Planned Parenthood director quits after watching abortion ultrasound

posted at 3:00 pm on November 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

After eight years working at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, including two years as its director, Abby Johnson suddenly decided that she could no longer participate in abortions. What pushed Johnson out was both an ultrasound of an abortion and a renewed emphasis on the cash-generating business in the failing economy. After being told to deemphasize prevention and market for abortions, Johnson finally had enough:

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

“It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,” said Johnson.

Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about. …

Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood. Coalition volunteers can regularly be seen praying on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. Johnson has been meeting with the coalition’s executive director, Shawn Carney, and has prayed with volunteers outside Planned Parenthood.

The television station has video of Johnson’s interview at the link, so be sure to watch it.

What was the reaction of Planned Parenthood?  They sued Johnson and the Coalition for Life and filed restraining orders against both.  They claim that Johnson and the CFL wanted to breach the confidentiality of their clients, but nothing in the KBTX report indicates that Johnson had any such intention.  In fact, Johnson was unaware of the suit when KBTX’s report went to air last night.

It doesn’t surprise me to see Planned Parenthood pressure its offices to push abortions harder.  That’s their core business, after all, and with less money flowing into the abortion mills, they need to market it more aggressively.  It does remove the veneer of “community service” that PP claims while defending themselves, however.  They’re in the mass-production abortion business, plain and simple, which Johnson finally discovered.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7

Other people’s pregnancies are none of your business, nosy people. Accept your place their murder and walk away.

Moesart on November 2, 2009 at 7:52 PM

So says one of the prophets of the culture of death.

(from one of those who escaped Margaret Sanger’s plan to eradicate Americans who are black)

baldilocks on November 2, 2009 at 8:12 PM

I didn’t choose it, but a lot of my “sisters” did.
I hated the Womynist Movement from the moment it started.

Again…anyone who willingly chooses that path HAS NO RIGHT to complain when the going gets tough. Might as well start to climb Mt.Everest and complain after a few miles that the trail’s too steep and cold. Bed, made, lie!

Is there nothing laudatory to be said of happy homes and families, contented husbands, generations of children who’ve been raised with a real mother’s love and care?

Nice. A strawman, a heartstring-tugging appeal to a Norman Rockwell image of a perfect family and an insidious jab at me for daring to oppose same. But to answer your ridiculous, loaded ‘question’ anyway…no DUH.

And what of women who find being a wife and mother fulfilling in itself?

Yay for them. Really. Although I wonder what effect it would have on how many chose such a path if the government didn’t subsidize marriage and childbearing.

Self-realization is not to be found solely in careers or education.

Bullcookies.

What’s amazing about someone like Sarah Palin is that she easily (LOL!) combines the jobs of wife, mother and stateswoman…
She’s a truly modern woman.
I take it you attribute womens’ ability to be liberated to abortion–I don’t think so.

Ridiculous statement is ridiculous.

And I’m not altogether enamored of the feminized version of the world and its concurrent emasculation of men.

If by ‘emasculation’ you mean the mocking of men in general and fathers in particular, I agree 110%.

If you want to reduce the creation of a new person to crude science, I can’t help you.

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 7:53 PM

A little newsflash is in order, get your crying towel ready: men and women of science have introduced themselves to the subject of reproduction just fine without you.

You speak of foolishly of men and women who have have forgotten more about a vast range of subject than you and I could possibly hope to know more than a fraction of in total. (And unlike the elitist liberal crowd, that is actually a true statement, and the facts they know are useful!) This is besides the fact that every family alive in the USA benefits from a society that stands on the shoulders of centuries’ worth of hard work of scientists in all fields of study.

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Jimbo3 on November 2, 2009 at 7:09 PM

F U, too. So tell us Jimbo, when does a fetus become a person? You said early-term is not…how about mid or late term?

You opened the door to this, now close it.

BobMbx on November 2, 2009 at 8:16 PM

I don’t feel I can tell someone else they can’t have the choice to abort a child that’s the result of rape or incest.

Monica on November 2, 2009 at 4:07 PM

Why is it always the baby that’s always murdered? Why don’t we kill the mother once in awhile? I thank God you were not my mother.

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Watch out, Bobmbx, Jimbo didn’t say “person” he said “human.”

Personhood’s an idea we use to confer or deny rights to humans based on some arbitrary line. Humanity is inate in our genetics. Jimbo doesn’t even believe that the human offspring of human parents are humans from conception.

Perhaps he thinks they’re apples?

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:19 PM

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Or better yet…kill the rapists. Then give the kid up for adoption.

It’s not rocket science.

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Perhaps he thinks they’re apples?

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Try to imagine this; How far away are we from seeing “early term” fetus served up as a delicacy?

mmmmmm mmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm

BobMbx on November 2, 2009 at 8:22 PM

I don’t feel I can tell someone else they can’t have the choice to abort a child that’s the result of rape or incest.

Monica on November 2, 2009 at 4:07 PM

You don’t kill the kid for the crime of the father! Kill the rapist, not the baby. Adopt out the baby

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:19 PM

If we use Jimbo’s logic, we could just arbitrarily kill him once he’s outlived his “usefulness”

It’s all “academic” when it’s not discussed in the first person, so let him sit & spin on that.

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Or better yet…kill the rapists. Then give the kid up for adoption. It’s not rocket science.

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Right. They always go after the innocent child. I just posted that.

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Human offspring are humans from the second those magical chromosomes come together. Your statement has as much validity as saying that you “think” that Santa is eating your Christmas cookies. You can do it if you’d like, but don’t expect to be taken seriously.

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:10 PM

It is a human organism at conception, though perhaps half of the conceived organisms don’t make it through the first week. This is a design of nature that provokes a very different response from people than infants dying does.

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 8:25 PM

Dark Star, I don’t know what your problem is but you’re one mean, bitter and angry woman…

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:26 PM

Some people never learn. America is pro-choice. On everything.

Agreed. We should all have the ability to choose. The question here is whether one individual should be allowed to “choose” to harm another with no fear of retribution from society. Abortionists argue no punishment applies in these circumstances because the “victims” are not human.

Talk about the govt getting into everyone’s business, and then want the govt to control every uterus in America. Yeah, that’s consistent.

With the exception of some, most here do not want the government involved in any individual’s personal business, let alone a woman’s uterus. That is not the issue. The concern is whether one individual is allowed to terminate the life of another and what, if anything, should happen to the perpetrator on behalf of the victim.

Other people’s pregnancies are none of your business, nosy people. Accept your place and walk away.

Moesart on November 2, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Correct again. Someone’s pregnancy is certainly none of our business. The death of a human at the hands of another human certainly should be “everyone’s” business.

Let’s hope we “choose” not to walk away.

rukiddingme on November 2, 2009 at 8:28 PM

This is besides the fact that every family alive in the USA benefits from a society that stands on the shoulders of centuries’ worth of hard work of scientists in all fields of study.

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Sheesh. Talk about a non-sequiter…

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 8:29 PM

IMHO that would be a reasonable Libertarian stance to take.

Not that there is liable to be much reason in the response I’m going to get.

zenscreamer on November 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM

That’s true. I don’t think there is a human being alive that, if they are truly honest, can say they KNOW the answer to this question. To say we know either way & try to enforce that is playing God with our fellow man, something government was never meant to do. We can certainly have an opinion but that is not the same. This is what puzzles me about conservatives these days who say they do not want the government involved in their own personal lives.

I consider myself a staunch conservative and I believe this is a decision a woman has to make in her own conscience, between her & God & her doctor- it has to be the most personal & difficult of all decisions.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 8:29 PM

It is a human organism at conception, though perhaps half of the conceived organisms don’t make it through the first week. This is a design of nature that provokes a very different response from people than infants dying does.

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 8:25 PM

Where did you learn biology? One of our country’s fine public schools?

There is only ever one sperm and egg that meet to form an embryo/zygote.
If that.
This union is rarer than you’d think.
And if the embryo doesn’t “make it,” you have a miscarriage.
But the “first week” wouldn’t be all that significant, I shouldn’t think.

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM

when does a fetus become a person? You said early-term is not…how about mid or late term?

You opened the door to this, now close it.

BobMbx on November 2, 2009 at 8:16 PM

I think Jimbo went off to have a life tonight. So let me play devil’s advocate: A fetus becomes a person when it has discernible brain activity or is determinably sensate to pain.

Now what, Bob?

Incidentally, why are you using the word “fetus”? Jimbo was talking about very early stages: an embryo until the end of month three.

Pavel on November 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM

It is a human organism at conception, though perhaps half of the conceived organisms don’t make it through the first week. This is a design of nature that provokes a very different response from people than infants dying does.

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 8:25 PM

Does the death of someone severily handicapped (and suffering) evoke a different response in people than the death a young professional with a brilliantly promissing carrer ahead of her does? what does this mean in the rehalm of right and wrong? it somehow diminishes the value of the unborn?

neuquenguy on November 2, 2009 at 8:32 PM

baldilocks on November 2, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Well said baldilocks. Nice to see you still come around here once in a while. Read your blog frequently.

rukiddingme on November 2, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Dark Star, I don’t know what your problem is but you’re one mean, bitter and angry woman…

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:26 PM

Jenfidel, I know exactly what your problems are.

First of all, you define yourself and women in general purely by their reproductive capacity, as well as stereotype and spit upon those who faced arrest and ostracism for protesting that same standard.

Second of all, your telepathy skills stink. I’m no woman, although my personality is a bit more gentle and quiet one than the average male.

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Dedalus, yes it is a human organism. You are also a human organism. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by this other than making an attempt to draw some sort of line between you and a newly formed human.

I am actually thrilled that you so readily admit that a human at this stage of development is an organism. I have had countless “debates” over this scientific fact by people determined not to concede a point, no matter how ridiculous.

That said, I just really don’t see how anything you said negates anything I said. Yes, some of those newly formed humans will die sooner than others. All humans will eventually die. Yes, our society is more touched by a death they witness than one that is hidden. That says more aboutour society than it does the humanity of newly formed humans.

We tend to have a more emotional response to the death of a happy 5 year old from Ohio than a poor farmer in China. Does our response to their respective deaths determine their humanity?

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:34 PM

I consider myself a staunch conservative and I believe this is a decision a woman has to make in her own conscience, between her & God & her doctor- it has to be the most personal & difficult of all decisions.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 8:29 PM

All true enough, but why is this issue improperly within the purview of the Federal Government?
Should taxpayers have to pay for others’ abortions, especially when we find abortion abhorrent?

SCOTUS should never have inserted itself into this mess.
The decision to deem abortion legal or not legal should go back to the several states.

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:35 PM

First of all, you define yourself and women in general purely by their reproductive capacity,

LOL–I’ve never had any children and I have 3 college degrees, including 2 Masters.

as well as stereotype and spit upon those who faced arrest and ostracism for protesting that same standard.

Puh-leaze!
This so didn’t happen.

Second of all, your telepathy skills stink. I’m no woman, although my personality is a bit more gentle and quiet one than the average male.

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 8:34 PM

Let me guess, you’re a homosexual?
Betcha you call women “breeders,” too.

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:39 PM

May every abortionist, may every supporter of Planned Parenthood, be tossed in the worst depths of hell the Lord can come up with.

Jeff from WI on November 2, 2009 at 8:40 PM

What is it about blogs that attracts so many sociopaths? Good grief, we must have the market cornered here on hotair.

One thing for sure, Germany did a good thing by making Nazism and Aryan theory into thought crimes. They still can’t stamp it out but they sure have less of it than we do in America.

Tarantino should make a movie about Planned Parenthood. He wouldn’t need special effects – just on-the-job video.

platypus on November 2, 2009 at 8:40 PM

All true enough, but why is this issue improperly within the purview of the Federal Government?
Should taxpayers have to pay for others’ abortions, especially when we find abortion abhorrent?

SCOTUS should never have inserted itself into this mess.
The decision to deem abortion legal or not legal should go back to the several states.

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:35 PM

1. It never should have become a government issue. 2. No. 3. Correct. 4. If there is any government involvement whatsoever (& I’m not sure there should be), I agree.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 8:41 PM

I think Jimbo went off to have a life tonight. So let me play devil’s advocate: A fetus becomes a person when it has discernible brain activity or is determinably sensate to pain.

Now what, Bob?

Pavel on November 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Why? because jimbo says so? what of John Doe says a person is not a person unless their skin pigmentation is within certain range?
What if neuquenguy says a person becomes a person at conception (or at list there is a possibility of it) ?
Now what?

neuquenguy on November 2, 2009 at 8:41 PM

Let me guess, you’re a homosexual?
Betcha you call women “breeders,” too.

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Talk about having ZERO skin in the game!

platypus on November 2, 2009 at 8:43 PM

The decision to deem abortion legal or not legal should go back to the several states.

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Now there’s something I can agree on!

The SCOTUS is getting far too big for its britches to the point where, IMO, it’s breaking the most basic rule of our system of government: no one branch has more power than the other two.

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 8:43 PM

Pavel, Like I said, Jimbob didn’t say “person” he said “human.”

If you’d like to delve into personhood, you’re doing so on your own, not on the behest of Jimbob.

Now, personhood is an intersting issue because it is exclusively used to say “you’re human but…”

It’s been used throughout history to deny rights a group of humans. The line has changed, but the intent remains the same.

Say we draw the line at brain waves. Ok. An analogy is a bit difficult for this situation because absolute brain death is not a recoverable condition, while an unborn child will have brain activity if nothing is changed and he is allowed to continue to develop. Though coma is not a percise match given the fact that a person in a coma has more brain function than one considered “brain dead”, I think it works for the sake of the argument. If we apply the same standard to coma patients that you’ve applied to the unborn, it would be perfectly acceptable to kill someone after an accident because they lack acceptable brain activity at that time.

I would argue that brain activity is a poor measure of personhood in general, but I think the argument itself can be deconstructed even within your premise.

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:44 PM

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM

A very large percentage of conceptions result in a failure to implant or otherwise spontaneously abort. Your biology point is generally correct, though not related to my point.

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Your biology point is generally correct, though not related to my point.

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM

And your point was what?

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:46 PM

What a brave women…a pity our leaders are not as brave…God bless her in her revelation. She was lost, but now was found…

right2bright on November 2, 2009 at 8:46 PM

Dedalus, your point seems to be that “lots of children die before birth, so it’s ok to kill them.”

Is this essentially correct?

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM

Does the death of someone severily handicapped (and suffering) evoke a different response in people than the death a young professional with a brilliantly promissing carrer ahead of her does? what does this mean in the rehalm of right and wrong? it somehow diminishes the value of the unborn?

neuquenguy on November 2, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Of course we are struck more by the death of the promising young person (for multiple reasons). For the most part, though, we provide the same level of emergency care to both.

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM

May every abortionist, may every supporter of Planned Parenthood, be tossed in the worst depths of hell the Lord can come up with.

Jeff from WI on November 2, 2009 at 8:40 PM

Just so you know, God does not agree with you. “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, don’t support abortion, and you will be saved.” Acts 16:31

My strikeout. And before you go all self-righteous on me, I didn’t say it- God did.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 8:49 PM

Let me guess, you’re a homosexual?
Betcha you call women “breeders,” too.

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Wrongo! So far you’re batting exactly .000

True women are deserving of the name ‘mothers’. I strictly reserve the term “breeders” for those whose identity is completely limited to their progeny, slander those who attempt to do otherwise, refuse to use effective discipline on their children and have no shame about using their children to game the welfare system.

Sadly, even limiting the term to a 3 out of 4 requirement doesn’t eliminate as many people as I’d wish. The statists in government (more babies = more students to brainwash and votes to buy) and their media puppets (“oh noez! spanking is teh EVIL!!!”) don’t help matters at all.

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 8:50 PM

Dedalus, I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say.

Doctors do everything possible to save children from miscarriage, but there’s not a whole lot that can be done prior to about 20 weeks. There are also many situations outside the womb where little can be done to save a life. What does this have to do with allowing one human to kill another?

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Liberal Lexicon:

Priorities = when “your” rights interfere with “my” rights, my rights take priority.

BobMbx on November 2, 2009 at 8:52 PM

“Come on down for our buy one abortion, get one free sale!”
“If you come on in for a fast, friendly abortion, and you’ll get a free abortion within the next 18 months.” ”
Or share it with a friend.”
“Don’t forget, the holidays are coming. You can get a Planned Parenthood Abortion Gift Card. They come in $50, $100, or $500 levels. They make great stocking stuffers!”
And for the racist, don’t forget your donation to Planned Parenthood to help fund the abortion of some minority, or whitey, is 100% tax deductible. Operators are standing by to take your call!

Jeff from WI on November 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Let me guess, you’re a homosexual?
Betcha you call women “breeders,” too.

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Got it in one, Jen.

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 8:54 PM

And before you go all self-righteous on me, I didn’t say it- God did.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 8:49 PM

Like You?

Get a life, Broseph Stalin.

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Dedalus, your point seems to be that “lots of children die before birth, so it’s ok to kill them.”

Is this essentially correct?

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:48 PM

No, it’s that we do nearly nothing to save the children who are a few hours or days old but recoil in horror if there is a video of an abortion done 14 weeks later.

The latter is, of course, more viscerally horrible; though, the life, some would say, is no more precious than a blastocyst trying to implant.

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 8:57 PM

this is a decision a woman has to make in her own conscience, between her & God & her doctor

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Why would the doctors opinion matter? God trumps doctor every time. Do you know what God said about aborting a baby?

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 8:58 PM

Dedalus, I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say.

Doctors do everything possible to save children from miscarriage, but there’s not a whole lot that can be done prior to about 20 weeks. There are also many situations outside the womb where little can be done to save a life. What does this have to do with allowing one human to kill another?

