Fate of her unborn up to each woman

Tom Hall, Louisville

Published September 29, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

September 29, 2008

6:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Abortionists keep (intentionally?) missing the critical question:

is it morally wrong or right to kill an unborn baby, who has done nothing wrong??

I have never heard an adequate justification of why it is right to kill a baby. Nor how they decided that it is ok to kill the baby as long as it hasn't taken a breath yet. That's amazingly idadequate, false, and very scary thinking.

Let's think about this a lot more. Bcause our decision could very well determine where we spend eternity.
September 29, 2008

6:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

...our society has already done great damage to our individual rights by extending pseudo- rights to animals and "the environment".

Really? How so?

So the argument is that our willingness to protect animals and the enviromment somehow limits our ability to protect human beings. This is secular thinking on the rooftops shouting.

The next question is - How long will we callous types contintue to tell the mother whether the life and future of a born child is of more importance than the convenience or privacy of the woman who's carrying since it is strictly her private business?
September 29, 2008

6:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

It's ironic how men debate whether a woman should have a say in her future and her body. Before men have any say in what a woman can or cannot do with her body perhaps we should let the women debate whether a man who fathers a baby and does not help care for that child should be allowed to retain his reproductive organs?
September 29, 2008

7:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Thanks Yankee and Mike.

It is so rare to hear a Christian viewpoint. Because we incur harsh attacks for expressing anything about God.

But we must stand up for morality. For the sake of America.
September 29, 2008

7:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Acemon writes:

LetsThink,

You have read plenty of Christian viewpoints here but you only agree with the ones which support your particular viewpoint. Either you follow all of the Bible, or none of it. You can't pick and choose.

We must stand up against fanaticism for the future of America.
September 29, 2008

7:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cornell writes:

LetsThink,
Is it morally right to bring a child into the world that isn't wanted and won't be properly cared for? Who do you suggest will take care of all these children? Our countries foster system is already overflowing with children. And there are many children living on the streets. What about these children?
September 29, 2008

8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Let's Think and Yankee try mightily to avoid the broad question, which is, under what circumstances may one human being kill another innocent human being? They think that killing a born person is not so important as killing an unborn one (to use their nomenclature. They are pro-birth, not pro-life.

They think it is OK to do this in wartime in order to protect their own way of life. Since that is a considerable embarrassment to them, they act like it doesn't exist.

Yankee, Let'sThink and I agree that there are circumstances in which killing an innocent person is justified. We all agree on wartime killing of the innocent in certain circumstances.

Yankee and I agree that there are circumstances in which killing or aborting an unborn baby or fetus, depending on whose talking, is justified. (I presume that Let'sThink does not consider abortion to be justified to protect the life of the mother.)

We disagree on how many such circumstances there are.

The three of us agree that the life of another person is not so precious that we may never extinguish it. The three of us agree that an innocent person's right to life is not absolute.
September 29, 2008

8:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Amendment 48 says that an unborn baby is a person. Under Colorado law, it is murder to kill a person. Therefore, under Amendment 48, abortion is murder and the mother and the doctor and others who participate in the abortion are murderers. And perhaps the woman who uses a contraceptive that takes effect after fertilization is a murderer.

Is that what you want?
September 29, 2008

8:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

It's absolutely what they want grandpaw.

Understand, for people like yankee and LetsThink abortion is simply a tool they use to their greater goal. Which is to bring women and their rights back in line with 19th century.

The majority of Americans, men and women, respect the right's of women in this area. As will be seen by the sound thrashing the amendment should take this November. If it doesn't, if it wins or even if it comes close to winning then women will on their way to being reduced to the same standards that they are forced to live under in Muslim controlled countries.

This would be okay with Christian fanatics who wrongly see themselves as more compassionate than Muslim fanatics by virtue of the fact they are "Christians". For these types, using Christianity, like they use abortion, is simply a tool they use in obtaining their underlying goals. Which is conquering and controlling this country through political means.
September 29, 2008

8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

glowrock writes:

I'll sleep much better than this inane Amendment gets voted down, and voted down in a huge way! The notion that it is even possible for someone who miscarries, has an abortion, or even uses birth control to be charged with murder makes my blood boil!

Keep your freaking religious opinions about "morality" (or your lack thereof) out of government!
September 29, 2008

9:04 a.m.

Danchan writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
September 29, 2008

9:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

dianahsieh writes:

Right on, Tom! The claim that embryos and fetuses have rights is a faith-based fiction -- as bogus as animal rights.

The Coalition for Secular Government ( http://www.SecularGovernment.us/ ) has published a detailed analysis of the awful legal implications and faulty philosophic foundation of Amendment 48:

"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person," by Ari Armstrong and myself.

It's available for download at: http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/...

Diana Hsieh
Founder, Coalition for Secular Government
http://www.seculargovernment.us
September 29, 2008

9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

HKrening writes:

Thank you for a principled contribution to the debate, Tom Hall! It all comes down to separation of church and state. Those opposed to abortion have every right to make choices pertaining to their own situation. They just don't have a right to impose their religious beliefs on me.
September 29, 2008

9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

LT - I can't speak for abortionists (since I have never met one) but in answer to your question:
"is it morally wrong or right to kill an unborn baby, who has done nothing wrong??"

It is morally wrong. And God will take care of those who commit immoral acts. Unless you are an atheist, that should close the matter. ANd no, the governor, DA's, the legislature and the judiciary are NOT gods (at least not in my book).
September 29, 2008

9:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

And God will take care of those who commit immoral acts. Sheik

So your reasoning is that God will not hold you responsible for the immoral acts of others? That can't be true. In Christisn theology the strong are instructed to care for the weak.

You can try that "Hey, it had noting to do with me. I just stood by in silence as millions of innocent human beings were killed." on St. Peter but personally - I don't like your alibi.
September 29, 2008

10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Yankee: "In Christisn theology the strong are instructed to care for the weak."

That would be great public policy if we lived in a Christian theocracy. But since we don't, the tried and true Christian weapon of prayer is still in play. Of course, for those who do not believe in prayer, that's not much of an answer, but too bad for them.
September 29, 2008

10:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Yankee: "In Christisn theology the strong are instructed to care for the weak." That would be great public policy if we lived in a Christian theocracy. Sheik

I think the obligation to help the weak is great public policy in democratic republics that should be practiced by believers and atheists alike. What would you replace it with - survival of the fittest?

"But since we don't, the tried and true Christian weapon of prayer is still in play."

Obvioulsy prayer is an important part of religion, I wouldn't compare it to a weapon but I understand why you would. However, Christians believe they are responsible for their acts as well. In fact, I think most people do.

What religion that allows you to shrug off the killing of millions of innocent human beings or, do you think that ability should be limited to atheists?
September 29, 2008

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Yankee: "What religion that allows you to shrug off the killing of millions of innocent human beings "

none per se that I know of, but if those innocents go straight to heaven, then the risk of being born would actually be an EVIL, since that would entail the risk that a sure bet ride to heaven would be exchanged for the possibility of going to hell.

The best explanation I have heard is to look at this as a jurisdiction thing - those born are in our civil, societal jurisdaiction. The unborn are in God's jurisdiction. Just as Kansas doesn't interfere in Idaho's internal criminal code, neither should we inject ourselves into God's. God is big and ugly enough to handle transgressors without any help from you and me. Pray, pray, pray....
September 29, 2008

10:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

grandpaw has it right.

And for those of you who keep asking the pro-choice folks about how they think it's OK to murder a baby - that's the whole point of amendment 48, is to force YOUR definition on me.

Sorry, I don't think a zygote is a baby. I don't think an embryo is a baby (if it is, folks, better stop eating eggs for breakfast, you're murdering a chicken baby)

I don't want your religion in my laws, in my doctor's office and I don't agree with you. No, I don't want to kill a baby, but I don't need a fertilized egg having more RIGHTS than I do, and being able to pre-empt my own decision making process. And who determines the rights of that fertilized egg, now? Who speaks for it? If I have an ectopic pregnancy that could kill me, do I have to go to court so that Social Services can speak on behalf of my poorly implanted egg? And how long will that take? Will I die in the meantime, because my fallopian tube burst before the court can make their decision? Oh, by the way, the baby dies then too.

Why can't the ultra-religious keep their religions to themselves, respect that other people don't share the same viewpoints that they do, and your holier-than-thou garbage can stay out of my life? Teach your own values and moral system to your family and congregations, and stay out of my life, and my doctor's office.

If you can pass this law and control my life to that degree, what else are you going to try to pass? What other controls are you going to put on me?
September 29, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Yankee: "I think the obligation to help the weak is great public policy in democratic republics that should be practiced by believers and atheists alike. What would you replace it with - survival of the fittest?"

Of course the strong should help the weak, that is the essence of the Democratic party. And a woman who has been raped is among the weak. And a woman in Sudan who has submitted to her husband and finds herself with child as she watches her family starve to death is among the weak.

And, of course, the innocent women and children killed in war are among the weak.

But people like Yankee are not pro-life, they are pro-birth. They do not concern themselves will those who have been born. And they assume that a zygote = a human being, but apparently a born person may not.
September 29, 2008

10:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

Romulus writes:

At the moment of conception the fertilized egg is a single cell. It has no brain, heart, eyes, ears, memory, thoughts, emotions, dreams, appetites, desires, or anything else that we can even remotely associate with humanity. Its "personhood" is only potential, not actual. If you think this microscopic cell is the full moral equivalent of an actual living and breathing human being you are entitled to that minority religious opinion. But what gives you the right to force that opinion upon others?
September 29, 2008

10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

leftside writes:

The problem with conservative Christians is they like to be the ones who determine who is "weak". Generally, in their view, the "weak" are people who don't believe or interpret the bible the same as they do.

This is why God commanded against being judgmental of others. He knew there would be people who would take the scriptures out of context and use them for personal gain. Whatever that personal gain may be. Be it hatred of others because of sexual orientation, be it justification of prejudice toward others because of race or be it condemning others for their religious beliefs.

Sheik is biblically correct. He believes abortion is immoral, however, he does not force that opinion on others. God is the only one who can pass judgment on others boy's and girl's. If you believe God is all knowing then you have to believe that in the end he is the only one qualified to cast judgment on others. Those that believe that humans need to help him in this endeavor are the one's that work against him.
September 29, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

"none per se that I know of, but if those innocents go straight to heaven, then the risk of being born would actually be an EVIL, "

So in killing the innocent in the womb you are actaully doing them a favor. I see. Let me ask you this: A six-month-old in the crib is as innocent as a fetus. Why not sanction killing the baby for the same reason?
September 29, 2008

10:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Its "personhood" is only potential, not actual. If you think this microscopic cell is the full moral equivalent of an actual living and breathing human being you are entitled to that minority religious opinion. But what gives you the right to force that opinion upon others? Romulus

This is the classic tautology offered by the abortion for birth control excusers.

You cannot kill a person because a person has rights. But, if we define the living human being in the womb as a "non-person", we can kill it. If this argument sounds familiar it is because it is precisely the argument used to justify enslaving African Americans.

But Romulus, what if our human rights are not subject to your definitions, i.e. What if your right to life is enowed by our Creator and your role is to protect that right? That does rather change things doesn't it?

Every time we write a law, we enforce our will on others. That is in the nature of laws. The question is, are we going to pass a law that recognizes the human rights of the human being in the womb? That right was lost in a court decision. We should address the question now in the voting booth.
September 29, 2008

11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Yankee:
"So in killing the innocent in the womb you are actaully doing them a favor."

Yup, per a strict application of innocence/evil, heaven/hell logic, this conclusion is inevitable, even if troubling. Don't blame the messenger (me in this case)

"Let me ask you this: A six-month-old in the crib is as innocent as a fetus. Why not sanction killing the baby for the same reason?"

I already answered this - the fetus is in God's jurisdiction (as are we all at all phases of our existence). The six-month-old baby is in both God's and man's jurisdiction, and we do not sanction those kind of killings in our jurisdiction. Just remember - it's not against Colorado law to kill someone in Kansas, nor should it be. That doesn't mean it's ok to kill in Kansas, just that it's none of Colorado's business. Ditto abortion - killing in the womb is in God's jurisdiction ONLY and just like Kansans, He can handle His own business.
September 29, 2008

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

DOES YANKEE BELIEVE THAT AN UNBORN BABY HAS A SOUL WHICH GOES TO HEAVEN IF IT IS ABORTED? OR DOES HE BELIEVE THAT SOUL GOES TO HELL?

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING HE IS WILLING TO DISCLOSE, BECAUSE IT CREATES A DILEMMA FOR HIM.

But it is almost certain that he believes the soul will go to heaven since the alternative is so ghastly. That does not necessarily make his opposition to MOST abortions wrong, it just makes it more difficult to argue how bad abortion is for the aborted. No one should kill another human being so that its soul will hopefully go to heaven, but it is certainly a relief to think that the soul will go to heaven. Don't you think so, Yankee?
September 29, 2008

11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Sheik,

You also use the tautological reasoning which simply breaks down to - We can kill the living human being in the womb, who we know from science is unique in all the universe, if it's not a person. And how do we know this particular human being is a "non-person"? Easy, we defined it that way.

My question then is, based on your reasoning of helping the innocent in the womb along to heaven by killing them, why stop that good act at birth? Why not extend the non-person status to six months so babies can benefit from your charity as well?

Your notion that the province of Man is to the Creator as the province of Colorado is to Kansas is, well, somewhat flawed.
September 29, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

Yankee - "My question then is, based on your reasoning of helping the innocent in the womb along to heaven by killing them, why stop that good act at birth? Why not extend the non-person status to six months so babies can benefit from your charity as well?"

I do not subscribe to the conclusion that killing the unborn is ok - I only point out that that's where that logic leads one. In any case, a six month old is clearly in OUR (mankind's) jurisdiction and we are outside the bounds of that theological logic.

"Your notion that the province of Man is to the Creator as the province of Colorado is to Kansas is, well, somewhat flawed."

No it's not. Actually, it's somewhat ingenious.
September 29, 2008

12:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Sheik

Invoking theologoical logic is more ingenious and has the advantage of being rational.

Science tell us that the human being in the womb is a unique, idependent human being at every moment in time from fertilization. You, however, want to end this life and so you invent a special class of human being - the "person." Then you decide that the human being in the womb does not fit into your definition of "person" and, hey presto!, you can kill it. Then you attempt to rationalize the killing as a virtuous act - you are sending her directly to heaven before she sins (as of course we all do).

This is not the first time I have come across this rationalization on this page and it remains the most vulgar and vile position. Given your level of cognition, I am sure you have no idea of the morally grotesque nature of your post. Someday you may gain that understanding but I have nothing more to offer that might help.
September 29, 2008

12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

hakj,

Yankee rarely goes there. It is sufficient for us to know, as we do from modern science, that the life in the womb is separate, independent human being who is unique in all creation. When you silence that voice, even though you can't hear the cry when you kill it, it is lost forever.

We do not need to know any more than that.
September 29, 2008

12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

For those who have not yet memorized the bible the way I have:

Luke 1:15: "because he will be great before the Lord. He will never drink wine or any strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born."
September 29, 2008

12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cornell writes:

Hakj,
In a perfect world abortion would not be necessary because birth control would work 100% of the time, rape and incest would not happen, and women would be able to carry a baby to term without any medical problems. But we have to face the fact that we do not live in a perfect world. Birth control doesn't always work, even when used correctly. And many people don't know how to use birth control because they didn't receive sex ed class in school or at home. Abstinence only education is obviously not working, as evidenced by the many pregnant teens having gone through that type of education.
Abortion should be left up to the people affected. No one else needs to be involved.
September 29, 2008

12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

hakj: "In that if a man in Kansas kills another in Kansas then flees to Colorado then it becomes a federal matter making Colorado indirectly responsible as well"

You misunderstand - It's not about extradition. The idea is that maybe Kansas has no law about murder, or punishes it with a $1 fine. It's not Colorado's business to meddle in that. Neither is it our business to meddle in how God deals with those who have/perform abortions.

Yankee: "Science tell us that the human being in the womb is a unique, idependent human being at every moment in time from fertilization." - true, but not relevant. It could be a non-unique clone and the argument doesn't change.

"You, however, want to end this life and so you invent a special class of human being - the "person." Then you decide that the human being in the womb does not fit into your definition of "person" and, hey presto!, you can kill it."

You have seriously confused me with some other poster. I have always opposed abortion, and have reiterated that in this thread.

"Then you attempt to rationalize the killing as a virtuous act - you are sending her directly to heaven before she sins (as of course we all do)."

I just presented that theological conundrum. Spend your efforts trying to invalid that rather than attacking me (as I said above, I'm just the lowly messenger.)
September 29, 2008

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

Science does NOT tell us that a fertilized egg is a human being. Science tells us that the fertilized egg may be a unique set of DNA that may develop into a human being.

Don't make definitions to suit your purpose.

OH, wait, that's what Amendment 48 is all about, creating a definition to serve a certain religion group's purpose.

The pro-birth folks miss the point. At no point in these arguments has any pro-choice individual said "I LOVE KILLING BABIES!" We don't want to kill anyone, we aren't amoral, like you think we are. We just want to retain OUR RIGHTS as individuals and

a) keep your religion out of my government
b) keep your religion out of my doctor's office
c) stand up for the ROOT CAUSE of unwanted pregnancies - not enough EDUCATION about responsibility. Don't ban the abortions, folks, make the abortions unnecessary by TEACHING sex education - teach about how pregnancy happens (yeah, most of you guys are probably clueless about ovulation) teach about abstinence, birth control, and the impact of having a child - so that people learn how to PLAN a pregnancy, not "end up" with one.
September 29, 2008

1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Yank et al. Let me make it so much easier for you. Do the souls of miscarried babies go directly to Heaven? there now, I have removed the chaff and just left the wheat.

Yes?

No?
September 29, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

SheikYurBooty writes:

me2 - if yes, then we should all have been miscarried.
If no, then why not and where do they go?
In either case, how do you know?

Now that we solved that, any idea how many angels can dance on the head of a pin???
September 29, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

September 29, 2008

1:17 p.m.

Suggest removal
cassidy22 writes:

Science does NOT tell us that a fertilized egg is a human being. Science tells us that the fertilized egg may be a unique set of DNA that may develop into a human being.

Don't make definitions to suit your purpose.
---------------------------------

I haven't.

The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
----------------------------

You are the one making up definitions. The embryo that now exists as a genetic unity is a human being. Your claim - "No, not yet! We can still kill it as long as it is unborn - give or take a few minutes" is making definitions to suit your own purpose. And your sole purpose is to kill the genetically who had nothing to do with being brought into this world.

If you have some intellectual or moral case to make then make it. You are hide behind a tautology.
September 29, 2008

2:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Make that...

And your sole purpose is to kill the genetically distinct human organism who had nothing to do with being brought into this world.
September 29, 2008

2:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

me2 writes:
"Yank et al. Let me make it so much easier for you. Do the souls of miscarried babies go directly to Heaven?"

Yankee:
"Yankee rarely goes there. It is sufficient for us to know, as we do from modern science, that the life in the womb is separate, independent human being who is unique in all creation. When you silence that voice, even though you can't hear the cry when you kill it, it is lost forever. We do not need to know any more than that."

Or, put another way:

"Too much knowledge is a bad thing. Do what you're told; I'll let you know when you can ask 'why'."

That is the approach of many cults.

Or, put another way:
"I don't go there because the answer causes me problems I don't want to deal with."

On the other hand, when Adam tried to acquire more knowledge, God let him know in no uncertain terms that was a no-no. That is the same God known to frequently go on a rampage wiping out whole tribes of people.
September 29, 2008

2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cornell writes:

Hakj,
You're right, that is what needs to happen. However, it will be a long time before any of that actually does happen. Too many parents are absent in their children's education. Some parents don't want their children to learn about birth control and pull them out of school the day(s) that's sex ed is being taught. Many parents seem to think that if they don't bring up sex that their kids won't have it.
September 29, 2008

2:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

September 29, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Yankee writes:

"Science tell us that the human being in the womb is a unique, idependent human being"

What is your definition of "independent" if that being is an OBLIGATE PARASITE of someone elses' body for six months?

"If we can kill fetuses, why can't we kill infants?" Because their continued existance does not require impinging on anyone else's bodily automomy.

"What if your right to life is enowed by our Creator and your role is to protect that right?" Then there is no justification for allowing abortion rights to vary state by state as you advocate.

"I think the obligation to help the weak is great public policy in democratic republics that should be practiced by believers and atheists alike. What would you replace it with - survival of the fittest?" Yet the tax and social policy you espouse outside of abortion is exactly that. Christian principles are all well and good, but protecting the economically weak through progressive tax policy goes against Jesus' teachings.
September 29, 2008

2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cornell writes:

You all argue for the right of the child, but what about the well being of the child? What about the quality of the child's life after birth?
September 29, 2008

3:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Questions again for the radical pro-lifers out there:

1. Before spouting off how abortion is "murder of the unborn", do you allow for abortion under any circumstances, and if so, when?

2. Do you recognize the validity of any other belief systems other than your own? If so, why do you believe that you have the right to legislatively impose your beliefs on everyone else, including those who do not share them?

3. By advocating pro-life vs pro-choice, you are stating that to "save a life" overrides a person's control over their own body. Do you see that it might be a slippery slope? Do you then support involuntary blood donation, organ donation, immunizations, and study participation?

I had something interesting happen Fri night, right along on this topic. I have never talked to my son about any particular political party, or about abortion. I came upstairs, and found that my [12 year-old] son was watching the presidential debate with my mother. Joking, I asked my son "Who would you vote for?" Without a pause, he said "Obama". I asked why. He replied "Because that McCain guy doesn't wants to allow women abortions." Shocked, I asked him if he even knew what abortion was, and why he was against it. I was blown away by his answer- "Mom, I don't like babies dying, but sometimes a woman has to have an abortion or she'll die. He shouldn't tell women they have to die. And since men don't have babies, I don't think they should tell her when she can and can't have an abortion."

Out of the mouth of babes!
September 29, 2008

3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Now we have the abortionist take on the genetically distinct human organism that is created and nurtured in the womb. It is an obligate parasite. There parasites come in four forms:

bacteria ( in bacteria: Nutritional requirements )
Some bacteria are obligate parasites and grow only within a living host cell. Rickettsia and Chlamydia, for example, grow in eukaryotic cells, and Bdellovibrio grow in bacterial cells.

communicable diseases ( in disease: Host-parasite relationships )
Most pathogenic bacteria are obligate parasites; that is, they are found only in association with their hosts. Some, such as staphylococci and streptococci, can proliferate outside the body of the host in nutritive materials infected from host sources. Within the tissues of the host, these organisms set up local infections that spread throughout the body.

fungi ( in fungus: Parasitism in plants and insects )
...the intercellular hyphae and penetrate the cells themselves. Haustoria, which may be short, bulbous protrusions or large branched systems filling the whole cell, are characteristically produced by obligate (i.e., invariably parasitic) parasites; some facultative (i.e., occasionally parasitic) parasites such as the potato blight, Phytophthora infestans, also produce them.

viruses ( in microbiology: Viruses )
...several shapes, and are widely distributed in nature, infecting animal cells, plant

So what were you when your were carried in the womb? - bacteria, communicable disease, fungi or virus? Here's a similar take:

Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. (Applause)

Speech delivered by Hitler in Salzburg, 7 or 8 August 1920. (NSDAP meeting)

If you can use language to dehumanize the human, then you become God and can do whatever you like to whomever you like. But first, you have to get the language right.
September 29, 2008

3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

fiesty,

At this point it is unescapable - you are telling lies.

You know perfectly well that the abortion debate is not about health. I have explained that to you in great detail and you have ignored me on each occasion. You continue to corrupt the reality and pretend that the million or so lives lost annually are not a consequence health issues and not birth control.

You know better. Why don't you explain that to your children?
September 29, 2008

3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Correction

You continue to corrupt the reality and pretend that the million or so lives lost annually are a consequence health issues and not birth control.
September 29, 2008

3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Beware definitions without citation:

parasite
One entry found.

1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio...

So besides cherry-picking from who-knows-what source so to advance your lies, and Nazi quottes, what else do you have to offer, Grand Wizard of Liars? Answers to any other questions or more moral dressage?
September 29, 2008

3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Funny, I didn't notice the word "health" anywhere in fiesty's post, but you're accusing her of lying. Projection?
September 29, 2008

4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

yankee, you can parse whatever language you'd like...but it's not going to change the fact that your dogma-based position on abortion won't decrease their occurence....while those who oppose you actually will by increasing the availability of contraceptives and realistic sex education.

when you look at it from that viewpoint, it's tough to give your views any credibility on this issue.
September 29, 2008

4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

sorry yankee...i wasn't trying to pick specifically on you

i should have said, when looking at the facts and realizing that your position is counterproductive, it is hard to give you AND the folks who share your dogmatic views any credibility on this issue.
September 29, 2008

4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

If we all agree for the sake of an arguement, that humans do not have souls, then is there a social reason to ban abortions?
September 29, 2008

4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

Actually, Hakj, Yankee continuously calls me a baby killer. He has done it more than once in this thread already. He assumes I want to kill babies.

I don't. I just want to protect my rights.

(and because fertilization STARTS the process to create a human being, still does not prove to me that at fertilization is IS a human being - it may become one. Ask my best friend whose last miscarriage had 3 X chromosomes - even her doctor told her that it would never have looked remotely human, if it had survived to birth. Still a fertilized egg, but no chance of becoming a person.)
September 29, 2008

4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

Wow, yankee you are extreme.

You even convoluted your own copy and paste definition.

Human development BEGINS at fertilization. (key word, development) Meaning - you can't have a human without fertilization, but that does not prove the opposite true - that at fertilization is IS a human.

I like arguing with you, you are ignorant about science.

Or how about this, Yankee. Let's say I want to impose MY religious beliefs on you. I am APPALLED by your god, and I am going to pass an amendment to Colorado's Constitution defining GOD as the spaghetti monster, and that anyone believing in any God besides the spaghetti monster must be jailed.

Sound ridiculous? Yeah, so does your imposition of your religion on me. I have never ever once ever said I want to kill babies. I have, repeatedly said:

keep your religion out of my doctor's office
keep your religion out of my government.

YANKEE, you NEVER respond to those statements. So, instead of calling me a baby killer, respond to those two statements and tell me WHY YOU ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN I AM, and YOU GET TO IMPOSE YOUR RULES ON ME!
September 29, 2008

4:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

Yankee- how can you sit there with a straight face and say that the abortion debate has nothing to do with health?? Some of the recent legislation and "definitions" proposed by pro-lifers make no allowance for the health of the mother, and would ma. Some of the radical pro-lifers are even advocating that abortion should NEVER be allowed, arguing that there is never truly a situation where the mother's life is at risk. So that most certainly makes it part of the abortion debate!
September 29, 2008

4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

cassidy22- you'll never get an answer out of Yankee. (Notice he didn't answer any of my questions either.) He and his ilk feel that they are so unquestionably right in their position, that they have the right to impose their beliefs on you, and expect you to abide by them. I still haven't heard a valid reason WHY.
September 29, 2008

5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Because God ...

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...
September 29, 2008

5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

“At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

Supreme Court of the United States, Planned Parenthood v. Casey
September 29, 2008

5:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Ah but you didn't claim the fetus was a parasite. You were much more specific now weren't you?

Here is your reference

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

You tried to dehumanize the fetus comparing it to a disease. Hitler tried to dehumanzie Jews using parallel language.

You can count on me to draw a bright line under the similarity between your tactics and the Nazi. The result in either case is a holocaust, the difference is the intended victim.

Since there is no place to hide, you ought to just be honest and retract your claim.
September 29, 2008

5:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

cassidy22 writes:

Actually, Hakj, Yankee continuously calls me a baby killer. He has done it more than once in this thread already. He assumes I want to kill babies.
-------------------------------------------
I have not once called you, or anyone else, a baby killer. The evidence is in black and white. There is nothing to debate.

You are convinced I have only because you are delusional.
September 29, 2008

5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

fiesty writes:

cassidy22- you'll never get an answer out of Yankee. (Notice he didn't answer any of my questions either.)
-------------------------------

We discussed this all of four days ago.

Here were you questions

September 25, 2008

8:08 a.m.

Suggest removal
fiesty writes:

Yankee- the "idiots" I refer to (as specifically stated) are those radical pro-lifers who claim that ALL abortion is murder and wrong, and refuse to make allowances for health issues, such as the afore-mentioned ectopic pregnancies. Since, as you stated in your 3:40 post that you DO agree with abortion for "health issues", than I was not addressing you. Rather, look at LetsThink's (a misnomer if I've ever seen one!) first posting.

Now, personally I am pro-life, but legally I am pro-choice. Here are some questions for the radicals out there:

1. There is no clear consensus at what point, and if, during a pregnancy that the fetus achieves the status of "person" or "baby". There is no clear consensus that the unborn are persons, or have rights. Most ethical people would agree that they do, but even they differ if (and when!) abortion should still be allowed. Given all these different beliefs, why do the radical pro-lifers believe they have the *right* to legislatively impose *their beliefs* on those who don't agree?

2. There is a HUGE slippery slope involved when you begin to argue that "saving life" should trump a person's right to determine what happens to their own body. If we allow this as a precedent, what's next? Involuntary blood donations? Involuntary immunizations? Involuntary human testing?

3. Then there is the issue of rights superceding other rights, and rights having limitations. For example, your right to freedom of speech doesn't extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater as the result threatens the right of others to live. In this case, why would the "right" (which legally doesn't exist) for a "person" (whose status is in question) trumph, at detriment, to another legally recognized person's legal right to self-determination?

Here was my response
September 29, 2008

5:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

September 25, 2008

10:59 a.m.

Yankee writes:

There is no clear consensus at what point, and if, during a pregnancy that the fetus achieves the status of "person" or "baby".

There is scientific knowledge learned from genetics that the zygote is an idividual, distinct human being.

The embryo now exists as a genetic unity. (see other work at 10.24 yesterday)

So why do we have the semantic conversations about whether this unique human being is a "person"? Becaue we want to kill it. If it is a person then it has rights and under our system of government cannot be deprived of those rights (e.g.killed) without due process of the law. That's what this is about. Are all abortions under every ciccumstances justified or is there some case that the fetus has the right to live?
-------------------------------------------
There is a HUGE slippery slope involved when you begin to argue that "saving life" should trump a person's right to determine what happens to their own body. If we allow this as a precedent, what's next?

What's next is whatever the lawmakers legislate. In my opinion that future legislation will be more just if every human being is treated with dignity and respect. The spectre of human testing and so on that you raise is much more likely to occur if the rights of all human beings are not respected.
------------------------------------------------------
Then there is the issue of rights superceding other rights, and rights having limitations

Yes, our rights do have limits and those limits are encoded into the law. I am asking that the community weigh the rights of those human beings in the womb not be ignored. Where exactly that takes us I do not know. I do however put my confidence in democratic process.
-----------------------------------------------------
"I believe abortion, with a few exceptions, is wrong (as it is unjustified murder especially given the alternatives!)- however, to illegalize it would be a GREATER wrong."

Agreed. There is no interest on anyone's part, including the Catholic Church, to make abortion illegal. Abortions are performed in Catholic hospitals. The unaddressed question is, when should the rights of the human being in the womb be considered. In the current situation, the answer is - never. Since the abort about one million lives annually in the US, the greater wrong in my opinion is to ignore the rights of that life in the womb.

I am not a mother but I am a father and that's pretty close - at least emotion-wise. I appreciate and respect the unique mother/child relationship which is primarily the reason I think abortion in the case of rape or incest has to be allowed. But let's be honest, those cases are extremely rare.

If we were to operate under Colorado law prior to Roe which allowed abortion for rape, health and incest, the abortion rate would be a tiny fraction of the one million. Now that would all but cripple the multi-million dollar abortion industry. Good.
September 29, 2008

5:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

You ignored my response then and now pretend it didn't happen.

Yankee- how can you sit there with a straight face and say that the abortion debate has nothing to do with health??

I already explained that didn't I?
September 29, 2008

5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Better quit reading this merry go round. I'm getting dizzy.
September 29, 2008

6:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

IronmanCarmichael writes:

Merry go round? It's a friggin' roller coaster--it bumps, shakes, turns upside-down, speeds up, slows down, sometimes nauseates--but like a merry go round ends up at the same place it started.

Let's go play cards.
September 29, 2008

6:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

fiesty writes:

No Yankee, you HAVEN'T explained how abortion has "nothing to do with health". Nor does some of your lengthy repostings actually ANSWER the questions.

I'm with Queen Gorgo, Wechasa, Grandpaw and IronmanCarmichael- I (along with everyone else here) am wasting time with you, and do feel as we are on a merry go round.
September 29, 2008

6:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

You are.
September 29, 2008

7:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Creative_N_Denver writes:

This is one subject that people will never all agree on. Depends on your beliefs. When a see a woman with five children and is pregnant again and living on welfare, it bothers me. I will admit the first thing I want to say to her "Are you crazy?" It doesn't matter what her ethnic background is, I have had two children and I know how hard it is to pay the deductibles for the births, pay for clothing and food, medical etc... Today there is no excuse for our government to continue to pay these "baby factories" to have their babies! If your having children because of religious beliefs than have the church pay for them! I understand girls get pregnant and can't afford the costs of giving birth, but after the first one sweetheart your on your own. As for abortion, that's a tough one, women should have the choice over their bodies. My religious views are, it's a huge sin.
Each person should however be able to make that decision, no one has a right to take that away from anyone. Not even the man who supplied the sperm.
September 29, 2008

7:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

grandpaw writes:

Jimminy: "Yankee,I'm afraid there's not much hope of Our Good Friends On The Left getting the point about human rights extending to everyone"; he left out: "that is, everyone who has not been born; after they're born, of course, a lot of them lose those rights".
September 29, 2008

7:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Yankee -

>>Science tell us that the human being in the womb is a **unique**, idependent human being at every moment in time from fertilization.<<

Please explain to us how identical twins and triplets come about?
September 29, 2008

7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

CL

I have heard all sorts of idiotic attempts to authorize abortion of demand from Nazi-like propoganda to miscarriage. But yours, the existance of more than one human being in womb at one time, takes the prize.

Congratulations. You are a giant among the Great Moral Thinkers on this page.
September 29, 2008

8:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

jimminy,

All that 48 can do is encourage people to consider that the voiceless human being in the womb has rights. I see no evidence on this page today of people capable of considering much of anything - much less the difference between good and evil. They are more interested in exercising their sanctimony and so they romp around a life and death question that results in about one million innocent dead every year.

There is a thin layer of civility in any society that protects us from unthinkable evil. The self-styled Queen's disgusting language calls to mind what happens when people play God. Germany was the land of Bach and art museums. They were not savages. They were blinded by the same complacency seen here.
September 29, 2008

8:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Yankee -

I made no mention whatsoever of authorizing abortion on demand, your entire response is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

It's a simple question, why won't you answer it?
September 29, 2008

8:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

CL, you have been complemented! Saying that a fertilized egg can result in two or more persons, is not attempting to authorize abortion on demand. It is just a simple statement of fact.

Yankee. Read this slowly. Not every fertilized egg is one indivisible new DNA person. Some are two or more. See? He was not saying abortion is justified because the egg can split. When you get emotional you sound 10 years old.

Where does the Catholic Church say the souls of miscarried babies goes? You always speak for that corrupt organization, do so again.
September 29, 2008

8:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Sweetpickle writes:

Neither Yankee nor LetsThink speaks for God. Instead of arguing with them send money to Planned Parenthood on their behalf. That seems most fitting.
September 29, 2008

8:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

It's a simple question, why won't you answer it? CL

OK but then you answer mine.

There are two basic types of twins: monozygotic (also known as "identical") and dizygotic (also known as "fraternal").

Dizygotic twins occur when two sperm fertilize two distinct eggs. In this instance, rather than releasing one egg during ovulation, the mother has released two. (For higher multiple births, more eggs are released - for example, in trizygotic triplets, three eggs are fertilized by three sperm.)

Dizygotic (DZ), or fraternal twins, can be one of three combinations:

Two males (represents about one-fourth of all DZ twin sets)
Two females (represents about one-fourth of all DZ twin sets)
One male and one female (represents one-half of all DZ twin sets)
The fertilization of two eggs by two sperm results in two separate embryos -- each with its own chorion (outer membrane of the amniotic sac), amnion (inner membrane of the amniotic sac) and placenta. In some instances, if the embryos implant very nearby each other along the uterine wall, the placentas can become fused.

Because they are formed from two distinct eggs and two distinct sperm, DZ twins are genetically no more similar than regular siblings are, sharing 50 percent of their DNA.

----------------------------------------------

Now the mystery is explained - you anwer mine. What in the world has that got to do with the fate of the unborn being up to the mother?
September 29, 2008

8:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Classic Sharon B

Yankee. Read this slowly. Not every fertilized egg is one indivisible new DNA person. Some are two or more. See?

So the egg splits does it? It doesn't matter how fast you read it. Usually wrong but never in doubt.
September 29, 2008

8:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Classic Grouch

He won't answer CL's question, simply because he can't.

Usually wrong, never in doubt and always puffed up like a toad in the bargain.

You two are made for each other.
September 29, 2008

8:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

once again we're back to the same place, yahtzee...you talking yourself in circles with conspiracy theories about the nazis.

your position doesn't reduce abortions.

you hold your position because of your belief in the supernatural.

enough said.
September 29, 2008

8:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Yankee - despite all your verbiage, I didn't ask how fraternal twins come about, but rather quite specifically asked how **identical** twins and triplets come about - a question you neglected, once again, to answer.
September 29, 2008

8:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

LetsThink writes:

Sadly....as I expected......the abortionists:
1) changed the topic to avoid answering the (only) issue
2) can't explain why it is right to kill an unborn baby, before it takes a breath (a totally arbitrary decision)

Hope we can start to address the real issue, and quit dodging around, to avoid the obvious truth.
September 29, 2008

9 p.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Identical twins come from a split egg.

Yank, thank you so much for being a loyal reader of mine for lo these16 months. To think I have evolved a classic style or that there is a classic style for me is heartening.

Now, where do the souls of miscarried babies go?

I think they go to Heaven and become angels. This way Satan will always be at a 8 to 2 disadvantage in Armageddon.
September 29, 2008

9:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

cl,

Never mind explaining what this has to do with abortion on demand.

LetsThink has reminded me of the truth. The games you play don't matter.
September 29, 2008

9:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

Identical twins is a misnomer, as a few minutes of research would teach you. The notion that "identical" twins are identical is predicated upon the notion that the only thing which influences the development of a human from the zygote is the genetic code, and any worthwhile molecular biologist trained in the last half a century or so could tell you that this is not accurate.
I have a counter question for the pro-abortion(or choice, whatever semantics float your boat) crowd. Why is it that any time this topic comes up here, the only arguments that are presented by those in favor of abortion on demand hinge around some sort of unusual occurrence such as twins, or molar pregnancies, or ectopic implantation? Is it really so difficult to frame your argument in the hypothetical situation involving an abortion where the only defect possessed by the fetus is having irresponsible parents? As I understand it, the pro-choice movement doesn't recognize any difference between an abortion performed for medical reasons and one performed for convenience, they are both just a woman exercising her control over her own body, why not just put it in the context of a convenience abortion?
On another topic, why is it that the sole reason that we have so many abortions is because of a lack of birth control and/or education? Not many Americans live below the threshold of extreme poverty where fifty cents for a condom is unmanageable, there are even places where condoms can be acquired for free. As far as education goes, someone cannot be forced to learn something. Most communities have a library with free internet access and books, anyone wishing to learn more about human reproduction could learn about it at the local library, regardless of what is taught in the local public school. Swelling the sex ed budget is not a guarantee that the information will be applied and plenty of people choose to ignore the knowledge they possess on the subject when it pleases them.
September 29, 2008

9:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Yankee -
It was in response to your statement that >>Science tell us that the human being in the womb is a unique, idependent human being at every moment in time from fertilization<<, so the answer to your question obviously is what your original statement has to do with it - and to that I'll let the readers of this thread make up their own mind.
September 29, 2008

10:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Reason -

The point of bringing up identical twins, misnomer or not, was to illustrate the fallacy of Yankee's argument that since a single fertilized egg always results in a unique individual, then, according to Yankee, that is the point in time when a person comes into being.

I don't support abortion on demand, so your insinuation that I brought it up to support abortion on demand or abortion or as a matter of convenience is fallacious.

It's mischaracterisations of others positions such as this, from both sides, that makes any discussion of the issue useless.
September 29, 2008

10:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Rather than answer my question "what does "independent" mean" when describing an organism which requires a host for its survival, Yankee prefers to call names and lob insults, distracting from the fact that his premise is at fault.

Did anyone see the latest Westword about Kristi Burton of amendment 48 fever dream fame?

"Pull Kristi Burton's string, and the wind-up doll may say a couple of things. The right of protection for every human being — that's one of her signature catchphrases. As are laying a common sense foundation and determining a concrete definition. But try to get the 21-year-old sponsor of Amendment 48 — the so-called "Personhood Amendment" that would alter the Colorado Constitution to define a "person" as beginning at the moment of fertilization — to admit that her ballot initiative has implications that go much further than establishing definitions, and the doll shuts down."

http://www.westword.com/2008-09-25/ne...

Remind you of anyone? You can see more here:
http://www.kbdi.org/on_demand/video_p...

See you at the No on 48 victory party 11/4!
September 29, 2008

10:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Reading back, one of the biggest lies recurrent in Yanker's posts is:

"The unaddressed question is, when should the rights of the human being in the womb be considered. In the current situation, the answer is - never."

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of Constitutional Law in this area knows (and JJ does too, as I've told him, though he's probably forgotten) that Roe recognizes a calculus of competing rights between a fetus and the woman who carries it, where fetal rights increase with gestational age, and the right to abortion is only protected to the point of viabilty. At that point a fetus is, potentially, independent.
September 29, 2008

11:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

CL, I'm sorry that my post came off as putting words in your mouth, it was intended more as a shot at the usual suspects who show up whenever this topic arises and spout off the same tired generalizations about how being opposed to abortion is the result of ignorant religious bigotry, it was not aimed at you specifically. There isn't a way you could have known that however, so again, I'm sorry about how that came out. As far as the MZ twins thing goes, I would argue that as soon as the two cells, or masses of cells(as the case may be) separate, there is enough of a distinction between them to justifiably refer to them as distinct, unique humans, just as the zygote formed by the fusion of the sperm and oocyte is distinct and unique from either(among other differences).
September 29, 2008

11:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

More research, more dishonesty.

If anyone checked Jim Jones' Brittanica link, you would see that each entry (conveniently edited out for posting here) mentioned "grow only within a living host", "are found only in association with their hosts", "they depend on host"...statements which also apply to pre-viable fetuses.

Man, you're pathetic.
September 30, 2008

6:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Adolph Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews. But he understood that mass slaughter of the innocents is a difficult proposition for ordianry so he undertook a propaganda campaign describing Jews not as persons but as a disease, e.g.

"Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis."

Hitler understood that if he could dehumanize Jews by getting peole to think of them in terms of disease, then the mass estermination of the innocents would be more palatable.

It is not a coincidence then to see Queen Gorgo, a leading advocate of using abortion as social policy (birth control), describe the life in the womb as an obligate parasite. These are parasites that come in four forms: bacteria, communicable diseases, fungi and viruses. This is a repeat of Hitler's propoganda - Dehumanize the life in the womb and you can dispose of her at your pleasure.

We look back at the Germans living under the Third Reich and wonder how this could have possibly happened. We live in a nation that has killed something 40-50 million in the womb (unlike the Nazi's the abortionists don't keep good records) and avert our eyes from the reality.

That mass of cells in the womb is alive and it is a human being. It has the same rights as you do. All the semantic gymnastics, all the propoganda cannot alter the truth. For nearly half a century we have ignored those rights and created a new holocaust. We have ignored the lesson of the recent past out of selfishness and complacency. Abortion of demand is a national disgrace.
September 30, 2008

6:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

me2 writes:

Yank, no it does not have the same legal rights as we do. Not yet, maybe not ever. It has some legal rights, but not those that we have. You just left out the word legal.
September 30, 2008

6:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

So let's run down the top half dozen propaganda talking points used to reassure people that it's quite alright to end the life in the womb at any time, for any reason.

1. We are not killing a person, we are killing a zygote before it becomes a person.
2. This zygote thing is not even human, it is more like a fungus or a disease so of course we can kill it with no more consideration then scrubbing the sink.
3. Since many of these lives are lost to miscarriage anyway, we are only doing what nature often does so of course we can kill it. It's natures will - sometimes.
4. Since we are killing this bacteria within the womb it is a medical procedure and medical procedures have to do with health. Consequently all abortions are performed for health reasons (that's Grouch's favorite).
5. Sometimes the egg splits and twins result. So this is not a single life it is sometimes two and so of course we can end their life when we please. I mean it's not like there was just one of them. (They may just have to trust us on that one - say it fast.)
6. By killing this communicable disease before birth we are actually doing her a favor. We are assuring that her life, although short, was lived without sin and we are absolutely positively sure she is going to her reward in heaven with God (that one may be problematic since we must also deny the existance of God at the same time)

That's all you've got so use any of the above with a lot of mocking, contempt and name-calling aimed at anyone who raises a voice in dissent.
September 30, 2008

8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

You think abortion is an arbitrary decision? Do you actually think ANY woman makes that decision lightly?

You can call me an "abortionist" or a "baby killer" if you want.

I also volunteer at a religious-based clinic that encourages women to give birth, and gives them resources to learn about parenting OR adoption as their option. They don't do a lot of preaching, which is why I can stomach volunteering there. They give women options.

That's all I want. Give me the CHOICE to do what's right for ME, my family, and my unborn baby. Sometimes the right answer is to say goodbye. NO woman takes that lightly, and your assumption that we could just go "oops!" and think it's easy to end a pregnancy just shows your complete ignorance AND the fact that you are a MAN and care more about an unborn child than it's mother.

WHY is any one being on this planet more important than another? You act as if you are more important than me, and you want to pass a law that makes an unborn child MORE IMPORTANT than its mother. I never said abortion is a good thing, but by god, please let me be in control of my life, my body and my medical decisions. Yankee, you have NO right to the private decisions of my life, and my family. The only man allowed to discuss that with me is my husband. You aren't welcome in my bedroom, in my doctor's office - so please leave!
September 30, 2008

8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

Reason -

No problem.

>>As far as the MZ twins thing goes, I would argue that as soon as the two cells, or masses of cells(as the case may be) separate, there is enough of a distinction between them to justifiably refer to them as distinct, unique humans<<

Oh I agree, but that wasn't what Yankee was trying to argue.
September 30, 2008

8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

>>5. Sometimes the egg splits and twins result. So this is not a single life it is sometimes two and so of course we can end their life when we please. I mean it's not like there was just one of them. (They may just have to trust us on that one - say it fast.)<<

I never said anything like that Yankee. First you try to base an argument on a logical fallacy and now you have to resort to out-and-out lying. You are one pathetic individual.

>>That's all you've got so use any of the above with a lot of mocking, contempt and name-calling aimed at anyone who raises a voice in dissent.<<

I have no problem with raising a voice of dissent. Your blatent lying is another matter however.

And as for "mocking, contempt and name-calling" - look in the mirror hypocrite.
September 30, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

once again we're back to the same place, yahtzee...you talking yourself in circles with conspiracy theories about the nazis.

your position doesn't reduce abortions.

no amount of intellectually dishonest dancing is going to change that.

you neither, reason.

if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
September 30, 2008

9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

Good on you, Jay. All Yankee is interested in doing is preaching. And I think he should take it to a church, not to my constitution.
September 30, 2008

9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Cornell asks:
"Is it morally right to bring a child into the world that isn't wanted and won't be properly cared for?"
Maybe we ought to think about that BEFORE we get pregnant.

"Who do you suggest will take care of all these children?"
Their parents.

"Our countries foster system is already overflowing with children. And there are many children living on the streets. What about these children?"

Two questions:

a) When does it become illegal to kill a baby? If they are truly "unwanted and not properly cared for", why isn't it OK to "put them out of their misery" after birth as well? (say, up to 2, 5... years?)

No matter how hardcore pro-choice you are, you HAVE to define the beginning of life at some point. Or is it the mother that decides when then the baby is a life? This young mother in Florida whose 2-year old daughter is "missing".. isn't she just exercising her retroactive pro-choice rights?

b) Have the overall numbers of abortions gone down or up since expanding sex ed. and free contraception in our schools? Or, who should be teaching sex ed? The schools or the parents?
September 30, 2008

10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Should this guy have been "put out of his misery"?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/condit...
September 30, 2008

11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Thanks OG,

Clearly anyone left reading this has their mind made up, and Jimbo is just prattling on to insult me and try to get under my skin. Of course I haven't advocated for abortion as social policy, I've advocated for a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions as part of the individual liberty Rethugs like Jonesy like to herald when it suits their purposes. But we know he's a pathological liar who hasn't even thought his positions through. Sharon said it best: "James Jones is a glow in the dark beach!"
September 30, 2008

11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Cowboy,

Who should be teaching teens calculus or European history? The average parent is no more qualified to teach those than they are reproductive biology, and the average teenager is certainly less receptive to hearing about it from their parents. Moral instruction certainly belongs in the home.
September 30, 2008

12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Sometimes the right answer is to say goodbye. Cassidy

"Saying goodbye" in now a euphemism for killing. The depths of depravity reached on this page to attempt to justify killing the unborn is a good measure of the moral corruption in a nation that ends one million lives annually in an attempt to please the living.

Know this - there is not, as you obvioulsy like to imagine, any interest in your bedroom activities. But the community, not just me, will take an interest if you decide to "say goodbye" to your young.
September 30, 2008

1:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Cowboy63 writes:

Yankee writes: ""Saying goodbye" in now a euphemism for killing."

That's right! I suppose you could say that the mother in Texas who drowned her 5 kids and the mother in Florida who partied while her daughter was "missing", just simply "said goodbye" to their unwanted kids.

If a woman has the arbitrary "right to choose" before the baby is born, why stop there? Isn't it still her body/her life that is being impacted?

What if she thought she could love and provide for a child while she was pregnant but now decides she can't? We wouldn't want any more of those unloved kids clogging up the foster system would we?

It's telling how the pro-choice lobby supports a woman's right to choose, but when the baby is born and the woman "chooses" to kill her baby then; all of the pro-choice support vanished into thin air.
September 30, 2008

2:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

Cowboy, from: "If a woman has the arbitrary "right to choose" before the baby is born, why stop there? Isn't it still her body/her life that is being impacted?" I assume you haven't been paying attention, and there's nothing "arbitrary."

Prior to viability, by biological necesity a fetus in utero only continues to live at the expense of her body and her rights to self determination. After it's capable of its own life, it has rights of its own, and a woman could put a child in foster care, have relatives raise it, etc. Prior to viability it only can live at her expense (what with being an obligate parasite and all...)
September 30, 2008

2:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

"Who should be teaching teens calculus or European history? The average parent is no more qualified to teach those than they are reproductive biology, and the average teenager is certainly less receptive to hearing about it from their parents. Moral instruction certainly belongs in the home."

How exactly is teaching my child to protect themselves when they have sex on the same level as calculus? One hardly needs to know much about anatomy to explain how to put on a condom or swallow a pill or put in a diaphragm. Also, what evidence do you have that learning about sex in school has any more impact than hearing it from the parents? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the answer to that one is not much, if any. If you have ever raised teenagers you know that they aren't typically very receptive to notions that run counter to what they want to believe, regardless of the source, but that doesn't change the fact that any parent who wants to be sure that their kid receives the proper knowledge about protected sex should do their job as a parent and teach it to them personally, public school sex ed is just a cop out for parents that don't want to invest the time in teaching important concepts to their kids instead of having some extra "me" time.
September 30, 2008

3:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

So how do you put in a diaphragm, and if you really know how, what makes you think other parents have the same knowledge?

Any comments on the "obligate parasite" remark, seeing as you're always touting your biology credentials?
September 30, 2008

3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

As I posted earlier, it is a very rare American that doesn't have access to a library, information about sex is quite available to those who wish to inform themselves. I have no qualms about your parasite comment in terms of its validity in describing a fetus, I do fail to see the relevance to abortion, if dependence on parental sustenance is considered a valid reason to terminate a child, then abortions should be available well after birth.
September 30, 2008

3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Queen_Gorgo writes:

The relevance is that the parasitic organism exists at the expense of the host, impinging on its rights. After birth, the continued existance of the child does not need to impinge on the parent in any way.

So far, I've found one study, which I can only find the abstract for, which seems to contradict your assertion:

http://uptodateonline.com/patients/co...

Sexuality and sex education at home and school.
Kirby D
Adolesc Med 1999 Jun;10(2):195-209, v.

This article reviews numerous studies of parent-adolescent communication about sexuality and 30 studies of sexuality and HIV education programs. Although parent-adolescent communication about sexuality has increased during the last few decades, both the occurrence and the quality of this communication could still be greatly improved. There DOES NOT exist a clear simple relationship between greater parent-adolescent communication and less adolescent risk-taking behavior, but both adults and youth believe it is important anyway. Sexuality and HIV education programs do not increase any measure of sexual activity, but some of them with ten common characteristics DO reduce sexual risk-taking, either by delaying or reducing sexual behavior or increasing condom use. Thus, these programs can be an effective component in a larger initiative to reduce HIV, other STDs, and unplanned pregnancy in adolescence.

Emphasis mine.
September 30, 2008

3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

How about the idea of stopping unwanted pregnancies before they happen.

because banning abortions won't stop abortions. And banning abortions won't stop unwanted pregnancies.

it's a simple case of root cause analysis. to STOP abortions, you have to stop the root cause - you have to stop the unwanted pregnancies.

And abstinence-only education has proved to be a failure.

So instead of stomping on my rights as a human to give rights to a being inside of me, that can not live without me - why don't you work towards stopping the unwanted pregnancies?

And why can't Yankee talk about anything but murder? There is more at stake here. Abortions are the outcome, STOP THE ROOT CAUSE and you won't have to step on women's reproductive rights.
September 30, 2008

3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

cassidy22 writes:

Answer me one question, Yankee - why are you more important than me?
September 30, 2008

4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

4gColoNative writes:

I became comfortable with the idea of abortion when I saw a medical photo of a 4-week-old fetus and it looked just like a seahorse.

Could never bring myself to look at it and say, ".... oooohhh, look at the cute widdle baaaaby"
September 30, 2008

4:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

"The relevance is that the parasitic organism exists at the expense of the host, impinging on its rights."

This assertion is debatable, as it is possible for the fetus to have beneficial effects on the mother, as in transference of immune cells between the two.

If you're going to cherry pick articles, I could point out that the tactic is available to me as well, I could provide you with a study from Denmark I believe that found that girls who went through sex education were more likely to acquire STI's, but it doesn't really prove anything to cite a single study as definitive evidence of anything.
September 30, 2008

5:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

I have no qualms about your parasite comment in terms of its validity in describing a fetus. Reason

I am not a biologist by training but with access to the internet I learned in the Britannica that obligate parasite falls into four classes: bacteria, communicable diseases, fungi and viruses.

I have also learned that the life in the womb is a human being from fertilization. Now since human beings cannot be placed into any of the four catagories, I do not understand how you can maintain that the zygote or fetus can accurately be described as an obligate parasite. I am not making some arcane semantic point. This is important.

Under the current circumstances of abortion for birth, the rights of the fetus as a human being can never be acknowledged by the those who advocate abortion not for health reasons, but as social policy. If the rights of the fetus are considered in the same way we consider rights for human beings then the abortion edifice is severly damaged.

Their solution is propoganda and the weapon is language. If the pro-abortion lobby can use language to dehumanize the life in the womb, then its life can be disposed of just as you would dispose of any other bacteria.

So it seems to me that we have to be very clear with language or the devious tactics will be used to, for instance, convince a 14-year old that the life in her womb isn't human, it is like a fungi whose removal will improve her life.

That's how you get to one million abortions annually in the US.
September 30, 2008

5:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

cassidy,

I have not used the term "murder." I am more careful with language than that. If you would like to dicuss what I think then you can ask me about what Ihave posted. If you simply want to propagandize, then attribute statements to me I have never made and ask me to stop. This is the third time you accused me falsely. That in itself is instructive.

I am not more important than you. I am not more important than anyone. It seems to me the difficulty you have is in realizing that those around you are as important as you. None of us is disposable.
September 30, 2008

7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Reason writes:

Yankee, I don't see why you have such trouble admitting that the words mean what she claims they do, it's in the dictionary. Wherever you got the "bacteria, communicable diseases, fungi and viruses" thing is not accurate, I can think of several parasites that don't fall under those categories off the top of my head. Personally, I think it's a little ridiculous to think of the fetus that way, but I guess when you are in the line of work that Queen is, it helps to be clinical in one's thought processes.

"Their solution is propoganda and the weapon is language. If the pro-abortion lobby can use language to dehumanize the life in the womb, then its life can be disposed of just as you would dispose of any other bacteria."

This is completely true, although I think both sides can be accused of playing the semantics game. One of the main reasons I post on this topic when it comes up is that I am dying to hear on of the pro-abortion people say "I think abortion for convenience is morally defensible and here's why _________", I don't think it will happen, but I can always hope.
September 30, 2008

8:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

That's my source. I'm quite sure there are other parasites that don't meet the definion. Queen Gorgo was quite specific. For instance, she did not say the Mother/child relationship is parasitic in nature, which of course it is. Her intention is, as I explained, to dehumanize the fetus to facilitate killing it on the demand of the mother.

I gave her the opportunity to withdraw her claim and she refused. There is a lesson.

You will not hear a morally defensible argument for abortion as birth control. They don't operate in the light, they try to implement thier agenda through obfusaction and distraction. That's why they are so feaful that Roe will be overturned and the questions will be debated in the market place of ideas.

I don't think both sides play semantics. I think we try to expose what they try to hide.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Fate of her unborn up to each woman

Tom Hall, Louisville

Published September 29, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs