Abortion foes plan a sit-in
Leader says, 'We will be arrested'
By Hector Gutierrez, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 21, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
An anti-abortion group emerged from a 45-minute meeting with police Wednesday to say they will conduct an illegal sit-in during the Democratic National Convention and expect to be arrested.
Leaders of Operation Rescue said they will protest Sen. Barack Obama's pro-choice views and plan a sit-in either Monday or Tuesday but would not disclose the location.
"We will be arrested. That's the bottom line," Randall A. Terry, Operation Rescue's founder, said after the meeting with Deputy Chief John Lamb.
Detective Sharon Hahn, police spokeswoman, said the department doesn't expect many problems with the anti-abortion demonstrators.
Operation Rescue also is targeting Catholics, evangelical Christians and congregations of black churches who support Obama's presidential bid.
The activists plan to distribute at least 100,000 anti-abortion brochures around the city, leaving them on parked vehicles and outside businesses and places of worship. Brochures will be left on cars in parking lots outside at least 60 Catholic and evangelical churches on Saturday and Sunday while parishioners are inside, Terry said.
His group is deciding which black churches to target. One brochure they plan to leave with black church members shows Obama's image with a red handprint over it and the question: "Is it immoral to vote for Obama for president?"
The Roman Catholic Church has strongly opposed abortion. However, Terry said its churches are being targeted because he believed many parishioners plan to support Obama.
"We ask them to be respectful and we obviously respect their freedom of speech," said Jeanette DeMelo, Catholic Archdiocese of Denver spokeswoman.
The Rev. Ralph Beechum, chairman of the Greater Metro Denver Ministerial Alliance, which includes several black churches, could not be reached for comment.
Terry, a Republican, said he's not campaigning for GOP presidential candidate John McCain during the convention.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
August 21, 2008
1:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
So, wetcheesenema, how are these people going to start a riot if they have already been busted?
August 21, 2008
6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hambone writes:
Targeting Black churches? Wow, what's this, 1950?
I just hope these lawbreakers are put in the same cellls that have been constructed for all the "violent" protestors coming to town.
Are these wackys in any way associated with the c0ckwarblers that go to soldier's funerals and cheer? If so, it is hunting season.
August 21, 2008
7:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Oh where is all the right wing nut jobs this morning talking trash about protesters. But since these are right wing protesters I guess it's OK. And they are admitting to holding an illegal protest and being arrested.
August 21, 2008
7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
The DNC is like a magnet for all these protest groups. On the news yesterday they were 'planning' on getting arrested. Same goofy tactics as any other group. You don't change anything rotting in jail but you do cost us a fortune.
August 21, 2008
7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
FamilyGuy writes:
This is how the Taliban started. The inch there way into politics and next thing you know they are running your government. They view women as second class citizens to be controlled like cattle.
August 21, 2008
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Sounds like everybody's got to get in on the act.
Depending on where the sit-in takes place, if the "Operation Rescue" folks are truly non-violent, the police could pick them up and move them a few feet out of the way. That way the OR sit-in continues, but they don't block anything. Not only that, but the police will have deprived them of being arrested and becoming martyrs for their cause. Watch how fast they stop sitting-in.
I'm still scratching my head over picketing Roman Catholic churches. OR: "Oppose all abortions!" RCC: "We do!" OR: "That's not good enough!" There's logic in there somewhere.
August 21, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
LadyBird112 writes:
They better hope they don't run into me when handing out their bull$hit pamphlets. Are these the same people who murder abortion doctors/nurses/pregnant women who want an abortion, and say it's ok because they're doing the work of God? Or is that yet another right wing pro-life nutjob group?
August 21, 2008
9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Randall Terry is a class act, just look him up on wikipedia. Why anyone would turn to him for morals is beyond me.
August 21, 2008
9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
M2 writes:
I'd stay away from these people. They lack something mentally. If any group were to get violent I would put my money on these people. They yell at women at abortion clinics calling them unspeakable names... this is a religious group? Is this what Jesus would do. Go push your beliefs on someone else. Freaks.
August 21, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Danchan writes:
Operation Rescue are scum. I hope they put them in jail and forget about them for a month.
August 21, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
skeeve writes:
I don't agree with violent protests, but I do believe in free speech and I do believe that life begins at conception. I pray that they will present their information in a way that is not violent. But I do appreciate their honesty and their willingness for supporting the truth. Just remember folks "On August 10, 1995, Norma McCorvey -- who was "Jane Roe" in the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision -- announced that she was a member of Operation Rescue, and had converted to Christianity as a result of having repeated contact with Operation Rescue since she worked near its headquarters office. "
August 21, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
The fact that they're able to convert someone does not change my opinion of them.
Also, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person who supports abortion rights that does not believe that life begins at conception.
August 21, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Norma McCorvey became a member of the pro-life movement in 1995; she now supports making abortion illegal. In 1998, she testified to Congress:
“ It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[5]
It sounds to me like all she changed her mind on are "frivolous" abortions. Which I personally am against, but wouldn't overturn abortion rights completely because of.
August 21, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
skeeve writes:
Bagel, by your comment are you saying that all pro-choice people support murder? The fact that life begins at conception is the center for the whole abortion debate.
August 21, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
skeeve writes:
Norma McCorvey wrote in her book, Won by Love,
"I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. "Norma," I said to myself, "They're right." I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby!"
I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about "products of conception." It wasn't about "missed periods." It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear."[4]
Don't pick and choose random quotes to support your arguments.
August 21, 2008
10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Please think about that statement. "Life begins at conception" can be applied to any animal. What you're really worried about is that a "person" begins at conception. Pro-choice people support the realization that a zygote is no more a person than anything else with a full set of DNA, i.e. a tumor or a piece of your hair.
August 21, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
skeeve, I freely admit that I was not at all familiar with this person before you posted and I looked her up on wikipedia. Clearly in that hour I was not able to read her book. There are obviously quotes from her that are now drastically anti-abortion. Fine. That still is really irrelevant to my own position.
August 21, 2008
11:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
M2 writes:
We are not a communist country. You can't go around forcing your beliefs on people. It's just not going to happen. You can make the choices that work for you and I will do the same for myself. Don't think for one second that I will allow you to do that. Like the saying goes: Keep your rosaries off my ovaries.
August 21, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
My view is abortion should stay legal. But not for birth control reason. These people that want to outlaw it all together I hope their 14 year old daughter don't get pregnant from being raped. I hope she doesn't have to choose saving her live or the babies live when she is older.
August 21, 2008
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Bagel writes:
"Please think about that statement. "Life begins at conception" can be applied to any animal. What you're really worried about is that a "person" begins at conception. Pro-choice people support the realization that a zygote is no more a person than anything else with a full set of DNA, i.e. a tumor or a piece of your hair."
Your argument that "life begins at conception" can be applied to any animal is correct. When animals mate resulting in a fertilized egg, life has begun. The life that has begun depends upon the species that mate.
In the case of dogs, depending upon the breed, the result is the mother carrying anywhere from one to a dozen puppies. No one would argue that this mother is carrying one to twelve fetuses or kittens. People realize that when a female dog mates the logical result will be puppies. We never hear anyone say that my dog is having fetuses.
Conversely, when a human female becomes pregnant, people never say "Isn't it wonderful that she is expecting a fetus or zygote." Logical people realize that when conception occured life began that, unless interrupted prematurely by miscarriage or abortion, will ultimately end in the birth of a human baby, not a tumor, piece of hair, puppy or kitten. That "zygote" was conceived with a full set of DNA to bring about this result.
Your DNA is the entire genetic profile of your body, including whether or not you will have hair, what color, how much. Your DNA is in every cell of your body and determines who your are as a person or if you are a person, dog or cat.
Your using the term zygote shows that you have just enough knowledge of biology to distort things, but not enough to properly defend your statement.
August 21, 2008
12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
navymom, you can assume that I'm not an idiot when it comes to science. Yes, I realize that a zygote will become a person barring any circumstances, and that a tumor will not. That's not my point. If I squash a caterpillar, the person next to me will not say "why did you kill that butterfly?". To me, the endpoint is not relevant. Scientifically speaking, a one-week old fetus has more in common with a tumor than a fully formed infant human.
August 21, 2008
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
ywammike writes:
For those of you calling these people freaks, or comparing them to the taliban, have you forgotten the peaceful demonstrations and illegal "sit-ins" that occurred in restaurants and businesses that would not allow blacks? And can we not differentiate between the militant wing-nuts who bomb clinics and a peaceful protest? Remember the difference between the Black Panther Part's militancy vs. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s peaceful protests? At least this group is working with the police already, signaling a peaceful demonstration.
And whatever your position on the personhood of a fetus, at least understand the motivation of those protesting - that THEY truly believe that it is a person in the womb. If you knew a clinic was offering services to "abort" babies within the first six months after they are born, would it be radical to protest this? My point is simply that pro-lifers do not differentiate between a one-month-old baby and a baby in the first trimester. Knowing this, it is not difficult to understand the pro-life stance, even if you do not agree.
August 21, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
skeeve writes:
Bagel, that's strictly an opinion. The debate over when life begins can not be summed up in a comparison of cells, a one week old fetus may still have the potential of being expelled from the body naturally. If you are pregnant, you are carrying a living human being, not a tumor. I think Dr Seuss still said it best "A person is a person, no matter how small"
August 21, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Again, I'm not trying to debate over when life begins. It's pretty cut and dry. Why is your opinion any more valid than anyone else's?
August 21, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
ywammike writes:
If it is not fertilization that determines personhood, that what determines this? First brain waves (thus distinguishing fetus from tumbor)? First blood cells? Number of realized trimesters? First breath of air into the lungs? I'm not talking legal definition here either, I'm asking objectively.
Perhaps we would better respect the choice of the mother by giving her until the baby's first step to eliminate it. After all, it is more like an animal until it walks upright.
If it is not immoral to eliminate the life of the fetus, than why is it immoral to eliminate the life of any person? It is one of the great ironies in my mind that the folks who are most against any form of killing (killing animals, murderers on death row, etc.) are often the same folks who are "pro-choice".
All of these considerations seem arbitrary... And all positions bend the facts to support the argument they already feel is right. The philosopher would let the findings carry him forward...
August 21, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
skeeve writes:
I'm not the one sanctioning murder
August 21, 2008
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Your use of hyperbole is not going to convince anyone, skeeve.
August 21, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
ywammike writes:
I suppose wisdom is often found in simplicity. Dr. Seuss indeed had this one right.
August 21, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
ywammike, personally I would like to see all abortions have to be approved by a medical ethics review board (consisting of doctors, not religious people). Then it could be as simple as determining that it's a one week old fetus, so it's okay to terminate. All the way up to very complex issues of a nearly viable fetus that is causing great risk to the mother's health.
I am a liberal meat-eater who supports the death penalty only with overwhelming evidence against the possibility of innocence.
August 21, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
LadyBird112 writes:
YW, yes, peaceful demonstrations = good.
Operation Rescue = violent demonstrations.
Operation Rescue = abortion clinic bomobings.
Operation Rescue = murders of abortion doctors
Operation Rescue = harassment of pregnant women seeking abortions.
Watch "Lake of Fire" and tell me these guys are peaceful.
A word of advice if any of you do, which I don't reccomend if you are easily sickened by these right wingers, you may need a strong drink both before and afterward.
August 21, 2008
2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
ywammike writes:
Skeeve has convinced me. How can you say you believe "life" begins at conception, and still support abortion in any form? It really takes some twisting of the meaning of the word "life" to encompass anything that grows. I define "life" (as do most within this debate) as referring to a living person.
If life begins at conception, and the taking of a life that has begun is wrong, then it follows that the taking of a life after conception is wrong.
This is simple logic. I can only assume that Bagel defines "life" differently, perhaps as "growth" or "existence".
August 21, 2008
2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
skeeve writes:
Bagel, I was answering your question. You stated yourself that it is life. Therefore it is murder. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.
August 21, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
ywammike writes:
Bagel, I would much prefer your solution to the current system. I would rather move towards a reasonable compromise than to stay polarized and keep abortion-on-demand.
I would still always personally seek making it completely illegal based on my beliefs, but if it took making laws that allowed it in very limited circumstances I would view this as a move in the right direction.
I, too, am a meat-eater...
August 21, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Bagel, just as I suspected, my statement that you have just enough knowledge of biology to distort things, but not enough to properly defend your statement is true.
You are not defending your position with any evidence, just with more talk. Your statements are also very conflicting. On the one hand you state "I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person who supports abortion rights that does not believe that life begins at conception." If that is the case and is the way you believe then you are sanctioning killing a human life that is not even able to defend itself.
On the other hand you state "Please think about that statement. "Life begins at conception" can be applied to any animal. What you're really worried about is that a "person" begins at conception. Pro-choice people support the realization that a zygote is no more a person than anything else with a full set of DNA, i.e. a tumor or a piece of your hair." This insinuates that you believe that maybe life begins at conception, just not human life. Do you honestly believe that when a female egg and male sperm unite the result will be a tumor or a piece of hair?
Please explain how a one week old human baby in the womb has more in common with a tumor. Then go on to tell us just how many abortions are performed in the first week of a human life when most women do not even know they are pregnant.
August 21, 2008
2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
You people are easily confused, and also need a dictionary. Please define the word life, if you think I am conflicted by it. Navymom, I am fully aware that human life begins at the point of human conception. I see, just as I suspected, that you have just enough knowledge to be incapable of seeing someone else's position.
There is a huge practical difference between "killing" something that is alive, and "killing" something that is fully aware with the capacity to sense pain. Fetuses do not fall into the 2nd category.
What makes humans special is not the fact that we are alive, it's that we have the capacity for rational thought. Fetuses do not have this capacity. They only have the potential for that capacity.
I will concede that I was using hyperbole when I mentioned the first week of human life, but even at the point of most abortions scientific studies have shown that fetuses are not capable of feeling pain into well into the third trimester.
August 21, 2008
3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
skeeve writes:
Bagel, so you know for certain, 100% proof positive, that the "fetus" has no sense of pain. If that's your case, please cite your source. I am unable to find any study that is able to prove that beyond reasonable doubt.
August 21, 2008
3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
GladysKravitz writes:
If they sit in my way I will just step on them!
August 21, 2008
3:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
skeeve, I am not a medical doctor. Unlike you apparently, I do not have an inherent distrust of science, and accept the opinion of experts.
August 21, 2008
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
kot writes:
Most individuals have their mind made up when it comes to this sensitive topic. All I see these protestors doing is trashing our city with their brochures.
August 21, 2008
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
skeeve writes:
Bagel, yes you accept the opinions of experts that agree with your opinion...how convenient.
August 21, 2008
3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
ywammike writes:
I was refering to "life" by its contextual usage when most people say "life begins at conception". In this case, I make the argument that the context defines the word, not the dictionary. When someone asserts "life begins at conception" their meaning for the word "life" is generally accepted as a living human that is a person.
I agree, Bagel, that a fetus has only the potential for rational thought, and that it is indeed rational thought that makes us special over amimal and plant life. I simply make the argument that it is completely wrong to destroy the potentiality. Because a catapillar is not a butterfly does not mean that it is more permissible to kill the catapillar.
August 21, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
skeeve, please find me medical experts that disagree. Please limit your findings to peer-reviewed medical journals.
It truly is amazing to me that on certain issues in science, everyone claims to have an equal say. Global warming, evolution, abortion, all have their "experts" in people who have absolutely no education in the matter. You wouldn't argue with a physicist about the general theory of relativity, because it's outside your scope. But as soon as an evolutionary biologist claims that we are all descended from a common ancestor, people think their opinion is just as valid. Or even moreso. It boggles my mind.
August 21, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
ywammike, your 2nd paragraph is well said. I have nothing to refute in that, other than to say in practicality, I disagree.
As far as your 1st paragraph, I was called a murderer for stating the simple fact that life begins at conception. But in actuality there's a huge difference in what is meant. This is too often overlooked I think.
August 21, 2008
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
skeeve writes:
Bagel, all I asked you to do was site your sources because you rated it categorically. There is no definite answer because we have no accurate way to measure what a "fetus" goes through. Peer-review is subjective to the peers that review it. That does not make the science any less valid, just disagreed upon. Darwin's Theories were not subjected to peer review, but some accept them as valid.
I was disagreeing with you because there is no 100% proof. However, regardless of the "pain" argument, there is still the argument of life. We definitely disagree on what life is, that is sad. I know that I cannot convince you, and we can continue to debate something that experts debate, and they're closer to the answers we are. So I will pray for answers, and for you. I hope that you will do the same.
August 21, 2008
3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
ywammike writes:
Bagel, I tend toward the philosophical arguments, as that was the area of my discipline. I do agree with your assertion that people claim authority far beyond their scope. Look at Hollywood actors, who think that it makes them an authority on everything else. It also boggles my mind.
That said, a scientist has no room to make a philosophical, ethical, or religious claim. The authority to make the ethical judgments and ethical conclusions rests with the pastors and religious leaders (Islam, Bhudist, etc.). We must not distort the science - it is what it is, but we must keep it in check and accountable to an ethical system outside of itself.
August 21, 2008
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
Well, first you called me a murderer, then you accused me of only paying attention to science that I agree with. The vast amount of medical evidence supports that fetuses do not feel pain.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/...
Scientific peer-reviewed articles are not subjective. They present evidence and are analyzed for weaknesses. Darwin's theories have all been subjected to peer review with countless studies and papers written since his time.
There is no 100% proof in anything. Any scientist who tells you there is is a crackpot. I hope we don't disagree on what life is, but we most certainly disagree on what a person is.
August 21, 2008
3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
yyammike, ethics should be the purvey of everyone. You can debate on whether or not morals should rest with religious leaders (I would argue not).
You are correct that a scientist has no room to make a philosphical or religious claim. It is unfortunate that religious leaders often make scientific claims.
August 21, 2008
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
ywammike writes:
Bagel, In my first paragraph I noted the logical progression and consequences when "life" is equated with personhood. I since have understood your argument better. I do not think you are a murderer (nor did I infer it), You simply do not elevate the value of a human fetus to the same level that I do. In your argument, there would seem to be a progression of the level of value to the fetus as it develops in the womb. The closer it gets to rationality, the more special and therefore more of a "person" it becomes. Thus, I understand your position about limiting abortion to the first trimester when there is no provable pain.
You are correct that we disagree, as again, I place a much higher value on a life that is a "potential rational" life, and I have religious reasons to do so. With a scientific outlook alone, I may see things as you do.
August 21, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
skeeve writes:
Bagel,
I'm a murderer twice over. I've paid for, walked both girls in, paid for out my own pocket, and then helped both girls recover from the abortion procedure. I'm not proud of it, I had to ask a lot of forgiveness from God. Please forgive me if I angered you, shame can sometimes make people say things that are harsher than they are meant to be.
There are arguments that peer review is subjective, why, because we are human. Darwins work was studied, but his presentation of the theory of evolution was written outside of the peer review process.
There is a reason it's called a theory and a law. Theory is not proven, Law is just that, the law (eg. Theory of relativity, Law of gravity).
Bagel, I do want you to understand that I'm sorry if I offended, and I want you to know that I think you are someone I would enjoy building a friendship with, even if we disagree on some things.
August 21, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
ywammike writes:
Let me re-phrase - ethics and moral judgments are well within the scope and study of (at least educated) religious leaders. In this sense, their moral claims are not held hostage to science - although they would do well to be guided by it much more than they are. I don't mean to say that everyone should not seek to be moral and make sound ethical judgements.
August 21, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Bagel: "If I squash a caterpillar, the person next to me will not say "why did you kill that butterfly?"
Either way, I'd think you were a jerk for doing so.
And you are wrong that most pro-choicers agree that life begins at conception. They certainly aren't admitting it publicly, including Barack Obama.
August 21, 2008
4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
as long as they don't blow anyone up or shoot people i don't have a problem with these folks expressing their minority viewpoint in such an illegal manner. arrest them and bus them out of the city with the other folks breaking the law this week.
bye.
August 21, 2008
4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
jay, are you serious? Even if you don't support their agenda, don't you agree that civil disobedience, as long as no one is harmed, is a feature of a healthy democracy?
August 21, 2008
4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
yyam at 4:01, sorry, I was responding to skeeve more in that first post about being called a murderer. You have succinctly stated our disagreements.
skeeve, apology accepted. Too often on these threads people call names first before they understand someone else's viewpoint. I know sometimes I am guilty of the same thing.
Also, I really don't want to get into another argument, but a scientific theory is much less weak than you purport it to be. It certainly is much stronger than the casual use of the word is meant to imply. To use your own example, Newton's law of gravity has been superceded by the general theory of relativity, because it is more accurate (though is not often needed for simpler problems).
mytwosense: I was waiting for someone to call me on squashing the caterpillar! If anyone truly denies that life begins at conception, they're an idiot. But obviously as we've seen on this thread there's a lot of confusion with what different people mean by that.
August 21, 2008
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Well, Bagel, I give you credit for being a good sport about it!
August 21, 2008
4:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Bagel writes "There is a huge practical difference between "killing" something that is alive, and "killing" something that is fully aware with the capacity to sense pain. Fetuses do not fall into the 2nd category."
Are you advocating that it is perfectly acceptable to kill something that is incapable of feeling pain? I would venture to say that people who are afflicted with congenital analgia, the inability to feel pain, as well as para and quadriplegics would disagree with you. Do you think that Christopher Reeve advocated killing people like himself because he was not "fully aware with the capacity to sense pain"? Maybe you would like to take out the "capacity to sense pain" criteria and just go with the "fully aware" criteria. How would that sit with people who have family members who are not "fully aware", such as those who are in a coma or maybe so severely mentally handicapped that they are not "fully aware"? If you say that these examples are irrelevant then you are only advocating killing someone that, in your opinion, "is not fully aware with the capacity to sense pain" and also cannot defend his/herself, the unborn child.
Bagel writes "What makes humans special is not the fact that we are alive, it's that we have the capacity for rational thought. Fetuses do not have this capacity. They only have the potential for that capacity."
You have proven by your writings that even people who were fortunate to not have been aborted only have the potential for "rational thought". Otherwise how do you explain people who advocate aborting, as you say, "killing" something that is fully aware with the capacity to sense pain", but cannot see that to bring that comment to its logical conclusion is to say that the "rational" thing to do would be to pass laws that would allow us to rid the world of anything that is "fully aware with the capacity to sense pain". Our laws should not allow us to discriminate in our killing.
Bagel writes "I will concede that I was using hyperbole when I mentioned the first week of human life, but even at the point of most abortions scientific studies have shown that fetuses are not capable of feeling pain into well into the third trimester."
Where are the scientifice studies that you are citing? For the doctors that you cite who believe the ability to feel pain begins in the 3rd trimester, I can cite doctors who believe acute pain is felt at least as early as 20 weeks gestation, which is actually on 18 or 19 weeks of actual life since a woman is not actually pregnant during her first week or two that the doctor counts.
August 21, 2008
4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Your citing the JAMA article only proves that you read selective parts and ignore others. This article was written by a medical student and the director of the abortion unit at San Francisco General Hospital. I direct your attention to this portion: "For fetal surgery, women may receive general anesthesia and/or analgesics intended for placental transfer, and parenteral opioids may be administered to the fetus under direct or sonographic visualization. In these circumstances, administration of anesthesia and analgesia serves purposes unrelated to reduction of fetal pain, including inhibition of fetal movement, prevention of fetal hormonal stress responses, and induction of uterine atony." If no pain is felt during fetal surgery, why is a stress response present?
You and I will never agree, I am sure, on this subject. While I concede that you have the right to disagree, I will continue to stand for the rights of the unborn child.
August 21, 2008
5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
Operation Rescue....lets see here.
Whom do they rescue, exactly, and how do they do it? What is their level of involvement after the rescue? If you can honestly answer these questions, then why would you ever associate with this organization?
August 21, 2008
5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
navymom, I find you to be shrill and irrational. The only person arguing with me who at least seems to have grasped what I was saying is ywammike.
As for the JAMA article, that was not original research. It was a survey of other studies done in the field that all came to the same conclusion. There were also five names on that paper, so do you have something negative to say about all of them?
August 21, 2008
7:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Bagel, I believe the definition of shrill is "to utter or emit an acute piercing sound. I would like to know how you can hear me through the internet, especially when I am not uttering a sound.
I understand your position entirely. You don't believe that a "fetus" has value because it only has the "potential to become a person" and endpoint is not relevant.
I believe that life begins at conception and no person has the right to terminate that innocent life prematurely.
When I was expecting my daughter, I needed to have surgery and my first thoughts were for any potential damage to my daughter. We had to make the decision based upon what was best for my daughter. It wasn't life threatening in my eyes but could have become so. The surgery was performed without delivering the unborn baby and she was fine.
I would never have had the surgery and said abort my baby. I know what abortion does to a woman's mind for many years. I know women who have suffered with guilt 30 years after aborting their baby and every year think about it on the exact day that the procedure was performed. Even after understanding forgiveness, women still suffer guilt because they realize that abortion is more than just a medical procedure.
If you want to think of me as shrill and irrational, so be it. I cannot change your mind and you obviously cannot change mine.
Charles_B, yes I have thought this through to the logical conclusion. Before Roe v Wade, no women were prosecuted for having abortions, but doctors were punished for aborting babies, just as they were punished for performing any medical procedure that was illegal.
Your questions about random inspections, continuing files on reproductive status, and inspecting discharges of miscarriages are just your way of making someone who does not agree with you out to be the Gestapo or KGB.
August 21, 2008
8:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
See #4
shrill Audio Help /ʃrɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[shril] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, verb, noun, adverb
–adjective 1. high-pitched and piercing in sound quality: a shrill cry.
2. producing such a sound.
3. full of or characterized by such a sound: shrill music.
4. betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated amount, as antagonism or defensiveness.
August 21, 2008
8:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
navymom, I really try not to be a jerk in these forums. You repeatedly failed to acknowledge that you understood me, and even worse, you acused me of not even understanding myself. I think it's fine for people to disagree, but suggesting I have a lesser intellect than you is the quickest way for me to stop paying attention to you.
This is why I call you shrill and irrational.
August 21, 2008
9:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
Why do these people have to cost taxpayers money to make their point?
August 21, 2008
9:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Native infant survival is still worse than the Anglo abortion rate. Understand, our aim is to take back our country. Please advance your abortion mentality. Thank you.
August 21, 2008
9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Bagel, I specifically said in my last post that I understood your position entirely. We disagree on the semantics of the word "person". I believe that a baby actually becomes a person when life begins at conception. You write "Please think about that statement. "Life begins at conception" can be applied to any animal. What you're really worried about is that a "person" begins at conception. Pro-choice people support the realization that a zygote is no more a person than anything else with a full set of DNA, i.e. a tumor or a piece of your hair." So you obviously believe that a baby is not a person until, as you said, it is "fully aware with the capacity to feel pain and have the capacity for rational thought."
You also write "personally I would like to see all abortions have to be approved by a medical ethics review board (consisting of doctors, not religious people). Then it could be as simple as determining that it's a one week old fetus, so it's okay to terminate. All the way up to very complex issues of a nearly viable fetus that is causing great risk to the mother's health."
Is there any point in a pregnancy at which you would prohibit an abortion? For instance, after the viability of a fetus would you tell the mother, sorry it is too late? Would you at any point demand that the baby's life be taken into consideration?
BTW, I would not classify my posts as shrill as much as I would classify them as passionate about the subject. The definition of passionate is capable of, affected by, or expressing intense feeling, sometimes I even get angry, another definition of passionate.
If you took my post to mean that you are less intelligent than me, I am sorry. That was not my intention. I surmise by your posts that you are just as passionate as me, just on the opposite side of the debate.
August 21, 2008
9:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Hopi, I see that you have decided to enter the fray. I am trying to keep the native population from overtaking by hopefully convincing people to come to my side of the debate.
I am kidding about the native population, as my husband's family is Cherokee and I am descended from the fierce Texas Comanche, which could explain my passion and temper.
I believe that infant mortality needs to be addressed through better prenatal health care and I know that statistics reveal a higher infant mortality rate among native Americans than any other group in the U.S.
August 21, 2008
10:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
EZBakeOven writes:
Who the eff cares what these morons are planning to do? You are never going to change my mind and I'm never going to change yours. So IMHO that makes protesters a bunch media whores.
August 22, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Bagel, on many matters of politics, I find I disagree with navymom. However, she is not coming across as shrill or irrational at all to me on this thread. In fact, she is steadily focusing on the main points of disagreement between you two without digressing into rants and tangents, which is what one often finds on both sides on debates about abortion. To your credit, neither are you.
I do see her point very well that to largely determine a "person" by their threshold level of pain and mental awareness leaves quite a bit of room for argument. Especially when you consider paralyzed people, mentally challenged people, and so on.
She is also asking good questions, and attempting to answer those posed to her as thoughtfully as possible.
August 22, 2008
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
mytwosense, thanks for the outside opinion. Perhaps I misjudged her, but when people completely misconstrue my words, and say things like "Bagel, just as I suspected, my statement that you have just enough knowledge of biology to distort things, but not enough to properly defend your statement is true." then I will have a lesser opinion of them.
August 22, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Bagel, you've obviously never "discussed" abortion with posters like NotChasB (who appears to have been finally banned). It's like debating the issue with the mother from the movie "Carrie."
Trust me, your exchange with Navymom is remarkably civil in comparison!
August 22, 2008
9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Charles B: "Yes, if you are in favor of interfering with the relationship between a woman and her doctor you are like the gestapo and the KGB.
Another persons health-care is *none of your business* so kindly *butt out*."
I'm guessing, but could be wrong, from these comments you view abortion as no more than a medical procedure. You see no ethical, philosophical, or moral considerations to the issue at all?
August 22, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
I know you didn't ask me, but I see abortion on a sliding scale from no more than a medical procedure, up to a vastly complex ethical issue.
However, I don't think an individual's ethical issue should be decided by a single popular vote.
August 22, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
mytwosense, thank you for your support. While we know stand on the opposite sides of many issues, understatement, I do try to be thoughtful and rational in my debate. I try to do my research, in the short time that I have, to answer questions rationally and without too much discord. I do not resort to name calling as so many do on these threads and have even, like you, come to rescue of people on the opposite side and chastised people on my side of a debate. So thank you.
I apologized if I offended Bagel realizing that he/she is just as passionate as me, but on the opposite side of the debate.
Charles_B, I will make this clear. I am in favor of repealing Roe v Wade. I believe that a baby is a person from the moment of conception. I take into consideration that accidents happen, women live active lives, and sometimes women miscarry because of many different events or because she just could not carry the child. I have miscarried and had an ectopic pregnancy. Those things just happen. Abortion, on the other hand, is the conscious decision to take the life of an unborn child.
If Roe v Wade were overturned, I would be in favor of what the laws were pre-Roe v Wade. Because the physician who performs the abortion is a licensed medical professional who is aware of the laws governing what he is and is not licensed to do, he alone is held responsible for his infraction of the law.
As to the exception for the life of the mother, that can be conflicting. On the one hand you have the mother's life and on the other hand the child's life. I do not know how to determine which is more important. Also, some people would have you count almost anything, from depression to eminent death as being exceptions for the life of the mother. My opinion on that would be that the only exceptions would be eminent death of the mother. In other words, if carrying this child would directly lead to the eminent death of the mother for some reason then two lives would be lost and one should be saved. Example, if a mother is in an car accident and life saving measures would include terminating the pregnancy or losing both lives.
I also believe that we need to make adoption easier in the United States and give support to those mothers who make the decision to give up a baby for adoption.
August 22, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"don't you agree that civil disobedience, as long as no one is harmed, is a feature of a healthy democracy?"
of course i do...as i said, i fully support these extremists in their attempt to bring attention to their minority position that doesn't actually reduce abortions.
i could care less what you consider a "person" to be...if your "solution" doesn't reduce abortions, you're part of the problem.
August 22, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
Charles_B, before you jump on me, I know that you have to overturn a court decision, not repeal it. I thought that I changed that before posting.
Bagel, I don't think that Roe v Wade is going to be overturned because of a popular vote on an individual's ethical issue. I think that if anything changes it will be because of another court decision, congressional action, or a constitutional amendment. I don't believe that it will ever come up for popular vote except in the case maybe of a constitutional amendment.
I will ask you, though, how it could be an "individual's" ethical issue if a majority vote in favor or against. Would not it be the majority's ethical issue?
August 22, 2008
12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bagel writes:
I see this in a similar vein to the Terry Schiavo debacle, which that clown Randall Terry was also involved in. The state of Florida, and much less the national government, had absolutely no business getting involved in the matter, no matter what the majority ruling says. That was a very personal, individual choice, which should have stayed just that.