Inconvenient truths about fetuses

Paul Predecki, Denver

Published September 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

September 22, 2008

6:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Excellent. Very solid, rational thinking.
September 22, 2008

6:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LT,

Still awaiting responses from forums this weekend. ???? You seem to have a tendency to engage and then leave the conversation.
September 22, 2008

7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

How can we, in good conscience, condone the termination of that life?

Without due process of the law - we can't. We know from elemenatry embryology that humans beget humans and so that life in the womb is a human being. It can't be anything else. We take it as axiomatic that the primary responsibility of the law is to protect the innocent and we also agree that a just society works to protect the vulnerable. The human being in the womb is the most innocent and the most vulnerable member of our society.

If Roe were over-turned then the law in Colorado prior to the ruling would allow for abortion is the case of health, rape and incest. Abortion would not be allowed on demand - that is to say for birth control.

Of course that law is more than 40 years old and it could be revised in any way the community sees fit. That seems to me a good starting-over point.
September 22, 2008

8:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Paul - you ask two different questions but pose them as if they were related:

"How can we, in good conscience, condone the termination of that life? And how can we, again in good conscience, not accept and help any woman who wants to bring her baby to term, and help support that baby after birth?"

This is a base attempt to confuse.

Your first question: "How can we, in good conscience, condone the termination of that life?" uses the threadbare tactic of excalating our level of complicity - we don't "condone" anything, we "grudgingly accept" it, as distasteful and objectionable as it may be. That's a far cry from condoning as you would accuse us of.

Your second question: "And how can we, again in good conscience, not accept and help any woman who wants to bring her baby to term, and help support that baby after birth?" is a red herring. Who is doing or advocating doing that? Maybe a few hard core wacko social Darwinists, but no one else. If you have to resort to rhetorical trickery to try to make your point, time to reassess you views.
September 22, 2008

9:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Wechasa - you get replies? I find that factual points, refereences, and inconvenient questions are most often simply ignored.
September 22, 2008

9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

For some, the only right we have to terminate the lives of innocent people is when we do so to protect our own precious way of life. It is only then that our lives become more valuable than the lives of innocent people. And, of course, our own lives don't have to be in any imminent danger. Just the possibility that our lives might become endangered some time in the future is sufficient.

But of course the pro-birth people are only about the lives of the unborn. It just gets too complicated to broaden the question to its logical conclusion, to become pro-life rather than just pro-birth.
September 22, 2008

11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Yankee @ 7:49, it's not clear that Colorado's 1968 law would return to constitutional status if Roe v Wade were overturned. I understand sound legal arguments can be made either way.
Except for more recently passed laws concerning parental consent and the like, there might be no general law on abortion in effect. The legislature might then have to create one. After which, there'd be dozens more initiatives.
During the consideration of the 1968 law by the legislature, editorial cartoonist Pat Oliphant drew a cartoon showing the chambers of the Colorado House of Representatives with male representatives displaying halos on their heads and smug looks on their faces. The caption read, "If I got pregnant, I wouldn't have an abortion" (emphasis on the second "I").
That's still one of the best arguments about the debate I've ever seen or read.
September 22, 2008

1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

There is a general law on abortin that was in effect and was renedered unconstitutional by Roe. If Roe is overturned then Casey comes down as well. I have not heard any legal argument that the Colorado law would rremain unconstitutional absent Roe.
If the argument exists then you are free to make it. Vague references to the contrary do not bring clarity.

I agree that the issue would be addressed legislatively if Roe were overturned. I welcome the opportunity because I do not think Coloradans will authorize abortion simply on demand.

Who knows, you may find the debate even more instructional than reading cartoons.
September 22, 2008

2:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Yankee, why do you care so much about the unknown, unborn children of women you will never even meet?

I intensely dislike the idea of pregnant women going before a panel of, probably men, to plead for an abortion. How Islamic. How Muslim.

As for answers, the lack of them tells me when I hit a bulls eye. However no one, and I mean no one has even said "hi" or "Go to Hell you bloodthirsty abortion supporter" for weeks now. I must be losing my touch.
September 22, 2008

3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

me2 - "I intensely dislike the idea of pregnant women going before a panel of, probably men, to plead for an abortion. How Islamic. How Muslim."

Get ready to be called a bigot. Believe me, I know.
September 22, 2008

4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

jonas writes:

There is irony in today's threads. On the one hand, abortion is ok because it protects the woman's right to decide what happens with her own body. But, Gov. Palin can't decide to run for VP because there is a chance she may be President and she has to care for her baby.
September 22, 2008

4:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

I didn't see any of the pro-abortionists really address the issue:
justify why it is o.k. to terminate a viable living human's life.

Why do they skillfully attempt to dodge that question???

Everything else is irrelevant.
September 22, 2008

5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

popo writes:

Here's an inconvienient truth for ya Paul.
until you have one,
please keep your nose out of other peoples vaginas.
It may not be something you want to hear, but it's none of your business.

Deal with it.
September 22, 2008

5:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

"In 2006, Planned Parenthood performed nearly 300,000 abortions in the U.S. and took in $1 billion in revenue."

Who is going to stand up and protect those innocent babies who are being murdered????
September 22, 2008

6:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

LetsThink,

How can you expect others to answer you on any subject when you, yourself engage and then walk away from the discussion? This weekend, you asked me direct questions on the bias forum, which I answered but you never came back to acknowledge ( and it was a long posting). You also made condescending comments about those who believe in evolution. Several of us engaged you reasonably in that forum. You never responded. I have observed you before. You pop up with a hit and run comment and then run away from the discussion.

Why do you think people give you such a hard time and sometimes ignore you? You make hard negative postings and then run away. I am wondering why I wasted so much time trying to engage you. I doubt that I will again. Others apparently knew what I didn't when I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I doubt no more.

See my 6:27 post on this thread. You didn't even condescend to respond to that. I'm offended by your manners and I expect others have been as well.
September 22, 2008

6:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

LetsThink writes:
"I didn't see any of the pro-abortionists really address the issue:
justify why it is o.k. to terminate a viable living human's life.
Why do they skillfully attempt to dodge that question???"

What LT is trying to say is that he believes all wars are wrong because they all result in terminating a viable living human's life.

I disagree, LT. But I respect your opinion just as I respect the opinion of my Quaker friends.
September 22, 2008

6:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

LT: "Who is going to stand up and protect those innocent babies who are being murdered????"

What LT is trying to ask is who will stand up for all those innocent people, including babies, born and unborn, killed in war?

I respect him for having a Quaker-like philosophy, although I myself ashamedly admit that I think there are times when it is permissible to kill innocent people to protect me.
September 22, 2008

7:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

IronmanCarmichael writes:

LetsThink doesn't "respond," greenleaf. He tends instead to make some paranoid remark about "the lefties coming out in full force and attacking." (True, he hasn't yet done it here, but the thread is still young.)

His own question about how can anyone "justify terminating a viable human life" ("Everything else is irrelevant," he says) is actually itself irrelevant, particularly coming from a member of the gender that doesn't get pregnant. The standard tactic of the self-described "pro-life" is to characterize those of us who believe a woman's reproductive destiny is left in her own hands as loving abortions, wishing more of them happened, abortion's the most fun a woman can have this side of Disneyland, and that abortion is of no more consequence to a woman who has one than a nail wrap. In truth, some of us personally may be just as sickened by the idea as LetsThink himself claims to be. We're just less inclined to judge, or feel the need to "justify" (or condemn); for those of us whom biology has spared firsthand experience or insight of the situation, the only fair, honest stance on abortion is absolute neutrality. Anyway, there are more already-here people to worry about than any one person can get around to in a single lifetime.

Actually, the most often overlooked questions the subject matter has produced are along the lines of: Why do you care? In the face of the injustices suffered worldwide by those humans of all ages who made it out of the womb, what's it to you whether people you'll never know are born or not? Who made you Official Spokesperson On Behalf of the Unborn?
September 22, 2008

8:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

It is instructive that all you spend so much time worring about LetsThink. He's getting into your head because he is telling you the truth.
September 22, 2008

9:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

We still haven't heard from the liberals why we should permit the killing of unborn babies.

Why do they continually dodge the issue?

Because they know they don't have an answer to justify what they want to do.

Thinking people (and moral people) know that a civilized society does not kill babies.

Still waiting for them to justify abortion. (instead of just attacking, to try to stop from hearing the question).
September 22, 2008

9:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

What a chorus of idiots!
September 22, 2008

9:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

greenleaf,

I'm sure Her Highness wasn't including you in the choir.
September 22, 2008

9:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Yankee asks "How can we, in good conscience, condone the termination of that life?"

If I understand him correctly, he does not oppose abortion in the case of health risk to the mother and perhaps in the case of rape. So, perhaps he can explain how, in those instances, we can "condone the termination of that life".

Yankee says:
"The human being in the womb is the most innocent and the most vulnerable member of our society."

Perhaps he will explain to LT, why it is OK, using LT's terminology, to murder the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society in certain situations.

He might also be able to explain how he came to the conclusion that he is the one chosen by God to determine when it is OK to, using LT's terminology, murder the innocent unborn.
September 23, 2008

6:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Yankee asks "How can we, in good conscience, condone the termination of that life?" grandpaw

If you had read the posts you would realize that it was Paul (hint- the letter at the top of the thread) who asked that question, not me.

Perhaps he (yankee) will explain to LT, why it is OK, using LT's terminology, to murder the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society in certain situations. @grandpaw

If you had read my post you would see that I did exactly that.

GetReal is right isn't he? You are the poster formely known as "truth." There can't be two of you that oblivious walking around.
September 23, 2008

6:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Yankee,

In my case, LT has gotten "into my head" because of his apparent lack of manners and his unwillingness to participate in important discussions which he sometimes initiates. You and I have had at least one productive discussion on the issue of abortion and I give you credit for standing up for and supporting your views on the subject. We need to have conversations regarding this and other important subjects in search of some middle ground ( if it exists). Hit and run inflammatory comments and brief, condescending lectures simply aren't helpful to that process.
September 23, 2008

9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wechasa,

I'm all for the quality of the debate. I understand that not everyone can be a wordsmith or excellent debater such as you are. Some people can't spell or write their way to the end of a coherent sentence, but I can still respect them so long as they make an effort to engage civilly and be part of the discussion.

Nothing frustrates me more than those who run from rebuttal and offer up closed minded tripe and then simply leave the scene.

I have apparently given LetsThink more credit than he is worth. NCB is a hopeless, lost cause, but I even tried with him some time ago.

I believe that Yankee is different and makes a stand for what he believes, whether you and I agree with him or not.

My stand on abortion is nuanced beyond the comfort level of most pro-lifers and some in the pro-choice crowd as well. I don't like abortion being used as birth control. I believe that abortion should be available, legal and rare. Except in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother or non-viability of the fetus, abortion is hard for me to defend ethically. It is my belief that the Pro-life faction should embrace family planning, non-abortion based birth control and sex education. I also believe that they should step forward in an organized fashion with money and support and parents willing to adopt unplanned and otherwise unwanted children. Maybe all of us on both sides of this issue should do that. What do you think my friend?
September 23, 2008

9:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Poor Yankee, his memory is getting even worse. He has completely forgotten that he asked the question in the following quote from one of his posts:

"Yankee writes:
How can we, in good conscience, condone the termination of that life?"

No quotation marks to indicate he quoting someone else, no attribution to someone else.

Yes, indeed, Yankee asked the question. Since he condones the termination of the life of the innocent unborn in certain situations, he now is embarrassed that he did and so he denies the obvious truth.
September 23, 2008

1 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

I'll play moderator

I don't like abortion being used as birth control. I believe that abortion should be available, legal and rare. Except in cases of rape, incest and health of the mother or non-viability of the fetus, abortion is hard for me to defend ethically. greenleaf

My principal point of difference would be, that I cannot, and do not, believe that "birth control" is a sufficiently established, documented, and evidenced "cause" for abortions to begin with, whatever be its emotional impact on discussion and argument concerning the matter. grouch

Now here, greenleaf, is a point of separation. What say you?
September 23, 2008

2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Yankee,

Fascinating! This is a role I often have assumed but not had applied to myself.

You might be disappointed though Yankee as the difference between Wechasa's statement and my own is thin and anecdotal in both cases. I believe that availability of birth control would make a difference, he doesn't. Perhaps he would accept my position on the subject better if I said "and acceptable" in addition to merely being available. I think that it would make a world of difference to a child if the parent were to say that while they disapprove of sex before marriage, that they understand the temptations and want them to have the protection of birth control until they are ready for parenthood. I think in many families sex is still treated as a taboo subject as are the means by which pregnancy may be avoided. Parental involvement might be a key component to the child's proper use of birth control.

So Yankee, how do you feel about birth control and family planning access for young unmarried people?

What say you Yankee, or Wechassa or anyone else for that matter? Last chance LetsThink!
September 23, 2008

3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

greenleaf,

I think you missed my point. The question is not about birth control but, I will get back to that.

Grouch's position is that the one million (or so) abortions that occur in the US annually are not conducted as a method of birth control. I won't speak for him beyond that.

Do you agree? How do you think the per centages of abortion for rape, incest, health or birth control would break down - roughly.

As to the question - I am in favor of education generally and sex education specifically. I am also in favor of birth control. But let me be clear.

I can teach anyone interested how babies are made in about 5 minutes. It is much more difficult to teach a younster how to drive a car.

Consequently, I see no reason for sex education classes. It seems to me that is easily managed in ordinary biology classes. Other than that, I would defund sex education classes in schools and put the money into driver's ed.

In re birth control: Over the past half-century or so we have seen a proliferation of birth control methods, including "the pill", and availability. Grocery store's have devoted entire aisles to what used to be under the counter at the drug store.

Along with that increased availability we have seen a commensurate rise in both abortion and birth out of wedlock. There is a message there.

The best way to control birth is through teaching the morality (which for the most part means teaching young men to respect young women) of waiting for marriage. When we treat young people like animals who cannot rise above their lust, they will act lke animals who cannot rise above their lust. We have a lot of empirical data on that.

That's what I say.
September 23, 2008

5:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

"When we treat young people like animals who cannot rise above their lust, they will act lke animals who cannot rise above their lust. We have a lot of empirical data on that."

You mean like federally funded abstinence only sex education that specifically prohibits mentioning contraceptives? That includes moral instruction like "The expected standard of human sexual activity is abstinence until marriage"?

We do have a lot of empirical data on that. It doesn't work.
September 23, 2008

6:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Yankee: "The best way to control birth is through teaching the morality (which for the most part means teaching young men to respect young women) of waiting for marriage. When we treat young people like animals who cannot rise above their lust, they will act lke animals who cannot rise above their lust. We have a lot of empirical data on that."

The Catholic Church has been doing what Yankee suggests for many, many years, or at least trying to. Guess what? It doesn't prevent teenage sex. So what is the next best thing? Let's see, there's birth control, there's adoption and there's abortion. Birth control seems like a pretty good idea.

I presume that by "treat young people like animals" Yankee means educating them about birth control methods. In other words, while he deceptively claims he is OK with birth control, it is obvious that the truth is otherwise. I wonder when he thinks it is OK for people to become informed about birth control? He doesn't think that is a good idea when they are young and the juices are running wild. Perhaps middle age, Yankee?

Yankee claims to have a lot of empirical data on the result of treating young people like animals. Sure he does. And I am the king of Siam. I think maybe his data is that book on jungle boy.

Poor Yankee thinks that all sex ed is about is teaching what goes where. I presume he thinks that the classes are held behind the barn.
September 23, 2008

6:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

grandpaw,

Too late. I know who you are. GetReal told me.
September 23, 2008

8:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Yankee,

Sorry to leave you hanging, I have a 93 year old mother in the hospital so I have more distractions than usual.

As a scientist, I am reluctant to give anecdotal answers to questions better answered with real data. I am certain though, that a significant percentage are in fact for the purpose of birth control, or as I would rather say it: a failure of birth control.

Some of what you have said regarding birth control is true: More methods are available and out on the shelves rather than behind the counter. As far as changing the sexual " morality " of boys. I think you need to totally reinvent our culture then and take it back a hundred years. Boys ( and girls) are barraged with sexual messages on TV and in the movies, on billboards and product wrappers. Its sexy to be sexy and they know it! Good luck with that.

Remember Yankee, I am a Biologist and I understand Biological imperatives. We, as a species, are hard wired to want sex when we are young. It is for the purpose of reproduction when we stand the greatest chance of successfully raising children to adulthood. Then they can repeat the cycle. Raging hormones battle successfully with common sense when we are young. It makes far better sense to have children when you are 17 than when you are 35, unless you live in a modern culture such as ours with advanced education and career needs and expectations

Maybe you think you can teach a child the "birds and bees" in 5 minutes, but that doesn't mean you have found the receptive moment that my wife, the professional educator always refers to. It also doesn't mean everybody is as good as you at communicating that message or even cares to do it. I think most parents are well intended but not all have the educational tools, time and energy to properly attend to the child's sexual challenges when that receptive moment is there. Good for you if you can always be there for your children. Obviously for many families the parents can't be. That is when sex education ( ,,,and driver's ed) is needed. The kids can't get the abstinence message too often or the birth control is available message too often or the you could be ruining your future message to often. I believe that abortion should almost never need to be used for Birth control. Better tools are available and children should be actively encouraged to use them and have them available when their abstinence training fails them.
September 23, 2008

9:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

greenleaf,

Thank you for responding. I look forward to continuing our discourse in a future thread.

I will say a prayer for your mother.
September 23, 2008

10:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Thank you Yankee. Good night!
September 24, 2008

12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wechasa,

No need to apologize my friend. Two people who post as often and who use as many words as the two of us have to expect the occasional ambiguity and confused message. You always write well and I enjoy your posts, so don't worry about it.

I should also clear up any misconceptions I might have left you, Yankee or anyone else with on this particular thread. I take what is essentially a pro-choice position. In my youth I knew several young women who had unplanned pregnancies with uncommitted fathers (well, actually, sperm donors would be a more accurate reference). In all cases it caused hardship, strained family relationships and resulted in a great deal of difficulty and embarrassment ( this was in the early 60's). It isn't for me as a late middle aged male to judge a young woman's decisions in this regard. I have children, but they were planned, within a stable marriage and well cared for. I can only try to imagine the pain, fear and uncertainty a young woman goes through under these circumstances. She is caught between our society's mores and a biological imperative.

If, in fact, this is a defining issue in our society today, we should sit down and hammer out solutions rather than demonizing one another. As I see it, neither side holds the high ground here and a lot of young people are caught between the two factions.

I believe that we should actively try to prevent unwanted pregnancy through education, ready access to birth control, and parental involvement . Should birth control fail, we should provide counselling, prenatal support and financial support while the parent(s) to be come to terms and make decisions. We should maximise their options for adoption and community support should they decide to carry the child to birth. Should the young parent still desire an abortion, perhaps it can be made conditional upon a course of counselling and classes designed to help her avoid pregnancy again until she is ready and in a stable relationship. I hate abortions being used as birth control but I don't want us to return to the dark ages of back alley abortions performed by hacks. I would dislike that even more.

So, Wechasa, 45 years as a Clinical Psychiatrist. I bet you have some stories !

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Inconvenient truths about fetuses

Paul Predecki, Denver

Published September 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs