An Abortion Joke

abortionrex_228x300I have a joke for you:

A distraught women walks into an abortion clinic. Due to (insert her reason here), she had finally decided to go through with the procedure.

The Doctor, about to preform the procedure says to her: “You know, you’re about to kill a baby right?”

The women, visibly upset looks at the doctor. She can’t believe the words coming out of his mouth.

Unperturbed, he continues “I’ll do this if you want, but you should know that you are probably going to commit suicide afterwords?”

Horrified, the women runs out of the clinic, in search of a more compassionate doctor.

Funny huh?

Actually, in retrospect, that joke wasn’t really that funny. In fact, its kind of insensitive. I’m not sure what possessed me to write it. Maybe it was the article I read in Newsweek today, detailing a STATE SANCTIONED SCRIPT doctors in South Dakota must read to women before performing an abortion.

That’s right. The government has mandated that medical professionals must read a pre-determined script to all females seeking an abortion.  Among other things, the doctor is required to warn the woman that she is about to:

terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being with whom she has an existing relationship…the procedure brings statistically significant risks, including increased risk of suicidal ideation or suicide

To say the least, this script is dubious in fact and heavily value laden. No amount of interpretation on my end can do justice to the critique of this egregious and audacious policy that is necessary.

I’m dumbfounded and at a loss for words.

-kd-

52 Responses

  1. That’s horrible. It’s disgusting to make someone feel worse about something they probably already feel horrible for doing. The government obviously does not realise how difficult it is for a woman to come to a decision about abortion, nor how painful it is for someone to go through with it. It’s not just a physical pain, it also causes them psychological pain, and I’m disgusted that a government would contribute to their pain in this way.

  2. Yea and did you see the crap they write on cigarettes?!! The assholes!!! I mean who are we to warn ANYONE concerning unwittingly poisoning themselves or taking actions that the inherent ‘psychological pain’ has shown a clear pattern ‘increased risk of suicidal ideation or suicide’. Damn our increasingly oppressive government!!!

  3. The world is an insane place. Quite possibly, this woman was pregnant because she had no access to birth control, excepting abstinence. Yeah, the strongest instinct we have is to reproduce. I’m sure that will work. Then, we deny them, or make as difficult as possible, any way out of the path our policies choose for them. And when they walk down this path, we damn them as well. You know, I don’t understand the logic here, but then again, I’m only a human. Peace, and thanks for letting us know. Jim

  4. I have got friends who have had an abortion, the depression they suffered is a staggering thing to witness.

  5. Quite possibly, this woman was pregnant because she had no access to birth control, excepting abstinence.

    Condoms? If your having sex with no birth control and no condoms post 1994, then you’re either getting raped or are making a choice (and that is what its all about right) to deal with the fall out of your decisions. Be it aborting the child and dealing with the psychological fall out, or having the baby and ruffing out your life like so many others we .

    When are we going to start dealing with exactly why it is that abortion increases the risk of ‘suicidal ideation or suicide’? I’m thinking that it probably has something to do with the fact that despite all the rants about supposed unjust/insensitive government policies and religious nuts to boot, no one has made the case that when someone has an abortion, they are not actually killing a life -and the life of their own child no less. You can’t kill whats not actually alive you know. Make that case clear and I suspect that even people will be able to live with abortion a lot easier. Not to mention the potential to dissuade a few would be abortion clinic bombers… Oh nevermind! I know, its easier to get to change government policies than it is to get people to deal with the consequences of their own actions.

  6. In the area that I grew up in, they still believe in abstinence as a birth control policy. I would suggest that this thought process goes on all over the country. Condoms, birth-control pills, etc., still being a form of abortion in many of these people’s minds. After all, the logic goes, they are preventing life from coming into this world.
    It seems so strange to me that this murder (I will use this term for the sake of or debate) of unborn children is one that this culture I describe is aghast at in it’s inhumanity. Yet, this same group (usually conservative religious groups, not necessarily, but normally Christian in origin) which oppose abortions, also oppose (in their doctrines) any measure that would alleviate the (perceived) need for abortion. It is a catch-22 for many. One that needn’t exist. I could go on, but then that would just be another blog!

  7. Condoms, birth-control pills, etc., still being a form of abortion in many of these people’s minds.

    Actaully the vast majority of pro-lifers ‘all over the country’ no the difference between condoms, birth control pills and the actually abortion. Perhaps your referring to the opposition against the ‘morning after’ pill in which case there really is no difference (and hence the probable reason you didn’t actually mention it). Tell you what, I’ll happily take apart your pro-life straw-men one by one, if your willing to at least try to provide me and those girls who -having aborted their child- suffer from the very psychological pains described above a hint at what exactly is supposed to be the distinction between actually taking the life of the child and abortion.

    Yet, this same group (usually conservative religious groups, not necessarily, but normally Christian in origin) which oppose abortions, also oppose (in their doctrines) any measure that would alleviate the (perceived) need for abortion.

    Well this is new but welcomed nonetheless. What ‘need’ for abortion are you referring to? Please try to avoid grandstanding and be specific…

  8. I meant to say that ‘the majority of pro-lifers know the difference between condoms, birth control, and abortion”. I guess the concern if in a certain sense related, but they are not the same.

  9. i guess the best way to look at this is through intent.

    what is the intent of this policy? I doubt anyone could dispute that the practice is an attempt to guilt women into not having an abortion. otherwise, such provocative language would not be used (and i say provocative because there is not universal agreement)

    “whole, separate, unique living human being with whom she has an existing relationship”

    now here’s the problem, since when is it the government’s job to guilt people into not doing things that are completely legal, but the government might nonetheless disapprove of?

    The example of cigarette warnings was brought up, but that is very different. Store clerks aren’t required to verbally read you a provocative warning (provocative again meaning not universally agreed upon) before selling you the cigarettes.

    lets take another example: before selling an individual a gun, the seller is not required to tell the buyer:

    Are you aware that with this gun you might terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being with whom you may have an existing relationship…this act brings statistically significant risks, including increased risk of suicidal ideation or suicide

    we could make examples all day, but at the end of the day, the real issue isn’t abortion, it is the government trying to subvert the free choice of individuals through coercive and leading statements.

    Perhaps even worse, the government is making these statements come from credible sources (doctors), which would lead many to accept the statement as truth, when many medical professionals would in fact, disagree with the validity of the script.

    It is easy to dismiss this practice if one is pro life, but to get a different perspective i suggest the following:

    Think of an activity you have performed in your life that was legal, but others might have disapproved. Now imagine the government required someone in a position of relative authority to try to persuade you not to do it.

    I suspect it would tick you off because the government was trying to subvert your free will.

  10. What can I say? You said what I didn’t even know I was trying to say! lol Thanks, Jim

  11. Jim, I’ll assume you were referring to what to what Doug and not me. I’m still waiting for some clue as to what ‘need’ for abortion you were referring to (amongst other things)…

    Doug,

    i guess the best way to look at this is through intent.

    Sure as long as we its clear that we can merely infer the ‘intent’ of others from their actions and their words. And even then the inference is often a dubious task in itself. It seems to me that pro-choice advocates spend an awful lot of time making insinuations about the supposed intent of pro-life advocates and policies despite the central argument of pro-lifers, even when their actions are consistent with what they’ve been saying all along.

    For instance the pro life mantra about abortion being more accurately described as murder. I would think the reasonable thing to infer concerning the intent of pro-lifers would be that they obviously don’t see the apparently clear distinction between abortion and infanticide, and they certainly don’t see any reason they shouldn’t be morally indignant at such. No we instead see all kinds of dubious and unjust motives inferred other than the one thing they keep saying over and over… What does that say about the intent of pro-choice advocates then? Maybe if we can get one of you your soapbox long enough, we’ll find out…

    I doubt anyone could dispute that the practice is an attempt to guilt women into not having an abortion. otherwise, such provocative language would not be used (and i say provocative because there is not universal agreement)

    Don’t get ahead of yourself sir! Many of us think its probably a pretty good idea to warn the young lady ahead of time if she is about to do something that has shown any disturbing patterns of driving one to ‘suicidal ideation and suicide’ (it takes a village you know). It may even be a really good idea to try to talk her out of it, especially if after shes done the deed and is thinking of killing herself, no one can come forth and say ‘Perk up young lady. You didn’t actually kill your child. You see there’s a big difference between what your getting yourself all riled up about and abortion which you just haven’t thought about yet. And that is…’

    now here’s the problem, since when is it the government’s job to guilt people into not doing things that are completely legal, but the government might nonetheless disapprove of?

    The cigarettes, the Sweet and Low? Don’t we have to sign waivers before bungee jumping and sky diving for a reason?

    The example of cigarette warnings was brought up, but that is very different. Store clerks aren’t required to verbally read you a provocative warning (provocative again meaning not universally agreed upon) before selling you the cigarettes.

    I assure you that I have no hang ups about you using the word ‘provocative’. Nevertheless, the store clerk need not be required to do any such thing, seeing as its already government mandated that the warnings be written on the product itself. I suppose if you insist on this line of reasoning it should be pointed out that abortion is a medical service performed (not merely sold) by a doctor. It therefore seems that the doctor who be the place to put all the warnings. Perhaps South Dakota should mandate all warnings in be the form of a tiny message tattooed on his/her scalpel hand. You know so he doesn’t have to actually talk to the girl about anything and get on with the transaction…

    lets take another example: before selling an individual a gun, Are you aware that with this gun you might terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being with whom you may have an existing relationship…this act brings statistically significant risks, including increased risk of suicidal ideation or suicide

    The problem with your example lies in the fact that merely owning a gun isn’t the cause of the termination of human life. To put it concisely, guns don’t kill people, people kill people (sometimes with guns). What psychopath kills merely because they own a gun? Furthermore I’ve never heard of the guy who just woke up and decided to kill himself all because he owns a gun. I’ve heard of people who have use guns to kill themselves, not people who have killed themselves because they were a gun owner… This example doesn’t work so good when you actually think about it for a sec…

    we could make examples all day

    :-/

    but at the end of the day, the real issue isn’t abortion, it is the government trying to subvert the free choice of individuals through coercive and leading statements. Perhaps even worse, the government is making these statements come from credible sources (doctors), which would lead many to accept the statement as truth, when many medical professionals would in fact, disagree with the validity of the script.

    And who are the professionals we would turn to in order to find out whether there are psychological trauma associated with abortion. I think the thought of suicide are a side effect of the choice to proceed with the procedure and no the procedure itself. What is it your insinuating that the ‘medical professional’ would have to add to the discussion, beyond tips on how to actually do the deed safely without risk of infection (the abortion that is, not the suicide. Hey come to think of it…)?

    It is easy to dismiss this practice if one is pro life

    Or perhaps if you’re informed about people who live under real oppression, and think all the bellyaching a bit too melodramatic (i.e.’oh how oppressed we are when we can’t go abort our kids without the government requiring that we be warned that the possible guilt derived from doing so may lead us to seriously contemplate suicide’).

    Think of an activity you have performed in your life that was legal, but others might have disapproved. Now imagine the government required someone in a position of relative authority to try to persuade you not to do it. I suspect it would tick you off because the government was trying to subvert your free will.

    Ah I see your point! But this is not just any legal activity. See abortion involves a mother choosing to terminate the life of her child (for whatever reason) and having to subsequently live with it. Everything else is mere background noise to the that underlying fact….

  12. Okay, here is another point for you. Obviously, you consider abortion murder. I even used the phrase for argument’s sake. However, just when does life begin? From what I’ve been able to determine, most of the “pro-lifers” believe it is at conception. They get this supposedly from the Bible. Therefore, it is usually a christian based religion which opposes abortion. From what I’ve read (and I am NOT christian or any other religion. I don’t like any government), this apparently comes from the old testament which is basically Jewish. Even in there, they propose a cash settlement if an unborn child is killed. Because they didn’t consider it to be a living creature. So, it is obvious when you consider a fetus to be alive. Obviously, not everyone shares that opinion. Including the source that the pro-life group claims as a source. Peace, Jim

  13. Okay, here is another point for you. Obviously, you consider abortion murder.

    At least until I’ve been given a hint as what the difference is suppose to be (and I’ve been asking and asking)

    I even used the phrase for argument’s sake. However, just when does life begin? From what I’ve been able to determine, most of the “pro-lifers” believe it is at conception.

    Yep, hence the reason they can’t discern the difference between abortion and murder. To answer your question though I do believe life starts at conception.

    They get this supposedly from the Bible.

    The Bible doesn’t directly say anything about any metaphysical subtleties concerning the exact moment life begins. You’ll notice that when pro-lifers bring up what the Bible says -if you actually listen- the only scriptural references being toss around are ‘Thy shall not kill’ and every now and then someone will bring up the mandates against the pagan practice of child sacrifice. So if you hear someone saying they got the idea that life begins at conception from the Bible, you should just ask them what they are referring to.

    From what I’ve read (and I am NOT christian or any other religion. I don’t like any government), this apparently comes from the old testament which is basically Jewish.

    Everything I mentioned above was Old Testament. Oh I forgot to add that perhaps some have taken the various promises concerning the destinies of several children who had yet to be born (Isaac, Ishmael too actually, Jacob and Esau, Samuel, Sampson, ect.) to indicate that the life begins at conception. Seems a little strained to me, but understandable I guess (i.e. the whole ‘the Bible says that life begins at conception’ thing). To be precise though, everything I’ve mention deal with the notion that would should take the life of the child and the notion that the fetus is indeed a life is presupposed. The presupposition that life begins at conception is an inference with several sources. Have the ‘medical professionals’ refuted or dismissed the notion that the fetus is indeed alive? Not from anything I’ve every heard. If you got it I’d like to hear it though…

    Even in there, they propose a cash settlement if an unborn child is killed. Because they didn’t consider it to be a living creature.

    Huh? I’ve never heard that one before. I’ll wait for some sort of citation so that I can determine a more appropriate way to respond besides my initial reaction…

    So, it is obvious when you consider a fetus to be alive.

    Yep it certainly is!

    Obviously, not everyone shares that opinion. Including the source that the pro-life group claims as a source.

    The ‘source’ of what? Clearly everyone doesn’t share this opinion. But is that because pro-choice advocates have some (any) insight to indicate that the fetus indeed is not a life and therefore abortions doesn’t involve taking the life of a child? Such insight would actually help the girl thinking about killing herself and may help resolve the fundamental issue of the entire debate…

    When do you say life begins? I say conception because I have absolutely no reason to think otherwise (even though I’ve been asking folks that seem to be convinced I’m wrong concerning the grounds of their conviction)… Are you going to keep dodging telling me what those ‘needs’ for abortion are you were referring to earlier?

  14. your response that life begins at conception is the legal argument that the christians made. Obviously, that is the only argument in favor of it. Life begins when the court says it does. Not a fair system, but neither is life. Too bad. I am now looking for one of the bibles around here so that I can look up into your obvious christian background book and find it. I believe it is in deuteronomy. As far as needs, note I said perceived. But, perhaps they are too broke, too alone, had a dad skip out, got raped, parents kicked them out. How the heck should I know what their perceived needs are? However, I’m not dodging. I’ll be back to use your book to let you know what the answer is.

  15. As far as needs, note I said perceived…perhaps they are too broke, too alone, had a dad skip out, got raped, parents kicked them out.How the heck should I know what their perceived needs are?

    But you seemed so sure of yourself earlier when you declared ‘Yet, this same group which oppose abortions, also oppose any measure that would alleviate the need for abortion.’. Now your what, unsure of yourself on this.

    I’m thinking you probably realized that the notion that pro-lifers are against ‘any measure’ to alleviate poverty, father skipping out on their kids, rape, and broken family homes, is just plain ol’ asisine. If this is what you were working with then you were right to dodge -as you did-, and you should have keep dodging…

    Life begins when the court says it does.

    When is that? Speaking of which, isn’t it interesting that if your indicted for murdering a pregnant women you can be charge for a double homicide (e.g. Scott Petterson). I’m just wondering how tangled does this web gonna get…

    Not a fair system, but neither is life. Too bad.

    This is interesting! The notion that life being declared by the courts (which it hasn’t) to not begin at conception isn’t fair? Why is that?

    your response that life begins at conception is the legal argument that the christians made. Obviously, that is the only argument in favor of it.

    The ‘legal’ argument pro-lifers make is that abortion should be considered murder. The notion that life begins at conception is the underlying presupposition (which is metaphysical/ontological, not legal) of the legal argument.

    I am now looking for one of the bibles around here so that I can look up into your obvious christian background book and find it… I’ll be back to use your book to let you know what the answer is.

    I’ll be waiting…

  16. Just read, with a small nap, your rather long treatise. I don’t really see where I backstepped. If you went back you would see my definition remained the same. So, how is that back-pedaling? Also, the christians used life beginning at conception as their legal argument, not as a preconception. Apparrantly, the judges, who also listened to doctors and other sorts of people outside of the televangelist circle had input. You know, people who could read. Not fair to an unborn life? Who cares? Honestly, I think they’re the lucky ones. I’m still half-assed looking around the bible. To tell you the truth, the old testament just bores the crap out of me. So, if you’re in a hurry you can also dig one out. It’s a really boring book. Might do you good to actually read your foundation. I sure am not in a big hurry on it. I already know I’ve read it once, and it takes me a while to pore through all that garbage.

  17. By the way, it’s not so much dodging, as it is being irritated by your pompousness. You are really boring to read. Not to mention that mis-direction seems to be in your aresenal. I am not dodging, I just really hate the old testament. You obviously are a christian, so tell me how many times you’ve read it. I’ve read it once. I’ll read it again, though I would think that someone who already knows everything, as you imply, you would have found the source in the court documents. But, since you only look for your side of the argument, I’ll look for you. Be patient though, as I have been losing interest in this rather inane discussion.

  18. actually, I’m pretty irritated with your smugness. Prove to me that life begins at conception. Or are you just dodging that one? I’ll be waiting.

  19. I don’t really see where I backstepped.

    I’ll spell it out for you then. You confidently made the assertion that pro-lifers ‘oppose any measure that would alleviate the need for abortion.’ Assuming you weren’t merely bloviating, such an assertion indicates that you not only are aware of what these ‘needs’ for abortion are, but could -if challenged- demonstrate the opposition of pro-life advocates to the alleviation of such. You’ve subsequently rattle off a few things, the alleviation of none of which has been opposed by pro-lifers, and when pressed on it you come back with ‘How the heck should I know what their perceived needs are’… And you don’t see how you’ve backstepped? You should get your eyes check then…

    Also, the christians used life beginning at conception as their legal argument, not as a preconception. Apparrantly, the judges, who also listened to doctors and other sorts of people outside of the televangelist circle had input.

    Great! Then the judges can direct the young ladies who are having thought of suicide as a result of a crisis of conscious concerning abortions they’ve had, to those who can clear the confusion up. Given your track record, I suppose it would be asking too much to be able to assume that you actually caught when exactly it was supposedly determined that life ‘legally’ begins huh? Hehe! I’m just kidding Jim. I’m fully aware that despite your insistence, no such thing happened. But perhaps if you merely say it did at least two more times, it’ll make it a fact. You know by sheer virtue of your perseverance on this matter..

    You know, people who could read.

    Yep I do know plenty people who can read. I also know people who can read and don’t. But the worst are those who can read, don’t, but say they do anyhow. Where to you fall Jim?

    I’m still half-assed looking around the bible. To tell you the truth, the old testament just bores the crap out of me

    You needn’t read the whole thing, just tell me the part about the cash settlements for killing the fetus so I can know how to respond. Wait a minute! Are building up to that ‘How the heck should I know where the old testament offer cash settlements for the killing of the unborn and thus establish that, accordingly, life was not deemed to begin at conception in the Bible’ line I hear coming any sec now? Lol!

    Not fair to an unborn life? Who cares?

    Apparently the suicidal mothers do, amongst many others…

    To tell you the truth, the old testament just bores the crap out of me. So, if you’re in a hurry you can also dig one out.

    No need to dig, I have mine right here. I’m just waiting on that citation. I’m in no hurry…

    It’s a really boring book. Might do you good to actually read your foundation. I sure am not in a big hurry on it. I already know I’ve read it once, and it takes me a while to pore through all that garbage.

    Blah, blah, put up or shut up already.

    By the way, it’s not so much dodging, as it is being irritated by your pompousness.

    No, your irritated because you of the steady build up of eggs on your face…

    You are really boring to read. Not to mention that mis-direction seems to be in your aresenal.

    *Laughing sinisterly*

    I am not dodging, I just really hate the old testament.

    What does hating the old testament have to do with whether or not it says what you said it does? You are dodging sir. All we need from you is the citation and yet you are wasting everyone’s time declaring how much you hate the old testament. Carry on though I wouldn’t want you to think that means I’ve gotten in a hurry or nothing…

    You obviously are a christian, so tell me how many times you’ve read it.

    This is getting rather pathetic…

    I’ll read it again, though I would think that someone who already knows everything, as you imply, you would have found the source in the court documents. But, since you only look for your side of the argument, I’ll look for you.

    Sorry I’ve never heard what your referring to, that’s why I asked. So did you turn in essays in college expecting that the professor (you know the guy with the degree already) to chase down your sources as well. Did you pass the class? Have you even graduated high school at least? Here’s a tip. When someone says something off the wall and you heard them where they learned it, and they can’t tell you, its a pretty good indicator that they are talking out of their ass…

    But, since you only look for your side of the argument, I’ll look for you.

    Oh I’ve been trying to get your side of it, it hasn’t been forth coming…

    Be patient though, as I have been losing interest in this rather inane discussion.

    It would help a bunch if you at least tried to avoid adding so many inane comments to the discussion.

    Prove to me that life begins at conception.

    Sure thing boss… Human life is the result of human sperm fertilizing a human egg (be it in a uterus or a test tube). The moment the human sperm fertilizes the human egg is what we call conception. Therefore human life begins at conception… Your turn!

  20. Re-read my earlier comments so that you can get them right and not slant them. They were clear, you are mis-leading. I am still looking for that sector. I am not a christian, so it isn’t an instant memory recall for me. I need to go through the whole boring deuteronomy section. And, you haven’t proved life. The definition of life is being conscious. A life force. At what month is a fetus conscious? How many cells must form for this? That would be an answer. Not some 64 cell glob of spunk.

  21. Re-read my earlier comments so that you can get them right and not slant them. They were clear, you are mis-leading

    Oh that’s what you tell yourself when faced with the truth? I’m merely ‘slanting’ your comments. Even though I quote you and give due respect to the context your speak of. Ha! I note that you make no mention of exactly what comments you feel have been slanted. Lol!

    Re-read my earlier comments so that you can get them right and not slant them. They were clear, you are mis-leading

    So then we actually die when we sleep, pass out, or end up in comas? Hahaha!!! Yea that’s brilliant genius! But hey if it keeps some young lady from taking her own life so be it. But fyi, you can be alive without being conscious… Oh and consciousness isn’t a matter of have the proper cell count!!!

  22. Okay lets try this again:

    Re-read my earlier comments so that you can get them right and not slant them. They were clear, you are mis-leading

    Oh that’s what you tell yourself when faced with the truth? I’m merely ’slanting’ your comments. Even though I quote you and give due respect to the context your speak of. Ha! I note that you make no mention of exactly what comments you feel have been slanted. Lol!

    And, you haven’t proved life.

    Your challenge was that I prove that ‘life begins at conception’, not that I ‘proved life’ (whatever that means). And I did so whether or not your bright enough to realize it. Your refutation was good for a laugh or two though…

    The definition of life is being conscious. A life force.

    So then we actually die when we sleep, pass out, or end up in comas? Hahaha!!! Yea that’s brilliant genius! But hey if it keeps some young lady from taking her own life so be it. Perhaps the sheer comedy of such will inspire to live on…

    But fyi, you can be alive without being conscious… Oh and consciousness isn’t a matter of have the proper cell count!!!

    I am not a christian, so it isn’t an instant memory recall for me. I need to go through the whole boring deuteronomy section.

    That’s fine, get at me whenever you get it, or realize you were mistaken…

  23. re-read every thing you’ve said. Tell me, can you quickly find a quote you’ve read from another religion? One that you don’t believe in. It takes time.
    As far as the afterlife, I have no idea what happens afterward. But, don’t assume that just because I reject religion, that I reject God. I reject religion because it has always acted to enslave it’s followers. God doesn’t do that. All I know about God, is that God loves me and that it will be alright. If Christians followed the two commandments put forth by their Christ figure, I would be a Christian, but they don’t.
    For my stance on abortion. I try not to judge others too harshly. I don’t know what her circumstances are. I am sure they don’t look at it as they would going to a 7-11. Where did I hear all that crap about condoms not being a part of the pro-life movement? Southern Baptists. Also the Roman Catholic Church. None of these support condoms. There are large christian pro-life organizations which push “abstinence” as the only acceptable doctrine to push on our kids. Chastity vows (or something like that) were taken by teenage girls. Promise their old man they’d stay a virgin till they were married. Where have you been? That is enough for now though. I will find that quote from your religion and post it.

  24. well then, i must admit that i would be foolhardy to suggest it was my post that has invigorated such passionate debate, but alas, I will concede it is the deeper issue of abortion.

    it would appear to me that it is evident neither of you will convince the other, so if i could re-state the intention of the post was not to determine if abortion was right or not, or when life started, but to take a look at the government’s attempt to subvert the law through fear and provocative statements.

    netlosh, would you at least concede the the government mandating scripts for doctors to read, when there is not agreement in the medical community on the validity of the script, is at the very least intrusive?

    if you will concede that, then I think room is opened up for debate on the role of government & morality versus an irresolvable debate over conception and creation..

  25. Jim,

    Tell me, can you quickly find a quote you’ve read from another religion? One that you don’t believe in. It takes time.

    Its really not that deep. Google the passage, or at least one person to corroborate what you’ve said (perhaps they’ll lead to the passage itself). I find it hard to believe that as much as abortion is debated, if it were true that there is a passage in the old testament which prescribes a cash settlement for the killing of the unborn, you would be the only person in the world to have noticed that. Surely someone else has as well. If it’s true that is.

    As far as the afterlife, I have no idea what happens afterward. But, don’t assume that just because I reject religion, that I reject God. I reject religion because it has always acted to enslave it’s followers. God doesn’t do that. All I know about God, is that God loves me and that it will be alright. If Christians followed the two commandments put forth by their Christ figure, I would be a Christian, but they don’t.

    Blah, blah, blah. Still waiting!

    For my stance on abortion. I try not to judge others too harshly. I don’t know what her circumstances are.

    Good to know! But what is the difference between abortion and infanticide?

    I am sure they don’t look at it as they would going to a 7-11.

    :-/

    Where did I hear all that crap about condoms not being a part of the pro-life movement?

    I didn’t ask so I guess I don’t care… The rest of your comment looked like more rambling to distract from the fact that you have yet to come up with that citation, refuted my argument about life starting at conception, or even remotely indicated that your ready to deal with the a causes of any psychological turmoil associated with abortions. Yet you still seem to think that you have something to say which matters.

  26. Doug,

    it would appear to me that it is evident neither of you will convince the other, so if i could re-state the intention of the post was not to determine if abortion was right or not, or when life started, but to take a look at the government’s attempt to subvert the law through fear and provocative statements.

    Abortion is not ‘law’, but is a legally permitted medical procedure. No laws are being subverted by warning of any hazardous consequences associated with certain legal behavior. Furthermore subversion of the law is not just oppressive, but happens to be a crime punishable under current law.

    netlosh, would you at least concede the the government mandating scripts for doctors to read, when there is not agreement in the medical community on the validity of the script, is at the very least intrusive?

    Concerning the pattern of any ‘increased risk of suicide ideation or suicide’? I’m not aware that tracking psychological patterns associated with getting an abortions falls within the purview of the same medical professional which performs the abortions. If we were talking about the risk of certain infections from the procedure then I’d be with you though. But we’re not and they don’t… Furthermore the medical community don’t have a consensus on on whether cigarette smoking causes cancer (seeing that so many get cancer that never smoked and so many smoke that never get cancer), and yet the labels go on the package anyhow. So I’ll be conceding no such thing…

    then I think room is opened up for debate on the role of government & morality versus an irresolvable debate over conception and creation.

    The abortion debate for pro-lifers concern the questions of when life begins, and what the difference between abortion and infanticide is supposed to be (i.e. not ‘conception’ and ‘creation’). The deafening silence (in regards to answers)such considerations tend inspire indicate that these matters are not so much irresolvable as it is the case that pro-choice advocates are in denial about them…

  27. Pro-Lifers are liars.

    The term is false. If you people were really Pro-Lifers then you would be spending your time and energy ending the war, well pick any of the hundreds going on in the world.

    You would be doing everything you could to adopt children, stop disease, end suffering.

    No, you choose instead to accept some stupid talking point that is used by Conservative politicians to gain you ignorant emotional votes because they know, you people don’t think for yourself. That’s why you’re “Pro-Life.”

    Abortion is the women’s choice. I can’t stand Pro-Lifers, which is really just another name for religious and pig-headed. Kind of like creationists. There’s no scientist that ISN’T Christian that even looks at creationism seriously.

    And for all the Pro-Lifers that talk about ‘life begins at conception’ you better not be whacking off, because you’re killing millions of lives.

    Dumbasses. That’s for anybody from South Dakota that voted for that piece of shit legislature.

  28. I haven’t managed to read all the comments – I haven’t the time at present. But I’ll just throw in my own opinions.

    I think it is wrong to have the doctors say these words to women seeking an abortion. By all means have it written down in the consent form stating any possible risks inherent in the procedure, but to have someone say these words to you when it could well be the hardest decision of your life is simply cruel in my opinion.

    I have friends who have had abortions and they have all struggled both before and after the event. It is not an easy way out so why make it harder?

    Lots of things can increase the risk of being suicidal or depressed. I was chronically depressed during both my pregnancies due to the hormone changes. Should doctors have to tell women who are newly pregnant that there is a significant risk that they may become depressed due to being pregnant? Because antenatal depression is pretty common too…

    As for the “need” aspect that is being discussed, it is irrelevant. If a woman is allowed to have an abortion legally (by that I mean without being jailed for it) then the reasons are her own. Either we allow or it or we don’t. I know that if I were to become pregnant as a result of rape I could not carry that child. That is my personal decision.

    I suspect that Netlosh is a man (am I right?) if so then can I just point out that you have no idea of what it is like to carry a child inside you. You have no concept of the way this can affect you as a person. I have two wonderful children, but I would never say that I would never have an abortion if the need arose for me.

  29. This is too easy.

    //”no one has made the case that when someone has an abortion, they are not actually killing a life -and the life of their own child no less.”//

    You have yet to make the case there was a conscious life form being killed. At what time can you prove the fetus is alive? Can you disprove the law?

    //actaully the vast majority of pro-lifers ‘all over the country’ no the difference between condoms, birth control pills and the actually abortion. Perhaps your referring to the opposition against the ‘morning after’ pill in which case there really is no difference (and hence the probable reason you didn’t actually mention it).//

    No they don’t know the difference, and I didn’t mention the morning after pill because it wasn’t relevant to the discussion.

    //ts really not that deep. Google the passage, or at least one person to corroborate what you’ve said (perhaps they’ll lead to the passage itself). I find it hard to believe that as much as abortion is debated, if it were true that there is a passage in the old testament which prescribes a cash settlement for the killing of the unborn, you would be the only person in the world to have noticed that. Surely someone else has as well. If it’s true that is.//

    I learned of it from a Rabbi. That would make at least two people. And no, I do not lie. Yet another accusation you make without justification. Google works when you can remember the phrasing well enough to put the entry in. God, are you really this ignorant? Oh wait, I forgot. You are.

    // As far as the afterlife, I have no idea what happens afterward. But, don’t assume that just because I reject religion, that I reject God. I reject religion because it has always acted to enslave it’s followers. God doesn’t do that. All I know about God, is that God loves me and that it will be alright. If Christians followed the two commandments put forth by their Christ figure, I would be a Christian, but they don’t.

    Blah, blah, blah. Still waiting!//

    Put my post that you responded to in to point out the idiocy of your response. Do you even know the two laws? Or do you stupidly think there are ten commandments that christians are supposed to follow?

    //Abortion is not ‘law’, but is a legally permitted medical procedure. No laws are being subverted by warning of any hazardous consequences associated with certain legal behavior. Furthermore subversion of the law is not just oppressive, but happens to be a crime punishable under current law.//

    Abortion is not law. Of course it isn’t. But the law grants women the right to have one.

    //The abortion debate for pro-lifers concern the questions of when life begins, and what the difference between abortion and infanticide is supposed to be (i.e. not ‘conception’ and ‘creation’). The deafening silence (in regards to answers)such considerations tend inspire indicate that these matters are not so much irresolvable as it is the case that pro-choice advocates are in denial about them…//

    Yes. I have only heard your opinion. Which is about as gaseous and empty as your logic on this one. Just telling at spunking time is not sufficient. Tell me, what are your sources and how do you justify your mindless claim that life begins when the sperm hits the egg? By your logic, which the fundies went for, it’s when you start thinking about having sex that life begins. Or, maybe when Eve shoved the apple into Adam’s mouth. Who knows? I am looking, not in a race for it, but thought I would point out that you only have your opinion to back you up on your claim that it is infanticide. That it is a life being killed. That it is immoral. Here are a few points you non-responded to with great satisfaction in non-logic.

    I am sure they don’t look at it as they would going to a 7-11.
    :-/

    That’s a response? Wow! Maybe you should be the leader of the world! Help save us all, in the name of all that’s ignorant.

    Where did I hear all that crap about condoms not being a part of the pro-life movement?

    I didn’t ask so I guess I don’t care… The rest of your comment looked like more rambling to distract from the fact that you have yet to come up with that citation, refuted my argument about life starting at conception, or even remotely indicated that your ready to deal with the a causes of any psychological turmoil associated with abortions. Yet you still seem to think that you have something to say which matters.

    Uh, you did ask. That’s why I was responding. Please quit slanting to fit your infantile logic. Here’s your question.

    Condoms, birth-control pills, etc., still being a form of abortion in many of these people’s minds.

    Actaully the vast majority of pro-lifers ‘all over the country’ no the difference between condoms, birth control pills and the actually abortion. Perhaps your referring to the opposition against the ‘morning after’ pill in which case there really is no difference (and hence the probable reason you didn’t actually mention it). Tell you what, I’ll happily take apart your pro-life straw-men one by one, if your willing to at least try to provide me and those girls who -having aborted their child- suffer from the very psychological pains described above a hint at what exactly is supposed to be the distinction between actually taking the life of the child and abortion.

    Yes, you asserted that the wonderful pro-life groups know the difference between them. Here is that posting.

    Condoms? If your having sex with no birth control and no condoms post 1994, then you’re either getting raped or are making a choice (and that is what its all about right) to deal with the fall out of your decisions. Be it aborting the child and dealing with the psychological fall out, or having the baby and ruffing out your life like so many others we .

    I’m glad you are so well-informed of your own cause. I would keep going on, but to tell you the truth, you slant and attempt to mis-direct everything that is said so that you can try and appear right or intelligent. All you are doing is boring the crap out of anyone that bothers to respond to you. Is your life that miserable? And don’t worry, I will keep plodding along in your boring book of how to stay a slave to find that passage. And that will be the only passage that I will post in this discussion which acknowledges you.

  30. Jim,

    You have yet to make the case there was a conscious life form being killed. At what time can you prove the fetus is alive? Can you disprove the law?

    What law? I proved that life begins at conception (which is what I was asked to do).

    No they don’t know the difference, and I didn’t mention the morning after pill because it wasn’t relevant to the discussion.

    Yea they do Jim, and the argument against the morning after pill is relevant because the one contraceptive interpreted to be an abortion by pro-lifers. Beef concerning condoms et al is different…

    I learned of it from a Rabbi. That would make at least two people.

    Awesome! Did you catch his name or the name of the synagogue he works at? Did you think about just asking the Rabbi again?

    That would make at least two people. And no, I do not lie.

    Hey if it walks and quacks like one, then guess what Jim!!! Your making finding a mere citation too difficult. Could it be that you pulled the notion of old testament cash settlements for killing the unborn, and the Rabbi who told you, out of your ass? Looks like it!!! Prove me wrong Jim! Come up with the citation, or at least stop acting like you actually could…

    You said I am sure they don’t look at it [abortion] as they would going to a 7-11.

    To which I replied: :-/

    To which you said:

    That’s a response?

    Yep. You weren’t rambling…

    Uh, you did ask.<blockquote

    Uh, no I didn’t…

    Wait, you said:

    Please quit slanting to fit your infantile logic. Here’s your question.

    Then you pull a quote from my earlier response which doesn’t contain me asking you about where you got the crap about pro-lifers not knowing/acknowledging the difference between condoms and abortions. Dumb!!!

    No wonder you can’t come up with that citation. Your reading comprehension skills are shitty. I’m sure you’re convinced that you read something you thought was an old testament cash settlements for killing the unborn, when it was merely your shitty reading comprehension skills (plus the ADD) leading you astray again. No need to come up with that citation after all, I see that you’re not likely to find it. Just like you’re not going to find a citation of me asking you where you heard that pro-lifers consider condoms and abortion to be the same thing…

    Yes, you asserted that the wonderful pro-life groups know the difference between them.

    I did assert that didn’t I! It’s true…

    I’m glad you are so well-informed of your own cause

    Me too. Who knows how this discussion would go if I sat around and let folks like you inform me. I’d be confidently spouting off crap I *mysteriously* could never corroborate when challenged as well.

    I would keep going on, but to tell you the truth, you slant and attempt to mis-direct everything that is said so that you can try and appear right or intelligent.

    I am both right and intelligent, and the slants you see are coming from me quoting your bent reasoning’s. Furthermore, you only see them as bent because I’ve shown you them…

    All you are doing is boring the crap out of anyone that bothers to respond to you.

    Yet you have ADD and I’ve still managed to keep your attention…

    Is your life that miserable?

    It’s pretty good being both ‘right and intelligent’. Try it sometime, you’ll see…

    And don’t worry, I will keep plodding along in your boring book of how to stay a slave to find that passage. And that will be the only passage that I will post in this discussion which acknowledges you.

    Seeing as you’re not much good for anything else, that’s all I ask of you Jim…..

  31. 23live23,

    The term [pro-life] is false. If you people were really Pro-Lifers then you would be spending your time and energy ending the war, well pick any of the hundreds going on in the world. You would be doing everything you could to adopt children, stop disease, end suffering.

    Let me get this straight then: If you are for fightin ANY wars you may think are necessary, and haven’t cured cancer, put the world on a morphine drip, and/or (or is it required that you do them all) adopted an orphan;you should also be cool with infanticide? Interesting line of though but I don’t agree…

    No, you choose instead to accept some stupid talking point that is used by Conservative politicians to gain you ignorant emotional votes because they know, you people don’t think for yourself. That’s why you’re “Pro-Life.”

    Hey, hey, they got the fact that no one disputes the notion that abortion involves terminating the life of a child at the convenience of the mother to wrestle with, whats your excuse? What talking points gained your ‘ignorant emotional vote’?

    Abortion is the women’s choice.

    Yep. We should stop arresting them when they choose to throw the kid into the dumpster to die then. We should also stop harrassing women who choose to drink and do cocaine while they’re pregnant…

    And for all the Pro-Lifers that talk about ‘life begins at conception’ you better not be whacking off, because you’re killing millions of lives. Dumbasses. That’s for anybody from South Dakota that voted for that piece of shit legislature.

    BTW, you have to have the sperm and the egg to get conception genius… Good luck with that dissertation.

  32. Sorry, I’m still laughing at you. Ummm, you mentioned that I was the one rambling. I did get that right, didn’t I? Have to admit, you are truly a person in need of help. There was hardly a line that made any kind of sense whatsoever. But, I did get far enough down to address a question or two I could make out before the delirium set in to much (that would be your delirium) for me to make anything out.

    1- Merely stating that life begins at conception is not proving that it does so. If you believe it is a fact, then please show me some supporting documentation for that. Preferably not from one of the pro-life organizations that only emphasize abstinence. Or that don’t believe in condoms. I don’t see how you could have missed them. They were all over the news. Where, O where could your head have been? Oh, I think I know….
    Second, I didn’t abduct the Rabbi, so he is not near me at the moment. When I get through poring through your little slave religion chapter and find it AGAIN, I will report it to you. However, I find deuteronomy as boring as your writings. So, it does take a while.

  33. Posteret,

    to have someone say these words to you when it could well be the hardest decision of your life is simply cruel in my opinion. I have friends who have had abortions and they have all struggled both before and after the event. It is not an easy way out so why make it harder?

    I guess I don’t see the cruelty in going over the risk involved in a choice that has shown any patterns of ‘increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide’ with the doctor before proceeding. I too have plenty friends who have gotten abortion who feel pretty shitty about it (some more tormented than others). Talking to them it seems the psychological struggle before the abortion are fundamentally different from the ones after. Before the issue was concern over how she’d take care of the kid, being too young, not ready to stop partying for parenting, the parents would kick them out, embarrassment for one reason or another, ect, ect… After the abortion the existential quandaries of having made that choice take a very real toll (if she dealt with them all before she had the abortion then either she could just tell herself what she told herself before proceeding, or she tried tell herself what she did before proceeding and it didn’t hold water) . I know you didn’t read it, but I have suggest that the source of these quandaries lie in the fact that no one is attempting to explain the real difference between infanticide and abortion. If we are not going to do that, and we are not going to overturn Roe vs Wade, then I don’t think its such a bad idea to at least warn the girl what she’s may be in for (psychologically that is). Because it is a very hard choice with consequences she should be prepared to live with…

    Lots of things can increase the risk of being suicidal or depressed. I was chronically depressed during both my pregnancies due to the hormone changes. Should doctors have to tell women who are newly pregnant that there is a significant risk that they may become depressed due to being pregnant? Because antenatal depression is pretty common too…

    Will doing so be interpreted as and attempt to subvert the law and harass the women in the through’s of a difficult choice? Probably not…

    As for the “need” aspect that is being discussed, it is irrelevant.

    Just wanted to underscore the fact of Jim’s proclivity for grandstanding. I don’t know how much you read (you said you didn;t read everything) but the ‘needs’ were being discussed in the context of pro-lifers supposed opposition to the alleviation of them. Yet another line of reasoning that hasn’t worked out too well for him thus far…

    If a woman is allowed to have an abortion legally (by that I mean without being jailed for it) then the reasons are her own. Either we allow or it or we don’t. I know that if I were to become pregnant as a result of rape I could not carry that child. That is my personal decision.

    That certainly will keep you out of jail, but it does nothing to keep those existential quandaries at bay.

    I suspect that Netlosh is a man (am I right?)

    *Howling*

    if so then can I just point out that you have no idea of what it is like to carry a child inside you. You have no concept of the way this can affect you as a person.

    True, and I also have no clue what it feels like to kill somebody and have to live with the guilt of taking a life. No one needs an uterus to ponder the question of when life begins or whether aborting a life actually entails killing babies. I know because I don’t have a uterus and I do both… I get why a women who had an abortion may feel guilty to the point of thinking about suicide just fine. The uterus is inconsequential to doing so…

    I have two wonderful children, but I would never say that I would never have an abortion if the need arose for me.

    Congrats on the great kids. Are you going to start with the ‘needs’ stuff too? Cause I got the impression you didn;t really want to get into it…

  34. Jim’s back for more but still doesn’t have that citation he was so sure of but hasn’t track down after 24 hrs

    Merely stating that life begins at conception is not proving that it does so.

    Very true Jim! True, true true… Good for you!!! And good for me for having said previously “Human life is the result of human sperm fertilizing a human egg (be it in a uterus or a test tube). The moment the human sperm fertilizes the human egg is what we call conception. Therefore human life begins at conception…

    Second, I didn’t abduct the Rabbi, so he is not near me at the moment. When I get through poring through your little slave religion chapter and find it AGAIN, I will report it to you. However, I find deuteronomy as boring as your writings. So, it does take a while.

    Whenever you get it I’ll be waiting…

  35. I did respond to “needs”, read again. And again, saying that is when the life begins is not the same as proving it. At least, this one was coherent enough to follow. Don’t worry, I’m still reading the slave book that you have doubtless never made it through. I’m sure you’ll be waiting. What else have you got to do?

  36. I did respond to “needs”, read again.

    I know, you said ‘Der how the heck should I der know der what their perceived needs are deeeerrrr’*sniff* And the enquiry was about those needs the alleviation of which are opposed by pro-lifers…Damn you ADD! Damn you!!!

    And again, saying that is when the life begins is not the same as proving it.

    I take it you got turrets too. I already gave you you biscuit for making the excellent point that merely asserting something is not the same as proving it to be so. I then referred to what I originally said on the matter. It much be the deficient reading comprehension skills at work right now…

    At least, this one was coherent enough to follow.

    Good, then whats the problem?

    Don’t worry, I’m still reading the slave book that you have doubtless never made it through. I’m sure you’ll be waiting. What else have you got to do?

    Nothing so you got time…

  37. If you are going to “quote” me, you might want to use the cut and paste feature. Unless, of course, you are deliberately mis-quoting me to slant it to your own ends. Also, spell check and (in your case especially) a grammar check program would be extremely helpful in preventing you from looking very much the fool.

    I take it you got turrets too. I already gave you you biscuit for making the excellent point that merely asserting something is not the same as proving it to be so. I then referred to what I originally said on the matter. It much be the deficient reading comprehension skills at work right now…

    On the first part, I have no idea wtf you are trying to say here. Please forgive me, I only speak American English. On the part where you say referencing your opinion as a fact is proof, then I could make the same “proof”. However, I’m not an idiot and don’t really like to use idiot logic.
    On the rest, I don’t devote every minute of my day reading the christian text. I do it a little bit at a time because I absolutely can’t stand the old testament. I like the words attributed to the Christ figure, but christianity has not paid much attention to those words. So be patient, I will struggle through your archaic slave religion and eventually re-find something that such a devout person as yourself should have already known. Their own doctrine.

  38. I hope I am not interrupting a war!

    That would be a horrible thing to say to a woman who has decided on an abortion (at least in that way). It would be okay if it was a written statement that the woman reads about how the state views conception and the act of abortion. However, for all intensive purposes, this statement of the woman as a ‘killer’ is an opinion –even if it is that of the state’s.

    In preserving life, it’s nice to say that we don’t want to kill babies. But I don’t want to be that baby with a teenage mom whose life has fallen apart after being raped. I don’t want to be put up for adoption and ‘given away.’
    I want a mom who planned to have me, whose life is not impeded by my coming and who is mature enough to raise me.

    Abstinence and contraception are very important measures to prevent baby-making! But once the baby is there, what is a woman to do? It is not logical to lump together the situations of women who are simply irresponsible with women who were (a) violated or (b) too young and made a mistake.

    Life has many crossroads where an irreversible decision is made for someone that changes them forever. Having a baby is a big deal The baby that is born may not be able to reach his/ her potential because if a woman is violated and/ or young at the time of conception, she is not ready to take care of the baby — putting the child up for adoption does neither guarantee the child will be adopted or well cared for. “God’s Will” is not sufficient grounds for destroying the life of an innocent girl or woman, a life that already exists.

    An abortion will cause feelings of intense guilt because the woman has just killed a part of herself, a small miracle she had to deny the world. But many times an abortion is preferable to the grandiose idea that quantity of life is more important than quality of life.

    I am not Christian but I think every religion understands: Judge not lest ye be judged.

  39. *Sigh*

    Jim’s dumbass still doesn’t have the citation and this is now the 3rd day he’s posting saying he’s going to get it. But apparently pathetic little Jim doesn’t get it does he. The citation never existed AND everyone who has read his claim pretty much knows he either pulled it out of his ass or got it from someone who pulled it out of theirs (perhaps the Rabbi from that far galaxy called Jim’s ass did in fact tell him that the old testament prescribe cash settlement for the killing of the unborn). Whats funnier is that dumbass Jim hasn’t taken ANY clue’s from the fact none of his fellow pro-choice advocates have jump in to help him out on that one. Why hasn’t Jim noticed that he’s ,not-so-oddly, the lone internet chump on this one? Because Jim’s dumb!!! Dumb enough to think the rest of us don’t know he’s full of shit.

    On the part where you say referencing your opinion as a fact is proof, then I could make the same “proof”.

    The quote I referenced clearly stated that “Human life is the result of human sperm fertilizing a human egg (be it in a uterus or a test tube). The moment the human sperm fertilizes the human egg is what we call conception. Therefore human life begins at conception…” Seeing as you got that hooked on phonics problem going on, I’ll break it down for your dumbass:

    Life is the result of the sperm fertilizing the egg (is that in dispute?). When the sperm fertilize egg , it is called conception (is that in dispute?). Now because life results from the sperm fertilizing the egg, and this is called conception, therefore life begins at conception. And not a second before!!!

    Perhaps I should’ve used the really big letters for your remedial ass…

    However, I’m not an idiot and don’t really like to use idiot logic.

    Not only are you in fact an idiot, but you clearly prefer the idiot logic just fine.

    On the rest, I don’t devote every minute of my day reading the christian text. I do it a little bit at a time because I absolutely can’t stand the old testament. I like the words attributed to the Christ figure, but christianity has not paid much attention to those words.

    And yet nonetheless, either the old testament offers cash settlement for the killing of the unborn or it doesn’t. Either there are ‘needs for abortion’ which pro-lifers are in oppositions to the alleviation of which or not. Either there is a law which defines the moment life begins or not. I know its hard with the ADD and all, but try to focus… The citation JIM. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!

    So be patient, I will struggle through your archaic slave religion and eventually re-find something that such a devout person as yourself should have already known. Their own doctrine.

    That’s what you keep saying over and over, and still…nothing(?). This is the information age Jim, you should have had it by now. But wait I know that one of the symptoms of the ADD is that you do things a little slower that the rest of us. So I guess I’ll try to be a bit more patient with your slow ass…

  40. i have permitted this discussion to go on because i appreciate healthy debate. however the previous was the last post which will refer to anyone as an idiot, or a dumbass.

    Any further derogatory comments will be deleted.

    Healthy Debate= Productive

    Name Calling= Childish

  41. That would be a horrible thing to say to a woman who has decided on an abortion (at least in that way). It would be okay if it was a written statement that the woman reads about how the state views conception and the act of abortion. However, for all intensive purposes, this statement of the woman as a ‘killer’ is an opinion –even if it is that of the state’s. .

    The statement warns about an apparent pattern of increased risk of ‘suicide ideation and suidice’. It doesn’t call anyone a ‘killer’.

    In preserving life, it’s nice to say that we don’t want to kill babies. But I don’t want to be that baby with a teenage mom whose life has fallen apart after being raped. I don’t want to be put up for adoption and ‘given away.’
    I want a mom who planned to have me, whose life is not impeded by my coming and who is mature enough to raise me.

    Even with entertaining the notion that any of us actually have a choice in our parents and/or the circumstances we enter this world under, it doesn’t change the central issue of there not actually being any clear distinction abortion and the taking of a life. And if it is the taking of a life, then what difference between infanticide and abortion should the suicidal mother -post abortion- be soothing her understandably guilt ridden conscious with.

    Abstinence and contraception are very important measures to prevent baby-making! But once the baby is there, what is a woman to do? It is not logical to lump together the situations of women who are simply irresponsible with women who were (a) violated or (b) too young and made a mistake.

    The only situation paramount to this discussion is the existential quandaries associated with abortion in light of South Dakota’s mandate…

    Life has many crossroads where an irreversible decision is made for someone that changes them forever. Having a baby is a big deal The baby that is born may not be able to reach his/ her potential because if a woman is violated and/ or young at the time of conception, she is not ready to take care of the baby — putting the child up for adoption does neither guarantee the child will be adopted or well cared for. “God’s Will” is not sufficient grounds for destroying the life of an innocent girl or woman, a life that already exists.

    The life to be aborted already exist as well. The young mother may seek counseling, welfare, or whatever types of help they she may need to cope with her situation. But what we apparently can’t give the guilt ridden mother is the one thing she needs the most. And that is the distinction between abortion and infanticide…

    An abortion will cause feelings of intense guilt because the woman has just killed a part of herself, a small miracle she had to deny the world.

    a*k*a her child.

    But many times an abortion is preferable to the grandiose idea that quantity of life is more important than quality of life.

    Wow how nihilistic of you! Hmmm, the quality of life versus the quantity of life. I guess if your poor and struggling you are probably better off dead. And perhaps if you’re having problems living with the existential quandaries of abortion you may as well kill yourself. Cause the guilt has to be costing you in terms of the quality of your life…

    I am not Christian but I think every religion understands: Judge not lest ye be judged.

    Being judged by others is the least of the concerns for anyone who has aborted their child and can’t give themselves the distinction between their choice, and the choice of the mother who had their child in a public restroom and tossed their kid in a dumpster for all the same reasons.

    Stop trying to shoot the messenger. You can’t kill him, and even if you could it wouldn’t change the veracity of the message one bit…

  42. Netlosh — It’s really cool that you are passionate about something you believe in but it seems a little overzealous as well. I am not ‘trying to shoot the messenger’ at all; I was stating my own ideas, independent of what you or anyone else had commented.

    The statement warns about an apparent pattern of increased risk [suicide]. It doesn’t call anyone a ‘killer’…central issue of there not actually being any clear distinction abortion and the taking of a life

    Those ellipsed sentences seem contradicting. But you don’t even have to spell it out to ‘say’ it. Anyways, according to the post, the doctor said, “You know, you’re about to kill a baby right?” I’m not sure how much closer you’d get to calling someone a murderer without actually using the word.

    Even if in real-life, the doctor was less blunt, the law says the doctor must “warn the woman that she is about to: terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being” Clearly, most doctors will probably sound condescending in the attempt to follow the rules of what, exactly, they are required to say

    ….central issue of there not actually being any clear distinction abortion and the taking of a life…if it is the taking of a life, then what difference between infanticide and abortion should the suicidal mother -post abortion- be soothing her understandably guilt ridden conscious with.

    You are basing this idea on the fact that the baby is ‘alive’, legally, scientifically, and metaphysically. Some people will agree and others will disagree. This assumption is one of the pillars of your argument. However, this statement cannot be confirmed today and probably not for a while. What is life? Soul? Heartbeat? ID Number or SSN? Ability for the brain to think? To feel? The trap we fall into with the pro-life/ pro choice debate is skepticism and science vs religion and philosophy. These do not have to be opposite but often come at a head here, when people cannot come to a consensus as it applies to a very fundamental idea. The difference between infanticide and abortion is essentially that with infanticide, the baby is outside of the woman’s body; the woman chose to give the baby life as we know it. It doesn’t mean that life doesn’t exist just because it’d not like our own existence. It’s just that before a fetus has a heartbeat or real brain signals, we must theorize on what it’s existence is exactly. And that is where the prioritizing comes into play.

    On a practical note, what would have happened if this woman had never been pregnant? I make no excuses for women who do not use contraception or have silly reasons for not wanting to be pregnant (eg stretchmarks, dispute with father, vanity issues).

    I do not, however, see the logic of anyone under 18 in having a child, even if it is put for adoption (a baby having a baby…)! Who will take that child, how will s/he live while not being adopted (will s/he be loved, cared for, educated well)?

    If you were raped, how would you like to look at a face that shadows that of your rapist every day for the rest of your life? And feed it and clothe it and school it? Would you be able to love him or her? Most strong women can overcome the horror of their rape to love that child as the wonderful person they have gotten from such an awful situation. But many women cannot and I think these people should have the option of considering abortion.

    As for soothing the mother’s conscience, I never said that is what is needed. “Soothing” is for women who have lost their babies to some freak accident or serial killer; therapy may be needed for a rape victim and social education for a pregnant teenager. But there is no need to ostracize a woman and make her into a monster; it will only feed suicidal tendencies.

    a*k*a her child.

    I meant to not be so boring or gloss over The Child with a two word phrase.

    Wow how nihilistic of you! Hmmm, the quality of life versus the quantity of life. I guess if your poor and struggling you are probably better off dead. And perhaps if you’re having problems living with the existential quandaries of abortion you may as well kill yourself. Cause the guilt has to be costing you in terms of the quality of your life…

    “Don’t kill the messenger” huh? haha
    I’m not so sure I’ve ever been called nihilistic by anyone who’s ever known me. I never said anythign about people who are living today as deserving of suicide or homicide. It is comprable but very different a situtation from abortion. These babies are not poor and struggling adults, it is the mothers that are possibly poor and struggling (or soon to be) and should be spoken to in a manner that will NOTt make them more suicidal.

    As for the ridicule on existentialism and nihilism, I wouldn’t joke too hard. It is the abstract basis, religious or not, of the heated discussions between prochoice/ prolife.

    Being judged by others is the least of the concerns for anyone who has aborted their child and can’t give themselves the distinction between their choice, and the choice of the mother who had their child in a public restroom and tossed their kid in a dumpster for all the same reasons.

    I do not condone the covert abortion of a baby without a doctor present in a medical facility. It is unsafe and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the reason for abortion. A woman will know she is pregnant well before the due date so there is no excuse for having, then killing the newborn, in a restroom and then disposing of the body in a dumpster. We must have very different opinions of what abortion is or should be!

    I don’t think that women should make decisions regarding their abortion based on opinions that are not their own. It is fine to counsel or advise women in a way that does not demonize them for a choice the advisor does not agree with. I am saying that you and I should not judge this woman. If she was raped or an ignorant young girl, she is already pitted against the judgement of society and her religion. She needs to make an informed decision about the capacity for motherhood she has, not be coerced into either decision to have or not have the baby by someone other than herself. In answering this question, you address the “why?” but I am addressing the “why not?”. The mother though, must be able to answer both.

  43. hello paper, nice to have you here. for the purpose of clarification, the opening statements I gave:

    “I have a joke for you:

    A distraught women walks into an abortion clinic. Due to (insert her reason here), she had finally decided to go through with the procedure.

    The Doctor, about to preform the procedure says to her: “You know, you’re about to kill a baby right?”

    The women, visibly upset looks at the doctor. She can’t believe the words coming out of his mouth.

    Unperturbed, he continues “I’ll do this if you want, but you should know that you are probably going to commit suicide afterwords?”

    Horrified, the women runs out of the clinic, in search of a more compassionate doctor.

    Funny huh?”

    were part of the “joke I was telling”, these words were my translation of the actual script I later cited:

    “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being with whom she has an existing relationship…the procedure brings statistically significant risks, including increased risk of suicidal ideation or suicide”

    I just wanted to clarify! For the original article- please click on the Newsweek link I provided in the post.

    Thanks for everyone’s comments!

  44. hey :) I understood that. I guess the way I differentiated between your joke and a possible real life situation was a little…enjambed haha

    Great post!

  45. I feel so strongly about it that were I a doctor [apart from mitigating circumstances, not neccessarily purely medical] I would have to consider changing my profession, there are other moral issues that are coming on to the statute book which would make me feelthe same way. If liberal politicians insist on making laws which disregard the moral point of view, which whether they agree with them or like them, are there and real to the people that hold them there will come about a cleavage in society.
    The sensible way forward is for people of opposing points of view and principles strongly held on both sides of many moral issues to sit down and determine a way forward, whereby say I as a doctor for example may not have to perform an act but without prejudice or judgement refer such cases to another doctor who does not share those principles. That way nobody is shoving their beliefs or non-beliefs down each other ones throat.

  46. Gentle Dove, that is far too sensible to be done in America. Actually though, I think most abortions are done by doctors choosing to work in that area. It seems that everything is specialized in medicine today. So really, if the doctor is choosing to do so, then it is probably against the doctor’s moral compass to read that statement the way it is worded.

  47. thanks paper!

    gentle so good to see you stirred up. i agree that dr.’s are put in a terribly unfair position…

    jim you are right..things that make such intuitive sense are rarely adopted by our legislature, because there are always those that are threatened by these things that make intuitive sense. Why? because normally this sense challenges the status quo, abuse of power, domination, inequality, etc….

  48. But you do have to say it, to ’say’ it, regardless of how well you may spell.

    So for you, abortion is universally equal to murder without any grey area, yet a doctor’s words to a patient must be precise in order to be accurate to their target?

    What ‘ellipsed sentences’ are you referring to? Mine? IF so, there is no contradiction…

    I quoted your statements for you, as you have quoted mine for my reference. You said that the government statement “doesn’t call anyone a ‘killer’…[but you do not distinguish between] abortion and the taking of a life”. If I am correct, you do not call a woman who chooses abortion a killer but you don’t think there is a difference between abortion and murder. Likewise, I am saying the state is using the same logic. There is an inconsistency with what it said vs what is meant.

    According to the post that was part of the joke Doug put together as a spoof of the South Dakota mandate thing. You have to read it in context because he didn’t say that’s what the doctors actually have been saying to the girls in South Dakota. You’ve misunderstood Doug…

    I realize it was a joke. When I wrote, I was not so clear in the way I presented it. The doctors may not have said that, but what the women encountered was not a sentiment very far from that.

    So you do recognize that Doug wasn’t referring to a real life situation. Why confuse the matter by arguing as if you weren’t aware?

    Even if in real-life, the doctor was less blunt

    Just because I wrote something without editing does not mean that I was tryign to confuse you. In fact, I was tryign to do the opposite. I think you are quite aware of that. I was contrasting the harsh light of the joke on to a more realistic manner in which doctors would present the statement to a woman. It might be more subtle and businesslike but anyone would be intimidtated by the idea that they are “terminating [a] life”. Furthermore, that “[life is] whole, separate, unique [and] living“. You are being told, not advised, by a medical professional and the state about the ethical sin you are making. What woman would not listen to them, even if that’s not the choice she actually belives in?

    the law says the doctor must “warn the woman that she is about to: terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being”

    Well she is.

    That is your opinion. And it would matter if you were that woman’s relative, friend, or other significant figure in her life. Most things are not black and white, I believe that abortion is one of those things. You may not agree with me and I think that is okay. In the same way, a woman who chooses abortion should not be coerced into thinking less of herself (as you do) for choosing as she does, whatever that decision may be.

    condescending or not, it is what it is…

    True, but the fact are the facts regardless…

    You treat many of your opinions and beliefs as things that everyone should hold to be true. I also believe strongly about many things that are of value to me. But I would never expect there to be one absolute for all situations because that level of fundamentalism often comes across cases where the rules simply fail to deliver the best outcome.

    The ‘when does life begin’ question is one that is NOT addressed by pro-choice advocates, and I haven’t heard any attempts at a rebuttal of the notion that life begins at conception. I hear them trying to shoot the messengers with various direct and indirect ad hominems, but no rebuts.

    You are right that we cannot despute that biological life begins at conception. However, it is important to consider that prochoice people see the life of someone who already exists to be the basis of the abortion while prolife people see the life of someone who is yet to be born as the basis of non-abortion. Maybe that seems selfish to you. It could be, if done by someone who really doesn’t care about the fact who is just ‘getting rid of something.’ But again, it’s not that black and white. If you are not ready to be a mother (you were raped or you are too young), then do not have a baby. I would challenge you to tell me how putting up a child you carried for 9 months for adoption brings less guilt or grief than an abortion. For a normal person, just seeing your baby and realizing it exists from then onwards will make you wish you could keep it, even though you don’t have the means or capacity to do so.

    What is life? Soul? Heartbeat? ID Number or SSN? Ability for the brain to think? To feel?

    How about: the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. (American Heritage)

    In high school, we learned that there is a certain flatness in defining the essence of a meanign by the dictionary definition. Furthermore, a fetus in the very beginning has its functions originating in both itself and its mother, not exclusively itself. For this reason, this situation does not satisfy the dictionary definition of life.

    huge pink elephant

    The difference between infanticide and abortion is essentially that with infanticide, the baby is outside of the woman’s body; the woman chose to give the baby life as we know it.

    So the terminating of the life outside is bad, but the terminating of the life while its still in the womb is ok. Because once it’s outside, it is attains the distinguishing characteristic of being life as we know it. Got it I guess. :-/

    I support abortion until about 2-3 months for a woman with extenutating circumstances. After that time, the woman should know she is pregnant and if she is truly in an extenutating cuircumstance, should know if it is practical for her to have a baby. Motherhood is a beautiful thing, but not all women can do it when they are given the cue.

    Once the baby is outside, you’ve lost any control at all that you may have had for something that was inside your body. Once it is outside your body, you have lost the right to plan for a baby to not have been born. A newborn baby physically lives a life separate from your own. Fetuses do not not share that characteristic. This goes with the ‘life as we know it’ part that you don’t like very much.

    On a practical note, what would have happened if this woman had never been pregnant?

    She wouldn’t have to decide whether to abort her child.

    I was referring to the fact that abortion is supposed to act on a pregnancy that was never supposed to happen in the first place.

    Human beings have been doing it for centuries so it clearly can be done. Getting pregnant before 18 (as if that’s some magic number) is not good in my opinion, but its certainly isn’t the end of the world. I’d be more concerned with the girl carrying the guilt of having terminated the life of her child because it was an inconvenience.

    Human beings have also been warring for centuries of years. On a more relavant note, they have also been engaged in marriages between very young girls to much older men for centuries. We don’t do that anymore.
    I chose 18 not as a magic number and not for my own argument’s benefit. It is an age where the girl is no longer a child but not a mature adult. I am making a case for girls who are very young (>18) and women who have been raped. No, getting pregnant at 18 is not the end of the world literally but it is probably the end of the world for her. When you see an 18 year old mother (even if she is not single, unsuppoted by any family, poor, or otherwise immature) graduate from college or be as successful in life as she could have been, are you surprised or amazed? I would be amazed. If she puts the child up for adoption, she still has to carry the baby for 9 months and hopefully she is in a position where that does not do a detriment to her studies or work. Even after a child is put for adoption, do you really think she will be less guilt-ridden and depressed for not keeping the child? That she carried full-term? Putting a child up for adoption is also about ‘inconveniences’.

    But many women cannot and I think these people should have the option of considering abortion.

    I realize you do, but because of everything I’ve said already, you’ll understand why I don’t.

    This is probably the first time you’ve said something without mocking my intelligence or validity of opionion. I keep looking for the angry word somewhere…

    Your trying to retreat into useless semantic subtleties. The reference to ’soothing’ concerned women who are suicidal and was used appropriately.

    Why is it useless? Semantics is very important on this subject. I do not think a mother who chooses abortion needs to be soothed, she needs to be educated fairly. That is a very important semantic statement to understand.

    I said:An abortion will cause feelings of intense guilt because the woman has just killed a part of herself, a small miracle she had to deny the world. But many times an abortion is preferable to the grandiose idea that quantity of life is more important than quality of life.

    a*k*a her child.

    I said:I meant to not be so boring or gloss over The Child with a two word phrase.

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you insinuating that its somehow more lively to refer to the fetus as everything except for ‘her child’, or ‘the life’, or any other term that acknowledges the living being as something more than a miraculous ingrown toenail?

    I meant that the description i was using was meant to further the importance of a baby and all its glory! I was not trying to belittle life or children; I was doing the opposite. Sorry about that :/

    The nihilism lies in your statement that “many times an abortion is preferable to the grandiose idea that quantity of life is more important than quality of life.” Particularly the idea of discussing the matter of whether or not life should be allowed to continue, or not, in the context of the quality of that life versus the mere quantity. The underlying presuppositions are both undeniable and atrocious. I’ll elaborate if you insist, but I don’t think its necessary at this point…

    I thought you weren’t into semantics? I am not discussing whether life should continue, I am discussing if you are truly considering what is best, which is different for different people. For some people, abortion is just another stupid excuse to erase all their immature mistakes. For other people, abortion is a way to not have a baby whose life is less than what it should be and for the mother to move on from a consequence of her immaturity/ ignorance or as a survivor. Yes, life brings about results from things that you can’t just ‘take back’. But you don’t have to have a baby. And if you have no business having a baby, why are you having a baby? Because your doctor thinks it’s moral? Because the state thinks it’s moral? What about what you think?

    Who needs a dead baby on their conscious?/blockquote>

    Who does! But who needs a live baby on their conscience? Only people who can take the heat.

    the choice of the mother who had their child in a public restroom and tossed their kid in a dumpster for all the same reasons.
    I said:I do not condone the covert abortion of a baby without a doctor present in a medical facility.
    I’m not familiar with the phrase ‘convert abortion’. So I’ll try to just use context clues here for now…

    I said “covert”. The American Heritage Dictionary lists the definition, “not openly practiced.” Eg the having of said baby in a public restroom (privately) and dumping the body afterwards into a dumpster (privately). I think we agree that both acts are terrible.

    Babies often come before the due date. Particularly in any women who’s trying to carry on as if she’s not pregnant. Some of them have said they didn’t even know they were pregnant and then… *splash* Hey what do you know there was a baby in there! *flush*…

    I do not support late pregnancy abortions. “Women” who try to pretend they are not pregnant are likely not women but girls who are not old/mature enough to be a mother. I do not support abortion as a get out of jail free card; it is a difficlt means to an end that is the best, but not the easiest, for some women. Therefore, abortion needs to be planned, it needs to be early, and it needs to be supported by professionals who understand that the woman that is carrying the baby is not a horrible person.

    True. They should make their decisions based on reality. As in when you abort the child, is it a reality that you are ending a life. And does it matter that its a life in the womb as opposed to a life outside the womb…

    It is one thing to present reality. It is another thing to completely crush another person’s meaningful decision as immoral and sinful because of your general value judgements. Yes, you are ending a life before it even breathes. Yes, it is not something you want to do. Yes, it is not something you have to do. But a teenager cannot raise a child and she should not have to wonder what happened to her baby after it is adopted. She needs to grow up without a rush because she is a child herself. A newborn shouldn’t be put up for adoption and be handed some vague possibility of adoptive parents. Will that child be angry or saddened by the the lack of knowledge about his or her past? Will that child receive adequate education or opportunities as any other child? How much dysfunction are you suggesting for the sake of unbending principles?

    shes need to deal with the question of the terminating of another life (i.e. her child). If she can’t live with the choice to abort and all it entails, then she probably shouldn’t do it.

    In the mean time pro-lifers have every right to have our own opinion on the question. It is foolish to think anything that could be perceived as the legalized murdering of the unborn is not going to occasion moral indignation, especially when you can’t come with any good reason for people not doing so. The thought otherwise healthy babies being terminated because its not convenient to the mother (when there are other options), is going to piss some folks off. It is what it is.

    We’d do better by settling the question of when life begins and governing ourselves accordingly. The tension over this debate can only get worse. Look at what happen with slavery in this country. There are similarities that are unwisely being ignored or dismissed…

    Yes.

    The point I’m trying to make is that abortion has its place within reason. I am not saying that having an abortion is great and every girl who doesn’t use contraception or is simply irresponsible should have the option of abortion. I am speaking for the women and girls who often have a weaker voice because they are young or surviving from rape. It’s not as much a question of if there is a baby for me but if there should be a baby. I think prolifers should (a) keep the baby and (b) consider adoption. Prochoicers should (a) have early abortion as an option and (b) have these safe options be available within a reasonable time frame of pregnancy detection.

    From a population standpoint, “nearly 60 percent of the six million pregnancies that occur annually in the United States are unintended, including eight in 10 pregnancies among teenagers”(http://www.overpopulation.org/teenpreg.html).
    That’s a lot of babies and a lot of teenagers.

  49. I am not ‘trying to shoot the messenger’ at all; I was stating my own ideas, independent of what you or anyone else had commented.

    Fair enough…

    Those ellipsed sentences seem contradicting. But you don’t even have to spell it out to ’say’ it

    You do, however, have to say it, to ‘say’ it, regardless of how well you may spell. What ‘ellipsed sentences’ are you referring to? Mine? If so, there is no contradictions…

    Anyways, according to the post, the doctor said, “You know, you’re about to kill a baby right?” I’m not sure how much closer you’d get to calling someone a murderer without actually using the word.

    According to the post that was part of the joke Doug put together as a spoof of the South Dakota mandate thing. You have to read it in context because he didn’t say that’s what the doctors actually have been saying to the girls in South Dakota. You’ve misunderstood Doug…

    Even if in real-life, the doctor was less blunt

    So you do recognize that Doug wasn’t referring to a real life situation. Why confuse the matter by arguing as if you weren’t aware?

    the law says the doctor must “warn the woman that she is about to: terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being”

    She is as far as I can tell.

    Clearly, most doctors will probably sound condescending in the attempt to follow the rules of what, exactly, they are required to say

    So get them sensitivity training. Condescending or not though, it is what it is…

    You are basing this idea on the fact that the baby is ‘alive’, legally, scientifically, and metaphysically.

    It true, I am(I don’t know about legally though).

    Some people will agree and others will disagree.

    True, but the facts are the facts regardless…

    This assumption is one of the pillars of your argument. However, this statement cannot be confirmed today and probably not for a while.

    When you say ‘assumption’ I assume you mean the scientific/metaphysical ‘fact’ you previously referenced. One of the ‘pillars’ of everything I’ve said here, is notion that this ‘fact’ is not in dispute. The ‘when does life begin’ question is one that is NOT addressed by pro-choice advocates, and I haven’t heard any attempts at a rebuttal of the notion that life begins at conception. I hear them trying to shoot the messengers with various direct and indirect ad hominems, but no rebuts.

    What is life? Soul? Heartbeat? ID Number or SSN? Ability for the brain to think? To feel?

    How about: the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. (American Heritage)

    The trap we fall into with the pro-life/ pro choice debate is skepticism and science vs religion and philosophy.

    Depends on how you have the discussion. I’ve centered my statements around one point here. That being the ‘fact’ you referred to earlier. I haven’t said ‘God said’ or ‘science tells us’, but I have harped on the fact that despite the confident assertions on both sides, there IS a huge pink elephant in the room. As it happens only the mostly religiously minded pro-life advocates (in addition to the suicidal post-abortion mothers) are even remotely acknowledging it, or at least not attempting to drown it out with so many other issues.

    These do not have to be opposite but often come at a head here, when people cannot come to a consensus as it applies to a very fundamental idea.

    Agreed…

    The difference between infanticide and abortion is essentially that with infanticide, the baby is outside of the woman’s body; the woman chose to give the baby life as we know it.

    So the terminating of the life outside is bad, but the terminating of the life while its still in the womb is ok. Because once outside, it attains the distinguishing characteristic of being ‘life as we know it’. Got it I guess. :-/

    But is there a such thing as ‘life as we know it’ that doesn’t begin in the womb… And this thought isn’t helped by your next statement.

    It doesn’t mean that life doesn’t exist just because it’s not like our own existence.

    Well that just takes us back to where we started…

    It’s just that before a fetus has a heartbeat or real brain signals, we must theorize on what it’s existence is exactly. And that is where the prioritizing comes into play.

    Well, technically we can only ‘theorize’ on the existence of anything other than ourselves, seeing as I can’t actually experience any existence other than my own. But if we are talking about brain signals and heartbeats, the child gets those before its born. Well the hearbeat for sure, I just assumed there’s a point to the rubbing, singing, and talking to the belly of a pregnant lady (I could be wrong)…

    On a practical note, what would have happened if this woman had never been pregnant?

    She wouldn’t have to decide whether to abort her child.

    I do not, however, see the logic of anyone under 18 in having a child, even if it is put for adoption (a baby having a baby…)!

    Human beings have been doing it for centuries so it clearly can be done. Getting pregnant before 18 (as if that’s some magic number) is not recommended in my opinion, but its certainly isn’t the end of the world. I’d be more concerned with the girl carrying the guilt of having terminated the life of her child because it was an inconvenience.

    If you were raped, how would you like to look at a face that shadows that of your rapist every day for the rest of your life? And feed it and clothe it and school it?

    Perhaps put the undesirable child with the ‘face that shadows that of your rapist’ up for adoption and skip the infanticide versus abortion drama…

    Most strong women can overcome the horror of their rape to love that child as the wonderful person they have gotten from such an awful situation

    Most strong women do indeed…

    But many women cannot and I think these people should have the option of considering abortion.

    I realize you do, but because of everything I’ve said already, you’ll understand why I don’t.

    As for soothing the mother’s conscience, I never said that is what is needed. “Soothing” is for women who have lost their babies to some freak accident or serial killer; therapy may be needed for a rape victim and social education for a pregnant teenager.

    Your trying to retreat into useless semantic subtleties. Lets not. The reference to ‘soothing’ concerned women who are suicidal and was used appropriately.

    But there is no need to ostracize a woman and make her into a monster; it will only feed suicidal tendencies.

    Tell that to her conscious.

    I meant to not be so boring or gloss over The Child with a two word phrase.

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. Are you insinuating that its somehow more lively to refer to the fetus as everything except for ‘her child’, or ‘the life’, or any other term that acknowledges the living being as something more than a miraculous ingrown toenail?

    “Don’t kill the messenger” huh?

    I should have said ‘don’t bother trying’…

    I’m not so sure I’ve ever been called nihilistic by anyone who’s ever known me. I never said anything about people who are living today as deserving of suicide or homicide. It is comparable but very different a situation from abortion.

    The nihilism lies in your statement that “many times an abortion is preferable to the grandiose idea that quantity of life is more important than quality of life.” Particularly the idea of discussing the matter of whether or not life should be allowed to continue, or not, in the context of the quality of that life versus the mere quantity. The underlying presuppositions are both undeniable and atrocious. I’ll elaborate if you insist, but I don’t think its necessary at this point… FTR, I don’t know if your a nihilist or not, I was just responding to the statement.

    As for the ridicule on existentialism and nihilism, I wouldn’t joke too hard. It is the abstract basis, religious or not, of the heated discussions between prochoice/ prolife.

    Whose joking? As for nihilism, it’s the abstract basis of a lot of things, most of which aren’t good (if any)…

    These babies are not poor and struggling adults

    I know their babies.

    it is the mothers that are possibly poor and struggling (or soon to be) and should be spoken to in a manner that will NOTt make them more suicidal.

    Hence the South Dakota’s mandate and all efforts to try to talk women out of aborting their child. They have enough to deal with, and who needs a dead baby on their conscious anyhow…

    I do not condone the covert abortion of a baby without a doctor present in a medical facility.

    I’m not familiar with the phrase ‘convert abortion’. So I’ll try to just use context clues here for now…

    It is unsafe and demonstrates a misunderstanding of the reason for abortion. A woman will know she is pregnant well before the due date so there is no excuse for having, then killing the newborn, in a restroom and then disposing of the body in a dumpster. We must have very different opinions of what abortion is or should be!

    Babies often come before the due date. Particularly in any women who’s carrying on as if she’s not pregnant. Some have said they didn’t even know they were pregnant and then… *splash* Hey what do you know there was a baby in there! *flush*…

    I don’t think that women should make decisions regarding their abortion based on opinions that are not their own.

    True! They should make their decisions based on reality. For instance the reality of whether or not getting an abortion involves the ending a life. And how much it realistically matters that the is life is still in the womb as opposed to a ‘life as we know it’…

    It is fine to counsel or advise women in a way that does not demonize them for a choice the advisor does not agree with. I am saying that you and I should not judge this woman.

    Most counselors don’t demonize the people they counsel, they try to help. Nevertheless, no one has quite the audience without anyone the way that their own conscience does.

    If she was raped or an ignorant young girl, she is already pitted against the judgement of society and her religion. She needs to make an informed decision about the capacity for motherhood she has, not be coerced into either decision to have or not have the baby by someone other than herself

    Yea and somewhere in there she should deal with the question of whether or not this decision entails the terminating of another life (i.e. her child no less). If she can’t live with the choice to abort and all it entails, then she probably shouldn’t do it.

    In the mean time pro-lifers have every right to have our own opinion on the question. It is foolish to think anything that could be perceived as the legalized murdering of the unborn is not going to occasion moral indignation, especially when you can’t come with any good reason for people not doing so (i.e. other than trying to bash their faith or call them mere religious nuts). You guys have to realize that the thought of otherwise healthy babies being terminated because its not convenient to the mother (when there are other options), is going to piss some folks off.

    We’d do better by settling the question of when life begins and governing ourselves accordingly. The tension over this debate can only get worse. There are similarities between this issue and the issue of slavery pre-Civil War underpinning this debate which are unwisely being ignored/dismissed… That said, I agree with gentledove in the sense that we should seek to have a more productive dialogue on this where everyone listens. The state of this debate is rather alarming.

    In answering this question, you address the “why?” but I am addressing the “why not?”. The mother though, must be able to answer both.

    So true…

  50. So for you, abortion is universally equal to murder without any grey area, yet a doctor’s words to a patient must be precise in order to be accurate to their target?

    Clearly there are ‘gray areas’ because women who get abortions don’t get thrown in jail for it (cause murder is illegal). I’ve made several inquires concerning those ‘gray areas’, specifically the basis for them, with no answer to boot. As for the statements of the Doctor, it just isn’t productive to put words in one another’s mouths in such a manner. The Doctor’s statement concerned the question of a life being terminated and didn’t concern characterizing the mother. But I understand its much easier to attack the would be insensitive doctor, than acknowledging that innocent life is being terminated and what that means for the conscious of the mother post procedure. Nonetheless unless you’re some psychopath, taking a life doesn’t go over well with our human conscious…

    I quoted your statements for you, as you have quoted mine for my reference. You said that the government statement “doesn’t call anyone a ‘killer’…[but you do not distinguish between] abortion and the taking of a life”.

    First off, the government statements didn’t call anyone a killer. You’re mistaken if you think it did. Secondly, who are exactly are you attributing the contradiction to, the government statement, or my own? Me telling you that the government hasn’t call the women killers and then suggesting that the source of the ‘increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide’ lies in the fact that NOBODY (not just me) has made any meaningful the distinction between infanticide and abortion, doesn’t constitute a contradiction. I’ve merely posed the existential dilemma, I’ve called no one a ‘killer’…

    If I am correct, you do not call a woman who chooses abortion a killer but you don’t think there is a difference between abortion and murder. Likewise, I am saying the state is using the same logic. There is an inconsistency with what it said vs what is meant.

    This is the intent angle Doug referenced earlier. I refer you to my response to him on that because I’ve got a long way to go responding to you here, and I’m getting sleepy…

    I realize it was a joke. When I wrote, I was not so clear in the way I presented it.

    You presented it as if you were quoting the real conversation…

    Just because I wrote something without editing does not mean that I was tryign to confuse you.

    I don’t believe you were trying to confuse me…

    In fact, I was trying to do the opposite. I think you are quite aware of that. I was contrasting the harsh light of the joke on to a more realistic manner in which doctors would present the statement to a woman.

    Ok I’m incline to say a few things about how you attempted to accomplish doing the opposite of trying to confuse me (not sure what that means but it doesn’t matter). But I don’t want to probe the matter any further because there’s a much more important discussion going on. So I’ll leave the matter at that…

    It might be more subtle and businesslike but anyone would be intimidtated by the idea that they are “terminating [a] life”.

    And understandably so, its a very troubling thought…

    Furthermore, that “[life is] whole, separate, unique [and] living“. You are being told, not advised, by a medical professional and the state about the ethical sin you are making.

    This is merely your interpretation. It looks like the warnings on the cigarrete packages to me. I don’t have a problem with it.

    What woman would not listen to them, even if that’s not the choice she actually belives in?

    Abortion is not a religion and there is nothing to be gained from discussing it in such a manner. She ‘believes’ in? We aren’t talking about hinduism but a medical procedure that involves the terminating the life of her child. And good for her if she changes her mind. I thought you guys called yourself ‘pro-choice’ advocates as opposed to ‘pro-abortion’ advocates for a reason…

    That is your opinion.

    An opinion that is very rarely and never successfully disputed.

    And it would matter if you were that woman’s relative, friend, or other significant figure in her life. Most things are not black and white, I believe that abortion is one of those things. You may not agree with me and I think that is okay. In the same way, a woman who chooses abortion should not be coerced into thinking less of herself (as you do) for choosing as she does, whatever that decision may be.

    When it comes to opinions where I’m concerned there is NONE that matters more than my own. No a lot of things aren’t black and white, but thats no excuse for pretending all is gray (nor for getting pissed when someone is reminding you that some stuff aren’t as gray as we’ve been telling ourselves). I appreciate that you think its ok for me to not agree with you though…

    You treat many of your opinions and beliefs as things that everyone should hold to be true.

    Actually I treat my beliefs as things I hold to be true….

    I also believe strongly about many things that are of value to me. But I would never expect there to be one absolute for all situations because that level of fundamentalism often comes across cases where the rules simply fail to deliver the best outcome.

    Ok.:-/

    You are right that we cannot despute that biological life begins at conception.

    Then doctors peforming the abortions should read the warnings…IMHO that is…

    However, it is important to consider that prochoice people see the life of someone who already exists to be the basis of the abortion while prolife people see the life of someone who is yet to be born as the basis of non-abortion. Maybe that seems selfish to you. It could be, if done by someone who really doesn’t care about the fact who is just ‘getting rid of something.’ But again, it’s not that black and white.

    Clearly!

    If you are not ready to be a mother (you were raped or you are too young), then do not have a baby. I would challenge you to tell me how putting up a child you carried for 9 months for adoption brings less guilt or grief than an abortion.

    Adoption doesn’t doesn’t entail making any conscious decision to end the life of her child.

    In high school, we learned that there is a certain flatness in defining the essence of a meanign by the dictionary definition. Furthermore, a fetus in the very beginning has its functions originating in both itself and its mother, not exclusively itself. For this reason, this situation does not satisfy the dictionary definition of life.

    It was a mere suggestion. I don’t need any pompous lectures on the drawbacks of definitions from dictionaries. Nevertheless, ALL human life begins as a fetus which functions originate in its mother and itself. I thought the question was a bit frivolous but I choose to indulge anyhow (even if it was a half-hearted effort)

    I support abortion until about 2-3 months for a woman with extenutating circumstances. After that time, the woman should know she is pregnant and if she is truly in an extenutating cuircumstance, should know if it is practical for her to have a baby. Motherhood is a beautiful thing, but not all women can do it when they are given the cue. Once the baby is outside, you’ve lost any control at all that you may have had for something that was inside your body. Once it is outside your body, you have lost the right to plan for a baby to not have been born. A newborn baby physically lives a life separate from your own. Fetuses do not not share that characteristic. This goes with the ‘life as we know it’ part that you don’t like very much.

    Throughout this entire comment I’ve noticed that you have a distinct proclivity for trying to tell me what I think, like, or intended by what I said as if I wouldn’t just tell you anyhow (and despite many of my own clarifications). Your positions on the issue are duely noted, but let me account for what I think and intend by asking.

    I was referring to the fact that abortion is supposed to act on a pregnancy that was never supposed to happen in the first place.</blockquote.

    So I didn’t respond appropriately to your question?

    Human beings have also been warring for centuries of years. On a more relavant note, they have also been engaged in marriages between very young girls to much older men for centuries. We don’t do that anymore.

    And women have been having babies before the age of 18 for centuries. My point is unaffected.

    I chose 18 not as a magic number and not for my own argument’s benefit.

    I didn’t say you did and don’t care why you did. I was referencing a point similar to the one made by your next sentence…

    It is an age where the girl is no longer a child but not a mature adult.

    Exactly…

    I am making a case for girls who are very young (>18) and women who have been raped.

    I got it the first time.

    No, getting pregnant at 18 is not the end of the world literally but it is probably the end of the world for her. When you see an 18 year old mother (even if she is not single, unsuppoted by any family, poor, or otherwise immature) graduate from college or be as successful in life as she could have been, are you surprised or amazed?

    Vindicated because I was the one who said it wasn’t the end of the world.

    I would be amazed. If she puts the child up for adoption, she still has to carry the baby for 9 months and hopefully she is in a position where that does not do a detriment to her studies or work. Even after a child is put for adoption, do you really think she will be less guilt-ridden and depressed for not keeping the child? That she carried full-term? Putting a child up for adoption is also about ‘inconveniences’.

    Maybe I’m just crazy, but I’m thinking anything beats dead babies on the conscious…

    This is probably the first time you’ve said something without mocking my intelligence or validity of opionion. I keep looking for the angry word somewhere…

    There you go again trying to speak to what I think. The only intelligence I’ve mocked here was Jim’s and you may reference my last comment to him to give you an idea of what I’m like when I’m mocking someones intelligence. I’ve merely responded to what you think, with what I think. Don’t make anymore of it than that…

    Why is it useless?

    Because was it was a vacuous point masquerading as insightful. I used the word soothing appropriately. You understood me just fine, but chose to make a false issue of it anyhow…

    I do not think a mother who chooses abortion needs to be soothed, she needs to be educated fairly. That is a very important semantic statement to understand.

    Whatever!!!! I’m not getting hung up with you over that. I said ‘soothing’ and see no pressing reason to change it…

    I meant that the description i was using was meant to further the importance of a baby and all its glory! I was not trying to belittle life or children; I was doing the opposite. Sorry about that :/

    Cool…

    I thought you weren’t into semantics?

    I’m not into engaging in vacuous semantic subtleties. It just make the conversation longer and unproductive. And me telling you about the nihilistic nature of your statement is not a matter of semantics…

    I am not discussing whether life should continue,

    We are discussing abortion are we not?…

    I am discussing if you are truly considering what is best, which is different for different people. For some people, abortion is just another stupid excuse to erase all their immature mistakes. For other people, abortion is a way to not have a baby whose life is less than what it should be and for the mother to move on from a consequence of her immaturity/ ignorance or as a survivor. Yes, life brings about results from things that you can’t just ‘take back’. But you don’t have to have a baby. And if you have no business having a baby, why are you having a baby? Because your doctor thinks it’s moral? Because the state thinks it’s moral? What about what you think?

    It would be great if she thought to use a contraceptive or to abstain altogether (clearly the rape victim has no choice in that). Then there’s no point in having this conversation…

    But who needs a live baby on their conscience? Only people who can take the heat

    .

    I guess if the the choice to teminate the life of a child isn’t as hot as raising it.

    I said “covert”. The American Heritage Dictionary lists the definition, “not openly practiced.” Eg the having of said baby in a public restroom (privately) and dumping the body afterwards into a dumpster (privately). I think we agree that both acts are terrible.

    Ah I see, my bad. Even with the clear up, I don’t have anything to add to what I’ve already said concerning that…

    I do not support late pregnancy abortions. “Women” who try to pretend they are not pregnant are likely not women but girls who are not old/mature enough to be a mother. I do not support abortion as a get out of jail free card; it is a difficlt means to an end that is the best, but not the easiest, for some women. Therefore, abortion needs to be planned, it needs to be early, and it needs to be supported by professionals who understand that the woman that is carrying the baby is not a horrible person.

    Your opinions are duely noted, and you have mine. And everything else you’ve filled in with that 3rd eye of yours..Joke, relax…

    It is one thing to present reality. It is another thing to completely crush another person’s meaningful decision as immoral and sinful because of your general value judgements.

    I’m not at this point. I’ve merely pointed out the pink elephant in the room.

    How much dysfunction are you suggesting for the sake of unbending principles?

    The dysfunction isn’t derived from me or my principles…

    The point I’m trying to make is that abortion has its place within reason. I am not saying that having an abortion is great and every girl who doesn’t use contraception or is simply irresponsible should have the option of abortion. I am speaking for the women and girls who often have a weaker voice because they are young or surviving from rape. It’s not as much a question of if there is a baby for me but if there should be a baby. I think prolifers should (a) keep the baby and (b) consider adoption. Prochoicers should (a) have early abortion as an option and (b) have these safe options be available within a reasonable time frame of pregnancy detection.

    Again duely noted…

    From a population standpoint, “nearly 60 percent of the six million pregnancies that occur annually in the United States are unintended, including eight in 10 pregnancies among teenagers”(http://www.overpopulation.org/teenpreg.html). That’s a lot of babies and a lot of teenagers.

    Maybe they should not be having sex? Sorry I got lazy with this one but as I stated previously, I’m sleepy…

  51. thanks to all who participated in this discussion- I really appreciate it!

    However, some of my readers (including me) have found that the “my comments” page on the dashboard was solely being dominated by updates on this post- making it harder for us to receive updates on other posts/blogs

    I am closing comments on this thread- however- I really would encourage all of you to continue this discussion on abortion, or any other topic that interests you, on the the Discussion Board

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: