Topeka — Eight Kansas University students opposed to abortion demonstrated Thursday outside the Capitol to protest Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' support of a woman's right to an abortion.
"We are repelled by the governor's insistence that she is personally opposed to abortion, while she consistently opposes every measure designed to regulate the procedure," said Katy Cortese, a sophomore from Des Moines, Iowa, and president of KU Students for Life.
Carrying a sign that read: "One third of my generation silenced by abortion," Emily McEnroe, a Lawrence sophomore, said, "It's a human rights issue. It's a matter of life and death."
Sebelius supports a woman's right to an abortion, but has said she would not seek changes in existing restrictions.
Her opponent in the gubernatorial election, state Sen. Jim Barnett, R-Emporia, has said protecting life at conception "is at the core of who I am." But he has said that absent action by the U.S. Supreme Court, the state can't restrict abortion any further.
Sebelius has twice vetoed legislation that would have imposed new regulations on abortion clinics, saying that clinic standards should be set by medical professionals instead of legislators.
Last session, she vetoed a bill that would have required physicians to provide information to the state that would say whether the fetus from a late-term abortion was abnormal.
In her veto message, Sebelius said the bill did nothing to reduce the number of abortions in Kansas and would have invaded patients' privacy.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Abortion IS a human rights issue.
These pro-life messages are a needed reminder that abortion is a terrible human tragedy.
justthefacts (anonymous) says…
I was recently told that the leading cause of death for all African American children is abortion? Can someone refute or find support for that statement? If it is true, then that statistic speaks volumes.
A pretty good discussion about the general topic of abortion, as regulated (or not) by the government is at http://www.lawrence.com/blogs/nuckoll...
larryvillian (anonymous) says…
anyone who feels strongly against abortion and speaks out against it should be required to adopt. if you are so concerned about the loss of these potential people, perhaps you should take care of some of them yourself. why don't you folks come up with a solution before you pass judgment?
JHawker (anonymous) says…
How difficult is it for someone to comprehend that a person can be personally against abortion, but be pro-choice! a human rights issue? yes, it is our right as humans to make this choice ourselves, and to not have people with no clue as to what the situation is, to make that decision for us.
larryvillian (anonymous) says…
Amen, JHawker.
opinion (anonymous) says…
Jhawker,
I find it difficult to comprehend because, if the reason you are personally against abortion is because you believe it is killing a human, then how can you stand by the line, "I am against killing humans, but if someone else wants to kill humans, it is their choice".
If you are against abortion for a different reason, then I might be able to comprehend it. Can you give me a different reason to be against abortion?
abe_froman (anonymous) says…
I understand JHawker on this.
Who am I to tell someone what to do or pass judgement on them for their actions? We were given free will.
People have to decide what's best for themselves. And how they do that is up to them. I may not bring myself to have an abortion. But I'm certainly not going to shove my personal belief on someone else when it comes down to a decision of such a personal nature.
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
And fighting to shut down fertility clinics? After all, they destroy embryos all the time.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
"One third of my generation silenced by abortion."
Who fed Emily this bizarre lie? More importantly, why does she believe it?
How many people have been silenced by AIDS, starvation and war?
opinion (anonymous) says…
Scenebooster,
I would not be out protesting because I believe protesting for the most part is ineffective.
You brought up the war in Iraq. I do believe there is such a thing as a just war. Based on what we know now, Iraq does not meet the criteria for a just war. Other wars have though.
Capital punishment is Biblical so I trust that there are situations that it is right. I do not believe we are good at administering it without bias and without error so I would just as soon not have it part of our system. Not sure capital punishment applied to a person that, say murders two kids and a cop, compares real well to killing a helpless child, but there is my answer.
Ok, I chased your rabbits, so, now can we go back to my question: do you know how anyone who believes that abortion is wrong because they feel it is killing an unborn child can also take the stance that it is ok for others to choose to do that? Scenebooster, I am not asking you to answer this from the position that you believe abortion is killing an unborn child (because I don't think you believe that is the case) but from the point of view of someone that does. It is easier for me to not get emotional with someone that does not see abortion as killing a human supporting abortion than to hear someone say abortion is killing but I don't want to force my belief on someone else. I hope I never have to depend on them if someone is trying to kill me!
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
"Who am I to tell someone what to do or pass judgement on them for their actions?" abe_froman
With this statement you're bowing down to the Church of Tolerance. Tolerance is the hallmark of a morally degenerate society.
We "pass judgement" every time we're intolerant of pedophiles, rapists and murderers, don't we? of course we do. We're intolerant of that behavior! If we're not intolerant of immoral behavior, then there we have no basis for disallowing pedophilia, rape, murder and whole host of other disgusting behavior in our society.
opinion (anonymous) says…
"I conclude therefore that, since the thesis of the pro-life crowd is that each and every egg / sperm is a potential child, God is the ultimate abortionist."
Wow. That is an interesting conclusion.
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
I'm sick of hearing this "Church of Tolerance" BS from people (mostly comes from neo-con fundamentalist evangelical christians).
This slippery slope argument does not hold water! How many people do you all know who are tolerant of gays and the right to choose AND are tolerant of pedophilia, murder, rape, etc.?
Come on folks! Use your brain!
BrianR (anonymous) says…
"...bowing down to the Church of Tolerance. Tolerance is the hallmark of a morally degenerate society."
Therefore, you should understand that this statement doesn't pass the "There But For the Grace of God Go I" test. It could very well be that you are alive to type this rubbish because someone was tolerant of you?
Be careful when you finger-point.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
If I'm from the "Church of Tolerance," STRS... then you must be on the board of directors for the Narrow-Minded Evangelical Mega-Ministry and PAC, Inc.
Or maybe Landover Baptist...
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
Say "HI!" to Betty for me!
http://bettybowers.com/
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
P.S. Jesus never had a PAC... didn't have fog machines, either.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
It's hard to wade through all the blathering babble and name-calling above.
I'm just saying that "tolerance" is the stupidest choice of words the moral relativist movement could have chosen in their calculated effort to slowly move public opinion toward their positions.
Remember, NAMBLA wants you to be tolerant of them. The ACLU wants you to be tolerant of nambla. i'm tolerant of neither.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
STRS writes:
"I'm just saying that 'tolerance' is the stupidest choice of words the moral relativist movement could have chosen in their calculated effort to slowly move public opinion toward their positions."
_____________________________________________
Which, when you think about it, isn't all that different from the tactics that religious extremists have resorted to over several centuries, STRS. There were some guys @ 40 years ago who laid it out much better than I ever could:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/...
If your so-called "moral relavists" have resorted to "tolerance" to sway people towards their position, it's only a response to the surprise, fear, ruthlessness, and fanatical devotion employed by Bible-thumping hacks.
You imply that because somebody is tolerant of abortion, they'll be tolerant of child molesters. How is that different from suggesting that if *you*, strs, want to restrict a woman's right to abortion... then you _obviously_ would also support making sexual intercourse out of wedlock... a crime punishable by death?
Shoe's on the other foot--comfy?
If I need to reiterate my position on abortion for you, just say so. Takes up a lot of bandwidth, but I'll happily copy/paste for you again. Or, you can search my previous posts here.
What allows somebody to be tolerant of a woman's right to choose... while at the same time being intolerant of child sex crimes?
Wisdom.
Thanks
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
And for the record...
The ACLU wants us to be tolerant of NAMBLA... and they also want us to be tolerant of the Ku Klux Klan, Westboro Baptist Church, and the National Rifle Association.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
It's disgusting these kids are KU students. It would be only natural if they were K-State troglodytes, but for them to be of the crimson-and-blue and support an antediluvian social position is disconcerting.
Abortion is not murder, it is not even a social tragedy. It is ridding a pregnant female of a nodule of cells in her uterus, period.
The earnest morality you pro-lifers assume is both quaint and obsolete. Nothing short of death will change your minds, but rest assured that you will not change the law. Abortion is legal, and will remain so.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"Abortion = Medical Procedure. End of story."
More correctly, the death of guilt.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
I have no problem with these folks exercising their Free Speech rights.
They have the same right to stand out on the corner, say stupid things, and roundly be laughed at and/or ignored just like the National Rifle Association, the KKK, Westboro Baptist, Greenpeace, Cindy Sheehan, or any other extremist nutjob. Even the president, for that matter.
Abortion cannot be eliminated, neither by legislation nor by intimidation.
Abortion *can* be minimized, by education, birth control, and drugs like RU-486.
Thanks.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
werekoala (anonymous) says…
I feel sorry for the few who've bought the hype that it's about murdering children.
Most objections to abortion are rooted in disapproval of sex, to the point that if faced with a choice between (in their minds) increased teen sex or increased abortions, time and again, evangelicals have gone with increased abortions.
Put more bluntly: more dead babies are okay, as long as fewer kids in total are getting it on.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
werekoala: How would *you* define "getting it on"...???
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2...
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
larryvillian (anonymous) says…
Marion - why don't you go out today and adopt a few thousand children who need homes?
if people shouldn't be allowed to decide whether or not to have children, are YOU prepared to take care of the ones that need homes/families because their parents are unable to care for them?
Katara (anonymous) says…
The ACLU wants us to be tolerant of NAMBLA... and they also want us to be tolerant of the Ku Klux Klan, Westboro Baptist Church, and the National Rifle Association
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I feel the need to correct this statement. The ACLU wants us to allow these groups to exercise their Constitutional right to free speech. Allowing someone their right to free speech is not the same as condoning the actions of the those groups.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
I stand humbly corrected, Katara. Thank you.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Which is more "arrogant and self-serving" - to tell the truth as it is, or to try and convince women that killing their children is a "human right" and their "choice"?
Guilt isn't always the result of what someone else points out, but from what is readily apparent from within.
larryvillian (anonymous) says…
does a strand of hair have a soul?
what about a toenail?
is cutting your nails murder?
we are talking about a group of cells here - not a person. it has no heartbeat, no brain function - so how can you call it murder?
once again - put up or shut up. go adopt some unwanted children. then you can tell everyone else what to do with theirs
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"we are talking about a group of cells here - not a person. it has no heartbeat, no brain function - so how can you call it murder?
once again - put up or shut up. go adopt some unwanted children. then you can tell everyone else what to do with theirs"
So, which is it? Not a child, or actually a child (since we can't "tell everyone else what to do with theirs") ?
larryvillian (anonymous) says…
by calling it murder YOU must believe it is a person and you are telling people what they ought to be able to do in these situations.
i am not at all confused here.
you, however, clearly are.
once more for the record - for many weeks it is not a child.
larryvillian (anonymous) says…
a group of cells that has the potential to become a child is not yet a child.
many times the female body will spontaneously self-abort these cells.
are you going to try to criminalize uteruses for that?
please try - it would be extremely entertaining.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
75x55:
I'd say it's arrogant and self-serving to spend your afternoons trying to convince a rape victim that she's wrong to have an abortion.
Because Jesus for damn sure would have helped her and comforted her. Maybe he would have even shown her another way. But his showing would have been through actions of love, not shouted across a picket line.
Here's some general advice: act with kindness and compassion toward all you meet, give loving advice to those you love, encourage others to do the same, and you'll have much more success in reducing abortions.
In other words, you'd have more success if you acted like you actually believed the teachings of your religion, than if you acted like you were getting off on abusing people.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"i am not at all confused here"
Oh, I beg to differ. You're presenting an argument as being consistent with two diametrically opposed viewpoints. You can't sit on both sides of the fence and be comfortable.
The issue is abortion, not 'unwanted children' - unless you are suggesting that killing children is an acceptable way of dealing with the unwanted. In that case, you're actually talking about 'euthenasia'.
Oh, I believe you are quite confused about the nature of this discussion.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
http://health.discovery.com/centers/p...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage
Just for the sake of conversation.
Marion: That "40 Million" that you like to carry around on your day-glo sign with the stick figure fetuses... does that number take the miscarriage rate into account?
I mean, even at 50%... 20 million is still a big number, I'll grant you that.
Where *does* that "40 million" come from, anyways? Just pull it out of your backside?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
opinion (anonymous) says…
Larryvillian,
"we are talking about a group of cells here - not a person. it has no heartbeat, no brain function - so how can you call it murder?"
So when they have a heartbeat they are human? brain function and they're human.
Even the most basic search reveals this:
http://www.webmd.com/content/tools/1/...
Please look into it. I think you would be shocked when you cut through the sound bites and bumper stickers.
As far as adoption, I have heard that repeated here a number of times. People say those against abortion only care about them until they are born. That is not consistent in what I have seen in the Christian circles that I am aware of. Of the dozens of adoptive families I know, a large majority of them are Christians. Also, you may not be aware of all of the money, time and love Churches give to disadvantaged children because they are not doing it for the press, but it is very significant.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
The "nature of this discussion," 75x55, is that a small cadre of KU students cut class the Thursday before a major election to protest the incumbent governor's veto of a bill. The fact that Sebelius vetoed the bill more than six months ago, but said students are just now getting around to their protest, makes it fairly evident that there's some sort of political motivation behind it all. If Sebelius wasn't up for re-election, it's pretty safe to say that said students never would've left Lawrence yesterday... unless they were going to protest the Democratic candidate someplace else.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
werekoala (anonymous) says…
A simple question:
Think of the young lady who you are closest to. Could be your sister, daughter, friend, or neighbor. Imagine she is brutally raped, almost killed. She's horribly traumatized, afraid to be alone, or with a man, and feels that she's worthless. 3 weeks go by and she discovers she's pregnant.
Tell me how you explain to her she has to carry her rapist's baby for 9 months, as a constant reminder of what happened to her that night. How you explain to her that she has no choice but to withstand the gossip, the hushed whispers and glances, the ostracism at school as she is pregnant. How you would explain to her that odds are, as a young unwed mother she'll be on government assistance for the majority of her life, have bad, abusive, unstable relationships, and how she's going to have to give up her dreams of a professional career.
I'm curious how you tell her that her life as she knew it is over, because YOU say so.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
Parkay,
You are doing a wonderful job convincing me that you are a complete wacko. Every time you open your piehole that becomes more evident.
You haven't mentioned a single actual fact.
I love the part where you justify killing as long as it's on your terms.
opinion (anonymous) says…
werkoala,
You put forth a horrible situation and I shudder to think how often this really does happen. Life certainly stinks sometimes. Based on statistics, I am sure that I have met someone that is the product of a rape and a mother that chose to give birth to them. Maybe you know someone like that yourself. However, they are no less valuable than the person that was born to a loving mother and father. Yes there might be horrible pain and suffering for the mother. Why would you believe that killing a third party in the situation would make things better?
Don't confuse my compassion for the unborn child as a lack of compassion for the mother. I just believe the rapist should be the object of anger not the baby.
Still, very tough question.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Ok, werekoala - if you must insist on going there. Yes, it would be incredibly difficult to advise a person in that situation to take the child to full term. I would not fault their decision not to - that is the most heart-rending of circumstances.
That being said - feelings don't change reality.
Tell me, Mr/Ms. werekoala - would you hold the victim in greater respect and awe if they went ahead and carried the child to term?
Godot (anonymous) says…
Women who have had abortions should be banned from receiving invitro-fertilization, or adoption. Karma.
opinion (anonymous) says…
Scenebooster,
To clear up my position on Iraq, I don't believe it is just and I think it is horrible that innocents are dying. I mourn the loss of any life, just or not - deserved or not.
Side note, I think you are in the music business. Do you know the name of the band and song that has been used on the Turnpike commercial recently? I always catch it in passing but it goes something like "I'm always losing my ...., has anyone seen my ..." Great sounding tune and I would like to know more about the band.
Godot (anonymous) says…
Correction: Women who have used abortion as a tool of personal convenience, as opposed to women who would have died or suffered permanent physical harm without having an abortion, or who were raped, or were victims of incest, should have to turn in their mommy cards. They have proven that they cannot be trusted to put the welfare of their own offspring ahead of their own personal wants and desires.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
opinion:
I asked that question because of the "rape and incest" caveat that is so common in discussions about abortion. It seems that many people are convinced that abortion is murdering a child, but that this is okay if the mother didn't solicit the sex that led to the pregnancy.
I conclude that the real mindset behind this sort of dichotomy is not one that sees the fetus as a child to be protected, but the woman as Jezebel who is bearing her just punishment. In other words, if you were a good girl and tried to keep your legs crossed, you get a get-out-of-jail-free card, but if you wanted it, you're a filthy slut who deserves to be condemned to a life of poverty.
So kudos to you for stating a consistent moral position. I would also state that the model you propose, one of gentle love and friendship, is much more likely to change her choices than yelling at her as she goes into a clinic.
ksmoderate (anonymous) says…
I expect to see an article in the LJW soon about these same ladies taking their protests to the nearest fertility clinic, where embyros are destroyed all the time.
BigDog (anonymous) says…
The "nature of this discussion," 75x55, is that a small cadre of KU students cut class the Thursday before a major election to protest the incumbent governor's veto of a bill. The fact that Sebelius vetoed the bill more than six months ago, but said students are just now getting around to their protest, makes it fairly evident that there's some sort of political motivation behind it all. If Sebelius wasn't up for re-election, it's pretty safe to say that said students never would've left Lawrence yesterday... unless they were going to protest the Democratic candidate someplace else. ---- Agnostick
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't know there was a time limit on expressing freedom of speech and the right to protest. I may or may not agree with the message but I would fight for anyone to have the opportunity to express their opinion.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
75x55, Godot:
Your reactions are more what I was trying to point out. If it's a child, it's a child, right? But it's really only a child she's killing when you don't approve of the actions that led to her pregnancy?
"personal convenience" - that's one hell of a way to label trying to make an agonizing decision about THE most life-changing event that can happen to a person.
See what's happening, folks? It's stopped being about the "children" and started to be about whether or not Godot thinks the moms were sluts or good Christian maidens. All that happens in that case, if a woman really wants an abortion, is that she says the father raped her.
Great plan, folks. Women are still getting abortions, so long as they can convince Godot they aren't actually sluts, and as a cherry on top, men are being falsly accused of rape by the thousands.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"Women who have had abortions should be banned from receiving invitro-fertilization, or adoption. Karma."
And who made you judge, Godot?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"I didn't know there was a time limit on expressing freedom of speech and the right to protest. I may or may not agree with the message but I would fight for anyone to have the opportunity to express their opinion."
No time limit, BigDog. They can protest any way they like--just as I can *react* to their protest any way I like.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
P.S. Might it have been better for these girls to not make the drive... and donate the money to feed hungry children? :D
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Hey Godot, why stop at abortion and childbearing?
* People who are unfaithful in their first marriage, should never be allowed to marry again. Nor should they be allowed to co-habitate with anyone.
* People who steal should never be allowed to own property, ever again.
* People who drive drunk should never be allowed to drink or drive a vehicle, ever again.
* People who choose to become drug addicts should never be allowed to use pharmaceuticals, ever again... not even an aspirin or a bottle of Nyquil.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
BigDog (anonymous) says…
P.S. Might it have been better for these girls to not make the drive... and donate the money to feed hungry children? :D
hahahahahaha
I know, I am starting to wonder if I should bother to have my paycheck go into the bank and just send it straight to programs feeding the hungry children. :)
BigDog (anonymous) says…
No matter how you spin a cluster of cells to make it sound like a living being, it doesn't change the facts.
You cannot murder that which is not yet alive.
_______________________________________
I wanted to stay out of this whole argument but ......
If we believe this then there should be consistency in laws. If a pregnant woman is in a car accident and is killed by a drunk driver ..... it is 2 counts of vehiclular homicide ..... but how did the drunk driver kill something that is just "a clump of cells?" And it is vehicular homicide even if the woman loses the baby in the accident while on the way to an abortion clinic.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
Patriotman:
I'm sure you felt very clever when you posted this:
"Think of the young child who you are closest to. ...
Tell me how you explain to him/her that you are going back to the beginning to kill them. That you really never wanted them and they are not really human because you believe them a lump of flesh, a parasite.
I'm curious how you tell her that her life as she knew it is over, because YOU say so."
But this is just silly. First, there's no such thing as time travel.
Second, I have a huge oak tree in my backyard; if I were to try to get rid of it today, there would be wood and branches all over the lawn. To get rid of the tree today, I'd have to dig up all the roots, leaving a huge hole in the ground. But if I went back in time, all I'd have to do is dig up a tiny acorn. No wood. No big hole.
That's the way it is with a child - take them away today, and there's a huge hole where they once were. But simply prevent them from ever existing, and what is there really to mourn? Do you mourn all the children who might have been conceived every month a woman is fertile? Do you mourn all the friends you might have had made if you'd gone to a different school?
We tend to love our children, once they're born. (although the number of unloved children in this country really will break your heart). And I like being alive. But I don't mourn the miscarriage my mother had after I was born - might have been nice to have that little brother, but neither my folks nor I can really miss a person we never met.
Are you trying to say that because we didn't build a grave for, nor name, nor make it a point to remember the potential sibling that was my mother's miscarriage, my family and I are some kind of heartless bastards who'd be happy to murder a child?
werekoala (anonymous) says…
BigDog:
2 reasons:
1) The right-wing has really pushed for those laws, is why. They do everything they can to make a fetus the same as a human being (and to be honest, after sometime in the 2nd trimester, I agree with them).
2) It also gets down to making a decision versus having it made for you. If you kill a farmer's calf, he's entitled to sue you for the bull he was expecting it to grow into. But if he kills the calf himself, it's still veal, not beef.
BigDog (anonymous) says…
The right-wing is not the only group that is pro-life, just as the left-wing is not the only ones who are pro-choice.
nlf78 (anonymous) says…
First...WE are not the ones to judge. There is only One that can pass judgement.
Second, it's a woman's RIGHT to choose. We cannot make the decisions of every person in this country. It's not realistic or moral to choose for someone else.
werekoala (anonymous) says…
BigDog:
Sorry, you're right. I meant that to refer to the social-conservative right wingers (which is the major political force pushing these laws)
Editing for clarity aside, I stand by my points.
BigDog (anonymous) says…
Posted by nlf78
First...WE are not the ones to judge. There is only One that can pass judgement.
***************************************
LMAO ....... nlf78 are you new in here? just asking because i can't say that i haven't seen a day on hear when someone isn't being judged ...... especially politicians
BigDog (anonymous) says…
Posted by nlf78
First...WE are not the ones to judge. There is only One that can pass judgement.
***************************************
LMAO ....... nlf78 are you new in here? just asking because i can't say that i haven't seen a day on here when someone isn't being judged ...... especially politicians
BigDog (anonymous) says…
Damn ..... sorry for posting that twice
nlf78 (anonymous) says…
I'm just saying...we shouldn't be passing judgement over women who have abortions. No matter our beliefs, it's not our place and I try to keep that in mind everyday. And I hate the smear campaigns going on right now...it's just too much.
BigDog (anonymous) says…
nlf78 ..... I agree with you totally on this issue....
much more could be accomplished if people could take all of the emotion out of the issue (I know that is nearly impossible). I believe there are few people who are really pro-abortion (as some would paint them) but little is accomplished because we never get past the name calling and emotions on both sides of issue.
imastinker (anonymous) says…
Wow - I just wasted ten minutes.
Forget it. All of you are wasting your time. Several good points have been brought up and subsequently ignored.
MyName (anonymous) says…
So there were only 8 of them? If it's that big of a tragedy, shouldn't there be more than 8 protesters?
MyName (anonymous) says…
Obviously, there are an awful lot of people who don't see it as a "dead baby" issue. Otherwise, there'd be more than 8 people protesting.
MyName (anonymous) says…
Or maybe the problem is that they aren't really babies?
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Not another abortion debate!
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"An expecting mother being killed is an immense tragedy, but there is only one person dying."
So, the recent crimes where a mother was cut open and the baby stolen - that really isn't a kidnapping issue then, just murder?
So the murderer's family can keep the child, since it really wasn't a child....
Huh?
Lepanto1571 (anonymous) says…
Marion,
I cite Guttmacher quite often. Guttmacher is an excellent source for abortion figures. I highly recommend whether one is pro-choice or pro-life to have a gander. Just google.
Guttmacher demonstrates that the total number of rape and incest cases amount to 1, max 2%, of all cases.
By my calculations, using 42 million as our start figure and Guttmachers upper number of 2%, that leaves 41,160,000 abortions executed for reasons other than rape or incest since 1973.
For the sake of argument, if I were to cede that abortion remain a legal option for the exceptional cases as Guttmacher has clearly demonstrated, what say the adherents of the rape and incest argument now regarding what is clearly the vast majority of cases?
Lepanto1571 (anonymous) says…
ls04,
If you're rip roaring' crusader for a woman's right "to do with her body as she sees fit," then just bypass, at least you're consistent.
Leprechaunking13 (anonymous) says…
too bad with no abortions the need for foster parents increases and an increase in teen parents, and people who have no right ever to have kids or be able to have kids. if you take away abortion than a standardized test should be handed out to everyone at a certain age and if they don't pass then they should be sterilized so that the world can be rid of they're stupidity
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Welcome to Nazi Germany and China, Leprechaun. I didn't know you were for eugenics.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Godot (anonymous) says…
"It is an issue of women's rights. It is their body, their medical procedure, their choice"
In other words, the issue is just tissue, not hands and feet and eyes and genitals, not a human being with a beating heart, without facial definition, without grimaces and smiles, without movement, kicks and rolls. Just tissue. It is about a growing tumor that must be excised before it manifests its destiny,a mere medical procedure to ease the suffering of the infected individual, nothing else.
If abortion is merely a medical procedure, why does Tiller take photos of the excised tumor with the parents to allow them to have a memory of the tumor?
Why would the parents of the tumor cherish the memory of the murder of their child if they did not have an emotional connection?
Who keeps a photo diary of the excision of their cancerous tissue, and mourn its loss?
Babies are not cancer, they are not something to excise. They are the future. As human beings, we have the innate responsibility to nurture them, and protect them, from the instance they are conceived.
If you value only the present, if you are absorbed with your own welfare, if you have no respect for the future, you kill it, you stamp it out, if it conflicts with your selfish desires.
Visionaries value the worth of their children and hold their protection in the highest regard.
I am not a visionary, but I know that I am more invested in the future of my children than I am in my own, and that my children cherish the lives of their children more than they do theirs.
This is not religion, this is not judging, this is life.
Katara (anonymous) says…
Gotdot wrote: If abortion is merely a medical procedure, why does Tiller take photos of the excised tumor with the parents to allow them to have a memory of the tumor?
~~~~~~
I have a photo of my ovarian tumor. In color. It was huge. Big as a grapefruit. It is an excellent reminder to keep a regular schedule of check-ups.
Kids used to bring their tonsils & appendixes (appendices?) to school as souvenirs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Godot wrote: Who keeps a photo diary of the excision of their cancerous tissue, and mourn its loss?
~~~~~~~~~
Many women keep a photo/written diary of their recovery from breast cancer as a testment to their strength and ability to survive in face of a crisis. Other cancer patients do the same.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An abortion is a medical procedure. You cannot argue that. An episiotomy is a medical procedure too. Both of them can be necessary in order to save lives.
You are perfectly free to make decisions about your body, Godot. No one has forced you to have an abortion just as no one has forced you to carry a child to term.
And because you got to make your decisions, you need to respect the decisions of others to decide what is going to happen with their body even if you don't like it.
Porter (anonymous) says…
Lepanto,
The Guttmacher website did have some interesting stats. I couldn't find the part that claims:
"Guttmacher demonstrates that the total number of rape and incest cases amount to 1, max 2%, of all cases."
Where is this on the website?
Thanks.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
I paid for three abortions as an undergraduate in late 60s, early 70s.
Before you right-to-lifers go into high spin, be advised that two of the girls peremptorily announced - without asking my opinion - that they had already determined to have an abortion. They were 19 and 20; we were not in love, and neither of them had any intention of carrying and giving birth to a child at that time in their life. There was no discussion.
The third girl was a friend who found herself in a fix with the guy in the wind; she also positively, absolutely had no intention or inclination to carry or have a baby at that time in her life.
Not long ago, after one of these abortion chew-the-fat on the LJW, I called two of the girls - grandmothers both now - one in Austin, Texas and the other in a suburb of Minneapolis. Both said exactly the same thing: while they regretted what they had to do, it was the right thing for that time in their lives. There was no guilt or shame; one woman said she was concerned early in her marriage because of rumors that abortions often resulted in infertility, but she got pregnant in less than a year, and had three more children after the first.
The bottom line is, despite your clinging to Judeo-Christian, patriarchal concepts that you probably are not even aware of in your intellectual - and I use that term gingerly - makeup, it is women who make decisions inre abortion. And rightfully so.
Lepanto1571 (anonymous) says…
Porter,
--"1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest"
The Center for Bio Ethical Reform:
Available at: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fast...
--"About 13,000 abortions each year are attributed to rape and incest." [.992% if one uses the 1.31 million abortion figure of Guttmacher in 2000.]
Alan Guttmacher Institute, Alan Guttmacher, Facts in Brief: Induced Abortion, 2002. "Abortion Statistics"
Avaliable at:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A090450...
(NOTE: Does anyone know if this is worldwide or just a US statistic?)
Katara (anonymous) says…
Marion,
Aren't you the one who claimed to be acquainted Bob Berdella?
http://www2.ljworld.com/forums/storie...
And you talk about the company Xenophonschild kept...
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
We are over populating the damn planet....Everybody against abortion please line up and be euthanized.....i and my wife do not have children, we do not plan to have children....And we will not have children....You want kids....When they become 21 kill your selves....Allow a over strained planet a break.....thank you, and I hope you die a painless death.
Katara (anonymous) says…
Wow, that was pretty mean rednekbuddha. I've been accused of being mean but that was definitely mean ;)
imastinker (anonymous) says…
Kelly Powell - that post was mean.
So you're saying that because the planet is overpopulated we should start euthanizing our population, starting with babies and ending with people who are pro life?
Probably better you and your husband don't have kids.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Marion:
Thanks. Got a hearty chuckle from your earnest indignation - a good way to start the day!
You're too smart to believe such nonsense, though. You must be reading from a prepared script.
Lifesupport (anonymous) says…
larryvillian writes: "anyone who feels strongly against abortion and speaks out against it should be required to adopt. if you are so concerned about the loss of these potential people, perhaps you should take care of some of them yourself. why don't you folks come up with a solution before you pass judgment?"
I have news for you.
1) Pro-life people have been adopting babies and caring for their mothers all along. We do have a solution and are willing to help anyone experiencing a crisis pregnancy. We pass judgment on the act of abortion as being wrong but not on the individual who gets one.
2) Pre-born children are not potential people; they are people in an early stage of development.
3) There are around a million abortions each year. There are at least that many couples waiting to adopt an infant in the United States. There is no shortage of people wanting to adopt a baby. Some resort to international adoptions because the waiting list for US babies is longer.
4) Pro-choice people have an equal obligation to adopt children since adoption is a choice a pregnant mother can make. They should be as supportive of adoption and parenthood as they are of abortion. Most abortion facilities do hardly anything to help a woman who does not choose abortion. If you look at a Planned Parenthood annual report, you will see their adoption referral rate is abysmally low. One I looked at showed 80% of pregnancy tests ended in abortion. That seems abnormally high since the remaining 20% of tests are divided between being negative, the mother choosing to keep her child, and adoption referrals in descending order.
Lifesupport (anonymous) says…
xenophonschild writes: "Abortion is not murder, it is not even a social tragedy. It is ridding a pregnant female of a nodule of cells in her uterus, period."
I suggest you watch abortions at different stages of pregnancy. I suggest you look at the recognizable body parts that an abortionist pulls out of the mother's vagina. I suggest you look at the birth of an intact fetus whose skin was burned by saline solution. Yes, those pictures and videos are real. Yes, the testimony of former abortion workers is real. If you still do not believe it, spend a week in the room where abortions take place and see for yourself up close. If that is too much for you there are excellent videos, books, and 4D ultrasound images on fetal development. You will see that a pre-born baby is not just a nodule of cells in her uterus.
Abortion is both murder and a social tragedy. Two abortion facilities in the South recently closed because of their medical mismanagement. One in Florida took a 23 week fetus that the mother birthed in their recovery room and put the struggling baby in a biohazard bag on the roof of the clinic so the police would not find it. Another facility had a staff person (no doctor present) give a mother RU486. A week later she gave birth to a six pound nearly full term infant who died. These two babies were not just a nodule of cells. Abortion is not just another medical/surgical procedure; it is the deliberate taking of another human life which deserves protection.
staff04 (anonymous) says…
19 year-old college girls who have never had a high-risk pregnancy should not be the spokesperson for the movement.
Leprechaunking13 (anonymous) says…
and right wing middle aged men shouldn't be allowed to decide if a woman can abort her pregnancy
imastinker (anonymous) says…
Would you rather talk to my aunt - who was told by doctors that unless she had an abortion she only had a 50-50 chance of living through the pregnancy? Her husband is a doctor too by the way.
She had a little girl who is now five.
I don't believe she even considered it for a minute.
rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…
imastinker....i suggest we allow people every opportunity
to kill themselves.....blood sports,dueling(call me a woman again and we may have a problem)tiger baiting, etc,etc.....We should also make birth control mandatory.....A person should only be allowed to breed after they filled out the proper forms and passed a serier of common sense test.......Personally I believe the earths population needs to be cut by 35%......since my WIFE and me have not added to the populationwe are less deserving of the attention of the wandering killbots that would be around in my reality.
MyName (anonymous) says…
>There were folks prosecuted after the Second World War for having conducted "medical procedures" which, by the laws then in place were perfectly legal.
Hey Marion, haven't you heard of Godwin's law?
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
or it's more useful counterpart:
"once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress."
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Against abortion? Don't get one.
opinion (anonymous) says…
logicsound04,
So by saying that a fetus (defined, in humans, as the term between 8 weeks to birth) is not human, do you believe that it can be killed anytime up until birth?
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Yet again comparing abortion to the Holocaust. Disgusting, Marion.
MyName (anonymous) says…
Hey Marion, this threads over. There's nothing useful left to say, and you've "lost" the end of the thread muckfest.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Yes, I was writing about something disgusting, Marion--your habit of comparing a woman's CHOICE to the Holocaust. It's highly offensive.
Against abortion? don't get one.
janeb (anonymous) says…
Posted by MyName (anonymous) on November 4, 2006 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Marion, this threads over.
This thread and others like it will never be over as long as women use abortion as a birth control method rather than keeping their legs together or taking responsibility for their actions.
MyName (anonymous) says…
>This thread and others like it will never be over as long...
The point is that if you're resorting to a boring, overused crutch like the Nazis, then you've clearly run out of useful intelligent things to say and should just stop posting on this particular thread.
I'm sure you all can start a new thread about Nazis when Kline and the rest of the idiot right-wingers (the only real facists running for office, BTW) get booted out of office Tuesday night.
Katara (anonymous) says…
3) There are around a million abortions each year. There are at least that many couples waiting to adopt an infant in the United States. There is no shortage of people wanting to adopt a baby. Some resort to international adoptions because the waiting list for US babies is longer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a statement that I have a problem with. They want to adopt a baby, an infant. But who is out there now waiting for a set of loving, caring parents? Children older infant stage.
Are those children any less deserving of having a family because they are not in the brand new to the world stage?
What about the kids with disabilities? Any less deserving?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And Marion, if your story is indeed true, then my heart hurts for the miscarriage your loved one suffered.
A fetus that weighes 500 grams (approximately 1 1/3 lbs) is in the 3rd trimester and thus outside of any area that an abortion would be considered except in instances of danger to the mother.
I have yet to met a pro-choice person who would advocate a woman having an abortion at that stage. I'm sure there are some out there but most are not & the issue of abortion does not center around 3rd trimester babies.
You are most certainly free to think of me as a horrible person or whatever but it is when people like you interject their personal tragedy to a discussion that has nothing to do with the situation you describe, it makes rational discussion difficult at best and is entirely inflammatory and only serves the purpose to force your beliefs on those who do not share those beliefs.
Using your personal tragedy to prove your point on abortion just shows what type of person you are. You are willing to take something so tragic and cheapen it.
I seriously doubt the mother is even aware that you are using HER tragedy on a public forum. You are sick to do so. Splashing her grief on a public forum so you can get a reaction.
Well, you got at least one. You are a sick, unstable person who thinks nothing of the person who is the only person who is truly affected by any discussion about abortion - the mother.
Any post that has anything to do with women's issue, you cheapen & defile with your postings. You like to make innuendo and what you consider sly, clever comments on how you "enjoy" women.
And now you even take a woman (who you claim to love) and throw her grief on a public forum just so you can have the last word on a public debate.
To quote you, "you are sick and i hope that if there is a hell that you rot in it."
Katara (anonymous) says…
And your next post just proves my point that you are willing to cheapen your loved one's experience.
xenophonschild (anonymous) says…
Thank the abstraction which is god for beer; need to get your vision blurred reading this tripe.
Like Tycho said: If you're against abortion . . . don't get one.
janeb (anonymous) says…
logicsound04 said
The uber-conservative right-wing zealots don't like the fact that women are having sex.
My response now that I have stopped laughing is, I believe in sex , love to have sex, made up a few new moves for sex and have sex all the time, but by god EVERY child that came from sex was kept and nurished and saw it through to the end. When I decieded I was no longer willing to do this I had a procedure done to myself so I wouldn't get pregnant anymore. I think that was a better choice than having a fetus sucked from my uterus in luie of responsibility. Try another staw logicsound, because that one doesn't wash.
Katara (anonymous) says…
I apologize to all of you for my tirade.
The inability to have children hits home for me now. I have children but am unable to have anymore even though I would like to. A very thoughtful and kind poster hooked me up with a very helpful link last night that had info on some medical issues and I guess it brought up something I thought I was over.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marion is typical of a man trying to use something that while he may grieve over, he truly will never understand the depths of grief a woman experiences when losing a child that was wanted.
It is one of my issues with the pro-life groups that have the men calling the shots.
While I welcome men's input to the discussion of abortion, it has and always be a woman's issue as she is the one who will bear the consequences of her decision for the rest of her life whether it be positive or negative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@ imastinker,
I want to address the point you bring up about your aunt.
She got to make the choice about whether she wanted to continue her pregnancy. That is what it is all about.
She chose to potentially risk her life to bear a child. No forced her to have an abortion. No one took the decision away from her to do what she decided to do with her body. She had a very positive outcome (mother & child both survived & obviously okay)
and that is something that should be celebrated but it does not mean that you or any other person gets the right to take away that choice over your body even if the outcome is not the one that you desire overall.
Katara (anonymous) says…
@ janeb
You had the choice to make your decision the way you saw fit.
You don't have the right to make that decision for another woman.
BTW, if you had your tubes tied as your sterilization choice, it is not a guarantee that you could not get pregnant again.
Just as having a vascectomy for a man is not a guarantee that he could not get his partner pregnant.
You make a huge assumption that the majority of women are having abortions for the purpose of birth control (meaning it is their sole method).
And you are making a huge assumption that it is irresponsible not to carry a pregnancy to term and care for the child (as if getting pregnant is a punishment for having sex).
In many cases, I would argue that it is irresponsible for a person to carry a pregnancy to term that they know darn well that they cannot care for.
If you want to bring up adoption as a solution, I think it could be argued by some, that adoption could be equally irresponsible because you are gambling that someone else will adopt that child & care for it.
The many children in our foster system tells you that theory is flawed. All those children were infants at some point and they were not adopted. Some were taken away from parents that could not care for them (drugs, mental illness, etc).
And they still sit in a system and are considered "damaged goods" by some potential parents.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Marion, please keep up with the offensive posts. Your foaming ranting and yelling do nothing to sway the beliefs of others (yours shouldn't even be considered). All they do is get you one step closer to being blessedly kicked off this forum so we could be rid of you.
Patriotman, don't even start with me tonight. I'm not in the mood. That "queen" remark really pissed me off.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Katara (anonymous) says…
My children weren't the ones having a "serious" medical issue that demanded a trip to the hospital, Patriotman.
If my children were ill enough to warrant a trip to the ER or hospitalization, you wouldn't find me here posting about articles & boasting about it.
If you are concerned about my medical issues in reference to children, you can take a trip over to this thread...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/nov...
And if you need some more info on PCOS, I'll be happy to post some links for you.
Katara (anonymous) says…
And as for the correct reference to my comments that you wish to post...
Posted on November 3 at 1:45 p.m.
Agnostick,
You're finally get a sense of humor. Don't get too upset that I rejected you. I'm straight and you're not. It's ok, you are who you are.
Wendt/HGA,
Guess where I was today?
kumc.................doh!!
On Evangelical leader resigns amid gay sex allegations
to which I responded...
Posted by Katara (anonymous) on November 3, 2006 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seeking some psychiatric help there, Patriotman?
to which you responded..
Posted by Patriotman (anonymous) on November 3, 2006 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wendt/hga/katara
Actually I was there with one of my children. Very serious, do you find humor in that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This thinking that I am HGA makes me think you have some very serious issues, Patriotman.
I am very much trying to take it in the same way you post crap to Tychoman (i.e. you think it will push some buttons & provoke a reaction) but I suspect you honestly believe it to be so.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
Katara (anonymous) says…
No, Patriotman, I'm not proud about the manner in which I said it (in reference to my remarks about Marion's post) which is why I apologized.
One has to merely look at your comments to realize the type of person you are and your ability to piss a lot of people off.
If you are proud of all of your comments to posters, you are the one who has issues.
I, in no way possible, can come close enough to be the hateful being you portray yourself to be.
Katara (anonymous) says…
"Fished in."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is amazing how you are so in denial, Patriotman. Have you ever considered that you are the one being played?
Hope that adds to your paranoia (oh wait, was that mean?).
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
You're giving him too much credit, Katara. I wouldn't even call him a person. More like a thing, or singularity (something whose existence serves no obvious purpose and can't be explained).
Katara (anonymous) says…
works like a charm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Patriotman, I have to agree with you 100% on that. Have a pleasant evening!
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Yet another derogatory homosexual remark directed at me by Patriotman. That's what, 7? 8?
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Q: Why did Patriotman lose his account (yet again)
A: Because he's an irritating j@ckass!
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
"Well, all of the pro-lifers have stopped posting."
Good, maybe they have all gone back to RCT where they belong.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
RCT?
Tequila all around!
janeb (anonymous) says…
Posted by logicsound04 (anonymous) on November 4, 2006 at 7:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Try another staw logicsound, because that one doesn't wash."
--------------
janeb,
You failed to address the issue. Why is an abortion considered "irresponsible"? Or more to the point, why is it that women must live by YOUR standard of responsibility.
Women that have abortions are being responsible--they are choosing to avoid a child that they have neither the means nor the will to raise. They make this decision in spite of being told they are going to hell and in spite of the immense psychological pain that comes with an abortion.
Don't try to act like abortion is "the easy way out for women who have no sense of responsibility" because that isn't truthful. They just don't meet your holier than thou standards of morals
abortion is murder. If someone gives birth and beats a child to death you would beamong the first to say "give him what he deserves" yet you defend women who do not take percautions as those who have the right to kill. I cannot recall the poster who said (in a previous discussion on this topic) " inevitabally it is the womans responsibility to use percausions" I agree with that. All men need are feet and they are gone if they choose. Women using abortion because they fear economic ramifications is nothing less then personal gain and therefore selfish.
janeb (anonymous) says…
I would hope a murder had some remorse although many don't. They say these women hear their child's cries in the night- well deserved as far as I'm concerned. These women priortize their own wanyts over that of their chidren and for that they are selfish. Speaking as a Mother there is nothing that I have or want that is more important than what my children need or want. That is not a morality issue rather it is instinctive, any woman who lacks such instinct should keep their legs closed.
roger_o_thornhill (anonymous) says…
"We are repelled by the governor's insistence that she is personally opposed to abortion, while she consistently opposes every measure designed to regulate the procedure," said Katy Cortese, a sophomore from Des Moines, Iowa, and president of KU Students for Life.
--Does that mean that a person cannot acknowledge that they are not the end-all when it comes to what is best for a country of individuals? Can someone not say that they do not themselves believe in the consumption of alcohol without saying that nobody should be allowed to consume alcohol?
How many KU Students for Life have a house full of adopted, unwanted children? Whose gonna step up? Put their money where their mouth is?
Sorry, I sometimes forget that govt. is a human invention chock full of human foibles. Just as piecemeal as everyone's lives. Do this. Don't do that. Don't ask why. Never, ever try to understand. Accept what you are told blindly.
janeb (anonymous) says…
Life begins at conception so there is a baby, yopu must be a man if you do not recognize this fact. oh yes you can throw terms such as zygot and fetus around but one day they will come back to haunt you.
roger_o_thornhill (anonymous) says…
Speaking as a Fictional Character...
janeb (anonymous) says…
therein is where the problem lies. It is a life unless of course you are carella deville.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Guys this was dead last night. Let it die.
janeb, you mean Cruella de Vil.
janeb (anonymous) says…
patriotman was correct; woman all the way through.
janeb (anonymous) says…
what
wrong
OMB
did
you
forget
to
taper
?
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
"patriotman was correct; woman all the way through."
Excuse me?
prospector (anonymous) says…
enforcer
make
sense
no
janeb (anonymous) says…
Posted by Tychoman (anonymous) on November 5, 2006 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"patriotman was correct; woman all the way through."
Excuse me?
I have excused you multiple times and can no longer accomodate.
janeb (anonymous) says…
OMB you were banned and it is only a matter of time before the JW staff figure you out.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
I was asking if the "woman all the way through" was referring to me or if you were just shouting to the wind again (as is your habit as of late).
janeb (anonymous) says…
You seem to think you have the superior mind here yet you cannot understand a one line post. Priceless.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Just answer the freaking question.
janeb (anonymous) says…
Asked and answered. Move on.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
No, it really wasn't.
carolannfugate (anonymous) says…
Moira get a life and leave Jane alone.
janeb (anonymous) says…
Don't need any help with this one. I plan to ignore It for the rest of the day.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Carolann, my beef isn't with you and I'm not Moira. Butt out.
Then ignore away, jane, you're the one who started baiting me.
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
In 1973 the American Supreme Court ruled that Americans' right to privacy included: "the right of a woman to decide whether to have children, and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that decision without state interference" ("abortion"). The Constitution says we have a right to privacy, so taking away a woman's chance to make decisions about her own body violates that right.
Pretty simple - abortion is not murder - abortion is legal
janeb (anonymous) says…
Blah Blah the Supreme Court. The same fools who upheld the death penalty and approve of eminent domain...................................................................
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
"Don't need any help with this one. I plan to ignore It for the rest of the day."
Please do so we can continue with an intelligent discussion.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
"Oh yeah, the Supreme Court, what do they know? Higheset court in the country, supposed to be the most qualified people looking out for the welfare of the citizens." janeb thinks she's more qualified to be on the Supreme Court? Okay, wow, that made me laugh out loud.
moxxie_mama (anonymous) says…
I'm amazed that for those who claim to be pro-life, that pro-life stance ends at birth. Women need to be able to make the choices for themselves. Women can and do die giving birth right here in the USA. So why is the value of a few cells placed over the woman's right to her own life?
Being pro-choice IS far more pro-life than the anti-choicers would like to believe. Their arguments are always surrounding God, but yet, (if you believe God plays a direct role in your life) God himself causes more dead babies in miscarriage than does abortion. There are some anti-choicers who even think ectopic pregnancy should be considered abortion. That is an almost sure death for the mother and the child. But some others say "oh ectopic pregnancy doesn't count. " Why not? Why is it different because thousands of women every year have to have an ectopic pregnancy removed to save her life? Why is it different if the woman is suicidal? Doesn't it all end up with the same thing? A dead mother and a dead embryo. 2 deaths instead of one.
janeb (anonymous) says…
Tsk, Tsk now that wasn't nice ssems there is a lynch mob theory going on. No one can speak unless they agree with the baby killers. Too bad I oppose you.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Aaaaaaaaaand with yet another allusion of abortion to "killing babies," I am out of here. I have better things to do with my time. Janeb, you have fun trolling, filling these boards with your rabid messages and shouting to the wind.
Valkyrie_of_Reason (Kathy Getto) says…
innocuous_posts:
That is strange - I don't quite know what to think as they all seem to have it in for this Tychoman. What gives?
janeb (anonymous) says…
Posted by moxxie_mama (anonymous) on November 5, 2006 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm amazed that for those who claim to be pro-life, that pro-life stance ends at birth. Women need to be able to make the choices for themselves. Women can and do die giving birth right here in the USA. So why is the value of a few cells placed over the woman's right to her own life?
And every two seconds a woman is beaten by her spouse, sometimes to death. If a man beats a pregnant woman to death he is charged with 2 murders.
So is it murder or not?
roger_o_thornhill (anonymous) says…
Abortions for all! (boo) Very well, no abortions for anyone. (boo) Hmmm. Abortions for some, minature American flags for others! (yea)
moxxie_mama (anonymous) says…
You should tread very carefully JaneB, if you want the law to pass on a conviction for two murders, you'd better keep the abortion argument out of it. We all know that it's very dangerous to assign personhood to a fetus- that is why there is a fight against the law, but we also realize that it's important for a woman's right to choose to KEEP her child if she wants to as well. This doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing.
And I hope the lawmakers are watching. They should know to write that law so people like you won't use it to do damage to pro-choice positions- which would very likely result in a removal of the 2 murder laws.
moxxie_mama (anonymous) says…
Janeb's comment in other words, "if you don't think and feel like I do, you don't deserve to decide your own life". Reminds me of a letter to the editor that I saw today from a fundamentalist christian who said in other words 'if you don't vote for God, don't vote at all".
It's kindof scary that all these fundies think that their opinions on how everyone should be should be made law. I'm not trying to pass a law saying you should get an abortion, so stop trying to pass laws that prevent me from saving my own life.
And as we've also been shown this week, those who judge the most, often are hypcrites.
janeb (anonymous) says…
If a Fetus is viable in Domestic violence and vehicular hommicide than the Fetus should be viable in any stage of prgnancy and frankly I could care less if the double murder law doesn't stand so long as women on a whim can kill an unborn child.
This too should apply to the Death Penalty if life has so little value that a woman may choose to kil her unborn child then anyone who kills showed be free from the Penalty of Death for murder.
Kavorcian was Jailed and persected because he chose to assist those with terminal illness; a free choice to die. Yet the same people who condemned him for his part in assisting rational adults cry from the highest mountains that abortion is not a crime.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
janeb (anonymous) says…
I m not religious. I am not nor have I been affiliated with any church for many years. This is not about reigion it is about life.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
janeb: If they had survived a birth process, then yes, those would have been babies.
Thanks
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
Katara (anonymous) says…
@ JaneB
I don't think you understand what viable means. A fetus cannot be viable in all stages of pregnancy.
Viable means that a fetus (or baby if you prefer) can survive outside of the womb (with or without medical intervention). The earliest a fetus has been considered viable is 22 weeks (I believe) which puts it in the late 2nd trimester.
Now what does Roe v. Wade say about this? Hmmm. States have the right to restrict abortion once viability is reached.
Viability is also one of the reasons prosecutors can charge someone with a double murder if a pregnant woman is involved. If the baby would have been able to survive outside the womb (independent of the mother) then you have a way to charge a defendant with another murder.
You have a lot of nerve stating that woman have abortions on a whim. Isn't that trivializing the whole issue? You can't have it both ways.
BTW, Kevorkian should not have been prosecuted. People have the right to choose when they die.
As for saying that pro-choice people didn't support him, I'd like to see your evidence to support that statement.
And I might remind you. You had the choice to bear you children. No one forced you to and no one forced you to have an abortion.
It is sheer arrogance on your part to assume that you should benefit from the freedom of making your choice and then deny another woman her freedom to make a choice on what is best for her.
janeb (anonymous) says…
I will give you this agnostik you do believe in killing straight across the board.
janeb (anonymous) says…
@Kantra indeed I do know what viable means and perhaps you should visit the neo natal unit at KU med center.
I know a young man who started out pretty rough. His mother started going into labor at 28 weeks. The mother spent the majority of her pregnancy in and out of the hospital. Was forced to cut back her work hours and eventually remained in the hospital with her labor being stopped amost daily while receiving steroid injections. The boy was finally born at 33 weeks into gestation and he was quite small. Just over 2 lbs in weight. ( if you can fathom it there were babies in the neo natal unit even smaller than him) He remained in the unit for weeks after his Mother was discharged from the hospital. His Mother visited him every day even though she could not hold him. His Mother had to place ice packs on her breast so she would stop making milk as she was unable to breast feed him. His bellyrubin was low and he was Jaudiced. Guess what he survived.
Yes I know what Viable means and because of this experience I also know one can will viablity. Love is a very powerful thing Kantra, just ask my 6 ft 210 lb son.
janeb (anonymous) says…
Tsk Tsk grail you shouldn't attack those who have defended you. It is simply bad manners.
moxxie_mama (anonymous) says…
Janeb, the word is bilirubin, not bellyrubin. Viable does not necessarily mean they'll be disability free either, the younger, the more struggle they'll have. 22 weeks is extremely early, every week gives more chance of survival with less chance of permanent disability. Merely breathing does not make a good life. And that is something the mother should decide for herself whether or not she wants to try to give the child a chance (based on her own knowledge of her situation).
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"I will give you this agnostik you do believe in killing straight across the board."
_____________________________________________
If you mean to ask, whether or not I am in favor of capital punishment... well, yeah, I am.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
janeb (anonymous) says…
No I do not think "killing across" the board is over the top.
Let's recap
Abortion- yes
Death Penalty -yes
assisted suicide-yes
Kill all p[itbulls- yes
Kill their owners-yes
War-yes
I believe the Poster I referred to has clearly outlined killing is acceptable.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
roflmao!!!!!!
Here's a family photo... Father's Day.
http://www.punkstuff.com/done/leather...
In addition to the usual family problems of blood splatter, uncontrolled rage, stabbing her teddy bears etc., our daughter also struggled with the evil bilirubin during the first few days of her life. Thankfully, the expensive "light treatments" were staved off by daily doses of good ol' natural sunshine! We had "nude sunbathing" in front of the dining room window for four or five consecutive mornings, and the bilirubin numbers just plummeted!
Important thing to remember for those that wish to do this at home: You need filtered, indirect sunlight! We used an east-facing window with the venetian blinds *fully closed.* Strip yourself down, strip the baby down to the diaper, and just do some light cuddling next to the window.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
HGA writes:
"Go ahead!!! Ad Hominem will make you feel better.
"Try 'Nazi' or 'NAMBLA supporter' (That's popular).
"'Libtard' is a bit 'yesterday' but it will entertain your conservative friends who can't spell or avoid getting bounced from the forum."
_____________________________________________
(S)He/It/They went with "dog killer." Add hominy attacks work much better when you can drag in subjects completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
Whelp... time to go oil up the chainsaw... lots of kitties to squish today! :p
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
janeb (anonymous) says…
If you must stoop to such levels. I prefere to stay on topic and discuss the related issues rasther than attack othe posters without cause. Some prefere the other manner but it simply shows they are unarmed in debate. Abortion is murder no matter how you dress it up and the law will change one day.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Eliminating abortion through legislation will ultimately prove ineffective--it will merely drive the practice "underground," back to the days before "Roe v. Wade."
Abortion cannot be totally eliminated.
Abortion can be significantly reduced through education and adequate birth control measures.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
janeb (anonymous) says…
If a woman gets a backstreet abortion and dies it then becomes devine justice for her selfish act. Iam all for ( and have posted) the need for sexual responsibility but some simply will not take measures to prevent unwanted pregnancy. These are the women who create the controversy we now argue. After the abortion issue is respolved we can move on to Child molesters, Stalkers and the Christian Right.
prospector (anonymous) says…
Devine
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001145/
Devine Texas
http://www.devinetx.com/
Whose justice? Docter enforcer's?
DOPES
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"janeb"...
What "justice"--"devine" or otherwise--do you propose for women who are impregnated during an act of rape?
What about young girls impregnated by sexual molestation?
I understand that these do not represent the majority of women who choose abortion, but they are out there.
What choice would you make, if you were raped and impregnated? What choice do you think your daughter would make? Do you think you could control the choice she makes?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
75x55 (anonymous) says…
My.
I do wonder about the stability of some people around election time.
Breath deep, folks.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
janeb (anonymous) says…
Adoption
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
And you think "adoption" should be the option for all women, regardless how they feel?
Do you think you're qualified to make that call for them?
janeb (anonymous) says…
I believe life is more important than wants or convience. Being qualified has little to do with one making a choice not to kill. But if we are asking about qualifications; exactly what makes you qualified to say it is a matter of choice and not morally wrong? Has a spirit come to you and said' Hey agnostik tell the worls it is ok to kill unborn children after all they are just zygots and fetuses" The qestions you ask me you should ask of yourself as well. There arre always two sides to an issue and the questions should be asked and answetred on both sides. Lioke I said I am not religious but I was raised with a sense of right and wrong. That being said I have been told all my life killing is not right. Yet then there seems a myriad of loopholes to this. What gives is it right or wrong to kill?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
I don't believe there is a clear-cut, definitive answer to that, janeb. I believe violence for the sake of violence is wrong. Will I stand around and weigh these things out and ponder them when a violent individual is making a move towards me, or a member of my family? Yeah, I'll spend @ .00045 seconds weighing my options; then, I'll kill in self-defense, or in defense of my family.
Not everyone is raised with your values and beliefs. You may choose to save every baby you can--that's great, more power to you. No spirit has come to me and asked me to make value judgments for other people. People have to decide for themselves, and face the consequences when they make decisions that result in harm to others.
I don't agree with abortion for "convenience." I think abortions should be very rare... very regulated... and very *legal*.
I will not dictate moral judgments upon another person, so long as that person's choices don't put me or my family at risk.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
janeb (anonymous) says…
I guess what pains me so about the whole issue is that there is so much information out there today and people don't use it. When I was young there weren't so many options. Todays youth are those most educated yet the most haphazard in regard to sexual reponsibility. Look at the Richardson case. Grown women, educated women yet no ne took any percausions to protect themselves. With all the options at their disposal why is abortion the #1 form of birth control in society?
crispysyn (anonymous) says…
Politics in itself is a very funny animal. Most all of the candidates don't really give a care about the people they are "serving." They get elected to office and use that power not to better the state or country and do what is right for all people, they only do it to fulfill their own agendas. Whoever gets into political office will serve themselves only. Who are they to turn their views into my laws?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
"With all the options at their disposal why is abortion the #1 form of birth control in society?"
_____________________________________________
You don't **really** believe that one... do you?
What statistics have you to back up that claim?
How could anyone even begin to keep track of such a thing?
As to the education, options, etc. I can't argue with you there. The sad thing about it, though, is that...
1) There's a fear that if you give kids information about sex... they will use that information and have sex. Which leads to...
2) The withholding and disruption of sexual education from children. Parents keep kids in the dark at home, and/or try to keep the subject out of school curriculum.
I don't have a problem with promoting abstinence, so long as there's a safety net of accessible birth control.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
Lifesupport (anonymous) says…
logicsound04 writes: "Citing sensational images does not change the science, lifesupport. Though it may tug at your heartstrings when you think about a fetus as a child, it is still just a fetus. It is NOT a human at an early stage of development; that would be an infant. These are not examples of why abortion should be outlawed, but rather, examples of why it should be regulated."
What makes a fetus less human than the rest of us? Location? Size? Appearance? Dependency? Infants are different from adults in all those respects but we still call them human. At the cellular level, the fetus has 23 pairs of chromosomes like the rest of us humans.
Countless times Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation have fought even basic health and safety regulations of their businesses. Abortion is the least regulated surgical/medical procedure in the country. Why PP and NAF do not want to clean up their own act is beyond me. I do not even hear a condemnation of filthy clinics and egregious cases from them.
logicsound04 writes: "At any rate, you say "birthed" in reference to a 23 week fetus--that isn't even into the third trimester, so I feel that the use of the word "birth" is misleading and sensational. Just like the rest of your post."
Since when did birth apply only to the thrid trimester? The mother was given a drug and told to come back the next day. She arrived at 9:30 am and was still waiting for the doctor at 2:30 pm. She went into labor and through the uterine contractions the baby was pushed out between her legs. Except for the fact that the mother was given a drug to terminate her pregnancy, that little girl was born the same way as most other babies. Perhaps, you are uncomfortable with the term because it does not fit your agenda of making a fetus less than human but it was a birth nonetheless.
Lifesupport (anonymous) says…
Katara writes: "The many children in our foster system tells you that theory is flawed. All those children were infants at some point and they were not adopted. Some were taken away from parents that could not care for them (drugs, mental illness, etc)."
I work with children in the foster care system. The ones who are in foster care at an early age and available for adoption find homes easily. Not all children enter foster care as infants; for some it does not happen until they are teens.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Got out of your hole early today, huh Patriotman?
My daughter was born via C-section, btw...
And yes, I still support a woman's right to choose... and I support rare... regulated... legal abortion. :)
Not a "hatecrat"... just "common sense."
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
moxxie_mama (anonymous) says…
Least regulated?..actually it's regulated exactly the same as other clinics, as it should be. Doesn't that say something strange about the fact that you and I are more likely to go into a clinic for a back surgery than to go to an abortion clinic, are you saying that you'd rather the abortion clinic be held to a higher standard? That's ridiculous. I love how people throw out their own made up stats to try to back their own points.
And Janeb, if you think women deserve to die because of a traumatic pregnancy, well lady, I'm glad I don't know who you are. You are obviously very uneducated and very judgemental to the point of wanting women to die. I pity you that you have so little empathy for a living breathing feeling thinking person, but want to protect something with no ability to think. You are a gleaming example of the backward thinking of the rabid antis. Oh and abortion isn't the number 1 method of birth control either, another convenient misinformation.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Evening, ladies and cads. Miss me? of course you did. a few things:
Agnostick, that remark about squishing kitties today made my day. Keep it up.
janeb: for the love of God, learn to spell. You're a grown woman. Also, calling a woman dying because of a botched abortion "divine justice" sounds like grounds for getting banned---AGAIN. Keep it up.
Everyone else: Against abortion? Don't get one.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Now c'mon, Patriotman... you know I laugh at extremist rhetoric like that.
Lots of things happen to that "lump of cells" over an eight-month period. Things that couldn't possibly take place outside the mother's womb.
Who's up for a compromise on this?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Okay, so then, following your line of thinking...
50 years from now, if a woman has a miscarriage... will some neo-fascist, Bible-thumping DA like Kline charge the woman with "involuntary manslaughter?" For a miscarriage six weeks into the pregnancy?
Enquiring minds want to know...
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Perhaps the expression 'willful act' might satisfy that "enquiring mind".
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Ah, but if "life" truly begins at conception... when the cells first begin to divide... and it's already "human" at that point... what's to stop a power-hungry theocrat?
Here's a thought...
http://www.amazon.com/Handmaids-Tale-...
http://www.amazon.com/Handmaids-Tale-...
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
carolannfugate (anonymous) says…
I see the imps have come out again. Have you people no life at all but to barbeach other? Let's get real about the personality diffrences and keep it out of the conversation. I assume you will al find out who is correct in the end.
mrmoth (anonymous) says…
Marion, you have the right to call it murder as soon as science makes it possible for a fetus to sustain itself outside the uterus. Any other qualification you wish to put on it are born of your faith, which you can kindly keep the @$%# out of my government.
Clearly we've all heard the murder argument before. No one is going to be swayed that hasn't been by now.
If you think abortion's bad, anyone who's been through basic biology will tell you that our ecology isn't going to be able to sustain much more life, and when that happens, you'll find starvation, illness, and pestilence will be far more cruel than any abortion doctor. And lest you believe differently, you may count on Cristians and Pro-Lifers dying in the same numbers as everyone else. If you want to protect the sanctity of life, learn to control the size of the population.
I know, I know. The science section was left out of the Bible so therefore, it must be wrong.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
dum-dee-dum-dum...
Comments are frozen
Comments are no longer accepted for this story.