Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Science and Technology » Pro-Life or Anti-Sex?

Pro-Life or Anti-Sex?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

In addition to the usual crimes against humanity, yesterday I saw at least two cases on the local news of horrendous torture, sexual abuse, and murder of innocent children at the hands of their own families. Is this the kind of blood the pro-lifers really want on their hands?

Recently, fellow Blogcritic and pro-lifer John Bambenek wrote a provocative piece that has garnered a lot of controversy and negative (as well as the “odd” postive) comments. After reading his post, I, too, was enraged and wrote a long comment explaining why I thought his views were hogwash. But if truth be told, I’ve been working up to a good pro-choice rant for months now, and it seems like now is as good a time as ever to take the plunge. Although I’ll leave it to those who have not already done so to see Mr. Bambenek’s post for the entire opposing view, I am repeating my comment to his post here, along with a few other choice words to boot.

To say, as Bambenek implies, that Planned Parenthood is trying to “profit” using their supposedly nefarious “business model” to make money from abortions is patently absurd. In actuality, by making reproductive health information and contraception more readily available, PP is preventing countless abortions each year.

But this is something the wacked out far/religious right simply does not want to hear, because everyone knows that sex outside of marriage is just, like, wrong and sinful, and you must be punished by enduring a pregnancy and unwanted child, right? Bambenek comes clean on this in a comment to his commenters where he reasons that if folks would just have sex only within the confines of marriage, all the sex-related woes of the world (unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and so on) would be moot.

Here is the exact quote (comment–gulp–93):

You mention sex outside marriage. Well, if people (1) had sex only in marriage and (2) were faithful to their spouses there would be no such things as (1) STDs and (2) children born out of wedlock. Food for thought.

(Never mind all the holier than thou preachers who get caught with their pants down and all the priests who molest young children, hiding under their collar. But hey, no abortions, right?)

BTW–the “morning after” emergency contracepton pill that everyone is so up in arms about–the pill that women can take shortly after unprotected sex–does not abort anything. It is commonly confused with the so-called “abortion pill,” which is an entirely different thing. Taken in a timely fashion, emergency contraception merely makes the womb unviable for sperm implantation. No more an abortion than using the Pill would be, but then, many members of the religous right apparently don’t believe that anyone should have protected extramarital sex at all. I think underneath it all, this is what it all boils down to–trying to force the whole nation to “just say no.”

Moreover, since so many people are misinformed on the nature of this contraceptive option, it is important to note that making it available does not mean that it will become a ubiquitous method of birth control–the side effects are just too unpleasant for everyday use.

Here is a quote from the Planned Parenthood site that I think is crucial to note here:

There is considerable public confusion about the difference between emergency contraception and medication abortion because of misinformation disseminated by anti-choice groups. Emergency contraception helps prevent pregnancy; medication abortion terminates pregnancy. According to general medical definitions of pregnancy that have been endorsed by many organizations including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the United States Department of Health and Human Services, pregnancy begins when a pre-embryo completes implantation into the lining of the uterus (ACOG, 1998; DHHS, 1978; Hughes, 1972; “Make the Distinction?” 2001). Hormonal methods of contraception, including emergency contraception pills, prevent pregnancy by inhibiting ovulation and fertilization (ACOG, 1998). Medication abortion terminates a pregnancy without surgery. By helping women to prevent unplanned pregnancies after unprotected intercourse, emergency contraception has the great potential to decrease the rate of abortion. By helping women terminate unwanted pregnancies up to 63 days after their last menstruation, medication abortion is a safe and effective option.

It infuriates me to read about pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because of their religious beliefs. Verily I say unto you: if you are an Orthodox Jew, don’t work in a pork store. If you are opposed to birth control, you have no business being a pharmacist. Try some holier line of work that doesn’t compromise your religious beliefs and moral scruples.

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. If you’re so concerned about this, why not concern yourself with the fate of children who are beaten, tortured, and yes, even raped by their so-called guardians? Plus which, I take it that as far as the sanctity of life goes, all bets are off when it comes to bombing abortion clinics and threatening those who work there with bodily harm and worse.

It’s a shameful thing when a writer makes it seem like an organization that is actually trying to PREVENT needless abortion is supposedly just trying to make some sort of unholy profit. Please. Okay, I give up. Let’s just stop having sex outside of marriage, already. Or alternately, let’s breed ourselves into oblivion and then put the unwanted kids on a mountaintop to die of exposure, like in the good ol’ days, okay?

Powered by

About Elvira Black

  • Shark

    [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

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    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

  • Shark

    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

  • Shark

    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!)

  • Sherrie

    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!

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    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

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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)?

  • Bennett

    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…

  • Bing

    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.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.

  • RedTard

    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.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com Gregory John Schoppe

    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.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    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.

  • gonzo marx

    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!

  • KYS

    “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.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    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!

  • RedTard

    “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.

  • gonzo marx

    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!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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.

  • KYS

    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.

  • gonzo marx

    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!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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…

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “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…

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “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…

  • Bing

    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.

  • gonzo marx

    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!

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    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”?

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    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.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    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.

  • KYS

    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.

  • gonzo marx

    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!

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    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!”

  • KYS

    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.

  • Dave Nalle

    >) 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

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.”

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    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.

  • KYS

    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?

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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)!

  • gonzo marx

    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!

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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!

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.

  • http://nightdragon.diaryland.com Mark Edward Manning

    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.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    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!

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “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…

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “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?

  • Shark

    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…

  • RedTard

    “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.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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].

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    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.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

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

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    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!

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Andy:

    LOL–Leave it to an actual parent who’s actually had kids to “get it.”

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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?

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    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.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

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

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Greg,

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

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “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?

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “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…

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I promise baby….I’ll pull out! I swear!

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

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

    Andy: PreCISEly!!!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    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.

  • KYS

    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?

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    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)

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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!

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    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?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Mandate Palestine…

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

  • Bing

    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.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

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

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

  • JR

    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.

  • KYS

    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?

  • KYS

    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???

  • http://www.gschoppe.com Greg Schoppe

    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.

  • Bennett

    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?

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Greg et. al.:

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

  • KYS

    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.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    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.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “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…

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

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

    Move along, people – nothing to see here

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    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?

  • KYS

    Damn, Diana.

    Once again you ferret out the deepest of issues.

    I’ll just keep floundering around in the kiddie pool. 😉

    Nice job.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    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.

  • KYS

    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.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    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.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

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

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Greg,

    What are your credentials on this topic? Apart from your moral and hmumanistic beliefs, what do you bring to the table? Have you ever been raped or been pregnant?

    That being said, I am a Buddhist – and if I were to apply my belief system, I would say, that even if the soul had come into the world only to be cut short, it was the karma it chose for itself. I would feel compassion for the mother, the unborn soul and hope for a better chance next time around the wheel.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “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.”

    you’re not the first person to run into much discourse and then attempt to define the rules by which everyone else is to engage you in an effort to better suit your argument or your argumentative style…

    regardless of your religious position, you’ve made it abundantly clear that your position is religious and that you are pro-life…to have done this and then plead that all ignore it when questioning your reasons for being pro-life is not something one would expect from a man of your schooling…one might expect that you wouldn’t have carried your religion into it at all…
    should your asserted position as a man schooled in science get you in the same pickle as your asserted position as a man of religon, will you later ask that your schooling not be taken into account either?

    i can only speak for myself and say sure, i’ll ignore your religion…sooo, without bringing God and religion into it, why are you pro-life?

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    BTW, you still invoke Godwin’s Law when you compare abortion of a fetus with the wilful murder of Oops, almost slipped down the slippery slope of Godwin’s Law myself.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    Aborted fetuses are little Eichmanns

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    Aaman, trying to deny my right to argue the point based on lack of first hand experience is a clear fallacy. I refuse to devote further time on this thread explaining the rules of rhetoric, unless there is mass public outcry.

    Diana, I never argued a religious point except when directly questioned on it. I merely mentioned my afiliation with the Catholic church, and you ran with it. I believe arguing religion detracts from useful debate, as we have no common ground (this is not a retraction, only an attempt to refocus the discussion). I hope we have common ground in the world of logic and science.

    You question why I am pro-life? Suprisingly, it has NOTHING to do with my religion. In High School, I was brow beat constantly with the pro-choice viewpoint, and decided to look into the facts. What I found was disturbing to me. I realized that the difference between a fetus with no rights, and a baby was whether it had been delivered. Since only about 10 percent of babies are delivered on the allotted day for competion of gestation, it stands to reason that at the time of birth, babies are at vastly different levels of development. Some are delivered a month early, while others are delivered a month late. I could not reconcile the devide between burocracy and science. The burocracy, simply put, is not based on the baby’s level of development. Therefore, how can it be accurate in decifering where humanity begins. It became clear to me that there is no way to measure the exact moment a fetus becomes intelligent, and as numerous studies have shown that, for some, this moment is well before birth, I could not support a law that labeled some humans as, well, fetuses.

    There is only one point where a line can be drawn with absolute certainty. Only one point where that line cannot be pushed back and forth on the arbitrary whim of the ruling party of the moment. That point is conception, the moment when a cell with unique human DNA first appears.

    I am unwilling to accept an arbitrary defining line that kills intelligent human beings. Therefore, I am Pro-Life

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “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.”

    whoa nellie…go back and read your own posts…you most certainly and specifically said the woman was responsible for getting pregnant if she wasn’t prepared via the pill…
    i give you your own words:
    “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.” and
    “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.”

    if that’s not saying the woman is at fault for the pregnancy, i gotta say, i question those classes you took in logic…

    “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.”

    she is also considered to have the choice to adopt the child out, keep the child, or go home without the child…a woman who would never even consider an abortion would probably never consider an abortion…what’s your point?

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    my point is that the definition of CHOICE given there is the same as the definition I used in Comment #85.

    and as for fault, reread those quotes…

    One who will abort her child is resposible for making sure she never comes to that choice.

    That is in no way the same as saying all women are responsible for getting pregnant.

    I was saying that all women are responsible for the choice to abort, and if they don’t take one of the other options, both preemptive and post delivery, the murder is their fault.

    I will not release the burden of an offence based on previous hardships.

  • http://darkeroticism.blogspot.com swingingpuss

    Greg, get pregnant, carry the fetus for nine uncomfortable months, have labor pains for over 24 hours, deliver without peidural and then we will talk.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    Despite the thought-provoking argument on this board, I am sorry to say that I’ll be asleep for the next few hours. Please, feel free to continue responding to my argument, as I would like to write a nice long post in the morning, before work. I hope we can tackle the big issue soon, and leave the edge cases for later.

    anyway, I know I’ll be considering all your comments, and I hope you’ll mull over mine as well.

    good night, and god bless,

    Greg

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    oh, and #105, read the first paragraph of #102. That is unacceptable sexism.

  • http://darkeroticism.blogspot.com swingingpuss

    The day a woman’s rights over her body are taken away on that day the fate of the women in this country will be similar to that of the Afgani women under the Taliban regime.

    How are you different from a Mullah trying to imposing his religious beliefs on the rest of the world?

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    greggie, your tone is unacceptable moralism

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “Diana, I never argued a religious point except when directly questioned on it. “

    and when questioned, you argued a religious point…it’s creative to blame someone else for your having brought religon into it (something you could just as easily have not done, questioned or not), but it’s not as opaque an assertion as you might have hoped…

    “I merely mentioned my afiliation with the Catholic church, and you ran with it. “

    to whom do you refer when you say “you”?
    and for the record, i don’t run…
    i did not include religion or the catholic church in any of my responses to you or anyone else, and it wasn’t until you specifically referenced God (“God does not cause rape”) that i questioned your comment…do you feel i’m somehow to blame for your having brought God into it? perhaps you’ll explain…

    “I believe arguing religion detracts from useful debate, as we have no common ground (this is not a retraction, only an attempt to refocus the discussion). “

    and yet, you argued religion despite your belief that it detracts from useful debate…not a retraction? yea, you can say that but it’s still a retraction…the real giveaway was saying it wasn’t a retraction…

    it’s always interesting to see how someone uses words like “only” and “merely” in debate, especially when used in conjunction with qualifiers like “this is not a retraction”…personally, i’ve never seen these words used to substantiate a claim or justify a behavior but rather to distance oneself from and/or minimize the importance of a claim already made or a behavior already carried out…kinda like a retraction…

    “I hope we have common ground in the world of logic and science.”

    i hope as well…bear in mind there are no opinions in logic and science…there are facts, ideas, speculations, hypothesis, theories, etc — but no opinions…

    “You question why I am pro-life? Suprisingly, it has NOTHING to do with my religion.”

    and why would that be surprising?

    “In High School, I was brow beat constantly with the pro-choice viewpoint, and decided to look into the facts. What I found was disturbing to me. I realized that the difference between a fetus with no rights, and a baby was whether it had been delivered. Since only about 10 percent of babies are delivered on the allotted day for competion of gestation, it stands to reason that at the time of birth, babies are at vastly different levels of development. Some are delivered a month early, while others are delivered a month late. I could not reconcile the devide between burocracy and science. The burocracy, simply put, is not based on the baby’s level of development. Therefore, how can it be accurate in decifering where humanity begins. It became clear to me that there is no way to measure the exact moment a fetus becomes intelligent, and as numerous studies have shown that, for some, this moment is well before birth, I could not support a law that labeled some humans as, well, fetuses.”

    so when you said “I hope we have common ground in the world of logic and science”, you didn’t mean this post, this thread, maybe not even this day?
    you wandered away from science and logic and right into law and bureaucracy rather quickly…there may well be some common ground between these (logic and science, and law and bureaucracy) but that isn’t where you said you wanted to be…let’s assume you got lost looking for a drinking fountain and get back to what you first asserted, that we might find common ground in logic and science…
    so don’t support the law that labels some humans as fetuses…how about you also don’t say you’re all about the science and then dismiss the scientific definition and use of the word “fetuses”…

    “There is only one point where a line can be drawn with absolute certainty. Only one point where that line cannot be pushed back and forth on the arbitrary whim of the ruling party of the moment. That point is conception, the moment when a cell with unique human DNA first appears.
    I am unwilling to accept an arbitrary defining line that kills intelligent human beings.”

    that you consider conception a line is your opinion; it’s not science…for all we know there’s stuff happening before that…for that matter, there’s reason to believe there’s nothing going on but the multiplication of cells for quite a while…certainly you’re entitled to your opinion and can draw all the lines your heart desires but it’s not science…i would point out that logic and science is the platform you suggested, and it’s the very platform you abandoned right after making the suggestion…

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    NOTE TO ALL, ESP GREG!!!!!

    Waaaay back in comment #87 I again asked for Greg’s reaction to my Comment #68, re: the EFFICACY OF THE MORNING AFTER PILL (not to be confused with the “abortion pill.”

    One of the central points of my POST was that this option might actually eliminate the need for some of this endless debate about abortion.

    When first brought up, Greg, you replied by saying that it was not acceptable because sperm had still met egg before you took it.

    AS I TOOK GREAT PAINS TO POINT OUT IN MY ARTICLE AND ON COMMMENT #68 (once again, that number is 68), apparently, the morning after pill does not abort anything. It is, as far as I understand it, nothing much more than the equivalent of a mega dose of regular birth control pills. And from what I’ve read and also cite in my post, there seems to be definitive scientific agreeement that if taken in a timely fashion, the pill will PREVENT the sperm from meeting up with egg and getting fertilized.

    I’ve run across this reaction before in debates–rather than face a fact one doesn’t like, people will just IGNORE it. Not fair.

    I did not see this post as just another pro-life/pro-choice debate. Been there, done that, no?

    I will point out the essential points of my post:

    1. Are pro-choice advocates only concerned with the “right to life,” or the quality of life that follows? If an unwanted child is subsequently tortured, raped, and murdered by her parents/stepparents, it seems that pro-choicers have decided this is a moot point. Is it really???? If you were tortured and raped, perhaps you’d pray–for the choice to DIE A QUICK DEATH. Murder is murder, inside or outside the womb. Why the fetish with pre-natal murder?

    2. THERE IS NOW A PILL AVAILABLE that, unlike the “abortion pill,” does not abort anything, but apparently simply makes the womb inhospitable to fertilization and implantation, even after intercourse, if taken in a timely manner.

    However, apparently few know about this, and fewer still realize the difference between this and the “abortion pill,” which actually does abort, if you will, albeit at an early stage.

    3. AND WHY do so few people know of it? Well, interesting, isn’t it? See any commercials for it? Any big news stories?

    4. Shamefully, against all medical and scientific evidence, the FDA has dragged their heels on releasing this drug over the counter. Though I’d have to go back to the source, I believe a higher up (at the FDA?) actually resigned over the fact that the over the counter status was getting held up for no valid reason.

    5. To my mind, this pill could theoretically end this debate, since taking it would not abort a child in the first place.

    6. Which brings me to my other main argument–MANY PRO-LIFERS WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS. WHY? BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT THEY CAN’T JUST ARGUE WITH WOMEN AND MEN TO JUST SAY NO TO EXTRAMARITAL SEX. That’s the bone of contention that’s hidden behind all this talk of murder, to my mind, esp if a viable option presents itself and everyone talks around it as if it doesn’t exist. How about we talk about this and let the real underlying motivations out–i.e., sex is a sin, sex is dirty, sex is awful, except within marriage.

    7. The morning after pill is not something likely to be used for routine birth control. Apparently, the side effects are simply too unpleasant.

    8. Europe has been using this med, and stats on their success rate would be a useful thing to study in terms of the potential success of this method. From what I’ve read, I believe it is very promising.

    9. Do you want to stop abortions, Greg et al, or simply have something to rail about?

    10. I doubt there is ANYONE who advocates NEEDLESS abortions. Thus, in order to decrease abortions, how about this:

    Help get the word out about the morning after pill and dispell the misconceptions about it (no pun intended).

    Support free and low cost birth control and education to reduce the risk of pregnancy.

    11. But you know what? This won’t wash with a lot of folks because it’s just too “EASY.” Our country is still very puritanical (or at least the RR is, and they are a powerful force) and so anything that smacks of “allowing” people to have extramarital sex with impunity is unacceptable to them. You must pay the “wages of sin” and all that, right?

    12, Repressing women and their right to choose is a political as well as moral/ethical issue.

    13. If you are really more concerned with a zygote than with living, breathing human beings (unwed mothers, abandoned, tortured and murdered babies—i.e. MURDERED LATER, AFTER THEY ARE ACTUALLY BORN)–then I question your true motives and compassion for the “right to life.”

    Please, please can someone, esp Greg, address the issues I actually brought up in the post?

    Other than that, I’d been asleep and woke up to find lots of activity here. I love a post that simmers and makes its own gravy while you sleep!

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Elvira writes,

    “MANY PRO-LIFERS WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS. WHY? BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT THEY CAN’T JUST ARGUE WITH WOMEN AND MEN TO JUST SAY NO TO EXTRAMARITAL
    SEX. That’s the bone of contention that’s hidden behind all this talk of murder, to my mind, esp if a viable option presents itself and everyone talks around it as if it doesn’t exist. How about we talk about this and let the real underlying motivations out–i.e., sex is a sin, sex is dirty, sex is awful, except within marriage.”

    I guess, Elvira, that we are back to the question I laid out a long time ago in comment #21.

    “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.”

    The laws of the Torah and the Seven Commandments of Noah restrict sexual activity. The laws of the Torah apply to Jews, the Seven Commandments of Noah to the rest of humankind – ALL of it.

    So, the question is does society teach a moral code or not?

    The sexual revolution of our youth threw out the moral code. But when the obnoxious social costs of relatively unrestricted sex – the most obvious one being abortion – started hitting the wallet, society got interested – in its wallet.

    Hence the rule I cited above at comment #21:

    “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.”

    You complain that a drug that would hide the most obvious and obnoxious social cost of unrestricted sex is being withheld – at least from the OTC market in your country.

    Put simply, you like the consequences of having thrown out the idea that society is responsible for teaching a moral code.

    I don’t. Maybe it’s because I have kids to raise and would appreciate society as a back-up rather than an enemy in teaching my kids to follow a humane moral code.

    I want my sons to behave like men – your society (which has a tremendous and evil influence on mine) wants them to behave like rutting animals in a barnyard.

    You don’t believe me? Check out a magazine, the spam on your e-mails, the ads even here. Watch TV for an hour or two. Check out the movies.

    I agree with you, Elvira. This is not about abortion – it’s about morality – or the lack of it.

    Like I said, ponder the consequences.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Ruvy, thank you so much for addressing my points. Here’s my view:

    Yes, the world is full of evil and vice. But my main concern here is the same as the pro-lifers (supposed) main concern: preventing murder (and needless misery to boot).

    Neither you nor I can prevent the world from having sex outside of wedlock.

    What I think can be prevented is murder–both my the pro-lifer’s definition and by my definition–by preventing pregnancy and unwanted births.

    I strongly feel that even if you think that people who have sex outside of marriage are sinning, I don’t think an innocent child (or even foetus, if that’s your belief) should have to pay the price needlessly.

    As I said, the morning after pill is just an extension of what’s already available.

    If people truly care about the slaughter of innocent lives, I think this is a valid point to discuss.

    After my parents died, and before I went off to college, I lived with my aunt and uncle, who are Orthodox. As a result, I have enormous respect for my heritage–although, as with all fundamentalist beliefs, some (only some) Orthodox seem to dismiss non-Jews as “inferior” or not to be seen as quite as good. But most I’ve met are incredibly wonderful. I admire their love of family, their devotion to their children and their education, and their ethical codes.

    Nevertheless–I still feel that although your children have been taught ethics and morals by you (would that more parents would follow your example) you yourself admitted that you also saw fit to talk to them about birth control. And I’m sure you realize that even though you have taught by example, it is ultimately their choice as to what they choose to follow themselves. It is just much much more likely that they will follow the “good path” because of your teachings and deeds.

    That, too, is something to consider. But it still wont’ make this major problem, which affects millions, just go away.

    I am against murder, torture, and rape of innocent children–certainly after conception. The debate over abortion is a valid one, and I am not G-d and cannot decide what consitutes life at what juncture. I would prefer that it not have to come to that point wherever possible.

    Way too many parents, I suspect, simply avoid any discussion of sexuality, birth control, or even ethics and morals. They let their children be guided, as you imply, but the influences of an often quite evil world.

    It’s sad that it is so often up to outside agencies to try to provide some of this essential information to young people–but only parents can instil the moral implications of a child’s choices–hopefully without just screaming blind rhetoric. I am quite certain that is not the way you do things, in any event.

    Again, thank you Ruvy, as always, for your wise and thoughtful comments.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    A BIG P.S.:

    A few factors compelled me to write this post, including several cases of child abuse and worse in the past few days. To get some idea of what I’m referring to, PLEASE check out this short piece from today’s New York Times.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    And PLEASE, PLEASE view this article from today’s New York Post.

    This is why I feel so very strongly that we must make birth control accessible to all. It may not prevent all tragedies like this one, but I suspect it will certainly help. Our social agencies are not equipped to handle the enormous number of cases of abuse, and those who continue to have baby after baby without having the wherewithal to care for them are endangering the society and it’s children even more.

    A tragic vicious circle-how can those who survive such horrors ever hope to have a normal adult life, or be able to care for their own children properly in turn? (Not to imply that it can’t be done, but what are the odds?) Over and over, the cycle of abuse is perpetuated from generation to generation as people continue to have babies they cannot and/or will not properly care for.

    If you care about the “right to life,” please don’t tell me that a story like this one from the Post doesn’t break your heart and make you mad as hell to boot.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Sorry…serves me right for not hitting preview first.

    Here’s the NY Post article.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    1. Diana, it is true that I argued religion when it was brought up. I thought it would be nice to clarify the religious position. However, it has eaten the possibility of real discussion. We need to move on, or we’ll get nowhere.

    if you’ll notice i did not “wander away from science”, i stated how american law is not based on simple scientific facts. And my use of the term fetus was prefaced with a qualifier that suggested I was not using the scientific term, but the common usage.

    And making conception a line based on the creation of new DNA is precisely scientific. It is the clearest line science can draw.

    Please, can you argue the issues rather than literary semantics? this is wasting time.

    2. Elvira, I stated the facts regarding the “morning after pill”

    The morning after pill in no way stops fertilization. It simply causes a fertilized egg to be flushed out like an unfertilized one. It allows another arbitrary line to be drawn. I am therefore not ok with it.

    I explained this in an earlier comment. I in no way ignored it for my own position

    And about the cases of torture, these are isolated incidents. Are kids sometimes made to suffer at their parents’ hands? yes Will abortion stop this? seems it hasn’t yet. can we allow 4,000 murders a day, based on a handful of cases a year in which children are mistreated? no.

    1 in 5 people are supposedly abused in their lifetimes. Since the suicide rates of adults are not 1 in 5, we must assume that most of the people abused would rather live than die. Arguing that a child can be killed because its future quality of life would suck doesn’t take into account that most people would rather live, even in a bad circumstance, than not. Suicide rates back this up.

    according to the CDC, 83 people commit suicide daily. 4000 abotrions are committed daily. Therefore, only a tiny percentage of those aborted would have committed suicide, had they lived.

    Please, don’t call abortion ethical for the child. Let the child live, and decide for himself if his life is acceptable.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Greg:

    Thank you for responding.

    Since I need to do some more reading myself, it may be possible that the morning after pill would not fit your criteria as far as acceptibility, although it does for many others.

    However:
    Cases of abuse are not isolated incidents or a handful of cases by any means. I think if one is going to be compassionate about children, it seems only fair to care also for the ones who have already been born.

    Again, in the interests of logic rather than rhetoric, if one truly wants to stem the tide of abortion, then birth control education and dissemenation is crucial. Yes, you may consider it a sin, but it is the “sin smart” sin. Plus, you also mentioned that girls in the foster care? system are put on the pill? and you seemed to have no problem with people taking the pill if it would prevent a terminated conception, even including rape.

    Also it is more than just the fact that a given child is abused or killed. This cycle is often passed on from generation to generation. Would it not be better to ensure that those who would prefer not to have yet another child they cannot afford or care for properly be given this option, for free if necessary, to stem these terrible tragedies AS WELL as reduce the number of abortions?

    I would like a link, if you have it, to a non-partisan source backing up your 4000 abortions a day.

    Moreover, although you consider it heinous murder to abort even a zygote, there are many others who would consider this acceptable compared with the alternative of having a child brought to term who is unloved, raped, tortured, abused, and killed later on. Would you ever wish to witness such cruelty? Can you really turn a blind eye and dismiss this so cavelierly? Does not every single life count for something? Didn’t Jesus teach compassion and love for all children? Where is the caring behind the overheated debate?

    Abused children cannot decide for themselves about much of anything. Are you saying this is ok? Not to mention, as I did, that the cycle of unwanted pregnancies and abuse often continue for generations, ad infinitum. Is this really really ok with you, esp. if you may become a priest who follows Christ’s teachings?

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    It does not help the child to kill it before it is born. All lives are hard, but it is true that some people’s sitations are absolutely horrifying. I in no way condone torture, rape, abuse, or murder. However, not allowing the individual who is suffering to make their own decision about the worth of their own life is an even more heinous crime.

    Just as I will not go to the homes of abusers and kill the abused as an act of mercy, I will not kill the child, even if future abuse is a certainty. The hardships we endure in life, even those that are brought upon us by others, do not intrinsically make our lives forfeit. That must be the choice of the individual being abused. Not even a mother can make that decision.

    I sincerely hope that abusers are taken away from their victims and given treatment, but I cannot allow their (possible future) abuse to justify murder.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “1. Diana, it is true that I argued religion when it was brought up. I thought it would be nice to clarify the religious position. However, it has eaten the possibility of real discussion. We need to move on, or we’ll get nowhere.”

    clarifying the religious issue is to have addressed the religious issue…clarifying the religious issue is not, as you’ve asserted, moving away from it…

    “if you’ll notice i did not “wander away from science”, i stated how american law is not based on simple scientific facts.”

    i did not notice a lack of wandering on your part…with what sentence did you state that american law is not based on simple scientific facts? and what does american law have to do with logic and science?

    “And my use of the term fetus was prefaced with a qualifier that suggested I was not using the scientific term, but the common usage.”

    prefacing with a qualifier is an attempt to redefine the terms…the definition of the term “fetus” isn’t subjective…any other use of the term is an opinion, not science…

    “And making conception a line based on the creation of new DNA is precisely scientific. It is the clearest line science can draw.”

    science has not drawn a clear line…you’ve done so with opinion and have used part of the scientific community to support your opinion…the scientific definition of conception depends on the scientist to whom you refer…it is argued by some that conception takes place upon fertilisation and by others that it takes place upon implantation…before implantation, the fused egg and sperm are just that and nothing else, which is to say that without implantation, discard of the fused egg and sperm would naturally occur…

    whether one defines conception as the point of fertilization or implantation, there is still the question of whether it is murder vs termination…a sapling is not a tree, a rain cloud with enough water to fill a pond is not itself a pond, and a group of cells without that which is necessary to survive independent of the uterus is not a human being but still rather a potential human being…there is a difference between halting the process by which a group of cells may eventually develop into what we define as a human being and doing away with a human being…

    “Please, can you argue the issues rather than literary semantics? this is wasting time.”

    i’ll do my best…

  • JR

    Greg Schoppe: 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.

    When a cell divides, it first replicates it’s entire set of DNA so that each of the daughter cells gets a complete copy of the genome. While remarkably accurate, this process is not perfect; a daughter cell can sometimes inherit a slightly changed version of the genome. Furthermore, cells can be exposed to mutagenic chemicals or radiation (particularly in skin cells) that can change the DNA. When these changes are not caught by error correction mechanisms, they are passed on to succeeding generations of cells. Such changes can happen any time in the development of a human; if they happen earlier, the effected cell populations can include entire organs. Thus, portions of your body may have different unique sets of DNA.

    In the majority of cases, these DNA changes have no effect on the functioning of the cells. In the majority of cases where the change is expressed, the cell malfunctions and dies or is destroyed by the body. In some cases, the changes are such that the cells can bypass normal restrictions on their mortality.

    This is called cancer.

    So your next tumor will have its own unique DNA. Will you callously pay a doctor to rip that tumor screaming from your body and starve it of the nourishment it needs to live? Or will you have the intellectual honesty to submit to God’s will, as expressed by His creation of that tumor with its unique DNA?

  • Anthony Grande

    “It infuriates me to read about pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because of their religious beliefs.” from the post

    And you call people like me “anti-choice”?

    “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.” from the post

    I believe in the legal option of abortion for incest babies but why crack babies? I have seen crack babies live long enjoyable lives.

    You are going to call me a “religious psycho” for this but:

    I would like to see all you baby killers go to hell and have to babysit the millions and billions of aborted babies.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  • Anthony Grande

    P.S. why do you situate pro-lifers with parents who torture, starve and murder their children?

    That comparison is extremely ironic.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Greg:
    I don’t have any more “fight” in me. I just find this all very, very sad. As I said, aside from the issue of abortion, I would at least hope that pro-life and pro-choice individuals could perhaps find a common ground when it comes to routine birth control.

    Diana:
    You go! As always.

    JR:
    Good one

    Anthony:
    Methinks you are nothing but a sneaky troll. Where’s your URL? You are simply trying to incite a very nasty little flamefest, and I’m not biting. If someone else prefers to take up the gauntlet, all well and good, but remember that you’re dealing with a faceless, URL-less coward.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Oh, sorry. Here is my URL. I was just too lazy to post it last earlier.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “I would like to see all you baby killers go to hell and have to babysit the millions and billions of aborted babies”

    Do aborted babies go to hell, Anthony?

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    I don’t even believe in Hell. And if there was a Hell I doubt unborn babies would go to hell just like how I doubt that incest and crack babies are going to all of sudden show up on my doorstep.

    If there is a Hell then yes, I imagine that there will be a representation of millions and billions of murdered babies that need baby sitting (not the actual babies themeselves, just representations).

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    So you don’t believe in heaven either then, right?

  • Anthony Grande

    No, Heaven exists. That I am positive of.

    Back to subject now: Abortion is bad, life is good.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    You can’t believe in heaven and not believe in hell.

  • Anthony Grande

    What are you? The thought police?

