Should there Be a Stigma to Abortion?
I admit that I find stories like this intensely troubling.
One hundred thousand people have watched Angie Jackson’s abortion. Late last month, Jackson posted a video of herself to YouTube, recorded after she took RU-486, a medication used to end pregnancies. “I found out about a week ago, Saturday, that I was pregnant,” the 27-year-old mom from Florida explains in the two-and-a-half minute clip. “For a variety of reasons, including very high health risks for me, I’m having an abortion. Right now.” Jackson also tweeted her experience, detailing the cramps and bleeding she experienced.
Jackson says in the video that she wants to “demystify abortion,” to show it’s “not that bad, not that scary.”
There was a time when everyone seemed to agree that abortion should be rare. Now we are moving into an era where women are practically bragging about it. It’s a disgusting moral stance. For example, take this snippet:
Like one woman who terminated a pregnancy when she learned her baby would have Down syndrome. “I don’t look at it as though I had an abortion, even though that is technically what it is,” she told the New York Times. “There’s a difference. I wanted this baby.”
Bullshit. She didn’t want that baby. She killed it. She wanted a baby that didn’t have Down syndrome. Perhaps next time she will want a son instead of a daughter. Will she make the same choice?
Or this:
That same year T shirts with the straightforward declaration “I had an abortion” made frequent appearances at pro-choice walks and rallies after Planned Parenthood sold them through its Web site. “People are upset to be confronted by a real person who has had an abortion as opposed to thinking about it as an abstract issue,”
I don’t know anyone who opposes abortion who thinks of it as an abstract issue. In fact, when I was pro-choice (yes, there was a time), it was an abstract issue for me. Now it’s anything but abstract. Frankly, those who brag and celebrate the fact that they had an abortion are repulsive to me.
Frankly, those who brag and celebrate the fact that they had an abortion are repulsive to me.
Agreed.
Posted by Brandon on March 15, 2010 at 1709 hrs
Abortion is sad. In itself, there’s nothing to brag about or cheer about. However, abortion has context. That context in the United States is that there are a lot of people who want to take away women’s choice to have one or not. As sad and distasteful as abortion is, many of us recognize that not having the choice would be far uglier and more regrettable. Therefore, you see people who recognize this fact being proactive and in-your-face about their abortion experience, in order to hearten others of like mind who value having this choice.
Posted by scott on March 15, 2010 at 1749 hrs
I realize the baby is not mentally capable of making the “choice” to be aborted or not, so who is going to advocate then, Scott? Just wondering? A public display of innocent murderous acts, i.e., lynching, abortion, euthanasia, are disgusting and shameful. This “mom” is absent of morals and sound judgement. Her pitiful and disturbing display of abortion as a commonplace, hangnail-type procedure is nothing more than a Planned-Parenthood-style minimization of the truth - murder. Baby murder.
Posted by GAMazy on March 15, 2010 at 1804 hrs
She wanted a baby that didn’t have Down syndrome. Perhaps next time she will want a son instead of a daughter.
These are not the same thing, and your attempt to connect them is sophomoric and careless.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 15, 2010 at 2154 hrs
as sad and distasteful as abortion is
If it’s nothing more than a lump of tissue, then why is it sad? Are you sad when you have a wart removed? It too was alive.
These are not the same thing, and your attempt to connect them is sophomoric and careless.
They are exactly the same. She wanted the right baby, and that wasn’t it for her. Maybe the next one will have a cleft? Kill that one too? Hm, it would leave a scar and be extra work… yeah, flush it. Wrong sex? Wrong hair color? Why should I have one that’s less than perfect? I mean, having a baby is all about the parent, isn’t it?
That same year T shirts with the straightforward declaration “I had an abortion” made frequent appearances at pro-choice walks
About as appropriate as wearing an “I drove the bulldozer” shirt, or a “Proud to be a retired Dachau guard” hat at a Holocaust remembrance. Simply disgusting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 15, 2010 at 2205 hrs
Would she have taken RU486 had she known it was a Downs syndrome fetus? Has technology given us the ability to correct God’s little mistakes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 15, 2010 at 2206 hrs
If it’s nothing more than a lump of tissue, then why is it sad?
If it’s a human being like you and me, why are you not at the abortion clinic using lethal force to stop it?
Posted by scott on March 15, 2010 at 2309 hrs
If it’s a human being like you and me, why are you not at the abortion clinic using lethal force to stop it?
Because people like you have made legal force lethally illegal.
Posted by GAMazy on March 15, 2010 at 2347 hrs
lethal force
Posted by GAMazy on March 15, 2010 at 2348 hrs
These are not the same thing, and your attempt to connect them is sophomoric and careless.
She aborted a child because of a trait it had… How is that any different than aborting a daughter in favor of a son? There is nothing sophomoric about it, it is a logical extension of the situation.
That context in the United States is that there are a lot of people who want to take away women’s choice to have one or not
That’s all well and good, but the constitutional device by which this “choice” is supported is tenuous and impermanent. There are always going to be people on both sides of this issue, and some in the middle. The fact of the matter is that Roe v. Wade took a subject governed by the tenth amendment, and turned it into an issue of the “penumbra” of the first, fourth, and fifth amendments. We didn’t need the court to create a stretched reality of the constitution when the constitution already provides the individual states the ability to grant a right to privacy, or allow abortion….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 0635 hrs
If it’s a human being like you and me, why are you not at the abortion clinic using lethal force to stop it?
Are you inciting to violence? Tsk Tsk. Is that how you solve problems in your part of town? I sure hope your neighbor returns that borrowed lawnmower on time… or it’s glock glock for him, eh? Or maybe just a bat to the knees for a lesser offense?
People ARE fighting against this Scott… lot’s of them. There are even a few members of the Democrat Party that hold to the belief that we are killing when we abort.
As science advances and we learn more about the life and development of a fetus (I use fetus to mean preborn human, not wart like lump of parasitic tissue), abortion becomes less and less popular with thinking people. It’s become some sort of weird political and moral football for folks on the left, but in the end, there is no evidence that abortion is ever more than very rarely a medical necessity. Mostly it’s a matter of convenience… the baby dies because I don’t want it.
You can blather on about reproductive rights, but liberals always sound hypocritical when they discuss rights and liberty. When it comes to stripping away the fruits of our labor, regulating our daily lives, or even telling us what kind of car to drive, what sort of light bulbs we may use, which doctor we may see, or what kind of food we can eat, then you have no problem sticking your big government noses into our bodies and lives. Killing babies might be the only thing you folks will allow choice on anymore. How pitiful.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 0910 hrs
If it’s a human being like you and me, why are you not at the abortion clinic using lethal force to stop it?
If I was to compile a Top 10 Worst Pro-Choice Arguments list, this would be a real contender. Recognizing that we’re a nation of laws that settles disputes via law has no more bearing on pro-lifers today than it did on Abraham Lincoln, who opposed slavery yet took heat from slavery apologists and radical abolitionists alike because he would not violate the Constitution to end it.
And fortunately, Family Guy is right about abortion support declining:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/Generational-Differences-Abortion-Narrow.aspx?CSTS=tagrss
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 16, 2010 at 0936 hrs
Also, if we carry the logic of your statement to its logical conclusion, you’d almost have to have more respect for the man who killed George Tiller than you do for the average peaceful pro-lifer. Now that‘s messed up.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 16, 2010 at 0938 hrs
Sweden already allows abortion for gender selection.
So, comparing aborting a baby for its gender to aborting for Down Syndrome isn’t such a great leap.
I mean, we should make the US more like Europe, right? Because of their liberal and progressive awesomeness with their social programs, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 0947 hrs
Are you inciting to violence? Tsk Tsk.
you’d almost have to have more respect for the man who killed George Tiller than you do for the average peaceful pro-lifer.
It’s pretty simple, guys. If you believe—as you say you do—that a 3 month fetus is the legal and moral equivalent of a toddler, then you would either a) be storming the abortion clinic like Rambo to kill the murderous individuals who work there, or b) you’re a pathetic coward who wouldn’t risk his life to save roomfuls of innocent children from death.
Of course there is a third explanation: You do know that 3 month old fetuses are not the moral and legal equivalent of you and me.
Does that mean I have more “respect” for George Tiller’s murderer than the peaceful pro-life protester? Not at all. I simply recognize that his actions are at least consistent with his stated beliefs—yours aren’t.
Posted by scott on March 16, 2010 at 0950 hrs
It’s pretty simple, guys
Yeah, I’d say simple describes this new argument.
Did you agree with the Iraq war? Did you rise in armed insurrection to prevent it? Is this really the way you lose logic to convince yourself you are right on abortion? Try and get a grip, Scott.
I simply recognize that his actions are at least consistent with his stated beliefs—yours aren’t.
Are you implying that I should commit murder to prevent murder? That’s consistent to you?
you’re a pathetic coward who wouldn’t risk his life to save roomfuls of innocent children from death.
Apparently Gandhi, Martin Luther King, the Polish Solidarity workers, the East German Monday Demonstrators, and the Tiananmen Square democracy marchers are all pathetic cowards in your world.
You live in a very unpleasant place, my friend. While i understand that it’s the Democrat way to institute change by force, I’d prefer to do it the way more along the traditions of those I listed above. It’s a much more palatable crowd for me.
This bizarre new stab at circular logic has really taken you off the edge,. If that’s the way you view important issues, then you are rather a loose cannon. Let’s hope you are just thoughtlessly talking out your arse rather than the alternative.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1014 hrs
It’s pretty simple, guys. If you believe—as you say you do—that a 3 month fetus is the legal and moral equivalent of a toddler, then you would either a) be storming the abortion clinic like Rambo to kill the murderous individuals who work there, or b) you’re a pathetic coward who wouldn’t risk his life to save roomfuls of innocent children from death.
... and you’d be in Iraq and Gitmo defending the islamists. Fact is Scott is a monster, without conscience. What a cess pool of inhuman, barbaric, cowardly thoughts his mind is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1213 hrs
I’m not so sure about the evil cesspool part. I think Scott (and many of the other educated elitist type liberals who walk these halls) is a college indoctrinated progressive. His professors were likely personable, well spoken far left-leaners, and from their clean well paid lecterns, they spouted without retort. The little minds gobbled up the well organized and one sided material, and off they went into the real world. Some collided with reality and realized all that they had been told wasn’t so. Some stuck to their guns because rationalization is one of the strongest human drives. Some went to professions that insulated them from the hard truths and surrounded them with like minded “free thinking” progressives. Scott is of the latter two types, I should suppose.
So. not evil at heart… just happily on the progressive laudanum. Of course, much evil work is often done by people who believe they are being benevolent to others…. it’s for their own good, you see… they NEED us.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1226 hrs
Once again, Scott presents an argument so mind-blowingly stupid that I have to sincerely question whether he actually believes it, or if he just makes stuff up as he goes along, throwing it everywhere and seeing what sticks, just because that’s the kind of guy he is.
Since your position apparently seems to be, “everyone who sees what they believe to be a grave moral injustice MUST immediately disregard the rule of law,” I’ll bet discussing slavery and the Civil War with you would be hilarious.
I do have to admit one slight tinge of sympathy for you, though: you never were able to present a compelling, rational pro-choice argument that was ever worth a darn, so it’s no surprising that you’re reduced to making up flimsy reasons for your opponents’ imagined insincerity that you yourself probably don’t even believe.
It’s all you have. Sucks, doesn’t it?
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 16, 2010 at 1237 hrs
I’m still hung in the middle between pro-choice. I think abortion is barbaric, and repugnant, just not sure it is the Federal government place to take a stand either way. Toss it back to the states. That being said, anyone who would wear a shirt proclaiming they had one is truly disturbed. Either truly sick, or so in denial about the life they have taken, that they have to be in your face about how good a decision it was to try and push back the guilt that is eating them up.
I’ve known a ton of peoplel who have had one, and I’ve never met one that was proud of the decision or didn’t regret it at least on some level..
And as for scott’s argument, I’m going to defer comments. I don’t think he has ever made a decent point on any subject, and I’m too tired to trade barbs with an idiot. I’ll sit back and eat my popcorn and watch.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1313 hrs
Here’s a question. Suppose that we make abortion illegal. Now there’s no need to storm the abortion clinics because they’re closed. And everyone’s happy.
Well, not really, of course. Women will still seek abortions, just like they’ve done since the beginning of recorded history. And they will find ways to get them, whether that means going to illegal clinics or going to countries where abortion is legal (and much less safe).
So how will we punish these women for breaking the law? Since they’re party to the abortion, does that make them murderers? Should the woman—and the man who has impregnated her—be sentenced to decades in prison, along with the abortion doctor? Would there be a longer sentence for twins? Another abortion and it’s the death penalty?
If an illegal clinic is discovered, should its records be confiscated, and all of its patients interrogated to see who’s guilty of having had an abortion so that they can be put on trial?
I am NOT saying that abortion is too difficult to punish. I’m asking exactly how we will try, prosecute and punish the tens or hundreds of thousands of people who will inevitably break the law.
Discuss.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1328 hrs
The answer, NYTexan, is no. Obtaining or performing an illegal abortion would not be punished the same as murder. Why do you suppose that is?
Posted by scott on March 16, 2010 at 1339 hrs
Abortion should be punished according to the will of the people of each state. It’s not really a federal issue, as has been pointed out.
If I had my druthers, I would punish it in a way similar to the way we handle illegal drugs. We obviously can’t apprehend every user, so we go after the sellers. Rather than try and track down every pregnant woman, it would be easier to simply interdict the purveyors of abortion with lengthy ( if not life) sentences. Strict guidelines would need to be established for legitimate doctors who order abortions for medical need. Public education on the issue would be needed, and option would need to offered to pregnant women. Adoption laws should be simplified and the barriers to inter-racial adoption be erased so that children would be more easily, quickly and inexpensively placed in homes.
I’d also make sure that people still had choice… though I still insist that the time for that choice is when you are choosing to have unprotected sex.
@Scott: You may as well drop your ridiculous charade that somehow all those against abortion secretly agree with you that it’s not really human when we abort it. You are just making yourself look foolish… and evil to some.
Having read your somewhat strained reasoning on the matter in the past, I’m guessing that this must somehow segue into the Feldstein Theory that anti-abortion foes are really just moralists who want carefree sex punished by the penalty of a pregnancy. I always thought that was one of your most poorly considered positions… until now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1435 hrs
And yet nobody here—certainly not you—has managed to give a plausible alternative explanation for the most basic facts of pro-life America.
Posted by scott on March 16, 2010 at 1440 hrs
What facts? Your rather foolish assertion that we run off like raving murderous lunatics? I’ve thought you were wrong, sometimes dead wrong, but rarely have I thought you were an idiot.
I’ll quote my own response for you:
Apparently Gandhi, Martin Luther King, the Polish Solidarity workers, the East German Monday Demonstrators, and the Tiananmen Square democracy marchers are all pathetic cowards in your world.
That’s it. Peaceful resistance works far better to institute social change than murder or violence. In fact, it has been working. Thinking people are beginning to see the pro abortion ghouls for what they are. Abortion for personal convenience are down in numbers, and a majority of the public is seeing “choice” as something bad. the days of abortion on demand are numbered… and all without resorting to insanity or condoning murder… how about that. If you can’t understand such a basic thing, then you are not really worth the time to educate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1453 hrs
I’ve thought you were wrong, sometimes dead wrong, but rarely have I thought you were an idiot.
Either he’s an idiot, or - more likely - he doesn’t actually believe the latest garbage argument he’s conjured up. Odds are overwhelming that it’s the latter.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 16, 2010 at 1501 hrs
Riddle me this, gents. Why are there always so many exceptions for rape and incest pregnancies in your anti-abortion proposals? Seems to me if you believed abortion was the exact same thing as shooting a 3 year old in the head, there would be no exceptions for these cases.
Posted by scott on March 16, 2010 at 1506 hrs
Riddle me this: why should we waste time when we all know you’ve already been given perfectly good answers to the same old questions time & time again, only to ignore them because they didn’t suit your interests?
Sorry, but you don’t have standing to judge what constitutes “plausible” around these parts. This isn’t a question you’re genuinely stumped about; it’s a faux inconsistency you’ve conjured up for propaganda purposes.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 16, 2010 at 1516 hrs
So that’s one “I decline to answer.” Others?
Posted by scott on March 16, 2010 at 1520 hrs
Heh. Not that we needed any more evidence of your disingenuousness, but it’s always nice to have further confirmation. Thanks!
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 16, 2010 at 1525 hrs
Well folks, the jig is up. Scott has us all dead to rights. The pro life movement is all fake. No one is actually against abortions and we all really believe that a fetus has no more humanity that toenail fungus. It’s just a front so that we can go golfing, fishing and bowling without our spouses knowing… like the Bedrock Volunteer Fire Department. ( I am rather a Flinstoneophile… geeky and dated, I know… I know.)
Is that really the argument you are trying to push these days, Scott? Really? If so, then the quality of your thought has dropped significantly since my self imposed exile from your blog. Like I said, you were often dead wrong, but…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1535 hrs
The “quality of my thought” notwithstanding, I noticed you haven’t even attempted to answer the question posed in comment 27. At all. Why not?
Posted by scott on March 16, 2010 at 1538 hrs
Well, I had to answer the previous one twice and you still have not acknowledged it. Really, your new style of argument is quite tired… I rather doubt you’ll create much useful discourse with it… likely just vitriol, and more of than than you usually foster.
I’m not going to waste too much time on your trollish behavior. I will say that there are many differing opinions on the rape and incest issue that run the whole spectrum. There are always grey areas in any debate on the sanctity of life. Should we kill in war? To defend another life? To defend ourselves? is it murder to fail to provide aid to another person? We argue over the severity and definition of intentional homicide and manslaughter. There is no single catch-all position on these types of issues. Your strange desire to try and sum up the totality of the pro-life movement under this single tab and place it all in the same box just shows how little time you have spent learning about points of view outside of your own.
My personal opinion on it? In the case of forced sex, there has already been a victim. That woman may have been seriously harmed by the attack, both physically and mentally. The trauma of rape, for some women, is a thing that they may never overcome. Short of murder, it is probably the most horrible act that could be committed upon another. She should be allowed some personal latitude in dealing with this situation in the way that is medically best for her. I would tend to counsel on carrying it and offering the child for adoption… but for some women, that may be akin to a mental death sentence of insanity. If continuing the pregnancy would cause her further serious mental harm, then a choice has to be made. Either way, there will be a victim.
In a way, I suppose it’s similar to a mass casualty incident. Some victims will be initially denied care, and may die, in order that others might be saved. That is an ugly Sophie’s Choice, but there are times when it must be made. situation.
If there are differing non-troll views on my position, I’d love to hear them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1616 hrs
Sorry for the typos today… I am installing a toilet and the current score is Toilet 7 Family Guy 3. I may have to punt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1620 hrs
An interesting (if unconvincing) response. But the much simpler explanation, and the truer one in my opinion, is that raped women aren’t morally responsible for having had sex. Therefore, moralists feel no need to compel them to face “the consequences” of their choices by being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
To clarify. There is absolutely NO difference in the fetus, medically or ethically. The only difference is in the intent and moral culpability of the woman.
Posted by scott on March 16, 2010 at 1629 hrs
But the much simpler explanation, and the truer one in my opinion, is that raped women aren’t morally responsible for having had sex. Therefore, moralists feel no need to compel them to face “the consequences” of their choices by being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
<Taking a bow> Oh, did I call it or what! It’s the same old Feldstein Morality Gambit just wearing a new disguise. lol. In Scott’s world, there is nothing new under the sun… just remakes of old movies. You make it too easy.
There is absolutely NO difference in the fetus, medically or ethically.
I believe I defined for you the difference. There are areas where there is no choice A or choice B. Sometimes we have to use the grey matter that God gave us (or the Spaghetti monster in your case, Scott) and realize that there is often no correct choice in such matters. Simply ignoring that fact and trying to substitute your “consequences” argument doesn’t give it any credence. Obviously you seem to think it’s brilliant, since you repeat it often.
You are living in the past on this point though. It has been quite a long time since recreational extramarital sex was hidden in back rooms and morally condemned with outrage and calls for punishment.. It’s everywhere now. If it is your choice to engage in it, then it should also be your choice to do so safely. In my world, your choices end once a life has been created. Killing for your own convenience is not a choice that I would offer. Abortions should be few, and always medically necessary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1706 hrs
What’s interesting to me is the degree of “gray area” and lack of moral certitude evident in comments 33 and 36. One rarely finds such subtlety in a pro-lifer’s remarks when it comes to assessing the merits of abortion for women who haven’t been raped.
Still, congratulations. Yes, you are familiar with my opinion of the pro-life movement. But it’s no secret. I think a lot of it—stated or unstated—is about making sure the immoral have “consequences” rather than any kind of absolute belief about the rights and personhood of fetuses. I stand by it as firm today as I ever did. It explains:
1. Pro-lifer’s lukewarm (at best) reception of sex education and contraception advocacy
2. Tendency to except rape and incest victims from their abortion prohibition efforts
3. Their rejection of the hypothetical if-you-push-it-there-will-be-no-more-unwanted-pregnancies-no-matter-how-much-sex button
4. Their howls of outrage over such medical advances as the HPV vaccine being given to girls before they are sexually active
And more.
These things are most puzzling if one takes pro-lifers at their word, that they are motivated by a rock-solid view of fetuses of all gestational ages as full human beings deserving protection under the law. But they are easily understood if one accepts the idea that they are really more fired up about the morality of sex itself.
Posted by scott on March 16, 2010 at 1800 hrs
That is some crazy shit. The usual caricature of liberal ideas, complemented by the one poll (by a liberal source) that backs up the convoluted theory is not the case here. Rationalization based on rationalizations at work in the mind of the Marxist one here. This is years in the making and developing. One cannot make this leap to those conclusions in one sitting.
- - - - - -
Some people are simply animals, self-centered in nature and often without conscience.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1820 hrs
1. Pro-lifer’s lukewarm (at best) reception of sex education and contraception advocacy
Perhaps it’s just your liberal bent on contraception that people have a luke-warm response to. The conservative version of sex education involves a discussion about the serious nature of teen sex and the fact that mental immaturity can lead to bad choices. It also includes an explanation of reproduction facts and methods of contraception. The liberal version seems to include tossing out packs of condoms and saying “Go to it kids… you’ll just do it anyway, so have at it you little horn balls”. Don’t confuse disagreement with your progressive ideas with a disinterest in sex education.
2. Tendency to except rape and incest victims from their abortion prohibition efforts
I believe I explained that quite well. Your disinterest in ideas other than your own and your dismissal of my explanation without a moment of thought does nothing to support your thesis.
3. Their rejection of the hypothetical if-you-push-it-there-will-be-no-more-unwanted-pregnancies-no -matter-how-much-sex button
At best, an imaginary argument to be had over a beer. At worst, a method of self delusion you have used to try and prove a theory by using an impossible hypothetical. We may as well argue over the paternity implications of Superman’s sperm flying off and impregnating all the neighborhood girls. It’s just as pointless and just as impossible. Has it ever occurred to you that people don’t want to push your button because the very idea is embarrassingly ridiculous?
4. Their howls of outrage over such medical advances as the HPV vaccine being given to girls before they are sexually active
There are many reasons that this is a bad idea. First, it goes back to the belief that casual teen sex is no big deal and everyone is going to do it. Thinking people (non-liberals) know that teen sex offers many pitfalls that emotionally immature teenagers are not ready for. Second, Gardasil seems to be a pretty dangerous vaccine to be offering young girls. It has 4 times the incidence of death, cardiac arrest and Lupus and 15 times the incidence of stroke… as well as other problems. I would not subject my daughter to it. The danger of the cure is far worse that the danger of the preventable disease. The supporters I find seem to be generally liberals, so for me, that is red flag enough to avoid it.
What else you got? Taking pro-lifers at their word? How could you do that… it seems to me from what you have said that you haven’t taken any time to learn about any ideas outside of your own.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1923 hrs
Family Guy, I’ve long believed that we on the Right tend to make the mistake of giving left-wingers’ sincerity and intentions the benefit of the doubt, in doing so putting ourselves through needless frustration in attempting persuasion.
Scott is one of the best examples of that suspicion I’ve ever encountered.
It might be useful to keep debating trolls like Scott just to illustrate the fallacies and dishonesty for the benefit of other readers, but personally, I have better things to do than pretend he’s sincere. Better to simply point out and mock the partisan hackery whenever it arises.
Should you have an epiphany and feel like apologizing, Scott, I will graciously accept it. Have a nice day!
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 16, 2010 at 2038 hrs
Interesting discussion. Scott’s argument has reinforced my pro life stance beyond a shadow of a doubt.
And I might add that I got a young lady pregnant in 1978 and decided to marry her because I knew she carried a life I helped conceive. Unfortunately that baby was aborted via a tubal ligation after we were told it’s chances of survival were better than it’s mother’s chances if the tubal pregnancy were allowed to go full term.
Yes the marriage didn’t last but it was a watershed moment in my growth from a young liberal to a conservative adult.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2103 hrs
Suppose that we make abortion illegal ... Women will still seek abortions, just like they’ve done since the beginning of recorded history. And they will find ways to get them, whether that means going to illegal clinics ...”
That is the one of the same arguments for stopping the “war on drugs”, lowering the drinking age, etc. If you use this logic for abortion, will you also give in on all these other subjects?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2232 hrs
Riddle me this, gents. Why are there always so many exceptions for rape and incest pregnancies in your anti-abortion proposals? Seems to me if you believed abortion was the exact same thing as shooting a 3 year old in the head, there would be no exceptions for these cases.
Scott,
I know you are trolling but really is this all you’ve got? It’s incrementalism baby. You know, like the frog in the pot of water. Get used to it. I’m against the exemptions for rape and incest but then again that is for the States to decide.3 year olds and bullets! Huh. It is your side of the argument that cheapens sex & life to the point that society now excuses infanticide. Did you notice that once people figured out that a pillow works as well as a dumpster that reported co-sleeping deaths have increased? People no longer need to find a good lawyer and a port-o-potty for their unwanted screaming ball of tissue. If rape exceptions are made then the incidents of reported rape related pregnancies will go up - reported rape, not actual rape. We gotta start somewhere so some say, keep the exceptions but stop the mass death as birth control.
Someone (FG?) mentioned that the exceptions are for those cases when there is no good choice. No matter what, someone will be hurt. Maybe, but rape sucks no matter what you do afterward. The innocent has already been hurt, sometimes beyond repair. We shouldn’t compound the damage by killing.if-you-push-it-there-will-be-no-more-unwanted-pregnancies-no -matter-how-much-sex button
Is that what the belly button is for? Before, after, or for the duration?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1230 hrs
What if there was a magic button that made loving homes available for all children. When pressed, it would make abortions impossible to get in the case of a healthy pregnancy, and all costs of pre-natal care and birth would be covered.
Would you push it?
Scott?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1327 hrs
You answer my button question, I’ll answer yours.
But inquiring minds want to know whether a Down Syndrome baby is a “healthy pregnancy”? What’s your cut off for healthy pregnancy?
Posted by scott on March 17, 2010 at 1336 hrs
You answer my button question, I’ll answer yours.
Would I push a button and end STDs and unwanted pregnancy, I suppose. Would I push a button that ended disease, hatred (even anti-conservative bigotry), war, poverty, hunger… sure, I would (I’m sure a lot of Obama voters still think that is what they actually did, heh). Would I push a button and turn chocolate into gold? Perhaps.I already did… long ago. It never pays to answer your questions… you just keep asking them over and over.
But inquiring minds want to know whether a Down Syndrome baby is a “healthy pregnancy”? What’s your cut off for healthy pregnancy?
Rather than get onto the subject of euthanasia for imperfect babies (I dread the thought of knowing where you stand on that issue, and I’ll save you the public scorn that might result from your response), I’ll just avoid that liberal cesspool and say that the babies would be free from any non standard characteristics.
Given free care till birth and a loving home, would you push a button that made all abortion impossible for healthy pregnancies?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1358 hrs
It never pays to answer your questions… you just keep asking them over and over.
Dude, whatever. I don’t keep a record of your remarks for quick reference. I’m asking people in general. if you’ve answered already, good for you.
So you’d push it? Button which made accidental pregnancy impossible no matter how much sex people chose to have? Good on you. So would I. You do realize that a lot of American conservative would not do so—even though it would reduce abortion by a staggering amount. Don’t you wonder why that is?
would you push a button that made all abortion impossible for healthy pregnancies?
I’d be sorely tempted, but no. I wouldn’t push it. The key word here is “all.” I think it’s perfectly acceptable to have an abortion for the sole reason that you don’t want to reproduce, pass on your genes, etc., so long as the pregnancy is in an early stage. You might find me willing to move that threshold down pretty early in the pregnancy, though. I’d see tougher regulations on it if your button did what you say it does.
Posted by scott on March 17, 2010 at 1404 hrs
Scott,
Your questions are the result of having no conscience and consequently selfishly rationalizing in a godless fashion that is without morals. You are a monster. I pity you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1413 hrs
smeety,
your answers are the result of being a dick.
Posted by scott on March 17, 2010 at 1416 hrs
Looks like somebody gets a little testy when people’s evaluations hit a little too close to home…..
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 17, 2010 at 1440 hrs
Douchebag just called me a “monster” with no morals or conscience and you think me being “testy” about it is because his “evaluations” hit a little “close to home”? Dude.
Posted by scott on March 17, 2010 at 1443 hrs
Yes, because how anybody could see being on the wrong side of a 1-million-plus annual death toll as “monstrous” is a real head-scratcher….even so, that wasn’t primarily what I was thinking of. I was thinking of the “conscience” line, and how it relates to your obsessively clinging to inane, dishonest, and discredited theories about the motives of your opponents, that I still maintain you yourself don’t even believe.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 17, 2010 at 1452 hrs
Scott:
“...so long as the pregnancy is in an early stage.”
Is that because you’d have to call it a baby then, thereby acknowledging murder?
Posted by GAMazy on March 17, 2010 at 1545 hrs
Well Scott, you managed to induce public scorn even without condemning Down Syndrome babies . I guess I need not have worried about it.
At least you are honest. You would not push the button because you see babies as an inhibitor to your recreational sex. Taking proper precautions is too much of a burden on you, so you’d rather keep the option open in case you may need to destroy a baby that got in your way and proved an annoying fact of nature. That’s pretty much the modern reason behind abortion. We kill because those little people are in the way of having a good time, and some folks are too irresponsible to make a good, easy, and simple choice prior to engaging in sex. There is no other reason that you would avoid pushing that button.
I’m not sure if that makes you a monster or not, but it does seem to be a rather heartless and selfish choice to make.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 1113 hrs
There is no other reason that you would avoid pushing that button.
Actually there is. But you deliberately avoid acknowledging it, regardless of whether you agree with me or not.
As I’ve said many times, here and elsewhere, in hundreds and hundreds of words, I don’t see a fertilized egg as a person. If you want to talk about gestational periods or fetal growth and development, fine. That’s the discussion I think we should be having. A newborn has full protection under the law, a just-fertliized egg should have none. In the period between we should be granting more and more consideration. But that doesn’t change the fact that I think a 12 week pregnancy can be terminated for any reason at all. Third trimester ones can be more restricted, such as for severe medical conditions affecting the fetus or the pregnant woman. (Not that I see a whole lot of need for such laws. Women who have late-term abortions are almost universally women who wanted to carry to term, who are facing agonizing medical and ethical choices, not lazy sluts who don’t want “inconvenience.” The idea that distant moralists or the government cares more about such a woman’s pregnancy is absurd and grotesque.) The implication being that the interests of the woman herself will outweigh those of an early pregnancy in a landslide.
It’s certainly true, however, that I would like to see sex made as free of the risk of unwanted conception as possible. Every competent adult person should be free to have sexual relationships without that risk.
Posted by scott on March 18, 2010 at 1129 hrs
View from the mind of a monster…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 1149 hrs
I think a 12 week pregnancy can be terminated for any reason at all.
12 weeks, eh? Let’s see…
You are 12 weeks pregnant. (fetal age 10 weeks)
* The fetus is now about 2.5 inches (6cm) length and weighs about 0.7 ounce (20 g).
* The feet are almost half an inch (1cm) long.
* The fetus starts moving spontaneously.
* The face is beginning to look like a baby’s face.
* The pancreas is functioning and producing insulin.
* Fingernails and toenails appear.
* The baby can suck his thumb, and get hiccups.From this week you may well be able to hear the baby’s heart beat through a doppler monitor on your tummy. You will notice that the rate is up to 160 a minute, double that of a normal adult.
Your baby now has a chin and a nose and a facial profile. Vocal chords are complete, and the baby can and does sometimes cry silently. The brain is fully formed, and the baby can also feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers. The hair is on the head and the fingers and toes have developed soft nails. The kidneys are developed and begin to secrete urine.
Your baby weighs between 0.5 and 0.7 ounce (14 to 20g), and crown-to-rump length is almost 2.5 inches (63mm). Your baby’s size has almost doubled in the past 3 weeks.
http://baby2see.com/development/week12.html
Huh. No wonder you insist on making stuff up about your opponents’ “real” motivations.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 18, 2010 at 1152 hrs
Every competent adult person should be free to have sexual relationships without that risk
You are free in that regard. The fact that you choose not to do so, create a life, and then kill it because it bothers you is rather heinous. You want choice? Fine, but please make your choice when the issue is between two lives rather than between three lives. The former choice is victimless, the latter choice is not.
In the period between we should be granting more and more consideration.
Why does the increasing biological complexity offer the baby more rights… more specifically, by what process, in your mind, does the baby acquire rights. What specifically is it that earns the baby protection under the law? Is it a factor of time like union seniority? It there a certain size or a specific biological function that defines the moment it stops being an un-person? Please enlighten me… what is it specifically?
Also, infants are less biologically complex than adults… why should they receive the same protection of life that an adult does? If a woman has a 11 week old pregnancy, and I punch her in the stomach, aborting the fetus… is that a murder or just a simple assault with a single victim?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 1156 hrs
My wife and & see 12-week ultrasound next week, no kidding. Scott’s comments honestly make my stomach physically turn.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 1209 hrs
You know, I‘ve been watching folks going back and forth on this topic for a few days now, and I can’t help but think about the story that started this discussion in the first place as well as Owen’s original question: “Should there be a Stigma to Abortion?”
Based upon the many condemning comments here, not only is there already a stigma to abortion, but hell, there’s a stigma to just BELIEVING in a woman’s choice to an abortion. I mean, this board is very close to declaring that we paint a scarlet letter “A” (or “M” or “BK” for Murderer or Baby Killer) on people just for being pro-choice. While I understand that this is one of the most emotionally charged topics of discussion there is, I would think it can be done with a greater level of decorum. For example, the visceral disdain displayed towards scott by Family Guy and others is simply unnecessary, and quite frankly, is getting old.
The woman who made this ridiculous video is an attention seeking wing nut who probably has unresolved “daddy issues”, pure and simple. The women who proudly wear their tee shirts are even worse, but they, as well, are well within their first amendment right. I hope they carefully weighed the moral questions and consequences when making their decision, but they are the ones who must live with them. I’m sure they will judged at the appropriate time by the appropriate authority. I don’t think anyone on this board holds that distinction. Carry on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 1836 hrs
@ Smeety: Congratulations on your wife’s pregnancy. I hope all goes smoothly and the pregnancy is uneventful for both you and your wife. Don’t let the comments and views here on this subject upset your peace and tranquility. All the best.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 1837 hrs
You are 12 weeks pregnant. (fetal age 10 weeks)
* The fetus is now about 2.5 inches (6cm) length and weighs about 0.7 ounce (20 g).
That’s fascinating. So… are you more comfortable with abortion at 9 weeks then? 7? Because if you aren’t, you have no reason to be spouting fetal development stats in defense of your position.
What specifically is it that earns the baby protection under the law?
That’s a great question and I’m glad you’re asking it. What’s your answer? That’s what I want to know. Human DNA? God blowing the breath of life into it? Biblical quickening?
the visceral disdain displayed towards scott by Family Guy and others is simply unnecessary, and quite frankly, is getting old.
WORD.
Smeety, in spite of the fact that you’ve been a total jerk to me in this discussion, I hope you and your wife have children as terrific as mine have been.
Posted by scott on March 18, 2010 at 1938 hrs
That’s fascinating. So… are you more comfortable with abortion at 9 weeks then? 7? Because if you aren’t, you have no reason to be spouting fetal development stats in defense of your position.
Classic Scott: dodge the obvious point and try to make it about your opponent. You already know that I support full legal protection from conception onward. As you’re surely bright enough to have already gleaned, I posted it not to support my position, but so we can rationally evaluate the standard you set.
You said killing a fetus at 12 weeks for any reason is fine. As we see, you support destroying something with a “fully formed” brain, a heartbeat, and the ability to feel pain (among other human characteristics).
WORD, indeed.
(Laker, in case you’re still stumped about why people take off the kid gloves around Scott, this should be a clue. It’s just the latest in a looooong train of abuses.)
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 18, 2010 at 1947 hrs
You already know that I support full legal protection from conception onward.
So in other words a just-fertlized embryo is the moral and legal equivalent of you or me. Anyone. That’s your position?
I’m sorry, I just think it’s ludicrous on its face. And clearly a lot of people who consider themselves pro-choice obviously recognize it. Why else are the thousands of discarded embryos from fertility clinics completely ignored? Why else are so many of them perfectly willing to make exceptions for rape/incest pregnancies?
Posted by scott on March 18, 2010 at 1958 hrs
The amazing thing is, you can’t competently defend your own positions to save your soul, yet you cling to them as if you personally brought them to us on stone tablets, and everyone else are the ideologues.
I repeat: You said killing a fetus at 12 weeks for any reason is fine. As we see, you support destroying something with a “fully formed” brain, a heartbeat, and the ability to feel pain (among other human characteristics).
The jig is up, Scott. We see through your fake arguments, your dodge-&-deflect tactics, your rank hypocrisy. Nobody who doesn’t share your ideological dogmatism takes you seriously anymore. Do you really want to keep embarrassing yourself further?
Epic Blogger Fail.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 18, 2010 at 2005 hrs
the visceral disdain displayed towards scott by Family Guy and others is simply unnecessary, and quite frankly, is getting old.
You should start your own blog and post there if it bothers you so much, laker. I call em as I see em… and if you to publicize ideas that are clearly controversial, you should be prepared for a backlash… especially if those ideas relate to a subject that many people believe is akin to murder. If peoples passion on the issue bothers you so much, then I suggest you move to some nice Disney blog.
What specifically is it that earns the baby protection under the law?
That’s a great question and I’m glad you’re asking it. What’s your answer? That’s what I want to know. Human DNA? God blowing the breath of life into it? Biblical quickening?A lovely, but cowardly dodge, Scott. It is indeed a great question… am I to assume that you have no answer then? No shocker there. Your position is not one you have really thought through…. you just whipped up a number… 12 weeks… for no reason and without any real thought to the matter. Weak.
I suspect that I was right on the money when I said “We kill because those little people are in the way of having a good time, and some folks are too irresponsible to make a good, easy, and simple choice prior to engaging in sex.”. Your whole position is less about thought, conscience, and morals and more about wanting to do the humpy-jumpy with some co-eds while avoiding the possibility of making a baby. “Let’s screw… we can always kill the baby later…. wheee.”
Hey Smeety… Congratulations! The whole process of watching that little life grow is truly amazing. God Bless you both and may He watch out over your little one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 2220 hrs
Huh, I guess I struck a nerve…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 2233 hrs
The amazing thing is, you can’t competently defend your own positions to save your soul
I can, though. My position is that moral consideration and protection under the law should be granted in such a way that reflects the reality of fetal development: A two-celled embryo isn’t a person; a newborn is. You want to argue about when certain rights should or should not be ascribed? Terrific. Me too. But the idea that an embryo is a person is as ludicrous as the idea that a 9-month fetus is a wart. That is my position.
It is your position that needs defending. You don’t like 12 weeks for abortion-on-demand? How about 10? What about 6? How about six nanoseconds? Or are you going to try to defend the position that a fertilized embryo is a constitutionally protected human being? If that’s the case, I have some other questions for you.
Your whole position is less about thought, conscience, and morals and more about wanting to do the humpy-jumpy with some co-eds while avoiding the possibility of making a baby.
Your hatred is so obvious, TFG. If you have to make this personal every time we discuss something, perhaps you should stay out of it entirely.
Posted by scott on March 19, 2010 at 0901 hrs
You don’t even appear to know the difference between defending a position and merely restating it.
For the last time: YOU endorsed the idea of killing someone with a fully-formed brain, a heartbeat, and the ability to feel pain.
If you want to prove you AREN’T a monster, then the burden is on you to either explain why somebody should be able to kill a baby with a fully-formed brain, a heartbeat, and the ability to feel pain “for any reason at all,” or reconsider your position.
Whine about FG and I all you want, but if would never have gotten personal to begin with if you actually displayed a modicum of integrity once in a while.
Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 19, 2010 at 0910 hrs
Your hatred is so obvious, TFG.
I do hate your positions… I think they are morally indefensible… and you have not proved otherwise. I have no personal opinion of you… just your comments. You put that sort of argument out there and expect hugs and kisses? That’s not realistic. I’m not getting into the “Oh me oh my, that mean old family guy hates me” baloney again either. It seems like you fall back on that when you can’t answer the tough questions posed to you… you certainly did redirect and avoid #58. All legitimate questions there… ones that can’t be suitably answered while maintaining your position.
I think that happens with liberal folks sometimes. They have “feelings” based opinions and when pushed into the corner by having to defend them, the feelings spill out all everyplace like an overturned beer truck on the freeway.
If you can’t handle people pushing you on a rather extreme view then either don’t discuss it, or check and see if maybe Disney has room for two new commenters. I’ll keep my style as is, thank you.
btw ... I have stayed out of it completely… I never post to your blog… ever. You want a comment free zone to offer a sermon, there it is.
@laker
Huh, I guess I struck a nerve…
You did. I find whining about people being “mean” to be quite… well…whiny. If you toss about harsh opinions, then you’ll get a stiff response. If you want to exchange daisies with people, politics, abortion, and religion arguments are not the place to seek it. That would be Disney…. or a nice cooking blog, unless you post that you added new ingredients to a recipe… you might have a Martha Stewart brawl on your hands then.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 19, 2010 at 1205 hrs
I really could care less whether you’re “mean” to Scott (or anyone else for that matter) or not, but it appears that there is a history between the two of you and it routinely spills into the discussion. All I’m suggesting is if you have an axe to grind with him, do it on the playground; after a while, it starts to detract from the discussion. But I also get the whole “history is history” thing.
BTW, I hardly need a Disney-type venue nor am I worried about a Martha Stewart food brawl. But if a cooking show fight were to break out, I would be definitely keep an eye open for the Barefoot Contessa or that Paula woman sneaking up behind me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 19, 2010 at 1530 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 111
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:24 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).