Just a fertilized egg

Janica Winn, Franktown

Published November 30, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated November 30, 2007 at 10:16 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

November 30, 2007

8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Jack_Bauer writes:

So Janica when does that fertilized egg become a human? When it is fertilized? How about when the heart starts beating? Is it still ok to terminate it then?
If you are so smart on this issue please divulge I know I along with millions of others are very intersted in knowing this information. I don't know when an egg becomes human, you sure seem to. Then you say Outlaw Birth Control? now that is over the top! oh where to start with that statement. If most abortions are outlawed (highly doubtful) do you really think the pill, condoms and jell would all be outlawed as well? How about personal responsibility, would that be outlawed - oh wait it seems to have been already in this debate. How about adoption, would that be outlawed, it seems to have already been taken off the table in this discussion as well.
Give me a break, you are using the same hysteria tactics the anti abortion crowd uses with a little bit of fact sprinkled in.
This is a very touchy subject and to compare a human egg to a chicken egg shows me where your intelligence and moral clarity lies. Also the last time I checked - none of the eggs you purchase at grocery store are fertilized - it is tough for a hen producing eggs in a cage to come up with one that is fertilized.
I worked at Julius Goldmans egg city in Moorpark California as a teenager and none of those hens ever had any contact with a rooster. Where do you get your eggs? maybe that is why you are so smart and enlightened on this subject.
November 30, 2007

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

Is it abortion when an American war plane kills a pregnant Iraqi mother or just "collateral damage"? I wish most people that immerse themselves in the "abortion" argument cared half as much about foreign deaths as about someone in Miami...God would be a lot happier about how many more of his children we are saving by opposing war!
November 30, 2007

9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

Great letter, Janica. In 1950 I stayed with my buddy, Benny, at his parent's ranch who were out on a binge. Benny and I had eggs for breakfast, lunch and supper. The rooster ruled the roost and the chickens ruled the rooster; surely, I ate a lot of fertilized eggs.

The chicks that would have been born to the chicken would not have been quite as cannabalistic as the parasite born to humans. The chicks survived inside the egg by eating its contents; baby humans survive inside the womb by eating off of the living which is what makes them parasites to a greater extent than embryo chicks.

Baby chicks and human babies share the same equality mandated by Nature, the pagan god and one I embrace since all other gods come and go and you can be certain all Americans are atheist when it comes to Zeus, Apollo, Prometheus, and nine million other dead gods (the latest god is an Arab and Jew).

There is no separate act of creation. We know which came first: the chicken or the egg if we can ascertain which one got the most foreplay; we know the knave will create a god and the fool will believe; and, what the freethinker knows is that one life form has no greater worth than another.

Richard Grimes, deicide and intelligent enough to be an atheist but lack the courage. r22037@yahoo Denver. [Deicide is the sword of time that kills all gods except Nature.]

Deicide Corner: “[Religions] impose antiquated and narrow beliefs which are entirely unsuitable for a being who knows nothing and can affirm nothing.” -- Pensees d'une solitaire
November 30, 2007

9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Observer-

That is quite a stretch considering the U.S. doesn't target innocents (like our enemies) and any civilian death is accidental,unlike a women who chooses to have an abortion.

Your contention that most people don't care about foreign deaths is equally absurd as is the thought that opposing war would save more children.Radical Islam has initiated this war and vowed to either force your religious conversion or kill you. If we give up and don't defend ourselves many more children will die over time.

Unless of course you're cool with world wide Islamic conversion and the implementation of Sharia law, because that is the only way these guys will stop fighting.
November 30, 2007

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

Get Real:

So your answer to me is a paraphrasal of the Pee Wee Herman line: "I know we do but they do more".
P.S. I know we care terribly about Arab babies, so why don't we tell the Iraqi's that we don't deliberately target women and children, as we draw terrorists to that country to kill and maim pregnant Iraqi women "so they don't follow us here". Bravo for the admirable Bush doctrine that results in dead Iraqi babies. I contend that is just as deliberate, if not more, than a woman having an abortion!
November 30, 2007

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

Let's not pretend that our oil-induced footprint in the ME and our support of Israel and her policies isn't the main cause of our trouble in the region, GetUnReal...

As for the abortion argument we always come back to the same place that the religious right simply refuses to acknowledge.....which is that their anti-choice position will not decrease the number of abortions performed in the US every year...but rather just make them less safe for the woman. Once one comes to term with that fact, its hard to justify their dogmatic, counterproductive position on the matter. Ironically, the religious fundamentalists are opposed to the two policies that would actually reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies and abortion in the US every year...those being realistic sex ed in our school system and easily attainable contraceptives for our teens and young adults.

Makes you wonder does it.
November 30, 2007

11:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

I'm not religious and I am pro abortion, but the issue does present some very difficult legal and ethical problems. As Jack Bauer posted, when does an egg become a human? I don't know the answer, but once it becomes a human, specifically a US citizen type human, shouldn't it's life be protected by the US Constitution? The same type of logic was used to justify slavery. "They are not full humans, so they are not protected by the Constitution." That logic was proven wrong. This is why the left fears a real true court case dealing directly with the "right to abortion". They would lose. Better to go after “a right to privacy” were a win is possible than to get into a battle that you can't win. By law, one US citizen's right to life trumps another US citizen's right to privacy.
November 30, 2007

11:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

hydro, wouldn't such a court decision be the height of judicial activism, considering that the vast majority of americans want to keep abortion safe, legal and rare?
November 30, 2007

12:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Jay,
We are a nation of laws. If the vast majority of the country wanted us to be a Christian nation (I suspect this is true) and the vast majority of the idiots in Washington passed such legislation, it would be the court's duty to rule that it was un-constitutional would it not? This may be viewed as activist by some, but in fact the court would be doing their job, namely interrupting the constitution. But the key is the law must be written by the legislature, reviewed by the court and enforced by the executive branch. My point was that access to safe legal abortion, which should be and should remain available in the US, could well be hanging by a thread, namely defining when an egg becomes a US citizen. Once the egg becomes a US citizen, it would have the full force of the constitution protecting its right to live. I am cynical enough to believe that neither side really wants a solution. Like so many wedge issues, they need the problem.
November 30, 2007

12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

For you conservatives who don't know how insidious and extreme the pro-life movement is, you should be aware that they think that the most common birth control methods cause abortions by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

"Physicians across America -- and around the world -- are now confirming that the Pill, IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant cause early abortions... Research shows that in many cases the Pill causes early abortions -- abortions the mother may not even know she's having."

Of course by abortion, they mean prevention of implanatation, which is a very extreme definition of abortion by most people's reckoning.

If this referendum passes, how would the above methods of birth control be allowed to continue to be prescribed in Colorado?

Egg as person - Too extreme for Colorado!

Queen Gorgo: Because only Spartan women give birth to real men!

MD
Fellow American College OB/GYN
Diplomate American Board of OB/GYN

p.s. The zygote is human, as in human embryo, not human being with rights equal to you and me.
November 30, 2007

12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Queen Gorgo,

Your p.s. is your opinion. There are people that have the oposite view. In my opinion, abortion should be legal in the 1st and 2nd trimester (antis oppose this) and should be illegal in the third (pros hates this.) Calling a just fertized egg that has yet to attach an abortion is as radical as calling killing a nearly born baby, abortion.
November 30, 2007

2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

HydroMan

No doubt it's my opinion, but your following statment lacks medical precision as a result of the anti-choice propaganda around this issue.

