LarryC
Nov 23 2005, 04:17 PM
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
We joke that if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.
But, of course, this isn't really all about gender. If it were, then 100% of women would vote in favor of liberal abortion laws (and candidates favoring them), in which case pro choice would rule the day. It isn't like all men are anti-choice, after all. The sad truth is that there are plenty of women in the camp of the religious right, so it's awfully simplistic to view this solely in gender-terms.
[ November 23, 2005, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Larry@LA ]
jqueer
Nov 24 2005, 07:55 AM
QUOTE
Larry@LA:
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
We joke that if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.
But, of course, this isn't really all about gender. If it were, then 100% of women would vote in favor of liberal abortion laws (and candidates favoring them), in which case pro choice would rule the day. It isn't like all men are anti-choice, after all. The sad truth is that there are plenty of women in the camp of the religious right, so it's awfully simplistic to view this solely in gender-terms.
It is about gender in that society has always protected the interests and independence of men. Well that certainly isn't true. What should actually be said is that "if White, middle to upper class, Christian men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
It's about power and control. Women historically haven't had it. Certain groups of men have. No matter who's doing the voting, there is a spectre of the status quo that hangs over our society. We continue to promote the interests of the ruling class while stifling the interests of those who are not. It may be unconscious, but it is part of our political landscape.
dinger
Nov 25 2005, 11:19 AM
There is no freedom without choices. Abortion is ugly, but it shouldn't be for the state to decide. Neither should who we sleep with - this is where the issues are similar.
dinger
Nov 25 2005, 11:21 AM
And one more thing - and I say this as a father of three. If women can "check out" of parenthood, men should be allowed the same equal opportunity.
I'm glad I didn't, but the equal right should be there.
MIB
Nov 25 2005, 08:53 PM
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
...abortion would be a sacrament.
It already is. No issue is more sacred, more vital, than whether preborn children can continue to be legally slaughtered. Anyone who denies this is simply a naive fool, for all you have to do is look at a SCOTUS nomination when a Republican president makes such nomination.
Running around like chickens with their heads cut off, the media and the Left go into conniption fits--"Oh my God! Save
Roe! Save
Roe!"--foaming at the mouth when there's even the slightest hint a potential Court Justice might agree that there's nothing even remotely in the Constitution dealing with abortion. The entire judicial nomination process at the Supreme Court level is held hostage by abortion.
All this talk on the Left about "respect for precedent" is such utter bullshit. Where was this so-called respect for precedent when
Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by
Lawrence v. Texas? Of course it was absent, because that reversal was one with which liberals agreed.
Oh! The hypocrisy!
LarryC
Nov 25 2005, 10:08 PM
QUOTE
MIB:
All this talk on the Left about \"respect for precedent\" is such utter bullshit. Where was this so-called respect for precedent when
Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by
Lawrence v. Texas? Of course it was absent, because that reversal was one with which liberals agreed.
Oh! The hypocrisy!
And I suppose if you were in power, we'd still have Plessy v. Ferguson as the law of the land.
SCTrojan
Nov 26 2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by dinger:
"...If women can "check out" of parenthood, men should be allowed the same equal opportunity..."
The sad truth dinger is that many men actually did/have--they are called deadbeat dads.
dinger
Nov 28 2005, 10:40 AM
True about the deadbeat dads, SCT, but why couldn't they have a say before birth, like women get?
CPT_Doom
Nov 28 2005, 11:09 AM
QUOTE
All this talk on the Left about \"respect for precedent\" is such utter bullshit. Where was this so-called respect for precedent when Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas? Of course it was absent, because that reversal was one with which liberals agreed.
Of course, the fact that both Roe and Lawrence were decide based on the same underlying principle - that we have the right to determine for ourselves what happens to our bodies, without government interference, has nothing to do with the "liberal" stance, does it MIB?
You talk about a "slaughter" of the "preborn" and have posted previously on this subject that you only support abortion if there is no other way to save the mother's life - no other exceptions allowed. Which means you believe a woman can be considered little more than an incubator, with no rights to determine, for herself, whether to continue on with the emotionally and physically draining process of pregnancy (which, until this century, was the leading cause of death for women).
You also assume every abortion is a means of birth control (and quite frankly, any country that refuses to provide scientifically accurate information on, and access to, contraception has no business being indignant that abortion rates are so high here) rather than a difficult decision that is often made despite the woman's profound wish to have a child (I know many women myself, including my mother, who had to make the painful decision to abort a much-wanted baby for health, not mortality, reasons). As I have previously posted, your position is perfectly defensible from a political standpoint, but not from a medical one.
What is interesting to me is that the "pro-life" movement is completely silent on the issues facing the children of this country, particularly poor ones, once they are out of the womb. The impact of crime, poor educational systems, corrupt and incompetent foster care systems, lack of access to health care and health insurance, poverty, are all missing from the "pro-life" radar screen.
Even issues that impact adoption, like red tape, or the number of willing parents, or even the legality of open adoption, which has had very good results for all involved, from what I have read, are missing. The sole focus is to maintain the pregnancy and all else be d*mned. In reality this is because too many of the leaders of the "pro-life" movement are not concerned about our nation's children, but about promoting a specific religious viewpoint.
Ms. de Blazer
Nov 28 2005, 11:43 AM
QUOTE
What is interesting to me is that the \"pro-life\" movement is completely silent on the issues facing the children of this country, particularly poor ones, once they are out of the womb. The impact of crime, poor educational systems, corrupt and incompetent foster care systems, lack of access to health care and health insurance, poverty, are all missing from the \"pro-life\" radar screen.
Hey, CPT_Doom, don't you know, life begins at conception and ends at birth.
BTW, great post.
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
What is interesting to me is that the \"pro-life\" movement is completely silent on the issues facing the children of this country, particularly poor ones, once they are out of the womb. The impact of crime, poor educational systems, corrupt and incompetent foster care systems, lack of access to health care and health insurance, poverty, are all missing from the \"pro-life\" radar screen.
I had this same argument with my cousin during the summer, and his only response was since he often struggled raising five children, and some of that time he was unemployed (but collecting unemployment!), in his mind, if he could find a way to survive and support his kids, others could too! I told him it wasn't always that black and white, and asked him "how do we get every dad in the country to be like you?". NO ANSWER. Then I asked him "why don't all of you pro-lifers sign up to adopt children when the mother has decided not to have an abortion". NO ANSWER. He had no real solution but his belief that abortion was 'wrong' and to him that was the end of story.
Ms. de Blazer
Nov 30 2005, 02:04 PM
Some miscellaneous comments.
The Bush regime has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider a decision from 1992. This relates to a New Hampshire law requiring parental consent for abortion. The Court had already ruled that these laws were constitutional; however, they had always said restrictions had to have an exception for the woman's health. The law in question did not. It was challenged by Planned Parenthood on that grounds. The attorney general argued that the challenge was not legitimate because 1) the woman could go before a judge if she did not want to notify her parents, and the judge could consider her health and 2)it supposedly only involved a small number of women; there was no proof any actual woman was affected. The Supreme Court ruled against the state law in 1992, on a 5-4 vote with O'Connor the 5th vote, saying the law had to have a health exemption. BushCo is asking them to reconsider the argument that no actual woman has been impacted. It sounds like a minor detail on the face of it but it is not. Overturning the previous ruling would make it impossible to challenge ANY restriction on abortion short of a 100% ban, because Planned Parenthood, ACLU et al could no longer go to court to say they would create an undue burden (the requirement in Roe v. Wade is that restrictions cannot create undue burdens for a woman); instead, each and every restriction would have to be individually challenged by a pregnant woman who would have to legally prove that she had been given an undue burden in seeking an abortion. So a sick, pregnant 14 year old would have to go to court instead of a hospital. Obviously, given the slowness of the legal system, any decision would be come too late for her. It is believed that if the previous decision was overturned that a whole series of restrictions, from ever longer waiting periods to husband's consent to requiring rape victims to secure a conviction before using a rape exemption could and would be enacted since they could not be challenged. This has implications for a number of other issues. For example, the Georgia voting law is being challenged on the grounds that it is in essence a poll tax and that it is discriminatory. Overturning the 1992 decision would invalidate that challenge. Instead, individual voters would have to prove that the law presented them with an undue burden when they tried to vote.
Bill O'Reilly has declared that stores wishing shoppers happy holidays or season's greetings instead of merry christmas is part of the secular humanist takeover that would also include among other things abortion at will and gay marriage. Reminiscent of Pat Robertson saying the Equal Rights Amendment would force women to "leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, overturn capitalism and become lesbians."
Re: precedent. I can't speak for others but I am not in love with precedent. There are some pretty ghastly precedents, after all. That is not my starting point. My starting point is increasing civil rights and civil liberties. I support precedents like Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade that move in that direction. I oppose precedents like the recent decision that schools need not provide a program for disabled children that move against it.
A little mentioned but vital point in the abortion issue is that of religious freedom. The Catholic Church and some fundamentalist Protestants consider every fertilized egg to be equivalent to a child (whether they consider women to be a human life is another story). I am not sure but I believe the Islamic faith holds this view. But many Protestant churches disagree as does the Jewish faith. Even the ultra-Orthodox Jews who oppose birth control and abortion do so not because they consider a fertilized egg a baby - Jewish law explicitly says otherwise - but because they take literally the comandment to be fruitful and multiply, something that IMO our species has been too good at. So while the Catholic Church has every right to teach their belief and to encourage their members to live by it, they have no right to make their belief a law that I, a Jew, am required to follow. This is one reason why I say the pro-choice position is by definition a compromise in that it allows everyone to live by what they believe to be the moral choice while not allowing anyone to force others to follow a view not their own.
Not sure if I mentioned this, if I did forgive me, but the supporters of the failed Prop 73 in California, that would have required parental notification, have taken heart from the close loss. They say that they can use the momentum from that campaign for a new campaign for an initiative for a Constitutional amendment in the state to ban same sex marriage. They, unlike some gay men, do recognize the close connection between the rights of women and the rights of gay men and lesbians. And they oppose both.
My God, my God. How can a nation permit this macabre practice, this purely evil procedure? It is so sad...
QUOTE
Doctor Harrison calls himself an \"abortionist,\" even telling people he knows he destroys life
It is a few minutes before 11 a.m. when Harrison raps on the door of his operating room and walks in.
His Fayetteville Women's Clinic occupies a once-elegant home dating to the 1940s; the first-floor surgery looks like it was a parlor. Thick blue curtains block the windows and paintings of butterflies and flowers hang on the walls. The radio is tuned to an easy-listening station.
An 18-year-old with braces on her teeth is on the operating table, her head on a plaid pillow, her feet up in stirrups, her arms strapped down at her sides. A pink blanket is draped over her stomach. She's 13 weeks pregnant, at the very end of the first trimester. She hasn't told her parents.
A nurse has already given her a local anesthetic, Valium and a drug to dilate her cervix; Harrison prepares to inject Versed, a sedative, in her intravenous line. The drug will wipe out her memory of everything that happens during the 20 minutes she's in the operating room. It's so effective that patients who return for a follow-up exam often don't recognize Harrison.
The doctor is wearing a black turtleneck, brown slacks and tennis shoes. He snaps his gum as he checks the monitors displaying the patient's pulse rate and oxygen count.
\"This is not going to be nearly as hard as you anticipate,\" he tells her.
She smiles wanly. Keeping up a constant patter — he asks about her brothers, her future birth control plans, whether she's good at tongue twisters — Harrison pulls on sterile gloves.
\"How're you doing up there?\" he asks.
\"Doing OK.\"
\"Good girl.\"
Harrison glances at an ultrasound screen frozen with an image of the fetus taken moments before. Against the fuzzy black-and-white screen, he sees the curve of a head, the bend of an elbow, the ball of a fist. Editor's Note: This doesn't seem like some \"tissue mass\" or \"non-life\" to me!
\"You may feel some cramping while we suction everything out,\" Harrison tells the patient.
A moment later, he says: \"You're going to hear a sucking sound.\"
The abortion takes two minutes. The patient lies still and quiet, her eyes closed, a few tears rolling down her cheeks. The friend who has accompanied her stands at her side, mutely stroking her arm.
When he's done, Harrison performs another ultrasound. The screen this time is blank but for the contours of the uterus. \"We've gotten everything out of there,\" he says.
As the nurse drops the instruments in the sink with a clatter, the teenager looks around, woozy.
\"It was a lot easier than I thought it would be,\" she says. \"I thought it would be horrible, but it wasn't. The procedure, that is.\"
She is not yet sure, she says, how she is doing emotionally. She feels guilty, sad and relieved, all in a jumble.
\"There's things wrong with abortion,\" she says. \"But I want to have a good life. And provide a good life for my child.\" To keep this baby now, she says, when she's single, broke and about to start college, \"would be unfair.\"
Yes, it's fairer to just kill the child rather than let someone have the chance to raise this child, if she cannot or does not. This is the ultimate in selfishness. Hell is reserved for those who would murder a child for their own selfish feelings, as well as for those who support this.
[ December 02, 2005, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]
swiminbuff
Dec 2 2005, 03:54 PM
Well MIB, I disagree with you, but guess thats allowed.
MIB, stop being such a drama queen.
BTW, I heard awhile ago you adopted some kids. How are they doing?
sportinlife
Dec 2 2005, 07:28 PM
What makes it difficult for men - gay or straight - to understand how the abortion issue impacts women is the biological inaccesibility of abortion for males. It can only be viewed impersonally by us, unless we have some sort of analogy.
Perhaps if all laws applying to abortion were applied to masturbation it would make us think differently.
After all our biological function, strictly speaking, ends with ejaculation, whereas that of women continues for up to nine months. If we had to consider that the female population had a 50% say (more in a democracy in which more than 50% of the population is female, and an even higher number tend to vote) in whether, when and how men performed this basic reproduction-based function, we might get some sense of what women go through for nine months.
And, for the religiously inclined, isn't the Christian biblical injunction against the male act of masturbation much clearer than that against the female procedure of abortion?
Ms. de Blazer
Dec 7 2005, 10:27 AM
Well, sportinlife, I appreciate your efforts but masturbation is hardly equivalent. Not being able to masturbate may indeed cause frustration and pain but it would not mean changing your entire life plans the way an unintended pregnancy does. And then being told your life was just a matter of "convenience".
Anyway, another gay rights/abortion rights/women's rights link. People are, I am sure, aware that some pharmacists claim to be too "moral" to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception. In at least one case the woman became pregnant as a result (she is suing. Some rape victims have been publicly lectured in front of other customers about their "immoral" behavior. Some pharmacists, not content with refusing to fill the prescription, have torn it up so the woman can't take it elsewhere.
This has extended to regular birth control, whether the woman is married or not. And of course some women are prescribed the pill for medical reasons that have nothing to do with contraception. (I was once prescribed them when a menstrual period had gone on for 13 days with no signs of stopping.)
Recently a woman with genital herpes who has to take daily meds had her prescription torn up by a pharmacist who told her god was punishing her for her sins.
These are not individual efforts; there is an organized group behind them. This group is now discussing whether their members (who number thousands of pharmacists) should refuse to fill and/or tear up the prescriptions of people with AIDS needing retrovirals. Their stumbling block is that the person may be what they call an "innocent" person with AIDS (i.e. a hemophiliac) rather than a "guilty" drug user or gay man. This doesn't stop them when it comes to birth control pills, but then, that's just women.
First they came for the communists, then the Jews, then the gays, then....
dinger
Dec 7 2005, 12:18 PM
It always amazes me that it's not enough for some people to decide it is against their own personal belief to do certain things, e.g. get an abortion, gamble, drink, have gay sex. No, they have to hoist that belief against all others and then go on and on about freedom. Pure lack of logic.
QUOTE
Weaselman:
MIB, stop being such a drama queen.
Reality hurts, almost as much as it does getting ripped apart by some suction device.
There is no drama when the
L.A. Times itself, a bastion of liberalism, simply recounted the destruction of a child. Sixty plus years after a nation dehumanized an entire class of people in order to justify their mass killing, another has done the same thing under the guise of "rights" or "freedoms."
How sad. How utterly evil.
QUOTE
dinger:
It always amazes me that it's not enough for some people to decide it is against their own personal belief to do certain things, e.g. get an abortion, gamble, drink, have gay sex. No, they have to hoist that belief against all others and then go on and on about freedom. Pure lack of logic.
Kind of like the personal and anticonstitutional beliefs of 7 individuals of SCOTUS who foisted their completely untenable and incorrect views upon a nation quite willing to discuss this politically, eh?
QUOTE
MIB:
QUOTE
Weaselman:
MIB, stop being such a drama queen.
There is no drama when the
L.A. Times itself, a bastion of liberalism, simply recounted the destruction of a child.
No, the LA Times wasn't the drama queen. It was you and your remarks. I can practically wring your tears out of my computer screen they're so copious.
If you want to be taken seriously, don't be a drama queen. The overwrought emotional stuff doesn't work.
By the way, how are the kids doing?
sportinlife
Dec 8 2005, 12:41 AM
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
Well, sportinlife, I appreciate your efforts but masturbation is hardly equivalent.
Thanks Ms D, even if I do feel I'm being
damned with faint praise.
I've always felt that we men are the weaker half of the species, and not just because we are more sensitive to pain and the sight of blood (if you ask most female nurses). But try and take away our
Mr. Hand and his five friends and you may get a reaction from men that would astonish.
Edit to add: There is an interesting entry under
Masturbation in wikipedia about how it is considered an appropriate way for "men" to break the fast of Ramadan. Now THAT could lead to some interesting speculation....
[ December 07, 2005, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
dinger
Dec 8 2005, 08:58 AM
So, MIB, does the morning-after pill bother you? How about an abortion done one month into pregnancy? At what point does that speck become a child to you? I, too, have a problem with late term abortions when the fetus is viable outside the mother. Unless the mother's health is endangered. But just where is your line?
fantomas
Dec 8 2005, 10:08 AM
Well, given that MIB has had a phantom career on the bench and has phantom children (or maybe they're real, who knows, he refuses to address any questions about them), maybe he's also had phantom abortions. He seems fixated by the physical descriptions, but then, hey, maybe he's undergone a phantom transsexual operation as well!
I say make RU-486, the medicines one takes with it, and the morning after pill readily available. Also have comprehensive, realistic sexual education, not this abstinence crap, which studies have shown does not work. The more young people--men and women--know how to avoid pregnancies and the more they have access to safe contraceptives, the fewer unwanted pregnancies we'll have, and, as occurred during the Clinton years, the abortion rate will go down (it has since gone up under W).
Ms. de Blazer
Dec 8 2005, 10:30 AM
][/QUOTE]. Sixty plus years after a nation dehumanized an entire class of people in order to justify their mass killing, another has done the same thing under the guise of "rights" or "freedoms."
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Yep, a government that outlawed abortion under all circumstances and outlawed all forms of birth control.
As a Jewish lesbian woman, there are few things more putrid to me than having my rights compared to Nazis by anti-semites, sexists and homophobes (sometimes all 3). The groups that cite Nazis against women's rights cannot find a whole lot in their program, certainly not in their program on women, with which they disgree.
CPT_Doom
Dec 8 2005, 12:34 PM
QUOTE
My God, my God. How can a nation permit this macabre practice, this purely evil procedure? It is so sad...
Perhaps, MIB, I could provide you with an equally graphic account of my own mother's experience in the pre
Roe v. Wade days? Of course, it would have to be completely second hand, as she passed away nearly 9 years ago, but I clearly remember her descriptions of the agony she suffered as she bled, nearly to death, for 18 hours; all the while giving "birth" to pieces of a fetus that was to have been my brother Andrew. The nightmare really was just beginning though, for during the two weeks she recovered from the "miscarriage" (the correct medical term is a spontaneous abortion) she was on the maternity floor, and got to hear the cries of the babies around her, only reinforcing the loss she had just suffered.
It being 1971 at the time, she was refused the therapeutic abortion that would have prevented her agony, because she was not "close enough to death" to qualify under existing Massachusetts law. Nowadays a simply D&C would have ended her suffering, and allowed her to go home to recover around her family, not stuck in a hospital with idiot nurses asking her "and what did we have?" - meaning of course, what type of baby?
Or maybe I could get my colleague to write about the agonizing decision she had to make about having her daughter, who was conceived in the middle of her treatment for breast cancer. The pregnancy was both a HUGE risk to my colleague's health and well-being (the cancer could easily have been triggered to recur by the pregnancy hormones) and a potential last-chance to have a child. Although she went with the route you would prefer, I know it was a mental nightmare trying to decide how to proceed - not knowing what, if any, damage had been done to her daughter from the combination of chemo and radiation she was undergoing.
Abortion is not pretty or easy; for that matter, nor is pregnancy. None of us has the right to demand that women only have one option when their lives and bodies are so incredibly challenged by the burden of carrying a child and giving birth.
jqueer
Dec 8 2005, 01:30 PM
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
QUOTE
My God, my God. How can a nation permit this macabre practice, this purely evil procedure? It is so sad...
Perhaps, MIB, I could provide you with an equally graphic account of my own mother's experience in the pre
Roe v. Wade days?
Or a similarly graphic and emotionally overwrought account of meat slaughter. If destroying something that looks vaguely like a human being is wrong, throwing out dolls would be illegal. And that argument is slightly more convincing than MIB's. The argument to emotion is as much a falacy as an ad hominem attack. There are legitimate medical determinations of the start of life. There are also legitimate arguments as to what that actually is. MIB is not participating in that argument. From everything I've seen him post on the subject, I'm certainly not convinced of his position and probably more firmly entrenched in mine. He's just not very good at this.
Ms. de Blazer
Dec 9 2005, 10:23 AM
When Clinton vetoed the first bill to outlaw late term abortions, women who had the procedure testified before a senate subcommittee about how their pregnancies had gone terribly wrong. They were not allowed to testify before the full senate because their stories were too powerful. It's much easier to say some "girl" sat around for 8 1/2 months and then had an abortion because she could not fit into her prom dress.
Please expect to see the women's testimony coming up. And you will see why they were never invited back. They shatter the image of selfish irresponsible baby hating "girls".
Ms. de Blazer
Dec 10 2005, 12:00 PM
The ban on late term abortion is one that we were told "we" should all suppport. Even those who favor keeping abortion legal. A term "partial birth abortion" that is unknown in medicine was invented along with a gruesome, but totally fictional, description. And we were told that a healt exemption would mean women, er, girls, would have abortions at 8 months because they had "a little headache", yes, that was said. Not surprising the women's acutal stories were banned from the senate. And Bush signed the bill surrounded by men.
Here is the testimony of Viki Wilson before a subcommittee in 1995, the last year women were even allowed before committees to tell their stories.
QUOTE
I'd like to thank the Judiciary committee for allowing me to testify today. My name is Viki
Wilson. I am a registered nurse, with eighteen years experience, ten in pediatrics. My
husband Bill is an emergency room physician. We have three beautiful children: Jon is
10, Katie is 8, and Abigail is in heaven with God.
In the spring of 1991 was pregnant and expecting my third child on Mother's Day. The
nursery was ready and we were very excited anticipating the arrival of our baby. Bill had
delivered our other two children., and he was going to deliver Abigail. Jon was going to
get to cut the cord and Katie was going to be the first to hold her. She had already
become a very important part of our family.
At 36 weeks of pregnancy all of our dreams and happy expectations came crashing
down around us. My doctor ordered an ultrasound that detected what all my previous
prenatal testing, including a chorionic villus sampling, an alpha-fetoprotein and an earlier
ultrasound had failed to detect, an encephalocoele. Approximately 2/3 of my daughter's
brain had formed on the outside of her skull. I literally fell to my knees from the shock. I
immediately knew that she would not be able to survive outside my womb. My doctor
sent me to a perinatologist, a pediatric radiologist and a geneticist all desperately trying
to find a way to save her. My husband and I were praying that there would be some new
surgical technique to fix her brain. But all the experts concurred. Abigail would NOT
survive outside my womb. And she could not survive the birthing process, because of the
size of her anomaly her head would be crushed and she would suffocate. Because of the
size of her anomaly, the doctors also feared that my uterus would rupture in the birthing
process most likely rendering me sterile. It was also discovered that what I thought were
big healthy strong baby movements were in fact seizures. They were being caused by
compression of the encephalocoele that continued to increase as she continued to grow
inside my womb. I asked, \"What about a c-section?\" Sadly, my doctor told me \"Viki, we
do c-sections to save babies. We can't save her. A c-section is dangerous for you and I
can't justify those risks.
The biggest question for me and my husband was not \"Is she going to die?\" A higher
power had already decided that for us. The question now was \"How is she going to die?\"
We wanted to help her leave this world as painlessly and peacefully as possible, and in a
way that protected my life and health and allowed us to try again to have more children.
We agonized over these options, and kept praying for a miracle. After discussing our
situation extensively, our doctors referred us to Dr. McMahon. It was during our drive to
Los Angeles that we chose our daughter's name. We named her Abigail, the name my
grandmother had always wanted for a grandchild. We decided that if she were named
Abigail, her great-grandma-would be able to recognize her in heaven.
My husband grilled Dr. McMahon with all the same questions that many of you probably
have asked about the-procedure. We would never have let anything happen to our baby
that was cruel, or unnecessary. . . and Bill as my husband, loving me, wanted to be sure
it was safe for me. Dr. McMahon and this procedure were our salvation. My daughter died with dignity inside my womb. She was NOT stabbed in the back of the head with scissors, no one dragged her out half alive and then killed her, we would never have allowed that to happen.
Losing Abigail was the hardest thing that's ever happened to us in our life. After we went
home, I went into the nursery and sat there holding her baby clothes crying and thinking
she'll never get to hear me tell her that I love her.
I've often wondered why this had happened to us, what we had done to deserve such
pain. I am a practicing Catholic, and I couldn't help believing that God had to have some
reason for giving us such a burden. Then I found out about this legislation, and I knew
then and there that Abigail's life had a special meaning. God knew I would be strong
enough to come here and tell you our story, to try to stop this legislation from passing
and causing incredible devastation for other families like ours. There will be families in
the future faced with this tragedy, because pre-natal testing is not infallible. I urge you,
PLEASE don't take away the safest procedure available.
I told the Monsignor at my parish that I was coming here, and he supports me. He said,
\"Viki, what happened to you wasn't about choice. You didn't have a choice. What you did
was about preserving your life.\" I was grateful for his words. This issue isn't about choice, it's about a medical necessity. It's about life and health.
My kids attend a Catholic school where a playground was built and named in Abigail's
honor. I believe that God gave me the intelligence to make my own decisions knowing
I'm the one that has to live with the consequences. My husband said to me as I was
getting on the plane to come to Washington \"Viki, make sure this Congress realizes this
is truly a Cruelty to Families Act \"
Ms. de Blazer
Dec 10 2005, 12:02 PM
BTW, opponents of women's rights viciously compare legal abortion to the Nazi holocaust. In all my life I have never heard a single Jew use that comparison.
Here is the testimony of Coreen Costello, a born-again Christian who had attended anti-abortion rallies.
QUOTE
Senator Hatch, Senator Biden, and members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for
allowing me to speak to you today. My name is Coreen Costello. I live in Agoura,
California, with my husband Jim and our son Chad and daughter Carlyn. Jim is a
chiropractor and I am a full-time wife and mom.
I am a registered Republican, and very conservative. I don't believe in abortion. Because
of my deeply held Christian beliefs, I knew that I would never have an abortion.
Then, on March 24 of this year, when I was seven months pregnant, I was having
premature contractions and my husband and I rushed to the hospital.
During an ultrasound, the physician became very silent. Soon more physicians came in. I
knew there was something very wrong. I went into the bathroom and sobbed. I begged
God to let my baby be okay. I prayed like I've never prayed before in my life.
My husband reassured me that we could deal with whatever was wrong. We had talked
about raising a child with disabilities and we were willing to take whatever God gave us.
My doctor arrived at two in the morning. He held my hand, and informed me that they did not expect our baby to live. She was unable to absorb the amniotic fluid and it was
puddling into my uterus.
This poor precious child had a lethal neurological disorder and been unable to move for
almost two months. The movements I had been feeling over the last few months had
been nothing more than bubbles and fluid. Her chest cavity was unable to rise and fall to
stretch her lungs to prepare them for air, leaving them severely underdeveloped, almost
to the point of not existing. Her vital organs were atrophying. Our darling little girl was
going to die.
A perinatologist recommended terminating the pregnancy. For my husband and me, this
was not an option. I chose to go into labor naturally. I wanted her to come on God's time -I didn't want to interfere.
It was so difficult to go home and be pregnant and go on with life, knowing my baby was
dying. I wanted to stay in bed. My husband looked at me and said, \"Coreen, this baby is
still with us. Let's be proud of her. Let's make these last days of her life as special as
possible.\" I felt her life inside of me, and somehow I still glowed. At this time we chose
her name -- Katherine Grace. \"Katherine\" means pure, and \"Grace\" represents God's
mercy.
We went to many more experts over the next two weeks. It was discovered that
Katherine's body was rigid and she was stuck in a transverse position. Due to swelling,
her head was already larger than that of a full-term baby. Natural birth or an induced
labor were impossible.
We considered a caesarean section, but experts at Cedars-Sinai Hospital were adamant
that the risks to my health and possibly my life were too great. There was no reason to
risk leaving my children motherless if there was no hope of saving Katherine.
The doctors all agreed that our only option was the intact D&E procedure. I was
devastated. The thought of an abortion sent chills down my spine. I remember patting
my tummy promising my little girl that I would never let anyone hurt or devalue her.
After Dr. McMahon explained the procedure, I was so comforted. He and his staff
understood the pain and anguish we were feeling. I realized I was in the right place. This
was the safest way for me to deliver. This left open the possibility of more children. It
greatly lowered the risk of my death. Most important, it offered a peaceful, painless
passing for Katherine Grace.
When I was put under the anesthesia, Katherine's heart was stopped. She was able to pass
away peacefully in the womb, which was the most comfortable place for her to be. Even
if regular birth or a caesarean had been medically possible, my daughter would have
died an agonizing death.
When I awoke a few hours later, she was brought in to us. She was beautiful. She was
not missing part of her brain. She had not been stabbed in the head with scissors. She
looked peaceful. My husband and I held her tight and sobbed. We stayed with her for
hours, praying and singing lullabies. Giving her back was the hardest moment of my life.
Because of the safety of this procedure, I am now pregnant again.
Fortunately, most of you will never have to walk the valley we have walked. It deeply
saddens me that you are making a decision having never walked in our shoes. When
families like ours are given this kind of tragic news, the last people we want to seek
advice from are politicians. We talk to our doctors -- lots of doctors. We talk to our
families and other loved ones. And we ponder, long and hard into the night, with God.
What happened to our family is heartbreaking, and it is private. But we have chosen to
share our story with you because we hope it will help you act with wisdom and
compassion. I hope that you can all put aside your political differences, your positions on
abortion, and your party affiliations - and just try to remember us. We are the ones who
know.
We are the families that ache to hold our babies, to raise them, to love and nurture
them. We are the families who will forever have a hole in our hearts. We are the families
that had to choose how our babies would die. Each one of you should be grateful that
you and your families have not had to face such a choice. I pray that no one you love
ever does. Please put a stop to this terrible bill. Families like ours are counting on you.
Still want to say women seeking abortion are frivolous or selfish?
fantomas
Dec 10 2005, 09:14 PM
No, women usually don't compare abortion to the Nazi Holocaust, because the Holocaust sought to systematically wipe out whole groups of people--primarily the Jews of Europe, but also Gypsies/the Roma, some Slavs (who could not be put to work), mixed-raced people, and homosexuals. Also killed in the Holocaust and the mass, organized and unorganized Nazi violence were leftists, particularly Communists and former members of the Socialist Party of Weimar, but the Nazis also killed pacificists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholic and Lutheran Evangelical clergy, and dissenting members of right-wing parties.
No one who believes in women's access and right to abortion advocates the abortion of all foetuses. In fact, most people who believe that abortion should be legal also believe that abortion should be used only when necessary, and not as a form of remedial contraception. But by keeping girls, boys, and adults ignorant about human sexuality, by not fostering access to legal, non-abortive contraceptives and contraceptive medicine--and yes, there are many adults who still do not fully understand human conception fully--our government and society make the conditions ripe for unexpected and unwanted pregnancies.
Ms. deBlazer, thanks so much for your posts!
MIB
Dec 15 2005, 09:49 AM
QUOTE
CPT_Doom:
QUOTE
My God, my God. How can a nation permit this macabre practice, this purely evil procedure? It is so sad...
Perhaps, MIB, I could provide you with an equally graphic account of my own mother's experience in the pre
Roe v. Wade days? Of course, it would have to be completely second hand, as she passed away nearly 9 years ago, but I clearly remember her descriptions of the agony she suffered as she bled, nearly to death, for 18 hours; all the while giving \"birth\" to pieces of a fetus that was to have been my brother Andrew. The nightmare really was just beginning though, for during the two weeks she recovered from the \"miscarriage\" (the correct medical term is a spontaneous abortion) she was on the maternity floor, and got to hear the cries of the babies around her, only reinforcing the loss she had just suffered.
It being 1971 at the time, she was refused the therapeutic abortion that would have prevented her agony, because she was not \"close enough to death\" to qualify under existing Massachusetts law. Nowadays a simply D&C would have ended her suffering, and allowed her to go home to recover around her family, not stuck in a hospital with idiot nurses asking her \"and what did we have?\" - meaning of course, what type of baby?
Or maybe I could get my colleague to write about the agonizing decision she had to make about having her daughter, who was conceived in the middle of her treatment for breast cancer. The pregnancy was both a HUGE risk to my colleague's health and well-being (the cancer could easily have been triggered to recur by the pregnancy hormones) and a potential last-chance to have a child. Although she went with the route you would prefer, I know it was a mental nightmare trying to decide how to proceed - not knowing what, if any, damage had been done to her daughter from the combination of chemo and radiation she was undergoing.
Abortion is not pretty or easy; for that matter, nor is pregnancy. None of us has the right to demand that women only have one option when their lives and bodies are so incredibly challenged by the burden of carrying a child and giving birth.
Some babies die by chance, miscarriage usually the most common. No baby should die by choice, unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother, situations not unlike those of self-defense when facing a potential criminal, for example.
MIB
Dec 15 2005, 09:56 AM
QUOTE
fantomas:
No one who believes in women's access and right to abortion advocates the abortion of all foetuses.
Bullshit.
The pro-abortionist gangs have opposed
every law that has in any manner attempted to regulate abortion. If they don't want dead babies, why not support even common sense regulations?
They have been covered with the blood of over 35 million babies since 1973, and their amoral, evil support of a procedure that makes Dr. Mengele's work look good is horrifying and evil. Hell is too good for such people.
Ms. de Blazer
Dec 15 2005, 10:09 AM
FAntomas said ADVOCATING abortion in all cases. No one advocates abortion, we advocate the right of a woman to choose.
And as for saying Mengele looks good ... there can be no reply. Some people are past talking to.
jqueer
Dec 15 2005, 10:20 AM
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
No one advocates abortion,
Except, of course, Bill Bennett. He seems to think it'll keep the crime rate down.
fantomas
Dec 15 2005, 10:47 AM
QUOTE
jqueer:
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
No one advocates abortion,
Except, of course, Bill Bennett. He seems to think it'll keep the crime rate down.
True that, because as he said, "we know" the outcome of aborting BLACK foetuses. (I wonder whether this includes ALL black foetuses (i.e., African immigrant or Afro-Latino or mixed race foetuses) or just African-American ones? Remember, this charming, bloated, hypocritical eugenicist is a big Christian and the author of THE BOOK OF VIRTUES....
Comparing any doctor who performs abortions to Josef Mengele does little more than making utterly clear the utter irrationality of the person making the comparison. What's next, comparing all judges who uphold right-to-choose laws to Martin Bormann, or all citizens who advocate women's right to choose to Joseph Goebbels? In fact wasn't it Hitler himself who had a fanatical hatred of abortion as a potential threat to the continuation of his fantastical "Aryan" "race"?
[ December 15, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
Munson Man
Dec 15 2005, 11:34 AM
QUOTE
MIB:
Hell is too good for such people.
Liars and hypocrites go to hell, too. So you'll have an opportunity to deliver your message personally.
MIB
Dec 15 2005, 12:11 PM
QUOTE
Ms. de Blazer:
FAntomas said ADVOCATING abortion in all cases. No one advocates abortion, we advocate the right of a woman to choose.
Sorry, but you can't hide behind semantics. If you support the availability of abortion, you support abortion. Period.
As I said before, such parsing of words and their meaning is what led a government and its people to justify their national slaughter 60+ years ago.
MIB
Dec 15 2005, 12:13 PM
QUOTE
Munson Man:
QUOTE
MIB:
Hell is too good for such people.
Liars and hypocrites go to hell, too. So you'll have an opportunity to deliver your message personally.
I have no desire to visit you there, if that is where you're admitting you'll be. I shall nonetheless pray for your soul. It may still be salvageable.
RazorbackTX
Dec 15 2005, 12:15 PM
If some of the pro lifers would put their money where their mouth is and adopt there would be less abortion, of course some just prefer to lie about it.
MIB
Dec 15 2005, 12:19 PM
QUOTE
fantomas:
Comparing any doctor who performs abortions to Josef Mengele does little more than making utterly clear the utter irrationality of the person making the comparison.
Why, because the truth hurts? Of course it does. Such comparisons are both valid and logical, as well as quite appropriate. The fact that such truth is powerful is what irks those who favor baby-killing.
BTW, what's your obsession with Bennett? I sure as heck never brought that hypocrite into the argument. Another example of irrelevance.
And speaking of hypocrites, I seem to remember someone in the 1000th execution thread chiming in with biblical passages about "whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers...". Now this same person here so conveniently ignores that when it comes to the
least of all our brothers (and sisters)--innocent children.
Oh! The hypocrisy!
[ December 15, 2005, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]
Munson Man
Dec 15 2005, 12:22 PM
QUOTE
MIB:
QUOTE
Munson Man:
QUOTE
MIB:
Hell is too good for such people.
Liars and hypocrites go to hell, too. So you'll have an opportunity to deliver your message personally.
I have no desire to visit you there, if that is where you're admitting you'll be. I shall nonetheless pray for your soul. It may still be salvageable.
I don't think anyone listens to your prayers anymore, Judge - not even your kids.
MIB
Dec 15 2005, 12:25 PM
My prayers are private, as everyone's should be. As far as my kids, do not go there. Ever.
Munson Man
Dec 15 2005, 01:06 PM
As far as you're concerned, I go where I like when I like. Always.
You've done nothing but make outrageous accusations and throw around vile, hateful, despicable statements during your entire tenure here. We all accept that you are devoid of self-respect, but when you treat everyone else with an equal lack of respect you forfeit the right to expect any respect from those of us who are sick of your self-aggrandizing (or is it delusional?) prevarications.
RazorbackTX
Dec 15 2005, 01:30 PM
QUOTE
MIB:
Why, because the truth hurts?
What would you know about the truth?
[ December 15, 2005, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
Ms. de Blazer
Dec 15 2005, 02:29 PM
The position of some people apparently no, scratch that, not apparently, clearly and obviously, is that all women must be forced to carry all pregnancies to term, in all circumstances, against their will, regardless of consequences. Well, maybe, just maybe, if it would kill her it's OK not to, but if it would "only" permanently and severely disable her, hey...
I remember in the 80's a Boston Catholic prelate saying that one could not begin to compare the importance of the life of a woman to that of a fetus that might be male. And when women protested, he said they needed husbands to beat some sense into us. Seems I hear echoes.
fantomas
Dec 15 2005, 03:46 PM
QUOTE
MIB:
Why, because the truth hurts? Of course it does. Such comparisons are both valid and logical, as well as quite appropriate. The fact that such truth is powerful is what irks those who favor baby-killing.
BTW, what's your obsession with Bennett? I sure as heck never brought that hypocrite into the argument. Another example of irrelevance.
You're wrong. AGAIN. Bennett, a Republican, said \"we know\" that aborting every \"Black baby\" would reduce crime. His statement of certainty about aborting an entire category of people fits directly with your analogy to Mengele. I cannot think of ONE Democrat or person on the left who has publicly advocated aborting an entire race of people. That is Hitlerian. I know it's very hard for you to comprehend the simple but basic comparison, but try to wrap your mind around it. It's easier than torts or admiralty law, okay?
QUOTE
And speaking of hypocrites, I seem to remember someone in the 1000th execution thread chiming in with biblical passages about \"whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers...\". Now this same person here so conveniently ignores that when it comes to the least of all our brothers (and sisters)--innocent children.
No, I'm NOT a hypocrite, because I'm not a practicing Christian. YOu and Governor Schwarzenegger are, right? He is a practicing Catholic who cannot be bothered to follow such a basic tenet of the founder of his church, the very person on whom Catholics and all Christians are to model their lives. I posted the quote not because *I'M* an adherent of it--though I am against the death penalty--but because that washed up former action hero turned political weathervane decided for political reasons to execute someone. He could have granted clemency--keep Tookie Williams in jail for the rest of his life--but instead he chose to play God. He'll have to deal with the consequences down the road.
Before you toot off again, get your facts straight. And as Ms. deBlazer said, it makes no sense even trying to discuss such a serious issue with someone whose hysteria is so great he keeps comparing the organized Nazi death camps to a procedure that no one--no woman I've ever met, no abortion doctors, no one, except perhaps your fellow Republican Bill Bennett--approaches with even a modicum of glee or delight or pleasure. The same could not be said for Mengele, Goebbels, Goering, Eichmann, Bormann, etc.
MIB
Dec 15 2005, 05:14 PM
QUOTE
Munson Man:
You've done nothing but make outrageous accusations and throw around vile, hateful, despicable statements...
Where? Show me. Perhaps my memory has failed me.
MIB
Dec 15 2005, 05:21 PM
QUOTE
fantomas:
And as Ms. deBlazer said, it makes no sense even trying to discuss such a serious issue with someone whose hysteria is so great he keeps comparing the organized Nazi death camps to a procedure that no one--no woman I've ever met, no abortion doctors, no one, except perhaps your fellow Republican Bill Bennett--approaches with even a modicum of glee or delight or pleasure.
Your naivete is eclipsed only by your ignorance of the entire abortion industry. No medical procedure generates as much profit for its purveyors and supporters as does abortion. Those who perform it do so willingly and do not regret it (heck, "Dr." George Killer Tiller
enthusiastically butchers babies--3rd term ones at that!), and why should they? It makes them rich, more so than other "surgical procedures."
Ms. D's or your refusal to see the obvious parallels between a systematic destruction of one group of people to another is irrelevant. Moreover, your denials and excuses mirror those of the Nazi era itself, so that doesn't surprise me, either.
millerbeach
Dec 15 2005, 11:59 PM
MIB, how do you know a doctor is enthusiastically performing abortions? Are you in the room when he does them? If so, you are as much at fault. By the way, it may please you to know that fertility experts make far more money than abortion doctors. Also, comparing Ms. De B to Nazis or Hitler is such a low blow. I am surprised a man of your intelligence would bother stooping to the lowest of low.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.