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:51 PM

My niece was born at 5 months. She weighed less than 2 lbs. She was born with a terrible infection. She was given less than 10% chance to live. The doctors urged her mother to abort the baby, rather than deliver by C-section.
She’s currently 30 years old, married and has is working on her business masters degree. NEVER GIVE UP ON A CHILD

Jeff from WI on November 2, 2009 at 8:59 PM

A fetus becomes a person when it has discernible brain activity or is determinably sensate to pain.

So, would you support a requirement to test each and every human in the womb for “discernible brain activity” or reaction to pain stimuli? And if said person shows positive on these tests, would you then support denying the abortion?

Incidentally, why are you using the word “fetus”? Jimbo was talking about very early stages: an embryo until the end of month three
Pavel on November 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM
.

Fetus, embyro, zygote, human, person, child, un-born baby, ad nauseum. All the same thing.

BobMbx on November 2, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Like You?

Get a life, Broseph Stalin.

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Do you believe the Bible or not? Either way, you are arguing with the wrong Person. Best of luck with that one. lol.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 9:01 PM

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 8:49 PM

I fully understand. God is a much better person than I am.
If I was God they’d all be dying from a horrible lingering death followed by the worst depths of hell. God is a great guy. He’s in the forgiveness business. I’m not.

Jeff from WI on November 2, 2009 at 9:01 PM

If you want to reduce the creation of a new person to crude science, I can’t help you.

Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 7:53 PM

Science informs our religion. We develop from a single-cell containing our individual DNA template into a form which (in most cases) has arms, legs, heart, lungs, brain, etc.). We have great insight into the continuous timeline of physical human development from just prior to conception all the way up to our death from old age. When viewed in this continuum, the “seminal” act is conception — the fertilization of the ovum. It is only at that point, where the first diploid cell of the new being is created, that all the elements needed are together. Like any being, this one needs nourishment, a place to live and grow…

The questions of “ensoulment” (which Jimbo obliquely refers to in his “early development” statement) were debated by the Doctors of the Church pretty early on. Not one of the Doctors viewed abortion either prior to or after ensoulment as anything other than a sin, and the only reason they attempted to discern ensoulment was to determine whether the sin for a particular act of abortion was venial or mortal — because, certainly, the killing of an ensouled human was murder and a mortal sin, but abortion prior to ensoulment would be human intervention to prevent the ensoulment — a lesser sin. Most of the arguments around ensoulment centered around animation and the thought that humans went through develpmental processes akin the perceived ancient order of life — vegetable, animal, human — precisely the kind of thinking Jimbo’s statements embody.

So drawing a line anywhere after conception is the ethical equivalent of the above type of theological debate, and one which nonreligious people of good will can totally deny (as the Church did millenia ago), especially given the modern scientific evidence of human development.

unclesmrgol on November 2, 2009 at 9:03 PM

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 8:54 PM

Your username fits; you must have purchased your brain at a Blue Light special.

Wrongo! So far you’re batting exactly .000 (on being gay)

Hmm…never thought I’d be defending my manhood to some random idiot on the ‘net. Wonder why it’s asking…

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 9:03 PM

God trumps doctor every time. Do you know what God said about aborting a baby?

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 8:58 PM

Exactly what did He say? Chapter & verse please.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 9:03 PM

Dedalus, the issue is that there is little that can be done for the blastocyst. I agree that they are equally precious, but we are limited in how much we can do to save a very young human.

I’ve had several miscarriages and mourned the loss of those children. There was nothing that could have been done to stop them. I consider them as much my children as the ones that are still alive.

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 9:04 PM

Doctors do everything possible to save children from miscarriage, but there’s not a whole lot that can be done prior to about 20 weeks. There are also many situations outside the womb where little can be done to save a life. What does this have to do with allowing one human to kill another?

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:51 PM

20 weeks is a good line. We can agree that society should grant rights at that point and abortion should be restricted form then on. However, somewhere between day 1 and week 20 it is difficult for society to insert itself in between the mother and child. Within the first week it is near impossible. Most women view a conception that failed in the first few days as a heavy period, not a miscarriage.

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 9:07 PM

I’ve had several miscarriages and mourned the loss of those children. There was nothing that could have been done to stop them. I consider them as much my children as the ones that are still alive.

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 9:04 PM

I’m very saddened to hear that. I certainly respect your point of view and the articulate way that you present it.

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 9:09 PM

However, somewhere between day 1 and week 20 it is difficult for society to insert itself in between the mother and child. Within the first week it is near impossible. Most women view a conception that failed in the first few days as a heavy period, not a miscarriage.

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 9:07 PM

Where’s Hornetsting and Upinak when you need them.

BobMbx on November 2, 2009 at 9:12 PM

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 9:03 PM

lol. you don’t buy usernames, moron.

for a “scientist” you sure are dumb.

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 9:12 PM

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 9:03 PM

I’m outside of your window. That’s why.

;-)

*just tell yourself it’s only a joke*

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 9:13 PM

No, 20 weeks is not a good line. It is a completely arbitrary line.

Our capacity to keep someone alive does not determine if another should be allowed to kill him. Society most certainly can insert itself between a mother who seeks to kill her child and the victim of that homicide.

You keep going back to perceived sociatal norms to defend killing another human. First of all, miscarriages are mourned regardless of time spent pregnant, but even if they weren’t, the children lost are humans. It doesn’t matter if no one in the world recognizes them as such.

Again, I look at history for this point. There have always been humans who have died while others ignored their deaths or claimed them to be sub-humans. Did society’s opinions change the what those humans were?

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 9:13 PM

(from one of those who escaped Margaret Sanger’s plan to eradicate Americans who are black)

baldilocks on November 2, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Only a Black Conservative in these days a times has the courage to call Sanger’s motives for what they were. Seems everyone else just likes the fact that her actions ensure the abortion industry was provided to them. You’re a hero of mine Baldi.

hawkdriver on November 2, 2009 at 9:16 PM

God trumps doctor every time. Do you know what God said about aborting a baby?

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 8:58 PM

Exactly what did He say? Chapter & verse please.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 9:03 PM

God trumps all of creation. So specifically, I’d like to hear the verse that says a woman goes to hell for an abortion. That was the issue I was addressing when you decided to jump in & correct me.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 9:17 PM

Exactly what did He say? Chapter & verse please.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 9:03 PM

Don’t turn it around on me. I know what the Bible says. I’m asking you. Go back and read. You made the bold declaration, you said, “I consider myself a staunch conservative and I believe this is a decision a woman has to make in her own conscience, between her & God & her doctor – it has to be the most personal & difficult of all decisions.” So, I’m asking you why would the doctors opinion matter if God trumps doctor? What if the doctor said, “Yes, we should abort the baby.” My other question is do you know what God said about aborting babies in the womb? These are two straight-forward questions. I’m getting the impression you are in favour of abortion.

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 9:18 PM

Dark Star, I don’t know what your problem is but you’re one mean, bitter and angry woman queen…
Jenfidel on November 2, 2009 at 8:26 PM

FIFY

mrpeabody on November 2, 2009 at 9:19 PM

A fetus becomes a person when it has discernible brain activity or is determinably sensate to pain.

So, would you support a requirement to test each and every human in the womb for “discernible brain activity” or reaction to pain stimuli? And if said person shows positive on these tests, would you then support denying the abortion?

Not necessary, Bob. We can average it out. Individual testing would be very expensive. If our testing equipment shows that human embryos are insensate to pain before, say, the twelfth week, that is sufficient for that step of the test. Discernible brain activity is the same.

Incidentally, why are you using the word “fetus”? Jimbo was talking about very early stages: an embryo until the end of month three
Pavel on November 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM
.

Fetus, embyro, zygote, human, person, child, un-born baby, ad nauseum. All the same thing.

BobMbx on November 2, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Oh really? You are going to let me define the terms of debate? Let’s call it the “product of conception,” then, okay?

Pavel on November 2, 2009 at 9:20 PM

lol. you don’t buy usernames, moron.

for a “scientist” you sure are dumb.

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 9:12 PM

Funny, it seems to be acceptable practice for insulting anyone who deviates from the One True Path around here. (and the trolls like crr6 and AnninCA)

And btw where exactly did I claim to be a scientist? (oh, that’s right, I didn’t.)

I enjoy studying it though…amazing the things that the brightest minds of history have figured out how to do.

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 9:21 PM

FIFY

mrpeabody on November 2, 2009 at 9:19 PM

+1

Not that it wasn’t self-evident, tho. :)

bluelightbrigade on November 2, 2009 at 9:21 PM

mrpeabody on November 2, 2009 at 9:19 PM

Hey peabrain…I’m not a woman.

What does it take with you whacko wingnuts around here? I thought liberals were supposed to be the ones who constantly repeated things proven to be false.

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM

I would argue that brain activity is a poor measure of personhood in general, but I think the argument itself can be deconstructed even within your premise.

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 8:44 PM

Well, if you and I disagree about the value of measurable brain activity, why should your view prevail? (You’re right concerning the issue of personhood, incidentally. It’s a different concept from humanness, but I think your taking jimbo to task for this is overly technical. I’m pretty sure he meant “person.”)

Pavel on November 2, 2009 at 9:27 PM

These are two straight-forward questions. I’m getting the impression you are in favour of abortion.

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 9:18 PM

Frankly I don’t give a rat’s butt what impression you are getting. When I say God trumps all I mean He is the Judge- not you, not me, and not the doctor. Sorry if that offends you. And nowhere in Scripture have I read where He addresses the issue of abortion. So let’s have it, where in the Bible does He comdemn it?

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Not necessary, Bob. We can average it out. Individual testing would be very expensive. If our testing equipment shows that human embryos are insensate to pain before, say, the twelfth week, that is sufficient for that step of the test. Discernible brain activity is the same.

Nope. I won’t stipulate to that. Your suggestion implies a fixed point in time (recognizing you used the term “average”) at 12 weeks. Would you agree or disagree that, how did you say it..the “products of conception” grow at varying rates, and that some of these products would be murdered simply due to an averaging operation (the slow growers)?

Oh really? You are going to let me define the terms of debate? Let’s call it the “product of conception,” then, okay?

Pavel on November 2, 2009 at 9:20 PM

You may use any term you like, but that won’t change the fact that abortion is murder.

BobMbx on November 2, 2009 at 9:34 PM

hawkdriver on November 2, 2009 at 9:16 PM

Agreed.

Good to hear you are safe sir. Please continue to stay that way.

rukiddingme on November 2, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Pavel, I am most certainly not sure he meant “person.” I have debated dozens of people hell bent on defending their view that a zygote is not a human. He made the statement,and many pro-choicers make the blob of cells argument to sell their abortions. I think it’s important to lay down a scientific groundwork when so much misinformation is floating around the issue.

As for brain waves, my view should prevail because amphimixis is the only marker in the lifecycle that is absolute. We can say with certainty when a new, unique human life has began. Brain waves, heartbeat, fingerprints, eyebrows, or whatever other measure one wishes to use outside of amphimixis, is arbitrary.

With human life on the line, definite lines should be used. Amphimixis is the only definite line in this game.

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 9:36 PM

There is a special place in hell for baby killers.

jdun on November 2, 2009 at 9:39 PM

Frankly I don’t give a rat’s butt what impression you are getting.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Are you in favour of abortion or not? Yes or no?

When I say God trumps all I mean He is the Judge – not you, not me, and not the doctor.

Yay! You got one right! Way to go.

Sorry if that offends you.

It doesn’t offend me at all. I said, “God trumps doctor” first.

And nowhere in Scripture have I read where He addresses the issue of abortion. So let’s have it, where in the Bible does He comdemn it?

I’m more than happy to get into Scripture in just a minute, but I asked you do you know what God said about aborting babies in the womb? That’s my question. And you don’t seem to wanna answer that. Does God say anything about abortion? Is He silent on abortion? Is that what you’re saying. Thank you.

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 9:41 PM

So let’s have it, where in the Bible does He comdemn it?

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 9:28 PM

Matthew 19:18  Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder…

Christian Conservative on November 2, 2009 at 9:42 PM

And nowhere in Scripture have I read where He addresses the issue of abortion. So let’s have it, where in the Bible does He comdemn it?

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 9:28 PM

I missed this post. OK. Forget the above questions. Just this one. Are you in favour of abortion? Yes or no?

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Hey peabrain…I’m not a woman.
What does it take with you whacko wingnuts around here? I thought liberals were supposed to be the ones who constantly repeated things proven to be false.
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM

Well…not anatomically, or, so you say. You do seem a bit sensitive, some might even say a bit foppish. Not me, of course. Oh, BTW, “queen” is used to refer to homosexual men. And you call me a peabrain. Heh!

mrpeabody on November 2, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Well…not anatomically, or, so you say.

Prove otherwise.

You do seem a bit sensitive, some might even say a bit foppish. Not me, of course.

I do enjoy calling out fools like yourself on ‘right-wing’ sites, as well as wondering why few people realize that they’re giving ammunition to those who call conservatives bigoted, drunken fools. As to the latter half – of course not. You’d just continue to stick your foot in your mouth at every opportunity.

Oh, BTW, “queen” is used to refer to homosexual men.

Never heard that phrase! After my public school career I thought I’d heard about every dirty word in existence…

And you call me a peabrain. Heh!

mrpeabody on November 2, 2009 at 9:44 PM

If the shoe fits…

Hadn’t you best be off with your boy Sherman to save someone important in history? Why don’t you try helping Custer.

Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 9:53 PM

Pavel, I am most certainly not sure he meant “person.” I have debated dozens of people hell bent on defending their view that a zygote is not a human.

Well, then they are very silly. Your question – what is it, then, an apple? – clarifies the point nicely. No doubt the product of conception is human genetic material; it’s just a question of what value we place on that material. For instance, does it have a higher value than human remains (which are also human, in the sense that they are not an apple.)

As for brain waves, my view should prevail because amphimixis is the only marker in the lifecycle that is absolute. We can say with certainty when a new, unique human life has began. Brain waves, heartbeat, fingerprints, eyebrows, or whatever other measure one wishes to use outside of amphimixis, is arbitrary.

But isn’t amphimixis a value judgment on your part? (I had never heard that word before tonight, by the way, and I have been arguing over abortion for a very long time; so thanks for the new word!)

That is to say: if I don’t believe the genetic mixing of sperm and egg has any particular value in and of itself, why should I then say, “OK, now the law will protect you.”

Concerning the absoluteness of the amphimixis marker: there are loads of markers that are absolute. We can positively identify the presence or absence of brain waves, for example, or the presence or absence of fingernails, or the beating of the product of conception’s heart. Why should admixis be given greater value than these other things?

With human life on the line, definite lines should be used. Amphimixis is the only definite line in this game.

We regularly use very fuzzy lines in making life and death decisions. Battlefield triage is a good example; the decision to not resuscitate is another.

The point is: If the Church of Pavel says the only real determinant of personhood is a beating heart, why is my test worse than yours? And if we agree that there is a reasonable basis for my beating heart theory of personhood, why shouldn’t I be able to make that decision for myself?

Pavel on November 2, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Spoken like a true German citizen, circa 1944 when Hitler was gassing the Jews. Hey, Hitler had determined that the Jews weren’t really human – so of course it was okay for him to gas them no?

So if a woman decides the life inside her isn’t human – get rid of it! Just like Hitler with the Jews. Am I Godwin here? Oh yes, I am – but in this case the comparison is completely viable – since both Hitler’s “Final Solution” and America’s woeful history of abortion amount to HOLOCAUSTS.

In 2005, 1.2 million abortions were performed. Since 1973, we’ve aborted over 49.5 MILLION BABIES. How many Jews did Hitler kill? 6 million?

It would seem we’ve bested Hitler eight times over.

HondaV65 on November 2, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Back in the day, I used to give Concentration Camp tours. One thing that always stuck me – and I’d throw it out there to the tour group. How could all those people who lived on the street leading from the train station to the camp be “oblivious” to the travesty?

To silently watch thousands of people marched under the gun, just meters from their door, to disappear forever under the sign “Arbeit Macht Frei“, and turn away to carry on about their business? If any of them truly believed the propaganda, why didn’t some of them step forward to “free” themselves for the State?

As part of the “therapy” we forced the Germans to look at what they refused to see. We may not be able to overturn Roe v Wade overnight, but I’m all for incrementally pushing back.

I used to think anyone wanting an abortion should be FORCED to watch an ultrasound of their baby and to look at pictures of aborted, ripped, burned and otherwise mutilated babies before they could proceed. But I never knew that there existed videos of a baby actually being aborted.

I’d expand upon my prior position that the prospective aborter be not only FORCED to watch such a video prior to fixing her mistake; but to watch her baby experience the “God-given mother’s choice” executed on the plasma screen positioned larger-than-life right above her head.

If Obambi & friends sincerely wanted to reduce abortion w/o taking away the “mother’s right”, then surely they can’t be against that right? But then again, Obambi said he didn’t want his daughters to “suffer” for their mistake. So where’d the reduction come, if some were stupid enough to habitually make that mistake over & over again?

AH_C on November 2, 2009 at 9:58 PM

but I asked you do you know what God said about aborting babies in the womb? That’s my question. And you don’t seem to wanna answer that. Does God say anything about abortion? Is He silent on abortion? Is that what you’re saying. Thank you.

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 9:41 PM

Good grief, I am not “for” abortion in any way. I said the Bible does not address the issue & so we do not know but that was not my point. We have a gracious God. Even if He did specifically say abortion was murder (which I’ve never seen in Scripture, for the umpteenth time!) he would not condemn a woman to hell for it, just as He did not condemn David or Paul, both of whom committed murder & went on to become great spiritually.

Those who make this a Christian issue & use it as a basis for condemnation should read their Bible a little more.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Nope. I won’t stipulate to that. Your suggestion implies a fixed point in time (recognizing you used the term “average”) at 12 weeks. Would you agree or disagree that, how did you say it..the “products of conception” grow at varying rates, and that some of these products would be murdered simply due to an averaging operation (the slow growers)?

Okay, I’ll give you that. There is probably some variability in growth rates. Let’s cut a couple weeks off at the front end to take care of that problem. Ten weeks should work.

Oh really? You are going to let me define the terms of debate? Let’s call it the “product of conception,” then, okay?

Pavel on November 2, 2009 at 9:20 PM

You may use any term you like, but that won’t change the fact that abortion is murder.

BobMbx on November 2, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Well, when you call it murder, you beg the question of whether we’re dealing with a person or something that isn’t really a person. You can’t murder something that isn’t human.

Incidentally – are you really going to let me get away with “product of conception”? It’s completely dehumanizing . . .

Pavel on November 2, 2009 at 10:07 PM

There is a difference between the beginning of a beating heart and the beginning of a new, unique human life. One marks further development of a being already in existence. The other marks the creation of that being.

Think of it like a number line. Amphimixis starts the line, death ends it. Anything else is a mere event within the larger framework of conception and death.

You ask why you shouldn’t be able to pick a random event on the line and use it to determine personhood. It would be completely arbitrary. When dealing with questions of death, a random selection is not appropriate.

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 10:09 PM

Our capacity to keep someone alive does not determine if another should be allowed to kill him. Society most certainly can insert itself between a mother who seeks to kill her child and the victim of that homicide.

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 9:13 PM

The state lacks the ability to detect when an individual is conceived, to monitor the mother, or to provide a sanctuary for the new life. There is no feasible way for the state to get between the mother and the child during the first week.

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 10:23 PM

Well, when you call it murder, you beg the question of whether we’re dealing with a person or something that isn’t really a person. You can’t murder something that isn’t human.

Which is why I refer to the procedure of abortion as murder.

Incidentally – are you really going to let me get away with “product of conception”? It’s completely dehumanizing . . .

Pavel on November 2, 2009 at 10:07 PM

You’ll need stinkier bait than that to get me to bite ;) As I said, you may use any term you like. I won’t try to force words onto you.

BobMbx on November 2, 2009 at 10:24 PM

Dedalus, there’s no way for a woman to knowingly end the life of her child within the first week of pregnancy. It’s a moot point that the state can not stop her from doing something she doesn’t have the ability to do.

The state can, however, shut down doctors who perform abortions.

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 10:34 PM

What circumstance justifies the murder of the baby?

Jenfidel

Cheerleading, the prom, bike week at Myrtle Beach, acne….You know, just the important stuff.

xblade on November 2, 2009 at 10:34 PM

“It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,” said Johnson.

It occurs to me that if Obama were pro life (I know, not believable) he would be claiming that doctors are getting 30… 40… $50,000.00 per abortion.

Basilsbest on November 2, 2009 at 10:35 PM

Dedalus, there’s no way for a woman to knowingly end the life of her child within the first week of pregnancy. It’s a moot point that the state can not stop her from doing something she doesn’t have the ability to do.

Vera on November 2, 2009 at 10:34 PM

Don’t women take progesten and estrogen as emergency contraception after intercourse?

dedalus on November 2, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Good grief, I am not “for” abortion in any way.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 10:06 PM

That’s good to know.

I said the Bible does not address the issue & so we do not know

Contrary to what you’re saying and what is promoted by abortionists, the Bible does address the issue of abortion. Jeremiah was known by God before he was even conceived in the womb, illustrating the truth that the human embryo is fully human from the very moment of conception.

“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5

How do you explain this passage?

Even if He did specifically say abortion was murder he would not condemn a woman to hell for it

You seem confused. Are you saying that an unsaved person who murdered somebody would not go to hell? Are you talking about a saved person? Clarify what you mean?

Those who make this a Christian issue & use it as a basis for condemnation should read their Bible a little more.

If human life begins at conception, and not at birth, like the Bible says, then abortion is murder and it certainly should be an issue Christians care deeply about.

apacalyps on November 2, 2009 at 10:52 PM

Good grief, I am not “for” abortion in any way. I said the Bible does not address the issue & so we do not know but that was not my point. We have a gracious God. Even if He did specifically say abortion was murder (which I’ve never seen in Scripture, for the umpteenth time!) he would not condemn a woman to hell for it, just as He did not condemn David or Paul, both of whom committed murder & went on to become great spiritually.

Those who make this a Christian issue & use it as a basis for condemnation should read their Bible a little more.

kg598301 on November 2, 2009 at 10:06 PM

Wrong! There is condemnation on every sin.

To use your example, David & Paul paid for their sins – in fact, David’s newborn son died as a direct consequence of Davis’s sin. The only thing, and the most important thing you overlooked is that both men REPENTED. It was that repentance that saved them from hell. You need to read the Bible deeper and not just skim the highlights.

Time and time again, God make it clear that his grace is conditional on repentance – as in you, I, the baby murderer are guilty of sin and deserve nothing less than eternal damnation. So in a sense, without a path to salvation, the women who aborts is already on her way to hell long before she could even conceive.

So adding yet another sin is not like some proverbial straw – because that camel’s back was already broken by the time a human child knows right from wrong.

As for condemning abortion, one doesn’t need explicit verbiage stating “abortion” is sin to understand that is in God’s nature to be against sin. All you have to do is read plenty of other cases (pre-conception, pre-birth & post-birth) in the Bible (pick a Book, any Book) to make the logical connection that in-uterus murder is equally abominable to God.

AH_C on November 2, 2009 at 10:56 PM

This thread is deeply discouraging. Instead of happiness we get bitterness, queen-for-a-day fantasies about reimposing carry-the-rapists-baby-to-term dogma, know-it-all edicts, hectoring/badgering and personal attacks on those who express the faintest mainstream position on any of these issues, ad nauseam.

And this comment is from someone who (foolishly I see now) thought themselves to be aligned on most related issues, including the overturning of Roe. I realize I’ve probably misjudged this. I’ll leave it there.

Anyhow: When I leave a comment on the subject from time to time it’s going to be from that perspective. Otherwise I’ll try to keep comments on that subject to a minimum.

One story I’ll share: Just before the 2008 election a colleague asked me how I could bring myself to vote for McCain/Palin, and when I turned the question back around on them, she shared her biggest fear with me: voting for a candidate who would ultimately undermine her safety valve in the event something went horribly wrong (like rape-rape).

Curiously she was not that concerned about the candidates’ positions per se. She was a more worried that the voters who elected these pols would run the tables on her, and the new guys/gals in charge would fail to stop it.

Of course at the time I assured her that even if Roe was overturned, the states would see the subject her way, and that not everybody on the right was a crazed anti-abortion fanatic.

Now I see why she was right to vote for Obama. He might let the country fall down in ruins around us, but he would never let anyone imprison her in her own web of personal horror.

Was the fear rational? I almost don’t care. Why should she, as a potential voter, lose even one moment’s sleep over the matter?

You want to “take back America”, I suggest you give it serious thought.

RD on November 2, 2009 at 10:58 PM

May every abortionist, may every supporter of Planned Parenthood, be tossed in the worst depths of hell the Lord can come up with.

Jeff from WI on November 2, 2009 at 8:40 PM

Only if they refuse to repent and turn away from this monstrous sin. Abby Johnson has apparently repented.

OmahaConservative on November 2, 2009 at 11:06 PM

I’d expand upon my prior position that the prospective aborter be not only FORCED to watch such a video prior to fixing her mistake; but to watch her baby experience the “God-given mother’s choice” executed on the plasma screen positioned larger-than-life right above her head.

AH_C on November 2, 2009 at 9:58 PM

Why stop there? Let’s expand upon your expansion. A prospective diner should be FORCED to watch a random cow or pig being slaughtered on a larger-than-life plasma screen right above their head, prior to consuming a T-bone steak at a restaurant, after which they will be asked again whether they really want to go ahead with their order. If they do, then they will be forced to see another video of their particular animal being slaughtered, replete with its screams and moans of agony.

Being a concentration camp guide certainly hasn’t dulled your enthusiasm for the use of propaganda.

RD on November 2, 2009 at 11:07 PM

Now I see why she was right to vote for Obama. He might let the country fall down in ruins around us, but he would never let anyone imprison her in her own web of personal horror. /sarc

RD on November 2, 2009 at 10:58 PM

FIFY. Because Teh WON would imprison her in his own web of horror

AH_C on November 2, 2009 at 11:08 PM

The entire legal basis on which the right to an abortion rests is a house of cards that will eventually collapse. Libtards should worry less about people like Sarah Palin being elected president and appointing strict constructionist judges who might strike down Roe and worry more about the fact that Roe is sh!tty law that needs to be overturned for more reasons than just whether abortion is murder. The concept of trimesters have no real basis in medical fact; they are legal constructs fashioned by the Roe court to justify their determination as to when life begins. As Justice O\’Connor once stated in one of her opinions (in Casey I think), this is an analysis at war with itself. Even if you\’re not a Christian and don\’t buy into the idea that life begins at conception, how do you square the circle of viability as medicine advances? Maybe in 1970, a baby born before 26 weeks couldn\’t be viable outside the womb; that\’s not always true today. Heck, we can grow humans in test tubes for Pete\’s sake. The pro-abortion crowd better start looking for better justification than viability if they want to keep their precious \”rights\” intact.I\’d also argue that carving out abortion as a \”privacy\” right is another analysis at war with itself. There are two competing interests here: Mother and child. Outside of the pregnancy endangering the life of the mother, I can scarcely come up with a reason why the mother\’s interests should take precedence over the baby\’s. Pregnancy is a consequence (sometimes) of having sex. It\’s not a disease. If you don\’t want to have a baby, then you should adjust your behavior accordingly. You would think feminists would expect their sisters to take personal responsibility for their own lives instead of relying on the eugenicists to make their problem go away for them.I would never judge someone who has chosen to have an abortion, but I do think we need an alternative to Planned Parenthood where girls and women can go to learn about other options. PP\’s agenda has been crystal clear from its inception. We need more groups like Feminists for Life who will encourage women to practice safe sex (including abstinence) and to offer them alternatives to abortion if they do get pregnant. This fiction that getting pregnant will entirely derail a girl\’s life needs to stop.

NoLeftTurn on November 2, 2009 at 11:10 PM

Being a concentration camp guide certainly hasn’t dulled your enthusiasm for the use of propaganda.

RD on November 2, 2009 at 11:07 PM

Excuse me, that was wrong. I should have said the methods and techniques of propaganda.

RD on November 2, 2009 at 11:13 PM

Why stop there? Let’s expand upon your expansion. A prospective diner should be FORCED to watch a random cow or pig being slaughtered on a larger-than-life plasma screen right above their head, prior to consuming a T-bone steak at a restaurant, after which they will be asked again whether they really want to go ahead with their order. If they do, then they will be forced to see another video of their particular animal being slaughtered, replete with its screams and moans of agony.

Being a concentration camp guide certainly hasn’t dulled your enthusiasm for the use of propaganda.

RD on November 2, 2009 at 11:07 PM

Umm, at one time, most people killed & prepared their meals. These days, the majority of people still do so. It’s only the citified squeamish that would swoon at seeing their meal prepared before their eyes.

Not even in the same league as murdering a sanctified life. Doesn’t matter if the child was born of love or “rape-rape”. So how is watching the murder of a human baby propaganda? Only if you wish to sugar-coat murder as choice, in which case, “choice” is the operative propaganda.

AH_C on November 2, 2009 at 11:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7