Into the Pro-Abortion Sewer
November 27th, 2007 at 07:12am Mark Noonan
Just disgusting:
A family doctor faces being struck off for daring to suggest to women seeking an abortion that they should think twice.
Dr Tammie Downes says at least eight grateful mothers have children today which they would have terminated until she asked them to consider the consequences.
But Dr Downes, 36, is now being investigated by the General Medical Council for a possible breach of ethical guidelines.
If charged and found guilty of professional misconduct, she could be removed from the medical register and forced from her job.
The GMC, which regulates doctors, is understood to have received a complaint from another doctor who claims Dr Downes is promoting her anti-abortion views to patients.
Doctors must not allow personal opinions to affect their advice.
From “do no harm” to “don’t dare ask someone to think twice” - the low to which medicine has fallen in Great Britain…and would fall here in the United States, if the pro-abortion fanatics had their way with it. As I’ve said before, you can be on firm moral groiund, or you can be in favor of abortion - you can’t be both. To be in favor of this inhuman practice is to eventually cease in a meaningful way to be humane - be pro-abortion, and it is easy to become a person who would turn another person in to the authorities for merely suggesting that someone think twice before going forward with a decision to have an abortion.
Abortion is wrong, period. We must end it, as swiftly as possible - if we wish to remain civilized, then the very least we must do is ensure that unborn children are not murdered.
Entry Filed under: Foreign Affairs, Life Issues, Social Issues
84 Comments
1. plainjane | November 27th, 2007 at 8:33 am
We must end it, as swiftly as possible.. November 27th, 2007 at 07:12am Mark Noonan
Then support Democratic candidates. Without a few state laws that shift the abortion issue into hiding Republicans have nothing to show for after total rule of all three branches of government. Democrats are in the best position to support policies that reduce the number of abortions.
Sometimes when reading these types of blogs I get the feeling wingnuts believe abortions began with Roe v Wade. They could not be more wrong. Unless we provide the proper support and education for our young people abortions will continue even if Rove v Wade is overtuned. Instead of marchers with fetuses in jars marching in front of the WH it will go back to the days of fetuses hanging from coat hangers.
2. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Just who are getting all these abortions Noonan? If only liberal crunchy hippie types who are such existentialists, feminist women who want their careers over everything else and minorities are the only ones jamming the waiting rooms of Planned Parenthood politically why would you care? I can see ethically that since abortion is murder why you would care for in that we do see eye to eye. Equally, if good Catholic girls and not so good Low Church girls are finding themselves pregnant, likely because they know little of how their bodies work because sex education is a taboo/agent of evil/license to engage in sex/ for Christians as well, then that means the values they are being taught do not trump the mating urge even in a society that has constricted sexuality to fit through the hose of capitalism despite that hose being very leaky indeed. Being a Christian doesn’t stop you from wanting to mate and it also doesn’t keep boyfriend/mothers/father/ big sisters/cousins/physicians from seeking to get the “problem taken care of” like middle class white and their elite betters have been doing for the better part of the last century.
If you are going to take the political tack however then you have to justify who is going to take care of this child [actually these millions of children] that its mother did not want to have. The common argument that conservatives love all children in the womb so they can have adults to hate in the future rings solid for many moderates in the USA. I am much better able to get a restful night’s sleep thinking that a woman has terminated a pregnancy that she was not economically/emotionally/spiritually able to deal with as an adult than to have to struggle with why a twelve year old girl is psychologically ruined for life because she has been forced to carry a child to term after being raped [in the statutory or high felonious manner].
Abortion was a good nail for conservatives to hang their hat on they thought in the 70s because they could point to declining populations of white Americans vice the fecundity of blacks and connect those dots of what America was supposed to look like today. But is fails the gag test today because it is easily linked to the drive of continued racial/political/economic hegemony and unearned privilege of white Americans, Christianist bigotry and misogyny and worst of all the politicization of medicine and its anonymous and private practice. No doctor in any nation should be mandated to perform any procedure but in the same vein a physician because of his or her religious or moral beliefs should not create and ethical dilemma for any woman presented to have an abortion by trying to counsel her out of the procedure beyond the simple pros and cons of any surgical procedure. This is why the matter should be resolved by a referendum in the 2012 presidential election and be on every ballot as a simple line item reading “Should abortion services for women, in the first and second trimester of pregnancy be legal and federally funded in all fifty states and territories of the Union?” Count the ballots and be done with it for 16 years. In 2028 the losing side may wish to repeal the measure one way or another with “Do you vote that the measure regarding abortion service for women in their first or second trimester of pregnancy in 2012 should be overturned?”
It would end the so called march of activist judges, it might make abortion illegal in all fifty states which is what the Right Wing says it wants, but it would also take, one way or another for 16 years, the topic off the table and force the GOP to tell America what else you have in that brief case now that the chief issue is gone.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
3. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 9:08 am
How exactly do the big-government Republicans plan on reducing the number of abortions? By forbidding sex ed? By not allowing teens access to birth control? By nominating Pro-Choice candidates who have supported taxpayer-funded abortions?
You sure are a confused bunch!
4. Angry Redneck | November 27th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ…
Exactly how did this turn into a race issue? I’m confused…
5. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 9:19 am
>>You sure are a confused bunch!<>Angry Rednceck: “I’m confused…”
Obviously. . .
Hey, a little acknowledged fact is that abortion was free and legal at the founding of our nation. In fact, abortion ads appear regularly in newspapers during that time. Moreover, abortions have been practiced for centuries- even during Biblical times, yet Jesus does not mention abortion at all. He DOES however condemn divorce and re-marriage as “an abomination” and “adultery”. . .
Tell THAT to Guiliani, Thompson, McCain, Gingrich, et al. . .
6. Angry Redneck | November 27th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Again, how is this a racial issue? Are you confused about it as well, coulterfan? It’s bad enough that this is an issue at all, but to try to blend it with race makes sense to you? Please enlighten us on your theological and historical knowledge on abortion…
7. navydad | November 27th, 2007 at 9:38 am
coulterfan,
Best to be a bit confused then to advocate the murder of innocent life.
8. Bigfoot | November 27th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Sometimes when reading these types of blogs I get the feeling wingnuts believe abortions began with Roe v Wade. They could not be more wrong.
Jane, you are correct that abortions did not begin with Roe v Wade, but I would say incorrect that we “wingnuts” (your term) believe otherwise. I would submit that most of us pro-lifers know about the abortions prior to this judicial decision. Back then, the conditions under which an abortion could be obtained were determined by state legislatures. If Roe v Wade were to be reversed, those state laws would reinstated. The situation would revert to the time before Roe v Wade, meaning that abortions would take place to the same extent as during that time.
I have come to realize that if Roe v Wade were to be reversed, it would not be the pro-abortion side, but the pro-life side, especially the politicians, who would find life more difficult. Without Roe v Wade, the decision over the conditions under which an abortion may be obtained would revert to our elected representatives, who would then be able to modify their state abortion laws as they and their constituents see fit. If most Americans are pro-choice, as the pro-choice side claims, then those representatives will make abortion available under a wide variety of circumstances. Women who want abortions would have little to fear.
On the other hand, pro-life politicians have had a relatively easy situation during the past 35 years. They have been able to say anything they want against abortion, without having to back up their words with actions, since Roe v Wade effectively prevents them from doing so. Those who are in legislatures can pass laws, but do so with the knowledge that the courts, with Roe v Wade as precident, will strike those laws down. Without Roe v Wade, they will have to propose changes to the abortion laws and face having their changes opposed by other legislators, and also deal with their own constitutents, who may or may not approve of what they propose. In other words, they will have to put their money where their mouth is. Are you really pro-life, Delegate/Congress(wo)man/Senator? Then do something about it!
9. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 9:45 am
>>Best to be a bit confused then to advocate the murder of innocent life.<<
Who is advocating the ‘murder of innocent life’?
Guiliani? Romney (sometimes)? Pat Robertson? Condi Rice (pro-choice)? Laura Bush (also pro-choice)? Barbara Bush (ditto)?
Just because one thinks we should be FREE to control our own lives doesn’t mean that one ‘advocates’ taking innocent lives. . . We may feel that assault weapons should be legal, for instance, but this is hardly the same as advocating that they be used to take innocent lives. We may feel that alcohol should remain legal, but not be advocating for alcoholism.
The only thing I’m advocating is personal freedom. . .
10. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 9:54 am
>>On the other hand, pro-life politicians have had a relatively easy situation during the past 35 years.<<
Excellent points, Bigfoot. I think it’s HIGH time that ‘pro-life’ politicians start giving REAL answers. . .
Like, if abortion is illegal, what should be the penalty for the taking of life? Are you prepared to sentence young women who seek out abortions to life in prison, or the death penalty (if you support it for murder)?
If a fetus is a child, then are you prepared to jail mothers for smoking, drinking, etc during pregnancy (providing controlled substances to a minor)? For not wearing her seatbelt? For failing to get pre-natal care?
Will ALL miscarriages be investigated as possible murder, or just the ’suspicious’ cases?
Are they REALLY pro-life. . . do they advocate for universal pre-natal care, for universal health care for ALL children, etc? Or are they only ‘pro-life’ UNTIL the children are born?
Good question, Bigfoot. . . Are the ‘pro-life’ people prepared to act on their beliefs, or not?
11. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Without forcing an American to do something that they hate, reading their own history, I would point you to the Rockefeller Commission 1969 report which in plain English said, White suburban educated white people are not breeding as quickly as poor black and other minorities who live in cities. A short four years later the Supreme Court took up Roe v Wade and held that a woman had the right to an abortion. In 1979 after the ‘great political schism’ of the Christian Voice/Moral Majority, the platform that was used to bring evangelicals/fundamentalist/protestant white to the polls for Ronald Reagan was based upon the Rockefeller Commission Report of 1969. Here is the gist of what I mean by abortion being a racial issue, the only means by which hegemony of white Americans can be countered and changed is via the polls and those elected to federal representative office. The only way to change the dynamic of Congressional districts, and to drain the power of gerrymandering, is to outbreed the majority. Abortion, homosexuality, and illegal immigration which usually leads to the birth of legal offspring are the only three threats to the “national security of white privilege” and thus are the three major stands taken by the political and religious right.
12. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Very well done coulterfan, you clearly “grok” the issue in its depths that go far beyond polarization and into daily practice.
13. Into the Pro-Abortion Sew&hellip | November 27th, 2007 at 11:22 am
[…] Original post by unknown […]
14. neocon | November 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
coulter,
Please provide an example of the advertised abortions from 1776. I am curious to see them.
15. Dasein Libsbane | November 27th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
The Rockefeller Commission report found just the opposite.
Still pretending to be a lawyer?
16. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Well, Google turns up many discussions about ads for abortion in Colonial America. A historian noted the following:
“In their day it was perfectly normal to find ads for patent abortion medicines in newspapers and journals. In 1810 the Herald of Liberty, an Augusta newspaper (Maine was then part of Massachusetts, home state of the Adams family), announced the availability of “Dr. Rolfe’s Aromatic Female Pills,” promising that “they are conducive to the health of married women, unless when pregnant, at which time they must not be taken as they would most certainly produce miscarriage.” Rolfe’s cautionary note was not intended to protect him against legal charges, as it was not a criminal offense in Massachusetts, or anywhere else in the United States, to induce a miscarriage before quickening.”
I don’t know whether scans of these ads exist on the web, but this is PLENTY of evidence that abortion services were legal and widespread at the founding of our country.
17. Kahn | November 27th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
The same socio-economic arguments that support abortion supported slavery. All you need to do is redefine a particular kind of human as “less-than-human” to make the arguments work.
Please tell me the moment to the second when a “fetus” becomes a “baby”. If you can’t, then you must be willing to take the chance of killing a baby for socio-economic reasons.
Do that if you must. But remember that YOU are the baby killers, not us.
18. Dasein Libsbane | November 27th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
“PLENTY of evidence“? How about some?
Actually, in Colonial America abortion was controlled by Common Law. It was socially unaccaptable to induce miscarrage by a physician or chemist. Laws wern’t necessary as it wasn’t a practice one could readily find available.
Nice try, though … thanks for playing.
19. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
>>Please tell me the moment to the second when a “fetus” becomes a “baby”. If you can’t, then you must be willing to take the chance of killing a baby for socio-economic reasons.
Do that if you must. But remember that YOU are the baby killers, not us.<<
When the fetus can live outside the womb. Otherwise, you haven’t SEEN ‘Big Government’ until they are jailing women for life for illegal abortions, investigating all miscarriages as murder, prosecuting women for smoking while pregnant, etc.
And WHO are the ‘baby killers’? Guiliani, Romney, Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Condi Rice, and ALL of their supporters are just as ‘guilty’ as Hillary Clinton (who is to the right of Guiliani on the issue), Obama, etc. In contrast, Harry Reid is PRO-LIFE.
So much for your unfounded preconceptions. Who do YOU support in 2008? Huckabee, McCain?
20. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
>> Nice try, though … thanks for playing.<<
Maybe you should do some research before blowing smoke out your *ss. Abortions were permitted until the 4th month until about 1900. Newspaper advertising for products to induce miscarriage were prevalent in the early 1800s.
Who do YOU support in 2008? McCain or Huckabee?
21. Kahn | November 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
“live outside the womb? For how long? With or without assistance. And, just when is that - to your knowledge?
So, no worries. Non-doctor coulterfan has definitively defined where life begins. I had no ide your enormous brain had the power to make that kind of decision. Wow.
But by definition then, you must agree that “full term” or “partial birth” abortions are wrong. That practice meets your vague requirement.
Also, are you saying that Democrats are the anti-abortion party now and that these individual Republicans are the baby killers? Its a pretty convoluted and confused post you just made. Admit it.
On the whole (admitting exceptions), Republicans are “pro-life”/anti-abortion and Democrats are “pro-choice”/pro-abortion. Yes?
So about choice; what other choices are OK? Murder of new borns? Rape? Slavery (that was a Democratic position in the past)? Murder? Everything is a choice.
You should have the freedom of choice to decide if you want to free you slaves or not? Well again, that was the Democrat position wasn’t it?
22. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
MY post was convoluted? I think you missed my point. . . the Republicans can’t claim to be ‘Pro-Life’ while nominating pro-choice candidates. Personally, I don’t think MOST ‘Pro-Life’ people have thought through their positions. . .
What about it? Life in prison or the death penalty for young women who have abortions?
If a fetus IS a full-blown child, as you suggest, and the mother smokes, drinks, doesn’t wear her seatbelt, doesn’t eat properly, doesn’t get pre-natal care, etc.. . these SHOULD be prosecuted as crimes against a minor, correct?
Who pays for the birth, pre-natal care, and post-natal care, as well as care for the child? Given that MOST abortions are done by poor, young women (most without health care), are you prepared for taxpayers to pick up the cost of Universal Health Care for these people (and their children)?
Just what IS the pro-life position on these issues?
23. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Wait, I figured it out. . . According to Mark Hemingway of the National Review:
‘On the conference call, Dara admitted to me that she and Brian had been talking about having children since before they were married. She further admitted that after they were married she voluntarily left a job at a country club that had good health insurance, because the situation was “unmanageable.” The couple went on to have a baby anyway, presuming that others would pay for it and certainly long before they knew their daughter would have heart [sic] defect that probably cost the gross national product of Burkina Faso to fix.”
So, if I have this straight: people should not have sex until they are married and have well-paying jobs with health insurance. This explains why Republicans are against birth control, the morning after pill, sex ed in schools, etc!
Well, maybe Republicans DON’T have sex before marriage and before they have health insurance, but in the real world people DO (whether it’s a good decision or not)! So, who pays for pre- and post-natal care, childbirth, and health care for the mother and her child?
24. Angry Redneck | November 27th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
So you’re ok with abortion as a form of birth control?
25. plainjane | November 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
8. Bigfoot | November 27th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Very good points.
26. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Am I the only one answering questions? Obviously I don’t think abortion should be used as birth control, that’s what BIRTH CONTROL should be for! Sex education has been proven to REDUCE teen pregnancies. . . and the morning after pill is NOT abortion- it just prevents implantation of a fertilized egg (something that happens naturally all the time).
Do you think a woman who was raped should have to carry her rapist’s baby to term? What about the victim of incest? What if it were YOUR wife/daughter who was raped (God forbid)?
And WHAT ABOUT the repurcussions I mentioned previously? Are you prepared to put women on death row for having abortions?
27. Dasein Libsbane | November 27th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Typical liberal, if you say it then it must be true. “Abortions were permitted until the 4th month until about 1900. ”
And wrong again, the first laws concerning abortion; the deliberate killing of an unborn child first appeared in the 1820’s, and those were written for the purpose of maternal safety (James C. Mohr’s Abortion in America). Inducement of miscarriage became illegal after “quickening” or the first time the mother felt a live being; around 4 or 5 months. The timeline was set because inducement prior to quickening could not be substantiated as a miscarriage nor was there thought to be danger to the mother.
“during the Nineteenth century feminists and free lovers alike condemned abortion because it destroyed a human being.”( Carl N. Degler, At Odds). The inducement by a physician or chemist in violation of Common Law was punishable by imprisonment in England in the 18th Century, America was a Colony then and subject to British Common Law.
Still waiting for that mountain of proof.
28. Ricorun | November 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Regarding the history of abortion law, a good place to look is Roe v. Wade.
29. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
>>Inducement of miscarriage became illegal after “quickening” or the first time the mother felt a live being; around 4 or 5 months. The timeline was set because inducement prior to quickening could not be substantiated as a miscarriage nor was there thought to be danger to the mother.<>Still waiting for that mountain of proof.<<
Still waiting for some answers. It’s surprising to me that NO ONE has thought this through- What SHOULD be the penalty for a young woman who ‘murders’ her baby?
Anyone?
Anyone?
30. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Dasein Libsbane,
I am no more pretending my skill at law in my homeland than you are pretending to work for a university out west. All things being the same however, I excel at my job because those who can do and those who can’t . . . well. My statements reflected the trepidation felt when white society reflected on the numbers of minority children being born vice those of educated whites not the overall concern of population growth. What was the concern then as it is now in the abortion immigration homosexuality troika are decreases in the numbers of white children being born and rising to voting age not disparities in population growth as an amalgamation.
From the Rockefeller Commission Report the bit that stuck most with those in Congress, in country clubs and nascent pundits like pat Buchanan, but which was produced least for CBS NBC and ABC in that time:
“I suggest to you that many of us who are advantaged have a vested interest in keeping the disadvantaged exactly where they are. Our economic and political strategies are clearly designed to keep a segment of our population poor and powerless. I suggest that many of our social welfare programs have failed and are failing to help the poor and oppressed among us because they were never intended to help them.42
The decade 1960 to 1970 saw a doubling of the number of young black men and women aged 15 to 24 in the metropolitan areas of every part of the nation except the south.43 This increase, twice that for comparable white youth, was the result of higher black fertility to begin with, participation in the post-World War II baby boom, and continued migration away from southern rural poverty. The result has been more and more young black people ill-equipped to cope with the demands of urban life, more likely to wind up unemployed or in dead-end, low-paying jobs, and caught in the vicious wheel of poverty, welfare, degradation, and crime.
The facts we have cited describe a crisis for our society. They add up to a demographic recipe for more turmoil in our cities, more bitterness among our “have-nots,” and greater divisiveness among all of our peoples. What we have said here means that unless we address our major domestic social problems in the short run—beginning with racism and poverty—we will not be able to resolve fully the question of population growth. And, unless we can resolve the question of population growth, in the long run it not only will further aggravate our current problems, but may eventually dwarf them.”
31. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
A bit of scholarly work to aid coulterfan,
From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states.
32. Dasein Libsbane | November 27th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Tired of playing Lord of the Underworld?
Your citation proves my point; social programs were deemed failures. This in no way supports your contention that abortion (Roe) was an outgrowth of the Rockefeller Report, nor does it support your statement, “White suburban educated white people are not breeding as quickly as poor black and other minorities who live in cities.” Pat Buchanan (speechwriter for Nixon at the time) wrote that the Rockefeller Report was liberal trash, and pleaded for a Conservative counterpart to the conclusions of the Report.
You’d be amusing if not so pathetic, get out of your mother’s basement and stop the role-playing games.
33. navydad | November 27th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
coulterfan, like many libs, is suffering from Babsitis, wherein everything is touchy feely…for themselves at least, without consideration for life…unless of course it’s theirs.
So coulterfan, out of the million or so abortions in the USA each year, how many are for birth control purposes and how many actually are legitimate…hmmm?
This should be the answer of the year.
34. Dasein Libsbane | November 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Rico,
Roe contained opinion gleaned from misrepresentation of historic evidence. I’d suggest a citation not contained in flawed judicial legislation.
Simply stated; failure to codify illegality doesn’t constitute legality in and of itself. Murder was covered under common law, the British colonies were subject to common law, and infanticide was considered murder. Children in colonial America were a much prized commodity; inducement to miscarry was the dominion of the unwed, adulterers, prostitutes and mentally unbalanced. Laws weren’t enacted because they didn’t need to be.
35. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Insults, insults. . . is that your only ‘argument’ navydad?
Why don’t you answer MY questions? If your wife or daughter were violently raped, would you force her to carry her rapist’s baby to term? If she had an illegal abortion, would you punish it as murder (life in prison or the death penalty)?
What ABOUT Universal health care for all uninsured women and their children? Just how ‘pro-life’ are you? Does being ‘pro-life’ END after the fetus is born?
The fact that NO ONE can answer for their position speaks VOLUMES!
>>From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states.<<
Exactly. And this is how it SHOULD be. . . I am ALL FOR educating people about abortion- I think the ‘Pro-Life’ billboards are admirable and the RIGHT way to go about things.
I USED to think that ‘liberals’ wanted to make laws governing everything. If wearing seatbelts saves lives, make a LAW rather than educating the public. If cigarettes are unhealthy, make a series of LAWS and taxes to curb the behavior rather than educating the public.
Now, though, it seems the Republicans are the ones wanting to legislate everything rather than educate. You know what, we don’t need morality police- especially HYPOCRITICAL ones who say one thing while doing another. . .
36. navydad | November 27th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Now we’re getting somewhere cf!
You see, when you actually use common sense, rather than burden us with senseless emotional rhetoric, it makes the discussion mush more inviting.
When you ask the question: “If your wife or daughter were violently raped,….”.
This is where abortion, IMHO, goes outside the boundries of “birth control” and ultimate responsibility to abort is derived from the mother knowing the difference between good and evil. Evil defined as being conceived during a rape. Good defined as during love making and not just casual sex. We’re on the same side here, however, if you were to honestly answer my question regarding “how many are for birth control purposes”, I’m sure your true colors would surface.
I may be wrong, but I’d wager you’d say less than 10%.
37. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Dasein,
Maybe you can grasp the simpler nuances of this question: Do you think if put to the American people in a vote as I have offered that Roe would be overturned?
Last time I checked Roe was still the law, I’m not in my mother’s basement and you have done what all conservatives do when confronted with historical connexion of facts, attempt to smear the messenger, obfuscate the query and make a dog’s breakfast of the issue. I am in no manner a Lord by any stretch of the imagination nor do I misrepresent my self in any manner. I am what I am, proudly. You on the other hand give me great delight that human beings can take hope for you have short lifespans and since you have consumed half of yours there is hope for Humankind.
America is quite sick of . . . well this is not worth it is it? With Romeny Giuliani and Huckabee as your only choices the Democrats could run Muskie and win the White House. Even trent Lott had enough sense to get out of the game Dasein you are becoming one of those hangers on at a party that has been over for quite some time.
38. Ricorun | November 27th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Dasein, we should believe Ramesh Ponuru… why? For one thing, I don’t see where he gives any references. For another, his criticism (at least insofar as it pertains to Blackmun’s decision) doesn’t seem to be very convincing. I’m not advocating Roe v. Wade — I’m only arguing that Ponuru doesn’t make a particularly good case that the historical account of abortion law contained in Roe v. Wade is inaccurate.
I didn’t read the brief from the 400 historians Ponuru was most directly attacking. So I can’t say anything about that. Besides, the brief’s origin is the late 80s, so it didn’t impact Roe.
39. lilly06 | November 27th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I don’t believe that we will ever agree on this topic.
To be frank I don’t believe that the doctor should be struck off for advising women to ‘think twice’ about abortion. The system shouldn’t provide one sided advice on how to go ahead with an abortion without offering the reality of how hard it is to make such a life changing decision.
A decision to terminate a pregnancy stays with you for life especially when a perfectly healthy baby can go to a couple who are desperately seeking a child.
However..the law should not there to enforce religious beliefs on the entire population. Not everyone believes in God and we have to accept there. There needs to be adequate separation of religion and state so that all people whether we agree with their ‘lifestyle’ or not can make their own choice.
Like it or not but God is a God of choice. Why do you think the tree of life was in the garden of Eden, humanity started on choice.
In this case it was wrong of the system in the UK not to offer choice, but it is also wrong of you not to offer it either.
Stop placing you judgements and personal feelings on everyone else. With all due respect but you need to leave your comfort zone and actually visit a country outside of the States and integrate into a different culture.
I didn’t just say visit but actually INTEGRATE.
Its so obvious your understanding of everything in life is limited to one aspect of thinking. Its really arrogant to assume that you’ve got it all right.
Only God is always right.
40. Dasein Libsbane | November 27th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
As you have offered? Mighty generous of you to make such an offer. But, right and wrong is not a matter of a popularity contest, and this form of government is representative for a reason. If you had any connection with the law other than attaching a misnomer to your sobriquet you’d understand that.
In relation to historical connexion, (sic) you have not presented facts with which one would “obfuscate. You have made overgeneralizations, innuendo and attempted misdirection by name dropping. Abortion is not a right-wing conspiracy to subvert minorities from becoming majorities. There is no “ decreases in the numbers of white children being born and rising to voting age based on fertility of other races, and you have misrepresented yourself as an attorney and as an otherworldly being not of woman born. Shall we return to your pitchfork blog or B4B for your jejune quotations?
Since you’ve tried repeatedly to box my opinion into something you can ridicule; perhaps you could impress us all by stating what my opinion of abortion is? You haven’t gotten my profession, age, or political orientation right yet, perhaps you will have better luck with something simple. What’s my position on abortion? Sad little fraud.
41. Jeremiah | November 27th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
America has set a real “good” image of itself making money by Murdering unborn babies.
lilly06,
Correct, God did give us a choice, Do you know what He would prefer that choice to be? To give life!!
Not take it.
He’s already given us His Word on His rules concerning life.
Murder is against His rules.
Do you think we should do what God doesn’t want us to do?
Jeremiah
42. Dasein Libsbane | November 27th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Rico,
I’ll grant you that Ponnuru addresses the amicus as it uses Blackmun as authority, and in that it is convoluted. However, he (Ponnuru) is quite accurate when he describes the prevailing authority of common law in colonial America. Tribal customs aside, in Europe (and we are Eurocentric even if liberals would have you believe otherwise) abortion was not just socially unacceptable; those so engaged were prosecuted for ancillary crimes. It has been theorized that Jack the Ripper was an abortionist attempting to cover his (or her) “mistakes” with a creative patient disposal plan; scare the bejebbers out of London.
It is hard at best to draw up judicial legislation in the form of precedent; it’s another thing entirely to deliberately misrepresent what the founding fathers believed in absence of written evidence. The court should have decided that it (the Court) didn’t have jurisdiction over the matter and returned it to the states for legislation.
vis-à-vis the subject of the thread; my doctor warns me of the risks and alternatives prior to any “procedure”. The doctor in this case is doing the same.
43. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
While I shall not take your bait I will make the leap of Faith that you are an abortion moderate. Yet you once again feel the need to misrepresent me, my kind and my profession. I never implied that abortion is a right wing conspiracy of any sort. What the debate is about and what you obfuscate with your posts is that the fear of the drain on live births to white educated mothers and in modern times white mothers ingeneral threatens to dilute white hegemony in the USA. This is a topic that you will refuse to confront because their is in my very humble opinion the very basis of the white Chirtian politcal movemnt to demonize [pun intended ] those who support a womn’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy legally in the United States.
You may call me what you will think of me what you want but when the facts come flocking home to roost this is the very great heart of abortion, immigration and homosexuality as concerns for conservatives in America.
Class dismissed!
44. Jeremiah | November 27th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
lilly06,
You mentioned Adam and Eve in your post, and their choice.
Do you remember what God commanded them not to do, though?
Remember what happened when they disobeyed God?
Always remember - Choices have consequences, due to the boundaries that God has set in place, if we go outside those boundaries we have to face the consequences. Some, but not all in this life, and some in the next life. Actions can affect our eternal life.
For Murder, there are consequences.
Jeremiah
45. neocon | November 27th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Cav,
You are such a racist, it’s hard to take you seriously.
46. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
The beauty of the Internet is that if you wait long enough some conservative will utter a few bon mots that bear out what you have been saying all along. Witness here Pat Buchanan from his own lips telling the truth [for once] about the “evils of abortion”:
“How is America committing suicide?” answering: “Every way a nation can.” He proceeds to claim that “[t]he American majority is not reproducing itself. … Forty-five million of its young have been destroyed in the womb since Roe v. Wade, as Asian, African, and Latin American children come to inherit the estate the lost generation of American children never got to see.” On Hannity & Colmes, Buchanan asserted: “You’ve got a wholesale invasion, the greatest invasion in human history, coming across your southern border, changing the composition and character of your country. You’ve got the melting pot that once welded us all together, which has broken down.” Co-host Sean Hannity went on to ask him: “Do you really believe that America, the country we all love as we know it, is in jeopardy of existing?” Buchanan responded: “I think America may exist, but I’ll tell you this: I do believe we’re going to lose the American Southwest. I think it is almost inevitable.” He continued: “If we do not put a fence on that border …you’re going to have 100 million Hispanics in the country, most of them new immigrants from Mexico, which believes that belongs to them. What’s going to happen to us, Sean, in my judgment, is what is happening right now: We are Balkanizing. We are dividing and separating from one another politically, morally — on issues like abortion or Terri Schiavo — racially and ethnically when you get Jena and then you get Don Imus, and all of these things ripping us apart. All the things that used to pull us together and hold us together no longer do.” –Media Matters, directly quoting Pat Buchanan’s latest book, Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, And Greed Are Tearing America Apart
47. neocon | November 27th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
>>You may call me what you will think of me what you want but when the facts come flocking home to roost this is the very great heart of abortion, immigration and homosexuality as concerns for conservatives in America. - Cav<<
You are definitely a product of our failed education system.
48. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Neocon,
Realist not racist. Am I racist because I see that a browning America is not a bad thing after 200+ years of pale failure? I will grant the success of technology bravo well done but in the true growing toward becoming Human Beings not very much progress has passed my eyes. Here is where you fail because the very speaking of matters racial sends you to the vitriol bucket ready to sling scoops of burning acid on everyone such that the stinging remove from all minds the topic of discussion.
Pity the small among you suffer the large of ego.
49. Jeremiah | November 27th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Cavalor,
There is only One that can bind us together as a Nation.
Jesus Christ
Jeremiah
50. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
Jeremiah,
Dead wrong.
Free Market Capitalism. Anything short of the growing of the economy and the spreading of wealth all other things become very thin soup. Your religion, this method of debate all things suffer when economy fails. Let your religion feed you when all others eat a feast and I will keep Faith in the motions of markets and the honest goodwill of ration brokers. Other than that keep your belief like you tend a fire away from other things that it might catch and consume and destroy.
51. neocon | November 27th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Cav,
You focus on the color of ones skin as your main identifier. That is the very definition of a racist. In your last post, you mention the “browning” of America. You’re disgustingly a racist and too stupid to know it.
Your writing skills are pathetic, your analogies pedestrian, and the mush in your mind is fully indoctrinated. Sorry but I don’t believe there’s any hope for you.
52. Dasein Libsbane | November 27th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
I’m not a “moderate” on any subject.
“ I never implied that abortion is a right wing conspiracy of any sort.”
“ the platform that was used to bring evangelicals/fundamentalist/protestant white to the polls for Ronald Reagan ”
“conservatives love all children in the womb so they can have adults to hate in the future ”
“Abortion was a good nail for conservatives to hang their hat on they thought in the 70s because they could point to declining populations of white Americans vice the fecundity of blacks and connect those dots of what America was supposed to look like today. ”
“the fear of the drain on live births to white educated mothers” Aborting minorities drains white births … how?
That’s twice you’ve referenced Buchanan; perhaps you can explain to everyone how his views are synchronistic with mine, or neocon’s or Navydad’s, or anyone else on this thread? didn’t think so. now, go pack tou your playland with the other “demons” and scary such types. Ba’Bye, now.
53. Jeremiah | November 27th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
The things which harm us the most, such as Abortion, Illegal immigrants, Criminals, Drugs, Pornography…
aren’t what bring us together, it is our Love for Jesus Christ that binds us together, if it were not for those of the Christian communities in America, this Nation would have ceased to exist long ago.
Without Jesus we would not be here.
Satan would have been allowed to take over and chaos would have ruled Murder and Disease would have wiped us out.
Youl will not find unity without Jesus Christ.
Jeremiah
54. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Dasein,
Good day.
Jeremiah,
What would have America do? Make Christianity the national religion? Require every make pledge to be more religious? You attitude is childlike not childish because it is rife with naïveté and diffidence not ignorance. You are the type of person most likely to be duped by the Meyers the Dollars and the Osteens of the Christianity for Cash set.
55. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Neocon,
Do not be so despondent. White America had an amazing 300+year run. And thanks for being such an adult and offering solutions instead of personal attacks. Race like it or not is Americas prime mover. Only a white man could possibly call someone who takes the white race to task a racist. That is the very height of hubris and it is the sword that will decapitate you in the end.
56. Jeremiah | November 27th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Make Christianity the national religion?
Cavalor,
Can’t do that.
The people must have a willingness in their hearts to serve the Lord. If the people don’t want to serve the Lord and put Him first in this Nation, then everything else will fall apart. Jesus Christ instituted Governments that some authority can be taken over the evil man.
God is head of the house. Not man. Not money. But He loved you so much that He gave you a second chance when He gave His life on the cross at Calvary, so that you might want to serve Him.
We are a fortunate people.
Seek ye first the kingdom of Heaven, and His righteousness, and all these other things will be unto ye.
It’s an individual battle, depending on where the peoples hearts are at, when combined, that will make a difference.
All things are possible through Christ.
Jeremiah
57. Cavalor Epthith, Esquire, DSVJ | November 27th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Jeremiah,
Save your breath Man. You have your religion and I have my Faith. Show a small measure of respect and leave it at that. Go in Peace.
58. Jeremiah | November 27th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
and I have my Faith.
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offering. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death.
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built and ark to save his family.
By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.
By faith he made his home in the promised land like a foreigner in a strange country.He was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder was God.
By faith Abraham, even though he was past age–and Sarah herself was barren–was enabled to become a father because he considered him faithful who had made the promise.
All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country–a heavenly one. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
Jeremiah
59. coulterfan | November 27th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
navydad,
So glad we agree on something. There ARE those, however, who would force a woman to have her rapist’s child. In fact, there are even those who claim that a woman cannot become pregnant through rape!
As far as using abortion as birth control, I believe I answered that. I DO think we need better access to birth control, emergency contraception, and better sex ed. These are PROVEN to reduce teen pregnancies and abortions and are something many religious zealots oppose.
To all who are pro-life:
Again, what should be the penalty for the young mother who aborts her child? Life in prison, the death penalty? After all, if abortion is murder we must treat it as such. And what about pre and post natal care, as well as health care for the children and mother. If they cannot afford health insurance (currently over $1000.00 per MONTH for family coverage), ‘Pro-Lifers’ MUST have some plan to pay for the costs!?!?
Why will no one answer? If you cannot answer this, then abortion cannot be outlawed- for what good is a law without appropriate punishment? Or maybe we should leave abortion legal and trust that only God can dole out appropriate punishment?
60. Jeremiah | November 27th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Coulterfan,
Yes, Abortion should be outlawed.
As for the punishment for those who commit Murder of their unborn child?
I think if we outlawed Abortion, 95% of all children would be given life, and as for the other 5% we know that there always going to be those who disobey the law, no matter what the laws are. However, for those women who are caught Murdering their unborn child should be institutionalized, because any Mother who would Murder their unborn child is not thinking sanely to begin with ie the mother who drowned her 5 children in a pond, and the woman who threw her two children in the dumpster.
Any healthy minded mother would give their child life, pay attention too, and obey the laws of the land.
Jeremiah
61. bongoman | November 27th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Do you mean jailed or committed to a mental institution? For how long? Life?
And do you really equate someone terminating a pregnancy early in the term to someone killing their 5 children in a pond?
I think there would be many, many women who would be outraged at your comparison.
62. Jeremiah | November 27th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
committed to a mental institution?
Precisely!
For how long?
Until she is stable enough to make wise decisions, and be civil. Which is all we ask from any of our citizens.
do you really equate someone terminating a pregnancy early in the term to someone killing their 5 children in a pond?
I think there would be many, many women who would be outraged at your comparison.
Doesn’t matter, in both situations they are living human beings. Which makes them both murder.
Jeremiah
63. Jeremiah | November 27th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Osteens of the Christianity for Cash set.
Cavalor,
I will concede that there are ministers who bring a false message. Pastor Osteen preaches that “self” is more important than God. In other words, he’s saying that “self” comes first, then God.
We can’t do that … God must be first and foremost in all that we do.
Pastor Osteen, set on national television in front of Larry King and denied many things about Faith.
I don’t want to offend anyone here, but in all honesty, he’s not standing up for truth. He should be bringing the message that ‘God comes first, and THEN everything else will follow. We should be walking in Faith not of “ourselves” but of God, because without God, none of our existence would be possible.
Jeremiah
64. Mark Noonan | November 28th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Plain,
Please provide verifiable information that an abortion was ever attempted with a coat hanger.
Also, please look up the “back alley” abortionists and tell me what they did after Roe.
If you do that, you’ll have two bits of truth about abortion to go into your mental mix which, apparantly, only includes pro-abortion platitudes at the moment. Once you let in some truth about abortion, you’ll be on the road to pro-life views.
I look forward to eventually welcoming you to our side.
65. Mark Noonan | November 28th, 2007 at 1:19 am
Coulter,
The punishment a woman receives as a result of an abortion is the life long guilt and, very often, self destructive behaviour she engages in after having the abortion.
A “doctor” who performs an abortion, however, is guilty of first degree murder, and should pay the just price for such a crime.
66. Mark Noonan | November 28th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Lilly,
Admirable sentiments of tolerance - but some things are just intolerable, and one of them is abortion.
In my statements on the abortion issue, I don’t concede the other side as having a valid point - because they don’t have one. In my view, those who are in favor of abortion just haven’t thought about it while those who aren’t in favor of a ban on abortion haven’t thought about it enough.
As one commenter noted, an abortion is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. And that is if you wish to grant that a pregnancy can be other than a blessing (which it can’t). A pregnancy lasts 9 months, an abortion lasts forever - having an abortion in response to the troubles associated with having a child is akin to cutting down a whole forest as a response to the worry about a forest fire.
67. lilly06 | November 28th, 2007 at 6:40 am
Fine as I said you would never agree with me however I’d like to know what you feel about coulterfan’s comments. He makes some very valid ones.
The fact is that you are only seeing things from one side. I am sure you have NEVER left America or really your home town except to visit other like minded people.
You have never integrated with other people who offer an alternative view. Since you are always pulling rank on partisan lines then lets say I’m sure you barely integrate with ‘liberal’ christians.
Mark you don’t talk like you understand who Jesus was. There is little compassion or understanding in your intepretation of anything. You sound like a nice man with a nice family but you also sound like the bullies who go outside clinics terrorising women who make this difficult choice.
Okay fine you don’t believe in abortion, who gives you the right to show little compassion to those who make decisions that are not yours.
Jesus showed compassion to the gentiles and to Mary Magdalene, those who the world had ostracised and a woman made decisons that were not what he would have made.
You are JEREMIAH have lost your way. Instead to shooting bullets of commands at people, try encouraging your faith through understanding. It goes a longer way.
I’m not saying you have to accept the act, but compassion towards the a person and understanding will go a longer way because in the end the woman is still alive and she will need God too.
Making her feel like a murderer probably will not help her walk with Christ.
68. Pain | November 28th, 2007 at 7:14 am
Noonan,
An abstract of emergent care following a “coat hanger” abortion in 1993 CE in the US state of Colorado.
We do not understand that if a woman goes to a doctor to abort her child growing inside her how is she not an accessory? At Law the punishment for a woman who took her child to a man to have it killed is also guilty by aiding and abetting of Murder in the First degree. If abortion is made illegal the hard choice for those who are politically anti abortion is that women who choose to have the procedures done will become criminals as well as their physicians. This will be a socially unpopular path when the first victim of sexual assault is found guilty of murdering her unborn child that is a product of rape. Would you call a judge who suspended her sentence an activist judge?
69. PlainJane | November 28th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Not that anybody cares…but here goes my two cent’s.
I honestly believe that at very high percentage of women that have abortions, think long and hard about the choice that they are going to make. I would like to disagree with the consensus that “only low income” or “people of non-white backgrounds” are the majority of women that have abortions.
As a female, I feel that abortion is a PERSONAL decision that can only be made by the one that is going to undergo the procedure. The women is the one who has to live with her decision. Weather I am pro-choice or anti. Is not what I bring to this board, but rather I would like to know how many of the “conservatives” out there want more government control about their day to day activities. What’s next? Are we going to need permission from the government to get a tattoo? Our ears pierced? To do anything to our own bodies? I know that the other examples are not to the degree as such an issue of abortion, but once you get that ball rolling where does it stop?
My personal thought on this issue of abortion is not where I am going with this. I consider myself a conservative, but I also feel really strong about not having anybody tell me what I can or can not do.
It might be argued that with more education, easier accessibility to birth control, we could reduce the abortion rate, and if you look at the statics from the CDC the abortion rate has been on the decline since around 1995, all due to things like education so on and so on.
As for Cavalor, they say that “ignorance is bliss”, your statements make me wonder if you might not be the most blissful person out there!
70. PlainJane | November 28th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Sorry…when I made this post I didnt realize there was already a “plainjane”.
Will have to change my name in the future.
71. Ricorun | November 28th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Dasein: Tribal customs aside, in Europe (and we are Eurocentric even if liberals would have you believe otherwise) abortion was not just socially unacceptable; those so engaged were prosecuted for ancillary crimes.
Boy, that’s a little tenuous, don’t you think? As tenuous as it is, I think you have to concede that you have to go even further and inject a “sometimes” in there as well. In other words, “those so engaged were sometimes prosecuted for ancillary crimes”. However you feel about that, you certainly can’t say they always were prosecuted, specifically or ancillarily (is that a word?), even when it was commonly known that an abortion had taken place. It is also impossible to deny that over the years some very prominent scholars in the Catholic Church condoned it under certain circumstances. I’m thinking most specifically of Augustine and Aquinas, both of whom are now considered saints. I’m not saying they’re right. But if they aren’t, who is? The obvious answer to that is… God. But how do we know what God thinks? We can’t for sure. Suffice it to say that different people, different groups, even different religions, thought different things at different times. So I think it’s fair to propose a distinction between canonical imperatives (i.e., beliefs that are required if one is to truly adhere to a particular sect, denomination, or church) and moral imperatives (i.e., beliefs that are required if one is to truly adhere to a belief in God). Many people are inclined to convolve the two. That is, they are inclined to think that whatever church they belong to is the one true church, and anyone who disagrees doesn’t really believe in God even if they claim they do. Is that fair? More specifically… is that American?
I vehemently disagree with the kind of attitude that suggests that any one sect has a monopoly on “truth”. IMO, there are many ways up the mountain. Thus, I am inclined to make a distinction between “truths” which are universal and those which are not. It’s rarely black and white of course. It is far more often a matter of degree. For example, virtually every religion professes a belief in the sanctity of life. But likewise, virtually all of them make a distinction between plant life and animal life most broadly, and between animal life and human life more specifically. The most obvious exception to the latter among the major religions is Hinduism, but others have variations on the theme. Even in Christianity there is a notion of “stewardship”.
Likewise, in virtually all religions there is some kind of distinction between the physical and the metaphysical — between the material and the spiritual, or between body and soul. Far more specific to particular sects are notions of how they merge into one, and how they ultimately separate again. I’ll spare you a discourse on comparative religion. Suffice it to say that many of the most contentious issues that confront us now, here in the US (regardless of whether people recognize them as such or not) have very much to do with the question of exactly when soul meets body and when they depart: Abortion, fetal stem cell research, in-vitro fertilization, cloning, Terry Schiavo, Dr. Kevorkian, even S-CHIP… all of them revolve around that concept. And I will go so far as to say that nothing in the argument makes much sense except in that context.
72. Tractatus | November 28th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
those who are in favor of abortion just haven’t thought about it while those who aren’t in favor of a ban on abortion haven’t thought about it enough.
And those who simply wait for the church to tell them what to believe do no thinking at all. Exhibit A: Mark Noonan.
73. Dasein Libsbane | November 28th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Rico,
In your examination of the “sometimes” anomaly, you should be aware that application of common law for the purpose of punishment of to instill penitence has always been situational. Prostitution and gambling, as a criminal enterprise has been viewed as victimless at various stages in our history, yet, in all stages, in one fashion or other both have been unlawful. Has every prostitute been charged? Has every gambler been arrested? Has every woman engaged in midwifery been tried and convicted for endangering the public or practicing medicine without a license in those jurisdictions where midwife laws exist to forbid such practices?
Condoned, allowed or accepted abortion is the question. In answer to the previous question regarding my personal beliefs I oppose abortion in all cases except one; in my belief system all persons on this earth are secondary to my wife. If I were to have to decide, God forbid, between the life of my wife and that of my yet born child I would have to condone abortion of the child. That is the only exception I would make. My wife however would decide the opposite and sacrifice herself before murdering the child. (Ironically, if her choice were between me and our daughter, I’d be toast.)
To clarify; this isn’t a religious conviction on my part, it’s a belief system.
Which is why I wonder about your descent into a religious conversation when responding to my post. I haven’t brought faith or religion into the argument at all. My point was to defuse the “it was legal before it was illegal” argument that the pro-abortion crowd toss around. Going back to colonial common law it was never “legal” it simply was not addressed, much as transvestites and homosexuality wasn’t addressed as a matter of law. But, if you left your house in a prom dress and wondered down to the docks for a “date” you’d better hope the constabulary arrests you for “disturbing the peace” before the longshoremen find you.
Anyway, I would respectfully disagree that “ many of the most contentious issues that confront us now, here in the US [] have very much to do with the question of exactly when soul meets body and when they depart.” I believe that the issue is much more corporeal; if society loses its respect for the person human, then there is no guarantee that my life will be respected. I’ve heard it theorized that the atheist is best served by praying that there is a supreme being to whom we all must answer, as without Him there is nothing to stop our mortal overlords from abusing the authority we grant them and vacating the rights we granted ourselves.
Fraud wrote, “When the Apostle Paul had posited universal love between men as the foundation of his Christian community, extreme intolerance on the part of Christendom toward those who remain outside it became the inevitable consequence.” In other words, Christianity; a religion of universal acceptance whose first order of business is the universal exclusion of all not like minded.
But, I digress.
74. Mark Noonan | November 28th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Plain,
Insufficient and clearly an entry written by a pro-abortion propagandist. You’ll have to do much better than that - and, also, I was referring to prior to Roe, though I didn’t make that clear. If that was a real case, it was because the girl was told often enough that such things were once tried. They never were, as far as I can determine.
As for whether it is a “personal” decision - its not; it involves another life. A mother does not own her unborn child because no human being can own another. Period. End of story. Thanks for playing.
75. Mark Noonan | November 28th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Lilly,
I don’t make women who have been victimised by the abortion industry feel like they are murderers…the abortions they are bamboozled into having make them feel that way. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’ve met women who have had abortions and it is partially due to their entreaty that I am so adamant against it. Out of a compassionate desire to spare people that sort of pain, I want abortion banned. The dead child is out of it after the abortion is complete - and my primary concern is with those women who were fooled into having an abortion (fooled? Yes, fooled…because you can’t rationally expect a woman to think, “hey, lets kill the child”…all elective abortions are ultimately the result of a woman pressured into having one…pressured by society which says having a child is a problem, pressured by boyfriends who don’t want responsibility, pressured by counselors at Planned Parenthood who make a lot of money off abortions…).
And I fail to see how my two years of living in Italy and my extensive experience around the world would make me more understanding of the insane desire to kill unborn children.
76. Angry Redneck | November 28th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Ok, let’s sum up this conversation…
Conservatives are racist…abortion is a race issue…anyone that has faith in Christ is a nut…and if you follow our Lord’s commandments you are naive. Oh the world through Cav’s eyes!
I can honestly say I can’t remember the last time I heard someone so full of @#&*. You speak in “word salad” (you know, all tossed together), have an absolute conspiracy theorist’s view on things, and your general arguments are based on what? Things you have read on the internet? Came to you in a dream, vision, or whatever the hell you want to call it? You have quoted one man’s view, so you have one man and his religion (Roman Catholic) that you are basing Christian Conservatives on for the past how many years? Going back to Nixon, or are you going back further in history?
As for the questions posted by people from planet Earth…
coulterfan…I think abortion should be an option when it’s medically necessary, or if it’s not a viable fetus…otherwise it’s murder. What that punishment should be, well, it’s not my call. But if you think for a minute that it’s not being used as birth control, you’re being naive.
Where did I get my views on this? Christianity and growing up believing God’s word. Don’t get me wrong, I have not always done as He would like, have made mistakes, and am no where near perfect (I still call people as I see ‘em, if you’re an idiot, you’re an idiot…some people may view it as being mean, I view it as being honest). But I am human, I ask for forgiveness, and try to correct my issues. I don’t seek to pass laws legalizing behavior that goes against what I know God doesn’t approve of. Do I personally judge the people that have had abortions? No, absolutely not. It’s not my place to judge. Do I hate them? Again, absolutely not. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
For those of you who still feel like the child is not a child until after it leaves the womb full term, read this story, don’t bother with the rest, I’m not forcing religion on anyone…just read the story.
77. InDaVa | November 28th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
“very often, self destructive behaviour she engages in after having the abortion.”
Noonan, Please provide verifiable information of this self destructive behaviour. Thanks. :)
78. Ricorun | November 28th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Dasein: Fraud wrote…
Mind you, I don’t disagree with all that you said. But if ever there was a Freudian slip, that would be it.
79. unreal Aka PlainJane | November 28th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Mark,
In response to “Insufficient and clearly an entry written by a pro-abortion propagandist.” Don’t make me gag. Just because my view on one subject might differ from yours, it does not make me a “propagandist”. I was not even responding to anything you said on the issue( “I was referring to prior to Roe,”).
I am guessing you were also outraged when Bush approved the morning after pill (what went wrong there?). No one..no one, will ever tell me what I can do with my body, not my parents, husband, children… and God forbid, the government!
And speaking of God, he will be the only one in judgement of my behavior or actions. Not someone that claims to be a “christian” whom stands in judgement of others. Nothing makes me laugh more then a hypocritical christian!
80. Transexual Mature Transex&hellip | December 22nd, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Transexual Mature Transexual Transexual Clubs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
81. king dominion and bush ga&hellip | January 12th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
king dominion and bush garden
How do you know? i don’t see any proof and if you check Google you will see that there are other facts to.
82. Garden freak&hellip | January 28th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Garden freak
Could you tell me why you did this in the first place?
83. Garen Fountain&hellip | February 16th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Garen Fountain
Hey, this is not completely true, if you do a search in Google you will see why i say that.
84. Sex Girls Having Sex Roug&hellip | March 17th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Sex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view