And he is probably totally unaware that he could even be close to being wrong.

I mean they define what is true in their own personal image now. They define what is true and is not true by what they speak.

They call it defining or creating reality ... There must be some psychological term for this sickness ... ?

I wonder what would happen if we just let these stupid, lies hang out there without fighting back with the truth?

Perhaps that would make the O'reillys, Hannities, Limbaughs hang themselves with the lies.

Can't stand the man. Can't watch a minute of him. Can't figure out if he's being paid, or just so stupid on his own.

What an ignorant view to take. What an ignorant man.

Texas Lady,

Unfortunately they repeat the lies until they believe them and then the masses start to believe them. At least the masses used to - it's starting to look like things may be starting to change.

Brad - that picture - man I thought it was the big one until I realized my chair wasn't shaking.

Thanks Bradblog for picking up on this. Not that had any doubt that OhReally was an a**hole, but here's further proof.

Planned Parenthood is the only way i can get reasonable birth control, as i just lost my health insurance. Plus the nurses at PP tend to be kind and knowledgeable (more so, in fact, than my previous expensive OBGYN), it's a non-profit, it provides crucial services, and ANYONE who says birthcontrol is a "lifestyle choice" is either: 1.an unthinking person with a Y chromosome, 2. sterile, 3. not getting laid. And no, i'm not saying abortion should substitute as birthcontrol, but as a last resort, it's necessary to have options. *sheesh*

p.s. have y'all read Freakanomics? the decline in crime is linked DIRECTLY to legal abortions, as people who don't want kids and have them anyway have... unwanted, neglected, or otherwise disfuntionally-raised kids.

BlueBear2 - Glad ya noticed

Consumer_W - Yup. Of course, O'Reilly failed to reconcile the fact that contraceptives are available at a very affordable rate at PP. Which, if O'Reilly's contention was true, then why would PP want to cut into their bottom line by offering such cheap birth control? It's almost as if what he said...has no relationship...to the truth...or something. Go figure!

There's a guy on another post talking about how the Freakanomics claim was debunked.. I found nothing credible in the statements from Levitt, and lots of language showing an axe to grind (victims of abortion... children killed by abortion.. etc). And claims his study shows murder rates go UP with abortion? that flies in the face of all reason, really.

As for PP "encouraging abortion", that's the same kind of retarted assertion made by all pro-lifers.. that somehow us devil-worshiping "liberals" want to kill people and encourage it.. Though, the -same- morons won't let the "morning after" pill be put on the market, which would REDUCE abortions over time.. Course, in -their- minds, an egg not implanting in the uterus is the same as "killing a child".. so, what can you do..

I for one believe that destruction of an egg after conception is wrong.

But I don't believe outlawing abortion is the way to stop abortion. The Pubs are sicker on this issue than they are on most. The old saying that they care about the child right up until the moment it hits the air is true, for many Pubs, I think, and the only reason they care is that the issue is political hay for them. That is the ONLY reason most of them care.

As regards the lies on the right wing, I think the only way to stop it is that suits need to be brought. Not all lies can be addressed that way, I guess. But surely some can. For example, the apparent swift boat lies against Kerry. Surely libel suits could be brought there. That would be a start towards holding the media responsible.

As Fitzgerald seems to be showing us, perhaps there is a check and balance left. The higher courts? No. But the criminal courts and property loss courts, perhaps yes?

The reason the neoCons really talk the anti-abortion law talk is that recruiting is way, way down.

There aren't enough unaware people to fight their oil wars.

If they can outlaw abortion with Roberts and Meir on the Supreme Court then they will have more "assets" to fight to steal oil bearing real estate with.

If that sounds crazy to you ... it is crazy. But crazy happens folks ... even in the "fedrul gummint"

PP allows women affordable birth control and is therefore in the business of reducing unplanned pregnancys.I use to work in an office that had talk radio on once a week. One of the radio hosts was Dr.Laura.She would go on and on about the evil PP. It was basically the same ignorant stuff you are seeing with Mr. Bill. I'm in favor of notification, I wouldn't want other people making life and death decisions with my daughter, but demonizing a women's health clinic for providing healthcare to women is stupid.

Baby killing is on the march!

P.S. Death penalty for mass murderers is wrong.

What realy gets me is their insistance that we are "pro-abortion."

I don't know of anyone who is "pro-abortion". We are pro choice! We want the choice to have a safe abortion by a licensed doctor if it is the last resort for what ever reason.

When I was in college abortion was illegal in most of the country. To get one you had to go to Mexico or New York.

One girl I new of didn't want her baby and tried many things to self-abort. She only managed to severely damage the fetus which was born with many defects and died after several months.

It was a very sad and tragic testament to the non availability of a legal abortion.

Jo - I agree PP is not about abortion it offers affordable healthcare to all women. It also offers education for preventing disease and pregnancy.

We educate ourselves for a better life, why then do we want to discourage sex education? Just saying no whether to sex or drugs isn't working.

I remember before Roe vs Wade and women married and single died from self inflicted or cheap abortions or botched abortions. Is this what we want again?

Abortion is a personal choice and not a political one and never should have been. How about being concerned about the horrific Foster care system now in place ? Where are the pro life people when 6 children are found kept in cages in Ohio last month?

These kids are here and now and need pro life help NOW.

Consumer_W (Post #5):

I sure am sorry that you lost your medical insurance.

I am an old style Health Care Reform advocate (ever since the early Clinton days). It is still my hot button issue.

I like the fact that Planned Parenthood is standing in the gap "For Those Not Livin' Large" as the ads say.

As far as Birth Control goes, I can tell you that my first wife needed it for medical reasons, NOT (just) for pregnancy prevention. Not sure where these idiot pharmacists get off telling young women they cannot have the pill, even for medical reasons!

However, I'd like to propose to you Hillary Clinton's compromise: If we can increase the education and the access to [read: free] contraception of all kinds, then there simply won't be a need for [very many] abortions.

I like that answer. Let's make abortions go away (not completely possible, but can severly reduce them) simply by advancing technology and education that renders it obsolete.

[Don't count on this idea flying as long as the neo cons are in power.]

BTW - Not all of us men are "unthinking person[s] with a Y chromosome."

MrBluesky - gosh there are two thinking y chromosones around. One lives with me !

I agree abortion should be a last resort in health or rape cases or incest. No child of 12 or 13 should be bringing babies into the world. And in the most prudent cases conception occurs and again it is not for anyone except the woman to decide, for she is the one who will raise this child.

I should think Pharmacists and insurance companies would be giving birth control for free. And actually with the acceptance of single mothers abortion has really become almost a non issue.

You must realize something. Bill O'reilly jumps on a subject, he thinks will get him allot of ratings and reconition. So this is a constant subject matter for him to get the right " SO-CALLED " religious sector, saying. Oh my what a rightous man he is. Which in reality is a joke! Personally I think Bill could care less if every girl, teenager, or woman lived at the abortion clinics. It just makes for a good rant piece, to pull some supporters his way. Bill' real problem is he thinks everybody is stupid, and can't see through him. HE THINKS!

OReilly's ratings come from people that want to hear what stupid shit he is going to say next, no watch, no ratings

PPH is the nation's largest abortion provider...I;m sure that is what he is referring to in saying that they get paid for every abortion.

Bottom line is abortion is killing. Apparently you are OK with killing. I'm not. You have free choice to use contraceptives, to not have sex, to give the child up for adoption, to keep the baby and hey here is a novel idea, you could even get married and raise the child in a loving enviornment. You should not have free choice to kill.

It will be interesting to see if you only post the comments of those who agree with you

I happen to like Bill O'Reilly, I think he does a great job with some investingating reporting. Recently he's been doing a good job attacking the oil companies for gouging and defending Roberts. I just think you liberals here react to him like I react to Nanci Polosi. If you don't like a person's viewpoint, sometimes it just hurts to listen to them. I'm not going to attack Nanci Polosi, I just get sick every time I listen to her, whether she's right or not. As for the Planned Parenthood excerpt, they do make money on abortions. Look, if he was trying to smear PPH, he sure made a weak attempt at it. That seemed more of just a random statement that he probably didn't think of much at the timethat you picked up on like that Bennett thing (not that it was very intelligent for Bennett to say what he did.)

I'm going to take a shot at Planned Parenthood though, because I know you all will hate me for it though. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a huge supporter of eugenics. She used to think that the poor and minorities were genetically inferior, and that abortions aimed at them would help out the population as a whole. She was a huge advocate of birth control so that the fit would reproduce and the unfit wouldn't.

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." -Margaret Sanger

Nittany said:

I happen to like Bill O'Reilly, I think he does a great job with some investingating reporting.

You may like him if you wish, but he is neither an investigator nor a reporter. He is a polemicist. Period. (As well as a liar, a sexist and a charlatan, but that was neither the point of my blog item, nor this comment).

Good reporters (and investigators) cling unapologetically to the FACTS and source them wherever and whenever possible. O'Reilly does nothing of the kind, and quite the opposite --- merely making stuff up outta whole clothe.

If that's your idea of an "investigative reporter" and you're actually interested in a political science degree, Nittany, you are in for a world of disillusionment.

As to your own "reporting" concerning Sanger, some sourcing for your claims would be appreciated.

DRU FAULK - Of course we do NOT only allow comments here of folks who agree with us. Perhaps you're confusing The BRAD BLOG with the type of blogs you usually read (wingnut blogs) who rarely allow for comments at all, much less those from folks who differ from their party-approved "points of view".

Dead-ender tactic #392

Compare an extremist you support with a similarly controversial but moderate counterpart in order to conflate the two. Call it a mere difference of opinion. Bonus points for using the phrases 'unhinged', 'it happens on both sides'.

dru faulk said: "You have free choice to use contraceptives, to not have sex,..."

Please Mr. rapist, would you put on this condom or else not have sex with me?

What do you mean Dr. when you say there is a problem and if I carry this baby to term it will kill me?

So the ultrasound shows the fetus has no arms or legs and its heart and intestines are outside of its body. What can i do now?

Sorry Brad, I'll give you some sources for Sanger. I based this on stuff she wrote...

Blacks and immigrants are "human weeds," "reckless breeders," "spawning human beings who should have never been born." -In her book Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Especially interesting is page 80.

Read anything she wrote in Birth Control Review. Take her "Plan for Peace" article in the BC Review that she wrote in April, 1932. She thought that couples should have to apply for a child.

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." She wrote this in the book Women and the New Race, through the Eugenics Publishing Co. (1920 and 1923)

I love big libraries...

In response to Dru Faulk, I agree with most of what you have to say. I think that abortion is horrible, morally wrong, and murder. But at the same time, enough of the population thinks otherwise, so I think there is a problem with making something illegal that roughly half of the population thinks is acceptable. There's also some enforcement problems with it (will a law really stop it from happening, won't it just happen in an un-safe manner?), and I really don't know how to deal with the morality of forcing a mother to have a baby when she was raped or her life is in danger. Maybe I'm just weak, but we anti-abortionists should be spending our energies on persuading people to have the babies, not forcing them to have them.

I agree with Texas Lady.

As horrible as abortion is, I can tell you what also is horrible.

In early 2004, my wife suffered horribly with the last trimester of our baby's preborn development. She suffered long term health issues that will never go away.

To this day, she gets crippled (no other word to describe it) by extreme pains that run from the top of her head to the bottom of her feet. This occurs almost daily. She wakes at night screaming from the pain... even now when our daughter is 18 months old.

Last winter, it seemed that every two weeks, I took her to the local ER because the pain was too much. Doctors, GI Specialists and OB/GYNs are baffled. They have no idea what is wrong with her.

They told me she will never recover.

It was because of this severe pain that I came about 8 hours one night in February, 2004 away from ordering an abortion.

As much as I hate abortions, I also hate seeing my wife suffer so much. It just breaks my heart to hear her crying in anguish, especially knowing that no one knows where it comes from and why it's happening.

So, to all you pro-lifers out there, I ask you to at least agree to the Democrats' minimum of exclusions:

- Life of the mother in jeopardy
- Rape
- Incest
- LONG TERM HEALTH of the mother in jeopardy.

The Republicans cannot stand to exempt the long term health of the mother.

But, as the husband of a mother in just such a position, I will always demand abortion as at least some alternative.

Brad: Sorry for the long, personal post. But abortion is one of my hot buttons. Please forgive it.

Sorry for 2 in a row,

Brad, unfortunately I specialize in comparative politics (which is focused on structures of different governments) and international law, so outside of the required courses I've already taken, I won't be exposed to most of what you're talking about. (That's why I knew so little about exit polls in our discussion a few days ago.)

BVAC, humorous, but a) Polosi is more of an extremist than O'Reilly, and b) I just find Polosi revolting, and I think that you just find O'Reilly revolting, which magnifies every mistake he makes and minimizes everything he says that actually is smart and correct. I mean, take Ann Coulter for example. I get a headache everytime she opens her mouth, even though I probably do agree with some of what she says. I just can't stand her, so it's impossible for me to listen to her for more than 30 seconds.

Margaret Sanger also saw what pregnancy after pregnancy did to women. It was normal for men to have 1-3 wives when they died in childbirth. She also went to jail for just giving out birth control literature. Women were used like brood sows, now I would like to think we are better than that.

And you men so full of pompous rightousness how many pregnancies have you gone through? How many nights have you been up with a sick child?
If a man could get pregnant no one would need birth control.

Strange how most pro life are also pro war.

A close friend of ours had a child with multiple birth defects. They underwent genetic testing and were told it would be ok to have another child.
Within the first two months an ultra sound showed multiple defects. They elected to abort rather than bring a child who would suffer pain all their life.

So you pro lifers are telling us that God, a loving God, would want a child to be born and suffer horrible pain during their life. Some things are worse than death.

It seems to me pro life thinkers have a very tunnel vision. Try thinking outside the box, abortions aren't used as contraception, it is a painful decision made with love for the unborn.

All children deserve to be wanted, cared for, and loved.

Dru.. Brad doesn't censure anyone here.. Part of why I like this blog, even idiots get to spew (not directed at you, you've done nothing wrong here..)

"Bottom line is abortion is killing. Apparently you are OK with killing. I'm not. You have free choice to use contraceptives, to not have sex, to give the child up for adoption, to keep the baby and hey here is a novel idea, you could even get married and raise the child in a loving enviornment. You should not have free choice to kill."

Well, killing is relative.. before 8 wks (TWO MONTHS), there are NO internal organs. Therefore, no "life" by any stretch of the immagination. There is "potential", sure, but do you realize that a significant % of ALL pregnancies "self abort"? What, should we criminally prosecute the mother because her biology terminated her pregnancy?

