PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A judge gave a woman the go-ahead Monday to get an abortion after her ex-boyfriend won an extraordinary order that temporarily prevented her from terminating her pregnancy.
``I see it as a very sad case,'' said Dianna Thompson, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. ``The woman has the right to choose, which means the child has no right to live and the father has no right to raise this child.''
Does anybody have any information about the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" which unanimously passed by both parties in the Senate? President Bush signed the bill into effect yesterday and I have not heard anything about it. The story in my above post is making more headlines than this latest bill.
President Signs Born-Alive Infants Protection Act President Bush Monday signed H.R. 2175, a bill that ensures infants born alive at any stage of development receive the same legal protection provided to other human beings.
"I appreciate Gianna Jessen, who is an abortion survivor and a pro-life advocate."
I really feel for this individual. God bless you, Gianna! I just cannot even imagine the pain and horror she went through.
"I want to thank you all for coming. It's important that you're here, to send a signal that you're dedicated to the protection of human life. The issue of abortion divides Americans, no question about it. Yet today we stand on common ground. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act establishes a principle in America law and American conscience: there is no right to destroy a child who has been born alive. (Applause.) A child who is born has intrinsic worth and must have the full protection of our laws."
Way to go Mr. President! I agree! There is no right to destroy a child who has been born alive. Now no more babies will be left to die alone and cold on a hospital table.
"Today, through sonograms and other technology, we can clearly -- see clearly that unborn children are members of the human family, as well. (Applause.) They reflect our image, and they are created in God's own image."
I couldn't have said it better! Good point. Unborn children ARE members of the human family.
"The Born Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. (Applause.) It is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights. This law is a step toward the day when America fully becomes, in the words of Pope John Paul II, "a hospitable, a welcoming culture."
Exactly!
"Our society has enough compassion, wealth and love to care for mothers and their children, and to see the promise and potential of every life. In protecting the vulnerable and the weak, the imperfect and the unwanted, you are affirming a culture of life."
My point exactly! Every life has promise and potential.
The bill passed with the unanimous support of the Senate.
The Pennsylvania judge who last week prevented a pregnant woman from having an abortion at the behest of the woman's ex-boyfriend has reversed himself. The latest order, issued Monday by Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan, effectively gives the woman the legal ability to proceed with her plans to abort her child.
In his ruling, Conahan admitted that his previous order, blocking the abortion, had "inflicted significant and extreme emotional distress" on Tanya Meyers, who is about ten weeks pregnant with ex-boyfriend John Stachokus' child. Conahan also cited several legal precedents in writing that "neither an ex-boyfriend nor a fetus has standing to interfere with a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy."
--CSNS
Had this case turned out any other way, it would have been a travesty.
Fetuses don't have, nor should they, "rights" that supercede those of the women in whose bodies they reside.
And men darned well never better get the "authority" to overrule female control over THEIR reproductive destinies!
Besides, in this particular case, the boyfriend was apparently a bonafide lout, having harassed Tanya Meyers repeatedly and extensively since their parting, forcing her to file a restraining order.
Yeah, let's allow messed-up stalkers to decide that women shouldn't get abortions.
Sheesh!
The anti-choice mafia just gets wilder right along.
If it isn't shotgun attacks on Planned Parenthood Clinics, it's "advocacy" of crap like Stachokus tried to pull...
The TERRORISM directed earlier this year against Planned Parenthood clinics in Northern Minnesota must be condemned in the strongest possible terms by everyone.
Additionally, anti-choice zealots who have incessantly villified Planned Parenthood in their inflammatory rhetoric MUST acknowledge responsibility for engendering the climate which made such attacks seem acceptable -- indeed "necessary" -- in the eyes of the violent extremists who carried them out.
Or stand exposed as being ethically bankrupt (if not criminally culpable).
When Planned Parenthood and other women's health providers are constantly besmirched and demonized in furtherance of the sexist authoritarianism and mock morality of the religio-political Right, not only is the distinction between provocative advocacy and illegal conduct blurred...but "hate crime" finds its operative definition.
Even if, and especially because, it's couched in a professed "love" for fetuses.
It's supremely ironic that neither of the two clinics which sustained terroristic assaults performed abortions.
They are a part of the broad network of Planned Parenthood facilities which provide vital family planning and health services for both women and men.
As a definite part of their vital existence, an untold number of unwanted pregnancies that would have otherwise likely resulted in abortion...were prevented.
If anti-choicers thought rationally instead of from a frenzied psuedo-philosophical perspective that routinely ignores and/or distorts reality, they'd see that such clinics actually play a pivotal role in reducing the number of troublesome situational cases that both they and their pro-choice counterparts have to worry about.
Better information, education, health status, and responsible contraception.
These are the "evils" involved in the Brainerd and Grand Rapids outrages.
Paula, your posts have been rife with vicious anti-Planned Parenthood calumnies.
Do you now admit you've done something terribly wrong in fostering an atmosphere in which target-specific violence breeds?
Or will you stand before us, naked in your moral failing?
Because, while you and others almost identically like yourself may not have pulled the trigger, you all but provided the guns, and pointed them in the "desired" direction.
The TERRORISM directed earlier this year against Planned Parenthood clinics in Northern Minnesota must be condemned in the strongest possible terms by everyone.
That's the difference between most folks and you. We do condemn it even though we think abortion is wrong. You pick and choose which forms of terrorism are o.k.
But oh we must condemn terrorism, well we do, now you try doing that with the Palestinains and you might have a leg to stand on.
Maybe the felt they had to stop abortion "by any means nessecary". Sound familiar? See how silly it sounds ? Nah you probably don't.
Hello Dennis! I've noticed you've been gone for a while.
I've missed you.
"Vital"... "Fetuses" ... "Planned Parenthood" ...
What about LIFE???
Do you now admit you've done something terribly wrong in fostering an atmosphere in which target-specific violence breeds?
Doesn't this question apply to you?
There is NOTHING more violent than ripping, pulling, sucking and dismembering a perfectly formed little baby limb by limb, organ by organ, and sucking hunks of bloody flesh out of a woman, then charging her money and telling her you provided a service for her.
Or will you stand before us, naked in your moral failing?
Interesting choice of words...
Let me work out a few more months and then....
I will stand before you alone, Dennis ...with my moral fortitude and with all the confidence and conviction of someone defending the innocent.... I will say to you, Dennis, "EVEN THE TINIEST AND MOST DEFENSELESS OF HUMANS IS VALUABLE AND WORTHY OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE" and worth the TIME those who are pro-life take to help defend the defenseless.
And.... any organization who promotes or refers people to pay for the "service" of having someone rip to shreds, dismembering limb by limb and sucking out hunks of bloody flesh of a tiny, defenseless little baby from the safety of the womb is a horrid, money loving inhumane organization.
Something that stirs my curiosity is.... It seems like these incidents happen in an effort to gain sympathy for such organizations and stir public outrage and sympathy for the abortion-rights groups.
Where have you been Dennis? Can you account for your time???
Is this a dastardly attempt to gain publicity and support for your beloved organization?
And .....as I have said numerous times, ...anyone actually committing violence against ANY facility associated with either side of the abortion issue or it's employees or customers is NOT acceptable and should be held accountable and punished.
"Today, through sonograms and other technology, we can clearly -- see clearly that unborn children are members of the human family, as well. (Applause.) They reflect our image, and they are created in God's own image."
I couldn't have said it better! Good point. Unborn children ARE members of the human family.
"The Born Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. (Applause.) It is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights. This law is a step toward the day when America fully becomes, in the words of Pope John Paul II, "a hospitable, a welcoming culture."
Every child should be welcomed in life and protected in law!
"Our society has enough compassion, wealth and love to care for mothers and their children, and to see the promise and potential of every life. In protecting the vulnerable and the weak, the imperfect and the unwanted, you are affirming a culture of life."
Every life has promise and potential. I am helping to protect the vulnerable, weak, imperfect, and unwanted.
It is a noble thing to do when you are brave enough to speak out against those who support the inhumane and violent acts one human can do to it's innocent victim.
The most dangerous assault on the teaching of science in public schools doesn't come from creationists, who object to the teaching of evolution. The danger is in animal-rights activists peddling what they call "humane education."
But some so-called humane educators have a political agenda that veers away from teaching respect for life and instead embraces the philosophy that animals have the same moral status as humans. These educators oppose scientific research using "nonhuman animals" and want to grant animals civil rights.
Another tip-off that humane education isn't just about being kind to Fluffy is when the works of Princeton University professor and philosopher Peter Singer, whose writings are the underpinnings of the animal rights movement, are on the suggested reading list (you'll find him listed on the International Institute for Humane Education's website). This is the institute's idea of humanity: Singer opposes primate research, but supports infanticide. "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person," Singer has written. "Sometimes it is not wrong at all."
But then I'd be sabotaging a project that could help the 135,000 narcoleptic Americans, as well as research on unraveling the mysteries of sleep. Cork noted that the number of animals used in research is tiny when compared to the number of unwanted animals euthanized each year. She's right: According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2 million to 3 million dogs and 3 million to 4 million cats were put down in 1999, while only 100,000 dogs and cats were used in medical research. So, with the prevalent -- and needless -- abuse and neglect of animals, why pick on medical researchers?
How noble. And how easy to say if you don't consider the consequences. "If people had stopped (animal research) in 1900, people would still be dying of diabetes and crippled from polio. There would be no such thing as open-heart surgery," Newsome explains. Ban such research today, and expect few advances against AIDS, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease in this century.
So you can call the animal-rights movement many things, but don't call it humane.
* Above are the highlights from the article. What do you all think?
Thanks Jethro for posting this very interesting article.
"Bush Signs Fetus Status Law. President Bush signed a bill that declares a fetus that survives an abortion procedure a person under federal law."
That description would be laughable were it were not so sad. Sometimes it's hard to avoid talking back to a newspaper: "The creature protected by that newly signed Born Alive Infants Protection Act could not possibly be a fetus. The abortion procedure has expelled him from the womb. He is born. He's a person. What else could he be?"
But some judges in recent years did not grasp that elementary fact, and some doctors and nurses sadly left born-alive survivors of abortion to die in cold steel pans.
* It is for those survivors of abortion who were left to die in cold steel pans, it is for those doctors and nurses who had to live with the nightmares, it is for those who survived abortion and grew to adulthood maimed for life, and for those who's injuries from abortion go unseen..... that I speak against abortion.... and always will.
Once a buddy and I were strolling down our main drag.
Along came a painted and flag-bedecked, ramshackle truck that we first mistook for some sort of circus wagon.
What it actually turned out to be was a totally wacked out anti-choice mobile, with huge pictures of aborted fetuses on its side and rear.
Plus bold, foot-high writing saying things like "Planned Parenthood Butchers".
I don't know exactly what extremist/nutso outfit it belonged to, but one of the two big flags it flew was all white, with a thick red cross in the corner area occupied by stars on Old Glory.
The other was...Old Glory.
We just shook our heads in a combination of bemused and sad dismay, glad we both shared the tolerant, freedom-consistent view that abortion properly isn't anybody's damned business but that of each individual woman who weighs her own private, personal circumstance and decides to abort, or not.
So Paula and Jethro think abortion is "murder".
Swell.
Then don't ever get one yourselves.
Leave others who feel differently about the issue alone and unhindered by your obtrusive, sanctimonious moralizing. Not to mention its fascistic, tyrannical component, which implicitly says to women and girls: "We'll forcefully decide this matter for you, you sinful, selfish slut!"
Now I'll abruptly shift gears to make my central point via another reality.
Go to any children's playground. Listen to what's said. You'll discover that when a couple of kids get a bit cross with each other, the choice of epithet they'll most often use to inflict the most imagined hurt on their temporary adversary is "fag" or some close variant. A tragic case of American children picking up on homophobic biases from their older siblings and parents.
Exactly the same happens when anti-choice zealots incessantly demonize Planned Parenthood and other women's health care providers.
The benighted bigots who crucified Matthew Shepard on a Wyoming range fence picked up irrational hatereds from what they'd constantly been poisonously told about the supposed "abomination" of homosexuality.
Many are the abortion clinic attackers who've resorted to terrorism -- including attacks resulting in real murder -- as a consequence of having been brainwashed into being emphatically convinced that aborting a fetus...is murder.
Our sweet Paula, for example, has villified Planned Parenthood in terms more vicious and objectively unfounded than the provocative hyperbole Bush administration hawks use against Saddam Hussein. That sort of inflamatory rhetoric is probably going to get us into a disastrous war in Iraq.
The outcome of Paula's posting smears is an enhanced prospect of clinics being attacked by bomb-throwing and shotgun-firing fringe thugs.
So, both by distorting or obviating all of the compelling feminist, free-will, and basic- rights considerations that undergird unfettered abortion choice -- and by taking a propaganda tact that undeniably facilitates hate crimes -- Paula completely renders null and void that righteous piety she so smugly cultivates in her self-appointed role of fervent "fetus friend".
To reiterate, NOBODY should ever tell a female to not have, or have, an abortion.
It has to remain HER call alone.
And the settings in which they have abortions, if that's what's ultimately, individually chosen, have to be kept safe in all regards -- certainly in the context of protection from terrorist assaults.
We need a Justice Department that'll aggressively pursue putting ALL violent bigots behind bars, with an extra dose of hate-crime time added for truly "good" measure...and as a social signal that the lynching mentality will no longer be tolerated in America.
Paula... I am not against animal research in the search for "Human Cures", nor am I against animal research at all, as long as the animals are not tortured or tormented (much as calves are in the search for VEAL),
I agree. When I first saw the reports of how they keep calves in a crate and allow them no exercise and feed them only foods (milk only, I recall) which will make them anemic, I was saddened. I do not think they need to go to such an extreme and treat the animals so cruel in the time that they are alive. I can live without veal, and did for many years. I do not know if they have changed the treatment of calves and since then have only eaten veal on a very rare occasion. I wonder if the media reports on the cruelty were enough to change things?
I cannot help but be confused by those who find any abortion as murderous, yet support scientists rights to experiment on these creatures for everything from a "Tasty" meal of protein-starved young calf-meat, to cosmetics, perfumes and skin creams.
I find it very strange.
As far as animal research,
<sigh> that is a hard thing for me to have a definite opinion on. They need to do things repetitively to animals to see the reactions. Some of these tests can be cruel, it would seem to those on the outside. Most medications list on the enclosed pamphlet the results of tests they have done on rats for the purpose of seeing at what rate tumors grow on the rats given extreme doses of medicine. Is it cruel? I don't believe so. What is the lifespan of a rat anyway? And the testing done on animals for answers to Alzeheimers, Parkinsons, and other devastating, fatal diseases is necessary. If they find a cure by the testing on animals then it will save my loved ones and maybe me from having to suffer.
I guess when it comes down to it, I think they should only do what is absolutely necessary to determine the safety of medication and other products which are consumed by humans.
There are many products (especially hair care products) that do not test on animals. That is a good thing. However, for a product that is used every day, for example lipstick or mascara, I want massive amounts of testing done. I do not want to go blind from the ingredients in mascara or get cancer from the dyes in lipstick.
Even with all the testing, I believe the consumer needs to be smart enough and persistant enough to voice any and all side effects to doctors and product manufacturers over and over again until they listen and take you seriously.
I feel doctors buy into the safety jargon so much a part of the pharmaceutical companies advertising campaign that they do not take the complaints of patients as seriously as they should. For example, Fosamax is now carrying a warning about people with certain stomach conditions should be careful when taking or should not take the medicine. Several years ago, they were not saying that about the medicine. I feel many have died of stomach cancer as a result of these problems not being taken seriously enough when the drug first came out.
As a general rule, I think it is safer to go with a product that has been on the market for at least 20 years.
Maybe one day animal testing will be obsolete, but as of now, it unfortunately is necessary. As for abortion, it is still a human and above all the other creatures on our earth and should be valued and worthy of the protection of by our human race.
What I am about to tell you happened by pure coincidence.
I was reading to my child from a childrens Bible. He asked me to read his favorite story (which always changes) about the donkey. The story was "Balaam and his donkey" in Numbers 22:22-36.
The moral of the story was to obey God. Even the donkey obeyed God.
The Angel asked "why have you beaten your donkey three times like this? I have come to bar your way, because you should not be making this journey. But your donkey saw me and turned aside three times. If it hadn't, I would have killed you and spared the donkey."
So even in the Bible, they made a reference to beating a donkey.
I just thought it was too coincidental not to share.
Please excuse me to all of those I have bored with this post.
There are many products (especially hair care products) that do not test on animals. That is a good thing. However, for a product that is used every day, for example lipstick or mascara, I want massive amounts of testing done. I do not want to go blind from the ingredients in mascara or get cancer from the dyes in lipstick.
Hi, Paula.
Well, one could always decide that personal vanity was not worth the suffering, mutilation, and death of thousands of helpless animals. Or, one could decide to buy cosmetic products ONLY from those companies which do not perform animal testing (as I do).
While I can support animal testing (to a limited extent) in medical research, I believe that testing cosmetics on animals is needlessly cruel. After all, most cosmetic companies no longer use ingredients for which there is not already existing research which documented that they are safe for human use. For more information on animal testing, and companies which do and do not test on animals, refer to the link below:
I cannot justify tormenting animals in the cause of human beauty and find it to be brutal, barbaric, and inhumane, in case you had any questions about where I stand on this issue.
But is it humane to rip an unborn child from the mother's womb
Possibly. It depends on the circumstances. If the pregnancy is the result of rape, or incest, or if it will threaten the life of the mother, then I would say yes.
Certainly more humane than stripping the mother of her humanity by forcing her to continue to bear a child under those circumstances.
Possibly. It depends on the circumstances. If the pregnancy is the result of rape, or incest, or if it will threaten the life of the mother, then I would say yes. None are humane. At least if the life of the mother is at rsisk there are exigent circumstances.
Certainly more humane than stripping the mother of her humanity by forcing her to continue to bear a child under those circumstances. Certainly that opinion is not based on logic. It is more humane to dismember a child than it would be to require a mother go through pregnancy? I would it would forcing humanity on to a mother that wanted to dismmember her child.
Certainly it is based on logic, my logic. Your opinion is not necessarily my logic.
It is more humane to dismember a child than it would be to require a mother go through pregnancy?
Yes. When the mother became pregnant through rape and incest, through no choice of her own. And to make it even more humane, I would also dismember the rapist or molestor.
There's been such a hue and cry about animal testing cosmetics, does it even go on anymore?
Yes
Rhetoric aside I thought it was for safety.
Actually, as I mentioned above, these days very few cosmetics contain any ingredients which have not already been tested and certified for safety in human use. If you looked at the link I provided, you can see that there are many, many companies, including those manufacturing top quality cosmetics, which do not employ animal testing.
Animal testing is an industry, and as with any industry, seeks to perpetuate itself.
Certainly it is based on logic, my logic. Your opinion is not necessarily my logic.
Logic is logic and opinion is opinion. You apparently are confused between the two.
Is it more humane to dismember a child than it would be to require a mother go through pregnancy?
Yes. When the mother became pregnant through rape and incest, through no choice of her own.
Again you are confusing logic with opinion. Dismmembering an unborn child is certainly not humane nor can it be more humane than requiring a mother to carry an unwanted child. Such a thought defies logic.
And to make it even more humane, I would also dismember the rapist or molestor.
Dismembering a rapist is not humane. It certainly would not make anything about the situation more humane. But I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Logic is logic and opinion is opinion. You apparently are confused between the two.
Not at all, jethro. You seem to believe that all your opinions are logic, and I disagree.
Again you are confusing logic with opinion. Dismmembering an unborn child is certainly not humane nor can it be more humane than requiring a mother to carry an unwanted child. Such a thought defies logic.
No, such a thought does not fit in with your belief system, aka your opinion. And since (I am guessing) you do not own a uterus and therefore would never be expected to carry an unwanted child, I am not too certain that your opinion of whether carrying a child conceived by a father's rape of his own daughter is more humane than aborting that child.
Dismembering a rapist is not humane. It certainly would not make anything about the situation more humane. But I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Well, it seems that your belief system is flexible enough to encompass not having a problem with dismembering a rapist or child molestor, so apparently you consider them less human than a fetus. So far, so good, I don't consider them human either. And I support the death penalty for such. However, in my view, forcing a woman (or a young girl) to carry to term a pregnancy conceived upon her with force reduces her to a less than human status as well, by treating her as a walking incubator rather than a human being in her own right. And of course, since pregnancy and childbirth carry a greater risk to the mother's health than does an early term abortion, you may also be forcing her to die for your belief system.
In my belief system, involuntary servitude and slavery (if one defines slavery as not having control over one's own actions and body, which I believe fits here), is inhumane. Fortunately, at this time, enforced pregnancy is illegal.
Thank you for the website. I saved it to my favorites for future use.
I saw many familiar names on the list and it is good that so many companies are supporting no animal testing.
But I wonder how they know it is safe for human skin? With new combinations coming out all the time how do they know?
Another way I am careful about the products I use: If it is not safe for pregnant women, in general I do not use the product. For example, I do not use artificial sweeteners even though the latest reports say it is safe but should not be used by pregnant or lactating women.
If it can cause damage to a developing human, I do not want to risk using it on myself.
Again you are confusing logic with opinion. Dismmembering an unborn child is certainly not humane nor can it be more humane than requiring a mother to carry an unwanted child. Such a thought defies logic.
No, such a thought does not fit in with your belief system, aka your opinion. And since (I am guessing) you do not own a uterus and therefore would never be expected to carry an unwanted child, I am not too certain that your opinion of whether carrying a child conceived by a father's rape of his own daughter is more humane than aborting that child.
There is really no talking to people like you. You are bent on having what you want and damn the cosnequences.
No not at all. I am for punishment based on people's actions. It is called having standards something that your ilk does not understand.So far, so good, I don't consider them human either. And I support the death penalty for such. However, in my view, forcing a woman (or a young girl) to carry to term a pregnancy conceived upon her with force reduces her to a less than human status as well, by treating her as a walking incubator rather than a human being in her own right. And of course, since pregnancy and childbirth carry a greater risk to the mother's health than does an early term abortion, you may also be forcing her to die for your belief system. Death from pregnancy seldom happens today. What you are doing is condemning an unborn child to death on your belief system. You are one of the millions of selfish thoughtless people that have popped up.
You are a fool. No one is enforcing pregnancy. It is not "enforcing" preganancy on anyone by outlawing abortion. No one is making anyone GET pregnant.
Oh, so no one ever gets raped, then. And no female child ever gets molested. And no woman ever has a pregnancy that threatens her own life. And you are calling me a fool?
By the way, how to you feel about birth control? The morning after pill for rape victims?
Admit it, jethro, you are not as much about saving unborn children as you are about punishing women for having sex.
There may be some people who truly care about the fetus in question, but given a) the anger and venom that comes about of many pro-lifers when they are challenged in their views, and b) the almost complete lack of compassion in their statements for the pregnant woman as compared to the fetus, it is pretty clear they (and you) are not acting out of love, but hate--not out of respect for life, but in the interest of enforcing your own moral view on others.
And further considering that you, not I, have resorted to name calling and personal attacks, I leave it to the other readers of this forum to decide who is unreasonable in this particular discussion.
And when the pro-lifers show as much outrage and passion over the abuse and neglect of children who are already born and already living in miserable conditions as they do for a fetus, then I will take them seriously. When they demonstrate outside the homes of known child molestors and scream in the molestor's face whenever he walks outside his door, I will believe that they care for the life of the child and not the control of the woman. When they travel from state to state to demonstrate outside the courthouses wherein rapists and murderers of children are being tried, I will believe their passion for saiving childrens' lives. And when they raise as much money to care for neglected children as they do to prevent abortions, then I will listen to what they have to say.
But that day isn't here, and you, jethro, are not one of those people. Your attacks on me leave me quite unmoved, as you are not worthy of my respect.
Help the children who are already here and desperately need protection and support, and then and only then might I consider listening to you.
The anger is because there are selfish women that don't care anything about the child they created. They are only concerned with themselves. The concern is for the child. It is selfish disgusting people like you that accuse those against abortion of forcing their moral view on others. Every time a child is aborted it is a disguating immoral view being forced on that aborted child.
I noticed that you completely ignored the first part of my message, so I will repeat it here, along with words from your reply.
Your original words, to which I responded:
You are a fool. No one is enforcing pregnancy. It is not "enforcing" preganancy on anyone by outlawing abortion. No one is making anyone GET pregnant.
To which I said:
Oh, so no one ever gets raped, then. And no female child ever gets molested. And no woman ever has a pregnancy that threatens her own life. And you are calling me a fool?
By the way, how to you feel about birth control? The morning after pill for rape victims?
Now, let's take your words in the context of my questions, to which you conveniently failed to respond (for clarity, jethro's statements will be shown in bold, my responses in italics):
I don't give a damn if they have sex or watch TV. If they don't get pregnant I don't give a damn. So, jethro, you don't care if a woman is raped or a child is molested unless they get pregnant. In which case, you think they are selfish and immoral if they don't choose to continue a pregnancy which was forced on them. Correct?
The anger is because there are selfish women that don't care anything about the child they created. They are only concerned with themselves. The concern is for the child. It is selfish disgusting people like you that accuse those against abortion of forcing their moral view on others. Every time a child is aborted it is a disguating immoral view being forced on that aborted child. And what of the disgusting, selfish rapist or child molestor? If, for some perverted reason, they opposed an abortion of the child they forced upon the female in question, would you defend their 'rights'? Would you find the rape victim 'selfish' for wanting to abort a child forced upon her? Would you rather a daughter be made to carry her own father's child?
You support abortion. That isn't reasonable. I don't give a rat's ass about what the majority here or anywhere else thinks. Sometimes the majority is wrong. Remember slavery? Have you ever heard of lynchings? Those are examples of the majority imposing their "resaonable" view on others. Interesting that you brought up slavery here, as it is the exact analogy that I used to describe a woman forced to carry a child she didn't wish to conceive. And you are mistaken that lynchings and slavery were considered 'reasonable' by the majority in their time: rather, lynchings were carried out by those with no respect for the law, who insisted that they had the 'moral' right to carry out executions themselves. Like those who bomb abortion clinic, or shoot doctors who perform abortions. As for slavery, it was condemned by many even when it was at its height in this country.
You disgust me more and more with every word you write. Those that oppose abortion are more likly to support harsh punishment for sex offenders than the likes of you and your kind. Hmmmm.....given that I earlier stated that I favored the death penalty for rapists and child molestors, I doubt it. What punishment do YOU favor for rapists and child molestors?
And the disgust I feel for you has no end. I don't care enough about you to feel disgust for you, but it's OK if you feel disgust for me. In fact, I prefer it.
I don't care whether you listen to me or not. But it doesn't matter. You won't listen to anyone unless the spout the same selfish, ignorant and immoral crap that you do. Interesting, in that you avoided parts of my post and I have responded to each one of yours. Who didn't listen?
You are avoiding the issue of abortion when the pregnancy was forced upon the woman or child. I don't doubt that you also oppose abortion in those instances and feel it would be 'selfish' and 'immoral' of the woman to carry to term a child conceived through sex she didn't choose to have.
Probably even you realize that you will never be able to convince the majority of American to ban abortion entirely, as that will leave no exemptions in the case of forcible impregnations and pregnancies which threaten the life or health of the mother.
And so, you choose to demonize anyone you believe 'supports' abortion, and attempt to paint them as immoral, selfish, and evil, knowing full well that you are using tactics of hysteria and intimidation.
However, your histrionics have no effect on me, nor thankfully on the majority of Americans, who continue to ensure that safe abortions are legal for women in desparate situations.
If jethro were to become the national spokesperson for the right to life movement, I feel quite sure that the right to legal abortion would be ensured in perpetuity through an amendment to the Constitution.
oh, don't worry, lionness, he's opposed to abortion in those circumstances too. he's said it upthread. and yet the people who are the insensitive ones (yes, i believe that's the term that was used), are the ones who would support a woman's right to have an abortion after being raped.
Birth control is okay to some degree but if pregnancy occurs then they must live with it. The morning after pill isn't what it is all cracked up to be.
fold wrote: Keep in mind one thing; Jethro, claims that he is a LAWYER.
Yeah and you claim to be intelligent. It is amazing how one person can be so WRONG. I should pity you, fold, but I don't.
The kinds of policies in other countries that we are being urged to follow has led to a decline in those countries' roles in creating new medicines.
Sadly, these plaintiffs, judges and juries are simply a reflection of a society that has lost its fundamental appreciation for liberty and is following an inexorable path toward forfeiting all of it.
fold wrote: Pity me, please...?
No, fold, I can't. Others can and I am sure some do.
'Bill - Fold' 8/1/02 4:06am
What do pasty white asses have to do with abortions?
Is it your belief that those with pasty white asses are against abortions moreso than those with tanned asses?
Do you have any links to support this claim?
BBL
fold wrote: Nope... I can't find no respect, no pity, no compassion man.
Well maybe you should change your ways and you might.
fold wrote: YOU might want and need the admiration of someone in here( I am not sure who), but I do not.
Is there anything that I have written that could possibly lead you to believe that I care one whit about admiration from anyone?
To me, fold your punches and other liberal punches is like Mike Tyson getting punched by Strom Thurmond.
Here's an interesting article:
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - A judge gave a woman the go-ahead Monday to get an abortion after her ex-boyfriend won an extraordinary order that temporarily prevented her from terminating her pregnancy.
http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=0208051638540005
``I see it as a very sad case,'' said Dianna Thompson, executive director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. ``The woman has the right to choose, which means the child has no right to live and the father has no right to raise this child.''
Does anybody have any information about the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" which unanimously passed by both parties in the Senate? President Bush signed the bill into effect yesterday and I have not heard anything about it. The story in my above post is making more headlines than this latest bill.
Paula,
I have not heard of it. Do you know what the basics of the bill are about in general ?
President Signs Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
President Bush Monday signed H.R. 2175, a bill that ensures infants born alive at any stage of development receive the same legal protection provided to other human beings.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020805-6.html
*~~* Yeah! Yahoo!! Applause!!! Standing Ovation!! Thank You President Bush! *~~*
Highlights from the president's speech:
I really feel for this individual. God bless you, Gianna! I just cannot even imagine the pain and horror she went through.
Way to go Mr. President! I agree! There is no right to destroy a child who has been born alive. Now no more babies will be left to die alone and cold on a hospital table.
I couldn't have said it better! Good point. Unborn children ARE members of the human family.
Exactly!
My point exactly! Every life has promise and potential.
The bill passed with the unanimous support of the Senate.
What do you think of this bill?
The Pennsylvania judge who last week prevented a pregnant woman from having an abortion at the behest of the woman's ex-boyfriend has reversed himself. The latest order, issued Monday by Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan, effectively gives the woman the legal ability to proceed with her plans to abort her child.
In his ruling, Conahan admitted that his previous order, blocking the abortion, had "inflicted significant and extreme emotional distress" on Tanya Meyers, who is about ten weeks pregnant with ex-boyfriend John Stachokus' child. Conahan also cited several legal precedents in writing that "neither an ex-boyfriend nor a fetus has standing to interfere with a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy."
--CSNS
Had this case turned out any other way, it would have been a travesty.
Fetuses don't have, nor should they, "rights" that supercede those of
the women in whose bodies they reside.
And men darned well never better get the "authority" to overrule
female control over THEIR reproductive destinies!
Besides, in this particular case, the boyfriend was apparently a bonafide lout, having harassed Tanya Meyers repeatedly and extensively
since their parting, forcing her to file a restraining order.
Yeah, let's allow messed-up stalkers to decide that women shouldn't
get abortions.
Sheesh!
The anti-choice mafia just gets wilder right along.
If it isn't shotgun attacks on Planned Parenthood Clinics, it's "advocacy" of crap like Stachokus tried to pull...
The TERRORISM directed earlier this year against Planned Parenthood clinics in Northern Minnesota must be condemned in the strongest possible terms by everyone.
Additionally, anti-choice zealots who have incessantly villified Planned Parenthood in their inflammatory rhetoric MUST acknowledge responsibility for engendering the climate which made such attacks seem acceptable -- indeed "necessary" -- in the eyes
of the violent extremists who carried them out.
Or stand exposed as being ethically bankrupt (if not criminally culpable).
When Planned Parenthood and other women's health providers are constantly besmirched and demonized in furtherance of the sexist authoritarianism and mock morality of the religio-political Right, not only is the distinction between provocative advocacy and
illegal conduct blurred...but "hate crime" finds its operative definition.
Even if, and especially because, it's couched in a professed "love" for fetuses.
It's supremely ironic that neither of the two clinics which sustained terroristic assaults performed abortions.
They are a part of the broad network of Planned Parenthood facilities which provide vital family planning and health services for both women and men.
As a definite part of their vital existence, an untold number of unwanted pregnancies that would have otherwise likely resulted in abortion...were prevented.
If anti-choicers thought rationally instead of from a frenzied psuedo-philosophical perspective that routinely ignores and/or distorts reality, they'd see that such clinics actually play a pivotal role in reducing the number of troublesome situational cases that both they and their pro-choice counterparts have to worry about.
Better information, education, health status, and responsible contraception.
These are the "evils" involved in the Brainerd and Grand Rapids outrages.
Paula, your posts have been rife with vicious anti-Planned Parenthood calumnies.
Do you now admit you've done something terribly wrong in fostering an atmosphere in which target-specific violence breeds?
Or will you stand before us, naked in your moral failing?
Because, while you and others almost identically like yourself may not have pulled the trigger, you all but provided the guns, and pointed them in the "desired" direction.
Rahkonen, since you support abortion so much why don't you abort yourself?
Dennis
That's the difference between most folks and you. We do condemn it even though we think abortion is wrong. You pick and choose which forms of terrorism are o.k.
But oh we must condemn terrorism, well we do, now you try doing that with the Palestinains and you might have a leg to stand on.
Maybe the felt they had to stop abortion "by any means nessecary". Sound familiar? See how silly it sounds ? Nah you probably don't.
Great point there, LUV2FLY!
Dennis Rahkonen 8/10/02 4:46pm
Hello Dennis! I've noticed you've been gone for a while.
I've missed you.
"Vital"... "Fetuses" ... "Planned Parenthood" ...
What about LIFE???
Doesn't this question apply to you?
There is NOTHING more violent than ripping, pulling, sucking and dismembering a perfectly formed little baby limb by limb, organ by organ, and sucking hunks of bloody flesh out of a woman, then charging her money and telling her you provided a service for her.
Interesting choice of words...
Let me work out a few more months and then....
I will stand before you alone, Dennis ...with my moral fortitude and with all the confidence and conviction of someone defending the innocent.... I will say to you, Dennis, "EVEN THE TINIEST AND MOST DEFENSELESS OF HUMANS IS VALUABLE AND WORTHY OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE" and worth the TIME those who are pro-life take to help defend the defenseless.
And.... any organization who promotes or refers people to pay for the "service" of having someone rip to shreds, dismembering limb by limb and sucking out hunks of bloody flesh of a tiny, defenseless little baby from the safety of the womb is a horrid, money loving inhumane organization.
Something that stirs my curiosity is.... It seems like these incidents happen in an effort to gain sympathy for such organizations and stir public outrage and sympathy for the abortion-rights groups.
Where have you been Dennis? Can you account for your time???
Is this a dastardly attempt to gain publicity and support for your beloved organization?
And .....as I have said numerous times, ...anyone actually committing violence against ANY facility associated with either side of the abortion issue or it's employees or customers is NOT acceptable and should be held accountable and punished.
Welcome back Dennis! :o)
"Today, through sonograms and other technology, we can clearly -- see clearly that unborn children are members of the human family, as well. (Applause.) They reflect our image, and they are created in God's own image."
I couldn't have said it better! Good point. Unborn children ARE members of the human family.
"The Born Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. (Applause.) It is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights. This law is a step toward the day when America fully becomes, in the words of Pope John Paul II, "a hospitable, a welcoming culture."
Every child should be welcomed in life and protected in law!
"Our society has enough compassion, wealth and love to care for mothers and their children, and to see the promise and potential of every life. In protecting the vulnerable and the weak, the imperfect and the unwanted, you are affirming a culture of life."
Every life has promise and potential. I am helping to protect the vulnerable, weak, imperfect, and unwanted.
It is a noble thing to do when you are brave enough to speak out against those who support the inhumane and violent acts one human can do to it's innocent victim.
"Today, through sonograms and other technology, we can see clearly that unborn children are members of the human family. ... They reflect our image and are created in God's own image. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law. It is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights."
'Bill - Fold' 8/13/02 4:43am
LOL! Well, myself if no one else will listen!
Debra Saunders (archive)
August 12, 2002
Humane or inane?
The most dangerous assault on the teaching of science in public schools doesn't come from creationists, who object to the teaching of evolution. The danger is in animal-rights activists peddling what they call "humane education."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/debrasaunders/ds20020812.shtml
But some so-called humane educators have a political agenda that veers away from teaching respect for life and instead embraces the philosophy that animals have the same moral status as humans. These educators oppose scientific research using "nonhuman animals" and want to grant animals civil rights.
Another tip-off that humane education isn't just about being kind to Fluffy is when the works of Princeton University professor and philosopher Peter Singer, whose writings are the underpinnings of the animal rights movement, are on the suggested reading list (you'll find him listed on the International Institute for Humane Education's website). This is the institute's idea of humanity: Singer opposes primate research, but supports infanticide. "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person," Singer has written. "Sometimes it is not wrong at all."
But then I'd be sabotaging a project that could help the 135,000 narcoleptic Americans, as well as research on unraveling the mysteries of sleep. Cork noted that the number of animals used in research is tiny when compared to the number of unwanted animals euthanized each year. She's right: According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2 million to 3 million dogs and 3 million to 4 million cats were put down in 1999, while only 100,000 dogs and cats were used in medical research. So, with the prevalent -- and needless -- abuse and neglect of animals, why pick on medical researchers?
How noble. And how easy to say if you don't consider the consequences. "If people had stopped (animal research) in 1900, people would still be dying of diabetes and crippled from polio. There would be no such thing as open-heart surgery," Newsome explains. Ban such research today, and expect few advances against AIDS, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease in this century.
So you can call the animal-rights movement many things, but don't call it humane.
Thanks Jethro for posting this very interesting article.
"Bush Signs Fetus Status Law. President Bush signed a bill that declares a fetus that survives an abortion procedure a person under federal law."
That description would be laughable were it were not so sad. Sometimes it's hard to avoid talking back to a newspaper: "The creature protected by that newly signed Born Alive Infants Protection Act could not possibly be a fetus. The abortion procedure has expelled him from the womb. He is born. He's a person. What else could he be?"
But some judges in recent years did not grasp that elementary fact, and some doctors and nurses sadly left born-alive survivors of abortion to die in cold steel pans.
Once a buddy and I were strolling down our main drag.
Along came a painted and flag-bedecked, ramshackle truck that we first mistook for some sort of circus wagon.
What it actually turned out to be was a totally wacked out anti-choice mobile, with huge pictures of aborted fetuses on its side and rear.
Plus bold, foot-high writing saying things like "Planned Parenthood Butchers".
I don't know exactly what extremist/nutso outfit it belonged to, but one of the two big flags it flew was all white, with a thick red cross in the corner area occupied by stars on Old Glory.
The other was...Old Glory.
We just shook our heads in a combination of bemused and sad dismay, glad we both
shared the tolerant, freedom-consistent view that abortion properly isn't anybody's damned business but that of each individual woman who weighs her own private, personal circumstance and decides to abort, or not.
So Paula and Jethro think abortion is "murder".
Swell.
Then don't ever get one yourselves.
Leave others who feel differently about the issue alone and unhindered by your obtrusive, sanctimonious moralizing. Not to mention its fascistic, tyrannical component, which implicitly says to women and girls: "We'll forcefully decide this matter for you, you sinful, selfish slut!"
Now I'll abruptly shift gears to make my central point via another reality.
Go to any children's playground. Listen to what's said. You'll discover that
when a couple of kids get a bit cross with each other, the choice of epithet they'll
most often use to inflict the most imagined hurt on their temporary adversary is "fag"
or some close variant. A tragic case of American children picking up on homophobic biases from their older siblings and parents.
Exactly the same happens when anti-choice zealots incessantly demonize Planned Parenthood and other women's health care providers.
The benighted bigots who crucified Matthew Shepard on a Wyoming range fence
picked up irrational hatereds from what they'd constantly been poisonously told
about the supposed "abomination" of homosexuality.
Many are the abortion clinic attackers who've resorted to terrorism -- including attacks resulting in real murder -- as a consequence of having been brainwashed into being emphatically convinced that aborting a fetus...is murder.
Our sweet Paula, for example, has villified Planned Parenthood in terms more vicious
and objectively unfounded than the provocative hyperbole Bush administration hawks use against Saddam Hussein. That sort of inflamatory rhetoric is probably going to get us into a disastrous war in Iraq.
The outcome of Paula's posting smears is an enhanced prospect of clinics being attacked by bomb-throwing and shotgun-firing fringe thugs.
So, both by distorting or obviating all of the compelling feminist, free-will, and basic- rights considerations that undergird unfettered abortion choice -- and by taking a propaganda tact that undeniably facilitates hate crimes -- Paula completely
renders null and void that righteous piety she so smugly cultivates in her self-appointed role of fervent "fetus friend".
To reiterate, NOBODY should ever tell a female to not have, or have, an abortion.
It has to remain HER call alone.
And the settings in which they have abortions, if that's what's ultimately, individually chosen, have to be kept safe in all regards -- certainly in the context of protection from terrorist assaults.
We need a Justice Department that'll aggressively pursue putting ALL violent bigots behind bars, with an extra dose of hate-crime time added for truly "good" measure...and as a social signal that the lynching mentality will no longer be tolerated in America.
You can't see the difference between animals and humans, fold? You are more obtuse than I have ever thought you could be.
It did not matter that Stachokus was willing to take responsibility for nurturing and providing for the child. It did not matter that he has basic human rights. All that mattered was that his girlfriend suddenly changed her mind and decided to murder their unborn baby. You see, as far as the court is concerned, John has no say in the life of his own child. Apparently, the court regards John as little more than a turkey baster with a pulse.
'Bill - Fold' 8/14/02 4:57am
I agree. When I first saw the reports of how they keep calves in a crate and allow them no exercise and feed them only foods (milk only, I recall) which will make them anemic, I was saddened. I do not think they need to go to such an extreme and treat the animals so cruel in the time that they are alive. I can live without veal, and did for many years. I do not know if they have changed the treatment of calves and since then have only eaten veal on a very rare occasion. I wonder if the media reports on the cruelty were enough to change things?
As far as animal research,
<sigh> that is a hard thing for me to have a definite opinion on. They need to do things repetitively to animals to see the reactions. Some of these tests can be cruel, it would seem to those on the outside. Most medications list on the enclosed pamphlet the results of tests they have done on rats for the purpose of seeing at what rate tumors grow on the rats given extreme doses of medicine. Is it cruel? I don't believe so. What is the lifespan of a rat anyway? And the testing done on animals for answers to Alzeheimers, Parkinsons, and other devastating, fatal diseases is necessary. If they find a cure by the testing on animals then it will save my loved ones and maybe me from having to suffer.
I guess when it comes down to it, I think they should only do what is absolutely necessary to determine the safety of medication and other products which are consumed by humans.
There are many products (especially hair care products) that do not test on animals. That is a good thing. However, for a product that is used every day, for example lipstick or mascara, I want massive amounts of testing done. I do not want to go blind from the ingredients in mascara or get cancer from the dyes in lipstick.
Even with all the testing, I believe the consumer needs to be smart enough and persistant enough to voice any and all side effects to doctors and product manufacturers over and over again until they listen and take you seriously.
I feel doctors buy into the safety jargon so much a part of the pharmaceutical companies advertising campaign that they do not take the complaints of patients as seriously as they should. For example, Fosamax is now carrying a warning about people with certain stomach conditions should be careful when taking or should not take the medicine. Several years ago, they were not saying that about the medicine. I feel many have died of stomach cancer as a result of these problems not being taken seriously enough when the drug first came out.
As a general rule, I think it is safer to go with a product that has been on the market for at least 20 years.
Maybe one day animal testing will be obsolete, but as of now, it unfortunately is necessary. As for abortion, it is still a human and above all the other creatures on our earth and should be valued and worthy of the protection of by our human race.
I hope my answer is sufficient enough.
Dear Bill,
What I am about to tell you happened by pure coincidence.
I was reading to my child from a childrens Bible. He asked me to read his favorite story (which always changes) about the donkey.
The story was "Balaam and his donkey" in Numbers 22:22-36.
The moral of the story was to obey God. Even the donkey obeyed God.
The Angel asked "why have you beaten your donkey three times like this? I have come to bar your way, because you should not be making this journey. But your donkey saw me and turned aside three times. If it hadn't, I would have killed you and spared the donkey."
So even in the Bible, they made a reference to beating a donkey.
I just thought it was too coincidental not to share.
Please excuse me to all of those I have bored with this post.
Hi, Paula.
Well, one could always decide that personal vanity was not worth the suffering, mutilation, and death of thousands of helpless animals. Or, one could decide to buy cosmetic products ONLY from those companies which do not perform animal testing (as I do).
While I can support animal testing (to a limited extent) in medical research, I believe that testing cosmetics on animals is needlessly cruel. After all, most cosmetic companies no longer use ingredients for which there is not already existing research which documented that they are safe for human use. For more information on animal testing, and companies which do and do not test on animals, refer to the link below:
http://www.allforanimals.com/cruelfree1.htm
I cannot justify tormenting animals in the cause of human beauty and find it to be brutal, barbaric, and inhumane, in case you had any questions about where I stand on this issue.
But is it humane to rip an unborn child from the mother's womb, Lionne?
But is it humane to rip an unborn child from the mother's womb
Possibly. It depends on the circumstances. If the pregnancy is the result of rape, or incest, or if it will threaten the life of the mother, then I would say yes.
Certainly more humane than stripping the mother of her humanity by forcing her to continue to bear a child under those circumstances.
In my opinion, of course.
Possibly. It depends on the circumstances. If the pregnancy is the result of rape, or incest, or if it will threaten the life of the mother, then I would say yes. None are humane. At least if the life of the mother is at rsisk there are exigent circumstances.
Certainly more humane than stripping the mother of her humanity by forcing her to continue to bear a child under those circumstances. Certainly that opinion is not based on logic. It is more humane to dismember a child than it would be to require a mother go through pregnancy? I would it would forcing humanity on to a mother that wanted to dismmember her child.
"Or, one could decide to buy cosmetic products ONLY from those companies which do not perform animal testing (as I do). "
Is the stuff just as good?
There's been such a hue and cry about animal testing cosmetics, does it even go on anymore?
"I cannot justify tormenting animals in the cause of human beauty.."
Rhetoric asideI thought it was for safety.
Certainly that opinion is not based on logic.
Certainly it is based on logic, my logic. Your opinion is not necessarily my logic.
It is more humane to dismember a child than it would be to require a mother go through pregnancy?
Yes. When the mother became pregnant through rape and incest, through no choice of her own. And to make it even more humane, I would also dismember the rapist or molestor.
Yes
Yes
Actually, as I mentioned above, these days very few cosmetics contain any ingredients which have not already been tested and certified for safety in human use. If you looked at the link I provided, you can see that there are many, many companies, including those manufacturing top quality cosmetics, which do not employ animal testing.
Animal testing is an industry, and as with any industry, seeks to perpetuate itself.
Certainly it is based on logic, my logic. Your opinion is not necessarily my logic.
Logic is logic and opinion is opinion. You apparently are confused between the two.
Is it more humane to dismember a child than it would be to require a mother go through pregnancy?
Yes. When the mother became pregnant through rape and incest, through no choice of her own.
Again you are confusing logic with opinion. Dismmembering an unborn child is certainly not humane nor can it be more humane than requiring a mother to carry an unwanted child. Such a thought defies logic.
And to make it even more humane, I would also dismember the rapist or molestor.
Dismembering a rapist is not humane. It certainly would not make anything about the situation more humane. But I wouldn't have a problem with it.
L. Lionne 8/16/02 9:30am
Bravissimo lionne...
Not at all, jethro. You seem to believe that all your opinions are logic, and I disagree.
No, such a thought does not fit in with your belief system, aka your opinion. And since (I am guessing) you do not own a uterus and therefore would never be expected to carry an unwanted child, I am not too certain that your opinion of whether carrying a child conceived by a father's rape of his own daughter is more humane than aborting that child.
Well, it seems that your belief system is flexible enough to encompass not having a problem with dismembering a rapist or child molestor, so apparently you consider them less human than a fetus. So far, so good, I don't consider them human either. And I support the death penalty for such. However, in my view, forcing a woman (or a young girl) to carry to term a pregnancy conceived upon her with force reduces her to a less than human status as well, by treating her as a walking incubator rather than a human being in her own right. And of course, since pregnancy and childbirth carry a greater risk to the mother's health than does an early term abortion, you may also be forcing her to die for your belief system.
In my belief system, involuntary servitude and slavery (if one defines slavery as not having control over one's own actions and body, which I believe fits here), is inhumane. Fortunately, at this time, enforced pregnancy is illegal.
And so it should remain.
L. Lionne 8/16/02 9:06am
Thank you for the website. I saved it to my favorites for future use.
I saw many familiar names on the list and it is good that so many companies are supporting no animal testing.
But I wonder how they know it is safe for human skin? With new combinations coming out all the time how do they know?
Another way I am careful about the products I use: If it is not safe for pregnant women, in general I do not use the product. For example, I do not use artificial sweeteners even though the latest reports say it is safe but should not be used by pregnant or lactating women.
If it can cause damage to a developing human, I do not want to risk using it on myself.
Not at all, jethro. You seem to believe that all your opinions are logic, and I disagree.
Either you aren't bright enough to see the logic or you are so bent on supporting butchery.
Again you are confusing logic with opinion. Dismmembering an unborn child is certainly not humane nor can it be more humane than requiring a mother to carry an unwanted child. Such a thought defies logic.
No, such a thought does not fit in with your belief system, aka your opinion. And since (I am guessing) you do not own a uterus and therefore would never be expected to carry an unwanted child, I am not too certain that your opinion of whether carrying a child conceived by a father's rape of his own daughter is more humane than aborting that child.
There is really no talking to people like you. You are bent on having what you want and damn the cosnequences.
No not at all. I am for punishment based on people's actions. It is called having standards something that your ilk does not understand.So far, so good, I don't consider them human either. And I support the death penalty for such. However, in my view, forcing a woman (or a young girl) to carry to term a pregnancy conceived upon her with force reduces her to a less than human status as well, by treating her as a walking incubator rather than a human being in her own right. And of course, since pregnancy and childbirth carry a greater risk to the mother's health than does an early term abortion, you may also be forcing her to die for your belief system. Death from pregnancy seldom happens today. What you are doing is condemning an unborn child to death on your belief system. You are one of the millions of selfish thoughtless people that have popped up.
Oh, so no one ever gets raped, then. And no female child ever gets molested. And no woman ever has a pregnancy that threatens her own life. And you are calling me a fool?
By the way, how to you feel about birth control? The morning after pill for rape victims?
Admit it, jethro, you are not as much about saving unborn children as you are about punishing women for having sex.
There may be some people who truly care about the fetus in question, but given a) the anger and venom that comes about of many pro-lifers when they are challenged in their views, and b) the almost complete lack of compassion in their statements for the pregnant woman as compared to the fetus, it is pretty clear they (and you) are not acting out of love, but hate--not out of respect for life, but in the interest of enforcing your own moral view on others.
And further considering that you, not I, have resorted to name calling and personal attacks, I leave it to the other readers of this forum to decide who is unreasonable in this particular discussion.
And when the pro-lifers show as much outrage and passion over the abuse and neglect of children who are already born and already living in miserable conditions as they do for a fetus, then I will take them seriously. When they demonstrate outside the homes of known child molestors and scream in the molestor's face whenever he walks outside his door, I will believe that they care for the life of the child and not the control of the woman. When they travel from state to state to demonstrate outside the courthouses wherein rapists and murderers of children are being tried, I will believe their passion for saiving childrens' lives. And when they raise as much money to care for neglected children as they do to prevent abortions, then I will listen to what they have to say.
But that day isn't here, and you, jethro, are not one of those people. Your attacks on me leave me quite unmoved, as you are not worthy of my respect.
Help the children who are already here and desperately need protection and support, and then and only then might I consider listening to you.
The anger is because there are selfish women that don't care anything about the child they created. They are only concerned with themselves. The concern is for the child. It is selfish disgusting people like you that accuse those against abortion of forcing their moral view on others. Every time a child is aborted it is a disguating immoral view being forced on that aborted child.
'Bill - Fold' 8/19/02 5:03am
"Fun" might not have been the word I would have chosen to describe it....
jethro bodine 8/19/02 9:10am
I noticed that you completely ignored the first part of my message, so I will repeat it here, along with words from your reply.
Your original words, to which I responded:
To which I said:
Oh, so no one ever gets raped, then. And no female child ever gets molested. And no woman ever has a pregnancy that threatens her own life. And you are calling me a fool?
By the way, how to you feel about birth control? The morning after pill for rape victims?
Now, let's take your words in the context of my questions, to which you conveniently failed to respond (for clarity, jethro's statements will be shown in bold, my responses in italics):
I don't give a damn if they have sex or watch TV. If they don't get pregnant I don't give a damn.
So, jethro, you don't care if a woman is raped or a child is molested unless they get pregnant. In which case, you think they are selfish and immoral if they don't choose to continue a pregnancy which was forced on them. Correct?
The anger is because there are selfish women that don't care anything about the child they created. They are only concerned with themselves. The concern is for the child. It is selfish disgusting people like you that accuse those against abortion of forcing their moral view on others. Every time a child is aborted it is a disguating immoral view being forced on that aborted child.
And what of the disgusting, selfish rapist or child molestor? If, for some perverted reason, they opposed an abortion of the child they forced upon the female in question, would you defend their 'rights'? Would you find the rape victim 'selfish' for wanting to abort a child forced upon her? Would you rather a daughter be made to carry her own father's child?
You support abortion. That isn't reasonable. I don't give a rat's ass about what the majority here or anywhere else thinks. Sometimes the majority is wrong. Remember slavery? Have you ever heard of lynchings? Those are examples of the majority imposing their "resaonable" view on others.
Interesting that you brought up slavery here, as it is the exact analogy that I used to describe a woman forced to carry a child she didn't wish to conceive. And you are mistaken that lynchings and slavery were considered 'reasonable' by the majority in their time: rather, lynchings were carried out by those with no respect for the law, who insisted that they had the 'moral' right to carry out executions themselves. Like those who bomb abortion clinic, or shoot doctors who perform abortions. As for slavery, it was condemned by many even when it was at its height in this country.
You disgust me more and more with every word you write. Those that oppose abortion are more likly to support harsh punishment for sex offenders than the likes of you and your kind.
Hmmmm.....given that I earlier stated that I favored the death penalty for rapists and child molestors, I doubt it. What punishment do YOU favor for rapists and child molestors?
And the disgust I feel for you has no end.
I don't care enough about you to feel disgust for you, but it's OK if you feel disgust for me. In fact, I prefer it.
I don't care whether you listen to me or not. But it doesn't matter. You won't listen to anyone unless the spout the same selfish, ignorant and immoral crap that you do.
Interesting, in that you avoided parts of my post and I have responded to each one of yours. Who didn't listen?
You are avoiding the issue of abortion when the pregnancy was forced upon the woman or child. I don't doubt that you also oppose abortion in those instances and feel it would be 'selfish' and 'immoral' of the woman to carry to term a child conceived through sex she didn't choose to have.
Probably even you realize that you will never be able to convince the majority of American to ban abortion entirely, as that will leave no exemptions in the case of forcible impregnations and pregnancies which threaten the life or health of the mother.
And so, you choose to demonize anyone you believe 'supports' abortion, and attempt to paint them as immoral, selfish, and evil, knowing full well that you are using tactics of hysteria and intimidation.
However, your histrionics have no effect on me, nor thankfully on the majority of Americans, who continue to ensure that safe abortions are legal for women in desparate situations.
jethro's winning friends and influencing people!
Rick 8/19/02 11:24am
If jethro were to become the national spokesperson for the right to life movement, I feel quite sure that the right to legal abortion would be ensured in perpetuity through an amendment to the Constitution.
oh, don't worry, lionness, he's opposed to abortion in those circumstances too. he's said it upthread. and yet the people who are the insensitive ones (yes, i believe that's the term that was used), are the ones who would support a woman's right to have an abortion after being raped.
Birth control is okay to some degree but if pregnancy occurs then they must live with it. The morning after pill isn't what it is all cracked up to be.