Government misleading pregnant teens.
By on Jul 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Government misleading pregnant teens.
“Federally funded pregnancy resource centers often mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion, telling investigators who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness,” a new report by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) shows. “87 percent of the centers reached by investigators provided false or misleading information about abortion.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bayh
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Supreme Court
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Somebody save me from this ignorant right-wing fantasy world!
July 17th, 2006 at 3:25 pmI wonder if pro-aborition activists would consider post-abortion suicide to be a “risk”.
How about the killing of a baby? Is that a medical risk? It is to the unborn child.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:27 pm#2 Chase, aren’t you defending the killing of children in a thread concerning the “right to defend themselves” of israelis? Aren’t you considering them “collateral damage”?
July 17th, 2006 at 3:30 pm#3 – Actually no, I’m doing nothing of the sort. In war, civilian deaths are unfortunate on both sides of an armed conflict.
But that’s not the topic of this thread, so let’s not get distracted.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:33 pmInstead of Aborting these babies , They could be brought up by the marines for future wars , who cares if they get shot in the first wave of attacks
July 17th, 2006 at 3:37 pmMost americans don’t think anything wrong with a little white lie. Now if its going to save a life, is this such a problem? Think of the child people. It cant vote.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:37 pmSo Chase, your viewpoint is “Protect ‘em until they’re born – then its OK to kill them?” It IS all the same thing and if your philosophy can’t be consistent as to when a life is precious and when it isn’t – maybe its time to review your philosophy.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:38 pm#4 The topic of the thread is planned parenthood, “killing children”, as you call some bunch of cells no greater than a pin’s head. You dismiss any damage to children done as “collateral damage” but you go ballistic when abortion is brought up. You don’t care for the children, you only care for the Republican agenda. Therefore, you’re a hypocrite, sorry.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:38 pm#3, #4
July 17th, 2006 at 3:39 pmYes please let’s stay on topic. Human beings are no longer under the protection of the neo-con sympathies after they are born. Especially if they decide to be born an arab or other dark shade of skin. Please let’s keep it to the topic of people of the faith that lie to others about their medical choices they have for their own bodies.
Chase – you are getting to be a real pain. Okay to kill them as long as they have been born, is that right?
July 17th, 2006 at 3:39 pmComment by RayFromGA — July 17, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
But the women carrying the burden CAN!
July 17th, 2006 at 3:40 pm2552 Marines dead when we could have used unwanted babies as future frontline troops
July 17th, 2006 at 3:41 pm#9 Yes, and lying them are breaking the law. If Republicans are so eager to imprison everybody for a little misdemeanor, why don’t put into jail the pro-life activists infiltrated in clinics who are falling short to the hippocratic cause they’re serving, at least theoretically?
July 17th, 2006 at 3:43 pm#10 – No, Brother Madashell, it’s not ok to kill unborn babies. It’s also not ok to kill indiscriminately any civilian population during a war – whether the weapon is an Apache gunship or a Katyusha rocket.
Is my position clear enough for you?
July 17th, 2006 at 3:43 pmJesus did not advocate lying. So two wrongs don’t make a right.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:43 pmFederally funded pregnancy resource centers
We’re straying off topic here. The key, to me, is this Federal Funded center is giving off wrong information, and there is a need for investigation. Now that’s scary
July 17th, 2006 at 3:45 pmChase… you should fight to stop the draft. That is, in a real way, killing innocent people. People who never wanted to go to war, who do not want to kill anyone. These innocent people will be sent to war to be shot at. And some WILL die.
So… get on that.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:46 pmThis is what ‘faith based’ programs get you. Why would any woman in her right mind go to one of these places for HELP only to be lied too?
They should be called faith biased programs.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:49 pmDepression and Suicide seem like important Mental Illness’ to bring up to mom’s that want to kill there children IMO.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:50 pmfetuses are not babies until the umbilical cord is cut.
Pro choice = pro freedom
July 17th, 2006 at 3:51 pmPro Life = pro dictatorship
what is so faithful about LIEING? These programs are run by …satan? j/k
July 17th, 2006 at 3:52 pmNothing like a women who is scared and confused about the choice she has to make that will determine her future walking into a clinic she believes that will help her make informed decisions and give her honest help. Then she meets someone or I should say some”thing” that lies to her because this “thing” believes that she is righteous and “it” knows what god wants. So it lies to this woman and possibly ruins her life and then goes home and sleeps at night comfortable in her holy mission. Puke.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:56 pmRegardless of your stance on abortion, clearly “Thou Shalt Not Lie” must mean something. Kids don’t get a very good education to begin with, we’ve got to teach them things that aren’t true? Put ideology aside for a moment and consider pragmatism. Sheesh.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:56 pm#22 – You’re right. The best thing you could do in a situation where you are scared and confused is kill an unborn baby. Why think too hard about it? Just do it.
I’m not at all defending doctors who lie. They should be stripped of their licenses.
But then again, if they conduct abortions, they violate the Hippocratic oath anyway.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:58 pm#24
July 17th, 2006 at 4:06 pmFirst nowhere in #22 did I say that she should have an abortion. It is the fact that others think they know whats best for others because of their own personal faith in a boogeyman in the sky and they deny those others of making informed decisions for themselves.
I thought the solution was to tell kids that sex before marriage is a no no and that was enough. I guess since that hasn’t worked, now we have to resort to lying in order to push the Christianist agenda on the rest of us.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:06 pmThe patients health is the responsiblity of the doctor. That’s the Mother, Not the tissue growing inside her.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:07 pmNo one here is qualified to determine when a fertilized egg is deemed to have a “soul.”
This leaves the determination of when the fertilized egg is a “human being” up to our own individual faith. Yet one faith is attempting to push its determination upon all others. Their concern over the fate of a microscopic organism is noble. Too bad they don’t show the same compassion for those of us outside the womb.
The end justifies the means. Telling falsehoods to young women who seek the truth is now a “Christian” thing to do.
Question: Who would Jesus lie to?
July 17th, 2006 at 4:07 pmMost people have an affinity for babies and children and some will lie to reduce abortions.
Air America promotes adoption.
Democrats don’t do shit.(Legal and rare? What does that mean?)
Oh well. Despite the lying Republicans will always have the moral edge on abortion just for the mere fact that they discuss it at all.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:11 pmtis similar to the pharmacist (my profession) who refuses to dispense oral contraceptives because it goes against his/her belief in premarital sex. WRONG! We are not in the business to push our beliefs on a patient, just as Federally Funded Pregnancy Centers are not to give out false information to justify their beliefs.
Imagine if you went into a pharmacy and asked the pharmacist about taking Motrin for pain, and having the pharmacist replay. “Oh NO, DON’T TAKE MOTRIN” It will cause colon cancer, lead to shingles, cause birth defects, will desensitize orgasms, and make you unattractive” That is clearly false information
PS Motrin does not cause any of those side effects, but will cause stomach irritation….so take with food
July 17th, 2006 at 4:14 pmThe issue isn’t abortion at all.
