Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Protect unborn

April 23, 2010

Advertisement

To the editor:

I am grateful that the governor of Nebraska has signed into law a bill barring abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

With the medical technology we have today that allows us to see inside the womb, there is no doubt babies in the womb are alive and certainly human, with a heartbeat and brain waves just four weeks after conception. At 20 weeks, the preborn child is a fully developed human being who can live outside the mother’s womb.

I question what kind of a society we have become that we would allow and tolerate the destruction of an innocent human life. How can this be justified on any level?

The supporters of abortion on demand will say our laws allow it, but that still does not make it right. It is an evil law, and I am glad that there are those out there who have sympathy for the unborn child and are working to protect them and fight for their rights.

Thank you, Gov. Heineman and the Nebraska Legislature, for what you are doing to change the law of the land to favor the child in the womb.

Comments

Richard Heckler 4 years, 8 months ago

Because child rearing is such a major task for any parents why not demand public education beginning at 14 years of age as prevention. Education can be prevention.

While the number abortions are down, abortions have been performed throughout history whether supported by laws or not.

Why isn't more focus on prevention. There is more to prevention than being outraged about two humans engaging in the perfectly natural act of sexual intercourse. This is not likely to stop anytime soon.

Birth control allows us to prevent pregnancy and plan the timing of pregnancy.

* My Method
* Birth Control Effectiveness Chart
* Abstinence
* Birth Control Implant (Implanon)
* Birth Control Patch (Ortho Evra)
* Birth Control Pill
* Birth Control Vaginal Ring (NuvaRing)
* Birth Control Shot (Depo-Provera)
* Birth Control Sponge (Today Sponge)
* Breastfeeding
* Cervical Cap (FemCap)
* Condom
* Diaphragm
* Emergency Contraception (Morning After Pill)
* Female Condom
* Fertility Awareness-Based Methods (FAMs)
* IUD
* Outercourse
* Spermicide
* Sterilization for Women
* Vasectomy
* Withdrawal (Pull Out Method)

People have used birth control methods for thousands of years. Today, we have many safe and effective birth control methods available to us.

All of us who need birth control want to find the method that is best for us. And each of us has different needs when choosing a method. If you are trying to choose, learning about each method may help you make your decision. Use the list of birth control methods above to read about the methods.

Only you can decide what is best for you. And we are here to help. A staff member at your local Planned Parenthood health center can discuss all of your birth control options with you and help you get the birth control you need.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 8 months ago

Let's treat our young people like the intelligent human beings that they are by way of discussing publicly in class at say age 14:

Categories

* Abortion
* Birth Control
* Body Image
* Emergency Contraception (Morning After Pill)
* Men's Sexual Health
* Pregnancy
* Relationships
* Sex & Sexuality
* Sexual Orientation & Gender
* Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)
* Women's Health

Put these matters on the table of discussion instead of treating the matter as taboo. PREVENTION of pregnancy should be the motivation. Our children are not stupid people.

All the governor of Nebraska did was create one more law which is not education.

jafs 4 years, 8 months ago

For Karyl and the two above commenters,

I assume then that you are also pro various social programs to help women and their families once the children are born.

KSManimal 4 years, 8 months ago

Ms. Graves,

Will you step up and help assure that moms & babies in poverty get the prenatal care they need? Will you step up and help assure that those kids get a quality public education? Will you step up and help assure that those kids have the health care they need?

I'm guessing not. My observation is that most people who claim to be "pro-life" are really only "pro-life" up until birth. After that, they don't seem to care much about anyone.

staff04 4 years, 8 months ago

There was a moment this morning when a spam-bot infiltrated the forum hawking counterfeit gucci crap. This was attached as a reply to that comment but it looked like it got zapped!

It might have been funny in context!

4 years, 8 months ago

Yeah, I reported that one in a heartbeat very early this morning, staff04! But I don't remember it being funny in context.

GoodGirl 4 years, 8 months ago

Pro-life until birth - could not have summarized it better. same people are pro death penalty, and claiming Health reform is socialistic and anti-American, not to mention their view of immigrants in this country. I agree guarantee quality public education, quality medical care, living wage - and many more parents will choose to have more kids.

Sometimes abortion is the best decision a woman can do - and it is not an easy one and there are regrets afterwards, I am sure, but we have a choice. Women will do abortions regardless of whether it is legal or not (check on some of Latin American countries that ban them) - because it is a personal choice. It is up to a woman what she will do with her body - and who are we to judge. But I guess if you don't have any sins, you throw the first stone.

mom_of_three 4 years, 8 months ago

I thought the same thing as I read the letter. I am pro-choice. It's the individual's decision and not up to the state or government. I hear lots of people talking about the fetus before birth, but no one seems to give a damn about what happens to it afterward. Oh, there is talk about adoption, but meanwhile, thousands of kids, not babies, are awaiting adoption in the state system and the anti abortion advocates seem to forget about those babies.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 8 months ago

Have you ever tried to adopt through the foster care system? It is a bureaucratic nightmare. For some kids, their parents won't sign away their legal rights...we knew of one family wanting to adopt a little girl and the dad was in jail. The sole reason he didn't want to sign away his legal rights was because by "fighting" the adoption it gave him time away from his jail cell. No joke. Fortunately his lawyer talked some sense into him, but seriously. Do you know how hard that is on adoptive parents? OR how freaking expensive? And when it comes to kids with Native American ancestry the laws are even more asinine. The tribe may first lay claim on the child before they can go up for adoption. We have another set of friends dealing with that now with a child they are trying to adopt. It's been a year since they were given their child and they are still maneuvering legal paperwork. The problem is....until an adoption is finalized the adoptive parents have to keep up on all THEIR paperwork including homestudies etc. etc. AND one has to have quite a bit of money to not only take care of the actual adoption, but all the hassles. It's not that easy....if it was made easier to adopt children in the US I think more people would. Why do you think International adoption became so popular? It was because it was less expensive and easier to do for people wanting to adopt. I have known a few families who have tried foster adoptions..and I never heard of story that didn't end up with some sort of legal issue. Which is difficult on ALL involved.

feeble 4 years, 8 months ago

It's like what, $20,000+ in fees and licensing after various gov't subsidies and credits to adopt these days, right?

LoveThsLife 4 years, 8 months ago

My point is..before you start judging people about not adopting through our foster care system. Analyze the problems of that system. Especially when it comes to it's adoption process. The issue is much more complex than a bunch of heartless superficial jerks walking around not wanting to adopt foster kids.

BigPrune 4 years, 8 months ago

If you are pro-choice, then you should be pro-choice if a parent decides to abuse their child or not, right?

Has planned parenthood ever advocated a woman become a parent?

A total misnomer is that pro-lifers forget about the baby after it is born. That is total bunk and either you know it, or you've been drinking someone's koolaid.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

Has planned parenthood ever advocated a woman become a parent?

I'd be very surprised; and if they ever do I'm sure it's (at best) 1%.

Planned Anti-Parenthood is a disgusting and sickening organization with a racist background, that protects the 'privacy' of rapists and pedophiles and are defiant of all reporting laws that teachers and other providers must adhere to.. Go ahead and challenge me on this; I can give you at least 3 sources to back it up....(I'm saying that to others BigPrune, not you.)

GoodGirl 4 years, 8 months ago

Thats some weird logic going on here. You must have been watching Fox News.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

Has FNC ever reported on Planned Anti-Parenthoods illegal activity? I applaud them if they have. I've never witnessed them reporting that myself.

If that is a 'challenge' though those sources are right at my fingertips............I'm itching to post them.........make my day.......

oldvet 4 years, 8 months ago

Well, it certainly achieved the desired result of decreasing the number of late term abortions in Kansas...

KSManimal 4 years, 8 months ago

No, not at all.

First, my comments weren't "supporting" (or condemning) abortion. How an intelligent person would read otherwise, I don't know.

My point was that those folks who claim to be "pro-life" usually only extend that "passion" until it impacts them personally - financially in most cases.

Ask them to pay a bit more, so we have better quality education and health care - both of which would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies - and they'll have none of it.

They only seem concerned for the well being of children when doing so requires nothing of them other than rhetoric and condemning of others.

denak 4 years, 8 months ago

That is total nonsense. I know quite a few people, including myself, who are Pro-Life and who are foster and/or adoptive parents, who are pro-social services, pro-comprehensive health care and sex. ed and pro-education.

I think the reason so many pro-abortion/pro-choicers keep repeating that "lie" is because it makes them feel superior and it lets them off the hook because they themselves are not doing anything to help these women or these children when they are born. It is called projection.

However, I am going to give the majority of posters on this story the benefit of the doubt, here are the numbers for KVC and TFI. Both agencies hold the foster care contract in this area. They will be expecting your call first thing Monday morning.

KVC:(785) 331-4200 website: www.kvc.org

TFI:(785) 749-2664 website:www.the-farm.org

Dena

SnakeFist 4 years, 8 months ago

A fetus is clearly alive (it certainly isn't dead) and it is clearly human (not, e.g., cat or dog), neither of which is relevant. As you would learn in any intro level ethics class, "persons" are the only things due moral consideration, and it is not at all clear that fetuses are persons. Many argue that the ability to reason defines personhood. We're fortunate to have so many nearby schools that offer ethics classes; KU even offers a class focused solely on abortion. Those of you interested in ethics might consider taking a few of those classes so you can communicate intelligently about the subject.

pizzapete 4 years, 8 months ago

Great idea, lets save everyone that hasn't been born yet.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

Thank you pizzapete...it's good to know not everyone feels human life is completely disposable!

Seth Peterson 4 years, 8 months ago

Murder is legal - so long as the person you're murdering is someone your government has told you to.

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

Fine, as long as they don't completely take away the choice. If you're going to get an abortion, do it ASAP.

ahimsa 4 years, 8 months ago

I suggest that all of you anti-choice people out there find a pregnant woman preparing to have an abortion. Talk her/guilt her into having the baby, and then provide her and any other children she may have with food, clothing, and shelter during the pregnancy. Oh, and cover her and her children's medical expenses too. Once the baby is delivered, adopt it into your home, and raise it as your own. If you are unable to do that, then you are a hypocrite!

All these religious nuts want to make sure the baby is born, but they won't do anything to make sure it is not abused or neglected after it's here. IMO, unless you're ready to adopt these babies, then STFU!!!

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

OR, here's a completely outdated and insane idea...let's encourage character and responsibility. Dare I even utter "abstinence"??

Oh wait...teaching those kind of things is insensitive and probably is a 'hate crime'.

Never mind.

seriouscat 4 years, 8 months ago

The whole point of the letter is point out that as technology advances, the age at which a baby can survive outside the womb is earlier and earlier. There have been babies born at 20 weeks that survived, yet abortion at 20 weeks and beyond is legal. And if the only 'things' due moral consideration are the things that society counts are 'persons' then we need to examine why a 20 week baby counts as a person and one going into the abortion clinic does not. Western white people for years counted anyone brown skinned as 'not persons'. But they were wrong, weren't they?

And to those who mindlessly parrot the myth that the pro-lifers only care about babies until they are born and then abandon them to squalor, take a look in any phone book in any city under the abortion section. Invariably you will find an organization that is designed to encourage a women to choose life, and to help her support that decision with counseling services, baby clothes, diapers, job counseling, education counseling, etc.

In addition, Catholic Charities ranks among the largest private non-governmental charitable networks in the country, serving over 8 million people each year. What have YOU done lately to help the less fortunate?

seriouscat 4 years, 8 months ago

thanks Agnostic, I just want people to spend a little more time thinking and a little less time jerking knees and arguing in circles.

You would probably think I'm nuts about my stance on fertility technology. Powerful people throughout history have consistently rationalized reasons why it's okay to reduce human life to commodity status, and I do think that is where we are heading with fertility and stem cell technologies right now.

SnakeFist 4 years, 8 months ago

A viable fetus has the legal rights of a person because the Supreme Court drew an arbitrary line at viability in an attempt to satisfy both anti-lifers and anti-choicers; it has no basis in logic and no relevance to ethics.

The fact that some persons were denied their moral rights based on morally irrelevant criteria (e.g., skin color), is irrelevant unless you assume that fetuses are in the same position. Are fetuses like tumors (which are alive and contain human DNA) or are they like persons?

Very smart people have been arguing over the issue of abortion for many years and haven't reached consensus; its arrogant to think that you have the answer - you don't even know what the question is.

seriouscat 4 years, 8 months ago

I took ethics too, but I also know how to close the ethics book and open my mind and think for myself. You should try it sometime...I mean how can you expect me to take you seriously when you conflate a tumor with a viable human baby aka fetus? YOU were once a fetus. I don't see any former tumors joining the debate to stand up for the rights of other former tumors.

SnakeFist 4 years, 8 months ago

Well then, with your open mind, tell me one way in which fetuses are significantly different from tumors such that fetuses should have a right to life and tumors should not. You can't say "fetuses are human beings" without defining that term; does it mean, for example, "has human DNA" (which tumors do)? Here's a hint - there is no signficiant difference.

seriouscat 4 years, 8 months ago

Wow.

I don't really see the point of continuing this debate with you when you can't even recognize that the answer to your question is contained already in the previous post.

It's sad to me that kids like you are the people that our institutions of higher learning are churning out into the world and that by and large end up making the top down decisions that affect all of humanity.

This kind of convoluted thinking is the tool that capitalism without conscience has used and will continue to use to justify whatever it is that will advance the relentless march of progress and profits. Where the definitions of virtually everything in our reality can be shifted to whatever best serves the interests of moneyed benefactors of science and technology. Where nothing is sacred and there is no such thing as truth or good or evil. Ain’t no evil out there in world folks! There is nothing but materials; stuff to be manipulated, exploited, and disposed of when it has outlived its usefulness to science and industry. Fetus=tumor, to be cut out and disposed of as medical waste, or sold! as parts to the highest bidder. DNA=information, no more significant than a computer program, to be patented and exploited, sliced and diced in whatever way we want or sold! to the highest bidder. Where mountains and valleys, 2,000 year old trees, genes created by millions of years of evolution, indigenous knowledge passed down hundreds of generations all fall under the definition of ‘property’ to be sold! to the highest bidder and exploited in whatever way they see fit to maximize profits and "progress".

It’s ok though. You can’t help the way you think and neither can I. We are both just following the meaningless insignificant paths that ‘determinism’ has laid out for us.

Good luck in your studies.

SnakeFist 4 years, 8 months ago

So your argument is that I, who am now a person, was once a fetus and therefore fetuses are persons? Do I have to explain the logical fallacy in that argument?

The problem with conservatives is that they have arrogant opinions about things they know nothing about. You believe global climate change is a hoax but have no training in climatology, you believe evolution is false but have no training in biology, you believe socialism is bad but have no training in political or economic theory, and you believe fetuses are persons but have no training in ethics.

seriouscat 4 years, 8 months ago

Yes! Please do tell me. Since you were once a fetus, that didn’t matter but more than a lump of tissue, and are now a person, to be afforded rights; when exactly did the transformation take place from lump of tissue to person? Please do point out to me the logical fallacy in equating you with you when you were a fetus and now you are not that fetus but are a different you. When should we take off the arbitrary label of ‘tumor’ and assign you your new privileged status of ‘person’? I’m guessing that you, in your training, have been taught that only ‘rational beings’ deserve any consideration when it comes to rights.

Peter Singer of Princeton has lots of training. He says we should remove the label of ‘person’ from infants up to one year old. He says that since infants aren’t rational beings they should have no right to life and we should be allowed to abort them too (especially if they are defective). Should we all just be quiet and do what he says because he knows better due to all of his training?

At the same time the weird thing is that these people with all this training, while advocating against the rights of humans who aren’t walking and talking and rational, are the same people who believe speciesism is the new racism and would cry ‘foul’ if someone were taking eggs from an endangered bird to eat for breakfast or aborting snow leopard fetuses for their BS health tonic. They see the extra significance when someone shoots a pregnant orangutan over one that is not.

seriouscat 4 years, 8 months ago

It’s interesting how you labeled me a conservative and proceeded to put words into my mouth about what I believe regarding evolution, climate change, politics and ethics, and tell me I’m arrogant because I have no training in them (I already said I took ethics and my previous post points out where I stand on evolution, but don’t let that stop you from standing firm in your narrow minded assessment of what I am and what I am allowed to hold an opinion about. Obviously your ethics class is better than the one I took, and no conservative anywhere has any training in any of those disciplines). I’m merely calling BS on anyone who equates a fetus with a tumor. The vast majority of people, even most pro-choice people can clearly see that a fetus is our human offspring. That it is one of us, and that an abortion is far more morally significant than removing a tumor. It is you with all your training in your one ethics class who can't understand that shifting the definitions of things doesn't change what they are; it just makes it easier to justify whatever it is we want to do with them.

By the way, white highly trained Europeans didn’t rationalize slavery based upon skin color. Yes skin color and many other factors surely made it easier for them, but the main justification was that they weren’t considered rational beings. They were barbarians; somewhere between humans and animals, and that is why they were reduced to whatever definition was most useful to the elite at that time.

terrapin2 4 years, 8 months ago

So you really think that women are sitting around pregnant and wait until 20 weeks to have an abortion just because it's inconvenient?? Late term abortions are not performed on little teenagers who accidentally got pregnant. They are performed for many health reasons for the mother as well as the fetus. And frankly, it is between the woman and her doctor to make that decision, not the state. Talk about death panels. The decision to have an abortion due to a catastrophic problem with the fetus is not an easy decision to make. How dare you make it sound frivolous. Not only do pro-lifers (who ironically love the death penalty and war) not seem to care about the babies after they're born, they certainly don't care about the health and well being of the mother either. If you equate abortion to murder, then were my 4 miscarriages considered involuntary manslaughter in your view?

ivalueamerica 4 years, 8 months ago

Doesnt mater if they wer raped by their father, they conservatives feel the right to force women to bread.

ivalueamerica 4 years, 8 months ago

If they are forced to bread, I will not be able to make a sandwich without GOP approval.

oops, lol.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

That's completely irrelevant....Planned Anti-Parenthood is well known for protecting incidents of incest, rape and molestation. Pedophiles and sexual predators can breathe easy....

4 years, 8 months ago

Someone has told me about that verse, so I looked for it just for you. But, neither the RSV or the KJV contain the word "abortion" at all.

However, according to Halakah (Jewish moral law), life begins with the first breath. So, in antiquity, abortion was not prohibited. But, in these modern times, it is certainly not encouraged, just as stoning people to death for adultery is not encouraged either.

4 years, 8 months ago

I did find this, good to post in a collapsed state:

"Jewish law is quite clear in its statement that an embryo is not reckoned a viable living thing (in Hebrew, bar kayama) until thirty days after its birth. One is not allowed to observe the Laws of Mourning for an expelled fetus. As a matter of fact, these Laws are not applicable for a child who does not survive until his thirtieth day."

So I guess if your kid is less than a month old and you get tired of him, you can just go ahead and kill him. Then, use Halakah as a defense if the law has a problem with that.

Think the courts would buy that argument on a basis of religious freedom?

4 years, 8 months ago

However, I did manage to find these passages:

Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15).

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

This is what the LORD says—he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you...(Isaiah 44:2).

Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4).

And now the LORD says—he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).

The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-42, 44).

bruno2 4 years, 8 months ago

Obviously, as has been often said, many pro-lifers believe that the sanctity of life begins at conception and ends at birth. Follow the logic of contradictory right wing stances; the mother can die but the baby must be born. Pretty clear here. Or, against abortion and for the death penalty. Also pretty clear. Or, pro-life but anti-taxation for social programs. Go ahead and have that baby, then starve in the streets. Or, against abortion but support our troops and kill the towel-heads. Crystal.

The simple fact is a woman has the right, that's right, the right, to determine what she does with her own body. This extends to whether or not to carry and deliver a child. Given our Judeo-Christian patriarchal society, I wonder if men got pregnant would this even be an issue.

The decision to terminate a pregnancy is never an easy one. Rape, incest, catastrophic deformities, endangering the life of the mother, these are the most basic situations leading to the decision to terminate a pregnancy. However, the bedrock fact is that it is the mother's decision, and hers alone and we have no right to judge her or her reasons.

The tragedies that occurred regularly when abortion was illegal must not be re-visited. I condemn those that seek to limit or end a woman's right to be the master of her own temple. If you don't think abortion is right, don't have one. However, you have no right to legislate your particular choice on others.

What would you do if your teenage daughter were raped?

Kirk Larson 4 years, 8 months ago

Freedom of Choice: It's the American Way! You can't be against abortion unless you support comprehensive sex education and freely accessible contraception. Otherwise you're just lip flappin'.

Kirk Larson 4 years, 8 months ago

A coworker once was going off on, "These people are going to Hell and those people are going to Hell and...". I stopped him with, "I don't know if there is a Hell, but if there is, I'm sure sanctimony and self-righteousness will get you in".

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

fortunately for a lot of liberals, they don't believe in hell.

Deja Coffin 4 years, 8 months ago

I could not imagine aborting my baby after 20 weeks of pregnancy....... especially as I sit here right now at 32 weeks. But I guess that's why I'm pro-life for myself.... as far as everyone else, it's your choice and all I can do is hope that whatever choice is made is done with education and support from someone close to them.

Kirk Larson 4 years, 8 months ago

So if you developed pari-natal diabetes, the placenta was peeling away, you had the choice of aborting or not aborting and losing the fetus and either becoming infertile or dying. What then? Horrific, but possible.

3crookedhearts 4 years, 8 months ago

Billions of potential babies die every day in front of computer screens all around the world.

christy kennedy 4 years, 8 months ago

I don't imagine many women wake up in the morning thinking, 'Hey, I'm going to get pregnant and then have an abortion! No biggie.' but anyone who does think that would likely not be a great mother anyway. Most people who are pro-choice would like, as has been mentioned, for education and health services to reduce the number of abortions that are not a medical necessity as much as possible.

One question for the pro-life commenters: Are you also against the death penalty?

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

Nope...pro-death penalty and proud of it.

An innocent, defenseless human whose only act was being conceived. == Vs.== An adult who freely made choices to destroy others, often brutally. Unlike the 'unborn' they've had their chance and completely blew it.

An unborn baby is no threat to society, a brutal sadistic murdering monster is.

Case closed. (Well...unless you're using the ACLUs twisted and flawed thinking...)

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

so, you'll gladly pay to execute someone who isn't hurting anyone else in prison, but won't pay for a child in welfare who was conceived by a mother who couldn't afford him/her (yet was denied an abortion) and is drawing government payments.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

Yes gladly. So this person is sentenced to life in prison; that means he's not isolated on death row. How do you know he's not 'hurting anyone' -- he's got nothing to lose, he's already a 'lifer' if he kills a corrections officer or another inmate, what's his punishment? He's already there forever.

No, I don't want to pay for a mother who wasn't ready and was being completely irresponsible and took no precautions. You'll notice though that I said "I don't want to" the child shouldn't have to suffer for having a mother with no character or class. Welfare is not always a bad word; that child is already disadvantaged enough, we need to do all we can to help. I prefer prevention over 'saving' though...ideally. At least she was decent enough not to have her unplanned and inconvenient child rinsed down a sink drain.

We may disagree...but I'm very grateful you weren't aborted.

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

Undecided on the death penalty, but probably against it.

  1. It's a lot more costly to taxpayers than prison in the grand scheme of things.
  2. If the person is put in prison without possibility for parole, they are (hopefully) not longer a menace to society anyway, barring the need for execution.

I don't know what that really has to do with abortion (unless you are trying to make a murder connection somehow), but theres my answer.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

Without capital punishment: "they are (hopefully) not longer a menace to society "

With capital punishment: they are not longer a menace to society

When it comes to you, your kids and my life, well-being and peace of mind I don't feel the least bit comfortable with "hopefully".

independant1 4 years, 8 months ago

yup, same ones are out there with candles for those events

independant1 4 years, 8 months ago

my mother in law even attends funerals to pray for people she never met but executions are her fav to protest

Newell_Post 4 years, 8 months ago

The Bible says you're wrong, Karyl. The laws of Moses, included in Exodus 21 and Numbers 5 accord the unborn fetus the status of property, not of human life. Jesus reversed a few specific old testament laws, but not these.

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html

somedude20 4 years, 8 months ago

Happy to see your alive P-cat! When I did not see any of your crypitc writings on the "are you interested in seeing President Barack Obama’s birth certificate?" and knowing what a "BIRTHER" you are,I thought something may have happened to you.

LIFE Alert, Birther control, and bARRY pENDERS liVEs UnprecedenteD

GardenMomma 4 years, 8 months ago

Especially since medical fetal viability is usually termed at between 22 and 24 weeks or when the fetus weighs at least 500 to 600 grams.

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 8 months ago

Hey, I have an idea! Let's protect the BORN person!

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 8 months ago

Thank you Aggie. You made me giggle over my morning coffee and cinnamon bun.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

Well this ALMOST makes up for the actions of Senator Ben Nelson with Obama Care. I'm a little less anti-Nebraska now. (...and I spent a huge chunk of my life there!)

Now....how about this Kansas...make me even more proud of our great state!

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

Abstinence only education does not work.

see: Bristol Palin

The irony in the situation is that anti-abortion people, mostly Conservative, I'd say, advocate for abstinence-only education while ignoring the fact that kids are going to have sex regardless (the more you tell them not to, the more they'll want to do it.) Sure, you can be all hopey-feely that kids are going to change and magically understand, but they're not.

Abstinence only education/Denied access to BC/safe sex ed--->Unprotected sex-->Unwanted pregnancies--->Unwanted births

To add insult to injury, on top of the unwanted births, conversatives/anti-abortion advocates are strickly against "giving money" to these "degenerates" who can't afford the children, who you denied proper education and control to in the first place. It's a wicked cycle.

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

that had nothing to do with what I was talking about, but okay.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

Boy...it probably seems like I'm really picking on you today. I don't buy the argument "kids are going to have sex regardless'. I guess it would follow that kids are going to get drunk and/or smoke regardless. There are going to be kids who have sex, but there are also going to be a good number that don't; especially if they are taught the value of sex within marriage. If you are a liberal/non-parent who only wants to be your kids best friend, and you have the non-parent attitude that if your kid drinks or has sex, it's fine as long as they do it in your house, then yeah...there's not much reason for them not to. Not to mention the poor example of mom and dad just living together, or mom and new boyfriend, or dad and new girlfriend. There will always be exceptions, but teach kids values and they won't necessarily always have sex regardless. It's an argument made by people who have simply given up on kids.