    I have reasons for my spiritual beliefs but they are not relevent to Miss Blacks post. She was kind enought to post it for us so let’s be kind to her and stay on subject.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    So, you believe everyone goes to heaven?

  • Anthony Grande

    Fine Scott! There is a Hell, there is a devil and it’s so terrible that you can’t even imagine it.

    Now, can we get back on subject?

    Abortion is bad and life is good.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Well, I’m just trying to triangulate where your strident anti-abortion position comes from. Is it one of religious conviction? Do you consider yourself a Christian? Or are you anti-abortion for some other reason? That’s what I’m trying to ascertain.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    Diana, American law is dead clear in the statement that humanity begins at birth. I stated the obvious fact that using birth as a defining line is fallacious. I evidenced this only with the most obvious and incontrovertable evidence. Why, therefore, can you not see the argument?

    secondly, I clearly sit with the vast majority of scientists who admit that conception occurs at fertilization, not implantation. I made it clear that this was the definition I was using, and removal of the term does not effect my argument in any way. Please stop making big points about verbal usage that is both obvious and not intrinsic to the point.

    JR, random mutation and cancer are changes to one or two base pairs, that is not the same as mixing two entirely seperate DNA makeups into one human. its the difference between one base pair change, and millions.

  • JR

    Anthony Grande: Back to subject now: Abortion is bad, life is good.

    Tell it to your next omelet.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    oh, and anthony, You’re not helping, anger hardens the heart and closes routes of discourse. Please either open a useful dialog, or stop injuring the discussion.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    oh, and JR, the eggs sold at supermarkets are not fertilized.

  • Anthony Grande

    Why didn’t you just ask?

    I do consider myself a Christian and as a Christian I will never personally have an abortion. In otherwords, eventhough I personally do my best to follow the laws of God I do not intertwine my religious beliefs with the laws of this nation because I understand that not everyone believes what I believe.

    I do not believe that legal abortion (besides rape and mother’s health) has any place in the constitution though I am drawn to Amendment One: Right to PURSUIT LIFE, liberty and happiness.

    But Amendment One is arguable if it was meant this way. Hamilton isn’t alive to ask him.

    And I do not find it in the best interest of the unborn baby that he or she is denied the pursuit of the greatest thing man has: life.

    Now, about Roe v. Wade: This is a terrible law. It states that states do not have the RIGHT TO democratically CHOOSE the abortion issue for themeselves. I believe we should all be able to agree that the states should be able to democratically decide the abortion issue for themeselves.

    If I had my way this is what I would do and what I believe is best for the nation:

    Overturn Roe v. Wade and let each state decide to (legislatively or by ballot) have or don’t have legal abortions.

    Then once Roe v. Wade is overturned I would move to make federal legislation to make the choice of abortion legal in cases of rape and if the mother’s life is at stake. That is it.

    Now your turn.

  • RedTard

    JR,

    A chicken egg used in an omelet is unfertilized and therefore not comparable to abortion.

    Also, comparing cancer to an unborn baby is not only misleading and a very poor analogy, it is a sick example of the extreme and callous mindset of the radical pro-choice crowd. I see you have been indoctrinated well.

  • Anthony Grande

    “Diana, American law is dead clear in the statement that humanity begins at birth.”

    Then why do people get convicted of two murders when they kill a pregnant women?

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    I did ask. The not believing in hell part threw me off.

    As to what I personally feel about abortion…I’ll tell you a little later…

  • JR

    Greg Schoppe: JR, random mutation and cancer are changes to one or two base pairs, that is not the same as mixing two entirely seperate DNA makeups into one human. its the difference between one base pair change, and millions.

    Okay, exactly how many base pair differences confer the right to life? And which side of the divide do identical twins fall on? Can we kill one of the twins by reason of redundancy?

  • RedTard

    Ok, JR, if you are going to stick with your silly analogy. When a cancer develops brainwaves, a sensitivity to pain, and a heartbeat please let me know.

    Might I suggest another critical corollary to the unique human DNA test. Since clearly only humans can be president of the United States, the test should be, could that living organism someday develop into a future president. I think even the most impressively grown cancer or sly bit of dandruff would have trouble with the proper oratory.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Anthony declaims,

    ” I will never personally have an abortion. ”

    This is sad news. If you’d been the first guy with a womb, you could’ve made a fortune. You could’ve been richer than JK Rowling – and could’ve borrowed a few thou…

  • Anthony Grande

    Watch out, Ruvy is pulling out the jokes.

    I think you knew what I meant. I don’t like abortions and I believe abortions are an abomination to God therefore, I will never personally get one and I will also never try to throw my beliefs on others who don’t share my beliefs.

  • Druxxx

    Greg you claim to be anti abortion in part due to science. You say life begins at conception.

    What do you plan to do with all those potential mothers out there that don’t take care of themselves to well? You know drugs, alcohol, fatty foods. Their life style may cause a miscarriage. Should the now no longer pregnant women be considered a murderer for not taking proper care of herself and the little one that was inside her?

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    Identical twins do indeed have the same DNA, but, in context, it doesn’t apply. the point is the difference from the mother’s dna, not each other’s.

    Cancer is in no way a meaningful analogy. on one side we have an end case cell whose mutated DNA causes unending replication, causing a tumor, and on the other we have the sexual reproduction that allows our species to survive. If you want to call a tumor and a baby equal, prepare for a loss of public support.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    Druxx-“What do you plan to do with all those potential mothers out there that don’t take care of themselves to well? You know drugs, alcohol, fatty foods. Their life style may cause a miscarriage. Should the now no longer pregnant women be considered a murderer for not taking proper care of herself and the little one that was inside her?”

    it is negligent homocide, if they knew they were pregnant, otherwise, let the courts sort it out.

    Anthony-“Then why do people get convicted of two murders when they kill a pregnant women?”
    They don’t. look at that Hawaian case that was all over blogcritics a few weeks ago.

  • Anthony Grande

    Greg, yes they do. Look at Scott Peterson.

  • zingzing

    anthony grande: “”It infuriates me to read about pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions because of their religious beliefs.” from the post

    And you call people like me “anti-choice”?”

    what if the pharmacist was anti-cancer and wouldn’t give you cancer medications? or had no heart, and didn’t believe in heart medication? :(

  • zingzing

    AG: “I will also never try to throw my beliefs on others who don’t share my beliefs.”

    bull! what is this then?

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “I believe in the legal option of abortion for incest babies but why crack babies? I have seen crack babies live long enjoyable lives.”

    as one who has repeatedly asserted his pro-life stance and that all life is the same, who are you to decide that a baby of incest is worth less than a crack baby?

    “P.S. why do you situate pro-lifers with parents who torture, starve and murder their children?”

    no one said this…what was said by a pro-lifer posting here is that he is responsible for making sure a child reaches term and that he has no more responsibility after that…in response, it was asserted that if one is going to assume responsibility for making sure a child is born, one should also assume at least some measure of responsiblity for the life of the child he made sure was born…

    you’ve taken the statement about parents who torture, starve, and murder out of context…

    “Oh, sorry. Here is my URL. I was just too lazy to post it last earlier.”

    word to the weary…anthony doesn’t post his url…he posts the url of the national right to life website…

    anthony posts: “I have reasons for my spiritual beliefs but they are not relevent to Miss Blacks post. She was kind enought to post it for us so let’s be kind to her and stay on subject.”

    greg, take note, specifically in light of your response to anthony wherein you said “oh, and anthony, You’re not helping, anger hardens the heart and closes routes of discourse. Please either open a useful dialog, or stop injuring the discussion.”

    his posts, like many of yours, are all fine examples of one saying something, someone else questioning it, one getting so uncomfortable that one takes takes aim at someone else by claiming they’ve strayed from the subject, and suggesting that someone else do what one says (stay on subject) even though one didn’t (stay on subject) in the first place…

    and while i’ve got you, greg, (and i know i do you wild pre-seminarian you) you posted:

    “Diana, American law is dead clear in the statement that humanity begins at birth.”

    american law is not the platfrom from which you asserted you’d rather discuss this subject…if you want to discuss this from the platform of american law and not from the platform of logic and science, well then just say so…until then, you can expect to be held to your last word, and that was that you wanted to discuss this per logic and science…

    “I stated the obvious fact that using birth as a defining line is fallacious.”

    where?

    ” I evidenced this only with the most obvious and incontrovertable evidence.”

    again, where?

    “Why, therefore, can you not see the argument?”

    it’s hard to see something that isn’t there…perhaps you were thinking about the defining line being fallacious when you were typing and it just didn’t make it to the keyboard…look between the keys…maybe you’ll find the “obvious and incontrovertable evidence” in there…if you don’t find it, look for “incontrovertible” instead…

    “I do consider myself a Christian and as a Christian I will never personally have an abortion.”

    this is something you’ve chosen for yourself?
    i think the lack of a uterus helps…

    “And I do not find it in the best interest of the unborn baby that he or she is denied the pursuit of the greatest thing man has: life.”

    as you were anthony…you’ve clearly stated that you would support denying the greatest thing man has (life) to those who, through no fault of their own, were conceived of rape or incest…

    you’re not so much pro-life as you are pro-yourchoice…

    “Now, about Roe v. Wade: This is a terrible law. It states that states do not have the RIGHT TO democratically CHOOSE the abortion issue for themeselves. I believe we should all be able to agree that the states should be able to democratically decide the abortion issue for themeselves. If I had my way this is what I would do and what I believe is best for the nation: Overturn Roe v. Wade and let each state decide to (legislatively or by ballot) have or don’t have legal abortions. Then once Roe v. Wade is overturned I would move to make federal legislation to make the choice of abortion legal in cases of rape and if the mother’s life is at stake. That is it.”

    soooo, the states should and should not have power when you say, and the feds should and should not have power when you say…there’s that pro-yourchoice thing again…

  • Druxxx

    So how far are you willing to go Greg?

    Should a pregnant woman get fined or go to jail for smoking or drinking?

    Should a bartender have to give a women a pregnancy test before serving her?

    Should the guy behind the counter have to give a female customer a pregnancy test before selling her a pack of smokes?

    I ask these questions because I want to know how many of a women’s rights you are willing to trample on to make sure an unborn child gets the best chance at a good life.

    I personally think the mother’s or the child’s rights have to come first. You cannot have it both ways. I am going to go with the mother since she is already a living, breathing, and feeling human being. Not just a potential one.

  • Anthony Grande

    If this pharmacist is anti cancer then wouldn’t he or she do everything in his power to help someone get rid of cancer.

    I knew what you meant though and I believe since cancer is a life threatening disease a pharmacist or doctior shouldn’t be given a licence if their religion says that they can’t treat it.

    If you want this certain birth control pill and this pharmacist refuses to assist you then you should go to a different pharmacist.

  • zingzing

    AG, again: “I have seen crack babies live long enjoyable lives.”

    i thought you were relatively young… if you’re anything like the rest of us, you probably couldn’t tell a baby from a handsaw until you were about 3 or 4 years old… did know what crack was until D.A.R.E. came to your school, or whatever anti-drug program it was that your school employed… you know, where you learned what “euphoria” meant and how to get it…
    so, at the earliest, you would have been ten or so when you learned what crack was, unless you were born in a crack ghetto. were you born in a crack ghetto?
    so… even if you knew what crack was from school, they aren’t showing you pictures of twitchy, blind premies are they? you most likely were not exposed to such horrors until a few years later at the earliest, maybe in your early teens. so this is where you became aware of crack babies.
    anyway, crack was not really around until the early 80’s. so, the conditions of “long” and “enjoyable” are, respectively, unknown and questionable.
    here’s what i’m saying: you have not seen crack babies live long, enjoyable lives. no one has seen any crack baby live a long, enjoyable life. who knows what this stuff does to a brain 30 years down the road. what happens after 50 years? dunno. what happens after 80 years? does life even go on for that long for them? who knows. we’ll see when we get there. until then, we should all shut up and wait.

  • zingzing

    AG: “Then why do people get convicted of two murders when they kill a pregnant women?”

    because bush made it into a law. bush is pro-life. anti-choice. whatever. it’s just a step. plus, she was bringing that baby to term. after the first trimester, barring circumstances, i believe abortion should be illegal. or at least, very hard to obtain.

  • zingzing

    AG: “I believe since cancer is a life threatening disease a pharmacist or doctior shouldn’t be given a licence if their religion says that they can’t treat it.”

    jesus christ, it was an analogy. ok… what if you had a bad skin rash, unsightly, but not life-threatening, and your pharmacist didn’t believe that “unisightly, but not life-threatening” skin rashes should be treated using the current methods available. what if it was against his fucking religion (medicine + religion = witch doctor!!!) to rub something on his religious skin? hmm?

    if you don’t want to dispense drugs, don’t be a fucking pharmicist. you can’t pick and choose.

  • Anthony Grande

    [AG: “I will also never try to throw my beliefs on others who don’t share my beliefs.”

    bull! what is this then? (by zingzing)]

    Refer to comment 139.

    “as one who has repeatedly asserted his pro-life stance and that all life is the same, who are you to decide that a baby of incest is worth less than a crack baby?”

    What I call incest is a father and daughter getting it on, mother and son getting it on or brother and sister (not half siblings, that’s not incest) getting it on. Pregnancy in these cases is usually rape. I do not find it in the best interest of the country to force rape or molestation victims to give birth to the offspring of the rapist. Also, I am not a scientist but I believe an incest baby is in far worse condition than a crack baby.

    “as you were anthony…you’ve clearly stated that you would support denying the greatest thing man has (life) to those who, through no fault of their own, were conceived of rape or incest…

    you’re not so much pro-life as you are pro-yourchoice…”

    I hate and despise all abortions, Diana. They are an abomination to God. They deny the pursuit of man’s greatest resource: life. But I do not see how it is constitutional to force a rape victim to give birst to the result of her rape. That just isn’t “the right to liberty (the rape) or the right to happiness.”

    I would never allow my wife or daughter to have an abortion after she is rapped because it is against my religious and personal beliefs.

  • RedTard

    “she was bringing that baby to term. after the first trimester, barring circumstances, i believe abortion should be illegal. or at least, very hard to obtain.” – ZZ

    That’s all I’m fighting for, a few controls on late term abortions. I don’t attribute citizenship on a ball of cells, but late in the pregnancy that fetus is fairly indistinguishable from a human baby and the thought of killing it seems barbaric to me.

  • JR

    Greg Schoppe: Identical twins do indeed have the same DNA, but, in context, it doesn’t apply. the point is the difference from the mother’s dna, not each other’s.

    Now you’re adding rules.

    Cancer is in no way a meaningful analogy. on one side we have an end case cell whose mutated DNA causes unending replication, causing a tumor, and on the other we have the sexual reproduction that allows our species to survive.

    More rules.

    The point is that you have to keep adding parameters so that your “scientific” definition of human life will validate your unscientifically derived preconceptions. In other words, your definition of the beginning of life is about as arbitrary as anybody else’s.

    If you want to call a tumor and a baby equal, prepare for a loss of public support.

    A fetus and a tumor are not equal. However, they have an equal level of consciousness, for what it’s worth.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com Gregory Schoppe

    The logic and Science i’m arguing are used to argue a legal point. The purpose of being pro-life is the need to change the law. Therefore talking about legal matters is utterly intrinsic to the discussion, Diana, stop trying to make this an issue of loopholes in my english, you have clearly not read any of my recent posts except to look for nitpicking details of word usage and spelling.

    “A fetus and a tumor are not equal. However, they have an equal level of consciousness, for what it’s worth.” – at 40 days after conception, brainwaves can be measured in a baby. How long does it take before you can find them in lung cancer?

    A pregnant woman should be legally responsible for keeping her baby alive, just as a parent is once the baby is born. If you get your kid stone drunk, and he dies of alcohol poisoning, you go to jail. there’s no difference.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Anthony Grande said:

    I would never allow my wife or daughter to have an abortion after she is rapped because it is against my religious and personal beliefs.

    Here’s the crux of the matter, to my mind.

    You won’t allow it? What are you gonna do, tie them down and hold them hostage for nine months?

    As I’ve inferred, it all really boils down not to when live starts, but this:: fear of–and control of– women’s bodies and their rights.

    Know why you guys think it’s ok to abort a victim of rape?

    Because the woman didn’t get any enjoyment out of it, and thus needn’t be punished as a vile sinning whore.

    An incest victim is as much of a life–or more–than the zygotes you seem to want to defend to the “death.”

    IN OTHER WORDS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PERMIT ME TO NOTE AGAIN THE TITLE OF THIS POST:

    Pro-choice or anti-sex?

    (esp for women/sluts)

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ elvira Black

    Or rather, pro-life or anti-sex. Or something like that.

    Must excuse, I’ve been smoking some sinful substances and drinking hooch. But I’m not pregnant, so don’t arrest me.

  • Anthony Grande

    Why are you talking to me, Elvira? I thought you don’t associate with those without a URL.

    “You won’t allow it? What are you gonna do, tie them down and hold them hostage for nine months?”

    Wouldn’t be much of a wife if she went out and had an abortion without talking to me first. And trust me, my wife wouldn’t believe in abortions either.

    I’d slit my wrists and support Gay Marriage so I can marry a man before I reduce myself to marrying a pro-death [Deleted]

  • Bennett

    Uh, young Anthony? Elvira was looking for an Adult URL, you know, one that is a blog where you keep YOUR writing.

    Your last (fever driven) sentence so clearly shows that at seventeen, you are the sorry captive of post pubescent hormonal rage.

    Carry on.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    I do not appreciate being lumped as “you guys”, And your accusation of wanting to control women’s bodies is not accurate. I wish to stay the hand of a murderer, regardless of race, religion, or gender.

    The only reason anyone can state abortion as a “women’s right” is because, due to the intrinsic differences between the sexes, men are incapable of this particular form of murder. I would be just as opposed to men stabbing babies to death with their penises, even though women can’t do so. I utterly disagree with abortion in all cases, but furthermore, I believe anyone, male or female, who directly causes a miscarriage, whether through violence or not, should be charged with murder.

    If it were a “women’s rights” issue, I’d be protesting Scott Peterson’s sentance. instead I hearald it as a step forward for children’s rights.

    I’m sorry, but the “womens rights” argument doesn’t hold water.

  • Stephanie Milano

    To Elvira Black,

    How dare you bring women’s rights up in an abortion site! No real women would allow or promote a man with a lethal needle to enter her womb to kill the life that is growning inside her.

  • Bennett

    “men stabbing babies to death with their penises”

    That has gotta be the phrase of the day.

    Leave it to a man of the cloth to express such vivid imagery.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    I apologize if my phrasing has offended anyone, but it was the only comparable analogy I could find. If anyone would like to suggest a replacement, I’d be happy to retract the metaphor.

  • Bennett

    Oh, I’m not offended Greg. I am having a hard time wiping that vision from my brain however (thankyouverymuch).

    Heh!

    Not really! But Freud would have a few remarks about it, I’m sure.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    greg posts: “The logic and Science i’m arguing are used to argue a legal point. The purpose of being pro-life is the need to change the law. Therefore talking about legal matters is utterly intrinsic to the discussion, Diana, stop trying to make this an issue of loopholes in my english, you have clearly not read any of my recent posts except to look for nitpicking details of word usage and spelling.”

    a curious slink this is…and what legal point would that be greg? the one you asserted you’d made but haven’t reiterated?
    from apologizing for what you perceived as someone else’s doing (# 94) to defying the very parameters you set for further discussion (# 102), a discourse with you has proven to be little more than a leading cause of vertigo…
    with the exception of your opening remarks (#14) which you’ve repeatedly denied as having set the tone of your position, ralphie’s essay on why he should get a daisy red ryder 200-shot carbine action air rifle for christmas was a more decisive and articulate presentation of thought and position than any comment you’ve made since…
    you win the passive aggressive’s lifetime achievement award for most evasive, backdoor verbage…congratulations…your award is sitting over there on the shelf with that legal point you made earlier…

    anthony, the law does not allow for you to disallow a woman’s legal right whether she’s your wife or your daughter…it’s interesting, though, that you would suggest you might marry someone whose thinking would be so dissimilar from your own…

    elvira posts: “Know why you guys think it’s ok to abort a victim of rape? Because the woman didn’t get any enjoyment out of it, and thus needn’t be punished as a vile sinning whore.”

    it’s not so much that they (no man in particular) think women should be punished as vile sinning whores; it’s more that they want the whore so very bad…it doesn’t take much for a woman to get the label, say a chance disagreement or the unwillingness to unconditionally accept their existence as whole when it’s achingly clear it’s full of holes…the whore is everything they’re not: animated, energetic, creative, daring, and above all, in control…if they manage to get one in their clutches, no happier a man will you find — for a while…alas, what starts out as having filled the voids suddenly becomes a daily reminder of who they are not, never were, and are convinced they can never be…they think the only way to resolve the conflict of needing both dependence and independence is to denigrate the one good thing in their lives until there’s nothing left to be controlled by or to control (9 out of 10 times she will have left him; the 10th woman turns up in a body of water wrapped in visqueen and duct tape)…interdependence is a concept well outside the range of these individuals…those who can never hope to win the whore over pretend to be holding out for chaste or abandon the process altogether by joining some variation of the men-only club…
    fortunately, there are a good many men who either don’t have this conflict or have long since resolved it…they’ve posted here, too…as for the hope that common ground can be found between the warring factions, i would give you the zen of a.a. milne’s winnie the pooh:
    “there is no hurry; we shall get there”…

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    Wow, in light of my last post, I’d have to say that that there is a real doozy of a statement from someone who has only heard my arguments on one point, and only known I exist for 3 days. I’m sure you’ve had a lot of pain in your life that lead you to your conclusions, but please, don’t label me, or others you have not heard from, based on it.

    Please, if everyone is as confused as to the meaning of my arguments as Diana is, tell me. I was under the impression that I could use a certain level of rhetoric and literary device on the comments section of a site for “A sinister cabal of superior bloggers.” If I need to restate my arguments in a codified manner, I will do so and link it here. Please, tell me how obtuse I’ve been.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “I would be just as opposed to men stabbing babies to death with their penises, even though women can’t do so.”

    oh greg, i’m sure if we women had penises we’d also think we could stab someone to death with it…

  • Bennett

    Good stuff diana.

    Btw, all us men boast 8″ scimitars.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    BTW, I was asked before about statistics, and never got aroud to responding… I quickly grabbed these off about.com. There’s a credible source given for the yearly figure.

    Abortion Statistics – U.S.

    * Approximately 1,370,000 abortions occur annually in the U.S. according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. In 2001, 1.31 million abortions took place.
    * 88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
    * 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
    * 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
    * 43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term “abortion”).

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    oh, and just for Diana’s clarification, the quote, “(this statistic includes miscarriages in the term ‘abortion’)” refers only to the 43% stat.

    and please respond to the argument, rather than making jokes or ad hominim attacks.

  • zygote

    For several decades a cancer has been growing on our culture and mores — and libertines insist on remaining in denial.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    well, I’m off to bed, but I’d like to leave you with a quote from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists about the “morning after” pill:

    “[Again,] one must be careful of the terminology. Many now speak of “conception” as that moment when the human blastocyst, the early ball of approximately 100 cells, implants in the mother’s uterus (womb). The time from actual fertilisation (sperm and egg unite in the Fallopian Tube) until implantation, a period of about 7-10 days, is ignored, even though no genetic change occurs in the cells during this time period. Many family planning specialists who have supported the terminology change can thus rationalize that the destruction of the human embryo between fertilisation and implantation should be labeled “contraception”, rather than “early abortion”.

    I think that sums up my opinion on that issue.

    I’ll see you all in the morning, with some new, hopefully relevant, debate.

    Good night and God bless,

    Greg

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    I’d like to respond with another quote, points to anyone who identifies the source(Hint: Current)

    Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: “Men feared witches and burnt women.”

  • Anthony Grande

    Look at these guys. Greg throws perfect arguments at them and they can only respond to his intelligient arguments with jokes about a single line he said. What is wrong? You can’t argue with this man?

    And comment 168 should be comment of the day today. It is a sad thing that few woman try and speak for the majority and call this shameful act part of their natural rights.

  • Luke

    #14
    Gregory John Schoppe
    URL
    January 14, 2006
    06:24 PMA.

    “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.”

    What’s so important about human DNA being unique? You’re saying one cell with unique DNA is worth more than any of my cells, since they’re just one billions?
    I don’t think one cell is any more a human than a piece of copper wire is a robot, sure, it ends up as something, but before that, it’s not really much of anything at all.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “oh, and just for Diana’s clarification, the quote, ‘(this statistic includes miscarriages in the term ‘abortion’)’ refers only to the 43% stat.
    and please respond to the argument, rather than making jokes or ad hominim attacks.”

    as soon as you present an argument, i’ll respond to it…i promise…and i’ll stop making jokes if you agree to spare us any further products of your imagination…

    the statistics you’ve presented aren’t themselves an argument and support nothing you’ve asserted thus far except that there are a lot of legal abortions being performed every year…

    i’m disappointed to say the least to see miscarriages included with clinical abortions…that would be like including suicides in with the murder count…
    i’m curious to see what one would assert using this particular statistic…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Elvira wrote (responding to me):

    “Yes, the world is full of evil and vice. But my main concern here is the same as the pro-lifers (supposed) main concern: preventing murder (and needless misery to boot).”

    She, and the rest of you arguing over things like miscarriages and DNA and all the other technical points surrounding abortion are avoiding the basic question that she has approached and that I have put forward in plain English:

    Does society teach a moral code or not?

    The morning after pill is just a technical innovation, an improvement on the birth control pill that made the sexual revolution possible forty (what it really that long?) years ago.

    Abortion is just ONE of the ugly side effects of relatively unrestricted sex. STD’s and AIDS are another.

    The BIG side effect, the one that is much harder to see, is the culture of self-indulgence that has America (and all who would be like America) seized in its thrall. This culture is often clothed in the garb of “personal liberation”, “life style choice” and other nice names, but the bottom line is that the person looks in the mirror and sees but himself (or herself) and sees his or her body as merely a vessel for his pleasure.

    To justify this attitude, we see “political correctness” and “celebration of diversity” going hand in hand with the deterioration of moral and ethical standards. The freedom of academic inquiry has been abandoned in your land. Truth is looked away from and falsehood embraced. Fact is abandoned and opinions worshipped.

    We see a society where abandoning children (through divorce and neglect) is just a price of getting by, and the child is expected to expect a divorce in his childhood. Nice. Decent people, seeking not to do this to children that they may have, decide not to have children. They voluntarily give up their shot into the future. Nice.

    When you combine political correctness, and self indulgence you get an attitude that justifies dumping loyal workers, allowing homelessness, allowing the homeless to starve and die. You Americans set the lead, and the monkeys is Israel who worship you follow along.

    How sickening.

    When you toss out the moral code, you guarantee a society filled with murder and misery. Abortion is just the nasty reminder of the stink of death that accompanies a society without a moral compass.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Anthony:
    “Pro-death [Deleted]?” And tell me you’re not a pro-life troll.

    Bennett: Perfecto.

    Greg: I respectfully disagree. I’ll leave it at that (sigh)…

    Stephanie Milano (another URL-less bully) said:
    How dare you bring women’s rights up in an abortion site! No real women would allow or promote a man with a lethal needle to enter her womb to kill the life that is growning inside her.

    I just love the way blowhards always start with the “how dare you” crap. Lemme tell you something, sweetie, this is not an “abortion site.” This is MY POST, though you probably didn’t bother to read it. I’m not even dwelling on needles here–my main point was the vain hope that birth control could resolve some of the dilemma over the “killing” of chrildren before and after birth.

    I have to wonder if you’re a “real woman.” Who knows–you could be a man, considering I can’t check out your URL.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Everyone else:
    Many thanks for your comments. I’m too dizzy (as in, y’know, dizzy slutty broad) to try to answer all the latest ones individually, but thank you.

    Diana:
    Many many thanks to you. I took a peek at your site but have to go back again. Are your a lawyer, perchance? If not, you’d make a superb one.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Ruvy:

    Thank you for your comment. Don’t want to be too redundant, as I may have brought some of this up before, but here’s my feeling:

    I agree that we live in a very imperfect and morally corrupt world. I’m just trying to work with the tools available, flawed as they are.

    I feel more comfortable in a country where civil liberties are protected. But these are, of course, in jeopardy in our country. If that makes me p.c., so be it.

    I hadn’t really thought about it, but considering all the “you liberals” crap flung in my direction, I think I am probably more of a libertarian.

    Thing is, i am infuriated at the fact that people who are not prepared to have children have them anyway. It is the height of selfishness, carelessness, and irresponsibility to my mind.

    Yes, I have had premarital sex. Never been married. However, my first LTR lasted twenty years. My second, seven and counting. Many of my married cohorts have gone thru many more marriages and children from multiple partners (now forced to deal with divorce, custody battles, and heaven knows what all) since many seem unable to understand what the marriage vows imply and simply abandon them at the most convenient opportunity.

    Simply because I advocate for birth control does not mean I’m a “bleeding heart” when it comes to those who have harmed their own flesh and blood after birth. Just as sex offenders are sometimes compelled to take Depo Provera as a condition of their parole/release, I think it might be reasonable and wise to compel women who have tortured, neglected, abused, and murdered their young charges to have to do the same. Some people are simply not fit to be parents, plain and simple, and they disgust me.

    Ruvy, I cannot do much about society’s corrupt moral codes, etc., other than kvetch about them here. But working again within this very imperfect, morally flawed framework that is our society–and since it is impossible to expect people to stop having sex outside of marriage–the only ratiional solution to my mind is to encourage, as I’ve said many times, the use of birth control so as to prevent more abortions and more heinous acts of parents against their born children. I may rail all I like about the sins of the world, but there are real live innocent children out there who are caught in the crossfire of all this beating around the bush about when life begins.

    Quality of life to me is an important thing. So easy for some people to be so cavalier about what suffering crack babies or incest babies must endure, and then to actually imply that they have some choice in the matter. How patently absurd.

    Anyway, thanks for your comments.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Elvira,

    I don’t ask you to explain how you’ve lived your life – you are a mature and intelligent woman and you need not explain to the likes of me. My path has not been along the straight and narrow either.

    But you’ve raised an important issue with your article, and more important with the allegations you have made regarding how “pro-life” people don’t want to debate the real issues involved.

    It is not just “pro-life” people who avoid the debate, it is the lot of you.

    A society that refuses to teach a strong moral code has no way to deal with the fruits of immorality. Decent people like you are hammered into a sense of helplessness by the screaming idiots who defend the flimsy excuses they have made up to cover for the moral code they have tossed out the window and for the unpleasant consequences around them – and you.

    And meanwhile the evil and the suffering continues.

    If you don’t think you can do anything but kvetch about what you see around you, all you’ll ever do is kvetch.

    From my little roost in Armon haNetziv I try to do more than kvetch. And all I am is a half literate immigrant who can barely pay his bills.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Ruvy:

    I must admit that I’m “dying” of curiosity about your past–for instance, were you always Orthodox; what you could possibly mean when you say you are “half literate,” etc. But I sense that you are a somewhat private person, so I’ll leave it at that.

    I believe that–as I believe the Bible also teaches–that everyone has free will. Ever since Adam and Eve were ousted from the garden, man has had to live with his own moral choices–good and bad.

    So although I do think that a strong moral code is admirable, many people would debate what this means. I have a lot of trouble with many members of the religious right, because I think that many of them are short sighted and hypocritical in regards to what morality means to them–and I have no intention of obeying their edicts.

    I have never been much of a “joiner.” I prefer to think for myself and take responsibiility for my actions. I make mistakes, but try to learn from them when I can.

    As far as just kvetching, I meant that as a semi-tongue in cheek statement. I’m a firm believer in the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. When I post a political opinion piece, it is in the hopes that I am not merely bitching and moaning to myself.

    Yes, perhaps I should also put my money where my mouth is, and do some volunteer work, at the very least. I believe the NY Foundling Hospital, for instance, cares for children temporarily if their parents are very stressed out and need a break, in the hopes that this will prevent an abusive situation from developing. I could volunteer my time to teach kids and even adults how to read. I know I am lacking in this regard at the moment, but I don’t feel that expressing my opinions and exchanging my ideas with you and others is a fruitless exercise.

