Editor's note: Carole Simpson is the leader-in-residence at Emerson College’s School of Communication in Boston, where she teaches journalism and communications classes. She is the first woman or minority to be the sole moderator of a presidential debate, and chronicled her 40 years as a broadcast journalist in her memoir, "Newslady."
For an opposing view, click here.
By Carole Simpson, Special to CNN
(CNN) – Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Garry Trudeau has done it again. For more than 40 years his comic strip, “Doonesbury” has been criticized for poking fun at presidents, other political figures and government decisions. But his strip is being yanked from some newspapers this week because, for the second time in his career, he has created a storyline that takes on abortion, God forbid.
What prompted Trudeau to invite the wrath of conservative pro-lifers everywhere is the new Texas law, which demeans, demoralizes, and may even damage the reproductive organs of women who dare to seek an abortion. Passed by the Republican-controlled Texas legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Perry, the law forces a woman who wants an abortion to receive information about her fetus that only can be obtained by a vaginal ultrasound.
During the procedure a doctor inserts a 10-inch sonogram wand into the vagina of a pregnant woman. Then the doctor must show her the image of her fetus and make her listen to the heartbeat. Then the woman goes home to spend 24 hours considering her decision to abort. Texas lawmakers wanted to make the procedure so invasive, so painful, and so emotionally devastating that the woman would change her mind. They hope the woman bears the baby, which may have been conceived through rape or incest, or even if the birth may endanger her life. It’s a prescription for child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.
For this week’s “Doonesbury,” Trudeau created a story damning the Texas legislature. It begins with a Texas woman going to a clinic seeking an abortion. The nurse tells her: “The male Republicans who run Texas require that all abortion seekers be examined with a 10” shaming wand.” WOW.
Another strip shows a doctor about to perform the procedure, and the bubble of words coming from his mouth says, “By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape.” BAM. Trudeau pulls no punches.
Trudeau told The Washington Post that the procedure, in itself, is a form of rape: “The World Health Organization defines rape as ‘physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration— even if slight– of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts, or an object,’” said Trudeau. “You tell me the difference.”
The cartoonist has picked sides on what’s being called the “war on women.” He thinks women are getting a raw deal. But that’s of little comfort. Eight states now require ultrasounds before a woman can get an abortion and two others are fighting legal challenges to implement the procedure. None of the other states, however, have laws that require the invasive ultrasounds Texas mandates.
Women of the Lone Star state should look into the possible infringement of their rights guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishments.” That would appear on its face to include vaginal ultrasound procedures inflicted on women by a state government.
Women used to proudly herald, “We’ve come a long way, baby.” But now it looks like we’ve hit a brick wall and men are starting to take back some of the mileage we fought so hard to gain.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Carole Simpson.
Just as a side comment, you may have heard that the GOP in Texas is now known as "The Coathanger Party", or TCP.
That's about the nicest thing I can think of to call them...
Howdy, There's no doubt that your blog might be having web browser compatibility problems. When I take a look at your web site in Safari, it looks fine however when opening in I.E., it has some overlapping issues. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other than that, wonderful site!
I can't normally stand Doonesbury (for a number of reasons, which are irrelevant here), but yanking a particular Doonesbury strip from the papers because you don't like the politics is ridiculous. Did they not notice that it has ALWAYS been about the politics? Leaving Trudeau's strips in except for the one you disagree with is awful and hypocritical, and any papers that remove them should be ashamed.
I guess colonoscopies are rape now?
Only against the will of the patient. Or imposed by a government.
Using these crazy people's definition of rape.. Yes. Apparently consent has no bearing on what makes an act rape.
DURESS makes it rape. You know this.
Forcing someone to sign a consent form as a condition of a medical procedure, in order to paste a political fig leaf on a rape, is not consent. It's duress.
More deceit and manipulation.
Consent is a condition of a medical procedure. No one's forcing anyone to do anything. You can call a sonogram a barrier or a hoop to jump through all you want. It's a hoop all trustworthy medical providers will make you jump through to get an abortion as well.
However, this crazy definition of rape you have in your head is the same one that would make colonoscopies rape.
Well, I guess I'll try one more time.
Hi, which thoughts were those?
You're so awesome! I do not believe I've read through something like that before. So good to discover somebody with a few original thoughts on this topic. Seriously.. many thanks for starting this up. This site is something that's needed on the internet, someone with a bit of originality!
Without a doubt, for me abortion is morally wrong. I also realize that, ultimately the decision lies with the Women and her Doctor. As long I am not financing the procedure the choice is theirs and they will have to live with the emotional consequences that come with it afterwards.
“You might not like the thought that views are being imposed on you, but that is what happens every time a law is made. You have to obey it or face the consequences”
Torquemada couldn’t have said it better. Nor could an Iranian mullah, or a creator of the One Child policy in China, nor a bureaucrat in Ceaucescou’s Romania. Or, for that matter, any of the Protestant/Catholic/Hugenot/Puritan enforcers of social policy during the Reformation and beyond, just before setting someone afire at a stake or drowning a witch.
“We take these ethical truths and apply them as laws in our society as we should…You have to obey it or face the consequences”.
Thank you for bringing into perfect clarity the premise I have been pointing to all along here.
This is not about information.
This is not about a procedure.
This is not about abortion.
This is not about money.
This is certainly not about babies.
This is not about Life.
This is about enforcement of your social code.
Rape, or your health, or your death, or your enforced childbirth of an unwanted or sick baby are the consequences Peggy dictates.
Your fig leaf has dropped off.
Ahh, the smear campaign against Peggy continues.. It has become clear that you don't care about the issues.
What do you have against moral absolutes and ethical truths? Why do you think we have laws against things like murder and theft? What is there basis? Why do we have any laws at all if there aren't consequences for breaking them? Are you so naive that you think you don't live according to a social code right now? Should we have no say in what that social code is? Do you think we shouldn't live according to a the system of law and regulations contrived by our elected politicians?
It is moral relativism that you are endorsing, isn't it? Everyone should be able to decide what's "right" for them and no one else, right? Get rid of the moral laws, right? How would society even be able to function without laws?
Just a few points lost on my "small government/run your lives for you" friends.
1. You decry the notion of paying for the abortion but not a peep about paying for the child. So it's not about the money.
2. You say it isn't rape yet can't explain why a woman must undergo this invasive procedure against her wishes to get a legal procedure performed.
this all comes down to an attempt to force others to live theiiri lives by your rules. nothing more, nothing less.
The same people on this board insisting that others live acording to their religous beliefs would be the first to vote for a law prohibiting the consideration of Sharia Law in a US court.
The word for you people is HYPOCRITE.
Ka-zing. Bulleye, Robert.
This isn't about Life. The very people dedicating theemselves to "Life" are perfectly willing to live in a state and support politicians who brag about it being home to the most executions; willing to let millions of their children go hungry and without health care.
It's not about women, or any care for women, anyhow. They are willing to rape their women by decree of The State if they seek an abortion; willing to let hundreds of thousands go without pap smears and mammograms, if the funds for those vital health services come with the SLIGHTEST possible connection to PP. For political points, not because tax dollars can go to abortion.
It's not about babies. The very ones who think up things like rape as a condition of abortion, to discourage abortions, are seldom known to actually adopt one of those little ones, or take a child into their home.
It's not even about abortion. Abortion is only the fig leaf which covers what's really under there – imposition of a social code upon others. Abortion, being repulsive, is very useful towards this end, and directly related to the social code to be enforced.
It's the very same element in play – though a fundamentalist Christian, Southern American version, and much less brutal – as is seen in so many other places. Enforcement of a social code, like the mullahs in Iran do, like the China One Child policy, like the Taliban, like Ceaucescou's Romania. Different flavor, less horrific – but exactly the same impulse.
Which is very distressing to many of us, who HATE abortion, who would never consider one personally – and are left in the position of defending the human and spiritual rights of our countrymen in the context of this horrible thing.
But it's not about abortion, really. It's important to remember that.
1. What do you think happens to the kids that aren't aborted? Do you think taxpayers are saddled with the expense of raising every one of them? I don't think all of them are adopted nor do I think all of them are raised by a mother on welfare. Unless you have some data on the matter of Texas taxpayers raising kids that would have been aborted, it is unwise to engage in speculation on the matter.
2. The requirement of getting a sonogram before abortion is a Planned Parenthood rule as I have stated before. And these laws aren't limited to Texas. We are just one of 24 states that have ultrasound laws like this.
You seem to have a problem with us deciding our own laws and rules. If we can't live by our own rules, who do you think you should be deciding them for us? We are going to be living according to someone's rules and morality. Why shouldn't we get to have a say in what those laws are? Why shouldn't it be our morality that influences the laws? Do you have something against the democratic process?
The Nazi's were also pro-choice. While they were making and executing their choices its a good thing someone stood up and said ENOUGH and put a stop to their choices. Genocide is not the answer to our problems. We should have learned that by now. Just say NO to MURDER.
Peggy I don't have anything against the democratic process, in fact I fully support it. I DO however have something against the MURDER of innocent unborn CHILDREN. Cmon, you are smart enough to know that genocide is not the answer to society's problems right?
Robert, You've got us all kinds of confused. I think you just argued against the sonogram law, and now it is clear you are not pro-choice. To be clear, I am against the killing of unborn children, and I support the sonogram law because women should see that little life inside them before they decide to have it killed.
Peggy I see that, and I sincerely apologize for the friendly fire! There is so much flying around this thread it is hard to see who is who!
We DO both know that we are not really talking about Life, or babies, or even abortion itself here, dont we Peggy?
Why do you ask? Are you feeling frustrated? Are you just now realizing how stupid calling a sonogram RAPE is? Are you looking for a different warpath?
Maybe are you searching for another way to try and show how superior you are? "I am the one who actually cares about babies – and is thus in a better position..." Being okay with letting their lives be ended would suggest otherwise... "I'm the one arguing for NOT taking away people's freedoms." The the freedom you are advocating is the freedom to end the life of another human being without just cause, it actually takes away every freedom there is for the individual who's life was aborted.
Let's go in which ever direction you'd like. I am enjoying the discussion!
Oh, and again, for clarity:
I am for the freedom of personal conscience and from violation of women's wombs by the State.
Or by anyone – it's just especially terrible that it can be a tool of politicians and make somethng like rape a matter of polciy.
I know! You value a women's womb more than the life that resides there! For clarity: women's wombs are only violated in this way when they seek to end their unborn child's life. If no womb should ever be violated, shouldn't we totally get rid of abortion? I am not even in favor a total outlaw of abortion as I have pointed out before.
Who doesn't support freedom in a free society? However, you threaten that very freedom when you are in favor of ending that freedom for others. See? Freedom without limits isn't sustainable if our freedoms encroach on the freedoms of others. So where do we set our limits? That's where we disagree on the issue of abortion. I am against the right to end the lives of the unborn without cause, and you are for it. You can try to sugarcoat abortion as a women's right, but in doing so, she takes away all of the rights of her child.
According to the legal definition of rape, it's rape.
Dance all you like but if you support this law then it's rape you're supporting.
I suppose you'd be OK with every guy asking for viagra to undergo the same procedure?
A man of honor. Thanks, Robert.
Consensual s'ex is not rape according to the legal definition of rape just like a consensual sonogram is not rape. Dancing is just as unnecessary as these baseless arguments that a sonogram is something it is not. Y'all can call it whatever you'd like and try to mislead others, but it will never make the claim true.
