CNN: So, what was it like to live-tweet your abortion?
posted at 6:23 pm on March 8, 2010 by Allahpundit
Via Hengler, a new-media publicity stunt hits paydirt. It’s worth watching if, like me, you only glanced at the headlines about this a few weeks ago and had an image of a woman in the stirrups tapping away on her Blackberry while her obstetrician went to work. That’s not how it was. For one thing, she was facing a serious health risk if she’d carried the child to term; it wasn’t a simple matter of ridding herself of an “inconvenience.” For another thing, she did it herself, at home, via RU-486, which takes a while. Presumably most of the tweeting occurred between ingesting the pill and waiting for it to take effect.
The money line: “When a woman does want to discuss it, the reaction is quite strong.” Is it? Or is it more that the reaction is strong when a woman wants to discuss it while it’s happening, on a forum best known for mindless snark and tween obsessions? The YouTube video couldn’t have waited until an hour after it was over? Per her own description, an RU-486 abortion is similar to a miscarriage. Show of hands from everyone who’s experienced a miscarriage: How bummed were you that you weren’t in front of a laptop with TweetDeck open at the time?
The first clip is from CNN, the second is her homemade empowerment memoir.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Sick and evil.
Reagan Republican on March 8, 2010 at 11:43 PM
vile
Few Things Considered on March 8, 2010 at 11:46 PM
…especially the smiley fun times at the end of the CNN piece
Few Things Considered on March 8, 2010 at 11:48 PM
CNN must think this is news gold!
Disgusting.
Dick Turpin on March 8, 2010 at 11:56 PM
Here’s some choice quotes from her. Judge for yourself if you think she was just a poor woman who had to make the tragic choice between herself and her child. Does this sound like someone who is carefully weighing her health and another’s life?
“Heh funny. At this point it would only be a fetus. And i don’t deserve to go through another pregnancy.”
“BF”I do think abortion is murder, you just forget how much I like murdering children” Don’t let him write your campaign slogans!”
“You try not letting emotions speak for you when a parasite is making your body go all f*ing crazy you numbwad!”
“I cant wait for the eviction. This womb squatter has got to go.”
And it goes on, and on, and on.
Vera on March 8, 2010 at 11:29 PM
“For one thing, she was facing a serious health risk if she’d carried the child to term; it wasn’t a simple matter of ridding herself of an “inconvenience.” – Allahpundit
Wrong Allahpundit, there was no health risk at all that was diagonsed. But, your story is great reporting if you work for HuffPo. They cover-up and/or don’t bother with facts when they are pushing the abortion agenda, too. Allah! You get a B+!
tigerlily on March 9, 2010 at 12:00 AM
I had two miscarriages. I will never watch this disgusting video. Two extremely painful experiences physically and emotionally. I will never recover from the pain of those losses and I am tearing up and going to cry myself to sleep right now.
margategop517 on March 9, 2010 at 12:00 AM
When NBC repeatedly showed the death moment of the poor Olympic athlete that lost his life in the luge event I thought, what a shame our culture has come to this. Zero respect for human life.
Seriously. What the hell would make me even want to watch a single millisecond of this video?
watson007 on March 9, 2010 at 12:02 AM
Are you serious? Someone actually referred to an unborn baby as a “womb squatter”???
IMHO whoever believes evil like that doesn’t deserve to draw breath.
Wanderlust on March 9, 2010 at 12:08 AM
Exit question: What sad human being actually had sex with this disgusting, ugly excuse for a ‘woman’?
metric on March 9, 2010 at 12:09 AM
But WAIT! The proaborts have been saying that RU-486 is not an abortion pill.
I won’t watch this sewage, but will refer to it when the local proabort plebe comes a callin, saying that the “Plan B” is not really an abortion. The premise of this video stunt is that this IS an abortion…and it is OK according to them.
Not OK according to me.
WWCathodeRay on March 9, 2010 at 12:13 AM
That is complete BS. The best she could come up with is “I had a 98 hour back labor”. I’m an Ob and this is crap.
Look at the video. Watch her immediate reaction when the reporter asks “What did your doctor say”. I’m no Bill O’Reilly body-language expert, but immediately her eyes shift right-left-right-left rapidly. She’s lying through her teeth.
Marcus on March 9, 2010 at 12:18 AM
BTW, if this idiot ends up on Fox News I’m asking for a divorce from them. The thought of the idiots Doocy or O’Reilly interviewing her and falling for this make me shudder. Megyn Kelly could handle her (call me first Meg).
Marcus on March 9, 2010 at 12:25 AM
So how about having your tubes tied, woman? Then you can have all the sex you want without babies involved. Or is this a “misconception” on my part?
miron on March 9, 2010 at 12:55 AM
What would she write a book about then.
Marcus on March 9, 2010 at 1:05 AM
I’ll pass. I will not partake in this woman’s 15 minutes of “pain” ,..knowing she is now the mother of a dead child.
christene on March 9, 2010 at 1:06 AM
This woman makes me ill
Ugly on March 9, 2010 at 3:01 AM
Whatever happened to abortion being a deeply private decision and all that ? “Women” like her make even the tragic but necessary abortions look bad.
Is she trying to get a paid spokeswoman gig for Planned Parenthood or Emilys List ? Only those organizations could be “really proud” of what she did and consider her a “role model”.
Every one has to answer to their conscience at some point. This “woman” does not seem to have one.
nagee76 on March 9, 2010 at 4:31 AM
Sickening, disgusting, pitiful, these women bring to mind the thought of two Nazi’s calmly discussing the most satisfying method of exterminating a jew.
I need a shower.
conservnut on March 9, 2010 at 7:23 AM
Gross. Anything to get your ugly face on TV, I guess…
ErinF on March 9, 2010 at 7:30 AM
That is really sick and Allahpundit is sick for putting up those videos.
towerh2o on March 9, 2010 at 7:55 AM
My wife also had two miscarriages. That was a very painful experience for our family. I am sickened by people who trivialize a terminal decision for their child by comparing it to a miscarriage. The two are not the same.
I wonder how Salem Communications feel about AP?
jbh45 on March 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM
She is a hero to women as Sarah Palin is a threat.
jay12 on March 9, 2010 at 9:04 AM
I’m late to the game here, but I agree with you Jetboy. If a mother’s life truly is in danger if she carries a baby to term, I think it may be acceptable – although God help the woman faced with that decision. I can’t judge her…however If she has other children who are at risk of losing their mother if the pregnancy goes full-term, I say her obligation is to them. I can’t imagine any other scenario where it’s excusable.
Teeting it, whether it’s a day-after pill or a clinical procedure, is just horrible, vile and sick.
Dork B. on March 9, 2010 at 9:24 AM
Dork, this woman’s life was not in danger. She claims it was in order to garner sympathy, but won’t say a thing about what those supposed medical conditions were. Nor did she see a doctor prior to her abortion to see how a pregnancy would effect her.
Her primary reason for her abortion was that she didn’t want to deal with more kids and her live in boyfriend never wanted kids. That’s it.
Vera on March 9, 2010 at 9:33 AM
She claims to have had an IUD, which rates right along with tubal ligation as less than 1% failure rate. So in all fairness, she evidently took reasonable measures to prevent pregnancy.
I still do think she’s lying through her teeth with this scary “pregnancy will kill me” nonsense. She’s obviously not squeamish about discussing her private medical info with the whole world. If she really has a serious health problem, why not name it? ex: I have [name of heart condition] that makes it impossible for my body to support a pregnancy.
Laura on March 9, 2010 at 9:34 AM
I’m very pleased to see this video, and I’m sending it to my friends who are squeamish about abortion. The opposition to abortion can only be viable political movement when women are ashamed to speak out about their experiences. I’m sure Angie Jackson will inspire other women to speak out.
I do have one disappointment about this thread. No one has call Angie Jackson a racist yet. I get the biggest chuckle out when social conservatives throw around the word “racist” like they are channeling Al Sharpton.
thuja on March 9, 2010 at 9:34 AM
The Decline Of Society Will Be Posted Apparently On You Tube
Dr Evil on March 9, 2010 at 9:36 AM
Miron, she claims not to be able to afford to get her tubes tied. Of course, had she just remained pregnant she could have gotten on medicaid for pregnant women and gotten her tubes tied at the end of the pregnancy for free. Or she could have done so during her last pregnancy. If another pregnancy was truely life threatening, you would think that her OB would have suggested she do so.
I also personally recommended the Essure sterilization procedure to her since it is much cheaper and requires no surgery. She won’t do that either.
Vera on March 9, 2010 at 9:36 AM
I’m a late convert to the pro-life movement. It is stuff like this that caused me to change sides. Allah may unintentionally change many hearts with this post.
Laura in Maryland on March 9, 2010 at 9:38 AM
Laura, Allah could convert even more if he’d actually post her disgusting tweets.
Here’s a good one:
“Er that way it works. Today’s pill killed it. Tomorrows pills flush its carcass. (as horrifying to pro-lifers as I can do.)”
What a thoughtful woman! She certainly is the poster child for a brave woman facing a heartwrenching decision!
Vera on March 9, 2010 at 9:41 AM
I was speaking in general – I read enough comments to determine that this idiot was lying or exagerating her “risk”. I didn’t view the clip, though.
Dork B. on March 9, 2010 at 9:44 AM
Leadership
Jocundus on March 9, 2010 at 9:45 AM
I see, Dork. In general, I agree. If a woman will die if she continues a pregnancy, sometimes the pregnancy must be terminated. If this happens prior to viability, the child will obviously die. The difference is that killing the child is not the intent of the act. The intent is to save the mother, but the unintended consequence is that the child dies. I think the law of double effect applies in those situations.
Vera on March 9, 2010 at 9:47 AM
–I think most of the abortions that Tiller did were for serious physical medical conditions. I think he was a better human being and Christian than you’ll ever be. At least he (unlike you) doesn’t/didn’t lie to people at abortion clinics about the likelihood of possible complications. He also wasn’t mentally ill (as you seem to be).
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 9:52 AM
Oh please. I’d love to see you back up the above crap with some facts. Starting with the claim that most were done because of serious physical medical conditions.
darwin on March 9, 2010 at 9:58 AM
If Obamacare passes, what will happen to health-care providers who refuse to perform abortions?
Dork B. on March 9, 2010 at 10:02 AM
This makes no sense to me.
This idiot chirps while her infant child is eviscerated and it’s perfectly legal.
Meanwhile, this country wastes billions caring and feeding for rapists, murderers and career criminals. Why?
If we can carelessly despose of our children, what makes prisoners so damn special? Children are innocent, felons are guilty and in general, they have and will contribute NOTHING to society. On the contrary, they are parasites.
Executing every felon in America makes a lot more sense than continuing to allow abortions.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Fired, license revoked, IRS audits, late night visits from thugs, house fires, car fires, untimely demise.
darwin on March 9, 2010 at 10:04 AM
…you mean Barry will get SEIU involved, then, huh?
Dork B. on March 9, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 9:52 AM
Tiller is likely now the most respected Christian abortion provider in hell, so he has that going for him.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Commendable. By all means do so. I know of nothing more persuasive to the pro-life view than for women to allow you to show them this filth– because they mistakenly trust your judgment and values — and then realize what an wreck you hope they become. That kind of repulsion, generated out of their own experience and reckoning of their own moral worth, would build rock-solid converts to the pro-life movement, the kind who go out and convert others.
Meaning this fine, Christian humanitarian killed SOME babies for minor physical conditions, or lifestyle issues?
I haven’t killed any babies, so I guess that puts me a little bit ahead.
Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Too many things don’t add up in what she’s saying. She’s lying and I would almost bet money that she was never pregnant.
BeLinda on March 9, 2010 at 10:10 AM
–When I looked at his website, most of the late term abortions were because of significant medical problems. I can’t speak for all of them, because I haven’t looked at every one. I don’t think he’s in hell, NoDonkey.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 10:13 AM
If he isn’t, hell doesn’t exist.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 10:14 AM
“Were they ashamed when they committed abomination?
No, they were not at all ashamed;
they did not know how to blush
Therefore they shall fall among those who fall;
at the time that I punish them, they shall be overthrown,”
says the Lord.”
Jeremiah 6:15 ESV (emphasis added)
oldleprechaun on March 9, 2010 at 10:18 AM
–From the Senate bill: PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.—No
4 individual health care provider or health care facility
5 may be discriminated against because of a willingness
6 or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the re7
ligious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to
8 provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for
9 abortions
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 10:25 AM
–You and I will just have to disagree.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM
Why would they need that provision if the government wasn’t funding abortions?
Secondly, you actually believe there won’t be any reprecussions against anyone who refuses to do what Obama and his fanatical, radical horde say?
darwin on March 9, 2010 at 10:29 AM
Interesting. So if Doctor Jones has his own clinic, he can’t be discriminated against because, as an individual provider, he refuses to do abortions.
But if he works for Secular Humanist General Hospital, and the facility has no religious objection, I take it he’s toast if he doesn’t toe the policy?
Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 10:31 AM
I feel sorry for her little boy, who will eventually be old enough to google and read his mother’s play-by-play of the extermination of his sibling.
Missy on March 9, 2010 at 10:38 AM
Missy on March 9, 2010 at 10:38 AM
He got a crappy, immoral, whore of a momma, but hopefully he can overcome it.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 10:47 AM
A live person is a living organism with DNA classifying them as Homo Sapiens.
Of course, that’s my definition. Yours may differ, based on skin color, age, or any number of other personal attributes.
unclesmrgol on March 9, 2010 at 10:49 AM
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 10:25 AM
–A more extensive provision was adopted by Bush and is now in place. Does that mean that government is now funding abortion?
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 10:50 AM
–I can’t find the definition in the Senate bill. I know almost all states currently have a similar law in place, though.
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 10:54 AM
Dude, did you watch the Angie Jackson Youtube video? I saw a strong woman arguing for the choices she is making. Some people obviously disagree with her choices, but no one wavering on the abortion issue is going to be repulsed by her or consider her wreck. Really, you would be doing your cause much more good if just followed the traditional “pro-life” strategy. You could be spending your time scouring the internet hunting for something Angie Jackson said that could be considered racist–perhaps something like she used the word watermelon in the same paragraph in which she mentions a black friend.
thuja on March 9, 2010 at 11:03 AM
pitiful creature – am praying for her…..
huskerdiva on March 9, 2010 at 11:10 AM
And how many babies will be killed because of this evil woman?…she may become a mass murderer…I don’t even think she had health risks except, judging from her advanced age, a few varicose veins…
theaddora on March 9, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Strong women don’t get knocked up by some loser while their one kids is already fatherless, then have their unborn child eviscerated while chirping on the internet about the whole experience.
Strong women have children in a stable family and they protect their children from harm and would never allow their child to be killed.
This woman is a complete douchebag and it’s a tragedy that she is going to screw up her surviving son, because she’s an idiot.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 11:20 AM
How unnerving that something so horrible is becoming entertainment and so matter-of-fact. Abortion – euthansia – no wonder the democrats want to control our health care. The horror scenario of picking and choosing who deserves to live or die not too far off with the kind of mindset we’re seeing today. And the coarsening of our society for the young people – what kind of people are they going to be in 10-20 years? Very scary.
mozalf on March 9, 2010 at 11:28 AM
And now we wrap it up with a song by Neil Diamond, “You’re killing my baby.”
Daggett on March 9, 2010 at 11:32 AM
Carry on selling Gonzo Pride to the sisters. I, a bachelor quasi-recluse, know 3 women who’ve suffered miscarriages. I’m sure the average American woman knows more. Promoting miscarriage by treating it like a birthday party you put on YouTube and Tweet, as the Choice of Strong Women, has got to be so totally offensive as to trump any prepared speech I could ever make. Bishop Sheen couldn’t talk as many women into opposing abortion as you will with that spiel.
Your scorn would sting more if you weren’t a total loon yourself.
Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 11:34 AM
mozalf on March 9, 2010 at 11:28 AM
It’s nonsense that the Democrats wouldn’t have death panels or bump off old people in the interest of health care cost containment, when they are so glib about abortion.
Democrats have a utilitarian view of life. People who have no problem with murdering unborn children will have even less about euthanizing the elderly and the disabled.
Only a matter of time.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 11:37 AM
Seconded.
nico on March 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM
If this is what CNN finds as newsworthy and important I can see why they don’t have time to delve into the dark slimey dealings of Charlie Rangel and ask why you can’t hear about his dirty dealings on the Obama networks. He is just a common thief and Congressman.
SgtRed on March 9, 2010 at 11:50 AM
This is a load of crap. She says she had a life threatening condition and explained in an earlier interview that her first pregnancy caused major complications that almost killed her and her boy. Ok, I’ll accept that because it happens. So what does this woman do, knowing that if she gets pregnant again she could die and her son will lose her mother? Does she a) Stop behaviors that could get her pregnant? b) Get a tubal ligation or have her boyfriend have a vasectomy? c) learn her cycle well through natural means and avoid having sex when she could get pregnant? or d) Use an aborfacient form a birth control that has a 5% failure rate because she knows that if she gets pregnant, she can have and will happily have an abortion?
Read this woman’s blog and look at her other “anti-theist” videos and tell me this woman was not itching to be put in this exact situation so she could celebrate the nothingness of abortion with her fans and profit from it.
This woman knew another pregnancy could kill her yet she did the very least to protect her life because she WANTED TO EXPERIENCE AN ABORTION! This is what truly makes her and her boyfriend and all her supporters vile human beings.
Spectreman on March 9, 2010 at 11:50 AM
Holy moley…mole…moley-mole…blue eye shadow mole…moletastic…
Wyznowski on March 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM
This woman is an argument for forcing women to die in childbirth rather than having an abortion.
Her two children would then have a chance at not being raised by an idiot with the sense and morals of a brood sow.
NoDonkey on March 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM
You’ve created an equation where organism+DNA = person. Already, there are so many frozen embryos that can’t possibly be brought to term because there aren’t enough wombs available to the government.
The “being” part of human being seems to convey some sense of cognition.
dedalus on March 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM
I’ve never known a selfless woman to choose her own life over her baby’s.
slug on March 9, 2010 at 12:19 PM
I won’t read or watch anything from this woman. I won’t give her the time of day. She’s the one that gets to live with this for the rest of her life. I’m sure on the surface, being the ramped Liberal activist she seems to be, she puts on the air that this is just fine with her. Am I correct in reading through the comments that she already has children. Someone save the video. When her kids grow up and have children of their own this will have a little different meaning to her, I’m sure. Someone like this cannot be sunshine and pleasantness. When the children grow up tainted unhappy, angry individuals, based on view the dysfunctions of numerous families, it’s definitely her they’ll blame. People are happy, peaceful, and living a wonderful life don’t do things like this. She just wants to include others in her misery. I feel sorry for the kids that survived and I wonder what CPS would say about this kind of thing.
Sultry Beauty on March 9, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Hey thuja,
When you send this video to your friends who are squeamish about abortion you might want to include this essay too.
I am sure you will see the “heartfelt”, “brave” and “honest” descriptions of what an abortion provider deals with as really ennobling with such insights as:
I am sure your friends will be impressed with that as well.
darcee on March 9, 2010 at 12:26 PM
I’m thinking that maybe if you read her twitter feed you wouldn’t consider her example terribly good marketing. Just a guess.
Let’s forget entirely the spectacle of the thing or the idea of killing your kid for fame. Those will surely factor into the perceptions of most people with any kind of decency, but I think just the venom coming from that twitter feed ought to render her toxic.
Play all the word games you like, but you’ve stripped humanity down to a definition so meaningless that no one takes it seriously.
The only people that would seem to deserve rights in your world are those capable of voting for them.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 9, 2010 at 12:28 PM
So what? We accept that logic for every other species. It seems you have social and economic reasons to alter biology for humans.
Not really. Fungus lives, that’s why we have health inspectors.
dedalus on March 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM
Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM
GREAT EUGENICS GETS TWEETED! JUST F-ING GREAT!
BobAnthony on March 9, 2010 at 12:31 PM
We are a nation based on words. The understanding of those words is what enforces individual rights.
Brain activity is used, consequentially, for defining the end of a person’s life. There would be some consistency to use it for marking the beginning of a person’s life.
The state can’t practically intervene at the point of conception to protect life. There is some possibility it could do so some weeks later.
dedalus on March 9, 2010 at 12:38 PM
An IUD has a less than 1% failure rate – same as tubal ligation.
Laura on March 9, 2010 at 12:41 PM
The world has many reasons to alter human DNA, and will do so aggressively during this century and the next–first to correct obvious errors that cause disease and premature death.
dedalus on March 9, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Brain activity would be a nice starting point.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 9, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Life is not a word game or definition. Just like everything else that the government regulates, like Global Warming, there is a science behind it all. You seem to think that the government can and should regulate the life of human beings based on intelligence and the ability to communicate thoughts and ideas. So on a scientific basis, explain to me why animals should be treated differently. If you think it’s okay to kill Terri Schavo do to her inability to take care of herself, why can’t we do the same with the Caribou in Alaska? If the Caribou can’t take care of themselves then let them die. Why should we stop our oil recovery process for them. What makes Caribou more important than a human being.
Please I’m waiting for your Scientific Definition for this. Liberal Think. It gets so tiresome the ironic pretzel twisting that must be contrived for these “regulations”.
Sultry Beauty on March 9, 2010 at 12:54 PM
Yes. Amazing that this woman, this VERY woman, would have an IUD fail. Just amazing. What luck for her, eh?
Sultry Beauty on March 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Dedalus, I think you missed the point. Sure we can alter DNA, and even patent DNA, but the essential point is that we define a species on its distinctive DNA (in almost all cases). A human embryo does have its own unique DNA – frozen, in a petri dish or inside its mother’s body – the location is rather irrelevant. It would be difficult to make a scientific argument that a human embryo is either not human or not alive.
darcee on March 9, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Obvious errors? Wow. You’re a fan of eugenic, eh? Yes, The Great Society will decide what is or isn’t an error. I say we start with you and your family.
Sultry Beauty on March 9, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Mission poster in a baby murder thread. What a damning confession.
daesleeper on March 9, 2010 at 1:00 PM
The problem with using something like brain activity is that it is normal for a fetus in its first month of development not to have “brain function” (assuming you are thinking EEG) it is not normal for a 55 year-old adult to not have “brain function”. Give the developing fetus a month or two under normal circumstance with no interference and brain waves appear, that prognoses for the 55 year-old is not the same.
darcee on March 9, 2010 at 1:08 PM
Of course it is. Whether interpreting the Bible, the Constitution, or the instructions on a pharmaceutical label, words have had life & death consequences throughout history.
I didn’t follow Schiavo too closely, though it seems to come down to a question of the boundary between family and government authority.
We do treat animals differently based on their cognitive skill. Higher primates have greater protections than cattle do.
dedalus on March 9, 2010 at 1:09 PM
She is a happy camper, while the once alive blob is now lifeless. The blob will never get to tweet about killing blobs
Thanks anyway
If feel sorry for her, because to paraphrase, she knows not what she has done. She is disconnected from the blob. If she was connected, she would be crying. She would be crying even more if whe was forced by health issues to evict the blob from life support
Many regret such actions later in life. If she has a heart change, it will hurt more for having tried to win converts
There is no great and godless day
entagor on March 9, 2010 at 1:12 PM
The point is the state isn’t going to decide, but parents will. It will start before conception. After conception, and after birth there will be genetic therapies that correct problems leading to cancers or debilitating diseases.
It will be a democratic process, but it is unrealistic to think parents will bypass an option to protect their children from disease.
dedalus on March 9, 2010 at 1:14 PM
Unless there are no parents; or, no fit parents. We’ve already been down this road, in this country and elsewhere. You don’t need gene theory to say, “This or that group ought not breed”.
I think it unrealistic you can put over the eugenics of “being vs organism” without totalitarianism.
Chris_Balsz on March 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM
You do if you want the system to have a base in science and rationality, and not statist tyranny.
Dark-Star on March 9, 2010 at 1:30 PM
jbh45 on March 9, 2010 at 8:48 AM
jbh,I am sorry for your loss. I know how painful it was for you both, as you know I had the same experiences.
I consider all God’s Creations that live and breathe precious, including animals, but that is my belief, not asking for anyone else to feel the same. My dogs and cats have gotten me through some very tough times and each day bring me a great deal of joy. Since I will never have a child, my pets are my children, and was raised that pets are part of the family.
I’m not sure if it was a good thing or a bad thing to show this video, good thing being it could help fence-sitters make their decision that they are pro-life, bad-thing that this lying woman is given a platform for so cavalierly killing her child. I could not watch it and this has to be my last comment on this because it is too painful. I have to relive it any time I see a child or hear someone is pregnant to mourn the loss of what I twice experienced. Sad.
margategop517 on March 9, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Take this quarter, go downtown and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face.
Alden Pyle on March 9, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Wrong! Tiller admitted that the vast majority of his late term abortions were performed on teenagers who had hid their pregnancies from their parents.
Vera on March 9, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Most would agree that there are some couples who shouldn’t breed at a particular time. That is why we discourage premarital sex, especially teen sex. Most of the unfit parents aren’t so because of genetics but because of an inability to form a household.
However, nearly all couples who are ready to have kids are going to avail themselves to every promising technology available that might reduce the risk of harm to the potential child.
Most of these developments will be within the markets and not directed by the government. Couples will reproduce when they want to but with tools that enable them to pass on the best versions of their genes, not just the “luck of the draw” result they currently have.
dedalus on March 9, 2010 at 2:59 PM
–Do you have a link for that?
Jimbo3 on March 9, 2010 at 3:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »