers me too. I would imagine that those who choose abortions do so for a reason. I doubt that it’s just a mood thing. I’ve never known a person to make such a decision willy nilly and if they do it seems like a good thing they can get their abortions in a safe clean environment. Abortion won’t go away, do you suggest the motel No-tell and a coathanger?

Posted by: sndyrmony at February 27, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #129899

This fool was joking wasn’t he? If not he needs a padded room. This is the best laugh I’ve had all month.
If gays cann’t marry then why should they be allowed to adopt? Single straights cann’t adpot in most states. I reckon though when your a member of an ‘oppressed’ group you should get special priviledges that’s not given to others.


Posted by: Ron Brown at February 27, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #129902

Sndyrmony -

you aren’t footing the bill for the kids and you don’t have a vagina end of story

Guess what - most fathers DO foot the bill for the kids. And that’s the most sexist statement I’ve ever heard.

I would imagine that those who choose abortions do so for a reason. I doubt that it’s just a mood thing. I’ve never known a person to make such a decision willy nilly and if they do it seems like a good thing they can get their abortions in a safe clean environment.

Of course they have reasons - just not good enough ones to validate murder. Here are some of the reasons a woman would consider murdering her child:

-8% don’t want any more children
-14% have a relationship issue, or their partner doesn’t want the child
-11% think an abortion will disrupt their education or career
-21% don’t want to pay for a baby
-26% want to pospone childbearing for a more convenient time

Somewhere within the remaining 20% you’ll find the 1% (rape or incest) and 3% (health of mother) you mentioned.

Abortion won’t go away, do you suggest the motel No-tell and a coathanger?

Back then, there were 100,000 abortions a year. Today there are over 1.3 million a year.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #129904

Ron,

Simple question:

In states where single parents can adopt would you allow single gays to adopt?

Posted by: Dave at February 27, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #129905

there are more than enough people who are suffering now that ARE ALIVE AND BREATHING.

if abortion is in fact a sin of the allmighty father (or mother), then its between the person having the abortion and their god. a christian should know that. free will is YOUR OWN ability to make decisions, not your ability to make the decisions for SOMEONE ELSE.

don’t like abortions? don’t have one. god will high five you when the rapture happens…

i find it appalling that we are ignoring issues that are much more far reaching to all of us, like POLLUTION that is aborting us all slowly, like ILLEGAL WARS that are blowing up and maiming women and children overseas, like STARVING HOMELESS people right here in our own states, like A NATIONAL DEFICIT so large and an economy RUN BY FOREIGN INTERESTS and an appaling over-importance placed on MATERIAL POSSESIONS that a few aborted children here and there really pale on the totem pole of relevance.

realistically we are past (passing) the critical mass of how much populace this planet can sustain, especially with the model of US consumption. abortion is in some ways a civil service. that doesn’t sound (or feel) good to say or write, however it is true in a lot of ways.

Posted by: tree hugger at February 27, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #129908
Don’t like abortions? don’t have one.

Don’t like murder? Don’t commit one. Oh wait - we have a law for that, don’t we…

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #129909

JBOD, the fundamental issue I think you missed is that RvW does not restrict citizen actions by government. Overturning RvW would by allowing whole states to outlaw it. This would give rise to folks gravitating to states where their view on the subject is promulgated in the law. Thus dividing the nation in much the same manner that is already occuring, with California and Kansas.

Few liberals are going to elect to live in Kansas compared to conservatives and vice versa with Massachusetts, for example. This is a growing trend in America today and if it continues, we could in 50 or 75 years end up with a blue north and gray south again, except with different boundary lines. This is not healthy for the concept of a ‘united’ States.

With RvW folks are free to choose. Without it, folks will still be free to choose, but, only by moving to a state that foster the liberty or restricts it according to their view.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 27, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #129911

Simple solution to the abortion issue:

Define that an embryo becomes a human when it is removed from the uterous and can survive without “heroic measures”.

or what about:

Every state that denies abortions must pay for all costs of raising the child to majority. It is allowed to garnish wages of the mother and father.

While we’re at it, let’s crminalize male masturbation since sperm is “100% human DNA”.

Finally,

Every fool who refers to abortion as murder of a child must fuck themselves only. Since that is the only way to preclude procreation. Ooops, wait, that’s homosexuality! Damn, I guess they have to stop having sex, period.

(I must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed. Usually I have more tolerance for the disabled.)

Posted by: Dave at February 27, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #129914

Hello all,

Abortion is wrong of course, nobody seems to be arguing otherwise. But there are many more issues that cut in favor of its legality:

1. The clear constitutional prohibition on banning abortion—this (should be) based upon the unreasonable seizure of a woman and forcing her to bring a baby to term (one could also make a 13th Amendment argument as forcing a woman to support a fetus is similar to forced servitude)

2. The inability of those who would force women to have children to respect single mothers and help to provide for their support, both mental and economic, after the child has been born

3. The abandonment of needy children around the country provides for a similar logical framework to the moral argument about killing children through abortion

I would support any number of means to help to limit abortions. Waiting periods, discussion of other options, economic support for single pregnant women, psychological and social support, or any other means. It simply cannot be correct to coerce a woman to bear a child to term, as horrendous as the results of allowing abortion must be.

Posted by: Libertyman13 at February 27, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #129921

David - you seem to suggest that people anticipate getting pregnant and planning abortions well before the fact. Which is easier -driving across state lines for an abortion, and then returning home (as commonly happens now anyway), or permanently moving to another state to have one? For many people, the latter action would seem less convenient than actually having the child.

The one big difference between slavery and abortion: owning slaves never just “happened” to anyone (unless one inherited slaves - but he could opt to set them free in that case). People intentionally purchased and owned slaves, and the entire lifestyle in the South was maintained by slaves. People moved to the South so that they could own slaves and make it rich on a plantation. In contrast, no one plans to get pregnant so they can have an abortion. Abortion is extremely unlikely to ever result in a geographical divide.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #129939

Gandhi,

“Of course they have reasons - just not good enough ones to validate murder. Here are some of the reasons a woman would consider murdering her child:

-8% don’t want any more children
-14% have a relationship issue, or their partner doesn’t want the child
-11% think an abortion will disrupt their education or career
-21% don’t want to pay for a baby
-26% want to pospone childbearing for a more convenient time

Somewhere within the remaining 20% you’ll find the 1% (rape or incest) and 3% (health of mother) you mentioned.”

You throw around a lot of statistics for someone that doesn’t provide any proof that they’re true.

Posted by: Rocky at February 27, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #129942

Gandhi,

” People moved to the South so that they could own slaves and make it rich on a plantation. In contrast, no one plans to get pregnant so they can have an abortion. Abortion is extremely unlikely to ever result in a geographical divide”

You don’t consider those folks that would move, not just to get an abortion, but because they are insulted by a state that would limit their freedoms because of an ideology.

Posted by: Rocky at February 27, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #129944

Rocky - here’s a source (and a pretty objective one too). You can find similar statistics with a more ideological tilt at Naral.com.

As to moving states - most of the libs who threatened to move to Canada if Bush was elected, didn’t. To lend credence to your suggestion, see if you can cite any stats showing large dissident groups moving across slave/free states in the 1850s.

This is my final post in this forum, as I’m out of time to blog today.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #129952

Male sperm only has 23 chromosomes instead of the 46 needed to be 100% human DNA. Nice try. The stats show that more people are gradually moving to the right on this issue, and even many abortion supporters on this column are talking about abortions as birth control being wrong. These statements were once considered extreme right. The abortion injustice will continue for a while, but not forever. I have faith in the great people of this great nation who have seen the error of their ways before (slavery) and took steps, although tough ones, to rectify them. Until then, I pray that the innocent make a painless journey back to their benevolent Creator, and that mercy and forgiveness is bestowed upon those who make such a grave mistake.

Posted by: Duano at February 27, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #129958

Guano,
(A)
I didn’t say sperm had 100% of the DNA, I said it was 100% human DNA.
(B)
organism with 100% human DNA and a beating heart is or is not human.
Posted by: Duano at February 27, 2006 12:10 PM

So you think abortion is OK before the heart starts to beat is OK?

As I started with, your position is religous, depsite your denials. See:
(C)

I pray that the innocent make a painless journey back to their benevolent Creator, and that mercy and forgiveness is bestowed upon those who make such a grave mistake.
Posted by: Duano at February 27, 2006 02:20 PM

Posted by: Dave at February 27, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #129962

Thank you Dave
I grow so weary of these bible thumpers who think their interpretation of things should be legislated into everyones’ lives. They are the same empty heads that tried to convince people that Intelligent design isn’t creationism.

Posted by: richard at February 27, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #129969

Jay Jay,

Hilarious post. Good on Hagan for stating his opinion in a pointed yet humorous fashion. Sometimes that is the best way to get through to some people. Trouble is, many conservatives don’t seem to have much of a sense of humor these days, so some may actually view this as highly offensive.

It figures that so many here would quickly turn away from your important topic and immediately shove our collective feet up into the stirrups for yet another outraged, male-dominated, abortion thread.

Look guys, you can’t control women any longer.
We have minds and wills of our own, and more often than not, we must pay our own way these days. The federal government and the Supreme Court can try to outlaw abortions, but they will never end them. Women who truly do not want to have a child will always find a way around man-made laws and mandates, male-dominated religions, and dictatorial opinions from the sort of men who have always sought to control us.
After thirty years of safe abortions, women aren’t about to go backward just because a bunch of politicians, judges, religious followers or controlling men of any stripe say that we must.
No matter where we live in this country, we women will see that our fellow sisters who desperately want or need to have an abortion, can still get them safely — whether it is legal or not.

But go right ahead and outlaw abortion if you dare — because nothing could possibly be more politically effective for the liberal cause than a bunch of ruthlessly domineering men trying to coercively control so many women completely against our will(s).

Posted by: Adrienne at February 27, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #129977

Wow, this thread went way off topic. Personally, I do not have a stance on abortion. I only have one question to those who are opposed to abortion; are you also against gay adoption? If so, how do you justify putting more children into households that don’t want them, while simultaneously cutting off loving homes as an option for those same children?

We should be putting the welfare of our children, which are already here, above bigoted views of a certain group. Forcing children into homes where they are not wanted does far, far, far more damage to the welfare of the child, than does putting the child into a loving, nurturing home regardless of the parent’s orientation. I would argue that the number one higher need of a child is love. Bigoted societal views, (which can be altered through education and actually getting to know people unlike yourself), is way down on the list.

Ron,

If you have a problem with singles adopting children, then maybe you should make marriage equality a priority. On the other hand there are many singles out there that can provide a very loving and nurturing home as well, so maybe we need to abolish those state adoption laws that forbid singles from adopting. It is still far and away better than forcing a child into a home where they are considered a burden. We can talk about what is ideal, but we need to realize that we don’t live anywhere near perfect. What is ideal is not always perfect, and what is perfect is not always ideal.

There are many solutions out there to solve many of our problems but those solutions are often suppressed because of societal ignorance and bigotry.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 27, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #129984

“I would support any number of means to help to limit abortions. Waiting periods, discussion of other options, economic support for single pregnant women, psychological and social support, or any other means. It simply cannot be correct to coerce a woman to bear a child to term, as horrendous as the results of allowing abortion must be.

Posted by: Libertyman13 at February 27, 2006”

Bravo Libertyman! Well said! Nothing to add, those who truly think will understand and those with ideals set in stone never will.

Thank You,
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 27, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #129988

“Guess what - most fathers DO foot the bill for the kids. And that’s the most sexist statement I’ve ever heard.”
***
BULL SH** Gandhi!
I’ve spent a large part of my life working with single mothers. Quite often these “mothers” started out as “girls” that were neglected and abused at home. Then they found themselves out on the street because the taxpayers don’t like supporting WHORES!

And, god forbid, you’d have to support a whores child.

Don’t let reality bite you in the butt, but it takes two to tango. Who generally bears the greatest burden? During the pregnancy it’s 100% on the woman. The first two years after birth it’s more often than not 99% on the woman.

Perhaps you would rather have all females clitoris’ clipped shortly after birth to limit promiscuity. You know they do that in some places around the world. It seems you weren’t too fond of my vasectomy idea.

IMO your statements are more sexist than you imagine.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 27, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #129995

Gandhi, you are hung up on abortion. I am talking about much larger value set population shifts. Reread what I have said and respond to what I said. Abortion was an example, not my argument.

Posted by: David R. Remer at February 27, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #129996

David R. Remer,

You said,
“Few liberals are going to elect to live in Kansas compared to conservatives and vice versa with Massachusetts”

And, damn, you hit the nail on the head. My son owns a small farm/ranch operation here, I’m disabled, I need his help so I’m stuck here.

The Democratic Party is almost nonexistant here. Hell, I had three Kerry/Edwards signs stole out of my yard during the last Presidebtial election.

IMO it’s simply a matter of time.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 27, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #130018

“Look guys, you can’t control women any longer.”

Thank God! I suppose at some point in the past we could, but just couldn’t imagine any benefit to that at all.

Posted by: tony at February 27, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #130029

“It figures that so many here would quickly turn away from your important topic and immediately shove our collective feet up into the stirrups for yet another outraged, male-dominated, abortion thread.”

Thank You for that Adrienne. Abortion is a topic that’s almost bound to get me PO’ed. Beyond what anyone else says it always involves an internal struggle and above all else I’m a man.

kansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 27, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #130041

Back to JayJay’s original theme. Well, loosely anyway. If I’m connecting the dots right, which I’m 99.9% sure I am, our tax dollars are paying for this through “Faith Based Initiatives”:

Day of Truth
The Truth Cannot Be Silenced
http://www.dayoftruth.org/main/default.aspx

Quote from their “agenda”:
“The Day of Truth was established to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective.”

IMO the best time to teach hate is when the students of hate are young. Imagine being a pre-teen or being in your early teens and getting fed this crap. To me this is equivolent to the KKK.

One more quote:
“GLSEN’s Day of Silence encourages students to remain silent throughout the day. It is part of their overall strategy to change how our society perceives homosexual behavior”

That should help anyone that’s going through those “fragile years” to develop to their full potential.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 27, 2006 7:50 PM
Comment #130104

In the interest of providing interesting discussion, let me offer this source on the subject of demographic shifts.

I am not offering this source as a concession - simply as a response to David’s request to address his question. As I stated earlier, I will make no response to the many (substanceless) jabs after I finished posting from Tony, KansasDem, Richard and Adrienne.

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #130107

Wow, talk about going off topic! I for one was relieved when Ron Hood’s feeble legislation was killed before it found life. And Hagen’s response had me giggling like a little girl. Honestly, there are, right now, 3,000 children (or, should I say, abortion survivors) in Ohio who are in need good, loving homes (their parents had their rights severed by the state). And yet the same ones who wanted these children brought to term would deny this to them. That certainly stinks like hypocritical bull if anything does.

Well, this certainly doesn’t surprise me. I mean here you’ve got the pro-lifers screaming against abortion, but then you’ve got Repubs in Indiana proposing legislation that would penalize a single woman for wanting a baby so badly that she resorts to artifical means of conceiving one. I mean, wow. Do you want us to carry your seed or not?

Posted by: Gratis at February 27, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #130116

Ron,

Simple question:

In states where single parents can adopt would you allow single gays to adopt?

Posted by: Dave at February 27, 2006 12:46 PM

No. No single person should be allowed to adopt. Kids need both parents. MOTHER AND FATHER. Not just a mother, or just a father. And they sure as hell don’t need a father and a father, or a mother and a mother.
I know that there a lot of single parent homes. I also know that single parents can and do love their children as much a married parents. And I know that single parents can and do provide good homes for kids. And sometimes better than married parents.
That still don’t alter the fact that kids need parents of both sexs living in the house with them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 27, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #130130

Ron,

“That still don’t alter the fact that kids need parents of both sexs living in the house with them.”

Would you rather deny a child bouncing around in the foster care system, the opportunity to go to a good home just because the adoptor was single?

I’m sorry that doesn’t make any sense “if” the child is what’s important here.

A good home is a good home, whether there are 2 parents or not.

Posted by: Rocky at February 28, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #130150

Dave

I may be a religious person, but my religion really has nothing to say about abortion. I challenge you to find in the Bible any law or ordinance about abortion. You won’t. I have an agnostic friend who is maybe even more opposed to abortion than I am. SHE says SHE can’t understand “liberty and justice for ALL” leaving out the most vulnerable. Who can be trusted to say when someone is human or subhuman? Slave traders? Hitler? Pol Pot? GW Bush? NARAL? I wouldn’t give any of those goons such power.
And BTW, this really isn’t off topic since abortion is mentioned in the original post. like I said before, I am not opposed to gay adoption, and I don’t really like posting on things I agree with. I like shooting you guys down with moderately sensible comments and watch you resort to profanity and name-calling. Typical liberal style, can’t argue the message, so attack the person.
The reason many religious people are against abortion is the moral compass we are given when we have a religious experience. The same moral compass our founding fathers used when they said all men are created equal(women too). One more thing, the Republican party does not speak for me, especially those loons in Indiana. That would be like saying that everything that Sandoval guy from San Fran says can be applied to all Dems on this blog. (Sandoval, liberal Dem, says the U.S. should abolish the military)

Posted by: Duano at February 28, 2006 7:23 AM
Comment #130153

I take that back, I can be a name-caller too. This will be my last post on this subject, so Douchbag Dave, KansasDung, and gaygay can have the last word.

Posted by: Guano at February 28, 2006 7:48 AM
Comment #130154

Just one more thing. The cells that become the heart of the child begin to spasm or “beat” when the embryo is still a blastocyst, so are you sure you want that to be the criteria? That would virtually end abortion all together.

My conscience is already letting me have it for my last post, so I apologize to Dave, KansasDem, and jayjay. That was a childish post and a reaction to my name being changed to bat or seabird droppings. Thanks Dave. I fell into the very thing I hate about liberal arguments, and it will never happen again. Again, I apologize.

Posted by: Duano at February 28, 2006 7:56 AM
Comment #130158

Jay Jay

Sorry for going off topic. But I would like to reply to Kanasdem post Feb.27 at 2:35am. I have never trusted the machines since the 2000 elections. Therefore I order absentee ballots for my husband and myself and hand deliver them.This leaves a paper trail that is needed. I hope more dems. will use this method in the next election.

Posted by: concernedmom at February 28, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #130166

OK, Duano. You’ve gotten my respect for your honesty. I appologize for my batman reference, although I still believe you are decieving yourself. The bible has references to abortion. I’ve seen links in other threads. In fact, one of the links had the bible condoning it for unfaithful wives (I think).

Anyway, it is primarily the christian religious right that is insisting human life begins at conception, and that is likely your basis for your philosophy. If I felt a 2 month old embryo was sufficiently human I would probably fight as vociferously as you do. But, I do not feel that way. Human life, to me, begins at sentience. baring that, at viability. That is the basis for my 12:56 post.

In the end, there won’t be a consensus on this matter. We are a nation of secular law, not religious law, so it has come down to the womans right to control her decisions over her body. The government does not own its people, it’s the other way around.

Posted by: Dave at February 28, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #130169

Viability is not as late during a pregnancy as it was in ‘72. Medical advances mean a baby can suvive outside the mother much earlier than the time when abortion is disallowed under RvW. Viable babies are aborted every day.

Posted by: Duano at February 28, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #130170

Why is murder a crime? Because the Bible says “Thou shalt not kill”? No, it’s because moral people put a secular law in place to criminalize something they thought was abhorrent. Women can do whatever they want to their bodies, but when there is another person involved, it’s no different than the S.Carolina woman who drove her kids in the lake. The woman has the right to choose not to have sex, or choose to use birth control and other contraception. If she still gets pregnant, that is the consequence of her first choice. And the guy who got her pregnant should be 100% responsible for her and the child financially until the kid is 18.

Posted by: Duano at February 28, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #130172
an embryo becomes a human when it is removed from the uterous and can survive without “heroic measures”. Posted by: Dave at February 27, 2006 12:56 PM
Posted by: Dave at February 28, 2006 9:47 AM
Comment #130173
it has come down to the womans right to control her decisions over her body. The government does not own its people, it’s the other way around.
Posted by: Dave at February 28, 2006 09:23 AM Posted by: Dave at February 28, 2006 9:48 AM
Comment #130174

Says who? It is not a matter of when someone “believes” the embryo becomes human, it’s about scientific fact. Science has not endorsed either position because it has not been able to prove one side or the other, only that the embryo is 100% homo sapiens. My position is that if we don’t know, do we kill anyway, or let live just in case it is a person? To use an overplayed cliche, we should err on the side of life.

Posted by: Duano at February 28, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #130193

Duano,

“Says who? It is not a matter of when someone “believes” the embryo becomes human, it’s about scientific fact. Science has not endorsed either position because it has not been able to prove one side or the other, only that the embryo is 100% homo sapiens.”

Moral or not, the consensess is that for now, at least, it is legal.

I think that a good many of us here belive that abortion shouldn’t be used as a means of birth control, and despite the statistics that Gandhi cites, abortion isn’t something that a woman goes into lightly.
Yes, there are going to be abusers to the system, and there always will be. That doesn’t mean that it should be taken away from the greater number of women that aren’t able physicaly OR mentally to deal with the prospects of carrying a fetus to term.

AND, until the public steps up and adopts the overwhelming number of children that are being truely left behind in the foster care system, abortion should still be an option.

That doesn’t mean that it is right, it just is the reality that some folks just don’t want to admit.

Posted by: Rocky at February 28, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #130225

Dave
The bible has references to abortion. I’ve seen links in other threads. In fact, one of the links had the bible condoning it for unfaithful wives

You’ll have to show me where they are. I’ve read the Bible several times and aint seen them.

Rocky,
Did I say that single parents couldn’t provide a good home?

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 28, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #130263

Ron,

It was in a watchblog thread, relatively recent. something about “take a drink to rid the womb of the seed”.
Maybe someone else knows it.

Posted by: Dave at February 28, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #130277

Gandhi,
I’m dreadfully sorry if you are still sitting at your desk awaiting a reponse from me.

You are the one defining what birth control is. I think that if a woman tries twice to get an abortion in a 1-2 year time period, then she is most likely using abortion for birth control.

That automatically reduces your 96% rate.

I also believe that once one abortion has occured prehaps it might be advisable to implant a Norvant birth control device to prevent another pregnancy, with - in reason. There is a differnce between a woman who is sexually active, and a woman who

I also believe that adoption between any couple (gays, married couples, etc.) or adoption on the part of a single parent, MAN or WOMAN should be praised as courageous.

The biggest problems with adoption are some of the restictions placed on propective parents, and the fact that no one seems to want to adopt black chidren disabled children, older children of any race, HIV babies, or babies born with drug problems passed on by thier biological parents, etc.

As for most fathers paying child support, I can speak from experience - I still wonder whether my ex-husband (of a 23 year marriage)is ever going to get around to paying what he owes to his three daughters. All of whom I tried to keep in school, and then later tried to support them in college. While he takes great satisfaction at our 3 girls accompolishments, he can take no credit for how they turned out. All 3 mostly worked, got scholarships, grants, and loans in order to go to college.

Anyone familar with the DEAD-BEAT Dads pollicy? If all fathers did what they should have done in the begining, there would have been no reason to pass such laws.

And MOST IMPORTANT of all, EDUCATION!!!

Posted by: Linda H. at February 28, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #130311

Some thoughts about the debate about abortion in this thread, directed primarily at Duano and Gandhi:

If I wanted to have my perfectly healthy arm amputated, I could go to the hospital and pay a doctor to amputate it, there is no logical reasoning to stop that. After my arm is amputated all of the cells in it would die because they are cut off from my vital organs. This happens despite the fact that all of my cells have 100% human DNA. Therefore, the presence of human DNA is NOT a strong enough factor to make something a person; it makes something human, but not a human being.

Let’s look at the second word, being. What does it imply? It implies consciousness, that the living thing is sentient. That is why we say it is OK to kill the ants in the backyard, but not to kill your next door neighbor; your neighbor is a human being who is consious of his life and sentient. The ants, on the other hand, are not consious or sentient.

What makes Human beings sentient and consious of themselves? It is their capacity to have a mind; and where is the mind? The mind is in the brain. My arm has no sentient brain, that is why it is OK for me to amputate and kill it. An animal may have a brain, but it is not a sentient brain, so it does not have a right to live either; thus, I can kill the ants in the backyard if I want to. My next door neighbors do have sentient brains so it is not Ok for me to kill any of them.

And lastly, any embryo in the first trimester does not have a sentient brain or even any fully differentiated brain cells at that; so it therefore, can be aborted. A third trimester fetus does have a sentient brain so it cannot be aborted except for in the case where a woman’s health is at risk.

This is why I support Roe v Wade, it prohibits third trimester abortions and legalizes first trimester ones as well as restricts second trimester ones.

Posted by: Warren P at February 28, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #130320

FYI, the year before RvW was enacted there were an estimated 100,000 back-alley abortions every year. The number of legal abortions the next year exceeded 700,000. Was this really an issue of women’s health?

Posted by: Gandhi at February 27, 2006 10:48 AM

Gandhi,

Question:

Since by their very nature, BACK_ALLEY abortions were performed clandestinely, who counted them?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 28, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #130330

Warren,

Thanks for the measured, informed, and reasoned response. Mind if I use it for next time?

Posted by: Dave at February 28, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #130331

Gahndi,

You haave mentioned the figure 100,000 back-alley abortions more than once here. Where did that number come from and how authoritative is it?

Posted by: Marysdude at February 28, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #130382

Warren P.

So far,your argument has been the most reasonable of the pro-deathers on this thread. However, if you were to ask a doctor to amputate your arm, you would probably be referred to a mental health facility, and the doctor cannot perform such a procedure without a valid medical reason(part of the Hipocratic oath says to “do no harm”). This doesn’t seem to be the case with abortion, but it should be. More importantly, your argument doesn’t hold water because your arm is 100% of YOUR OWN DNA, the “fetus” has a different DNA pattern than its mother, so how can it be just a part of her body. If the fetus’ DNA were somehow left at the scene of where its mother had committed a crime, she would walk because it wouldn’t match her DNA. An arm is a part of the human body, a fetus is a complete human body within another person. Your argument would also make it legal to arbitrarily kill someone like Ariel Sharon because he isn’t “sentient” right now, is he? When you are knocked out during a car crash, are you not human for a few minutes, and therefore of no more worth than the ants until you come back to? Being unaware of your condition surely cannot mean you are less than human.

Posted by: Duano at February 28, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #130430

It was in a watchblog thread, relatively recent. something about “take a drink to rid the womb of the seed”.
Maybe someone else knows it.

Posted by: Dave at February 28, 2006 02:29 PM

I remember that. It was used out of context by someone wanting to prove that the Bible approves of abortion. The scripture your refering to is in the fifth chapter of Numbers. God gave it as a test to see if a woman was an adultress or not. It doesnot approve of abortion. Nowhere does the Bible approve of abortion.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 1, 2006 1:21 AM
Comment #130469

This will be my last post on this subject. None of the pro-choice crowd has been able to persuade me, and I’m sure I haven’t changed any minds. Actually, having to argue all the points you all have brought up has strengthened my own belief in the abhorrent injustice of legalized abortion. Let me make this prediction. In 150 years or so, kids in our schools will be learning about how our country had to come to grips with the fact that our laws had allowed murder to take place every day, how we had a polarized position on the subject, but how moral minds eventually prevailed. The people who are called “Bible thumpers”, “sexists”, “bigots”, “ignorant rednecks”, “trying to impose their religion on the country” will be remembered as courageous protectors of the most vulnerable, innocent people of our nation. The people of the gray states are still remembered as great Americans, but on the wrong side of the right struggle, as will the pro-choicers. It may not happen in my lifetime, but I take comfort in the fact that I will have been one of those fighters, an abolitionist who fought a gross injustice with all his conviction. Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony. These people took the path less traveled, the inconvenient way. They chose to fight the status quo even though numbers weren’t on their side, and in the case of Lincoln and King, they paid the ultimate price for it. But they overcame. Their cause was to great to be defeated. WE SHALL OVERCOME.

Posted by: Duano at March 1, 2006 7:21 AM
Comment #130475

Duano,

I know you said that you would not be posting again, but I’d still like to respond to what you said.

First, I know of people with paralyzed limbs who have them amputated if they get in the way.

The fact that the DNA is unique argument in my opinion; cancerous cells have human DNA that is different than ours, yet tumors are removed by doctors everyday with no moral qualms.

When someone begins their existence with their first sentinent thought, they continue to have the rights of a person until they are declared dead. Ariel Sharon has the capacity to be sentinent, but cannot because a stroke prevents him. Embryos without a brain do not have this capacity.

Dave,
Feel free to use my thoughts, just don’t try to claim that it is yours; just say someone once told me…

Posted by: Warren P at March 1, 2006 7:51 AM
Comment #130482

Warren,
From your post, I originally thought you were in the technical field, but now it seems you must be in the legal field :-)

Duano,
I’m sure that preach will sway your choir, but to me (I’m really not being condecending) it’s just a chaotic self-servng tap dance. E.g. there’s are enormous differences between unconcious, sentient, and vegetative state.

Ron,
If the result of the test was “expulsion of the seed” how is that not abortion? And if it was an acceptable result to abort a fetus out of marriage then how is that not applicable, in your paradigm, to other out-of-wedlock situations?

Posted by: Dave at March 1, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #130498

Actually I’m a high school student and not in either a technical or legal field; or at least not yet.

Posted by: Warren P at March 1, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #130502

Warren,

Good for you; now, can you start a new debate and tell us if it’s public or private?

Posted by: Dave at March 1, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #130503

I know I said I had had my last word, but if you are able to check out this LINK and still say that abortion is not murder then we no longer have an argument.

Posted by: Duano at March 1, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #130508

Ron,
If the result of the test was “expulsion of the seed” how is that not abortion? And if it was an acceptable result to abort a fetus out of marriage then how is that not applicable, in your paradigm, to other out-of-wedlock situations?

Posted by: Dave at March 1, 2006 08:40 AM

Nowhere does it say that a baby is killed. It does say that she she won’t be able to have babies anymore, but not that one is killed.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 1, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #130509

Duano
All those murdered babies look human enough to me.
It’s a child not a choise.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 1, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #130512

Warren P
Cancer cells are not another humanbeing. Babies are. They are not a paralized limb, a cancerous cell, or a tumor. They are a humanbeings with the same rights you have. One of those rights is to life.
If the crap you wrote is what they’re teaching in high school these days, then our future is very bleek.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 1, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #130525

Duano, and Ron,

I visited the site. Abortion as I’ve defined above is not murder. Just because it looks like a person, doesn’t make it a person. See: Schiavo.

Ron,

Do you have the specific passage?

Posted by: Dave at March 1, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #130535

Dave,
Who elected you to define life? Just keep in mind that the images on that site are what you are fighting to protect, and what I am fighting to abolish. Brain waves begin during the FIRST trimester. I don’t remember having a sentient thought any time before I was two years old. I looked human, but was I really human? Should we be able to kill all children under two? If tose images don’t disturb you, then you’ve got bigger problems than arguing on a blog can help.

Posted by: Duano at March 1, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #130544

I attend a public high school. I was raised a Unitarian and my parents taught me to think for myself. I have come to the conclusions I stated earlier by my own free thought and conclusions; not something that the public school system or my parents taught me.

Duano, the link you have seems to depict images of second and third trimester abortions. I stated earlier that I oppose third trimester abortions and believe that second trimester abortions should be limited to only women with their health endangered by the pregnancy. I also think that abortions do need to be limited, the embryo is an animal (homo sapiens is a part of kingdom animala) and should given the same respect that we give our dogs and cats. If someone can no longer to afford to keep their pet, they have the right to kill it, but many opt to send the pet to an animal shelter or to sell it instead.

If those of you who oppose abortion want to end it, then I think the promotion of sex education should be your primary goal; as well as a greater distribution of contraceptives. I also think more states should follow my state’s lead and make morning-after-pills over-the-counter; this would allow more women to use emergency contraceptions to prevent an abortion or accidental pregnency; especially in cases involving rape or incest.

Ron, I agree; babies are indeed human beings who’s rights need to be protected, same goes for fetuses. Embryos, zygotes, blastosysts, etc… are not beings despite the fact they are human and do not qualify as a person and do not recieve any rights other than those given to animals.
A tumor and a blastocyst are both clumps of human cells that inhabit a human body that have human DNA that differs from their host’s DNA. Both of them can be classified as parasites, they both take nutrients from (and thus harm) their host without returning any advantage of their hosts. (That is the scientific definition of a parasite). There is no difference until the embryo becomes a fetus and begins thinking sentinent thoughts. (Actually a cancerous tumor is usually not a parasite because it kills its host eventually, but my point still stands).

Duano, you had sentinent thoughts as soon as you developed a the part of the brain that produces them, you just forgot them because the part of your brain handling memory was not developed fully yet (just like all of the rest of us).

Posted by: Warren P at March 1, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #130550

Dave
The passage we’re discussing here is Numbers Chapter 5 Verses 12-28.
It doesn’t mention anything about a baby being killed or the women even being pregant.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 1, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #130552

Warren P.
How do you know then when someone has a sentient thought? Brainwaves are detected during the first trimester, so how do you know that there isn’t anything sentient going on there?

Posted by: Duano at March 1, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #130568

Warren P.
I wish I could have blogged all day in high school. I also wish I could remember how it was when I was as a teenager, you know, when I knew everything.

Posted by: Duano at March 1, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #130575

I too wish that I can blog all day on most days, the only reason I was able to comment here today was that many of my classes were canceled because the majority of the students in them were on a field trip to Washington DC. I spent the free time I had in the library posting here.

Where is your proof that brainwaves are detected in the first trimester? I have done a lot of research in order to come to the opinion I have now and I have never encountered anything that stated that brainwaves occur during the first trimester.

Posted by: Warren P at March 1, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #130589

Warren,

Be careful of the right wing punditry. When the have no facts to back up their case, they make it up. Kind of a trademark on their side, so look for peer reviewed data only.

Duano,

Who elected you to define life? And you are way wrong if you think I’m “fighting to protect” abortion. I’m fighting to prevent narrow minded fools from running other peoples lives.

Posted by: Dave at March 1, 2006 3:31 PM
Comment #130597

Warren P.,
You give me hope for our future. Not because I happen to agree with you, but because you are obviously a well-read young man, who not only can think for yourself, but is not easily crushed when someone disagrees with you.

I do hope you come back - often.

I favor first term abortions, with second term only being allowed in the cases involving the mother’s health,a mother that did not know she was pregnant,16 and under due to rape, incest, a special needs mother, or even a child that is not viable even after it’s birth.
I DO NOT agree with third term abortions, unless their is absolute certainty that the mother will die.

Personally I belive that Norplant devices should be considered should a woman show up wanting a second abortion for any reason.

If it is possible for a child to live (even in ICU)outside of the Mother’s body then it is most definitely sentient.
However if it is totally dependant on it’s mother for life, it is not sentient.

Posted by: Linda H. at March 1, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #130599

I just found out that my dog is pregant. This is going to be an imposision on her life as she’ll have to nurse the puppies and won’t be able to chase squarells and rabbits anymore. Also she didn’t ask for this. So I think I’ll take her down to the Vet and get an abortion for her. After all why should she have the responsibility of taking care of puppies that she never wanted?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 1, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #130672

If Republicans are outlawed, only outlaws will be Republicans.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 1, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #130690

Ron, At least you HAVE a choice.

Posted by: Linda H. at March 1, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #130744

Warren P. and Dave,

I don’t just pull facts out of thin air. Remember I’m a con, not a lib. Anyway, this LINK shows that brainwaves are recorded at an average of forty days into a pregnancy. And the site doesn’t make up its facts either, they cite their sources. The source for the forty day brainwaves is the Ohio Department of Health. I hope THEY don’t just make up facts. There are also quotes from numerous doctors and scientists who claim that the only fact on the subject is that at the moment of conception, a different human being comes into existence. That’s right, doctors and scientists, not bloggers living in a theoretical world.

Posted by: Duano at March 2, 2006 7:17 AM
Comment #130746

And BTW, why do I have to site my sources, yet have not seen a single piece of research from either one of you guys?

Posted by: Duano at March 2, 2006 7:29 AM
Comment #130757

LINK
LINK
LINK
Three more sources for ya! All you have to do is google “first trimester brain waves” and you get bombarded with sites. There’s even a site where some guy that supports abortion admits that brainwaves are recorded at the seventh week after conception. He contends that isn’t enough to call it human, you know, a completely individual human having human brainwaves that we have no way of knowing aren’t sentient human thoughts. It’s amazing, Warren P., how these facts somehow eluded your extensive research. Are you sure you weren’t trying to find facts to back up an already established opinion?

Posted by: Duano at March 2, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #130761
There are also quotes from numerous doctors and scientists who claim that the only fact on the subject is that at the moment of conception, a different human being comes into existence. Posted by: Duano at March 2, 2006 07:17 AM
This is exactly why pro-choice people look at you people as fanatics with no basis in reality. To apply “fact” to “moment of conception” as “science” is ill considered, at best. It is opinion, not fact. Claiming otherwise simply contaminates the rest of your post. Posted by: Dave at March 2, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #130768

Dave,
Your little rant fails to address the fact that your definition of when a fetus becomes a human being, sentient thought, which is measured by brain waves with an EEG machine, is present during the first trimester of a pregnancy. That IS a fact. It isn’t even in dispute in the medical community, yet you continue to ignore it because it doen’t prop up the theory you keep telling yourself.

Posted by: Duano at March 2, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #130780

It’s not a “rant”. What I said was you declare opinion as fact. As it simply points out the dogmatic fanaticism held by the anti-woman element of this debate, I guess it irks you people when it doesn’t conform to your ideology.

There are also strong>quotes from numerous doctors and scientists who claim that the only fact on the subject is that at the moment of conception, a different human being comes into existence. Posted by: Duano at March 2, 2006 07:17 AM

I never said anything about EEG waves (but if you want to be specific; worms, frogs, radios, and space itself all emit EMI and they aren’t sentient). So, why don’t you read outside the perspective of your tiny little box for a minute?

Posted by: Dave at March 2, 2006 10:19 AM
Comment #130785

I personally do not care what child murderers think about me. The bottom line is you are glad when these kids get killed, and you wish we could move the “sentience” definition to be able to kill anyone under the age of two. Being a woman doesn’t give anyone the right to snuff out someone’s life. I’m not anti-woman, I’m anti-murder. My wife is a woman who happens to agree with me, so is she anti-self? The more medical evidence that comes out, the more people keep leaving your side and becoming right-wing fanatics like me. Being a wrong-wing fanatic gets old after a while, cause it’s more fun to win these debates than constantly get trounced like you’ve been during this entire argument. This debate is over. Ghandi, Ron, and Duano won it a long time ago. Time to drop the Al Gore approach and admit defeat. See ya!!!

Posted by: Duano at March 2, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #130815

Duano:

That is exactly right. I wish I coul kill a baby right in front of you and watch you melt like the wicked witch. The women should have supreme rights over her own body. If that means the little shit is still hanging by the cord get rid of it if you want to . Our lives, our bodies.

Posted by: Libocrat1 at March 2, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #130824

So much for value added conversation: What a douche.

Posted by: Dave at March 2, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #244777

Safe-sex?

Anyone who believes that teaching safe-sex leads to people wearing condoms isn’t having sex; the rubber may protect the cucumber but it comes off the cock the moment it interferes with the sensitivity factor.

Posted by: syn at February 7, 2008 6:28 AM
Comment #344428

Animal shelters are a great refuge for abused animals. But what happens when the people who run the shelters that take in the animals don’t care about them? Sometimes, the abuse they suffer in these shelters is worse than if the animals were just left out on the street.

Posted by: Animal videos at May 14, 2012 5:36 PM
Post a comment