This sort of manipulation is exactly what I expect from the pro-abortionist lobby. "It doesn't matter if what we are doing is true, right, or justified. Let's just do it anyway. Maybe if we say enough enough times, we'll even convince ourselves that it is true!"
I commend you on your use of rhetoric, Peggy. I think it's fairly obvious the disagreement is, and always has been, on when the fetus becomes a "child." You should know this, but it seems your emotional ideology impedes your mental faculties.
There IS a bright line that pretty much everyone could agree upon, if this were really about babies or abortion. It would not take care of the whole disagreement nor avert every abortion – but it would help, it would really help. It would take some give-and-take from both sides, but it would be a fair start:
If everyone could just agree that the moment a fetus is sustainable as an INDIVIDUAL – if it does not require the enforced cooperation of the body of another citizen – then there is a good case to be made that the little individual has a right to the protections of the state. You could cut off abortions at that point (except in the case of harm to the mother) with the choice of deciding upon bringing it to term or surgically freeing it to live on it's own.
This would violate the principles of both sides, true – it invades the body; it does not appy to every zygote, embryo or fetus – but it's a fair case to make.
INDIVIDUAL. That's the line. And the line gets closer and closer all the time, as medical advances progress.
It's a start.
RevMum, I argue that individuality starts at conception. It would be very difficult to decide at any other point.
Impossible, obviously since it cannot survive as an individual at conception.
But this is pointless. You and I both know this is not about abortion, or babies, or where life begins.
This is about your drive to impose your views upon other people – at the cost of rape, at the cost of violation of consciences, at the cost of American values and law and basic respect for the most private and intimate elements of the lives of others.
Yours is a recognizable mindset, long known throughout history. Empowering such as you has never turned out well for the world.
But count me among those who acknowledge your right to what YOU think.
It is only impossible when viewed through your lens. Individuality just means that you have qualities that distinguish you from others like having unique DNA. No where in the definition for "individual" does it say you have to be able to survive on your own. That isn't even a requirement newborn babies meet!
You say that you don't endorse moral relativity, but here you are again saying that we can't impose our views on others. The opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism which says that morality/conscience/natural law does not change and is the same for everyone. We take these ethical truths and apply them as laws in our society as we should. However, you have said before that we can't decide these ethical truths for anyone else (at least on the issue of abortion), and now you say that our morality shouldn't be applied to or imposed on others. This is a relativist approach to morality because what is "right" for me is not the same thing that is "right" for you. If you still don't think it is moral relativism, please do a little research on it. The idea of moral relativism is very dangerous because none of the laws that currently govern us could be applied under this thinking, and evil would go unchecked. It would be utter chaos.
In reality, we all live and adhere to moral absolutism, and other people's views are imposed on us all the time. You might not like the thought that views are being imposed on you, but that is what happens every time a law is made. You have to obey it or face the consequences.
Here we go RevMum: Please rethink some of your views because it is clear that they don't align well with reality.
Your comment about "empowering such as you has never turned out well" is actually quite scary. You backtracked slightly by acknowledging my very right to think, but it sure sound like you thought I shouldn't be empowered at all because I disagree with you.
If you were more diligent in reading some of my previous comments, you would know that I have addressed the issue of when the child becomes a child and where I stand on that. I made use of the bear analogy to point out that if we can't agree when it becomes a human being (and there is no consensus on this) that we should refrain from shooting it until we know for sure. There was also a quote from Dr. Francis Beckwith about how we know "individual human life begins at conception" and that philosophically that a baby does come from anything else that is okay to kill once that life started.
I don't agree with RevMum's about the need to be sustainable to be a human being because I know of a lot of human beings that have been born, young and old, that might fall into this category and this would make it okay to kill them.
CNN! Let me post stuff!
Seems to me the answer to all of this can be found by looking at existing legislation regarding how people are actually counting. Let me explain. I had twins that were born the very first week of January this year. I just got finished reporting my taxes for the year. Guess what? I can't claim my twins for the child tax credit in 2011. Why? Because they weren't born yet and because they weren't born there wasn't a birth certificate, and without a birth certificate there is no social security number. With no social security number, there is no way to actually track the person. So legally speaking, my children did not exist until they were born and had a birth certificate. My point is, no matter what any politician may say they believe, the proof is in the pudding. Until the government changes its stance and determines DOB as the day of conception and allows for fetuses to hold SS numbers, legally speaking, any fetus simply doesn't exist according to the law of the land. Unless of course, it is in relation to trumping charges or enforcing moral laws on everyone then it is very much alive. But if I want my $2000 child tax credit, they didn't exist as living humans. Make sense?
Nothng will make sense to Peggy. She is entirely cemented in her own view, and incapable of acknowledging anything that varies from it. If you engage with her, she will not answer questions. She will ignore any point she does not wish to hear, or that does not conform with her own. She will project assumptions – like you cannot BELIEVE – and drag you down conversational rabbit holes. She will villify anyone who sincerely differs, take a look at her posts. She enjoys it.
It's pointless, JustThinking. Besides, your name has Thinking in it – best just move on.
Awe RevMum.. still feeling frustrated? Too many well reasoned responses got ya down? It would be easy for me to say those same things about you, but it is pointless. You gotta roll with the punches or get out of the ring. Sitting around and whining about your opponent when they beat up on you isn't going to get you anywhere.
JustThinking, I'm not even sure which side you are arguing for.. Are you suggesting that it would be okay to kill your newborn babies (and by extension your unborn babies) because they legally don't exist for tax purposes? I can assure you that they legally exist when dealing with homicide.. SSN or no SSN.. Birth certificate or no birth certificate. I might be wrong about the conclusion you are trying to draw here, but if this is an attempt to justify abortion, it would also be a justification for infanticide and killing anyone that lost their birth certificate and SSN and doesn't "legally exist".
This isn't a fight. This isn't entertainment. This isn't a game.
It's people's lives, Peggy. You toy with them, for sport. Or perhaps to make yourself feel better about yourself.
Either way, unbless you are able to listen and respond in a sincere and thoughtful way, conversation is pointless.
Are you employed? Do you have a family?
Hmm.. is it better to allow people's lives to be toyed around with by a law (something that is already common place) or to allow people's lives to be terminated by abortion? That's really the question isn't it? My sincere and thoughtful response (like many of my other responses) is to go with the former. If a law is necessary to stem the tide of the killing, so be it. Do you have a sincere and thoughtful response to this question or are emotional appeals about "RAPE" all we're going to get?
Why does it matter so much to you what the personal details of my life are? What if I am married, divorced, or single? What if I have children or have no children? What if I had abortion? What if I have a full-time job, one or more part-time jobs, or no job? What if I am lower, middle, or upper class? What if I am young or old? Would you be able to use the information to attack my credibility? Does it give you some kind of superiority? Would the personal details of my life somehow affect whether abortion is right or wrong? What place do these details have in this discussion? How do you have any real way of knowing what is really true about me in the anonymity of this thread? If you want to know all of my personal details, you need to provide sincere and thoughtful responses to these questions.
This is not about "information".
This is not about a procedure.
This is not about abortion.
This is not about money.
This is certainly not about babies.
This is not about Life.
This is about enforcement of ayour social code.
The fig leaf has dropped off. Oops.
Of course rape and a levy are different you silly goose! I wasn't even trying to compare those two things! Analogies are used to compare two different but similar things. Paying income tax and a sonogram are similar because they both are things that the government can make you do in order to do something else. Why isn't a income tax theft? Because if you want a legal job in the United States, you consent to be taxed by the United States based upon your income. Why isn't a sonogram rape? Because if you want an abortion in Texas, you consent to a sonogram.
The problem with calling a sonogram rape based upon the DOJ's definition is that rape is penetration without the person's consent. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't get a job. If you don't want a sonogram, don't get an abortion.
You can say we have an unconditional right to an abortion just like you can say we have an unconditional right to keep all of the money we make. However based on our current laws in Texas, that doesn't make income tax theft and that doesn't make a sonogram rape. This is pure and simple logic.
This is a response to RevMum's comment about the vast difference between a levy and rape, and how she thinks the sonogram law is state sponsored rape.
Im riding in a car, but will answer briefly the key items:
1. The State makes a law that mandates RAPE for any citizen seeking a legal medical procedure. Lets say...a heart bypass. But it is not technically rape, you say, because as part of the paperwork to pretend the rape isn't the rape you must submit to in order to have your perfectly legal heart bypass, is a consent form.
2. How Orwellian.
3. How dishonorable.
4. How deceitful.
5. How utterly consistent with the selective morals of Perry and his polical hacks, in this case, Fredericks.
You can kick and scream if you want to about how you think a sonogram is rape, but it simply is not true by it's very definition. If consent is given, it is not rape. In your example about a heart bypass, sticking something up someone's "you-who" would be inappropriate, but you still couldn't call it rape because consent was given.
On the other hand, no matter how much you disrespect the politicians of Texas and those that support them, they would not have mandated a sonogram before an abortion if it was inappropriate. It is just as appropriate as a requirement for a doctor to go up my behind with something to check out my large intestine before they operate on it. I wouldn't want something going up there, but I'll consent because it is necessary to get the operation. Who really cares who requires it? We all would agree it is very appropriate and quite necessary. Calling procedures like these rape is a ridiculous mischaracterization, and simply untrue.
If you persist in your irrational resistance, let me ask you this: would you rather all women getting abortions get sonograms or none of them get sonograms? Planned Parenthood has already answered this question and made their answer policy.
Still want to argue it? Turns out sonograms are required for an abortion per Planned Parenthood policy and consent is required for the sonogram as well as the abortion according to Adrienne Schreiber (a Planned Parenthood official). If the Texas sonogram law is state sponsored rape (which it clearly is not), apparently Planned Parenthood also sponsors rape.
"If consent is given, it is not rape"
It is if it under duress. Of course.
You're just deperate to feel justified in complicity in a heinous act. You don't just sadly recognize it as a law. You salute it. You salute legislated rape of pregnant women in America. Unbelievable.
It's entirely possible to be against abortion without being FOR rape.
Shame on you.
"No human being, man or woman has the right to decide if a child lives or dies"
The mother does, as long as the life of that child is dependent upon the cooperation of her body. And, it;s horrible when a child is aborted. And, it is a matter that must remain between the mother, the family, and God.
And, it makes me personally sick. But it's not about me or what I think, or you and what you think, or ANY government.
It's personal; it's a sacred function, spiritual experience, and decision. It must be left to God and the mother.
WE HAVE NO PLACE IN THIS,
The INSTANT a child is viable outside the body of the woman, it has, in my view, the right to all the protections of a citizen. At that point – even if it means overriding the sovereignty of the body of the mother.
We cannot force people to give birth as long as
I agree the choice for them is a very difficult one, they just need to know that they are committing legalized murder, either being torn apart by a pair of tongs or being burned by chemicals. What happens on the day they face God is between them and God. I shudder to think of the Dr.s committing these murders. What kind of person does it take to use a pair of tongs to squeeze an infants head until it pops, so it can be easily pulled out of the womb?
I know – I totally agree. It's just sickening.....
But it is God's business to attend to – I have great trust in God.
Though I will say, the moment that infant is sustainable without another person's body, and can lay claim to the legal protections of any other citizen – all bets are off. At that point, there is no excuse for obstructing it's right to live, unlessit would mean harm to the mother.
Of course, that's just my opinion – and part of my objections to some posters is the fact that our opinions have no place in God's realtionship with his daughters in the bringing forth of life. So I guess my opinion, in the end, doesn't mean much. I do think it matters to express our opinions, though, and to listen to one another.
RevMum, You endorse a relativistic morality on abortion. You think that whatever the mother thinks is right is is what is right in that situation. All I am endorsing is the absolute morality we use to support our laws against murder and theft which are examples of legalized morality.
How is a mother's decision ever okay if she decides to have her child killed? You even say it is horrible and yet you are still okay with it because that child doesn't meet your criteria for being a human being. You say "the moment that infant is sustainable without another person's body, and can lay claim to the legal protections of any other citizen – all bets are off". You forget that an infant is still very dependent on other human beings. Its life is not sustainable when it has to be completely self-reliant. How can it even claim legal protections? It can't even talk! The infant's state of being doesn't change when it is born.
It is foundational to your views that somehow a child comes from something else that's okay to kill before it is born. You need to face the fact that it has been a human being the whole time and it is absolutely never okay.
You endorse a relativistic morality on abortion. –
Not al atll. I am very clear about MY morailty in this regard. I am also very clear that MY morality is not paramount and I have no right to shove my religious views down anyone else's throat. This is not the same thing as a crime against property or a crime against an individual. This is a unique and special area of human experience, and intensely private, as it should be.
You think that whatever the mother thinks is right is is what is right in that situation.
No – I think that a lot of mothers make HORRIBLE decisions. But those decisions are THEIRS TO MAKE. Not mine. Not yours. Not a government.
All I am endorsing is the absolute morality we use to support our laws against murder.
It is not murder in the minds of many, to abort unformed cells. Even people prosecuted for murder of another individual must have the element of intent. YOU don't get to say what someone else THINKS. YOU don't get to say, nor I, what WE think about those cells is more important than what they think about those cells.
They are cells in the body of another human being. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT to invade the body or direct the bodily functions of another human being, Peggy. Nor does any State that claims to be free.
You even say it is horrible and yet you are still okay with it because that child doesn't meet your criteria for being a human being.
FLAT WRONG. I DO NOT think it's OK, and I personally DO think it is a human being. I do not have the right to impose my views on another person;s life. and neither do YOU.
You say "the moment that infant is sustainable without another person's body, and can lay claim to the legal protections of any other citizen – all bets are off".
That is my opinion, yes.
You forget that an infant is still very dependent on other human beings.
I don;t forget that for a minute. Remember – I"M the one who has actually stepped up and taken them in to my home.
Its life is not sustainable when it has to be completely self-reliant. How can it even claim legal protections?
BECAUSE IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN. AN INDIVIDUAL. INDIVIDUAL. INDIVIDUAL.
It is foundational to your views that somehow a child comes from something else that's okay to kill before it is born.
Wrong. I don;t think you're actually listening, Peggy. You take in the things I say through the most peculiar filter of your own projections.
Absolutes are for GOD. Not you.
YOU ARE NOT GOD. THE STATE IS NOT GOD. THERE ARE SOME PLACES OTHER PEOPLE AND THE STATE MAY NOT TREAD. The womb and the conscience, for instance. This violates both.
RevMum, It is clear that you tread a very difficult and contradictory path. Absolutes are only for God and it is not our place to say that the choices others make are right or wrong even if we think they are horrible. We must not violate other people's conscience even if they do something terrible. If that's not moral relativity, I don't know what is. There's no way justice can be enforced under moral relativity. And yet somehow moral absolutes kick in once the child is born; only then does it become something that has individuality where moral absolutes can be applied. I really wish I could reason with you but it doesn't look like that's possible.
You see only one thing, only one element, only your view. Being able to perceive intertwined moral issues takes a depth of thought and perhaps a spiritual element of trust in God that may not be something you are able to access. That is not the same thing as moral relativity, my dear.
It's very comfortable to think in black and white, I do understand. That way you always know where you are, and where everybody else ought to be. Follow these rules (whatever they may be) and and you're in charge of your outcomes: say Hail Marys, get baptised only by immersion or only by sprinkling, understand scripture exactly like this or that pastor tells you, and – presto, you're righteous and you know exactly how everyone ought to operate, too.
It gives us the illusion that we are somehow in control instead of God, which is the thing we really want which leads us all astray. (Control is the ultimate deception, by the way – and in my view, the true root of all sin, right back to that apple.) It's very comfortable. I don't fault it – everyone has to find their own way, and I trust the God who made us to do with us what he will, when our way has had it's walk.
But here's the thing: When your need for that sense of black and white and control invades the lives of others, it's sin, too.
Here you are, understandably upset at the thought of abortion (it upsets me, too – as evidenced by our willingness to actually DO something for children not our own), which you are defining as sin for others who do not see it that way.
Here you are, accusing others of moral relativity.
Here you are, pointing out your own righteousness and that of these fundamentalist Texas legislators for making law that uses rape to discourage abortion. Being fine with that, defending it.
Feeling so superior and justifed and lecturing others who do not hold your views (how very pharisitical, by the way – has that not occurred to you?)
Expressing not a particle of compassion for mothers who must choose their own life over a fetus – except to say, "I'd acutally be OK with that". (Very big of you.)
Expressing not a particle of understanding for victims of rape or incest – just saying well, that's a very small percentage.
I would encourage you to reflect upon your own sins with the same vigor with which you are castigating others for theirs. If I recall, Jesus has a thing or two to say about that, you might want to look them up.
In the meantime, since you do not have the power to abolish abortion, why don't you do something consistent with your stated concern for infants? Why don't you volunteer at a crisis center? Why don't you volunteer to cuddle crack babies in the hospital (the nurses do not have the time these little ones need, just to be held. You cannot IMAGINE their suffering. It is, literally, TORTURE. Infants, tortured. They are right in your town or the closest city, I guarantee you. Try holding them. They need it so desperately. I suspect YOU need to try it, too.) Or, why don;t you do what we've done – we, who treasure life just as much as you do – and actually take an unwanted child into your home?
If we take the easy way out and trust in God in every instance of injustice, the world would be a horrible place. We would deny justice for our children and let crime go unpunished. We would forsake God's first command to mankind: "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Gen 1:28). You know that God commands us to have dominion over the earth. It is no illusion; He grants us the ability to rule over the affairs of the world.
Does that mean we always rule rightly? Of course not! We all know that we make mistakes (what we both call sin). I don't pretend to be sinless or to be somehow superior because I adopt children or care for the suffering. However, when is "invading the lives of others" sin and when is it upholding justice? Aren't you lecturing me by saying it is one thing when you interfere with abortion but quite another thing when we punish a murderer or a thief by locking them up? To follow this line of reasoning, we wouldn't be able to "invade" anyone's life to uphold justice. We'd all have to sit back and leave it up to God. How is that anyway to rule?
There is a difference between ruling temporally and invading the consciences and bodies of other people.
There is a clear difference between law and order in the world, and inserting yourself into the intimate and sacred functions of human beings.
If you cannot understand these distinctions, I don't know what to say, really.
If you wish to argue laws and justice, you may wish to reflect upon the appalling notion of using mandated rape as a means to the end of reducing abortions.
Again, you project the most bizarre asumptions into what I say. I never said we leave ALL matters of law and justice up to God. I have said repeatedly that this particular human experience lies in a special realm unlike any other of our experiences, for the very short period of time between conception and sustainability as an individual human life – in which there is no proper place for anyone but the woman, her family and God.
How dare you group abortion among "the intimate and sacred functions of human beings". Interfering with a pregnancy (i.e. abortion) interferes with the intimate and sacred function of the mother. This is the distinction you miss. It has caused you to end up on the wrong side of your argument and of the issue of abortion. The most important "intimate and sacred functions of human beings" has to be living, and yet this is something you deny to the child in the womb. All I'm saying is that "this particular human experience [i.e. living] lies in a special realm unlike any other of our experiences" that is even beyond the mother; it is no one's proper place to intervene except God's.
I know you don't know what else to say, so why not make another emotional appeal about how a sonogram is state sponsored rape? It is an fallacious claim you use to throw mud at those you disagree with. Should we just stand around and throw mud at each other?
Honest, Peggy it's not mud. It is the legal definition of the act. Look at the DOJ website for the definition of rape.
And for yourself, it's really just better to be honest. You said in a previous post yourself that, if it prevented an abortion, so what? Just say what it is – don't be part of this ridiculous lying that the Republican chairwoman was selling in the article that started this. If you can say it should be done to someone – you should be able to name it for what it is. Rape, Peggy.
And I implore you to stop this misinterpretation of what I say – could it be that you are not reading it carefully?
Who in the world would regard abortion as a sacred function????!!!! Certainly not I – one would have thought that was plain by now. It is the BRINGING FORTH OF CHILDREN that is the sacred function, for heaven's sake.
" Interfering with a pregnancy (i.e. abortion) interferes with the intimate and sacred function of the mother. " I agree with that. The mother gets to do this, because it is her body and she is accountable to God, not to us. WE do not get to interfere with anyone's pegnancy. (Are you a mother, by the way? I have not asked.)
Ha! Just who is misrepresenting what other people say RevMum or when they even said it? You say it was the "ridiculous lying that the Republican chairwoman was selling in the article that started this". Let's look at the timeline:
March 12-17: each day Garry Trudeau released a panel about the Texas Sonogram Law
March 13: Carole Simpson praises Garry Trudeau's work in an opinion article on CNN's website
March 15: Melinda Fredrick's opposing view to Carole Simpson's article is put CNN's website to defend the law against what she calls "some ugly mischaracterizations" and "misinformation" that's "just plain nasty"
If a sonogram is rape, does that make an x-ray intentional radiation poisoning? There are just so many problems with calling a sonogram (something that is just good medical practice) rape that it is so easy to defend against the claim. However I guess you have to do what you have to do avoid the fact that you support abortion which interferes with the most important "intimate and sacred functions of human beings" which is living. "This particular human experience [i.e. living] lies in a special realm unlike any other of our experiences" because IT IS WHY WE EVEN HAVE EXPERIENCES. All I am doing is very successfully using your own words against you because mothers shouldn't be able to take away their own child's life. I am telling you that we all (yes, even the mother and most certainly the murder she allows into her womb) need to leave those children alone and stop supporting something that allows them to be killed. If abortion isn't even a sacred function, why allow it it interfere with sacred functions (i.e. pregnancy and life)?
I'm not trying to totally outlaw abortion. I understand that in very rare cases, it might be the right thing to do. I don't see how that makes me uncompassionate. It certainly doesn't mean it every woman should be able to get one.
Did you notice something about what you just said, Peggy?
Did you notice what you just said, Peggy? You said:
"I don't see how that makes me uncompassionate."
There is not a particle of campassion in that statement, even on the topic of compassion.
To finish that thought: it is absolutely never okay to have it killed.
To finishthat thought – no, it's never OK.
But it is their choice as long as it is their body, and a fetus is unsustainable without it. Leave them to God.
As a woman, I have thought about this many times before. Why is it, if a man punches a woman in the stomach, and terminates the pregnancy, that's murder. But if a woman sees a doctor and has the pregnancy terminated, that's "freedom"? The fact of the matter is we all know what causes pregnancy, and to throw the rape card out there as an excuse to cheer on abortion, know the facts. According to the CDC 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest, 47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion; 75% of women who have an abortion say that having a baby would interfere with work/ school. The fight for the right to kill your unborn child is not about women's rights....its about the money this industry makes off of you when you do it.
I don't know ANYONE who cheers on abortion.
And the reason rape is brought up is because there are a bunch of pandering idiots who are running for president at present, out there saying "no exceptions" to abortion. They would leave an 11 year-old to bear a child of incest.
The mother's life is just as valuable as a fetus, and has the human right to choose to keep breathing.
Extremists are not only viscious, they are dangerous. And they misdirect the course of this debate.
Satan loves Republicans.
Do you think God loves them? Why or why not?
Oh, OF COURSE!!!
God loves us all...and it is not contingent upon how right or wrong our opinions may be. Thank goodness.
He's funding their superpacs while we speak.
Being the Great Deceiver, tho, he puts the words 'American' and 'freedom' in the names.
Does anyone who actually knows Jesus and seeks to follow his teaching think Christ would be standing with the billionaires? Really?
Hahaha, this is just ridiculous. Satan is funding the republicans so that he can use them to end abortion? Abortion is the thing you are worried about Satan stopping? Is this the theory you are proposing? The thought that Satan would be against the slaughter of innocent children is crazy.
And now republicans couldn't possibly be Christians because we are all somehow guilty of the sin of associating with rich people who are somehow evil? Do you forget that Jesus associated with sinners and the wealthy elite in Israel? If you think that means he was a sinner and guilty of doing whatever you think makes republicans not Christians, then I am starting to wonder if you really are a Christian..
To all that think that life begins at conception.. you have your right to believe that. I can respect that. Why is it not expected that I may think different? I have never been in the situation where I would have to decide.. but if put in that situation.. knowing my thinking.. my situation in life ect.. would that not BE FOR ME to decide what I do and NOT FOR YOU do decide what I do? And if I were to decide .. through careful consideration.. why would I be forced to endure the hoops that are mandated I have to jump through to get to the end result?
As for the example given about a bear in the woods.. or a man. Would I shoot? I dont know.. have not been in the situation. About the man abusing the woman carrying a wanted child.. it would be murder. Why? Because the woman decided to keep the child. The fetus is only alive because the woman DECIDED it. The fetus cannot live outside without the woman. When it becomes viable outside.. then that is when it becomes a living human being.
When was it decided that someone.. who does not know me.. why I may seek the procedure.. how I think ect.. decides not only that I am forced against my will to be vilolated.. but must pay to be treated that way?
Or let me put this another way. Should it not be for me to decided what I think .. and not for you to decide what I think?
I think that this law is a violation.. its simple as that.
You are right on target.
@Superlove You don't sound very sure of yourself. You tried to dodge the question about the bear, but you did answer it. You are saying that because you think it is a bear that everyone can decide to shoot it if they choose to. If they kill another human being, are you just going to say, "Well, that person was only alive because of your decision and that's what was important."
What I find interesting about women with unplanned pregnancies who we are giving a gun and saying, "Here, figure out if you think it is a human or a bear" is that they want so badly to think it is a bear that is going to ruin their lives. They don't want to see any evidence that it is human because they are going to shoot and they don't want to feel guilty about killing what they know WILL become a human being. What's even worse is when physicians deny to let women see their own sonograms because the physicians know it might keep them from getting the abortion. That's the main reason why the legislation was past by the men and women, democrats and republicans that we Texans voted to represent us.
If you are from another state, who are you to tell us that the decision our elected representatives made was wrong? Because we want to make sure the women in our state aren't kept uninformed when they are deciding if they want an abortion or not? Everyone that is outraged by this legislation in our state and wants to call it rape is just being ridiculous.
"What's even worse is when physicians deny to let women see their own sonograms "
If that were the reason = if access to information from sonos were the issue – the law would have simply addressed the physician responsibility to provide any sonos ever taken for any reason, to patients.
But that is not the reason. And we both know it. You even say it.
This is not about babies.
@RevMum What is the core issue? Is it that these sonograms influence women's decisions to have abortions? And yet women can waive their right to be influenced by them. Physicians that didn't even want their patient to see the sonogram results still performed the sonogram procedure. Why would they have done the sonogram if their wasn't a good medical reason to do so? And yet you stand around and yell "RAPE!" at the top of your lungs. If it influences them to not have abortions, why is that a bad thing? Just what is it you are so against?
And why is it that you suddenly don't care about the sacred little ones? Is it because you are okay with them being sucked out of existence? Why is it that you think I am against abortion? If it didn't involve anyone besides the woman, she can do whatever she wants to her self. It is her life. They are her choices to make." However, when it involves another human being, or at least life that will become human, they better be informed and they better have a damn good reason that doesn't involve selfishness for ending what will become their own child's life.
I hope we have put to rest the notion that of the two of us, it is not I who fails to cherish babies.
And, I never said I was OK with their being sucked out of existence. I am not.
BUT IT IS NOT ABOUT ME AND WHAT I THINK, It;s about another person, and what THEY think – about their own body, their own soul, and their own life.
Let me explain what I am saying.. again. Or better still.. let me give an example .. like you have. The difference is that I am not mandating you to jump through hoops because of your decision.
Lets say you are old enough to have grandchildren.. and on the busiest night of the year.. you decide to visit them. Your decision to go.. and no one has the right to stop you... even though there is a lot of drunk drivers around.
Days before you leave your home.. you watch a show about deciding to DNR if incapacitated to decide for yourself. You think you do not wish to be kept alive through machines.. or even liking the idea of needles in your arms. You decide to put the DNR stipulation into your will. Things get busy.. but you do add the codicil to your will and in passing let your husband know what you think. He may or may not hear you. Fast forward to the busy night. A drunk driver passes the median and hits your car head on. Before I go on.. I would not wish that on anyone. A horrible wreckage ensues and you are rushed to the hospital.. unable to respond. You are hooked up to a lot of machines.
Now.. months before.. myself and a whole bunch of other people mandate a law that says you must 'be.. as you decided.. humiliated ' before you can be taken off life support. You have absolutely no say in the matter.. even if it stipulates DNR in your will. We do not know you.. or how you got to the position you are in. We just decided that we do not belive that to DNR should be easy.. as it is 'taking a life'. Its your body.. and your life.. and you decided that you do not wish to have machines. Yet myself and others are arguing that you do not have a right to decide what happens.
A woman just does not decide the next day that she will have the procedure. It is carefully thought out .. with due dilligence and compassion put into her final decision. What this law does is say that 'she dont know' and that whatever she thought was wrong.. and that lawmakers are right. The law says she MUST have the invasive procedure.. regardless on what she thinks. Is that not you making her mind up for her? If not.. what is it then?
@superlove I see you missed my point about there being very good medical reasons for having a sonogram before an abortion. It is just something that is done like getting an x-ray for a broken bone. You are going to get one. I don't know why you would want to go against a strongly recommended medical practice.
As for your long story, I'm struggling to find the point. All I see is an emotional appeal with something to do about humiliation. Was the human/bear analogy a little too well-reasoned for your liking? I'm guessing you don't like the thought that you are okay with passing out guns and telling people that it's okay to pull the trigger on a human being's life that just so happens to currently be a fetus.
FYI fetus comes from the Latin word fetus or foetus which means: bringing forth, brood, offspring, young ones. Whoever came up with the term thought it was human.
Thank you for asking what the core issues are. It's a good question, deserving of a thoughful response, since you have put so much into this discussion.
There are various responses and reasons to differ with you, on four different levels:
1) Response arising from American Principles
2) Response as a thinking citizen
3) Response as a human being
4) Most importantly of all – the response as a person of faith
I'll post them individually by category.
As an American:
1. The most inviolable right of an American citizen is to sovereignty of their own conscience.
To eliminate the choice to bear or abort removes the possibility of conscience coming into play in the decision. If there is no alternative, there is no act of conscience involved in this central experience of living.
Further, in the event of a choice which must be made between a fetus and a mother, it would violate the deepest tenets of many faiths to choose suicide – just as it would violate the deepest tenets of some faiths to choose abortion. These choices of conscience must not be made by a government, nor by any others. To invade or mandate an act of conscience is profoundly un-American.
2. The second most fundamental right of an American citizen is to sovereignty of their own body.
3. There sometimes arise tragic conflicts of life vs. life. I think in the event the choice of life is between a woman and a zygote, embryo, or fetus – the life and choice of the woman must be transcendent, for she is often mother, wife and daughter to others who depend up on her. But in any event, that is just my opinion – not my choice to make for her. The choice belongs to HER and her family circle. It does not belong to me, or to you, or to any government.
4. I think that every born person has the basic right to choose to continue to breathe.
This requires the ability to reason and to choose. Only one of the two lives involved is capable of this. Further, some women have a responsibility to others who love and depend upon her, to make the choice to continue to live.
5. Many of the comments related to the punishment for, and obstruction and elimination of access to abortion and family planning and the related objectives being discussed, eliminate possibility of the first four items above.
6. A government large and intrusive enough to police pregnancies and enforce childbirth if women become pregnant – is a government large and intrusive enough to police pregnancies and enforce abortion or limitations of families, too. (See: China) This is not an area which is a fit subject for government interference.
I just found this great quote from Dr. Francis Beckwith: "From a strictly scientific point of view, there is no doubt that the development of an individual human life begins at conception. Consequently, it is vital that the reader understand that she did not come from a zygote, she once was a zygote; she did not come from an embryo, she once was an embryo; she did not come from a fetus, she once was a fetus; she did not come from an adolescent, she once was an adolescent."
I do believe that you have your right to say what you do. You also have the right to quote anyone you wish.. whether I agree with you or not. What I am saying.. as a reasonable adult that has the ability to know who I am and how I think.. I also have the right to decide. I have a child.. I do understand the need for a songram when my husband and I decided to plan for my girl.. and when I got pregnant. I understand that visiting the obgyn is very important (which not all mothers can afford). I also understand being in the hospital for three weeks and then having to be induced because both of us could be lost. I understand what it is like to have a child 2 months early.. and then heart surgery before she turned one month. I do understand. What I am also saying is that it was my choice. I cannot and will not ask ANYONE to make the same decisions that I made. That was based on what I know about myself.. not what anyone else think they know about me. I also think that if I were to get pregnant again.. based on what I know about myself and my age ( I am 45).. that would be a decision I would have to make. My husband thinks that it does come down to I know what is best for me. Why should someone whom does not know me.. have the right to mandate a procedure which would make me feel violated? All because they do not think I know enough? I know enough for me. Any woman knows enough to make any decision for herself.
Thank you to all.. especially you Peggy for the interesting conversation. Can we agree that we disagree? You may not think it not a violation for you.. I think it is a violation for me.
Very well expressed, that there at the end. Blessed are the peacemakers. :)
RESPONSE AS A THINKING CITIZEN:
1. The bureaucracy and law enforcement resources required to police pregnancy in the United States of America staggers the imagination. Many pregnancies fail to end in childbirth. To monitor the outcomes of pregnancy in this country would turn America into a place none of us would recognize.
2. The character of America as a free nation would suffer incalculable damage were it to become a place where pregnancies are policed. The invasion of the American family alone is horrifying.
3. Abortions in America would not cease – they would just become more life endangering to the women who seek them illegally. If we value Life as a country, we must value ALL life if we are not a nation of hypocrites – even the lives of women seeking abortion. Abortion has been going on since the time of the Pharoahs. It will not stop because the State makes it difficult or illegal to obtain one safely.
4. Government officials must not deceive the public so that they can impose regulations consistant with their personal views. This would apply whether or not the official is lib or con.
It is deceitful to pretend this Texas law, for instance, is about information. Information could be imparted by offering a person seeking an abortion a gestationally correct video – it does not require inserting an object into her body and making her pay for the privilege of being raped by the state.
It is deceitful to state that this is about doctors refusing to allow patients to see their sonograms. A law insuring that that any sonograms performed on a patient must be offered to the patient for viewing would take care of that. But we all know it is not about that – and I resent being lied to by politicians, their supporters, or their hacks.
5. These laws and others being proposed are designed to deter, manipulate, humiliate, punish and obstruct the choice to seek a legal medical procedure. We all know it. Many even say it out of one side of their mouth while declaring it to be about proper medical care out of the other.
This is in furtherance of the larger objective of creating a social construct for America which is consistent with fundamentalist Christianity and Roman Catholicism – or, Roman Catholicism as defined by the celibate prelates who rule the RC Church, anyway. I am a devoted Christian, but not a fundamentalist Christian, nor a Roman Catholic. This country has many other sincere and authentic expressions of faith in God, and practices which support their beliefs. The country has people of no belief at all, for Americans are not required to observe a religion as a requirement of citizenship.
It is counter to the best interests of America – and the clear directives of the Founders – to impose upon our society a framework of law which is designed to the specifications of one perspective on faith.
RevMum, What you have decided to completely ignore in your points is that you have decided that it is okay to brutally dehumanize the innocent human being that is developing in the womb. You are okay with leaving it up to the woman to kill her developing child and we shouldn't do anything to obstruct that. It is like me saying that it is okay to steal from other people and that obstructions to theft (i.e. safes and locks) should be done away with. Abortion is even worse than stealing because instead of just taking something that belongs to someone else, it involves taking the life of someone else.
Look I understand that there or sometimes tragic conflicts of life. They are very rare, but some situations are lose-lose (i.e. death of mother and child), and the best we can do is a win-lose (i.e. save the mother and kill the child). I am actually okay with that. What I am not okay with is turning a situation that could be win-win (i.e. mother and child are fine, child is adopted, etc.) into a win-lose (i.e. just kill the child). I don't think we should completely eliminate abortions (something that is totally impossible anyway). I just think they should be restricted to certain situations so that they are very rare.
I don't really know why you bring up all the policing pregnancies stuff. Well, I do actually: you are trying to make something out of nothing. We can't monitor the outcomes of every pregnancy like you imply just like we can't monitor everyone's actions to make sure they don't steal. And yet healthcare providers already monitor pregnancies and abortions in this country. All we really need to do to make abortion rare is tell the healthcare providers that they should only perform abortions in these rare cases. It is not even necessary to punish the women that seek abortion for no good reason; just those individuals that perform the abortions.
I have tried to comment on your issue with legislating morality, but CNN won't let me for some reason.
Here we go: Morality is what we use to make our laws. We have all kinds of restrictions that tell us what we can and cannot do based on agreed upon morality. If the morals that are used are Christian, it might be because there are so many Christians in Texas and in America in general.
In all fairness, I think it would be more accurate to say that there are a lot of fundamentalist Christians in Texas; this expression of Christianity has typically been more willing to impose it's viewpoints on morality and social codes upon others than other Christians, and Americans in general.
I'd like to see some information with statistics in the following areas:
1.) What is the actual percentage of women and girls who are seeking an abortion products of rape or incest?
2.) How many of women and girls seeking an abortion have considered putting their children up for an adoption?
I was adopted as an infant. My birth mother was unable to care for me, and I have no idea what her reasoning was. But my biological mother did not have to face dumping me at a fire station or on our local "GOP's dorrstep" as some other commentors have suggested. There are so many families who want a child and cannot conceive. No tax payer is currently paying for me to be on welfare or food stamps. I have a college education and a job with benefits. Why? Because I was adopted by a wonderful family who raised me well and taught me the value of life.
I don't think the solution is taking away women's rights or choices...but perhaps women need MORE information and choice. MORE help and support. These "problems" could easily become a blessing to another family who want nothing more to become parents.
The point is – why is it your business? Why is it the business of government?
The bringing forth of children is sacred, and belongs only between God and God's daughters, to whom this is entrusted.
As a persons of faith, we profane the sacred, and invade the realm of God to interfere in His relatiohships.
As American citizens committed to freedom, we have no business invading the wombs and the intimate lives and family decisions of our compatriots.
@RevMum When a little kid is running with scissors should it not be my business to stop them and take the scissors away? No! I should protect them from doing something devastating to themselves or others. You say childbirth is sacred, and yet you argue like the life being aborted is not. I agree that we have no business invading the wombs of these women so why do we keep going up there to take a life? Why should we play God in the realm of the womb?
It's my view that life is entirely sacred, and a gift of God. But it's not your gift, nor mine, to receive or reject.
Your point about a little child running around with scissors is well taken, and I do agree that we are our brother's keeper – which we do rather badly, by the way. One in four children go to bed hungry in our country, right now. In America.
In any event, the bringing forth of children is unique as a human and spiritual experience, in my belief. God has entrusted this sacred experience to his daughters. While that life is held within and dependent upon the body of the mother, it is in a special realm which exists no where else. The rules of a society which apply to individuals born and breathing on their own do not apply to a life within and dependent for life upon the body of another. A fetus is not a child running around with scissors, nor a tax deduction, nor a statistic on a census.
The choice involved – and which should be sacrosanct – is not just about whether or not to physically bear or abort. It's about the acceptance of a commitment and a gift conferred by God. To interfere in that decision is not just a physical matter and a violation of the soverignty of someone else's body – it's a matter of overriding the conscience of another person, and violating the right to a deeply important and personal spiritual response.
Let me get this straight.. God entrusts the sacred experience of childbearing to his daughters and they have the sacred choice to kill or not to kill the sacred life inside them? If you decide to abort, isn't that like being entrusted with the Olympic torch and then deciding that you should put it out? I mean just what is the most sacred thing here? The choice to kill life inside you or the life inside you? Why wouldn't you choose the later?
I would. You would.
WE DON'T GET TO SAY FOR ANYONE ELSE.
Peggy, in your scissors analogy above are you implying that women are children and require the government to make their decisions for them? You assert that a woman can't be trusted to decide whether to bring a child into the world yet you seem to have no problem trusting that same woman with the welfare of that child. Is your only concern that a child pops out of the womb or do you care at all about the child once it's born?
We as Americans are not doing a good enough job of keeping abortion rare (something Democrats also say that they want), and yet when legislation is past that helps women with unplanned pregnancies realize that there is life inside them, a lot of people are outraged. I am not really sure why. Are they afraid that these women aren't really as cold as the woman in the “Doonesbury” strip? Do they just like to see little ones in development smudged out of existence just because their mother doesn't want to live with the consequences of getting pregnant? I salute your birth mother for making a good decision in the midst of a bad situation.
Please...stop pretending this is about saving babies.
If it were about saving babies, there are hundred of thousands of starving, abused, neglrected and abandoned babies desperate for you to care about them, right now, born and breathing. We do not need to go digging into the wombs of others looking for embryos to save.
The very people who are most outrages by abortion are often the very ones with the least interest in these little ones, fove minutes after they are born.
Because this is NOT about the babies. It's about the social code.
Whoa! We shouldn't be worried about saving life? Didn't you say life was sacred? I don't want to go digging into anyone's womb, and I don't think it is right for anyone else to dig in there to get rid of what will become a beautiful thing. How could you say that, "the very people who are most outrages by abortion are often the very ones with the least interest in these little ones"? The people that are the most outraged by abortion are the one's that decide to adopt and raise these little ones. Who do you think decided to adopt Angie? Why don't you tell Angie that her life was worth aborting because she might end up starving, abused, neglected, and abandoned?
I thank God for her life and the life of all other litttle ones. I trust God with the lives and souls of those with different outcomes.
I did not say that because an infant MIGHT be starved, abused or neglested it should be aborted, as your comment implied. I said there are thousands upon thousands of them, and it would be my guess that ao more then 1% of people raging against abortion actually would take in the child of another into their home.
We have taken in 4. How many have you taken into your family?
If you want to save a baby – which I honestly do not think is your motivation, or that is what folks such as yourself would be doing instead of blogging in favor of rape as a deterrent to abortion – there are lots of them, breathing on their own, who need you.
It has been found that 1 percent were a victim of rape and less than a half percent became pregnant as a result of incest.
That makes it your business?
I was just answering Angie's first question.
You cite statistics, but how reliable are they? How many women become pregnant through date rape and think it's their fault they were raped (so they don't report it)? How many women become pregnant through incest, but are too ashamed to report it? I know (as an abuse survivor, who, thank God, was able to escape before I got pregnant), I wouldn't have had the courage to report my abuser. There would have been fingers pointed (by this same self-righteous society) that I should have left years ago, should have reported it, should have done something to prevent it, all the while making judgments and not knowing all the facts. We should stop judging these women who are faced with a very personal and very painful decision. The women I know who had abortions were very traumatized by the experience, and suffered emotional scarring for a long time. It's not an easy thing to do, and most women don't use multiple abortions as birth control (which is something a lot of people think is happening).
It is more important to punish an offender than it is to be merciful and respectful of the victimized.
This is not about saving babies. It is about enforing a social code.
That is not the point.
And if the point were about saving babies, you would have answered the question as to how children YOU have taken in to your family.
You may recall, we have taken in 4.
So far, of the two of us, it would appear that the one who actually cares about babies – and is thus in a better position to hold forth on the subject of saving babies – would be...
Well, me. How uncomfortable it is to point that out – but apparantly necessary.
This is how you've decided you're going to win this discussion? You don't know anything about me or my life, and you want to say that "I've probably adopted more kids than you therefore abortion is okay"? If you don't win, are we going to have to arm wrestle after this?
I couldn't find statistics on how many women seeking an abortion considered adoption. I am sure they all probably consider adoption, but places like Planned Parenthood often tout that abortion is a lot safer than giving birth and I can't argue with that. However, when looking at women's reasons for aborting from that study above, most had the abortion because of issues adoption would also solve.
"What you have decided to completely ignore in your points is that you have decided that it is okay to brutally dehumanize the innocent human being that is developing in the womb. You are okay with leaving it up to the woman to kill her developing child and we shouldn't do anything to obstruct that. It is like me saying that it is okay to steal from other people and that obstructions to theft (i.e. safes and locks) should be done away with."
A fetus is not a "thing". It is not an object to lock up. It is not YOURS to lock up or leave.
The decision to have an abortion or not DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU. It belongs to the woman. And it is about more than the baby, or abortion, or adoption – it is about the decision to reject or receive a child. It is about the decision to bring a life into this wrold, or not. It is a decision about how to respond to God and to your life.
None of those decisions may be made by you. Or public opinion. And certainly, it must not be made by any government.
YOU must not play God with the lives of others – be legislation or by any other means. It is obscene.
No human being, man or woman has the right to decide if a child lives or dies. I have seen abortions performed on sonogram, and I can tell you that I saw the infant is in the womb flailing its arms and legs and trying to move away from the metal instruments, and that infant fought for his or her life right up until he or she was murdered.
I do NOT support abortions.
I support sovereignty of conscience and of individual bodies, and I trust the souls of mother and fetus to the Lord.
I see you are having a hard time with my analogy. The act of theft would be the abortion and the lock would represent obstructions to abortions in this analogy. To be clear, I am now suspending the analogy.
Anyway, so you say a child that's been born belongs to to the mother, but isn't it no longer her right to kill her infant? And yet you say it is the mother's decision to reject or receive a child. Why doesn't that mean she has the right to kill her infant? If you don't think it is right, why impose this decision you've made on everyone else? What you are really saying is that it is okay when it is in the womb but not okay when it has been born. You think that somehow a child comes from something else that's okay to kill before it is born when it has been a human being the whole time!
When people engage in intercourse, that is when they have decided that they are okay with receiving a child. If they aren't ready to receive a child, than they better make sure they don't make one. If they do make one, there are consequences. If I screw up gambling and lose all my money, there are going to be consequences (i.e. being broke) that I will have to live with. If I screw up at work tomorrow, I might get fired. It is just how life works.
If that fetus was you. Your mother was considering terminating your life, wouldn't you want her to at least see you? Are we saying life begotten through certain means is intrinsically less valuable than life begotten through "traditional" means? Terminating a life is a big step, should not be done at all in my opinion, but even if the person eventually decides to abort the fetus, at least some waiting period is warranted. A convicted felon on death row gets more appeal than an innocent fetus who has done nothing wrong but whose life is about to be terminated at some abortion clinic somewhere. Should that fetus get some possible "wait time"?
"CERTAIN MEANS" ??? !!!!!!
The word is RAPE, not "certain means".
And yes, it is meaningfuly different than life by "traditional means".
There are life consequences for that infant, and the mother, and heaven knows how many other lives connected to a shattering experience. ONLY GOD AND THE MOTHER know the best outcomes for that little soul. We have no business interfering in anything this intimate. No one does.
Leave the bringing forth of life between mothers and God, where it belongs. It is not a fit subject for government. Nor our judgment.
Let's not act like most of people are getting abortions because of rape. It is just 1% of those that are getting abortions because of rape.
If only the mother knows best, shouldn't we make sure she is as informed as possible about what she is about to do? Should we stand by why some physicians deny to let them see their own sonograms before getting an abortion? That happened to some of the women that were getting abortions and they testified in support of the legislation the “Doonesbury” comic you seem to be against. We actually have to pass bills in Texas to make sure that these women get the information that they want and need because some physicians want to keep them as uninformed as possible.
I don't know if that speaks worse for Texas legislators, or Texas physicians.
And please, quit pretending this is about information. We all know that vast numbers of people do not go online and butt heads about information.
PS: If it were the case that you are merely trying to insure that doctors could not withold sonograms from patients, would it not instead be a law insuring that patients had the right to see a sonogram if one had been performed?
Please. Do you not see the absurdity of that statement?
If it were just about information, would it not be a simple matter making gestational videos consistent with the dating of the pregnancy available to a patient considering an abortion?
The reason it is manifestly about neither of the things you have cited is because the law written calls for the RAPE of a woman seeking an abortion – not in order to inform, but in order to humiliate, manipulate, and obstruct.
Men and Women, Democrats and Republicans all voted for this legislation. They all just want to make sure that women seeking abortion have the necessary information. Are you against that RevMum?
The question is deliberately scewed – no one is against information.
This isn't information – this is legislated rape. And I am most certainly against THAT.
An Abortion is a women's choice. Once she consents to the process, no further information regarding the women's vitals need to be given. If i don't want a tree on my property i will freely cut it down, if a women doesn't want a child, she can freely abort it.
LOVE IT!!!! SO TRUE
And here is the rebutall
I am a conservative woman, and this law is terrible.
NO one makes you have an abortion, and if you don't approve, don't get one.
How about the next time Republicans want to invade a country unprovoked, they must first visit that country, spend time with it's people, experience its culture and its children?
That's not invasive enough...they might actually enjoy that!
And they should have to live as the bottom 1% for a year and a day.
Seems a valid view point to me, meets the definition of rape, of course its a rape she has to consent to and I'm sure thats the GOP's argument. The options are limited, you can be raped by the government and get your abortion, or you can bite the bullet and have the unwanted baby, or I imagine people will go back to unofficial probably illegal places to have the procedure done, much like they used to when you used to hear about all the back room coat hangar abortions in the old days. Its a big step back but that seems to be the direction the GOP want to go. They want the 50's and "Happy Days back.
I incourage all women not to get abortions, instead have your unwanted child, and leave them on the doorstep of your loccal GOP leader. They want the kids, they can have the kids.
I encourage all women to be smart enough to not need to have an abortion. Only foolish women have unwanted pregnancies.
Great retribution, but may only create MORE radical conservatives... be careful what you ask for!
Yes, Peggy. The 9 year-old in Brazil who got raped by her step-father is to blame for getting pregnant. If she hadn't been so "foolish" she never would have been assaulted.
Pregnancy as a result of rape is very rare. It is only out done by the rarity of pregnancy as a result of incest. Forgive me for making a generalization, but I still stand behind the comment.
I'm European and live in Canada, sometimes reading what happens south of here (BTW I left the Us after seeing what 8 years of Bush did to the country) I wonder if I'm going back in time or reading about some place in central Africa.
you should wonder too, and some are , thank god!!!
This is nothing less than State sponsored rape. We are truly on our way to becoming 3rd world.
It is not rape. The sonogram is still necessary to have an abortion. Saying it is rape is just a fallacious emotional plea to keep women uninformed about what's about to happen to them.
You may want to check the text of Texas Penal Code Annotated, section 21.01.
@ Peggy Hill – Who are you to say that women are "uninformed about what is going to happen to them"? I'm sure that most women who choose abortion have thought long and hard about what is about to happen. For one who chooses to have an abortion, viewing a sonogram is NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY, thus should not be mandated by the state. If somebody sticks something in you against you will, it is rape. Simple as that.
Also, since when is abortion a "government benefit"? It is a LEGAL medical procedure. Get it right.
Abortion is legalized MURDER. It is unfortunately legal for someone to choose to have their unborn child murdered by an abortion doctor. Ironically though if a pregnant woman is murdered then it is considered a double homicide. The definition of homicide is when someone kills or murders another person.
MrsP, It is sad that you can't say that all women have thought hard about what will happen to them and their unborn child during an abortion. It is also sad that these uninformed women have going through with the abortion. I have heard these women's stories and they regret going through with the abortion.
The sonogram is medically necessary for the doctor as it should be and consent is necessary. The issue of a a sonogram being rape is a total non-issue as I have pointed out many times before. It doesn't even meet the very legal definition of rape, and it is as simple as that.
What I have a hard time understanding is why should the life that is being terminated go completely unseen by the very person deciding to end its life? We give the mother the choice to end her child's life, but that decision shouldn't be influenced by the very sight of that life? The only voice the unborn have is to be seen. Why deny them even that before they are terminated?
Also, I have never said that abortion is a government benefit just like I never said that taxes were a sonogram. I was just using it in an analogy to show how a sonogram was mischaracterized as rape. I could easily argue that taxpayer dollars help indirectly fund Planned Parenthood abortions, but that is not an argument I have made here.
All this becomes a problem....when you TAKE money from me ....to pay for the choices of the rest.
Who do you think is going to pay for the forced ultrasound?
Just like brest implants or dental implants, the insurance doent have to pay for them, but the procedure must be available.
Why wouldn't these women just go to another state for a abortion? That's what happened in the 70's when NY was pro-abortion and neighboring states not. These religious fanatics will take women back to the dark ages...unless every
woman takes a stand for her own rights!
Jackie, some of these people are just so broken and vulnerable – they have no resources, they are alone, often they are sick or desperate. They can't just hop in a car and drive elsewhere, with their other children in tow, or in thrall to some man who is beating them; they can't just leave their 2 minimum-wage jobs which just barely keep a roof over the heads of their family and which certainly have no health care coverage with which to manage a pregnancy. Most are an emotional wreck at the thought of having an abortion at all. I've seen women whose husband have beaten them because "they" got themselves pregnant.
It's just all-around horrible – for the women, for those in relationship to her, if any, and to the new life within. Just flat horrible.
That's why contraception which is reliably accessible and affordible is so very important.
in the case of optional pregnancy ,optional meaning no rape, no incest.( these are a different category) . ,I am for responsibility , if you cannot afford children , then get responsible .Unplanned Pregnancy isn't an accident, its an unexpected outcome. Don't make me pay for the poor judgement of others.
Here's the thing. You say don't make me pay for other peoples choices, but what happens if the woman decides to have that child, and now she is on welfare, and needs food stamps and housing, you end up paying for that mistake 3 fold and for a lifetime. I'd rather pay for someone who cannot afford to have a child, have an abortion, then pay out of my pocket for the rest of my life because she felt forced to keep the child that she didn't want int the first place.
That and any woman that goes to their OBGYN don't like the damn duck that they use just for a check up. That 10 inch wand is truly unnecessary and borderline rape. What happens if after all of that, the woman decides to have the child, but now she is emotionally scared from having gone through this... she might end up taking it out on her new child. Something should never be handed over for men to take care of. Its not men getting the abortion and dealing with the emotions or questions that come with it, its us.
We have to carry the baby and dealing with the ups and down from carrying a human being within us (God forbid there is a miscarriage) and its us that have to deal with the emotions that come with an abortion. Men only benefit from what we do or don't do.
"That 10 inch wand is truly unnecessary and borderline r a p e." I agree with everything you are saying Seline other than your use of the word "borderline". There is no borderline about this, it is, by the WTO definition, r a p e. Everyone who is supporting this law is conspiring to commit r a p e.
Who do you think is paying for all those welfare babies you don't want aborted.
It's frightening just how often arrogance and short sightedness go hand in hand.
You should check out the opposing view before you start calling people religious fanatics..
how do you know the opposing view has not been explored? that is quite arrogant!
I'm arrogant for assuming that someone who calls the members of Texas Legislature "religious fanatics" is misinformed? Shoot! It looks like Jackie even used their real name. What would you call them?
((% of people who say they are anti-abortion are thiests. This is the sad fact. The government cannot legaly create a law based on the wants of the thiests, it is against the 1st law in our land. THIESTS stay the F out of our business.
@Mickey Do you have any empirical evidence to back that claim up (I am assuming you meant 99%)? It seems to me that anyone who cares about the mental heath of women would be anti-abortion. "Women with an abortion history have an 81% increased risk of mental health problems and 155% increased risk of suicide." This is according to a meta-analysis of 22 studies of nearly 900,000 women.
You can find more information here: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/major_study_links_suicide_and_other_mental_health_problems_to_abortion.html#ixzz1pld169zv
I have to respond to your position about the mental health aspect of abortion, because it's based on a fallacy of logic. We can not say that women who have had an abortion are depressed or suicidal because of the abortion.
There are so many reasons why a woman feels that an abortion is a viable option, including being financially unstable and/or already emotionally unstable from abuse, poor living situations, personal tragedy, or an existing mental health issue like depression (yes, they have been depressed/ prone to depression before seeking an abortion).
I am pro-choice because I care about the mental health and well-being of the women and potential children. We should be concerned about the mental health of the child whose mother was forced to bear them, and how the very conditions that led a woman to consider abortion will affect the child's well-being.
@hazystone Are you saying science is a fallacy of logic? This meta-analysis is based on 22 scientific studies.
I'm guessing you must not be familiar with how a scientific study is done.. When you conduct a scientific study, you have to make sure that the comparison groups are very similar (age, income, marital status, education, ethnicity, etc.) except for a specific cause (abortion experience) and you look at the effects (mental heath) over a large population. A lot of the studies also found an increased risk for substance abuse among the women who aborted.
I'd say the women who had the baby were better off from a mental and general heath perspective. Not only were they significantly less likely to experience mental heath problems, but it turns out that a baby does a good job of keeping them off drugs too.
Funny you mention it, I actually am a scientist and understand research methods very well. I have years of lab experience in biology, neurobiology, and psychology. My main problem with this particular piece of "evidence" is that it blurs the line between correlation and causality. Long story short, read this. The author had to issue a correction to the study that did not show the same impressive results, due to methodology errors on her end: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_K._Coleman
Hey! Funny you mention it, I have years of lab experience in biology, neurobiology, and psychology too! Isn't it great how we can make claims about ourselves in anonymity and who knows if they are true? Look all you've proven is that you can search for stuff on Wikipedia which I am sure you know is open to anonymous and collaborative editing.
Anyway, so errors occur in scientific studies, huh? Should we be surprised when they are conducted by humans? Wikipedia also said that when the error was corrected the authors concluded that "fortunately, the overall pattern of the results has not changed very much".
Wikipedia also mentioned some criticism that was leveled at the authors. If you are as experienced in the field of biology as you claim, I am sure you are also aware of some criticism of evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5r5cRlctLM&feature=related). Do you think that we should stop teaching that as fact in our public schools because some criticism has pointed out serious flaws with it? (I don't mean to get off topic and start a discussion about evolution. I'm just using it as an example.)
"Only foolish women have unwanted pregnancies."
Only the very foolish – and dangerously judgmental – believe this to be uniformly true.
And, it will be less and less true the more and more contraception becomes less accessable and affordible, if the current crop of Republicans take over completely.
Besides Jackie Potashner? You don't think they are misinformed?
"calling a sonogram rape is nothing more than a ridiculous mischaracterization."
EXCEPT WHEN A GOVERNMENT MAKES IT A LAW THAT YOU MUST HAVE ONE, AND IT IS DONE UNDER DURESS OR AGAINST THE WILL OF THE WOMAN.
Why are you so utterly unable to acknowledge that objective fact?
It does not matter that it is good medical practice in general – it's no longer medical practice at all, if it is against the will of the patient and the doctor is doing it under command of a legislature, for goodness sakes.
It is then reduced to a political tactic, and a gobsmacking scandal. R-a-p-e, by a government. Our government. No thinking American can let that pass without comment.
RevMum, Let's try another analogy: The government forces me to pay taxes (the sonogram). If I don't, let's say I can't get government benefits (the abortion). How is saying that the government is stealing from me not a mischaracterization of the tax law? Does it not matter that the government needs a source of revenue so that it can continue to provide those benefits? With your line of reasoning, taxes would also be a "gobsmacking scandal". This is how you think for goodness sakes! It is absurd!
This is just gross thinking about it. I can't believe such laws are being passed. This is a form of intimidation and torture.
It's the modern day version of a lot of things we've seen forever. It's more antiseptic and vastly less brutal, but it is born of the same seeds as the Inquisition, witch burnings, and the Taliban.
There is no way the sonogram procedure in question is more invasive, painful, or emotionally devastating as the abortion itself.
.......... the difference being the woman in question gets to decide if she wants the abortion or not. Inserting a 10" foreign object into her is not her choice, it's forced rape + intimidation. Just like all the Egyptian women in the news recently who underwent a humiliating "virginity test".
Psychotic religious conservative nuts..... go back to the 1200's with your mindset... a woman should be able to opt out of this procedure.
-A man who still has his testicles, unlike the rest of you.
Why would the FDA approve a procedure you describe as rape? Don't Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation recommend the procedure? Women still have the choice to carry the baby to term or have it ripped out of them in a much more invasive procedure than this sonogram. Therefore, sonogram != rape.
Actually, you are wrong about that, there is almost no trama in am abortion, whereas, I challange you to shove a 10" wand up your bung and see if its a good time
@Mickey How could there be no trauma? An abortion requires a sonogram to examine the uterus plus dilators to stretch the cervix so they can stick a hose up there to suck the human life out of the woman.
Really – JACK?
ANd what makes you think this is only about a procedure?
You sound like a man of honor. Thnaks.
Andy, you sound like a man of honor. Thanks.
When I said "people like you" what I meant was people who hate killing the innocent. I know you said you were not a Republican. It's those sensitive people the GOP is targeting. You are smart enough to see through their smokescreen, but many others are not.
I should be able to kill as many fetuses as I d*mn well please
As soon as you've got one in your own uterus, PAUL.
Maybe your mother should have thought that way .
aimed at Paul
Since 1973 more than 40 million people have been killed by abortion.
Since 1973 there has more than 1 billion people added to the human population today.
And I am sure that justifies killing our future citizens. The rest of the world has growing population whereas in the States the white population is decreasing putting in risk our national security.
In the 60"s there was the idea of Zero Population Growth, you can only replace yourselves. Perhaps if there was a way
to actually make that concept work fairly, the Planet would have a chance of surviving.
OMG Cardinal...here is the crux of you posts here...and it is quite telling :
The rest of the world has growing population whereas in the States the white population is decreasing putting in risk our national security.
so having less white people in the US is a National securtiy issue...so if we have more Hispanics,Asians and Black people our country will be less secure??? oh what a bigot you are!
That's nearly 4% which is a lot higher than I thought it was..
They should stick one of those 10 inch cameras up the behinds of every white male republican that thinks he is talking to God when he looks in the mirror.
Nah, they'd just like it.....
I probably should not think that is funny. No, I know I should not think that is funny.
I am, however, finding it hilarious and am forwarding your remark to my husband, who shares your views.
A little confession is good for the soul.
Come back to earth Cardinal! More fetus's have been miscarried than have been aborted. Where do I get this information, you ask. From the same source you used!
Your god claims both omnipotense and omniscience. Up to 50% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. The vast majority before the woman even knows she is preggers. Tens of millions a year. Your god is directly responsible for each and every one of these.
Get him to knock it off – then we'll talk.
This isn't about God or women it's all about men . We are the ones in charge it's about doing the right thing for the sake of America. Abortion, gay marriage, appeasing our enemies, etc. is not a manly thing to do without morals we won't survive .
Sorry. Didn't realize you were a Poe trolling for ldiots.
Up to 100% of people who call themselves "Primewonk" are idiots.
OMG AGAIN!! "Cardinal says:
"This isn't about God or women it's all about men . We are the ones in charge"
what??? so dont have an abortion silly goose! Primework is right and all Peggy can do is insult the guy!! Peggy i would hope you would have something more intelligent and germain to the subject at hand!
OY VAY "Cardinal" is mysoginistic too!! good Tea part material!! Bigoted and Mysoginistic!!
Anyone who uses "up to X%" insults my intelligence. Plus their name is Primewonk. That just invites insult.
cardenal, so the truth comes out, you are just a worthless theiest.
@Mickey Ahh, I see now that you view all human life with disdain..
Fredericks is a former Junior High math teacher and a stay at home mom. I'm sure glad you folks in Texas have such highly qualified political wack-job nutters making medical decisions.
Let me guess, if the theoretical cosmologists at the University of Texas had an issue with superstring theory and Calabi-Yau manifolds, the person the republican nutters would have in charge would be the night janitor from the Baptist church?
I forgot to tell yo how great that post was. :)
RevMum,I see you also liked wonker's comment, although I liked it because of how easy it was to unravel his logic (see the comment between Primewonk's and your's if you missed it). I guess you also have a hard time with reason and can identify with a fellow mud slinger because you could only scream RAPE in response to my comment. Forsake reason and keep slinging mud RevMum! You'll find you are getting more of it on you than anyone else!
A. I didn't scream rape. I said it directly, clearly, and truthfully.
B. It is not mud if it is factually correct. See the legal definition of rape.
C. I have given you reasoned responses, numbered for clarity, and politely requested that you respond to the points
at issue. You do not. I have asked you direct questions, which you no not answer – in spite of the fact that I have
answered yours, exhaustively.
D. You deliberately make remarks which you must know not to be true, if you have actually read anything I have sent,
i.e., saying I support abortion when I have made it very clear that I do not – I explicitly and repeatedly have confined
my support to the right of others to choose something I do not personally consider acceptable myself. I also support
the right of the State of Texas to appoint political hacks like Ms. Fredericks to posts for which they manifestly do not
have qualifications – though that is something I would not consider personally acceptable, either.
And anyone with a shred of humor would surely have to acknowledge that a joke about theoretical cosmologists tussling with superstring theory and Calabi-Yau manifolds being referred to a night janitor is pretty funny, Peggy. It's better than your average Yo Mama joke, while speaking to the public and obvious hypocrisy of Gov. Perry.
A. I do believe you use capital letters when you spelled rape. That's the internet equivalent of yelling. I have presented so many reasons why a sonogram is not rape. Your claim is just as true as calling a whale is a fish even when I tell you why it is a mammal, and yet you persist calling it a fish.
B. The definition of the phrase "slinging mud" is to say unpleasant things about someone so that others will have a low option of them (thefreedictionary.com). You talk about the "hypocrisy of Gov. Perry", you tell me "don't be part of this ridiculous lying that the Republican chairwoman was selling", you say we in Texas appoint "political hacks like Ms. Fredericks" (it is Mrs. Fredricks by the way) and now you think wonkers post about how Fredricks is part of a group of "highly qualified political wack-job nutters" is great just because she was a mother and a teacher. You are slinging mud all over the place and only one you discredit is yourself.
C. The questions that you have asked me that I have not answered (i.e. "Are you a mother, by the way?" and "How many have you taken into your family?") are silly attempts by you to gain superiority in the discussion, and it would be silly for me to answer them. If we were men, you'd be asking me to whip it out so we could see who's is longer. I refuse to engage in that sort of thing.
D. I don't see how letting other people have abortions isn't supporting abortion. I don't suppose you have heard the paraphrasing of Edmund Burke's ideas: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." You have no problem with letting evil prevail.
What you see as humor is a distasteful attempt to show that "republican nutters" are idiots. See? I don't have to make feeble attempts to gain the superiority in this discussion. You disgrace yourself.
The response isn't sending. Perhaps I'll break it down and send it in pieces.
"I do believe you use capital letters when you spelled rape. That's the internet equivalent of yelling."
In that case, I apologize. There is much I don't know about internet protocols.
"I have presented so many reasons why a sonogram is not rape"
But none of them are valid. It is f – a – c – t. Please refer to the definition of rape on the DOJ website.
Any penetration of the body with an object, under duress or against the will of the victim, is: r – a – p – e.
It is not objectively arguable.
Further, I believe you know it is rape...as evidenced by your own comment:
"And yet you stand around and yell "RAPE!" at the top of your lungs. If it influences them to not have abortions, why is that a bad thing? "
"You talk about the "hypocrisy of Gov. Perry",
Yes. He is a public figure who has repeatedly and publicly been hypocritical. It is fair comment , not mudslinging, to observe this as fact given that he has demonstrated himself to be so.
"you tell me "don't be part of this ridiculous lying that the Republican chairwoman was selling",
That's not mudslinging Peggy. That's good advice.
"you say we in Texas appoint "political hacks like Ms. Fredericks"
This is simply a matter of public record, of which Mrs. Fredericks is a public example. She is, objectively and manifestly, unqualified to speak authoritatively on medical issues; she is a political appointee. (Hence, the accurate description of Mrs. Fredericks as a political hack.)
She exposes herself to comment by promoting herself as an official of the Texas Republican party and referring people to public sites which air her views.
To respond to her public self-promotion and to observe dishonest characterization of political policies on behalf of the man who appointed her to office is not mudslinging, Peggy. If that were the case, none of us could ever make any observation about any politician which was not confined to compliment and admiration, for goodness sakes.
The public can make honest observation of venality, mendacity, or incompetence on the part of politicians or political appointees, without qualifying as mudslingers. Citizens ARE allowed fair comment. (Or is that the next thing that you would outlaw, after you obliterate the privacy of the womb?)
RevMum, do you not get it? You want to say that the a whale looks like a hefty old fish even when I tell you that the underling functions of the whale (i.e. it breathes air, it is warm blooded, females produce milk to nurse their young, they give birth to a whale and not an egg) that allow it to survive make it a mammal. A sonogram is a good medical procedure to have before an abortion because it allows the doctor to make sure there won't be any problems during the abortion. That is its underling function. Your medical provider is going to have you get one because it needs to be done! You don't argue against these things. You just want to suspend reason and call it RAPE! "You can't argue it because a whale is a FISH! Just look at it! It has to be a FISH!" In the same way, calling a sonogram rape is nothing more than a ridiculous mischaracterization.
I am sure you think all republicans are hypocritical, lying, cheating . It is extremely easy for anyone to accuse any politician of any of these things and come up with reasons why you think it is justified. Your reasons why you think it was okay weren't even good! "I think he's hypocritical therefore he is, and I think she's a lier and you should just take it as good advice. Everyone is allowed to do it therefore it is okay." You've proven nothing! Would you just stop? There is no justification for mudslinging! I have defined it very clearly and it is very clear that you have engaged in it. Instead of respectfully disagreeing, you sling mud, and in doing so, you have only discredited everything you say.
And what's this? No defense against "What you see as humor is a distasteful attempt to show that "republican nutters" are idiots." You know that wonkers comment was an ugly thing to say about a whole group of people, and yet you said it was "great". I am glad you said it because it shows your true colors. See? The freedom of speech does not mean that we are not responsible for what we say. Don't try to take away my freedom to show how disgraceful the things you say really are.
"Don't try to take away my freedom to show how disgraceful the things you say really are."
Peggy, I'm not trying to take away your freedom. Read our conversations – I'm the one arguing for NOT taking away people's freedoms.
"I think he's hypocritical therefore he is"
Oh, no. I think he's a hypocrite BECAUSE he is. Repeatedly. Publicly. Would you like some examples to establish it?
Awe.. it was supposed to say: "I am sure you think all republicans are hypocritical, lying, cheating (insert unpleasant thing to call someone here)."
Not at all. You keep projecting stuff, or magnifying it.
I never said ALL. I don't THINK all. Half my family, who I adore, are Republicans and half are Democrats.
I was Republican for a lifetime myself, until the Limbaugh horror-story types took over and it was just too immoral to affiliate with them any longer (for me personally) at which point I became an Independent. There are lots of Republicans I genuinely admire. There are lots of Republicans I admire even when I do not agree with them about everything. I think that the current crop of presidential candidates are pretty appalling, and cannot be counted on to say much that is truthful, nor even what they are really thinking (except Santorum, who I think says what he thinks and is appalling for different reasons altogether).
Fredericks and especially Perry are not among the Republicans I consider admirable. That doe not mean I think badly of ALL Republicans. (Depending upon how old you are, it may even be I've voted for more of them than you have!) :)
Here's another little tidbit I'll share with you that you may not imagine. The very best people in my whole life, who I owe so much of my life to, and loved more than words have power to express...came from Lubbock, Texas. My grandparents. My closest girfriend – is from San Antonio. My very favorite colleague – hails from Dallas. So, I don't think poorly of Texans, either.
You've said some nasty and disrespectful things about Perry and Fredricks and laughed along with an ugly generalization of all republicans. Now, you just want to justify what you said? "Oh, half my family are republicans and I used to be one once. I just don't admire Perry or Fredricks." Who cares who you admire? Can you at least show some respect to me and the political leaders of Texas? Even if you disagree with their views? There isn't even a shred of remorse for the things you've said.
Have you forgotten the r'acist and s'exist joke about sticking something up a white male republican's behind that you thought was hilarious? "Oh, let's not forget the part about how he would like it!" Can you at the very least admit that that was incredibly disrespectful? Would it even be politically correct if I said the same thing about a black female democrat?
So abortion would be ok if only minorities did it? Are you an advocate for Eugenics?
Life begin with the First Breath, not conception.
At the rate the Republicans are bellowing, a miscarriage will land a female in prison for life, completely forgetting an non viable fetus is just that.
I have two questions for you:
– The point at which human life begins is not universally agreed upon. So let's say you are bear hunting and you see something in the bushes. Maybe it's a person; maybe it's a bear. Would you shoot or would you wait until you know for sure? Of course you would wait. Shouldn't we use the same logic and err on the side that it's human?
– Now let's assume your a married man and your wife is 8 months pregnant with your baby, and you really want to have the kid. Then some guy beats your wife in the stomach and kills the baby. Would you say that guy is guilty of assault or homicide?
What's the body count for the thirty years war, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and all the other wars fought to stop "heresy", Cardinal?
LIER LIER LIER, there have never been a single "person" "kiled" by an abortion. Fetus' are not people, thus can not die.
I would argue that a fetus is a human life form. It has a heart beat and different genetic material than its mother. It certainly becomes human at some point, but when? To use a common illustration, let's say you are hunting and you see something in the bushes. Maybe it's a person; maybe it's a bear. Would you shoot?
And just think how many of those 40M were saved from being molested by someone in the Catholic church. I was raised to be religious but will now refuse to be preached at by hypocrites.
Zero people have been "killed by abortion."
Correct mate, they were not "killed" by abortion, they were murdered. Abortion is legalized murder. The law considers a fetus to be a life because if a pregnant woman is murdered, the perpetrator is charged with a double murder. When it comes to culling a child ot of the womb for inconvenience, then that murder is legal.
I mailed this to Perry along with a copy of Trudeau's cartoons:
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428
Trudeau is absolutely right in these cartoons. It is rape.
If you can't get pregnant, then leave women to make their own decisions about a child. And if you and your 'ethics' make such a demand, women get to demand of YOU that you adopt, raise, educate, and care for that child. Each and every one of them. Talk is cheap, isn't it?
Let's see your 'ethics' in the trenches when it's diaper changing time.
Congratulations - This policy makes you the serial rapist of all time.
Fact: 21 women legislators voted for the bill (that's a majority of the women in the legislature by the way).
Fact: the bill would not have passed without bi-partisanship (that means democrats also voted for it).
Fact: This sonogram procedure isn't more invasive, painful, or emotionally devastating as an abortion.
The FDA approved the sonogram procedure and Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation recommend it (http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/professional_education/medical_abortion/protocol_recs_meth_miso.pdf). Melinda Fredricks who is on the Texas Medical Board has even said that "women who do not wish to see the sonogram image or hear the fetal heartbeat may simply sign a waiver stating they declined to view the information". So what's the big deal?
I know of no one that is forcing women to undergo this procedure. They would only be raped if they were forced to get an abortion. Women still have the right to choose to abort the baby or to have it.
Fredericks is a former Junior High math teacher and a stay at home mom. I'm sure glad you folks in Texas have such highly qualified political wack-job nutters making medical decisions.
Seriously wonkers? What kind of medical decisions do you think she's making?
Obama is a former ice cream scooper at Baskin-Robbins. Now we should assume we have a "wack-job nutter" running the executive branch of the United States? I certainly don't.
Peggy, you put the following very clearly:
"They would only be raped if they were forced to get an abortion. Women still have the right to choose to abort the baby or to have it."
RAPE as a condition of seeking a legal abortion.
RAPE as a deterrent to abortion.
Really, I'm sure part of you means well. As for the part that defends rape – shame on you.
Can someone tell me what specifically this law changes *in the process* of getting an abortion in Texas? I'm not talking about the fact that something is now mandated, I am asking about how the process of getting an abortion is different, now that there is this law, than the process was before the law.
I am a little confused on that point, and I haven't been able to decipher it with all the noise. Thanks for the help.
Melinda Fredricks talks about how the process is actually different here: http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/15/opinion-why-doonesbury-gets-texas-abortion-law-wrong/
A lot of women are not properly informed before they get an abortion. Fredricks said "several women testified they had been denied an opportunity to view their sonograms at Texas abortion facilities." It also makes sure the physician meets with the patient 24 hours before the abortion. It just makes sure there's a proper level of informed consent. They are all things I would want before getting an abortion.
Pretty lame support for the comic strip there Carole
It's a state governed and led by a moron. What else need be said.
Still a worthy debate, why all the fuss, this is not a big deal to most women. It's building rhetoric to support abortion rights. But I see fear in abortion rights people that a change may occur if this info is used as one of a woman's overall data points.
I AGREE NOT A BIG DEAL....LIKE THE GOP SAID , BE RESPONSIBLE....IF YOU GET PREGNANT ? YOU PAY FOR IT.
Putting into law that one must undergo an unnecessary medical procedure to force a woman to rethink a procedure that you don't agree with is wrong. They made the decision, let them go. Stop putting barriers in front of women, just leave them alone.
What so many of the old white men that write this type of legislation don't get is that abortion is NOT a funtime event. It's a heartbreaking decision for a woman. It's not something that any woman would say "Goodie! I get to kill my baby this week. Let's go, I can't wait!" Oh God, no. It's not a decision that the vast majority of women take lightly. Abortion is a very painful, invasive procedure and not something that a woman chooses to have on a whim. Frankly, it sucks rocks. It is emotionally and physically painful regardless of when you personally believe life begins.
Well then lets debate this with reason. the article is a complete mischaracterization of the bill. They are framing it as giving women information they need to make an informed decision and that they are trusting women to be smart and intelligent and assuming also doctors. Yet, politicians with no medical training have decided to make a non-medically necessary procedure mandatory before receiving a medical procedure they just so happen to vehemently oppose because why? Oh thats right they believe they are better equipped to determine what medical information a woman should have prior to JUST this procedure. Better than the doctor and the woman. And in trusting these women and doctors they feel are so intelligent and capable, they are telling them they need to make it mandatory and there justification for making it mandatory is that well, (according to this article) they are already going to have various medical equipment stuck up there anyway and it wont hurt so whats a little additional probe you didnt want? In addition, the other argument is, well there are a few women who agree with this law, thats fine, lets ensure that they make laws that apply specifically to their medical procedures and everyone else can make decisions with people with medical training. Isnt that a favorite Repub response when wealthy people say they should pay higher taxes? Those people can just send in more money. If these women would like governmnet officials to determine which medical procedures they should have and make them mandatory, they are more than welcome to visit the members of their government before each doctors visit.
What defines you? Maybe it’s the shade of your skin, the place you grew up, the accent in your words, the make up of your family, the gender you were born with, the intimate relationships you chose to have or your generation? As the American identity changes we will be there to report it. In America is a venue for creative and timely sharing of news that explores who we are. Reach us at email@example.com.
Send Feedback | Subscribe