Calling the breech extraction of a pre-viable fetus "birth" is like calling a lung biopsy "coughing up phlegm." It has nothing to do with the natural process the inflammatory term seeks to evoke. See also the medically meaningless "late-term" phrase.

I have no problem with the Roe calculus of allowing the state to prohibit post-viability abortion. I do have a problem with people who find NO abortion procedure acceptable limiting my surgical options when I'm in the OR treating my patient. Their distaste for a procedure which achieves the same ends as one that is more dangerous for my patient should not effect her right to receive medical treatment by the safest manner her surgeon determines.
November 30, 2007

2:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Charles-

I never said our invasion was accidental. I was pointing out that the hypothetical observer introduced was flawed due to the fact that our military doesn't TARGET civilians like our enemies do.

If we gave up and didn't do anything about radical Islam my contention was MORE innocents would die.

Do you honestly think that would not be the case?

Do you really believe if we give up they would be satisfied and back off from their stated objectives?

Hell no, they would see it as the victory for them it is, emboldening and ultimately making them stronger.

It doesn't sound like you are committed to fighting religious extremism if you cant even admit it is a valid threat.

Observer-

You fail to realize no matter what we do,less accept world wide Islamic submission and the total destruction of Israel, our enemies will continue their fight as they have stated numerous times.

Leaving them to do what they wish without any retaliation would be the same as committing national suicide.

World peace,although a nice thought, is a utopic notion that is unattainable.

I am reserved to the fact that international conflict is inevitable and just wishing it would go away is unrealistic if not plain foolish.

Unfortunately, it seems nothing less than an American city getting smoked will wake you guys up to the very real threat America and the entire planet faces.

But I'm sure you and Charles will simply blame it on America and the conservatives "jingoism".
November 30, 2007

2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

" I am cynical enough to believe that neither side really wants a solution."

This in fact betrays your anti-choice allegiences hydro (in addition to the intent of the rest of yoru post). What "solution" do you think the pro-choice crowd is hindering?
November 30, 2007

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

rg writes:

Men: Bantering back and forth over what a woman should do if pregnancy occurs.

Deicide Corner: “I cannot see how a man of any large degree of humorous perception can ever be religious--except he purposely shut the eyes of his mind & keep them shut by force.” -- Mark Twain
November 30, 2007

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Sorry Jay your clairvoyance in wrong. I am pro choice. I have been for 30 years. I believe that reasonable people can be pro choice, but support parental notification, and can oppose partial birth abortion. Is the issue an all or nothing issue for you? I am offended that when NARAL calls my wife for a donation they refuse to speak to me. They assume that because I'm a man that my wife must be somehow under my thumb. The radicals on the left want to get between my daughter and her parents on the issue of abortion by denying parental notification. The radicals on the right want deny my daughter the right to get an abortion if she is raped. Do you really think either side cares about her as a person? I submit that neither side cares about my daughter, expect to advance a radical agenda. If our side would present a more responsible agenda, I believe that 90% of the country would get behind it. This is the same problem that the NRA faces. My guess is most of the country would support legal ownership of shot guns, hunting rifles and hand guns. What do they fight for? The right to own a 50 cal machine gun. The more radical the proposal, the more likely the proposer dosen't want the issue solved.
November 30, 2007

3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Queen Gorgo,

I agree with you. If my daughter needed an abortion, I would want done in the safest manner possible. Why does everyone assume that because I am pointing out an issue with the pro-choice argument that I am anti choice? Remember the question "If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound?"? It is a question that is impossible to answer without defining "sound". The point that I am trying to make (apparently unsuccessfully) is that until the medical community can determine the exact moment when an egg become a human and have legislation drafted to reflect that legal definition, we have a moral and ethical question. At the moment an egg becomes a person, doesn't it have the protection of the constitution? That is the easy part. Were there is disagreement is in the definition of "when". If we can solve this legal question and retain the right to a safe abortion, the pro-life crowd would be powerless.
November 30, 2007

3:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"The radicals on the left want to get between my daughter and her parents on the issue of abortion by denying parental notification"

This is the only portion of the "solution" you think the "radical left" is hindering? Do you think that's the same level of obstruction envisioned by religious fundamentalists? By the way...do you not want your daughter to have access to abortions in a situation in which she wasn't raped, but wanted to have one?
November 30, 2007

4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

No I would want her to access to an abortion in any circumstance that she, her doctor and her parent (while under the age of 18) would dictate. No the radical right is much more controlling that the radical left. They use the bible as proof of there belief because it is in the bible. The problem with most of the religious zealots way of thinking is a circular argument. If you believe the bible (Koran etc>) it provides all the proof that you will every need. If you don't believe, it provides no proof at all. Believe what you will, but I am pro-choice. Just as questioning one's county is one's patriotic duty, so is questioning one’s position on other issues. The best way to defeat an adversary is to not underestimate their side of the argument. You don't seem to want to even acknowledge that there is another side to the argument. That is naive and very dangerous. Most people (including me) want abortion to be safe and legal. The fact that it is still not absolutely secure highlights the fact that may be we haven't gone about it in the most effective manner. I was around in the 70s when abortions became legal. The fact that 30 some years later, we still don’t have a secured right can be attributed to what? A stupid mouth breathing group of pro lifer. Or an ineffective pro-choice movement? If you believe it is the former, doesn’t that imply on the latter.
November 30, 2007

4:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"The fact that 30 some years later, we still don’t have a secured right can be attributed to what?"

The only threat to the security of this right is the far religious right wing fundamentalists and the politicians they support...who in turn support the type of judicial activism it will take to go against the majority of american's wishes and overturn Roe.
November 30, 2007

4:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Jay,

I agree with you. That is why I am suggesting a different method of combating the RR. With medical science and applying the law free of your obvious passion. To continue the way that we have for so long and to be further behind does not speak well of our methods. No where else in the political debate have we lost ground. Civil rights although less than perfect bares little resemblance to past segregationist practices. Women's rights have come to the point were we have a real shot at a female president. Why have we lost ground on this key issue? I believe the reason is that an African American has all the same rights as any other American. A woman has all the same rights as any other American. Is it possible that we haven't yet determined that an unborn American doesn't have the same rights as any other American? Again I don't believe this argument, but a case could be made for it. If we are not prepared to counter this argument, or if worse we don't acknowledge that it exists, this right will be at risk from the RR.
November 30, 2007

5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

The fertilized human egg, like the unfertilized egg and the sperm is always human. Period. But when do we as a society give it person hood civil rights?

We are not debating DNA biology here, but something so nebulous that no laws about it, will ever make everyone happy. Until we learn to transplant an unwanted (fill in the space with your pet word here)from a woman to an animal as host, we will wrestle over the moment, not when the egg is a person, but when we say it is a person. Since the word person is a made up human description, we look for some other way to give rights to the unborn, usually based upon viability. Naturally that makes pro-birth people mad because it leaves abortions to the women and not to society in general. Even letting women abort before three months is not good enough for the control-women-at-all-times bunch.

I again challenge a pro-life person to tell me why they care so much for the unborn children of people they do not know, will never know, and didn`t even know were pregnant.

I don`t care that you care, but I am always amazed that you do. It is hard enough for me to care for born people in harms way, say our troops, or the people in Iraq, or the Katrina victims. But to care about zygotes so much that you spend time out of your lives really astounds me. You all spend more time on human eggs than I do all year on charity events and donations.

Please tell me why you care so much, and how you came to care to such a degree. Don`t tell me I should care, just defend yourselves for once. No blaming women, no blaming society or libs, just speak for yourselves. And don`t speak for the Nature Goddess, She doesn`t need your voice.

Please don`t tell me abortion kills, murders, destroys etc. I know that, it is you I can`t understand.
November 30, 2007

5:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Hydro,

I had no doubt from your posts that you're pro choice, I was only pointing out that your phrase "calling killing a nearly born baby abortion" is an example of how the antis have moved the goal posts with clever use of language, as no such thing ever happens.

Also, what if your daughter wanted an abortion and you didn't want her to. Should you be able to deny her that?
November 30, 2007

6 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

Again hydro, you insistance that an unborn american is even a possibility makes me think that you don't pass the smell test. how about an unconceived american? both are tenants of religious fundamentalism...not rational thought.
November 30, 2007

6:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Queen_Gorgo,

Thank you for the correction on the procedure. I was only using it to make a point about the spectrum of procedures. One side of the spectrum is less objectionable to more lay people than the other side. You may also be able to tell that I don't have a medical background.

I have had a good laugh thinking about your question. My daughter has been raised to be an independent free thinker. We've gone out of out way to make sure that she thinks about each and every choice that she makes. I could no more deny her than could I sprout wings and fly. And having known my wife for 25 years even if I wanted to, I've learned long ago which battles I can win and which battle are lost before they start. The two of them together are quite formidable. We would be there for my daughter as council and for support. We've seen her grow into an independent young woman and we trust the job that we've done. Having said that I guess we would be available to her even after 18.

I am also painfully aware that there are young women out there in very different situations making difficult choices without a loving family's support. That is why I believe that it is so important to get beyond some of the weaker choice arguments especially those that can’t stand up to medical and legal scrutiny. Equating a human embryo and a chicken egg comes to mind. We need to craft legislation much as was done for civil rights. It may not be perfect on day one, or even day 6000, but it protects the greatest percent of women.
November 30, 2007

7:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Charles-

I never made up any positions for you,reread my post.I was simply asking you questions, questions you typically have yet to answer.

You state,
"Implying that people want to "give up" and let terrorists enforce Sharia law on them is not only boorish, it's *ridiculous*."

Ridiculous huh?

I explained this in my original post directed at OBSERVER, who said,
"God would be a lot happier about how many more of his children we are saving by opposing war!"

What will a troop withdrawal accomplish Charles?

Is that not giving up?

And what would happen if Islamofascism is left unchecked?

That is exactly why I said if WE opposed the war(by not fighting back),THEY will not stop fighting until their objectives are met. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Now I know I posed a series of questions for you,do you think you could answer just a couple of them?

BTW,
The bulk of the Dem party have been shilling for a pull out for years-and especially now that the media cant ignore the evidence of the surge working.

Even Mr Anti-War John Murtha says so.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07333/...

I can see why you libs are concerned and want withdrawal, any evidence of Iraqi stabilization hurts you politically and you damn well know it.

In public Dems are saying "we have to get out of Iraq and bring our boys home!".

While in the back spin rooms are saying "we have to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, were winning."
http://patdollard.com/2007/08/20/ap-a...

I've said it before and I'll say it again-

Hatred for Bush has blinded liberals into opposing a just and necessary war, and they have positioned themselves such that any headway in this worldwide conflict harms them at the polls.

So they MUST oppose it, they have essentially INVESTED IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES DEFEAT.

People aren't as stupid as you and your progressive buddies want to think Charles,

It is obvious to anyone paying attention.
November 30, 2007

7:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wes writes:

"I again challenge a pro-life person to tell me why they care so much for the unborn children of people they do not know, will never know, and didn`t even know were pregnant."

Posted by me2 on November 30, 2007 at 5:25 p.m.

My guess me2 is that they don't because they don't have to make any personal sacrifices for that unknown unnamed child. They get to decide the long term consequences for another person with absolutely zip investment in the family. They go even further and vote against social programs which would help single women with children but might possibly raise their taxes. The end result is that a woman will be forced in all circumstances including rape and incest to carry this "person" to term and then pay full retail prices for the rest of that child's life to feed, clothe, shelter and educate that child.

This issue isn't about being fair to some unknown and unnamed collection of cells. It is about control of women and political power for the Republican Party. Notice that the initiative narrative has been carefully constructed to present a perky collegian from a branded "liberal" college who was "called by God" to fight this "evil". I've read some commentary that this type of initiative is the tactic of the moment by the proponents of criminalizing womens health care. They have concluded that they won't win in the courts anytime soon so they are pushing tricky worded initiatives in hopes of snagging a majority decision so that they can use the tyranny of the majority to eliminate womens health care options. They are having to resort to sneaky tactics to try and gain control of womens rights.
November 30, 2007

7:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

GetReal writes:

Oh, and Charles-

My whole point concerning world peace was you can strive for it all you want but it takes two to tango,and our dancing partner isn't ready to sit down,and frankly, wont ever be.

But you knew that, didn't you?
November 30, 2007

8:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Thanks Wes, for your comments. I think you are right on the money. Maybe I should say the Goddess spoke to me to help Planned Parenthood raise money. Can`t hurt.
November 30, 2007

8:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Wes,

Believe it or not I've been told that the pro choice folks feel that this is a fight similar to the fight to free the slaves. It does have the whole states rights vs federal rights component as well as the blurred definition of what is considered a human.

But I do agree that the policies being presented force those in the most vunerable position to take a baby to term. To even consider that a rape or incest victim be forced to take a baby to term is little better than the Saudis whipping the victim of gang rape. As a man can can't begin to imagine the horror of giving birth to a child that is a constain reminder of a brutal crime. How does one force this one someone in the name of any religion.
November 30, 2007

8:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Hydro man, what you say makes sense. But even with slavery we could see real people and then the camera was invented and they had newspapers and people fleeing North.

Still, with an embryo, it may or may not even exist, and those folks are getting all emotional over something that to them anyway, is just theoretical.

I could say someone in my neighborhood had an abortion, then when a few days go by, say oops I was wrong, it was a miscarriage. Then I wait a few days and tell them I got it all wrong, there wasn`t even a pregnancy.

Now why did they go through an emotional roller coaster over this?

I want to know where the emotion of worry and caring for a hypothetical human being comes from.

Personally, I think they are phonies. I don`t think that they feel anything for those embryos. I think what they feel is hatred and resentment for girls and women doing what ever the hell they want sexually. I think this is nothing more than envy and spite. Kind of nananan, you WILL stay pregnant.

None of the forums have ever posted a thoughtful answer from a pro-birther to my questions.
November 30, 2007

9:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Abortion is rarely a consequence of health, rape or incest. Abortions are carried out routinely as a means of ordinary birth control - healthy mothers destroying healthy life. Abortion proponents today are uncomfortable talking about the reality but, in time that will change.

If you want to enslave Africans, gas Jews, or kill a human being in the womb, then you must first dehumanize. Once you have defined the humanity away, you can do with the thing as you please with no sense of guilt.

And that's really what this is all about.
November 30, 2007

9:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wes writes:

Abortion is rarely a consequence of health, rape or incest.

Posted by Yankee on November 30, 2007 at 9:02 p.m.

Some women can't have viable pregnancies for physical reasons and some women can't have viable pregnancies for mental or emotional or financial reasons. Some day the busy bodies who think that every fertilized egg is entitled to a live birth will come to terms with the bigger societal picture that sometimes it isn't an viable situation. A women produces hundreds of human eggs in her lifetime. She and only she, not some prissy prig who has no investment in her life, gets to decide which one of those eggs becomes her child. If a women has ten abortions and then falls in love with a wonderful man and has two beautiful children who grow up to be outstanding people is she to be considered a loving mom or a serial killer. Do you see two healthy beautiful wanted children or ten murders. It is the Pro-Birthers who are obsessed with controlling when a woman will have a viable pregnancy and they do so without any sacrifice on their part. Maybe if these people who are so obsessed that a physically healthy woman would choose not to have a viable pregnancy would spend half as much time helping to pass legislation that empowers women and work to reduce the incredible waste of war we would have a better society and fewer unwanted pregnancies.
December 1, 2007

1:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

It’s hard to sympathize with the left’s argument for abortion.

First; my children never was, is or will be parasites and /or just a lifeless mass of tumor in any shape or form. You must be talking about your own family.

Second; most abortions by far done for convenience, and have nothing to do with rape, incest, or health. In fact it can and does introduce more complications both physical and psychical than what it supposed to prevent.

Third; making this issue into a woman’s rights argument is only a diversion from the real issue; a woman is not any less responsible for their own actions and body than man are. And don’t assume that all women support it either. Here is a CBS poll that shows that more women are against abortion than men. So much for the “men wants to control woman’s bodies” comments.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/0...

So, if you support abortions, at least don’t come up with excuses, which are simply not true. And think about this; the only reason you are alive today is because your mother didn’t abort you, you may want to think about extending the same courtesy to others.
December 1, 2007

1:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Uno, don`t want your sympathy here on the left, just the reasons you personally care so much about other peoples zygotes.
December 1, 2007

6:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Each of us is either an insignificant creature; one of hundreds of eggs that a woman decided should have a life or, we are a unique individual who was made, is known and is loved by God. Only one of those scenarios can be true. The question is, Which one do you believe?

Where a community regards snuffing out the life in the womb as nothing more than swatting a mosquito, then eventually 10-year-old girls will be caught in the cross-fire.
December 1, 2007

7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wes writes:

Second; most abortions by far done for convenience, and have nothing to do with rape, incest, or health. In fact it can and does introduce more complications both physical and psychical than what it supposed to prevent.

Posted by Uno on December 1, 2007 at 1:07 a.m.

In fact this entire sentence is an opinion.

The proponents for criminalizing womens health care keep harping about how only a few instances of unwanted pregnancies are due to rape or incest but ignore totally that if a zygote is given legal status as a person then that person has to be protected regardless of the previous circumstances. If this initiative passes and becomes law then the rapists win. Their vile act lives on and the women they raped will have to live with that humiliation the rest of their lives. Try saying it is statistically insignificant to the women how has to become the vessel of the rapists sperm. What nasty people to insist that the rapist be exalted for dispensing their sperm where ever they chose. This is truly an ugly idea that will be stillborn on election day.
December 1, 2007

7:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wes writes:

Where a community regards snuffing out the life in the womb as nothing more than swatting a mosquito, then eventually 10-year-old girls will be caught in the cross-fire.

Posted by Yankee on December 1, 2007 at 6:15 a.m.

This is a ridiculous statement. Nobody regards womens health care as no more significant than swatting mosquito's. If you want to discuss the degradation of life then let's talk about George Bush's war of choice in Iraq and the degradation of life to not only the Iraqi people but also the reduction in the quality of life in the United States due to the money that is being spent on the occupation that could have provided for things like health care for children in need. There is no bigger abomination before the Lord then Pro-War Christians who scream about how desensitized we are to the sanctity of life when they support the killing of innocents as "collateral damage" in an unnecessary war that consumes vital resources that could be used for other purposes. Try taking the beam out of your own eye before you criticize the speck in mine.
December 1, 2007

9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Abortion is not about health care, it is about birth control. Where you come down on the issue is determined by whether or not you believe there is a God who created the universe or whether life just came to be through some random acts and the world is guided by the survival of the fittest.

If you believe that God creates each of us individually, then you have an obligation to defend the life in the womb. If you think we live at the pleasure of a woman, then you will snuff out that innocent life for any reason with no qualms. Drawing parallels with war is nothing more than an attempt to hide from the real moral issue.
December 1, 2007

12:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

Sharon, or me2 whatever, may be because even you started out as a zygote. I don’t care so much about zygotes, but I do care about the underlying premise that life is cheap. And I definitely have something to say about it, when some on the left describes my children as parasites or lifeless lump. If you don’t have any self respect or respect of others, keep your opinion to your self.

Wes, if you think that statement is not true (7:27 am), than provide proof to dispute. Otherwise your comments are meaningless. If you don’t think that abortions have negative impact on women, than show me evidence.

War and abortions; the US is one of the few countries spending billions on new technology to minimize collateral damage. Terrorists on the other hand want’s to maximize collateral damage, so I don’t see your point. Iraq was in the process of developing newer more powerful weapons under Saddam’s direction. For what reason and where he would of used them is anyone’s guess. He demonstrated in the past that he wasn’t squeamish about using them either. That made Saddam far more dangerous than many other current dictators. He was given the chance to step down for months before the invasion, avoiding it, but he arrogantly refused and paid the price. If you don’t like that, that’s your problem.
December 1, 2007

4:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

I don’t think having a Saddam with powerful weapons under his control is funny, but than again it’s coming from a guy who also knows for sure that there is no god. Ignoring facts is always a good excuse for those, like Charlie, who try to hide their lack of intelligence and lack of ability to think for them selves. For most people it’s easier to run with the crowd and discard the challenge of running against it, regardless of right or wrong.
December 1, 2007

9:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Yankee, you can`t set up a false choice, either we are insignificant or there is a God. Your unspoken idea that if their is a God, we are then significant is not logical. Even with a God we could still be insignificant, not much more important than chimps, with whom we share about 98% of the same physical make up.

If a loving God dislikes abortion, then tell Her to stop all the miscarriages, roughly 60% of all human conceptions, are destroyed by Her daily.

A good many women end pregnancies because they can not be pregnant for nine months and keep their jobs, their marital situation may be dangerous if they are pregnant, or they may have other social problems. Yes, healthy women abort healthy fetus` daily, always have and may always have to. Life is not perfect it is often messy and mean and abortion is the best solution for the woman.

You who have never been and never will be pregnant and need to decide what to do, have no right to speak for or about women.

Your post of 9:27, read between the lines for hidden meanings, comes to this: You resent women for having the pleasure of deciding who lives or dies as a fetus. You resent that you think we snuff out innocent lives for any reason without qualms. Your opinion of women is sophomoric and shallow.

Uno, you don`t care about the underlying premise that life if cheap. You only care in this one instance where it is really none of your business anyhow.

I have never seen you post on the value of any human life, except those zygotes, and I note your snippy tone but still have no idea why this one issue is so vital to you.

Uno and Yankee think, if I may speak for them, that women are driven by vanity and childish self interest in the matter of abortion, and yet some woman in their own family may have had, or may need to have an abortion some day. Maybe if that happens they will see the misery this causes most women.

Sure, some women have abortions as easily as getting a bikini wax, and some men blow away little girls with guns just for the fun of it. And some men chop off little girls hands, rape them and burn them alive. This discussion is about ordinary people, not the others.
December 1, 2007

11:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

Me2, first off, what I make my business is my decision and not yours. Don’t mistaken me for some knee-jerk liberal men who thinks that criticizing / judging women or minorities are off limits no matter what they do.
And why do you say thing like “Uno, you don`t care about the underlying premise that life if cheap.” I’m not the one who supports abortions, you are, with some sick tone like “You resent women for having the pleasure of deciding who lives or dies as a fetus.”. Having the pleasure?
There are many women out there who for whatever reason can not or should not get pregnant. Fine, than don’t get pregnant, who cares. But if you gamble and make a bad decision, why do you force somebody else to pay the price for your own fault? And that’s where I make it my business, because I think its wrong. Looks to me, you think it’s OK because it is women who does it. It makes you a pretty sad case of a chauvinist, blinded by your own ego and arrogance.
And I don’t know why you felt it was necessary to bring up the evil some men do, did you try to minimize the procedure of a late term abortion in people’s mind, or what? Murder or dismemberment of a little girl in my mind is wrong, to me it doesn’t matter if it’s done by a sick men, or done on the altar of woman’s rights temple at Planned Parenthood at 7 months pregnancy.
December 2, 2007

1:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Uno, now sugar if you can tell me to keep my opinions to myself, then it looks like we are using the same ammunition in this word battle with each other. Quote me some of your pro life posts for something other than a fetus and I might think you really care about the sanctity of life. I don`t support abortions, I support a woman's right to choose for herself, but once she chooses I then do support her choice to abort.

You wandered into my remarks to Yankee who used the word pleasure as in "we live or die at the pleasure of a woman, or something close to that. JJ can defend himself and all the rest was aimed at him.

Ah yes the temple of women's rights at 7 month pregnancy, more very telling word play on your part.

A thought here, can a 7 month or later abortion be performed outside a hospital? I have never heard of one that was.

Face it boys, you don`t like women making these life and death decisions and that is what really matters to you. But as long as you pretend to yourself that you really, really, care about each and every fertalized human egg, this discussion, like so many others on the subject, is dead.

Don`t be so subtle, tell us what you actually think of most women.
December 2, 2007

5:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Charles B,

The American forces are not sent to Iraq to kill the innocent. They are sent there to establish peace and to kill those who do kill the innocent.

That is an obvious distinction that is beyond your acknowledgement.
December 2, 2007

5:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Sharon B

Your logic - Because we are mortal, God must not care about us - is the foundation of your morality - self-gratification is life's most noble purpose. That is why, as you have told me, your greatest concerns in life are for sex, drugs and alcohol and obtaining money without having to work.

This is the modern left's vapid morality of materialism. Happiness will never be found on this road because it begins by separating the person from God's love.

That's also what you must also do to the fetus before you kill it.
December 2, 2007

5:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Sharon B,

I missed answering your question on what I think about women. I believe God loves women and I try do the same: whether they are in the womb or out.
December 2, 2007

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

Me2, the term “pro-life” is usually associated with the abortion issue, so other than that, I probably couldn’t show you a previous post on the sanctity of life on other issues. I do support the death penalty, and I support it even for some instances not covered by law (to my knowledge) like especially brutal rape, intentional torture and dismemberment of children even if they survive, and so on. That’s in line with my beliefs that it’s the governments job to protect the innocent from predators and apply appropriate punishment. Abortion right now is legal at any stage, so be it. I don’t approve of bombing abortion clinics either.
I think abortions should be limited severely in the last trimester only to save the mother’s life.
Fertilized egg? I don’t think the law should step in, but taxpayers shouldn’t pay for it either.
In cases of rape and incest abortion should be mandatory as soon as possible to avoid any confusion. When a crime is committed, it changes everything.
“Don`t be so subtle, tell us what you actually think of most women.” – like who? I develop my opinion of people based on their actions and not by their gender.
December 2, 2007

2:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Yankee, because we ARE mortal, God must not care for us is the silliest thing you have ever posted.

See how easy it is to re-write what people say. Just cut and paste my stuff, don`t attempt to re word it because you really get lost that way.

Your post at 5:50 was a glorious birthday present to me on my 65th one today. Goddess knows I intend to get stoned, buzzed and drunk as a skunk while I have unprotected sex with all my Latino boy toys who live on welfare and keep me supplied with all the self gratification stuff your little mind can`t even conjure up.

Quit trying to speak for the Goddess, tell us what YOU really think of most women.

Uno, I also support the death penalty and I would like to see mentally challenged women temporarily sterilized, not permanent in case there is ever a cure for them, so that the women don`t get raped and pregnant. I don`t think abortion is legal at any late stage, those late term ones are special circumstances and require all kinds of official consent.

I would love to see AIDS infected prostitutes put in jail so the johns don`t get sick.

I also don`t think we should have invaded Iraq and set into motion so many awful events, including the death and maiming of so many children.

I like you Uno, I think you really care, but Yankee is just nasty.

Wish me Happy Birthday, Feliz Cumpleanos or whatever today guys.
December 2, 2007

5:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Happy Birthday. The door is always open. But it's up to you to walk through.
December 2, 2007

6:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Thank you Yankee, your heart can be enlightened if you hang around old women enough.
December 2, 2007

6:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

Me2, you have your self a great time, and very happy birthday to you…
From Uno
December 2, 2007

7:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wes writes:

Posted by Uno on December 1, 2007 at 12:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wes, if you think that statement is not true (7:27 am), than provide proof to dispute.

Uh no I don't have to prove anyting. You made the emotional statements. It is your responsibility to provide scientific and sociological evidence that your statements have an underlying connection to reality.
December 2, 2007

7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

Wes, I’ve got your connection to reality right here…
December 2, 2007

7:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wes writes:

Posted by Yankee on December 1, 2007 at 6:15 a.m.

"Each of us is either an insignificant creature; one of hundreds of eggs that a woman decided should have a life or, we are a unique individual who was made, is known and is loved by God. Only one of those scenarios can be true. The question is, Which one do you believe?"

"I'm not an animal. I'm not an animal. I'm a god. Well maybe not the God but god like. Maybe I'm more like an angel except without the wings. I came from a land far away that science can't detect but I know is real none the less. I'm not an animal. Now excuse me. I have to go take a poop and change my pad".

Perhaps the material body isn't something that is permanently glued to the soul like our expert theologians believe. Maybe the soul can enter and exit material forms at will. What if all the genetic material in a fertilized egg is just that. Clay for the potter. Maybe the same soul inhabits multiple fertilized eggs until one if capable of reaching term. Where's the proof that a fertilized egg contains one unique soul that can never be extracted or used again? What if the soul of an aborted egg returns to inhabit the fertilized egg in the wanted pregnancy? My wife had two miscarriages before our 22 year old son was born. I've always thought that the spirit of life that was in those two miscarriages was also in my son when his material body was physically ready to receive it. This idea of only one soul per fertilized egg then begs the question where do all these souls come from besides the magic land far far away. Isn't it intriquing that for every fertilized egg there is always born a human with a personality. Even the most severely physically impaired children are born with personalities. How do our expert theologians explain how there seems to be an endless supply of souls? A woman could have ten abortions and her eleventh pregnancy produces a wonderful human with a personality and a soul. If God doesn't hold a grudge and force to carry a child without a personality who are our expert theologians to oppose God?
December 2, 2007

7:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

Charles B mumbled, while applying red lipstick to his eyelid “All Iraqi's were innocent, therefore every one of them that we attacked is innocent.” – is that includes Saddam, his sons, the Republican Guard (should of named it something else), and pretty much all the Iraqis throwing people in industrial shredders, gassing whole villages, pouring hot plastic on peoples skin and ripping it off (skin and all), throwing people off rooftops see if they can fly, cutting tongues out and arms off?
December 2, 2007

8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Thanks for the good wishes, hope I can annoy you guys some more in the comming years.
December 2, 2007

8:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Charles B,

There are bad guys in Iraq and they will pay the price.

I can't help you with the rules: I'm just here to play the game.
December 2, 2007

8:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Wes,

Our thoughts cannot be God's thoughts. We just have to play the hand that's dealt us.
December 2, 2007

10:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Charles B.

"Part of the game is working the refs"

Guess if you are on a lousy team, you have no other choice.
December 2, 2007

10:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

Charles gently pushed the chain hanging out of his nose to the side just long enough to say “So we killed 200,000 and turned 1,5000,000 into refugees to get three people.” – Three people? I thought you said 200,000. And out of all those people how many was Saddam’s standing army, or ex-military after they scattered, also foreign terrorists setting up shop in Iraq. Also does that 200,000 (?) includes civilians killed by terrorists, or US military only? Makes a big difference. And, yes, it would be nice if Iraq eventually repaid the US with oil or something. After all we rid them of a dictator.
December 2, 2007

10:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Posted by Uno on December 1, 2007 at 1:07 a.m.

“In fact (abortion) can and does introduce more complications both physical and psychical than what it supposed to prevent.”

Posted by Uno on December 1, 2007 at 12:16 p.m.

“Wes, if you think that statement is not true, than provide proof to dispute. Otherwise your comments are meaningless. If you don’t think that abortions have negative impact on women, than show me evidence.“

Uno, if you want to debate seriously you should provide evidence for your claims.

Women who undergo abortion start laying golden eggs after their next menstrual cycle. If you disagree then show me evidence.

But since you asked, here you go:

One lie the anti-choice side likes to foist on the public is that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer. They try to pass state laws requiring women be told this lie before they can get the procedure.

Yet a conference of the National Cancer Institute in 2003 concluded:

“Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.”

http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-...

Post Abortion Stress syndrome is another fiction of the right.

In July 1987, anti-choice President Ronald Reagan directed Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, also anti-choice; to produce a report on the health effects of induced abortion. In 1987, a white paper was presented to former Koop describing the "problem" of PAS. In the paper, the writers admit, "the psychological risks of abortion are based mainly upon studies which have used small, uncontrolled and non-representative samples" and "cannot be predictive of national estimates" (Rue et al., 1987).

Although Koop’s resulting draft report acknowledges that induced abortion is medically safe, it claims that there is insufficient evidence to determine the psychological effects of abortion (Koop, 1987). This conclusion overlooks an enormous body of evidence — more than 250 scientific studies — disproving the existence of PAS (Tyrer & Grimes, 1989). Furthermore, in closed meetings in 1988, Koop told representatives from several anti-abortion organizations that the risk of significant emotional problems following abortion was "minuscule" from a public health perspective (House Committee on Government Operations, 1989). Koop initially did not release his study, apparently because it did not support the anti-abortion position (Arthur, 1997). The report was finally made public on March 16, 1989.
December 2, 2007

10:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

In 1989, a panel of experts assembled by the American Psychological Association concluded unanimously that legal abortion "does not create psychological hazards for most women undergoing the procedure." The panel noted that, since approximately 21 percent of all U.S. women have had an abortion, if severe emotional reactions were common there would be an epidemic of women seeking psychological treatment. There is no evidence of such an epidemic (Adler, 1989). Since 1989, there has been no significant change in this point of view.

Rue, Vincent M., et al. (1987). The Psychological Aftermath of Abortion: A White Paper. Portsmouth, NH: Institute for Abortion Recovery & Research.

Koop, C. Everett. (1987). The Surgeon General's Report on the Public Health Effects of Abortion.

Tyrer, Louis B. & David Grimes. (1989). The Surgeon General's Report on the Public Health Effects of Abortion: The Suppressed Final Draft — An Overview. Unpublished paper.

House Committee on Government Operations. (1989). The Federal Role in Determining the Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortions on Women. H. R. 329, 101st Cong., 2nd Sess.

Arthur, Joyce. (1997). "Psychological Aftereffects of Abortion: The Rest of the Story." The Humanist, 2(57), 7.

Adler, Nancy E. (1989). University of California at San Francisco, Statement on Behalf of the American Psychological Association Before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Governmental Operations, U. S. House of Representatives: 130-140.

The antis also claim any number of other health problems are more common in women who have abortions. Citing a standard reference medical text:

“Investigators have linked induced abortion with a broad array of adverse reproductive outcomes, ranging from infertility to ectopic pregnancy. Most published reports, however, suffer from serious methodologic shortcomings that limit their usefulness. To examine the potential association between first-trimester-induced-abortion and subsequent reproductive performance, epidemiologists have performed an exhaustive review and analysis of the world literature. This includes more than 150 epidemiologic studies published in 11 languages.

The findings of this analysis are largely reassuring. No increase in the risk of secondary infertility and ectopic pregnancy appears, even in studies with substantial power to detect differences in rates. Mid-trimester spontaneous abortion is no more common among women who have had one previous abortion than among women pregnant for the first time. Similarly, the risk of premature delivery does not increase for women having undergone induced abortion.”

TeLinde's Operative Gynecology 8th Edition, edited by J.D. Thompson and J.A. Rock, J.B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, 1997. p 495
December 2, 2007

10:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

And if you support abortion in cases to save a woman’s life, consider:

“The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 10 times as high as that associated with all abortion.”

Christiansen, Lydia R. & Kim A. Collins. (2006). “Pregnancy-Associated Deaths: A 15-Year Retrospective Study and Overall Review of Maternal Pathophysiology.” American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathophysiology, 27(1), 11–9.

Now for Jim Jones (Yankee), I tried to take his own advice and ignore him, but he gets wronger and wronger each time he takes finger to keyboard.

Posted by Yankee on November 30, 2007 at 9:02 p.m.

“Abortions are carried out routinely as a means of ordinary birth control.”

Hardly. EXTRAORDINARY birth control perhaps, but almost no-one’s first resort.

“If you want to enslave Africans, gas Jews, or kill a human being in the womb, then you must first dehumanize. Once you have defined the humanity away, you can do with the thing as you please with no sense of guilt.”

Never shy about comparing his opponents to Nazis and slaveholders, Jim ignores that in the first two cases he cites breathing, sentient, independently living human beings, in the latter he describes potentially living, non-sentient, embryonic humans fully dependant on one of the former for their continuing existence.
December 2, 2007

11:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

To rephrase: Once you have made zygotes and fetuses into fully empowered human beings, you can deprive women in whom they are contained of their right to reproductive self-destiny. In fact, in most abortions, the fetus is not even visible to the naked eye, yet Jimmy accuses us of "dehumanizing" them. Most of the humans I know, I can see.

Posted by Yankee on December 1, 2007 at 9:27 a.m.

“Abortion is not about health care, it is about birth control.“

Not healthcare = birth control. This statement is either misogyny or ignorance. What is Birth Control if not Health Care?

Multiple studies confirm that having the ability to prevent and space pregnancies, via access to birth control, improves women’s stature in society as measured by educational level, economic advancement, health and life expectancy.

After nearly a year on this forum refusing to reveal his religious beliefs, JJ finally lays it all on the table, again exposing his weakness as a theologian, constitutional scholar, and moralist.

“Where you come down on the issue is determined by whether or not you believe there is a God who created the universe or whether life just came to be through some random acts and the world is guided by the survival of the fittest.”

Why are these mutually exclusive? Because the prophet Jim Jones says so?

What do you say of Jewish atheist and pro-life writer Nat Hentoff? Roman Catholic and Evolutionary Biologist Kenneth Miller (author of “Finding Darwin’s God”, whose views on abortion are unknown to me), or the many clergy in the pro-choice movement?

“If you believe that God creates each of us individually, then you have an obligation to defend the life in the womb.”

So you would seek to impose your religious views upon those who have none, or beliefs different from yours. That aligns you with the Taliban and the Saudi Wahhabites, similarly convinced that your set of spiritual beliefs is the one true path to righteousness. That’s nice to know, but you must admit, unconstitutional and therefore un-American.

How do you square your theological mandate to “defend the life in the womb” with your stated desire to turn the abortion issue to each individual state?

What allows the anti-abortion atheists of New York and California to defeat the will of God through the legislative process?

Mike Huckabee, presidential candidate and former evangelical minister (with whom I disagree) takes the evangelical Christian high ground and intellectually consistent position that the right to life should not be subject to the will of the majority, and rejects etting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
December 2, 2007

11:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

My position is that the US Constitution has no position as to when life begins, yet defines many rights contingent upon when and where birth occurs. Our constitutional history reveals an institutional belief in leaving private matters outside the purview of government intrusion. Such a right to privacy includes the ability to determine for one’s self, informed by the values of your own family, religion and medical providers, whether or not to continue a pregnancy. There is a state interest in the potential life of the fetus that increases with gestational age, to the point that after that fetus is capable of life outside the woman the state may proscribe abortion, so long as the life or health of the woman is not threatened (exactly the calculus of Roe v. Wade.)

JJ or Uno: If this initiative passes, endowing the zygote with full civil rights equal to ours, how will birth control remain legal? Do you support the initiative? If not why not?
December 2, 2007

11:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

You’ve claimed to be guided by “Judeo-Christian” ethics, which really translates to condescending co-option of a seemingly inclusive name when you find Jewish theology disagreeable.

You’ve described the Hebrew prayers read on our holiest nights as “blathering in tongues” and now made a blanket statement against abortion that you would apply to anyone who believes ”that God creates each of us individually.”

In fact, Judaism believes that life begins at birth. (http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm) The Old Testament treats violence against pregnant women that results in miscarriage as a property crime, whereas the death of the pregnant woman is a capital crime. You would be better served to describe your specific religious beliefs that inform your anti-choice position than lumping all religious people into your camp.
December 2, 2007

11:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Oh Yeah,

HAPPY BIRTHDAY SHARON B!!!
December 3, 2007

2:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Queen_G. Thank you sweetie.
December 3, 2007

6:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wes writes:

Posted by Yankee on December 2, 2007 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Our thoughts cannot be God's thoughts. We just have to play the hand that's dealt us.

?

Is this suppose to be intelligent thought by an almost angel?

You are kidding me that this is the only thing you can think of when confronted with the possibility that the spirit of life can enter and leave physical matter as easily as we change clothes and all your hysteria over each fertilized egg being some irreplaceable masterpiece is junk extremist ideology.

From the Bhagavad-Gita which is also considered sacred text

Morn not for those that live, nor those that die.
Nor I, nor thou, nor any one of these.
Ever was not, or ever will not be.
For ever and for ever afterwards.
All, that doth live, lives always! To man's frame
As there come infancy and youth and age,
So come there raisings-up and layings-down
Of other and of other life-abodes,
Which the wise know, and fear not. This that irks -
Thy outer-life, thrilling to the elements -
Bringing thee heat and cold, sorrows and joys,
'Tis brief and mutable! Bear with it, Prince!
As the wise bear. The soul which is not moved,
The soul that with a strong and constant calm
Takes sorrow and takes joy with equal peace,
Lives in the life undying! That which is
Can never cease to be; that which is not
Will not exist. To see this truth of both
Is theirs who part essence from accident,
Substance from shadow. Indestructible,
Learn thou! the Life is, spreading life through all;
It cannot anywhere, by any means,
Be anywise diminished, stayed, or changed.
December 3, 2007

7:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Wes,

In modern times, India's greatest apostle of nonviolence, Mohandas Gandhi, has written: "It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime."

You're really not up to speed in the Hindu religion - unless you find something in the paste up you provided above that authorizes taking innocent life for the convenience of the living. So don't listen to me, take if from Gandhi.
December 3, 2007

7:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wes writes:

Posted by Yankee on December 3, 2007 at 7:24 a.m.

You're really not up to speed in the Hindu religion.

I don't think I ever claimed to be "up to speed" on the Hindu religion. My point was that it is pure speculation on your part that each fertilized egg contains a perishable soul that will suffer immeasurably if it isn't given a live birth. You seem to think that each fertilized egg contains a soul like an insect in quartz and it will be wasted if it isn't given a live birth. Since you believe you have an immortal soul then how can a soul be wasted? You claim you can't understand the thoughts of God but you believe God tells you to spend every waking moment of your life obsessing about controlling other women with no expense on your part. You believe that God tells you that you can deny the free will of a woman even when he can't. Who is to say that your beliefs have no more foundation then telling me how many angels dance on the head of a pin?

Your solution to unwanted pregnancies is like criminalizing medical lung operations to eliminate smoking. The medical abortion procedure isn't the problem. Unwanted pregnancies are. What are your solutions for creating a healthy economy or empowering women so that there are fewer unwanted pregnancies? I want a society where single women can afford to raise a child and our culture supports and helps those children with their health care and education needs. All you radical extremists can do is screech about how terrible it is not to control other people while you ignore the needs of the living. Maybe you need to get "up to speed" on the Gospels. Caring for the poor and forgiveness are fundamental to the teachings but you seem to practice neither.
December 3, 2007

7:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Dr. Queen Gorgo,

You go on long enough and eventually the truth is revealed.

"Multiple studies confirm" that the abortion has "improved woman's stature in society." Really? Well being a pious humanist I guess you really can't argue with multiple studies. It's not as though you have an agenda right? This is just the objective finding of academic analysis.

At the end abortion is not about health care. Abortion is about social engineering as you acknowledge. That is why I describe it as eugenics. Abortion is the greatest sacrament in what has become a secular humanist religion practiced by the modern leftist.

The forty some million lives have been snuffed out in the decades since Roe for the greater good of women and the general betterment of society. Except of course for the twenty some million who were killed in the womb. But then that's just the price you have decided they must pay - and go on paying.
December 3, 2007

8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Wes,

If you would actually read my posts you will be surprised to learn that I have made no mention of a soul. I have consistently referred to the life in the womb as a human being with the same rights of any other human being.

You would like to see a society where a child is raised by one woman. I think that is an inferior construct. I would like to see a society where every child is raised in a functioning, one man married to one woman family. So what's your point - kill the child if the mother is unmarried?

Your analogy of a lung operation to abortion is false. Abortion for medical reason is not at issue - abortion as social engineering is. I am also opposed to lung operations as a method of social engieering.

If you don't want to be thought of as Hindu then don't cut and paste Hindu teachings.
December 3, 2007

10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Jimmy, your ability to lie about what your debate opponents say ruins whatever credibility you might have. (None by the way)

I never said abortion improves women's stature in society, I said

"Not healthcare = birth control. This statement is either misogyny or ignorance. What is Birth Control if not Health Care?

Multiple studies confirm that having the ability to prevent and space pregnancies, via access to birth control, improves women’s stature in society as measured by educational level, economic advancement, health and life expectancy."

It is quite clear that I was talking about birth control, and not abortion. Of course antibiotics have also improved people's lives in a similar manner. Is treating Cholera in the developing world a social engineering project? What do you say to the World Health Organization study that just showed that outlawing abortion does nothing to change the rate at which it occurs in a society, but increases the medical harm to women? You accuse anyone whose findings you dislike of bias, as only the truly godly like yourself have access to the one real truth.

Such arrogance that allows you to dismiss other spiritual paths when you're not even following the one you claim for yourself with any consistency (see Huckabee argument) revokes any claim of righteousness on your part. I made a religious argument to counter yours, based on my Jewish spiritual tradition, but you call names like you usually do when defeated on the facts.

"Abortion is the greatest sacrament in what has become a secular humanist religion practiced by the modern leftist."

There was nothing secular in my posts, as is clear for all to see.

At long last sir, have you no shame?
December 3, 2007

10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Dr. Queen Gorgo

So you don't think that abortion should be used as a means birth control. That's good and I agree. That fact wasn't clear up until now.

So what do you propose we do to eliminate the abortions, estimated at around 90%, that are for the purpose of birth control?
December 3, 2007

10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

When you can ask a question that is actually based on something I wrote, and maybe answer one of mine, I'll respond.

In the mean time I'd suggest you quit lying about what I write.
December 3, 2007

10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

If you hate social engineering so much, why do you argue about ten year olds killed in the crosffire as a consequence of abortion?

The whole "culture of life" concept is social engineering of the religious right.

I support choice as an expression of the autonomy we are all endowed with at birth. That there are social benefits is a plus.
December 3, 2007

11:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Dr. Queen Gorgo

You have two right now. Yes, the religious right is trying to establish a "culture of life." The "culture of death" concept is social engineering of the secular left.

If you do not understand why I am concerned about ten year olds being killed in the crossfire then there is nothing I can offer that would help you understand.

Your autonomy does not extend to giving you the right to kill the innocent when you find them inconvenient. You should be careful about taking your Queen delusion too seriously.
December 3, 2007

1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Keep ignoring my religious arguments and calling me secular if it makes you feel good.

The Iraq argument is apropos as any war inevitably leads to the deaths of innocents. (Sentient living innocents) Clearly the sacrifice of those lives doesn't trouble you nearly so much, as US hegemony in the Middle East is a social engineering project of which you approve.

I'm concerned more with the alleviation of suffering. If you have a medical argument for why pre-viable fetal life is capable of suffering (none exists to my knowledge as the higher brain structures where it occurs have not developed) I'm all ears.

Otherwise you're left with an unconstitutional religious argument in which you seek to impose your set of beliefs on others, instead of following the American ideal of allowing each individual to make their own choices informed by their own beliefs.

Ciao for now.
December 3, 2007

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

EastVail writes:

Janica is a first-class kook.
December 3, 2007

6:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Uno writes:

I guess according to Queen this people is wrong:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_b...

And (naturally) Planned Parent hood is right:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/news...

There are a lot more information exists on this issue out there, and depending on who’s side your on, you can prove or disprove any claims. After talking to several women about this (personal friends) who have had abortions and revealed their personal experience, I stand by my comments.
December 3, 2007

9:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Dr. Queen Gorgo,

You draw comfort in telling yourself that you don't want to see the little ones suffer: you want to kill them kindly and gently, much as one would put down a dog.

Your inablity to recognize the macabre nature of your position is a testament to your moral vacuity. Those who don't belive in God will come to believe in just about anything.
December 3, 2007

9:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Jimmy,

What does your desire to allow plebiscite to determine the right to life say about your moral position?

Uno,

The plural of anecdote is not data.
December 3, 2007

10:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wes writes:

Posted by Yankee on December 3, 2007 at 8:09 a.m

If you don't want to be thought of as Hindu then don't cut and paste Hindu teachings.

Actually I didn't cut-n-paste that selection. I transcribed it by hand. Another thing that you got wrong but there is so much that you assume that is incorrect about my position.

Perhaps you found the passage offensive but there are other people who read this thread and maybe they are interested in that commonality that binds all living things together. That aspect of life that can never be lifeless.

Here is a link to the entire translation by Edwin Arnold
http://www.yogamovement.com/texts/git...

You also wrote:

In modern times, India's greatest apostle of nonviolence, Mohandas Gandhi, has written: "It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime."

Can you publish the link to that statement? I'd like to read the entire piece.
December 3, 2007

10:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wes writes:

Posted by Yankee on December 3, 2007 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You would like to see a society where a child is raised by one woman. I think that is an inferior construct. I would like to see a society where every child is raised in a functioning, one man married to one woman family. So what's your point - kill the child if the mother is unmarried?

So is it your position that we should not be helping single women in the United States who are raising children by themselves? I just want to be clear that you don't believe that you have any obligation to help women who don't live with a man but are raising children on their own.
December 4, 2007

7:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wes writes:

Posted by Queen_Gorgo on December 3, 2007 at 9:28 p.m.

I found your comments admirable Queen_Gorgo. Thanks for taking the time to post. It was quite a revelation to learn how the pro-war torture supporting Christians don't consider what they do as being part of the culture of death. You can't get much more culture of death than supporting wars of choice and it's extravagant waste. But then I couldn't get these individuals to acknowledge what the problem was.

"Your analogy of a lung operation to abortion is false. Abortion for medical reason is not at issue - abortion as social engineering is. I am also opposed to lung operations as a method of social engieering."

The dense one couldn't even recognize that it is the condition that precedes the procedure that is the problem. Anyway there will surely be an appropriate place in hell for these culture of death adherents who are intent on destroying our planet with their pro-war insanity. Anyway thanks for your thoughts. You were worth reading.
December 4, 2007

7:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Wes,

You're not clear on anything. I guess you must now understand that I have said nothing about the soul of a fetus since you now just to ignore the point.

Look up the quote for yourself.
December 4, 2007

7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Dr. Queen Gorgo,

My positions on resolving abortion at the polling booth says nothing directly about my morality. It does speak to one of my principles which is that a just government derives is powers from the consent of the governed.

You are confused because you have convinced yourself I am making a religious argument and want to impose my religious beliefs on others. Comming to terms with reality is not one of your strong points.
December 4, 2007

10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Jimmy,

The reality is that every time I say something you twist my words to say something I never did. (See 9:02 when I was clearly talking about suffering of women not fetuses)

That's called lying.

If abortion is wrong because we are all God's special creation, there is no majority of people on earth large enough to contradict it. If you had any solid moral underpinning you would agree. Mike Huckabee and true evangelicals know that.

You're just a Republican party sycophant who parrots talking points with no coherent underlying moral philosophy.

Wes, thanks for your kind words. You can see there's no point debating Mr. Jones when it's like wrestling a pig. You both get dirty, nobody wins, but the pig kind of enjoys it.
December 4, 2007

12:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Dr. Queen Gorgo

So I am lying about your posistion? Let's look at the record.

I'm concerned more with the alleviation of suffering. If you have a medical argument for why pre-viable fetal life is capable of suffering (none exists to my knowledge as the higher brain structures where it occurs have not developed) I'm all ears.

You are clearly talking about the suffering of the fetus not the suffering on the mother which is exactly the opposite of your claim used as a basis for the accusation that I am a liar.

The reality cannot be more clear. That's the nice thing about this page. No matter how much you obfuscate, the truth eventually is revealed.
December 4, 2007

3:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Jimmy,

Besides your lies that I said abortion improves women's stature and health (when I said birth control), and that I was making a secular humanist argument (when I was making a Jewish argument), I clearly stated that a pre-viable fetus is INCAPABLE of suffering because it does not have the higher brain structures necesary for it. Therefore there is no "suffering of the fetus."

Abortion does not cause suffering in the pre-viable fetus. Denying women access to abortion does cause suffering in women.

Your eloquent crap about putting down dogs has no basis in what I wrote.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

James Jones is a liar.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Just a fertilized egg

Janica Winn, Franktown

Published November 30, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.Updated November 30, 2007 at 10:16 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs

Published November 30, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated November 30, 2007 at 10:16 a.m.