[Shark takes a curious glance -- then flees for the hills before the blood-letting begins...]


BTW: In the event that I'm not around, I'd like to contribute a few mandatory comments that are currently required by law:

"Baby-killers!"

"Child-rapist!"

"Progressive!"

"Atheist!"

"Liberal!"

"Secular Humanist!"

"Socialist!"

"Femi-Nazi!"


~ There. That about covers any comments from the opposition. In the interest of brevity and economy, please do not repeat any of the above.

Thanks for your cooperation.

The Management

Shark:

LOL! Thanks...um...I think.

Actually, I was kinda hoping I'd get some flack and/or backup for this post. I'm feeling a bit frisky today, and could use a little excitement. But it's quite possible that all the commenters to Mr. Bambenek's post--including, quite possibly, Mr. Bambenek--have exhausted themselves already.

I can only hope this isn't the case. In any event, it never hurts to have a clever, witty Shark in my corner!

I'd love to see all these blowhards who talk about the "sanctity of life" open their door one day and see that someone has dumped all the unwanted crack babies and incest victims in the neighborhood on their doorstep.

I'm right behind you on the right to abortion, but to their credit I do know an awful lot of religious folks who are pro life who DO adopt babies, including crack babies and the products of incest and rape, and do it above and beyond the call of duty and when they are well beyond any sensible age to be raising kids.

Fault these folks for holding an illogical, wrongheaded and ultimately anti-humane view on abortion, but most of the rank and file are not hypocritical and are genuinely good and well meaning people. Their leaders, on the other hand, are a bunch of opportunistic, hypocritical and truly evil windbags.

Dave

Elvira, you'll not get any flak outta this fish; as I've said many times before:

1) someday soon (population 15 billion or so) abortion will not only be a Right, but it'll be a necessity.

2) Pro-lifers murdering abortion doctors = IRONY

3) If men had wombs, an abortion would come free with the purchase of every Dodge Ram pickup truck.

4) I'm not only not AGAINST abortion, but I'm for mandatory post-partum abortions for all Fundamentalist Republicans.

5) "If you're so Pro-Life, why don't you link arms and block the entrance to a cemetary?!" -- Bill Hicks

I'm w/Dave on this (mark yer calendars!)

There are many pro-lifers who actually practice the implications of what they preach: they adopt -- and they are to be praised and admired for walking the walk.

(Me, I can't handle any more hellacious rebellious children; I've got my hands full with my alter-ego!)

Great post! The illogic of believing that human beings can be forced to never engage in sex outside of marriage just boggles my mind. If people would take a look at human history and human psychology and figure out that this is impossible then support birth control and planned pregnancy it could actually do some good!

Dave:

Point well taken, There are certainly many Christian folks who know and practice the true meaning of Christianity.

However, tragic though it is, there are just not enough decent souls to take in all the abused, neglected, and otherwise seriously damaged children who need love and even special care.

My cousin worked for many years for child welfare, and the stories he told were infuriating and tragic. From what I understand, the burnout rate for social work is very high, because just dealing with these horrors day by day can be so stressful and disheartening.

How much more stressful to actually be good and strong enough to take on a baby who needs a good home. Truly a heartbreaking state of affairs all around.

1) someday soon (population 15 billion or so) abortion will not only be a Right, but it'll be a necessity.

If we ever reach that point I'm sure that the giant worldwide wars of extermination will be more than sufficient for the job.

Dave

Shark:
Pithy, brilliant, funny--nice Shark!

Sherrie:
Thank you. Sex is a natural urge, which is why those who choose to remain celebate can sometimes have such trouble repressing their desires. As far as I know, Jesus did not say anything about fornicators being condemned to eternal damnation as a matter of course. His focus was more on loving thy neighbor, not being greedy and selfish, etc., as far as I can recall.

I am half-Jewish, half-Christian (or full Jewish, considering my mom was). But I have to say that one thing that turns me off about the way Chrstianity is practiced by some is the need to prostheletize and just plain stick one's nose into other people's most intimate business. What ever happened to life (as in for the living too), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (which, for 99 percent of the world, includes sex)?

Elvira - Excellent!

I appreciate your noting the difference between birth control pills, emergency pills, and medicinal abortion pills. If the RR would just pull their heads out of their butts for a bit, and take a look at the reality of the situation, we might not have to argue about abortion rights.

Even more, we wouldn't have a President pushing an AIDS relief and prevention plan that relies on abstinence instead of condoms. That, my fellow bloggers, is the height of stupidity.

"Lets spend tens of millions of dollars to help defeat AIDS in Africa by telling people to NOT have sex!"

Sometimes I am SO ashamed of our policy makers...

Abortion is Palnned Parenthod's largest source of revenue and profit and anyone who thinks that they are trying to prevent more abortions is full of shit.


Also I'm sick of hearing liberals say that being pro-life means you must be responsible for that life after birth. Elvire would you think it was wrong if a stanger came down your street and murdered your nieghbor? I bet you do. But because you don't think your neighbor should be murdered does that make you responsible for ensuring that he recieves all the things he needs to live a happy life? It's a stupid argument you liberals make and you just don't get the point that being against the killing of a baby does not morally make us responsible for that baby's life. It just means that we believe killing babies is wrong.

As for pro lifers blowing up abortion clinics and killing people that work inside them I believe that is also wrong. The only time an abortion clinic should be blown up is when nobody is inside it.

I have no problem with people having all the sex they want outside of marriage but when they become pregnant they should act like an adult and do the right thing. You refer to it as a "punishment" Elvira. It's not a "punishment" but an actual human being and obviuosly one for wich you have no regard.

It is the epitome of selfishness to have sex knowing the possible consequences and then say "I'm going to kill this baby because it may cramp my lifestyle." Sure it's easier to have an abortion and go on with your life but just because somethign is easy doesn't make it right.

It's just like liberals though to take the easy way out and make excuses.

I will respond tol the new comments above asap--thank you!

Special note to Bing:
Liberal? not really. Libertarian? possibly.

Might surprise you to know that though I disagree vehemently with some of what you say, I do agree with a few other things you point out.

Back later.

By all means let's not infringe upon anyone's party time. Kill all the babies we want for convenience sake.

Now if I could just get you guys to see the light on the handicapped and homeless too. They serve no purpose and are a burden on society just like an unwanted baby. Perhaps we should consider killing them too.

A. I am Pro-Life, as is my family.
B. My parents have been foster-parents for about 7 years, and 3 years ago we adopted a family group of three.
C. I am currently considering attending Seminary and becoming a Roman Catholic priest.

remember this as the preface to my statements. I will not accept any attempted rebuttal in the form of unloved babies, pedophile priest accusations, or any hate based commentary.

Firstly, the clinical definition of pregnancy is just as misleading as the supreme court's definition of humanity. One starts when the implanted egg hits a wall; the other starts when a fetus passes through a canal. Prior to both there is a cell with UNIQUE HUMAN DNA.

Secondly, 4,000 abortions are performed DAILY in the US. Assuming the 2002 data of 11,000 births daily in the US, MORE THAN A QUARTER OF ALL US PREGNANCIES ARE ABORTED. Try to make the argument that even a significant number of these were a result of rape, incest, and medical issues. I DARE YOU. Abortion is committed, in the vast majority of cases, for purely frivolous reasons.

Thirdly, we have manners of contraception that vary widely, from condoms to pills to diaphragms to tubal ligations... ect. I am against premarital sex, but, if you are the sort of woman who would not support a pregnancy if it happened START TAKING THE PILL NOW. If you are a man who would urge his partner to get an abortion, or the kind who would leave after impregnating them, GET A VASECTOMY NOW. Even if you're "safe" with your chosen partner, if you're a a girl, and you would get an abortion if pregnancy occurred, TAKE THE PILL. Rape is no excuse. Get prepared if your going to have sex.

Finally, I respond to the age old argument of the Back-Alley abortionist. The statement that abortion must be kept legal for the safety it provides to those who get abortions is ludacris. It is equivalent to stating that Hitmen must be protected so that prospective murderers will not be injured by the victim's resistance. The law cannot be tailored out of fear for the safety of those who break it. Frankly, THE LAW CANNOT PROTECT MURDERERS.

I refuse to sit idly by as a silent haulocaust is committed in our nation. PLEASE, if any of this has hit a cord, join me at the March for Life on January 22nd at the Mall in Washington, DC.

Thank you for your time.

I read something a while back saying if the Democrats didn't have so many abortions back in the '70s, they would have had enough voting-age children to vote for Kerry to defeat Bush in the '04 election.

I want to say it was in the Wall St. Journal. Read it on Fark. I'll look for it.

Gregory sez...
*Prior to both there is a cell with UNIQUE HUMAN DNA.*

and here begins the fallacious factoid that stands as "postulate" to the ensuing Logic...

why fallacious, you ask?

fair enough...every sperm ejaculated and every egg flushed during menstruation, every flake of dandruff, every fallen scap, every drop of blood ALSO has human DNA in it...

we are a nation under the Rule of Law, a codified set of Ethics

under this, our Law says you are born when the Birth Certificate is signed, and you are dead when the Death Certificate says you are

in between is recognized as the timespan of Human Life

before is just the woman, and after no one Knows

enjoy what is in-Between, and Live it well

nuff said?

Excelsior!

"NOW. Even if you're "safe" with your chosen partner, if you're a a girl, and you would get an abortion if pregnancy occurred, TAKE THE PILL. Rape is no excuse. Get prepared if your going to have sex."

So you're saying that any girl who would consider abortion should be on the pill, even though she is abstinent, just in case she gets raped? Should that be mandatory? Isn't that just another way to control a woman's body? At least you mention vasectomy, so you give men and women equal time, but a woman shouldn't have to subject herself to the cost and the potential dangers of chemical birth control "just in case" she gets raped.

I'm smelling a round-table smartass response to this liner:

Rape is no excuse. Get prepared if your going to have sex.

Get on your GAME FACE!

"fair enough...every sperm ejaculated and every egg flushed during menstruation, every flake of dandruff, every fallen scap, every drop of blood ALSO has human DNA in it..."

I think he was making the point that it was UNIQUE DNA, aka, a new life. I'll have to think on the unborn baby = dandruff logic you present. I think it speaks to the mindset of those who believe in killing for convenience.

you mistake me then Red...i take killing VERY seriously...i was very specific in talking only about DNA

the point i was implying is the Question revolves around when a cell becomes a Person

and i gave the legal definitions in our Nation as they stand

might i suggest it says something of the mindset when an Individual reads into words what they believe they see, rather than what is actually there

Excelsior!

I dunno know, Elvira. It seems you can frame the question you raise a bit differently. Since sex causes babies, and abortions, contraceptives and other measures are supposed to avoid these little squalling consequences of sex, let's pose the question this way.

Does my 16 year old have the right to screw anyone in a skirt who'll voluntarily spread her legs for him? For me. that is the thrust of the issue. For I am his father and teacher.

If the answer is yes, you need all the contraceptives and other baby avoidance measures, don't you? You also get to deal with the attitude of "it's my body and I'll do with it as I please, and if you don't like it, fuck off." Maybe I should explain the advantages of this attitude to my friend who emigrated from DC who has two daughters?

Your society (and mine) seems to have answered the question posed this way. Screw all you want but don't crowd up my welfare rolls or hospitals or cost me money.

Nice coda to the sexual revolution, eh?

I'll let you ponder the consequences.

Suffice it to say, I'm not raising my sons to have that attitude - society be damned.

Strangely absent from the conversation is the innate human drive to have sex. Biologically we are ready to have sex way before any "age of consent", and the instinct is STRONG. The RR insists that we should be able to turn this drive off until we fit into some fabricated social model, and therefore they can never deal with the issue on a practical level.

Ruvy...a Question on the topic for you...

if i Understand correctly...the Ritual of bar/bat mitzvah denotes the Coming of Age, when said Individual is Recognized as an Adult by their Family and Community

if such is the case, then would it not be the Decision of those two hypothetical 16 year olds?

and would not a Parent want them to have ALL the education about such matters, both Ethical and biological...so that a such a Choice in behavior would not only understand all the Responsibilities involved, but the potential Consequences as well

then, if they decide to enjoy each other...they have education required to keep themselves "safe" and ensure that their Decision (most likely made in the youthful throes of passion and curiosity) will have no onsequences other than for themselves

just a Thoguht

Excelsior!

Unfortunmately, you don't understand correctly. The Bar or Bat Mitzvah indicates that the person carries his own sin. In other words, until my kids were thirteen, I carried their sins on my head. Now they carry sin on their own heads. The free ride is over. So far as the religion goes, they are of the age of judgment when they are TWENTY.

Now, as to your lead on question, my responsibility in my eyes is that they know about contraception, birth control, etc. AND that they have the attitude not to chase every piece of tail coming their way.

Finally, as to Halakhá - Jewish law - we do NOT own our own bodies and cannot do with them as we please and tell everyone to fuck off it they don't like it.

We have responsibilities to G-d. The society around them - heavily influenced by the trash it gets from YOUR society - tells them the opposite.

So, I have the additional job of raising my kids to go against the grain of the society they live in.

It's a joy being a father...

"Also I'm sick of hearing liberals say that being pro-life means you must be responsible for that life after birth. Elvire would you think it was wrong if a stanger came down your street and murdered your nieghbor? I bet you do. But because you don't think your neighbor should be murdered does that make you responsible for ensuring that he recieves all the things he needs to live a happy life? It's a stupid argument you liberals make and you just don't get the point that being against the killing of a baby does not morally make us responsible for that baby's life. It just means that we believe killing babies is wrong."

sooo, you think you should get to tell others what to do (stay pregnant) but they can't tell you what to do (take care of that child you insisted be brought to term)...
we (society) do believe we are responsible for the lives of people and say as much with our tax dollars...that's why we have social services, afdc, corporate welfare, schools, the VA, state institutions, etc...

"Rape is no excuse. Get prepared if your going to have sex."

rape is not sex, gregory john...rape is a violent assault of a sexual nature...

you might want to keep lubricant and a condom handy for those rapists who fancy young men...chance encounters with people bigger and stronger than yourself are no excuse...get prepared if you're going to leave the house...

Diana.....by "staying pregnant" a murder is prevented.

The bottom line is that I do not condone murder.

Being anti murder does not mean I am responsible for the welfare of everyone that I would have not murdered.

What don't you get about that? It's pretty simple.

Ruvy..thank you for the Information...i'm always up for Learning something, which is why i Asked...your second Paragraph was spot on, IMO...and i don't envy you the Task of raising your children, i Wish you only the best of Luck in that most human endeavor

moving on...

well now Bing, why can't you Understand that you can't "murder" someone who hasn't been born?

that legally, there is NO "someone" until that Birth Certificate has been signed, and you can NOT have a "murder" until there is a Death Certificate?

why don't YOU "get" that?

Excelsior!

Why do pro-abortionists label their cause with the meaningless ambiguity "A Woman's Right to Choose"?

Women have always had the right to choose NOT to have an abortion. That's not an issue. They should use the less intellectually dishonesty "A Woman's Right to Abort", or better yet avoid the euphemism "abort" and say "A Woman's Right to Have a Doctor Kill the Baby Living Inside Her"?

Diana I was not equating rape with consentual sex, that was the conclusion of an entire paragraph about the many ways to protect yourself. I am sorry if it came across that way. However, if an individual is of the conviction that the resultant child of a rape should be murdered before birth, and they are susceptible to rape, they should be on the pill. Also, rape is sex, just not consentual.

however, your follow up to your correction is very telling. You equated an unwanted pregnancy to the discomfort associated with unwanted anal sex. That is a glib assessment. Much of our society believes that an unwanted pregnancy is a hassle that can be easily aleviated. They overlook the fact that said hassle is a child.

This same fallacy leads to the, "its my body" argument. Unfortunately, in other cases the law does not support such statements involving children. If a parent who keeps their child decides 3 years later that the child is a hassle, and stops supporting it (without making appropriate arrangements for transferral of custody) they will be charged with neglect and possibly murder.

Moving on:

in the "dandruff" argument, dandruff does not have UNIQUE DNA. it has the DNA of the individual who produces it. Dandruff is also dead cells. a fertilized egg has its own HUMAN DNA that is not the DNA of either parent.

in the "birth certificate" argument, your definition of life fails to include the hundreds of children born in closed communities in the US who never recieve a birth certificate, or for that matter any foreign visitor on our soil? You are attempting to argue contractual humanity, while leaving out the requirement of "implied inclusion" that protects wards of the state, the mentally impaired and all children. Humanity can only be defined by similarity, and the best test for similarity we have is DNA, not what side of the cervix you're on.

Also, attempting to argue the pro-choice side using American law is futile. The entire argument of Pro-Life is that the law needs repair. We all know the law is currently on the Pro-Choice side, but that is morally heinous.

Its nice to see the debate, and thanks for listening.

oh, and as a PS:

When Pro-Life individuals call killing babies "murder," its a statement of moral facts, not the law.

Its really inconcievable to me that the same people who ask about a babies gender, call the pregnant woman a mother, and are happy for her before "the baby comes" are quick to call the one that doesn't come a fetus. It is a duality that is utterly illogical.

Richard,

Some points:

1) Would all "pro-abortionists" please say aye?
>crickets chirping< Hear that? It's the sound of your hollow accusation.
I've never met a person who promotes abortion. Pro-choice, however, means we understand that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body and that she needs only to reconcile that choice with her own conscience and her own god.

2)Women have not always had the right to choose not to have an abortion. For a long time they were denied the choice.

3) It's already been pointed out that a fetus is not a baby.

interesting take Greg...i'm more than happy for the discussion...

Greg sez...
*Also, rape is sex, just not consentual.*

rape is an act of violence NOT sex...most women know this instinctually...as do many "new fish" in jail

Greg says...
*When Pro-Life individuals call killing babies "murder," its a statement of moral facts, not the law.*

actually, i have always Thoght that such choice of words was to emotionally charge a phrase to induce the desired emotional state and remove the chance at not only rational Thoguht , but discussion as well

to flip the script...why do many "pro-life" people worry so much about what is not yet viable outside the womb, yet at the same time advocate for the Death Penalty or pre-emptive strike wars?

note, i did NOT say "all" or even "most"

as to your counter points to my own statements...

the "dandruff" bit was to try and point out the difficulty in deciding when there are just a group of cells..and when there is a person...

this also ties into the "certificate" bit as well...for each and every Instance you offered of exception, there will eventually be an Official Record of that person being alive...social Security or Immigration documents and the like...

but you were honest in getting to the crux of the matter when you state
*The entire argument of Pro-Life is that the law needs repair.*

twice during your comment you use the term "moral"

might i remind you that one can NOT legislate "morals"...and one cannot prove your "moral fact"

we are a Nation of Laws, based on the shared Ethics defined and delineated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

so, until we are the "United Theocracy of America"
we will just have to go by the Constitution for guidance in how to live together

might i suggest, that NO ONE is "forced" to undergo these medical procedures?

THAT is the Choice

Excelsior!

OK, back from my hedonistic nappie....since so many have been talking amongst themselves, I'll just initially interject a few thoughts here willy nilly:

Pro lifers who live in a moral ivory tower and ethical vacum where you can play G-d and decide what is murder etc. seem peculiar to me, considering that time and again these same people seem to think that when an unwanted child is abused that is not anyone else's problem, and if it is murdered after being born this is of no concern to them or society as a whole. So why do they stick their noses in at this much earlier juncture? An innocent child is still innocent if it is later raped, tortured, and murdered by its own family.

How can anyone be quite so rabidly protective of an unborn entity and so callous about the consequences of not at least providing women (and men) with info and access to birth control? Is it less of a sin to not abort and then slowly and deliberately murder your flesh and blood at the age of, say six?

This kind of knee jerk "right to life" philosophy is more concerned, I think, with an abstraction than with the reality of our admittedly messed up society. Aren't those who would deny women access to proper birth control also, in effect, murderers by proxy when said parents murder their own born, versus unborn, child?

Ruvy's measured responses are, in part, why I am proud to call myself a Jew. Although he does not approve of casual sex, esp. for his own children, he is not so presumptuous as to think it is his right or duty to impose his individual religious practices on the world at large. That is not the job of man.

I think, however, if we do have a "job" it might be more along the lines of truly caring for the fate of those children we are so very intent on "rescuing" in the first place. This is one reason we have governnment agencies like child protective services, which we pay for with our tax dollars.

But hey, guess what? Child services is woefully understaffed for the job at hand. Many children fall through the cracks of the system. You may rightly say that these abuseive parents are reprehensible murderers and wash your hands of the whole thing. But does an innocent child have to be the victim of this lofty debate?

Some people are not cut out to be parents, which is one reason I think it is crucial to firstly, accept the fact that millions of people will have extramarital sex. That is a fact that will never, ever change.

So what do we do about this? Do we try to deny the fact that sex is here to say, and deny people access to the very birth control that will prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions because we disapprove of all the hedonists out there?

As we bicker about when a molecule becomes a viable life form, myriad children are being tortured and murdered by their guardians. Foster parents have also been known to starve and neglect if not kill these charges. Why is there no outcry here about that? Why do these children get left behind in the big "right to life" debate?

Blame the parents's "sinful ways" if you like--that does not change the fact that innocent children are being heinously abused every day. Should they, in effect, pay for their parents' "sins" with their young lives?

As I mentioned, I don't really think I"m a "liberal" per se, but perhaps a libertarian. I am very dismayed and often angered by the fact that people who want the pleasures of sex are not willing to make sure they are responsibly protected against unwanted pregnancies. I know accidents happen, but to simply procreate irresponsibly by not bothering to use birth control because it is inconvenient or "spoils the moment" seems like the genuine "sin" here, so to speak.

But I think that the deceptions of the religious right are very much to blame here. Those who mistakenly label morning after pills as "abortion pills" and would prevent people from taking charge of their reproductive choices have some of the blood of innocent babies on their hands.

There, I guess that's enough for one comment. I am very grateful to everyone who has commented here so far.

I don't like that pro-choicers try to discredit their own beliefs by saying "well it's OK to kill a baby because it's not a human being."

I call shenanigans.

An unborn fetus may not be able to live on its own, but neither could Terry Schiavo. And it's legal to permit the death of either (what some courts may call "Murder Two").

So is abortion legalized murder? In the words of Napoleon Dynamite, "Heck yes!"

Many people provide living wills which ask that they not be kept alive in a condition like Terri's. People of sound mind, in desperate pain and suffering, are not allowed to end life on their own terms because we deny the right to die for the terminally ill. This "life at any cost" mentality is degrading, short sighted and futile.

>) Would all "pro-abortionists" please say aye?

"Aye, Aye!" I'm all for abortion. It's a reliable, cost effective method of population control. If it weren't for abortion people would be exposing children in the woods and that would lead to a terrible feral baby problem.

Dave

KYS:

Excellent point. The RR's disinterested, cold bloodedly semantic bullying is disgusting to me. Killing the enemy (as well as civilians during wartime) is murder (i.e. the person in questoin is dead by your hands.) Captial punishment, by the same token, is murder by the state, whether you believe in it or not.

Meanwhile, QUALITYY of life for a child or potential parent (who faces an unwanted pregnancy with no options if the RR has anything to do with it) does not seem to have any place in these high and mighty proclamations of "murder."

A. Elvira Black - PLEASE READ AND COMPREHEND MY COMMENTS... your statements have been addressed...

B. The Pro-Life movement is anti- death penalty, despite the beliefs of SOME of it's members. (note, I said SOME, not MANY)

C. To live in a society, there must be a common moral ground. To state that recognizing such morals makes america a theocracy is ridiculous. We made murder illegal... is that religion meddling with law? There are basic morals that all humans must accept to live in a society. Two of those are the recognition of another's humanity, and the recognition of the rights of other humans. America's definition of Human is FLAWED.

D. RAPE IS SEX. FACT. a penis enters a vagina, ejaculation occurs, penis withdraws. THEREFORE, its sex. If an individual believes that they would kill their baby if they were to become pregnant REGARDLESS OF THE MANNER OF CONCEPTION, they should be on birth control.

E. "might i suggest, that NO ONE is "forced" to undergo these medical procedures?"

THE BABY IS!

F. The use of the terms murder, kill, and baby is not an attempt by pro-life individuals to kill rational thought. The terms abort, terminate, and fetus are used to push down the base human revulsion we all feel when we picture a human baby's skull being crushed and its linbs torn off so it can fit more easily through the vagina and into the waiting bin. THAT IS A FACTUAL DESCRIPTION, NOT AN EXAGGERATION. Now tell me you can comfortably picture that. There's your universal morals, right there, with the little knot in your throat you feel when you see a baby torn apart.

G. "Women have not always had the right to choose not to have an abortion. For a long time they were denied the choice."

Here is where we see the true misunderstanding of the facts.

