Home - List All Discussions

Why "Pro-life" is really Anti-Woman

by: LochLynne

Attention Pro-Lifers.

If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have have one.

But don't impose you values on my body. You have absolutely NO business inveigling the state into controlling women's bodies.

You won't ever control mine.

There is no substance and basis to your arguments. Do you understand that?

LochLynne

reply from: ChristianLott

No. Could you repeat?

reply from: yoda

Thanks, I won't.

What does the "state" have to do with the morality of killing innocent unborn babies? Why must you change the subject every time?

That's a load off my mind.

When you get around to addressing "my argument", I will consider your opinion.

reply from: LochFyne

Lynne's only got three posts here, and one of them is a wink at me. I'd say accusing her of failing to address your arguments is a bit premature. Wouldn't you?

reply from: yoda

No, no more than her statement that "There is no substance and basis to your arguments."

When did she refute any of them?

reply from: LochFyne

Oh, you two are going to get along just swimmingly.

*checking pantry to ensure there's sufficient popcorn*

reply from: yoda

Well if the substance is anywhere near as good as the hype, you'll need a whole case of it.

reply from: LochLynne

LochLynne wakes up by giving the Snug a snuggle and a wee peck on the cheek.

Honey, I'm going to make some melted smoked cheddar on English muffins. Would you care for some?

reply from: LochFyne

Oh yeah! Count me in. I'll make the coffee.

(((((Lynne)))))

reply from: LochLynne

Well first of all, there's no such thing as an unborn baby. Babies are something that have have been born. Prior to that it's called a fetus.

Secondly you appeal to morality. I have to ask who's morality? Certainly mine says, that if a woman choses to exercize autonomy over her body, that's her choice and her choice is what's important.

Women are not brooding vessels for your war fodder. We are our own enitities.

reply from: LochLynne

Mmmmmmmmm.

(((Snug....)))

reply from: LochFyne

This is going to sound hopelessly naive, but here goes:

Until I began talking to you, Lynne, I never really thought about the fact that the "morality" that's supposedly reflected in the law is the "morality" of the people who made the laws.

reply from: Tam

It's so easy to say something like, "There is no substance and basis to your arguments," but backing up such a wild claim is another story. I feel, LochLynne, that there is no substance and basis to YOUR argument. Unlike you, however, I can back that up. Before I can refute it, I must establish what, exactly, your argument entails. Am I to understand that the entirety of the philosophical basis to your views can be summarized in this post? I mean, I don't want to take advantage. Is there more to your position, or does "don't impose you values on my body" and the rest of what you've written here pretty much sum it up?

reply from: LochLynne

Goodness Tam, you look like my long lost twin sister !

No. You wil find that I have quite a bit of depth in philosophy.

But the where I began is quite germain. You are attempting to impose your values on my body. I don't think you can justify that.

I note your signature. You haven't been converted by science. You've been converted by misinterpretations of a field that has long been a source of of authority bettressing male dominance.

reply from: Tam

No. You wil find that I have quite a bit of depth in philosophy.

But the where I began is quite germain. You are attempting to impose your values on my body. I don't think you can justify that.

I note your signature. You haven't been converted by science. You've been converted by misinterpretations of a field that has long been a source of of authority bettressing male dominance.

Wow--you sure know a lot about me after the many minutes we've known each other. You joined the forum last night, right? I'm impressed that you are so quickly able to assess and refute my position. Nice job! I guess your work here is done. Really impressive. With those skills, you'll go far. Far, far, far....

reply from: LochFyne

Lynne is a radical feminist. She comes to the conversation with a perspective different than mine, yours, and everyone else's on this board. When I first heard her bit about science being a tool of the patriarchy, I was shocked. I was also intrigued enough to listen.

I don't agree with her, but I am a more learned person for having explored her ideas. I'm not saying you have to do the same. But you might want to.

reply from: Tam

You know, from your post it would seem that I hadn't listened to her--if I'm the one you're addressing, anyway. If you are addressing me, I have two questions:

1) Was it not apparent, from the fact that my first post to LochLynne was entirely devoted to clarifying her position on abortion, that my main interest in LL was to find out her views on abortion, in order to listen very closely to them and respond meticulously? Wasn't that obvious?

2) Was it not apparent, from the fact that my second and possibly final post to LL was devoted to clarifying that she had no interest whatsoever in listening to my position but had prejudged it immediately without benefit of the actual "debate" part of the process, that the one who should be getting the "you might want to listen to her ideas" post is LL, not me?

Am I missing something, here?

reply from: yoda

Oh my, another linguistic revisionist. Do you demand that I stop using that term? Wait, before you do that, tell me why all these definitions are "wrong":

MSN-Encarta Online: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby ) ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html ) ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.

American Heritage Dictionary: http://www.bartleby.com/61/
Unborn: ADJECTIVE : 1. Not yet born: “an unborn child.”

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ Unborn:
Pronunciation: (un-bôrn') -adj. 2. not yet delivered; still existing in the mother's womb: an unborn baby.

MSN Encarta Dictionary: http://dictionary.msn.com/ Unborn:
1. not born yet: not yet born, but usually already conceived and gestating behavior that could benefit the unborn child

Yes, I am asking for the moral opinion of each individual. While the identify of the person making the decision seems to be "what's important" to you, the moral quality of the decision itself is my concern.

I'm sure they'll all be glad to hear that.

reply from: bobinsky

You are indeed correct that the anti-choice position is imposing their values, their morality, on another person's body. This is what a rapist or a wife-beater does. He doesn't see a woman as a worthwhile, useful entity in and of herself, so he feels free to impose his anger and brutality on the non-entity.

Anyone who looks at science and medicine realistically and looks at honest statistics and information knows that it can't be science that converts someone from pro-choice to anti-choice. But then again, everyone's entitled to his/her beliefs.

reply from: Tam

It's amazing how much you know about me in advance of asking. Did you learn telepathy from your pets? Or is it not that you know anything about me. Oh, no, it's just that you look at things "realistically" and I do not, in your eyes? Well, it's very easy to make blanket statements like that. Unfortunately, it's not very useful. Luckily, we have a whole thread devoted to debating the medical side of the abortion issue. So, if you want to bring up any actual points in the debate, that's a good place to do so. We're already talking about science and technology over there, I think. If we're not, heck, we should be. Let's talk science and technology.

reply from: bobinsky

Oh, you mean thsoe threads that meant so much to you to start an honest debate and help the tenor of the forum? The threads that the rest of us are too busy to tend to because we have to deal with the BS of answering the "dropped balls" questions and deal with yoda's incessant hammering about no one answering his questions. Maybe if this other stuff wasn't in the way, we COULD deal with those threads you started, but you see, neither I nor LF nor D nor LL can dare to miss a post on any of these older threads for fear of being accused of dropping the ball. So you'll excuse us, Tam, if we don't get to those other threads you started because we're busy playing your other game.

reply from: yoda

Wow, you are just obsessed with me, aren't you?

Hey, Terry, this one is "stalking" me! 8-O

reply from: Tam

Oh, you mean thsoe threads that meant so much to you to start an honest debate and help the tenor of the forum? The threads that the rest of us are too busy to tend to because we have to deal with the BS of answering the "dropped balls" questions and deal with yoda's incessant hammering about no one answering his questions. Maybe if this other stuff wasn't in the way, we COULD deal with those threads you started, but you see, neither I nor LF nor D nor LL can dare to miss a post on any of these older threads for fear of being accused of dropping the ball. So you'll excuse us, Tam, if we don't get to those other threads you started because we're busy playing your other game.

Well, it's a better excuse than most of them--but it's still just an excuse. No one is forcing you to post here. Post what you want, and so will everyone else. Choose what threads are most important to you, and respond to them. Far be it from me to make that choice for you!

reply from: ForLife

You have indicated government will have no control over you; you are your own boss. You may want to consider that Isaiah says all government will come under Christ's control. Peter said, "...to Him you shall give heed to everything He says to you. And it will be that every person that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people....God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways." Acts 3:22-23,26

If you insist on being your own boss, refusing to heed Jesus' leadership, continuing to sin (sin is going against the commands of God), Peter says that you "shall be utterly destroyed from among the people."

The Bible is about God's Government, and our need to submit to God's law and Christ's rulership. You are a rebell against government.

reply from: whosays

If it were your body that you were killing, that would be suicide, not abortion.

Abortion (like other murders) is the asault on someone else's body, the baby - usually subjecting that body to death by dismemberment.

The choice you want to make is to kill someone else, to put their body in the grave - or down the garbage disposal - while your body remains alive to spout silly non-sense slogans.

reply from: yoda

Well put, who!

reply from: Tam

If it were your body that you were killing, that would be suicide, not abortion.

Abortion (like other murders) is the asault on someone else's body, the baby - usually subjecting that body to death by dismemberment.

The choice you want to make is to kill someone else, to put their body in the grave - or down the garbage disposal - while your body remains alive to spout silly non-sense slogans.

Yeah--really good point!!

reply from: Jenny222

Who: This is by far one of the best posts i have seen on this forum.

Nicely said.

reply from: Juliet

The government excercises plenty of control over our bodies as it is: we can't put illegal drugs into our bodies, we can't use our bodies to assault other people, and many states forbid pregnant women to use tobacco or alcohol. The government can even intervene in our attempts to kill our own selves.

It is the US governments' duty to protect each person's right to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. No one has the right to do anything that deprives another person of any of these rights. The Right to Life is the most important of the three--anyone who is denied Life is automatically denied the other two. That is why the government MUST restrict what a woman does "with her own body" where the life of a fetus is concerned (by the way, it's not incorrect to refer to "fetus" as an "unborn child." "Fetus" and "child" belong to two completely different sets of terms: "child" is the common, general term that refers to any immature person; "fetus" is the scientific term for a specific stage in an animal's development. You wouldn't tell everyone how sweet your neonate is when referring to your newborn baby).

That all being said, to say that a fetus belongs to its mother's body is biologically incorrect. An abortion is not equivalent to a hystorectomy, which involves the removal of something containing the woman's own DNA and that does not manage its own growth in any way. A fetus has its own unique set of DNA that expresses itself like no one else's in the history of the world. It has a separate circulatory system--and often a separate blood type--from its mother's. At a very early stage of development a fetus even has its own brainwaves. To say that a person who is physically attached to another person's body cannot be considered his or her own separate entity is to say that conjoined twins are not separate individuals (which they are because each twin's DNA, although identical, expresses itself in a unique way).

For a relevant quote, please see my signature.

reply from: salspua

The original question is around how it can be moral to kill the unborn.

All actions and decisions made from a place of reverence are moral. Some moral decisions are enormously difficult and may involve someone else dying.

Putting a pet to sleep because it is ill and suffering is a moral act. Putting a pet to sleep because you don't want to be bothered with it is immoral.

Hunting because you have to to eat is moral. Sport hunting is immoral.

A woman deciding that ending the life of the unborn child is a necessary act is moral.

Taking a loved one off a ventilator when there is no hope for recovery is moral. It honors the loved one's dying process.

We must not allow the government to make blanket rules around difficult situations.

sal

reply from: sarah

So, the life of the developing baby in the womb doesn't fit into the equation of "morality".
I presume that's your belief since you didn't put any qualifiers within your statement.

Sport hunting is immoral, but killing a developing human child isn't?

Putting a pet to sleep because you don't want it is immoral, but terminating the life of a child in the womb because you don't want it, isn't immoral?

Have I summed up your beliefs correctly?

reply from: ForLife

I disagree with most of salspua's conclusions as to what is and is not moral. Salspua says if the decision and action is made from a place of reverence, it is moral. I am to conclude that salspua is the one to determine what is coming from a place of reverence, and is thereby moral?

God said, "There is a way which seems right to man, but the end thereof is death." Also, "It is not in man to direct his own footsteps."

I would suggest you are stumbling in the dark because you are not following the lighted path, you are trying to formulate your own way.

Salspua's morality is woefully off the mark.

reply from: salspua

Sarah-
No, you haven't summed up my beliefs correctly.

The life of the developing baby must be considered, and it is a part of the picture.

Re: killing a developing human being & morality
Scenario: Mr. and Mrs. have been trying for years to conceive without success until through IVF Mrs. has 8 fetuses. (Feti just sounds too weird...) Mrs. is tiny and cannot carry 8 babies long enough for any of them to survive. What is the moral decision - to abort 6 so that two have a good chance of living or letting all 8 die without so much as a chance?

Sport hunting is immoral because it is killing for entertainment. Abortion is never entertaining. No trophies. No head on the den wall. No bragging.

Forlife-
It is not my place to decide if another's action was through reverence. I do not hold myself as the one to pass judgement. Being pro-choice, I reject the idea that others make my decisons about my body for me.

Also, you know little of my path outside of my definition of morality, which only implies that I trust my heart over what other people tell me to be or do. When God guides me, the feeling comes from my gut, not from someone on the outside.

The question posed had to do with explaining how ending an unborn life can be a moral decision. The request wasn't to convince others that I am right and they are wrong. That's not my intent. My intent is to illustrate that people have different belief systems that lead them to different answers to tough questions. I am very spiritual, but I am not religious, and my beliefs reflect that. Though I disagree with many views I see here, I will not tell you that your views are wrong. Feel free to disagree, and explaining how you disagree is helpful.

sal

reply from: chooselife

What if a husband and wife have 6 children and the husband dies in a tragic accident. The mother is stricken with grief and worry as to how she is going to provide for her family. She deduces that she could manage 2 of the children (because we all know how expensive child care is) and be able to work and provide for them. So the other 4 being killed --- would that be moral??

I would say that it is immoral to be creating embryo's and having them implanted in your womb when you are unwilling or unable to carry them all. Do couples not make this "choice" b/c they are playing a game of probability? It is unlikely that all 8 embryo's would implant....but it is still possible. They have already made their decision.

Some people have the "eye for eye" morality. Take the recent and numerous child murders. Would it be moral for the parents of one of these children to kill the murderer of their child? Life for life as they see it??

You are trying to use "morals" to justify immoral behavior and call it a "different belief system". You know Charles Manson had a "different belief system", the 9/11 suicide bombers had a "different belief system", Hitler had a "different belief system", Polpot had a "different belief system"....I could go on and on.

I have to disagree that abortion does not provide trophies. Do some of the "doctors" that perform abortions not have 6,000 sq feet homes and luxury cars? Do their wives not have 5 carat diamond rings upon their fingers? One could say that these are the "trophies" they have acquired as a direct result of killing an unborn child. And unfortunately there is no head to hang on the den wall because it gets shoved down an industrial garbage disposal after it was twisted off of the body it belonged to......I am sorry but this is not morality.

reply from: ForLife

I see, salspua, that you conclude different people take different paths in coming up with what is reverent, moral and correct for them. And who's to judge the difficult decision of another, you say?

You conclude that sport hunting is immoral. DNR and automotive insurance officials may conclude that too many deer lead to dangerous car crashes and deer population cycles where the population ocassionally crashes due to starvation in high population/drought/bad weather years. DNR, governmental and insurance people have decided to carefully monitor deer populations and open hunting seasons as a humane way too prevent starvation and property damage. Some may feel controlling the deer population is very moral, that in fact, it is the right thing to do.

You say a woman deciding ending the life of an unborn baby is necessary is a moral act. Others of us may believe what caused this to be "necessary", such as going to school, financial reasons, the man has split, etc, does not necessitate the murder of a child and does not make it moral.

You say it's moral to take the child's life merely because the woman has made that "difficult" decision. By fiat the woman's decision is always right you say. She made the decision, so it's right and moral for her. Forget the fact that she has brutally taken away the life of another living human being.

If I make my own choices, I am wrong. If you make your own choices, you are wrong. Neither of us would be right.

The only way to get things right is to do "what pleases Him." That is, your instruction must come from the Bible. Only by following the path illuminated by Jesus can a moral course be found. Following Jesus' leadership is the only Way to God and eternal and more abundant life. Life is not abundant now because of the mess we've made of it. We make selfish decisions that lead to death, disease, hate and war. Serving God instead of remaining a slave to sin is the true way to happiness.

reply from: Dmourning

But shouldn't people be free make the choice to follow this if they wish without hearing any guff about it?

Or should people only be free to "do the right thing by god"?

reply from: yoda

So that "necessary to kill" is moral no matter how trivial the reason? Even if the woman wants to buy a new car and thinks killing her baby will help her to buy a more expensive model? You put a lot of emphasis on the word "necessary" without any elaboration, why is that?

How about if she decides that it is "necessary" to kill her born kids because they are cramping her datintg style, is that a "moral act"? (Please don't descend into legalistic arguments).

There's another mystery word, "difficult". What does that mean, exactly? Does that mean the government must not stand in the way of a man who wants sex with a 10 year old?

reply from: yoda

Your scenario does not state whether the 8 are healthy. If the 8 are in terminal circumstances, that is a very unusual situation, and must be addressed as an atypical situation.

This debate is not about atypical situations, it is about the 95% of abortions that are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies. Throwing in a rare situation does nothing to illuminate that topic.

And yet you council others to make decisions about the death of the body of their baby. And you don't see the hypocrisy in that?

So far, all you have done is to state that in your moral opinion, it is a moral decision. Can you not make any better analogies, or more relevant statements?

reply from: salspua

Wow.... ya'll take things I say and run in really bizarre directions.

Re: Aborting 6 of 8 fetuses so that two may live in comparison to killing born children for monetary reasons
I said reverence. Killing your 2 year old because you think it will help you afford a car is insane. There is no reverence in that decision. Also, an unborn child does not live alone. It lives inside a woman. A born child lives physically independently. Why is the woman unimportant? Why is an implanted embryo more important than anyone who has been born?

Re: the rare situation when there's more embryos than can be carried to viability
I never said I was pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. The scenario I mentioned, atypical as it is, illustrates that legality is important, because in that case it is a lesser evil, IMO.

I was pregnant unexpectedly (sparing medical details) at 19. The baby's Christian father insisted I get an abortion. I refused. I refused because in my gut I knew carrying him was right for me, not because of anything the Bible says. P is now coming up on his 21st birthday. He is a wonderful human being.

Two people close to me made a different decision. They thought it out, weighed their options, followed the same instinct I did and chose to abort. I respect their struggles and choices. I wouldn't call either of them immoral.

Re: the deer population
You see, this is where reverence comes in. I never said reducing the deer population is immoral. I would prefer deer birth control or something, but if the only choice is to shoot some of them so that the others have enough to eat (see 8 fetus scenario), then do it. But not as sport. Getting joy out of killing is very creepy to me. Use the meat, use the hides, but killing as a good time... Yuck. In a place of reverence, apologize to the beasts. Thank them for their gifts of food and leather. No heads on the wall. No pride in killing.

This is one of those bizarre directions.

I am vague with the word "necessary" because it is personal. What may be necessary for one may not be necessary for another. I am not here to convince people that abortion is a wonderful thing. I am answering a question and my answers point to that there is good reason for abortion to be an ~option~ for those who believe they need that option. It is important that women, not government, have final say over their own bodies. Yes, that say so does include the fetus - it is physically unavoidable. The woman has to matter, though.

Wow... really bizarre direction, but it helps me to understand where anti-choice thinking comes from. So you equate a woman aborting a fetus, even if it saves her life, to pedophilia? Interesting. How is pedophilia ever a reverent act? How does pedophilia ever prevent suffering? When is pedophilia a medical decision? If we took more rights away from women, would there be less pedophilia?

No, no hypocrisy. Giving an opinion that abortion can be a moral decision and stating that the government should not dictate a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy under all circumstances are not contridictory.

My statements are totally relevant. I didn't say abortion was always moral. I think you're oversimplifying a complex situation. In saying morality is defined by coming from a place of reverence, I have given the simplest answer I can. If you don't want my simple answer, what do you want?

See, this is an important statement. You're coming from a place that Christianity is the one true way. That is a belief. I honor that it's your belief. My beliefs overlap in many ways, but are not always the same, obviously. If the Bible is my recipe for proper living, can I give my daughter away like property? May I stone someone who breaks God's Law as I understand it? If you choose instruction from the Bible only, that is your right. I can live a wonderful, loving life in a way that makes sense to me.

A Christian man explained "eye for an eye" to me as meaning that a punishment should not outweigh the crime, not that one should shoot the shooter or kill the killer, steal from the thief, etc.

This is another bizarre comment, though not as off the wall as the others. The four children can go into foster care if there is no other way to care for them. The mother's body is no longer involved.

No, I'm not. I don't consider any of the people you mentioned sane. Hitler's atrocities were not from a place of reverence, even less sanity. I don't even want to get started about 9/11. I don't think one can compare Polpot's heinous crimes and a young woman who aborts a pregnancy from being raped by her uncle. Just not the same to me. Is it the same to you?

sal

reply from: yoda

When your statements are open ended, the logical conclusions cannot be avoided. If you don't like to consider the logical conclusions, don't make open ended statements.

That is a subjective statement, is it not? How do you differentiate logically between the "reverence" of killing an unborn child and a born one? Or should we just take your opinion on that?

And that matters because...........???? Did the unborn child ask to be inside, and totally dependent upon it's mother? What has it done to reduce it's moral right to life to less than zero?

There is no difference, they mean the same thing. Look up the term "proabortion" it means " favoring legal access to abortion". Does that not describe your position?

Once again, you simply state your opinion without any supporting logic. How do you support their decision to kill their unborn children when you knew "in your gut it was (not) right for you"? How can killing unborn children be right for others but not for you? What have the children of those other people done to make it moral to kill them, but not yours?

Give us an example of why it's "necessary" to kill and unborn child for economic or personal reasons, okay?

Getting in a little dig on the side? No doubt, that's a prochoice tendency. Here's your origional statement: "We must not allow the government to make blanket rules around difficult situations."

Now when you make an open ended statement like that, you ought to be prepared to answer questions that have to do with the logical conclusions drawn from your statement. But instead you take the low road and imply something sinister about the source of the question. Apparently you are not going to define "difficult situations" so that any meaningful debate can occur, and you are not going to say why any other sample situation I suggest are "not difficult", so I will conclude that your intention is to dodge my question, and move on.

Those two statements are not the hypocrisy I referred to, and I think you know that. Claiming the "right to control of one's body" and at the same time the "right to kill that other body" is the hypocrisy I was referring to. Another question dodged.

Sure you did, you said "A woman deciding that ending the life of the unborn child is a necessary act is moral." Are you now saying that some women abort without making that decision, or did you just make an oversimplification?

I think you're being too vague and simplistic. A "place of reverence" has no meaning for me at all, without knowing what the speaker is reverent about.

The only way to be clear and logical in a discussion about moral questions is to make comparisons with similar situation in which there is already agreement. For example, we agree that child molesters ought not be allowed free access to unprotected children, right? Now, can you proceed further without accusing me of anything perverse?

reply from: salspua

I do not deliberately dodge your questions. Sometimes I tire of my points being missed or drawn out to a strange conclusion. In the case of the one statement, I misunderstood your comment. Bizarre directions are not logical conclusions. I still don't understand comparing abortion to pedophilia.

I agree that child molesters should not have access to children.

In spite of my attempts, I am unable to produce an answer that satisfies you, so I will explore the same ideas from a different angle.

If I understand correctly, you believe that the life of all fetuses must not be ended under any circumstances, even in the rare circumstance that it costs the mother her life or costs the lives of other fetuses (as in the 8 fetus scenario).

The life of the fetus is more important than the life of the mother.

All living, even in cases of rare genetic disorders that cause only suffering and early death, is preferable to any pregnancy being terminated.

All killing is immoral.

The government knows what is moral and has the right to control women's bodies.

Babies don't ask to be conceived, but women always ask for the circumstances of the pregnancy.

All pregnancy is from consensual sex.

Morals are absolutes. Circumstances never matter.

Am I on the right track?

sal

reply from: yoda

Perhaps your shouldn't try, since I didn't compare them. I compared the attitude that we have towards things we consider immoral.

Well that's a start. Now compare that with my opinion that abortionists should not have access to unborn babies. Why does the first one make sense to you but not the second?

Not only do you not understand correctly, you have apparently stereotyped me into some little box. Nothing I have stated implies what you just attributed to me, and it is not my opinion. Are you interested in my actual opinion? (assuming an affirmative answer) I believe it is never necessary to intentionally kill the unborn child. In cases where the mother's life is in grave jeapordy, the pregnancy can be ended without intentionally killing the child. All efforts should be made to save the lives of both patients.

Innocent lives are all of the same value to me. How anyone could rank them in importance is beyond my imagination.

You seem full of strawmen. You are creating them, so you put a hat on them. Until you are willing to discuss what I have actually said, rather than what you think the stereotypical ProLifer thinks, there is no use in responding to your comments any further.

reply from: salspua

Actually, I am interested in your opinion. I am interested in dialog, but I think I am met with snarkiness rather than real questions for clarification. Because this conversation seemed to be an idea skeet shoot, I thought I'd turn the ideas I am seeing to their absolutes so perhaps we can get somewhere.

Chooselife commented that the 8 fetus scenario doesn't happen without medical intervention, and you're right. It is a game of odds, but it has happened. Playing God with conception is a whole other conversation.

The problem with saying that the woman and baby are equally important is that there are times when one has to take pecedence over the other. In an abortion, obviously, the mother has taken precedence. In pro-life, sometimes the fetus, or the fetus' right not to be aborted takes precedence over the mother. I approached it from the absolute to find out if there is any condition under which those who were pro-life would believe that terminating a pregnancy would be acceptable.

And you're right, quality of life is a slippery slope, but I don't think it should dismissed. Nature taking its course is not always a kind thing. Erroneous test results are also a serious issue. Again, I'm looking for where the line is. This helps to define "difficult". (Yodaveter was asking for clarification earlier.)

Because I think raping children is always wrong and sometimes abortion is a lesser evil than continuing a pregnancy. I can see where you're coming from - the difference is I don't think abortion is always wrong, so the comparison doesn't work for me.

As far as never intentionally killing the fetus, how can one not intentionally kill the fetus in an ectopic pregnancy? Wouldn't the fallopian tube rupture if nothing was done and then the doctor would have to hope he can save the mother's life? Letting the tube rupture doesn't sound like there is concern for the mother. That is a case where the fetus is more important than the mother, even though the fetus can't survive. I do agree with trying to save both lives if possible.

I said this because when I was talking about how abortion can ever be a moral choice, the responses I received were in absolutes. The reverence I referred to was reverence for the best possible outcome, reverence for both the mother and the fetus. Yes, I believe reverence for the fetus can include aborting in some cases. (Yodaveter, another example of a difficult decision.) When morality is an absolute, there is no such thing as a difficult decision. There is no contemplation.

I disagree. The philosophy is not the same to me. The woman does not live inside of the man, and there is no consequence if he does not rape her. He will never die as a consequence of not raping her. Rape is sexual domination. Abortion is not sexual domination.

I agree that that fetus didn't ask to be conceived and is innocent. At the same time, why do we further punish a woman for being raped? Not only is her character often called into question, she is often told she must have asked for it, but should she become pregnant, she must bear constant reminder of the crime committed against her. Even a child. A 12 year old child. She is innocent. Does her suffering mean anything?

We also have killed many children in our military actions. Their fathers may or may not have committed heinous acts. Many Americans seem to sit pretty well with that. (Personally, I am horrified that we participate in war... not intended as thread drift, but you asked about killing children being acceptable in our society.)

Well, I could say the same thing about you. I saw no willingness to discuss what I am actually saying. If you tell me more about what you think, then I don't have to make assumptions based on your twisting my words and calling them logical conclusions. I bet you can't help but respond, too.

Ok - honest questions

When abortion has been illegal, women sought them anyway, often to be maimed or killed. What are your thoughts around this? True, most pregnancy is from unprotected consensual sex, but the fact remains, women die in their desperation to end the pregnancy. Is illegal abortion preferable to legal abortion? (I understand no abortion is the ideal.)

What about all of the unwanted, unloved children who are on the planet already? I don't know if there are more babies available for adoption at birth when abortion is illegal, but do more of these kids get adopted when there are fewer newborns available?

Do any of you think that using birth control pills is immoral because it doesn't prevent conception, it prevents implantation, therefore being an invisible abortion?

Thank you in advance for thoughtful answers.

sal

reply from: bobinsky

I know very few doctor's who DON'T have 6,000 sf homes and all the other stuff, diamonds, blah, blah, blah. In the case of abortionists, I don't know one here in this area who only does abortions. They are all qualified OB/GYNS whose practices consist of ALL health services for women. Abortion is only part of their practices. Should they be denied the material trappings of other doctors?

Morality is relative. What I think is immoral might not bother you is a moral sense, and vice-versa. You say that abortion is murder. You're entitled to your view. Other people disagree that abortion is murder. The majority of people in this country believe that abortion during the first trimester should remain legal. Not that this makes a difference legally or anything, but many people who are moral people do NOT agree. And again, religion isn't the defining body of morality or immorality. Many people who are atheists are pro-life. There are religious groups that are pro-choice.

reply from: chooselife

I know very few doctor's who DON'T have 6,000 sf homes and all the other stuff, diamonds, blah, blah, blah. In the case of abortionists, I don't know one here in this area who only does abortions. They are all qualified OB/GYNS whose practices consist of ALL health services for women. Abortion is only part of their practices. Should they be denied the material trappings of other doctors?

I wonder if this is the case because you live in South Dakota (that most of the abortionists are also practicing ob/gyns). I live in Ohio and almost every abortion clinic that I am aware of has "doctors" that only perform abortions. Probably because business is so good for them. I mean it makes more sense to make $350 in less than an hour and do that 10 times a day than it does to see 10 women who are only getting tummy checks or pap smears. It is also my understanding that most of the abortionists in this area do not even have rights to administer post-abortion care in a hospital. If their patient is injured she is taken to the hospital and receives care from the doctor on call. From my physician friends there are many ob/gyns who do not want abortionists in there practice for simple malpractice liabilities. Why on earth would most women want an OB who really believes that the child they are carrying is of no value? I (as a pregnant woman) would be very concerned about the recommendations and decisions made by such a physician.

Morality is relative. What I think is immoral might not bother you is a moral sense, and vice-versa. You say that abortion is murder. You're entitled to your view. Other people disagree that abortion is murder. The majority of people in this country believe that abortion during the first trimester should remain legal. Not that this makes a difference legally or anything, but many people who are moral people do NOT agree. And again, religion isn't the defining body of morality or immorality. Many people who are atheists are pro-life. There are religious groups that are pro-choice.

reply from: bobinsky

Um, Mandi, I live in metro Atlanta, as in Georgia. I am originally from SD, yes, but have lived in metro Atlanta for 15 years. Perhaps you were trying to make an assumption here? Not sure.
As far as women going to an OB/GYN that performs abortions, perhaps these women believe in choice, rather than forcing women to carry unwanted/unplanned pregnancies. Who knows? It's their decision, not mine.

reply from: chooselife

Bobinsky - my mistake. I recalled you saying something about South Dakota and how much you loved it....According to AGI only 2% of abortions are performed by physicians (as in an OB/GYN with a practice that provides other medical services). The majority are performed in abortion clinics. If need be I can re-find the web page and post it for you to link to.

reply from: yoda

Can you be more specific?

The lesser of two evils is still evil. Continuing a pregnancy is never evil unless it carries the risk of killing the mother (and therefore both of them), IMO. However, if you want to discuss specific reasons why carrying a baby to term would otherwise be "evil", please do so.
That's good to hear. That's all I was saying.

Can you be more specific than "some cases"?

The fetus does not live there out of free choice, does it? It has no say in it's location, does it?

Aborting her is more a punishment than leaving her baby alone, if she is healthy enough to gestate.

You could, but you would be dishonest in doing so. I have not made one single assumption about you, and yet you have made about a dozen about me.

I like the saying "If you don't like abortion, don't have one"... and that goes double for illegal ones.

What about them? They need many things, and we ought to be helping them as we are able to. But if you are suggesting that the way to help them is to kill unborn babies, I would ask you why kill the smallest ones? Morally, why not killl the bigger ones?

Those types of contaceptives that prevent implantation are morally the same as abortion, IMO.

reply from: bobinsky

Mandi, no problem. South Dakota is the greatest state in the nation - but I'm partial. That's probably why SD stuck in your mind.
I called around today, looked onlne and such, and there are two clinics east of Atlanta in the Athens, GA area that perform strictly abortions. The doctors, however, are OB/GYNS that work 1 or 2 days at the clinics, along with their regular practices. In the metro area, I asked around - neither of the clinics I volunteer as an escort at - and as far as we all know, the doctors have their regular practices and work part-time at the reproductive services clinics. I haven't yet been able to find anything else.

reply from: selkie

>I know very few doctor's who DON'T have 6,000 sf homes and all the other stuff, diamonds, blah, blah,

blah. In the case of abortionists, I don't know one here in this area who only does abortions. They are all

qualified OB/GYNS whose practices consist of ALL health services for women. Abortion is only part of their

practices. Should they be denied the material trappings of other doctors?

Ooh, I've gotta step in on this one!

The idea that all doctors are one step away from 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' is a popular stereotype, but (unfortunately! =) it's a greatly exaggerated one. Your average doctor graduates from med school with four years of college debt and four years of med school debt -- it can easily come to over $200,000 in the red. Combine that with the wages that your *average* doctor makes even after another three to eight years of residency and fellowship (during which there isn't much extra money for paying down the principal) and one can see where 'easy money' does indeed become a temptation. You see a lot of Chevies and Toyotas in the attendings' parking lot.

Combine this with the trend towards HMOs, Medicare/Medicaid, and the eventual arrival of government health care, and the *downward* trend in physician pay combined with the *steep* increase in malpractice insurance...

So easy money is tempting. How, then, does one get it? There are a few ways:

1. Work your tail off. Some attendings willingly sign up for hours that are illegal for residents to work. The days of the 110+ hour week are not over.

2. Sell drugs or prescriptions for drugs. (Obviously this is a federal crime!) Most doctors hate writing for strong narcotics (too much paperwork and liability), pain specialists are *very* hard to fool, and serious drug gangs don't like to buy their OxyContin five pills at a time from cancer patients who usually don't want to sell it anyway. The fact that these doctors rapidly wind up in jail doesn't seem to dissuade your occasional foolish (or desperate) one from trying.

3. Do something specialized that does nothing but procedures: LASIK, interventional cardiology, etc. It is VERY difficult to get a training spot for these. They are deliberately restricted and the people who get them tend to be the cream of the crop.

4. Do something nobody else is willing to do. Supply and demand. You don't want to work 110 hours a week, you're not willing to risk jail, and you don't have the qualifications to get a real specialty. So you do something a little questionable. Maybe you run a cash-only practice on the edge of town. Maybe you get a little creative with your insurance billing. Or maybe you do abortions.

Doctors are human, too. There are good doctors who work tirelessly and get compensated accordingly. But there are also unethical doctors for whom it's all about the money. Just because the first group are paid well doesn't mean the second should be.

reply from: whosays

In your good doctors/bad doctors comparison there is another aspect to consider beyond just compensation - malpractice insurance rates, a cost which is ultimately passed on to every consumer.

One has to wonder why those "good" doctors don't pressure the AMA to make sure that abortionists (widely acknowledged to be the washouts and loosers of medicine) aren't being 'effectively-subsidized' by pooling the 'risk' of this inherently risky proceedure with all others.

To truly protect consumers, the AMA and or any state legislature should work to make sure that no abortions could be covered under a 'blanket' malpractice policy - i.e, if you want legal abortions then require that any/all abortions have to be covered under a completly seperate malpractice policy.

reply from: selkie

Not an easy idea to implement, but a very good one.

Sadly, insurance makes some pretty meaningless assumptions. Smoking would get me a surcharge on health insurance, but I could eat McDonald's for every meal and go cliff diving with nary a complaint. My old car doesn't need theft insurance, but my liability-only policy still gives me a discount for the burglar alarm. And very different types of surgeries tend to be lumped together as similar.

Med-mal is the same way =O But again, you're right -- those who choose to do high-risk work should be the ones who pay the high-risk rates.

reply from: bobinsky

You make a good point. It's like any professional who spends a great deal of time in college, grad school, post grad, law schoo, med school, etc. Many times these people are left with huge debts, but not all. If the professional is a specialist - most new attendings are not, no? - then the money situation is different. I'd have no idea what an *average* doctor makes, if you're referring to attendings, but I know specialists do very well for the most part. We have several medical specialists in our subdivision and I'm aware of how othrs live, but for the most part, these physicians are older - 50's or so, well-established and were around before the HMO's started changing the rules.

Ooooh, naughty doctor. I was not aware of the stringent requirements for doctors who write scripts for narcotics until I became friends with a therapist whose hubby is a psychiatrist and regularly writes for Xanax, Adderol (sp?). Well, actually I didn't know these were narcotis until she told me. Interesting. I heard a story about a lab worker here in Atlanta at a research facility that was smuggling Schedule I's out of the facility for sale on the streets. Nurses have also been caught taking drugs. It's not just doctors who are after the money. As far as OxyContin, has there been a drug that you can think of within the last decade or so that's ended in so much addiction? I mean a prescribed drug.

Well, it depends on what you mean by "unethical". If they're bilking insurance/Medicare/Medicaid, then this is not only unethical but illegal. Doctors know what is illegal.

The positions are available, and each profession has restrictions and "cream of the crop" grads. It's the nature of professional careers. This doesn't mean that those that are chosen need to break the law or do anything that they believe is unethical. It's a choice.

I've been reading in a lot of legal journals and regular weekly news mags about the cost of malpractice insurance skyrocketing for doctors, but especially so in the OB/GYN areas. A lot of OB's are leaving the practice and staying with GYN only.

reply from: Tam

LDI makes the effort to reach future doctors to encourage them not to become abortionists. Now, here's a great question: what if there were no more abortionists? What if abortion were still legal, but there was not a single doctor in the country who was willing to perform one? What if doctors were united in their commitment to save lives? Would you pro-abortion folks advocate that the government force some or all doctors to kill children in utero? After all, isn't it the government's job to make sure every child is a wanted child and every unwanted child is a dead child? Forced abortions can be on the part of the doctors, too, right? What's wrong with the government forcing someone to kill? Anything wrong with that? Or would that be the only way to prevent the coat hanger self-mutilation you seem to see lurking around every corner?

reply from: Allizdog2000

That is why there are groups like Medical Students for Choice and Law Students for Choice.

http://www.ms4c.org/

http://www.lawstudentsforchoice.org/

Medical Students for Choice's tagline is "Without providers... there is no choice."

They are the future of Abortion.

reply from: bobinsky

Alliz, there are many more people who advocate the legalization of abortion than just medical students and law students. There are pro-choice Christian groups - Catholics for Free Choice is one (I think that's the correct name). There are Jewish groups who are pro-choice. Pro-choice people all around and the majority of people in this country believe abortion should be legal at least through the first trimester, and with some restrictions through the second trimester.
Abortion and choice aren't going anywhere and those of us who live in the real world are aware of this. There were abortions BEFORE it was legalized and, god forbid, if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned - which it won't - abortion isn't going away. This is the reason for the pro-choice mantra of 'safe and legal'.

Let me ask you this Alliz: do you think that because you disagree with abortion, choice should be taken away from those who don't disagree with abortion?

reply from: bobinsky

Chooselife, I've got to say I agree with you on this embryo implanting thing. To me it has nothing to do with God but with logic: 8 babies? Of course they're hoping for the odds that at least one embryo will implant; sometimes none do, and sometimes - more rare - all or most of them do. 8 babies is a litter and women's bodies are not built to withstand these kinds of pregnancies.
This said, there are some people so desperate to become parents that rationality flies out the window and they take these odds. What's best for the mother?
Also, anti-choicers talk about the money trail that abortion providers follow. Has anybody checked out the cost of in-vitro or any other type of forced conception? THIS is where the real money is in the baby game.

As far as Down's syndrome persons wondering about abortion, I don't know that this is possible, is it? Again, as far as deciding about pregnancies that may be carrying malformed or handicapped feti, this has got to be up to the parents only, along with doctor advice. It is the parents who will bear any burdens associated with raising a handicapped child.

In a philosphy class, we were asked this question: is all killing immoral and were given the instances you mentioned above: self-defense and war. In the case of self-defense, in this country we do have the right to defend ourselves, of course, but we are making the instant decision that our life is more valuable than the other person's life. There are a whole host of variables that go with the question.
As far as killing in war, in many cases the killing of the enemy is pre-emptive, not self-defense. Is the war a just war?

The government doesn't own the rights to our bodies, male OR female. As far as the gov't. controlling out bodies and running naked, sex with 7 yo, pentagon, etc., you CAN do all these things, you'll just suffer the consequences of the punishment.

Men know that sex leads to pregnancy also, at least I hope they do. Biologically, women cannot get pregnant the traditional way without male involvement; biologically, the fetus is based in the woman's body - many women would prefer the location of the fetus to be elsewhere for the 9 months and forgo the discomforts of pregnancy and labor, but there's no choice in the location.

reply from: Allizdog2000

Why yes, with certainity! There is a Video by Devo called "Freedom of Choice" I think you should watch. It has nothing to do with abortion.

http://rhino.com/retrovid/VideoKeeper.lasso?Artist=DEVO&Partner=

I am saying this because I have CHOOSEN to support both sides, all sides! Because I hope for chaos.

So, Yeah. I would like to see it banned. To see how the Abortion advocates would respond to the immediate threat. What would they do, how would they react.

Move it to Native-American reservations? Protests and Riots in the Streets?

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

reply from: ChristianLott

Bobinsky wrote:

It's one woman and a few of her friends making a scene.

Alliz wrote:

Devo (or at least G Casale) is pro abortion:

http://www.talkaboutpeople.com/group/alt.fan.devo/messages/31147.html

reply from: bobinsky

No thanks for the video. I remember this group from the '80's.

This website is probably the weirdest one I've ever seen. The cartoon looks like a Chick tract. Let me ask you why you post the link to this site that is obviously Satanic in nature? Have you read H. P. Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith? Are you into this kind of junk?

reply from: selkie

You hit the nail on the head: generalists who are paid well are the older ones who often have hospitalists, PA's, and nurse practitioners to do some of their scut work. But there's a long, long time between graduating med school in one's twenties or early thirties and being a successful, fifty-something attending.

As far as OxyContin, has there been a drug that you can think

of within the last decade or so that's ended in so much addiction? I mean a prescribed drug.

Not in so much visible addiction, anyway. SSRI's (Paxil, Zoloft, etc) have withdrawal symptoms and for that reason can't be marketed in England as non-habit-forming, but you don't see people begging at the ER for just a little Paxil. =)

Well, it depends on what you mean by "unethical". If they're bilking insurance/Medicare/Medicaid, then

this is not only unethical but illegal. Doctors know what is illegal.

Sure, we do. That's what I'm saying. The choices for a doctor who wants to be rich are like those for any other business:

1. Be very, very patient

2. Be really talented

3. Join the mob

4. Do something nobody else wants to do

The difference is that things in medicine are unappealing for a different reason. GI, which involves dealing with various unappetizing digestive products (not to mention colonoscopies!) is actually a very competitive field to enter. Abortion, by comparison, is a pariah. It's *ethically* unappealing. And for all the whining about how supposedly dangerous it is, much more real danger (from gangs, drugs, etc) has not stopped numerous doctors and residents from volunteering in the inner city, nor from practicing in the extremely dangerous areas where some academic medical centers are located.

I've been reading in a lot of legal journals and regular weekly news mags about the cost of malpractice

insurance skyrocketing for doctors, but especially so in the OB/GYN areas. A lot of OB's are leaving the

practice and staying with GYN only.

It's real. The reason is simple -- the statute of limitations for their med-mal suits is longer. For adults, you have 3 years after an incident. For OB, you have 3 years *after the child turns 18*. You can be called to defend something you did two decades ago!

reply from: Allizdog2000

This website is probably the weirdest one I've ever seen. The cartoon looks like a Chick tract. Let me ask you why you post the link to this site that is obviously Satanic in nature? Have you read H. P. Lovecraft and Clark Ashton Smith? Are you into this kind of junk?

I Love H.P. Lovecraft, I tried read the Necronomicon years ago, but it doesn't make any sense, just like the insane writings of Aliester Crowley, except "Do what Thou Wilt, that is the whole of the law, guided underneth love, and love is the highest law" (or something to that effect). I accurately answered this in Yodavator's thread about the fetuses for sale.

reply from: Hereforareason

I wonder if you would be fine with a rapist saying that. Or a murderer.
Amber

reply from: bobinsky

Hi, Amber. Got your PM. I'll get to it tonight. As far as the statement above, rapists and murdered are committing crimes against other people. Only when they commit the crime do they lose their rights to privacy or government intrusion in their personal lives. So the instances of rapsts/murderers cannot be compared to a pregnant women or any other non-criminal person.

reply from: yoda

So if abortion is outlawed, you will be okay with "government intrusion" then?

Or will you suddenly decide that moralilty is more important than law?

reply from: bobinsky

Abortion will never be outlawed, so I don't worry about your hypotheticals. I have had intelligent, well-read, competent pro-life choicers ask me the same question, and I do have a response for these pro-lifers.

I gotta admit that it's late and I'm tired and I'm not sure what you mean here. What am I missing?

reply from: yoda

There is no logical reason to deny the possibility that abortion could once again become illegal, except perhaps to dodge the question.

If you cannot understand the concept of holding that morality is more important than law, I don't know what else to say to you. It's an old concept, one that says "follow your conscience, no matter what"......... does that help you?

reply from: bobinsky

You can fantasize all you want, but that's all it is is a fantasy. In the real world, those of us who live there, know that abortion will never be outlawed, R v. W won't be overturned and the battle eternal will live on between the anti-choicers and the pro-choicers.

Newsflash, yoda: Your beliefs about morality don't quantify the meaning for the entire civilization. As a matter of fact, neither do mine. Morality is relative, even in the case of abortion. So regardless of how you feel, it's not an issue.

reply from: yoda

Another ball dropped by Forrest bobinsky.

I didn't ask you about "HOW I FEEL", now did I? I asked you about HOW YOU FEEL....... but of course you will feign a lack of understanding of a very simple question, and drop the ball again.

Score: TWO (2) more dropped balls by Forrest bobinsky.

reply from: Tam

Hey, what happened to "RARE"? Ooh--I bet I know. I bet Bob doesn't want abortion to be rare. No reason it should be rare, right? It's such a wonderful GIFT to the world, legal abortion.

Ooh, I love the "real world" stuff. Let's see where this takes us...

Murder isn't going anywhere and those of us who live in the real world are aware of this. There was murder BEFORE there was a law against it and, if murder is ever legalized - which it won't [be] - murder isn't going away.... In fact, if we legalize murder, we can probably expect a whole lot more of it! Since those of us who live in the real world know there is nothing we can do to stop murder, we throw up our helpless little hands in dismay and just allow anyone to murder when it seems like the right choice for them. Who are WE to try to stop a murder? How would we? Why would we? Why should we? We just don't know! It's not for us to say! We just can't THINK of a single way to stop murder from happening, so we may as well let it happen in a way that's SAFE for everyone. We can think of many, many ways to make murderers more comfortable during their murders, but we just can't come up with a single way to make them choose NOT to murder. It's so frustrating! We've been thinking and thinking! We can think of all kinds of ways to make murder more safe and more fun--but we just can't think of any reason to punish anyone for murdering someone--after all, they would have murdered anyway, and punishing them won't bring your loved one back, now, will it? We've been thinking and thinking! We can think of all kinds of ways to try to make murder seem harmless--but we just can't think of any reason to prevent anyone from committing murder. We're tired of thinking! Can't we stop all this thinking and thinking? It makes us so tired. It's such hard work to avoid thinking about those murder victims--I mean, to try to think of ways to help the people in need! Some people NEED to murder someone! How can we know their situation? Who are we to know? Who are we to think?

Wow, it makes so much sense! Of course, since it's based on one of Bob's genius ideas, that stands to what I'll laughingly refer to as reason.

reply from: Tam

You can fantasize all you want, but that's all it is is a fantasy. In the real world, those of us who live there, know that abortion will never be outlawed, R v. W won't be overturned and the battle eternal will live on between the anti-choicers and the pro-choicers.
Another ball dropped by Forrest bobinsky.

Newsflash, yoda: Your beliefs about morality don't quantify the meaning for the entire civilization. As a matter of fact, neither do mine. Morality is relative, even in the case of abortion. So regardless of how you feel, it's not an issue.
I didn't ask you about "HOW I FEEL", now did I? I asked you about HOW YOU FEEL....... but of course you will feign a lack of understanding of a very simple question, and drop the ball again.
Score: TWO (2) more dropped balls by Forrest bobinsky.

Yoda, Bob can't answer questions that would require the use of a conscience. No choice but to drop the ball. Of course, if experience is any guide, I predict Bob will try to find some way to make it seem that you are the one dodging. It's funny, isn't it--how someone who has so much time and energy to spend here on this forum can write page after page after page and somehow manage not to address the simplest of questions. You'd almost think it was deliberate! But, as we all saw during the whole KlanParenthood issue, Bob is extremely gullible. How ELSE could we explain what happened? It was all so innocent! The snotty attitude is another good feint. Combine the feints with the dodges and we've got a fencing match! Well, for anyone on that fence, pay attention to what's actually being said--and avoided. You may find that you, too, have no answers for some of these questions--at least, no answers that would allow you to continue to support abortion in good conscience. (This last bit is directed only at those who possess a conscience in the first place. Apparently, for some people, a conscience should have nothing to do with how they view this or any issue.)

reply from: yoda

I know. Words like "morality" and "conscience" mean nothing to someone who doesn't care about them.

reply from: bobinsky

Yoda, I am not playing the dropped ball BS game again. You want to play, go ahead. You believe wnat you want to believe - that abortion will be outlawed. What will I do if it does? Is this what you want to know? I will be working my booty off to undo the damage in the filing of lawsuits on behalf of those women denied abortions; working on class action suits; working with the ACLU to get things changed. This is what I will do. Is this what you wanted to know?

Again, as I said before, YOUR morality is not MY morality; YOUR morality is not this country's morality, or anyone else's morality. If you cannot understand THIS concept, then you're in a world of hurt. You feel that abortion is immoral; fine. I do not; fine. So in MY case, it's not a question of morality being more important than law. As far as my conscience, I am following my conscience and would continue to do so if abortion were outlawed or banned.

reply from: bobinsky

So in your little box of the world, yoda, people who don't think or believe as you do lack morality and consciences. Is this what you're saying?

reply from: sarah

So, Bobinsky, am I clear in that you support the ACLU AND MS?

If so, then you support a group that is defending the dispicable association known as NAMBLA and a racist. Stunning.

If others would question your sense of morality, the above mentioned would be a big clue as to why. And could also be a large portion of the reason your defense of abortion on demand holds no water with the pro-LIFE advocates on this board.

reply from: bobinsky

You make assumptions that are untrue, Sarah, but I know you need to do this to demonize those that do not think like you do so you can assure yourself that you are morally superior. People like yourself resort to this tactic quite often. And your ignorance about everything involved on the pro-choice side is appalling and means that your POV on the matter are baseless. Your morality is not the guiding force of the universe, or aren't you aware of this very clear fact yet?
You people are no more pro-life than anyone else, so stop kidding yourselves. The first time you decide that a woman who dies during an abortion deserves what she gets takes away your pro-life mantle.

I support many groups that you're not aware of and that are none of you business. And the fact that you do not understand the legal issue at hand concerning the ACLU and NAMBLA is not surprising. No one supports NAMBLA, at least no one I know. The ACLU took the case because of the matter of the law that was at stake. Of course, if you'd read about the matter of the law at hand, you'd be aware of this. But ignorance is bliss. As a matter of fact, anti-choice groups and literature are more insidious than NAMBLA literature - which is the crux of the case. But then again, you wouldn't know this. Believe me Sarah, stay ignorant. It'll be much easier for you.

reply from: bobinsky

Say sarah, are you a satanist like allizdog? Since you're on this board with him, you must be, eh? You know, guilt by association?

reply from: sarah

I didn't make any assumptions nor do I need to demonize anyone. You're the one who is supporting a racist and a group that defends NAMBLA. You tell me if the shoe fits.

I never claimed to be an expert on anything. But, I'm sure it makes YOU FEEL INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR to make such a statement, "people like yourself resort to this tactic quite often".

You had to have been looking in the mirror when making this reply.

NOW, who is making assumptions? If you got all the "HELP" in the world you couldn't prove that statement. If you searched a million years you won't find that I've ever said such a thing, for the simple reasons I have never thought that. NEVER! So, I'll just continue to wear the pro-LIFE "mantle" with complete ease of mind.

So, who asked you? I only brought up the things that you have volunteered that you support. It sure must have hit a nerve though, for this kind of a response.

There's not a law on God's green earth worth defending that henious group over. IF the ACLU had any moral fiber at all it would help to defeat such a group from even existing.

There you have it folks, Bob found a way to elevate NAMBLA (NORTH AMERICAN MAN/BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION, in case anyone was wondering), above pro-life groups and their literature.

I know it makes you feel better to believe that people like me are nothing more than "ignorant", it makes what you support much more palatable. It's much easier for you to swallow the knowledge that millions of innocent babies are stabbed, suctioned, torn apart limb from limb each and every year in this nation.
In reality, believing that makes it "MUCH EASIER" for you somewhere in your blinded mind to continue to support what you do, including MS (a racist) and the ACLU (defenders of NAMBLA) and the wholesale murder of innocent developing human beings.

So, in the end you're only "kidding" yourself. But, do "stay ignorant, it'll be much easier for you".

reply from: yoda

Ah, so the truth finally squeaks out. The law has nothing to do with your support of abortion, you feel it is moral to kill your own unborn child, and will help others do so even if it's illegal!

Well then, why is abortion moral and killing a newborn child not? (Please note we have now moved past legalities and into moralities.... can you manage to continue in that vein?)

reply from: yoda

In my "little world", people who hide behind legalities and refuse for days to even discuss morality and conscience are immoral.

reply from: yoda

Was there ever any doubt? While she claims to support ACLU involvement with NAMBLA only because of "legal issues", the plain fact is that the ACLU carefully picks and chooses which cases they get involved in, and they do not help ProLifers even when their first ammendment rights are being trampled on. No, they make their decisions for political, not legal reasons.

And that puts them, and bob, squarely in support of NAMBLA.

reply from: sarah

Was there ever any doubt? While she claims to support ACLU involvement with NAMBLA only because of "legal issues", the plain fact is that the ACLU carefully picks and chooses which cases they get involved in, and they do not help ProLifers even when their first ammendment rights are being trampled on. No, they make their decisions for political, not legal reasons.

And that puts them, and bob, squarely in support of NAMBLA.

YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, YODA!

How these people sleep at night is beyond any human comprehension!!!

They have no clue as to what having decent moral values is even about. Not ONE SINGLE CLUE!

They are driven by the forces of darkness and have no qualms aligning themselves with the under belly of all that is evil in this world. Sunning, just absolutley stunning!

reply from: bobinsky

Oh, you're so full of it. The ACLU defends many other worthwhile group, but leave it to sobbing sarah to choose only one group, completely ignorant of the reasons the case was taken, and then point fingers. As far as the racist garbage, let me quote a phrase for your own dear yoda: stick it where the sun don't shine.

Well, I learned the hard way on this forum that if you don't know what you're talking about, it's best to stay silent about the subject or learn about it. Perhaps you should do the same.

No, I was looking at your post.

Guilt by association: you support the people on this forum, some of whom believe that women who die during an abortion deserve what they get. Ergo, you support the same beliefs. You can't have it both ways.

Ignorance always hits a nerve with me. And no, you didn't ask me who I support besides the ACLU because then you'd have to admit that you're wrong.

Unfortunately, sobbing sarah, this is America - land of free speech. This is why you weepy anti-choicers drag around clinics on the weekends - too lazy to come out during the week - to exercise your free speech. Every group has the same right until it breaks the law. And the rule of law the ACLU is fighting for is one that could be applied against the "pro-life" groups and the killing and maiming of abortion providers. Wouldn't take much work to prove the pro-life side guilty of inciting violence just by the nature of its actions and beliefs.

Another ignorance-filled rant by sobbing sarah. But face it, baby, your pro-life side has committed murder in the name of the pro-life cause; pro-life websites show information about abortion providers: their names, home addresses, phone numbers, pix of their kids, where their kids attend school so the anti-choicers can harass the kids at school. But, by being pro-life, you support all this - remember, guilt by association. As heinous as the group is, at least NAMBLA doesn't support the killing of people like pr-lifers do and have done. Take a real good look at your group.

What I support doesn't need to be made "palatable" because it's only looked down upon by you, and if you think that matters, you're sadly mistaken. These feti are aborted because they are unwanted/unplanned. You call them babies; fine you cradle an 8-week old fetus in your palm, change it's diaper, give it a bottle. And for pro-lifers to say they don't care about the death of women from botched abortions or that they go around killing abortion providers and promoting violence against clinics means they ain't got no rights to the pro-life name.
I suggest you read the manifesto written by Eric Rudolph and see how amazingly alike your language sounds to his - almost identical in places. And since he is pro-life, well, no wonder you all sound the same.

reply from: bobinsky

Ah, another failed attempt at twisting someone's words. Give it up, Gomer. I defend the law; that what I do for a living, that is the oath I took. If I were doing something against what I swore to do, I would have been disbarred or censored.

Gomer, come up with some new questions, please. Your hammering these same ones is getting really tiring. I'm not going to move around in your world of moralities; you stay there and play by yourself. And I've already answered the questions about feti and newborn babies more than once on this forum. Can you NOT retain information? And if you can't, that doesn't make it MY problem.

reply from: bobinsky

And in my world, people who hammer on the same questions and issues incessantly are limited in brain power, gomer. For the last time: morals/ morality are subjective. Your morals are not my morals; we are not on the same page and there is no point in discussing the issue. You are free to have your morals; nobody's taking this away from you. You are NOT free to impose YOUR morals on me or anyone else. Do you understand this now? You can call me immoral 50 times a day and it doesn't change a thing. It's merely your opinion.

reply from: bobinsky

Hey Gomer, how many years did you work with the ACLU? The ACLU does carefully pick the cases it will try and it has to do with money/finances. Cases are expensive to try so they must choose carefully those cases that will do the most good for the most people. The ACLU has in the past tried cases on behalf of conservative causes. And pro-lifers have not had their first amendment righs trampled on, no matter what you believe.

And by your support of the pro-life causes and all the people involved in the pro-life cause, this puts you squarely in support of Eric Rudolph and Bernard Kopp, some fiiiiine people to be involved with. Not to mention Neal Horsley. You pro-lifers are one big happy family. By supporting and defending pro-life, you support and defend your friends Eric and Bernard. How are they, by the way?

reply from: bobinsky

Yes, absolutely sunning. What forces of darkness drove your pro-life compadres Eric Rudolph and Bernard Kopp to do what they did? That guilt by association is a toughie, ain't it, sobbing sarah? Obviously you don't see their killing as evil since you think only anti-choicers are immoral and evil.

Well, I don't support Eric or Bernard or Neal as you pro-lifers do, so you might want to check your own beliefs along with theirs and rethink your morals.

Well, a lot of us active pro-choice activists don't sleep well at night because we have to be afraid of the pro-life forces that are lurking out there, waiting for another chance just like your pro-life friends Eric and Bernard. How you anti-choicers sleep at night knowing that those among you in this country are planning more violent attacks against a group that you disagree with is what should be keeping you awake at night. But we all know that you pro-lifers really aren't pro-life and that you could care less about any life that isn't a fetus.

reply from: sarah

First, I presume you meant "James" Kopp, as I have never heard of "Bernard" Kopp. Maybe you should get the names straight before spouting off about things you know little about. Having set the record straight on that, they followed the same forces of darkness that MS and the ACLU follow. They are NOT anyone's pro-LIFE "compadres" as you won't find anyone defending their actions that are truly pro-LIFE, unlike yourself who can find something admirable about a racist and a group that will defend the likes of NAMBLA.

Nice try at defelecting your own troubled conscience at supporting a racist and NAMBLA, but as I all ready said, pro-LIFE advocates do NOT support those men and cannot find anything admirable about their actions, again unlike yourself who can find things to support a racist and NAMBLA over.

This coming from someone who actually has given veiled threats to two different people on this board!
Surely, you must have had that "mirror" surgerically attatched by now.
AGAIN, it's YOU who have found ways to support a racist and NAMBLA. While on the other hand no true pro-LIFE advocate supports the actions of those who have done dispicalbe things.
Nice try, but a miserable failure at deflecting what and who you support.

reply from: Tam

Your post, on the other hand, Sarah, was a tremendous success at explaining the situation.

reply from: sarah

I thought it was important to understand exactly what the case is about concerning NAMBLA and the ACLU's decision to defend this group.
It shows me the total hypocricy of the ACLU. Though, I'm sure clear thinking people know that all ready. Here the ACLU is defending "free speech and freedom of association."

HYPOCRITES!

While they sanctimoniously defend NAMBLA's rights of free association, they advocate forcing the Boy Scouts to accept homosexual's as members.

HYPOCRITES!

In the view of the ACLU, NAMBLA doesn't advocate criminal behavior. A member of NAMBLA, ipso facto, is advocating criminal behavior. But, give the ACLU a chance at defending anything base and immoral it jumps at the chance. They are completely transparent to anyone with more than two functioning brain cells.

______________________________________________

Do You Remember? ACLU Defended Pedophile Group

NAMBLA officials in the past have said their main goal is the abolition of age-of-consent laws that classify sex with children as rape.

BOSTON August 31, 2000 -- The American Civil Liberties Union will represent a group that advocates sex between men and boys in a lawsuit brought by the family of a slain 10-year-old. The family of Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge said the North American Man/Boy Love Association and its website which is now offline incited the attempted molestation and murder of the boy on Oct. 1, 1997.

One of two men convicted in the killing, Charles Jaynes, 25, reportedly viewed the group's website shortly before the killing, and also had in his possession some of NAMBLA's publications. Also convicted in the killing was 24-year-old Salvatore Sicari.

The ACLU said the case, filed in federal court in mid-May, involves issues of freedom of speech and association.
"For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday. "It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever." ACLU officials said NAMBLA members deny encouraging coercion, rape or violence.

Attorney Lawrence Frisoli, who represents the Curleys, said he is glad the ACLU is defending NAMBLA, because he has had trouble locating the group's members.

Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members. The ACLU also will act as a surrogate for NAMBLA, allowing its members to defend themselves in court while remaining anonymous.

According to the Globe, NAMBLA officials in the past have said their main goal is the abolition of age-of-consent laws that classify sex with children as rape.

At two separate trials last year, prosecutors said Jaynes and Sicari were sexually obsessed with the boy, lured him from his Cambridge neighborhood with the promise of a new bike, and then smothered him with a gasoline-soaked rag when he resisted their sexual advances. They then stuffed him into a concrete-filled container and dumped it into a Maine river.

Sicari, convicted of first-degree murder, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Jaynes' second-degree murder and kidnapping convictions enable him to seek parole in 23 years.

The Curleys last week were awarded $328 million by a superior court jury in a civil suit against Jaynes and Sicari.

Response from SOC-UM's Founder:
Having had a child victimized by a member of NAMBLA I must admit to being totally outraged by the ACLU and it's reasoning for their defense of NAMBLA. NAMBLA is hiding very carefully under the first amendment, while at the same time offering comfort and support to those men who are convicted sex offenders.

The reading of NAMBLA's position papers are very telling.... they don't call for lowing the age of consent, they call for abolishment of consent laws. They use words like sexual abuse in terms of force, but allow for adults to have "consensual" sexual relationships with children, knowing full well that children are manipulated and coerced into silence by adults during sexual abuse.

A quote from NAMBLA's Official Position Papers, Oct. 12, 1996.
"NAMBLA'S first position was adopted at its third General Membership Meeting in June, 1980. It focused on the hated "statutory rape" laws which confuse rape and violence with consensual sex. "Statutory rape" laws vilify, persecute, and arrest the development of the love which men have for boys and which boys have for men. These laws are used in a discriminatory way to give long prison sentences to boy lovers and hinder the development of the gentleness, wisdom, and creative contribution of boy lovers as a minority group. The resolution proposed by Tom Reeves states: (1) The North American Man/Boy Love Association calls for the abolition of age-of- consent and all other laws which prevent men and boys from freely enjoying their bodies. (2) We call for the release of all men and boys imprisoned by such laws."

How nice of NAMBLA to think of children (boys) and their sexual freedom in relationship to men, and how telling. NAMBLA helping boys find their sexual freedom, is like snakes helping their prey.

That the ACLU is getting into the battle is an outrage. Offering assistance to a group that advocates the sexual abuse of children (oops, "consensual" sex with children), and whom many members are convicted child molesters is beyond the pale.

I'm sadden as a Country we have people who don't understand that helping NAMBLA helps them promote sexual abuse of our boy children. A truly dark day in history for children.
Debbie Mahoney SOC-UM, Safeguarding Our Children-United Mothers

____________________________________________

How anyone or any group could consent to defending this deplorable group of perverts is beyond anything I'm able to understand.
By the ACLU defending them it has elevated the existence of NAMBLA. When in all reality it should have been shunned at every single turn.

reply from: yoda

And they are the same people who stoutly defend baby killers of all stripes. Seems like they go out of their way to associate with the scum of our society, and snub the people trying to expose them.

Forrest bob's posts are so nonsensical it isn't worth responding to them.

reply from: ChristianLott

Who was heading the church sex abuse scandal investigation?

What was the ACLU's stance on this?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics