Rand Paul Rattles the Personhood Crowd

Ryan Lizza describes the recent dust-up over Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) support for emergency contraception, a stance that Lizza says places him at odds with his own support for so-called personhood bills, and most definitely has placed him at odds with the Christian right:

Paul is not a casual defender of personhood. In 2012, he held up a crucial flood-insurance bill in the Senate in order to try to force a vote on a personhood amendment. Aside from his filibuster against John O. Brennan’s nomination to be the director of the C.I.A., Paul’s effort to get attention for this amendment was one of the most dramatic moments of his Senate career.

So it was shocking, last week, when Paul was asked about Plan B during an event in South Carolina, and he nonchalantly declared that he had no problem with women using the so-called morning-after pill. “Plan B is taking two birth control pills in the morning and two in the evening, and I am not opposed to that,” he said.

Let’s set aside that Plan B comes in doses of one pill, not four; for our purposes we’re talking about Paul’s rejection of the Christian right’s opposition to emergency contraception, not his lack of understanding of how an FDA-approved, over-the-counter drug works. Paul’s an ophthalmologist, after all, not a gynecologist, like his father. His father, Ron Paul, while running for president in 2012, said, foreshadowing his son, that “the morning-after pill is a birth control pill,” not an abortifacient. He did, nonetheless, elide the question later when he supported the plaintiffs in the Hobby Lobby cases because  “this case is not about the legality of abortion. It is about whether someone can have a ‘right’ to force someone else to provide him with a good or service.” 

Still, though, the younger Paul was right that Plan B doesn’t end a pregnancy, defined either medically (the implantation of a fertilized egg) or defined theologically by supporters of “personhood” amendments (the fertilization of the egg). Plan B prevents ovulation. No fertilization, no foul, even by the Christian right’s non-medical definition of a pregnancy.

Pushback from the Christian right hasn’t moved Paul on this. At the National Review, Ranesh Ponnuru reports:

Senator Rand Paul’s office has doubled down on his suggestion that Plan B does not cause embryos to die. His top aide Doug Stafford says that pro-lifers who say otherwise are spreading “misinformation” and using “outdated science,” and the senator, “as a medical doctor,” won’t put up with it.

Lizza argues that Paul can’t continue to hold this position — that emergency contraception is birth control, not abortion — and continue to support “personhood” bills that define human life as beginning at fertilization. Lizza argues that because these laws could have the effect of banning contraceptive drugs, Paul’s support for them is inconsistent with his support for contraception. But Paul believes — correctly — that these drugs do not interfere with either fertilization or implantation, but rather with ovulation. Perhaps, then, he can modify the sort of “personhood” law he supports to make clear it cannot ban contraception. And that would result in probably the most illuminating intra-pro-life dispute we’ve seen in some time.

38 Comments

  • hymerd@yahoo.com' Drew Hymer says:

    He doesn’t need to modify personhood proposals. Because if something like Plan B doesn’t cause abortion then it would unaffected by the personhood proposal.

    But maybe i’m wrong. What’s wording that you think needs to be changed?

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    Is preventing implantation abortion?

  • dkeane123@comcast.net' DKeane123 says:

    These are the kind of detailed analyses that the Christian Right wishes to avoid. My wife and I went through IVF – in some circles we are murders 8 times over – the actual facts don’t matter that much.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    They wish to avoid, but if they post here on RD then these questions need to be asked. We’re different.

  • hymerd@yahoo.com' Drew Hymer says:

    Yes, it is.

    Sarah Posner stated in her article that Plan B does not inhibit implantation. And i think there’s good evidence that she’s correct on this. See http://lti-blog.blogspot.ca/2008/06/does-thin-uterine-lining-support-pill.html

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    Is it just a religious moral issue, or should there be some law, from your point of view?

  • hymerd@yahoo.com' Drew Hymer says:

    I didn’t post to argue about abortion. i just wanted to know from Sarah Posner what language needed to be changed in personhood proposals to accommodate the fact that Plan B is not abortifacient. I’m still hoping for that answer.

    But i won’t dodge your question. Yes, abortion should be illegal.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    What should the penalty be? A prison term, or just a fine, or worse? Not everyone will agree that life should be defined as beginning at conception, and before implantation, so I guess your law needs to go to the supreme court to decide what the definition of personhood is.

  • hymerd@yahoo.com' Drew Hymer says:

    It’s not really about penalties. But since there’s no moral difference between killing a baby before birth and killing one after birth, the penalties should be the same, if all other circumstances are equal regarding moral culpability.

    There is at least one way around the Supreme Court using the 14th Amendment. Section 5 allows congress to determine by law how the provisions work so congress, in theory at least, could define person as used in the first section to include unborn human beings. i understand it’s a pipe dream. We’d have a better chance changing the Supreme Court though that hasn’t work out so well thanks to that sell-out Reagan and George Bush the first.

  • reedjim51@gmail.com' Jim Reed says:

    I guess it comes down to what is meant by “moral difference”. With that logic, the church would say preventing the fertilized egg from implanting is killing a baby. If they make that the law, then it is the penalty of murder, many years or life in prison, and possibly the death penalty. I don’t think the church would be willing to press it that far, so we are just left with moral penalties from the church. The members of the church can respect or ignore the moral penalty as they see fit, and the rest of us don’t have to care about what the religion is saying is moral.

    This is probably the best you could ever get because if the supreme court could be adjusted to give the evangelical churches what they want here, the web of contradictions would grab them and suck them in to a giant mess where they could never recover.

  • lulu_44@hotmail.com.au' TheRealReginaPhalange says:

    Preventing implantation is not abortion. An abortion is the termination of an existing pregnancy. A pregnancy cannot exist without implantation occurring first. You may be morally opposed to the active prevention of implantation, but you cannot change the definition of pregnancy and abortion.

  • tojby_2000@yahoo.com' apotropoxy says:

    1. Plan B (active ingredient: levonorgestrel) prevents fertilization by manipulating ovulation.
    2. If no fertilization occurs no ovum is united with a spermatozoon to form a new genetic entity.
    3. If no fertilized egg exists there is nothing to embed itself into a uterine wall.

    Not only is there no pregnancy possible with Plan B, there is no genetic unity possible either.

  • bourgeoisentrprs@bellsouth.net' Just A. Thought says:

    The theory that a personhood bill would outlaw contraception is a long time, often used false scare tactic that pro-abortionists have used to fight personhood bills. The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling proved this claim false by ruling employers didn’t have to provide only four out of 20 types of birth control because those four were abortifacient. This means that 16 out of 20 types of birth control would not be outlawed by a personhood bill, hardly a death knell for contraception. The other false charge that pro-abortionists use regarding a personhood bill is that it would outlaw the use of embryonic stem cells in research. Placental and umbilical cord stem cells work just as well for research purposes.
    However, all pro-lifers should support a national personhood bill. In addition to the falsehood of the contraception and stem cell scare tactics, here’s why. When Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority Roe v. Wade Opinion in 1973, he said the reason he would err on the side of creating a right to abortion on demand was 1) because no two groups could agree on the point at which life begins and 2) that no technology at the time was capable of proving when life begins. However, he wrote that if a technology were subsequently developed that did prove when life begins, that technological proof, by disproving the Court’s assumption that it couldn’t be proven at which point life does begin, that proof would “collapse” Roe v. Wade, and that proof would demand that the occupant in the human womb must be given full rights and equal protection under the 14 Amendment from conception. The separation of powers holds that acknowledging when life begins is a function of the Congress, not the Court. Consequently then, the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade opinion was not a permanent decision. it was provisional, based on the recognition and acknowledgement of the possibility that a future technology might be developed that proved life begins at conception, a proof that would “collapse” and lead to the overturning of the disproved Roe v. Wade Opinion by Congress.
    In 1984, some 11 years after the Court’s Roe v. Wade opinion, the advent of DNA fingerprinting or profiling proved conclusively that life begins at the point of conception — for humans, turtles, eagles, or what have you — when the DNA in the egg and the DNA in the sperm instantly recombine, and a new life begins, with its own individual, unique DNA fingerprint or profile for life inside and outside the womb. Despite this prerequisite technological proof, however, Roe v. Wade continues to provide open season on humans in the womb, while, hypocritically, three different federal laws provide ironclad protection to eagles and turtles in the egg. Why? Because it is assumed, as DNA evidence also proves, that there are baby eagles and turtles inside from conception! Can’t we treat pre-born human life at lease as well as pre-hatched eagle and turtle life? Because we haven’t, DNA fingerprinting evidence has been used to free from death sentences (The Innocence Project) in every place of confinement, except the human womb.
    The sad part of all this is that DNA fingerprinting effectively “collapsed” Roe v. Wade way back in 1984, but democrats and other liberals still cling to a pre-DNA fingerprinting past that is just as Gone With The Wind as the Old South. Societal change always seems to lag behind technological change. In this case, with disastrous effects, especially given the fact that we continue to terminate those in the womb who by scientific proof and legal definition under the 14th Amendment are every bit as deserving of and qualified to enjoy the right to life as anyone outside the womb. The time for sackcloth and ashes is long overdue. Shame on us.
    As it has continued to do for years,The National Pro-Life Alliance continues to fight hard
    for passage of a national pro-life bill. It’s the only way to end abortion on demand instead of keeping the multi-billion dollar U.S. abortion industry legal and slightly regulating the numbers of those it terminates.

  • zinealine@gmail.com' cranefly says:

    I don’t see how fetal personhood would outlaw abortion. Is there a constitutional right to inhabit another person’s body without that person’s consent?

  • I am adamantly pro life so naturally I am pro choice. You are pro birth. And if you support the criminalization of abortion, you are pro death.
    Abortion and contraception are human rights.

  • We are discussing public health. Use the appropriate terms. There is a fetus in the womb. When and if it survives to and through birth, it will be a neonate.

    “Baby” is such a sweet ooey gooey word. My dog’s name is Baby. I call my car my baby. Its use when discussing morals and public health is a way to emotionalize the discussion. It is baby talk. I am not an infant however you may attempt to infantilize and patronize me. I need no argument for an abortion beyond “I do not want to be pregnant.”

  • bourgeoisentrprs@bellsouth.net' Just A. Thought says:

    Pro-choice is not pro-life, as it means only that the person maintains that they are personally pro-life, but they think abortion on demand should remain legal for every other woman who chooses to have one. Being pro-life for only one person — yourself — and pro-abortion for everyone else is hardly convincing as a pro-life argument. Besides, when one takes that position, they are saying the equivalent of, Personally, I don’t believe in slavery, but I think slavery should remain legal for anyone else who should be given the legal right to own slaves if that is their choice. Further, there is no such thing as a pro-choice/pro-life organization, but every pro-abortion organization is a pro-choice/pro-abortion organization. The concern for women’s health is the most fallacious argument of all when it comes to abortion, because pro-choice women don’t care one wit about the mental, physical and psychological health of the tens of thousands of unmarried, underage women who have been sexually abused by adult men, illegally impregnated by them and forced into abortions by them in order to do away with the major evidence of their crimes, which are typically multiple and often with the same victim.
    In a 9/24/14 news article, “Shock Study: 55% of Sex-Trafficking Victims Become Pregnant, Forced Into Abortions,” the article states, “In the United States alone, the Central Intelligence Agency estimates that around 50,000 women and children are trafficked into the United States and as many as 400,000 domestic minors are also involved in the trade each year.” It further sates, “Former Senior Advisor on Trafficking in Persons for the U.S. Department of State and founder of the non-profit Global Centurion, Laura Lederer was one of…According to Dr. Lederer’s recent study entitled, ‘The Health Consequences of Sex Trafficking and Their Implications for Identifying Victims in Healthcare Facilities’…Lederer testified that forced abortion is an ‘especially disturbing trend in sex trafficking.’ Her study shows that 55% of women surveyed had at least one abortion, and 30% had multiple abortions during the time of trafficking.” Further, “Twelve to 14 years is the average age of entry into sex trafficking in the United States. Vednita Carter, a survivor of sexual exploitation and founder of the Minneapolis shelter called Breaking Free, shared this troubling reality with the subcommittee while explaining that pimps actively seek out minors who have runaway from home.”
    Remember the national outcry over Jerry Sandusky’s sex crimes against underage boys and its cover up by two Penn State officials who still face criminal charges for not having reported Sandusky’s sex crimes against these little boys to authorities? Well, here’s some news. Child sex slave traffickers and/or pedophiles have been and continue to be some of the most lucrative, safe and best repeat customers of abortionists, members of the multi-billion dollar U.S. abortion industry, who return the favor by consistently not reporting these child sex criminals to authorities, even though they are bound by law to do so, since they, as all other health workers, are mandated reporters of SUSECTED child sex abuse. Where’s the outcry from pro-choice women about the physical, mental, emotional and psychological health of these underage victims of Sandusky-like pedophiles who illegally fail to report these criminals to authorities, just like the two Penn State officials covered up Sandusky’s crimes!? Abortionists simply return these underage women victims to their abusers with confidence that they will receive even more business from these child sex abusers, performing future abortions on the same victim and/or others. They are even more confident they will be able to continue this lawlessness with impunity because they are certain that pro-choice women will continue be complicit with them by demanding that the illegal cover up of the crimes of their child sex abusing customers by abortionists will never be investigated properly, if at all. And, fearing a backlash from pro-choice women if they did investigate or allow the investigation of these crimes, pro-choice politicians, like Kathleen Sebelius, will continue to fight tooth-and-nail to keep any investigation from happening. Again, where’s the concern for these underage female victims, pro-choice women? Does this mean pro-choice women think underage girls sexually abused by adult males shouldn’t receive equal treatment under the law compared to under age boys sexually abused by adult males? When it comes to these underage female victims of child sex abuse forced into abortions, why don’t pro-choice women want to work “to ensure full enjoyment of the right to health,” for these women? I remain baffled about that on. Is it that when it comes to abortion, pro-choice women consider these underage female victims of health damaging sexual abuse acceptable losses whose plight should continue to be ignored and/or swept under the rug? Do pro-choice women think Roe v Wade not only legalized abortion on demand, but also pedophilia, child sex slave trafficking and their cover up, in addition to granting abortionists the authority to illegally turn abortion clinics into safe havens for child sex predators? If not, why do pro-choice women, like Kathleen Sebelius, Hillary Clinton, and others choose to continue to exercise their choice to not only turn a blind eye to the plight of these underage female victims of child sex abuse, but continue to fight to ensure that nobody will be allowed to look into it and save these girls from their sexual abusers and those who illegally cover up for these child sexcriminals?
    Is it because of abortion privacy? News flash: NO! Reporting of suspected child sex abuse is the only instance whereby the HIPAA Privacy Rule is to be preempted. In fact, if a professional doesn’t breach the confidentiality of a minor, they face the possibility of stiff fines and jail terms. However, in order to protect the privacy of the minor, yet identify her adult sexual abuser, the HIPAA Privacy Rule states that when health information has been “de-identified,” (made void of any information that could identify the patient/victim in any way) there is no restriction on its use or disclosure. In this way, the health information from abortionists to government agencies regarding underage female victims of suspected child sex abuse must be de-identified, so as to protect the privacy of the victim and yet identify the child sex criminal who abused the underage female victim.
    Finally, you will notice that in my reply to this story, I mentioned Justice Harry Blackmun’s writing in his majority Roe v. Wade Opinion, and his statements about the reason why the Court’s decision was provisional and not permanent and that the advent of DNA fingerprinting “collapsed” Roe v. Wade. I have never seen any writer writing about “personhood bills,” as illustrated by this story, mention these indispensable facts about the background information and rationalization for such bills. Wittingly or unwittingly, this gives pro-choice women and others the false impression that this silly “personhood” notion is just another concoction by pro-lifers and Republicans to deny women the right to legal abortion. The fact is, however, that it is the indisputable evidence provided by DNA technology that demands that the occupants of human wombs must be granted the same full rights and protection under the 14th Amendment from conception that those outside the womb are accorded — as to terminate such occupants would be technically, technologically and legally depriving them of their 24th Amendment rights. However, since pro-choice women and politicians continue to fight tooth-and-nail to keep the truth of the rape, illegal impregnation and forced abortion of underage girls and the cover up of these crimes by abortionists swept under the rug, I suspect they’ll fight tooth-and-nail against the passage of a DNA justified “personhood bill,” as well, no matter what. I just hope no girl’s health in their family will be adversely affected by a pedophile or child sex slave trafficker because they exercised their choice to continue to keep the crimes of these child sex criminals and the abortionists who cover up their crimes for them swept under the rug, while insisting that this “ensures full enjoyment of the right to health” for these underage female family members.

  • I am pro abortion for any woman who wants an abortion.
    I am pro birth for any woman who wants to give birth.
    I am pro women running their own fertility and sexual lives in privacy and without coercion.
    Women are the source of new life.
    I am pro women and pro life.

  • bourgeoisentrprs@bellsouth.net' Just A. Thought says:

    When you say “I am pro women and pro life” you forgot to say that, since you are “pro-abortion for any woman who wants an abortion,” you are also pro-death of babies in the womb. You must have forgotten about that death, which occurs in every abortion. By the way, when it comes to beheadings, what is the difference between a beheading, to your horror, of a Christian child outside the womb done by ISIS and the beheading of a child inside the womb done by an abortionist with your consent and approval? As abortionist Kermit Gosnell was famous for saying regarding babies he delivered live and then dispatched with scissors to the spinal cord in the neck, “It’s still a dead child.” Sounds pretty pro-death and lethally empowering to abortionists and adult women outside the womb over other pre-born women inside the womb to me.

  • I see you brought your murderporn to the conversation. How special.

  • bourgeoisentrprs@bellsouth.net' Just A. Thought says:

    I never said murder or porn. Actually, it is you, because of your lack of factual information to refute the factual information I have brought to this conversation, who brought the words murderpron into the conversation, and then falsely accuse me of having done so. I said pro-death of a pre-born baby. But you must prefer semantics such as termination of a fetus or an unwanted pregnancy — none of which mentions murderporn either. Those terms are more like saying a car is pre-owned instead of used because, even though it doesn’t change anything about the reality of the car, pre-owned sounds better than used. Whatever you want to call it, did you know that it is the job of an employee of each abortion clinic to reassemble the pieces of whatever you want to call the aborted occupant of the human womb who was terminated in the process and ripped in pieces from the womb to reassemble those pieces, like the pieces of a puzzle, in order to better inspect it reassembled to ensure that no odd piece of the aborted occupant is inadvertently left behind inside the mother to cause infection or worse? Abortionist Kermit Gosnell used this possible infection-causing defense to justify his delivery of live occupants of the womb, or removing all of them from the womb except their heads, before dispatching, terminating, ending the life of, snuffing them out — choose the description of the process you prefer — with a pair of scissors to the spinal cord in the neck. Gosnell said that, since removal of all of the occupant of the womb, or every part of it except the head, and then doing it in outside the womb precluded the possibly of the odd body part from the aborted occupant of the womb from being left behind in the mother to cause infection or worse. It was after this that he said this type of delivery was his preferred method of extracting and doing in (aborting, if you will) these creatures who inhabit the wombs of human women, creatures whose dismembered, aborted and rotting pieces are so notoriously potent at causing infection in human women, if inadvertently left behind inside the woman. In other words, he was compassionately going the extra mile for the sake of protecting the health of the mother, seeming genuinely surprised at the hubbub and outcry over his preferred abortion modus operandi. Then, with refreshing candor and a sense of reality virtually unspoken of in the multibillion dollar U.S. abortion industry, of which he was a very aggressive and well-paid member, he said, What difference does it make if I kill it inside the womb or outside? It’s still a dead baby.
    Given this sentiment on the part of Gosnell, nobody should be too surprised to learn that the beginnings of a movement to legalize post-birth abortion are afoot in England today. As you probably well know, England preceded legalization of abortion on demand by legalizing it there in 1967. So, as was the case with legalizing abortion, England is still somewhat more progressive than the U.S. as regards post-birth abortion as well. In the old days, when pregnant women were said to be with child, not with fetus, because fetus was a term used to describe the occupants of the wombs of mammals other than humans (You know, the old used car/pre-owned car-style semantic manipulation designed to de-humanize the occupant of the human womb, a semantic manipulation which has also duped who knows how many pro-lifers as well.), post-birth abortion was known as infanticide. Of course, today we might have to call it fetuscide. But you know the old saying — “A rose is a rose,” except when it comes to modern-day legalized abortion.
    I say modern-day because in the ancient, Paganistic, pre-Christian Roman Empire, abortion and infanticide were both legal. However, abortion and infanticide were the choice of the father, who could have his offspring inside and outside the womb terminated, killed, snuffed out, whatever, at his whim, if he grew tired of them. Talk about the ultimate definition of “throw away kids!” Anyway, abortion and infanticide remained legal in Rome until the Christian Roman Emperors in the 300s AD criminalized these practices and others we’re trying so desperately to re-legalize today, mostly under the banner of equal treatment under the law. The first modern-day country to re-legalize abortion was the former monolithic, atheistic, communistic Soviet Union when Soviet Premiere Vladimir Lenin legalized all forms of abortion there in 1920. Because Russia did things such as this that Americans found morally repugnant and unacceptable (at least, morally repugnant and unacceptable to Americans at that time), the U.S., expressing its disdain for these atheistic moral and ethical values and touting the superiority of the Christian moral and ethical values of the U.S, eventually called them “The Evil Empire.” However, when the predominantly Christian U.S. legalized the Roman and Soviet paganistic/atheistic practice of abortion, we modern-day U.S. Christians, throwing off the shackles of our moral and ethical values of the past, took up these pagan/atheistic values and (used/pre-owned care-like) re-defined the same practice of abortion as a compassionate, loving expression of a woman’s (not the man’s, as in Pagan Rome) right to choose what to do with her body — as though it was her body, instead of someone else’s body (as indisputably proven by DNA fingerprinting since 1984) she was carrying, that was being terminated. I’ve even had a Catholic priest defend a woman’s right to abortion during a conversation we had. Since the Soviet Union has had such a head start on the U.S. legalized abortion-wise, the average Russian woman has terminated the bodies of six others inside her womb, but, nevertheless, the numbers of others terminated in the wombs of U.S. women since 1973 still adds up to tens of millions. A major irony in all of this? Even though they are “progressing” the U.S. all the way back to the legalized abortion days of the ancient, pagan Roman Empire and the atheistic Soviet Union on the1920’s (Doesn’t the term regressing more aptly describe this phenomenon than the term progressing?), liberals particularly liberal democrats, call themselves self-described “progressives” and members of the political party of compassion (Compassion for which group of women — pre-born women in the womb, underage women raped, impregnated and forced into abortions by adult pedophiles and/or child sex slave traffickers, or adult women only?). Similarly, pro-abortion women accuse pro-life women of trying to restrict women’s rights. But the truth is that pro-life women want to expand the rights of women to include the rights of pre-born women in the womb, while pro-abortion women want to keep rights restricted to adult women only. Likewise, pro-abortion women accuse pro-life women of trying to “force their Christian pro-life morality down our throats,” while pro-abortion women in the U.S. have continued to legally force their paganistic/atheistic legalized abortion morality down the throats of all Americans since 1973. Is it possible for liberals to use a semantic manipulation, no matter how absurd, that conservatives and even other liberals can’t fall for hook, line and sinker? How about Nancy Pelosi’s description of Hamas as just a compassionate humanitarian group? How about Pres. Obama’s redefinition of being at war? As long as we’re dropping bombs on everything else in Syria, that doesn’t rise to the level of war. But, if we drop bombs on Syria’s air defenses, then by golly, that crosses a red line, the other side of which satisfies my new definition of being at war — however, not with the Islamic State (ISIS) because the Islamic State is not Islamic, and the terrorist fighting members of the Islamic State aren’t Islamic terrorists. Huh!? By the way, big bears don’t defecate in the woods, and the Pope is not a Catholic. And on, and on, and on………

  • Gosnell? RIGHT WING MEME ALERT!

  • bourgeoisentrprs@bellsouth.net' Just A. Thought says:

    Is that all ya got? Name calling? A perfect example of the liberal’s reply when they don’t have an answer. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t take any more than that and another clever semantic manipulation — “war on women” — to bring out in droves impressionable, easily influenced and led democratic women and men in droves, along with similarly uninformed, therefore, sympathetic Republican women and men to the polls to continue to vote for democratic and Republican candidates who refuse to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future created by DNA fingerprinting technology in 1984, preferring to remain mired in the outdated, DNA-disproved and overturned Roe v. Wade incorrect political rhetoric of a dead pre-DNA past. So much for the modern version of “truth, justice and the American way,” which once meant that Americans believe justice can flow only from truth, and that that is the American way. Today, the value of that kind of truth is also as dead as the pre-DNA past. That kind of truth was killed by and replaced by the verdict in the Roe v. Wade case, which featured “Jane Roe” and her handlers testifying before the Supreme Court that “Jane” was pregnant when they knew full well she wasn’t. For their part, as punishment for their lack of veracity before the Court, the Roe v. Wade Justices said even though there isn’t a right to privacy for abortion on demand IN the Constitution, they imagined that there was such a right found in a “penumbra” (a corona-like haze visible around a planet viewed through a telescope) that they imagined surrounded the Constitution. I suppose that if they were taking the advice of a very popular, similarly minded guru of that day, Dr. Timothy Leary, who promoted and popularized the life style of tuning in, turning on and dropping acid, they may actually have seen Jimmy Hendrix’s purple haze around the Constitution and everything else they looked at. Not even on one of their most stoned days, could Cheech and Chong have come up with such a ruling as that. Ruling in favor of perjured testimony, and justifying it on the basis of a non-existent fog around the Constitution because the so-called “right” they created isn’t in the Constitution!? Come on! Ya gotta be kiddin’ me. Nevertheless, even though there is no “penumbra” surrounding the Constitution that provides the right to abortion on demand, try telling a pro-abortionist there is no right to abortion on demand IN the Constitution, and see what kind of blowback to the contrary you’ll get. Of course, Republicans have done a totally lame, ineffective and lousy job of explaining any of this every time they have had a chance to when given the microphone, preferring such educational and enlightening explanations as “legal rape.” The Republicans I, a registered Independent voter, have discussed this information with are as averse to it as any of my pro-abortion friends and family members have been. Sadly, using Roe v. Wade as the model ever since, Supreme Court rulings keep getting curiouser and curiousier, particularly when it comes to any ruling about abortion whatsoever. Don’t hold your breath waiting for democrats to accept DNA fingerprinting evidence, even though their national political platform says they will fight for the supremacy of “evidence-based decision making.” Likewise, don’t hold your breath waiting for Republicans to call them on this situation publicly and get something done about it. Otherwise, you yourself will be in grave danger of becoming a victim of the liberal Democrat created Roe v. Wade “culture of death,” and the failure of Republicans to find a cure, even though the cure has existed since 1984. That’s why Dick Morris’s prediction that Obama is trying to turn the U.S. into a one party system is so frightening. If the Republicans, who have DNA evidence on their side, and even the Roe v. Wade Opinion’s assertion that DNA evidence proving life begins at conception “collapses” Roe v. Wade, and all the Democrats have is a scientifically disproved assumption and phony concoctions, such as “war on women” on their side, I wonder what they’d do if somebody put them in a wet paper bag — refuse to support a “Life at Conception” bill based on DNA fingerprinting evidence that completely justifies passage of such a bill, with or without a non-existent “penumbra” around the Constitution, as many still refuse to do!? In that case, good luck with that wet paper bag!! Better to avoid them altogether.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    The separation of powers holds that acknowledging when life begins is a function of the Congress, not the Court.

    When life begins is a question for science, not politicians. And no, there is no general consensus on the question still. Not even among religious people. Since we consider people “dead” when they no longer have a brain function, even if their bodies are kept going by technology, then perhaps a good indicator of when life begins is when there is brain function. And it isn’t until there is a brain, just so’s you know.

    But since a good half of fertilized ova do not ever implant in the first place, and are expelled in the menses unknown to the woman, I don’t think the moment of fertilization is a very apt descriptor of human life. Potential human life, yes. But not fully human at that point.

    If you want to consider that moment to be the beginning of life, you have every right to do so. But you do NOT have the right to insist that everyone else accept your theory. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. Simple as that.

    …three different federal laws provide ironclad protection to eagles and turtles in the egg. Why? Because it is assumed, as DNA evidence also proves, that there are baby eagles and turtles inside from conception!

    The law simply protects two endangered species. Humans are hardly an endangered species. They aren’t protecting plenty of other species. We eat fertilized chicken eggs all the time. Chickens obviously are not endangered, either.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Oh, please. If you want anyone to actually read your blatherings, you need at least to put in some paragraphs. I’m not masochistic enough to wade through all that with my aging eyes.

    And you are insane if you think any sexually abused woman wants to bear the fruit of the rape. She does NOT. And it is beyond cruel to force her to, just to have “evidence” of a crime. This is NOT caring for the woman – it’s the same old control issue that RWNJs like you keep bringing up.

  • bourgeoisentrprs@bellsouth.net' Just A. Thought says:

    You’re not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the facts, reality and the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in his majority opinion in the Roe v. Wade Opinion about the theory that nobody can prove when life begins, but if a technology were to prove that life begins at conception, that proof would “collapse” Roe v. Wade. This Roe v. Wade “collapsing” (Blackmun’s word, not mine), technology came with the advent of DNA fingerprinting technology, which proves conclusively that life begins a conception for humans animals when the DNA in the egg and the DNA in the sperm instantly recombine, and a new life begins, with its own unique and individual DNA for life — the same individual and unique human DNA fingerprint as yours, mine and everybody else’s inside the womb and out. It was Blackmun’s contention that this proof of the personhood of people in the womb would justify giving people in the womb the right to full protection under the 14th Amendment from conception, not mine, although I agree with it. If you think Blackmun’s word’s in this aspect of his ruling is nothing more than “blather,” perhaps it would be advisable, for truth and science’s sake, to consider the rest of it no more credible either.
    Since the DNA fingerprint in the fertilized egg of each person or animal is specific to each individual human or animal alone and no other, that DNA fingerprint is conclusive proof a separate individual. Also, as with expelled fertilized ova, miscarriages also occur throughout other stages of pregnancy, but that does make those occupant of the human womb any less human. In fact, that DNA proof is so conclusive of the specific individuality of each person, the parents of an expelled ovum or more developed miscarried human can be identified from it. Likewise, people continue to be convicted of crimes based on that proof. Similarly, people wrongfully convicted of crimes before the advent of DNA fingerprinting have been released from prison since the advent of DNA fingerprinting (The Innocence Project) based on the strength of the evidence provided in the wrongfully convicted person’s DNA fingerprint.
    Additionally, “just so’s you know,” Blackmun, again the author of the majority Roe v. Wade OPINION, didn’t consider or mention that brain function was proof of the beginning of life. Otherwise, he would have said so, and he would have written Roe v. Wade as a permanent ruling based on the fact that life begins at brain function. He wouldn’t have written, as he did, that the eventual development of a technology that proved life begins at conception, not brain function, would “collapse” Roe v. Wade.
    My comparison of fertilized human eggs to those of fertilized eagle and turtle eggs was used to highlight the hypocrisy of those who choose to recognize DNA fingerprinting evidence when it comes to animals and reject it when it comes to humans. The fact that most animal protection organizations are pro-abortion is even a more stark example of that hypocrisy, because they know that terminating humans in the womb will lead to fewer of them being born to compete with animals for habitat, and that, on the other hand, protecting animals in the egg will lead to more of them being hatched.
    If you dismiss all the stats, DNA evidence and other information I have presented is nothing more than “blather,” there’s nothing I can do about that. All I can mention is a statement in a New York Times interview a few years with an astronaut, I think Buzz Aldrin, in which he commented about the number of people who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still maintain the moon landing took place in a Hollywood back lot, not on the moon. His comment was an apology to them for our school system for failing to have taught them better. On the other hand, an old saying may also be involved here — My mind is made up. Don’t try to confuse me with the facts.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    Facts? Your opinion – and Blackmun’s – are not facts. But your mind IS made up, battened down, latched, and the key thrown overboard. Hopefully your ilk never gets a majority in this country. (It doesn’t have a majority now, you know. You guys just scream and downshout better than your opponents.)

  • bourgeoisentrprs@bellsouth.net' Just A. Thought says:

    So, you’re saying that the CIA is putting out false information, Dr. Lederer’s study is based on non-factual information, Vednita Carter is pushing a pack of lies, Jerry Sandusky didn’t rape little boys, and two Penn State officials are not facing criminal charges for failure to report Sandusky’s sex crimes against them, there’s no such thing as “de-identified” health information according to the HIPAA Privacy Rule, abortionist Kermit Gosnell wasn’t convicted of murder for delivering babies live and killing them outside the womb, DNA fingerprinting doesn’t prove life begins at conception when the DNA in the egg and the DNA in the sperm instantly recombine, and a new life, with its own unique and individual DNA fingerprint for life is created, that The Innocence Project hasn’t had wrongly convicted people freed from prison based on their DNA fingerprint, etc. etc.? You’re saying those things are nothing more than my opinion? How long was the Rip Van Winkle nap you just woke up from? Or is this just a classic textbook case of you shooting the messenger, me, for trying to present the information from others that conflicts with your opinions (I don’t remember you having cited any other person, study, etc. in your replies — nothing but your opinions) that have caused your mind to be “made up, battened down, latched, and the key thrown overboard?” Ever heard of the psychological characteristic of projecting your behaviors and traits onto others? My ilk? Sounds like a pretty good example of your viewing your opinions as superior to the information from others listed above and a case of your “downshouting” at me for having the audacity to present information from others that conflicts with your superior opinions. Besides, as I mentioned earlier in one of my replies, when challenged with such information that conflicts with your “superior” opinions, you guys just can’t resist resorting to name calling, can you? But, keep up the good work in that regard. Even though name calling adds nothing substantial or beneficial to the discussion, it does liven it up a bit.

  • lulu_44@hotmail.com.au' TheRealReginaPhalange says:

    1. Equating abortion with slavery is offensive. Many sex slaves wish to have access to abortion to terminate the pregnancies that resulted from rape, so your analogy doesn’t work. Furthermore, providing equal rights to slaves does not take away the equal rights of slave owners. There can be no dual-equality in a pregnancy – either the woman is allowed full rights over her body, or the fetus is given the full rights over the woman’s body. Again, your analogy doesn’t work here. Many rape victims freely choose to have abortions so it is not a stretch to say that many sex slaves would also freely choose to have abortions if given the chance. Also, pro-choice means supporting the right to CHOOSE. Pro-choice means being against forced abortion as it is taking away a woman’s choice.

    2. Legal abortion does not prevent child rape from taking place. Making it illegal only succeeds in forcing children to carry dangerous pregnancies in their not fully-developed bodies. Additionally, DNA testing can be carried out on the aborted fetus to determine paternity, which can provide evidence against the rapist. You also need to provide citations when making claims of these so-called widespread cover-ups of child sex abuse by abortion providers, not spout off your views/assumptions as facts. Further, there is a duty of care and mandatory reporting whereby suspected child abuse trumps privacy laws.

    3. The ‘Personhood Bill’ would not only give full legal rights to fetuses, but also fertilized eggs, essentially jeopardizing the legality of certain forms of birth control. It would mean that women are denied rights to their bodies before they are even pregnant.

    4. I see you brought up Kermit Gosnell in your other posts. He was operating illegally. He is in fact strong evidence of what would happen if abortion were to be made illegal.

    5. I also see from your other posts that you believe the Republicans have ‘DNA on their side’. DNA does not mean that a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus is the equivalent of a living, born human being. The Republicans also seem to have ignored all those living, born human beings in their thirst for war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • bourgeoisentrprs@bellsouth.net' Just A. Thought says:

    Perhaps you should read my posts more closely, as I have addressed some of the topics you mention. Here are my replies to your five points in this post:
    1) I agree that slavery is offensive. It is so offensive that Rev. Jeremiah Wright called upon God to damn the U.S. over its denial of “personhood” regarding slavery. What he was referring to was the US Supreme Court’s ruling prior to the Civil War in the Dred Scott Decision that “enslaved Africans” in the U.S. had no rights because they weren’t “legal persons.” Never mind that the Justices totally ignored the belief held by many, if not all, Americans at that time that “all men are created equal,” particularly Abraham Lincoln, who was reported to have been livid over this shameful decision. This is one of the main reasons why I oppose the shameful Roe v. Wade Opinion. It re-legalizes ad expands upon the reviled Dred Scott Decision that Rev Wright and many other Americans today find so offensive by ruling that children in the womb have no rights because they, like “enslaved Africans” in America prior to the Civil War, aren’t “legal persons” — especially because of the fact that DNA fingerprinting evidence (which wasn’t available at the time of the Dred Scott Decision or the Roe v. Wade Opinion) proves that they are, whether some modern-day Americans, like the pro-slavery Americans of the past, want to believe it or not. Absent such conclusive DNA evidence to the contrary, the Supreme Court was free to make up anything it wanted to in order to deny any rights to “enslaved Africans” in America then and to children in the womb now, both African-Americans and all others, by denying them the protections and rights of “personhood.”
    So, by being denied the rights of personhood, children in the womb today have been terminated in the millions — the ultimate, valueless American “throw away kids.” Go back to my post about the findings of Dr. Laura Lederer and also Vednita Carter, founder of the shelter Breaking Free in Minneapolis. Carter says the average age of entry into sex trafficking in the US is 12-14 years old. Lederer says, “forced abortion is an especially disturbing trend in sex trafficking,” Her study found that “55% of the women surveyed had at least one abortion, and 30% had multiple abortions during the time of trafficking. Of these, more than half responded that the abortion was not their choice…” Making any behavior, act, etc. illegal has never stopped any of them from reoccurring. Otherwise, such behaviors as murder, rape, etc., would have become extinct hundreds of years ago. Making them illegal only says we, as a society, disapprove of these behaviors, and if we catch you deliberately doing them, you owe a debt to society, which you will have to pay. Under Roe v. Wade, the woman has full rights over the baby’s body that she is carrying. Denied “personhood” by Roe v. Wade, the baby has no rights at all, much less rights over its own body. The mother has full rights over the baby’s body and can have the baby’s body terminated and destroyed on demand. People who agree with this reality typically don’t care about partial birth abortion, fetal heartbeat, the point at which the fetus can experience pain or anything else. A Life at Conception bill would give the baby rights to its own body alone, nobody else’s, in accordance with the proof of its “personhood” as provided by DNA fingerprinting. Pro-choice also means a person is saying the equivalent of, Personally, I don’t believe in abortion, but I believe abortion should remain legal in America for every other woman in America who chooses to have an abortion, terminating someone else’s body on demand in the process. Is that totally unlike a person proclaiming, Personally, I don’t believe in slavery, but I think slavery should remain legal for anybody else who chooses to own slaves. I firmly disagree with both arguments.
    2. Pro-life organizations, such as Operation Rescue, as well as other organizations, have all sorts of documented evidence of the common practice of abortionists deliberately failing to report SUSPECTED child sex abuse, even though they, as mandatory reporters, as are all other health workers and providers, are required by law to report these suspected cases. The trouble is abortionists have a substantial incentive for not reporting their pedophile and/or child sex slave trafficking customers. Instead of insinuating that no such evidence exists, why not use a search engine to search out the relationship between pedophilia and/or child sex slave trafficking and abortion for yourself, or contact Operation Rescue or some other pro-life organization to find out what evidence they have on this topic or can point you to. I would love to provide some of the evidence I have, such as copies of illegally pre-stamped “UNK” for unknown in the blank provided for the age of the father of the aborted fetus on the Report of Induced Termination of Pregnancy form abortionists are required to submit to the state health department, but I can’t attach documents here. These forms are de-identified in order to protect the privacy of the underage victim while allowing authorities to identify the adult pedophile an/or child sex slave trafficker (some of these criminals are both) who illegally impregnated the child. The HIPAA privacy rule provides that there is no restriction on the use and disclosure of any de-identified health information. Sadly though, it is far too common for abortionists not to report these crimes to authorities for investigation, opting to return these victims to their abusers for even more abuse. Believe me, I truly wish you could prove me totally wrong on this, but you would be totally wrong if you think you could. Start your own research, as I did, and I guarantee you, if you do it properly, you’ll be totally shocked. at what you find.
    3) As I mentioned in another post, this is a well-worn scare tactic from the multi-billion dollar U.S. legalized abortion industry and its supporters — creating the fear that a “personhood bill” would mean the outlawing of all forms of artificial birth control. As we learned from the Hobby Lobby decision, only four types of artificial birth control, the abortifacient types, would be banned. That leaves the other 16 types legal, hardly a death knell for artificial birth control.
    4) Kermit Gosnell is another example of the illegal, improper reporting by abortionists. It’s interesting to note that, even though he had been doing these abortions the same way for years, his crimes were eventually detected only by accident. It wasn’t until someone tipped authorities that they suspected Gosnell was selling illegal drugs that, during the investigation of suspected illegal drug sales, authorities accidentally stumbled across Gosnell’s abortion crimes. I have on hand clippings of letters to the editor from pro-abortionists and news clippings of articles quoting other pro-abortionists who claim that legalized abortion is more than 99% safe. However, I also have a copy of the abortion statistical table for 2008 and 2009 compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) utiizing the abortion statistics they receive from each state. A few points: a) This CDC report shows that 5,119 girls age 15 and under had abortions in 2008 and 4,915 girls in the same age group had abortions 2009. Given the fact that it is not possible for unmarried girls in that age group to be impregnated legally, that’s a lot of statutory rape, if any number of these pregnancies were caused by adults. That’s why abortionists and other health care workers are mandatory reporters of SUSPECTED child sex abuse, so that these suspected cases can be investigated to ascertain whether this suspected child sex abuse was at the hands of an adult pedophile and/or child sex slave trafficker. Think of all the news articles you’ve read featuring some law enforcement agency bragging about some pedophile they arrested because of their surveillance of child porn sites or through some other type of investigation. Now think of all the news articles you have read about law enforcement agencies bragging about the number of pedophiles and/or child sex slave traffickers they caught using the de-identified information on forms abortionists are required to submit to state departments of health that were forwarded to law enforcement either by the abortionist or the dept. of health, or both. Since the CDC stats show that 10,034 girls 15 years old and younger had abortions in 2008 and 2009 alone (not counting 16 and 17 year olds), you’d think perhaps there would have been at least one or two adult child sex criminals in the bunch that law enforcement agencies could have publicly bragged about catching in news reports, thanks to the de-identified information on abortion reports about these girls law enforcement was supposed to have received either from the abortionists, the dept. of health, or both. Now think about this. How many news reports have you read about law enforcement agencies who have caught child sex criminals by using this de-identified information? Let me answer that for you — zip, nada, none, zero, goose egg. But what about the number of girls Dr. Lederer’s study showed were forced into abortions by child sex slave traffickers? Where are the news reports about the capture of those child sex slave traffickers, thanks to those de-identified abortion reports? b) Those CDC stats also show that, when compared to 1972 stats, the last year abortion was illegal in the U.S., the 2008-2009 stats reveal that the maternal death rate for legal abortions was six times higher than the last year abortion was illegal, 1972! Unbelievable? Take it up with the CDC. This begs one big question in my mind — If legalized abortion can experience a six-fold increase in maternal death rate and still be over 99% per cent safe, how unsafe could illegal abortion have possibly been?
    5) Wrong again. DNA evidence does prove that the occupant of the human womb is the equivalent of a live, born baby, as intrinsically human as it will ever be, whether it lives only100 days in the womb, for example, or 100 years outside the womb. That’s why the multibillion dollar U.S. legalized abortion industry, which includes Planned Parenthood, a leading abortion provider, fight the idea of recognizing the DNA fingerprint proven “personhood” of babies in the womb from conception. Just think what a dent that would put in their business. When it comes to abortion, it hasn’t mattered what the Republicans have on their side. After all, 1984 was a long time ago. But, you know, I think you are right on one point. The bombs Obama is currently dropping on all those poor, put upon, child beheading Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria and other living, born human beings have to be kinder and gentler than the bombs Bush dropped because Obama is a member of party of compassion, an Bush is member of that dastardly party that throws poor Granny over the cliff.

  • phatkhat@centurylink.net' phatkhat says:

    The CIA puts out false information all the time, LOL. I think it is called “disinformation” or propaganda. Who is “Dr. Lederer”? Ms Carter’s work has nothing to do with the current topic. Jerry Sandusky doesn’t either. Muddy the waters much?

    Kermit Gosnell is a criminal. He is NOT a typical abortionist, but a sleazy, back-alley outlier that was available to women who hadn’t access to a legal abortion. When abortion is illegal, Kermit Gosnells will proliferate, because abortion will NOT go away. Abortion has been around since some woman discovered the right herbs back in the dawn of time, and it will be around as long as people exist.

    I admit to having strong opinions on this topic. As a woman who was FORCED to birth a baby I did not want and was not prepared to raise, in the days before Roe, I have VERY strong opinions. (And yes, I was on the pill. I was one of the 2% failure rate.)

    The DNA in a fertilized ovum is a blueprint for a human. It is not a human any more than a blueprint for a house is a house. The female body ejects fertilized ova at a rate of at least 50%. The female body also ejects embryos at a fairly high rate – and that female is probably totally unaware that there even was a fertilized ovum or an embryo.

    Do you know that a human embryo looks indistinguishable from a cat embryo to an untrained eye at the same stage of development? We humans are sooooo special, LOL.

    There is NO consensus except among rightwing/fundamentalist religion that human life begins at conception. The DNA is there, yes. But that does not a human make. You have your opinion, I have mine. We can both find sources to support our opinions. That means there is still an ongoing debate and it is far from a closed subject, no matter how much you want to make it so.

    You can reply if you like, and have the last word. But I am not going to waste my time any further “debating” you.

  • bourgeoisentrprs@bellsouth.net' Just A. Thought says:

    First, let me say I applaud and commend you for having delivered a live baby, instead of having it terminated in the womb in an illegal abortion. It’s easy for anybody to do anything selfish, but it is praiseworthy for anyone do such an unselfish thing as you did to save the life of another. I must admit, however, that I am puzzled as to why you are so bitter about having sacrificed your personal convenience in order to have accomplished such a thoughtful, meritorious deed for the sake of the life of another. It was totally praiseworthy, and you should release yourself from such unwarranted bitterness and be proud of what you did.
    Justified or not, I think your bitterness affects your attitude on this topic in ways that don’t suit you, as your comments give the impression that the “debate” is already over, since I have already addressed virtually all the points you make here in my other posts. Questions like, “Who is Dr. Lederer?” suggest that you aren’t interested in actually reading my posts, which also reminds me of the saying, “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with the facts.”
    By the way, there is no consensus that the Earth is round, that the Holocaust took place during World War II, that the moon landing actually did take place on the moon, instead of in a Hollywood back lot. Neither is there consensus on a whole host of other things, but such lack of consensus doesn’t change the reality of these things in any way.
    However, I would like to address one fresh point you did bring up. “The DNA in a fertilized ovum…is not a human any more than a blueprint for a house is a house.” This remark reminds me of another “debate” with another person in which I said a fertilized ovum shouldn’t be terminated because it has human DNA and, therefore, is as intrinsically human as it will ever be –, not just a mass of non-descript cells, like a wart or tumor, as pro-abortionists contend. My debate partner retorted that just because a fertilized ovum contains human DNA, there is no difference between it and a wart or tumor because warts and tumors also contain human DNA. I reminded her that she was missing one indispensable, indisputable point — No matter how long they are allowed to live, neither a wart, nor a tumor will ever grow up to be anything more than a tumor or a wart. However, on the other hand, if allowed to live long enough, a fertilized ovum, unless miscarried like miscarriages later on in the course of a pregnancy, aborted, killed in the womb by gunman, etc., will definitely grow up to be a human being, just like any other. That one point makes world of difference Another person claimed that a fertilized human ovum is no more a human being than an acorn is an oak tree, rather than just a potential oak tree. My answer was that if you crack open an acorn, green bean, etc, you will find a tiny leaf bud at one end long before those buds continue to develop into an oak tree, bean plant, etc. This is not a blueprint for a potential oak tree or bean plant. It is a fertilized baby oak tree and baby bean plant, with its own individual DNA fingerprint for life, in the earliest stages of its individually developing new life. Likewise, if fertilized eagle or turtle eggs are just blueprints for and, thus, only potential life instead of individually developing new eagle and turtle lives, why protect them? If the fertilized new life isn’t inside the turtle or eagle egg before it’s laid, it won’t get there after the egg is laid. Likewise, no matter how much a Pinochio-like blueprint might long to become a real house, it never will become one any more than a wart or tumor will grow up to be a human. Come to think of it, I never have seen a house constructed of nailed together blueprints. But I have seen in my mind’s eye the newspaper taxis the Beatles sang about.

  • lulu_44@hotmail.com.au' TheRealReginaPhalange says:

    And perhaps you need to read my comments more carefully, as I provided counterarguments to your original arguments and you essentially responded back with the same exact arguments from your original comment, rather than addressing what I wrote.

    1. Again, there can be no equality for a woman and a fetus at the same time. if a fetus has full legal rights, the woman does not. If a woman has full legal rights to her body, the fetus does not. There is no dual-equality, its either one or the other. Explain to me how they can both have full rights at the same time, without one taking away the rights of the other.

    Conception does not mean that a woman is pregnant, implantation does. That would be like equating a woman’s period with a miscarriage because a fertilized egg failed to implant.

    Also, you are romanticizing a fetal heartbeat. A born person can be declared brain-dead even if their heart is still beating. The heart is not the be-all and end-all of what life means.

    2. Many women are pressured to undergo cosmetic surgery, and there are rumors that children involved in beauty pageants have undergone illegal cosmetic procedures. That does not mean that plastic surgery should be made illegal just because some women and children are forced to undergo the procedure. Many mandated reporters (teachers, nurses and doctors working in settings unrelated to abortion) fail to report suspected child abuse, that does not mean that those services should be made illegal.

    Also, there are many rape victims, sex trafficking victims, and child sex abuse victims who wish to terminate their pregnancies that resulted from rape. You are not arguing against forced abortion because you care about the victims’ rights. You are arguing against forced abortion because you oppose abortion, whether it is chosen or forced.

    3. ‘As we learned from the Hobby Lobby decision, only four types of artificial birth control, the abortifacient types, would be banned.’

    IUDs are not abortifacients. And women still need access to those four types because they might not be able to take the other 16 types due to suitability or side effects. Also, many women have IUDs inserted to treat medical conditions. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby had no problem covering IUDs up until ACA was passed. If a Scientologist business owner refused to cover 4 types of psychiatric drugs, would you be arguing that it still leaves the other types legal?

    4. Kermit Gosnell had stray cats roaming around his clinic. He was using non-sterilized equipment on patients. He was operating illegally. He is not an argument that abortion should be made illegal. He is what would happen if it were to be made illegal, only multiplied.

    Look up back-alley abortions – that’s how unsafe illegal abortion was. You think that legal abortion (which involves follow-up care, sterilized utensils, and is subject to health and safety regulations) is less safe than illegal abortion (which involves almost no follow-up care, involves the use of dangerous methods – coat hangers, knitting needles, detergent, non-sterilized utensils, and is subject to no health and safety regulations)? You are out of your mind if you do.

    5. No, it does not prove that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of a born, living human being. Do you hold a funeral every time a woman gets her period because a fertilized egg failed to implant?

    Finally, Obama is not the one claiming to be ‘pro-life’. He is not the one equating a fertilized egg with a born human being, so in this instance he is not a hypocrite. I brought up the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because for all their talk about the ‘sanctity of life’ the Republicans had absolutely no problem bombing all those Iraqi and Afghan lives. How many pregnant women do you think were killed in those wars? You cannot point to Obama in this debate since he is not the one going around claiming to be ‘pro-life’.

  • bourgeoisentrprs@bellsouth.net' Just A. Thought says:

    For all your talk about equality, you, like the slavers and their pro-slavery supporters on the Dred Scott Supreme Court prior to the Civil War, believe that rights are only for certain persons, those conidered by the Supreme Court to be “legal persons,” and that those same rights should be denied to other persons because the Supreme Court ruled that those other persons are not “legal persons.” This despite all the self-evident truth, even without DNA proof, that “enslaved Africans” in the U.S. were exactly the same as any other human on the planet. This despite the fact that Americans, especially those in government, should believe and act accordingly that “all men are CREATED equal.” This despite the fact that the Supreme Court totally ignored this belief in equality and replaced it with their belief in and preference for inequality. Their belief was that the only way an “enslaved African” in America could become equal to a white American was if his owner freed him or her. So, the freed black slave then became equal to a white person, not by virtue of the fact that “all men are created equal,” but by virtue of fact that some people, not created equal, according to the Supreme Court, could only “become” equal if the person who owned them set them free. I say owner, instead of white slave owner, because free blacks could and did own slaves in America.
    “Explain to me how they can both have full rights at the same time, without one taking away the rights of another.” Slavery was an unjust institution backed by the U.S. Supreme Court that granted the unjust right for some Americans to own other Americans, the Court unjustly denying rights to those undeserving Americans because they weren’t “legal persons.” By legalizing and permitting the denial and taking away of full rights to “enslaved Africans” in order to accord an unjust right of other Americans to own these “enslaved Africans” as their property, not people, because the Court pronounced they weren’t “legal persons,” the Supreme Court sanctioned and granted unjust rights to some Americans to own other Americans, an unjust right no American should ever have had in the first place. Because of the stubborn,intractable refusal of slavers and pro-slavery Americans to give up their unjust rights over “enslaved Africans,” unjustly denying and taking away rights that never should have denied and taken away from them in the first place, it took the bloodiest war in American history, among other things, to gain for “enslaved Africans” the same equal rights with all other Americans they always should have had. Equal rights, and equal justice for all. The granting of equal rights to “enslaved Africans” that they always should have had effectively took away the rights of slave owners to own them, a right they never should have had. Do you agree that, in order to grant full rights to those who never should have had them denied and taken away in the first place, which effectively took away the unjust rights other Americans never should have had in the first place, in order to foster a more perfect union and grant freedom, equality, liberty and justice for all is, nevertheless, the right thing to do? Taking away an unjust right, especially an unjust so-called right created by the Supreme Court, from some who should never have been given that created “right” in the first place, in order to restore rights to others who should never have had theirs denied and taken away in the first place, does nothing more than correct a legal wrong. Agree? Or do you believe that, since the Supreme Court ruled that they weren’t “legal persons,” “enslaved Africans” in America should never have been granted equal rights? Likewise, do you believe that, because the Supreme Court repeated this same unjust ruling in a later decision that they weren’t “legal persons” either, children in the womb today, including African-American children, who, like “enslaved Africans,” never should have had their rights taken away from them in the first place, should continue to have their rights taken away from them based on a repeat of the Court’s exact same unjust ruling?
    If so, then you apparently support the concept of inequality which holds that some in America should be accorded rights, while others should be denied those same rights, based not on the self-evident truth that they are “created equal” and biologically the same, etc., but on the Supreme Court’s utterly repugnant, unjust determination that they aren’t “legal persons.” If this ruling was wrong back then, what act of magic makes it right today, especially since it is so reviled by Rev. Wright and other African-Americans today?
    Tell me, is it your belief that “all men are CREATED equal,” or that only some are created equal and others can only “BECOME” equal — but only if their slave owner freed them from slavery back then, at which point, they became equal, or if their slave owner today allows them to live until birth, at which point, they, too, become equal? Do you believe that the CREATION of all men begins at the beginning of their individual existence, which begins at the instant of conception when the DNA in the sperm and the DNA in the egg instantly recombine, and a new life is CREATED at that point? Or do you believe, like the Dred Scott Supreme Court, that “enslaved Africans” were created (become) equal at the point of emancipation, and with the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court that those in the womb are created (become) equal at the point of birth? According to Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedic Dictionary, the word CREATE means – “to come into existence; originate.” So, do you believe it more likely that all men “come into existence; originate,” — in other words, “are created” — at the point of conception, by definition, DNA fingerprinting proof, etc.? Or is it more likely, as per the Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade Courts, that only some men are created equal — in other words, “come into existence; originate” as equals — while some can only BECOME equal at the point of emancipation or birth? Personally, I find any such Court and/or other legal machination designed merely to justify the continuation of denial of rights to any human being at any stage of his/her development, particularly through “denial of personhood,” as reprehensible, condemnable and unacceptable as Rev. Jeremiah Wright considers it to be.
    In that the second most aborted babies in the U.S. are babies aborted for racially discriminatory reasons — the mother white, the father black — the racism of Dred Scott lives on in Roe v. Wade in a substantial way. But Roe v. Wade supporters are quick to dismiss, overlook and accept that racial discrimination. Likewise, in China, due to the overwhelming choice of parents to abort girls instead of boys, there are from 4 to 5 marriageable young men to every marriageable young women in China today. At least, that was the case a few years ago. But Roe v. Wade supporters aren’t bothered by that gender discrimination either. And they wouldn’t be any more concerned about it if the same were true in the U.S. as they are that racially discriminatory abortion in the U.S. is racial discrimination in its most lethal form possible. So, do abortionists consider racially discriminatory abortions hate crimes and refuse to perform them? Do you and your pro-choice/pro-abortion cronies consider racially discriminatory abortions hate crimes? If not, why not, since the reason why the baby is aborted is because his/her father is African-American? How much more hate for an African-American could anybody have than that?
    “Romanticizing fetal heartbeat!?” “The heart is not the end-all be-all of what life means!?” If you were a cardiologist with that attitude, your beside manner would be atrocious and anything but consoling and comforting to the family members of your patients who would be fighting for their lives. I can’t believe anyone could be so oblivious to the chilling tone, insensitivity and cruelty of their own words, even after reading them. You find absolutely nothing wrong with snuffing out a human heartbeat. That’s cold. Sadly, though, I’ve read comments of other pro-abortionists who reject fetal heartbeat as a reason to limit abortion, just as you do. All I can say is, never has such callous disregard for beating human hearts been witnessed in the Americas since ancient Mezo-American priests ripped them from the chests of living human victims and thrust them, still beating, skyward in their superstitious belief that if they didn’t do it each morning, the sun wouldn’t come up that day. We once thought of such acts as savage acts perpetrated by barbaric people, just as we view the beheadings of Christian children and others by Islamic terrorists today. Yet children in the womb are beheaded, and their heart beats are stopped every day by abortionists we consider to be anything but barbaric, but actually revere instead as friendly and compassionate women’s health service providers — providing these much coveted health services to the tune of tens millions of children terminated in the womb since 1973. In fact, we view these heart-stopping beheadings as nothing more than the health choices made by progressive women living in a superior, advanced (compared to ancient societies), modern, civilized society. Would you characterize that view of the situation as delusional, hypocritical, one that is in denial of the truth, simply mad, all of the above or none of the above? If none of the above, then please explain. I don’t know if they still do it, but one large abortion clinic in California, instead of disposing of the aborted bodies sold them in Southeast Asia to be turned into women’s cosmetics products for marketing internationally. When you put on your cosmetics, have you ever thought you might be gently massaging the remains of dead babies into your face? Very reminiscent of the old movie, “Soylent Green.” Other abortionists are more secular humanist in nature, in that, instead of disposing of all the unwanted byproducts of abortions, the dead bodies, they have developed and maintain a very lucrative side business by harvesting and selling the organs first. Ya gotta applaud them on their innovative business acumen. Impressive, don’t ya think?
    2. Those you mention who fail to report suspected child sex abuse, which includes abortionists as well, are breaking the law, and the fine for each incident is at least $500 or six months imprisonment, or both. In case you didn’t realize it, that’s what the “mandatory” in mandatory reporters of suspected child sex abuse means — they are mandated by law to report it. By the way, thank you for acknowledging that mandatory reporters do break the mandatory reporting law, because you’re the first pro-choice/pro-abortion person I have ever communicated with who actually acknowledges that mandatory reporters of suspected child sex abuse actually do violate the mandatory reporting law. Most, including public officials, police departments and others charged with investigating these cases in order to determine if the suspected abuse is actual abuse, refuse to investigate such reports about abortionists because they refuse to acknowledge that abortionists would even think of breaking the mandatory reporting law. How can officials tell that suspected child sex abuse is not actual child sex abuse when they draw that conclusion before hand without investigating at all? They, like the district attorney in the Jerry Sandusky case/cover up by certain Penn State officials, just instantly know there’s nothing to it any time alleged cover ups by abortionists for their child sex abusing customers are brought to their attention, summarily dismissing the allegations and refusing to investigate. Why don’t these authorities just humor us, conduct a faux investigation and then tell us they looked into matter and found there’s nothing to the allegations? Instead, their attitude is like: Hey, you naïve dummies, we know the governor said all citizens should consider themselves mandatory reporters, but did you fail to notice that he never once said we authorities have any obligation at all to INVESTIGATE those reports. Suckers! Are you naïve enough to think that the governor is going to risk a backlash from all the pro-choice/pro-abortion voters in this country by having us actually investigate these reports, or that we would risk losing our jobs because of the same backlash we would receive for having done such an investigation? Not on your life. He and we like things nice and comfy, just the way they are in abortionland, all swept under the rug. Unless and until somebody forces us to assume otherwise, as far as we are concerned, Roe v. Wade not only legalized abortion, but also incest, child sex abuse, pedophilia and child sex slave trafficking. So, there’s nothing to investigate, and the mandatory reporting law is nothing but a sham when it comes to abortionists. It doesn’t matter if they illegally fail to report 10,114 abortions on illegally impregnated 12-15 year olds in two years or 10 million in one year – year after year – and nobody in officialdom cares about it, at least not enough to give it a proper investigation. So, why don’t you guys just give up? Don’t you know that what the public doesn’t know won’t hurt them? Which mainstream media outfit do you think would touch this story with a ten foot pole, anyway? So, why continue to be involved in such an idiotic exercise in futility as to try to stir up this hornet’s nest? Don’t you know it’ll only come to naught after all the dust settles anyway, even if you do stir it up. Besides,we don’t care if the HIPAA Privacy Rule says there is no restriction on the use and disclosure of de-identified health information, which makes it public information, or that federal law preempts state law when it comes to health information. We’re still going to misclassify it as individually identifiable health information, nonetheless, and refuse to disclose it to you anyway, and the feds aren’t going to do anything about it either. He was right. Went to the feds about it. They did nothing. But this happens all the time, at least for all the years my pro-life friends and I have tried to report this stuff to them for their investigation. What we’re curious about is finding out which psychic they use who is so spot on 1000% of the time in determining that no report that abortionists are breaking the mandatory reporter law is ever valid enough to warrant investigation. Anyway, since you brought the subject up so uncritically and acceptingly, I certainly hope that doesn’t mean you espouse, condone and turn a blind eye to such criminal non-reporting behavior on the part of these lawbreakers. By not reporting the cases you say you know about in your post, you may be complicit in their wrongdoing as well. At any rate, to answer your question, that doesn’t mean that those [abortion] services should be made illegal. But, what it does mean is that the failure of mandatory reporters to report is illegal. How illegal is it on he part of abortionists alone? Let’s calculate. Using the CDC abortion table statistical report (mentioned in a previous post) that shows abortions were performed on 5,119 girls between 12-15 years old in 2008 and 4,915 abortions on the same age group in 2009 (not counting 16-17 year olds), that’s roughly $5,057,000 worth of illegally unreported sex crimes against underage girls in those two years alone and roughly 5,022 years worth of uncompleted jail time. Considering the years from 1973 to the present (there’s no statute of limitations on child sex abuse), that’s roughly $202,280,000 worth of illegally unreported sex crimes against underage girls 12-15 years old and 200,880 years of uncompleted jail time that you, the abortion industry and your pro-choice and pro-abortion friends absolutely refuse to let anybody investigate — even though there is no restriction on the use or disclosure of de-identified health information (because its de-identification makes it public information), according to the HIPAA Privacy Law! But, since you guys are in such a snit over the Texas law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges to hospitals, who can blame you? Wow!! If you pro-aborts ever stop such vigorous blocking of that from happening, let this information come to public light, and the public gets as stirred up about it as they did about Jerry Sandusky’s sex crimes against little boys, demanding that abortionists be held accountable for their illegal cover up of child sex crimes committed by their customers as vigorously as they demanded that those who failed to report Sandusky’s child sex abuse crimes against little boys should be held accountable (ending Joe Paterno’s job over it for UNDER-reporting it) – that would bankrupt and shut down every abortion clinic, not only in Texas, but also in every other state. However, not for performing legal abortions, and not for not being unable to comply with hospital admitting privilege requirements, but for consistently breaking a law that others have already been punished for breaking. Why should abortionists get a get out of jail free card that nobody else is given for committing the same crime? Didn’t we run Richard Nixon and his “Imperial Presidency” out of office because we demanded that even the President of the United States isn’t above the law? So, please don’t waste your breath trying to convince me that you have any more concern for the “women’s health” — specifically the physical and psychological health — of these raped and illegally impregnated underage women outside the womb than you have for the brain function and heartbeat of pre-born women inside the womb! If you do have any concern at all for these sexually abused underage women, then please join me and others in trying (so far fruitlessly, due to threats of lawsuits and other road blocks constantly placed in the way our quest for justice for these sexually abused girls by pro-abortionists) to get something done about this national travesty. By the failure of those you mention to report suspected child sex abuse, and by your failure to report them for their failure to comply with the mandatory reporter law, you and they are doing the same thing that the two Penn State officials who covered up and failed to report the suspected child sex crimes of Jerry Sandusky did. They continue to face criminal charges for having done that.
    3. If 16 types of legal artificial birth control out of 20 aren’t enough, how many would you say would be — 160, perhaps 1,060, how about 10,060?. By the same token, if the Hobby Lobby decision had mentioned 4 types of birth control out of 160, would you still complain that 146 types still wouldn’t be enough? By the way, I wouldn’t mind if they banned 4 types of psychiatric drugs either. Why should I? They wouldn’t be banned for no reason at all.
    4. Kermit Gosnell is no freak of nature, unless you consider abortionists in general freaks of nature. Since the same pathetic lack of cleanliness has been well documented on any number of abortion clinics, Gosnell is just your average, run-of-the-mill, garden variety abortionist in that regard. He does have a good sense of humor, though. At his murder trial, one of his nurses testified that after he delivered all but the head of an untypically large baby and severed the spinal cord In its neck with a pair of scissors, he looked at her and joked, “That one was so big, I could have walked it to the school bus.” Sorry. Hope you didn’t hurt yourself when you fell off your chair laughing at that one. But, you have to admit, it’s a lot funnier than your jokes about fetal heartbeat and brain function. However, the funniest dead baby joke I ever heard was actually a sight gag by Conan O’Brian. His sight gag involved a fetus doll dragging its severed umbilical cord on the floor as it drove a model car around the stage. I tell you that audience was in stitches. I hope somebody tells him about the aborted baby essence cosmetics. There’s no telling how hilarious he’d be about that one.
    Sorry, but barber shops have to comply with more health regulations than abortion clinics, and they’re inspected a lot more too. That’s another thing I learned from Reuters news reports about the Gosnell case and from other sources. Do you think such filth could have built up in his clinic overnight or that it could have gotten as bad as it did if it had been inspected regularly? Again, I repeat, the CDC statistics I have cited in more than one post show that, compared to their statistics from 1972, the last year abortion was illegal, the maternal death rate in 2008-2009 was six times higher then than it was in 1972, the last year abortion was illegal. Yet, abortionists and pro-abortionists continue to insist that abortion is more than 99% safe. Again, if legal abortion has a six times greater maternal death rate and is still more than 99% safe, how unsafe could illegal abortion have possibly been? The death and complication rates for appendectomies, hysterectomies and even tooth extraction are even higher than less than 1%. Go to a search engine and find out for yourself. One thing abortionists have been able to do to fudge the safety numbers is to sign “transfer agreements” with non-abortion doctors who have hospital admitting privileges. When an abortionist who has a transfer agreement with a non-abortion doctor botches an abortion and the adult or minor patient requires hospitalization, the abortionist calls the non-abortion doctor he has contracted, and transfers her to him to admit her to the hospital. The non-abortion transfer doctor always admits the patient to the hospital as his patient, not the patient of the abortionist, and she is known as the patient of the transfer doctor. In this way, the complications and worse from these abortions are never, ever counted as complications and worse from abortions! Pretty slick way to make abortion seem to be a helluva lot safer than it actually is, huh?
    5. A fertilized human egg doesn’t have to prove that it is the equivalent of anything. All it has to prove is that its life, human life, is created (comes into existence; originates) at conception. Again, by dictionary definition: creation — to come into existence; originate. And, once more, DNA fingerprinting proves that that is exactly what happens at the point of conception.
    Finally, come on, phatkhat, does it really matter to you if the guy who drops a bomb on your head is a hypocritical pro-lifer or a non-hypocritical pro-abortionist? Would you be any less dead one way or the other?

  • lulu_44@hotmail.com.au' TheRealReginaPhalange says:

    1. You didn’t answer the question: how can a fetus and the woman carrying it have equal rights at the same time?

    Don’t go on a long rant about slavery, answer the actual question. To answer your’s, freeing slaves didn’t actually impinge on the bodies of the slave owners.

    I also support African-American women’s right to abortion. It is paternalistic and condescending to argue that African-American women should be denied that right because they must somehow not be of the right frame of mind, whilst white women be able to have abortions.

    Furthermore, if a born human being is brain-dead and machines are keeping their other organs (including their heart) going, they are still brain-dead. Should people be kept on machines forever because technically there is still a heartbeat? Or is it their brain that makes them alive?

    I’m not a cardiologist dealing with people who need heart surgeries so your analogy has no context here. If I said the same thing about feet, would you argue that you’re certainly glad I’m not a podiatrist?

    2. ‘Roe v. Wade not only legalized abortion, but also incest, child sex abuse, pedophilia and child sex slave trafficking.’

    All those issues were around before Roe v. Wade and they continue to be around after. As I said, DNA testing can be done on the embryo/fetus to gather evidence. Furthermore, you completely ignore all the girls and women who freely choose to have abortions after they have been raped.

    If you genuinely care about these victims of sex crimes then answer this:

    If you had the chance to rescue 100 victims of sex slavery and send the sex traffickers to prison, would you do it IF it meant that all those women would freely choose to have abortions? Or would you leave them in captivity where the sex traffickers remained free to abuse, IF it meant that they would be forced to continue their pregnancies and not have abortions?

    Which is it? Do you genuinely care about victims of sex trafficking or are you just bringing up the topic to argue against abortion?

    3. ‘By the way, I wouldn’t mind if they banned 4 types of psychiatric drugs either. Why should I? They wouldn’t be banned for no reason at all.’

    If those drugs were the only things that worked for people with serious mental health issues and they were banned, you would be okay with it? You realize that not every person is compatible to every drug, right?

    Additionally, the four types of birth control WERE banned for no reason. Hobby Lobby argued that they cause abortions when they do no such thing. Similarly, a Scientologist could argue that four types of psychiatric drugs cause retardation when there is no such evidence. Should they be allowed to ban them with no scientific evidence to back up their claims purely because of their religious convictions?

    4. Where is your evidence that barber shops have more regulations than abortion clinics? You can’t just make things up. And I’m not interested in Kermit Gosnell’s sense of humor. He was operating illegally. He is not the norm. Where is your evidence that the majority of abortion clinics have stray cats roaming around urinating on utensils?

    Additionally, just because underage girls seek abortions does not mean that the majority of them were victims of sex crimes. They could have had consensual sex with boys their age or very close to their age. And if they were victims of sex crimes, they still deserve the right to terminate a pregnancy that was forced upon them. Going after a rapist does not mean that girls should be denied bodily autonomy.

    Additionally, where is your evidence that the maternal death rate is directly related to legalized abortion? Correlation does not automatically mean causation.

    5. Again, answer this: do you hold a funeral every time a woman gets her period? Do you know how many fertilized eggs naturally fail to implant even when a woman is actively trying to get pregnant? Are you going to redefine the term ‘miscarriage’ to also include a woman’s period?

    6. Not sure why you keep bringing Obama into this discussion. Like I said, he is not the one calling himself ‘pro-life’. Since we are discussing abortion here, and since you stated that the Republicans are ‘right’ about this issue, then its best to focus on their hypocrisy. Of course if someone drops a bomb on you, you’re dead, regardless of the bomb-dropper is. But that wasn’t the point. The point is, if you think that the Republicans are so right about the issue of abortion, then how can a group of people who believe that a fetus is the equivalent of a live human being and that abortion is the equivalent of murder be so quick to bomb thousands of live human beings? According to them, wouldn’t bombing people be like performing mass abortion, since they view abortion as murder?

    7. I see you also brought up beheading. That is not how abortion is typically performed. Most abortions are performed very early on when the fetus is in the early stages of development. There are three ways to perform abortion. Either through a suction procedure, whereby the tissues are vacuumed out; through a scooping method using utensils to remove the tissues; or through administering drugs to induce abortion.

    8. ‘All men are created equal’ is a figure of speech and applies to born human beings. A figure of speech that uses the word ‘created’ is not to be taken literally going through the stages of reproduction and applied to fertilized eggs. Should people hold funerals for all the fertilized eggs that naturally failed to attach?

  • bourgeoisentrprs@bellsouth.net' Just A. Thought says:

    1. Freeing the slaves on the plantation, as would happen if the slaves in the womb were freed today, did the opposite of the example you use. It prevented the slave owners from any longer impinging on the bodies of the slaves they no longer owned, as they did on demand when they did own them — and with the blessing and sanctioning of the Supreme Court. Before abortion on demand was legalized, abortion under certain circumstances, nonetheless, was still legal, when both the woman and the child in her womb both each had equal rights simultaneously. At that time, an abortion could be performed legally, but only if the life of the baby and/or the life of the mother were threatened. In such cases, which were rare, and since both he mother and the child in the womb had equal rights, the doctor was to save whichever one, the mother or the child, was most likely to live. That’s how the fetus and the woman once had equal rights at the same time. What Roe v. Wade did, among other things, thanks to the creation of a so-called woman’s right to abort babies on demand, was take away the right to life of the unborn baby, a right the baby shouldn’t have had taken from it in the first place, and give a so-called “right” to women to kill the baby they never should have been given in the first place. Since, under Roe v. Wade, women could have abortions performed for no reason at all on demand, as opposed to only under circumstances in which the life of the mother and/or baby were threatened, the number of abortions skyrocketed to some 60 odd million, and that number continues to grow. In just one of the abortion clinics here, they perform an average of 55 abortions per day. I can’t believe that many abortions per day in that one place involve circumstances in which either the life of the mother and/or of the baby are threatened. Roe v. Wade has so trivialized the taking of the lives of babies in the womb, that a young woman in the recent past got pregnant on purpose for the sole purpose of aborting it and filming the abortion, just to show other women that there’s nothing to it, which she did. I know you might consider this young woman to be as much of a unique freak of nature as you consider Gosnell to be, but the overturning of Roe v. Wade would end this kind of utter nonsense and madness and restore balance to this situation in which the mother and the unborn child would again be accorded equal rights at the same time. Then freaks like Gosnell would not be granted the legal right and luxury of performing $1 million worth of abortions year after year, which he did, because there wouldn’t be anywhere near that number of circumstances in which the life of the mother and the life of the baby were threatened. In one such case in one of my wife’s relatives side of the family in the early 1920s, one of the women conceived shortly before she was diagnosed with TB. Nevertheless, she tried to continue the pregnancy. But the doctors determined that, if she continued to carry the baby it would to pose a greater and greater threat to her life. Therefore, since the baby, due to the lack of sufficient development, had virtually no chance of survival outside the womb, and, therefore, was far less likely to live than the mother, the baby was aborted. This makes far more sense than denying rights to babies just so their mothers can have film their abortion procedure, or simply for no reason at all. OK, so come up with some other what-if scenario now, like what if a meteorite crashed in a pregnant woman’s town, do you think that’s a reason to make abortion illegal?
    What I’m saying about African-American women and men and white Americans who believe in equal rights and racial equality is, if “denial of personhood” in order to deny equality and rights to “enslaved Africans” is so justifiably hated today by African-Americans, like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and many other African-Americans and other present day Americans, that the Rev. called upon God to curse the U.S. because of its “denial of personhood,” how can such a reviled Supreme Court ruling applied to “enslaved Africans” back then be considered so laudable when the very same Supreme Court “denial of personhood” is applied to babies in the womb today? In other words, if the same thing was considered evil then, it should be considered evil now. For instance, if murder was considered evil then, it should be considered evil now. The passage of time hasn’t made murder one bit more moral or less evil today than it was back then.
    2. What I’m opposed to is this. I’m opposed to the thinking of some people that, just because an abortionist is allowed to perform abortions on demand legally, that gives him/her right to break other laws he is not legally allowed to break, especially since breaking of one law, intended to do otherwise, effectively covers up for SUSPECTD child sex abuse. As mandatory reporters of suspected child sex abuse, abortionists are required by law to report such suspected child sex abuse to authorities the minute abortionists determine the age of an underage girl seeking an abortion in their clinic. That’s the law. And when abortionists fail to report this to the authorities, they break the law, just as surely as a person who invades your home and steals your stuff. And the penalty for breaking the mandatory reporter law is a $500 fine and/or six months in prison, or both, each time they break it. Because abortionists break this law consistently by deliberately not reporting their child sex slave trafficking customers to authorities, that law breaking by abortionists denies us the chance to rescue 100 girls from child sex slave traffickers, some of whom choose to have abortions, others of whom are forced into them, and send the traffickers to prison, which is a point I have continued to make in these posts. I would venture to say that I care about the victims of both abortion and child sex slave trafficking a whole lot more than you do. Two years ago here, a 34 year old girl was arrested for impregnating a 14 year old girl, but he was caught only by accident. Not realizing she was pregnant, the girl went to the hospital to find out she was suffering such stomach pains. Immediately upon discovering the cause was
    pregnancy, the hospital doctors immediately reported it to authorities, by virtue of the same mandatory reporting law abortion doctors are legally bound to comply with but routinely break that law deliberately with impunity. But why would abortion doctors routinely break the same law hospital doctors, subject to the same law, routinely comply with? Hospital doctors have no financial incentive whatever not to report these child sex criminals. Since abortionists would lose some of their best customers in the process, and since they, like you, have no more concern for raped underage girls and aborted babies than you do, they have every financial incentive not to report these sex crimes and their lucrative child sex abusing customers who perpetrate them. However, because of this unique situation created by legalized abortion on demand, the irony is that, if Jerry Sandusky had raped and impregnated little girls, and if this 14 year old girl had realized she was pregnant (she was too young to suspect that) and had gone to her 34 year old abuser about it instead of the hospital, both adult child sex offenders could have taken their underage victims into the privacy of an abortion clinic, had the major evidence of their crimes “terminated,” (crimes which abortionists cover up for their customers), as all the other adult criminals who are allowed to do the same thing with impunity continue to do, these criminals would have gotten away with their child sex crimes scot free, nobody the wiser, and Sandusky, this 34 year old child sex offender and even Gosnell, likewise caught by accident, would remain free to this day, as are all the others who continue to do the same thing. As it is, Sandusky, this 34 year old child sex offender, and Gosnell, likewise caught by accident — the incredibly unlucky trio — are themselves mere victims of the extremely fickle finger of fate. The only way so many other child sex offenders, who continue to get away with the same crimes in the same way because so many like you, Kathleen Sebelius and so many other pro-aborts absolutely refuse to allow authorities to investigate as they should this alleged cover up of suspected child sex abuse by abortionists (who have no more concern for these sexually abused underage girls and aborted babies than you, Sebelius and the others do), is if they, like the incredibly unlucky trio, should be fingered, too, by the same fickle finger of fate. If you think I’m mistaken about this, please call my bluff, demand Sebelius change her mind and past actions and join you and others in demanding that, strictly through the use of de-identified health information from abortionists, authorities properly investigate these alleged illegal infractions by abortionists immediately, if not sooner. Since there is no restriction on the use or disclosure of de-identified health information, and since you contend abortionists aren’t guilty of any legal infractions, what makes you folks think abortionists have anything to hide? In fact, you folks and abortionists should jump at the chance of having such investigations prove they have nothing to hide. The reason the Supreme Court agreed that Hobby Lobby did not have to provide those four types of birth control is that they had to agree with and couldn’t deny the evidence presented to them that those four types of birth control are abortifacient. End of story. Or do you agree with those who, also in denial of all the evidence to contrary, still believe the world is flat, too?
    4. My sources of evidence: USA Today, 1/31/2011, “No oversight for Delaware abortion clinics,” by Sean O’Sullivan and Mike Chambers “…And a 261-page Philadelphia grand jury report on Dr. Kermit Gosnell portrayed his Women’s Medical Society clinic as unsanitary and unprofessional, with blood-stained furniture, substandard equipment and untrained staff.
    “Yet Delaware regulators cannot say if Atlantic Women’s Medical Center — where Gosnell worked one day a week for a number of years — suffers from similar health and safety deficiencies because abortion providers are not subject to the kind of routine sanitary and safety inspections that restaurants, beauty salons and tattoo parlors get.”
    Notice that the abortion clinic where Gosnell worked one day a week, which he did not own, was as deplorably unsanitary as the one(s) he worked at on the other days of the week.
    But, wow, I never saw or read anything about Gosnell having cats peeing all over the place in his clinic! Please respond to this post and cite your source for that information so that I can search for it online and add it to my files.
    Anyway, my other source was my barber who said barber shops have to comply with the same sanitary and safety inspections as beauty salons. Maybe he was just blowing smoke, or maybe he just flat out lied. I do have to take that into consideration. But, since you pro-choice/pro-abortion women consider women’s health so important when it comes to abortion, why don’t you all clamor for improvement, picket departments of health in each state and demand that, since concern for women’s health is so paramount on your agenda when it comes to abortion, that abortion clinics should be made legally subject to at least the same sanitary standards and safety inspections as tattoo parlors and beauty salons? Instead, at all the legislative committee meetings I have attended and/or testified before in support of proposed legislation to upgrade the sanitary standards of abortion clinics — in the interest of improving the safety of conditions of women’s health, to at least the standards of barber shops — pro-choice/pro-abortion women such as yourself and pro-choice/pro-choice women’s organizations cram the committee rooms, often to the point of overflowing into the hallways, in utter indignation, vowing to sue if such sanitary improvements were required of abortion clinics, because these proposals are merely more Trojan Horses from pro-lifers designed only to infringe on women’s abortion rights. One thing I have definitely learned from these experiences is that pro-choice/pro-abortionists have exactly the same regard for the truth, and then some, as they do for the life of babies in the womb and the protection of underage girls from child sex offenders.
    The definition of statutory rape is consensual sex between an adult and a minor. So, since it is not legally possible for underage, unmarried girls to become legally impregnated, those who do become illegally impregnated are all always victims of a sex crime, regardless of whether they consented or not. If the minor resists in even the slightest way, and the perpetrator is an adult, then the charge automatically upgrades to forcible or some other classification of rape. Again, for the umpteenth time, abortionists, as are all other health workers, are legally mandated to report SUSPECTED child sex abuse in order for the proper authorities to investigate those SUSPECTED cases in order to ascertain if the 12 year old girl has a 13 year old boy friend who poked just a little bit too much fun at her, or if the perpetrator was an adult, which is rape, if the girl consented or not. Then the police can arrest and prosecute the adult men and turn the boys loose, or what have you. However, even today’s 13 year old boys and 30 year old men alike know what the term “jail bait” means to describe underage girls. Do you?
    Here’s the deal. The CDC, using information it receives regarding the number of abortions performed in each state each year can make various comparisons. For instance, in the CDC abortion statistical table I mentioned in previous posts that contains statistics for 2008-2009, one of the standard comparisons published shows how the 2008-2009 statistics compare to the same statistics for 1972, the last year abortion was illegal, according to Dr. “Al” Krotoski, MD. So, lets say that in 1972, the maternal death rate was 1 death for every 100 abortions. If, by comparison, the death rate in 2008-2009 is 6 deaths for every 100 abortions, then the maternal death rate in 2008-2009 would be six times greater than it was in 1972.
    5. No.
    6. Concerning abortion, the democratic party platform supports maintaining Roe v. Wade and its disproved theory that the point at which life begins can’t be proved technologically — no matter how much proof or what kind of proof debunks and disproves that false premise, even though that’s exactly what DNA fingerprinting technology does. Even though it is written into the Roe v. Wade Opinion itself that, if any subsequent technological proof came into existence, that proof would “collapse” Roe v. Wade, pro-choice/pro-abortionists continue to dismiss both that aspect of Roe v. Wade and the proof provided by DNA fingerprint evidence. Who could be better suited to determine which conditions “collapse” Roe v. Wade than the majority author of Roe v. Wade himself, Justice Harry Blackmun? The Republican party platform supports passage of a Life Begins at Conception Law, which updates Roe v. Wade to reflect the development of DNA fingerprinting and Blackmun’s contention that such a technological development “collapses” Roe v. Wade. Republicans are right about what Harry Blackmun and the Roe v. Wade decision say about “collapsing” Roe v. Wade.
    7. Fetuses are live human beings — that is, until you pro-aborts have them killed. It’s just that, according to the Supreme Court, fetuses, like the “enslaved Africans” in America before them, are not “legal persons.” If killing babies in the womb is such a great thing, then why not come out and own it, proudly proclaiming, Yes, I support the continued killing of live humans in the womb. Butchers, bakers and candle stick makers are proud of what they do. They don’t use every kind of semantic manipulation imaginable to disguise and hide the fact of what they do the way you guys do. So, what Is the most descriptive way to describe the essence of what you guys do and stand for? You kill humans in the womb. You believe in killing humans in the womb because humans in the womb are not “legal persons.” But that’s not what you say. You say in every way possible things that would deceive a visiting extraterrestrial, none the wiser, that you’re not killing anything. What you say are things like, I’m terminating an unwanted pregnancy, sort of like turning off the faucet. Nothing to it. Or I’m removing unwanted, non-descript tissue, which, for all I know, could be tissue from the watermelon she swallowed that caused her stomach to swell up so much. Or I’m providing a loving and compassionate health service for women. My advice to you, is either own it, or give it up. In other words – say it loud, I kill and I’m proud! In the beginning of his pro-life volunteer work, a medical technician friend of mine initially thought, because of the prevalence of all this kind of truth disguising rhetoric, maybe some abortionists didn’t realize they are killing babies. So, one day, in a conversation with an abortionist, he told the abortionist he was wrong if he thought that what he was doing wasn’t killing babies. The abortionist, bristling, his intelligence insulted, shot back, “I know what I’m doing is killing babies! It’s murder. But, it’s legal murder, and I make a damn good living from it. If you don’t like that, then it’s up to you to get something done about it.” If abortionists themselves can own it, why can’t you guys give us a little of the same similar candor? Why do I mention beheading? This morning, I led a group of senior high school students on a tour of a former abortion clinic, which, like former concentration camps in Germany, has been repurposed into a memorial and museum about abortion. Also, like the concentration camp at Dachau that I visited while stationed in Germany in 1969-70, this abortion museum contains enlarged photos, some ceiling to floor, all full color, unlike the B/W photos at Dachau, all showing the dismembered bodies of aborted babies, most of them beheaded in the process. Half of the tour consists of a video showing totally unedited, totally graphic live actual abortions being performed. By the time these students left, more than half of them were crying, boys and girls alike. Now that they know the REAL story, firsthand, instead of the semantically manipulative lies and deceptions you guys put out, they’ll never fall for that kind of pro-abortion bull ever again. Because of you guys, some came in considering themselves pro-choice. They all left pro-life. To counter you guys, we’re showing the unadulterated truth to more and more people all the time. So, you guys better get your well funded lobbying machine in gear and get Constitutional freedom of expression banned when it comes to abortion graphics. Because, even though you guys have done everything in your power to prevent it, and, due to the fact that a picture is still worth a thousand words, you guys continue to exposed and outed each day. By the way, butchers, bakers and candle stick makers are proud to show graphic images of their steaks, pastries and candle sticks. If you guys are so proud of the products of your hard labors at abortion on demand, why don’t you guys show images of the results of your proud work — images of dead, dismembered, often beheaded, aborted babies?
    8. “All men are created equal…” You forgot the rest of that — “…and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Is all the rest of that just figurative, too? It’s a good thing our founders recognized that our rights come from God, because He’s far more generous at endowing rights than kings, dictators, potentates, premieres, the U.S. Supreme Court and pro-choice/pro-abortionists are. All you guys have is a well documented and well known track record of denying rights to one group or another, for one reason or other, as long as it suits your own selfish, personal motives. Left In he wake of all that stinginess is a legacy composed of a monumental mountain of denied rights and an enormous swath of unjustifiable, albeit legal, death. .

  • lulu_44@hotmail.com.au' TheRealReginaPhalange says:

    1. So you can’t actually answer the question without bringing up slavery. Got it.

    2. Again, you couldn’t answer the actual question.
    Which is it: catching sexual predators and allowing rape victims to freely choose abortion, or letting sex crimes go undetected and ensuring that rape victims have to go through with their pregnancies? You are against abortion
    whether it is forced or freely chosen, so stop pretending as though you care about rape victims being forced into abortion when you don’t care about rape victims being forced to carry pregnancies against their will.

    You also keep bringing up Sandusky as though that helps your argument. Sandusky continued to rape boys without the threat of pregnancy and the adults who were aware of what he did covered it up. If sexual predators can get away with raping children when no pregnancy is involved then they can continue to do so when there is a pregnancy involved.

    Provide citation of someone actually saying to Kathleen Sebelius that they suspect a child is being molested and she turns around and refuses to allow authorities to investigate. Don’t come back with some statistics saying ‘well if there are X number of sex trafficking victims and X number of abortions per year, then surely there are sex trafficking victims get abortions and slipping through the cracks and therefore there is a massive cover-up’. Prove that Kathleen Sebilius is directly involved in the cover-up of sex abuse. Prove that she deliberately thwarted an actual investigation into a sex crime and not some attempt by anti-choicers to make abortion illegal.

    And maybe you should look at all those ‘pro-life’ clergy members who deliberately covered up child sex abuse for years before you accuse pro-choicers of doing the same when you have no actual proof of the latter.

    3. ‘The reason the Supreme Court agreed that Hobby Lobby did not have to provide those four types of birth
    control is that they had to agree with and couldn’t deny the evidence presented to them that those four types of birth control are abortifacient. End of story.’

    Actually, the Supreme Court determined that
    this is what Hobby Lobby believes not that they agree with them. The Supreme Court did not change scientific fact to agree with Hobby Lobby, nor do they have the power to change scientific fact. And you have clearly ignored the factual definitions of pregnancy and abortion that I have provided. Explain to me how IUDs causes abortions when they prevent pregnancy from taking place to begin with. Explain to me how abortion can take place if a woman is not even pregnant.

    4. Here’s the report from the Grand Jury itself:

    http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf

    You can Control F ‘cat’ and you’ll find that information.

    And please, you know as well as I do that those regulations are designed to close down abortion clinics for no other reason than to deny women access to abortion. It has nothing to do with protecting their health and safety. Why else are those Bill always, ALWAYS proposed by anti-choicers who have made no secret of their desire to make abortion illegal? They’re not fooling anyone, not even their base.

    Additionally (and again), you don’t actually care about catching sexual predators. Many, many rape victims choose to freely have their pregnancies terminated, pregnancies which you believe they should have to continue against their will. There are many 15, 16, 17 year old girls who have consensual sex with their boyfriends of the same age. Yes, statutory rape exists, but your ‘solution’ is to force rape victims to continue their
    pregnancies.

    And again, correlation does not equal causation. Don’t give me a ‘let’s say since 1972 this happened…’. Give me a stat sheet from a reputable, peer reviewed source that states that legal abortions have caused X number of deaths in comparison to the number of women who have had no complications whatsoever.

    5. Glad we cleared that up. As you don’t consider a
    woman’s period the equivalent of a miscarriage, then you shouldn’t see the deliberate prevention of a fertilized egg from implanting as an abortion, and you shouldn’t see IUDs as causing abortions.

    6. Roe v. Wade was about bodily autonomy and the right
    to privacy for a woman to make informed decisions with her doctor regarding her pregnancy. Look up the actual ruling.

    Again, if the Republicans view a fetus as the equivalent of a human being then they would be entirely opposed to war since they are so passionately opposed to abortion on account of their ‘sanctity of life’ platform.

    7. Yes, I support a woman’s right to choose. There,
    I said it. Did I at any point deny this?

    And you clearly misrepresented the truth to your students. Did you claim that fetuses have their ‘limbs torn apart’? Did you completely make up a description of the abortion procedure like you did with me until I called you out on how it is actually performed? Did you use images of a fully developed fetus/stillborn to get an emotional reaction despite the fact that most abortions are performed in the early stages of pregnancy whereby a fetus literally looks like a microscopic blob? Those images used by anti-choicers are a misrepresentation and you know it, and the fact that you need to lie and use inaccurate imagery shows that you lack confidence
    in your own convictions.

    Furthermore, comparing abortion to the Holocaust is just as offensive as comparing it to slavery. Did you know that
    women in Auschwitz were having secret abortions to prevent the Nazis from experimenting on them? How do you think those women would feel about you comparing abortion to the Holocaust when it was abortion that saved them from the Holocaust?

    8. Yes, the rest of it is figurative as the US is a secular nation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *