|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:
They don't need to be mutually exclusive. I see it more as a matter of priorities. Everyone already agrees live people are human beings. So we should try to help them, before we waste too much effort on what a significant portion of people don't consider live people.
Beyond that, I'm just fundamentally against taking this option away from a woman. It just seems like too personal of an area to me. I really think simple and effective birth control is the answer (and I don't think any of the current methods are simple). Not only to the issue of abortion in the first world, but the staggering misery of some 3rd world nations.
Along these same lines, I'm in favor of zero population growth, or even better, negative growth. We've exceeded our carrying capacity. Once we get our shit tiogether, we can grow again.
Under this logic no one would EVER try to save the spotted owl! ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
Seriously, if people believe that wholesale murder is occuring, I think they SHOULD protest this thing.
Because under the "everyone agrees" theory of life you propose, you basically take one set of values and apply them to another person's.
I see it as people protecting a group they believe it is being horribly wronged.
Mea culpa: I have made this argument IN THE REVERSE! :)
I posited that since the people who support abortion rights (and dedicate their lives to fighting for them) tend to be more liberal, wouldn't THEY be more apt to help the poor? Accordingly, shouldn't THEY be spending their time and resources to help those who are already here versus protecting a right? Essentially, I asked HOW IMPORTANT is that right compared to human suffering?
It seems to me that if we follow his "priorities" theory, it makes more sense for a person to fight AGAINST what they believe to be murder than to fight FOR a right that when compared to quantifiable human suffering is not as "important".
Because on a scale of priorities, wouldn't it make more sense if a person SUBJECTIVELY believed they were fighting to prevent murder versus fighting to protect a right to abortion?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 27 |
First let me clarify that I support the rights of besotted owls everywhere. Some of my best friends are besotted and have been know to say "who?" when accused of such. They are not deserving of persecution. Everyone has the right to descend into a drunken stupor. It has a long and proud history and is one of the things that made America great. Long live the old growth forests!
To the main trust of your post, I think your analogy is flawed. Since I, and our laws, don't consider a fetus as a human being, there is no human suffering to balance against this protection of a women's rights. This is the real crux of the issue. As long as we are in disagreement as to what constitutes a human being, then we can't really understand each other's positions. This is why I feel we should worry about those already alive & create the good birth control. The birth control avenue solves the abortion conundrum.
But if your analogy was true, I'd probably say that the protection of societal rights is more important than a given person's life. I think this is the reasoning behind capital punishment (which I don't support and waging war for freedom (which I do support).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23
1 post
|
|
1 post
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 23 |
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut-EL:
First let me clarify that I support the rights of besotted owls everywhere.
LOL.
quote:
To the main trust of your post, I think your analogy is flawed. Since I, and our laws, don't consider a fetus as a human being, there is no human suffering to balance against this protection of a women's rights.
Respectfully, I feel your approach is flawed. You are basically NOT taking into account that they BELIEVE it is life. Why should their opinions (rather OUR opinions, I suppose) be tempered because you choose to believe otherwise. We believe there IS human suffering.
The fact that the law SUPREME COURT says that a fetus is not life (this is a big distinction as criminal laws are slowly returning a fetus to a life in being status) does not change our opinions. WE DISAGREE with that notion.
The fact that someone else believes in something doesn't mean everyone else should be forced to jump on board. Most Americans favored the war, but that didn't mean the Dixie Chicks had to feel the same way (it would have been a smart PR move to keep quiet, but that is a different beast altogether! :) ).
I just can't understand your theory here.
Let me summarize your position as I see it:
1. There is disagreement as to the nature of life.
2. One side strongly feels abortion is murdering life.
3. The other side feels life begins at birth (or at viability).
4. Because points 2 and 3 are in conflict, there is a basic disagreement in the definition of life.
5. The current interpretation of the Constitution establishes or finds (depending on one's view) a fundamental right to the Const.
These are fairly objective observations I would say. I agree with them all. It is with the next one (please correct me if I misstate your views. I am honestrly NOT trying to warp your position) that causes me to disagree.
6. Because of points 4 and 5, the right should overlook point 2 and either agree with point 3 or simply ignore their strong views.
I simply can't see this. If they strongly believe it is murder, how CAN they put those beliefs aside simply because someone agrees?
quote:
This is the real crux of the issue. As long as we are in disagreement as to what constitutes a human being, then we can't really understand each other's positions.
I think we can understand each others positions quite well....but simply disagree. I GET why people want this. I understand the argument that personal freedom is more important than the rights of a fetus. I simply don't agree.
quote:
This is why I feel we should worry about those already alive & create the good birth control. The birth control avenue solves the abortion conundrum.
I agree on the birth control element. I also agree that we should work harder to make the world a better place
quote:
But if your analogy was true, I'd probably say that the protection of societal rights is more important than a given person's life.
Reasonable minds can disagree, I suppose. Allow me a cheesy argument (feel free to rip it to shreds....I am so ashamed of it.....FORGIVE ME!)
Ahem...here goes.... when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he suggests three basic rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is a reason he offers "life" as the first choice, because without it, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are meaningless.
(I must go take a shower now. I feel like a person who makes a "there's a reason it is the FIRST AMENDMENT).
quote:
I think this is the reasoning behind capital punishment (which I don't support and waging war for freedom (which I do support).
But because you brought it up, I offer another analogy using the lines of reasoning from Point 6 above. The Death Penalty. Some think it is just. Some think it is unjust. There is disagreement. But it is the law of the land. Let's leave that alone and balance the budget.
Enjoying the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Hey, there's a spotted owl that owes me money! Where's he hiding at?
Anyone think its odd that its a crime to perform an abortion on a panda or kill the eggs of endangered bird or reptile? Just a thought.
But US laws are starting to recognize lawsuits. I saw this comming up a few years ago, because I figured eventually someone would sue over the death of their unborn child (I mean, if you can sue McDonald's you can sue anyone lol). Some people struggled to get pregant only to miscarry, so I understand suing a teenage driver for causing an accident that causes a woman to miscarry. But it does create a nasty legal situation. If you can sue for the death of this human being, why is it legal to kill this one?
Your right, it matters where you see human life as beginning. It's easy to say 'it starts at conception' or 'it starts at birth' or 'eight weeks' or even 'two years'. The trick is to figuring out why you think it starts then. There is usually some event that occurs at one of these points where someone says 'now there's a human!' I always thought that anything other than conception and birth were crazy arguements. Like trying to save human gamette cells. There's no way, we have millions of them...and I kill one off every month in my menstral cycle. And since each fetus develops at a different rate, something like 'eight and a half weeks' doesn't make much sense either.
The birth arguement states that at birth the fetus is indepentent of the mother, so that's when its a human life. That, and in this country, infancide is still frowned upon.
Now, is being human and being alive the only two requirements to aviod abortion? If that's the case, then a fetus shouldn't be aborted. There's must be some other factor.
That factor is the social aspect. No one likes to be called a bastard. This country, despite violence on TV, profanity, and lots and lots of sex (I am a virgin, and frankly, I know I'm the oddball) still shuns the unwed pregant mother. Why? Now you can argue that some TV shows (Ross on Fraiser although I haven't watched it in a while) where someone does have an illegitimate kid. In the case of Ross, she balanced being a mother with working on the radio station. Lots of people I know are single parents and are able to keep everyone fed fine (the catch is school -- unless you have some major scholarships, its hard to balance a job, school, and family).
Its kind of hyprocritical. Sex is okay, but the consequences -- be it a child or AIDS -- is not. Now granted, sometimes birth control slips up, but you should know that before you have sex. There is a cost to an sort of pleasure. Eat Devil's Food Cake and gain a pound. Have unproteched sex and risk getting a disease or getting pregnant.
So what happens if that anger or hate towards a pregant, unwed mother is removed? I'm not talking about glorifing being illegitimate, I'm just saying you shouldn't be stoned to death for it. Already, I see it happening. A few of my friends have kids already. Yeah sometimes they get weird looks. But one is acually married, so the people giving her those looks didn't know too much, eh? Heck, one volunteers at my church, and I don't think anyone can say anything bad about such a kind heart.
I say the worse thing is the money. Sex is free, preventing sex is free, babies cost money. A girl can get pregnant, drop out of school, and is forced to work a dead-end job the rest of her life. Why screw up a chance to be an accountant (major sarcasim applied)?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Damn dirty owls. ![[...rassamnfrackin...]](graemlins/grumble01.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,539
I'm just sayin' 10000+ posts
|
|
I'm just sayin' 10000+ posts
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,539 |
Don't blame the owls...they're innocent bystanders.....unless it's an owl that has raked your eyes or something
I'll tell you this....abortion legal or not is such a grey area to me.As a Daddy myself,I can't think of why anyone would want to kill a baby....but then I'm not Professor X & can't read minds so I'm afraid I remain neutral on the subject for now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Everyone cites all sorts of interesting reasons, but all the ones I've heard other than rape, incest, or real extenuating medical circumstances ultimately boil down to the almighty dollar. ![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif) I may sound cynical, but that's the way it comes across most of the time. Think about it. "I think it should be legal so a woman's career isn't set back." "I think it should be legal so pregnant teens can avoid becoming single mothers and sinking into poverty." "... because raising children costs too much." "... because women shouldn't have to be inconvenienced by traditional expectations like childbirth." "... because you'll end up having more people living off welfare." "... because having a baby just isn't worth the trouble." Believe it or not, I've heard each of those excuses at least once. They're all garbage. If people get away with thinking a baby is nothing more than an inconvenience to be terminated or a financial burden to be avoided, then sooner or later some other people are going to try and say the same thing about institutionalized elderly people. And soon after that, someone will try and extend that to the handicapped or the developmentally disabled (and as someone with a mild case of cerebral palsy, I'm not too thrilled by that prospect). And then? Well, how about minority religious or ethnic groups that always seem to be making trouble? Or political dissidents? If this line of thinking offends you, good. It offends me too. Because whether people are willing to admit it or not, writing unborn children off as inconveniences sets a precedent for reducing human beings to liabilities or parasites. And that's not much different from the way genocides have been rationalized away for decades.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 644 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Wow there is some blind unthinking proaganda if I've ever read it.
On the other hand, CJ asks, properly and intelligently, where do we draw the line on life? This tends to be the eye of the storm when it comes to abortion debates. Its hard to know. I watched my daughter on an ultrasound when she was a "foetal pole" in the womb, a little line with a flickering pulse. Looked like life to me. This was at 10 weeks or so. Cute! Not sentient. A tiny streak of flesh with a tickling proto-heart. A potential human. But not yet a human. This is a really tricky question to answer, CJ, and I don't think anyone can answer it definitively or honestly.
But a law which says, "You must carry a foetal pole to delivery" is not a law I can approve of. This means that the state requires a woman to use her uterus in a certain way. That certain way is to preserve the life of a smear of flesh / a potential human, sure. But governments do not have the right to govern a woman's uterus, any more than they have the right to imprison you without a trial.
Another argument, which I dislike but is just as true, is that people will still perform abortions, whether we like it or not. Do you want young mothers shoving coat hangers into their wombs in bathtubs and alleyways, with the attendant risk to health and life of the mother? Some people might say, "Well, it serves them right because they are murderers." That is an irresponsible attititude. If its going to happen anyway, then let it happen under the supervision of a doctor. There is no reason why a mother can't be actively discouraged from an abortion. But at the end of the day, if she wants one, she is going to get one. The choice of how that happens lies with a responsible legislature, with an eye to gritty reality.
Incidentally, just to throw this up in the air, anyone who is anti-abortion but pro-capital punishment is in my humble opinion a hypocrite. If someone thinks the life of a foetal pole is precious, then equally so is the life of a serial rapist. Why bring a man to life, just to kill him for committing a crime later?
Great post, Dave. I agree with you 100%. ( From a personal standpoint, I actually do find abortion to be very sad and unfortunate--- as well as immoral/unethical--- but in the end I have to support a women's right to choose.)
I'm actually not against the death penalty for capital murder offenses--- why waste $40-$80,000 a year keeping a scumbag murderer alive? Shit, that money could be put to so much better use (Hell, give it to the victim's families if nothing else... ).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,365 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,365 Likes: 38 |
When I was in my teens and 20's, I believed in abortion.
As I've gotten older, I've seen the wisdom, and the greater humanity, of eliminating abortion.
Or at least making abortion so difficult as to be a far more thought out option when used, that guarantees a woman (or girl) has explored all other options.
At least in the United States, those who get abortions are usually those who can best afford to have a child and care for it.
The poor utilize abortion, even publicly funded abortion, far less than middle class women.
Which dispels the myth that it gets rid of the children caught in a cycle of poverty that no one wants.
And as far as unwanted children growing up in dire circumstances who would be better off not being born, it is often those dire circumstances that drive children to achieve the most.
Andrew Carnegie, despite growing up in poverty, with a drunken virtually absent father, became one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth/early-twentieth century.
Artist Norman Rockwell also had a poor family life, that drove him to spend the rest of his life capturing the better part of American people and family life in his paintings.
My mother is teacher, and the principal at her school is a driven and very educated man, who grew up in an orphanage. I'm sure he's glad his anonymous mother didn't have an abortion.
And there are many who would like to adopt, and do adopt children from nations and races across the world, because there are not children to adopt in the U.S.
A friend of mine (Ken) adopted a child from China just last year.
I think carrying a baby to term is a small price to pay for the stupidity of getting pregnant.
After that, she can put it up for adoption.
And there are only about 3 or 4 months of the pregnancy where it is obvious to others the woman is pregnant.
A relatively small inconvenience for the woman.
I'd estimate that about 5 to 10 percent of the people I grew up with were adopted by their parents. It's far from unheard of.
I'm not fanatical about banning abortion, and I do think there are circumstances where abortion should be allowed (rape, incest, or severe health problems of the mother).
But I generally have come to understand it to be a selfish and uncivilized option that is utilized far too often in our culture.
I forget the exact quote by Mother Theresa, in a TIME magazine interview, but she said something like:
What more can you say about how evil a society has become, than when it chooses to murder its own children?
Or words to that effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769
cookie monster 7500+ posts
|
|
cookie monster 7500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 9,769 |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Captain Sammitch: [QB] Everyone cites all sorts of interesting reasons, but all the ones I've heard other than rape, incest, or real extenuating medical circumstances ultimately boil down to the almighty dollar. I may sound cynical, but that's the way it comes across most of the time. Think about it. Ok, I don't have time to get too detailed about my views - which are strongly pro-choice - but I will come back at a later date to discuss them as this is a very interesting topic. It's nice to see that the two views can be discussed without turning into a total flame war. Of course, that doesn't mean that some people haven't gotten on their soap boxs, as I'm sure I will too (I'm not immune) - hey, it's a passionate topic and it is to be expected, I suppose... As to the money aspect, I'm surprised that the a part of the history of abortion in the last century and a half hasn't been mentioned. Captain is right with respect to abortion being a money issue - at least to some extent - in the late 19th Century/early 20th Century abortion was a known practice. There were literally ads in the papers advertizing remedies and the like that would induce early labor - i.e., abortion. People knew about it, though it wasn't discussed in polite society, and all was well until upper class, white women started taking advantage of these remedies. It was ok when the poor, the uneducated and the immigrant classes used these "medicines," but when the wealthy (read: white) began to use it, groups began to speak out about it. One last thing though - I'll come back at a later date as I stated above that I find this topic interesting - but the one thing that has really bugged me is how those who are pro choice seem to think they can even possibly understand what it is like for a woman who has been raped to have to carry a child that was violently forced upon her. Yes, women have done so, bc. they chose to, but believe me when I say that while you sit there and judge a rape victim who chooses to have an abortion you cannot in your wildest, wildest nightmares begin to understand what it is like to have to go through it and make those choices.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by harleykwin:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
[QB] Everyone cites all sorts of interesting reasons, but all the ones I've heard other than rape, incest, or real extenuating medical circumstances ultimately boil down to the almighty dollar. I may sound cynical, but that's the way it comes across most of the time.
Think about it.
Ok, I don't have time to get too detailed about my views - which are strongly pro-choice - but I will come back at a later date to discuss them as this is a very interesting topic. It's nice to see that the two views can be discussed without turning into a total flame war. Of course, that doesn't mean that some people haven't gotten on their soap boxs, as I'm sure I will too (I'm not immune) - hey, it's a passionate topic and it is to be expected, I suppose...
As to the money aspect, I'm surprised that the a part of the history of abortion in the last century and a half hasn't been mentioned.
Captain is right with respect to abortion being a money issue - at least to some extent - in the late 19th Century/early 20th Century abortion was a known practice. There were literally ads in the papers advertizing remedies and the like that would induce early labor - i.e., abortion. People knew about it, though it wasn't discussed in polite society, and all was well until upper class, white women started taking advantage of these remedies. It was ok when the poor, the uneducated and the immigrant classes used these "medicines," but when the wealthy (read: white) began to use it, groups began to speak out about it.
One last thing though - I'll come back at a later date as I stated above that I find this topic interesting - but the one thing that has really bugged me is how those who are pro choice seem to think they can even possibly understand what it is like for a woman who has been raped to have to carry a child that was violently forced upon her. Yes, women have done so, bc. they chose to, but believe me when I say that while you sit there and judge a rape victim who chooses to have an abortion you cannot in your wildest, wildest nightmares begin to understand what it is like to have to go through it and make those choices.
Well Spoken Harley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,365 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,365 Likes: 38 |
I don't think it's so much the "almighty dollar" as selfishness that motivates women to get abortions. Although maybe there's a lot of parallel between "almighty dollar" and a woman's selfish convenience.
As I said, I once believed in abortion, but have come to see the cruelty and thoughtlessness of it.
A woman who makes the mistake of getting pregnant can just come to term and put the baby up for adoption. That's the price she pays for her stupidity, and then she can get on with her life.
The one exception I agree with you on is in the case of rape. I sure wouldn't question a woman's right to not carry the baby to term in those circumstances. And she'd obviously want it done within days of conception.
Abortion is one of those incredibly divisive and opinionated issues, where people tend to be entrenched in one extreme or the other.
But as I said, my own opinion has turned 180 degrees against abortion. So it is possible to change minds, even on an issue as hot as this one.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 43 |
One question -- it is probably not practical for every female in the nation to be on birth control 'just in case of rape'. However, what about the 'morning-after' pill? It coats the egg so the sperm cannot penetrate, so no babies died.
I don't think its stupidity that gets a girl pregnant, DaveTWB. Stuff happens. Sometimes a girl will stop taking her birth control because if she gets pregnant then her boyfriend wont leave her. And when that dog skips town, she has no use of this child. A girl opens her door, expecting a cable repairman, and some guy grabs her and forces her to have sex with him.
I mean, I will be frank...everyone is having sex. What does having a kid at nineteen mean anymore. Everybody has a fucking scarlet 'A' on their chests now.
Now rape cases and retarded children...that's a tricky debate. One that I don't feel comfortable siding on either arguement. Everytime I think I've reached a discision, I kick myself for thinking that way. "How the child is conceived does't mean squat they are all equal." "Look, rape victims are in a lot of pain, that last thing they need is a rosary shoved up their ass." Granted, that's less than 5% of the cases, but then again, try telling that to a girl who got raped behind a club or the mother that just found out her son has Down's.
I will only say this about rape -- a lot of it can be prevented. I have a peephole and two locks and I'm on the third floor, so I feel pretty safe at home. Remember that thread URG posted about how to protect yourself? I practice it daily. I have a can of pepper spay (thinking about buying a taser or whatever they are called) and know how to shoot (although I don't carry a gun yet). I have a black belt in Tae kwon do. Is that overkill? Maybe the black belt part. :) But this is a crazy world, you have got to be prepared for the worst.
But I understand that not every does the same thing I do (shit, the entire female population would be a bunch of paranoid nutcases). But on the other hand, can you tell difference between two women -- one conceived by rape, the other ligitimite?
Unlike rape, it is often obvious if someone is retarded or not. Some mothers I know struggle everyday with a kid that cannot understand or show gratitude for the hours they put in for this child. Others can raise three kids, all mentally disabled, with such grace and patience that I cannot comprehend. My problem -- would it be seen as discrimination if the fetus is killed because it is disabled?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Wall St. Journal: Ellen Sauerbrey, President Bush's choice to be Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration [is under attack by liberals for her record on abortion.]
Ms. Sauerbrey is under fire for [because] she supports the Administration's decision to withhold $34 million from the U.N. Population Fund because some of the agency's contributions go to China's appalling forced-abortion policy.
The Population Fund is one of the principal cheerleaders of China's one-child policy, which has been enforced through fines, imprisonment, forced abortion, sterilizations and even, human-rights groups charge, infanticide.
Several weeks ago Mr. Bush invoked a 20-year-old policy--known as the Kemp-Kasten Amendment--which prohibits federal funding of "any organization or program which supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."
One would think that women's organizations would applaud this decision--and the appointment of an American woman who champions it. Mandatory limitations on family size and involuntary sterilizations hardly represent "reproductive freedom" or "a woman's right to choose."
Instead, groups such as Planned Parenthood have protested that Mr. Bush is denying women access to reproductive health and family planning services. Planned Parenthood is also attacking Ms. Sauerbrey.
China insists that coercion is a thing of the past. But the senior China specialist at the U.S. Census Bureau told Congress in December that, "The evidence is clear that the one-child policy is still basic national policy, that it remains coercive and violative of human rights." Amnesty International continues to document abortions, sterilizations and infanticide inside rural hospitals. China also uses fines and "social compensation" penalties of up to four years of salary to punish one-child violators.
There are an estimated 40 million girls demographically missing in China as a result of its one-child policy. The Population Research Institute reports that the sex ratio of 117 boys to 100 girls is so out of balance that the Chinese government has initiated emergency programs to teach parents about the value of girls.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
How dare they deny the Chinese their freedom of not choice!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Ann Coulter:
Believe me, you don't want the Democrats out there reminding the American people that it's a constitutional right to abort a baby five minutes before birth
Jimmy Carter:
"I never have felt that any abortion should be committed--I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors," he told reporters over breakfast at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, while across town Senate Democrats deliberated whether to filibuster the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. because he may share President Bush and Mr. Carter's abhorrence of abortion.
"These things impact other issues on which [Mr. Bush] and I basically agree," the Georgia Democrat said. "I've never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion." . . .
Democrats must "let the deeply religious people and the moderates on social issues like abortion feel that the Democratic party cares about them and understands them," he said, adding that many Democrats, like him, "have some concern about, say, late-term abortions, where you kill a baby as it's emerging from its mother's womb."
When these two agree so emphatically on something you have to think maybe the Democrat mainstream has, in fact, lost the abortion debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
London News TelegraphGianna Jessen was aborted at 7½ months. She survived.
Astonishingly, she has forgiven her mother for trying to kill her.
Gianna Jessen grew up believing that she was born with cerebral palsy because she had been delivered prematurely in a particularly traumatic birth.
That was the story told to her by her adoptive mother and it was not until she was 12 years old that she discovered the truth about what made her different from the other children at school.
"She tried to break it to me gently and then, just as she was about to tell me, I said 'I was aborted, right?' She said 'Yeah, you were.' And my reaction was 'Well, at least I have cerebral palsy for an interesting reason.' "
That was 16 years ago. Miss Jessen is now a pretty, fresh-faced 28-year-old with wavy shoulder-length red hair. She speaks with eloquence and composure, in a soft southern American accent, her forehead crinkling slightly as she talks.
But while her outward appearance might have changed, her inner determination to overcome even the most insurmountable challenges has remained absolutely constant.
From the very beginning, Miss Jessen survived in spite of herself. Her mother, Tina, a 17-year-old single woman, decided to have an abortion by saline injection when she was seven-and-a-half months pregnant (there is no legal time limit for abortion in America).
But in the early morning of April 6, 1977, the abortion failed. Against the odds, the baby had lived. A nurse called the emergency services and the child was taken to hospital. She weighed only 2lb and the abortionist had to sign her birth certificate.
Then, at 17 months, Miss Jessen was diagnosed with cerebral palsy, caused by her brain being starved of oxygen during the termination. "The doctors said I was in a horrible state," she says. "They said I would never be able to lift up my head, but eventually I did.
"Then they said I would never be able to sit up straight, but I sat up straight. Then they said I would never be able to walk, but by the age of three I was walking with a frame and leg braces." She pauses before adding: "I have a little bit of feistiness in me."
It is this "little bit of feistiness" that has enabled her to become a full-time disability rights and anti-abortion campaigner. Although she lives in Nashville, Tennessee, she travels the world to talk about her experience and, last year, ran her first marathon in seven-and-a-half hours.
She is entered in the London Marathon next April for the Stars Organisation for Cerebral Palsy, a charity that raises funds with the help of celebrities, and hopes to better her time. "I'll be running furiously till then, trying out my brand new leg muscles," she says, with a laugh.
"Two years ago, my upper-leg muscles had atrophied, so I had to build them up. I could only lift 30lb of weight. Now I can press over 200lb. It can be exhausting, but at least if you run, you get there faster."
Does she ever blame her mother for leaving her with this condition? "I've never been angry with her because she's a stranger," Miss Jessen says. "She hasn't said she's sorry and I know that she had another abortion after me. But I don't feel sad or bitter because we can choose to overcome and be sweet or we can overcome and be angry. I want to be the former."
Her biological mother has remarried and now lives in Southern California, and although she has seen her daughter on television, Miss Jessen has never contacted her.
Perhaps, after enduring the trauma of four operations in her first 10 years - three to resolve problems with her Achilles tendon, the fourth to splice the spastic nerves in her spine together - the pain of sitting down face to face with the mother who tried to kill her would be too great.
"I feel that I have my mother already - my adoptive mother, Diana [who adopted her when she was four]," she says, with quiet firmness. "At this point, I don't want to be in touch with my biological mother. But it's not that I'm angry with her. I forgive her totally."
It becomes clear that forgiveness has not come easily. Miss Jessen's earliest memory is of having tantrums on the floor of her foster mother's house.
She also remembers a tremendous fear of fire. "I think that was the result of what had happened," she says. "A saline injection abortion effectively burns you in your mother's womb."
She was bullied at school and recalls crying at the taunts of other children. When she was 16, a stranger came up to her and told her that children with disabilities were a burden on society. "I just looked at her, smiled and knew she was wrong," Miss Jessen says.
It is not surprising, then, that however much Miss Jessen claims to have no bitterness, there is still a slight sadness in the downturned corners of her blue-green eyes.
"My mother made a decision that she thought affected only her, and yet every day I bear the result of that decision through my cerebral palsy," she says. "I'm not saying that in condemnation, but in truth.
"It's more comfortable for people to think of abortion as a political decision, or a right. But I am not a right. I am a human being. I am the reality. Gently I put the question, if abortion is about women's rights, then where were mine? There was no radical feminist screaming for my rights on that day.
"That is why I want to live my life with integrity, having lived what I profess. My job is not to change your mind [if you are pro-abortion]. My job is to present the truth and leave you to decide."
"Is my value based on what I can and can't do? If so, we're living in a very scary time."
Yet there does not seem much that Miss Jessen cannot do. She clearly thrives on her capacity for facing down the impossible. "I have more joy than I can ever articulate because of the obstacles I have overcome," she says. "I'm not looking for pity."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Let get out my violin. Albinoni's Adagio in G Minor is on my bow!
It's a very sad story. It all happened 28 years ago. A doctor was was incompetent or overzealous 28 years ago and this woman suffered for it. Sue the MD, take the money and get on with life. Abortion practice is changed now. 7.5 month preg terminations are very rare.
To give you some perspective, G-man, find out where NY houses the profoundly developmentaly disabled. Take a look at a 50 year old pre-natal hydrocephalic. Or the guy that's 3 feet tall and looks more amphibian than mammalian. Then come back and tell me about late term abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Let get out my violin. Albinoni's Adagio in G Minor is on my bow!
It's a very sad story.
I disagree. I think its rather inspiring the way she rose above what happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Let get out my violin. Albinoni's Adagio in G Minor is on my bow!
It's a very sad story. It all happened 28 years ago. A doctor was was incompetent or overzealous 28 years ago and this woman suffered for it. Sue the MD, take the money and get on with life. Abortion practice is changed now. 7.5 month preg terminations are very rare.
To give you some perspective, G-man, find out where NY houses the profoundly developmentaly disabled. Take a look at a 50 year old pre-natal hydrocephalic. Or the guy that's 3 feet tall and looks more amphibian than mammalian. Then come back and tell me about late term abortion.
So are you saying that because the woman's disability came about as a byproduct of an abortion attempt it's just too damn bad for her, or are you saying she just plain doesn't have it that bad because CP isn't that 'ugly' of a disability? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Let get out my violin. Albinoni's Adagio in G Minor is on my bow!
It's a very sad story. It all happened 28 years ago. A doctor was was incompetent or overzealous 28 years ago and this woman suffered for it. Sue the MD, take the money and get on with life. Abortion practice is changed now. 7.5 month preg terminations are very rare.
To give you some perspective, G-man, find out where NY houses the profoundly developmentaly disabled. Take a look at a 50 year old pre-natal hydrocephalic. Or the guy that's 3 feet tall and looks more amphibian than mammalian. Then come back and tell me about late term abortion.
Actually Britian has recently reported a CURRENT problem with a high number of "failed" abortions in which teh child survives. I'm glad you're so dispassionate and cinical about the lifelong dissability this woman has as a result of surviving an attemted murder by her mother and doctor. It helps shed the truth on the wholde abortion debate. Interesting isn't it that abortion is the one procedure that a doctor's incopitance can lead the the survival of the pacient.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
WBAM, there are many surgical proceedures that go wrong and result in a patient's long term disability. Abortion is just one of them. Should we ban all surgery because of the risk of injury? I hope not. That would result in my long term death!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
On the other hand, when you have a certain percentage of failures or unhealthy complications with any medical procedure or course of treatment, there is usually consideration of banning, or at least more carefully regulating, the procedure or treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Let get out my violin. Albinoni's Adagio in G Minor is on my bow!
It's a very sad story. It all happened 28 years ago. A doctor was was incompetent or overzealous 28 years ago and this woman suffered for it. Sue the MD, take the money and get on with life. Abortion practice is changed now. 7.5 month preg terminations are very rare.
To give you some perspective, G-man, find out where NY houses the profoundly developmentaly disabled. Take a look at a 50 year old pre-natal hydrocephalic. Or the guy that's 3 feet tall and looks more amphibian than mammalian. Then come back and tell me about late term abortion.
So are you saying that because the woman's disability came about as a byproduct of an abortion attempt it's just too damn bad for her, or are you saying she just plain doesn't have it that bad because CP isn't that 'ugly' of a disability?
I didn't say either of those things. Whose post were you reading?????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
WBAM, there are many surgical proceedures that go wrong and result in a patient's long term disability. Abortion is just one of them. Should we ban all surgery because of the risk of injury? I hope not. That would result in my long term death!
Yea, you need to read my post again. I said abortion was teh only procedure in wich incompitance results in the pacient living. period. as apposed to dying. It had nothing to do with them living with a dissability. Many botched surgeries result in lifelong dissabilities, but this is the only one where living with the adissability is acctually better than the intended result of the surgury wich is the death of the pacient. I think the fact that children are surviving abortions throws a wrence into a major part of teh pro-abortion argument that the fetus isn't alive. If it wasn't alive how come so many of them have been surviving.
In other words "Whose post were you reading?????"
Last edited by wannabuyamonkey; 2005-12-06 4:14 PM.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
On the other hand, when you have a certain percentage of failures or unhealthy complications with any medical procedure or course of treatment, there is usually consideration of banning, or at least more carefully regulating, the procedure or treatment.
You got some numbers for me G-man? Of the over 1MM surgical abortions performed each year in the USA, how many result in serious complications?
I would wager that a greater proportion of deaths result from thoracic or neuro surgery. Is anyone calling for laws to regulate those surgeries?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,657 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
WBAM, there are many surgical proceedures that go wrong and result in a patient's long term disability. Abortion is just one of them. Should we ban all surgery because of the risk of injury? I hope not. That would result in my long term death!
Yea, you need to read my post again. I said abortion was teh only procedure in wich incompitance results in the pacient living. period. as apposed to dying. It had nothing to do with them living with a dissability. Many botched surgeries result in lifelong dissabilities, but this is the only one where living with the adissability is acctually better than the intended result of the surgury wich is the death of the pacient. I think the fact that children are surviving abortions throws a wrence into a major part of teh pro-abortion argument that the fetus isn't alive. If it wasn't alive how come so many of them have been surviving.
In other words "Whose post were you reading?????"
Sorry, WBAM. I just didn't have anything to say about your concluding platitude. Surviving fetuses may put a dent in some peoples argument but not in mine. Mine is very simple: people that don't want children shouldn't be compelled to have them. Throughout human history the rights of the post-natal trump those of the pre-natal. I'm for maintaning the status quo.
Whatever happens to Roe v. Wade is of diminishing importance to me. California has legislated very liberal abortion laws, signed into law by our own beloved Governor, Ronald Reagan. It will be a sad day for women in less enlightened states but that's really not my problem. Doesn't Washington have similar laws to California?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
...people that don't want children shouldn't be compelled to have them. Throughout human history the rights of the post-natal trump those of the pre-natal. I'm for maintaning the status quo...
So the 'right' of people who are already outside the womb to dodge a minor inconvenience supersedes the right of a person still in there to fucking live?!?  Liberals never cease to amaze me. 
My point earlier was that you're so preoccupied with maintaining your pro-choice position that you didn't seem to feel any sympathy for a woman whose life was drastically altered by a choice she had no part in. That's all. CP can be one of the single most frustrating impediments to live with, and it shouldn't be taken lightly in any case.
|
|
|
|
|
