Archive for Saturday, January 19, 2008

Roe v. Wade takes a toll

January 19, 2008

Advertisement

Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court unilaterally struck down state laws restricting abortion, the cost of that decision continues to increase our moral deficit, which will have far greater (and eternal) consequences than the impact from economic challenges during a possible recession.

Depending on how one counts the number of abortions per year since 1973, more than 50 million people who might have been are not. These were people who, regardless of the circumstances of the women who carried them, had the potential to contribute to the country and to the world. But now they cannot, because they are not. Would we be fighting the battle over immigration had we not rid ourselves of a generation of humans who likely would have done the work for which we are now importing illegal aliens? Actions have consequences.

Roe and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, took the question of endowment of life by "our Creator" and placed it in the hands of individuals. History has shown what happens when humanity seizes such power for itself: political dictatorships, eugenics and scientific experiments unrestrained by any moorings to a moral code. Each becomes her and his own god; each becomes a taker of life, rather than a giver, inverting the creation model into one of destruction and transforming the pregnant woman from life-giver to life-taker.

The social restructuring unleashed by the judicial fiat that was Roe created a cultural fissure that remains today. We moved quickly from acknowledgement of a right to live, to assertions of a right to die.

Abortion on demand cannot be seen in isolation from social breakdown. In 1973, near the end of the Vietnam War and the approaching resignation of President Nixon two years later, the focus on self, pleasure and convenience by Baby Boomers was at its height. Marriages easily dissolved as "no fault" divorce laws were passed; cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births were on the rise; "unwanted babies" became an impediment to the pursuit of pleasure and material gain.

Abortion was not a cause, but a reflection of our decadence and deviancy. One does not begin to kill babies until other dominos have fallen. And once they have fallen, it becomes difficult to set them aright because to do so would require an admission of something so horrible that those responsible for this fetal holocaust would have to acknowledge their sin and repent of it. Such a thing is not a character trait of this most pampered generation.

In recent years there have been signs that things may be - if not turning around - then moderating. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, abortion numbers have declined steadily since 1990, from a high of 1.2 million annually to fewer than 900,000. This is due, I believe, to the unrelenting commitment of the pro-life movement and what appears to be a growing pro-life consensus among many women who reject the cavalier attitudes about life displayed by their mothers' feminist generation.

Hollywood has infused a pro-life subplot into films such as "Juno" and "Knocked Up." Might the "old-fashioned" become the new fashion?

Politicians and judges could help bury Roe by requiring that pregnant women receive complete information about the nature of the life within them, including being required to view sonograms before electing abortion.

After 35 years of slaughtering our young, isn't it time to stop? That child born in 1973 could be a parent now. There are children who could have been born today. Thirty-five years of killing has diminished and corrupted us all. Let's summon the moral courage to stop it for our sake : and for theirs.

Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.

Comments

Ragingbear 8 years, 6 months ago

Good one. Cal Thomas is trying to save our souls.

Kinda like sending an arsonist to go put out a fire.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 years, 6 months ago

Cal only cites the part of the study http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan... that fit his narrow views. It looks like many women get abortions, so they will be able to take care of the their existing children. Of course, if you suggest that our tax dollars should go towards helping these women with daycare and protecting their jobs during maternity leave or helping them get a better education, he would start ranting about welfare queens. And it will be interesting the next time he rants about immigrants stealing jobs from Americans, since here he claims there aren't enough Americans to do these jobs. He really needs to have someone proofread his columns so he isn't so inconsistent.

grtnrse 8 years, 6 months ago

You can have great debates on the moral issues of abortion. But I think that something missing here is the misconception that making abortions illegal will stop abortions from happening. History tells us that is simply not true. Even though unplanned pregnancies do not have the same social stigma of 30+ years ago, there will always be pregnant women who are desparate and will find any way out - it will simply force it back where there is no regulation or oversight. This is a women's health and safety issue as much as anything.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 years, 6 months ago

Too bad we can't get a more accurate number of illegal abortions (pre RoevWade) that have a occurred in an equal time period. I'd bet the number would be close to the same, but there would have just been more dead women. Of course, for people like rt, that would have been justice. Abortions, legal or illegal have been going on for centuries. And if you would read the full report http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan... of why many abortions occur (Cal only cites a small part of it, surprise, surprise), then maybe you could do something to make these women's life easier, so they could make a different choice, instead of wasting time to make laws against abortion that is going to and has happened anyway, legal or not. The time and money spent on trying to make abortion illegal could be spent on making sure women have free daycare.

Kathy Theis-Getto 8 years, 6 months ago

What a simpleton Thomas must be to believe that we would not have an illegal immigration problem had those abortions not occurred. But, one must make the lies simple to keep the sheeple in line.

Kathy Theis-Getto 8 years, 6 months ago

Agnostick:

Robert F. Kennedy said, "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

Just a few traits of the extremist:

Character assassination Name calling and labeling Irresponsible sweeping generalizations Inadequate proof for assertions Advocacy of double standards View of opponents and critics as essentially evil Manichean (bipolar) world view Advocate some degree of censorship and repression of their opponents and critics Identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are Tendency toward arguments by intimidation Widely use slogans, buzzwords and thought-terminating cliches Claim some kind of moral or other superiority over others Doomsday thinking Tendency to believe that it is justified to do bad things in the service of a supposedly "good" cause Emphasis on emotional response, as opposed to reasoning and logical analysis Hypersensitivity and vigilance May claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions Inability to tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty Groupthink Personalization of hostility Assumption that the system is defective if they don't win

standuporget 8 years, 6 months ago

Group think Personalization of hostility Assumption that the system is defective if they don't win 2000 & 2004

profwriter 8 years, 6 months ago

Until the Cal Thomas', Mike Huckabee's & Jeff Barclay's of the world adopt every unwanted/unloved crack/meth baby, every neglected/abused minor & every child stricken with severe mental illness/psychiatric disorders they're nothing more than self-righteous, hypocritical, arrogant, narcissistic manipulators.

Their regard for women -- and children -- is such a perfect match to the malignant mindset of men considered among the most dangerous enemies threatening our beloved country; the Taliban.

Perhaps lobbying for burka laws is how such men would celebrate overturning Roe vs Wade...surely the solution to any impregnation resulting from rape!

The Bible was not intended to be used as a weapon.

Ragingbear 8 years, 6 months ago

Pro-lifers need to watch Idiocracy. While funny, it is also scary. Think about it, then think about how much worse it would be if people who didn't want their kids didn't get abortion. Would be 50 times that amount. Humans would devolve into goblin thingies.

Richard Heckler 8 years, 6 months ago

Sex education might not be a bad idea. No one knows for sure when that moment of having sex may occur. Typically young people do not call home to check with parents it just happens.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control.htm

Birth Control

For 90 years, Planned Parenthood has served women and men who want to decide when and whether to have a child - who believe that every child should be wanted and loved. Since 1965, when Planned Parenthood won the right for all Americans to use birth control, family life has improved in many ways. The maternal death rate has fallen more than 60 percent. The infant death rate has declined by more than 70 percent. Birth control not only saves lives - it helps women and their families prevent poverty, plan their futures, and take charge of their destinies.

Every year, 85 percent of women aged 1544 who don't use birth control during vaginal intercourse become pregnant. Although the only guarantee against unintended pregnancy is to not have sex, using birth control can reduce your risk of pregnancy from vaginal intercourse. To decide which method to use at this point in your life, think about the answers to these questions:

* How well will it fit into your lifestyle?
*  How convenient will it be?
* How effective will it be?
* How safe will it be?
* How affordable will it be?
* How reversible will it be?
* Will it protect against sexually transmitted infections?

Teens may also want to visit teenwire.com®, the award-winning Planned Parenthood website that gives teens honest and medically accurate information about sexuality and relationships.

Planned Parenthood believes that becoming a sexually healthy adult is an important part of adolescent development. We also believe that maturing adolescents can learn to make healthy decisions, foster communication skills, develop meaningful relationships, and express affection, love, and intimacy in ways that are consistent with their personal values. And we believe that adults play an important role in supporting young people during this time.

missbee 8 years, 6 months ago

What an old, tired op-ed piece. I guess the new twist is blaming abortion for illegal immigration. Clever. Can't the J-W fill its pages with anything more relevant to what's going on in Lawrence?

Gina Bailey-Carbaugh 8 years, 6 months ago

Wasn't there an article just the other day about "Americans love kids" and how the US population has had a 'baby bump'. So, despite the horrendous number of abortions, seems we are procreating at higher rate than other nations. While, I feel an abortions shoud be a personal choice and the person should have appropriate medical care. I take issues with those done for convenience and as a means of birth control.

1029 8 years, 6 months ago

I can believe there is even a debate. We're all going to burn in a fiery hell for living in a society that has slaughtered so many innocent babies. One of those babies could have been the next Jesus. Stupid liberals.

1029 8 years, 6 months ago

Let us all summon our moral courage and protect those who can't protect themselves. This world and life is only temporary and we shouldn't be so concerned with what is good and bad for society and the planet.
Plus, there would be more tax dollars coming in, no social security crisis, and a larger, stronger army if all those babies hadn't been murdered by liberals. We'd have enough soldiers to take over the entire world and there'd be no more terror.

iplaysupernintendo 8 years, 6 months ago

1029- hah! was that a serious comment???

i think cal should take into consideration all the young women who have HONESTLY been raped (sometimes even by a family member,) and should not be forced to carry an un-wanted child full term.

think about a young woman (maybe even your daughter,) who has been raped by her uncle, (maybe your brother)... how do you feel about YOUR daughter carrying this baby full term?

janeyb 8 years, 6 months ago

"Would we be fighting the battle over immigration had we not rid ourselves of a generation of humans who likely would have done the work for which we are now importing illegal aliens? Actions have consequences."

Damn so all those aborted humans (?) would be mowing our yards, cleaning our houses, babysitting our chldren, washing dishes in Mexican restaurants. That is one of most asinine statements I have ever read.

janeyb 8 years, 6 months ago

Change that. Second most asinine statement I have ever read.

Dollypawpaw's above statement beats it.

denak 8 years, 6 months ago

It should be noted that if Roe v Wade is overturned, that does not mean that abortion would be allowed in this country. What it means is that abortion loses protection as a FEDERAL right. The question of abortion will then revert back to a state decision as dictated under the 10th amendment. The individual states will decide on whether or not abortion should be allowed and under what conditions and restrictions.

Secondly, contrary to Merrill post, Griswold v Connecticut did NOT give contraceptive access to ALL people. Only to married couples. Unmarried couples did not have the right to contraception until Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972.

Third, the fall in maternal death rate has more to do with the invention and availiabilty of sulfa drugs and penicillin than contraception.

Fourth, the majoirty of abortions are not done on victims of rape, incest or for maternal health. The last statistic, provided by Planned Parenthood, that I saw attributed these three causes to less than 2% of all abortion planned. Which means that the majority of abortions are those that are done because they are "not planned" "unwanted" or whatever euphamism you want to use. If you are having sex, and you aren't using birth control, then you will get pregnant. To bolster abortion by saying that "85 percent of women between 15-44 will get pregnant" is a "duh" argument. It is the natural function of the female body to get pregnant if the woman is having sex and not using contraception. If you are having sex and you get pregnant, then it is hypocritical to then whine and say that the child was "unplanned" You had sex. You didn't use contraception and pregnancy resulted. Guess what, it was planned. Lastly, it is hypocrtical for those who are "pro-choice" to say that abortion should be legal until all the "pro-lifers" adopt all the "unwanted" children in the world. Well, what are you doing? Considering the number of children waiting to be adopted in this country, I think it is safe to say that both "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" are failing our children in this area. Neither side has a monopoly on doing what is right for our children. Whatever, the reason for this, the issue is too complex and too important to be reduced to mere political platitudes.

Dena

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 years, 6 months ago

Well, lets see how many people were prevented from being born, because of birth control, probably well over 50 million. Do you mourn everytime she has her period? Another potential person down the tubes? Do you freeze your sperm? These are all potential babies too. Do you only have sex to get your wife pregnant. I guess she is not going to have much fun after she goes through menopause. Bummer for her. If people like Sanger hadn't fought for our right to birth control, we would still be just barefoot and pregnant or dead from having too many pregnancies. I can tell you that you men wouldn't be getting any.

janeyb 8 years, 6 months ago

How many times in recent years have mothers drowned their children, pushed a car into a lake with children in it, smothered their children? Some women are not meant to be mothers, but their church says you are evil if you don't want children. You must stay at home, breed lots of children, home school them, teach them to pray to a cardboard George Bush. The preacher's wife had it right a couple of years ago. She just shot the husband.