Recall, if you will, the Civil War. The South believed the North was trying to limit the rights of the individual states (the women in this example) by calling the slaves (the babies) human beings. The North saw it as a case of recognizing the rights of the slaves.

we can all look back and see that giving the slaves rights was more important than theoretically eroding the rights of state governments.

In today's situation, try to see that it is far more important to give babies the right to life than to give mothers the right to kill them.

Greg,

If you honestly believe that a woman who is raped should bring the resulting pregnancy to term against her will, I cannot discuss that point any further than to say I think it's bullshit. Don't you dare blame her for not being on birth control. You can, however, try to counsel her as to why god would let her be raped, if you want.

As a roman catholic priest are you really going to promote birth control to your parishioners? Isn't that a sin as well?

Let me get this straight, Elvira, you decry the abuse and killing of children at the hands of "parents," but think people should have as much sex as they like?

Oh, wait. You support abortion. Feh. I agree entirely with Bing and RedTard here - let's all carry on with our irresponsibility and keep killing babies inside the womb. Great idea! Total dereliction of responsibility. Let's not also forget that abortion is a militant feminist issue: The man has no say whatsoever. If the woman wants a termination, then her wishes must be honored. The man can cry in his beer all he wants over the loss of his child is he does not agree. He is of no consequence. He is just a stupid, inferior man.

I would have more respect for legal abortions if there was a law stipulating that an abortion should only be performed when both parties, man and woman, are in agreement about the termination. I would still oppose abortion as morally wrong, but this would be a better way. But no chance of that happening.

On the topic of premarital sex, I've heard it hypothecized that when couples have sex before marriage, it clouds judgment. You stick with the person for the sex and then only when you get married, you start seeing the person in a different light - hence, all the divorce. If you can remain celibate through the courting process, and reserve the sex until after marriage, then the chance of a successful marriage is higher. This is also the church's belief. It is not some anti-fun, anti-libertarian diction they made just to ruin our lives. There is a reason for it - common sense thinking.

But hey, in the end, in our contemporary society, who cares about the high divorce rate and even higher abortion rate - we don't want to stop the party and keep screwing the men (forgive the pun)!

no matter what...much of this discussion is fruitless due to completely differing views on Reality

to begin...read up to my previous comment..where i state
*twice during your comment you use the term "moral"

might i remind you that one can NOT legislate "morals"...and one cannot prove your "moral fact"

we are a Nation of Laws, based on the shared Ethics defined and delineated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights*

your *morals* may or may not be the same as the Ethics outlined by aforementioned Rule of Law

Greg counters by saying ...
*America's definition of Human is FLAWED.*

and also goes on to equate late term procedures with ANY stage of post coital termination, again attempting to make the assertion that as soon as sperm meets egg there is a Person...a "Human"

a valid position to hold...but not the current legal or scientific stance on the matter

and THERE lies the dilemma...the dichotomy between this "moral" view of when a Person begins, and the legal and scientific views as held by our current Law

a VERY difficult problem, and nothing easily resolved...especially not by blind rhetoric on either side

my last bit on the Subject...

your mileage may vary

Excelsior!

I would like to add, however, that I support abortion in cases of rape. That is not the fault of the woman's. I also have no problem with the morning-after pill. If you're going to have irresponsible sex, take care of business before it becomes bigger. I don't go as far as proclaiming a fertilized egg as sanctified life, so fine, the pill is OK.

Shark, you think abortion will become a necessity? Apparently, imploring people to just keep it in their pants and not to spread their legs at every opportunity does not come into your thinking. Let's not stink up the world with morals, God forbid. It's unsurprising to find out that you support Chinese-style population control.

I would like to see population control too, but not by slaughtering innocents who should never have been conceived in the first place. A little responsibility could take care of that problem. Instead, we encourage sex-on-demand, so abortion-on-demand was the logical conclusion.

Shark (and Elvira), what have you to say about all the single women having babies simply because they can? The government pays extra for every baby born. Babies that will grow into irresponsbile, fatherless men who will repeat the cycle over and over. If you want population control, it would be interesting to hear you speak out against this policy. It is the ultimate irony that feminists and other liberals demand abortion, citing population control as a reason, but have nothing to say about all the babies being born because the welfare system encourages it, because no-one would dare tell a woman how to live.

Ruvy: "Screw all you want but don't crowd up my welfare rolls or hospitals or cost me money. Nice coda to the sexual revolution, eh?"

Aye, indeed, Ruvy. Great way of putting it.

"Suffice it to say, I'm not raising my sons to have that attitude - society be damned."

Good for you. If only more "parents" cared as much.

Oy, I'm dizzy already!

But it's a good kind of dizzy.

A few points, yet again:

Where is the concern for the abused children who have already been born? Isn't there a moral imperative there too?

Sex--inside or outside of marriage--is here to say. I'm a romantic myself, and my first LTR lasted twenty years--about three times as long as a lot of marriages. We didn't cheat on each other. WeI didn't want kids, so I used birth control. If only all those who didn't want children would do the same. Must the RR make this option so very hard?

Some of you heartily agree that contraception is a viable option, even if you consider extramarital sex distasteful or immoral. Thank goodness there's some sanity left in the world.

I agree that it is the height of selfishness and opportunism to have baby after baby out of wedlock deliberately to gain more welfare money--kind of a twisted career goal. But at least in NYC, welfare laws have been radically amended, and workfare is the new status quo. Not a foolproof solution, but a start. I think fatherless children have a huge disadvantage in life, though it can be overcome if one is strong and lucky.

I cannot say that it is realistic or even perhaps reasonable to expect most people to remain celebate until marriage. I can understand how the concept would be a beautiful one, but I daresay many people in our society--or any society past or present-- simply cannot or will not comply. That includes me. I sowed my wild oats in college, though my motivations were, chiefly, a search for love and comfort (I lost both parents by age 15). When I found someone I could have a stable relationship with, I did so. We both agreed--no children. Case closed.

Again, I am furious with those who deliberately refuse to use birth control if they don't want children. But I'm also furious at those on the RR who would take away a person's choice to have access (inexpensive or free if need be) to that birth control.

I am equally saddened at the high divorce rate, the shuffling of children back and forth because of broken families, the plight of one-parent children, and so on. But I cannot pretend that I have the holy power to prevent people from procreating and not living "happily ever after." Moreover, sex within marriage is no guarantee of a good life for a child, especially nowadays. I say, think long and think hard before you deliberately bring another human being into this messed up world.

Morals in terms of sex simply cannot be legislated. Nice to live in a little dream world, but you will never, ever be able to control other's sexuality unless we make this some sort of totalitarian 1984-ish state.

Not on my watch!

I don't want a 1984-like state either, but the problem is everyone laughs at abstinence efforts as if having irrresponsible sex is the "done" thing. It's just a knee-jerk liberal reaction to something that even faintly sniffs of morality. God ... oops, Gaia forbid!

Anyway, Elvira, I think we can both agree that too many couples, married or not, have kids because that too is considered the "done" thing, when so many of them are not cut out for the job of parenting. This old entry of mine might serve to further clarify where I stand.

Mark:

Read your post--loved it--commented there. Thanks for providing that link.

As far as abstinence, well, in our country at least, that has to remain a personal choice. And I don't necessariily think others have to concern themselves with everyone's sexual behavior on an individual basis, other than in the broader sense of "the world is going to hell in a handbasket" commiseration.

But yes, it is a pretty idea, a romantic idea--that people will abstain til marriage. In my parent's generation, the norm was for a couple to marry, have children, and stay together til death do us part. Divorce was not the normal, inevitable turn of events it seems to be today, and pre-nups were not part of the cynical matrimonial picture.

Since you and I both agree that there is no "sin" or shame in remaining childless, it follows that if one cannot or will not remain celebate til marriage, one has a responsibility, in my opinion, to not bring unwanted children into the world. If I had children (which I never intended to have, and thus took precautions accordingly) I would want them to have the best of everything--not in the material sense, per se, but in terms of education, opportunity, and tender loving care.

If one wishes to talk about immorality, I say it is much more immoral to cynically or carelessly produce a child you don't want, married or no. And it also seems morally depraved to me to care so fanatically about the status of a foetus or even pre-foetus without giving a flying fluck about living, breathing children who are suffering and dying at the hands of their morally bankrupt, and downright evil, parents each and every day.

I do not laugh at abstinence. It is a personal choice--and doubtless a relatively rare choice in our society. But I will not stand for anyone telling me what I can do behind closed doors with another consenting adult. I'm just careful as hell not to create and insert an innocent third party into the mix.

Elvira, I will not change my opinion about a developed foetus being classified as life. And I used to be pro-choice, but I found myself drifting toward the anti-abortion viewpoint based on the whole science behind it. And I also bristle at the whole man-has-no-say aspect of it.

But, bringing up the issue of the already-living kids who are suffering: Can we both mutually agree that it's a shame more people don't care to adopt. It's the selfishness of human nature that able parents want "their own" children. That, too, is part of the problem.

Lest anyone miss the connection I was striving to make here:

If it is agreed that having unwanted children is not a good thing, it also follows that most rational women and men would agree that having contraceptive information, education, and access to cheap or even free birth control is a moral imperative in the times we live in.

Speaking of which--has anyone seen even one commercial for the morning after pill? Has anyone seen any concerted effort or responsible media coverage concerning the crucial difference between the morning after pill and the more controversial "abortion pill?" Has anyone discussed the fact that this is not a viable method of everyday birth control, considering the fact that the side effects are so unpleasant? So how in the world are people to know about this option? I guess if they don't just say no, they don't deserve it anyway....

This point tends to get lost in the shuffle with some people in their fruitless, unrealistic, pie in the sky idealism about abstinence. It just won't wash. You can't call the sex police on people who schtup out of wedlock.

So what's the solution? To try to force people to either not have sex and/or not have access to birth control? To put them in a position where they are either abstinent or parents?

There are some things infinitely more "sinful" than fornication. Where and when did Jesus say anything about going to hell for this sin? Did he not cherish all his children? Should we not cherish ours?

This was the central point of my post--that holier than thou "moralists" think it's all about just saying no. And if you don't say no, then heaven help the hapless progeny you produce. But after birth, like, who cares? No-one's problem, right? Let the little bastards fend for themselves.

Shame on you.

Elvira - I haven't seen one commercial for any of those pills you mention...but I surely know what drug I need if I can't get it up or my hair stops growing!

I really hope I never need that info...btw!

Mark:

My apologies--I did not see your latest comment til I had posted mine. They probably went up at about the same time.

Yes, there is controversy about when life begins. All the more reason, I feel, to make birth control easily accessible and affordable to all. Make it the first line of defense.

I do not think that late-term abortions should be performed, barring some eminent danger to the mother. And if I became pregnant, I honestly am not sure what I would do. Well, now that it's available, I do--I'd take the morning after pill if possible.

As far as the "man has no say" aspect--well, the truth is that in many cases, unfortunately, (esp if one watches Jerry Springer or Maury) it's more like the MEN have no say--and many of them are not at all eager to take on the legal or financial responsiblity of being a true father anyway.

In other cases, I think ideally if a couple is involved in a serious relationship, their preferences should be discussed early on. Does one want children and the other does not? How do both feel about abortion and contraception? Are there irreconcilable differences that should be addressed from the start?

Again, this may be unrealistic. But when it comes down to brass tacks, it is still the mother who carries the baby to term, and thus I feel that she has the ultimate right to decide whether to have the child or not. Moreover, it is the responsibility of both parties to ensure that proper birth control is used. In my case, either I or my partner did so. Addditionally, in this time of AIDS and STD's, condoms are basically a given, esp. for "casual" sex.

Andy:

Yes, isn't it strange that this pill is not advertised?

I do, however, see plenty of advertising for the Pill or some derivative of it--patch, etc. Thing is, if you're not in a LTR, using the pill does not protect you from STD's. And the women they seem to target in these commercials, judging from the actors used, don't appear to be married. In fact, you see no man in sight.

This is not the only pharmaceutical that is not advertised widely. Moreover, from what I recall, I believe the FDA has been holding up the works as far as releasing the morning after pill over the counter for no valid reason whatsoever. Shameful--and, yes, in my humble opinion--inexcusably immoral.

"Diana I was not equating rape with consentual sex, that was the conclusion of an entire paragraph about the many ways to protect yourself. I am sorry if it came across that way. However, if an individual is of the conviction that the resultant child of a rape should be murdered before birth, and they are susceptible to rape, they should be on the pill. Also, rape is sex, just not consentual."



the first sentence and the last sentence don't jive greg...if, by your last sentence you mean to say that rape is sex even though it is not consensual, you're still missing and dismissing the overwhelming element of rape: violence...



"D. RAPE IS SEX. FACT."



me thinks thou doth defend too much...



"a penis enters a vagina, ejaculation occurs, penis withdraws. THEREFORE, its sex."



read up on what you're insisting is sexual intercourse and rape greg...ejaculation does not always occur nor does ejaculation always have to occur for a pregnancy to occur...clearly you've never been raped, have limited experience with sex if you'd had it at all, and have no idea the fumbles and mishaps that can occur and still result in a rape conviction...



"If an individual believes that they would kill their baby if they were to become pregnant REGARDLESS OF THE MANNER OF CONCEPTION, they should be on birth control."

because a woman could possibly be impregnated by a rapist, she should be prepared by being on the pill?

that would be the only way to be prepared with birth control...i can't imagine a scenario wherein a rapist would hold on while she inserts an IUD or breaks out some foam, nor can i see a rapist going to all the trouble of putting on a condom she pulled from her purse...ah, but that would be making him responsible and clearly it's your assertion that it's her responsibility, not his...

we could all, man or woman, just as possibly be hit by a bus...should we all then agree never again to cross the street? or would that only apply to pregnant women and women who might possibly be pregnant?

what a curious assignment of responsibility that anyone would isolate the woman's role in a rape (a role involuntarily heaped upon her by the rapist) and completely dismiss the role of the rapist (who voluntarily heaped himself and someone else in to these respective roles)...how about this greg: if an individual believes that the person he would rape would kill their baby if they became pregnant, they should have a vasectomy...

if every woman is to be regarded as a potential rape victim, and in your view should prepare accordingly, then it stands to reason that every man be regarded as a potential rapist -- and prepare accordingly...



"You equated an unwanted pregnancy to the discomfort associated with unwanted anal sex. That is a glib assessment."



i equated the responsibilities of a woman who could be raped with the responsibilities of a man who could be raped...i equated nothing else...glib would be your view of rape as sex...sex is consensual, rape is not...to suggest that rape is sex and that women have a responsibility to avoid the consequences of that rape would be like saying murder is really just dying -- and that the dead had a responsibility to live that was greater than the murderer's role not to kill them...



what i'm hearing you say greg is that because a man cannot get pregnant, he doesn't have any responsibilities with regard to being raped or being a rapist...it's always a note of interest that someone who doesn't have a vagina, could never be raped (vaginally), and who could never get pregnant would define these things in such black and white terms with moral platitudes at the ready...

"I would like to add, however, that I support abortion in cases of rape. That is not the fault of the woman's."

interesting...i'm pro-choice so i make no such judgements about what fetus is okay to abort and what fetus is not...
you, however, are opposed to abortion and define it as morally wrong and yet you think the "life" created by rape is okay to abort and the "life" created by consensual sex is not okay to abort...
what is that? quantum morality?

urhg... tried... uh... [sigh] ...uh... tried to [groan] read thread... ugh...

now... come further choice... [pant]

...me revisit [pant] Intelligent Design "debate"...

...or me [groan] disembowel self with red-hot, rusty melon-baller...

...ahhh... farewell... my...

"interesting...i'm pro-choice so i make no such judgements about what fetus is okay to abort and what fetus is not..."

Your lack of judgement is not something to be proud of. Especially on critical issues that involve life and death I think we should investigate with our best logic and an open mind to find the truth. Another poster stated that he believed life began when a birth certificate was issued and ended when a death cert was. That, to me, is a little bit scary.

I choose to be a little more scientific and define human life by unique DNA, heartbeat, and developed brainwaves. A fetus doesn't really have all three until about the 3rd trimester. All I ask is that during late pregnancy, once the life has become viable and human, that it earns the right to not be destroyed.

There are two isuues that if they were resolved would put me in the new middle pro-choice camp. One is the late term abortion issue and the other is parental notification. I find it strange that you can't buy cold medicine or go to a movie without parental consent but you can get an abortion.

On both issues there need to be protection built in for the woman, (incest/abuse examptions for parental notification and medical concerns for late term abortions) but there can be a compromise that makes sense and settles this for most Americans.

Diana:

Not trying to be gay (not that there's anything wrong with that, and that's another separate debate) but I think I love you.

What a masterful rebuttal to St. Greg's Sermon on the Cybermount . I won't rehash what you've already so beautifully stated, but just have to say I'm thunderstruck by how someone can deliberately and willingly reveal such mysogyny--in fact, such out and out misanthrophy--or in plainer terms--just good old HATRED for their fellow species in an open forum.

Pro-life my ass! What kind of life are we talking here by Greg's exacting standards?

Leave it to a would-be priest to have the answers for anyone who might dare to have sex. I'm sure there are some good priests out there, but I wouldn't cast my vote for this koo koo.

It is truly breathtaking to see how, once again, such blatant would-be tyranny can be unleashed in the name of "religion." This man is demanding that everyone TAKE THE PILL. Not suggesting, not imploring, but basically saying fuck you if you get raped. For the good love of Jesus, what would Jesus say about all of this?

Hey, I know. Let's ask him. Gregory, I know you have a direct connect to the Jesus hotline in heaven, don';t you? Well, dial up at the very least. You have no sense of doubt, for you have your precious FAITH, and you use it like a deadly weapon against all comers. Just like in the Crusades, eh?

Humanity, compassion, understanding, normal sexuality be damned. If you DARE to have premarital sex of ANY kind--even involuntarily--TAKE THE PILL! Don't make me come down there and force it down your throat!

Thanks, dad--I mean, Father.

Yes, a religious career choice that demands celibacy is SO mentally and emotionally healthy for yourself and others--and in your case, Gregory, if you ruled the world, said "others" would include all the creatures of the earth under your holy command.

Well, if I lived under St. Gregory's brand of theocracy, I guess all I could do is hope that the..ahem...morning after pill were available for rape victim's use.

No wonder people don't go to church anymore if this is the kind of crap they have to put up with.

All the finger pointing and yelling and bellowing about the rights of the unborn. Apparently after a woman is born, she has no rights whatsover in your eyes, Greg.

Kudos to your family for adopting, Greg. That leaves just... um... about ten squillion more lost souls (and I don't mean aborted foetuses) out there lined up for good homes. Though I don't think I'd relish living in yours, thanks all the same.

I suppose it is a good thing that a man who detests, despises, and disrespects women so much is being cloistered off to the priesthood, where hopefully he can do the minimum of harm in this day and age. Just keep away from my Supreme Court [Deleted].

Shark:

No, no! For lord's sake man, not the red-hot, rusty melon-baller!

RedTard:
The child of a rape victim is still an innocent child who had nothing to do with this heinous crime. I say draw your line in the sand and stick with it on this one.

I am not a fan of late-term abortions. If you're gonna abort, get off the pot and do it in a timely manner. Of course, there's always the possibility that some underage girls are too afraid to tell their parents about their plight until it is too late....

Underage kids do drugs, have sex, and all sorts of other things they don't let their parents in on. You were a teen once, weren't you? Anything you wouldn't want mom and dad to know you did back then?

Teens have sex. Not all, but a large number. Best thing to do, IMHO? Make sure they have access to birth control and plenty of information about pregnancy, STD's, and all the rest. You know what dewy-eyed, wishful thinking produces, don't you? Unwanted children.

We send 18 year olds off to die in wars and don't skip a beat. An unwanted pregnancy can ruin a child's life before it even starts. And in some cases, the proud father to be is none other than dear old dad.

But it's good to hear that you're not as nit picky as Father Greg on when it's ok to abort. All kidding aside, I think we're much closer in agreement than not about this issue.

who said anything about hating women, BTW that is a PERSONAL ATTACK (not allowed).

Women are absolutely equal to men in most ways, However, women are the ONLY gender that can bear children to term. Therefore, It is their resposibility to take the situation in hand. I don't believe all women should be on the pill, just those who have taken it upon themselves to be of the preempive opinion that they will abort.

your comments are completely baseless, and highlight the worst sort of arguements pro life individuals have to put up with. The "Your a man, if you make any statements about 'women's issues', you're a sexist pig" The fact is, its not a women's issue, its a baby's issue, period.

Diana seems to not realize that "the Pill" is forced upon all girls entering the foster care system. (at least in TV NH and CA) if the state can do that, who not force it on all pro-abortion women. Also, a baby is not a bus, it is a life. If a ax wielding murderer forced you to live in a house with Gilbert Godfried for nine months, would you kill Gilbert? No, you don't have that right, regardless of how the situation arose.

To Gonzo Marx, the law states that a late term fetus and an egg have the exact same rights. The partial birth abortion ban DOES NOT make third trimester babies "human"... it is also a ban that MANY pro-abort advocates would like to see overturned. You say ethics, I say morals... They're the same thing. Legal Ethics/Morals have been redefined throughout history. They need to be redefined again.

KYS, NO, I will not promote birth control to my parishoners. Neither will I promote premarital sex. Both are sins, however, if you're having premarital sex, don't bring an innocent life into it. If you're going to sin, sin smart.

In any event, you're all missing the issue. There are 4,000 babies murdered every day in the US. How is that less monstrous that nazis killing the Jews.

Also, 18 year olds who went off to war, in this decade, CHOSE TO. There has been no draft.

My mother once said to me..."You get caught at everything you do."
I said, "No I don't."
She said, "name one time."
I said, "ok...ummmmm...no!"

Almost squeeled on myself!

As far as my daughters (20 and 16) are concerned...they don't do anything I'm not aware of.....yeah...suuuuurrrrrreeeee they don't!

I won't go into whether or not either one is on the pill...it's none of YOUR business!

Greg:

If I devolved the arguement into a personal attack, please accept my apologies. I guess I was just taking your viewpoint and expression of same as a personal attack as well. But point well taken.

But onto other more practical issues:

What say you to the morning after pill solution? Again, not the "abortion pill" but a pill that is, if I understand what I"ve read about it correctly, nothing more than a mega-dose of regular birth control which prevents sperm from even fertilizing an egg?

"If you're going to sin, sin smart."

I like that. Kind of like the old Jewish saying, "If you're going to eat pork, eat it and enjoy it so much that the pork fat drips off your chin."

Want less abortions? Advocate free and unfettered access to birth control. It's the "sin smart" thing to do.

Andy:

LOL--Leave it to an actual parent who's actually had kids to "get it."

It gets a little sickening constantly hearing abortion opponents constantly dragging in Nazis killing Jews to their metaphors. It just doesn't apply. You kill your own arguments.

Many of the adult Jews in Europe had a chance to leave or flee and were too stupid or complacent to do so. They knew what danger (from Christians) that faced them and shut it out of their minds.

A fetus doesn't have that opportunity.

Don't they teach you kids in seminary not to weigh apples and oranges in the same scale?

umm, the morning after pill stops a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. as it is a measure for after fertilization, I'm not ok with it.

Runvy, doesn't that make it more heinous for the pro-choicers?

Greg,

Maybe THAT is the argument you should be making? Do I have to teach you your own business too?

Greg:

I respectfully assert that I think you are incorrect in your assertion about the morning after pill. I respectfully suggest that you take another look at the post above and the definition presented about the difference between the morning after pill and the "abortion pill." I think equating the two is quite a common misconception--and our media has done little to nothing that I can see to clarify the distinction, which to my mind is a crucial one.

Yes, I know Planned Parenthood had a hand in the statement, but it seems to also be backed up by more non-partisan professionals as well.

And again let me stress that the side effects of the morning after pill are unpleasant enough to prevent its routine use.

As with so many things, we might look to Europe's use of the pill and see the stats that accompany it to determine how viable an option this is.

But I fear that since some folks allegedly are more concerned with the fact that sex is a sin, I suspect that for some, any technological breakthrough, no matter how sound, would be rejected or at least roundly criticized.

Notice I am not referring to anyone in particular here.

Ruvy:

With all due respect, I think you are blaming the victim here. It's quite surprising to see, frankly, and more than a little dismaying to me.

As far as I can tell from what I've read and seen, there were millions of Jews who could not escape the Holocaust, period. Many--Jew and Gentile--did not see it coming, or could not believe such a thing could be. Others tried to flee, but were turned away by several countries where they attempted to seek asylum, as I recall.

Just could not see it coming--Kinda like some of what's happening in the US as we speak, as you pointed out so succinctly in another post.

"Your lack of judgement is not something to be proud of. Especially on critical issues that involve life and death I think we should investigate with our best logic and an open mind to find the truth."

speaking of logic, open minds, and truth, how in the sam hill did you arrive at the conclusion that my not making the same judgment as someone else means i make no judgement at all?

that someone is comfortable saying "you cannot tell me what to do but i will tell you what to do, and i have decreed that you here may abort and i have decreed that you there may not" is alarming...it requires a judgement one should be ashamed to have made when one has already asserted that abortion is morally incorrect...saying one life is okay to abort and saying another is not is to say one is qualified to assess human value beyond all life being equal...this person essentially countered his own argument by having made the judgement that one life was less important that another while at the same time asserting all life is equal...

i have made a judgement, and it isn't based on some wishy-washy fence-riding ignorant moral imperative that would abandon anyone's right to know about and have full control of their bodies...i firmly believe in and support choice...i firmly believe in education, information, and resources...there is no "in this case" or "under these circumstances"...

until pro-life means unconditional pro-education, pro-information, pro-resources, pro-support, and pro-human condition for all life, they can step the hell off...anything less is not pro-life, it's pro-my-way...

"There are two issues that if they were resolved would put me in the new middle pro-choice camp. One is the late term abortion issue and the other is parental notification. I find it strange that you can't buy cold medicine or go to a movie without parental consent but you can get an abortion."

i don't and never have been in favor of late term abortions except where the life of the mother is in peril...

parental notification laws seek to strip yet more choice...the pregnant minor should have the choice of telling whomever she wishes to that she's pregnant and considering an abortion...parental notification advocates act as if the child is legally able to walk into a clinic and all but perform the abortion herself with no one being the wiser...just because a parent isn't notified doesn't mean there is no adult in her life who does know...

it's best if it's a parent but it should also be her option to legally seek out the guidance and support of a sibling, adult friend, counselor, doctor, or clinic worker...while the minor should certainly be encouraged to tell her parents, i'm damned leery of requiring a minor to tell her parents she's pregnant when it's quite obvious that the parents have not already paved an open road of communication for that minor...why else would a girl be hesitant to tell her parents? she wasn't born with shame or a fear of them nor was she born a mind reader...if the parents would be supportive and helpful they would have to have already shared this information with her...the only reason a child would not tell her parents stems from the communication that has already come from the parents...if they've not made it completely clear that she would be supported, guided, and helped regardless of her choice then she's not going to want to tell them...that's the parent's fault, not the child's fault...it's also not the government's fault nor is it the government's place to both A) crawl up inside that child's uterus like some kind of mad conductor and B) lecture from a pulpit while they're in there telling her what to do and who to tell...

parental notification laws ignore the potential consequences for those minors pregnant by a male relative or in danger of any manner of injury should their parents find out...

it has never mattered what additional services were made available to the family, it takes only leaving the minor in the care of an informed and enraged parent for a few minutes to make a difficult situation tragic...parental notification gone awry has consequences for the minor only...any arrests of an abusive parent (assuming anyone finds out) come after the child has been hurt, not before as a matter of prevention...

the only parent who doesn't know what's going on in a child's life is the parent who hasn't made communication, education, information, support, and love the cornerstones of their parenting...leave any one thing out of the equation for whatever reason and seemingly insurmountable problems will arise...

my girls know and have known that if they should become pregnant they will have our full support regardless of their decision...their education here at home on such matters has included everything they need to know to facilitate that decision...how sex feels, what precautions to take, dangers that can crop up out of nowhere, lines guys use, things they may feel and think and then think are exclusive to them and their situation, how pregnancy and birthing feels, the responsibility of raising a child, the emotional consequences of abortion, ad nauseum...they know that while pregnancy, birth, and single mothering are huge responsibilities, they also know these things are not the end of the world and in fact are quite natural occurrences...they know how these things would seriously cut into their goals of college, career, and carousing for further fun...

any parent who has not taken the time to educate and discuss these things in the most age-appropriate way on an ongoing basis from the time the child is born until they leave home is not taking their job seriously and should expect the consequences of their neglect to include being left out of decisions the minor has taken to other adults (clinic, doctor, counselor, etc)...

while this is how i have raised my girls, i'm not stupid enough to think this is how everyone has raised their girls...my girls tell me so many things i sometimes think i've done my job too well, but my discomfort is a tiny price to pay for insuring they know who's got their back...

if a girl doesn't think her parents have her back, it's a good bet they don't...no law should put her in the position of having to count on people whom she obviously couldn't count on before...

i realize that having a pregnant teen daughter is not the same as having a teen son who got somebody pregnant, but don't you think it's interesting that the parental notifcation advocates don't address the issue of the boy/man having to, by law, tell his parents what he's accomplished with his free time?

"Diana seems to not realize that "the Pill" is forced upon all girls entering the foster care system. (at least in TV NH and CA) if the state can do that, who not force it on all pro-abortion women. Also, a baby is not a bus, it is a life. If a ax wielding murderer forced you to live in a house with Gilbert Godfried for nine months, would you kill Gilbert? No, you don't have that right, regardless of how the situation arose."

did you include "mind reader" in your seminary application?

it's not just wrong to force female minors into birth control...it's also wrong to force ANYone into birth control...

that females can get pregnant and males cannot does not make females responsible for preventing a pregnancy brought about by rape and it doesn't (as you have conveniently and continually failed to address) relieve males of any and all responsibility for pregnancy prevention...

that you would compare living with someone to a pregnancy further illustrates your ignorance of the process...no self respecting male obstetrician would get behind this analogy...try again...

I promise baby....I'll pull out! I swear!

Diana: Once again, I stand in awe. Bravo!

Andy: PreCISEly!!!

Elvira, re: #69,

I don't really want to move the discussion from where it belongs. I apologize in advance. Any Jew who could read in western Europe or Poland could see what was happening in Europe around him. In 1934, Ze'ev Jabotinsky travelled all over Europe campaigning in the Zionist Congress elections begging his fellow Jews to leave. The Hafetz Haim, the greatest Ashkenazi scholar of his day, asked on his deathbed in 1933 that Jews leave Europe. They didn't want to and they didn't.

We all know the results. But I'm not blaming the victim - merely pointing out that the victim had plenty of warning - from the day Mein Kampf came out in the bookstores, from the day that the European markets collapsed in 1929. They refused to think that their nieghbors could turn on them - American Jews, by and large, are no different and no smarter. Maybe they have better neighbors, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. I write from Jerusalem for that reason.

Greg, I just don't get your analogies. They don't really make any solid points in your favor.

They might make for good homilies, though! Who wouldn't love to hear about Gilbert Godfried at Sunday mass?

I thought Roe v. Wade put an end to all the controversy over abortion! Why are we still talking about it?

(please note the sarcasm and think of the childrens)

Ruvy:
Where could they go? Israel wasn't settled yet, was it?

Perhaps a discussion for another time--or another post. Is there someplace you've written about this in depth? Would like to see.

KYS, Matthew: Two cackles--one for each of you!

He--hello?

Is anybody home in the comments section?

It's lonely and dark in here. Help!

Hey, where'd y'all go? Y'all come back now, here?

Mandate Palestine...

Whattsa matter? Boyfriend ain't home to chase you off the computer? ;o)

There seems to be a little hypocrisy with regard to the man's involvement in the decision to have an abortion or not.

Legally the man has no say in wether or not the woman he impregnanted has an abortion. However if the woman decides to have the child the man is legally responsible for paying child support. So it is ok for a woman to kill a baby because she doesn't want it to cramp her lifestyle but a man doesn't have the choice one way or the other? The decision to bring the child into the world is totally up to the woman who decides based on whatever reason she sees fit and if the man must not only abide by the decision but provide for the child if it is born. Basically when a pregnancy occurs that could dramatically affect the life of the man and the woman, only the woman has any say in how.

Seems like a vicious double satndard, one that most pro-choicers don't seem to mind.

Ruvy: He's staying outta my hair today, kineahora.

Bing: Whew...Thank you! I'll be back to respond in a bit.

Bing: Legally the man has no say in wether or not the woman he impregnanted has an abortion. However if the woman decides to have the child the man is legally responsible for paying child support.

Yeah, the man should have a "buyout option": he pays his share of the cost of abortion or of bringing the pregnancy to term if the woman chooses that. If she decides to keep the baby, she pays from there and the man gives up all rights with respect to the child.

The biology of pregnancy creates an inherent double standard. Traditionally, it meant that the man always had the option of skipping town and paying nothing. Now with "deadbeat dad" laws, the shoe is on the other foot. The buyout option seems like a reasonable compromise.

Bing-

You bring up a compelling point which I'm still digesting.

In the meantime, I take issue with the "cramp her lifestyle" comment. We cannot adequately address this issue until we dismiss the stigma attached to a woman's right to choose.

A young unmarried woman who gets pregnant has much more than a 'lifestyle' issue to resolve; her finances, healthcare for herself and the child, education for herself and the child, her intellectual and emotional ability to raise a child, what her parents will say, what her church will say, her relationship with the father...

I think we can all agree that abortion for 'convenience sake" is not what 'pro-choice' is all about, although it's an easy argument against choice. There will always be those who abuse a right like this, and I abhor that kind of decision as much as you probably do. But does that mean we abolish the choice?

Further, I suggest that we've all witnessed part of the problem leading up to abortions. Here's the message I've gotten so far from Greg:

Sex outside of marriage is a sin.
Birth control is a sin.
Abortion = BIG sin.

SO, don't have sex. But if you think you might have sex some time, go on the pill (sin). Even if you don't think you'll have sex, but you think you might have an abortion, go on the pill in case you get raped (which probably happened according to god's plan).

Fear, shame, confusion. Is this the cornerstone of our morality???

The message I'm stating has NOTHING to do with sin. I have purposefully left out any religiously based arguments (except in direct response to religious challenges), because I knew they would not be respected. I find it strange that, in such a situation, you still dismiss my statements as a commentary on sin.

1. Sin is not the issue. Murder is. Regardless of your religion, murder is a crime on one side of a cervix and a choice on the other. That is unacceptable.

2. My statements regarding birth control are evidence of a manner in which a society could exist without murder, or cramping single women's style.

3. God does not cause rape. Human free will causes rape. However, the fact that one crime has been committed does not justify a second. Just as you cannot seek out and kill the rapist later, you cannot kill the child.

4. The foster system is not perfect, however, it is an option that keeps children alive. They may have hard lives due to it, but at least THEY have the CHOICE to live. Therefore, arguements on the financial viability of keeping the child are misleading. The mother is not forced to raise the child.

Those are good points Greg, and those who share your beliefs, probably share your opinions about birth control and abortion.

However, for those of us who do not believe that a zygote or month-old fetus has developed a "soul" that makes it "sacred", or any sort of consciousness or ID or mind or spirit (certainly less than lab animals or meat animals or any other life form) well, we have no problem viewing the situation with a different perspective.

You're asking a young and healthy woman to trade off having a safe and harmless termination of pregnancy for giving birth and then dealing with it, even if she was impregnated by rape.

You see abortion as murder, because of what you believe. You'll never convince me that it is murder, because I do not share your beliefs.

Tsunamis, earthquakes, famine, disease, war. We all die, thousands die every day, kids die in car accidents. Let's outlaw cars. Where is the 'mercy' in it? From a benevolent god I mean? I think it's random, and all the prayers in the world don't change a single thing.

We all have the freedom to have our own beliefs, and mine are different from yours. This leads us to view abortion differently.

Why do you think you should be able to impose your belief system-base viewpoint on me or mine? Why don't you run you life your way, and let me run mine with the freedom to make MY OWN moral judgments?

Greg et. al.:

Still no response to my commennt #68 re: the efficacy of the morning after pill (as opposed to the abortion pill?)

Greg says:

"The message I'm stating has NOTHING to do with sin. I have purposefully left out any religiously based arguments (except in direct response to religious challenges), because I knew they would not be respected. I find it strange that, in such a situation, you still dismiss my statements as a commentary on sin."

I respectfully concede that you never identified any of your arguments as an argument against sin.
Apologies for any misunderstanding.

I would also like to say that I respect religion. But nothing is perfect, and I feel free to comment when I see inequities.

Having introduced yourself to this thread as a candidate for RC priesthood, you invite comments on that front. Your choice, not mine. Since you and I seem to differ on a religious level rather than a moral or legal level, I feel it's appropriate to identify and discuss those differences.

Finally, since you're candidate for RC priesthood I felt compelled to tell you that I thought your approach would confuse parishioners. You are free to take or leave that input.

I believe my (future) parishioners will understand that I see a distinct difference between a sin and an act of violence against another human. both pre-marital (consentual) sex and abortion are sins. Both sins are forgivable. A mother who kills her child is not lost to God, redemption simply requires true sorrow and resolve to sin no more. That is not the issue at stake. The issue at stake is the murder perpetrated upon a fully innocent human life.

Please, to all those who wonder why I see fit to "impose my beliefs" on others, imagine a man living in Germany in 1941. This theoretical man witnesses the atrocities carried out against the Jews, under the blessing of the law and the "beliefs" of thousands. How can he keep silent without betraying all of his ethics and morals? Is it wrong for him to speak out, even when he is told that his beliefs should have no bearing on the law? Is he wrong if he acts out violently against the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity that he observes?

This is no theoretical man. It is the unexaggerated horror and sorrow I feel when I see doctors kill infants at their mother's behest. It is the disgust and outrage I feel when I see abortion portrayed time and time again as an issue of "women's rights." I am not speaking on the issue as a man of faith; because, in our society my faith holds no bearing. I speak as a man of science, having been schooled extensively in the arts of research, logic, and rhetoric; because I truely believe that the scientific facts, backed by the Ethos of the great philosophers who built our country, will sway at least some hearts. Yet, I see my arguments taken solely in the light of my religion. How is that not discrimination?

For the remainder of this thread, I plead for everyone involved to ignore my religion, and to ignore the preconceptions you may have against the pro-life party, and listen to my base argument as the argument of a man schooled in science. If it helps, imagine me as one of your own playing Devil's advocate.

Thank you for listening, and I hope this clarifies any confusion about the seeming devide between my statements and those of the Roman Catholic church.

"God does not cause rape. Human free will causes rape. However, the fact that one crime has been committed does not justify a second. Just as you cannot seek out and kill the rapist later, you cannot kill the child."

"cannot" is not the same as should not...rapists are and have been sought out and killed...
even if you don't find agreement, you'll certainly find more respect if you stick with facts and label all else your opinion...

"The foster system is not perfect, however, it is an option that keeps children alive. They may have hard lives due to it, but at least THEY have the CHOICE to live. Therefore, arguements on the financial viability of keeping the child are misleading. The mother is not forced to raise the child."

alive is not the same as living...
no child has a "choice to live" until they a) discover the option of suicide b) feel compelled to commit suicide and c) consciously choose not to...
what an interesting choice of word and application of the word "choice" for someone who isn't pro-choice...

****GREG INVOKED GODWIN's LAW**** end of comment #59

Move along, people - nothing to see here

"God does not cause rape. Human free will causes rape."

interesting...where is God in all of this?

didn't God cause humans and didn't he cause free will within the makeup of those humans?

so if a woman becomes pregnant from rape, you're saying we're dealing with the following as i understand you so far:
a) it's not God's fault that she's been raped or is pregnant; it's her fault for having not been prepared...
b) it's the rapist's fault that she was raped, but it's not the rapist's fault she's pregnant; again, it's her fault for having not been prepared...

greg, are you pulling our collective leg or are you the ghost of a man who died 100 years ago?

Damn, Diana.

Once again you ferret out the deepest of issues.

I'll just keep floundering around in the kiddie pool. ;)

Nice job.

Diana, I apologize for any ambiguity seen in my previous comments. When I said "cannot" I meant that said action cannot be acceptable in an ethics based society. However, I disagree with your second point based on common usage as defined within the domain of the argument (hence the capitalization). I purposefully emphasized my usage of "choice", because it is the same usage the "pro-choice" party utilizes. A woman who would be appalled at the idea of killing her baby, and who would never even consider the matter, is considered to have a choice to do so.

Aaman, please try to argue a misuse of the analogy in my case. This is not some flippant comment about "RIAA Nazi's" or the Seinfeld "Soup Nazi". I am referring to the wholesale slaughter of a certain class of human being, purely for convenience sake.

STOP with the "convienience" bullshit. It simply doesn't fly. Re-read the thread for your own personal clarity. I'm too exhausted to keep reminding you.

I never assigned fault for the pregnancy. I assigned fault for the abortion. There is a twisting of my words that you seem to have deftly accomplished.

Please, however, leave God out of this. We do not share religious beliefs, so any argument based on them will be reduced to petty bickering.

As I have stated over and over again, the number of abortions committed daily, do not support the argument of necessity.