    I know that life in Jerusalem is not a walk in the park, and I commend you for living up to the strengh of your convictions by your actions–and for taking the time to comment here.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Elvira says,

    “I must admit that I’m ‘dying’ of curiosity about your past–for instance, were you always Orthodox; what you could possibly mean when you say you are ‘half literate,’ etc”

    If you consider that I have to function in Hebrew, and that I have to struggle to read a newspaper in Hebrew here, I’m half literate. If you consider how tuly ignorant of Judaism I am, I’m also half literate.

    I started out as a conservative Jew as a little boy, and by the time I was twelve, was an atheist. For my father’s sake, I underwent a bar mitzvah.

    When I was fourteen, I was arguing with some old women on a balcony in Bagel Beach about my beliefs when one of them said, “if you don’t believe in G-d you can’t be Jewish.” That shut me up cold. It was more important to me to be a Jew than to be right. So I backed away from atheism to agnosticism – you don’t have to prove what you don’t know – and slowly, very slowly, backed into being a practicing Jew.

    I don’t need anybody to tell me that there are many “Jewish atheists.” But I didn’t know that when I was fourteen. And when I saw what conservative Judaism had evolved into when I was in my thirties, I came to dislike it as intellectually fake. Reform Judaism was even worse, in my eyes. That left true observance of normative Judaism. But I’m not one of the sheeple. Since then, I have discovered a great deal about Judaism that I never would have learned had we not moved here.

    Many years ago I stumbled into a marriage that when it failed, left me homeless for a year or so.

    I was active in both political parties in the United States, as a Republican in New York and as a Democrat in Minnesota. I was on the board of an anti-poverty agency in St. Paul that served largely blacks, but served poor people. generally. I am a political scientist by training, and a restaurant manager and writer.

    I am presently a member of the Likud party – but there is no way that I’ll vote for Pee Pee Netanyahu. If I needed a reminder, the events in Hebron has certainly served as one.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    Diana, the statistics quoted were lifted wholesale from the us abortion statistics site on about.com, they were not placed to create a new argument, but to back up my previous statements. You have consistently ignored the crux of my posts, and then repeatedly attempted to claim said crux doesn’t exist… therefore, I’ll leave it to public opinion.

    PLEASE, EVEYONE RESPOND TO THESE QUESTIONS… two words are sufficient.

    Have my posts made arguments (fallacious or not) in the fields of science, law, and logic?

    if so, Have these arguments been adequately addressed by the opposition?

  • Druxxx

    Your argument that life begins at fertilization is not exactly scientific. You are correct that a new unique DNA sequence has been created. But is it a life form?

    I think most scientists would technically call a newly implanted fertilized egg a parasite. Sure it has unique DNA, but so due tapeworms that might be found in the mothers intestines. The problem is that this new group of cells could not be alive on its own. I know this brings up quality of life. But I think in order to be called a true life form, it has to be able to survive on its own. Potential life is not real life.

    Calling a group of unique cells in a women’s uterus a life is a religious distinction, not a scientific one.

    And I want to bring up rights again. Greg do you honestly believe that this potential life’s right should trump the expecting mothers? It’s one or the other.

    It’s like the old saying, “My rights end when yours begin.” Some ones rights always are above some one else’s when there is a conflict. No pro-lifer is going to convince me that the potential child’s rights are above the mothers no matter how many pictures of a partial birth abortion they try to show me.

    I think almost all pro-choice people are against late term abortions. The problem is that the pro-life side tries to take a mile if we give them an inch.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ elvira Black

    Ruvy:
    Thanks for sharing a little of your background. I appreciate the opportunity to get to know you better.

    Greg:
    Methinks you protesteth too much. You seem to relish sparring with Diana, so why complain when she fights fire with fire? It would be hard to have it both ways–if you lob those zingers out, you’re gonna get some lobbed back. You’re not preaching to the converted yet–at least not on this site. I wouldn’t expect a reassuring pat on the back from those who vehemenly oppose your viewponts. But that’s what the free and open exchange of ideas means, as opposed to intellectual and moral bullying. If you want a forum where eveyone will agree with your stance, I’m sure there are plenty of those out there. But it’s not as much fun then, is it? Admit it. You know you love it.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Druxx:

    You’ve hit on the crux of the matter–namely, the sensationalistic, hysterical posturing of some pro-lifers who seem to think that anyone who doesn’t agree with them on when life begins relishes tearing a late-term foetus limb from limb. How preposterous. It’s intellectual cheating, is what it is. Makes it hard to engage in a civilized discourse.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Civilized discourse? On death? I’m not taking the side of the anti-abortion crazies – I fought hard enough against them in Minnesota Democratic politics two decades ago – but abortion is induced death, pure and simple. It doesn’t matter which side of the pita you stick into the humus. This is a fact that doesn’t change.

    If you honestly believe that the soul begins at conception, then abortion is murder because you are destroying the vessel containing a soul. So goes the argument. This is not something that is conducive to “civilized” discussion. How can you countenance murder?

    That is the argument AFTER the “finger” gets stuck into the “honey jar”. The question is, “does society back up the parent trying to teach the kid NOT to stick his “finger” into the “honey jar”?” Does society back up the parent trying to teach the “honey jar” NOT to unscrew her “cover” just because an attractive “finger” comes along? Or does it sell sex on a lollipop in chase of the almighty dollar? Now, it sells sex on a lollipop in chase of the almighty dollar. And arguments over abortion and unwanted pregnancies are the result. Meanwhile, the next commercial sexualizing preteens and young teens is playing on the radio. You know – Pretty Ricky, B5, Prussian Blue, to mention a few names off the top of the head…

    Are you receiving the image on the screens clearly?

    Tha argument over these issues needs to begin over advertising to children and adolescents. FIRST, you need to argue over re-establishing a strong moral code. THEN, you can argue over issues like abortion.

  • Druxxx

    Ruvy you are right. If we solve some of the underlying problems with society, the abortion issue may become a very small one, since not to many would be needed.

    The problem is that morals are different for different people. Sex isn’t the problem IMO.
    It is the way people have sex. Too many people having unprotected sex.

    No matter what manner of police state you are willing to tolerate, we are still going to have people having premarital, unprotected sex.

    I think it is society’s job to step in when the parents fail to take a leading role. I think it is easiest for this to be done in the schools. Give kids all the information and don’t sugar coat it to meet someone’s agenda. Abstinence is not reality. We can hope and prey our kids listen and wait, but many don’t listen. And sometimes those that didn’t listen didn’t have all the info and are opening up themselves for pregnancy and disease.

    Pound 12-15 year olds with information on how the body works and why. Tell them how and why they can get diseases. Tell them the only 100% safe thing to do is abstinence. But tell them if they are not willing to listen about abstinence, that there are things they can do to lower their risks of disease and pregnancy.

    And I wish the pro-life side would stop saying we on the pro-choice side are encouraging sex by teaching kids about birth control and condoms.

    Humans are part of the animal kingdom. There are things that separate some of us from animals. The problem is that in some people the instinct to procreate is greater then their intelligence level. And how do we increase intelligence. How ‘bout we try education.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Ruvy:
    You fought on the side of the anti-abortion crazies? The more I learn about you, the more fascinated I am….

    Druxxx:
    Once again, you have summed up the heart of the argument I was attempting to present in this post. I’m glad to know someone else “gets” it. Many thanks.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    He says he fought against the anti-abortion crazies…not for them

  • ss

    Ruvy:
    “does society back up the parent trying to teach the kid NOT to stick his “finger” into the “honey jar”?”

    Society did try to back up the parent, but then society invented the automobile, and the flappers went off to do some ‘heavy petting’.
    Teen pregnancy in America reached it’s peak in the 1950’s.
    All the mass media did was finally bring it into the open.

    The question then becomes ‘how far will society go to back up the parent’.
    Will society make abortion illegal, and bring unwanted life into desperate situations, with sometimes tragic results, just so it can say:

    “Told you to keep your finger out of the honey-pot. If only you’d used your penis to stab babies with, like a normal person, you wouldn’t have to live in a forced, loveless marriage with significantly fewer oppurtunities.”

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ elvira Black

    Scott:

    Whew…thanks for the correction? Where IS my mind today? I knew what I MEANT to say, but brain and fingers had a disconnect.

    I guess Ruvy’s initial phrasing (or something) threw me off a bit–but no excuse. Sorry, Ruvy. I knew what you meant.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    SS:
    Very well put. Reminds me of an AA saying: You can’t turn a pickle back into a cucumber…

  • RedTard

    “I think almost all pro-choice people are against late term abortions. The problem is that the pro-life side tries to take a mile if we give them an inch. ”

    Then why don’t your leaders and your judges reflect that? If you would compromise on late term abortion you would deflate the reason for a good percentage of the pro-life crowd. It’s easy to have compassion for an 8th month fetus, significantly harder for a ball of 100 cells.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Elvira, Members of NARAL fought and still fight aganst the anti-abortion crazies. I didn’t like what NARAL stood for but I needed to learn some organizational savvy somewhere…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    ss,

    I understand the crux of your argument. I read Frederick Allen’s book about the Roaring Twenties and saw the roots of the rot there.

    But the coup de gras took place when I was a teenager, when the first birth control pills hit the market. Crawling into bed with those cute things who teased their hair was an actual possibility and it drove me nuts!

    As I got older, I tried not to see how the girls I dated resembled the neurotic women who struggled so hard to protect their daughters’ virginity. I didn’t want to understand how I was looking into the future when I looked at the mothers (and sometimes the fathers) of the girls I dated.

    That understanding was where I started to teach my kids – how when they looked at grampa they were looking at their own future, just as he was looking at his own past. I didn’t wait till they were twelve. I started when they were three, four and five.

    Perhaps from your very own examples, you can see the glimmers of public policy that would support a strong sense of morality – like favoring intercity buses and trolleys (young geezers like me forget they call it light rail now) over individual vehicular transit???

  • Druxxx

    Ruvy, no matter what you and other parents do to try and get your kids to wait to have sex, it is just not realistic. I think we have a more profound affect if we accept the fact that kids will have sex and teach them the safest ways to do it. I would consider the kids that wait the exception rather then the norm.

    I do think that you have a valid point about advertising. It does rely way too much on the “sex sells” mentality we seem to have. The problem with trying to stop it is free speech.
    So I think it falls back on parents, guardians, and authority figures to help kids know what is right and wrong, and not let TV or their peers control their lives.

  • ss

    Ruvy:
    I don’t know if you’ve read ‘The Tipping Point’, but it’s all about situations like your public transit example, that is, small decisions that affect environment have big, often as not unforseen, effects in society as a whole.
    I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure, EVERY SINGLE pundit in DC pushing their agenda on a politician (including the family values) HAS definitely read ‘The Tipping Point’.
    The problem here is the one about mass transit is coming about 85 yrs to late. The cat’s out of the bag. People aren’t going to give up the thrill, it seems to be reasoned by social conservatives, unless they can be convinced the punitive side makes the thrill not worth it.
    So their trying to push for little changes that stress the punitive side of sex. Namely, if they make it just a little harder to get birth control, and just a little harder to get an abortion, their hoping enough women will get afraid of the punitive consequences and they’ll stop having sex.
    Even if it would work, looking at the troubles the Catholic church went through, I’m not sure it’s the rosy solution they imagine it to be.
    And what’s more, IT WONT WORK.
    I was in junior high when AIDS became an epidimic. It doesn’t get much more punitive than AIDS.
    Still, after a few years where it looked like America was getting (marginally, at least in public) more socially conservative, Whoa, along comes the 90’s. Strip clubs in towns of 10,000 people, hooking up with strangers on the Internet, Ecstacy hits the high schools, and people are having sex and being very open about it regardless of the ultimate punititve measure.

    If you want to push for family values, morals, whatever, you need to show the benifits of these things without being so saccherine. Taking what protection there is against the punitive results of sex out of wedlock away WILL create some horrible stories, but it won’t stop people from having premarital sex.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “Does society teach a moral code or not?”

    yes it does…independent of law, the majority shuns/support those who behave in a way the majority finds undesirable/desirable…this varies from society to society…the bigger the society the more washed out the code gets…the smaller the society, the more concentrated the code…scott city, kansas has a much easier time keeping tabs on its citizen’s ethical and moral behavior than does the united states as a whole…for this reason, what would never be accepted or encouraged in scott city might well be seen as no big deal in new york city…at the same time, a borderline behavior that’s engaged in by 1% of scott city’s residents might not seem like such a big deal whereas that same behavior in 1% of new york city’s population might well create a crisis…

    “Abortion is just ONE of the ugly side effects of relatively unrestricted sex. STD’s and AIDS are another.”

    aids IS an std…if you visit greg’s about.com abortion statistics, you’ll find the majority of those opting for abortion were on birth control at the time of conception…
    that’s an interesting phrase there, “unrestricted sex”, as is the use of the phrase “side effects” …abortion is not the side effect of anything…it is a choice one has to make in order for it to occur…it isn’t that one has unrestricted sex and an abortion comes with it like a headache or heart palpitations…
    unrestricted sex is very different from irresponsible sex…i can be responsible without restricting myself…i could also restrict myself and still be irresponsible…abortion is not a consequence of unrestricted sex; it is a consequence of someone’s decision to have an abortion…all kinds of irresponsible and/or unrestricted sex is had with nary a consequence…
    we could say i’m playing semantics or we could say that the words one uses to define one’s position defines the mindset from which one determined one’s position…seeing abortion as a side effect rather than a choice is very telling…it suggests that your focus is on that which you can’t control rather than on what you can…a side effect is outside our control whereas a choice is the exercise of our control…

    “The BIG side effect, the one that is much harder to see, is the culture of self-indulgence that has America (and all who would be like America) seized in its thrall. This culture is often clothed in the garb of “personal liberation”, “life style choice” and other nice names, but the bottom line is that the person looks in the mirror and sees but himself (or herself) and sees his or her body as merely a vessel for his pleasure.”

    that too is their choice…personal choice being what it is, another person doesn’t have control over others…we can provide, teach, inform, educate, hope to influence, and set an example, but in the end it is what the individual chooses for him/herself…if people aren’t conducting themselves the way you think they should, step up those educational efforts and bask in the knowledge that there will always be someone who will listen…keep in mind too that your way of thinking might never be the majority thinking…channeling your energy into education and information is much more productive than stewing over how bad you think the other people are…at this point it’s not an issue of society’s moral code but rather you resolving the need to control others rather than killing yourself trying to change everyone else…

    “To justify this attitude, we see “political correctness” and “celebration of diversity” going hand in hand with the deterioration of moral and ethical standards. The freedom of academic inquiry has been abandoned in your land. Truth is looked away from and falsehood embraced. Fact is abandoned and opinions worshipped.”

    wow…if you could also sweep your way through new orleans with that big ole broom, they’d be much obliged…

    “We see a society where abandoning children (through divorce and neglect) is just a price of getting by, and the child is expected to expect a divorce in his childhood. Nice. Decent people, seeking not to do this to children that they may have, decide not to have children. They voluntarily give up their shot into the future. Nice.”

    half of what you’ve said is your opinion of other’s choices — that which is outside your control…the other half is a coupling that doesn’t fly in real life…personally, i’ve been divorced and my kids are not neglected…while your reality is that they are neglected for no other reason than because their parents are divorced, their reality is that they are no longer being abused by the man i was married to as a result of that divorce and have since flourished…
    it might surprise you to know that your reality is not everyone else’s reality, and that this is why everyone’s thoughts, ideas, and actions are not only the same, but are outside your control…

    “When you combine political correctness, and self indulgence you get an attitude that justifies dumping loyal workers, allowing homelessness, allowing the homeless to starve and die. You Americans set the lead, and the monkeys is Israel who worship you follow along.”

    israel isn’t some dumb sheep in the world flock…if israel follows anyone’s lead it will be their choice…israel is not a thing that can be sucked into the vortex of what america does …they have the choice of setting their own trends and making their own decisions…giving up one’s choices is itself a choice for which one is responsible…

    “When you toss out the moral code, you guarantee a society filled with murder and misery. Abortion is just the nasty reminder of the stink of death that accompanies a society without a moral compass.”

    yes, it would be great if everyone who does things we don’t like quit doing those things and instead thought and acted like we do…everyone’s cry is the same; we differ only in why we cry…

    elvira posts:
    “Diana: Many many thanks to you. I took a peek at your site but have to go back again. Are your a lawyer, perchance? If not, you’d make a superb one.”

    thank you; i’m not a lawyer…i’m a mother of three kids, one of whom was diagnosed as being irreversibly retarded, a “bad kid”, unable to learn to read, hyperactive, dangerously determined, a threat to herself and others, and “is going to end up in prison, there’s no way around it”…at several points i did battle with social services because of reports that took her screeching for being abused…ironically, the social worker i’d already enlisted prior to these reports was not allowed into any of the abuse hearings…when later she became a military dependent, the amount of paperwork and bullshit only increased…while her condition (ever changing depending on the doctor) qualified her as an “exceptional family member”, it didn’t qualify her for any of the services offered…
    i learned quick the language of evasive, irresponsible, incapable losers who had been placed in positions of authority and responsibility…i won, she reaped the benefits, and all of them lost…my daughter is in college studying archaeology…she’s not only an avid reader, she has read several grades above her age since third grade…she is a happy globe-hopper, financing her travels with the money she makes at her job…
    while i studied and participated in debate in high school, it wasn’t my goal…art was my goal…i was one of those people who could draw your portrait to an eerie likeness in a matter of minutes and did this everyday for a long time to feed myself and my kids after my divorce…it was also the only way to come up with enough money to pay the doctors and psychologists for my daughter’s care…because i associated drawing with abject need, i came to dislike it to the point of never picking up a pencil since…i’ve revisited my creativity in photography and writing…
    i’ve not run into any adversary on any level (knock on wood) who has surpassed the stubborn good ole boy network that was the wall between my daughter and effective care…since then, any form of debate on any subject of any interest to me has been a walk in the park…

    “Yes, I have had premarital sex. Never been married. However, my first LTR lasted twenty years. My second, seven and counting. Many of my married cohorts have gone thru many more marriages and children from multiple partners (now forced to deal with divorce, custody battles, and heaven knows what all) since many seem unable to understand what the marriage vows imply and simply abandon them at the most convenient opportunity.”

    there are a good many married and divorced who can be accurately defined this way, and then there are the other millions…
    for the rest of the world, divorce is a major suck…it is a decision one comes to after years and years of hard work, soul searching, and …divorce is expensive and compromises the health of everyone involved…it is heart wrenching, painful, and exhausting…it takes longer and costs more to get a divorce than it does to get married especially if children are involved…it is the ultimate precarious balancing act to decide which is worse: living in the corpse of a dead marriage or making the desperate crawl out from under that corpse…
    unlike a bad marriage that goes on and on and on, divorce is an event that, no matter how painful, will eventually bring the pain to an end because it allows a freedom to heal and grow that simply cannot be had in the suffocating black cloud of a bad marriage…
    in other news, premarital sex with someone you love has many advantages…the other side of “i do forever and ever” is no time to find out a husband’s assets are the same as when he was born or that one sexual encounter a year does the wife just fine…sure, physical affection (not just sex) isn’t everything, 10% of a marriage some would say…but if there’s something wrong, what’s wrong quickly escalates into 90% of the problem, consuming everything else in its path…
    while premarital sex doesn’t promise a happy married sex life, it serves the same purpose as getting to know someone before you marry them…

    “Civilized discourse? On death?”

    pro-lifers, having decided there is a life, have decided there is a death…there are those who don’t believe there is a life but rather the potential of one, and therefore, no death…

    “If you honestly believe that the soul begins at conception, then abortion is murder because you are destroying the vessel containing a soul.”

    this is certainly true of anyone who believes that the soul begins at conceptions and/or believes in souls at all…there are also those who don’t…no use of this argument is going to change the minds of those who don’t believe as you do…

    “That is the argument AFTER the “finger” gets stuck into the “honey jar”. The question is, “does society back up the parent trying to teach the kid NOT to stick his “finger” into the “honey jar”?” Does society back up the parent trying to teach the “honey jar” NOT to unscrew her “cover” just because an attractive “finger” comes along? Or does it sell sex on a lollipop in chase of the almighty dollar? Now, it sells sex on a lollipop in chase of the almighty dollar. And arguments over abortion and unwanted pregnancies are the result. Meanwhile, the next commercial sexualizing preteens and young teens is playing on the radio. You know – Pretty Ricky, B5, Prussian Blue, to mention a few names off the top of the head…”

    or, it isn’t society’s job to back parents…society can’t back every parent thus there will be parents who will cite similar complaints as the above…it’s interesting that toward the beginning of the comments, there was a pro-lifer saying he isn’t responsible for the welfare of the child after it is born…but now here we have a pro-lifer who insists upon the backing of society to raises his child…
    the whole of the pro-life movement would be better off if all its members were on the same page or at least had clearer lines between groups within the group before debating the issue in a public forum…

    “Are you receiving the image on the screens clearly?”

    these images rank right up there with greg’s penis poking extravaganza: useless and yet revealing of its author…

    “Tha argument over these issues needs to begin over advertising to children and adolescents. FIRST, you need to argue over re-establishing a strong moral code. THEN, you can argue over issues like abortion.”

    arguing these issues isn’t going to accomplish anything for children…if you don’t want your kids to see things, don’t allow them to see them…it’s not hard; just don’t buy it, turn it on, subscribe to it, view it, go where you know it is, etc…while you’re not going to be able to completely shelter them from life’s uglies, you do have the power and control to minimize it to such a degree that when it is seen (heard, felt, etc) it’s in shocking contrast to the values you’ve instilled and the examples you’ve set — assuming of course that you didn’t abandon this responsibility over to society…

    it’s a coward’s way to shun the task, complain about the way the task was carried out, and then have no alternative suggestions…
    if you’re not willing to take the parental bull by the horns then don’t come a-cryin’ to the rest of us when you find yourself trampled…

    “No matter what manner of police state you are willing to tolerate, we are still going to have people having premarital, unprotected sex.”

    this is a fundamental reality largely ignored by pro-lifers and as such is rarely addressed by them from an educational and preventative angle…as i’ve understood the common theme among pro-lifers, it is society’s job to outlaw undesirable behavior, not their job to educate about desirable and undesirable behaviors…as long as this is their stance, they’re nicely set up to avoid taking responsibility for their part in making the world better and allow themselves the revolving door of complaint, complaint, complaint…

    “Pound 12-15 year olds with information on how the body works and why. Tell them how and why they can get diseases. Tell them the only 100% safe thing to do is abstinence. But tell them if they are not willing to listen about abstinence, that there are things they can do to lower their risks of disease and pregnancy.”

    i’m all for this but starting at a much younger age with age appropriate information…there’s no reason why a 3 yr old who knows that his arm is called an arm and not a dangly thing should be told his penis is called a wee-wee…a first grade girl (hopefully) knows she urinates and defecates from two different orifices…there’s no reason not to tell her, then, that she has one more and that this third orifice is not where her urine comes from…it is a clear and shameful indictment of someone’s parenting that would have a teenage boy or girl thinking a baby comes from the same orifice as urine…

    “There are things that separate some of us from animals. The problem is that in some people the instinct to procreate is greater then their intelligence level. And how do we increase intelligence. How ’bout we try education.”

    well said…

    “If you would compromise on late term abortion you would deflate the reason for a good percentage of the pro-life crowd. It’s easy to have compassion for an 8th month fetus, significantly harder for a ball of 100 cells.”

    all those pro-lifers whose reasons for opposing abortion would be deflated if late term abortions are outlawed across the board, say aye…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    ss,

    You don’t have to tell me tha the cat is out of the bag with public tansit. I remember the empty buses of the MTC in St. Paul, and how the counties were always trying to rejigger the books so as not to raise fares. I love to drive.

    But in a country where a new $20,000 car costs $48,000 minimum ($25,000 import duty + $3,000 tax), you have lot of people who take the bus – like us. I have a slightly better chance here.

    Mind you, in spite of the high vehicle prices, the high gas prices, the high insurance prices a “rékhev” – a car – means FREEDOM.

    I’m not an Americn policy wonk, but I suppose I’ll get around to reading “The Tipping Point” one day or another…

    I saw what happened when the internet hits the gonads. All I can say is that when the drug cocktails for AIDS stop working, people in America will learn to zip their trousers and dresses a bit better. Funerals of peers can be very depressing. Kids have enough of those here due to terrorism.

    Druxxx, your observations about kids not waiting to hop in the sack are valid for the States. Here there is enough of a culture of abstinence and tzniút – modesty – that if you expose your kids to the right group of people, they are likely to wait – at least till they get into the army.

    The lousy influence of your culture really hits the secular kids here who are NOT exposed to the culture of tzniút, or who are taught to have contempt for it. Eventually, the parents learn to regret THAT choice – but usually too late for it to mean anything.

    As for the concept of freedom of speech, that too is your culture. If ordered, the networks here will pull the racy ads and sex selling techniques. There is no “first amendment” for them to run to hide behind. In fact, there is no constitution. As to foreign cable channels, if the government ever does get up on its hind legs to holler by banning or cutting off cable access to this country, the foreign chanels will come around.

    But in this country, the government only bullies religious Jews and poor people. It doesn’t even have the guts to defend us any more.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “As for the concept of freedom of speech, that too is your culture.”

    yes, and as bill maher said “better!”…

    “If ordered, the networks here will pull the racy ads and sex selling techniques. There is no ‘first amendment’ for them to run to hide behind. In fact, there is no constitution. As to foreign cable channels, if the government ever does get up on its hind legs to holler by banning or cutting off cable access to this country, the foreign chanels will come around.

    But in this country, the government only bullies religious Jews and poor people. It doesn’t even have the guts to defend us any more.”

    without individual freedom of speech, no matter how distasteful it can sometimes be, there is no sense of individual control…
    when a government takes the individual’s control, it will eventually have also taken the individual’s ability to know and exercise their options, their sense of judgement, self-worth, and ability to decide much of anything at all…after all, it’s all been decided for them…
    lastly following is a sense of personal responsibility for the self or anyone else as there is no need of it when people have no control…
    many more will follow than lead; more will be controlled than refuse to be controlled…this is why it’s such a big deal when someone in a controlled society speaks up loud and long enough to penetrate the armor of government control set upon so many ears…sure they’re enlisting followers to do more of the same (follow) but in a different direction, the direction that reminds them of who they are and what they know in their hearts they deserve…

    squelching freedom of speech is to train the individual into having no freedom of thought…
    this is the greatest, most hideous, and most prolific violation of human rights in the world…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Diana, I was going to respond to some of your observations at comments 207 and 209, but I’m waiting on a piece of mine to be put up – and it is late here in Israel.

    For the time being, let my response stand this way. I can see from your writing that you have battled many half witted bureaucrats to make sure your child got the care required. Your pen is well honed. Your children are lucky that you are the fighter that you are. Not all parents will battle the bureaucracy the way you have been willing to. Some of them have language problems also…

    I will say this. I’m not part of the “pro-life” crowd. I was for legalizing abortion in New York in 1970 and I still favor legalized abortion. I teach my kids a “pro-life” orientation, but abortion is legal here, and because of the influence of Jewish law here, it will remain legal. But in battling those who wanted to find some way to ban abortion, I had to understand their arguments from the inside – and you saw expression of that understanding.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “But in battling those who wanted to find some way to ban abortion, I had to understand their arguments from the inside – and you saw expression of that understanding.”

    help me out here then ruvy, sincerely…i don’t understand the pro-life argument…one of the choices of pro-choice is staying pregnant…pro-lifers would call this pro-life…pro-choicers would also call this a pro-life choice

    any segment of american society that seeks to limit the choices of other individuals sits squarely on the fence between two yards and enjoys the benefits of both…in one yard is the freedom of speech and in the other yard is shouting, screaming, and using signs to graphically and violently tell others what to do — much like a controlling government…

    they want no restrictions of their choice to express themselves or in how they express themselves…they want to be able to crawl up inside a woman’s body and play conductor…they are vehemently opposed to crawling up in inside a man’s body to snip at will and against his…

    the option of life as pro-lifers see it is guaranteed in pro-choice legislation…they have what they say they want…
    the problem is that they don’t have what they won’t say they want — and use the unborn from which to springboard this unspoken yet screeching agenda: complete control of others lives and bodies according to their standards without regard or respect for differing ideas and standards…

    a world without abortion would not be good enough and this is made glaringly obvious with their ignorant and damaging approach to birth control, their overstated regard for the male body, and their tragic disregard for the female body…

    i don’t understand that…

  • KYS

    May, but y’all have been busy.

    Just wanted to respond to this quote:

    “[Again,] one must be careful of the terminology. Many now speak of “conception” as that moment when the human blastocyst, the early ball of approximately 100 cells, implants in the mother’s uterus (womb). The time from actual fertilisation (sperm and egg unite in the Fallopian Tube) until implantation, a period of about 7-10 days, is ignored, even though no genetic change occurs in the cells during this time period. Many family planning specialists who have supported the terminology change can thus rationalize that the destruction of the human embryo between fertilisation and implantation should be labeled “contraception”, rather than “early abortion”.

    Class, please refer to the segment, “no genet change occurs in the cells during this time period.”

    Now, wasn’t the argument made in this thread somewhere that conception=unique DNA? You know, scientifically?

    Ah, good to be back.

  • Anthony Grande

    .”…i don’t understand the pro-life argument…one of the choices of pro-choice is staying pregnant…pro-lifers would call this pro-life…pro-choicers would also call this a pro-life choice…”

    O.k. then. I have two neighbors on either side of my house. One is a pain and the other is my best freind. The one is so bad that I would be better off if he died. So I blast his head off with my lupara, a painless death for him and a better life for me. I CHOSE to kill this man and I didn’t CHOOSE to kill my other neighbor therefore, I am not a bad person and am pro-life because I chose to keep my other neighbor alive and let him live his life.

  • Anthony Grande

    “any segment of american society that seeks to limit the choices of other individuals…”

    It is was illegal for me to murder my neighbor. I do not have the CHOICE to murder my neighbor therefore, my choices are limited. Do you support this anti-murder law of ours, Diana? Are you one of those who chooses to limit my CHOICES.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Diana,

    I’m tired, so this will be short. I apologize if it seems unsatisfactory or unclear.

    The crux of the pro-life argument is that one’s body is NOT one’s own – the body is a vessel for a soul. A person doesn’t have the right to destroy or willingly damage that vessel. This applies to everybody, not just the mother. It is a tenet of fundamental morality, not an issue of choice.

    So, according to this concept, you do not have the right to damage yourself and neither do I. Abortion is induced death. If it is your belief that life occurs upon conception, then abortion is murder. It is all that simple.

    In essence, your garden variety pro-life Christian is making arguments based on this concept, or something similar to it.

    For Jews, it isn’t all that simple. Observant Jews go along with the fundamental argument posited above that one’s body is a vessel for the soul and we are forbidden to willingly damage it. But rabbis tend to look at a fetus within the mother as a threat to the mother’s life. If you think of how many women died in childbirth even up to the 1920’s you can see the logic of this view. They use the term “rodéf” – one who chases another with intent to kill.

    If the fetus becomes in fact a “rodéf,” a threat to the mother’s life, the rabbis view that the mother must live and the fetus must die. The mother IS already alive while the fetus is POTENTIALLY alive. One is supposed to LIVE by the commandments, not DIE by them.

    Thus it is that abortion is legal in Judaism. The main issue is “what constitutes a threat to the mother’s life,” and this needs to be decided on a case by case basis.

  • Anthony Grande

    Ruvy, not exactly (for my pro-life argument anyway).

    Sure, you do not have the right to harm yourself in anyway, shape, or form but your body is yours and no one elses.

    What is more important than the body is the soul. The soul is what gives you life and what makes you you and unique from all else. Every soul is different and just as valued.

    The unborn baby doesn’t have much of a body or “vessel” yet, but he or she has something that makes them as important as you or I: they have a soul. A unique soul that is different from all eles but is still equal to all of ours.

  • Dawn

    Comment#11 Bing barfed:

      Also I’m sick of hearing liberals say that being pro-life means you must be responsible for that life after birth.

    Yeah, well I am sick of hearing conservatives tell me what the fucking hell to do with my vagina, womb, breasts and ass.

    So go bark up another tree. Those parts are mine, given to me by my mother, through her own choice, not the government’s.

  • KYS

    Anthony,

    If we’re bringing the soul into this, it is important to know what happens to the souls of aborted babies. When does the soul appear and when is it assigned to the fetus? Please explain what happens to the soul of a fetus vs. a delivered baby.

    Thank you.

  • Anthony Grande

    KYS,

    Do you believe that the soul appears the second the baby is delivered?

  • http://losthearandbeyond.blogspot.com/ Walker

    To fuck or not to fuck, woo the choice.
    Bottom line……..
    In a world where our kids are having sex while in their preteens the only thing we can do is educate about safe sex.
    Abortion should not be an option for fucking up but there is no choice because parents are to fucked up in the head when it comes to sex.
    They can’t imagine their kids doing it and frighten them into being tight lipped about it until it’s to late and then the parents are running headless looking for ways to get rid of the unwanted pregnancy.

    PREVENTION STARTS AT HOME WITH AN OPEN MIND NOT A BIG MOUTHED OPINION!!!

    Stachatory rape laws are outdated and brain dead as far as I am concerned.
    With kids maturing faster sexually and with all the sex on TV, music, movies…..etc kids are going to want to try it out sooner.
    In the news the other day a man lost his job because he was convicted of stachatory rape 25 years ago. (His company decided to dismiss anyone with a criminal record)
    He was 16 at the time and his girlfriend who later became his wife and still is was 2 days short of her 16th birthday.
    What moron of a judge convicted that man.
    There are 13 year old hookers on some US and Canadian streets but I don’t see to many of these prolifers running out there to save any of them.
    In Quebec, with the families permission a girl can get married at the ripe old age of 13 and a boy at 14.
    Is that rape?
    Or is the term “stachatory rape” at the descretion of the majority.
    An adult knowingly having sex with a monor should be charged.
    But 2 kids having sex, who do you charge and when a girl lies about her age, how do yhou justify charging the man.\
    Young girls of 14 look like 20 year olds today and manage to get into bars and spend time with men.
    I would also like to point out how sexist much of what is said is.
    There is an increase in under 16 males out there screwing older women.
    I am prochoice.
    Your body is yours and that’s that.
    Abortion as a contraceptive is WRONG!!!!!
    The day after pill is great but it dosn’t save you from AIDS, so why worry about getting pregnant concidering you may be killing yourself, so use a condom.
    If you have a permanent partner and are not ready to have kids then there are many options to keep you childless.
    If you never want to have kids then get yourself fixed bit remember it doesn’t keep you from catching deseases.
    The church doesn’t help either. They preach the contraception is wrong.
    So I guess abortion is right in the churches eyes.
    Knowledge people, we need to communicate with kids and tell them the truth and not what we want them to do.
    Teach your kids that waiting is good but IF they do decide to do it then how to be safe.
    Prolifers in my opinion only care about their opinions not and about the living breathing human being who may have gone through a traumatic experience and now faces the torcher of carring the evidence of said experience.

    BTW I was 13 the first time I got laid and she was 28.
    All I could say to that is, WOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO

  • KYS

    Anthony,
    You started the discussion of souls. You tell me what you think.

  • KYS

    Ok, while we’re waiting for Anthony to either pull an answer out of thin air or avoid the question, here’s my point.

    Going back to the issue of “anti-sex” I repeat my position that, at an age much younger than any legal “age of consent”, we have very natural sex drives. We need to know what to do with them.

    Ruvy made a good point about teaching his sons not to pork every slut that opens her legs to them, but the very language of that seriously disturbs me because I think that, generally, young men are much more aggressive about sex than young women.

    Ruvy, I’ve read your posts on other threads, and I don’t think for a minute you meant any discrimination by your statements. But I think we need to ensure that our sons approach their budding sexuality with discretion and respect for their female counterparts. Not just do

    If we only teach them to avoid loose women, and ignore their innate sexual drive, we’ve only done half the job.

  • KYS

    oops! Ignore “Not just do”
    Seems the preview button is there for a reason.

  • Anthony Grande

    KYS,

    I highly doubt that a soul appears out of thin air the second the head pops out during delivery. So when does the soul appear? Well, there is no other place but inside the womb.

    Read comment 179 by Greg.

    He explains the 7-10 day period when conception actually happens. It is not a far fetched thought that that is when the egg and sperm becomes unique and special.

    As for educating kids about sex: abstinence.

    Drive it home. Make sure the kid hears it from teachers, parents, counselors and other adult figures. T

    he only time that I was taught about abstinence was in 7th grade when my science class was required to take up sex ed for a week. That was it and that is not enough. The point was never driven home.

  • KYS

    So, Anthony, you think that the minute sperm meets egg a soul exists?

  • Bennett

    Ant G: “No sex for no one.”

    Someone needs a hug (or possibly more?).

  • KYS

    Anthony, you’ve made it clear that despite your inadequate “abstinence tutelage” you have a strong opinion towards abstinence and anti-abortionism, so your point is moot. Independent thought rules the day. Since you won’t answer my other questions, the rest of your argument is moot as well.

    But great job, Elvira, for creating a dynamic and interesting thread. Your goal of reconciling the anti-abortion/anti-sex positions is still out there, but the dialogue has been very interesting. Thank you!

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    KYS, you’ve misread the quote. The statement that no change in DNA occurs in that period is saying that once there is a fertilized egg (immediately after sex) the new DNA is there, and it remains unchanged through the period between fertilization and implantation. I.E. there’s no scientific support for using implantation as a devining line. The quote makes, not breaks, my argument. That’s why I posted it.

    Druxx, As soon as there is a single living cell, there is life. This is not my opinion, it is scientific fact. what is in contention is where humanity begins. At the very minimum, you are killing a unique member of the species Homo Sapien Sapien. I think at least PETA should be opposed to that.

  • Bennett

    God, you are so full of shit Greg. My wife and I were trying to get her pregnant, and it seemed that she did. Then in the fifth week since her last period, she miscarried.

    It’s common. In fact, two thirds of all egg-meets-sperm the result is a false pregnancy.

    If the woman isn’t trying to get pregnant, she usually doesn’t notice.

    So… what? Your position is that this is a holy state, even if your God lets two out of three “die” on their own. Or is your God guilty of “murdering” these egg-sperm concoctions?

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    I also would like to comment, that despite harping on my apt (albiet tasteless) analogy, no one has yet refuted my evidence against abortion being a “women’s rights” issue.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    Bennett, many children die before age two. Does that mean we can kill one year olds at will? 1/3rd of smokers die from smoking… can we kill the rest? figures on natural survival rate have no bearing on whether we can kill babies.

  • KYS

    Ok, Greg, So you are saying that a zygote, without any biological activity and without attaching to the uterine wall, is a person with a soul. Am I back on track?

  • KYS

    Let me clarify: please substitute “without” with “before”.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    BTW, where did the phrase “holy state” come from. I’m not arguing religion, I’m arguing science and law.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    I never said soul. I said its alive. Animals, plants, and amoeba are alive too. You simply can’t throw around words like life, without correct usage.

  • KYS

    I reiterate my comment on Greg’s pointless analogies. For the love of Buddha, STOP!

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    also, “without any biological activity” is absolutely false, the life that attaches to the uterine wall hass 100+ cells. The fertilized egg is a single cell. Where do you think those other cells come from? the zygote is reproducing, taking in nutrients, and moving well before it attaches to the uterine wall.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    My analogies are not pointless, each highlights a common flaw in reasoning. Its not like they’re obtuse or anything.

  • KYS

    Do you really think executing adult human beings (smokers) is an appropriate analogy to aborting a zygote? I vote obtuse.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    umm yeah, under the circumstances, the analogy fit. The argument was that since 2/3rds of the fertilized eggs die, we can’t claim humanity for the rest. The same fallacy becomes overbearingly obvious when you apply the same logic to fully developed humans. Ergo, the analogy fit.

  • KYS

    My understanding is that there is no genetic activity in a zygote pre-implantation. A tumor has as much biological activity (as stated in previous comments).

    Greg, sounds like you’re not anti-sex as long as there is birth control, yes? Do you think your views are common in the religious community? Your college community? Your family? That’s what this thread is about.

    Since I’m steering us back to the topic, how about validating sex as a normal human expression of intimacy? If we aren’t anti-sex, why are our kids so uneducated and reckless?

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    anyway, I’ll yet again retire to sleep. I hope the new day brings further discussion and maybe even some common ground.

    I want to thank everyone who has taken part so far, I needed just this sort of forum to hone my knowledge for my future vocation. Already, I have been forced to research several times for the arguments set on the table. I hope this enlightenment continues for all parties involved.

    yet again, Good night and God bless,

    Greg Schoppe

  • KYS

    Guess he doesn’t wanna “talk about sex, baby.”

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    ah, but there is the “biological activity” required for the definition of life. I will attempt to research further on this topic before tommorrow.

    About my opinions on sex, I believe I am by no means alone. I do not have a problem with birth control as long as two rules are followed:

    Abstinence must be given equal airtime. It is currently mentioned in one paragraph of my local highschool’s health text. Condoms, alone, are given 3 pages.

    Birth control must be pre-fertilization. I will not accept early-abortion masquerading as birth control.

    “If we aren’t anti-sex, why are our kids so uneducated and reckless?”
    -because most parents don’t care enough about educating their children. Most parents I know haven’t given their kids a flat “no” about sex. They simply expect the schools to take care of their parental duties. Therefore, the kids get candy coated condom talks and no real talks about the perils of promiscuity and unprotected sex. Because the parents don’t talk to the kids, the kids don’t talk back. leading to, a lack of responsibility.

  • http://www.gschoppe.com/ Greg Schoppe

    and, now, despite possible cross posts and confusion…

    goodnight.

  • Dawn

    Perhaps the body is just a vessel and the soul appears through the warm, nurturing love of a parent and develops over time – hence why the world is so imbalanced with good versus evil as not all parents are created equal and not all souls deserve life.

    Isn’t that why we have the death penalty – for those souls who no longer deserve life.

    If we are going to let the government snuff out one soul/vessel, then how can it be fair to not allow individuals the right to do decide whether they want the responsibility to nurture, love and create another soul.

    I’d say the issue here is what happens after a life is brought into this world. Conception is relatively easy, but parenting is exceptionally difficult.

    I’d rather there be less ill-equipped individuals creating souls – I can’t imagine any good coming from banning abortion, not one good thing at all.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    We need some sort of mandatory sterilization law. Or perhaps shock collars around penises and chastity belts for women until they are married.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    have you ever felt the shock from one ofthose collars? OUCH!

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    I have not but I did watch “Distraction” last night on Comedy central and they wore them for one of the rounds. Looked painful.

  • Druxxx

    With the little time I have to do research I will have to concede for now that you do have current medical science on your side when you say life begins at conception. IMO, it should not be called an independent human being with all the rights bestowed by our constitution until it can survive independently of its mother.

    And you have not responded to my other point. Even if I concede that at conception the ball of cells with its unique DNA has all the rights of you or me, there is still the question of whose rights come first. The ball of cells or the mother?

    BTW, if you were to break into my house, I would be within my rights to shoot you, which could result in your death. Odds are I would get off scott free if it could be proved you were intending on steeling or damaging my property. Your right to life ended when you decided to impede on my property rights.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Hi everyone! I see you’ve been “talking amongst yourselves” quite a bit–lol.

    KYS–thank you for the thank you. I am thoroughly enjoying your wit and wisdom. Diana, you are not only an amazing “debater,” but obviously an incredible mother fighting the good fight. Everyone else, thank you for the incredible comments and exchange of ideas.

    I wanted to come back to what Ruvy said about Jewish law and the fact that abortion is legal (within the paramaters of Jewish law?) in Israel.

    Like other Jewish laws (like the kosher laws) this one also seems to have a very practical value.

    If there is a choice between haveing the mother or her unborn child live, Jewish law seems to recognize that of course the mother’s life must come first, and any reasonable threat to that life during pregnancy would arguably justify an abortion.

    The rationale is manifold:
    If the mother already has chilldren, they will not have a mother left to care for them.\
    If she dies during childbirth, her newborn will not have a mother to care for him/her.
    If she dies, she will no longer have the ability to create future children and souls. One soul will live; several more potential souls will never come to exist.

    Another interesting thing to note about Jewish law is that your religion is determined by your mother, not your father. My father was not Jewish but my mother was, so I am considered fully Jewish.

    Why? Well, for one, I imagine that the mother–the one who nurtured and created this new being–would have more of an essential connection to the child before and after birth.

    Secondly, let’s face it–in the era before DNA, you always knew who the mother was with absolute certainty. The father, on the other hand…???

    And so it follows that if we recognize and cherish the role of the mother, even to the point of aborting a foetus if it poses potential (not even absolute, I imagine) threat to the mother–and the fact that the mother determines the religion of the child–then to my mind, men (husbands, legislators, rabid RR’ers) determining who, if any, woman will be able to abort a child is neither practical nor feasible to my mind.

    As far as Greg, it seems to me that he wants it both ways in a sense. As a priest, he would normally say birth control is verboten, and that abortion is a grave sin. I don’t know if they still excommunicate you for it or not.

    But as far as those wayward “animals” who give into their early desires, well, it’s ok for them to take a pill if it means that a “soul” (defined in various ways) will be brought to term.

    Thing is, Greg, what is the logic behind the no birth control edict in the Church? Perhaps it is that one must not inhibit God’s will when it comes to determining which sperm will meet up with this egg to produce a unique new life.

    So to justify the fact that girls in foster situations are routinely given birth control–well, as a potential priest, I imagine this might bother you.

    I understand that you feel that it is better to be on the pill than to “kill” a potential life, but where then do we draw the line? Not to get too metaphysical about it, but did Jesus discuss where the line should be drawn? No, he did not–except insasfar as, being a Jew, he would probably go with the Jewish law of the time, putting the mother’s welfare and life ahead of the unborn child’s if need be. Is this then “murder?”

    And why is it ok for girls in orphanages or foster homes to take birth control? Is it because you dismiss them all as hopeless sluts, and thus not worthy of regard? Would you get up on the pulpit and tell your parishoners the same–if you can’t keep it in your pants/skirt, take the pill?

    I think not.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    I have a question for Greg, Anothony, whoever else is pro-life: Do you want to see the abortion law completely overturned so abortion is completely illegal in the United States? Are you for prosecuting women who seek abortions if the law is overturned?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    KYS writes,

    “Ruvy made a good point about teaching his sons not to pork every slut that opens her legs to them, but the very language of that seriously disturbs me ……But I think we need to ensure that our sons approach their budding sexuality with discretion and respect for their female counterparts.”

    Good point. But I never talk about “porking sluts” to my sons. If they are just porking a slut, how can they possibly respect the woman they sleep with? Whom hopefully will be the mother of my grandchildren?

    If you don’t respect the woman you sleep with, you will not have a happy marriage – unless the woman you sleep with is someone other than your wife and your wife doesn’t know that you’re sleeping around.

    First of all, through thick and thin of 18 years my wife and I have loved each other – and the kids have seen that fact. Second of all, my wife lost a child around 17 years ago. And she gave birth 13 weeks early to our oldest.

    So the kids understand that there is more to a woman than just sex glands. They also know that babies can be lost, and that the mother who loses them grieves.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Hello?

    Welp, guess I’m alone here right now in the comment box. I think everyone’s out to lunch…lol.

    Anyway, just wanted to say that if you’re interested in participating in another “lively” exchange of ideas, you might wish to also check out Those army ads are really BROILING my BUTT!-for those of you who haven’t already.

    You’ll be glad you did!

    End of commercial/comment pimping.

  • Welfare Cheese

    Perfect way to deal with unwanted pregnancy:

    “Paging Dr Martin to the top of the stairs”

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Ahem….Mr. Cheese (if that IS your REAL name):

    Trolling is strongly discouraged, as it would be nice to keep the verbal fisticuffs to a minimum.

    The comment you made to the Army butt-broiling post was funny, but still a bit on the troll-esque side as well.

    Try to play nice, would you? Thank you.

  • Ruvy

    Please don’t assume that women who choose to terminate a pregnancy don’t grieve for the loss of that child. Plenty of them do. You can be tremendously sad about making a difficult choice, and you can understand the ramifications of that choice and weigh it carefully against to proceed or not to proceed. But that doesn’t mean that choice will equal a regret, because that’s an entirely different emotion altogether.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “O.k. then. I have two neighbors on either side of my house. One is a pain and the other is my best freind. The one is so bad that I would be better off if he died. So I blast his head off with my lupara, a painless death for him and a better life for me. I CHOSE to kill this man and I didn’t CHOOSE to kill my other neighbor therefore, I am not a bad person and am pro-life because I chose to keep my other neighbor alive and let him live his life.”

    this much i do understand: we’re talking about the difference between a human life and the potential of a human life…as long as you define the potential of a person as a person then we’re not going to agree…

    as far as i’m concerned, this constitutes a stalemate…you have your definition and i have mine…we can bounce back and forth about who’s right all day long and still not change anyone’s mind…

    if we are able to at least agree that the babies born into this world are everyone’s responsibility on some level, then hope abounds…

    “It is was illegal for me to murder my neighbor. I do not have the CHOICE to murder my neighbor therefore, my choices are limited. Do you support this anti-murder law of ours, Diana? Are you one of those who chooses to limit my CHOICES.”

    how very histrionic of you…refer to the unabated problem of definitions above…

    ruvy posts: “The crux of the pro-life argument is that one’s body is NOT one’s own – the body is a vessel for a soul. A person doesn’t have the right to destroy or willingly damage that vessel. This applies to everybody, not just the mother. It is a tenet of fundamental morality, not an issue of choice.”

    i disagree…my body is my own and isn’t subject to the religious/moral imperatives/definitions/beliefs of others…

    i believe everyone should participate in organ donation but there are those who wish to take their goodies to the grave for any number of reasons…i don’t insist they donate their organs nor would i support a law that forced them to do so…it is their choice…

    control over one’s body is a fundamental basic human right…i wouldn’t force someone to donate their organs when they believe doing so violates a religious/moral/personal tenet of theirs, no matter how selfish and myopic i find them to be — and even if it means someone else will die…

    sure there’s a difference between a group of cells we call a liver and a group of cells we call an embryo…the dividing line is how we further define that embryo…again, i define the embryo as the potential of a human being, not a human being…you define it as a human being…so who wins the argument? the person whose body is in question, that’s who…not you, not me…and i will not stand idly by while someone forces someone else into doing something they don’t want to do…

    i would not force someone to donate organs, carry a child to term, or abort…it’s not my body, not my business, not my choice…

    and whether you want to believe it or not, it’s not your body, business, or choice either…

    “So, according to this concept, you do not have the right to damage yourself and neither do I. Abortion is induced death. If it is your belief that life occurs upon conception, then abortion is murder. It is all that simple.”

    that’s not my belief, and it’s still my body…you can live without one of your kidneys…do you feel comfortable being forced into surgery even though it would save someone else’s life? how’s about we throw the millions of lives lost to kidney failure up in your face and use this to make a law that would force you into that operating room? c’mon now, it’s for the good of all to force you into a situation that you didn’t choose, that you would eventually recover from anyway, and that would help someone else…your beliefs, definitions, and morals aside, we’re going to do what we think is right and that means forcing you to do something you do something with your body that you don’t want to do…what could possibly be wrong with that?

    “In essence, your garden variety pro-life Christian is making arguments based on this concept, or something similar to it.
    For Jews, it isn’t all that simple. Observant Jews go along with the fundamental argument posited above that one’s body is a vessel for the soul and we are forbidden to willingly damage it. But rabbis tend to look at a fetus within the mother as a threat to the mother’s life. If you think of how many women died in childbirth even up to the 1920’s you can see the logic of this view. They use the term ‘rodéf’ – one who chases another with intent to kill.

    If the fetus becomes in fact a ‘rodéf,’ a threat to the mother’s life, the rabbis view that the mother must live and the fetus must die. The mother IS already alive while the fetus is POTENTIALLY alive. One is supposed to LIVE by the commandments, not DIE by them.
    Thus it is that abortion is legal in Judaism.”

    if it’s okay for one religion to force any ONE of it’s beliefs/definitions/ upon another person to the point of altering that person’s behavior, then stand the hell by ’cause it’s going to get ugly when this precedent is used to force jews into christian ritual, christians into jewish ritual, etc…

    what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

    “The main issue is ‘what constitutes a threat to the mother’s life,’ and this needs to be decided on a case by case basis.”

    this is a main issue for a woman and her doctor, not for you or anyone else…

    dawn posts: “Yeah, well I am sick of hearing conservatives tell me what the fucking hell to do with my vagina, womb, breasts and ass.
    So go bark up another tree. Those parts are mine, given to me by my mother, through her own choice, not the government’s.”

    aye, gentlemen, it doesn’t get much clearer than that…

    i would add that no belief/definition/moral or person is or was advocating the mandatory vasectomy, something that would cut the abortion rate to ZERO…it’s an interesting take on every society in the world that the woman’s body is fair game, most decidedly with the argument that she is carrying life or could carry life, but that a man’s body is expressly off limits even though crawling up inside his gonads would cure this greatest of pro-life ills…

    we’re not goin’ round lopping through vas deferens for one reason only: the male ego…not all men fall into this category by any stretch, but enough have and do such that the attitude of “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is mine” rules the religious/moral day…there are men who believe that they aren’t responsible for not creating new life, that prevention is the sole domain of women and that creation is the sole domain of God…at no point do these men take any responsibility for their role and instead rely upon the word of God to justify their (need to have) control of women…in their minds, God is to credit for creating life, women are to blame for what happens to that life, and men are resigned to ejaculate and judge…

    those men who do understand their role and do accept their responsibility act accordingly regardless of the consequences…they don’t blame or credit anyone with what they’ve done or the consequences of what they’ve done except themselves…while these men don’t write off vasectomies for the sake of doing so, the rest hang onto their “manhood” with a one-handed death grip and grasp wildly with the other hand in attempt to reign in the behavior of all women…

    you gotta wonder how these kinds of men even get laid…

    greg posts: “As soon as there is a single living cell, there is life. This is not my opinion, it is scientific fact.”

    you are correct…now show me how “there is life” automatically translates into “there is human being”…

    do what you will but i’d prefer you used facts, not opinions…

    “I also would like to comment, that despite harping on my apt (albiet tasteless) analogy, no one has yet refuted my evidence against abortion being a ‘women’s rights’ issue.”

    yes they have…that you think no one has can be explained by you not reading the responses, not understanding the responses, and/or your unwillingness to acknowledge that a response(s) did indeed refute your evidence…

    “I’m not arguing religion, I’m arguing science and law.”

    logic takes a holiday…(ref: #102 “I hope we have common ground in the world of logic and science.”

    “I never said soul. I said its alive. Animals, plants, and amoeba are alive too. You simply can’t throw around words like life, without correct usage.

    do grace us with the correct usages of the terms “alive” and “life” oh ye who asserted that “As soon as there is a single living cell, there is life,” and used this assertion to substantiate the claim that “At the very minimum, you are killing a unique member of the species Homo Sapien Sapien.”

    “also, “without any biological activity” is absolutely false, the life that attaches to the uterine wall hass 100+ cells. The fertilized egg is a single cell. Where do you think those other cells come from? the zygote is reproducing, taking in nutrients, and moving well before it attaches to the uterine wall.”

    so movement equals “life” and/or “alive”? and what does that mean either way?

    kys posts: “Since I’m steering us back to the topic, how about validating sex as a normal human expression of intimacy? If we aren’t anti-sex, why are our kids so uneducated and reckless?”

    that would be because there are those who are anti-education (abstinence), who prefer to think of “reckless” as sinning, and who define the consequences of that sinning as God’s will… the theme here is “i’m not responsible for anything or anyone, not even myself” while at the same time asserting that “i should have complete control over what you do, who you do it with, and what you do as a result of what you’ve done; but leave me alone!” (insert your sound effect of choice, eg: sniffle, whine, whimper, moan, sound made when bottom lip is thrust out)…

    greg posts: “Abstinence must be given equal airtime. It is currently mentioned in one paragraph of my local highschool’s health text. “

    i’m all for abstinence being given equal airtime as long as one rule is followed:

    leave religion and moral implications out of it…

    “Condoms, alone, are given 3 pages.”

    it would take 3 pages (i assume illustrations were included) to explain the purpose and proper use of condoms…

    what could be said of abstinence that wouldn’t be repeated several times over in the course of 3 pages?

    “Birth control must be pre-fertilization. I will not accept early-abortion masquerading as birth control.”

    right on greg! i’ve sent my “mandatory reversible vasectomy” proposal to washington but no bites yet…i wonder, “what the hell?”…

    “-because most parents don’t care enough about educating their children. Most parents I know haven’t given their kids a flat “no” about sex.”

    oh my gawd, greg, as IF these two statements were the same thing…additionally, anyone who thinks a flat “no” or even a “no” dressed up as fire and brimstone is going to keep a determined person from having sex is living in a vacuum…as in hoover…as in you suck (‘you” being no one in particular that says “no”)…

    instead of lecturing someone into saying “no”, something a majority of abstinence program graduates aren’t doing, how’s about telling them why they should put the decision off for a while?

    step outside your reality greg for just a minute…imagine you are a teen girl who is looking forward to your first time this friday night with someone you’re just sure is “the one”…you know about abstinence because your parents made sure of it; but hey, he’s “the one” and his sweet talk bathed your brain with chemicals that washed away “just say no”…the same can be said for the brain of “the one”…you know about birth control and disease prevention from school where the program’s content is limited to this amount of information by the parents who don’t think the kids need to know anything more than that (or worse, don’t know there’s more to it than that)…

    so there you, all dressed up and a little nervous…

    fast forward…he’s asleep and you haven’t had an orgasm…at first you may think he’s selfish…then you might think there was something wrong with his performance that he wasn’t able to “give” you an orgasm; but more often than not, you’ll go right to “there’s something wrong with me”…

    this entire scenario could have been avoided had she known (how) to discuss IT with her partner first…had he refused to believe her and accommodate her, she would’ve had a very compelling reason to say “NO!”… do you know what IT is?

    if you don’t know what “it” is, you have no business at all telling anyone what is what about sex under any condition or circumstance…if you don’t know what “it” is, you can yak it up all day in any given forum but you still won’t be taken seriously because you’re ignorant, and that’s just the kind of thing that leads to uninformed children coming up diseased, pregnant, and/or distraught with the experience…

    having spoken with the instructors of abstinence programs in four states in the u.s. and in three countries, i am disturbed by the number of these instructors who not only didn’t know most women don’t orgasm from intercourse alone, they also didn’t see how that was relevant to their instruction…they didn’t know what significance the female orgasm plays in the role of conception and again, didn’t see the relevance of that information…the sex-ed teachers aren’t allowed to say anything about this because the few parents that do know about this are the same ones that think this is the very kind of information that would promote sexual activity…most parents don’t know…so how in the hell was our little lady supposed to make an informed decision when she didn’t have all the information she needed to make that decision?

    armed with the information, she has more reason to be particular about who she sleeps with as well as another reason to keep up with her method method of birth control…

    the pro-life married couple trying desperately to get pregnant would do well to know what role the female orgasm plays in increasing the chances of fertilization, but no one ever told them: not their parents or their abstinence instructors, and their high school sex ed class wasn’t allowed to include this information…

    for those who believe that ANYthing standing in the way of conception is bad, where is the outcry over this exclusion?

    “They simply expect the schools to take care of their parental duties. Therefore, the kids get candy coated condom talks and no real talks about the perils of promiscuity and unprotected sex. Because the parents don’t talk to the kids, the kids don’t talk back. leading to, a lack of responsibility.”

    candy coated condom talks? heh heh, i’m throwing down the gauntlet…the jokes will now commence with the introduction of yet another one of greg’s visuals…

    maybe if you added candy to the abstinence program it would be a lot more effective…i know i’d forgo one of the best feelings in the world for an all day sucker (no pun intended)….

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Hey!! Who decided to use my moniker? Come on out of the woodwork and show yourself.

    The comment wasn’t unreasonable, but use your own name.

  • Justin Berry

    My issue with abortion is, too little emphasis is given to the rights of the father. If the woman is perfectly capable of giving birth to a child why is a man not allowed to stop her from killing his child? If she doesnt want the child sign custody over to the father. If the father doesnt want the child he should sign custody over to the mother. If the issue of paternity is in question cant DNA tests be performed thruogh amnio-centisis? If so I feel that the fathers consent should be required for abortion if it does not cause a threat to the mother but in any case the father should have to be informed of the doctors decision.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    justin berry posts: “My issue with abortion is, too little emphasis is given to the rights of the father. If the woman is perfectly capable of giving birth to a child why is a man not allowed to stop her from killing his child? If she doesnt want the child sign custody over to the father. If the father doesnt want the child he should sign custody over to the mother. If the issue of paternity is in question cant DNA tests be performed thruogh amnio-centisis? If so I feel that the fathers consent should be required for abortion if it does not cause a threat to the mother but in any case the father should have to be informed of the doctors decision.”

    justin, do you believe women have the right to tell men to get reversible vasectomies? if not, step off…if you can use the law and your “rights” to get up in my uterus, you can be damn sure it sets the precedent for me to go prancing through your nether region as well…

    any man who doesn’t bother to get to know a woman’s position on the matter before he sleeps with her (and does so unprotected by his own choice) relinquishes his part in the decision making process…

  • Welfare Cheese

    Yeah Diana, that makes for great bar conversation. Hey baby, what’s your sign… and view on a woman’s right to choose? For the record, you can prance through my nether region anytime, you fiesty little kitten.

  • Welfare Cheese

    Yeah Diana, that makes for great bar conversation. Hey baby, what’s your sign… and view on a woman’s right to choose? For the record, you can prance through my nether region anytime, you fiesty little kitten.

  • Justin Berry

    diana hartman posts:justin, do you believe women have the right to tell men to get reversible vasectomies? if not, step off…if you can use the law and your “rights” to get up in my uterus, you can be damn sure it sets the precedent for me to go prancing through your nether region as well…

    any man who doesn’t bother to get to know a woman’s position on the matter before he sleeps with her (and does so unprotected by his own choice) relinquishes his part in the decision making process…

    I am not interestd in getting any where near your uterus but thanks anyway. Any woman that interested in having children with a man absolutely has the right to demand his fertility. If he refuses, very simple end of relations. However if she has unprotected sex with a man(and does so by her own choice)she agrees that he has some say in the outcome as, it is half his. If she has the baby without his consent she can still demand child support. The man should have a choice as well. now you can step off.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Diana writes,

    (Quoting me)ruvy posts: “The crux of the pro-life argument is that one’s body is NOT one’s own – the body is a vessel for a soul. A person doesn’t have the right to destroy or willingly damage that vessel. This applies to everybody, not just the mother. It is a tenet of fundamental morality, not an issue of choice.”

    i disagree…my body is my own and isn’t subject to the religious/moral imperatives/definitions/beliefs of others…
    ——–
    Diana, you did ask me to explain the ‘pro-life’ concept, and I did, as best I understood it. And I saw that the ‘pro-lifers’ didn’t argue with me, so I must have known what I was talking about. I wasn’t arguing the issue or telling you what to believe or to think. Remember, I’m not part of the crowd that wants to outlaw abortion. I never have been and never will be.

    But comprehending that paragraph is the key to understanding what the ‘pro-life’ side is talking about. Whether they talk about ‘life’ or a soul, this is their bottom line. And because it is their fundamental starting point, you’re going to have to accept that to understand what they say.

    What you think is your own business.

  • Welfare Cheese

    Ruvy quoted Diana quoting Ruvy:
    “The crux of the pro-life argument is that one’s body is NOT one’s own – the body is a vessel for a soul. A person doesn’t have the right to destroy or willingly damage that vessel. This applies to everybody, not just the mother. It is a tenet of fundamental morality, not an issue of choice”.

    If all pro-lifers explained it that way, I wouldn’t plug my ears when they began to speak. Well said sir.

  • Dawn

    Ruvy, my apologies. I was actually trying to address you, but my computer’s reaction time (read: sucks huge schwappe) put your name in the Name section at the top, in otherwords, comment #257 is mine.

    My bad.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    ruvy in jerusalem, i honestly did not mean to quote someone else as if speaking to you…i see in the quoting where it got confused, rather where i wasn’t paying enough attention…
    i know you’re not just “ruvy”, so i do apologize for my misquotes…

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    justin berry posts: “I am not interestd in getting any where near your uterus but thanks anyway. Any woman that interested in having children with a man absolutely has the right to demand his fertility. If he refuses, very simple end of relations. However if she has unprotected sex with a man(and does so by her own choice)she agrees that he has some say in the outcome as, it is half his. If she has the baby without his consent she can still demand child support. The man should have a choice as well. now you can step off.”

    she agrees to nothing…jeezy creezy, is that what they teach you guys in the pro-life camp? “think, and she will do”…

    sure she can demand support, but that doesn’t mean she’ll get it…preferences do not a court order make…though the courts don’t normally consider his pre-birth wishes when making a determination, that determination is still made by the court, not her…it’s not within her power or control to decide whether or not he will pay nor does she have any say over the process after she’s filed the motion…it’s all up to the courts…if she would have aborted against her wishes, it would have been in compliance with him, not the court…if he pays against his wishes, it would be in compliance with the court, not her…
    if he wants her to abort against her wishes, he’ll have to take it up with the courts…
    if she wants him to pay support against his wishes, she’ll have to take it up with the courts…

  • Druxxx

    Well Justin this is one of those times when the normal sexual roles get reversed in women’s favor.

    I am assuming you are of the male persuasion, since I have never run into a woman named Justin. Sorry in advance if my assumption is wrong.

    As a man your choice, and fate for that matter, is sealed the second you decide to penetrate a women’s vagina with your penis. Your female partner may or may not become pregnant. You may even use a condom. If your female partner becomes pregnant it is 50% your fault, and you should have to deal with 50% of the consequences. You might be lucky and only have to pay for 50% of an abortion. But she may decide to take the pregnancy to term. In that case you are obligated to pay 50% of the cost of 18 years of life.

    No one forced you to have sex. Any thing that results from that choice is yours to deal with. You can’t get out of them simply because a women gets to choose if she wants to stay pregnant.

    Her choice is given to her thanks to biology. Unfortunately for us men, biology did not give us this choice.

    The women’s right to her property (her womb) far out way the rights of a potential child, or the rights you think you have to the DNA you provided.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    ruvy in j posts: “But comprehending that paragraph is the key to understanding what the ‘pro-life’ side is talking about. Whether they talk about ‘life’ or a soul, this is their bottom line. And because it is their fundamental starting point, you’re going to have to accept that to understand what they say.”

    i’m going to “have to” accept it? no, that’s not how it works…i accept that this is how they think as it is my choice to do so (otherwise i’d spend my days twirling around in a closeminded ball of distress over things which i cannot control, but it would be my choice to twirl)…that is not the same as accepting their way of thinking as my own…a person errs when confusing acceptance with agreement…

    we do not agree on the starting point/bottom line…theirs is religious; mine is scientific…
    religion has yet to prove a single thing; until science proves that that ball of 100 or so cells isn’t just the potential for a human being, but instead IS a human being, i will stay on the pro-choice side of the fence…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Dawn, all is forgiven.

    Actally, this was something I was going to mention myself. Abortion is hard for a woman, particularly one who harbors feelings of affection for the life she carries but fears for how it will be supported. I am very well aware that women grieve for lost children, however they are lost…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Diana, you quoted me corectly. You didn’t quote Dawn at all.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    man, could i have screwed that up more?

  • steve

    any woman who wants to throw away her unborn child should be spayed. ’nuff said.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    elvira has pointed out in several ways that if we’re to see the pro and the life of pro-life, then we need look at the entire life and not just the process that brings us to life…

    it does seem more and more like the pro-life view of life starts not with conception, but with having the final say in how that conception comes about…it seems also that the pro-life view of life ends with delivery, not with death…the pro-life views expressed here are less about life, living, and responsibility, and more about control and abandon — specifically, having a say in how a conception should come about, making sure others make the choices they think should be made, and leaving the scene as soon as the real work begins…
    while the pro-life views expressed here speak of other pro-lifers helping out with the long haul, those who have commented don’t include their own contribution to this particular cause…the very term pro-life lends itself to mean an entire life with death being the only limit, not some random point in someone’s life…thus those who are pro-life are thought by others to be pro-the-whole-life, otherwise they’re thought to be only pro-birth…
    the pro-lifers, at least those who have expressed themselves here, assert a feeling of personal responsibility, that they have an obligation to protect the welfare of the unborn, specifically citing the inability of the unborn to speak for itself…and yet, at birth, many of these same people further assert that they neither feel or have a personal responsibility to protect the welfare of the child after it is born even though it still cannot speak for itself…

    pro-lifers lament that pro-choicers draw the line between mass and person at birth, yet they use this same event to draw the line between the end of their responsibility and the beginning of someone else’s…
    the question then is, if you don’t trust someone’s behavior with regard to the unborn, how can you trust that same person with the born? if you assume that it is out of your hands at that point, what made you think it was in your hands before that?

  • http://www.angel-and-soulmate-selfhelp.com/blog.html Angela

    Thanks, Elvira, for a great post and another HOT abortion thread!!! 😉

  • nathaniel

    so, what, we just say… “oh poor children, they’re being abused.. should have killed them when we had the chance!”
    I think not

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    That’s a good point Diana and something I’ve always thought as well. The pro-life crowd only want to insure that the baby is born. What happens to that baby after that, they don’t really care.

    Anyone see where there are movements in Indiana and Ohio to ban abortion completely?

  • KYS

    Responding to my comment, Ruvy in Jerusalem said:

    “First of all, through thick and thin of 18 years my wife and I have loved each other – and the kids have seen that fact. Second of all, my wife lost a child around 17 years ago. And she gave birth 13 weeks early to our oldest.”

    Let me say that I firmly believe that an honest, loving relationship between two parents is the best (not the only) way to instill a sense of honor and integrity in our children. Single parents can do a fabulous job, no doubt. My mom did (and I am quite fabulous;)). But in a perfect world, kids benefit from the example of a functional relationship between two people. Kudos to you and your wife, and may your relationship continue to grow in love.

    Reading about your wife’s difficulties with two pregnancies, I’m struck with the reality that there is no justice in reproduction. People who don’t want kids, who aren’t capable of caring for kids, often seem to pop them out like Orvil Redenbacher, while people who desperately want children often have such difficulties.

    Not really on the topic, but I just wanted to respond to you…

    Oh! And thanks for addressing the “slut” concerns. 😉

  • Ben

    I love killing pre-embrionic babies/humans. Its one of my favorite hobbies. M*sterbation rules!!

  • KYS

    Um, Ben? We’re all adults. You can say materbation. Unless you meant something else…

  • KYS

    OR
    You can say the more widely accepted maSterbation.

    Or choke the monkey, whatever the hell you want.

    What the hell is going on with my keyboard!?!?!

  • Travis

    So your telling me that pro lifers, by not wanting to see the murder of a unborn human, is responcable for all of the pain the born human goes thru in their life, and not the people that really put them thru the pain themselfs?

    Here’s a bumper sticker that i’ve wanted for awhile:
    ” I wish pro-choice’ers were aborted. ”

    Now you can get all shocked and upset about that statment. But if you really think that abortion is not murder and the unborn arn’t people because they havn’t come out of the born cannal yet, then you can’t get upset at that stament because acording to what you beleave at that point you were not a person yet, and you didn’t matter, so your mom could have easly stopped your beating heart, and there would be nothing wrong with that.

  • Guess What

    The Supreme Court also legalized Slavery.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “So your telling me that pro lifers, by not wanting to see the murder of a unborn human, is responcable for all of the pain the born human goes thru in their life, and not the people that really put them thru the pain themselfs?”

    all the pain? where did you get that?
    what was said was that anyone who thinks it their place, responsibility, and obligation to make sure a pregnancy is brought to term with no follow through cannot be accurately described as pro-life but rather pro-birth…you can call yourself pro-life all day long, but your conspicuous absence on the day of the birth is more telling than any title you claim…
    i’ve asked without answer, if you don’t trust someone to bring a pregnancy to term without your input, why do you trust them to raise a child?

    “Here’s a bumper sticker that i’ve wanted for awhile:
    ‘ I wish pro-choice’ers were aborted. ‘

    Now you can get all shocked and upset about that statment. But if you really think that abortion is not murder and the unborn arn’t people because they havn’t come out of the born cannal yet, then you can’t get upset at that stament because acording to what you beleave at that point you were not a person yet, and you didn’t matter, so your mom could have easly stopped your beating heart, and there would be nothing wrong with that.”

    i’m still reeling from someone having suggested that men could stab babies to death with their penises (#167)…you wishing i had been aborted doesn’t compare…

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    “The Supreme Court also legalized Slavery.”

    that wasn’t their last ruling on the matter, history channel…

  • tekierz

    Personally, I think the choice should be left upto the couple. Not Religious Rights Groups or Politicians because in the end, it doesn’t matter what me or you believe in, it matters what the couples believe in. I also think that the choice should always be their for the couple, or just the pregant women in many cases. As for all the politicians and Religous groups I think they should go mind their own fuckin’ buisness, and stop worrying about making decisions that will affect others.
    But once again, thats just my opinion.

  • KYS

    I’m still reeling from Candy Condoms.

    if only…

  • http://www.theologyofthebody.net/ Paul Martin

    A few questions for you, Elvira:

    Would YOU personally torture YOUR child?
    Were YOU aborted?

    here

  • Guess What

    “that wasn’t their last ruling on the matter, history channel…”

    Wow. That is the point. The supreme court legalized abortion, and hey guess what, I bet that wont be the last ruling.

  • Guess What

    That, and at the point in time that slavery was legalized, it was acceptable, and then oh man, it no longer became acceptable. And if there were an internet, im sure many would comment on how evil slavery is and was. And many would complain that capitalism wouldnt survive without it, but hey, I am sure we all agree that the world is better off without degrading humans, making them worth three fifths of a person and what not. If you say that a fetus isnt a person, and that you can choose what to do to them, sounds kinda like the same reasons we outlawed slavery.

  • KYS

    Paul,

    This isn’t about torturing children. If you can’t see the difference you aren’t worthy of the discussion.

    And your second question is either tasteless or stupid. Take your pick.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Thanks all for your comments. I have to say that reading a lot of this thread has given me a teeny bit of hope but also created a lot of anger and dread in my mind and heart.

    Again and again some pro-lifers joining this thread proceed to hurl the most hateful epithets. These people, we are supposed to believe, are compassionate and caring about the plignt of the unborn.

    To me, it seems like it is simply some academic exercise; a fetish with no real thought or emotion behind it other than blind fear and rage.

    All the cold, clinical pseudo-scientific talk about when life begins.

    All the compromises based on each individua’s beliefs within the coercive frameworkl. Some seem to think that abortion is never justified. Some think it is justified in cases of rape and incest. And why is that? As I said, the woman did not enjoy herself when raped, so she is not a filthy slut.

    Likewise, if her innocent unborn child is the product of some vile sinful act such as rape, then suddenly abortion is justified, as if this foetus is somehow not as worthy to live as others are.

    There is a huge and powerful religious right backlash going on in this country, and it’s not pretty. To me, there’s nothing “Christian” about it.

    When a would be priest can tell people if there’s any chance they may get pregnant, even from rape, and would abort the baby that they must TAKE THE PILL–simply astounds me. Although he would never get up on the pulpit and tell his own parishoners such a thing, for him it is apparently ok for girls in foster homes to be given the pill routinely.

    Why in the world would anyone be so intellectually vehement about the rights of the unborn and then be completely indifferent to a newborn’s plight? How do you countenance that contradiction if you are truly so compassionate and determined to save souls at all costs?

    Again, if Jesus came down here today, what would he think of this hatred and revulsion towards women that some of you have displayed here?

    And why is our country so puritanical when it comes to sex that Janet Jackson’s nonosecond nipple exposure can cause such a hubbub, but the most ultra-violent movies produce not a murmur from many?

    My main point was that the RR has an agenda–and that agenda is to, however impobably, convince others to simply say no. Rather than recognize that birth control accessibility and educatoin will lead to FEWER abortions, they want to tell the rest of the world when and how to have sex.

    But do all these pillars of morality always practice what they preach? I think not. For they, too, are sexual beings. It is built into our nature. Without it, we would perish as a species.

    All I can say is: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

    End of Elvira’s sermon.

  • KYS

    Great job Elvira!

    No stones thrown here. But I’m juggling them, so watch out all you sinners!!
    :)

    Peace.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Thanks to you, KYS, for all the terrific comments.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Hey all:

    I’m writing this in the wee hours of the morning because, well, I keep bizarro hours, ok? So now that it’s nice and quiet over here, I just wanted to say that my last comment was not an indication that this discussion should necessarily come to a close.

    Though I fear that additional “voices” may only serve to rehash what everyone has already gone over and around and inside and out and backwards and forwards already, I’m all for hearing from anyone who would still like to continue this thread.

    If not, it’s been a great run. But if you’re game, I say together perhaps we can break some kind of silly, pointless commenting record!

    Hey, at least three of you could add another two-cents worth so we can leave it at a nice round 300 comments, huh? What do you say?

  • Ash O’kira

    The sad fact is that this argument is meaningless. The “Abortion Debate” isn’t a debate, because people believe SO strongly that neither side can be convinced of the opposite’s viewpoint.

    However, debate aside–all that’s left is reality. The reality is that women will continue having abortions regardless of it’s legality, just as they always have been. You have to be pragmatic.. if people are going to have abortions regardless of whatever you believe, is it best to:

    A) Outlaw abortion, resulting in the ‘back-alley abortions’ which are unsafe, and endanger everybody?
    B) Legalize abortion, and regulate the industry to ensure it is done safely and hygenically, while also -teaching- people at a young age that there are consequences for sexual irresponsiblity?

    The choice is: There is no choice.

    The ‘Pro-Life’ side is on a side they can’t win, mostly because the Government isn’t in a -position- to monitor every woman’s body–meaning they can’t possibly get what they want. It’s just an issue of whether or not the ‘pro-choice’ side gets completely what they want, or just some of it.

    Want to make a statement against abortion? Then don’t practice it, and teach your children that it’s wrong. That’s about all you can do, besides lobby for the education of the youth I mentioned earlier.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Ash O’kira:

    Thank you–extremely well put. I agree, at least in part, that the debate is so emotionally charged that we will most likely never get both sides to iron out some sort of reasonable agreement.

    And why is that? I think, in part, it is because abortion to many radical pro-lifers is ia symbol of something infinitely larger. The fact that it is so very hard to even get a rabid pro-lifer to stop and listen before they start virtually screaming at you indicates to me that they protesteth a bit too much. If they are so convinced that their way is true, why must they be so strident, often to the point of being horribly, even “immorally” abusive? Where is there so-called compassion then?

    The fact that some pro-lifers can so insistently argue their cause in such a seemingly abstract fashion–without thinking through the implications of what they are requesting–is very telling to me. It indicates that there is something more overweening behind all the cries of “murderer,” and “baby killer.” For if they truly gave a flip about these babies, why would so many throw up their hands when it comes to the larger social issues and problems which unwanted pregnancies engender for society as a whole?

    I maintain that many pro-choice advocates are just as revulsed by the idea of late-term abortion as any pro-lifer could possibly be. But pro-lifers immediately lunge for that as an example of what they claim pro-choice is all about.

    On the contrary, as I’ve said over and over, what pro-choicers want, in large part, is access to free or low cost birth control and education for all women (and men). Contraception, by its very nature, will decrease the likelihood for abortion. But many religious radicals cannot live with this. Instead, they must attempt to demonize extramarital sex by living in a fantasy world where they imagine their heavy handed scolding will convince the entire universe to “just say no.”

    To the religious right, any kind of sex that takes place outside the bounds of marriage is, apparently, an abomination. The fact that unwanted pregnancies can lead, in extreme but far from uncommon cases, to physical and sexual abuse, incest, torture, and even death of children at the hands of their own caretakers does not seem to faze them. But is not murder murder–whether “committed” in the womb or years after birth?

    The fact that some pro-lifers are willing to compromise their position a bit does not render them, to my mind, as “flexible” as they might first appear. Thus, when they say that rape victims should be able to get an abortion, what, in essence, are they implying? That the progeny of a rape victim is somehow less innocent than any other innocent fetal “muder victim?”

    How absurd.

    The real agenda, I fear, is the same old song and dance that has taken place probably since history began. It has its roots in man’s misplaced fear of, and need to control, women–who are, after all, the gender that ultimately produces all human life.

    Men can create great literature, symphonies, artworks, and sermons. But only a woman can give birth to another living being. And some men desperately want to control and regulate the awe-inspiring “means of production,” so to speak.

    As I’ve said before, this is scary stuff indeed.

  • Don

    Heres a good idea, if you dont want the kid, put it up for adoption. Gee who woulda thought of that?

  • Prolife metal head

    I have 3 children that I love with all of my heart. 2 of them were born out of wedlock. I would not give them up for the world. I realize that not everyone unfortunatly feels this way. That does not however in any instance make it right to kill an innocent child beceuse it inconviences you. The slefishness of our society makes me sick. I am not religious I just belive it is wrong to put yourself above the life of an innocent child. It is not thier fault that you were scrwing and just happend to get preggo or dont want them. maybe since we are all putting our selfs above everyone else it would be ok for me to murder you just beceuse people like you are an anoyance to me? I think contraception is great however and people who dont want children should make sure to use it. I dont have a problem with the morning after pill however it is in particular the late term and partial birth abortions that horify me. Babies that could live on thier own have thier brains sucked out and that is ok? I am a firm believer in personal rights but however your rights should end when it begins enfinging on someone elses especialy an innocent child. Even if something is leagal does not mean it is right.

  • DaTruth

    Abortion should have been around about the same time anti-abortionist were concieved. I live in a bad part of town were kids run the streets all night/sell drugs/prostituting/ etc…..I believe an abortion was in the cards for them.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    I’m touched to be the subject of this hit-piece. I’m touched to know that because a rare few people “can’t keep their flies zipped” means we’re all hipocrites (I’d like to be a hipocrit for something I do, thankyouverymuch), and I’m touched to know that because I believe sex should be reserved for marriage, that translates into anti-sex.

    I’m touched to know because I’m against 12 year old girls being raped by older men and that I’m for reporting such rapes to authorities, I’m somehow the cause of “all of life’s problems”.

  • Welfare Cheese

    John B:”I’m touched to be the subject of this hit-piece. I’m touched to know that because a rare few people “can’t keep their flies zipped” means we’re all hipocrites (I’d like to be a hipocrit for something I do, thankyouverymuch), and I’m touched to know that because I believe sex should be reserved for marriage, that translates into anti-sex.”

    Hey John, if you were ever “touched” by a woman under 200 pounds you might have a tougher time keeping your fly zipped. Men who wait for marriage are men who can’t get laid. Tuck your pantleg in your sock and ride your bike to work.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Don:
    Here’s an idea: if you don’t want a kid or STD’s, howzabout wearing a condom? Now who woulda thought of that?

    Adoption is an alternative, but if men got pregnant and had to carry a foetus to term and deliver it after nine months, my bet is that abortions would be not only legal but free of charge. Plus, how would you like to adopt a crack baby? Stand in line!

    Prolife metal head:
    Yes, I agree that many people in our society are inconsiderate and thoughtless in many ways. Your mention of the consequences of pregnancy though doesn’t so clearly factor in the inconsiderate man who impregated the woman, probably by not using a condom. I think both potential parents have an equal hand in producing a potentially unwanted child.

    Yes, modern birth control is an invaluable technology that I think should be encouraged, not swept under the rug because people don’t want to admit that most folks have a sex drive and actually might have sex for some other reason than to conceive a child within the bounds of marriage.

    I also feel that a parent’s rights to pursue individual enjoyment end where their abuse, abandonment, sexual abuse, neglect, torturing, or murder of their ALREADY BORN offspring begin. If birth control were more readily available and used, these kinds of cases of torture and murder of the already born might decrease as well.

    I think if more people did as you do and looked at more than one side of this issue, they would see that we may be more in agreement than the yowling, hysterical, self-righteous radical pro-lifers might lead us to believe. I tend to think that most pro-choicers would also be horrified at partial and late-term abortions. And I think most reasonable pro-lifers who do realize that people will continue to have sex in and out of marriage unless or until we blow each other to bits on this planet would agree that birth control education and availablility can help PREVENT unwanted births and abortions to begin with. If only we can hear each other over the din….

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Da Truth:
    One of the things that inspired me to write this article was the news reports of several recent cases of horrific child abuse and murder. Not that these don’t happen each and every day as we speak, but hearing about the deranged mother who allowed her husband to kill her baby and then blamed the victim–aka her daughter–for being “difficult” was mind boggling. I think that in this case, one condition for her eventual release should be a daily dose of Depo Provera to prevent her from having any more children (and this was not her only child, btw).

    Does this sound harsh? I don’t think so. I’m not saying she must be force fed birth control, but it should be made a condition of her release. That, or get her tubes tied. She is not fit to be a mother, period. No other children should ever have to suffer that sort of horror by her hands.

    On the other hand, children born to troubled parents who cannot or will not care for them properly are as innocent as the pro-lifers say unborn foetuses or even 100-celled zygotes are. Why then should society abandon them to such a horrific fate without even a whimper of concern or protest? Child welfare agencies cannot begin to adequately handle this horrible chaos and heartbreaking tragedy.

    America is the land of opportunity, but children are much less likely to be able to partake of that opportunity if they are not afforded the basic human right of decent loving care by their parents or guardians. Tragically, the cycle of abuse and neglect may continue and worsen from generatioin to generation–and all the screeching about “baby-killers” or campaigns to “just say no” will not stem this tragic tide. Time for society to wake up and open the condom wrappers.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    The pro-life camp must also realize, in tangent with what you said Elvira, that outlawing abortion will NOT stop abortions from happening. People will obtain them one way or another. I sometimes ask my extremely anti-abortion friends “Do you want women who seek abortions to be prosecuted or do you want abortion to end?” They always say they want abortion to end without realizing that I believe there is a way to virtually end abortion without making it illegal. But to address those core issues of why women get abortions, we have to look at issues such as birth control, poverty, maternity leave, welfare, schools, jobs, daycare and a host of other things which is usually beyond the pro-life scope. It goes so far beyond why they believe women get abortions, namely inconvience, selfishness and stupidity.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    John Bambenek:
    Where the hell have you been, guy? Why’d it take over 300 comments to get you on over here?

    Yes, I vehemently disagree with your rhetoric, but I’m very happy that you wrote the piece that helped inspire mine.

    Perhaps you were on vacation these past few days visiting whatever other planet you reside on, John, but the vast majority of people in the Western world today have, or have had, sex out of wedlock. All your dewy eyed wishing and dreaming will not change the REALITY of that situation. And action has to be taken, here and now. Not just to “punish” those who have a sex drive by denying them access to birth control or telling them what to do with their own bodies, but by facing the fact that as humans, our sex drives are the very thing that keep our species alive and flourishing so we can have these fun llittle arguments in the first place.

    As for the incest hubub, those interested can go to John’s post for more info. Not saying it can’t be discussed here, but I personally think his approach is biased and flawed. Go visit John if you like and judge for yourself.

    PS: John, it’s not ALL about you, touched as you are. But thanks again for the inspiration.

    Welfare Cheese:
    Although that may very well consitute a personal attack, I’m not too ashamed to say I think John really did deserve that little zinger if anyone did.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Scott:
    Precisely! Thank you.

  • Eric The Truth

    I hope everyone here understands that this debate will go on for ages! Debates are like tires, they go in circles. You will never sway the opinion of the other side and the only people you win to your side were people who already believed in your point of view. It’s funny how people who make it appear like they understand the others point, really don’t have a clue. They just keep on jabbering about what they think are great points to strengthen their stance.

    Take a second to get into the other sides shoes, for real now. Someone who is Pro-Choice really doesn’t care if a baby is prevented, they really don’t care when it is considered a life, they don’t care about the Bible. They just want to get rid of the baby if they don’t want it.

    Someone who is Pro-Life could care less about the type of life the baby will have, they don’t care about your choices, they don’t care if it’s your body. They want the baby to live no matter what.

    This is what the other side thinks, sure i’m generalizing, but i have been on both sides of the fence with this, and i’ve been around both camps as well. So i know the arguements well. So who is right? Well as a whole, no one is. The problem is this. It is like we are playing football, but with 2 rulebooks. So while you may be right in your rulebook, you have broken a rule from the other teams book.

    I don’t want to get into a religous discussion, but you have to partially because that is where the confusion lies. I will have to generalize again, but of course there are always some exceptions. A Pro-lifer believes in the Bible and they believe that God would want every baby to live. A Pro-choicer doesn’t believe in the God and they don’t want a baby if they are not ready. That is the heart of the matter.

    A pro-lifer believes your body is God’s and that God holds this life sacred. So it is your duty to allow life, no matter how horrible that life might end up. Regardless of whether that life is in your body and you don’t want it. They believe that if you’re going to have sex then you better be ready for the baby that comes with it.

    Someone who is pro-choice believes life and death is a part of nature. The baby is the property of the mother and father so it is their choice what happens to it. They do not want a baby in their life if they are not ready. Perhaps the parents are too young, or the couple is financially unstable. Why would you want to let a baby into the world if their life will be unhappy? When they are prepared later on, the parents can always have another baby, one that will be wanted. They want to have sex and not worry about pregnancy.

    You’ll probably noticed that i didn’t talk about the radical religous right wing, or the biased liberal media, or the evil Planned Parenthood, etc. It’s stupid to accuse extremists because it’s obvious their point of view will be twisted. There is no point in saying how one side are full of hypocrites, because there are hypocrites on both sides. You have to pit rational Pro-Lifers vs rational Pro-Choicers to get a balance debate. So all i’m trying to do is put the truth of the matter on the table, whether i succeeded or not is unknown to me.

    I will tell you right now though, that you don’t change people’s opinions with name calling and a birage of statistics. You do it with patience, understanding and love. You have to change their hearts before you can change minds.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    I didn’t notice this post until I saw my name reference via technorati…

    To be honest, I think this comment thread can carry itself. I try to avoid comment wars on blogs because in the end, it’ll be nothing but both sides yelling at each other.

  • David Matusevich

    I know I’m coming rather late to this debate, but it has been a most interesting read and I’d like to adda a few comments of my own.

    I believe that the only way to instill a sense of morality in our children is by example. I’m nor a father but I am a son, and however good I am I owe to the example my parents gave me growing up. If you are a faithful and loving husband (or wife) your children will grow up seeing women not as sluts to take to bed but as the equal partners that they are. However, we have all been sixteen and hopefully in love “forever”, so we have to accept that sex is going to happen and be prepared for the consequences. We have been given sexual impulses that start a lot of time before we have the maturity to know how to use them responsibly.

    Let me give you an example drawn from my own experience. I grew up in Argentina, during a time when abortion was illegal. Moreover, unwed mothers and their children were shunned by society (the wonders of a roman catholic country) so shotgun weddings were not uncommon. Let me be crear about this: even with the church, the state and the educative system preaching abstinence constantly… SEX STILL HAPPENED!!! Go figure. In fact several of my high school classmates finished school married with a couple of kids by age 17. So the talk my parents gave me (and that I’m sure was the same they gave my other brother an sister) after the explanation of why condoms were more than a good idea, included the following caveat: ‘If you ever get a girl “in trouble” don’t even think of ruining your life with a premature marriage (remembre abortion was not an option). We will adopt the kid and take care of everything’. Because of that I was extra careful in my adventuring and the question never arose. That in short is what I mean by being prepared to the consecuences. Had abortion been an option perhaps their talk would have been different or perhaps not, they loved kids.

    Regarding abortion I agree it’s the womans uterus, and therefore their choice. However I have the same issue with it Justin does: It’s still half my DNA. I should at least have a voice in the matter. I’m not asking much, just the right to be heard.

    To Ruvy, Man you and I are living in waaaaay different Jerusalems. Within weeks of moving to Israel, going out with friends one of them (a female if memory serves right) remarked offhandedly that if you don’t get laid in Israel you won’t get laid anywhere… And these were not impressionable teens, influenced by the evil american TV, but rather responsible, single, 30-something, adults. I think the culprit here is not America, but rather the constant state of war. I read that times of danger tend to trigger the reproductive instinct in the human animal, and Israel has been at war in more or less constantly since even before its creation. I would think that the casual attitude israelis have towards sex arose from this. Sometime during or after serving in the Army and seeing friends being killed, you have to do the most life affirming thing that exists: sex. Of course orthodox communities are different, but I cannot talk about them since I am one of those atheist jews.

    This has been a very long post for me. I hope I don’t get too many new ones torn into me…

    Dave

  • David Matusevich

    John Bambenek wrote:

    ‘I’m touched to know because I’m against 12 year old girls being raped by older men and that I’m for reporting such rapes to authorities, I’m somehow the cause of “all of life’s problems”.’

    Please sir, don’t be more of an ass that you have to be. You are commiting one of the worst sins of dialectic: Just because you have a statistic mentioning underage abortions, you equate all the girls, no matter their age to 12 year olds, and all the males involved to greasy old men, discounting without a second thought all the seventeen year olds that got pregnant, during prom night with their 17 y.o. boyfriends, for example.

    Dave

  • http://gmroper.com GM Roper

    I found part of this thread very interesting. First, someone is very wrong about birth. Birth occurs THEN a certificate is signed. Murder can occur LONG before a death certificate is issued. Law does NOT mandate that you aren’t born till the certificate is signed.

    A big part of the difference between the two camps is trying to discern when life begins. There are those of us who believe, fervently I might add, that life begins with conception. Others believe that it begins when the fertilized egg implants in the womb. Others apparantly believe that you ain’t alive till someone signs a birth certificate. Hmm, if you are traveling, have a baby but there is no one to fill out a birth certificate, then you can freely kill that child without consequence. Care to try it? I wouldn’t.

    I would be a lot more comfortable if those who are pro-choicers were exactly that… allowed and encouraged full knowledge of choices before a decision is made. It is called INFORMED consent.

  • David Matusevich

    John Bambenek wrote:

    ‘I’m touched to know because I’m against 12 year old girls being raped by older men and that I’m for reporting such rapes to authorities, I’m somehow the cause of “all of life’s problems”.’

    Please sir, don’t be more of an ass that you have to be. You are commiting one of the worst sins of dialectic: Just because you have a statistic mentioning underage abortions, you equate all the girls, no matter their age to 12 year olds, and all the males involved to greasy old men, discounting without a second thought all the seventeen year olds that got pregnant, during prom night with their 17 y.o. boyfriends, for example.

    Dave

  • David Matusevich

    John Bambenek wrote:

    ‘I’m touched to know because I’m against 12 year old girls being raped by older men and that I’m for reporting such rapes to authorities, I’m somehow the cause of “all of life’s problems”.’

    Please sir, don’t be more of an ass that you have to be. You are commiting one of the worst sins of dialectic: Just because you have a statistic mentioning underage abortions, you equate all the girls, no matter their age to 12 year olds, and all the males involved to greasy old men, discounting without a second thought all the seventeen year olds that got pregnant, during prom night with their 17 y.o. boyfriends, for example.

    Dave

  • Nelson Unknown

    You are all too serious on this issue. Does it not seem all human nature is somehow wrong in our society? And I mean every issue pertaining to death, torture, rape…etc. If you want change, change youself first before blasting your ideas.

  • bdog

    For the sake of all of us living in this world, I would hope that any type of method used to prohibit any type of breeding by you, Mr. B or anyone else I see or read about on a day to day basis, be proliferated. The only thing more disgusting than someone taking any kind of extremist point of view and wringing it out until they look foolish, is when they breed.

    Please, please, please, don’t breed, and if you have already, please advise your children about all the wonderful methods of chemical sterilization.

    If I have to hear or read anymore garbage labeled as conservative/liberal again, I’m going to vomit. There is just no excuse for spewing garbage in the name of some ambiguous group.

    In this day and age of disconnected shells of what was once a decent community, I beseech all readers of this blog, and Mr. B’s… to not ever spread your genetic fodder any further. Please take advantage of the charitable release from all things responsibility given by Planned Parenthood.

    If you are resourseful enough, you may even find a family doctor who can aid you in not procreating!

    In the name of humanity, in the name of neighbors whom most of us only know if they have coctail parties and get togethers at the local bar, in the name of that waiter and waitress that have been berated by you because the person at the checkout counter wasn’t fast enough for you, in the name of women in asia who are bought and sold as commodities, in the name of all polatitions everywhere who steal, lie, and cheat to get ahead, in the name of all those who prize a hand holding instead of freedom, and in the name of all things against love, because love is obviously a nuisance to people reading this blog and Mr. B’s, do not breed.

    Thank you for not sharing your genetic material.

    love,
    bdog

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    To Ruvy, Man you and I are living in waaaaay different Jerusalems. Within weeks of moving to Israel, going out with friends one of them (a female if memory serves right) remarked offhandedly that if you don’t get laid in Israel you won’t get laid anywhere… And these were not impressionable teens….

    Dave,

    Ma inyanim?

    I suspect that your point of view might be influenced by the fact that you are still single. If I were single and twenty years younger, my orientation would be very different. I’d be too busy chasing women to type here. You wouldn’t hear from me at all.

    Yeah it sure is different when you are the daddy and you have to think about all the problems the horny boys might get themselves into…

    No, I don’t live in Meah Shearim and I shave my beard.

    Where in J-lem are you? What branch of Tzahal are you in?

    Shabbat Shalom

  • Anthony Grande

    “I have a question for Greg, Anothony, whoever else is pro-life: Do you want to see the abortion law completely overturned so abortion is completely illegal in the United States? Are you for prosecuting women who seek abortions if the law is overturned?”

    What I want is Roe v. Wade to be overturned and each state to have the right to choose abortion legality for themeselves.

    And yes, in a state that has outlawed abortion I would like to see any mother that aborted their baby to be tried with murder along with the doctor that performed the murder.

  • Liddie

    Before we can start to think clearly about abortion we have to come to terms with the fact that the very idea of it is terrifing to that little child within. To many of us might suspect we would not be here had abortion been legal. I know I wouldn’t be…I came to terms with that and realized in the end, I was the one who will pay the price for any choices made, so I’d better be the one who was making them…Had my mother won the coin toss, I would not be here would of missed all the joys of being neglected, unwanted, and unloved. I would not of known anything of life as we know it outside the womb so I would of missed nothing. Do you believe it’s possible for a preborn anything to think and consider it’s life or loss thereof? I have never had nor would have an abortion but I have cried with those who did choose to have one. It seems to have passed over the heads of many that the choice is not an easy one and the reasons have to do with many things. Not many do it just for the thrill of murdering an innocent baby. Sometimes it might be to prevent murdering the soul of an innocent child.

  • Anthony Grande

    Wow, this thread sure died fast.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    David-

    I don’t have to rely on my assertions that the younger the girl is the older her “lover” is, I can just use Planned Parenthood’s own research.

    As for extremism, I’m not the one arguing that an entire category of people that make up about half (more or less) of this country should be excluded from the practice of medicine because they don’t accept a certain flavor of morality. I find it funny that the freedom crowd when it comes to pro-choice is all about restricting the freedom of others.

  • Christine

    AWESOME!!!Paul martin,like minded, that is what i was going to put up,come on people have a reality check!THESE ARE REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL LIVES!

    FACT: A fetus is a human being….. Fetus — literally meaning “little one” in Latin — refers to the pre-born baby after eight week’s gestation. Webster’s Dictionary says a fetus has, “passed the early stages of development and attained the basic final form prior to parturition (birth).” Some people seem to have forgotten they once lived and grew in the womb as a “fetus.” Would it have been okay if they had been aborted when they were “only a fetus?”

    Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right.

    You play with fire expect to get burnt!

    I speak as a normal everyday person,whom was faced with a decision to abort my baby or to give birth.Only was it knowledge and education did i get to understand that a baby is a baby the moment from conception.I truly believe that society needs to change its attitude. Give a pregnant women all the options,(gory and nice if thats how it has to be)Abortion should really only be used if the pregnant women was to lose her life in the process of carrying her unborn child.(How can these atrocities allowed to be practice in the world we live in today?)

    Personally Im not an expert but i definetly speak from a place where i made an informed choice.Whom am i to play god? Decide whether a child is worthy of life because(in some, not all cases)the child would interfere with MY LIFE.
    *Pro-life: because their speaking for all those children that never even got the chance.Everyone who is alive today,should consider themselves “lucky”.

  • Christine

    LIDDIE-

    Thank you for your reality check-

  • http://none Mike

    I am pro-the-right-to-have-an-abortion-if-the-woman-so-chooses. If men could carry a baby I would totally want that same right.
    I hate to hear the radicals on the right call an abortion murder. Especially when they call it baby killing. It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus. When a baby is killed you don’t say “this adult who could have been the parent of kids thirty years from now died.”
    The reason I hate it when they call it murder is because it isn’t. It’s getting rid of a couple thousand to million human cells before they become an actual human. They might as well call birth control murder (strangely some do). Let’s go a step further and say not having sex is murder. After all that is preventing a life too.
    Now some will go back to call a bunch of undeveloped cells a human and to them I say nobody can clearly define when life begins. A few people have come up with the genious idea of saying the moment the egg touches the sperm. I like to say once the cells start showing signs of brain activity but then what is brain activity?
    I love those religious nuts and their “the moment the egg and the sperm touch the cell has a soul, it’s now a human.” If the vatican can reorganize the afterworld, they got rid of purgatory, how can they still be credible?
    Come on people. Sit down in a chair by yourself and start questioning the world around you. What do you base your beliefs and morals on?
    Sorry if I seem to attack religion more than pro-life/pro-suppress-the-female-genitals but they seem to go hand in hand.

  • Mark

    Okay this is going to be a shot pretty straight from the pro-life side, but I guess my real question is…what is wrong with that? I understand that there is a lot of confusion about this whole issue and that is a big part of my point. If we pretty much dont really know, or if the pro-choice advocates feel like we cant really know when what starts with the sperm and egg becomes a human being, why take a chance? I’m sure everyone in here agrees that its not okay to end another human being’s life because it interferes with your own, especially when that life is your child, so why are so many people willing to take the chance of maybe killing someone? I’m an optimist and like to believe that the reason people dont murder other people isnt because its illegal, but because its morally wrong. I know that word morally raises a lot of alarms with this discussion, but that is what many of our laws are based on. Morally objective truth. I know its scary but it does exist. If you arnt sure if its a baby your killing, why take the chance?
    I understand that there are laws in place concerning these things, but personally I think its safer to err on the side of life. What do you have to lose?

  • Mark

    Ummm, little comment for Mike the Anglican. The Vatican did not get rid of purgatory…you can rest easy, its still there. Which makes me feel better because I’m hoping my reservation is still good.

  • Mark

    Okay I’ve been waiting to discuss this topic with some of the pro-choice side for a while now but have simply never had the chance so I apologize if I’m a little all-over-the-place. I have literally dozens of questions and am honestly curious. I would feel great if I could just convince one of the pro-choice side to reconsider their stance on this issue. So with that said let me start out with you Mike.
    I sort of accidentally rebutted some of what you had said before your comment hit my screen but another point you made sparked my interest as well. I believe that contraception is wrong. There are numerous studies in which it has been shown to disrupt healthy relationships and marriages. I also believe that sex should be used within the context of marriage and that pre and extramartial sex is wrong. I know its inpolitic to say that I think you should come over to my way of thinking, but I do. I dont know why its wrong to say that, if someone feels that what they are doing is right, then why would they let someone else do wrong without trying to help them? Back to point, contraception involves choosing to engage in sexual intercourse but resisting the effect of it. The Church says this is wrong because it is a misuse of the sexual act. They are also against “pulling out” and other techniques besides condoms and diaphragms and pills. Nature has dictated how reproduction is to occur and I dont see why its so ludacris to suggest resisting our basic impulses? Its not acceptable and even illegal to respond in a violent manner to an act of aggression in a restaurant or on the street but anger and violence is part of our makeup? Its illegal for men to rape women but it was done for thousands of years by the Vikings (and not just on that bad boat)and other tribes all over the world so that could be said to be a universal human trait. Sexual impulses may not always be correctly directed and it is important to distinguish between proper, well-guided loving sexual urges and self-destructive and violent sexual urges. Abstinence until marriage truly is the loving answer to the problem with sex and contraception.

  • http://dianahartman.blogspot.com/ diana hartman

    christine posts: “I speak as a normal everyday person,whom was faced with a decision to abort my baby or to give birth.Only was it knowledge and education did i get to understand that a baby is a baby the moment from conception.I truly believe that society needs to change its attitude. Give a pregnant women all the options,(gory and nice if thats how it has to be)Abortion should really only be used if the pregnant women was to lose her life in the process of carrying her unborn child.”

    do i understand you to say that you were given all the information about all your choices and from this made an informed decision? and your choice was carried out without interference, yes? correct me if i’m wrong…

    that’s sound eerily like pro-choice and yet you assert yourself as pro-life…
    ah, but even then, you’ve said abortion is okay where the mother’s life is in danger, thus judging the life of that fetus as being okay to abort but it wasn’t okay to abort your fetus…
    interesting…
    sure, the prospect of a mother dying is tragic and certainly should be avoided at all costs — but should one of those costs be to an unborn child?
    this sounds very much like playing God — deciding the value of your fetus is greater than another fetus, deciding the value of the mother’s life is greater than her fetus…

    so, your fetus is worth more than everyone else’s…and while you were offered all the choices and information, you don’t think anyone else should be offered the same…

    wow…

  • http://www.google.com Scott^Pro-Life4-Ever

    Mark, You truly say words of wisdom. Pro-Life is the only way to go. Anyone who has Christ in their life will know this in their heart. If you do not, then you are not with Christ. Abstinence until Marriage should be the only thing taught to our young children, not “how to properly have sex while your a teen and how to prevent getting STD’s(STI’s now) or how to keep from getting pregnant” and if you somehow aren’t mature enough to “protect” yourself then you can always kill or as previously stated, have a doctor help assist you in killing “your” baby. Another valid point to bring to your attention is this. Our bodies are God’s. That means that a “right to choice” whatever in the world that “really” implies, would imply that without God we would still exist and that our bodies are our own to do as we please. Then we must make sure our laws allow for us to attempt suicide and amputations without putting us in an Institution for such things. “Our bodies are our own and we should do as we please with them.” Wrong!!! Ok, on to the sexual urges topic. Birth Control does not, and I repeat, DOES NOT replace Self-Control by any means. The two are not equal and they are complete opposites. The reason I point this out is teaching our children to act upon their impulses rather than to “abstain” is a part of life. Just as you cannot rape, which is wrong, having pre-marital, or extra-marital sex which are also Wrong, you cannot teach are children and our society that they are indeed okay and dandy because they are natural impulses or are a part of our DNA or are being human. I would like for you to try and hold that argument up in court when you tell them you had the natural impulse to steal or lie in court so you should not be held “accountable” for your own actions because they are natural. Our society is going downhill fast. Whether it is the belief that because there are so many more gays and lesbians, that we have to Change our definitions of Right and Wrong because there are more and more of them, or whether it is the belief that we should teach our children to try and wear bulletproof vests because shooting one another is a natural impulse that we should also try and change our Christian values, I’m sorry, but that WILL NOT happen. God Bless and hope to see some more Pro-Lifers speak out.

  • Scott

    Sex is so out of control these days, almost all the time i feel like the last virgin in school, thats sad! My best friends little sister has had sex with tonnes of peopl and she’s only 15! It demeans it and its stupid, the risks are horrible too. I dont beleive in abortion and im not a fan of alot of these prevention drugs, but something has got to change or this is going to get worse!

  • Christine

    you all there??

  • Christine

    Diana Hartman-

    Thank you for your feedback,thus i would like to point out a few things in rebuttal had i not made myself clear:

    “Only was it knowledge and education did i get to understand that a baby is a baby the moment from conception.”…
    Without the information that I in which happened to stumble upon at a parachute concert, would have not known the evil side of abortion(a christian band function,with also christian stalls,promoting christian values eg:pro-life, anti abortion activist)

    Previous to this experience,I was at an all girls school.Whom progressively told all girls in sex education and in counselling sessions that fetus’s were “just tissue”.(well very much in those terms) Not an actual unborn baby/fetus,(which was the correct term)Thus if girls found themselves pregnant the right and informative information,was never supplied.This would leave many girls dimwitted and astounded when they found out,that there unborn child/fetus was not just a “tissue”.

    In my particular experience I found out that I was pregnant at the doctors,straight away the doctor promptly tried to assure me…”ah dont worry you’ve got 8 weeks to decide what to do”…sitting there dumbfounded I replied “there is nothing to decide”.(knowing very well that he was thinking only just of abortion)Likewise no other information was supplied,nothing like; counselling,adoption phamplets,fetal stages of growth or anything of the sort.Everyone whom I have spoken to,regarding there first pregnancy vist to the doctors,retain simular doctor experiences.

    People also forget the implications that abortions can have on women, mentally.Four days before I gave birth to my beautiful and precious son, Jacob (whom I would like to add is as precious as every fetus ever conceived, like all fetus/babies are)A friend of mine commited suicide,over the fact of an abortion which was carried out.(and i know that she is not the only one, or the last one)LISTEN HERE,had she of had her baby her baby we would still see her beautiful smile today.(and of course her babys)

    Society views the fact that…”Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right.”….”I truly believe that society needs to change its attitude. ”

    “Abortion should really only be used if the pregnant women was to lose her life in the process of carrying her unborn child.”….What Im actually saying in this part is referring to some quotes in the bible,which implies that to save the life of the strongest one,if both mother and child were to die.(please forgive me,i cannot find the verse at present,with the exact passage reading)
    I have now become a christian recently,but do respect the views of others.Therefore have not tried to go over the top in my pro life ventures, but in saying that I still feel extremely strong in this particular subject:A fetus is a life the moment from conception.

    Again i would like to thank you diana,I now have a beautiful two year old son,it has made me a stronger pro-life supporter.

  • Ad

    I find some of these comment stupidly hard to fathom. Fine, if you hold religious beliefs, believe in them, but in the same vein don’t think that everybody should have to live by the same rules that you so clearly follow.

    I’m also confused at alot of these pro-lifers suggesting that by aborting a foetus you are ‘killing a baby’. The fact of the matter is that it is NOT a baby, it is a potential baby, and we do not ascribe things that have the potential to something, the same things that those who have achieved their potential. For example, here is Britain, a child has the potential to drive a car at the age of 15, but not until 17 could he realise this. What the potential argument suggests, is that we give him the right that the 17 year old has, before his time. This is equivalent to giving an unborn foetus the right to life, ludicrous.

    As for the argument that we should not interfere with Gods plan for us, what about everyday medicines? Surely that’s interfering in his plans for us. If we get a life-threatrening illness, then we are meant to die, no?

    You’re all for the supposedly far superior demcracy that the USA has to anywhere else, and yet all of you Pro-Lifers seem to e totally against this kind of democratic ideal! You allow yourself to speak freely and whenever anybody who is not religious suggests something contrary to the highly dubious teachings that some people believe, they are shot down.

    I think some people need to think long and hard about whether their superior moral values are actually that superior after all.

  • Liddie

    Two things:

    Is God in control. How can we deny his power? Is God an abortionist when he allows or even causes a miscarriage? Could he have stopped the abortion of any icon of any religion, including Jesus? He can’t? He wouldn’t? Maybe he did. A woman’s life was on the line in the days of Mary in a way we can’t imagine. Did they have abortionists then? I bet they did.

    God gave us free will. Who are you to take it away? Who decides if it’s God’s will or not? Why would he protect the life of one baby and not another unless it is not the life but the soul that concerns God.

    It’s not about babies. It’s about not playing God. All the turns and twists of cleverly worded emotionally loaded stories will not change that fact that God is in control and the buck stops with Him. All choices are between God who is God and the person who is making the choice. Not you. You are not God nor should you stand in the holy place calling yourself God.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    My take on this is that the whole debate here is way off-kilter; it comes down to an issue of personal choice and freedom, two concepts that I understood were at the heart of the “American Dream”.

    I have complete and utter respect for people’s right to shape their own lives. Without that right, we would all be living in one kind of dictatorship or another.

    What I don’t agree with – and never ever will – is that any one group of people should have the right to prevent other people living their own lives as they see fit.

    It is supremely arrogant and simply none of your business how I choose to live my life. If I want to breed every 5 minutes or never have a child ever, that’s my business not yours.

    I don’t understand why the pro-life group wants to overstep the bounds of their inalienable right to do what they want with their own bodies and lives by trying to step into my life.

    You can argue the other issues until your jaws drop off frankly but some of the hysterical, quasi-fascist arguments of the anti-birth control crowd are really quite disturbing.

    That HAS to be opposed, whatever the motivation, as it doesn’t take more than a moment’s reflection to see where that particular slippery slope would lead…

  • Christine

    #335-whoever said anyones beliefs are more superior than others??You belive that your opinon is right so why cant others express that???

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ elvira Black

    Thank you all so much for your great comments! I’m too overwhelmed and exhausted at the moment (lol) to do more than marvel at the fact that this is not (as one person kind of implied) just a redundant, totally circular debate. I’m seeing lots of different viewpoints presented in many fascinating ways. Since we are all individuals, and this topic has many sub-issues within and around it, I think everyone’s opinion here is valuable, even if I or others don’t agree with it.

    I’ll be back later to add more coments–but my heartfelt thanks to all of you in the meantime.

  • Mark

    In response to Ad’s contention that abortion doesnt kill a baby, it kills a potential baby…how do you know? Isnt a focal point of this whole debate about when it is actually a baby? Some say its when the baby is born…which is kinda tricky to go with because it has all the same characteristics twenty seconds before its born while its still in the womb. is location that big a defining characteristic, is someone could somehow squeeze me into a woman’s uterus would it be okay to kill me then? So I dont really go for the whole baby-when-its-born thing. Another one I heard thrown around was the brain activity. We dont even know what brain activity suggests. we just know that electricity runs around some peoples brains more than others. until science advances to the point where we can determine what brain activity suggests, i dont think it should be used to determine when something is alive. It basically comes down to the fact that science cannot tell at what point during the ninth months of development that the baby becomes a human being, with conscious thought and a soul and all that good stuff. So when does this “potential baby” become an actual baby for you Ad?

  • http://www.ogresview.m.nu Ogre

    Well it’s good to see the author of this hit piece finally saw the light after all that bloviating:

    “Okay, I give up. Let’s just stop having sex outside of marriage, already.”

    Good idea.

  • Retard

    Surely some people must realise that many pregnancies miscarry at some point in their development?

    In fact, 50% of pregnancies miscarry due to spontaneous abortion BY THE BODY before the gestational age of 24 weeks (the definition of miscarriage), and only 15% of these are actually recognised clinically (most of the time its just a heavy period). Abortion is the process described by the lay public as miscarriage. Stillbirth is when a foetus is delivered after 24 weeks with no signs of life after complete delivery.

    If the body doesn’t think it’s the right time, or something’s wrong, then it aborts the foetus.

    Are people going to say this is wrong? If it is ok, why isn’t choice ok too?

    And if sanctity of life features for balls of cells, does it not exist for old people? Good job we’ve got those nice homes for them to crumble in.

  • RedTard

    The, it’s none of your business argument is simply absurd.

    A father can choose to molest and rape his daughter at home and that really has no effect either of us. Are you pro-choice in that case?

    How dare you push your morality and try to control the way others live their lives.

    This, and many other vague and generally weak arguments have been devised to skirt the issue of abortion instead of facing it straight on. For example:

    I don’t want to tell anybody else what to do. (See above)

    Women need control of reproductive rights. (They already do, any infringement is severely punished as rape already)

    A baby is not alive until the government gives it a birth certificate. (I suppose killing an illegal alien should not be a crime then)

    We don’t really know if it is alive. (Then don’t kill it, especially after the age of viability)

    Women life is at risk. (BS, vast majority because of inconvenience to lifestyle)

    Incest, rape. (same as above)

    Abortion is murder for the sake of convenience of immature girls and always has been. A society that would kill for convenience is one that has lost all sense of morality. What else are we capable of?

  • Mark

    Retard. Its one thing is the body rejects the fetus and miscarrys, but its quite another thing to introduce chemicals into the body to terminate the pregnancy. The problem with the whole right-to-a-choice argument is that the logic eats itself. I agree that the woman has every right under the constitution to do what she wants to with her body. However I dont feel that she has the right to do whatever she wants to with the body of her child. Why do the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the child?

  • RedTard

    “If the body doesn’t think it’s the right time, or something’s wrong, then it aborts the foetus.
    Are people going to say this is wrong?”

    Yes, it’s another bogus argument. 100% of people die one way or another, that doesn’t make it right to murder them. (except in Oregon)

  • Christine

    #342

    “Surely some people must realise that many pregnancies miscarry at some point in their development?”

    I dont even think that needs to be said…

    There are plently of females whom have been through a painful miscarriage,but we are talking about elective abortion.

    Two extreme differences.

  • ss

    Redtard, trying to shoot down the arguements for abortion:

    ‘Women need control of reproductive rights. (They already do, any infringement is severely punished as rape already)’

    At least we see why Red’s pissed. In his mind these women are aborting other guys’ babies, when they should be aborting his!

  • Druxxx

    Mark, Christine, Redtard

    If you don’t like abortion don’t have one. I have a feeling you’ve heard that before.

    Mark-Why do the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the child?

    Because the ball of cells is only a potential human. It cannot survive outside of the mothers womb. The mother is a living, breathing, walking, full fledged human beeing.

    Now tell me, do you think you have the right to tell a pregnant woman not to smoke, not to drink, not to eat unhealthy food, not to stay up late?

    And if you do think you can make a pregnant woman not do those things, how are you going to stop her?

    Are we going to have the pregnancy police?

  • Christine

    Mark

    “….However I dont feel that she has the right to do whatever she wants to with the body of her child…”

    Great argument!

    This is simply logical,people need to get with it!

    Yes the mother carries the child, but the child is seperate from her altogether.

    IT HAS ITS OWN UNIQUE SOUL! LIKE YOU AND ME!

    With Abortion-Never again will they(THE UNBORN CHILD) be able to be reborn(say when the time is right?)Imagine if that sentence was protrayed on your life!

    You couldn’t comprehend that, now could you…

  • Christine

    Druxxx

    I’ve never had an abortion and never would!

  • Mark

    Druxx, concerning your argument that if I am opposed to abortion I should also be opposed to letting pregnant women smoke, drink and do other things which are harmful to the baby. I’m not suggesting people should go around telling others how to behave, that is wrong. What I do believe in is asking people to explain their reasoning. I feel my position is right. I also like to believe that the reason many women get abortions isnt because they are evil or meanspirited, but simply willing to accept the reasoning of the liberal media which allows them to escape the consequences of their actions. I feel that if a pro-choice person simply took the time to examine their side of the debate with a strong pro-life person to provide perspective and to answer any questions or conflicts in the logic (and here I dont presume to suggest myself) that they might gain some insight into the situation which they may have lacked before. Getting back to what I was saying earlier, its one thing to engage in activities which COULD harm the child and damage its development, and quite another to outright end the babies life. I dont think women who smoke or drink during pregnancy are mean, but rather simply ill informed or selfish.

  • KYS

    Mark,
    You make a good comment in that people should avail themselves of many sources of information. HOWEVER, though you may change somebody’s choice, you will never change my mind that there should still be CHOICE. Do you see the difference?

  • Mark

    I understand where you are trying to go with this KYS, but you need to understand that the reason I am pro-life is because I view abortion as the killing of a unique human being. Now because of this I would like to see abortion made illegal. When you say woman should still be given a choice I agree, the caveat being that if she chooses to abort her baby, she suffer the repercussions under the law. We allow murderers to make a choice as well, but we do ask that they make restitution for their crime either by jailtime or the death sentence. You see when it comes to choice its a tricky thing. I love man’s ability to choose. Free will is part of what makes being a human so kickass. But accepting the consequences of your actions is part of being an adult.

  • Mark

    I was just discussing this subject with a freind and he brought up the interesting fact that there was a court ruling where a pregnant woman was murdered and the defendant was charged and convicted of double homocide

  • sr

    GREAT DAY IN THE CORNFIELD. LET’S GO FISHING. by.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    RedTard:

    You said:
    “Abortion is murder for the sake of convenience of immature girls and always has been.”

    Ahem…RedTard…ever hear the expression it takes two to tango? What about the immature boy who refuses to WEAR A CONDOM, thus preventing pregnancies, STDs, AND the need for abortions to boot?

    For those pro-lifers who are not against birth control–can’t we agree that utilizing condoms would result in fewer “murders”–both before and after birth?

    Or is it just too much damn “fun” to go screeching about how all pro-choicers just love to see those late term foetuses torn asunder while they dance around and giggle with glee?

    GET A FREAKING GRIP, PEOPLE!

  • KYS

    Elvira,
    You bring up a GREAT POINT!

    The RR (especially catholics) doesn’t want to advocate birth control, resulting in a greater number of Catholic Conceptions. They also won’t consider abortion, resulting in a greater number of Catholic Births.

    So we breed a new army of RC-RRs (ya’ll can figure it out!). It’s a tactic as old as the hills, but it will backfire because babies born to unwilling and ill-equipt parents do not grow up to be good christians.

    Let’s confront an issue we’ve all avoided until now; if you believe a soul exists at conception, what happens to that soul in the event of an abortion? The choices I know of are:

    -Nothing. There is no god, we don’t have souls.
    -The soul goes to heaven because unborn babies have no sin.
    -The baby goes to purgatory for a while then gets transferred to heaven.

    It’s an important answer because I think the root of this problem lies with religion.

  • Christine

    Man truly religion?

    c’mon leave them to what they want to believe in,just like you.(and your beliefs)

    Religon has nothing to do with it,if in any case if they enjoy large familes so be it.

    “…. babies born to unwilling and ill-equipt parents do not grow up to be good christians…”

    Do not grow up to be good christians?what?not all children are planned!(in or out of religious families)At least they deal with the consequences and get their shit together,thus having the baby and giving life.

    What do you mean by the root of this problem lies in religon? please clarify.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Christine:

    In many cases, religion does have little to do with it, but politics sure as hell does. If it did, some of the people who claim to be “Christian” might take a look at what Jesus actually had to say, which included loving thy neighbor, etc. He said nothing about when a foetus became a person, as I recall.

    Many parents do not adequtely “deal with the consequences” by bringing up their baby in a loving home. An unwanted child may not be loved and cared for in the way a planned for child would. Proof of this is all over the papers here, as the latest innocent victim of a deranged and unrepentant baby killer and torturer gloats in jail as we speak.

    “c’mon leave them to what they want to believe in,just like you.(and your beliefs)”

    Not only does the RR not leave them to what they want to believe, but they want to have the power to tell women what to do with their own bodies.

    Religion–or at least a very demented version of it–has a lot to do with this. Witness all the sanctimonious references to God and presumptions about what He feels about the matter throughout this thread.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Sorry for my mangled syntax there–got carried away a little. But I think y’all know what I was getting at.

    I’d appreciate any pro-lifer’s response to the questions I posed in comment 356. Anyone?

  • Bliffle

    “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.”

    Here we have the quintessential “Bing” post: full of misspelling and punctuated with scatology.

  • Mark

    Hey Elvira, I’d like to take a shot at answering comment 356.

    What the Catholic Church teaches about abortion is that it is morally wrong, because it is essentially the murder of another human being. This is wrong no matter how you look at it, which is why the church opposes assisted suicide, euthanasia and many of the other things which are being fought for as “privacy right” today.
    Concerning contraception, the church is also opposed to that, because it is unnatural and impedes the true, wonderful and loving nature of sex. In essence it says to your partner, I love you, but not enough to want to be linked to you forever if the result of our reproductive act is reproduction. What many couples counselors have found is that the root of many married couples problems is their use of contraception.
    Its interesting to note that in the last ten to fifteen years, with the advent of sex-education which is mainly just telling teenagers to use condoms, STDs have practically doubled. Did you know that one in four sexually active teenagers has an STD? Contraceptives are harmful and dangerous to our youths. They give these people who already think their invincible and extra sheet of “protection” which encourages them to explore sex with multiple partners and studies have also shown that people who engage in sex with multiple partners are LESS likely to “properly” use birth control methods like condoms. Condoms are dangerous. They tell people that this will keep them safe from the consequences of their actions, but many fail to put them on properly. This results in many pregnancies and STD’s. Also many STD’s are transfered by skin contact, so unless the condom covers the area surrounding the gentials as well, it does little to prevent the spreading of these diseases.
    It is simply a fact that the best way to prevent the spread of STD’s and unwanted pregnancies which will in turn reduce abortions is by doing exactly what the church suggests, which is sexual abstinence until you are married.
    Also Elvira, I am pro-life and I dont think that pro-choice people enjoy the fact that abortion exists. However I do feel that they accept the popular beliefs of today which actually disrespect woman more than implying they dont have reproductive rights.

  • RedTard

    “Ahem…RedTard…ever hear the expression it takes two to tango? What about the immature boy who refuses to WEAR A CONDOM, thus preventing pregnancies, STDs, AND the need for abortions to boot?”

    First of all I never defended that behavior. Second, the law already is pro-life over pro-choice in that case.

    A boy has no choice, he must take care of the life he created via the law. Unlike a mother, the father has absolutely no say in whether the baby is killed or not, but he is forced by law to take care of the child even if he wanted to abort.

    Do you support his choice whether or not to financially support the child?

    Of course not. You want him to be responsible for the life he created. All I ask is equal treatment for men and women.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    RedTard:

    I’ll answer your comment first, and then return to Mark’s, if not now than shortly.

    Please tell me you are oblivious to the fact that:
    a. Teenage boys typically do not have any income to bring to the table to support a baby
    b. Many many many women are left stranded by deadbeat dads to raise their child alone. Some may prefer this, but some have been abandoned by husbands and boyfriends very “conveniently” after the baby is born, or even way before.

    This doesn’t mean that both parties are not irresponsible, but your emphasis on the “girl” in this case seemed to indicate what side of the table you were speaking from.

    Ideally, both parents would be equally responsible for a child whom they both planned for and wanted, and were emotionally prepared to care for properly and love. Ideally.

    You said:
    “Second, the law already is pro-life over pro-choice in that case.”

    I’m not sure what you’re referring to there??

    Now, I know it’s a lot less fun, but do you have any response to the questions I posed in comment 356?

    I’ll repeat the two paras in question here for easy reference:

    “For those pro-lifers who are not against birth control–can’t we agree that utilizing condoms would result in fewer “murders”–both before and after birth?

    Or is it just too much damn “fun” to go screeching about how all pro-choicers just love to see those late term foetuses torn asunder while they dance around and giggle with glee?”

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Mark:
    Many thanks for your comment. I understand and respect where you stand on this issue, and can see that in the context of your religious beliefs, eschewing birth control would make sense.

    However.

    This is not a “Christian” country, although the majority of its citizens are Christian. This is why we have separation of church and state, and freedom to practice one’s religion as one chooses is the cornerstone of our Consitution and way of life.

    So it follows, to my mind, that simply because one religious group has a certain belief on birth control and conception, it does not follow that they have the right to try to prevent others who do not share their religious beliefs from having access to this legal and (in the case of condoms) non-invasive option or to in effect “come into their bedrooms” and tell them how to conduct their most personal business.

    Orthodox Jews, for example, believe that a couple should not have sex during certain times of the month, and that the woman is considered “unclean” during her mentrual cycle, and is not to be “touched.” i respect that position, but does this mean that everyone must be mandated to follow it?

    Similarly, as someone else touched on here, there are some religions which forbid the use of medical intervention to greater and lesser degrees. Does it then follow that everyone else must not get blood transfusions or use aspirin for a headache or (in the case of Scientologists) not avail themselves of anti-depressants and other drugs?

    I consider myself very fortunate to live in a country where individual beliefs and religions are allowed to flourish. But my religion may not have the same tenets as yours. If we lived in Afghanistan, the fact that my religious beliefs clashed with yours would present a very serious problem indeed.

    I do not discount your beliefs in the least. All I ask is that you allow others to exercise their legal right to birth control as they see fit. Promoting abstinence is fine, but the truth is, like it or not, that abstinence is not a given or the norm at present in our country, and we ignore this simple fact at our own peril.

    I maintain that it is primarily the parent’s responsibility to discuss sexual matters with their children, and to teach by example. I agree that simply throwing condoms at teens is not a very adequate answer to the problem at hand, but better that than the “murders” and unwanted pregnancies that result when condoms are not used at all.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    KYS:

    Re your comment above:

    Yes, I agree that leaders of organized religions can have what might be considered a political agenda which is not explicity stated. Orthodox Jews who are forbidden to have relations except during the most fertile times of the month are another example of a religious edict which has both spirtual and practical repercussions.

    Again, that is fine. I just don’t want someone else telling me I can’t have extramarital sex or use condoms, as I currently do. I do not consider myself an evil sinner for doing so, though others may. That is their right, as freedom of speech is also one of the essential tenets of our country. Just stay outta my bedroom and keep the condoms stocked at the pharmacy.

    Is that really too much to ask in 21st century America?

  • Mark

    Elvira, The basic reasoning you adhere to seems to devour itself to me. You want everyone to respect your rights to various things (some of which actually exist) because you are a special and unique person. You consider any attempt to impede your “reproductive rights” to be incredibly disrespectful. One of the central tenets of the pro-choice movement seems to me that we should respect others enough to allow them to make their own choices. The reason this doesnt make any sense is because these same people then turn around and say it is illogical and ludacris to think that sexual abstinence is a viable option for eliminating the problems which we face today. You ask people to recognize human beings as miraculous, incredible people who have a right and an innate ability to make choices for themselves and that these rights should be honored and encouraged so that they can be used in a correct manner. I appreciate that you respect my religious beliefs, but my beliefs on the subject of abortion are founded on logic and not blind religious zeal. What true pro-life people ask is that people recognize human beings as miraculous, incredible creations who have a right and an innate ability to make choices for themselves and that these rights should be honored and encouraged so that they can be used in a correct manner. I feel like pro-choice people are optimistic about the human race, but they simply havent taken it far enough. Society today tells people if it feels good do it. They have denegrated humanity back to simply another animal, imprisoned by its impulses and slave to its passions. Catholicism holds man in the highest of regards and feels that we are special and we are not merely another animal, blessed with opposable thumbs. We have been given things which set us far apart from animals, like the ability to reason, the ability to speak, the ability make free choices and even the ability to laugh. My question is, why dont pro-choice people take it this far, why do they give up when they are so close? Yes, sometimes it is hard to resist your impulses, sexuality most prominently among them, but in doing so we only reiterate the truly amazing nature of humanity. So I ask you, come the final step.

  • Mark

    In response to KYS
    Let’s confront an issue we’ve all avoided until now; if you believe a soul exists at conception, what happens to that soul in the event of an abortion? The choices I know of are:

    -Nothing. There is no god, we don’t have souls.
    -The soul goes to heaven because unborn babies have no sin.
    -The baby goes to purgatory for a while then gets transferred to heaven.

    I’ll take these one at a time. For number one, this isnt a discussion on the existence of God. If you want to look into that I encourage you to, you’ll find that practically every person who is regarded as a genius or trend-setter was a firm believer in God or at least some divine creator. Einstien, Michelangelo, Galileo, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and the list goes on an on. It’s impossible to look for God and not find him everywhere. So look.
    Number two. Actually most aborted babies would be said to go to something called limbo, because they are not baptized and still under the onus of original sin. Limbo is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply a pleasant place to go, but it is impossible to enter heaven without being baptized even if you are for all intents and purposes innocent. What this means is that abortion prevents a soul from the possibilty of heaven, and interestingly enough, the definiton of hate is to desire that someone be deprived of heaven. So this means that the mothers of aborted babies hate those children in the strictest sense.
    Number three. See Number two.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    Mark, in this case and argument it really doesn’t matter what happens to the soul when it is aborted.

    What matters is that this living soul should have the right to live on this Earth just like we have the right to live on this Earth.

    Now, many people believe that there is no after life and you and you spirit just die when the body does. Wouldn’t this be a big reason to be pro-life? If there is no after life then isn’t fair to let it live just like us? Shouldn’t life be the most important resource to you atheists? Why do you people insist on sending a pre-mature life to away to nothing?

  • KYS

    “I’ll take these one at a time. For number one, this isnt a discussion on the existence of God. If you want to look into that I encourage you to, you’ll find that practically every person who is regarded as a genius or trend-setter was a firm believer in God or at least some divine creator. Einstien, Michelangelo, Galileo, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and the list goes on an on. It’s impossible to look for God and not find him everywhere. So look”

    I also find that every modern day genius wears pants. It is impossible to look for pants and not find them, so look.

    What have you proven here, exactly?

  • Druxxx

    Wasn’t the Catholic Church recently thinking of getting rid of limbo? Something about people living in African countries wouldn’t take up Catholicism unless there was no limbo? I may be mistaken. But if someone knows, please inform the group.

    Mark, ya just don’t get it. All your so-called logic about abortion being murder is based on your own personal religious beliefs. KYS is absolutely right about the possibility of there not being a soul. There is also a possibility that the soul and the body of a child do not meet until after birth. Also a soul could be passed from unborn embryo to unborn embryo until that embryo turns into a baby and is born. Even if your particular beliefs are right, there still must be billions of lost souls in limbo due to all the miscarriages that have happened throughout the history of man kind.

    Churches and religion are based on faith and belief. If they were based on fact we would all belong to the same religion and know all the consequences of our actions. I have a feeling you have never personally sat down and gotten god’s take on this.

    Life may be a gift, but abortion being legal will never threaten the continued existence of the human species.

    I have said it before on this thread and I will say it again. Sex is not the problem. The problem is the way we have sex. Abstinence is a great concept, but it ain’t reality. Knowledge is king. Just because I think abortion should be a legal choice does not mean I am O.K. with irresponsible sex. Gets kids learning about sex before it become a primal urge oozing out our children’s’ bodies. Stop preaching about how bad it is to have premarital sex, and start dealing with the fact that all the preaching in the world is not going to stop it.

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    “Life may be a gift, but abortion being legal will never threaten the continued existence of the human species.”

    If life is a gift then why do you deny this gift to 1.3 million lives a year?

  • Druxxx

    Because that life hasn’t lived yet. Do you remember being in the womb?

    Because I believe a living, breathing human female has a right to do to her body whatever she sees fit as long is she is not endangering her own life of the lives of other living, breathing, human beings.

    Because the earth is having a hard enough time sustaining the living, breathing human beings that are already on it.

    An abortion has no affect on you or any other living, breathing human being. It is between the mother and her womb. And don’t give me the murder your neighbor analogy since that murder affects a living, breathing, human being.

    I know I sound cold, but no religion is “right” on its own. People have different beliefs, and according to our constitution, your beliefs cannot trump mine.

    If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. And stop telling people what they can and cannot do.

    Laws and morals are not the same thing. Laws are only loosely based on morals. We do not need the 10 commandments to know murder and steeling is wrong. Our society is based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We all know what murder and steeling can do to those ideals. Our laws are meant to uphold those ideals. Myself and many others do not see abortion running counter to those ideas since the potential life in the womb has not yet “lived” yet, or if it is an equal to the mother, it is still infringing on her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

    Again this may be cold but I still have not heard someone respond to it.

    Your right to life ends when you try to stomp on my rights or my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. This is why I can get away with killing a person in self-defense or if someone breaks into my home.

  • Anthony Grande

    So why do you insist that 1.3 million are denied the right to be Americans and the the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    This isn’t a law or moral and I am surely not forcing you to believe anything it is just a question.

  • Druxxx

    Because these 1.3 million people you talk about are not people yet. They are potential people. They have not yet atained the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. I believe these potential humans get their rights when they could survive outside the womb. Our govenrment does not recognize all of a person’s rights until they get a birth certificate.

  • RedTard

    Actually, fetuses do breath in the womb (amniotic fluid, not air) to stretch and strengthen their lungs and yes they are also alive. So an abortion does destroy a living, breathing human.

  • http://RedTard Druxxx

    Well then what it comes down to is, when can the potential human survive outside the womb, making it no longer just a potential human.

    I think we could all agree that no amount of medical science could allow the fetus to survive outside the womb before the 16-18th week.

    I think for now we could agree first on limiting abortions to the first 18 weeks, before you guys go for the whole thing.

  • Mark

    So according to that reasoning we should just kill off anybody who can make it on their own without a little help. Like people on respirators or insulin. The problem lies in the fact that we dont know exactly when this so called “potential human” actually becomes a human. If we cant tell when the baby is actually a baby, then why kill something unless your good and sure its a baby your killing. You dont just go off into the woods and shoot in every direction then if you hear something moaning in a bush say “I’m sure its not really a human”. I’d like to think people like Druxx would want to make sure its a human theyre killing first.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Druxxx,

    I understand the thrust of your comments at #377 and #375. I don’t really disagree. It is the standard viability argument. And it is a good attempt at bridging the gap between the “pro-lifers” and the rest of us. I thought up something similar in 1982 – though my date was 20 weeks.

    But what happens if/when medical science makes it possible for a baby to survive outside the womb earlier than the 16th week?

    That’s when my wife lost our first kid. I got a good look at him. There was a lot of kid there. There was a human being there. And his face haunts me to this day. With the science available in the late ’80’s, there was no way he would have survived. But that can change – faster than you realize.

    Then there is a second question that your argument needs to deal with. How can you really be sure of the date of conception? Your dateline concept for banning abortions (unless they endanger the mothers’s life) depends on knowing with near certainty the date of conception.

    Some women sense when they are particularly fertile. But not all women do. Some women sense when they have conceived. Not all women do.

    Just something for you to ponder. This is a bitch of a question to wrestle with and I don’t envy rabbis or doctors who have to deal with them.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    That last word in #379 should have been “it,” not “them.”

  • Anthony Grande

    Druxx, inside the womb or not, human or alien, life or potential life you are still denying someone a life and since there is no afterlife you are sending them away to an eternity of blackness just so YOUR life can be that much better.

  • http://breathoffreshink.com Chris Evans

    So sick of the conservative religious crap about abortion.

  • Anthony Grande

    So sick of liberal atheists killing babies and then turning around and saving death row inmates.

  • http://breathoffreshink.com Chris Evans

    First of all, a fetus is not a baby. Second, you refer to death row inmatesa s though they are scum, not human beings. Which FETUSES aren’t.

  • Christine

    Druxxx#371

    “There is also a possibility that the soul and the body of a child do not meet until after birth.”

    Interesting statement…Unless you’ve been pregnant before,you wouldn’t know what it feels like to bond with your unborn child.What an awful thought,the thought that I’m carrying around a souless child,and in an event of still born birth your sugessting that these babies were nothing??yet an interesting statement,which I’ve never heard before.

  • Bong

    At ten days a tiny but living human being sends a chemical hormonal message out into the mother’s body which stops her menstrual periods.

    Later this tiny human being causes its mother’s breasts to enlarge in preparation for nursing, softens her pelvic bones to prepare for labor, and sets his or her birthday. The onset of labor is solely a fetal decision.

    The heart begins to beat at 18 days and by 21 days the heart is pumping through a closed circulatory system with a blood type different from that of the mother.

    Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on an Electroencephalogram (EEG). Brain function as measured on the EEG is normally present in the fetus at about eight weeks gestation, or six weeks after conception.

    Until recently, doctors used the ending of respiration to measure the end of human life and doctors were using the end of heartbeat to measure the end of human life. This meant that life is present when the heart is beating.

    Today the measure of the end of human life is brain death. This happens when there is irreversible cessation of brain function. The final measurement of this is the permanent ending of brain waves. Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual’s life is measured by the end of brain function as measured by brain waves on the EEG, it is logical to agree that an individual’s life begins with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument.

    Pro-Life or Anti-Sex?

    Pro-LIfe — Yes.

    Anti-Sex — No, that is how humans are born.

    Abortion makes us guilty of the worst possible crime imaginable — infanticide.

    If we are going to kill. Let’s do it to those deserving of that punishment, not kill the most innocent among us.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Mark:
    Thank you for addressing my question on birth control. It is more than many here have done. Although I cannot adhere to your particular religious preferences (abstinence, no birth control) I do appreciate your explanation of same.

    KYS and Druxxxx: I think your arguments here are sound–at least from where I sit.

    Ruvy: Your bring up some interesting points, but I was a little amazed at your admission that if you were single you would be chasing women (and I can only assume the rest). If you are teaching your kids not to do this (are you) why would it be ok for you to do so? I know I’m assuming a lot here that you didn’t directly say, but I think you know what I mean. One of the many reasons I never became a parent is because parents are often stuck in the “do as I say, not as I do” quagmire.

    Just for a goof, here’s my personal feelings on the matter.

    Though I can understand the debate over when life begins, this does not negate the reality that people are out there as we speak having unprotected sex, having unwanted pregnancies, abortions, etc.

    Since this is the case, and if those who debate this issue are TRULY interested in stemming the tragedy of “murdering” foetuses, then I would think one of your first orders of business would be to come back down to planet earth and realize that condoms can resolve a lot of issues here without a “shot” being fired. Otherwise you can argue til you are blue in the face about the “scientific” or “unscientific” “facts” about the nature of the origin of life–and meanwhile the unwanted babies will continue to be born. Some of them will be neglected, abused, raped, tortured, and killed by their so called “loving” mothers and fathers–the loving mothers who carried them to term and are thus so “bonded” to them in the first place.

    Men and women have to be held equally responsible for abstinence and/or birth control. No fair to dwell solely on the mother taking measures to prevent pregnancy or abort for her own “selfish convenience.” Please don’t tell me you’re so out of touch that you don’t see the hordes of unwed mothers with no outside means of support from the “fathers’ who are nowhere to be seen and don’t give a rat’s ass about the precioius “life” they have brought into an often uncaring world.

    I have always practiced birth control, but if, say, I were raped or a condom broke I dont think I’d have too hard of a time taking the “morning after” pill–but would do so asap.

    Abortion would be a tougher dilemma to face. Similarly, if I decided to have one I would do it asap. I think that one of the problems is that underage teens do not get the chance to sit down with their parents and discuss sex, birth control, etc. without histrionics and unreasoning, unrealistic dictates about “don’t you dare have sex.” If a girl gets pregnant, will she then be able to come to her parents in a timely manner and discuss her options before it’s too late–including, perhaps, adoption as an option rather than abortion? Some girls who might otherwise consider carrying their child to term may abort out of terror over what their parents may say or do when they find out she is pregnant. Has anyone thought of this scenario amidst all the “scientific” niceties of precisely when life begins?

    Similarly, I don’t think parents should be able to force their child to have a baby against her will, but neither should they force her to abort against her will. She was old enough to get preganant; it’s her body and her life; thus her decision. But this decision can sometimes be a tough one, and can be altered or delayed esp. if she doesn’t even know or is not certain she’s preganant in the first place til things are considerably far along.

    Again, for those who are pro-life–do you have to have the entire cake here? Can’t you countenance the fact that people have a legal right to legal and safe birth control and yes, even extramarital sex, if they choose? Do they have to stop having sex (an impossible goal) because you wish to shake your finger at them and tsk tsk them for being selfish and sinful? Do you want to establish a police state where people must register before they are allowed to have intercourse, or monitored in their bedrooms to make sure they are doing so in the “correct” way? How far do you intend to take this “holy” fight of yours? What country are you living in? Are we in the Middle East or the USA?

    Plus, the old “cast the first stone” rule applies here. Religious leaders who are sometimes cynically leading their “flock” are not always the best role models. How many of you are not aware that some of those who scream the loudest about abstinence are those who are later found to have had extramarital affairs?

    “Let he who is without sin…” Remember?

    OK, you’re now free to continue to argue around my comment and debate some more about when life begins, while already- born, unwanted babies continue to suffer at the hands of abusive parents who brought them life–and sometimes bring them death as well.

  • http://kevinsview.com/ Kevin Surbaugh

    It’s not “just say no” to sex it’s pre-marital/extra-maital sex. The concept of one woman on man thing.
    Also an interesting survey done by planned parenthood, which has them concerned because it showed that more women then men were pro-life. Despite their arguement that its a womans body, its actually men who don’t want to take responsibility for their actions using it. Most women as a whole support protecting the life of the unborn.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Kevin:

    Marital sex–the ONE woman/ONE man thing?

    OK, if that’s the case, let’s outlaw divorce. When you marry you vow to stick with your partner “for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health…

    Till DEATH do you part.”

    How many people who rail against extramarital sex have NEVER, ever engaged in it? Moreover, Is remarrying not engaging in sex with more than one woman or one man? Hey, just because it’s legal now doesn’t mean it’s moral, right? Who’s for abolishing divorce? Do I hear any takers?

    If I were to become a religious leader, my schtick would be–no divorce. No splitting up of families and traumatizing children with multiple mommys and daddys and stepsiblings. No screeching custody battles and latchkey children.

    Please supply, only if you care to, a direct quote (not from a right-wing source) which states that Planned Parenthood has become “concerned” about more women than men supposedly being pro-life–and an unbiased survey proving that more women are pro-life than men. Not that it means or proves much of anything to me, so never mind all the research.

    You said:
    “Despite their arguement that its a womans body, its actually men who don’t want to take responsibility for their actions using it.”

    My point exactly. How many unwed and abandoned mothers are out there, exactly? Just let the guys know when the party starts (and f#uck those condoms, they don’t feel as good) and I’m outta here when it’s over, babe….

  • Anthony Grande

    “The heart begins to beat at 18 days and by 21 days the heart is pumping through a closed circulatory system with a blood type different from that of the mother.”

    And they are not alive? Is this anough proof to call these heartless cowards “pro-death” yet?

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    “These heartless cowards”–“pro death”–I could say the same for some members of our current Administration.

    I think for some of you this hopelessly insolvable argument about when life begins blocks out all reason and logic about what might be done to stem the tide of “death.” I’ve posed some questions in the comment above, as I have before. For the most part, these questions have been ignored, because arguing about how all prolifers are pro death is much, much more simplistic and much more “fun.” It’s great, isn’t it, to know exactly who your evil enemies are both here and abroad, and to be willing to fight them to the death? Ever hear of divide and conquer? Americans are at each other’s throats over the abortion issue and the war, and it’s not a pretty sight.

    Kids like Anthony are too young to have experienced much of life’s grey areas, or to have much empathy or understanding for anyone who disagrees with their extremist rants. Thing is, those much older and “wiser” are right there behind him all the way.

    Some day kids like Anthony–if they survive serving in this war–may find themselves in a situational dilemma where their ideals are put to the test. This may even come during their time served–soldiers, despite their bravery, are not always known for their “cleancut” personal behavior in times of battle–meaning chastity and sobriety at all times. And who the hell could blame them? Anthony may even experience significant peer pressure to go a-drinkin and a-whorin with his new buddies. Will he resist the tempation and the possibly significant pressures to do so?

    Oh well, I may as well just piss in the wind. But it is again most interesting that no one has fully responded to my comment and questions posed above. That might take some reasoned thought rather than mindless ranting and name calling–which takes no more brains or experience to do than, say, playing a video war game.

  • Mark

    Okay Elvira, I’ll take a crack at your comments in 387. You’re reasoning is that it is unrealistic to think that people will never have extramartial or premarital sex again and unplanned pregnancy will be erradicated so we should plan instead for how to deal with these problems existing. My problem with this is that it makes less sense to me. It is always a better idea to eliminate the results by dealing with the cause of a problem. You dont just put the towel on the ground to mop up the water coming out of the sink, you shut off the faucet. I agree that it is not realistic to think that people will ever stop having extramarital sex, but it is also unrealistic to think that people will start to use birth control and contraception properly all the time, every time they have sex. Teenage people are pretty much going to continue to accidentally get pregnant, but the difference between us is that I dont feel its acceptable to allow them to make an innocent baby suffer for their mistakes.
    I would like to see abortion made illegal for this reason. It is unrealistic to think that no one ever will murder someone ever again, but I still think it is a good idea to encourage people not to and to have laws in place which will require people to face the consequences of their actions.
    Another point you made was that some unwanted babies are raped, tortured, abused and neglected, but isnt it true that some “wanted” babies are treated this way as well? Simply because not everyone who is a parent is the best parent does not mean that we can say that its unfair to force people to be parents on the off chance that they might not be good at it.
    Lastly you keep taking Bible quotes and throwing them in here and there to prove your points, but they dont always seem to fit. The “let he without sin” quote doesnt mean that we shouldnt try to tell other people when they are making mistakes, and it doesnt mean that only sinless people can tell others how to live. We are all sinners, but the Lord still wants us to help other people to get to heaven. Just because someone might be a hypocrite, doesnt mean that what they are saying isnt true. I could tell you that murder is wrong and then kill someone, but it doesnt mean that murder is right does it? Saying that I have no right to tell someone the truth, just because I have made mistakes in my life makes no sense.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Elvira writes,

    “Ruvy: Your bring up some interesting points, but I was a little amazed at your admission that if you were single you would be chasing women (and I can only assume the rest). If you are teaching your kids not to do this (are you) why would it be ok for you to do so? I know I’m assuming a lot here that you didn’t directly say, but I think you know what I mean. One of the many reasons I never became a parent is because parents are often stuck in the “do as I say, not as I do” quagmire.”

    I didn’t catch this is in looking at other posts and arguing there…

    In the ’70’s when I was single, it was a different world. Sex was “freer” because it didn’t have AIDS attached as a price. You didn’t get the sense that in sleeping with a woman, you were sharing all the viruses and diseases deposited by her previous lovers…

    Sleeping around was less of a “sharing” experience then.

    I didn’t always buy into the arguments I present now. I was quite a different person when I was younger.

    AND I’ve suffered through a divorce and all the sense of failure that it engendered, including being homeless for a year. I’m just very grateful that there were no kids from that first marriage.

    So when I was “in the market” for a second time, I had clear ideas as to what I wanted and didn’t want, and had no trouble with the “do as I say and not as I do” quagmire. The world had sufficiently changed that I felt justified in not raising my sons to act as I did.

    There is still no cure for AIDS.

    Frankly, if I were single now, I’d feel like a mere hanger of a man. If I had a girlfriend, it would be some consolation, but I would have felt that I had not fulfilled my responsibilities to my parents or my people.

  • Anthony Grande

    Comment 391,

    Uh…no. Just because your comment is long doesn’t mean it proves anything. Infact, your comment didn’t go anywhere.

    How do you know my stances on other issues besides abortion?

    And how does going drinking with my army buddies have anything to do with my pro-life stances?

    I am an extremeist? Can you tell explain to me how I am an extremist and you are not?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    No wonder I’m gay.

  • http://justajutsa.blogspot.com justine

    please don’t conflate “pro-life” and “liberal”.

    I think the issue is really about whether or not people have the right to come to their own conclusions about these things.

    Is a foetus a human? I don’t know.
    Would I ever have an abortion? No, never.
    Am I fundamentally opposed to abortion and would I deny other women ther choice? No.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Justine, NEVER say “never.”

  • Mark

    Justine….you can go ahead and say never whenever you want. especially when it comes to killing people.

  • http://latakia.dyndns.org/blosxom/blog Bob Uhl

    “BTW–the “morning after” emergency contracepton pill that everyone is so up in arms about–the pill that women can take shortly after unprotected sex–does not abort anything. It is commonly confused with the so-called “abortion pill,” which is an entirely different thing. Taken in a timely fashion, emergency contraception merely makes the womb unviable for sperm implantation. No more an abortion than using the Pill would be, but then, many members of the religous right apparently don’t believe that anyone should have protected extramarital sex at all.”

    Umm, do you realise that doesn’t make sense? Sperm don’t implant in the uterus–the child does (the sperm and egg meet in the fallopian tubes; the egg is fertilised by the sperm and the two become an embryo–that is, a brand-new human being). Now, plenty of embryos fail to implant for all sorts of reasons; that doesn’t make them any less human, any more than the fact that plenty of children die in their first year are still human.

    The name ’emergency contraception’ is a misnomer because conception occurs before implantation; emergency ‘contraception’ does nothing to act against conception that I know of.

    “Verily I say unto you: if you are an Orthodox Jew, don’t work in a pork store. If you are opposed to birth control, you have no business being a pharmacist. Try some holier line of work that doesn’t compromise your religious beliefs and moral scruples.”

    But surely an Orthodox Jew can be a butcher, just not selling pork products. And surely one opposed to contraception can be a pharmacist, just not one selling contraception.

    Personally, I’m unopposed to non-abortaficient contraceptives (e.g. condoms), but I see no reason to force people to choose between otherwise-attractive employment and their principles.

  • KYS

    Ok, so how do you propose we figure out which pharmacies will give out birth control? Should there be some kind of sign in the window? Maybe a condom covered penis with a line through it?

    Hey, now that we’re on the subject, why should a Jewish doctor work on a Muslim? Shouldn’t he be able to deny that patient? How do we work that situation out?

    While we’re at it, Christian teachers shouldn’t have to instruct Jews, right?

    It’s about tolerance, not judgement. Don’t work in the public sector if you only want to deal with people on your specific wavelength.

  • Anthony Grande

    If a Jew is really offended to have a Christian teaching him or her then this Jew should go to an all Jewish school.

    “Am I fundamentally opposed to abortion and would I deny other women ther choice? No.”

    Why is this always about the women? You wouldn’t deny the WOMAN her choice to kill, but you will deny the little HUMAN inside her life?

  • KYS

    “If a Jew is really offended to have a Christian teaching him or her then this Jew should go to an all Jewish school.”

    You’re missing the point. Again.

    This is not about the consumer (the student); this is about the service-provider. If you don’t want to teach a diverse student body you shouldn’t be teaching in a public school. Likewise, if you don’t want to serve the diverse medical needs of the population you shouldn’t be a public pharmacist- and you shouldn’t be licensed by the state to do so
    .

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Mark:
    I understand some of your reasoning, but I also think some of what you say weakens your arguement.

    I don’t think that encouraging birth control will totally eradicate unwanted births and abortion, but it probably will help. And since every life is precious, I think this is an endeavor worth pursuing.

    It is my belief that many so-called religious leaders who are caught with their pants down are very very greedy and often cynical souls whose goal is simply to take money out of guileless parisioner’s pockets.

    And I do think that being a hypocrite makes one less of a role model to follow–absolutely.

    You said:
    “The “let he without sin” quote doesnt mean that we shouldnt try to tell other people when they are making mistakes, and it doesnt mean that only sinless people can tell others how to live. We are all sinners, but the Lord still wants us to help other people to get to heaven. Just because someone might be a hypocrite, doesnt mean that what they are saying isnt true. I could tell you that murder is wrong and then kill someone, but it doesnt mean that murder is right does it? Saying that I have no right to tell someone the truth, just because I have made mistakes in my life makes no sense.”

    Yes, I agree to some extent with this. We are all “sinners”–for those who choose to use that word. But I also think that some people tend to “play G-d,” and if they are going to preach from the pulpit that extramarital sex is wrong they should serve as a proper role model themselves. Same goes for the camel passing through the needle’s eye passage as regards to greedy people who want to get into Heaven but want their “cake” of wealth as well. I think that some of these religious leaders twist around the words of Jesus to fit their own personal/political agendas.

    However, I do respect your opinions, and see what you are getting at. But once again, I feel that we are still on earth and not heaven; that we are all “sinners;” and it follows that people will still have extramarital sex unless we invoke some sort of sex-police state. Therefore, I think that if one can’t realistically oust what you see as the primary root cause that we should tackle the secondary issue, viz: in the interests of saving innocent lives/foetuses, birth control is a very viable option. People may still be sinning as we all do, but at least some innocent lives will be spared.

    I thank you for addressing my comments so thoughtfully and thoroughly.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Ruvy:
    Thank you for your comment #393.

    However, to my mind, there is an amazingly simple little device that can help prevent AIDS and other STD’s, unwanted pregnancies, and abortion to boot.

    It’s called a condom.

    Anthony:
    You may be right about my comments going nowhere, because very few people are willing to directly address them. Some are, but most are still too busy arguing about when life begins. This is fine, but I have posed some questions here that I think are worth addressing as well.

    I know that you are planning to join the army, and that you feel wholeheartedly you will be serving both G-d and country in doing so.

    Perhaps your views on chastity are not what I assumed considering your pro-life stance, but you did point out that underage drinking is illegal. Perhaps I deduced wrongly that you intended to wait until 21 or whatever the legal drinking age is to imbibe.

    If not, it is interesting to note that alcohol often causes people to compromise their actions and beliefs, including their sexual ones. They may not be thinking too hard about what a sexual encounter may lead up to in the heat of the moment. It can lead to pregnancy, and perhaps even abortion, and you may not be able to contol the latter, and thus to your mind this may make you an accessory to murder. Not that you are holding your partner’s hand at the abortion clinic, but it was your decision if you chose to have sex without a condom, and this can result in pregnancy AND possible abortion as well. If you have an encounter with a prostitute or other woman you will never see again, you will never know for sure if the woman in question will get pregnant and possibly abort your baby.

    Those who do not believe in birth control and find themselves in this dilemma might consider what it infers here.

    I think I have demonstrated at least to my satisfaction in my comments here why believe I am not an extremist. I think you have repeatedly demonstrated in many of your inflammatory comments why I believe you are. But then, this is an opinion piece, and I have a right to my opinion as you do yours.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Justine:
    Some people here seem to have a huge problem with the reasoning that although they are entitled to their personal choice re: if they themselves would have an abortion, it does not follow that their personal choice should be forced down everyone else’s throats.

    I have no idea why some people here would say “never say never.”

    Many thanks for your comment.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Silas:
    You’re gay? Shhhh…don’t say that too loud here (lol)!

    Bob:
    I admitted my “:ignorance” about the morning after pill, in terms of the fact that some would still consider it to be “abortion.”

    If you want to be a pharmacist who doesn’t dispense birth control, I guess you would have to find a Christian-run pharmacy. Otherwise, you are being paid to perform the duties included in your job description.

    You can be personally opposed to condoms, but they are perfectly legal, so you do not have the right to ask that they not be sold, or that people not use them. Your personal beliefs are yours; others are theirs.

    KYS:
    As always, superb reasoning.

    Anthony:
    KYS was talking about a doctor who might refuse to treat someone of another religious belief.

    When you get out in the real world, perhaps you will be a little less sure of yourself when it comes to your grand pronouncements.

    If you are going to war, do you not think it possible that you will be “denying life” to children who may be killed in the midst of war, however inadvertently?

  • JR

    Bob Uhl: Personally, I’m unopposed to non-abortaficient contraceptives (e.g. condoms), but I see no reason to force people to choose between otherwise-attractive employment and their principles.

    Hmmm, I think being in the military could be a great experience – you get to travel, you learn self-defence, you get trained on all kinds of cool equipment. But this bit about getting bossed around is total bullshit. Nobody has the right to order me to do stuff I don’t want to do. Otherwise, it’s an attractive career; so they should just let me join but exempt me from having to follow orders. I know I have better judgement than most of those officers anyway.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Bob:
    I apologize as I realize you said you are not opposed to condoms, but the rest of my statements still stand.

  • Mark

    Elvira, I just dont feel like my point is landing here. My feelings against contraception arn’t solely based in religious belief. You hold that more contraception will lead to fewer “unwanted children” and thus to fewer abortions. I suppose this makes sense in a certian logic. You are saying that people can have their cake and eat it too. It seems to me that this dilemma has been dealt with throughout the course of human history and it has been proven again and again that you cannot in fact have your cake and eat it to. Sex is beautiful and it is meant to express total love and vulnerability to that person you love. My proposal to simply encourage people to respect themselves and respect the people they love enough to wait until they are married doesnt seem overly far fetched. I’m 23, HOT and a virgin and it really wasnt all that hard once I was armed with the facts. By saying that you are “living in the real world” you are simply saying that you dont believe in humanity enough to give it some credit. I think we are special. I know that we can control ourselves and act like adults. If people are so immature that they want to just sleep with anything that moves and refuse to accept the consequences then I may have to change my views on the true nature of humanity, or maybe this is just another stage of Darwinian natural selection.

  • Mark

    Another point I had intended to make there was regarding your whole reasoning with the situation. You solution to having too many unwanted pregnancies was to simply provide more contraceptives. Back to my overflowing sink analogy, if you want to keep the floor dry, you dont keep throwing more and more towels on it, you shut off the faucet. If you dont want unwanted pregnancies, start telling people its okay not to have sex until your ready.

  • KYS

    Mark,

    How about we unplug the drain? That way, the water can run but the sink won’t overflow.

    Sorry, I got carried away with the analogy, but in all seriousness, why does it have to be either one way or the other? We need to provide information/choices/support for those who abstain AND those who want to have premarital sex with multiple partners. The prudes, the sluts and everybody in between should be free to make their own decisions.

    I’ve said before, human beings are physiologically ready to have sex at around 12 years old. That’s how god/nature made us. So…is it realistic to expect they will all wait until they get married? Heck no! So it’s a Mexican standoff. Will you continue your message of abstinence (Hello, McFly? it isn’t working!!)Or will you compromise and ENCOURAGE abstinence but include birth control education and availability for those who weigh the options and choose to have sex?

    If you say abstinence is the ONLY way, you should just take your ball and go home.

  • http://www.geocities.com/roseannesullivan Roseanne T. Sullivan

    Random thoughts about all these posts.

    The posts that scoff about the futility of expecting people not to go to bed outside of marriage are denying the reality that for ages it was understood in the majority of cultures that sleeping with another person is reserved for marriage(except for the occasional disfunctional cultures dug up by anthropologists looking for justifications for their own sexual immorality).

    Parents would protect their daughters from unprincipled men that would take their virginity and discard them. Decent fathers would advise their sons not to take advantage of women by seeking to have the thrill without being willing to give the love and commitment.

    Before the sexual revolution, the norms were different than they are now. When something is illegal or recognized as immoral, only those who are on the fringes are likely to do it. Most people live within the values of their society.

    Now everything is legal, and the consequences are horrible. I would argue that separating sex from conception and from love and that abortions are root causes behind child abuse, not the lack of available contraception or lack of access to abortion (which some claim). When love and child bearing and any inconveniences on our way to pleasure are perceived in such a negative light, then a child is seen as an object that can be abused when it interferes with our pleasure. Just as other people are seen as objects in the we live now.

    What we do to our children with this Brave New Morality is damage them. Instead of training our children with the training that went on for ages and ages that physical “knowing” of a member of the opposite sex belongs only in marriage, we encourage our young people not to “repress” themselves. We now teach that people are incapable of self control.

    The truth is that people that have sex outside of marriage are playing havoc with their normal feelings. They have to learn how to repress instead a whole other set of associated feelings that come with sexual union without love or commitment.

    The hatred of someone who “clings” or is “possessive” is part of that whole mindset. The real crime is to use without love, but in our society the natural feelings of jealousy, along with the desire to want to “own” or keep the other person in our life after we have given ourselves to that person in that most intimate of all acts, these natural feelings are perceived as being evil and we are taught to repress them.

    Liberals in these matters give their children permission to freely engage in a heartless coming of age ritual that in many ways is a mutilation of the soul and body that is equivalent to or even worse than genital mutilation.

    When a young woman and man have “sex,” for the first time, they enter into a physical union that for the health and happiness of them both belongs in a committed relationship. The consequences are harmful psychologically, physically, morally, and spiritually. Breaking up is hard to do.

    Learning how to manage the feelings is the rite of passage I’m speaking of, which is wrong because it teaches people to deny their real feelings in pursuit of an imagined freedom, which ironically often leads to slavery.

    Women are especially cheated of the full expression of their natural instincts with that kind of relationship. When I was growing up, future thinkers like Hugh Hefner and Isaac Asimov and Isaac Asimov dreamed of a world like we have now, where a person could have intercourse with a stranger without any ties. Women’s instincts are for child bearing and love of husband and children, but they are being taught the perversion of their natural instincts is for their good. Abortion, the violation of a woman’s natural feelings of love for the fruit of her womb, is for the convenience of people like Hefner, whose vision of freedom is freedom to use women who are always young, never dependent, never fertile, never inconvenient.

    Learning how to let go of someone with whom you have the sexual union is painful. Drugs and alcohol and meanness help dull the pain and guilt. Everyone acknowledges that when a “relationship” ends, it is like a little death. It can take six months or often a lifetime to recover from losing a person who is connected to you whether or not you want to admit the connection exists. Our society denies the connection exists, but that does not make it any less real.

    The person who is rejected (the dumpee) is always diminished in their sense of their own value. How can that other person have known me so deeply and found me unworthy of love?

    A lifetime of making and breaking these bonds has many evil consequences, and one of them is the people who are schooled in immoral sex find it very hard to make real and lasting commitments.

    They start with what used to be called love, and don’t call it love unless it suits them.

    It’s like we don’t call a baby in the womb a child unless it suits us. A man can be tried for killing an unborn child if he kills a pregnant mother, but society paradoxically says that for a woman to kill a baby in her own womb is not murder.

    Words used to deny the reality of love and of life are lies.

    Don’t laugh at the idea that you can avoid sexual disease and unwanted pregnancies by not having sex until marriage. Don’t forget that for ages upon ages humans understood the natural results of intercourse are both a permanent connection with the other person and the creation of new life.

    Just because birth control was invented doesn’t mean that it is a good thing for the human race. If a pill gets invented that reliably enables people to eat more than they need without the food being converted into bodily nutrition and fat reserves, that won’t make gluttony a good thing either.

    People bond because they do literally become one flesh, whether or not they even like each other. Separating from that bonding is traumatic, but people accept the pain because it’s part of the illusion of freedom that we value so highly. And when the person gets trained into lust separated from love, that person probably learns to be very cavalier about the pain that the pursuit of lust causes in their dealings with other people.

    Oh Mean New World that has such people in it.

  • KYS

    “The truth is that people that have sex outside of marriage are playing havoc with their normal feelings. They have to learn how to repress instead a whole other set of associated feelings that come with sexual union without love or commitment. ”

    Playing havoc? That’s quite an assumption on your part, I think. People can have loving, committed relationships that include sexual intimacy without marriage or children.

    “Learning how to let go of someone with whom you have the sexual union is painful. Drugs and alcohol and meanness help dull the pain and guilt. Everyone acknowledges that when a “relationship” ends, it is like a little death. It can take six months or often a lifetime to recover from losing a person who is connected to you whether or not you want to admit the connection exists. Our society denies the connection exists, but that does not make it any less real. ”

    Certainly, any breakup can be painful. But this is so whether or not a couple has sex. Breakups don’t have to be traumatic, however. Two healthy, well-adjusted adults should be able part ways gracefully when a relationship dies. I’m not sure what you mean by “connection”. Are you saying that sex bonds two people for life? I don’t think that is always the case. I certainly don’t feel bonded to any of my ex’s anymore.

    “Don’t laugh at the idea that you can avoid sexual disease and unwanted pregnancies by not having sex until marriage.’

    I’m not laughing! You’re absolutely right! But it’s not the ONLY choice. I don’t want to tell you how to live your life any more than I want you to tell me how to live my life.

  • KYS

    BTW, Congrats, Elvira- over 400 comments! Woo-hoo!

  • T A Dodger

    Rosanne:

    1. People can love each other without being married.

    2. Falling in love with someone does open you up to the possibility (certainty?) of intense pain. Very few people see this as a reason not to love others.

    3. Women who have premarital sex aren’t victims.
    Women enjoy sex. We enjoy sex just as much as men (after all, potential for multiple orgasms = “what’s not to like?”).

    4. Some women don’t want to have children (shocking, I know).

    5. People who don’t like children don’t make good parents.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Mark:
    I understand your reasoning, and think it is admirable for yourself. I just don’t think it is useful to deny the fact that in America, we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiiness–and yes, maybe even unhappiness if we “choose” to. If someone wants to engage in extramarital sex and theoretically experience all the pain and suffering that you imagine they go through, that is still their choice as human beings. There is no point in imagining that you will be able to convince the whole world otherwise, at least not at this juncture.

    So my reasoning is , in this imperfect world that we live in, what do we do to prevent abortions? Hide our head in the sand and wish things were different? Sure, we can advocate for chastity, but we can’t control what other adults choose to do.

    Since children and underage teens are not completely free to choose their lifestyle, parents can counsel them against premarital sex if they choose. But again, it’s simply not realistic to think you can parent the whole world.

    Like Anthony, you are very young. You may find as you get older that your ideals may or may not stand the test of time.

    As I’ve said before, plenty of people feel morally righteous about being serially monogamous as long as it is within the bounds of mulitple marriages. I think monogamy is monogamy. But I can’t change the marrige laws and demand that people bond for life.

    Condoms are legal, and I would be very incensed if someone told me I couldn’t use them if I chose to. I am an adult, which means I still have the freedom in this country to decide certain issues of morality for myself.

    In any case, I’m happy for you and wish you the best.

  • http://www.geocities.com/roseannesullivan Roseanne Sullivan

    KYS wrote: “People can have loving, committed relationships that include sexual intimacy without marriage or children.”

    TA Dodger wrote: People can love each other without marriage.

    But do they? WIthout marriage there is no real commitment. And love that is conditional on an emotion or thrill is not love. Love is an action. It’s being there for the other person sometimes even when they can not do us a bit of good.

    Gay “committed” couples I’ve met are promiscuous, with options for “relationships” on the side. If monogamous, their “committments” are usually short-lived.

    It’s the nature of sexual pleasure (when it is divorced from the bonding and the fruitfulness of engendering a child) to lead to disatisfaction. When the thrill is gone, the person looking for the thrill starts scanning the horizon for someone to regain the thrill with.

    If you are a committed heterosexual couple, why not marry? How many movies you see these days show the answer to that question: the person is hoping to find a better partner, and if a better catch comes along the “committment” will be over in a flash, even up to the moment the vows are being pronounced. Or later.

    Sure women enjoy intercourse. But they also enjoy being valued for more than orgasmic pleasure. Even the raunchiest woman I have ever met once expressed to me that she feels badly when a man breaks off with her. What she does, she told a group of us out for Mexican at Chili’s one noon time, that she goes out and picks someone up. Waiting to see if the man she has a one night stand with is going to call her keeps her from thinking about the loss of the first guy. For even this clearly “sex”-loving woman, the attachment is real and is painful if ended. This woman has since divorced her third husband. To me she is one of a large set of people I’ve known whose lives show that uncommitted unions lead to an inability to commit.

    Intercourse has a biological function and a psychological function, and but the philosophers of sex like Hugh Hefner who helped bring about the overthrow of morality like to pretend it is just an isolated act.

    The way we live now:

    People are denying the natural law built into their own bodies.

    Yes, I’m saying that a bond is created with sexual union, whether or not you like the person or not. Whether or not you are “just using” (what a horrible phrase) that man or woman.

    If a woman or a man doesn’t want marriage or children, that person should not engage in intercourse, because the natural outcome of the act of what used to be called love is bonding for life and children.

    If you really love someone you don’t do things that damage them. Having sex outside of marriage is skimming the cream off the top and tossing the rest of the person aside. You are taking that person out of the full context of what they are. You are not building a life with that person and with the to-be-expected lives that are to be born of that union. Everything is conditional, even if you “love.” We all know how fast “love” can disappear.

    And all of a sudden a conceived child becomes “a by product of conception” instead of a human being. We have made sex our god, and we see that any consequences of worshipping sex are to be endured stoically because they serve the highest goal of life, which is to be free and to have as many orgasms as possible.

    Do you know how much you have been brainwashed by the culture you were raised up in? The set of beliefs seem to me to be unreasoned and embraced blindly. THere is no right to have sex. Even for something as mundane as driving is not allowed to people who will not do it responsibly. You don’t give someone a car unless they are licensed to drive.

    “I don’t want to tell you how to live your life any more than I want you to tell me how to live my life.”

    The Department of Motor Vehicles tells us how to live our lives.The people that make traffic laws tell us how to live our lives. The laws of physics tell us how to live our lives: If you crash into something because you are speeding you hurt yourself and others. These constraints on our freedom are to be desired.

    In the same way, by nature intercourse is designed for a purpose and harm comes when the purpose is denied. There are laws about how to live our sexual lives that are for our own good. Sure I want to tell you how to live your life, because it is for your health and happiness. But if you want to keep driving 85 miles an hour without a seat belt four sheets to the wind, don’t say I didn’t warn you. And if I can, I will try to get your license taken away before you kill yourself or someone else.

    There are many people who won’t obey any laws because they don’t want compromise their freedom. But they are risking a lot.

    Freedom is not being free from constraints. Freedom is being free to choose to do the right thing.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Roseanne:

    You say:
    “The posts that scoff about the futility of expecting people not to go to bed outside of marriage are denying the reality that for ages it was understood in the majority of cultures that sleeping with another person is reserved for marriage(except for the occasional disfunctional cultures dug up by anthropologists looking for justifications for their own sexual immorality)”

    I am not an expert on this by any means, but I am certain that even in cultures which officially condoned monogamy and marriage, people still did engage in extramarital sex. In some ages and in some cultures, it was simply done more circumspectly. And yes, in my parent’s generation the divorce rate was much lower. But extramarital and premarital sex did take place.

    I am actually with you on a lot of what you say. My personal experience was that in college I had a series of short term relationships and felt cheapened and cheated ultimately because the men did not feel as I did about commitment. But I considered it one of the lessons of growing up, and before graduation I met a man I would stay with for twenty years, though we never married or had children.

    And yes, I do think that the sexual revolution was in some ways a disservice to women. I do think that sex for sex’s sake can lead to heartbreak and alienation and despair for some–and that women as a rule are more vulnerable to this.

    However, I still think it is a woman’s choice. If she chooses to sleep with a guy on the first date, or the tenth date, or wait until marriage, that is her choice. She will, to use a tired cliche, make her own bed and have to sleep in it.

    But again, there are women who wait til marriage, have children, a beautiful home, and at the age of 30 or 40 or 50 discover that their beloved husband has been having an affair and wants a divorce. It is simply a sad fact that people do not always mate for life. Personally, I am a romantic and think it very sad when children have to endure the upheaval of divorce. But this is something that noone here has addressed as yet.

    Those commenters here who are young and idealistic have never experienced what a long term relationship is. They idealize sex as a spiritual bond, and in the first flush of young passion this is certainly the case. But for many couples, this romantic phase soon passes, and some look for that thrill elsewhere. In fact, millions do. I’m not saying this is “right”–just a fact of life and relationships, at least in our contemporary society.

    There are and have been some societies also where a man may have multiple wives, or harems, or mistresses and this is considered the norm. Sad? Unfair? Perhaps–but it is reality, even if it is not always pretty.

    Nevertheless, your points are well taken. Young women in particular often go through agony trying to please a man sexually only to be taken advantage of and dumped unceremoniously. However, it is up to each individual to decide for themselves how they will deal with this dilemma. They can choose to wait for marriage if they feel that is best for them. Again, I think this is admirable–just not the way for everyone.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    KYS:
    Thanks–who knew? (lol).
    I value your comments here as the eloquent voice of reason.

    T.A. Dodger:
    Well put.

    JR:
    Touche!

    Roseanne:
    I guess you and I were writing our comments at the same time, and your second one came out before my first one did–or something (lol). I’ll read your second one and probably add my two cents again.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Roseanne:

    I understand why you believe what you do, but it is not illegal to have sex outside of marriage, and you are not the sex police.

    I do not believe that people must have children or even marry if they choose not to. As I said, I never wanted children and had a committed 20 year relationship, with no cheating on either side, through good times and bad. Many people go through three marriages and multiple children in that time. A piece of paper does not a lifetime commitment make, and people break their marriage vows every day.

    The implications of what you say are frankly a bit alarming to me. Would you outlaw extramarital sex? That may be acceptable in some other cultures–but not in ours, and I thank heaven for that.

    Live your life as you see fit–enjoy–even advocate for what you believe in. But this is not a fascist dictatorship, and you have no right to figuratively stand by my bedside and dictate who and when and why and with whom I choose to have sex. You may not like it, but that’s just the way it is.

  • Mark

    Roseanne, you rock. I appreciate you eloquence and your ability to stay on point, I tend to tangent. I just hope you feel good knowing that you did your best and placed the truth out there in front of them in a very plain and accessible fashion. Choice is an interesting thing, it seems as though these days people would rather allow the possibility of making the wrong choice over and over instead of ensuring themselves the chance to make the right choice every time. Freedom means making decisions right? (small tangent here for those using the rights clause of the constitution when the founders wrote “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” life means LITERALLY, your life, meaning they cant kill you *coughbabiescough*, liberty means PHYSICAL freedom, meaning they cant take away your ability to move freely without just cause and the pursuit of happiness is NOT a catchall.) When people choose something they are trying to get to what they think is good. But we know man is fallible and thats why sometimes when we choose something we think is good it turns out not to be. However, if we can identify the all-good i.e. God, then since He is always good and nothing can ever be seen as better than Him then we still have the ability to make a choice but since we are going to go with what we identify as the greatest good then we are always going to choose God, so we really are in a sense both not-free and totally-free at the same time. take a breath.

  • Katie

    I LOVE YOU! I agree with you enough said!

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Roseanne said:
    “In the same way, by nature intercourse is designed for a purpose and harm comes when the purpose is denied. There are laws about how to live our sexual lives that are for our own good. Sure I want to tell you how to live your life, because it is for your health and happiness. But if you want to keep driving 85 miles an hour without a seat belt four sheets to the wind, don’t say I didn’t warn you. And if I can, I will try to get your license taken away before you kill yourself or someone else.”

    Where are you writing from, Roseanne? I assumed it was from the US, but maybe it’s from–say–Saudi Arabia?

    Mark said:
    “I just hope you feel good knowing that you did your best and placed the truth out there in front of them in a very plain and accessible fashion.”

    Who’s this “them,” Mark? The heathens you must convert the way the Christian soldiers did during the Inquisition? Is that what you mean about placing the truth in front of “them?”

    The truth, straight up, for real? You two scare the living shit outta me.

  • KYS

    “There are laws about how to live our sexual lives that are for our own good. ”

    Can you define these laws, please?

  • Bennett

    If I might cut to the chase about Roseanne’s “time honored” and “traditional values throughout history” bit.

    You ignore the reality that right up to 100 years ago, marriages happened between teenagers, and that you were an “old maid” if you were single and childless at 20.

    We now ask our kids to put off for five to ten years, what used to take place at ~16. While subjecting them to ever increasing amounts of sexual stimulation.

    We are actually in complete and insane violation of “time honored”.

    Please explain how we should deal with this perversion of traditional values?

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Bennett and KYS:

    To quote Katie (comment 422 above):

    “I LOVE YOU! I agree with you enough said!”

    Heh heh….

  • Mark

    Elvira, what country do you live in? You seem so outraged by what Roseanne said about wanting to prevent people from harming others by having laws in place that punish people making bad choices. To this you responded that she must be living in Saudi Arabia, which seemed strange to me because here in the US we have hundreds of laws which tell you which choices you can and cant make. Why is it that you think only the middle east has a state where the people are told what they can and cannot do.

    As far as the “them” go, I was talking about everyone on this forum in the pro-choice camp, it would have taken too long to list them all and I didnt want to say heathens because some of those people are actually Christian. BTW the Inquisition, which is what the world has come to use as a reference point any time someone stands up for their religious beliefs, has been totally misrepresented in the common mindset. During the Inquisition, only those who were baptized members of the Catholic church were brought in, and they were only brought in if they were actively teaching heresy. The numbers have been blown totally out of proportion as well, during the entirety of the Inquisition only a few hundred, less than five hundred people were actually executed. Those that were executed were given YEARS to come around and to stop teaching in opposition to the Church. They were only executed because it is better to protect the many from being led into sin by eliminating one. But they were given every opportunity to recant. I love how pissed off this is going to make you. You dont scare me….you make me sad.

  • Mark

    Why dont people ever reference the Muslims who swept across northern africa and even pushed east and into Europe converting truely by the sword who killed literally hundreds of thousands of people. I’m tired of people only identifying Catholics as being the only religion to use execution to protect the integrity of their beliefs. However, while in Catholicism it was a sad period of religious corruption, in the Muslim religion it is one of the central tenets of their religon.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Mark:

    Why is it that 20-something virgins (HOT or not) and priests (celibate or not) think they know enough about the sex act and what it entails to tell the rest of the world how, why, when and if to engage in it?

    ” I didnt want to say heathens because some of those people are actually Christian.”

    AHA! Gotcha! Well, I’m a heathen then I guess–being a Jew and all. Do you wanna see my horns too?

    “Why dont people ever reference the Muslims…”

    Who do you think I was referring to when I mentioned Saudi Arabia?

    “You seem so outraged by what Roseanne said about wanting to prevent people from harming others by having laws in place that punish people making bad choices.”

    So sex is a “crime” for which people must be “punished” for their “bad choices”–by your rules at least? Ever hear of separation of church and state? If you’re talking abortion , that’s at least debatable–if Roe v. Wade is overturned then we’re talking actual law.

    I’d like to know specifically what kind of punishment you have in mind and for what offenses–having sex outside of wedlock? If so, how would you propose to punish these people? Can you spell fascism?

    “BTW the Inquisition, which is what the world has come to use as a reference point any time someone stands up for their religious beliefs, has been totally misrepresented in the common mindset. During the Inquisition, only those who were baptized members of the Catholic church were brought in, and they were only brought in if they were actively teaching heresy.”

    Methinks you are rewriting history, and even if you’re not, there’s plenty of other examples of religious terrorism by Christians. The Crusades, the pogroms in Eastern Europe, etc etc. etc etc etc……..

    As a Jew, I do not tell others how to worship. However, I am beset by “Christians” of all stripes who want to tell me that they know the light and the way. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jews for Jesus, people banging on my boyfriend’s door as if the apartment is on fire to “talk about the bible” with me, and on and on and on. It’s a total, total turnoff, but we do have free speech in this country, thank goodness. But make no mistake: this is not a “Christian” country, despite the fact that the majority of its citizens may be Christian (and there are myriad different branches, most of whom do not see eye to eye on all matters of faith). Exactly what would you propose be done with a Jewgirl heathen such as me?

    “You dont scare me….you make me sad.”

    You not only scare me and make me sad, but you make me mad as hell to boot.

    As far as rules, I like the Golden Rule, myself. Covers a lot of ground.

    Oh Ruvy in Jerusalem, where are you when I need you?

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Mark:

    Do you have any idea how maniacal you sound when you try to get all “medieval” on my Jewish ass?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Elvira, I may disappoint you, just a bit.

    Roseanne Sullivan has taken up many of my cudgels – and Bennett has given a pointed response to them. I’ll leave it there.

    Mark is right about the Inquisition. Baptized Catholics were brought before it to be purified – and to be tortured to rat on others who were not practicing according to the politically or religiously corrrect mantras of the day in Spain, Italy, Mexico, Brasil, and everywhere else that the Catholic church had official status.

    What Mark omits is that the people brought before the Inquisition were Jews who were forcibly baptized. Slick, eh? Then there are all those expuslions by Christian rulers of Jews after squeezing every last mark or louis d’or out of them. Mark doesn’t mention that, though you can bet that the boys with the cassocks were pressuring the princes and kings to do the expelling and supplying them with data so as to make the exulsions as painful and as hurtful as possible.

    The expulsions of Jews from England, Spain and France all were timed to take place on one day – Tish’á b’Av, the day the Temple had been destroyed in Jerusalem. Do you think this was coincidental? I have some beautiful acres of Arizona seacoast to sell you if you do.

    By contrast, the Moslems were much less brutal and genocidal – for a long time, anyway. But in the end, when their own empires were swallowing their own vomit, they were as bad as the Christians.

    Having lived with Christians hustling their religions down everybody’s throat and having learned the assorted ways of giving all these fools the middle finger they deserved, I fully understand how you feel.

    But Elvira, you need to realize that we Jews have our own task – to teach the Seven Commandments of Noah. And we’ve been slacking off on the job for two millennia.

    Christianity and Islam in particular, have mostly been interim solutions until we Jews get our own act together to do what OUR job is.

    Something for you to ponder.

  • Mark

    When did we stop talking about abortion? thats why ive been saying you shouldnt kill people all this time. i dont care if you have sex, get an STD, die and rot in hell. Sorry to disappoint.

  • KYS

    Mark,

    On another thread you seem to care deeply about “genital herpes, gonorrhea, AIDS, prostitution, pedophilia, pornography, etc.”

    I submit that education is the best weapon against unwanted pregnancy and everything else you’ve mentioned. NOT an abstinence-only agenda.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    Ruvy:

    Thank you! I can wholeheartedly agree with nearly all that you said. As far as the mention of teaching the Seven Commandments of Noah–I recall reading a piece you wrote which talked about this, but I need to re-read and/or get more info.

    Offhand, it sounded like it might be prosteletyzing to other faiths, which as I said rubs me the wrong way. The only public instances I’ve ever encountered of Jews trying to actively bring others to the fold is when they approach people around Purim, ask if they’re Jewish, and invite them into their vans to pray. But that’s just reaching out to their own who have, in their eyes at least, fallen astray.

    Thanks again, Ruvy!

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com/ Elvira Black

    KYS:
    Somehow it doesn’t exactly shock me to learn that Mark has visited other forums spreading his heartfelt message of tolerance and goodwill far and wide. Good one.

    Mark:
    “When did we stop talking about abortion? thats why ive been saying you shouldnt kill people all this time.”

    You have GOT to be kidding. Your own words in the earlier comments you’ve left–and your frenzied cheerleading of Roseanne and her harsh yet ill defined brand of religious frontier justice–remain here, alive and well, to mock you.

    “i dont care if you have sex, get an STD, die and rot in hell. Sorry to disappoint.”

    Of course you don’t care, now that you know I’m Jewish. After all, I’m doomed to rot in hell anyway, aren’t I now?

    Disappoint? Sicken and disgust is more like it.

    Buh bye now. Don’t let the comment box hit you in the ass on the way off my post–which is entitled, BTW, “Pro-life or anti-sex?” and not “pro-life or pro-choice?” for good reason.

  • KYS

    Elvira,

    LOL! Silly commenters, they think they won’t be seen trying to change their spots on other threads!

  • Mark

    Yeah, KYS you need to read words more carefully and sound them out. take your time. c’mon, you can do this. I never said anything about STDs in that other thread, it was some guy named Howard. H-O-W-A-R-D. I know both our names have an A and an R right next to each other, but this is why sight reading is such a dangerous thing for our society to encourage. Hooked on Phonics worked for me.

  • KYS

    Mark,

    You are absolutely right, and I owe you an apology! Thanks for the correction.

    However, feel free to stuff the sarcasm.

    😉

  • http://www.google.com Scott^Pro-Life4-Ever

    Mark, in 353 you said it PERFECTLY!!!

    I want to add though, that the reason we call ourselves “Pro-Life” is because we believe that abortion is murder, and murder is wrong. I know that that sounds simple to some and to some it sounds confusing. The reason is because we continue to try and make arguments on how abortion is murder, but those people who are not Christians don’t truly see the reason why. I will clearly say that without Christ, you will not see the light and the truth. THIS is because otherwise someone could make the argument that Murder is okay. There has will clearly one-day be a large liberal group of people that are anti-christian supporters*(maybe they already exist) and believe that murder and rape and lying and sex outside of marriage is okay. BUT that is where they will go wrong. The reason abortion was illegal at one time is because Christ was in America and Was America. Now we want to take “God” out of our schools, continue to keep him out of Government policy and look where we are going. I think it is possible for someone to say they don’t believe in abortion and be a non-christian, but I don’t believe they would have any valid whole-hearted argument to back it up if they do not have Christ in their heart.

  • http://www.google.com Scott^Pro-Life4-Ever

    Mark AGAIN, Wonderful argument and perfectly stated in #362. I enjoy that fact that your statements are so true and factual. They further encourage my quest to have abortion illegalized as do many other good Christians. I just wanted to say again to all those people who “think” that Pro-lifers are against any choice in the personal matters. The choice is and ALWAYS will be yours in everything you do in life. We are not against the right to choose, we are just against the legal option that doing so has no repercussions. As stated by Mark before, you can kill somoene if you choose to do so, but you will go to jail, and possibly even have a death sentence. That’s what we are advocating; putting the law in its place.

  • http://www.google.com Scott^Pro-Life4-Ever

    Redtard, #363 is a very good argument again showing how the government already puts the man who took part in creating that baby in his place and makes him take responsibility for his actions. NOW we need to do the same for the women who decide to have sex outside of marriage and tell her it is illegal to have an abortion, so the only reasonable option is to have the child and deal with her actions appropriately by upbringing her child or by putting her baby up for adoption if she or the father or one of her family members cannot properly take care of the baby.

  • KYS

    Scott,

    The facts of conception stand within and without the teachings of the bible. So, what is your view of contriception?

  • http://www.geocities.com/roseannesullivan Roseanne Sullivan

    Is this thread dead? I’ve been tied up.

    Mark and others, thanks for seeing my points.

    The laws against doing things that harm yourself and others and your society are those of the ten commandments and the Bible.
    Our society has lost trust in God’s loving care for them, and many have elevated selfishness to a new law.

    Jesus didn’t have to preach against fornication (any kind of sex outside of marriage) because it was clearly understood that it was an abomination.

    I have to go to work, so I can’t elaborate much, but I want to give you a quote from EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network)’s 25th anniversary celebration in San Francisco on Jan. 28 and 29. A priest who identified himself as a member of the JP II (John Paul II) generation gave a great talk. He said that the JP II generation has followed orthodox Catholic teachings because they have seen the effects of the sexual revolution (actually sexual deformation) of our society. He called it “The A bomb that hit the family.”

    I having been planning for years to write a book called “The Casaulties of the Sexual Revolution.” I may still do it.

    Elvira, I feel badly for you that you had to go through the horrible rite of initiation of being used by men in college who were hiding behind the jargon of “not sharing your idea of commitment.” I had the same experience, like millions of other women.

    Just think that there once was a time when society protected women from that kind of exploitation, instead of encouraging them to seek it out. Hugh Hefner would approve.

    It is good that you had a 20 year relationship. Too bad it wasnt’ an actual marriage with all that implies. And too bad you were not allowed to fully experience all of your sexual nature by being allowed to let the sex act bear its natural fruit.

    Sure people had sex outside of marriage, but they were the lawbreakers not the average person. To my mind, if you legalize something you normalize it. For example, if we ever legalize pot smoking, we will have pot cafes as they do in Amsterdam. Some with heroin, and heroin addiction will become the norm.

    Cohabitation (living together without marriage), even sharing a hotel room with a member of the opposite sex if you weren’t married used to be illegal. Interfering with the natural outcome of the union between man and woman with contraception was also seen as the evil that it really is. These “choices” harm people.

  • Danny

    I’m a mild mentally retarded, learning disabled, epilepsy, diabetes. i beleive some people with certain disabilities should get sterilized because since i’m mentally retarded i went a got a vasectomy because i’m not capable of raising children. there r a lot of people with disabilities that can’t even take care of themselves. i can hardly take care of myself now and i am 50 year’s old.

  • oen

    #363 is a very good argument again showing how the government already puts the man who took part in creating that baby in his place and makes him take responsibility for his actions. NOW we need to do the same for the women who decide to have sex outside of marriage and tell her it is illegal to have an abortion, so the only reasonable option is to have the child and deal with her actions appropriately by upbringing her child or by putting her baby up for adoption if she or the father or one of her family members cannot properly take care of the baby.

  • http://vasectomyreversal.blogsavy.com/vasectomy-reversal-costs/ Lori

    I see no problem in peopl getting surgeries as birth control. I think though that abortion should be outlawed!!

  • padric price

    I would just like to say that you do “pro-lifers” a disservice by grouping us all together with the religious fanatics. I am both avidly pro-life and avidly atheist. I agree with you about how ridiculous it is when Catholics say we should all just avoid sex outside marriage. It is their attempt to force their superstitious beliefs down the thoughts of the whole country. I think Catholics are foolish to condemn both contraception and abortion. My pro-life position prompts me to be very supportive of contraception. It is common sense, no pregnancy no abortion. Although I am not religious I do believe that people should be a accountable for their mistakes. If, In a time when contraception is both legal and available, you foolishly choose to have unsafe sex, you need to accept responsibility for it. Making a mistake does not give you the right to murder.