Killing an infant is terrible. A mother drowning her child in the bathtub is terrible. What does that have to do with a legal abortion?

jumpin_catfish 8 years, 6 months ago

50 million and how many great leaders or inventors or scientist or just good folks have been lost. This many abortions is a national tragedy of which I for one mourn the loss of these innocent lives. Fewer unwanted pregnancies is a goal that our society must target . Thanks mom for thinking I was worth a shot at life and all it holds!

Terry Jacobsen 8 years, 6 months ago

Janeyb wrote: Killing an infant is terrible. A mother drowning her child in the bathtub is terrible. What does that have to do with a legal abortion?

The only diffrerence between a legal abortion and someone killing a 2 yr old child is time. The outcome is the same and the child is a child in both cases.

freeordie 8 years, 6 months ago

What, there isn't enough people running around? So what. Viva Roe vs. Wade!

Ralph Reed 8 years, 6 months ago

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Anonymous) writes ...

Agnostick:

Robert F. Kennedy said, "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

Just a few traits of the extremist: (and then follows a long list of traits. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan/19/roe_v_wade_takes_toll/#comment_503096


An excellent list Valkyrie. If people will notice both sets of extremists have come out to comment today, liberal and conservative. All one has to do is to read everything above my post (and probably following it).

People are going to have sex, whether you like it or not. That means there will be "unplanned" pregnancies (apologies to denak (anonymous) who posted above, http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan/19/roe_v_wade_takes_toll/#comment_503243). This means without the ability to terminate a pregnancy, there will be many more unwanted and poorly raised children in our country. Now, if this is what you wish, then more power to you. I would rather not see more unwanted, abused, malnurished, poorly treated children.

I don't know how many of you have adopted a child or children, but the checks, home visits, background checks, credit checks, unannounced drop-ins, and classes prior to the adoption taking place are worse than any security background check. I propose that people be required to undergo such an examination before then receive a license to have a child. This will limit the number of unwanted and 'unplanned' children. Further, that if a couple has more children than they have licenses for, then they should be penalized. If they can't raise the child properly, then the child should become a ward of the state and the "parents" should be held responsible for all costs of raising the child through the age of 18.

It's simple really, make it legally difficult for people to have children and the number of "unplanned" pregnancies should go down.

As a final comment, one poster above mentioned coitus interruptus (I'm not sure who). This implies he/she/it is a man. Have you ever thought about a vasectomy? That simple operation would take care of that problem.


I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

Tom McCune 8 years, 6 months ago

The world is a better place without 50 million more mouths to feed. If this world ends any time soon, it won't be because it is laid waste by a passive-aggressive God, but because we destroyed it through a bunch of environmental problems driven by over population.

Tom McCune 8 years, 6 months ago

About a year ago, one of my friends suffered a stillbirth. This was a full-term 9-month pregnancy for a couple that really wanted a baby. However, the fetus just would not come to life, despite the best efforts of the doctors. As devastated as this couple was by the situation, this was not >legally< a human life. No Certificate of Live Birth was issued by the state and it could not inherit property or get a Social Security number. Legally, in this country, a human life begins when a live birth occurs.

Obviously, it would be better if abortions only happened when medically necessary. However, if we don't do something major about the environmental problems caused by massive overpopulation, I doubt there will be any human population at all to be worried about.

Tom McCune 8 years, 6 months ago

In response to both Marion and enforcer, I would not recommend that anyone be able to compel anyone else to have an abortion.

Erin Parmelee 8 years, 6 months ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says:

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children:"

Why is this framed as something negative? Without getting too deep into the debate here, using a quote like this to suggest that women are not entitled to sexual gratification outside of the intention to pro-create seems rather archaic. As a female I can say without reservation, my goal is always gratification--not baby making, and I make darn sure it stays that way, but I am certainly not ashamed of that postion, nor should any woman be.

Ralph Reed 8 years, 6 months ago

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Anonymous) was correct when he/she wrote above about some of the traits of an extremist.

If you take the time to read most of the posts above, they use broad generalizations, slogans and appeals to the emotional. Nothing substantive has been said.

I proposed a solution that might satisfy both sides of the argument, yet nobody wants to reply. However, this is an example of how our society exists today. It's always an SEP and as long as it's not in my backyard I don't have to worry about it. Who else has a possible solution that doesn't throw slogans, isn't vitriolic and isn't ad hominem? Anybody?

In case you're wondering, I do not like abortion. However, I will not tell someone what they can or cannot do with their body. I will not counsel someone against getting an abortion nor will I try and convince someone that they should get an abortion. I will tell (and have told) them the choice is theirs and they must live with that choice.


I'm me. Who are you behind that hood of anonymity?

Kathy Theis-Getto 8 years, 6 months ago

I believe Ag gave a most reasonable opinion Ralph, and while I do not agree totally with your solution (probably mostly because I don't think it feasible) you have made the best effort here to insert reason into a very emoitional subject for some. Rights are not contingent on externalities and acts of other persons. My position, is that granting full legal personhood to microscopic entities would be not only monstrously unjust to women, but a logistical nightmare. But I am 100% pro-choice. I'm interested in hearing how anti-choicers would navigate the conundrums that would result if they got their wish.

Simply stating "abortion is wrong, because I say so" or listing the "person you might have aborted" hogwash, just doesn't cut it and it certainly does not help us figure out how to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies.

pusscanthropus 8 years, 6 months ago

If abortion was made illegal, rich women would go abroad to have theirs, and infanticide would increase in the other sectors of the population. You can't legislate morality. If a mother doesn't want her child, and she feels trapped, she'll get rid of it one way or another. Sad but true.

Also, please give the source on that quote by Sanger? Sounds taken out of context. I recall that she saw her mother suffer and die from having too many children.

sfjayhawk 8 years, 6 months ago

I love how these so called republicans think government should be in our bed rooms and making choices for women. Where is Barry Goldwater when we need him!!!

Freedom and liberty includes the right of every woman to live free and have choice.

Kathy Theis-Getto 8 years, 6 months ago

pusscanthropus (Anonymous) says:

If abortion was made illegal, rich women would go abroad to have theirs, and infanticide would increase in the other sectors of the population. You can't legislate morality. If a mother doesn't want her child, and she feels trapped, she'll get rid of it one way or another. Sad but true.


This is exactly right and all the more reason to work toward decreasing unwanted pregnancies. How noble of you RT, but your emotional story has nothing to do with the fact that abortion is legal ( a fact, not an emotion), and should be safe and very rare.

Kathy Theis-Getto 8 years, 6 months ago

Not pissing on them, dear, just trying to understand why emotions and the law can't be separated by some. In general, it is much easier to focus our energies on the perceived moral flaws of other people than it is to focus on our own.

marcdeveraux 8 years, 6 months ago

if birth control was legal south of the border we would not have a immigration problem,the world is over populated, cal sees people as a source of cheap labor to keep his rich arse comfy.

Logan5 8 years, 6 months ago

Pro-Choice or Pro-Life -- I would suggest that the two are not that far apart on the issue of abortion itself. Neither of these two schools of thought like abortion. They generally just propose different methods of reducing the number. One by simply making illegal, while ignoring the underlying causes, while the other indorces sex education and birth control as a means to encourage planned parenthood.

How can one truely be against abortion, while also opposing the only proven methods for reducing its frequency?

Kathy Theis-Getto 8 years, 6 months ago

Good post logic. It is nice to read an intelligent take on this subject. I am still waiting for an answer to my query:

"I'm interested in hearing how anti-choicers would navigate the conundrums that would result if they got their wish."

Now, let's try to discuss intelligently and without attacks, shall we? A fetus in NOT a human life, and to reiterate, rights are not contingent on externalities and acts of other persons. Antihoicers might better spend their time finding ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies.

kansas778 8 years, 6 months ago

There is no right to have an abortion on demand in the 14th amendment. The 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is a state issue, and should be decided by the legislative bodies of each state separately. Let it go to a vote, you folks can argue it out there and settle it.

FreshAirFanatic 8 years, 6 months ago

"The social restructuring unleashed by the judicial fiat that was Roe created a cultural fissure that remains today. We moved quickly from acknowledgement of a right to live, to assertions of a right to die."

How right Mr. Thomas is. Just look at the posts here...an exact illustration of his well-worded statement.

Isn't it interesting to reflect back and see how we came to where we are today? The WWII generation fought thru the depression, sacrificed many of their own desires to keep the world free and came home determined that their kids not have to go thru the hardships they did. Just like any other parent.

But look what happened. We ended up with the baby-boomers. The first generation who went off to college en mass, were "enlightened" with a "progressive" view of the world and came home questioning everything their parents taught. Hard work, sacrifice, a moral right and wrong, etc. Their parents were not prepared for this view or how to counter it and were probably even a little intimidated by their kids "higher" education. When everything is gray, emotions control decisions and the moral compass is broken all things become permissible.

The decline continues and now we are left to fight against society when raising children instead of using society as a model of what we want them to become.

Erin Parmelee 8 years, 6 months ago

parkay (Anonymous) says:

Let's all start with the admission that the contract killing of 50 million American babies is not a good approach to any problem, particularly since 200 million Americans are on waiting lists to adopt children.

Uh, what???? There are approximately 300 million US citizens currently. Assuming 50% of them are male, that would mean approximately 150 million American women--so how is it possible that there are more American women waiting to adopt than are currently in the US populace? Interesting "statistic"--where'd you pull that one from?

(edited as I just noticed another poster caught this as well, but still, come on!)

Gina Bailey-Carbaugh 8 years, 6 months ago

americorpse- Where in the bible does it instruct priests how to perform an abortion? Give the book and verse, please. And, I take issue with people (you) using prayer or a prayer circle as some sort of faith weapon against people who don't agree with your idea of what is right. Pray for your own soul.

Erin Parmelee 8 years, 6 months ago

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

Erin aren't you glad your dear mother chose to give birth to you rather than terminate the pregnancy? LOL

I have no opinion on that, as I'm pretty sure if she had aborted me in utero I wouldn't have known about it, as I would have never been born. That is a pretty silly question.

denak 8 years, 6 months ago

The weight of the baby in utero is one the determining factor on whether or not the state charges someone with murder . If the child weighs less than 500 grams, then the state more than likely won't charge the individual with murder. If the child weighs more than 500 grams, then the state has the option to charge the person with murder. To put this in pounds, that is a baby that weighs 1.1 pounds. The definition of a micropremie is a baby that weighs 1-2lbs. These babies can be saved. They have the potential to grow up to adulthood and many of them do. They are not blobs. They are in fact living human beings in utero or out.

There is no "hypocrisy" in the law regarding this. As in a lot of cases, the law simply hasn't caught up with the science. However, the law recognizes the child as a human being after this determining fact.

Dena

Tom McCune 8 years, 6 months ago

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.

Exodus 21:22-25 (New Standard Revised Version)

The Bible is clear. The unborn fetus is the personal property of the father, and not a human life.

jonas 8 years, 6 months ago

"These were people who, regardless of the circumstances of the women who carried them, had the potential to contribute to the country and to the world."

And the potential to contribute to the further destruction and downfall of the same. Who knows.

Paul R Getto 8 years, 6 months ago

"Baby killers?" Inflaming the public with code words is part of the drill, folks. Abortion is a painful, private decision which should be available, but rare. If the pro-life side didn't work against good education and birth control, it would make things more rational. This is a good example of an issue that should be private, not a matter of public policy.

Kathy Theis-Getto 8 years, 6 months ago

"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt

Kathy Theis-Getto 8 years, 6 months ago

Newell_Post (Anonymous) says:

The Bible is clear. The unborn fetus is the personal property of the father, and not a human life.


Well! This puts a whole new twist on things, doesn't it?

fairylight 8 years, 6 months ago

I always am amazed by those who scream 'baby killer' and other remarks meant to inflame who do not have one bit , on iota of understanding what PRO CHOICE really means.

I am and have always been PRO CHOICE. I do not like abortion, and I do feel it is akin to infanticide. HOWEVER Pro Choice means I have the right to decide if and when I become a Mother. It means I have THE RIGHT to bring to term ( If I so choose) a damaged fetus. It means I have the right to have a child even tho I have no husband. It means I have the right to CHOOSE tubal ligation or Birth Control pills. It means I have and will fight for MY RIGHT OF CHOICE in the matter of my body. IT means I have the right to choose an abortion if that is what I , thru counsel and reflection CHOOSE is right for me at that time. It also means I have the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to birth a child at a later date.Being PRO CHOICE means I have the right to make these informed decisions based on my moral, my health , my religion( ?). PRO CHOICE MEANS I have the right to NOT HAVE AN ABORTION if I choose. No one can tell me I have too many children already. No one can tell me I am ugly and therefore unfit to have a child that may look like me, or that I have no right to have a child as it may develop diabetes. Pro Choice is something women must realize works both ways and God help us if we are forced to give it up. EDUCATE you daughters, yourselves so that you don't ever find yourself having to CHOOSE if abortion is right for you. That's the key to this. Education ,

"americorps (Anonymous) says:

Actually, Kath, most pro-choice do not say that and most pro-choice are not pro abortion.

But you are a known liar, why should today be any different, you never will be a person of honor because of you are a liar, not worth your weight in anything."

Ralph Reed 8 years, 6 months ago

Valkyrie_of_Reason (Anonymous) writes:

"I believe Ag gave a most reasonable opinion Ralph, and while I do not agree totally with your solution (probably mostly because I don't think it feasible) you have made the best effort here to insert reason into a very emoitional subject for some."


VOR, I re-read AG's post and I agree. My comment was a rather broad brush.

I do feel though that most, but not all, of the comments have in fact degenerated into name-calling and so on. Few seem to be interested in offering solutions to a problem, which is a shame.

I wonder which side of the argument many of the people above would be on if the subject were different; legislation making illegal the possession of handguns by private individuals.


fairylight (Anonymous) writes:

"I always am amazed by those who scream 'baby killer' and other remarks meant to inflame who do not have one bit , on iota of understanding what pro choice really means. ..."


Good post fairylight. I would add this to your opening sentence (quoted). This applies to both sides of the argument.


I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

denak 8 years, 6 months ago

I would like to respond to fairylight's posts. Fairylight starts her posts with a condemnation of those who inflamatory remarks such as "baby killer" to describe those who have a different opinon of abortion than those who are pro-life. She is right. There is, in my opinon, no need for this type of language. It is, as stated by others, counterproductive.

However, fairylight, then makes the same mistake by brushing all those who are pro-life with the same brush. As if, those who are pro-life, are all cookie cutter individuals.

As someone who is pro-life, I happen to believe that contraceptive is an invaluable tool. Not every person who is pro-life is "anti-contraceptive." However, I firmly believe that if you engage in sexual intercourse, that you take care of your responsibilities BEFORE you get pregnant. If you are going to have sex, you take the neccessary precautions. If you are too embarrassed to go to the health department or the store to condoms or birth control, then you are too immature to have sex. If you are too ill at ease with your partner to talk honestly and openly about STD's, HIV and the posibility of pregnancy, you shouldn't have sex with this individual. It is that simple. If you don't use contraception, and you get pregnant, this isn't a mistake. This isn't an "unplanned" pregnancy. You meant to get pregnant. The option then is not to abort the child because of your immaturity. Take responsibility for your actions. If you don't want to raise the child, give the child up for adoption. Yes, I know there are cases where birth control fails. I have a 16 year old running around here that was a "oops" pregnancy. However, I did not abort him just because I was single and he was "unplanned" I took care of my responsibilities. That is what being a responsible grown up is. And if case, you think that it is teenagers getting the majority of abortions and also having children out of wedlock, you are wrong. The majority of women are in there early to middle 20's. Which is what I was. I have all the compassion in the world for a teenager who is pregnant. As do I for the victim of rape or a mother who has to choose between her life and her child's life. However, I don't believe that this is a federally protected "right." This should be a medical decision between the mother, the father (provided that they are married) and the medical doctor.

denak 8 years, 6 months ago

Secondly, as a parent of a child who is visually impaired, I strongly object to the rationalization that a child with a disability should be aborted. My son is blind. Just because a person is handicapped or "deformed" does not mean that that person is without worth. Given the amazing advancements in science,medicine and education, people who are born with handicaps or deformities, can depending on one's problems live with a certain quality of life. Not always but things that we thought were impossible are now possible. So, the prospect of a "deformed" child is not in my mind, a justification for aborting the child. Are there truly tragic cases where it is a very anguished decision for the parent(s) yes, there are. However, the majority of abortions are not abortions where the child is deformed. It is a normally developing pregnacy.

As far as family planning, I agree with fairlylight. Family planning is a fundemental right in that the government, or anyone else, does not have the right to tell the couple--or even a single woman--how many children they (she) should have. If they want to have a vasectomy, or a tubal ligation or take pills or have 13 kids, it is up to them. That is thier buisness. I also, firmly believe that education is paramount. I think it is irresponsible for parents (and the schools) to teach anything other than comprehensive sex. education.

My objection to abortion stems for one absolute fundemental belief in the dignity and sanctity of human life. From conception to natural death, I do not believe that anyone else has the right to determine whether or not someone should live or die. And most certainly, the determing factor on whether or not a child should be born, should not be whether or not a child is "planned."

Dena

Gina Bailey-Carbaugh 8 years, 6 months ago

Americorpse, it is truly sad that you actually belief all the rhetoric you spout in here. I never forced anything I believe on anyone. You cannot say the same. A true, worthy Christian would not belittle others and call them liars. Your arrogance is your undoing.

Ralph Reed 8 years, 6 months ago

denak (Anonymous) writes: " ... However, I don't believe that this is a federally protected "right." This should be a medical decision between the mother, the father (provided that they are married) and the medical doctor."


Just read both your posts Dena. Well said. I especially like what I've quoted above. The only comment I have is that the father should be part of the decision, regardless of whether they're married or not. What if the couple has been living together for years? Shouldn't the father have some say? Or should he be considered simply a sperm donor? I've been there and had no say in the matter. It's no fun at all. I would have raised the child as a single father.


I'm me. Who are you behind your hood of anonymity?

Erin Parmelee 8 years, 6 months ago

enforcer (Kathy Gragg) says:

Abortion is the easy way out of responsibility. Abortion is not a substitution for sexual responsibility. I'm not sure what else to call people who would slap a wad of cash down to terminate a pregnancy other than " baby killer", I mean after all the baby does die & abortion is not a natural act it is a surgical procedure.

If that's truly the way you feel then perhaps instead of tossing barbs my way, you should talk to your good buddy about her abortion history. Personally, I've never put myself in the position to even need to consider one.

fairylight 8 years, 6 months ago

I did not imply a child with needs or disability should be aborted. I stated that being PRO CHOICE means just that, I can choose to birth a child that others may counsel to abort. It was not my intent to paint all pro life or pro choice people with any brush, let alone the same brush, lol.

denak (Anonymous) says:

Secondly, as a parent of a child who is visually impaired, I strongly object to the rationalization that a child with a disability should be aborted. My son is blind. Just because a person is handicapped or "deformed" does not mean that that person is without worth. Given the amazing advancements in science,medicine and education, people who are born with handicaps or deformities, can depending on one's problems live with a certain quality of life. Not always but

bunnyhawk 8 years, 6 months ago

Can someone help me understand how Cal and friends' position on women's right to choose distinguishes them from the Muslim extremists they are so eager to erase from the planet? Extremism is extremism regardless of the religious cloak it chooses to hide behind. Limiting access to abortion is about controlling the lives of women, plain and simple. And from the looks of things, Georgie Poo and his neo-con posse can't even control their own lives, so maybe they need to shut up and leave us girls alone!!!!! Can't the LJW find a conservative comentator who isn't an ignorant idiot???? oh well...........maybe not!

ImTooOldForThis 8 years, 6 months ago

Conservatives and liberals should all just stop all the BS, didvide the country in half (conservatives to the west thank you very much) and just have a big, gigantic, f**k all civil war that kills everyone. Problem solved.

Screw pro life and pro choice. Im sick of da both of yas.

On a side note I love marzipan as well.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.