When the protest was over, both sides had yelled, exchanged pamphlets, rung bells, quoted the Bible, and played sirens. What neither had done was listen to the other. Eventually both groups retreated from the streets and returned to their homes and churches, preparing to battle on another day.
An anti-abortion activist leads her child past the group's signs.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Anthony Grande
Abortions KILL, "thou shall not kill". Killing abortion doctors kills, "thou shall not kill".
Don't ever kill in the name of Jesus or God.
But even though I don't want to see abortion doctors killed, I'd prefer a couple of abortion doctors die then have a thousand abortions.
77 - T A Dodger
the Bible is more important to me than people's opinions...i am not interesting in debating
Then why come on BlogCritics and comment in the first place? Did you just want to brag about your murder plans, or did you just give up on debating when it became obvious you couldn't keep up?
78 - nugget
hey steve. I have no doubt that abstinence-only education is ridiculous and yields negligible results. I address you because I think most people on this thread didn't read my above post. Perhaps you will?
I find it odd that you would expend energy pointing out the obvious inefficiencies of abstinent-only ed programs. Wouldn't you agree that teaching BOTH abstinance AND contraception is a good idea?
79 - Steve S
I did read your post. My thought is that abortion should be legal, safe and rare.
why is it odd that I point out the inefficiency of abstinence only programs? Bush is spending 1 billion on them with the bulk going to very few states.
My thought is that teaching abstinance only until marriage is a moral issue and therefore fit only for the parents to teach.
teaching contraception is a health/social issue and therefore fit for certain classes like biology or, of course, sex ed.
It should not be up to the school to say when sex is appropriate, outside of the consenting adult factor. (Meaning they can teach, don't do it at least until you are of legal age. Beyond that, it isn't their business).
80 - T A Dodger
Nugget, sorry i didn't respond to your post before. Other people were being more incendiary, and much less thoughtful, and I was distracted.
Now let's assume the unborn baby is in fact a human.
Done.
The pro-abortion stance is that the mother's right to choose what she "wants to do with her body" trumps her child's right to live.
I am not "pro-abortion." I have never met anyone who was "pro-abortion"
It true that the mothers rights to her body trump her child's rights to use her body.
If we assume this logic to apply in all walks of life, consider this scenario:
I think the scenario you describe is distinguishable, not because of the fact that the child has been born, but because, unlike with abortion, it isn't a case of the woman's bodily integrity vs. the interests of the child.
I am not saying that the fetus is an organ. I am saying that the uterus is an organ, and that the fetus has to use the uterus, as well as the woman's metabolic functions, to keep itself alive. Pregnancy and childbirth both incur risks and health costs for the women. I do not think the government has the right to force a person to give any part of their body over to another person, even to save that person's life.
I don't think you can do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want. I do think the government should not be able to make you donate blood, or marrow, or lungs, or wombs to anyone, even if doing so would save that other person's life and you are the only available donor.
As to your comments on education: all I can say is, I agree 100% percent. Teach abstinence. Teach contraception. Teach monogomy. Don't just say that sex is dangerous, because 10,000 years of human history show that people sill often decide that sex is worth the risk, no matter how high.
If a woman is having an abortion, we already failed somewhere.
81 - alienboy
The question of whether abortion is right or wrong is a red herring.
The real issue here is: does one special interest group have the right to force everybody else to do things their way or should people be free to choose to do what they want?
82 - nugget
steve: you don't think teaching abstinance has anything to do with biology? You may find it self-explanatory, but to say that abstinance is only a moral issue is silly. I understand you said abstinance before marraige. But I didn't. I said, strictly, abstinance. If you don't have sex, you won't get pregnant. I do not find that morally intrusive at all.
also, I'm not talking about telling kids "when" is appropriate after they are legal. I'm talking about educating about the biological risk-related benefits of staying abstinent or monogomous.
TA Dodger: Forgive the "pro-abortion" oversight. I was just typing in a hurry.
I can't help but think you're saying that the government can't tell a woman not to make her kid disappear. I understand that the fetus may be expensive, inconvenient, and tiresome for the woman. But you said it too, we're talking about another human. We're still discussing convenience versus life. Whether or not the fetus is attached to the uterus is still irrelevant. A rambunctious (sp?) child causes physical and emotional stress on a woman. This may mean she has to see a doctor because of her kid. Her kid, in that sense, is destructive to her health AND her pocket book just the same as he/she was when they were shacked up in her uterus. Does it really matter if that kid is physically attached to her? If so, then how? I simply don't understand that point.
83 - RogerMDillion
Notice, nugget, that even in your scenario the man responsible is nowhere around. This is a woman's issue. Let them decide.
84 - nugget
TA:
you typed: "I do not think the government has the right to force a person to give any part of their body over to another person, even to save that person's life"
I don't understand why you are saying the "government". In a democracy, people are the government. You are talking as if we live in a commune and the government would act adversely to the will of the majority vote. We are the government, (I say that in a non-cheesey way), so any comments regarding "the govt." are superfluous in this discussion.
I'm not trying to be nitpicky, i just don't believe comparing forced blood donations to the outlawing of abortions is a very target-oriented facet of this discussion. Blood/organ donations (if forced) would encompass very few parallels to the issue of abortion which deals with the rights of two humans that happen to be connected.
85 - nugget
roger that's a silly thing to say.
Do I need my wife to type that for me for a stamp of rhetorical approval?
Ok, suppose I were a woman and saw the same thing. I doubt the woman would say "kid had it comin' to him".
It's not a gender issue. It's an issue that concerns humanity. I'm not arrogantly sticking my nose in someone's business because I think I know what's best. If you want to think that, then I guess you can, but you won't understand what I mean.
86 - RogerMDillion
All I'm saying is that while men can't completely understand the issue because it will never affect us the same way. We are bystanders.
87 - nugget
I understand what you mean, but you act as if men can have no judgement in this case because they can't get pregnant. that's like saying I can't understand addiction unless i've taken heroin. The logic is still there. I can argue against heroin use without ever "experiencing" it because I understand the concepts of addiction, health, and self-destruction.
If anything, women are MORE disposed to being delusional about the issue of abortion because it would be much more difficult to be objective if it meant YOU had to sacrifice and do things that were inconvenient in order to have a baby.
88 - T A Dodger
Nugget,
The government may be "the people" but the "the people" have no more claim over my body than any other government. The difference between a democracy and totalitarian government is (in part) in whether or not they assert control over every facted of a person's life, not whether it is alright for them to do so or not.
If you prefer to look at this purely as a relationship between the two individuals, I think it works that way too. Needing something does not give you a right to it. My body is mine alone. No one else, including a fetus, has any right to it at all. You will say that the fetus has a right to life. My answer is it isn't my job to save everyone even, when I'm the only one who could do it, and especially when doing so requires me to sacrifice bodily integrity.
FOR EXAMPLE if someone needed a bone marrow transplant and I was the only donor, the person in need to would hae no RIGHT to my marrow regardless of the desireability of their survival. I think that example is on point because the person in need and I share the need for my bone marrow, just like a pregant woman and a fetus share an interest in her womb. As in the case of pregnancy, if I choose not to share my body, the other person dies.
If anything, women are MORE disposed to being delusional.
Yes, I'm sure it's easier to talk calmly about forcing pregnancy on others than it is to talk calmly about having it forced on oneself. People around the age of 20 were also most likely to be "delusional" about the draft...
89 - tobra
abortion is a baby kill, using medical terms is what hitler did, the jews were seen as a parasite to the german people. that is why i will not debate the medical issues of abortion. Jacob have i loved and esua have i hated. yes, God hates people. i am not interested in debating all this, i have other things to do. enough has been written about abortion, fortunately others are drawing that conclusion.
90 - T A Dodger
that is why i will not debate the medical issues of abortion
You came to website dedicated to poltical debate, and you began to preach about abortion. You were looking for a debate. If you want to run home with your tail between your legs, go ahead, but don't act it's because you're morally opposed to debating the issue, you just aren't up to answering other people's arguments.
91 - T A Dodger
using medical terms is what hitler did, the jews were seen as a parasite to the german people
People on this thread aren't making medical argument at this point. We're arguing about the competing rights of the pregnant woman and the fetus to the use of the woman's uterus. Nugget and I, at least, have agreed to consider the fetus a person for the purpose of debate.
92 - lil_ms_perfect_iii@hotmail.com
Not to mention, comparing things to the Holocoust pretty much makes you look like [a word that i'm sure is banned] automatically.
93 - tobra
i have taken the right to choose to answer what i choose to answer. anyone choosing to kill a baby chooses to be a killer.
94 - Anthony Grande
Steve, your right abstinence doesn't work. Why???:
Abstinence is only mentioned twice in 7th grade. The point isn't driven home. Abstinence needs to be EVERYWHERE. We need to teach it in 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grade more than twice.
95 - Fenja M Hehtke-Babineau
I am once again amazed to see the intellectual/mental/emotional level that the average anti-abortioner operates on. For an adult to "reason" that "abortion is wrong because babies are adorable" is nothing short of embarrassing and, frankly spoken, an indicator that there might be some mental retardation issues at hand. The same goes for those people who are opposed to the usage of medical terms, as they don't appear to be supportive enough of their propaganda, and for people who continue to point out "similarities" between abortion and the holocaust. Somebody must have been sleeping in history class.
Thanks to these types of people, it has become completely impossible to take the anti-abortion movement seriously. Stupid people simply aren't scary.
As an avid defender of choice, I am however thankful that the "opposition" is merely laughable, putting the right to choose in very little danger to ever be fully eradicated.
However, there are some things about the anti-abortion movement that DO worry me. Having excercised the right to choose myself, I have become a victim of stalking, harrassment, slander, attacks, threats, and online impersonation by members of the anti-abortion movement, both online and and in real life. While it is good clean fun to laugh at adults who are so ready and willing to totally embarrass themselves through public displays of their childlike "logic" and missing education, radical anti-abortioners tend to lack all understanding of where they end and where others begin, and therefore pose a threat to the personal safety of many. While I have always been all for free speech, after having made my personal experience with these people and their "witch hunt techniques", I believe that it would be in the interest of any reasonable human being to make it illegal for anti-abortioners to assemble in public.
96 - tobra
the reason it is not illegal for anti- abortionists to assemble in public may be too many judges, military personel and other americans are anti-abortioners. i understand planned parenthood offers tshirts that say something like i had an abortion. the cost you can obtain from the largest provider of baby killing in america today.
97 - Fenja Hehtke-Babineau
tobra, that is true. In America, many people in leading positions are against abortion. It is frightening when one begins to seriously think about it. To be against legal abortion is to be in favor of one of the most repulsive forms of violatation of human beiongs possible: forced childbirth. The mindset of a person opposed to legal abortion is no healthier, saner, or more humane than that of a vicious sex offender. Both, anti-abortioners and rapists, believe that for the sake of getting their way, it is right and proper that people be endangered, degraded, physically and psychologically hurt and crippled, and unspeakably violated.
It is an absolute outrage that people with such a mentality, reflecting a total disregard for the rights, freedoms, well-being, and dignity of others, would ever be able to get into/remain in any leading position in any country that dares call itself civilized, advanced, and humane. The USA invade and occupie other countries, reasoning that it is their right to do so because these countries' leaders commit and/or support crimes against humanity, while at the same time the USA have a president who continunes to be cheered for and celebrated because of his sincere opposition to a woman's right to remain physically unharmed and to keep her human diginity. It is outrageous and disgusting.
98 - tobra
your comment is wierd, as a rapist is commiting a crime, it is totally legal to be against the killing of the unborn. being against abortion, is just that, being against the killing of an unborn child. a person against abortion is showing compassion for the unborn child and displays a regard for the right to life.
99 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I'm old enough to remember when abortion was illegal in the State of New York and a bill was brought up in the state legislature to "reform" the laws.
This was in 1970, before Roe vs. Wade was decided in the federal supreme court.
There was a debate on the issue on what was then WNEW, Channel 5. One fellow speaking against abortion was a Catholic prelate whose name is not worth remembering.
What he said is, though. "Abortion should be banned to protect good Catholic girls."
It was the dumbest thing he could have said. Why should a nice Jewish boy (once I wasn't a balding middle aged man) like me give a tinker's dam about Catholic girls - good or otherwise - if they were not jumping into MY bed?
Judaism does not forbid abortion, as does Catholicism. Why should I have to swallow Catholic dogma and put a nice Jewish girl at risk with a back room abortionist so that some Catholic prelate's precious "good" Catholic girls would not be allowed to have abortions and HIS church would not have to really educate them as to why not?
That seemed wrong.
Sexual morals in America were just a tad better then than they are now.
But the bottom line is this. If fourteen year old kids have sex for pleasure, they better damned well KNOW that babies do result from sex. That thought should be on the mind of both hormone crazed kids as they strip their clothes off, hot and hungry for each others bodies.
There is more to sex than the foreplay, clit tickling and mind blowing orgasms that American and European culture focus in on and use to sell products.
This means that parents have to educate their children. They can't get off the hook with garbage like, "the school didn't do it," or, "I'm too embarrassed." One of the responsibilities you sign up for when becoming a parent is being willing to educate your children
about sex, about emotions surrounding sex, about how to deal with the fact that sex CAN and DOES result in babies.
I don't favor abortion. I don't believe abortion ought to be illegal. This should be a matter between the mother carrying the foetus, her doctor, her pastor and G-d - and the people who will have to provide for the resulting child.
I do believe there ought to be restrictions, and I believe the law here in Israel should be more restrictive. But at the same time, it is imperative to educate a child about life, love and sex, and it is imperative to provide a strong support network for that young woman who goes through with a pregnancy willing to give the baby up, knowing that she herself cannot provide or it.
As far as a pregnancy resulting from rape, the central issue is "does forcing the victim of the rape to bear the child endanger the health of the victim?" If so, IMHO, the embryo should be aborted. This is a question that can only be answered on a case by case basis.
As for what went on in Kansas, I can only remind you that before your nation fought its civil war in the 19th (Christian) century, there were seven years of "Bloody Kansas".
100 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I ought to add that normative Jewish law concerning abortion concerns itself with the question, "does carrying the embryo/foetus to term endanger the health of the mother?" and that the embryo/foetus is viewed as "potential life." By Jewish law, "life" begins at birth. This paragraph ought to have been added to comment #99 above.
101 - Christopher Rose
Fenja: good words, bad layout. please use paragraphs so my eyes don't explode!
102 - Christopher Rose
Comment #99 was chosen as Comment of the Day for Tuesday 20th December 2005. Congratulations to the authors of both comment and the article that inspired it.
103 - tobra
when jewish law contradicts God's Word, God will prevail. JOB 3:3 let the day perish wherein I was born,and the night in which it was said, there is a manchild conceived. just as the Lord can turn rocks into jews, he can strike down jews who allow the unborn child to be aborted.
104 - Aaman
It's rurprising the Bible isn't on the top ten bad fiction list,with crap like #103 in it
105 - Rodney Welch
The Book of Job is unassailable literature. The cited verse is the wail of a man who has lost everything, and doesn't have the first thing to do with abortion. Tobra appears to have read it while smoking crack.
106 - uao
Rodney's right to call the Book of Job unassailable literature.
When I was younger, I tried to read the bible starting from Genesis, and when I got to the list of "begats" I always gave up.
Then, many years later, when life was hitting a persistant rocky patch, I randomly opened to the Book of Job.
What a story! It got me interested in reading the rest again. Still haven't done it cover to cover, but at least I no longer use it as a paperweight anymore.
And tobra's comment is just a mishmash, it doesn't really mean anything, and Book of Job certainly can't be read as a prohibition of abortion. Maybe tobra would make sense if he learned how to capitalize and use punctuation.
107 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Interesting observations uao. I've always had trouble reading the book of Job - either in the Hebrew or the English. But I agree with you. It is unassailably literature, and nothing in it can be read as a prohibition of abortion. It is a book of wisdom, not a book of law.
108 - tobra
you can call God's Word a piece a book or a boat, but when you stand before him you will regret not obeying His Word. and a baby is alive at conception and the old testament of the Bible will confirm this. any religion that denies a person in the womb the right to be called alive is going to be leading people into the sin of shedding innocent blood. the jews kill many babies with their unjust laws. in exodus the penalty for purposely causing a mother to lose the fruit of her womb is death. in the new testament, john leaped in his mother's womb. a good man, paul jennings hill, saved babies from baby killer britton and on sept.03,2003, paul was executed by the state of florida. now it's 20006 and forida is toast, God will destroy most or all of the state this year. watch and see. and for those that do not try to stop abortion, the Lord will surely punish as they had many opportunities to stop abortion in this nation.
109 - Aaman
It's as much 'god's word as a Domino's Pizza menu, not that either is not interesting or educational
110 - Triniman
tobra;
In comment # 37, you said,
"God will destroy nations that kill and/or allow innocent people to be killed. abortionists kill innocent babies. the babies mother is usually the one hiring the abortionist. a Godly nation would condemn her for child murder and the abortionist as well."
Do you currently know of any nations that should not be on God's list to destroy? I'm curious.
111 - tobra
most nations practice immorality, england recently allowed faggot and bulldykes to have some sort of marriage ceremony, civil unions. canada and america have legalized fag and bulldyke marriage and legalized abortion, people say france is fag friendly and the netherlands too. sweden is allowing doctor assisted killings. many nations have muslim and hindu dominated religous laws, those nations violate the first commandment. hopefully some nations try to obey God with their laws.
112 - Aaman
And all these nations are eating your lunch - not America's lunch, just yours.
113 - Aaman
The God you claim to follow isn't the God of most people who call themselves Christians, BTW, or at least their perception differs.
114 - tobra
they are not, lies are typical from people who mock God and support baby killing and fag and dyke rights.
115 - Aaman
You're lying - God does not love you anymore. He's going to get on his Harley and come see you after lunch. He and you are going to have a small talk
116 - Dave Nalle
I think I'm going to start a private foundation to subsidize abortions for the teenage daughters of OSA members.
Dave
117 - tobra
be sure and report this to the united states government as required by law, as girls underage 18 are considered rape victims in most states and if you don't report their pregnancies you can be prosecuted in some or all states.
118 - tobra
God hates killers, fags and dykes.
119 - Aaman
Did you know the word fag has a completely different connotation in Asia, and England too? Actually two connotations - a cigarette and the end of something
120 - uao
Also a "faggot" is a bundle of sticks tied together. Learned that in the Boy Scouts (no irony intended)
Fags aren't permitted inside any public buildings, restaurants, bars, and offices here in California.
Fags aren't even permitted on the beaches anymore.
Unless you keep 'em in your pocket, unlit.
121 - Aaman
And dykes are very important in Amsterdam - the city would drown without them. (It might be also drowning in them, but that's another story)
122 - Ruvy in Jerualem
Uao, check your dictionary again. "Fagot" is a bundle of sticks tied together. "Faggot" is a nasty term for a homosexual (like I was telling you something you didn't know, right?). In my sixty year old Websters "New" Standard Dictionary, "faggot" is listed as a secondary spelling for "fagot." In my 9 kilo unabridged versions of various dictionaries, "ar" is listed as an alternate spelling for "are." That never helped me on spelling tests though.
Life's not fair.
123 - Aaman
Ruvy, actually Fagot is Old French/Old English. Faggot is the current usage
From wikipedia,
124 - swingingpuss
tobra your god needs a chill pill.
125 - Ruvy in Jerualem
Swingingpuss, it's not G-d that needs a chill. It's tobra.
G-d - at least the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Israel - is a lot less condemnatory that tobra makes Him out to be.
But when you read a text in translation, you generally do not know what you are reading anyway. That is why the putz of a preacher referred to in the original article is so much of a putz. He hasn't got a clue as to what he is doing, and to the degree that he MIGHT be right in his theology, he is definitely WRONG in his timing.