The only bit not already covered by others is your deluded chomp at "here's a novel idea".. People make mistakes and sometimes that ends in pregnancy.. Are you advocating that people who despise each other (lets say they get together when they find out about the preggers and give it a shot.. turns out one is a brain-dead twit stuck in a life with blinders on and refusing to grow as a human being.. after a year, violence and anger are the norm) stay together "for the kids"? Are you really that ignorant? When there is an unhappy home, children learn those behaviors. You can't just take 2 people and stick them together and say "deal with it.. like each other now".. doesn't work.. if it did, why not just pair off everyone at birth with whom they will be with forever (actually, that might fixe a lot of the problems, and could work.. but we, as Americans, consider that heinous.. well, us TRUE Americans do)?

Not to mention, putting a baby up for adoption can be very traumatic for some people.. never knowing if their baby is being molested by a pedophile who adopted them? being beaten by a drug-addicted person? Becoming the worst kind of person in the world, a Republican? /shiver

When you look at the biology, the science, you aren't "killing a child" when you abort a 6 wk old zygote.. That's YOUR -personal- opinion, not medical fact. Until sometime near the end of the 2nd trimester is the first time the fetus is "viable" in any context that could be "medically considered living", before that, any action (accident, intervention, act of god, etc etc) that pulls the baby from the womb is 90% likely to kill it. Personally, I"m against partial-birth abortions in 99% of all cases (it's heinous and if there's nothing wrong with the baby or mother, the mother should be forced to give birth and give it up.. she had her chance 7 months earlier to make up her mind).. but because I can UNDERSTAND that there could be some terrible case that requires it (to be humane to the mother and baby), I have a hard time saying it should be illegal.. We have to, at some point, put faith in "people" and hope like hell they don't "abuse the law"..

Anyway, 99% of all arguments I've -ever- heard about 'abortion kills babies' comes from a religious slant. Guess what? You religion has no business in law, period, ever.. If there isn't a CLEAR threat to society by the absence of a law, then that law shouldn't exist. Using the tired bullshit position of "protecting children" is crap since once they are born, you people no longer want to care for them. If you aren't willing to make sure they have a good life -after- you force them to be brought into this screwed up world, then you have no right to force them into it... period..

Nittany Lion, #25

When I say extremist and moderate in this context, I refer to decorum and posture. To my recollection I've never turned on c-span(2) to see pelosi screaming in the house and questioning their patriotism (dead-ender tactic #73 by the way, or so consistently spread misinformation.

Brad, #10

You say Bill O'Reilly is not an investigative reporter, I call bullshit. You obviously have not seen his "Assault on Christmas" series from around this time last year. I think any fair-minded person can see that he saved Christmas from those secular extremists.

A friend of mine and I were watching his TV show the other night when he said this:

"Don't dodge the question. Would you be comfortable living in a household where you didn't know that your daughter got an abortion? How would you feel about that situation?"

We both wondered how the hell can anyone feel anything about something they didn't even know about? It's unbelievable that this guy can get away with asking such asinine, pointless questions and almost never get called on his bullshit by the rest of the media.

MrBlueSky #24

If I know Brad the last thing you need to do is apologize for your post.

Note to Mr. BlueSky - Less than 10% of abortions are done for the reasons you mentioned above - so that means over 90% of abortions (4,000 per day) are done for convenience.

Note to Texas Lady - Abortions most certainly are used for contraception - don't kid yourself. Yeah, a painful decision - very painful for the unborn as they are torn apart limb by limb and sucked out with a vacuum or as they are burned in utero with a salt solution and don't forget those partial-birth abortions.

SICK.

"Yeah, a painful decision - very painful for the unborn as they are torn apart limb by limb and sucked out with a vacuum or as they are burned in utero with a salt solution"

Go look up the MEDICAL FACTS I mentioned.. before 8 wks, there is no BRAIN, therefore, NO PAIN.. get it? And, when you are talking about later, when there IS a formed brain (and other organs), you'll note I have a SERIOUS problem with someone having an abortion... why? They should have KNOWN sooner, and DONE something sooner.. like during the first TWO MONTHS before there are any organs..

It's uneducated statements by people like you that "dredge up emotion" where there doesn't need to be any. And, why is the GOP (and religious nuts) not wanting the Day After pill? PREVENTS the EGG from -ever- attaching.. do you mean to tell me you believe that just a few dozen cells can "feel pain"? And, again, I ask about the "naturally aborted" pregnancies. do you prosecute those mothers for Involuntary Manslaughter?

The GOP guppies do.. hook, line, and sinker..

You want FACTS? Read THIS!

It is common knowledge for anyone who wants the TRUE FACTS, that at 21 days after conception, the baby's heart is beating. Brain waves are measured at 6 weeks! At 8 weeks, the stomach, liver,kidneys and brain are functioning and fingerprints have formed...more than 500,000 abortions are done each year in America after the 8th week of pregnancy. FACT.

(US Dept of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control)

FACT - 48% of women who have abortions will have two or more. Nearly half (46%) of all abortions are performed on women who chose to use abortion as their only means of birth control.

(Alan Guttmacher Inst 2002)

According to survey data collected by abortion providers themselves, the overwhelming majority of all abortions - 95% - are done as a means of birth control or to eliminate an unplanned pregnancy.

Only 1% of all abortions are performed because of rape or incest; 1% because of fetal abnormalities and 3% because of mother's health problems.

Just curious, Summer - are you male, female, or neuter?

Female. Does it matter?

Summer it still remains a personal decision if you feel it is immoral then, you can decide for yourself. But you have no right to decide for someone else.
Thats what this country is about, freedom from religion. And abortion is a religious issue.

Which killing are you opposed to, abuse of children, lack of healthcare or in war? How about the death penalty? And although abortion is not something I could do, I WILL NEVER SIT IN JUDGEMENT OF ANOTHER PERSON'S RIGHT OF CHOICE.

So think honestly if you should be the moral judge.

Is their anybody who takes O'Reilly as a serious journalist?

"It is common knowledge for anyone who wants the TRUE FACTS, that at 21 days after conception, the baby's heart is beating. Brain waves are measured at 6 weeks! At 8 weeks, the stomach, liver,kidneys and brain are functioning and fingerprints have formed..."

Your post forced me to go look for some data.. I'll grant that my "broad statement" about "no organs" until 8 wks was innacurate.. However, so are some of your facts.

The heart doesn't "beat" until the 4th or 5th wk, not the 3rd. The "other organs" have "at least started to form" at 7 wks, they are not functioning at 8. The brain isn't formed but nerve cells are "starting to form neural pathways".. As I recall, the level of development is something less than a full brain-stem and there are nubs where the cerebral cortex will eventually form (appearance of the 4th ventricle of the brain?). At 8 wks, there is nothing in the way of a "brain" that reflects our ability to think or reason, just the autonomic system which is present in all life.. like fish, cows, dogs, fleas, etc. Between the 7th and 8th week is where a lot of development happens that makes the embryo well on it's way to fetus..

When you talk about "organs forming", they know about where organs "should be", and with new technology we can sample the tissue (probably not from a living embryo) and look at individual cells.. We know what "liver cells" and "kidney cells" look like, so when we grab 600 cells and test them and see "liver cells", we conclude the "liver is forming", that's completely different than saying "the liver is functioning".

You can go here and look at the stages during the first 8 wks. I'll adjust my previous position (based on more up to date info that I didn't have 15 years ago) to say "I have no issue with abortions before the 7th wk", yet given the lack of "reasonable development" of the brain and other organs, 8 wks still doesn't seem that unreasonable to me (that means, if I was a woman and missed my period and found out I was pregnant, I'd have NO problem having an abortion during the what, next 3 wks after my missed period? if I was regular?).

I'll refine my statement to "it's a medical FACT that, at 8 wks, there is NOT a complete 'system' of organs, nor is there more than a nub of a brain-stem, and therefore I have no issues, personally, with abortions up to that point". I'll also add, "pain" is a relative thing. "pain" requires that you have at least -some- kind of reference, otherwise it's just nerves firing.. right? To say the "embryo feels pain when you cut it up" implies an "understanding", which can't exist without a brain.. at 8 wks, there's not enough "brain matter" to "interprit" anything.. there's barely enough brain-stem to beat the heart and twitch the nervous system.

You know, this STILL begs the question (and even more now since the "time for response" can be narrowed to say, 6 wks.. before you can trace any sign of "brain activity", which, technically, is electrical impulse and means nothing significant in an of it's self).. Why the hell is the "day after pill" not on the market then? Do you know how many "abortions" wouldn't need to be done if women had access to it? If they make a mistake and go "oh shit.. that was dumb.. I should take that morning after pill just to be safe"? If my 17 year old daughter came to me and said "daddy.. I did something really stupid last night.. at that party.. I was drinking.. I know you told me over and over that it was not a good idea and I'm sooo sorry I didn't listen.. but, while I was passed out.. I think someone had sex with me".. I'd be pretty pissed at you assholes who love to meddle for having to bring her in for an abortion because I couldn't go get her that morning after pill.. If we had YOUR way, she'd be 17 and likely pregnant and having to give up a huge part of her life over a -mistake-.. an -accident-.. Seems pretty stupid to me.. if you want to force YOUR kid to suffer for a mistake, then do it.. I happen to love my daughter more than that.

"“There is just no way I could be the wonderful parent to all three of them and still have enough left over to keep the house clean and make sure the bills are paid and I’m in bed on time so I can be at work on time. It’s impossible,” said a 30-year-old unmarried survey respondent with two children, living below the poverty line."

From Alan Guttmacher Inst.. Yeah, better to FORCE her to have a baby.. FORCE her to do something she's smart enough to see will be a bad thing for her family, and in the long run, society..

"4. How high are teenage pregnancy rates in the United States?

* Teenage pregnancy, birth and abortion rates in the United States have been declining for a decade. Nevertheless, the United States continues to have a substantially higher teenage pregnancy rate than most other developed countries—for example, nearly twice the rate in Australia or Canada and more than four times the rate in France. [6]

5. Why has the teenage pregnancy rate in the United States declined?

* Between 1988 and 1995, most (75%) of the decline in teenage pregnancy was due to improved contraceptive use. The remaining 25% was due to reduced sexual activity. [7]"

Interesting.. so, it would appear that us damn liberals, with our "just put on a condom!" and giving our teens "the pill" have REDUCED unwanted pregnancy by 3 times as much as the "religious right" who says "keep it in your pants!"..

What's amazing too, we're pretty low on the totem pole for "developed countries".. course, we're low on healthcare in general.. we're lacking in a lot of areas.. Education, distribution of wealth, enlightenment.. lots of things.. Course, we're the best at letting religious nuts run the show and make their friends richer.. That's about all we got on the "rest of the developed world", and it's people like O'Reilly who like to distort the truth, and the morons who listen to him, that keep us from being the great country we could be.

I said nothing about "religion" in my post on abortion and it looks like this blog is full of people who like to name call...and who want to justify and twist the facts....so be it.

Those of you who defend the killing of unborn children are doing so because of your own selfishness and guilty conscience. The women have "rights"? What about the rights of the unborn?

Back in 1964, viability wasn't until 34 weeks - if a baby was born before this time it usually wouldn't live - viability is now at 22-24 weeks - If abortion was legal in '64, you would be arguing for allowable abortions before week 34 - where do you draw the line and who draws the line?

There is another huge issue in this - the women who have had abortions and are dealing with PAS - Port-Abortion Syndrome. Yes it's a real condition and is much like PTSD.

Those members of NOW and NARAL who claim that pro-lifers aren't interested in the women - that is a lie. Check out: www.feministsforlife.org

"Those of you who defend the killing of unborn children are doing so because of your own selfishness and guilty conscience."

first, they are not "children", they are embryos (until after 8 wks). They are not "children" until they are born, your perception of them being children before then is YOUR interpritation.

Selfish? yeah, sometimes.. but also ends up being in the best interest of the family and society (at least, in the opinion of the woman having the abortion). Mothers of unwanted pregnancies are much more likely to -not- provide the love and affection to their "child". When you "want" your baby, you will likely love it and care for it. When the law says "screw you, you made a mistake, now suffer", you are likely to resent that baby.. Basically, just as there is a "selfish component" to it, there's a "compassionate component" to it, provided you are smart enough to see it.

Guilty conscience? for what?

And, did you even read my other post? about destroying my daughter's life, liberty, and persuit of happyness because of a simple mistake?

Your point of moving the viability back from 34 wks to 24 wks shows the advent of technology.. the same technology that allows for the "morning after pill" that anti-choice people are -also- trying to keep out of reach. Perhaps some day we'll end up with technology that allows a woman to be sterile until a certian time.. will you also fight that? not letting women decide -before- the get pregnant that they don't want to risk it, so they go sterile until they hit 30 and are married and want a baby? We don't have that tech. yet.. When we DO, -then- maybe your position of making abortion "illegal" will have merrit.. not before then. Current technology (and access) doesn't allow for it, so you have no right to prevent people from deciding how to spend the rest of their lives.

I have the right to state my opinion on this very controversial issue; it's not going away.

And yes...I said SELFISH - you are only thinking of your daughter's present life - what about her future? What about your grandchildren? You would take your daughter to a clinic to abort her own child and your grandchild?

Prevention of pregnancy is totally different than terminating a pregnancy - let's be realistic and honest about this.

Read what some of the world's most prominent physicians and scientists say about abortion:

Some of the world's most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....

I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."

1 Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, "after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being." He stated that this "is no longer a matter of taste or opinion," and "not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence." He added, "Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: "It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive.... It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.... Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data."

You want more? I've got more statements from other medical people.

"Prevention of pregnancy is totally different than terminating a pregnancy - let's be realistic and honest about this."

Well, as I pointed out, the religious fanatics DON'T WANT PREVENTION either..

And, yes.. Failing the ability to use the "day after pill" I'd rather (if that's what she felt she needed to do) have my daughter NOT throw away her only chance at having a life by having a baby at 17, or 16, or 18, or ..., and having to become a parent before she even got to understand what it was to be an adult. YES.. I would.. why? Because I've SEEN first hand how screwed up MOST kids become when they have teenaged parents.. how poorly prepared to raise children they are, and how much of a burden on society it eventually becomes.

"you are only thinking of your daughter's present life - what about her future?"

How is that only her "present life"? are you that blind that you don't understand that having a CHILD is for the REST OF YOUR LIFE? not just "present"? It's -exactly- her future I'm thinking about... not some "short sighted" and "misguided" beliefe that "human life is sacred at all stages and must be protected at all costs"..

When I have grandkids (if my daughter decides to have children), I want them to be born into a happy home with 2 parents who are well adjusted and in a loving relationship.. not the result of some accident where she passed out drunk at a party and some spineless dirtbag took advantage of her.

To your scientists.. Personally, I don't care what their "opinions" are. Yes, if you split hairs, an embryo is "life"... so is the dandilion in my front yard, the fungus between my toes, and the bacteria we kill with anti-biotics. So? We kill "life" all the time as human beings, "life" isn't something sacred "just because".. And, "human" because of DNA.. so, on a "technicality" you have "human life", but that is FAR from the same thing as "a person" or "child".. A person can think, smile, understand.. A "human life" in the form of an embryo can do none of that. I also understand that you are "killing the potential", and that is bothersome to some people.. but, you are -not- killing a "person" in the "normal sense".. period, regardless of what "some scientists" think.. Some scientists think god created the earth and put humans on it as we are today, and planted dinosaur bones to confuse and test us..

Unlike most pro-lifers who hypocritically support the death penalty, I'm pro-choice and support the death penalty. I -accept- that sometimes, for the greater good, human life has to be terminated. I don't hold "human life" any more sacred than "any other life".. to me, it's all the same. I kill cows for food, kill lettuce for salad, and have no problem killing humans under a various set of pretenses. I believe in euthinasia, I think people should be allowed to kill themselves (under reasonable circumstances), I believe that repeat violent offenders who show no desire to "play by the rules of society" should be killed, and I believe that if someone doesn't think it's proper for them to bring an innocent into the world because they don't think they can properly care for that life, they have the right to snuff that life before it ever has a chance to concieve of it's own existence. With just an autonomic brain stem and not enough brain to allow for "higher thought", to me, that life is no different then freezing off a wart. Once the brain forms siginificant matter and there is the possibility for "thought", that's a different matter to me. Even then, there are times when sacraficing one life for another is justifiable..

Who was talking about the "religious fanatics"? Me thinks you're a bigot.

So sorry - I didn't make myself clear about your daughter's future when I made my previous post. I meant that if she was to get an abortion today, it could very well affect her future in that abortions can and do cause physical problems - including sterility and psychological problems - including drug/alcohol abuse and addiction and as I mentioned the PAS. (And I would be negligent not to mention the connection of breast cancer from abortions...being this is October, breast cancer awareness month.) Tell me, would you sooner have your daughter abort her child at 17 and risk permanent sterility, severe psychological problems and/or breast cancer?)

Oh so you don't care what the medical people have to say about what an abortion is? You just showed yourself for the fool you are then. You were ranting about pro-lifers being "religious fanatics" and so I thought you could and would appreciate something from those in the field who would know what it's all about. But just like that, you dismiss them as well. So live in your self delusional frame of mind and from that you will reap what you sow.

Frankly, your long discourse on toe fungus etc is a bunch of nonsense - aren't you embarrassed?

For your consideration: Pictures of aborted CHILDREN - Look at these and tell me, Sir, if these are nothing more than toe fungus!!

www.100abortionpictures....ictures_Abortion_Photos/

And I would submit that the morals/values that you are teaching your children will see you in a position of dependence on them and their tolerance for you at an advanced age. Hey kids, pull the plug...or better yet starve me to death. Adios.

"Who was talking about the "religious fanatics"? Me thinks you're a bigot."

Well, since religious fanatics are out there driving law and lobbying to keep the day after pill off the shelves, and we're talking about "avoiding abortion", it was all of us talking about religious fanatics. See how it's all related? Of course not.. that would make it too hard to defend your position.. if you had to admit that one causes another..

"Tell me, would you sooner have your daughter abort her child at 17 and risk permanent sterility, severe psychological problems and/or breast cancer?"

Show me some studies where breast cancer is distinctly higher for women that have had abortions.. I've never heard shuch a thing.. As for your PAS crap, it's that.. crap.. People in our society are more and more crying "poor me poor me, something bad happened and I can't deal with it".. I'm getting sick of hearing it, frankly. Do I accept that PTSD, Post-partum depression, your PAS exist? sure.. but I -also- believe our society is coddling people too much, putting too many ads on TV pushing pills for everything and trying to convince people on a daily basis that "it's not their fault, just [buy this, take that]". I've dealth with people who've had abortions and their lives aren't destroyed by them. They didn't become alcoholics or drug addicts or have nightmares over and over about it. If you come to terms with what you are doing, TRUELY come to terms, you are not very likely to be "traumatized" by it.. And, I'd guess MOST of the truama comes from psychos standing out front of clinics spitting on people, screaming at them and shoving pictures of aborted babies in their faces. Ya think? And, as far as becoming sterile, all the pollutants and toxins in our society are causing all kinds of problems for everyone. I understand there are risks, but that's part of the reason to keep it legal, and done by professionals who can be careful and do it in clean environments.. the alternative is MUCH more likely to cause complications.. coat-hangers in back allies? are you nuts? and, it's a FACT that people will still do it..

"Oh so you don't care what the medical people have to say about what an abortion is? You just showed yourself for the fool you are then."

No, I said I don't care about what the medical people YOU posted said. And I backed that up with what OTHER 'scientists' have been known to say, which is a laughable position of "god planted dino bones".. I even went so far as to get into a full discussion about "technically accepting their postion", yet you leave that out and call me a fool.. Not that I'd expect less from someone that wants to force their OPINION on others, but isn't willing to back up that position by taking responsiblity for the fallout (YOU adopt all those unaborted unwanted babies)

"Frankly, your long discourse on toe fungus etc is a bunch of nonsense - aren't you embarrassed?"

No, not at all.. and it's a valid point. Living tissue takes on many forms.. living, life, alive.. what's to be embarrassed about? Killing living things is something we do as a matter of course ALL THE TIME, for ALL KINDS OF REASONS.. right? Is an embryo "the same" as fungus? no.. is fungus the same as a cow? no.. is killing killing? ceasing "life"? yeah.. it is.. and there are people that believe killing ANY life is bad, sometimes when they make that realization, they let themselves die so they can avoid killing anything else. There are religions that think anything non-plant is sacred life and sweep where they walk because it would be a sin to kill an ant while walking.. Your personal desicsion that "life" is somehow only important if it's "human" (never mind it not being a person) is just -that-.. your OPINION.

" And I would submit that the morals/values that you are teaching your children will see you in a position of dependence on them and their tolerance for you at an advanced age. Hey kids, pull the plug...or better yet starve me to death. Adios.

"

My daugther is 13. We've already talked about suffering and wasting away. My mother has some serious medical issues and may end up on machines in the next decade.. We've discussed that NEITHER of us wan't to be "on machines" just for the sake of being on them. We both are smart enough and honest enough to realize that keeping a body around, simply because machines can "keep it alive" is not the same as having your loved one with you. Keeping people on machines when there is no possiblity of them recovering, now -thats- selfish. My daughter knows that if something terrible happens to me and I'm on a machine and there's no way I'm coming back, she should say her goodbyes and pull the plug. Yes m'am, she knows.

And, again, as I pointed out and you refused to go near (wonder why).. I have no problem assing value to life. I don't hold "human life" sacred, I see no point to it. Life is life and deciding what's in my (or in the case of reproductive rights, women) best interest is MY choice. I have NO quams about killing people. If you are breaking into my house, I'll happily shoot you.. if you're raping my child (or wife, if I ever find a woman worth marrying), I'll happily kill you. And I also go out of my way to bring spiders, bugs, butterflies and any other living critter in my house, outside to be set free. It's not my place to judge what "life" is sacred, only if the removal of life can be justified in my own mind, for a distinct betterment of a situation. If I were a woman, single, not in a financial position to raise someone in a way I thought acceptable, I'd have no problem having an abortion. I'd also do it before the 7th or 8th week if a tall possible.. Or, better yet, I'd take the morning after pill if our government would get off their ass and make it available, then I'd not have to have an abortion at all.

I've looked at your pictures. Yes, it's sad.. and horrific.. does it change my mind? no.. does it change my position? no.. The descision should be mine and mine alone (well, presuming I was a woman)

"I have no problem assing value to life."

bah.. no problem assigning value to life..

"Planned Parenthood actually encourages all forms of sexual activity to teens...how many of you have seen the actual programs used in the public school system?"

Um.. The sex ed courses I had in the mid 80s didn't "encourage all kinds of sexual activities".. I know some cirriculums talk about "alternatives" to intercourse, like masterbation and oral sex. How is that a bad option when faced with pregnancy? And it's NOT like they spend weeks "trying to get you to engage in those activities".. they provide INFORMATION.. damn, why are you against making people informed? Oh, wait.. you only want to inform them with PART of the issue..

"The number of births to unmarried mothers hit a record high of 1.3 million in 1999 ....one third of all births in this year were to unmarried women.
(National Vital Statistics, Report, Vol 48 - revised 10-18-00, Center for Disease Control.)

This is after more than two decades of Planned Parenthood's sex education."

And, after (probably billions) millions and millions are spent by the religious right to BLOCK EDUCATION and preach "abstinence". Not to mention, "record numbers" is an ignorant base when you are dealing with "population explosions" anyway.. get it? we also have record numbers of teens (and single women) in this country, it follows that we have "record numbers".. What we do NOT have is, "record RATES".. Here, from YOUR source..

"5. Why has the teenage pregnancy rate in the United States declined?

* Between 1988 and 1995, most (75%) of the decline in teenage pregnancy was due to improved contraceptive use. The remaining 25% was due to reduced sexual activity. [7]""

See, "NUMBERS" is not the same as "RATES".. while MORE babies are being born, it's a LESSOR PERCENTAGE of teens getting pregnant.. Looks like when you use the correct logical causation your argument goes ass-up.. Though, to be "fair", you picked an "ambigous" group, unwed mothers.. does that take into account the women who CHOSE to be single mothers? Or women who are in relatoinships but "not married"? "Unwed" is pretty broad.. and Planned Parenthood has been under attack for a long time now. As with -all- programs, if they aren't propery funded and people don't know about them, their potential failings aren't entirely their fault. YOUR premise is, "educating about sex is bad, it makes more unwed mothers have babies" or, as Bill insinuates "they want you to get pregnant and have abortions, it's a huge money making industry".. /sigh NO logical proof or connection, just more right-wing-conservative bullshit.

I would argue that the same kind of manipulation of information is going on when you talk about "self esteem" and "trauma".. As I've pointed out, I've not noticed any psychological issues to the women I know that have had abortions. Do they think about it? Do they need to deal with it on occasion? yes.. but, again, I argue that it's more our society not teaching people how to excercise SELF-CONTROL and have INTERNAL-DIALOGS that causes much of our "mental health problems". We are seeing an INCREASE in POVERTY, which is KNOW TO CAUSE ABUSE.. When you look at "corrilaries", you have to be VERY careful to understand that they don't automatically "cause"..

Here's the example I give to my daughter so she learns to use her critical thinking skills (that so many people are not taught to do).

Icecream sales go up.. Murder rates go up at the same time. Does Icecream cause people to kill each other? The numbers SUGGEST it.. but do we need to look at a bigger issue? something that might be "causing" things that CORRILATE but are NOT CAUSAL? The "cause" is a rise in temperature. As the temperature goes up, people want more cool treats, icecream sales goes up. As temperature goes up, human agression levels goes up.. higher levels of aggression cause more violence, more violence causes more death. Get it? Numbers can be manipulated to say just about anything.. We even had a professor prove 1 = 2.. why? he drug out the proof to a 10 minute overly detailed extrapilation dealing with a subject we weren't overly certian about.. and used a made-up rule at one point. Because we didn't understand/see the bad rule, he "sucessfully" proved 1 = 2.. That's what you're trying to do. Use "bad rules" to prove your point. While I -agree- with some of what you're saying (I don't doubt there's trauma after an abortion, but you have to be pretty pathetic to have it cause you to beat your children when you eventually have them.. you never dealt with your issue.. those people are gonna have problems ANYWAY.. the abortion didn't "cause" it, it's simply "corrilated" to it).

Anyway.. I think I'm done discussing this with you. You won't be happy until you convince (me, or whomever) that you are right and abortion is never acceptable. I disagree and believe that it's none of your business. If you want to help people so damn much, then make sure there are resources available to women after their abortions to make sure they get the proper counseling.. make sure you keep public programs that help -prevent- pregnancies in the first place (and I've heard other bad things about PP.. I've not studied it in depth, but when people like O'Reilly say "they encourage abortions cause they get paid", I kind of doubt most allegations of wrong-doing I've heard.. ends up being mostly right-wing or religious spin). Stop telling kids "dont do it" and get them informed... get them ACCESS to contraception, and do it in a context that they can feel safe from their parents getting it (kids are gonna have sex.. period.. even kids who's parents say "NO", and parents who say "be careful!".. period.. no matter what). And for cryin' out loud! When we have the technology, let people use it! the morning after pill needs to be on the shelf.. let people avoid the entire mess..

Texas Lady - We all have our stories and your friend's situation is certainly very heartbreaking and in situations like that, I would not ever presume to judge anyone! If only abortions were done for these rare cases. Then there are the stories similar to the one I will share. My brother and his wife were expecting and testing told them that their baby would be born with Downs Syndrome and were advised to have an abortion....my sister-in-law wavered on this but because my brother was familiar with one of our family members who had Downs and knew the joy and love that he brought our family he encouraged (didn't force) his wife to please reconsider....which she did. Their son, Matthew was born completely healthy - in all ways...now an honor student, outstanding athlete etc. And, Texas Lady - please understand this. Abortion is NOT just a religious issue just because people of faith believe it to morally wrong. (I happen to know people of "faith" who are ok with abortion.)

Back to Sav - Savantster said ....When you look at the biology, the science, you aren't "killing a child" when you abort a 6 wk old zygote.. That's YOUR -personal- opinion, not medical fact. Until sometime near the end of the 2nd trimester is the first time the fetus is "viable" in any context that could be "medically considered living", before that, any action (accident, intervention, act of god, etc etc) that pulls the baby from the womb is 90% likely to kill it."

You're the one who brought up the biology and science and yet when I gave you statements from people in this field you make the irrational statement that you don't care what they say! Duh! One more statement for you:

Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,

"I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. " Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103.

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

(Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981, 7. )

And then you claim you're done discussing it with me - well fine! It's just an admission that you can't argue with the FACTS I'm providing because you've said yourself you don't care about FACTS.

I feel that this is my business and I've been very active in the pro-life work for many years. Our home has been open to pregnant girls as well as girls and their babies after. We have provided all type of support - physical and material as well as emotional.

And I too think that PP would encourage abortion - as I said - it's a lucrative business.

#49, Summer said Planned Parenthood actually encourages all forms of sexual activity to teens...how many of you have seen the actual programs used in the public school system?

(1) How much of an effect does Planned Parenthood actually have on local school boards? I would argue probably not much if anything....

(2) If they don't teach it in schools, they'll learn it somewhere else. Do you want your kids to learn about sex from MTV?

(3) Something tells me that Planned Parenthood would not be opposed to abstinence.

There is nothing wrong with educating kids about birth control, as long as you advocate abstinence as the ultimate form of birth control. But educating kids about birth control is not akin to encouraging them to have sex.

I've gone back through and read this board, item by item and am going to respond to various posters as time permits. First of all many of the comments on here regarding this issue are just a matter of opinion and obviously uneducated opinions and ad hominem attacks.

Consumer W ..."Freakanomics? the decline in crime is linked DIRECTLY to legal abortions, as people who don't want kids and have them anyway have... unwanted, neglected, or otherwise disfuntionally-raised kids. "

FACT: Child abuse and abortion rates have followed strikingly similar paths since 1973. Legalizing abortion was supposed to help reduce child abuse, since it was assumed that most abused children were unwanted at birth. This theory has been disproved by scientific studies as well as by the obvious evidence that child abuse increased sharply after the legalization of abortion in '73. Also.....the significant drop in the number of abortions since 1992 has been followed by a similar drop in the rate of child abuse.

Dr. Phillip Ney,a leading international expert on child abuse writes....

"The initial hypothesis that there is a positive rather than a negative relationship between child abuse and abortion is holding up after 14 years of collecting and analyzing data." "....elective abortion is an important cause of child abuse."

"Recent evidence indicates many women harbor strong guilt feelings long after their abortions. Guilt is one important cause of child battering and infanticide. Abortion lowers women's self-esteem and studies report a mjaor loss of self-esteem in battering parents."

(From P. Ney, M.D. "Relationship Between Induced Abortion and Child Abuse and Neglect: Four Studies" Pre and Perinatal Psychology Journal, Fall 1993

Nittany Lion's info on Planned Parenthood and founder, Margaret Sanger are RIGHT ON! I could fill this blog with info on what PP is all about and the beliefs of racist Margaret Sanger.

The number of births to unmarried mothers hit a record high of 1.3 million in 1999 ....one third of all births in this year were to unmarried women.
(National Vital Statistics, Report, Vol 48 - revised 10-18-00, Center for Disease Control.)

This is after more than two decades of Planned Parenthood's sex education.

It is true - Planned Parenthood is all about making money - it's a huge money-making industry.
Planned Parenthood actually encourages all forms of sexual activity to teens...how many of you have seen the actual programs used in the public school system?

":You're the one who brought up the biology and science and yet when I gave you statements from people in this field you make the irrational statement that you don't care what they say! Duh! . . ."

AGAIN.. since you are SLOW.. I -agree- that "technically" there is LIFE.. LIVING TISSUE.. YES.. and it's HUMAN since it's HUMAN DNA.. however! the -difference- is, it is NOT A PERSON..

per·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pûrsn)
n.

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.

There are -several- interpritations.. and MINE is that, while it's LIVING HUMAN TISSUE, it is not yet a "human being".. part of what defines a "human being" to me is the BEING part.. which, for me, is tied to the BRAIN and REASON and ability to LEARN.. you know, things "tissue" can't do. I even -conceded- that you are KILLING POTENTIAL.. but "killing a child" when the internal organs aren't developed, the brain isn't developed, there is NO way it could possibly survive outside the body.. to ME, that is not a PERSON or CHILD.. see the difference? Though, this makes the 3rd time I've written it, and I doubt you will read it -this- time either.

"I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian. " Shettles and Rorvik, Rites of Life, 103."

"human life" is the relative bit.. living tissue, human dna, potential to be a "human being", but until a certian point, nothing more than dividing cells on a biological mission.. which to ME, is NOT the same as a "person". And, again, taking a "human life" becomes semantic. And, -again-, I have no problem killing one person over another. I'm not hung up on "human life is sacred" or "special".. there's no LOGICAL REASON to it.. it's a feeling YOU have, not me.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species."

and? again? yes? duh? definitions? but not in context. It's call splitting hairs, and in -this- case, it holds NO logical weight. Human Life is a LOT more complex than "the physical processes that sustain life", yet at -that- stage, that's -all- that's present. No brain (not one capabable of reason, thought, logic, compassion, language, etc etc etc), no organs (all "starting to form" by the 8th wk, but not all "functioning") to sustain life.. Not a PERSON.. "starts the path".. yes.. true.. agreed.. NOT a person at that point. not to ME (and lots of other people out there)

"And then you claim you're done discussing it with me - well fine! It's just an admission that you can't argue with the FACTS I'm providing because you've said yourself you don't care about FACTS."

lamo.. moron.. No, I even CHANGED MY POSITION based on FACTS you forced me to go look up.. idiot.. -all- I care about are -facts-.. the "opinion" that "human life is sacred" is NOT a fact.. get it? the OPINION that, the "technicallity of living tissue and human dna" somehow automaticlly equals just as important of a human BEING or PERSON is just that, opinion, NOT FACT. Since you can't get your head around that, I have to conclude that YOU don't care about fact.. or at least, can't tell the difference from -fact- and -opinion-. Enough people saying an opinion is fact doesn't make it so.

"I feel that this is my business and I've been very active in the pro-life work for many years. ... "

WHY is it YOUR business to FORCE me (well, again, other women) to have a baby when (I) THEY decide it's not in their or that would-be babies best interest? That's what I don't get. Your implication is you need to save those "children", yet you can't establish (without resorting to opinion) they are children. And, you are NOT willing to RAISE those children, are you? no.. you're not.. and there are NOT enough people -willing- to.. we have all kinds of children in this country that need to be adopted.. no one gives a shit about THOSE children, that are ALREADY here.. People only want to adopt babies, not "children".

You want to put your energy into "saving" someone? save the masses in our soceity being exploited by corperations.. reduce POVERTY in this country and help motivate people to live better lives.. just keep in mind, that requires them to have resources as well.

"And I too think that PP would encourage abortion - as I said - it's a lucrative business."

and, again, that's a totally pathetic take on the entire situtation, and tells a LOT about you, as a person. People who are pro-choice do NOT "encourage" abortion, we understand the need for it. we do not "want to profit" so much that we "encourage" people to make what may well be the hardest descision in their lives. Funny, the "idea" of making money at -any- cost is a right-wing conservative postition.. though, it helps explain -why- you think someone would..

And, again.. I am not "encouraging" abortions.. I'm not "advocating" abortions.. I'm saying they should remain legal. Individuals should decide if it's right for them. And I stand behind the basic premise that, if something doesn't directly pose a threat to society, there should be no law about it. There are very few exceptions to that rule. Abortions, if done on "large scales" by willing women, would not be a "threat" to society. Also don't forget, I have serious problem with abortions during later terms.. after 7 wks (was 8, remeber?.. I changed that based on the amount of growth during that week.. information that wasn't at my disposal 15 years ago).

Are you going to address my personal -opinion- that killing human beings isn't "wrong"? Our society and government kill people for convience all the time, are you crusading agasint that?

What's your take on the Death Penalty anyway? Or letting people die because it's too expensive to care for them? or there's no profit in helping them (ala hospitals refusing treatment if your insurance won't cover it)? I'm guessing there's a lot of hypocracy about to come out..

Oh, and Summer, the reason I said I was done discussing it (and should probably just walk away), is because this issue is incredibly charged for both sides. Pro-Lifers tend to think Pro-Choicers are "pro-abortion", a misnomer used to pull the emotional edge into the conversation. Same thing with using the phrase "killing children". Child, Person, Human Being, living tissue, wart, fungus.. all just terms.. some have more meaning and greater scope to some people.. Child, to me, is not a bunch of mutating cells of human DNA that, will withOUT question, eventaully be a "person", but I make the distinction. Some people "believe" that, at the moment of conception, the "potential" is "enough" to make it a "person", I disagree. There are no "facts" to sort it out, we're left with opinion (and, again, for the umpteenth time.. just because a professional expresses their OPINION, doesn't make it FACT). We could get into a long disertation about what "defines a person", but we'd be in philosophy, not science. I recon that's why this issue is such a hot-topic.. it's one of those cross-platform things..

You pro-abortion people are a bit on the rude side don't you think? This is to address the question/comment about the abortion and breast cancer connection that Summer raised in a post above.....

CNSNews.com) --- A cancer prevention coalition, asserting that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, is publishing a document Monday charging that scientists, including those from the National Cancer Institute, used "fraudulent research" to cover up the link.

Dr. Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, is publishing an article in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, criticizing another article on the abortion-breast cancer issue that appe

Malec told Cybercast News Service s

She added that pressure from the abortion industry is similar to the pressure applied by the tobacco industry in trying to cover up the connection between tobacco use and lung cancer.

"There's a huge industry. The abortion industry is tremendously large," she said. "If [the tobacco] industry could corrupt science and scientists, then [the abortion industry] could certainly do it againhe believes the NCI ignores studies showing a link between abortion and breast cancer for political reasons. "This is a political hot potato and the National Cancer Institute depends on Congress for its budget and this is a very scary issue for a lot of politicians to deal with."

A bit more info on the post above......

A pioneer researcher into the connection between abortion and breast cancer says an overwhelming amount of evidence collected in nearly 50 years of studies demonstrating a conclusive link has been systematically covered up by biased scientists, government agencies and the news media using fraudulent data to deceive women about potentially life-and-death decisions.

Joel Brind, a Ph.D. and professor of human biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York and president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, has authored a paper for the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly refuting several recent studies downplaying the abortion-breast cancer link.

In particular, Brind cites a widely noticed paper published by Valerie Beral and four other Oxford University scientists in The Lancet in 2004 and statements of the National Cancer Institute in 2003.

The Beral study finding was unequivocal: "Pregnancies that end as a spontaneous or induced abortion do not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer." The NCI has stated on its website since 2003 "having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer."

"The trouble is, to accept this conclusion, one needs to dismiss almost half a century's worth of data which do show a significant link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer," writes Brind.

Brind points out that the connection went beyond statistics. In the 1970s, the science explaining the connection was becoming understood through laboratory research into reproductive endocrinology. In 1976, the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published a study documenting the difference between the enormous rise of estrogen and progesterone in the first trimester of viable pregnancies and the stunted and short-lived rise of these hormones during pregnancies destined to abort spontaneously through miscarriage. These findings, he says, dovetail perfectly with the patterns of differences in breast cancer risk following different pregnancy outcomes

Tests during the 1970s on research animals again demonstrated the link between abortions and breast cancer risk, connecting it conclusively with the estrogen and progesterone levels produced in early stages of pregnancy.

"Knowledge of the actions of estrogen and progesterone in terms of their effects upon breast growth completes the coherent picture of induced – but not spontaneous – abortion and breast cancer risk," explains Brind.

There's more - much more but don't want to post the article in it's entirety - if you are interested in the truth and fact, check it out.

http://worldnetdaily.com...cle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44282 http://worldnetdaily.com...cle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44350

"You pro-abortion people are a bit on the rude side don't you think?"

HAHA.. that's too damn funny.. come waltzing in with your blinders on to the statements of your "likeminded buddies", and get hostile right off the bat.. Then, show your lack of ability to comprehend (or care) and use the term used by those who wish to force their values on others.. pro-abortion.. what part of "no one is pro-abortion" did you miss? or are you that much of an idiot? or just boning for that much of a fight?

If you want to contribute to the conversation, that's great. But, you will get father if you come in and make some points -before- you turn bitch

And, I'll go read the article by the pro-lifer with an agenda writing for a religious group's rag.. I'll get back to you with what I think about it.

K.. done caring about your "massive conspiracy to hide the abortion-breast cancer link".. Here is what one of the sources for your "doctor" concluded with her study.

"Among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those with a prior induced abortion was 20% higher than that in women with no history of abortion (95% confidence interval 1.0-1.5). This small increase in risk varied little according to number of abortions or a woman's current age. The association was present primarily among nulliparous women whose abortions occurred prior to 9 weeks' gestation (estimated relative risk = 2.0, 95% confidence interval 1.2-3.3). There was no excess risk of breast cancer associated with induced abortion among parous women. These data support the hypothesis that there may be a small increase in the risk of breast cancer related to a history of induced abortion among young women of reproductive age. However, the data from this study and others do not permit a causal interpretation at this time; neither do the collective results of the studies suggest that there is a subgroup of women in whom the relative risk associated with induced abortion is unusually high."

That is, there "could" be up to a 20% increase in risk, but they aren't sure whom that might apply to, and it looks like the LONGER the pregnancy before the abortion, the LESS likely it is that there would be -any- increased risk. That means, by being responsible and aborting early, you run a HIGHER risk than if you wait till your body settles down and abort LATER. The implication shows about 9 wks, just before it's a "fetus" and after the "embryo" stage.. well, in that few week area.

Is there an increase in the risk of Breast Cancer if you have an abortion (note, the study says the abortion has to be before any children have been bore.. if you have kids and -then- have an abortion, the study shows no reason to believe there's increased risk)? seems like the "data is inconsistent", acording to a source YOUR guys says agrees with him. People still eat saccarin too, and a lot more than they have abortions. And are content to get breast implants that rupture and kill them.. and bo-tox injections.. ummmm hmmm.. nothing like a little bovine TOXIN to perk up those saggy lips. And, that's just so more guys will want to screw them.. nothing like trying to be responsible and not potentially ruin someone's life.

Savantstar - You know I don't know if it's me that has made you defensive and angry but I didn't come on here to duke it out with anyone. I don't have an awful lot of time and the time I do have I'm not going to use it arguing for the sake of arguing. You've been quite insulting right from the get-go - and now I see you're labeling me a "slow idiot" - well gee, thanks. Oh and a moron too!

I'm involved in another blog and while the discussions get heated, I don't think the bloggers have resorted to such immature name calling.

You're entitled to your opinion - and I'm entitled to disagree with that opinion and point out where I think you are mistaken. And Savanstar I'm also entitled to post my position on this or any other issue without answering to you or responding to a list of questions that you demand I answer - ok? That's not saying that you haven't asked some good questions (as well as some silly questions) but because I'm such a slow idiotic moron, it would take me too long to respond to all of them. And I have a life.

But I must answer one question that you asked me (but which you then proceeded to answer for me without knowing the facts). You wrote....

"And, you are NOT willing to RAISE those children, are you? no.. you're not.. '

Let me ask you - do you know me personally? If you don't, I don't understand how you can make such a statement. Again, you are without FACTS.

We have in fact raised a child who is not our own - she came to our home at the age of 2 1/2 and will be 17 next month - we've tried to adopt her but her parents won't sign for us to do that. We took in a baby who was 6 months old and had her for 6 months until the mother had a change of mind - we've had young women as well as children in our home (and not thru a state program) - That's what the pro-life work is about - you've misunderstood me if you think it's only about pointing a finger and telling someone they shouldn't abort.

Please forgive me if I haven't properly addressed your questions. And if I came across as harsh on this issue to you or anyone, I apologize. It's an issue I am passionate about - I admit this, but I do try to share my beliefs in a non-threatening manner.

Janelle - Thank you so much for the info you provided above. I appreciate the input - even if some others did not!

"Savantstar - You know I don't know if it's me that has made you defensive and angry but I didn't come on here to duke it out with anyone. I don't have an awful lot of time and the time I do have I'm not going to use it arguing for the sake of arguing. You've been quite insulting right from the get-go - and now I see you're labeling me a "slow idiot" - well gee, thanks. Oh and a moron too!"

Well, given the base of your argument revolving around arousing emotional termoil instead of logical debate.. The whole "killing children" and "they feel so much pain" (never mind there not being any kind of reference for an embryo to understand pain, and never mind the lack of physical ability) kind of fired me up. Trying to prove a point with an emotional plea is the most pathetic way to argue.

You'll -also- note, YOU started with the name-calling in #46 with "bigot" and "fool" and insinuating I should be "embarrassed"..

And the reason I called you slow, idiot, and moron were because you refused to acknowledge my points despite my having written some of them several times. When you ask "what time is it" and some says "3:30", then you ask again, then again.. they are gonna think you're an idiot, right? When you make an assertion and I rebut it, your making that asserion -again- and not addressing my -rebuttal-, makes it look like you're too stupid to read. Given that we're in a dialog on the Internet, I'd think you -can- read.. which makes it that much more frustrating that your responses don't indicate you can.. understand? I appologize if it upset you, but I don't tolerate dishonesty in discussions very well.. If you have a point, make it.. don't play games. Not acknowledging someone's counterpoint is rude and bad form..

Oh.. and not to mention, you come in here to a place where people who are decent folks don't like when dirtballs like O'Reilly insinuate "decent people" do things -everyone- considers distasteful "for profit".. your agreeing with him puts a big target on your head.. paints you as a right-wing-nut-job that "hates liberals" and will say what ever "outragous" thing you can to "discredit" them.

Here's the facts.. I'm pro-choice.. but the idea of abortions bothers me a lot. I encourage safe sex.. next would be the morning after pill, yet the religious fanatics are trying to prevent it from being available (sorry that my speaking truths causes you to think I'm a bigot).. As a last resort for someone that is not ready to have a baby and doesn't think they can live with the LIFE LONG questions of their child if given up for adoption (with all the abusers and molesters out there, I could never give up my child for adoption), there's abortion.

You may believe the bullshit the "right" spews about how planned parent hood is a bad group, and encourages sex and -encourages- abortions.. for profit, no less.. but to "decent people", that's a disgusting thought, not to mention, has no -facts- to support such an allegation. People here know how Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, and all the rest of those types lie and spin and offer bullshit as fact to confuse people who can't think for themselves. In fact, that's the exact point of this thread.. right? so your coming in and trying to defend (or support) O'Reilly already has you as a combatant..

When I was in college the bumper sticker on my car read "Don't labor under a misconception--legalize abortion." I was one of a handful of feminists on my campus, back in the days when we were jeered at as "bra-burning women's libbers." As we struggled against a hazy sea of sexism, abortion rights was a visible banner, a concrete, measurable goal. Though our other foes were elusive, within the fragile boundary of our skin, at least, we would be sovereign. What could be more personal than our reproductive lives? How could any woman oppose it? I oppose it now. It has been a slow process, my path from a pro-choice to a pro-life position, and I know that an unintended pregnancy raises devastating problems. But I can no longer avoid the realization that legalizing abortion was the wrong solution; we have let in a Trojan Horse whose hidden betrayal we've just begun to see.

A woman with an unplanned pregnancy faces more than "inconvenience"; many adversities, financial and social, at school, at work, and at home confront her. Our mistake was in looking at these problems and deciding that the fault lay with the woman, that she should be the one to change. We focused on her swelling belly, not the discrimination that had made her so desperate. We advised her, "Go have this operation and you will fit right in."

What a choice we made for her. She climbs onto a clinic table and endures a violation deeper than rape--the nurse's hand is wet with her tears-- then is grateful to pay for it, grateful to be adapted to the social machine that rejected her when pregnant. And the machine grinds on, rejecting her pregnant sisters.

It is a cruel joke to call this a woman's "choice." We may choose to sacrifice our life and career plans, or choose to undergo humiliating invasive surgery and sacrifice our offspring. How fortunate we are--we have a choice! Perhaps it's time to amend the slogan--"Abortion: a woman's right to capitulate."

For over a hundred years feminists have warned us that abortion is a form of violence and oppression against women and children. They called it "child-murder" (Susan B. Anthony), "degrading to women" (Elizabeth Cady Stanton), "appalling" proof of "the misery of the working class" (Emma Goldman), "most barbaric" , and "a disowning of feminine values" (Simone de Beauvoir). How have we lost this wisdom?

Pro-choice rhetoric conjures a dreadful day when women could be forced to have abortions; that day is nearly here.

More insidiously, abortion advocacy has been poisonous to some of the deeper values of feminism. For example, the need to discredit the fetus has led us to the use of terms that would be disastrous if applied to women. "It's so small," "It's unwanted," "It might be disabled," "It might be abused." Too often women are small, unwanted, disabled, or abused. Do we really want to say that these factors erase personhood?

A parallel disparaging of pregnancy itself also has an unhealthy ring. Harping on the discomforts of pregnancy treats women as weak, incompetent: yet we are uniquely equipped for this role, and strong enough to do things much harder than this. Every woman need not bear a child, but every woman should feel proud kinship in the earthy, elemental beauty of birth. To hold it in contempt is to reject our distinctive power, "our bodies, ourselves."

There is a last and still more terrible cost to abortion, one that we have not yet faced. We have treated the loss of fetuses as a theoretical loss, a sad-but-necessary loss, as of civilians in wartime. We have not yet realized that the offspring lost are not the enemy's, not our neighbor's, but our own. And it is not a loss of inert, amorphous tissue, but of a growing being unique in history. There are no generic zygotes. The one-cell fertilized ovum is a new individual, the present form of a tall blue-eyed girl, for example, with Granddad's red hair and Great-Aunt Ida's singing voice. Look at any family; see how the traits and characteristics run down the generations in a stream. Did we really think our own children would be different?

Like the gypsy in Verdi's opera, Il Trovatore, our frustration has driven us to desperate acts. Outraged by the Count's cruel injustice, she stole his infant son and, in a crazed act of vengeance, flung him into the fire. Or so she thought. For, in turning around, she discovered the Count's son lay safe on the ground behind her; it was her own son she had thrown into the flames. In our desperate bid for justice, we have not yet realized whom we have thrown into the flames; the moment of realization will be as devastating for us as it was for her.

Until that time, legal abortion invites us to go on doing it over 4,000 times a day. And, with ruthless efficiency, the machine grinds on.

Well Frederica, you have done a wonderful job of putting a PURELY emotional spin on your position..

There are some serious problems with your position though, fundamentally.. Some of the associations you make aren't exactly "enlightend".. that is, they don't exactly hold up to scrutiny. For example..

"A woman with an unplanned pregnancy faces more than "inconvenience"; many adversities, financial and social, at school, at work, and at home confront her. Our mistake was in looking at these problems and deciding that the fault lay with the woman, that she should be the one to change. We focused on her swelling belly, not the discrimination that had made her so desperate. We advised her, "Go have this operation and you will fit right in." "

While it may be YOUR perception that "women have abortions to avoid being shunned", that's not the -fact- for many women. And, you draw a -false conclusion- that abortion is some how tied to the social discriminations of women. Just because YOU had the association early on of "abortion is part of our women's rights movement" doesn't mean that's it's only merit. You're saying 'we wanted equality and people treat us bad when we're pregnant..so we have abortions so they treat us better".. and that's a rediculous postulation.

Here's another example of your misguided associations..

"Pro-choice rhetoric conjures a dreadful day when women could be forced to have abortions; that day is nearly here."

How does saying someone has a choice in how to decide to handle their body/reproductive system equate to "forcing someone"? Do you -really- not see that there is a CLEAR difference? there's NO ambiguity -at all-. We let people "get piercings", are we close to "forcing people to have piercings"? NO.. and why does that sound like a laughable question? Here's the better point.. how is your question/postulation any less rediculous? because it's about an emotional issue not a cosmetic one?

"And it is not a loss of inert, amorphous tissue, but of a growing being unique in history. There are no generic zygotes. The one-cell fertilized ovum is a new individual, the present form of a tall blue-eyed girl, for example, with Granddad's red hair and Great-Aunt Ida's singing voice."

If YOU got on board with pro-choice because YOU thought an embryo was "amorphous" and "inert", then YOU have a problem.. No one that I know doesn't FULLY understand that ther is a POTENTIAL PERSON that is being lost to history, as you put it. And it's not a descision to be made lightly.. no question.. That's why people like me get pissed off when pro-lifers act like we think we're just changing socks or something. No, we FULLY UNDERSTAND that, all things normal, there -would- be a human being at some point. HOWEVER, at the very early stages (for me, before there's more than just a brain stem and a few nubs where the rest of the brain will grow) there is no "person", just potential.. And, you talk of a "blue-eyed girl".. yes, a very pretty picture (and amusing you use a woman since you're also trying to now make it seem reproductive control is oppresive to women when it's in THEIR hands).. but what about the Jeffery Dhamers and Ed Geins of the world? Hitler? Saddam Husein? They guy down the street that molests his 3 daughters? Yes.. THEY were born too.. You analogy of "we might be losing a wonderful human" -also- equally applies to "we might be losing a horrific despicable person". And, with no higher brain functions, NEITHER is actually involved..

You want to know what goes a LONG way in "removing the rights of women" in general? what attitude plays into gender roles and helps oppress women?

"but every woman should feel proud kinship in the earthy, elemental beauty of birth. "

That.. the "attitude" that if you don't want babies, if you don't feel a "kinship" to babies and birth that you somehow aren't a "woman".. your person is lessend if you don't fit into what society and nature "dictates". It's apparently ok for men to not care, but women.. they should all join some club or what, not be "real women"?

Sorry, your moving to pro-life (which, in case you didn't realize, DOES remove rights from women, no matter how you try to spin it) is not indicitive of your position becoming right. There are 2 basic schools here.. one is "screw you, have that baby, you're a woman and got pregnant.. do your job and shut up", and the other is "since it's YOUR life that's affected, and the potential life of someone that YOU will be responsible for [for at least 18 years, but being a parent is forever].. the choice is yours.". Personally, I don't think I have a right to "force" someone to do something that's damaging to their body, and in the long run, a life-long responsiblity. I believe women have a right to chose.

What's next? outlawing vasectomy because it "kills sperm"? outlawing birthcontrol because it causes the body to not allow implantation of what might well end up a fertilized egg? the morning after pill still isn't on the shelves.. for just that reason..

"It is a cruel joke to call this a woman's "choice." We may choose to sacrifice our life and career plans, or choose to undergo humiliating invasive surgery and sacrifice our offspring."

Isn't it just that? A Choice? see, without access to legal abortions, there is no "choice".. right? saves you having to think for yourself and make a descision.. If abortions are made illegal, your "choice" is made for you.. in this case, you give up "life and career plans" and freedoms and finances and "yourself", but not by choice.. by force of law. Offspring? Again, that's a matter of PERSONAL interpritation, really. If you indoctrinate all of society to "believe" "you have fertilization, then gestation, then, -after- birth, you have a baby", then it's likely NOONE would mind abortions, right? Yet, if you indoctrinate all of society to "believe" that "human beings in their entirety starts at conception", then you have NOONE wanting abortions.. right? Problem is, we have minds and brains and we can think on our own. Brainwashing isn't an option (much to the shegrin of the right-wing and religious fanatics). Some of us actually aspire to higher understanding AND maintain a level of logic and reason.

Anyway.. as has been said before.. there's no point in discussing this issue. This thread is about the right-wing and their insistence on using appauling thoughts and trying to spin it to seem like "their enemies are like that".. which, to any of us who see their bullshit as just that, bullshit.. is annoying, and another example of how "unfairly" the "right" fights. See, they have no "valid" base, so they use lies, emotion, spin, piss-poor debating tactics, etc.. to try and prove "their point".. It's sad.. it's pathetic.. and it's destroying "honest debate" in this country, and that ends up destroying this country.

Ya know what I'm seeing here Savantstar? I'm seeing two views of women coming from you. You are full of opinion on abortion rights for women - and this isn't too uncommon with men - they are the ones who tend to PUSH women into abortions - holding threats of various kinds over them - making them choose - "It's me or the baby" etc etc ad nauseum. It's easy to see that alot of men in this society just don't want to provide for their children. You are trying to be the big hero here in defense of women's rights, when I see it as a cover so you don't have to accept your responsibility of being a father. In an earlier post you speak degradingly of women - something about how "if you ever find one good enough to be your wife" or some such thing. I see you as a very pushy, very opinionated male who would be the type to browbeat a woman into an abortion - whether she wanted one or not. You protest too much!

And talk about some of us women making an emotional issue out of this - I haven't seen a male become so emotional (as in ANGER) over this issue in quite some time.

By the way, have you ever seen the video of the ultrasound entitled, The Silent Scream? It's a video of an abortion in process. Whoops - that would be appealing to someone's emotions wouldn't it? But aren't our emotions a part of what makes us who and what we are?

Animals in this country have more rights and respect than do our unborn!

Another thing - you asked me if I think human life is sacred. My answer is a definite YES!

Oh and did Brad authorize you to set the rules on this blog?

Oh - I forgot - go get a vasectomy.

Another thing..... what's this garbage about pregnancy "damaging a woman's body"?

If you think pregnancy damages, take an honest look at what abortion does - take your hands away from your eyes and remove the fog from your brain.

"they are the ones who tend to PUSH women into abortions - holding threats of various kinds over them - making them choose - "It's me or the baby" etc etc"

Ok, quit reading there.. You are obviously coming from a position of "man-hater" now.. That's typical.. and, as I pointed out, allows you to prevent taking responsibility for your own actions. Nice..

"It's easy to see that alot of men in this society just don't want to provide for their children. You are trying to be the big hero here in defense of women's rights, when I see it as a cover so you don't have to accept your responsibility of being a father."

Well, now we get to MORE meat of it.. If you can't support your point with fact, you go directly on the attack of the person.. NICE!

Look.. I'm fighting a court case to GET CUSTODY of my daughter.. I've been paying support for 13 years, 6 of those I was unemployed (full time student) and it all acrued at 18% intrest. I'm paying on that still, as well as $1,000/mo in support (more than her mom makes a month). I'm trying to get my daughter out here because of problems with her mom and the new stepfather.. Though, the first judge in the case was a twit like you.. has the idea that "moms are better people" and DESPITE her mom having CHOKED HER, the judge (well, commissioner) said "why are we talking about that?".. Um.. cause the bitch is abusing my child?? But, the "judge" falsy accused her OWN children of wrong doing and her response to my complaint about the stepdad being a ass and the mom not stopping it was "parents make mistakes sometimes".. and because HER kids are liars, said "all kids lie and manipulate".. Um.. NOT my kid, trust me. Both her mother and I instilled that beliefe in her very well.. Hell, part of why my daughter wants to come out here now is the step-dad lies to her mom, and her mom has taken up lying to her friends to cover the dad.. it's driving my daughter nuts. The "legal" system cares about as much for taking care of the psyche of a child as you do, apparently.

For you to insinuate I don't want to take care of my child is ignorant and pathetic. You must really be desperate to defend you position if all you can do now is say "it's guys like me that force abortions on women". You can't accect the possibility that maybe a MAN actually BELIEVES a woman should have the right to chose and not be dictated to.. To insinuate that the only reason I support abortion is to not have to be responsible for my child? Do you have -any- idea what I give up to try and make sure my child is taken care of? no.. you don't..

"In an earlier post you speak degradingly of women - something about how "if you ever find one good enough to be your wife" or some such thing. I see you as a very pushy, very opinionated male who would be the type to browbeat a woman into an abortion - whether she wanted one or not. You protest too much!"

OMG.. what an ignorant cunt you are! (and yes, NOW I'm being dispariging to you.. and I'll explain the differnece for your tiny shit-filled brain).

"good enough" as in a PERSON good enough, you stupid bitch. How's this for pushy? Yeah.. it's gonna be rude.. and crude.. and vulgar.. know why? YOU decided to cross the line and call me an abuser.. call me a person of violence against women.. and you haven't the foggiest of clues.. I happen to think MOST people are pretty ignorant.. that comes from being a genius, I can't help my IQ (tested at 160+ on a scale meant for teenagers, I was 21.. the tester said she'd guess near 140 on my scale). I can't help that my brain works much faster than some little twit like you.. that's not my fault. What -is- my fault is giving people the benifit of the doubt.. I gave that to you until that post. .. get a vasectomy? are you fucking kidding me? talk about HATE-FILLED.. my GAWD!.. And this bullshit about "opinionated male . . . browbeat".. what a stupid bitch you are, and how telling of YOUR opinion of men.. your husband must be proud! well, when he's not cowering in fear from you.. Gotta be a real winner there to tolerate someone as ignorant as you..

And my "anger" is at you, for being so damned thickheaded and ignorant. You don't want to answer questions, just spit your opinion in peoples faces? What kind of shit-bag does that? You want to have your position, but refuse to even acknowledge that your thinking is, at a MINIMUM, biased? I try to present -fact-, you come back with evidence only of your lack of education (in a broad sense, and 1/2-assed and one-sided in this matter).. I asked you various questions of SCIENTIFIC RELAVANCE, and you continually walked away from them.. Do I set the rules for the blog? no, but I -do- understand intellectual debate.. and with a closed-minded nit-wit like you, you can't have one. "Life".. go look it up.. Toe Fungus is ALIVE.. should I be embarrassed? for what? knowing what the BIOLOGICAL TERM life applies to? no.. I was showing YOU, which you were entirely too ignorant to read, that "human life" as defined by a few of your "professionals" was "technically true", but that was a different beast from "person".. you didnt' want to go there (cause you can't win that fight.. never talk about things you can't win.. you might be made to look.. oh, I don't know.. having an opinion wihtout fact backing it up? or in a place where opinion is the only thing, and you'd have to admit that if someone's opinion was "different" than yours, THEY might we be RIGHT too?)

I see you -finally- got around to the question "human life sacred".. and, as I'm sure you saw (well, maybe not.. you seem pretty stupid to me.. before I almost bought your "busy" claim, now I see that's a lie too.. you have time to come and disparge folks, but not to honestly or intellegently debate).. I do NOT hold "human life" sacred. What's the point in it? why are "humans" so much better than "any other living thing"? Your ONLY response can be "religion".. which, again, tells alot about your lack of openmindedness.. really.. As does your "snip" about me being a bigot as soon as I mentioned religious fanatics.. that's kind of funny, in a sick-sad way.. Trying to pretend your pro-life arguements aren't based on your religious beliefes when that's actually all you have.. "humans are sacred, and are 'full humans' at conception.. god said so".. bite me.. Humans are a disgrace to the planet and all living things. We kill for profit (ask your Pres), fun (ask hunters and serial killers and drunks in bars that beat people to death.. or the people that beat blacks or gays todeath for something out of their control). We destroy all we can for profit.. As a species, we're pretty shitty. I see nothing "sacred" in that. Human life is only pertinant to friends and family, that's it. I have no alegience to you.. no duty to you.. no reason (espescially after your last few posts) to even respect you. If I saw you on the street and I -knew- it was you, and you were dying.. I'd walk by without batting an eye. And not feel the slightest bit guilty for it.. What, not what you would expect from a "liberal bleeding hart that only wants to save the world"? Or maybe it is what you expect since I'm a woman-hating, browbeating, wife-bashing, abortion-forcing MAN.. eh? Though, if next to you on the ground.. while you were lying there dying.. was a butterfly about to get squished with your flailings.. -that- I would save. And, as in the past, I'd stop to help strangers, give money to people needing food, pick up hitchhikers.. my little bit now and again to try and help others.. Like I said, I give people the benifit of the doubt.. You've removed -all- doubt. You're not worth saving, in my book.

All this because some incrediblly ignorant jackass from your religiously driven new-era crusade is a hate-monger and trys to say "they want to get bucks off it, they like it!".. sorry sweety.. killing and torturing for fun, that's what YOUR guys are doing.. not me.. and I've said time and again, there's nothing pleasant about abortion.. Being able to understand that sometimes we have to do things we don't like for the greater good is -different- than "encouraging it" or "thinking it's no big deal".. Kind of like war.. sometimes circumstances puts you in a position you don't want to be in.. I've never heard -anyone- imply "good things" with abortions.. well, except YOU and your nut-jobs who try to reverse it .. YOU are the one associating "good things" to abortion in the way of "profit". Please, if you have ONE piece of EVIDENCE to show either you or your retarded twin O'Reilly are "correct" and PP "encourages abortions for profit", then show it. if not, fuck off And I can say that, since YOUR vice pres. says it too.. Oh, and I can flip you off too, since your pres. likes to do it to the masses on TV..mlm

What it boils down to is this. Some people understand that it's a "flash in the pan" compared to the rest of your life. We understand the REAL WORLD problems of being a single mother, and the REAL WORLD problems that arise from having children you don't want. Some of us would MUCH RATHER not have those pregnancies happen to begin with, but are REALISTS and understand that human beings make mistakes. Making 2 people suffer for the rest of their lives doesn't seem to make sense to some of us. So we understand making a hard choice. We understand there's issues that will need to be resolved. We understand that the whole thing is ugly and messy (metaphorically).. We would hope that what ever had someone in the situation to need an abortion would never happen again after experiencing the trauma of having one (the 95% who aren't your claimed "rape" or "incest" or "health of mother" cases).

And when your opinion about such matters is different than someone elses, calling them a bad father, woman beater, and suggesting they don't deserve to reproduce doesn't make you right.. it's makes you an example of what's wrong in the world today..

Exactly - I have no idea where you're at in your life and you had/have no idea where I'm at in mine - but you chose to make assumptions and accusations about and to me and how I wouldn't raise a child other than my own, etc etc.

And I am not here to fight and argue with you personally - or as personal as it can be seeing that we don't even know one another - but I will tell you, based on what you've just told me, I wish you the best and I wish you the legal guardianship of your daughter! I sincerely do!

Any further posts I choose to make on this issue will not be directed at you so please don't take them that way or feel the need to respond.

"but you chose to make assumptions and accusations about and to me and how I wouldn't raise a child other than my own, etc etc."

Again.. read.. I said you aren't going to take in "all" the unwanted babies.. you can't.. no one person can.. and the entire GROUP of pro-lifers aren't gonna either.. Typically, they stop caring once that baby is out of it's mother. YOU, obviously don't fit in that catagory, and I didn't say you did..

Oh, and that long angry bashing post was, as you see, being done in the middle there.. Don't bother responding to any of it.. I"m done responding to you as well, given the fact you have such a hard time talking/reading without getting a twisted up in your head..

Oh what a dirty and vulgar mouth you have Savanster....I had submitted my post before I read this last posting of yours - wow! You're even angrier than I thought.

I hope you don't use this kind of language around your daughter. You are a sick man in desperate need of mental help. Seriously and no offense.

Tell you what - people that have to tell the world what their IQ is....well....you know what I mean. With such an extraordinary IQ, where did you learn to spell??????

"Oh what a dirty and vulgar mouth you have Savanster....I had submitted my post before I read this last posting of yours - wow! You're even angrier than I thought."

I have the capacity for anger, yes.. In case you didn't know, there's nothing "wrong" with being "angry".. as long as you aren't "stuck on angry".. I'm not.. I laugh a lot, smile a lot, am "normal" alot.. I don't get "angry" very often.. though, I -am- "animated".. sometimes people think I'm angry when I'm just being expressive (and no, that post wasn't "expressive", it was angy )

"I hope you don't use this kind of language around your daughter."

Nope, don't use that language around her. Well, I've slipped on rare occasion.. and I appologize to her..

"You are a sick man in desperate need of mental help. Seriously and no offense."

See, that's what I don't get. Why am I in need of help? because I don't like you? and have no compassion for you or humans in general? Why is that a "sickness"? I've never seen anything in any of the psych books about that.. Perhaps you can enlighten me on that point too? And what "mental help" would you suggest? something to neuter my brain so I just sit and drool and don't have independant thought? don't accept the truth about the world around me? The "no offense" doesn't cover your intent all that well, really.. I see nothing about my "angry rant" that implies "I need help".. did I fabricate something that isn't there? Like you calling me "one of those men that browbeat a woman into an abortion so I don't have to honor my responsibilities"? Cause, I'm pretty sure you said that..

"Tell you what - people that have to tell the world what their IQ is....well....you know what I mean. With such an extraordinary IQ, where did you learn to spell??????"

2 parts.. first is the "telling of my IQ".. and it was with great trepidation that I did it.. for the reasons you just said.. I see people say "I'm this smart!" all the time.. But, I was doing it in context.. one that should help shed some light on the "good enough" comment. Your insinuation is that I don't like women, or most, but I'm ok with men.. my point is, 95% or more of society is "dumb" compared to me (not to be confused with "wrong" or "less educated".. I know very well I'm not the smartest guy out there, and I know full well I don't have all the facts about some things.. the difference between ME and MOST is, though, I -know- I don't know it all, I -know- I have things to learn.. and that lets me change my position as my information changes.. -most- people are too stupid to do that)

second part: I have dyslexia (see words/letters/numbers backwards or flipped. "Dyslexics of the world Untie!" took me 4 times reading to see the trick.. it was mean I kept thinking.. unite for what? is there a movement? I don't get it.. I also have "dsygraphia"... that lady that was testing me was testing for learning disabilities. I don't "read" or "write" like most.. I use "symbols" in my brain.. kinda.. it's a bit difficult to explain properly.. but, when it's a word I don't use, or haven't seen in writing (or only in passing on rare occasion), I have no idea how to write it (I guess at the language rules, but the American Language is all screwd up). Some words I go look up, but lots of my spelling mistakes are just my typing too fast and "seeing the complete" word in my head .. the symbol thing.. brain auto-completes words so I can read faster.. sometimes it a bitch.. luckily, I'm smart

And.. as a point of note for you.. "very smart people" tend to be a lot more "logical" in their approach to the world. Part of why we have such different opinions, I"m sure.. I over-analyze things sometimes.. and get to the simplest components.. like with the biology of embryos.. with no brain capable of functioning like.. well.. a person, to me, it's not a "person".. it's living tissue with potential (as cold as that sounds). Because that's the way I see it, I can't feel bad for "killing it", anymore than I can feel bad about killing anything else for a perceived necessity (like animals for food.. I hate seeing them die too.. but I know it's just a part of life).

Anyway.. no point in going on with anything.. we see it differently.. You thinking I shouldn't be allowed to reproduce because I have a different opinion than yours and your deciding I'm some kind of woman-hating wife-beater means there's nothing left to discuss *shrug* You just continue going around telling rape victims to deal with it, let that 3% die, and tell women all over the country "you don't have a right to look at the world differently than me, suck up my values!".. and I'll continue going around having mild contempt for the human race, and great contempt for people who want to force me (and, with this topic, women) to live according to their morality (which, often times, has no logical merit and so drives me nuts)..

But I don't go around telling rape victims to "deal with it" and I haven't said that 3% should die - stop putting words in my mouth. And I didn't call you a wife beater or a woman hater. Arrrgggghhhhh!!!

I didn't say you need help because you don't like me; that is irrelevant to me - it's just your over-all attitude - it is hostile and defensive. Something is off there with you.

I can agree with you in that there is nothing wrong in being angry - when that anger is not destructive to self or others. Anger can be a positive thing if directed in the right way.

"Meet the Abortion Providers."

Statements from former abortionists from a conference...

Former abortionist, Anthony Levatino, M.D., says, "I want the general public to know that the doctors know that this is a person, this is a baby. That this is not some kind of blob of tissue . . ."

2) Former abortion counselor, Nita Whitten, says, "It's a lie when they tell you they're doing it to help women, because they're not. They're doing it for the money."

3) Former abortion counselor, Debra Henry, says, "We were told to find the woman's weakness and work on it. The women were never given any alternatives. They were told how much trouble it was to have a baby."

4) Former abortionist, Joseph Randall, M.D., says, "The picture of the baby on the ultrasound bothered me more than anything else. The staff couldn't take it. Women who were having abortions were never allowed to see the ultrasound."

5) Former abortionist, David Brewer, M.D., says, "My heart got callous against the fact that I was a murderer, but that baby lying in a cold bowl educated me to what abortion really was."

6) Former abortion counselor,Kathy Sparks, says, "The counselor at our clinic could cry with the girls at the drop of a pin. She would find out what was driving them to want to abort that child and she would magnify it."

7) Former abortionist, McArthur Hill, M.D., says, "I am a murderer. I have taken the lives of innocent babies and i have ripped them from their mother's wombs with a powerful vacuum machine."

"But I don't go around telling rape victims to "deal with it" and I haven't said that 3% should die - stop putting words in my mouth."

Um.. if abortions become illegal, rape victims will have to have their babies.. YOUR movement will be responsible, therefore YOU are "telling" them to suck it up.. give birth then put it up for adoption (or worse, raise it). If YOUR group makes abortions illegal and women are having health problems during pregnancy, they will have to hope like hell it's the baby that dies and not them.. that's the 3%.. YOU tried to "minimalize" the "genuine need" for abortions in your desire to see them made illegal. I didn't put words in your mouth, I showed the truth of your position.. big difference.

"And I didn't call you a wife beater or a woman hater. Arrrgggghhhhh!!!"
"and this isn't too uncommon with men - they are the ones who tend to PUSH women into abortions - holding threats of various kinds over them - making them choose - "It's me or the baby" etc etc"
"In an earlier post you speak degradingly of women - something about how "if you ever find one good enough to be your wife" or some such thing. I see you as a very pushy, very opinionated male who would be the type to browbeat a woman into an abortion - whether she wanted one or not."

So.. YOUR words are.. I'm like "those" men that "push women into having abortions, even if they don't want one.. YOUR words say I "abuse" women since I think anyone with 1/2 a wit would agree, that's abuse. Some would even argue that since there's a death of a "baby" there, it's "violent".. like a "wifebeater".. See, you say a lot when you use innuendo.. your POINT was to "make me look like one of those 'bad' men who does 'bad' things to his wife". "Browbeat"? as in on the "verge of physical violence"? or just engage in excessive verbal abuse and emotional abuse till I get my way? I'm "very very pushy", right?

See, what you don't get is, I'm smart enough to see the meaning of the words.. in the greater context.. in the way that they pull up "specific emotion".. So, yeah.. in EFFECT, you called me a woman-hating wife beater.. You just did it connotatively, not explicity.

"it is hostile and defensive. Something is off there with you."

what's "off" with me is, when I offer arguments in rebuttal and those are ignored, I take offense. When someone is supposed to be "debating" and says "I don't have to answer your questions", I get annoyed. This is supposed to be about "debating", otherwise, state your opinion and shut up.. don't start debating if you aren't gonna do it in earnest.. and no, that's not "making rules for the blog".. that's "how normal people communicate ideas"..

Wasn't gonna go here.. but.. On your page of comments up there.. one guy struck me as insanly heinous. His racist attitude and callouse demeanor.. something didn't add up. Funny.. This article says he's a hard core Republican.. supports the republican party and is kind of conservative..heading to church about once a year. Interestingly, he's against "public funding" of abortions.. wonder if that's because it would cut into his profits? then he couldn't open up his genocide-mart in Mexico?

amazing.. one of YOUR guys, killing for profit, and wanting to kill "those damn minorities" for free.. no WONDER you think "pro-choice" people are like that. Here's the quote from a Republican Conservative "doctor"

"Population control is too important to be stopped by some right wing pro-life types. Take the new influx of Hispanic immigrants. Their lack of respect for democracy and social order is frightening. I hope I can do something to stem that tide; I'd set up a clinic in Mexico for free if I could ... When a sullen black woman of 17 or 18 can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us, it's time to stop.” "

Oh, and noticed most of those comments came from "private clinics".. didn't do the research on them to see if any were "planned parenthood offices", but I'm guessing not.. See, when you have people motivated by "profit" like REPUBLICAN DOCTORS, I don't doubt for a minute that they turn into the worst sorts of people (encouraging abortions.. and putting silicone in a woman's chest, which may well kill her.. or bovine toxin which could kill her.. or pushing drugs that are dangerous but profitable).

However, nothing that I've seen with your "evidence" suggests "Planned Parenthood" encourages abortions, just right-wing clinic owners who want to secure a quick profit.. Tells me we need BETTER DISCLOSURE, and more PUBLICLY FUNDED options and tighter oversight to make sure women aren't being lied to about this.. I agree, telling a woman that her 12 wks fetus "isn't a baby, it's like a clot".. that's lying and incredibly irresponsible, don't you think? Though, that's not a valid argument for making it "illegal", that's an argument to better educate people..

Oh.. and the morning after pill needs to be available over the counter so whack-jobs like the Republican hate-monger Edward Allred can't get rich on the misery and misfortune of others (and put a crimp in his genocide plans)

(please note my purely speculative and likely inflamitory insinuation that the doctors and clinics listed on that site are "right wing" and "republican controlled".. I have -no- evidence to that, it's a speculation based on the distinct "desperation for money" that I -personally- have only -ever- seen from a republican)

Savrantser writes:

"On your page of comments up there.. one guy struck me as insanly heinous. His racist attitude and callouse demeanor.. something didn't add up. Funny.. This article says he's a hard core Republican.. supports the republican party and is kind of ...."

Which one are you referring to?? I checked your link but I guess I'm too stupid to make the connection?

Let's use a 5% figure for abortions that are done for rape, incest and health of the mother....and let's use the 4,000 (approximate) abortions that are done each day - what would that bring the number of abortions done per day? Multiplied times 365 days per year? (Over 1.4 million although the abortion rate has decreased slightly over the past several years!) I know that a person such as yourself has already calculated (and very quickly I might add) the very significant difference in the number of abortions.

Also your comment about rape victims...

"rape victims will have to have their babies.. YOUR movement will be responsible, therefore YOU are "telling" them to suck it up.. give birth then put it up for adoption (or worse, raise it)."

Let's not forget that the baby the woman conceives through such a traumatic event as rape, as horrible as that is - that baby is also still a part of her. I personally would never "judge" a woman for feeling like she couldn't go through with the pregnancy in this instance, but my point is that abortions done because of rape are very few and rare. I would also have to add that in addition to the trauma of the rape, there would come a time in the woman's life that she might also face the trauma of aborting her baby....although possibly not. And like I said, in this particular instance, I would not be one to sit in judgement of her.

Do forgive me for not being "normal" and knowing all the fine points of debate - but sorry, Sarantser, I am NOT going to "shut up."

For many women, the abortion becomes a key point in their lives around which all other events take reference. In their minds, everything can be clearly placed as having occurred either "before the abortion" or "after the abortion." They may even see themselves as being two completely different people before and after this defining event. In a retrospective study of 260 women, an average of nearly eleven years after their abortions, 51% report having undergone a "dramatic personality change" following their abortions, of which 79% say the change was a negative one.14

Abortion is such a profound event in one's life, that one must either thoughtfully integrate it into one's life, or fearfully suppress it. Neither is easy. The former requires great fortitude and honesty. The latter is simply unhealthy. It is a fundamental principle of psychiatry that suppression of emotions is the cause of numerous psychological and physical ailments. Suppressed feelings create their own internal pressures, sap emotional energy, and cause turmoil in one's life until they burst forth in a way which can no longer be ignored.

These observations are substantiated by the testimony of Dr. Julius Fogel, a psychiatrist and obstetrician who has been a long-time advocate of abortion and has personally performed 20,000 abortions. Although he approaches abortion from a pro-abortion perspective, Dr. Fogel is deeply concerned about the "psychological effects of abortion on the mother's mind." According to Dr. Fogel:

Abortion is an impassioned subject.... Every woman--whatever her age, background or sexuality--has a trauma at destroying a pregnancy. A level of humanness is touched. This is a part of her own life. She destroys a pregnancy, she is destroying herself. There is no way it can be innocuous. One is dealing with the life force. It is totally beside the point whether or not you think a life is there. You cannot deny that something is being created and that this creation is physically happening.... Often the trauma may sink into the unconscious and never surface in the woman's lifetime. But it is not as harmless and casual an event as many in the pro-abortion crowd insist. A psychological price is paid. It may be alienation; it may be a pushing away from human warmth, perhaps a hardening of the maternal instinct. Something happens on the deeper levels of a woman's consciousness when she destroys a pregnancy. I know that as a psychiatrist.15

14. Reardon, "Psychological Reactions Reported After Abortion" The Post-Abortion Review, Fall 1994, 2(3):4-8.

15. From an interview with columnist Colman McCarthy, "A Psychological View of Abortion," St. Paul Sunday Pioneer Press, March 7, 1971. Dr. Fogel, who continued to do abortions for the next two decades, reiterated the same view in a subsequent interview with McCarthy, "The Real Anguish of Abortions" The Washington Post, Feb. 5, 1989

So.. you're saying around 38% of women who have abortions (well, of the 260 sampled.. and at what.. 4,000 a year you claim? that's hardly a decent sampling) "end up with a negative dramatic change in their lives". So? and the 15% who have dramatic positive changes, they don't count? or the near 50% of ALL women who have abortions have NO EFFECT? Know what you proved? we need to have better counseling after the fact (well, and before.. the lying to women before is likely what causes the bulk of the negative changes after.. the not being able to cope with the truth after holding onto a lie).

"But it is not as harmless and casual an event as many in the pro-abortion crowd insist."

Again.. 2 points.. First, it's not "pro-abortion".. and everytime some ignorant twit calls it that, you [he in this case] PROVES they have an agenda... an axe to grind.. are trying to fight their position on EMOTIONAL grounds.. it's a cowards way to fight.. the right-wing religious base is excellent at it though.. it is often the only way to get god into law. Second, I know of NO pro-reproductive-rights people who call it "harmless". You have to be an idiot to think it's "harmless". Just like the crap about "planned parenthood" being like greedy republican genocidal wack-jobs is unfounded, so is catagorizing abortion as "harmless".

And, the person I was talking about is Dr. Edward Allred... he's at the bottom of that page.. See, the SAME page you pulled your list of "meet the providers" from? The link from above was the interview with a pastor where he talked about being staunch republican and ocassional church-goer. Amazing that you didn't bother to notice that the single most hate-filled attitude on YOUR page of quotes was from an opportunist Republican religious fellow.. hmm

And, again.. if only 10 women who are raped wanted to have abortions.. only ONE .. and YOU didn't let them have it because you can't get past your introverted little world where forcing your morallity on society without valid logic is OK, then YOU contribute to a rape victim, no matter how rare, being told "screw you, keep that souvenir". I don't care if you wouldn't "judge them", you condem them. And, who cares that you "wouldn't codem someone if they were horribly abused"? Is that supposed to make you look "sympathetic"? It doesn't, it makes you look like you are putting value on life as YOU see fit, but not letting anyone else do it. Looks like YOUR descision of "when it's ok" is some how better than "the person who is pregnant and knows if she can handle the abortion, or if she can handle a life of taking care of another human being at that point".. Personally, I don't find your judgment reassuring..

That was one study (the 260) out of hundreds that have been done; there is a ton of verifiable and documented stories of the pain and sufffering women are experiencing after their abortions.

I didn't get those quotes from former abortion providers from the link you are referring to...so that is why I missed the connection there. Ok, are we clear on that?

Again, you're not getting it - you insist on reading something into my posts that aren't there. In reference to the rape victims, how do you feel if the victim chooses to keep her baby?

Why don't you want to be called "pro-abortion"?

And you are the one who consistently brings religion and politics into this issue - not me!

Oh thanks for the link to the website - it's pretty good for teens! My 17 year old is doing her Junior paper on this issue and this site will come in handy for her!

Did you happen to see the photo of the tiny human male child in the embryo sack - at 2 months gestation? Link provided here:

http://www.gravityteen.com/prenatal/

And then there is a page written by people who survived abortion attempts on their lives - one having survived 3 abortion attempts.

http://www.gravityteen.c...?StoryID=49&Text=Yes

"Why don't you want to be called "pro-abortion"?"

As has been said MANY times, no one is "pro-abortion".. the term is explicity used to draw negative connotations, nothing more. I'm "pro-reproductive-righs", or "pro-chioce"..

I've said time after time after time... I don't like abortions either.. the difference is, you want to force your opinion and values down everyone elses throats.. I want the government to stay out of legislating what happens to a woman's body.

"Again, you're not getting it - you insist on reading something into my posts that aren't there. In reference to the rape victims, how do you feel if the victim chooses to keep her baby?"

I've not read -anything- into your posts.. that's the problem.. You think I am, or refuse to understand the mechanics of CONSEQUENCES.. if YOU make it illegal, YOU [contribute to] tell rape victims "too bad, deal with it".. Just because you don't want to accept that reality doesn't mean it's not there. Just like most right-wingers, reality seems to be optional for you.. it only applies when you want to make a point on YOUR side.. I guess that's why you can't get your tiny mind around the FACT that I do NOT like abortion either. Supporting someones choice and right to determine what happens to them when looking at a situation that will effect them for the REST OF THEIR LIFE and knowing the Government (and religious groups and special interests and small minded people) should stay out of it is NOT the same as "thinking abortion is cool or ok or is harmless".

Again, you can't admit I don't like abortion because then you have to admit there's something wrong with your thinking (potentially).. How can someone not like abortion and still be pro-choice? or even perhaps have an abortion themselves (if I were a woman)? You can't fathom that possiblity.. in your mind, someone must be lying cause it just doesn't make sense to you.

That's -also- why you are stuck in "emotion" mode. And, I'd bet dollars to pesos, "emotion" is the driving factor for your position.. all this crap about "facts" don't matter to you.. when someone shows you FACTS that conflict with your EMOTION, you ignore that fact and go back to spitting our "your list" and, try to obfuscate "fact" by offering "professional opinion", and distort it further with "technicallity" trying to pass it off as something more than what it is (such as "life" and the -fact- that toe fungus is, in FACT alive)

"I didn't get those quotes from former abortion providers from the link you are referring to...so that is why I missed the connection there. Ok, are we clear on that?"

Then, given all your quotes were right off that page, from the same conference, you're sharing info with other groups.. I can accpet you didn't get it from that page.. Perhaps you can see from your list and that page how I confused them? I just looked for the lady who made [I think] the second quote. I had no reason to think you didn't just put in the numbers.. In any event, I think you can see how this info and subject gets twisted.. as do all things of this nature.. Just like your Doctor's "proof" that there's a breast cancer link.. from a "science" standpoint, you can't use a study that is self-proclaimed "inconclusive" as "proof" of your point.. that's not how science works.. that IS, however, how people trying to build a base on shaky premises work. Is there a link? could be.. I'm not saying no.. but your [well, that other womans] 'proof' was something much less than 'proof'.. in a scientific context.

Not sure why you made those last 2 posts.. you didn't say anything [of significance] or refute any points. you just keep having me tell you over and over what you can't seem to read from the other posts.. it's kind of annoying, actually.. and I think I'm done wasting my time repeating myself. You don't care to learn, you don't care to deal with me or my points or my statements, you just want to keep pushing your opinion on me.. I've already told you, your opinion means nothing to me. I've SEEN your pictures, I've SEEN your point, I've SEEN your facts.. and -despite- that, I have a different opinion than yours. You want to prevent people from determining the course of their life when something this monumental occurs.. and want the Government to help you force your morality, opinions, beliefes, and what have you, onto the masses. I don't think the Government should be forcing people to do things they feel are not in their best interests based on where they are in life, where they see themselves going in life.. or where they feel their ability to raise a child is .. It's THEIR problem to work out, not YOURS or the Governments..

We disagree, that's all. You are on the side of "screw you, do what I think is the only acceptable way, I don't -care- what you think", and I'm on the side of "not all women are morons who don't know what they're getting into. It should be left up to the woman to decide what happens to her body in matters like this".. You live your life, let everyone else live theirs.

"In reference to the rape victims, how do you feel if the victim chooses to keep her baby? "

I don't really "feel" one way or the other. It's HER CHOICE.. However, I would HOPE that if she keeps it, she gets a LOT of counseling to get over the trauma of the rape. There are a lot of women who get raped every year too and a lot of them bottle it up inside. You want to talk about "adverse psychology"?

Savantslug--You oughta watch your Ps and Qs--the only cunt on this blog I see is you

You worry about people having shit for brains--but when the doctors open your cranium at the autopsy--instead of gray matter--all they'll find is an I.O.U.

Bragging about your I.Q is a dead giveaway--a typical goofball ploy...sad...perhaps your cure is a steady diet of humble pie

Goofball

Perhaps the greatest sin of all

is taking oneself too seriously.

Lucifer’s fault was pride,

he couldn’t bow to the Father’s will,

it was a bitter pill

for him to acknowledge

the destiny of man

as higher than that

of Angels.

Humble Pie

In continuous torment,
I would repent,
if I knew what from.
It seems a mystery
that must be solved;
before my affliction can be resolved.

Is it arrogant self-pity
that feeds me this dish of humble pie,
served so diligently
by a beckoned universe?

Should I look to Job for the answer,
to establish in sacrifice,
blind faith in the blessings that surround me?

While atonement remains pain,
through gratitude I still seek Thy plan,
that includes me
with all my foibles
and my cup of tea
to serve.

Heh.. G.I. Joke.. good post.. good points... nice use of pulling in the "typical" to prove your point -despite- the logical hole.. Circumstantial evidence is all it takes when you want to simply piss on someones feet, right?

Salamanderster--the logical hole is always in the head of the one who starts pissing into the wind--circumstances will eventually dictate that a urine-scented spray will find its way into the face of the pisser

Funny how this turned from a thread about how the right-wing likes to draw illogical and unfounded conclusions and use that to smear people trying to do good into bashing on someone who thinks the practice of shitting on people ONLY because they disagree with you is bad.. (and for you slow folks out there.. Summer started shitting on my because we have different opinions and she can't see how our having the same "view" of certian things has us at "different outcomes".. so she resorted to attacking the person and character assasination.. -exactly- what the right-wing does when they can't win.. not saying "I won", because I don't think this is a win-lose situtation, it's about perspective)

keep up the good work guys.. Really, this does a lot to prop back up the right-wing hate-mongers.

Sobsister--whose right wing?--I don't necessarily disagree with your ends--it is your means that I find quite low-vibratory

It seems you are caught within the web of your own circumstantial thinking

Poor spider--don't you know which way to crawl?

Spider on the Wall

Hello, spider on the wall,
why don’t you try to crawl
away from the looming monster?
Is it peace or fear that keeps you clinging
to your stasis of stillness?

Are you captured in sense of comfort
or do you contemplate your next move
to scurry from the lingering form
to nowhere new,
to just another place on the wall,
to someplace different, but just the same
juxtaposed with that huge figure
looking on with detached wonder?

Still on that plastered plane,
exposed and vulnerable, yet,
do you know, you are safe and free
just the same?

"it is your means that I find quite low-vibratory"

Please, do tell.. Which means of logic and reason do you find problematic? Which understanding of the world seems to be the one that has me at "the same ends" but seem to be lacking in reasonable "means"? Have I somehow teleported to the ends -despite- my means and just don't see it?

By the by.. you might try keeping the same name.. it's typically frowned upon in the blogsphere to change your name with every post.. this makes 3 now that you've used different names with..

Planned Parenthood promotes "Safe Sex" that can kill your children....

Faye Wattleton, the past president of Planned Parenthood writes, "Using a condom gives effective protection against STDs to both partners."

The facts are that the failure rate for condoms in pregnancy is 10-30%....and a female can only get pregnant 3-7 days a month. Disease can be spread 365 days a year. In addition, the HIV virus that causes AIDS is 50 times smaller than the average flaw size in condoms.

Among married couples using condoms where one partner was HIV positive, 17 percent of the healthy partners became infected within a year and a half.

Dr. Susan Weller, from the University of Texas, analyzed data from 11 separate studies on condom effectiveness in actual use. She found that condoms had an average failure rate of 31 % in protecting against HIV.

Telling kids that using condoms is "safe" is like giving them a gun and urging them to play "safe" Russian roulette.

Our kids can't get an aspirin from the school nurse or get their ears pierced without our permission and yet Planned Parenthood can give them birth control, perform abortions and teach behavior that could kill them .... all without our knowledge.

www.abortionfacts.com

Yeah.. better to avoid being 71% protected than 100% unprotected.. good logic..

Here's the deal.. Kids -will- have sex.. period.. According to the CDC, the rate for teen pregnancy is at an ALL TIME LOW.. I guess all those condoms and talks about "safe sex" versus "no protection" are just a waste of time?

Do you have a better idea than condoms? Something that will prevent pregnancy and prevent disease 100% that -isn't- "abstinence"? Cause, if your idea is "abstinence", you're barking up the wrong tree. That's PROVED not to work since kids are gonna do it anyway..

Antsiepantser--get ready for the atypical--I glear through your pretentious frown with artistic effect--you'll get a different persona with each post--with the drift of my whim--just because that's my freedom--and I will express it as I will in being the prankster that I am

The quandary you can't seem to grasp is: I believe in freedom of choice, but I find distasteful your choice in words and attitude in addressing others-- as your ends inherits your means--so I find extreme pleasure in being the one to slap your rudeness back into your face--that you may learn the lesson of humility you so sorely need

As you project terms like "cunt" onto others--rest assured I will take special care in adhering your labels of others back onto your forehead--and then watch your silly-willy reactions--that you may discover the person you have forgotten you really are

I feel duty-bound to teach you the lesson of the spider-monkey and the python--so empty your bowl of rice if you dare, ti-ti dinky-dau babysan--atonement will come either through pain or joy--but it will come to fruition--it cannot be otherwise

Antsiepantser--get ready for the atypical--I glear through your pretentious frown with artistic effect--you'll get a different persona with each post--with the drift of my whim--just because that's my freedom--and I will express it as I will in being the prankster that I am

The quandary you can't seem to grasp is: I believe in freedom of choice, but I find distasteful your choice in words and attitude in addressing others-- as your ends inherits your means--so I find extreme pleasure in being the one to slap your rudeness back into your face--that you may learn the lesson of humility you so sorely need

As you project terms like "cunt" onto others--rest assured I will take special care in adhering your labels of others back onto your forehead--and then watch your silly-willy reactions--that you may discover the person you have forgotten you really are

I feel duty-bound to teach you the lesson of the spider-monkey and the python--so empty your bowl of rice if you dare, ti-ti dinky-dau babysan--atonement will come either through pain or joy--but it will come to fruition--it cannot be otherwise

G.I. Joe - Thanks for your words on my behalf. It's good to know there are still some gentlemen out there.

Nice website by the way and your poems are great!

SaRantster - How about if we give "abstinence" equal time and still give them the info on other methods of birth control? Ya know, ALL kids don't behave like animals with uncontrollable urges. And see we get into this whole self-esteem thing again with casual sex - girls -overall - just aren't as indifferent to that lifestyle as guys are - females are wired differently - not only physically, but emotionally.

Actually, more public schools are using abstinence programs the last few years and it's being well received - the focus is on self respect - they don't teach it from a "moral" or "religious" context.

I also want to tell you - with all your ranting to me about my "republican" co-horts - I am NOT a republican.

"Thanks for your words on my behalf. It's good to know there are still some gentlemen out there."

And.. yet.. STILL.. you can't see how you started with the name calling and belitting and making associations that had no merit..

amazing.. No more point in discussing anything here. The point of the thread was morons making outragous accusations .. and now we're back to even more doing it.. what's sad is, you just proved the bulk of the radical-righties correct.. "lefties" do the same crap they do.. lash out against those they don't agree with (not to be confused with me lashing out at someone who was attacking.. not that I hold a hope you're bright enough to see that) without offering anything of value to the debate..

K.. you two have fun here playing with each other now.. Make some jokes and poke some fun.. make sure to bring up my mentioning my IQ again, and keep talking about serving "humble pie" like you somehow are above the rest and in a place to judge..

*wave*

Salivanster--Mission accomplished--the message came through humility--perhaps you can appreciate the power of the meek--because the purpose is larger than all of us

The Holy Encounter

Our differences melt as we listen to each other’s heart,

tell the soul-born stories that make us feel not so far apart.

Though unique our spiritual paths may be,

how similar is the pain and anguish we see.

As we share, we learn to care about the other’s fate.

It’s not just about us; it’s about everyone, everywhere, reaching for Heaven’s gate.

We go within, one-by-one; we pray hand-in-hand for the Omega point,

that critical mass of love energy,

that will save the world from tragedy.

The Shriek of Death

Stripped naked and sweating in a snowstorm,

sitting in the lotus position, just outside my Tibetan cave,

I contemplate the koan that keeps my mind captured within the core of chaos,

a conundrum of wonder that embroils me,

the quandary of seeing my image in a mirror reflecting into another mirror into a myriad number of mirrors,

bouncing my image out to the big beyond and constricting it to the tiny world within,

to the horizons of my comprehension,
in all directions,

soaking me in the heat of refracted light.

I sweat, steam rising from my body,
falling snowflakes melt as they touch my skin.

I hear the sound of one-hand-clapping,
it’s like many excited crickets chirping,

but it’s not crickets chirping,
it’s the music bed of the Universe that’s always everywhere,

that we hear when we have the ears,

the sound that many people will grow old and die and never hear.

I hear the scream of the falling tree as it dies alone.

I sweat in the snowstorm and smile a shit-eating grin.

My questioning is over.

I breathe deeply from my diaphragm, taking in all the air I can,

then I exhale joy,

in the sound of my shriek of death,

aiyEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

The shriek of life.

The Sons of Adam

We play,

we dance

to keep from crying.

We laugh

to keep from thinking

about the rules of the Cosmos,

the final judgment lurking.

We wonder,

what horrible fate is waiting,

what do the Spiritual Forces have in store?

The verdict is still pending,

and perhaps our best plea

is not guilty,

because of insanity.

* Legalizing abortion was not responsible for reducing abortion-related deaths. The discovery of antibiotics in the early 1940's did that by providing a treatment for infection.

By 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, 39 women died from abortion-related complications. By 1977, after abortion was legal for five years, already 21 women had died from abortion-related complications. (US Dept of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control.)

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) admits his group LIED about the number of women who died from illegal abortions when testifying before the US Supreme Court in 1972: Nathanson said, "We spoke of 5,000-10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were TOTALLY FALSE....it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of the way to correct it with honest statistics?"

Note the death of 18 year old Holly Patterson who died on Sept17,2003 from using RU-486 at a Planned Parenthood clinic in the San Francisco area.

Diana Lopez, 29, bled to death Feb 2002 after her cervix was punctured during an abortion at a LA PP clinic.

Another PP clinic in San Francisco had to pay over $670,000 in damages to a Yugoslav immigrant because of a botched abortion - "J.B." was pregnant with twins when she went to PP - they aborted one of the babies and the other was partially dismembered and left alive inside the womb - after undergoing an ultrasound they found the baby was still alive but missing one arm and one leg. She later underwent a late term abortion and suffered severe psychological trauma because of this. No kidding.

Many other cases/charges from Planned Parenthood are documented in "The Scarlet Survey" by Kevin Sherlock (Brennyman Books, 1997).

Lawsuits filed against this organization across the country involve medical malpractice, violations of health codes, medical record and patient care deficiencies, unsanitary conditions, altered lab reports, fraudulent billing, sex offenses etc!

Note: Savanster leaves no valid link--are the synapses of his self-touted brain as validly connected?

Poetic Voice

Can you hear the Voice in the wilderness,
a chorus of finch’s delicate chirps,
the cry of the loon,
blackbirds’ caws,
mixed with the squawks of a jungle monkey,

A plaintiff dog’s growl,
the shriek of a banshee,
the baleful swearing of the fuck-you lizard,
the female scream of death,

A loud, whispered whistle
calling all loved ones home,

The cooing of the dove
from ever so very close?

Savantster - Do you happen to know the percentage of abortions that are done after the "7 week" mark? 7 weeks or 49 days...what if the preborn is 48 days old?

Isn't the size of a person irrelevant when deciding if the person is a human being or not. The five-foot-eight frame of a teenage son guarantees him no more right to life than the 23-inch frame of his little sister in her mother's arms. Size is morally irrelevant (1 inch, 23 inches, 68 inches) in determining who should be protected.

Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood. A one-week-old infant, nursing at his mother's breast, does not have these powers either, yet we don't put his life in jeopardy because of that.

Scott Klusendorf asks, "How does a simple journey of seven inches down the birth canal suddenly transform the essential nature of the fetus from non-person to person?" (http://www.str.org/free/bioethics/Seriously.pdf)

We consider persons on respirators and dialysis as human beings whose lives are precious and to be protected. In other words, the unborn cannot be disqualified from human life because they are dependent on their mother for food and oxygen and protection from toxins. In fact, we operate on the exact opposite principle: The more dependent a little one is on us, the more responsibility we feel to protect him, not the less.

27 States treat the killing of an unborn child as a form of homicide (http://www.unitedforlife.org/fh_statutes.htm).
That is, they have what are called "fetal homicide laws." Other states (besides these 27) have different kinds of penalties for attacks on women that result in harm to the baby she is carrying.

Think about that for a moment. We have some laws that condemn the killing of a fetus as murder, and we have some laws that condone the killing of a fetus as abortion.

Why is this? What is the basis for the difference? Usually the proposed basis for the difference is simply this: It is illegal to take the life of the unborn if the mother chooses that it not be taken, but it is legal to take the life of the unborn if the mother chooses that it be taken. In first case the law treats the fetus as a human with rights; in the second case the law treats the fetus as non-human with no rights.

Anarchy???