The issue is one of civil rights.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:15 pmTelling lies is disgusting! Especially about such an important matter. Do they tell of the dangers of pregnancy? The discomforts of pregnancy? Their options during pregnancy? The legal arrangements neccesary to ensure the father supports the child? Their options post pregnancy?
July 17th, 2006 at 4:16 pmAny important decision should be made with the truth and the whole truth. It is disgusting that someone is spreading lies with federal funds. It would be disgusting if they were lying with their own money, but at least the government wouldn’t be responsible.
Perhaps you should now go around telling children that masturbation leads to blindness?
Comment by MNW — July 17, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
No it’s not. Civil rights of the unborn maybe, but not the mother. See what I mean?
Everything you discuss is so subjective even the dumb ones can knock ‘em out.
Legal and rare! Yippee!
July 17th, 2006 at 4:19 pmQuestion: Who would Jesus lie to?
That should always be the question…
Who would Jesus bomb?
July 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pmWho would Jesus kill?
Who would Jesus torture?
Who would Jesus smear?
Who would Jesus bribe?
Who would Jesus corrupt?
Who would Jesus attack?
hat masturbation leads to blindness?
Comment by Skeptic — July 17, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
That’s why I need contacts….DOH
sorry, proceeding back to topic
July 17th, 2006 at 4:20 pmUgh, anytime you hear the words “moral edge” in an arguement you know its some conservative blowing farts out his mouth. Abortion, not that it is the best choice, has been around since the beginning of time. Monkeys know certain plants to eat if their pregnancy isn’t going well or if there is a stressor on them like a drought. It has been around and will be around. To think it can be magically whisked away through legislation is a conservative pipe dream. Since it will always be with us shouldn’t a civilized society have it performed in the humane way possible? I know its not a pleasant subject but either are “illegal” abortions in back rooms. Republicans always think they can legislate problems away. How’s that “war on drugs” going by the way.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:21 pmSorry, dude, but in the United States you aren’t a citizen until you’re BORN.
A mass of tissue does not have civil rights because a mass of tissue is not a US citizen.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:22 pmComment by MNW — July 17, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
If hypothetical “what would Jesus do?” questions were the answer there would have been world peace long ago.
Jesus probably would have offered and promoted adoption vigorously. He would not have discussed:
coathangers
dark alleys
4th amendment
He would not have avoided the issue because it was too contraversial, as Hillary does.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:26 pm“But then again, if they conduct abortions, they violate the Hippocratic oath anyway.
Comment by Chase”
So you believe that a woman doesn’t have a right an abortion even if a man rapes her? Is that your hope for procreation? Because I bet it’s about the only option you hvae available.
I’ve always noticed how the slimey men that can’t maintain a healthy relationship with women always have this stance. You seem just like the sort of sludge and toxic spew that would think something this vile.
You might try reading a book sometime. A fetus isn’t a baby until it’s brain functions as a human. Until then it’s a developing fetus, not a baby.
You are also aware that the Bible doesn’t consider abortion a murder, right. Dohh… don’t let facts interfere with your psychotic terrorist ideals.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:27 pmIf lying is required, the arguments are weak. Lying is immoral and should be condemned as such. Pro-choice doesn’t equal pro-abortion. I am both pro-choice and pro-life because I want “life” protected but do not consider a bunch of undifferentiated cells to be “life”. And neither do most Americans as witnessed by our traditions = the pregnant woman is a “mother to be”, not a mother, during pregnancy; we count age from birth, not conception; we don’t give child tax benefits during pregnancy; we don’t have funerals for spontaneous miscarriages. I really wish we would tell the whole truth about sexuality to teenagers, including not making it such a rite of passage into adulthood through our adult promotion of sexuality (clothes, TV, movies, etc). I wish we would try to eliminate the causes of teenage pregnancy and abortions to make them rare. I wish those opposed to abortion would put more energy, time, and money into actually helping children (including those pregnant teens) who are clearly alive.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:31 pmYou’re stereotyping, Ryan. Somewhere along the line mighty got the best of you and you’re less aplomb.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:31 pmHow about the killing of a baby? Is that a medical risk? It is to the unborn child.
Comment by Chase — July 17, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
What I find interesting is that most anti-abortionists are vehemently against the “welfare-state”, i.e. conservative, but outlawing abortions is going to raise the number of children who must be raised via government assistance. Most abortions are performed on women under 25, who are either poor to begin with or too early in their careers to support their child.
As evidenced here:
http://www.third-way.com/data/product/file/17/demographics_of_abortion.pdf
Does this mean that I agree with abortion? Nope, but it isn’t my right to tell any woman what to do, I will never have to through with it. I would prefer adoption as there are many people wanting children(white ones anyway). I hold a libertarian view that government should never interfere with any persons inalienable right to have total control of their body. If they want assisted suicide, fine, if they want to do drugs(not hurting others in the process) fine, etc.
How Repubs who constantly clamor how government should be smaller, not regulate business and only provide the most basic of services, do a complete 180 and dictate to a woman what to do with her body is beyond me.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:33 pmJesus probably would have advocated for same-sex marriage, too.
But it really doesn’t matter does it?
July 17th, 2006 at 4:34 pmAlso I think Bill Maher said something like…..”If it were men who got pregnant instead of women, you could get an abortion at the 7-11″.
That is absolutely true.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:35 pmIf lying is required, the arguments are weak. Lying is immoral and should be condemned as such. Pro-choice doesn’t equal pro-abortion. I am both pro-choice and pro-life because I want “life†protected but do not consider a bunch of undifferentiated cells to be “lifeâ€. And neither do most Americans as witnessed by our traditions = the pregnant woman is a “mother to beâ€, not a mother, during pregnancy; we count age from birth, not conception; we don’t give child tax benefits during pregnancy; we don’t have funerals for spontaneous miscarriages. I really wish we would tell the whole truth about sexuality to teenagers, including not making it such a rite of passage into adulthood through our adult promotion of sexuality (clothes, TV, movies, etc). I wish we would try to eliminate the causes of teenage pregnancy and abortions to make them rare. I wish those opposed to abortion would put more energy, time, and money into actually helping children (including those pregnant teens) who are clearly alive.
Very nicely said!
I don’t know who has the moral edge, but if all the Democrats do is send Hillary out there to apathetically spew “legal and rare” it’s no contest.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:35 pm#39 –
I don’t think the “right” to an abortion exists. Period. Can abortions be available to women who got pregnant as a result of a violent of another? Possibly.
I’ve read a few, thanks. I actually find it enjoyable.
At what point does this occur, Dr. Neat?
In fact, brain function isn’t the historical limit of legal abortion – instead, the point of quickening was the limit of legal abortion. But you knew that – you’ve read “a book.”
July 17th, 2006 at 4:40 pmWell, I don’t know. Women have had the vote for what, 80 years now? And they are divided on the issue. If women were united on the issue, well, they’re a slight majority of the population…do the math. 100% of the women voters, plus those of us men who agree with your right to choose, and the issue would be decided.
Let’s face it, men aren’t even vain about their physique. Just take a look at all the men’s abs who have gone from 6-pack to a full keg! No, I think if men got pregnant instead of women, there would be not a few women who would want to force them to go full term, if only in revenge for what the male of the species has done to this planet!
But back on topic: The fact that our government would lie to its own citizens, who’d have ever thunk?!
July 17th, 2006 at 4:45 pm#44 – Right on!!!
July 17th, 2006 at 4:47 pmFor all of those who believe abortion is a moral outrage my advice to you is this……do not have one!!!
But please…leave your neo con morality off of my body!
July 17th, 2006 at 4:48 pm“I don’t think the “right†to an abortion exists. Period. Can abortions be available to women who got pregnant as a result of a violent of another? Possibly. Comment by Chase”
So you are arguing that men who are hateful enough to force a woman to have sex, then have a right to ensure that that pregnancy results in a baby?
I was right about you, your a sick disturbed man.
“I’ve read a few, thanks. I actually find it enjoyable. Comment by Chase”
Try reading ones that are educational sometimes. They aren’t always enjoyable, but they might prevent you from sounding like a retarded redneck dufus in the future.
“At what point does this occur, Dr. Neat? Comment by Chase”
At the point where abortion is no longer currently legal – DUH.. What a moron you are. You should try reading the decision of Roe v. Wade sometime.
“In fact, brain function isn’t the historical limit of legal abortion – instead, the point of quickening was the limit of legal abortion. But you knew that – you’ve read “a book.â€
Comment by Chase ”
In Old British Common Law Quickening was the poing, but not in Roe v. Wade. What books are you reading there retard, the hitchhikers guide to retarded republican values? If you weren’t an utter fool, you’d know that Quickening occurs at 18 weeks, but that the second trimester starts at 13 weeks and lasts until 27 weeks. The 3rd trimester is 28 weeks, and at that point you have a baby.
And guess what, the alpha waves that make a fetus a baby also begin at 28 weeks.
Which books were you reading again, it sounds like the same fiction that Mighty Moron gets your crap from.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:56 pm#42 – Outstanding source. Very telling.
I’m a little concerned about your use of abortion to keep the welfare rolls short (even if it is a straw-man). You sound suspiciously like Bill Bennett in that regard.
Two of the more interesting things in the Third Way report (of the many, many interesting factoids):
- Less than 1% of abortions can be attributed to rape or incest. Can we say red herring?
- 48% of abortions are 2ND abortions. I would seem like almost half of women are using abortion as a form of birth control.
I’m sure there’s more that everyone would find informative on the issue (for instance, the over-representation of certain demographic groups). I highly recommend reading it.
I sympathize with a libertarian worldview. It’s very attractive. However, I wouldn’t include abortion as an activity without consequences on others – namely the baby.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:58 pmOnce again for those of you….in particular Chase…if you find abortion morally reprehesible the DO NOT HAVE ONE!!!
You have no right to make a decision for me or any other woman. It is not your body, it is not your life!!!
July 17th, 2006 at 5:01 pm#52 – If I father a child, I have no say whatsoever in whether or not that child is permitted to live?
July 17th, 2006 at 5:04 pmNo Chase you do not. Not unless you can carry it for nine months, give birth to it. Give your time and energy to it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for 18 years.
The money it takes to raise a child is the VERY least of raising that child.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:07 pmSo Chase, just for fun – since you’re apparently for outlawing abortion, what do you propose doing with the unwanted children that are produced as a result?
July 17th, 2006 at 5:08 pmSomewhere in my state, over the weekend, someone found a newborn baby wrapped in plastic (thankfully ALIVE), dumped as garbage…what the hell do you say about that?
July 17th, 2006 at 5:09 pm“#52 – If I father a child, I have no say whatsoever in whether or not that child is permitted to live? Comment by Chase ”
Chase is here to defend rapists rights. NICE. You’re a sick freak.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:09 pm#54 – You somewhat anticipated my response but I’ll pose the question anyway:
If I impregnate someone, and do not want to have a child because it’s inconvenient to me, am I financially obligated for 18 years?
July 17th, 2006 at 5:10 pmSo Chase – are you for Bush abstinence only program – OR – are you for Sex education?
July 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pmTell you what Chase, keep it in your pants. That solves that problem right there.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:12 pm#55 – I’m not for outlawing it. I’m for permitting the political process to decide the legality.
#56 – I say that’s horrible. Thank God in my state they allow you to drop the child off at any fire station or police station, no questions asked, to be put up for adoption.
#57 – What? You’re a damn moron. Really.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:13 pm#59 – I would rather sex ed not be taught in school at all. Let parents teach it.
If it MUST be in schools, I’m a huge fan of harm reduction (mean, yes, teach about condoms, etc etc).
July 17th, 2006 at 5:14 pmChase – the court in Roe v Wade suggested a political process but our congress has been too chickens**t to do anything about this. If they did then both democrats and repugnuts would lose their main rallying cries.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:16 pm“#55 – I’m not for outlawing it. I’m for permitting the political process to decide the legality. Comment by Chase”
First you claim it’s murdering babies, then you say it’s OK to murder babies as long as it’s legal? You’re a sick twisted man. Which is it, is it murder, or is it not? Because if it’s murder, why are you quivering like a little girl on this issue?
“#57 – What? You’re a damn moron. Really. Comment by Chase”
Talking to yourself again? That’s a bad habit. You just said that a man should have a right to decide what happens to his fetus, so you are arguing for rapists rights. You’re a sick twisted man.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:16 pm“If I impregnate someone, and do not want to have a child because it’s inconvenient to me, am I financially obligated for 18 years?Comment by Chase ”
So now you’re arguing that men should have a right to force women to have an abortion to avoid the consequences of impregnating them? That’s very radical of you. Oh wait, I bet you hadn’t thought that far ahead. Then again, it’s pretty obvious you haven’t thought at all about this issue.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:23 pmI would rather sex ed not be taught in school at all. Let parents teach it.
Who will teach all the idiot parents what to say? If sex ed is left up to the parents, in many cases you will end up with the blind leading the blind.
It’s bad enough that these faith-based clinics lie through their teeth to defend their beliefs, JUST IMAGINE THE BULLSH*T THAT COMES OUT OF THE PARENTS.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:24 pmComment by Chase — July 17, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
Plus college expenses, most likely. Better hope your baby doesn’t ring up a huge medical bill somewhere down the line!
And if the mother is on government assistance, the government will go after your wages, bank accounts, property, tax refunds, lottery winnings, you name it. If the mother is not on public assistance, she can get the county district attorney to do the same thing.
Now, you keep calling the fertilized egg a baby. What are the legal consequences, if any, if the woman miscarries?
July 17th, 2006 at 5:26 pmMy daughter did a research paper on the differences between states (and countries) with abstience onlly sex-ed with ones that taught broader subjects such as prevention and consequences. It should not be a surprise to anyone here that the states and countries that taught abstinence only programs had a much greater incidence of teen pregnancy. I mean there was a vast difference. And not just pregnancy either. There was a much higher rate of STD’s among teens in abstinence only programs.
The neo cons need to stop being so afraid of sex and start protecting their kids!!
July 17th, 2006 at 5:31 pmThank God in my state they allow you to drop the child off at any fire station or police station,
In MY state as well. Problem is the IGNORANCE hoisted upon the youth.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:31 pm#64 – Chase, the political process always has a chance to work – within the framework of the constitution. As Jules noted, the court suggested a political process in it’s ruling. Now you’re obviously not pro-choice, and you’re also not supportive of sex education in schools. I’ll go out on a limb and guess that you’re also not in favor of government assistance to those who’s parents neglected to discuss sex with them and are not prepared to raise a child. So what’s the answer to the original question I posed to you: What do you do with these unwanted children that, if the political process worked in the way you seem to hope it would, would be produced?
July 17th, 2006 at 5:36 pmThis might be a stupid question–but how do investigators pose as 17 year old pregnant teens??
xxxjimmy
July 17th, 2006 at 5:46 pmI went back and read the article attached to the inital posting. Just thinking 87% is a very large number. More than 4/5 of the groups are distributing lies. Lets stop their federal funding and try to retrieve as much money as possible. In fact perhaps a law suit for theft would be in order — I mean the federal government gave them money to distribute information, not lies and propaganda.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:49 pmAre there two sides to this issue? We gave these centers money to truthfully inform the vulnerable and the centers took our money to spread lies. This is dishonest on the center’s part and needs to be stopped.
Ah yes, the noble lie. An old favorite for conservatives. Conservatives don’t give a shit about what the facts are, as long as what is being said is on message. So when the neoconservatives lie us into a war, it’s okay, because conservatives believe they helped the Iraqi people. When a right wing pundit says that the Murtha resolution for Iraq was rejected by congress, when in reality a dumbed down Republican version of his resolution is what was voted on, it’s okay, because that matches with the Republican nonsense that Democrats know nothing about war, and America rejects everything that they do. All nonsense. The lies aren’t as important as the end results of that lie.
My very favorite instance of this was a time when I pointed out a Rush Limbaugh lie to a guy I was debating, and after he understood that the lie wasn’t true, he still insisted that Rush doesn’t need to be fact checked, because the greater message was so appealing.
So, to summarize, you can tell a thousand lies to a conservative, as long as the culmination of those lies is something they feel is true.
How do you argue with an ideology like that?
July 17th, 2006 at 5:58 pmDave,
You can’t argue with a fool, Mighty Moron and the rest of the reichwing zealots prove that daily. They’re psychotic, they aren’t rational or reasonable. There’s no way to penetrate their sick sadistic minds, and that’s the whole problem. Just like John Dean pointed out last week, over 20% of the population is rightwing authoritarian oriented sick freaks. You can never reach them, you can only ever hope to reach the remain 70 some percent of people that aren’t utterly insane.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:06 pm#63 – No, the court in Roe foreclosed the political debate by declaring abortion a right protected by the 4th Amendment.
Even reasonable restrictions (such as parental notification) are treated as highly suspect and are immediately challenged upon passage.
And while I’m on the topic of Roe, if the SCOTUS does one day “overturn” Roe, abortion would not suddenly be illegal. It would, at that time, be left to the individual states to determine the legality. That’s an important, and real, distinction.
#66 – Parents can bring up their children how they wish, with some narrow caveats. What you are suggesting in your comment is that the government knows better than parents how to raise their children. Good luck finding political support for that argument.
#67 – If she miscarries naturally? None.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:07 pm#70 – Considering 48% of abortions are not “first-time” abortions, it seems to me that nearly half of all abortions are used as a form of birth-control.
Is it possible that if that option were taken away, women (and their partners) would be more careful before the fact to prevent pregnancy?
Other than that, I’m not entirely sure. How about improve and strengthen state adoption programs. That would be a start.
What happened to expecting responsibility?
July 17th, 2006 at 6:13 pmI don’t know what I really should be doing but I normally start screaming and thinking about killing them for blasphemy and worshipping false gods. I remember a quote from when I was little “the truth is above the gods”. I sincerely believe in means above ends, and can’t see any good result from spreading a lie. Didn’t the right wing scum ever hear “the truth will make you free”?
July 17th, 2006 at 6:14 pmChase – since the woman is the one who ends up ultimetly bearing the responsibility, it is very easy for a man to say “take responsibity for your actions.”
Birth control does not always work. Even birth control pills are not 100%. Then you always have rape/incest. If you take away the ability of these women to CHOOSE to abort this MAYBE unwanted child, then you have sentenced them to a lifetime of anguish.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:21 pm“#70 – Considering 48% of abortions are not “first-time†abortions, it seems to me that nearly half of all abortions are used as a form of birth-control. Comment by Chase”
Abortion is a form of birth control you brainless wonderboy.
“Is it possible that if that option were taken away, women (and their partners) would be more careful before the fact to prevent pregnancy? Comment by Chase”
Ask George Bush’s ex-girlfriend. It didn’t stop them from having sex, getting her pregnant, or her getting an illegal abortion – DOH… If you think the fear of pregnancy or even disease stops people from having sex, you’re a fool. And all your argument really comes down to is a persuasive statement about the need for good education on safe sex and birth control. Something you and your fellow reichwingers are incapable of recognizing. You’re all retarded self absorbed fools.
“Other than that, I’m not entirely sure. How about improve and strengthen state adoption programs. That would be a start. Comment by Chase ”
Blah, Blah, Blah.
“What happened to expecting responsibility? Comment by Chase”
Preventing an unwanted child to be inflicted on society is responsible. It is you and your fellow dolts that are irresponsible. You interject your FEELINGS and your unscientific – heck even your unreligious – biases into medical matters. You’re a fool and an idiot.
“#67 – If she miscarries naturally? None. Comment by Chase ”
A miscarriage is an abortion, the only point is who or what induced it. And whether it was done safely. DOHH.. Don’t let science and medicine cloud those pro-rapist, anti-women religious zealous eyes of yours. You might learn to be a responsible and rational human being if that happens.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:27 pm#78 –
I think both sexes could be a little more responsible.
I’m aware.
Which currently accounts for 1% of all abortions performed in the US.
Having a child means a lifetime of anguish? I think there are a lot of mothers of unplanned children who would adamantly disagree with you.
Abortion as a remedy for felonious sex – if there were a referendum tomorrow, I would vote yes.
Abortion as a remedy for carelessness, for convenience? I would not.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:29 pmParents can bring up their children how they wish, with some narrow caveats. What you are suggesting in your comment is that the government knows better than parents how to raise their children.
What I’m saying is that basic knowledge of sex education should be part of the school curriculum. Of course, there can be a note from the parents that could pull little johnny out of that lesson so that his parents can teach him about the birds and the bees themselves. I’m willing to bet that those particular parents aren’t going to teach Johnny anything of substance though.
For the rest of the young adults, knowledge of sex ed. is bound to be better than ignorance and superstition based on religion and ideology.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:29 pm#81 – That’s fine. I would rather have no sex education in schools than continue to teach “abstenence only”.
But comprehensive sex ed, with a parental choice to exclude their children – I can live with that.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:35 pmComment by Skeptic — July 17, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Your post is the heart of the issue.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:40 pmAre you sure the federal government gave them money to distribute information…and not lies and propaganda?
July 17th, 2006 at 6:44 pmChase – I do not call my child “unplanned,” I call her a very happy surprise. However, what of the woman in medical school who is not only using birth control pills, but condoms and she becomes prenant? What if she would prefer to finish her education than to bring up a child? What if the father wants nothing to do with the child or child raising?
As I posted previously, raising a child is much less about the money than it is about time and energy. I went through the final two years of college and law school with a child. I was exhausted 100% of the time. It is not easy when you WANT to do it, I cannot imagine how difficult it is when you do not.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:49 pm#85 -
I would say both actors here should accept the consequences of their actions. Even with multiple layers of protection, surprises are possible.
If education and career are important to you hypothetical student, she should plan her recreations accordingly.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:53 pmThere used to be a law. For all I know there is still a law, saying that federal funds can’t be used for propaganda. At the moment there are various people in the pentagon and education who sincerely want a pardon for breaking that law, but its still on the books. And we used to be a government of laws, and not decrees from tyrants. Of course that was before the current corrupt, scoff law administration came into power.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:53 pmIf Chimpy is religious and believes in God how can he so callousy break the oath he swore to “uphold the laws of the United States”. I mean a person who doesn’t believe and doesn’t value his own honor might break an oath casually, but surely a religious person has asked God to witness the oath? No one has to answer that, I’m ranting.
Sorry thugs, you lose. If you support this you admit that only lying will help your side. And, by the way, abortions under Dems are ALWAYS lower than under Reps. So vote Dem dolts.
July 17th, 2006 at 6:55 pmshe should plan her recreations accordingly.
Comment by Chase — July 17, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
Now the truth wins out!!! I thought you said it was the responsibility of both thne man and the woman?
Because in the end, it is the woman who has ALL of the responsibility to shoulder…that is why she gets to choose!
July 17th, 2006 at 6:56 pm#89 –
No, no. I misspoke. They both should choose their recreations. Under the law, he is financially obligated to the child. There no doubt there. Sure he can run off, but we have civil remedies and criminal punishments (not to mention “Deadbeat Dad” programs that demonize men like this to the public) to take care of that.
Women don’t have “ALL” the responsibility – that’s absurd.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:00 pmJules;
July 17th, 2006 at 7:01 pmI thought the woman got to choose because she is taking all the medical risks? Does anyone know the statistics on dead beat Dads as opposed to dead beat Moms.
Chase;
July 17th, 2006 at 7:03 pmwe are not demonizing deadbeat Dads, we are treating them like they deserve.
Chase,
July 17th, 2006 at 7:04 pmSo men should not be demonized for running out on their obligation?
Then why are you demonizing women for their choices?
If she uses illegal substances and that causes the miscarriage?
If she uses legal substances (smoking, or alcohol)?
If she’s negligent and injures herself?
If her doctor negligently proscribes the wrong medication?
I did some research awhile back and roughly 300,000 women in the U.S. miscarry each year. Now the “religious” question. If the baby is created at conception, and the woman miscarries naturally, as you say, who kills the baby, the woman, or God?
If the woman, why do you hold the woman not accountable?
If God, why does God kill innocent babies?
Note: if you say “Nature” then you are denying the existence of God and the entire moral argument loses its underpinnings.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:05 pmRyan……good to see you back. You make some very good points however, when you begin slinging insults I tend to scan past your posts. While I don’t agree with Chase, I do appreciate his ability to rise above the unwarrented insults and continue to attempt to engage in reasonable discourse concerning a very divisive subject.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:07 pmOne of my law school classmates had a baby while going to law school. I honestly don’t know how she did it. Mothers who continue their education and/or career have my respect.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:11 pmChase once again you are avoiding the time and energy that must be put to use in raising a child. Money is about 25% of it, if that.
A parent must be on call 24 hours a day 7 days a week for their child. They must be able to drop everything to assist that child with issues and problems. There are doctor and dentist appointments, school functions, homework, learning to drive, heart breaks, winning their first game, going to their first formal. teaching them morals and values, right and wrong. Money cannot do this. It takes time and energy. That is if they want their child to grow to be a happy, healthy, contributing member of society.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:14 pm#92 – Fair enough. I agree.
#93 –
She’s liable.
Doctor is liable.
The natural (read: non-induced) miscarriage question is a red-herring. In those cases, the death of the child is unavoidable – unforeseeable.
Abortion for convenience is planned. Left alone, a child would result.
As for any Divine intent: I’m non-religious and wouldn’t proscribe to this argument. I would guess, however, that most religious types would say humans are incapable of understanding the actions of God and should not try.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:14 pm#97 – I understand money is no substitute for time or energy. However, even you must agree that fathers might leave long after an abortion is no longer viable. Mothers too can leave after the child is born, rare though it is.
I think the real argument you have is what to do when you have an unplanned, unexpected and inconvenient pregnancy.
I would say if you are unprepared for the responsibilities of parenthood, for the time and energy necessary for whatever reason, you should probably make the choice to abstain from sexual intercourse.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:23 pmI HATE the arguement that abortion is a convenience to women!
Nothing can be further from the truth.
I truly DESPISE that way of thinking. It is a gut wrenching and personal choice, not, “Well, I don’t really feel like it. Rip it out.”
And if you still hold to that belief, that these women are having abortions willy-nilly, then what kind of parent would they be if they were forced to HAVE the child?
It’s ridiculous.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:26 pm#100 – I say “convenience” to make a distinction between abortion out of medical necessity or abortion as relief after felonious sex.
I’m afraid, however, that many women do seek abortion for convenience. How else can you explain the 48% figure?
July 17th, 2006 at 7:29 pmand where do you get that #, Chase. I saw no link.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:31 pmand what if these repeat abortions were 15 years apart?
You have NO way of knowing and NO right to dictate to women.
#102 – I’ve mentioned the source numerous times above. The link is also included. For your “convenience”, I’ll provide it again. Here.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:33 pmthe third way culture project?
July 17th, 2006 at 7:38 pmThat’s what you sent me to?
Not an official site that tracks these things? Just some righty site.
Sorry, not credible enough for me. I’ll research them.
In the meantime, you failed to address my question:
If these women would resort to a monthly clinic visit (in your view), then what makes you think they would properly raise a child?
Also, you continue to give men the “out”.
If you want to legislate morality, then it would have to work both ways.
Procreation would be it’s own “covenant” if you would.
The man MUST stay with the woman and share equally in the upbringing of the child. 18 years. No running off.
Do you see how ridiculous that would be?
July 17th, 2006 at 7:41 pmtrueblue
Give the child up for adoption. The baby lives and the parent doesn’t feel “as much” grief as she would if the abortion had occured. Not near as much. I didn’t “settle down until I was in my mid 30’s. I had heard of love at first sight, and I’m not a lovey dovey geek. I’m a veteran that grew up in the mountains of eastern KY. But, when I saw my wife, as I was leaving a bar in the “big city”, I can’t explain it. I’m not going to bore everyone so here it goes. She is from Brooklyn, catholic RAISED, democrat, and Itailian. Myself, RAISED Baptist, REGISTERED republican, country boy. We met in May, she wouldn’t go out with me until late August. Got engaged in November, and got married in March of the next year. Almost one month to the date, after we get married, BOOM, “honey, I’m late”…….. I go to Wal Mart and get a test. My son was born in December of the same year. Less than a year after I met her. I used to be a “party animal” my friends. College four years, U.S. Army four years, bachelor for several years after that. My son, the first ultrasound I saw him, he was the size of a pea. A pea….. I’ve still got the images. He was moving. Well, the morale of the story is, if you can, give life a chance. If you can’t keep your baby, let someone else adopt. My son just turned 19 months old. Every day brings a new word, a new habit, but my favorite is the first day he said Ma Ma and Da Da. GOTTA LOVE LIFE BABY!!!
July 17th, 2006 at 7:41 pm#105 – Might I recommend you follow the footnote. It’s a CDC study.
As for me – I propose the following. Continue to allow women to abort their children, for whatever cause, up to a certain time (for argument’s sake, 10 weeks – if you prefer another period, I’ll accept it).
During that time, however, the “father” can get a document relieving him of any and all responsibility for the child, financial and otherwise. After all, if the woman’s life is so vital she can’t be bother with the hassle of a child (in her judgment), why can’t a man make a similar decision on his own?
July 17th, 2006 at 7:45 pmI DO love life, Jim.
But you can’t tell the woman she must give the baby up for adoption.
You just can’t.
Mini-Blue is a surprise baby herself, right when I was about to go back to college.
That particular choice was not for me, but I feel I have absolutely no right to tell anyone else what they can/cannot do with their own bodies.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:47 pmThe problem I have had with your arguement is that you have given women no option, but do not hold the man to the same standard.
No you reverse yourself, only so as to be able to give the MAN the option of “opting out”.
You’ve shown your true colors, Chase.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:51 pmI had no interest in having a child. My wife(at the time) became pregnant (oops). Now, I did not bring up abortion but I was miserable. I want to all the appointments and the only time I was ever anything but despairing was when the nurse told me that was NOT an arm, it was the big unit. Anyway, he came out (after a long, horrible, dangerous birth) and I immedietely fell in love. Now, I am the parent, 24/7. I wouldn’t change that for anything. That said, we made our choices. IT WASN’T YOURS. So, you wingnuts, worry about yourself….believe me, you freaks have enough problems to deal with without telling me what to do.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:51 pm#108 -
But you can tell a woman she can’t flush her child because it’s more convenient.
You really can.
I know I sound like an ass on this topic (probably many others) but I am really torn. On one hand I see how demanding, how challenging a child is at any time, much less while you’re in school, starting a career, etc. It’s only made more difficult when the father is out of the picture.
On the other hand, I have a hard time believing killing what will become a living, breathing human child if left unmolested is the answer.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:52 pm#107, you do realize that would increase the abortion rate, right?
July 17th, 2006 at 7:52 pm#110 – No you reverse yourself, only so as to be able to give the MAN the option of “opting outâ€.
Now how do I do that? Remind me.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:53 pm#113 – Yes. I set the scenario to show how silly it is.
The choice is made before you have sex. The pill, condoms, etc can reduce the risk of pregnancy but they will never make it absolute zero.
If your ambition makes having a child inconvenient, then you should not have sex.
You must accept the potential consequences of your actions.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:56 pmtrueblue
I know you love life. Who doesn’t, and I’m not one to tell anyone anything. I don’t know about “Mini-Blue”, tell us about he/she. I’m not trying to force anyone to do anything. I just want young ladies (especially teenagers) to know both sides of the issue.
Look, I’m big into world events. I joined the military during Desert Storm, sometimes the comments on TP are not to pleasant to the boys in uniform. But I respect women and their BODIES. IT’S YOUR BODY. But I also respect that little “pea” that’s inside. That’s why I say at least check out adoption. Can’t hurt to check out stuff girls….
July 17th, 2006 at 7:58 pm“But you can tell a woman she can’t flush her child because it’s more convenient. Comment by Chase”
Why would you care to? If abortion is murder, then you’re for giving rapist rights. If it’s not murder, then you’re being arbitrary and provencial. You aren’t even saying anything other than abortion makes you sad. Well the correct response is don’t have one.
July 17th, 2006 at 7:59 pm#111 Ok, if you are really torn, let’s think about this. Say you are a poor, black woman (yes, this will become relevant). Ok, you become pregnant. I don’t care if it was consensual sex, rape , or incest. You have the choice of either keeping it (which would be economically impossible), aborting it or giving it up for adoption. Now, considering the adoption market for blacks is very thin, this child will likely be passed from group home (we don’t call them orphanges any more for some reason) to group home to foster parent to abusive foster parent. Likely this child will become involved in drugs and/or prostitution and end up commiting murder or suicide. Would this be preferable to excising a hundred cells or so?
July 17th, 2006 at 7:59 pmAs for me – I propose the following. Continue to allow women to abort their children, for whatever cause, up to a certain time (for argument’s sake, 10 weeks – if you prefer another period, I’ll accept it).
During that time, however, the “father†can get a document relieving him of any and all responsibility for the child, financial and otherwise.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:00 pmChase,
THAT was your reversal.
So you were against abortion before you were FOR it, with the caveat that the man could figurativly abort as well.
This is a subject that I have quite alot to say about. Abortion to me seems like the lesser of two evils when the other option is bringing an unwanted child into this world. I have no facts to back me up, but would venture to guess that said children are more likely to fall into the same cycle as their mother when it comes to unwanted pregnancy. Sure adoption is the best answer, but carrying a baby full term is no easy task to do, and giving up a child could be even harder. 1 in 4 pregnancies naturally aborts, many are not even known about.
I would say that abortion is generally done out of being responsible, in that the mother (and sometimes father) has decided that now is not the time for her/them to have a child. Women who use abortion as birth control have my fullest consent, who wants someone who thinks like that to raise a child?
There really are enough uncared for people out there that don’t want their kids, don’t force more of them into this world. Lets concentrate on things that will help the kids that have already been born.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:01 pmAMEN!
July 17th, 2006 at 8:04 pmI don’t think the distinction is arbitrary. If the pregnancy is the result of felonious sex (that is, rape or incest) then an abortion should an option.
We don’t say justifiable homicide (that is, self-defense) is “arbitrary and provencial [sic]“, do we?
Do you see the nuance here?
July 17th, 2006 at 8:05 pmDK,
There have been longterm studies, and here is an excerpt from one of those studies:
July 17th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
#118 – Would this be preferable to excising a hundred cells or so?
Absolutely. Your destination for the child is not a foregone conclusion. The opportunity, the chance that is humanity is something you completely extinguish when you abort that child.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:07 pm#118 – JPark
Let me take back the “absolutely.” I know it’s not that clear.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:10 pm“I don’t think the distinction is arbitrary. If the pregnancy is the result of felonious sex (that is, rape or incest) then an abortion should an option. Comment by Chase”
So then the truth is what you have a problem with is women having sex at their own choice, and not abortion. It’s clear that you don’t value the life of the baby, otherwise you wouldn’t permit it to be murdered (I believe your side’s words). So you want to punish the woman for being sexual beings, and not to protect unborn babies. After all, is the unborn baby from rape any less innocent than the one from sex between a married couple?
I’m sorry but you rightwingers are self absorbed selfish prudes. Grow up.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:10 pm“Absolutely. Your destination for the child is not a foregone conclusion. The opportunity, the chance that is humanity is something you completely extinguish when you abort that child. Comment by Chase ”
That’s the same argument that the Vatican makes against masturbation and for early marriage with lots of babies. It’s socially and morally irresponsible with 6 billion humans on the earth. You have no right to control the body of a woman when she’s pregnant, either morally, socially or scientifically.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:12 pmI know I sound like an ass on this topic (probably many others)
Comment by Chase — July 17, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
With all due respect. I have to agree with you on this one ;-)
…but I am really torn.
Seriously now, I think many of us are. This is not an easy topic and it is made worsse by people throwing red herrings disguised as moral arguments into the discussion.
It’s only made more difficult when the father is out of the picture.
That is exactly the problem with your line of argumentation: Fathers do have an option. They can leave, anytime they want. They do it all the time, all over the world. They can move to another city -or country even- while the mothers are left holding the bag… and the baby.
I personally know of several instances where the father left on day -just like that. No “goodbye”, no “you can reach me at …”. Nothing. They simply disappeared.
Not to say that women do not ever leave their partners, but those are exceptions rather than the rule.
I have a hard time believing killing what will become a living, breathing human child if left unmolested is the answer.
That is an imponderable -you cannot know for sure if the developing embryo or fetus will, indeed, become a “living, breathing human child”. Ever heard of miscarriages?
Plus, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, a woman’s every egg also has the potential to become a “living, breathing human child”. Should the woman get pregnant everytime she ovulates, or is it ok for her to let those otherwise perfectly good eggs go to waste? If it is ok, why?
Not to mention fertility clinics: Should fertility clinics make sure that every single fertilized egg becomes a fully “living, breathing human child”, or is it ok for them to discard those not wanted by the parents? If abortion is banned, would fertility clinics (and the parents) be liable for not ensuring that all fertilized eggs become “living, breathing” humans?
July 17th, 2006 at 8:14 pm#123 Somehow I don’t think you are “torn”. With the likely scenario you would still bar a woman from excising 100 cells (note: that would mean no brain, no heart, no nerve endings). That would be no different than scratching off the skin cells in your nose as you dig for the big one.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:15 pm#127 – No no. A fertilized egg, if left alone, can become a child.
A load in some tissue has no such chance.
Again, there’s nuance I don’t expect you to understand.
#126 – Maybe I am calling for more responsibility – sexually and otherwise.
More of our cultural problems are a result of failure to accept responsibility than of the “reichwing” or “liburls” combined.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:17 pmRyan,
July 17th, 2006 at 8:19 pmI, like Lisa L., am happy to see your return.
I don’t have so much of a problem with the “mud-slinging”, as long as the person deserves it! (ie: troll)
So, ‘Hulk” away! ;)
Chase: Maybe I am calling for more responsibility – sexually and otherwise.
Maybe you are. You should be, and I should be. But, reality, we’ve done things that bring out the “animal” in our nature. People make mistakes, and sometimes they look for answers to try to fix them. I’m just saying, look at the “adoption” option as well as the others………
July 17th, 2006 at 8:22 pmBut Chase, you are LYING because you have also said, let the woman have an abortion, up to 10 weeks, you’d be FINE with that…
As long as the MAN coulld also in that time sever his obligations to said “future child”.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:22 pmHYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!
“#127 – No no. A fertilized egg, if left alone, can become a child. Comment by Chase”
Really? I always thought it took a womb and a healthy host, and her willingness to participate to make that happen. Have you been growing a fertilized egg on your kitchen counter?
“#126 – Maybe I am calling for more responsibility – sexually and otherwise.Comment by Chase ”
Bull crap. You’re calling for people to IRRESPONSIBLY bring more children into the world. We have 6 BILLION people, don’t be a complete moron you irresponsible goof.
“More of our cultural problems are a result of failure to accept responsibility than of the “reichwing†or “liburls†combined. Comment by Chase ”
Most cultural problems are caused by rightwing morons and extremists like you. It’s why RELIGIOUS societies are statistically less happy, and have more societal problems than secular ones. You people are poison – crazy stupid poison.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:24 pmNo no. A fertilized egg, if left alone, can become a child.
Comment by Chase — July 17, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
“can”. Meaning “has the potential”. Maybe. Unless it is miscarried. Or discarded by the doctors at the fertility clinics, after securing the parents’ consent.
Again, there’s nuance I don’t expect you to understand.
If you are capable of a nuanced approach, you have not shown any inclination to do so in this thread.
Any fertilised egg has the potential to become a child. Why, even unfertilised eggs have the potential to become children. After all, they are reproductive cells.
There is nothing “nuanced” about that.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:26 pm“I’m just saying, look at the “adoption†option as well as the others……… Comment by COMMENT BY JIM”
Do you have any idea how hard it is for a mother that’s given birth to give up her children? It’s a LOT harder than it is for them to make the difficult decision to have an abortion. Even if the child is unwanted, I would venture a guess that most women aren’t willing to give up their children. And we already have a HUGE number of children in foster and orphan care that parents won’t adopt.
Put your money where your mouth is JIM. If you love children so much, and you haven’t adopted a house full yet, then you’re a complete hypocrite! Just like most of you conservatives. If you lived by the rules you try to enforce on everyone else, there wouldn’t be so many unwanted children in the system today!
July 17th, 2006 at 8:27 pmI don’t see how you can have an abortion after 10 weeks. If you see the U/S, I don’t see how?
July 17th, 2006 at 8:28 pm“I don’t see how you can have an abortion after 10 weeks. If you see the U/S, I don’t see how? Comment by COMMENT BY JIM”
Images can be deceiving. The fetus of a chimpanzee is virtually indistinguishable from a human at that age. Your EYES make you see things that aren’t there. Just because a fetus is beginning to look like a child, doesn’t make it one.
When are you going to adopt those unwanted children again?
Until you do, why don’t you do everyone a favor and stop being a hypocrite?
July 17th, 2006 at 8:30 pmActually,
I own a book that documents the fetus at differnt stages.
10 weeks it looks like a fish.
It’s called, “A Child Is Born”
That U/S had to be later, because you cannot tell sex until after 12 weeks gestation…….
July 17th, 2006 at 8:34 pmMy wife had kidney surgery when she was two years old, and another when she was three. That left scar tissue. Therefore, the normal test to detect the babies heart beat could not be picked up. We were lucky. We got ultrasounds from seven months until birth. IT WAS A TRUE BLESSING. I watched my son move his FINGERS, KICK HIS LEGS, AND BEND HIS SPINE like I had never thought was possible………. It blew me away people!!!!!! The fingers and feet had webs. The head was very large. The spine was, well, trueblue, you have the details…..
July 17th, 2006 at 8:39 pmI meant from seven WEEKS, NOT MONTHS…… I didn’t know my baby was a boy until late in the seventh month…
July 17th, 2006 at 8:43 pmI’m glad you are so smitten, Jim!!
My S.O. at the time looked @ mini-blue when she was born like he was “bouncing off the walls” (my term for totally mesmirized)
July 17th, 2006 at 8:44 pmShe’s 16 now. He still looks at her that way.
It’s really nice…
so , good for you!
We got ultrasounds from seven months until birth.
Comment by COMMENT BY JIM — July 17, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
How many did you get!? The people I know, including myself, got at most two.
The fingers and feet had webs.
I don’t believe you. At seven months, the fetus is fully formed and there is no web between the fingers or toes.
One of my siblings was born prematurely at seven months, and had no webbed feet or hands.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:46 pmAgain Jim,
When are you going to adopt all of those children you want women to baby factory for you? Because until you do, you’re just a hypocrite trying to force women to bear unwanted children that will just end up in foster care, often beaten, abused and abandoned. The fact you can ask for that to happen just because your baby was cute on an ultrasound monitor is just freaky. Stop being such a retard and realize that choices often have negative consequences – and unwanted pregnancies are the ultimate in bad consequences.
But thanks for your encouragement to all of those people that want a children – I’m sure they’ll be happy to hear that your personal experience was rewarding. Just like virtually every other parent that are googoo for their children.
Oh, and you do realize that most of those responses are entirely hormonal and biological in nature don’t you? You’re a victim of evolution, isn’t that sweet? And you don’t even know it, the saddest part of all.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:47 pmHi Ryan…
Welcome back to the fold ;-)
July 17th, 2006 at 8:49 pmRyan,
This may be obscure, but BU Pres. John Silber ran for Governor a while back in Mass.
One of his downfalls was saying that babies were made cute so that we’d take care of them… something to that effect.
It just speaks to your evolution comment.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:54 pmtrueblue,
It’s true. It’s entirely biological, and without it reichwingers like the trolls here would probably roast their babies over a spit for dinner.
July 17th, 2006 at 9:06 pmWhat kind of standards are the crisis pregnancy centers held to?
If I went to my doctor and he/she gave me information that was fundamentally wrong and this misleading information which was unproven or unconfirmed, had the effect that lead to severe adverse health conditions,..
..would I be able to sue?
Could these crisis centers be setting themselves up for some big lawsuits?
Later ya’ll,
July 17th, 2006 at 9:13 pmI gotta call my attorney, I smell fresh meat!
Ryan,
July 17th, 2006 at 9:16 pmewwwww!
#68: Jules–I’ve been reading the comments on this thread & found, interestingly, that you were saying pretty much what I was thinking. Coincidentally, I just did a paper on the same topic (discussion of Abstinence-Only and Comprehansive Sexuality Education programs). Your daughter and I probably saw some of the same sources. She probably discovered that the Abstinence-Only sexuality education programs, first federally funded starting in 1999, are now the ONLY sexuality education programs receiving federal funding. Visit http://www,nonewmoney.org/how.htm
The reader will learn what cannot be taught in a federally funded sexuality education program.
Anyway, the goal of organization that advocate for comprehansive sexuality education is to reduce the need for abortions. (Another goal is to reduce the spread of STDs).
In any event, for those who are anti-abortion & wish to make abortion illegal altogether, all they need do is review the results in countries where it is already illegal. It is evident that outlawing abortions does nothing to eliminate them. Of course, as in the film “Vera Drake”, when abortion is illegal, the wealthy and well-heeled manage to take care of these unexpected and unwanted pregnancies with little consequence, while the poor are much more vulnerable to the hazards of injury and death from illegal abortions. They still seek and obtain them, but at a much higher price, ultimately.
Anyway, kudos to your daughter!
July 17th, 2006 at 10:38 pm#149 Oops, that was http://www.nonewmoney.org/how.htm
July 17th, 2006 at 10:40 pmSorry!
The http://www.nownewmoney.org/how.htm/ link gives examples of what IS permitted to be taught in abstinence-only sexuality education programs that receive federal funding.
My typing is really crappy tonight! I am sorry.
Nevertheless, comprehensive sexuality education programs are more effective, contain scientifically & medically accurate information and are value neutral. Of course, that whole “science” thing gives the neocons the willies. The last thing they need is to have an educated, autonomous society, as they have no use for actual citizens. I think they envision us as consumers only.
July 17th, 2006 at 10:53 pmMore fear-based policies from the Bush administration. THat seems to be thier trademark on every issue.
U.S. troops in Iraq through 2016? SSA reported it first, now the MSM is finally picking it up.
Read the government report – Only on SSA Blog
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog.php
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/forum
July 17th, 2006 at 10:55 pmWhat’s your opinion on the Crisis in the Midle East? Let SSA know
Back from fishing. So glad to see the discourse returned to some manner of respect. I chose to chime in on this particular thread because I have sitting on my desk at this moment, a RFP (request for proposals) that is quite specifically geared toward faith based initiatives (yes, they attempt to be inclusive with “community based” but it’s pretty clear they are looking to fund faith based initiatives). The people who will be submitting their recommendations to the Feds are none other than Baylor University in Waco, TX. How can I, as a small non-profit possibly compete for funding when fundamentalists are competing for similar funding for domestic violence education? I can’t and I ethically won’t. I won’t suddenly pretend that we are “with God” or pretend to be anthing but we are not. We are an agency that has a 20 year history of assisting women (and MEN 27% this year) of escaping domestic violence. We have, through this administration, stumbled on to a slippery slope of whom is best able to provide assistance. This thread is a perfect example of government’s attempt to define a problem and attempt a solution through faith based initiatives. They simply don’t work. Human problems are more complex than praying for a solution and hoping for the best. BTW, I have a 2 year old grandson who was born at 23 weeks. I personally don’t agree with abortion after the first tri-mester but will continue to support a woman’s right to choose. Slippery slope. Infringe on one right, you infringe on them all.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:33 pmGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 4:07 pmTeen Girls Teen Titans Raven Tiffany Teen
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 1:24 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 17th, 2008 at 2:58 pmSex Free Sex Pictures Office Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 12:25 amTeen Girls Teen Chat Teen Panties
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 20th, 2008 at 2:58 amSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 amGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 amGaren Fountain
And how is it working for you, it has been some time between now and this post, i was just wondering if you are happy with it.
March 22nd, 2008 at 6:46 amCar Loan
Search For car loans to have an opportunity to to be able to get a great Acura in 15 hours by utilizing a anomalous office.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:24 pmTeen Petite Teens Teen Titans Hentai
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 8:01 pm