So .... does anyone else notice something odd about this picture, celebrating the new legislation to limit a woman's and her physician's right to choose?

At least the NY Times, in the front page story, was able to find and picture, what, one woman in a photo (albeit that wretched Janet Parschall).

You mean the really ugly woman third from the left? Oh wait, nope, that's a man...

Tom Brokaw actually mentioned that fact on the NBC Nightly News last night, which I thought was pretty cool. Seriously, can't these people even set up a photo op properly? And God, the smarmy, satisfied smirks on their faces make me want to punch them all in the face.

Tom DeLay needs to pick a different color of hair dye, that "shoe polish black" isnt really working for him.

Yeah, bad call PR-wise. There are any number of women in Congress who voted for the ban and would have loved to be photographed with President Bush.

But I thought the secret of the Bush Administration was its uncanny ability to manipulate the media and thus public opinion to serve its own diabolical ends. So obviously the answer to your question, at least to many Bush-haters, is "Yes, usually they can."

Anyone located the TEXT of this bill? Because the claim of the doctors filing suit is that its broad language could be used to ban most or all second-trimester abortions.

I think the women folk were in the back, fixing the boys some snacks.

I would agree that yes, usually they are pretty good at that sort of thing. That's not a criticism, necessarily -- I'd expect the same from any other politician, and Bill Clinton knew how to swing a photo op pretty well himself. It does say something about their thought processes, though, that when putting together this "historic event," they decided to include no one besides a bunch of white males. Not a single person involved thought, "Hey, let's get a woman or two up here." I mean, women are, after all, the ones whose rights are being taken away...

I would argue, in addition, that our national news media don't really have to be manipulated for them to act as cheerleaders for this administration.

Another thing that made me almost vomit last night while watching the news was seeing Jerry Falwell's beaming face in the audience during the signing. Jeffy Falwell...UGH! Once again, the Conservative Christian man doing what the Bible "really" says and telling his woman what to do.

I wonder where the Black folk were? And the Asians? And the Hispanics?

Bobbie, you lefties really have a hard time seeing beyond skin color. That's sad.

If Bushie Punk Ass Chimp is a president of in-clu-sion (as he claims...ah, another lie!), shouldn't he have included people at the signing who look like America rather than having a group of old guys who look like the political landscape of America circa the Civil War? I doubt if many people would have wanted to be at the signing of death warrants for many American women, anyway.

I actually disagree with this, because, let's face it, Congress doesn't "look like America." I don't think everything needs to look like a Benetton ad, especially if it's just for the sake of appearances. But this case is pretty extreme, especially since it concerns a "women's issue."

Jeez, haven't we had the abortion debate about 20 billion times now? You either support it or you don't. Of course, I used to be pro-life until I moved up to DC and saw all the riff-raff, the people on the street begging for money, etc. If their moms had had abortions the world would be a much better place. I think abortion should be encouraged for poor women who can't afford to raise their kids. Get rid of them before they're living and it's nobody's loss. And I know for a lot of my straight guy friends, if their girlfriends got pregnant it would be a big pain in the ass. So for them, I like abortion, it should be a choice for them, or their girlfriends or whatever.

Typical. This late-term abotion bill will cost some women their lives...nothing like a George Bush administration to put people to death. He did it hundreds of times in Texas, now, he has taken it on the road to the women of America (women who wouldn't even consider having an abortion in the first place). This is a warning. Women, if you get pregnant, make sure you are willing to die for it because America will not let you sacrifice your baby if there are complications during the final months, even if there is a chance both of you might die during pregnancy, we will stand by and watch. Good luck...see you in nine months...hopefully.

[ November 06, 2003, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Oooh, somebody woke up on the melodramatic side of the bed today.

[ November 06, 2003, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Yes, MOST women do survive childbirth. This is a procedure that is done less than one percent of the time, still, it is a life-saving medical procedure for women that is now not an option. As for your "melodramatic" comment...maybe so, but it is the truth. Women will die because of George W. Bush. (BTW, you edited your original comment, but the text is still in my message.)

[ November 06, 2003, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

My sentiment on abortion:

I was raised Catholic and inherently I think it is a wrong choice for me personally (i.e. I would hope a woman I had impregnated would not terminate the pregnancy.)

However, there are many women who 1) should not have children and 2) many children born into families that are extremely poor and unfortunate.

As a human being, I simply cannot sit down and take that right away from someone else.

I'm one of those people who think it should be an individual basis- I hate that America forces politicians to take a side one way or the other. It should be private and it should be the decision of an individual and their professional doctor and clergy.

I know you're being your usual snarky, bombastic self, but you won't mind if, in a year, somebody digs up this message to ding you, right? (see: the Air Force one thing).

It seems the pro-choice people would have some linmts on abortion - as when the baby's legs are out of the woman and the head is still inside. Of course you can put that same idea on the pro-life side- if a woman would be dead if the baby is not aborted. What happened to reasonableness?

But what about the right to LIVE of the little boy or girl who is almost entirely removed from the womb--alive and crying or squirming--but has his/her head still in the vaginal tract when the "doctor" plunges a 7-inch pair of scissors into its head, opens the head up, and sucks out the brains so the skull can collapse and be more easily yanked out of the uterus?

My God, people! I cannot even believe we are debating this one particular type of procedure! Is there NO method of slaughtering a child you cannot accept? How much death are you willing to accept? This is macabre, it is inhuman. It is evil.

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was pro-choice, said it best about this procedure, when on the Senate floor he stated: "This is infanticide, nothing less."

That's the problem, officer. They do not. ANY AND ALL laws that have in ANY way attempted to protect the unborn baby at ANY stage in his/her development have been opposed by the anti-life lobby. Why? Money. It has NOTHING to do with a woman's right to "choose." Nothing. It's all about the money. Abortion is the most profitable type of medical procedure around, and not just for the abortionists, either.

NO law that has ever been passed to protect an unborn baby by prohibiting a type of abortion has ever been allowed to stand. Why? Because activist judges who are in the same camp as the pro-death crowd eagerly write their way into banning such laws.

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm pro-choice and I don't make a dime off of abortions and I don't have family, friends or acquaintances that do either. That's quite a broad brush....

An overwhelming number of Americans disapprove of partial-birth abortions and agree with this ban. Most polls show the number in the 70-75% range, so this would include many who generally label themselves "pro-choice" otherwise. It seems apparent that they realize how horrible this procedure is.

An overwhelming number of Congressmen and Senators support bans on this procedure. Included among this number are many Congressmen and Senators who otherwise consider themselves "pro-choice."

An unethical and unprofessional federal judge with his own agenda decides to stop the ban. The activist judiciary has gotten out of control in this country. Such judges must be stopped. Unfortunately, impeachment and removal appears to be the only way to accomplish this right now. (Note: I am not advocating impeachment of judges based on their rulings; rather, I advocate it for those judges who exceed their authority and who act unethically and unprofessionaly as the Nebraska judge did.)

MIB, seriously--first, all pro choice people are in it for the money, then you're calling for the impeachment of judges...sheesh! No need to get hysterical. If the statute proves to be overly broad, it'll be overturned. If not, it'll stand. It's an attempt by right-wingers to encroach upon the right to choose, and it looks like it'll stand. But the anti-life prez signed it--yep, him, W, the man who couldn't give a damn about frying possible innocent people down in Texas, who could care less about innocent Iraqis, who really doesn't even give a damn about American troops--I call that anti-life. At least the pope is consistent--logically, ethically, morally--on this point.

And consistency is the only logical choice. Fantomas, I'm becoming deeply concerned over my agreement with you. Please quit it. You're giving me a headache. wink

Geez, can you think up some more? Please do! While you are at it, please tell me what you call those people who KILL abortion doctors. I'd like to know what lofty, righteous name you give them.

[ November 07, 2003, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

First of all, MIB, I'm not sure what this world is where babies are delivered feet-first, with all but the head being out of the womb. Secondly, so-called \"partial-birth abortions\" are generally performed around the 20th week of pregnancy (the full-term is 40 weeks). If this fetus was removed from the womb entirely at that point, it would have almost no chance of surviving. Third, these second-trimester abortions are extremely rare, as most women who chose to abort do so in the first three months of pregnancy, and as such, the procedure is generally done to protect the life of the mother.

The reason pro-choice advocates don't support this ban is because it is clearly intended as a first step in the banning of abortion altogether. If you can't abort a fetus at 20 weeks, why can you do so at 19 weeks? The slippery slope is real, and this manufactured issue of \"partial-birth abortion\" is sending us down that slope.

As for the polls, Slate said it far better than I could:

I have previously posted about my own mother's experience in 1971, when she was denied a medically necessary abortion because she was not "close enough to death," so I won't repeat it. But I have to say that this whole debate has been masterfully PR'd by the anti-abortion crowd, the most zealous of whom refuse to acknowledge ANY medical or social reasons for abortion. This procedure was designed as an alternative to a far more difficult (for the mother) late-term abortion procedure, one that carries a very high risk of leaving the mother unable to carry any more children. (And, as an aside, the original Roe v. Wade made it very clear that states could regulate abortion in the third trimester, when viability is most likely, so this ban is really unnecessary).

It is not something that should be or, as far as I know, is being done simply for "convenience" abortions - those women who simply do not want the baby. Yes it is gruesome - but so is any surgery.

As always, when we get down to real life the issue is far murkier than the politicians want to admit. I have some acquaintences who were married last year. At Christmas the wife announced she was pregnant (and was very happy about it) - at 22 weeks they learned the baby had severe spina bifida - the entire spinal column and half the brain were exposed - there was no hope for the child to live outside the womb.

The couple waited for a few weeks, as the doctors hoped she would miscarry, and of course their priest told them they could not abort - according to Catholic teaching she would have to carry what amounted to a dead baby around until she delivered - so she would have months when every movement of the baby would simply remind her that her pregnancy had not hope - that is intolerably cruel.

Finally, around 25 weeks, they aborted, although officially (to stay in the church) it is being reported as a miscarriage. I can easily see where this procedure could be used to help this woman, but because of a few men who want to score political points, it won't be an option. She clearly wants more children, and should have the right to have a procedure that will maintain her ability to do so.

Is this an isolated case? Yes, but most second and third trimester abortions are for dead fetuses or health complications that threaten the mother's well-being. How dare any of us demand that a woman not have the option of deciding what is best for her body and her life? Can any of you on your moral high horses actually say that a woman who has gestational diabetes, toxemia, or any one of a huge number of potential complications that could damage her health should be forced to carry the child even though it would be better for her not to? And then if she makes a decision to abort, a bunch of non-medical old men get to tell her what kind of procedure to have?

I'm sorry, that's just not right.

CPT_Doom brings up a bad case and a terrible situation for all concerned. What a horrible choice for the family, and I guess that was the best outcome possible. I really feel for that couple.

I don't have a problem with the ban on the procedure if it included an exception for protecting the health of the mother, and for those terrible situations like CPT gave. I don't feel sorry for any woman who waits until 20 weeks in to get a convenience abortion, sorry, you are too late. But if a woman's health is at risk, she should have the option. I also know that some doctors might abuse that loophole and say that the mother's mental health is at risk if she has an unwanted child. I would hope that the statute could be drawn tight enough to prevent most of that.

But this statute is so political, which makes it suspect to begin with. The law is not a good one, but if it had the exception for the health of the mother I would support it. Of course it does not, so I think the law, while it may or may not be unconstitutional, should not have been enacted in that form.

Whackos. Murderers. Killing abortionists is not the answer, and it is contrary to the pro-life ethic. Those who do this aren't pro-life. Period.

BTW, I answered you because you're too lazy to use the search button and find out for yourself what my opinion is on that. I've answered that question many times before.

It's usually referred to as an \"intact extraction\" (a macabre and chilling term itself), and is the manner in which a partial-birth abortion is performed. As I explained, the baby is delivered alive until his/her head is the only part remaining in the mother's uterus. Then a pair of 7\" forceps is plunged into the back of the baby's skull. The forceps are spread wide, allowing an apparatus to suck out the brains.

Good God, I'm getting sick just explaining this. I can't believe this is happening in the United States.

OK, doc, whatever you say. In hospitals across this nation, premature babies are trying to be saved, yet at the opposite end of the hall, they're being killed via abortions. Makes sense, huh?

Their frequency is irrelevant. Whether there are 1 or 1000 of them, they're repugnant and unacceptable, except to save the life of the mother, something with which I understand and agree.

On the contrary, it has NOTHING to do with a "first step." As I've said before, pro-death advocates have opposed every single law designed to protect the unborn in any capacity. Just when will these bloodthirsty monsters ever agree to protect an innocent child?

As far as your poll questions go, the abortion industry has always been successful in spinning polls their way. Any why not? Their entire industry has been based on lies and deception ever since Roe v. Wade. Hell, Roe itself should have never been heard. First, it was moot. Second, the plaintiff's case was made up. She later admitted she lied; therefore, the entire case collapses for lack of standing and other reasons.

But that doesn't matter. After all, billions are being made off dead kids, and as we all know, money talks.

You betcha. Any judge who violates professional standards and ethical canons like the Nebraska judge did should be impeached.

BTW, fantomas, when will you ever get off this "Bush presided over death in Texas" crap. What was he supposed to do as governor? Perhaps you should vent your disdain toward the citizens of Texas, since their constitution gives no authority to their governor to stop an execution. A Texas governor can only issue a one-time stay of no more than 30 days, but he cannot commute the death sentence of a condemned person. Only the Texas Board of Pardons & Review can remove a person from death row. No matter how much a Texas governor wanted to stop an execution, he's powerless to do so.

[ November 08, 2003, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

And what exactly, MIB, does "to save the life of the mother?" actually mean - does it include only extreme cases where the woman will literally die within minutes if the procedure is not done? how about death within hours? what about death within weeks? At what point do you draw the line - and who makes the decisions? A judge, a politician, someone else with absolutely NO medical training whatsoever?

And what if her life isn't in danger, but her health is? The other late term abortion procedures may actually exacerbate her health problems. You have to realize the alternatives are just as savage and graphic, but the anti-abortion industry (which I would bet makes far more in political donations off their anti-abortion fundraising - all untaxed of course - than all the OB/Gyns who perform abortions put together, particularly with the state of malpractice premiums in this country) hasn't been able to put a cute little name on it that will register with the public.

I mean, do you really believe that vacuum abortions, in which the fetus is pulled apart, or saline injections, where the fetus is drowned in salt water, are really any less brutal or savage? This is abortion and it ain't pretty - I may be pro-choice, but I do not deny the brutality of these procedures. I just happen to be able to see the world in something other than black and white. I also realize abortion is brutal on the mother as well - physically and psychologically, and we shouldn't make it worse.

So a diabetic woman who may lose her kidneys from a pregnancy has to go through an abortion procedure that is far more brutal to her, just because some politicians want to appear to be "pro-life." That's nice.

I will repeat what I have said many times before - I do not and can not support abortions as birth control, but I also will not impose my views on any woman, because I can't know her situation at the time she discovers she's pregnant. And I have judged women, to their faces, who have had mere convenience abortions - I may support their legal right to do it, but I don't think it's morally right.

But until the anti-abortion movement accepts two simple facts of life - that abortions are often medically necessary and that people will have sex for reasons other than pro-creation (and therefore will support actual sex education in schools, including contraception discussions and teaching) we will have far too many abortions in this country, and will never be able to mount an effective campaign to reduce or eliminate them.

As long as a group of old, white men pass judgement on women like they were deficient creatures (and yes, those old white men are often able to convince some women to join them in their campaign to prove their moral superiority) and refuse to treat them as adults, we will never be able to reduce the need for abortions.

Making abortion illegal will not stop it. What we need is a public service campaign to promote contraception use, and to promote sexual acts that can be just as fun as the "big one" without the risk of pregnancy (and often at reduced risk of STDs) for young people in this country. What we don't need are more attempts to simply make abortion more difficult to obtain, or banned outright - by the time those measures supposedly "work" all we are doing is bringing more unwanted children into the world - we need to get to people before they get accidently knocked up or knock someone else up.

Think of it this way - banning gay sex certainly didn't end the practice, and had the only response to the AIDS crisis been more bans on gay sex, millions would have died instead of hundreds of thousands. Safer sex campaigns and condom distribution may have been slow to get started, but they undoubtedly saved lives. This country could dramatically reduce abortions, the same way we reduced traffic deaths, and smoking and AIDS cases, but the anti-abortion movement is too wrapped up with the same people who want a theocracy in this country to see the possibility.

An excuse used for centuries to justify the killing of people the world over. History is, indeed, repeating itself. Sad. So very sad.

The rest of your excuse-laden post is filled with the same illogic I've heard before, unfortunately. The "I-don't-approve-but-I'm-not-going-to-make-a-moral-judgment-on-others...blah, blah, blah." Yeah, I don't approve of my neighbors beating the crap out of their kids behind the privacy of their own homes, but I'm not going to make a moral judgment against them. After all, it's THEIR home and THEIR kids.

[ November 08, 2003, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

posted by MIB:

In other words, you can't respond. I'll make it simple for you then:

What does "to save the life of the mother" mean to you? Since you have given this as the only exception for the use of this procedure, and since that is the only exception most pro-lifers would make to their outright ban on abortions, what does it mean? Can you define it?

You see, there are real women out there, and they want to have a child, and they get pregnant and they are thrilled. And then they find out that they can't or shouldn't have the baby, and they're crushed. And often they have to abort because of health problems. And you are judging them has heartless murders who are cavalierly murdering their children.

Yet these women are not near death. When problems that could be fatal are diagnosed the woman is often not just about to die - does she have to wait until she is to get medical care?

In your zeal to stop the "baby-murderers" you are having real effects on real women. At least admit that much.

It's not that I "can't respond," as you'd like to believe; rather, I didn't respond at that time. I addressed other issues. Add to that I really had to run to the john and didn't come back here right away.

Just what is it with you illogical leftists who always believe someone must respond immediately and in a way that satisfies your tastes? It's just as bad as PhillyFan who grows impatient because one of his detractors won't answer his right-wing diatribes right away. I'm so sick of people inferring things just because one does not address every damn point made in an original poster's comments.

It is plainly obvious that when a woman is pregnant we have two independent, legitimate interests: two human lives at stake. It is impossible to play Solomon and try to decide whose life is "best," or "more worthy," etc. When an unborn baby's continued existence threatens the life of the mother, and there is no way to save the baby and the mother, it is sad (because one death would result) that one life must end so another may live. That is the concept behind self-defense. No one may desire to give his/her life for another, but there are times when it happens.

If every effort to save both the baby and the mother has been made, but the baby dies so the mother can live, this is no moral problem, for the intent wasn't to go directly into destroying the baby.

The problem with the definition of "health" is that pursuant to Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), "health" is defined as "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health." (Blackmun, part IV, Doe v. Bolton). Even financial reasons became part of a woman's "health" due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions. In short, if a mother cannot financially afford another child, she can legally destroy it via abortion. So sayeth the Supreme Court.

This "health" requirement is pure bullshit, as it now encompasses anything and everything.

The late Justice Byron White, whom I regard as one of the Supreme Court's most brilliant members and probably my favorite one, said it best about Doe and the Court's decisions regarding abortion:



[ November 08, 2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

posted by MIB:

Well, isn't that noble of you - an abortion is okay as long as the woman follows the MIB-sanctioned series of steps. And of course, your exception again is only to save the mother's life. You reject outright the idea that there are valid health reasons not to carry a baby, apparently because you believe the health exception is too broad.

So a woman must suffer any and all damage to her body, to her mind that a pregnancy could cause, as long as she isn't actually going to die there is no valid reason for an abortion.

So my friends with the spina bifida baby should have been forced to carry until such time that she miscarried or gave birth. If she did manage to give actual birth to the child, they would then have the happy experience of watching the baby die an agonizing death anyway. That is morally better than aborting it. I see.

I have another friend who is bi-polar. She has been told, by her physicians, that she should not attempt pregnancy. Not only would she have to go off her medications, which have been finely calibrated over a series of years to keep her sane, but the added hormones of the pregnancy would likely exacerbate her mental illness. I knew her when her manic depression was uncontrolled, and it was not a pretty sight. She would certainly be unable to work or take control of her life if she went off her medications.

The pregancy could literally destroy her mind permanently, if the manic depression got bad enough during the pregnancy. But she would never be at risk for losing her life. Her life could be destroyed by a pregnancy, but not ended.

Under your system though, her mind and life would be sacrificed because she wasn't in physical threat of dying. I see.

[ November 09, 2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]

CPT, I just love your sensationalistic examples. The rants and ravings of the "hard cases"--rape, incest, troglodyte baby, etc.--are always the examples brought up by those whose main goal is to ensure the continued brutal slaughter of children.

For sake of argument, I once told a pro-death advocate, in response to his "what about rape?" query: "OK, I'll give you rape then. Considering that less than 1/10 of 1% of abortions are believed to be the result of rape, that'd be a fair trade-off. What are you going to say to that?" His response was typical. He went into the "incest, deformed baby, etc."

Emotional cases make for bad laws. This whole thing comes down to this: Does the U.S. Constitution guarantee the right to abortion? Absolutely not. Absent the converse, that being a human life amendment, the issue should be subject to the laws of the individual states.

So, let's assume Roe v. Wade is overturned, which you are so eager to see happen, and the issue does return to the states. Certainly many states will ban abortion except to \"save the life of the mother\" and that is the kind of ban you are advocating. You absolutely deny the medical reality that there are women out there who can and do suffer damage to their health without their lives being in jeopardy.

How much medical training do you have MIB? And how much medical training do all the men and women who voted for this ban, or who advocate for bans that only allow the \"save the life of the mother\" exception have? As I understand it there is one physician in the Congress, and he is not an OB/Gyn.

I think it is criminal to ignore the very real, non-fatal, health damage that pregnancy can cause - it explicitly puts the mother second to the child - she is just a baby factory who must live with any and all damage the pregnancy would cause.

Even the \"save the life of the mother\" exception has HUGE problems. It is very easy to say \"of course abortion should only be used to save the life of the mother,\" but it ignores medical reality. I am not a clinician, but I work in health care quality. I have seen first-hand that, despite their reputation, doctors are not nearly as perfect as people believe. Medicine is not a science; it is an art.

At the risk of being accused of bringing up \"sensationalistic cases\" again, I can give you another real-life example (point of fact - healthcare is a predominantly female profession, and my company is very fertile, so I know way too much about pregnancy and childbirth) - Another co-worker. This woman was 29 when she was diagnosed with malignant breast cancer. She went through the lumpectomy and two rounds of chemotherapy, which her physicians told her put her into menopause and eliminated the possibility of ever having children. Apparently they were wrong.

Within a couple of months of ending the chemo, she found out she was pregnant. She then faced an agonizing dilemna. First, the doctors were not sure how much chemo was still in her system when she became pregnant, and how much damage that could have caused the baby. Secondly, and far more seriously, her tumor was estrogen-sensitive, and pregnancy floods the body with estrogen. If the chemo had not knocked out all the cancer cells, the pregnancy could actually re-start the cancer. Breast cancer in women this young is very aggressive, and had her doctors not thought she was menopausal, they would have urged her to wait at least 5 years before attempting to conceive, to ensure she was cancer-free. It was simply not advisable for her to be pregnant right then.

But this would also likely be her only chance to have a child. She had to decide, long before any complications arose, what to do. If she went forward, and the cancer came back, even aborting at that point might not be enough to save her.

Where does this case fall in your scenario MIB? This is a real case, one of thousands of women who face uncertainty in their pregnancy. You stated:

So for "every effort" to be made, I am assuming my co-worker would have had no option for an abortion until and unless her cancer came back so aggressively that her life would be in danger. Yet if the cancer came back that aggressively, her death sentence might already have been signed.

Medicine is not exact - it is full of probabilities and educated guesses. Doctors have to use the available information and make the best diagnosis and recommendation they can. It is often not just a matter of saying "yes, this case is one where the mother is in danger, but this one is not." In fact, I doubt you could get consensus from most doctors about what is a "life-threatening" complication and what is not. Hell, it took the medical establishment years to come up with national guidelines for diabetes, a far easier condition to understand than pregnancy, and there is still wide-spread disagreement about those guidelines.

You think you have a simple remedy to "save lives," but you don't. This isn't sensationalism, this is reality, and it is messy and gray and vague.

In one of my earlier posts I gave what I thought was the right way to stop abortion in this country, you haven't even commented on it. You simply want a neat, cut-and-dried solution that will leave the women of this country in jeopardy, just like it did 30 years ago.

As I race to answer your earlier thought so you can stop your hissy fit, I do not believe abortion will stop until people's hearts are changed. One's heart and not his/her mind must be changed before abortion will end.

If there was a window on every womb, there'd be a marked difference in opinion. But until the blood money stops flowing and the deception stops, nothing will change.

So far I am illogical and am having a "hissy fit." How interesting. It is also interesting, MIB, that you still won't acknowledge the shortcomings of your own position. The funny thing is, I totally hear you. No one wants a baby destroyed just because he/she is an inconvenience. I simply don't believe that legal bans a) achieve that aim or account for the realities of medical care in this day and age.

You are right that hearts have to change, but not merely those of the stereotypical evil abortion providers (who of course are ALL so unethical that they are only in it for the gobs of money - which is why there are no abortion providers in literally thousands of locations) and their self-involved patients. The hearts that also have to change are those who use abortion to promote their own pseudo-Christian political agenda.

When not only Jerry Fallwell but Louis Sheldon, a man I truly believe has only evil in his heart, are up front in the crowd watching Bush sign a law that will prevent not one single, solitary abortion, we can see this is not about a real attempt at changing the culture of America. It is about imposing a religion on the rest of us.

Not for me, it's not, and I don't attempt to make it so. When I discuss abortion, I do not do so on religious grounds, for that is based on faith. I do not choose philosophical grounds, for that, too, is not based on concrete facts. Instead, I choose the biomedical aspect, which is less problematic and based on scientific facts.

I've never marched, protested, or debated anyone using anything other than biomedical information. This also tends to not turn off as many people as do the religious arguments. There are enough people out there who are labeled religious fanatics--whether that is accurate or not--and I do not desire to be included among this categorization.

Don't you mean creationist pseudoscience? From what I've seen, I'm HIGHLY skeptical of your knowledge of both genetics and embryology.

Creationism implies a religious aspect, and as I said above, I do not choose that route.

MIB, I've been following this exchange with interest. I find myself in CPT_Doom's camp because, when I examine the issue with my heart and mind, they tell me that women's abortion rights must be absolute. If a woman is seriously facing the question, she must know that either choice is going to be difficult, both medically and morally. But even if she's shallow and casual about it, no one other than she should have the right to make that decision.

You reject CPT_Doom's "sensationalistic examples", but really, take the challenge -- what would you propose in such situations? Though rare, they do happen, so how do they fit in?

My goal is by no means "to ensure the continued brutal slaughter of children." Rather, it is to wrestle with a profoundly difficult question, and reach what I think is the most moral / least evil position. Then, my responsibility is to support spiritual and political leaders who most closely mirror my best judgement on the matter.

You say "When I discuss abortion, ... I choose the biomedical aspect, which is less problematic and based on scientific facts." But you also say, "I do not believe abortion will stop until people's hearts are changed." In fact it's both, soul and science, which is exactly what makes it so untidy.

---

When you have the time, consider this conversation that became public in January of 2001:
Talking with the Enemy - "For six years, leaders on both sides of the abortion debate have met in secret in an attempt to better understand each other. Now they are ready to share what they have learned."

A woman finds out in utero that her unborn child is gay. She gets an abortion. (Seriously, BTW, I'd bet almost 100% of women who were able to find this out would abort their gay babies, and gays everywhere to be consistent MUST support the killing of their own kind.) That is scary, truly scary, and completely contradicts your statement below.

A women is pregnant with a baby boy but wants a girl. She gets an abortion. A women has 2 kids then gets pregnant but doesn't want a third child. She gets an abortion. Dead babies brutally slaughtered on a woman's whims of convenience. Purely evil, nothing less.

But in your view, completely acceptable. After all, her rights are, as you say, \"absolute.\" No rights are absolute, not even the right to life (the 5th Amendment even explains this).




[ November 10, 2003, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Then why are you so resistant to recognizing the gill cleft and gill arch on a fetus? Call it the brachial cleft/arch if you prefer, but it's still morphologically similar to the features that become gills on fish, and essentially identical to features found on all reptile and bird embryos. I suppose your opposition to evolution is based on the \"scientific\" evidence as well.

So by your account, since it's absolutely clear to everybody that a fetus is a human life, then you believe nearly all women everywhere see no problem with murdering gay people.

It's not my right, nor yours, to make that decision for her.