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

I realize that this has nothing to do with the argument, but I find it ironic that people who want to deny the choice [to abort] to other people are the ones who whine when other people want to deny them of anything [for example, smoking indoors, etc]

If you don't want the government interfering with YOUR life [right to inhale death], etc...then why are you trying to interfere in other's choices? What makes your religious/personal belief about abortion more important than the belief that we should breathe clean air?

I'm just playing devils advocate, because I really want to know. No bashing from either side; honest, grown-up answers only for this one.

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

and none of that "abortion has nothing to do with smoking" garbage...thats not what this is about.

seriouscat 4 years, 8 months ago

The most fundamental right in a just society is the right to life. Whenever a power holding group of humans in any given society is allowed to decide which humans count as 'persons' and which ones don't, then the humans in the 'non-person' category automatically have all their rights revoked.

Don't forget that the people who are getting abortions are doing so as a consequence of another, earlier choice that they made (with the obvious exception of rape, which VERY RARELY results in a pregnancy). There may be some wacky people who call themselves pro-life out there who would legislate sex if they could...but most pro-lifers are simply taking the position that if you choose to have sex and that act leads to pregnancy, the moral thing to do is to take responsibility for that life because killing it is wrong.

Cait McKnelly 4 years, 8 months ago

"The most fundamental right in a just society is the right to life." Unless you happen to be a fertile woman/girl with a uterus.

GardenMomma 4 years, 8 months ago

I think the term you are looking for is hypocrite.

J Good Good 4 years, 8 months ago

Why I see that the death penalty can be related to abortion is this: a certain number of those mothers who some people feel should be forced by law to "chose life" are NOT going to give that baby up for adoption. Nor are they going to stop abusing drugs, or develop the patience to not abuse their kids, or hooking up with men who will abuse their kids, or teach them even the most basic values. They are simply not capable of it.

NO ONE is BORN a "monster". Kids can be damaged beyond repair and they are the ones who grow up to spread abject misery in this world. And those services which have the task of "saving" those kids once they are born into hell are the first ones cut when people are tired of paying more taxes.

seriouscat 4 years, 8 months ago

You are making the Freakonomics argument that abortion reduces crime, and therefore it's good. This seems to be the REAL reason why people advocate for abortion. They aren't REALLY interested in helping women; it's about making sure their unwanted offspring doesn't burden society with the evidence of how messed up our priorities are .

Reminds me of Ruth Bader-Ginsburg saying with the glaring problems that leads to povertyin a July 2009 N YT interview:

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

Also reminiscent of Margaret Sanger's passion for "helping to reduce unwanted populations"

How insidious.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

I'll admit I am 'pro-choice' when it comes to cockroaches. I can choose to smash them, or use chemicals. Don't tell PETA, ok?

terrapin2 4 years, 8 months ago

Kids are going to have sex regardless. Sorry, but it's true. Some may put it off longer than others, but they will do it. It's called biology. To naively think that kids will wait until marriage is insane. There of course are going to be a few exceptions, but not enough to curtail the number of unwanted pregnancies that may lead to abortions. It is not the same as kids who drink and smoke. Those things are not a part of our basic biology, sex is. Get over it. And having "non-parent attitudes" is not exclusive to the left wing by the way. There are bad parents of every persuasion. Sex education is absolutely the key. No one is pro-abortion. Everyone wants to reduce the numbers, but abortion cannot and will not be made illegal in this country again.

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

you can give them all the moral guidance in the world, and its just going to make them rebel harder...this has been proven time and time again.

A girl I went to college with, who lived next to me in the dorm was a devout Catholic. No sex before marriage (however, she was a huge slut), yet refused to wear condoms because Catholics were against it.

That same year, she got knocked up by a random guy on a drunken sex binge, and dropped out of college.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

Gee....I didn't, and I know very few kids who did/have. Wow...what kind of FREAKS are we!?

Now if you're a 'parent' who makes this hopeless argument, it's a cop-out and it's only because you are lazy, don't discipline or give your kids guidance, and you don't want them to in anyway think you are not 'cool'. Sad. You my friend are not any kind of parent. I pity your children. This is probably the only case where I'd say that they'd probably be better served by being in the hands of SRS. (I'm not directing this to anyone in particular...just in general)

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

so...kids who don't mind their parents 24/7 until they are 18 are all results of terrible parenting and unloving homes? WOW, how self righteous are WE today.

terrapin2 4 years, 8 months ago

No one said anything about giving up on kids. How is understanding them better giving up on them? How is wanting to have them educated about sex so they can protect themselves giving up on them? Telling them to just say no no matter what without arming them with correct information is a cop out. That's easy and lazy and doesn't yield the results you want. It takes a lot more parenting, hard work, and involvement in your kids lives to teach them what they need to know to prepare them for the realities of life. I said nothing about lack of discipline. What does sex education have to do with whether I discipline my children or not? Of course as a parent I want my children to wait. To me that would be ideal. Just because I'm pro-choice does not mean I'm trying to be "cool" or that I would allow my kids to be promiscuous. Has nothing to do with my ability to raise extremely smart, well behaved, well adjusted, future good citizens. You want to call SRS because why? I'm happy for you that you waited. I'm sure your parents were really proud. You are naive if you think that those of you that wait until marriage are ever going to be the majority. We are not freaks. We are human.

mr_right_wing 4 years, 8 months ago

Yes, we are HUMAN, in other words we can be told/taught that we can control our drives, not our drives control us (like the animal world.)

Maybe I misunderstood you...it sounded like you were saying every kid is going to have sex, it's not preventable and it's going to happen regardless of anything. Now if you were actually trying to say there are always going to be some kids who will have sex...sure...there are always going to be some kids who drink, some who do drugs and unfortunately there will be those who kill themselves as well. There will always be some who turn to prostitution too. We can't completely stop it, but we can try to reduce it.

You might as well tell each and every child "well, you're all going to have sex regardless, so, hopefully you won't get a disease, get or make someone pregnant." They deserve to hear something positive; "you have a choice, regardless of what your friends and the entire media and entertainment industry say; you can wait and have sex when you're more mature. There is nothing wrong with that."

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

no one in this forum ever said anything about telling kids its okay to go and and be whores.

I agree with you about what to tell kids, I honestly do. But to think that even if you say that means they are going to STILL make the right decisions all the time is naive.

terrapin2 4 years, 8 months ago

You didn't misunderstand me completely. They will all have sex eventually. Just maybe not all while they are still considered "children". Whether you want to believe it or not, more people have sex prior to marriage than don't, so it makes sense to me to educate them about it. It's not about "hopefully they won't get a disease". It's about teaching them how to not get one. What's wrong with teaching them how to protect themselves? I would imagine that teaching them the reality of what could happen if you have sex too early (aids, pregnancy, disease, poor reputation etc...) would be a bigger deterrent than just saying "say no" with no further information. Why do you think that sex education has to be a permission slip to go and do it? I don't know any sex education class that doesn't teach abstinence as the first and only 100% guarantee that they won't get pregnant/disease. That cannot be the only information they get.

terrapin2 4 years, 8 months ago

Oh yeah, by the way. Being "told/taught that we can control our drives" sounds like a part of sex education. But I thought you were against that.

"we can't completely stop it, but we can try to reduce it"- That argument and logic can be applied to abortion and premarital sex as well, so I still don't understand why you are against sex education.

And, no one ever said there was anything wrong with waiting to have sex. We all agree (I think) that we would prefer our kids to wait, but some of us are just not stupid enough to believe that our kids actually do everything we tell them to do. Even good parents can have kids that don't listen sometimes. That's a part of growing up and becoming your own person. It doesn't make them bad kids or their parents bad parents. Bristol Palin apparently didn't listen. Is Sarah Palin a good mom in your opinion?

tomatogrower 4 years, 8 months ago

We have also extended our children's childhood. In that not so long ago past girls married soon after they became women. They were considered old maids at 20. Now we have, through either good nutrition or too many hormones in animals, made girls become fertile earlier, yet we expect them to wait longer to get married. There is a biological aspect too.

itsmyopinion 4 years, 8 months ago

I am pro-life. That means I value the lives of the born and unborn. I fully understand the intense emotions going through a woman's (girl"s) mind and heart when faced with the future and all it holds. I hope they really consider it carefully before choosing to end the life of the child within them. I hope it is a tough decision and that it is not treated as another form of birth control. Sex should not be treated as a recreational sport. It is important and has many repercussions. One of which is a baby. Over 40,000,000 babies have been aborted in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade. Thousands are aborted every day. Almost half are African Americans. This is a terrible slaughter of our future citizens. I often wonder if one of those babies might have been the one to find the cure to cancer...or save the life of another person..to craft a major peace agreement. Or maybe to be a great loving man or woman who would have wonderful children. Surely, 40 million is a terrible holocaust on those who have no voice of their own. One of my grandsons was stillborn at 20 weeks. The hospital wanted to throw him out with the aborted babies. My son stopped them. We were able to hold him and spend some time with him. He weighed one pound. He had all his fingers and toes, the cutest nose, and seemed to have a little smile. We held him and prayed over him. Then we buried him our family plot. His conception was not under auspicious circumstances. My son was not married to the mother and they were young and poor. But they were determined to everything they could to give that baby a good home. They have subsquently married, have 3 beautiful children.
We never know what our future holds and we need to understand that we have the capacity to love a child no matter the circumstances of their birth.
Yes I helped all my children financially and emotionally when they decided to give birth to their children. They are doing the same for their children. I have helped many others over the years.
I do not know why conservatives and pro-lifers are villianized and called names when we want the best outcome for all. We sponsor thousands of shelters for unwed mothers and help them get started. We sponsor programs for homeless families throughout the nation.

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

Ok, i agree with you here about not using abortion as birth control. But why in the fing hell did you throw this in there. "Almost half are African Americans." That was really stupid; you actually had a good point there until that line. Way to throw it out the window.

itsmyopinion 4 years, 8 months ago

I put that in there not as an indictment but a statement of fact that we are allowing genecide of the unborn on the very people who need the most help and feel helpless to begin with. What if one of those babies were destined to be another Martin Luther King? We are robbing them of their potential and not teaching them that they have alternatives in their lives besides accepting what history or society says they can have. We take away their power and pride by giving them bare subsistence and letting them think that is all there is. We need to help them at an early age to understand their potential is not in welfare, drugs, unprotected sex, and violence. i belong to a church who buses children and teens (parents too) from the inner city every week(multiple days of the week) and help build their self-esteem and show them and their parents that there is hope and power ahead for them that does not involve violence. We minister to all backgrounds, races, and economic situations. Our heart is for them to have the best life possible regardless of their great or humble beginnings. Not only do we work with them in ministry but provide sports, food, and a shoulder and a hug. We do put our faith at work.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 8 months ago

umm because statistically speaking it is true. I don't think what she was saying is racist at all. I think it indicates a wider problem dealing with other factors besides race...but I am not about to write an essay on it.

J Good Good 4 years, 8 months ago

I am NOT talking about freakonomics. I am talking about human misery.

For far too many children a fact of their life from birth. The very reason we have about a kajillion older foster kids who need a family. But broken little souls are not easy to live with, so they grow up without any teaching of right and wrong from someone who loves them. And so the cycle continues. I realize some kids buck the odds.

But I think everyone can agree that the world needs less of it.

If we could make birth control better and more human error proof and teach young women AND young men to understand that unprotected sex or sex before you are too young to be responsible about birth control that would be huge.

But I don't think we as a society should be telling the young woman in a abusive relationship with an addiction problem that she has to bring a child into the world.

seriouscat 4 years, 8 months ago

You are right. We should be telling them that we care about them. That they are valuable in and of themselves, and so are the children that they bring into the world. That they can CHANGE themselves into the kind of person who can live an addiction free life with a partner who treats them with respect.

Pointing desperate women to the abortion clinic isn't exactly a great way to convey the message of worthiness of love and care and redemption.

whats_going_on 4 years, 8 months ago

I'm going to throw a scenario out there, just for kicks. It kind of has to do with my earlier point.

Say someone comes in here preaching that abortion is morally wrong. Fine, whatever, opinions are opinions. Say also, that by a very likely coincidence, this person is Catholic. We all know the current (and past) circumstances regarding Catholicism (read: molesting children). How can this person honestly claim to care about the aborted "children," when they are fully aware of what is going on in the church with their "leaders" molesting children (and then lying about it). I'm not saying they would necessarily agree with molesting children (hope not, anyway), but in my mind, standing behind an institution that claims to be righteous and pure but is harming children, while at the same time crying about about women aborting children, is hypocritical. Does this hypothetical person really care about children, or is he/she just spouting religious rants because they were told to? These women never claimed to be righteous...they are just at liberty to choose and are doing so, while "God's messengers" are willingly and knowingly committing some of the most heinous crimes out there, all while being "protected" because of their title.

It might be a stretch, but if you look at the roots behind both, believing in one and not the other is ridiculous.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 8 months ago

Are you saying that most Catholics approve of molestation??? I am not Catholic, but even I can separate their doctrine from the actions of some of their leaders. I find this argument of yours to be a bit ridiculous. I don't expect a pro-life Catholic to answer for the transgressions of some of their leadership.

I think in general...most people do value life and care about others. And even though this life is filled with uncertainty and tribulation..I find using that as an excuse to end life a bit absurd.

beatrice 4 years, 8 months ago

I'm jumping in without reading the above comments, but I have to say, as a self-proclaimed liberal who believes strongly in the freedom of women to have control over their own bodies -- I don't have a problem with these new limitations. If anything, I'd shorten the time one can have a legal abortion even further, say 16 weeks maximum.

I still believe late-term abortions should be available in cases of major medical problems that potentially threaten the life of the mother, but I really don't see why anyone who would want to get an abortion would wait more than three months.

We need far more sexual education in school and birth control options readily available. Otherwise, kids are likely getting their education from the entertainment media and the internet, and that is just scary.

independant1 4 years, 8 months ago

Bea, I agree with you. Don't cry.

The problem, for me, there is an agenda for abortion to be on the list above as approved/available birth control. As available as the others on the list.

I do not consider abortion a (approved) birth control method.

It's a medical intervention and last resort to end pregnancy. If utilized for exigent circumstances it comes at a high cost in terms of psychological and physical risks (let alone the moral).

Case law has wrestled with the concept of when life begins, when fetus is viable. Each of us is entitled to our opinion of when a human life begins.

It is a medical procedure with consequences and not a convenience.

Ain't no easy answer to be found.

beatrice 4 years, 8 months ago

No argument from me. When I wrote we need birth control options readily available, in my mind I wasn't even thinking about abortion.

WhiteDog 4 years, 8 months ago

I have no idea if the 40 million number is even close to being accurate, and I have no interest in wading through either sides' rhetoric on the internet to find the real number.

But it seems to me that the only way that we -- as a society -- can strive to be anti-abortion is to figure out -- as a society -- a way to deal with the care of 40 million (or whatever the real number is) unwanted and/or unwell babies. Pregnancies that are wanted or healthy are not the ones being terminated.

So, when the resources are in place to care for the children resulting from the pregnancies and are adequately funded, when there are jobs ready for the parents and eventually the children, when there's adequate and affordable education, healthcare, food and housing, THEN we can have the abortion talk.

Or we can just keep telling women to keep their legs shut. Cuz that usually works, too, right?

tomatogrower 4 years, 8 months ago

Good post, but I might add we should also tell the men to keep their zippers up too. They do have a part in this; although a lot of them run away from that responsibility. It's a lot harder for a woman to run away.

4 years, 8 months ago

Although a woman CAN run away, look at what happened at 2400 Alabama Street here in Lawrence, Kansas on January 19, 1986! Takes a certain kind of woman to do something like that, though.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 8 months ago

how about all of those on waiting lists waiting and willing to adopt??? I find this argument strange.

4 years, 8 months ago

There's plenty of children waiting to be adopted. The problem is that they are not infants, they might have some problems, and they are the wrong color.

sourpuss 4 years, 8 months ago

Protect the already living. Universal healthcare now.

Kirk Larson 4 years, 8 months ago

What do you call parents who don't believe in comprehensive sex education?

Gramma and Grampa!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.