Third Party & Independents Archives

A Woman's "Choice" for Perfection

Opponents of the right to kill one’s unborn child are often portrayed by feminists and liberals as intolerant woman-hating brutes who get off on controlling women’s bodies. We are told abortion is necessary because fathers are regularly raping their daughters. We are told it is necessary because poor women can’t afford another mouth to feed. But one thing we are never told by the abortion activists is that sometimes the baby just isn’t pretty enough.

Whether it's blue eyes and blonde hair that make a perfect human, or simply a foot that has a decent arch, there are plenty of traits that can make a person inferior. The golden standard may change from generation to generation, culture to culture, but the one thing that has remained constant is how to deal with such imperfections: the deprivation of live.

The Daily Mail reports on the other reasons why abortion is so handy:

The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.

Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.

Babies are being aborted with only minor defects.

Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.

The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that between 1996 and 2004, 20 babies were aborted after 20 weeks because they had a club foot.

It is one of the most common birth defects in Britain, affecting one in 1,000 babies each year. That means around 600 to 700 babies are born annually in the UK with the problem, which causes the feet to point downwards and in severe cases can cause a limp.

However it can be corrected without surgery using splints, plaster casts and boots. Naomi Davis, a leading paediatrician (sp) at Manchester Children's Hospital who specialists in correcting club feet, said: 'I think it is reasonable to be totally shocked that abortion is being offered for this.

Figures also show that four babies were aborted since 1996 because they were found to have webbed fingers or extra digits, which can be sorted out with simply surgery.

Remarkable pictures recently have revealed how at just 23 weeks baby in the womb appears to smile, yawn and flinch in pain.

Club foot? That's just gross. Webbed fingers? What, is the baby a fish or something? Clearly we have no room in society for the retarded, and seeing someone with a constant limp is just unsightly. In the never-ending quest for perfection, it's all about the looks, baby. And when your baby doesn't make the grade, you are faced with a serious dilemma.

Thankfully you can fix your less than-perfect child. No, not with simple surgery. Well, yes, that works too. But for the busy woman who's always on the go or just doesn't like the idea of it, she can always elect to have an abortion. Just one visit to an accommodating clinic and that freak will be sucked from your womb so fast you'll hardly be able to call it an inconvenience...for you anyway.

Posted by Scottie at May 29, 2006 8:56 PM
Comments
Comment #152520

Only a man could think of something as ridiculous as those comments Scottie. Only a man who hates women and thinks that they are selfish and frivilous enough to have an abortion because they might have an imperfect baby or because it takes to much of their time. Why are you such a woman hater?

I’ve listened to this kind of back woods logic from men until I could puke in my hands. Why is it that men think they should even have an opinion on a womans decision to have an abortion? The biggest reason for abortion is because those same men won’t come forward and pay for that child. Or those same men were involved in the rape or abuse of that woman. Or that Male family figure couldn’t keep he’s hands off of the females in the family. Why should the same men who cause the problems be the ones to have an opinion on a womans right to choose. Why don’t men spend more time insulting the men who cause the problems instead of the women who are trying to survive in a male controled world?

If you care about those children try adopting some or contact some of those pregnant girls and women and offer to support them until they can get back on their feet. Do something positive instead of making up fictional situations for why women would abort their pregnancy.

Posted by: Moran at May 29, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #152523

Scottie, abortion is rarely “necessary”, as you put it. It’s tragic.

As the Daily Mail notes, the defects are easily corrected. With counseling and knowledge, I don’t believe any woman would abort their child just because of a correctable cosmetic defect.

Abortion is a horrible and traumatic thing. I don’t know why you right wingers think so little of women that you would deny that.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 29, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #152532

Scottie, reveals his prejudice in this matter in his opening sentence: “Opponents of the right to kill one’s unborn child”.

Pro-abortion folks don’t view it as killing but as preventing life in the first place. Hell, we kill living things by the millions each day, cows, chickens, and their eggs. No problem for pro-life folks at all. It is their religion, their particular brand of religion and their churches that teach them that a soul is imparted to the humany zygote upon fertilization. What is ironic is their Bible makes no mention of this at all. It is all made up by them for them, and their church’s intent to out breed non-Christians.

But don’t offend Scottie with the facts and reality. For him, this is a religious matter and we all know that changing a person’s religion is like changing a person’s politics. Good Luck.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 29, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #152541

OK - wow… I thought we had moved past this kind of logic 50 years ago.

I can’t even think of anything to add… it’s just really disappointing to read opinions I had hoped had died off years ago - and on this blog where I would expect much much more from the writers.

One point: let’s work towards ending abortion through intelligence and education rather than hoping for change with ignorance and oppression.

Posted by: tony at May 29, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #152542

“Why don’t men spend more time insulting the men who cause the problems instead of the women who are trying to survive in a male controled world?”
Posted by: Moran at May 29, 2006 09:44 PM

Makes it easy to understand why it wouldn’t be very hard for the Muslims to convert a lot of men in our nation to Islam without terrorism.


Posted by: dawn at May 29, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #152558

Moran
When the man is woman’s husband he HAS as much say as the women. It’s his kid too.
I know that feminist don’t like it but that’s just the cold hard facts of it.


Why don’t men spend more time insulting the men who cause the problems instead of the women who are trying to survive in a male controled world?

You must be new here. Because otherwise you’d have read what I think of men that rape women and fathers that rape their daughters. As well as the dead beats that won’t support their youngins.

BTW, I doubt that many fathers rape their daughters. Most love them to much to hurt them that way. But the feminist try to get as much mileage as they can from the few low life bastards that do.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 30, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #152561

Ron, review the statistics sometime and multiply by 10 at least for all those for whom incest is not something one would ever bring to light. There are many more than just a few bastards out there.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 30, 2006 2:13 AM
Comment #152564

Scottie, thanks for repeating unfounded factoids and specious reporting of the daily mail and matt drudge’s echo chamber.

What we have here is another victim of propoganda.

Posted by: gergle at May 30, 2006 3:08 AM
Comment #152570

Ron Brown,

BTW, I doubt that many fathers rape their daughters. Most love them to much to hurt them that way. But the feminist try to get as much mileage as they can from the few low life bastards that do.

One could say that, without full statistics providing hard facts (badly missing from this Daily Mail *story*), I doubt that *many* women actually abort because they don’t want an unperfect kid. But the pro-life try to get as much mileage as they can from the few low life bastards that do.

20 + 4 abortions between 1996 and 2004 were, they say. Great. What % of total numbers of abortion in UK during 8 years? They don’t say it. I guess it doesn’t matter if it just a few cases or more ones, what matter is there is such cases. So, some people have an ugly mind. Woa, now that’s a surprise!

PS: Scootie, please push a vacuum tube in your… guts and switch on the machine for a minute or two. Then come back and tell us again how sucking something from her womb is hardly inconvenient for a woman!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 30, 2006 4:44 AM
Comment #152576

David:

Pro-abortion folks don’t view it as killing but as preventing life in the first place.

I can’t speak for all pro-abortion folks, but I spoke just yesterday to one who agreed that abortion at some point in the pregnancy equates to killing. This person is for the right to choose, and said that if the fetus is not viable (such as in the first trimester), then its really the “preventing” of life, rather than killing.

But he also supported a woman’s right to choose at points later in a pregnancy. While he found it something he would not do, he supported a woman’s choice even if it were after the child was viable. At that point, it would be more “killing” than preventing.

There are many variations on abortion views. The issue seems to revolve to a large degree on when life begins. But for some, that is just a part of the question. Some believe that the woman should be able to choose at any time.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 30, 2006 7:57 AM
Comment #152586

Scottie,

I see no evidence in this post or any of your others that you are a “woman hater.”

When people resort to critiqueing the messanger it makes me as a reader think that they don’t have the evidential support to critique the message.

Posted by: montanademocrat at May 30, 2006 9:26 AM
Comment #152587

I suppose that opionion is just based on my back woods logic . How could my mental and reasoning assets ever compare with the elite and wise cityfolk :->.

Posted by: montanademocrat at May 30, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #152591

It is interesting the immediate defense of abortion and name calling. Abortion (IMO) should be a woman’s choice, but it is generally a bad thing and should pose a moral dilema for all involved.

Of course MOST abortions are voluntary. That is the whole point of the on demand. It seems a contradiction to complain if someone aborts a baby because he has a birth defect and accept it if someone aborts a baby so that it will not interfere with her career goals or family plans.

My wife and I decided that we would abort if we found a serious birth defect. Fortunately all three of our kids were healthy. But it is a moral dilema both ways. IF you believe abortion is acceptable, should you not use to avoid suffering?

Supporter of abortion on demand must consider what it means.

What about aborting female babies? In some parts of China there are 120 males born for every 100 females. This is not the natural ratio.

Posted by: Jack at May 30, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #152593

JBOD said: “There are many variations on abortion views.”

Precisely, some based on religion, some based on ethics, some based on the welfare of the born child vs the unborn, and some based on convenience. I don’t believe any one group’s value decision on this intense and deeply personal decision should be subject to the imposition of another group’s values.

Society should not permit one group’s values to intervene and dictate the treatment and death of another group’s elderly either provided the wishes of the elderly person suffering and dying are foremost in the decision as to when and how they die.

A woman friend of mine had two abortions as a teen, and had carried a lot of emotional baggage as a result until, she later married and raised her daughters. After they were 4 and 6, she said she had no regrets whatsoever about the abortions. She said having raised two duaghters, she knew she would have been a very poor and likely neglectful mother if she had allowed herself to become a mother in her teens. As I know her today, she is one of the finest mothers I have ever known.

Given her recount, I agree with her, she made the right decisions as a teen.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 30, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #152594

David:

I think we’d both agree, then, that your statement that “Pro-abortion folks don’t view it as killing but as preventing life” is correct for some, but incorrect for others.

As far as your friend goes, I think we both would agree that we’d like her to have been able to make the decision to not get pregnant in the first place, which would have avoided the hard question of whether she was ready to have children. That’s where society needs to get to—the first question before the second arises.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 30, 2006 10:19 AM
Comment #152603

JBOD, Yes, we agree on both counts. I however would avoid the often recited corallary that if one has a responsibility to avoid pregnancy one should be held accountable. Sexual activity out of wedlock has been an integral part of human society since it began. It is not a behavior which a society can end. The advent of prophylaxis can diminish unwanted pregnancies, but, as the body of psychology and sociology on the subject attests, human sexual relations come about in response to an incredibly complex and highly variable conditions, presumptions, motivations, needs and desires, most having little to do with procreation.

To expect young teens or even young adults to always master and be in control of those of complex and variable set of factors is highly unrealistic. Hence to punish them or hold them accountable by forcing parenthood upon them will too often shift the punishment from the parent to the child by forcing them to be raised by parents not fully willing nor ready to responsibly handle the intense and complex demands of parenting.

I have held many jobs and managerial positions in my lifetime, and navigated through the military and college while working part and full-time. But, nothing in my life has ever been so challenging or daunting as parenting. I was 40 when I became a father, and another 10 years of maturity would have been better for my daughter if I could have waited till I was 50. But, then, much of my maturity derived from 40 to 50 was due to my daughter’s presence so it was kind of a paradox.

One thing for sure, I have been an immensely better parent for having obtained my college degree and worked in many social situations than I ever could have been had I become a father at 20. I cannot even begin to count the number of ways I could have damaged my child’s life at 20.

Hence the timing of parenthood should be encouraged by our society as a topic of responsibility, no question. But, force parenting as a consequence of youthful indiscretion or foolishness or exuberance for love of life and growing, is absolutely the wrong strategy for a society to take. In the end, it will be the children who will suffer all the more, and likely for the rest of their lives, as a result.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 30, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #152611

By 2050 some estimates are that there will be 9 billion people on the earth. Yet, the Earth can sustain only about 2.5 billion people without depletion. Further still, the religious right wants to ban contraception and teach the ineffectual abstinence only.

Talk about paradox. Or is that just insanity?

Bait or frustration? You decide.

Posted by: Dave at May 30, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #152614
A woman friend of mine had two abortions as a teen… As I know her today, she is one of the finest mothers I have ever known.

Wow how very sad this is, geese David.

Posted by: Craig at May 30, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #152616

joebagodonuts:

Wouldn’t it be more simple to just prevent teenage boys from having sex? Since boys want sex more than girls, we could prevent teenage pregnancy easily by preventing male teenagers from having erections.

A simple surgical procedure is all it takes.

Posted by: Aldous at May 30, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #152622

Dave
Further still, the religious right wants to ban contraception and teach the ineffectual abstinence only.

Explain how abstinence is ineffectual. It works every time it’s tried. If more folks tried it there wouldn’t be as many unwanted pregnancies as there are.
IMO abortion on demand only teaches irresponsibility. It tells our young people that they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions.
I’m not against contrception as such. But I don’t think schools should be handing out condums high school students. And I sure don’t want them handing them to my 13 year-old grandson or 12 year-old granddaughter.
Again it’s teaching irresponsibility.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 30, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #152623

Aldous, I think teenage pregnancy could also happened when the male is not anymore a teenager.
Or at least I’ve heard it could…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 30, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #152625

Aldous
Wouldn’t it be more simple to just prevent teenage boys from having sex?

Yeah, we could just chain them to a wall for about 8 years. That ought to work.
Or maybe the reverse of a chastity belt.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 30, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #152626

David:

I’ve never advocated forcing parenthood on anyone. I simply advocate that in my opinion, the child in the womb should be considered a life, and as such should have the “choice” to live.

Where you comment on two options (abortion and forced parenthood too early), I see a third option: adoption. Adoption eliminates the forced parenthood and places the child in a more stable home (there is no such thing as a perfect home, but adoptive parents at least go through an investigation of their parenting skills).

There are possible emotional problems with adoption, but these are there as well with abortion. While they are different psychologically and physically, they both exist.

I hope the children do not suffer. I consider killing them before they get a chance to live a form of suffering. I recognize that we disagree on the idea of life—when it happens etc. But just as most don’t accept Andrea Yates’ claim that she killed her children to save them from suffering, neither do I accept abortion as a means to save children from suffering.

Dave:

Your comments seem to indicate a need or desire for forced contraception. If your numbers are accurate, it won’t matter whether some focus on abstinence while others focus on the right to choose. What will be required will be something like what China has done by limiting forcibly and by law the number of children someone can have. And with that law, out goes the idea of free choice.

What suggestions do you have to solve the problem, if your numbers are correct?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 30, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #152630

Ron,

Explain how abstinence is ineffectual. It works every time it’s tried.

It’s ineffectual because not everybody want to try it. People like having sex. Deal with it.

IMO abortion on demand only teaches irresponsibility. It tells our young people that they don’t have to take responsibility for their actions.

I failed to see why its limited to young people. In fact youngs are the most exposed to make error here, when adults clearly have to take responsibility because they have no more excuse for not knowing the pregnancy risk they choose to take.

I’m not against contrception as such. But I don’t think schools should be handing out condums high school students. And I sure don’t want them handing them to my 13 year-old grandson or 12 year-old granddaughter. Again it’s teaching irresponsibility.

Yeah, and it’s way too much protecting from AIDS, too!

I really hope you won’t one day wakeup with a grandson/daughter seropositive or pregnant (or worst, both) just because they didn’t have free (as in both beer *and* speech) access to condoms when they decided to have sex.

Sure, dying is a very effective way to take responsability for your actions. But sometime the action that’s killing you is not your but other’s. Like refusing condoms when you needs them.
How being pro-life is putting kids at vital risk?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 30, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #152632

Trying to make myself clearer:

Like refusing condoms when you needs them. How being pro-life is putting kids at vital risk?

Like being refused access to condoms when you needs them now and there. How being pro-life is putting kids at deadly risk?

*sigh* Should go home, keyboard is hurting today.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 30, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #152633

Joe,

As the abortion rate fell during the nineties, the adoption rate stayed flat.
Whether or not it was because of the hoops that folks have to jump through to adopt isn’t my point.
There are literally 100’s of thousands of children in this country waiting to be adopted, and more every day.
Too many parents bitch about sex ed in the public schools, but do little or nothing to educate their children themselves.

That said, IMHO, abortion cannot be about birth control, and abstention, while the most absolute means of birth control is unrealistic.

Education seems to be the best available option.

Posted by: Rocky at May 30, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #152639

Ron,

Abstinence is 100% effective. Teaching it as the sole form of birth control is, as Phillipe and Rocky alluded, simply not-effective.

JBOD,

Solutions to overpopulation are complex and I doubt anyone has a viable solution. However, the rally cry of “every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, for every sperm that’s wasted, G-d gets quite irate” is, like abstinance-only, simply moronic. The religious right must come to grips with the real world and stop fantasizing about some magical “destiny” or “end-days” nonsense.

Posted by: Dave at May 30, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #152646

Dave, interesting, which religious groups use that rally cry? Or are you making things up again…

Posted by: Craig at May 30, 2006 1:28 PM
Comment #152648

Rocky:

If I’m not mistaken, there is a wait list to adopt infants. The hundreds of thousands that you mention are typically not infants. If all infants get adopted, then there will be fewer and fewer older children who are waiting to be adopted.

Dave:

There are some in the religious right who think as you’ve stated. But I’d suggest they are in the minority, just as those who claim any abortion for any reason is fine with them. Most pro-choice people have some caveats about abortion (shouldn’t be used as birth-control, time limits such as first trimester, etc). To suggest that all pro-choicers are at the fringe would be as one sided as your claim about the religious right.

I know many pro-life folks who simply believe that a “fetus” is a “child” is a “life”. And they believe in life. It doesn’t go much beyond that. It doesnt have anything to do with the overpopulation problem that you mentioned, which sounds so complex as to not have a solution. It doesn’t necessarily have to do with religion, since I know pro-lifers from various religions and some who claim no religion.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 30, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #152652

Joe, Dave knows very well that there just aren’t many people that actually think like the straw man he’s built. Dave, Rocky and others all know that the pro-life argument is as simple as believing in life, but how can win any argument against that viewpoint? Plus, it’s en vogue to move every left-opposing political argument into a religious (Christian) framework so that they better can attack it - mostly because they think they understand Christianity after seeing someone talk about it once on a reality show once.
If they wanted to argue “what is life” they could but they’d lose on that front as well. So have some compassion Joe and let these folks have their straw men because without them - and their insults - they’d have nothing to argue.

Posted by: Craig at May 30, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #152654

To all, The main problem with this post is that this article is not science, it’s not fact, it’s simply propoganda. This propoganda does not exist in a vacuum. We all know it is the anti-abortionist who seek to impose their world view on those that don’t agree.

The purpose here is to give the appearance of the frivolity of abortion. It’s pure crap. Please demonstrate one independant fact here. You can’t. I could equally quote a politically zealous rag, that points to a mental defect in all religious babble.

It’s sickening to me the extremes some people will go to intrude on the lives of others.

Posted by: gergle at May 30, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #152656

JBOD,

The human at conception argument is popular in the religious crowd. The end-days crowd is similarly influential in BushCo. These are belief based arguments with no basis in the physical reality. People like Craig will use spasmodic selfrighteous reactions to discount other belief systems as “anti-Christian” or as being uninformed where, as you have admitted,

pro-life folks who simply believe that a “fetus” is a “child” is a “life”. And they believe in life. It doesn’t go much beyond that
But, in the real world, it does go beyond “that”. The political agendas of people like the Pope and Bush and Dobson include the gov’t enforcement of a religious based belief. So, the revolt is against that intrusion into private life by a religious morality. I, for one, believe there is no arguing or bargaining with religious fanaticism. Whether that is activist evangelical christian or Al queda, I only see a difference in degrees. As you said, to some a blastocyte is “sacred life”, where’s the common ground?

Posted by: Dave at May 30, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #152659

This article is a joke — a very sad one.

Rocky
“Education seems to be the best available option.”

Yes, education is always the best option, but the religious right doesn’t want education. They think that any mention of sex and sexuality is an advertisement for having it. They even believe that young girls getting a shot that can keep them from getting uterine cancer in years to come will cause them to have sex. They actually think that teaching sexual absinence is the answer, when it doesn’t even address a single aspect of the entire question.
In short, these people clearly aren’t using their brains on this subject. It is all about emotion rather than reason. Underlying their emotions (IMO) is the idea that sex is a bad, dirty and shameful thing — unless it’s to produce babies. Therefore, no one should see, hear or talk about sex. No young person should learn about sex. No one should think they can have sex until they’re married. And no one, not to mention they themselves, should be made to deal with sex on any kind of realistic or mature level.
It’s beyond pathetic.

As for a woman deciding to have an abortion, it’s none of their damn business who does so, or why they do so. It’s that womans, her family and her doctor’s business — and theirs alone. They need to learn to mind themselves and their own family’s business and “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” — and let others do the same. After all, that’s the America way. Anything else heads the country in a direction away from Freedom and Democracy towards Authoritarianism.
And as we should all know by now, Authoritarianism has never stopped anything whatsoever from happening. Instead, it just drives everything people want, or need to do, underground.

On a purely legal basis, if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe vs Wade, the subject will go back to the states. We will end up with states where abortion is legal, and states where it is illegal. For abortion to be completely outlawed in America, these folks will have to find a way to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, abortion will never be entirely outlawed in America — unless of course, we end up with a totalitarian government.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 30, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #152662

Until Women ammend the US Constitution and give up their rights over their own bodies to the government, abortion will be legal.

It’s common sense, the fetus needs the mother’s willing cooperation to come to term. If the mother in unwilling, all the laws in the world aren’t going to change the situation. Animals abort in nature all the time, they destroy their nests or simply give up if they aren’t ready yet.

If people were good at following rules, there wouldn’t be an unwanted pregnancy - yet the “solution” to the problem of abortion is to pass another rule?!?

Reducing abortions is the only goal that I think everyone can agree on, too bad none of the “choices” we have for politicians is willing to work on that instead of dividing everyone on idelogical lines…

Posted by: Redlenses at May 30, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #152664

Dave,
Your comparison of evangelical Christians to Al Queda is more “spasmodic” than just about anything that can be written. Oh I see, youre just an academic, not an anti-Christian. What is this “other” belief system that you speak of that classifies Christians as “fanatics” and comparable to murderers? Please enlighten us.

Posted by: Craig at May 30, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #152669

I hate abortion. Except in those few rare circumstances where the mother’s life in in danger, abortion is nothing more than a woman selfishly choosing her own convenience over the life of her child…

…nevertheless, I recognize that it is HER choice. I don’t agree with the choice when it’s made, and I would do everything in my power to discourage that choice among those I know, but it’s not my decision. I wouldn’t support legislation that made it my decision, because it’s not my body. And I certainly don’t support giving the Government the power to make the decision for her!

So, for the far-wing hardliners among you (from both sides), does that make me a woman-hater or a baby-hater? I just want to make sure I get the right membership card…

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 30, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #152677

I was going to make a point about the outrage over this article, but Jack said it better.

Rocky,
Hundreds of thousands of infants are not waiting to be adopted. I had to wait two years to adopt my daughter, and there are 800 people in front of me at my agency to adopt another. Thousands of people adopt from China, with greater expense and red tape, because American babies are not available. Even in terms of older children, those thousands that are waiting include those in stable foster care, and those in various stages of adoption. Most are on the road to adoption, but the various legal hurdles have not been passed yet.

Comparing adoption and abortion rates is not very informative, since other factors, like increased use of birth control, can have a dramatic impact.

I don’t know that adoption can take up all of the slack for the millions of abortions that are performed each year. However, if they were made easier, they could make a significant dent. I’d like to see there be no waiting list for infants before we declare that adoption just won’t work. We’re very far away from that point now.

Posted by: Brian Poole at May 30, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #152686

Abortion is legal,the unborn are fetuses,not children. It is not murder,it is a personal choice each woman must make.
When it is your body,and your future,you decide!

Posted by: jblym at May 30, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #152691

Craig,

As I said it’s “a difference of degrees”. It’s your religion so you don’t see or understand the threat from the Dobsons of our nation. As for your ability to understand the written word, it’s suspect too.

Posted by: Dave at May 30, 2006 3:47 PM
Comment #152695

jblym,

When it is your body,and your future,you decide!

I’d be careful about including the words “and your future”. The father’s future is as much in the balance as the mother’s future is, yet it’s not his decision either. It’s her BODY, so it’s her DECISION. That’s it.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 30, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #152698

Brian Poole,

“Rocky,
Hundreds of thousands of infants are not waiting to be adopted.”

That isn’t what I wrote.
Read it again;

“There are literally 100’s of thousands of children in this country waiting to be adopted, and more every day.”

Posted by: Rocky at May 30, 2006 12:38 PM

Posted by: Rocky at May 30, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #152704

Craig,

“Dave, Rocky and others all know that the pro-life argument is as simple as believing in life, but how can win any argument against that viewpoint? Plus, it’s en vogue to move every left-opposing political argument into a religious (Christian) framework so that they better can attack it - mostly because they think they understand Christianity after seeing someone talk about it once on a reality show once.”

Please point out to me where I mentioned anything about religion.

Talk about straw men.

Posted by: Rocky at May 30, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #152708

Dave,
I DO understand the threat of the Dobson’s, etc, but maybe not in the same way that you do.

And why the insult?

Posted by: Craig at May 30, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #152717

Rocky,
I know you said children. My point was concerning infants, who are the most relevant to the abortion discussion. Plus, I addressed older children as well.

Posted by: Brian Poole at May 30, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #152738

Rob-the “father” has no rights in this instance because he is not a father. Impregnation does not a father make. When and if a pregnancy is brought to full term,parental rights occur if a baby is born. A lover has no parental rights. A mother is one who gives birth,and as such,no pregnant woman can be considered such.
It was once pointed out to me that for everyman who cries out “Murderer” to a woman who opts to destroy her egg,is in the same sense a “Mass Murderer every time he would masturbate.

Posted by: jblym at May 30, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #152749

Brian,

“I don’t know that adoption can take up all of the slack for the millions of abortions that are performed each year.”

That number is false.

http://www.factsonabortion.org/

“The CDC reports annually on the number of legal induced abortions in the U.S. Their information is based on voluntary reporting by states. In 2000, data were not provided by Alaska, California, and New Hampshire. (In previous years, California had the highest reported rates of all states.)

In 2000, 857,475 legal induced abortions were reported.”

The last year I was able to find complete statistics for was 1995, and in that year abortion rates fell 4.7% from the year before.
The number in 1995 was 1.2 million

The abortion rate has fallen steadily.

http://www.adopteerights.org/abortion.htm

“In 1984 the California legislature passed a law allowing some adoptees born 1984 or later access to their original birth certificates, however statistics show this has not affected the rate of decline for abortions in California. In 1990 there were 50.0 abortions for every 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44. In 1993, the number dropped to 45.0. By 1996 this number had decreased to 39.0. (Source: CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, Weekly Surveillance Summaries.”

Education is the key.

Posted by: Rocky at May 30, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #152828

Craig,

You challenged. I responded. My bad.

Posted by: Dave at May 30, 2006 9:47 PM
Comment #152909

Adrienne:

As a religious person, allow me to respond to your characterization of the religious right’s position on abortion, sex education etc.

Underlying their emotions (IMO) is the idea that sex is a bad, dirty and shameful thing — unless it’s to produce babies. Therefore, no one should see, hear or talk about sex.

Since you state this as your opinion, and not fact, I’d suggest that you have a mistaken opinion. As with any subject, there are gradations along a line. At one end is the “no sex ever” group that you refer to, while at the other end is the “sex is just sex—no big deal” crowd.

In the middle are the people that recognize sex as a complex issue, and one that can have strong physical and emotional consequences. I’m not against sex education, but I AM against teaching that sex is acceptable for teenagers to engage in. Often, that’s the message—that as long as you are protected (condoms, pill etc), then its okay to have sex. As long as the education includes the idea of abstinence as an important part of the curriculum, and not just an add on (So, kids, you really shouldn’t have sex, but when you do, be safe).

I’m in favor of any medicine that can stop uterine cancer, and I’m in favor of contraception. But I’ve seen how sex at too young an age can be detrimental to the emotional development of a person, and to the relationship they are in. Its important for parents, in my opinion, to make sure their kids understand the overall context of sex—-that its really far more than just the physical act. When we counsel our children in that manner, I think we do a better job of parenting.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 8:30 AM
Comment #152913
So, kids, you really shouldn’t have sex, but when you do, be safe).

Oh, bad luck, you just call a teenager a “kid”. Forgot about the message, after such name-calling he certainly wont listen it anyway.

Sex education is a delicate art, indeed.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 31, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #152921

Philippe:

I call my children “kids”. I’ve done it when they were 2, when they were 8, when they were 17. I will do it when they are 45—they will still be my kids. Perhaps in your culture, it is insulting—in mine, it is not.

By the way, I also use the term “guys” a lot, as in “my guys”. I happen to use that term regardless of sex, so I’ve told my girl’s indoor soccer team, ” Cmon, guys, lets hustle”. Interestingly, they do.

I do not call girls ‘chicks’. I don’t call Japanese ‘Japs”. I don’t call white people “honky”. I don’t call black people ‘nigger’. I would never call a Frenchman “a cowardly merdaille, fis a putain,a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying his alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired him and then killed themselves in shameful recognition of what they had done.”

That I would never ever do, for it would be rude.

But I do call teenagers “kids”. Forgive me. :)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #152926

jbod,

Cute, but it probably would have worked better if you stopped at one and a half lines.
As for sex ed teaching “that sex is acceptable for teenagers to engage in”. That’s not the purpose or outcome of the class although that is what the wingnut punditry what us to believe. The purpose of the course is comperable to any other class. In this case, it is to explain how sexually transmitted diseases propogate, how reproduction occurs, and is prevented, how bodies mature, etc… The morality of sex is up to the parents to teach, the science of sex is best left unfettered.

Posted by: Dave at May 31, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #152930

Re: Sex Education…

I’ve been to several events where teenagers were taught the dangers of drunk driving. Not once did anyone complain that these events were teaching kids that it’s ok to drink, as long as you’re safe about it.

Thus it should be with sex. We teach children a wide variety of subject in school. Some of them will graduate and live the rest of their lives without ever using the knowledge they learned in some of those classes. I know several adults who have never used high school-level Trigonometry, Chemistry, French, or Geology in their adult lives…

…but every adult I know has either had sex, or is planning to have sex eventually. Sex is part of being an adult — a very important part — and birth control is a very important part of sex. This is true whether your promiscuous or monogamous, married or just “fooling around”.

Schools should be teaching children the skills they need to survive as adults. If they’re not teaching Sex Ed, then they’re not providing those skills.

Besides, despite the fact that our society has decided to declare someone an “adult” at age 18, Mother Nature is equiping them for “adult-only” activities 5-10 years earlier than that. You don’t give 12-year-olds guns, then wait until they’re 18 to teach them firearm safety. They need to understand the equipment they’ve been given.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 31, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #152933

This is what I don’t understand about “abstinence-only” education. You don’t expect the kids to be abstinent forever (I hope). They’re going to have sex eventually, even if their first time is on their wedding night. There’s a whole lot they’ll need to know by then. If they’re not learning it in school, where do you expect them to learn it?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 31, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #152934

Dave, you call a direct insult to my intelligence a ‘response’? Quite the big man you are, answering a Watchblog challenge like that. I’m sure you’re just as stalwart when you’re not hiding behind your keyboard and mouse.

Well said Jbod.

Posted by: Craig at May 31, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #152935

Dave:

I’d agree with you regarding the morality of sex being up to the parents. Unfortunately, I think it gets tacit acceptance in many of these classes. Having attended one at my school district, I’d have to say the class certainly left the impression that sex is just fine and dandy as long as its protected sex. It was what it was, but it wasn’t in any way an unbiased presentation. Can’t say whether it was indicative of all such courses, though.

I hope Philippe finds it cute also. Was all meant in fun.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #152938

Rob:

If they’re not learning it in school, where do you expect them to learn it?

That’s a great question. I’ve heard about these things that can provide a solution. They typically come in many sizes, shapes, colors and styles. Some are soft and squishy, some hard and demanding, some full of love, some full of angst, some just plain full of it.

Their job is to educate, befriend, nurture, and love kids. For the rich folks out there, I am NOT talking about a nanny. I’m talking about PARENTS.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #152942

Rob:

You made a comparison between teaching drunk driving and sex education. Imagine if the class taught that you really shouldn’t drive drunk (equates to abstinence), but that if you are going to do it, you really ought to be prepared for the consequences in order to make it safer. Therefore, they talk about buying cars with airbags, discuss how you shouldn’t speed when driving drunk, that you should always wear a seat belt to minimize the danger of a crash etc.

They don’t do that. They simply say that you should NEVER DRIVE DRUNK.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at May 31, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #152949

JBOD,

I’m talking about PARENTS.

Then why send the kids to school at all? Can’t these “parents” you speak of also teach Trigonometry, Chemistry, Literature, Physics, etc.? Why are we wasting money providing poor teacher-student ratios when every child comes with these “parents” who can teach them everything they need to know?

Or is it possible that these “parents” don’t know everything? That, perhaps, there are new concerns — scientific advancements, new pressures or diseases, etc. — that weren’t around when they were younger?

I’m the youngest of four children. When I was born, my father was 52 and my mother was 36. By the time I was ready to learn about sex, my father was collecting Social Security, and my mother was post-menopausal. They had absolutely no clue about the pressures and concerns regarding sex in the modern world. (Dad, it turns out, learned about sex from prostitutes during WWII. Mom learned about sex from roommates in college, and later from Dad.) Fortunately, they knew enough to admit that themselves, and agreed to let me take the (optional) sex ed program in junior high.

I know that I would be a VERY bad sex-ed teacher. I’ve only personally had experience with a single form of birth control (condoms), and have never had to worry about the dangers of STD or premarital pregnancy (as I never had sex before I was married). I never had to deal with anyone pressuring me to have sex before I was ready. I never had to deal with questions of same-gender attaction, date rape, “is oral sex really sex”, or any of that.

But maybe you’re right, JBOD. Maybe I would have been better off not taking that sex-ed class, and instead learning about it the way Dad did. Or maybe I should just pass on my limited knowledge to my 5-year-old and 3-year-old when the time comes, and hope that’s enough. After all, they don’t need to know about AIDS, or dating pressures, or birth control options. I should just count on them growing up to be as naive as I am.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 31, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #152950

JBOD,

They don’t do that. They simply say that you should NEVER DRIVE DRUNK.

But they’re teenagers! THEY SHOULDN’T EVEN BE DRINKING!!! And yet, we’re telling them, “Don’t have sex drink, if you DO, be safe and wear a condom don’t drive a car”. Isn’t that sending a mixed message about teenage alcohol use?

Isn’t teaching them how to drink safely encouraging them to drink?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 31, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #152954

I am a Christian, and believe that life begins at conception, but I am smart enough to know that humans are not going to abstain from sex! So, there are many methods of birth control on the market—-for pete’s sake, find one you like and USE the blamed thing! Have any of you seen a movie called “The SILENT SCREAM”? If not, it might help you to do so. In it, a Doctor is performing an abortion, and that so-called ‘non-human’ is very obviously trying to get away from the insturment that is tearing ‘it’ apart, and is opening ‘it’s’ mouth, screaming! A very enlightening movie. There is also an exhibit at the Chicago Institute of Science and Technology that might shed some light on that myth that an unborn child is ‘just a lump of flesh with no shape or form’, and doesn’t even look human until nearly time to be born. At twelve weeks, it is a tiny human, complete with fingers, toes, eyes, even though they are shut, perfect in every way, so small you can hold him/her in the palm of your hand. And, oh yes, ‘IT’ has a very detectable heartbeat. Have any of you witnessed a Partial Birth Abortion? This is on a par with any of the Nazi doctors’ experiments in the German death camps. If you do not believe me, find out for yourselves. I DID! I had nightmares for weeks afterward. I am not condemning anyone for what they believe, just presenting a different aspect of the debate. (As for not being mentioned in the Bible, try Isaiah 49:1)

Posted by: Angel 1 at May 31, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #152958

Rob:

But maybe you’re right, JBOD. Maybe I would have been better off not taking that sex-ed class, and instead learning about it the way Dad did.

I never said any such thing—don’t purposely misrepresent my statement to help make your argument.

You asked who could teach children about issues like sex if not for the schools. And I again will say loudly….PARENTS.

Some parents do have the ability to teach trig, calc, econ etc. They do so in a controlled homeschool environment. In our society though, we rely on teachers in our public education system to do that.

Regarding issues outside of the framework of schools, we need to rely on parents. As a parent, who is better to teach your kids than you? There is a wealth of information out there for you to research, if you don’t know about a subject like date rape etc. Learn about it so that you can help your children, just like you learned how to change a diaper, and what kind of food to feed a baby etc. Its not innate knowledge—but rather your duty to learn it.

A logical outgrowth from your argument would be to hire “professional parents”, because they might do a better job of parenting than you or me. I doubt you would willingly give up your children in such a fashion.

Regarding the mixed message about drinking: I really struggled with that with my kids. I really don’t want them drinking, and I even more so don’t want them drinking and driving. My conversations were real with them: I told them my feelings and beliefs. I told them I knew I was giving a mixed message, but that I didn’t know how not to. I told them there would be consequences to drinking, and worse consequences for drunk driving. I also told them I’d done both, to my regret. In short, I was honest and forthright with them, and treated them as the young adults they were. Knowing that I cared enough to be open with them, they recognized the complexity of the issue and appreciated the difficulty of it.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #152967
It was what it was, but it wasn’t in any way an unbiased presentation. Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 10:26 AM
I’d say if there’s an issue with presentation and bias, make your concerns known to the teacher. But, I wouldn’t eliminate the topic.

Craig,
I didn’t assault or insult your intelligence. I was questioning if you actually read my initial response. Don’t worry, I won’t misoverestimate again.

Posted by: Dave at May 31, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #152969

Joe,

I call my children “kids”. I’ve done it when they were 2, when they were 8, when they were 17. I will do it when they are 45—they will still be my kids. Perhaps in your culture, it is insulting—in mine, it is not.

It’s neither insulting in my culture.
My point is that in teenagers minds, talking about moral and, technical aspects of having (or not) sex while still being considered kids is not the best way to take their full attention.
Teens are after more “you’re quite an adult” attitude, usually.

Oh, fun post BTW!

… the class certainly left the impression that sex is just fine and dandy as long as its protected sex.

Technically, psychology and physiology speaking, that’s perfectly right.

It was what it was, but it wasn’t in any way an unbiased presentation.

Here you mean it was not biased toward your own moral values regarding sex.
But such presentation give them all what they really needs to know to not be pregnant or get AIDs and like.
When exposing them to moral aspect of sexuality can’t warrant that much. See History for million of cases were it didn’t.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 31, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #152975

Angel 1
Well said.
I’ve seen the exhibit your talking about. Your right, the baby looks human at 12 weeks. It’s a very fascinating exhibit. We couldn’t hardly drag the kids away from it.
I first saw it when I was around 8 years-old and it is the one thing I remember most about our trip to Chicago that year.
I reckon it plays to the natural curiousness of kids.
I think that anyone that finds themselves in Chicago should see it. Weather they’re pro life or pro abortion. I think that it’s something everyone will find interesting.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 31, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #152984

Angel1, have you ever been to a slaugherhouse? Ever smelled one up close, ever watched the eyes wide open appearing full of fear as the cattle are herded single file toward the killing station. Ever watched one drained of blood, centerlined and its guts spilled and cut out? Is it evil, immoral to support this treatment of animals by buying a steak? Some Vegetarians think so. Should their moral view dictate the behavior of the rest of society?

The non-religious debate is made most simply in this manner.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 31, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #153012

David Remer, I’m pretty sure Angel is not suggesting a bad personal experience dictate everyone else’s moral view. Your example of witnessing what occurs in a slaughterhouse is a good one, and one that I’ve been exposed to by a college professor trying to convince her class that buying a hamburger is immoral. Although that particular exposure didn’t change my eating habits it did make me think twice (and still does). I believe that’s the desired effect here.

I just hope that people remember that abortions aren’t like getting a cavity filled and that we continue to discourage them. I personally don’t like telling anyone else what to do, but people should fully understand what they are doing to themselves physically and mentally (and not to mention their baby) before considering one.

Posted by: Craig at May 31, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #153013

JBOD-

I rise in defense of our French friend:

So, you think you could out-clever us French folk with your silly knees-bent running about advancing behavior?! I wave my private parts at your aunties, you cheesy lot of second hand electric donkey-bottom biters.

Posted by: George in SC at May 31, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #153038

JBOD,

Some parents do have the ability to teach trig, calc, econ etc. They do so in a controlled homeschool environment. In our society though, we rely on teachers in our public education system to do that.

As we should. Don’t get me wrong… I’m a big fan of homeschooling, when it’s done right. But just because some parents CAN teach trig at home doesn’t mean that the schools SHOULDN’T teach it. The same goes for sex ed.

Kids need to be getting this message as often as possible — at home, and at school. Kids are talking about sex in schools anyway, whether it’s being taught or not.

Going back to the drunk driving analogy, kids should know the dangers of drinking (whether or not they’re driving) long before they ever pick up their first beer. Likewise, they should know the dangers of sex long before their first date. If high schools are teaching sex ed, it should be a refresher course — because high school is TOO LATE to be teaching this subject.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 31, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #153039

David,

Thank you for bringing up the slaughterhouse reference. One thing that’s always bugged me about this debate is the term “pro-Life”. I’ll buy “pro-Child”, but unless you’re an anti-war, anti-death penalty Vegan, in addition to being anti-abortion, you really don’t have the right to claim the title of “pro-Life”.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 31, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #153068

Philippe:

The class I attended was actually biased away from my own viewpoint, but my point was simply that it was not neutral. Neutrality could have come from evenly mentioning all viewpoints, giving them equal standing, but neutrality can never come from focusing almost entirely on one viewpoint at the expense of any others.

the class certainly left the impression that sex is just fine and dandy as long as its protected sex. Technically, psychology and physiology speaking, that’s perfectly right.

I’d disagree with you on that. I believe there are plenty of studies indicating the emotional, as well as physical, concerns. Some will hold to your position, but that does not make it necessarily correct (nor incorrect either, to be fair).

George:

Well done. I fart in your general direction.


Rob:

In my opinion, human life is different than animal life. Some may disagree with that assessment, but it is one that I hold to. I suspect most people would be more emotionally distraught over the loss of a child than the loss of a pet, indicating the type of difference that I refer to.

There are differences too in the concepts of war, punishment, food, and abortion. If someone claims to be in favor of life, then one could never condone any war, whether justified or not. Only a few in society hold that view; most understand that war is sometimes necessary, even though it is almost always abhorrent.

There simply isn’t much equality between a WWII veteran who killed Nazis, someone who supports the death penalty as punishment for the guilty, someone who eats chicken or beef, and someone who supports abortion. In each case, the similarity is that a life is ended. The similarity ends there.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #153084

jbod,
Re: your post
What Rob said in his post that began with: “Re: Sex Education…” (Spot on, Rob.)
And please Joe, do you think you could quit insulting the French in general, and our regular visitor and friend Philippe in particular? The French have given the world (and America) a great deal — not the least of which (since we are talking about sex here), their style of kissing! ;^p

Posted by: Adrienne at May 31, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #153090

Adrienne:

I would never insult Philippe, nor the French. Well, I would insult the French, but not Philippe. I must admit to laughing my butt off when I heard the one about “French infantry rifles for sale. Never used. Dropped once.”

But I’m equal opportunity. I also laugh at myself a lot. And I’m sure Philippe knew it was all tongue (to continue with the sex theme) in cheek. :P

Posted by: joebagodonuts at May 31, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #153170

David, yes, I have been to a slaughterhouse. In my younger years, I helped butcher, as I was raised on a farm. I could not look at those poor animals, see the fear in their eyes. Think of the terror and pain a living HUMAN child feels in a Partial birth abortion, as that sharp, cold steel is forcibly shoved into his or her brain, with that helpless baby screaming in agony! Is this not comparable to the experiments performed by the Nazi doctors in the Death camps, who operated on helpless prisoners without benefit of anethesia, to gauge their level of pain? One does not need religion to see the absolute WRONG in such a procedure!

Posted by: Angel 1 at May 31, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #153208

Angel1, have you ever been unconscious. That is the state of fetuses in the first trimester. 2nd trimester is a bit more debatable but the neural net to register pain is evolutionarily restricted for the precise purpose of being born, when joints of the skull and body must contort to pass through the birth canal.

Animals in a slaughterhouse know what is happening is not natural to them. Fetuses have no such experiential point of reference, nor conscious awareness of what is happening.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 31, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #153211

Craig, I agree entirely. I never had a problem with counseling as prerequisite to abortion, provided the counseling is fact based, and not guilt based on religious/moral grounds.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 31, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #153264

Joe,

I must admit to laughing my butt off when I heard the one about “French infantry rifles for sale. Never used. Dropped once.”

But beware about its price: should be very low otherwise it’s clearly overcharged: such rifles are very common, never buy an expensive one, even if you value it higher because it’s funny!

And I’m sure Philippe knew it was all tongue (to continue with the sex theme) in cheek. :P

Yes, everyone should know they are all perfectly safe sex (or anti-french) jokes.
:-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 1, 2006 3:59 AM
Comment #153291

Why is it that, no matter how politically correct our society becomes…

…no matter how much we abhor racism…
…no matter how much we decry discrimination based on religion…
…or on gender…
…or on any other quality…

…it will always — ALWAYS — be acceptable to make fun of the French?

;-)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #153306

David, I am curious. How is it possible you are so sure a child in the womb is so ‘unconscious”? What proof is there of that? That is only a supposition, and has never been proven. I am not speaking now as a Christian, but as one who has studied biology, zoology, and the human body at the University. And nothing I have discovered has convinced me that the unborn child has no feelings at even a very early stage of existance. One report has found heartbeats at so young an age as EIGHT weeks. Some at ten to twelve weeks. Where there are heartbeats, there is life, wouldn’t you agree? Then if that heart is deliberately stopped from beating, what would you call that act? And I am not refering to animals—-God gave them for food, as long as they are humanely killed, not made to suffer—I am speaking of a human child. What miracle makes that creature a HUMAN after it leaves the womb, but is NOT a human while it is IN the womb, and is therefore legally acceptable to be murdered? Why can a man be sent to prison for manslaughter if his actions—say, driving while drunk—results in the death of an unborn child, while the doctors at an abortion clinic are hailed as heroes? Please explain the difference to me, as I cannot understand the reasoning behind the two laws. I suppose one Baby is human because it is wanted, and the other is “just a lump of flesh” because it is not! Totally illogical, isn’t it!

Posted by: Angel ! at June 1, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #153331
as one who has studied biology, zoology, and the human body at the University…nothing I have discovered has convinced me that the unborn child has no feelings at even a very early stage of existance. One report has found heartbeats at so young an age as EIGHT weeks.
What “University” teaches this type of “logic”? I.e. Heartbeat = Feelings?
I am not speaking now as a Christian, …And I am not refering to animals—-God gave them for food,
Again, a “little” bit of contradiction? Posted by: Dave at June 1, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #153371
…it will always — ALWAYS — be acceptable to make fun of the French?

Rob, French will be always happy to know that they’re:
1) the subject of any discussion;
2) source of happyness, even only for short periods;
3) watched (keep up-to-date the jokes!).
Who are you for suggesting that one French happyness source should be destroyed for PC… godness? ;-)

More seriously, what kind of friend one is if he never make joke about you? What kind of friend one is for you if you can’t stand his jokes about you?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 1, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #153380

Angel!,

Where there are heartbeats, there is life, wouldn’t you agree?

Organ donors hearts are kept working artificially. But there is no life anymore.
Life rely more in the mind than in an organ called heart.

So, no, I disagree.

And what about vegetable coma? Still life?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 1, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #153414

Angel!,

I’m curious as to your thoughts on the subject of in-vitro fertilization. Suppose, for example, that my wife and I decide to have a baby via in-vitro fertilization. My sperm and her egg are joined (in a lab) to create several viable embryos — or, as you would say, human children. At that point, for some reason, my wife decides she doesn’t want to go through with the procedure anymore — she doesn’t want to become pregnant. These children already exist. Without her willingness to have them implanted, and then carry them to term, they will die.

Should the State have the right to force her to go through with the procedure?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #153518

Angel 1,

Pain requires active nerve endings to transmit, and specific brain activity to register.

Screaming in agony requires oxygen in the lungs and developed vocal cords.

Posted by: Rocky at June 1, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #153527

In vitro fertilization? Playing God? Again? If she doesn’t want them, why not donate them to someone who would dearly love to have them, but for some reason is unable to? Problem solved, no one has to die.As for organ donor hearts, don’t they go to help some one STAY alive? Do you have a problem with that? And if some one is in a “vegetative state”and a machine is all that keeps that heart beating, by all means pull that plug! But if the heart beats by itself, give food and water until it stops. I am not God, it is not my right to decide if that person should die. Consider Terry Schiavo. Was that not the height of a sadism, to withhold food, and worse, WATER, from a living organism, whose tissues DEMAND water to survive? Do you know what the most terrible thing is about the desease of Rabies? The fact that the animal or human craves WATER so desperately, yet is so fearful of the scent and sight of it, that they cannot take a drink! So how can we condemn someone to that death? The same thing goes for abortion. How do we know what those little unborn babies feel or think? What do we know of what comatose people are capable of hearing or thinking? We need to stop thinking DEATH, and begin thinking LIFE!

Posted by: Angel 1 at June 1, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #153545

Angel 1,

I agree that abortion is a horrible thing. But unfortunately, there’s more than just the life of the child to consider.

Like it or not, we humans spend the first nine months of our existence as parasites, feeding off of a host organism. In most cases, we are welcomed guests of a loving mother. And, believe me, I would LOVE to be able to say that was the truth always. But that’s simply not the case. Not every mother is a willing host. For some, pregnancy is nothing less than nine months of physical, emotional, and psychological torture.

I sincerely wish that every mother would desire to carry her baby to term. But I can’t make that decision for her. I have no right to tell a woman that she has to simply accept an unwanted foreign being inside of her, and that she has no right to attempt to remove it.

It’s not my choice, nor should it be.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 1, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #153619

If this woman does not want this ‘foreign object’ inside her, then for heaven’s sake , there are dozens of contraceptives on the market—USE one! Would that not be so much better than getting pregnant, then killing the ‘intruder’? Women are not naive, they know where babies come from, so they know how to prevent them from being conceived, I m quite sure! There is a difference in a woman who simply finds a pregnancy an inconvience, and one who has been raped, or a little girl who has been molested, especially by a father, or other family member. I feel the one is a selfish person who couldn’t be bothered to take precautions, so a life must pay for her neglect. The one who was raped or the child who was molested, that is no fault of their own. Even so, I would not want to have to make that choice, because for me it would go against every thing I believe, yet I could understand why they would want to terminate the child. I know how I feel about abortion, but I will leave the judging of these matters to God, Mr. Cottrell. It is too hard for a mere mortal such as myself!

Posted by: Angel 1 at June 2, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #153637

Angel 1,

I agree with everything you just said. Ideally, people wouldn’t have sex until they were married, couples would use contraceptives more responsibly, and women who accidentally got pregnant would have the decency to see it through. There would be no rape or incest, and there would be no unwanted children.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world. We live in a world where teenagers are having sex, whether we like it or not, and they don’t always how to do it safely. We live in a world where the laws allow a teenage girl to get an abortion easier than she can get birth control pills. We live in a society where many consider even college students “too young” to get married, and yet “too old” to be virgins.

You and I know what we believe, and we can live our lives accordingly. We can do what we can to spread those beliefs, but we can’t force others to believe as we do. Sometimes, the only way to get along in this society is to accept the freedoms of others — and sometimes that means accepting that they have the freedom to do things that we find horribly and heart-breakingly wrong.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 2, 2006 7:18 AM
Comment #153701

Mr.Cottrell, we can always pray for a better world, and for women AND men, to finally realize , that unborn babies are stll human, and ALIVE! They do not majically become human once they leave the womb. If they are not human before, no alchemy will make them human AFTERWARDS! It cannot be both ways. They are either human at all times, or they are NEVER human! And if they are terminated in the womb, that is as much murder as if they are terminated after birth. I am still praying that someday these abortion doctors will become sickened at the wholesale slaughter they perform, and stop. Unfortunately, their greed for money will always outweigh their conscience!

Posted by: Angel 1 at June 2, 2006 11:56 AM
Comment #153790

Sanctimonious twaddle from, do I guess correctly, a man? All the “Daily Mail” article did was give anecdotes. Shall we negatively judge the value of giving birth and childrearing by a few anecdotes about physical and sexual abuse of children by parents? Would that be fair? Isn’t it relevant how often these things happen, compared to the damage done by the alternative?

The problem with “anti-abortionists” is that they fail to consider the spectrum of the issue, but instead choose to focus on one part of it and bolster their position with anecdote and innuendo, never coming to grips with the scale or impact of the issue on half the living, post-birth human race. It is this ignorance that will forever deny them the victory they seek.

Posted by: mental wimp at June 2, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #153829

Dear mental wimp, wrong on all counts! I am definely female, mother of four, grandmother of eleven! I was given the choice of death or abortion—I chose to have my child! And yes, I DID die—for THREE minutes! Thank the Lord, He let me return to raise all four of my children, so don’t speak to me of choices unless you too have been there! And having known many young girls who HAVE chosen abortions, and counseled with them, I know the emotional anguish many of them suffer for years AFTER the abortion. As for the damage done to them by incest,if you have not been there, you have no right to judge the effect on their lives. And it is not VICTORY we seek—-it is LIFE! And what is wrong with wanting to save a life, even one that can fit into the palm of your hand? It is still a life! Do yourself a favor—go to an abortion, and LOOK into the bucket where they throw the parts of those tiny little humans that are pulled apart by suction, or torn apart by steel tongs, and then say those are not pieces of a human being!

Posted by: Angel 1 at June 2, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #154316

Angel1,

I guess being pro-life means also being anti-death penalty and ant-war (at least the current ones).

Otherwise, it’s just cherry pecking the life you want to save, not all lifes. All. Even the ugliest ones (death penalty), even terrorists ones, even iraquis dying far far away of USA soil.
These are pieces of human being too.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 4, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #267206

BTW, I doubt that many fathers rape their daughters. Most love them to much to hurt them that way. But the feminist try to get as much mileage as they can from the few low life bastards that do.
I have to disagree, yes there are bad fathers in the world more then there is proof, for years this has been going on, an for years it has been covered up. I find this to be a shame it never hurts to open peoples eyes to the situation..To point out this is not a perfect world, an that not all parents, fathers, an mothers ,are very good parents. An yes on some of the reasons, such as there child being less than perfect, is bad..Incase no one has noticed people are cruel in every way specially young children, i would have to save they was trying to save that child from humiliation, as a parent no one wants to see there child suffor for any thing, racisim,being unusual, or possibly being a child from a incestial relationship..Like i said children are the worse an most cruel vices when it comes to other children who are different. Not all of us see a person who is different, not so very different. It is a cruel cruel world.. An on that note, if a mother dont want her baby an wants a abortion, i would rather see it end that way, then who knows what, like mistreatment from parents because they didnt want them, or maybe they gave the child up for adoption an because the parent was a crack head an mentally unstable the child inherited them traits, an the adopted new parents realise a little to laTE an want to sue some one for given them a child with horrible back ground,an one that is less than perfect!!! This happens every day..I think a woman should have her own choice if she chooses to have the baby or not, but i do think if she can throw a baby away like that, she really has no buisness having any children, because with any child good or bad, there is gonna be cruelty in the world no matter where you are..Thats life i feel freedom of choice here ,for what ever the reason it may be. God watches over small children, here, or there, so no matta what the choice is..It was the lords plan ..Dont pass judgement on those less fortunate, it is not our job to do, leave it up to the him only he will judge.

Posted by: dont pass judgement on those less fortunate at October 17, 2008 2:21 PM
Post a comment