William: It is the abortionists, the abortuaries, those who advocate abortion, women who submit to abortion, fathers who cannot protect their offspring from the abortionist, and surviving children, and those surviving siblings of aborted children who have serious issues to work out.

William2006 on March 7, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Max Power’s response to William: Hey, I am sure you’re a nice guy William, you are just comming across in this particular thread as super militant. Some of the events you describe are the exception to the rule, no doubt. No one likes the reality of abortion, but realistically, it something we’re stuck with. Ensuring that it is used as humanely as possible is about the best that can hoped for.

Max Power on March 7, 2007 at 7:28 PM

William’s response:

Max Power,

Please define “militant” as it applies to the issue of abortion.

Frankly, I don’t see anything militant about my comment.

In the comment I state facts, that women are coerced into the abortuary, that they are harassed by family members, employers, and friends, and boy friends. They are also beaten, and even murdered for refusing to abort babies. Perhaps you are not aware of this phenomenon.

It is also a fact that women have reported being restrained against their will and their babies aborted.

Abortion itself is a barbaric practice. There is nothing humane about it. It involves dismembering, ripping tiny human beings several weeks after conception-fertilization into pieces, and killing healthy babies up to and including the moment of birth, which includes late term abortions in which labor is induced, the baby is born, and an abortionist punctures baby’s skull, inserts a suction tube, and sucks the contents of baby’s skull until baby’s skull collapses in onto itself.

There is nothing humane about that.

Abortions are abuse of women, showing disrespect for their bodies and their role as mothers, and their role as the gateway to a human body, to love, the life itself.

Abortions damage mothers’ bodies, causing increased chances of cancer, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, hemorrhaging, perforations, infections, and so on. Women risk internal scarring inside their womb, thus putting thei reproductive health, and future pregnacies, in jeopardy. This increases the chance of dangerous complications.

With the combined damage to women’s emotions and bodies, and the clear damage and slaughter of innocent human babies, abortion is anything but humane.

To call such a barbaric act “humane” is tantamount to calling plucking out someone’s eyes, stretching them on the wrack, or dousing them with gasoline and lighting them ablaze “compassionate.”

William

Mother: “I once tried to kill you, you little brat.”

Oh, the therapy bills.

It’s true that muslims could become slouches and join in all the contraceiving and aborting. However, it seems foolish for free men and women to leave their relative numbers up to muslims, unless they’ve simply become indifferent to the course of their own late life and their posterity. No news I’ve read leads me to think muslims are even close to being ready to begin eeking out just one or two late-life trophy babies.

There’s always genocide. No, genocide is an option, so shut up and let me finish my reductio ad absurdum. Free men and women could preserve their relative numbers and preserve “a woman’s right to choose” and a man’s right to sex without fatherhood, if they began killing or sterilizing muslims by the tens of millions. Apart from everything else one can say about such bloodthirstiness and tyranny, they seem a high price to pay for “a woman’s right to choose” to help her people stagnate, dwindle, or die out.

stonemeister on March 7, 2007 at 10:31 PM

Agreed. However anyone, right or left, religious or secular, may feel about abortion and it’s place in society, Roe v Wade was indeed wrongly decided. The merits or lack thereof of legal abortion are beside the point. A pro-choice person who is intilectually honest should admit that and campaign for state reps who share their view. If they can pass legislation in their state, then I will feel the people have spoken. Let the system work and may the best man win. (So to speak.) Nobody is trying to take away anyone’s “rights”. And no one is trying to force their morals or religion on anyone else. The constitution says what it says. The rest is up to the voters and their representatives.

With this logic, the Supreme Court could “interpret” the right to eradicate Jews, burn churches, or anything else they want to interpret from a living Constitution. The only valid point-of-view for the Supreme Court is strict constructionism…all else is supremely dangerous!

- The Cat

Stefka

I think there are a lot more people aligning themselves with conservatives theses days,

You’re probably right. I just hope the rest of us can get them to adopt all the conservative values instead of us letting them infect the movement with sissyfied values.

Can you put this reality we have to live with, and it’s lack of outrage, in perspective with this latest Ann Coulter flap, and the outrage it generated?

I mean for cying out loud, what has happened to conservatism?

csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 8:20 PM

A good point. I think there are a lot more people aligning themselves with conservatives theses days, that are not inherently consevative themselves as a result of the events of 9/11. Maybe it has watered down some conservative’s pet clauses.

Why is it that the people who claim to be for the little guy, “liberals” and/or “progressives”, willfully kill the littlest guys of all; unborn children? Why do the people that claim represent the rights minorities turn unborn children into a minority group without any rights at all, including the right to life itself?

No one likes the reality of abortion, but realistically, it something we’re stuck with. Ensuring that it is used as humanely as possible is about the best that can hoped for.

Max Power on March 7, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Can you put this reality we have to live with, and it’s lack of outrage, in perspective with this latest Ann Coulter flap, and the outrage it generated?

I mean for cying out loud, what has happened to conservatism?

From the WaPo article: Raper alleges in the suit that Planned Parenthood and Bryant were negligent for failing to end her pregnancy and that Eleonu was negligent for failing to see she was still pregnant.

This woman is suing everyone for her pregnancy, except herself who holds the the primary blame for her pregnancy. Why is it that she can sue a doctor for “failing to see” she was pregnant? The article doesn’t say it but I am sure she didn’t have a pregnancy test when she saw the second doctor. After all, she had an abortion, so how could anyone suspect that she was still pregnant?

I suspect that she wasn’t even thinking about suing until some friend told her that she could make a lot of money and recommended she talk to a lawyer. That would explain the two year gap between the child’s birth and the filing date of the lawsuit.

This case will go nowhere, but you be sure that this woman and her lawyer will be on every liberal talk show and news station on both coasts and will make millions on the book and movie rights (think Sundance Channel) when she publishes “her” story. You can also be sure that the child will never see any of this money.

My question is can this child sue her mother at 18 for emotional damage for attempted murder?

She gave her doctor good money to kill her fetus.

So this woman admits she paid someone to kill her child. I would call that murder for hire.

No one likes the reality of abortion, but realistically, it something we’re stuck with. Ensuring that it is used as humanely as possible is about the best that can hoped for.

I’m sure that’s just what the the majority of the slave owners said 150 years ago about slavery, just before the civil war and abolition.

BTW, how do you humanely kill an unborn child? The humane thing to do would be to have the child and give it to another family through adoption.

It is the abortionists, the abortuaries, those who advocate abortion, women who submit to abortion, fathers who cannot protect their offspring from the abortionist, and surviving children, and those surviving siblings of aborted children who have serious issues to work out.

Finally, abortuaries are known to have engaged in coercion once the woman is in the abortuary, refusing to allow her to leave until they have aborted her baby, phsyically restraining her, even ignoring her screams and cries to stop and to be released.

William

William2006 on March 7, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Hey, I am sure you’re a nice guy William, you are just comming across in this particular thread as super militant. Some of the events you describe are the exception to the rule, no doubt. No one likes the reality of abortion, but realistically, it something we’re stuck with. Ensuring that it is used as humanely as possible is about the best that can hoped for.

Dana Cano, the Doe of Doe v Bolton, the sister case with Roe v Wade
William2006 on March 7, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Should be Sandra Cano of the Doe ve Bolton Supreme Court Case, not Dana Cano.

I apologize for the error.

William