published Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

Coercion

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

51
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
nucanuck said...

I wonder what percentage of unwanted,unnurtured,neglected children fail miserably in school,become truant,delinquent and then move into a life of crime,taxing society in so many ways. Is every conception so very,very precious in a world approaching seven billion people?

Interpreters of morality for others surely must have further work to do on their own imperfections rather than judging others.

April 6, 2010 at 1:12 a.m.
Gene_Poole said...

Is anyone interested in starting a charitable organization that would raise money to send the "right to life" protesters over to Iraq and Afghanistan? I think their services are much more needed over there.

April 6, 2010 at 1:47 a.m.
woody said...

Coercion is coercion, no matter which side of the issue you may be on. "Right to Life" is a joke. They are only concerned with imposing their will on anyone and everyone who tries to stand in their way. They say "Choose Life", which should mean they are truly "Pro Choice", but they're not.. I've got a better slogan for them.."Get a Life."

On behalf of all my children, grandchildren and great grandchild, have a nice day, Woody

April 6, 2010 at 6:05 a.m.
Tax_Payer said...

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: Article 3.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

April 6, 2010 at 6:18 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Is picketing more coercive than killing? Is advising someone not to do an evil deed, and offering them help in an alternative course of action, more coercive than, say, a dad dragging a somewhat guilty daughter to an abortuary to kill a completely innocent baby? The Chattanooga abortuary would charge $20 for a pregnancy test; the prolife center across the street would do one for free. Which of these outfits was giving help to ladies in distress? Along with such signs telling the truth as Clay depicts, www.choiceswomenscenter.org, phone 892-0803 or 267-7943, show prolifers offering serious help to ladies in distress. Shall I keep trying to ram facts into narrow liberal minds? (Yes, God has chosen by...preaching to save His elect; so Calvinists preach.) A rumor went around that there'd be a Rescue at the Chattanooga abortuary, and crowds on both sides of the issue showed up. One of the pro-aborts admitted to me that most of the pro-lifers 'had a life' to a greater extent than most of the pro-aborts: many of the pro-lifers were middle-class married with children, and many of the pro-aborts hadn't done much with their lives (yet). 'Jane Roe' changed her mind. An example of believing in and practicing (and enjoying) repentance and forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus: one pro-lifer I know married a lady with four children from a previous non-marriage.

April 6, 2010 at 6:36 a.m.
OllieH said...

Anti-coercion bill heads to governor's desk

Mar 31, 2010

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – The Senate and House passed legislation Wednesday that would require abortion clinics in Tennessee to post anti-coercion signs.

While any type of coercion to have an abortion is prohibited under current law, sponsors say some women may not know that and the sign simply spells out what's in the law. The signs would read, in part, that "it is against the law for anyone, regardless of the person's relationship to you, to coerce you into having or to force you to have an abortion."

Facilities that don't comply could be fined as much as $2,500.

April 6, 2010 at 8:44 a.m.
princehal said...

Agreed, Woody.

Imposition of will = Fascism

April 6, 2010 at 8:59 a.m.
princehal said...

Forgot to say:

The fascist regimes of World War II and beyond began with very conservative demagogues. Just a thought.

April 6, 2010 at 9:03 a.m.
quietreader said...

Andrew thanks for your post. Why is it so hard for some to see unborn babies as people? After all the only differnce between an unborn baby and a toddler is the size, level of development, environment and the level of dependency on others. Why discriminate against the unborn? Just because abortion is legal doesn't make it right.

April 6, 2010 at 9:35 a.m.
Lefty said...

The biggest issue I have is based on at what point life really begins. Just this weekend I was told, "your life doesn't begin until you retire." Based on that, can we start aborting most of these "Anti-choice" folks.

April 6, 2010 at 9:59 a.m.
memphisexile said...

Abortion is legal. There is now too much precedent and public reliance for it to be overturned. Leave these people alone. Their personal medical decisions are no ones business but their own. The end game of these protests is murder of abortion doctors these people need to find something to do that isn't a waste of time. Why not try to help kids who are alive and need to be adopted or need a mentor? Focus on the living who need help and are here not potential life that is none of your business.

April 6, 2010 at 10:03 a.m.
moonpie said...

Coercion is different than protest.

Coercion applies when a person uses force, or if one person is legally subjective to another person (i.e. a daughter is legally subjective to father or mother).

I think protests can obstruct free access and intimidate others - so protests share some features with coercion, but they are not at all the same.

I think people who oppose abortion have every right to protest and speak up for what they think is right. I believe it is illegal to block access to an abortion clinic.

Having worked with people who performed abortions, and having met many of these women who received abortions, it is very apparent that many people in the Pro-Life movement misrepresent or misunderstand the plight of many of these people.

On the other hand, having worked with people who performed abortions, I have seen that they misrepresent that abortion is killing. It is indeed killing. The embryo/fetus is alive.

The real debate should be: "is this kind of killing acceptable?"

For some, it never will be acceptable and I think it's unjust to silence them.

Meanwhile, for medical practitioners, the legal/ethical waters get murkier. Now you can be sued for "wrongful birth". These suits have been won when information was not disclosed or sought that could tell if the fetus had anomalies - i.e. when parents are denied the right to make a choice. The ProLife opponents of wrongful birth suits say that these suits should not be legal, thus tacitly approving of withholding information from women carrying children with potential, severe birth defects.

In the end, I don't think we'll ever reverse Roe v Wade unless all memory fades of the hospital wards dedicated to septic women dying from illegal abortions. I think the ProLife movement is still within their right to try to reverse this, but I think they would do better to promote other alternatives - focus on positives. Studies have shown you persuade more people to do what you want when you make it sound like that's what most people do. By focusing on the high numbers of babies aborted each year, the ProLife movement is likely making it seem more commonplace and therefore more acceptable.

April 6, 2010 at 10:20 a.m.
dss said...

How cruel and barborous are these lifeless, Fascist lunatics who are attempting to prevent the killing of defenseless fetuses?

Nucanuck makes a great point of the unwanted leading a life of crime, delinquency, and the rest. While my predictive skills are sharp (I had Butler, Duke, Michigan State, and West Virginia in the Final Four--joking), it's tough to say which of these unwanted scourges may actually materialize into something worthwhile. So I say, wait until they're 6 with a year or two of schooling, then determine. The indigent rabble with attention-deficit problems or low test scores should all be done away with--mass killing. No more wasted tax dollars...

If this plan seems absurd, this is how many of us in the Pro-Life movement and those of us who believe life begins at conception feel about the practice of abortion.

Lefty, I am not anti-choice. With some obvious exceptions, generally there is a choice in whether or not to have sex.

April 6, 2010 at 10:23 a.m.

Woody/Princehal,

How about...

Shoving health insurance legislation down the throats of the american people = Facism Gun control was one of Hitlers biggest victories. He would have loved universal healthcare too.

You would be surprised how closely the policies of the facist regimes of the WWII era resemble the current Liberal/Progressive (Socialist/Communist) agenda. (Criminals usually have plenty of aliases) Judge people by their actions not their words. Facists always talk the talk, but walk a different walk.

Tell me how a highschool girl aborting her baby on prom night differs from paying a doctor to do it. She gets charged for the "baby's" death. It's her body right? According to your definition, there was no crime commited.

How about when a man punches a woman in the belly to terminate a pregnancy he no longer wants? He gets charged with murder on top of assault. You would support this charge, but by your definition, that thing isn't really alive so it can't really be murder. He should only be charged with assault. The woman lived through it right?

Party line as always Clay. I'm not talking about the democratic party either.

April 6, 2010 at 10:31 a.m.
memphisexile said...

dss's comments are the perfect example of what the abortion debate is really about. At the base of it all is sex. Right wing Christians want to tell us what our morals should be and what we should be allowed to do with our bodies based on their interpretation of a book. Abortion wouldn't be a problem if we just wouldn't have sex, which as we all know is "bad" if you are not married. Telling a woman she can't make decisions about a fetus in her body is the first step, what is next? Prosecuting a person for extra or pre marital sex? No one has a right to tell anyone what to do with their body keep your morals you yourself.

April 6, 2010 at 10:32 a.m.
memphisexile said...

Also this law is stupid an serves no purpose. Just another example of small politicians doing small things. Instead of wasting time with bills like this which will change nothing, why not address the real problems this state is facing. I guess making a tough decision that might imperil your reelection would be too much to ask. Instead continue passing worthless bills like this that solve nothing. We still have no jobs, the state still must make cuts because there is not enough tax revenue, TN school still suck, there is still too much corruption. I guess those things aren't important, lets focus on passing meaningless abortion legislation.

Sorry for the multiple posts people, this one kind of annoyed me. Three is enough for one day, I'll quit till tomorrow ;)

April 6, 2010 at 10:48 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Make abortion rare and unnecessary through education, health care for all, and empowerment of women (for every unintended pregnancy there is a man who did not use a condom).

Keep it legal and private until then.

Every child brought into this world should be wanted, in a stable environment that has the resources to support it, and free of the effects of alcohol, tobacco and drugs.

April 6, 2010 at 10:56 a.m.

Memphisexile,

" the state still must make cuts because there is not enough tax revenue"

You say that like it is a bad thing. All the state has accomplised is taxing the charity out of good people that would have used it (more efficiently) to help others. When good people take the time and resources to help someone else, they truly help them change their lives and get back on their feet.

Give people back what they earned and the state wouldn't have to spend so much on programs that don't work. Welfare has ruined peoples lives across our great nation. Why support your illegitimate children when the government has programs to do it for you?

I do agree. This law is empty and like the majority of the laws rolling down from the capitol, aimless.

April 6, 2010 at 11:25 a.m.
whoknows said...

Memphis, where did dss bring sexual morals into the debate? He made no comment about whether having sex is moral or not. However, having sex, whether planned, un-protected, indiscriminately, or whatever does cause pregnancy. Or were you unaware of the fact? If you are not capable of bring up a child, don't create one.
And what he said about nucanuck's comment was dead on. Reread nucanuck's comment at the beginning of this. Sure does sound to me that he thinks its perfectly fine to just get rid of any of the riffraff that might not have a good chance at education, or prosperity. I guess if that line of thinking goes on for a couple more decades, we'll have a police dedicated to locating poor or uneducated urchins and killing them as they are a burden to society and should never have been born.

I too, do not think that Roe vs Wade will ever be overturned. I agree with moonpie 100%. Therefore, they should focus on the positives. It would work much better.

April 6, 2010 at 11:27 a.m.
JohnnyRingo said...

The big dirty secret about abortion rights is that the vast majority of Americans want it to remain legal. Sure, they show polls where the wording sounds particularly graphic to push responders against continued legalization, but in an up or down "legal" or "illegal" vote, most people privately choose the status quo.

I believe the reason is that over half of all Americans feel personally affected by the right to make their own decisions. Pollers refer to this massive bloc as "women".

Knowing that an attempt to overturn the law through a public vote would fail, opponents opt to sway a few judges to "legislate from the bench", and rewrite the law to suit them.

I'll add that when a so-called "pro life" politician gets elected partially on pandered promises to ban abortion, they immediately do nothing about it (see: Eight long years of GWB).

When a conservative judge is seated for his stance on the issue, they find themselves more concerned with corporate mergers. Even Chief Justice Roberts said he "has no intent" to revisit the matter after he got the job.

April 6, 2010 at 12:19 p.m.
Gene_Poole said...

To the "right to lifers", you're all hypocrites. Why don't you picket military enlistment stations for recruiting killers? While there is a debate on whether aborting an unborn fetus is murder, there is no doubt that taking the life of a birthed human being is. Instead, you "support" those killers.

Jesus said it best: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)

If you cannot obey those words of wisdom and insist on protesting anyway, then protest ALL murder, not just your church's definition of it.

To nucanuck, woody, memphisexile, dss & lkeithlu, well said. It's comforting to know there are still some intelligent people in this country. Now get out there and do something constructive to stop the rampant political, religious and corporate corruption that has overtaken this great land of OURS.

April 6, 2010 at 12:37 p.m.
GAIntrigue said...

Would abortion even be an issue if half the money spent on the research for such wonderful male drugs like Viagra, etc. was put to helping develop better forms of female contraception?

Let's face it. Nobody likes abortion. But, as a society, we'd much rather have this debate than empower women by giving them more control with preventive measures over their sexual health.

For those who preach the use of condoms, please see the link below. Even those are only 97% effective at pregnancy prevention when used correctly. There has got to be a better way.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/

April 6, 2010 at 12:41 p.m.
princehal said...

DSS, let me clarify.

While you are correct to evoke Hitler's successful restriction of private gun owndership (because guns are necessary for security from our ever-growing government), you missed my point.

When I spoke of fascist regimes of World War II, I should have spoke about conservative policies and beliefs. Sure, they took away people's guns, but the fascist leaders were also dangerously nationalistic. And with someone like Hitler in mind, the nationalism devolved into hate and genocide.

It's disturbingly reminiscent of how several of the right-wing firebrands and idiot Tea Party folks speak: keep illegals out of the country, tighten our borders, use preemptive and preventative force, make the immigrants leave.

Weren't we talking about abortion? Since we're on that subject, I'll take some heat and suggest that gun control is different from gun bans. Your man Hitler indefinitely banned guns, America has merely experiemented with a variety of legislation for safety.

April 6, 2010 at 3:39 p.m.
princehal said...

lol. that rant was intended for flyingpurplesheepleater

April 6, 2010 at 3:40 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Me thinks princehal, among others, should pick up some history books and read a bit about the progressive/socialist/Marxist regimes during the last century before making utterly ignorant comments in a public forum.

I find the lack of historical knowledge among many of those who support the murder of humans to be sickening.

FYI, Hitler was the darling of the progressive set in Europe and here in the U.S. until he actually started doing the things he had been writing and talking about for years. The progressives finally lost all patience with him when he broke his non-aggression treaty with that other darling of progressive thought, Stalin.

Both of these men, and their ideological fellow travelers had zero problems eliminating those humans who stood in the way of their desired Utopian societies.

Planned Parenthood (yes that one) was born from the Eugenics movement. Hitler, who was a big proponent of Eugenics (obviously), was merely carrying to an extreme that which many here on this very page are advocating. Go back up there and look at the very first post. Killing off those who are an "undesirable" part of society is what ya'll are talking about.

The leftists here may circle jerk each other around that you are the enlightened ones and those evil conservatives are the devil, but please do bear in mind that you are the ones advocating the murder of fellow humans for no other reason than mere convenience in many cases. You are the ones who are ideologically aligned with the monsters of the last century.

In short, if one is going to make allusions to the leader of the German National Socialist Worker's Party, one might want to study up on exactly what was going on in Germany at the time, what was being advocated, and which groups in this country were supporting those ideas.

Or, never mind me and continue demonstrating how ignorant one can be when one ignores actual historic facts and spews only leftist revisionism and hate.

April 6, 2010 at 9:57 p.m.
dss said...

Just wanted to respond to a few points raised in the discussion. I don't intend to change anyone's mind on this issue; that has the same likelihood as moving Mt. Rushmore over to the left about 16 feet.

  1. Memphis suggested that pro-lifers "try to help kids who are alive and need to be adopted or need a mentor." My experience is that some in the pro-life movement are some of the most compassionate souls, the most giving souls, with whom I've encountered. It's convenient to symbolize a movement by its most radical members; it's convenient to paint all Pro-Lifers as Scott Roeder. But such a depiction is an unfair distortion, more deceptive than fair.
  2. Memphis continued his instruction: "Focus on the living who need help and are here not potential life that is none of your business." As stated, plenty of focus is given to the living. And, it is someone's business. Who speaks for the unborn who cannot speak? Someone must.
  3. Gene Pool also casts all pro-lifers as hypocrites because they are not protesting the enlistment centers. Is the inverse also true? Are those protesting the enlistment centers hypocrites for not picketing abortion clinics? Are unborn babies as culpable as members of terror networks? I don't see equivalence, though thousands of innocents die in war--something for which my heart breaks.
  4. Memphis also wonders what is next if we are going to tell "a woman she can't make decisions about a fetus in her body." Again, with obvious exceptions, a choice is made for that fetus to be in her body. Pregnancies are not, as far as I know, contagious. I don't know of anyone who "caught a pregnancy."
April 6, 2010 at 10:03 p.m.
JohnnyRingo said...

According to FlyingPurple at 10:31am : "You would be surprised how closely the policies of the facist regimes of the WWII era resemble the current Liberal/Progressive (Socialist/Communist) agenda".

You're right, I'd be very surprised.

Anyone who walks down the street in America today and grumbles "This is just like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia", needs the benefit of free mental care, a history tutor, and a life.

Besides bouncing all the reality checks, nothing in your comment proves any level of patriotism for our country. Accusing the cartoonist of unAmerican affiliation leaves yourself open to similar judgement. How do we know you love our country and are not trying to forge a new radical right utopia? I don't have to trust you.

April 6, 2010 at 10:28 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

How do we know our President loves our country and is not trying to forge a new radical left utopia, Johnny? (Youtube song: "Are we better off now than we were two years ago?"--might have to find it via "Osama bin Laden sings Mozart.") One prolife church that does plenty of positive things: www.newcityfellowship.com. /> "Pro-life" is widely used, and OK with me for the most part, but "pro-justice" might be more precise. Unborn babies have made no evil choices for which they deserve to die. Murderers such as George Tiller and Scott Roeder have made such choices, so they deserve to be executed.

JohnnyRingo said...

I guess every life (you choose) is sacred.

April 7, 2010 at 4 a.m.
moonpie said...

"they deserve to be executed"

I thought Andrews' words should linger in the air for a while.

April 7, 2010 at 9:20 a.m.
quietreader said...

It makes me sad to see how many think it's OK to kill a fetus. I can understand how a young woman might consider the option when she has plans for her life and is scared. But they need to be educated on all of the options and if protestors provide a little jerk on the chain of their concience I think that's OK. I wonder how many of the people who are pro-choice would like it if they thought their mothers considered aborting them. And how can you equate abortion to war? Do pro-choice people really think that pro-lifers like war? It's a tough subject and we'll all never agree. But I read a lot of hatred in some of the above posts and it's on both sides. Too bad for all of us. I guess it's good we're not all in the same room together confronting each other eye to eye. I have a feeling their would be a few black ones before this suject was resolved.

April 7, 2010 at 10:43 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Do pro-lifers really think that pro-choicers like abortion, quietreader? It goes both ways. I say make it unnecessary. Pro-lifers should be against the death penalty too. War, well that's another story. But the leaders that declare war ought to fight, and their own kin should fight too. That way war will be the last possible choice.

April 7, 2010 at 11:03 a.m.

@ JohnnyRingo

While I don't walk down the street now saying this is "just like Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia", the only reason I don't is because there are still people in leadership positions that are fighting against it. I am more pointing toward the direction this country seems to be going on the current socialist party boat.

Besides, I'd be dead or in the Gulag if I said something other than "For mother America and the peoples/workers party" if it had gone that far already. You can't have free speech in a society that has all their thinking done by those who are authorized and approved to do so.

I didn't ask for your trust or claim to be a patriot either. I merely made on observation on the hypocrisy of the views of pro-choicers and the similarity between the agendas of Facist/socialist regimes of the WWII era and the current facist/socialist/progressive american movement. Go out into the real world and find out whats actually going on instead of suckling at the tit of the mainstream media. It might just change your view of "reality". It's all relative.

April 7, 2010 at 2:33 p.m.
quietreader said...

Ikeithlu, I agree on everything but the death penalty. I think it's biblical to have that type of consequence for some offenses. Not sure I could make that judgement against someone unless I witnessed the offense. Manson should have been put to death but then that's my opinion and it's worth just what you paid for it.

April 7, 2010 at 4:40 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Interesting, quietreader. Most murders in this country are not witnessed, yet that doesn't hinder the application of the death penalty. It costs so much more to execute an offender than it does to keep them in prison for life, give the multiple appeals. I am glad Manson is in jail for life-every parole request he makes that is denied reminds all of us just how awful his crime was. If he was executed, he would be forgotten by the general public, as would his victims.

April 7, 2010 at 6:58 p.m.
rolando said...

Cute cartoon.

Sorry to miss it, but I was "tied up", "beating" eggs, making "whipped" cream, and so forth.

[Writing that almost "gagged" me.]

April 7, 2010 at 7:09 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

ROFL! You dirty republican.

April 7, 2010 at 7:19 p.m.
rolando said...

If money is your concern, lkeith, think how much cheaper it would be to let Manson go. We could save millions. What's a life or two compared to the millions?

I think Sirhan is in there with him...there's millions of bucks more. How about the women with Manson? Still more millions. All in exchange for what? A few lives here and there? This country aborts more in one day than those few could kill in the rest of their miserable lives, so again, what's a life or two?

Oh. That's different, huh? OK. Never mind.

April 7, 2010 at 8:45 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

No actually, the legal fees to fight the death penalty costs more. Segregating death row inmates costs more. Lock'em up, no lawyers, no appeals, no parole, no fancy food, no TV. Books and radio only.

The suggestion that I would let Manson go to save money is too offensive and stupid to respond to.

April 7, 2010 at 9:04 p.m.
rolando said...

The argument wasn't in favor of releasing murderers, lkeith. It was about ways to save money.

Discounting the advantageous monetary aspects of the Eugenics/genocide process of removing "undesirables" from our population, how much money is spent on abortions, pre-abortion exams, sonograms, whatever? Now, how much is spent on executions and their build-up? Now how much would be saved by paroling the murderers [which is a form of deciding what is done to their body]?

This is not being facetious nor is it meant to be insulting. We are trying to do a logical examination of the different aspects of cost control and their consequences. You seem to think money counts, I don't. Not on this topic, anyway.

Your suggestions constitute cruel and unusual punishment not imposed on other inmates, BTW. Can't do that. SCOTUS said so. A penitentiary has become a place for rehabilitation not for penance.

April 7, 2010 at 9:50 p.m.
Sailorman said...

"No actually, the legal fees to fight the death penalty costs more. Segregating death row inmates costs more. Lock'em up, no lawyers, no appeals, no parole, no fancy food, no TV. Books and radio only."

Execute 'em faster. Or, given the conditions stated, provide a piece of rope to hang themselves with when they're ready.

April 7, 2010 at 10:20 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Rehabilitation for lifers? Isn't that a waste of effort? As far as money spent on prisoners vs abortion, I think you would have to be clear who is paying. As some groups don't like taxpayers money spent on certain things, I think that taxpayers money is wasted paying for legal council for endless challenges to the death penalty. As far as I know, I don't myself pay for abortion, unless of course I have one.

As for saving money, as harsh as a previous poster put it, many of these children would be born into poverty, into households with single mothers, many addicted to alcohol or drugs. They would add to the welfare burden, increase the cost of medicaid, food stamps, public housing, etc, as well as be at risk of never contributing to society. I know pro-life people have their hearts in the right place, but the answer is in preventing unintended pregnancy through education, birth control, and giving young, poor people a better chance of making a living. There are WAY too many unintended pregnancies, and no resources to raise these children. If I saw a better effort by religious conservatives to promote comprehensive sex education (which of course means admitting that 95% of Americans in the last three generations had sex outside of marriage, so let's stop fooling ourselves into thinking kids won't have sex) and distribution of contraception, then maybe I'd be more receptive to an abortion ban. Until then, with numbers that confirm that the unintended pregnancies were down, I will support choice.

April 7, 2010 at 10:27 p.m.
rolando said...

Yes, lkeith, they would be born into that. Thus "justifying" the abortionist's removal of them as "undesirables" worthy of euthanasia. For a fee, of course.

Ah. You bring up yet another way to save money other than killing babies and murderers. Welfare. Stop all those LBJ instituted welfare programs for those physically able to work after x number of days. [There ARE times when folks need temporary assistance.] That would save billions upon billions of dollars.

And young, poor people do NOT, in general, want "a better chance of making a living." They want it figuratively given to them. With minimal effort. Those thinking otherwise are already working their way out of the ghetto.

ANY [normal] sexual intercourse can result in a pregnancy -- unwanted, unintended or whatever. There is NO reason, short of rape, for any woman to allow herself to become pregnant or for any man to impregnate her. Lack of use of one of the many precautions to prevent a pregnancy is proof of intention [see various implied consent laws].

Our society, such as it is, condones, even promotes, casual sexual promiscuity in our young today. It absolves the acts of all responsibility in the name of self-gratification and self-esteem. Feel-goodism, if you will.

We are reaping the whirlwind; cause and effect rules; Nature will have her pound of flesh, and so it goes.

April 8, 2010 at 12:33 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I agree with the welfare being limited or at least closely monitored to reduce abuse, BUT I do take issue with one thing you said (and it's revealing): you place the blame on women for unintended pregnancy. In every one there was also a man who chose not to use a condom. I find it offensive that you place all of the responsibility on women.

April 8, 2010 at 6:43 a.m.
Pro_Reality said...

You make an excellent point, Clay. I'm an expert on the coercion tactics used against women in pregnancy counseling. The shaming is not only disrespectful; it's abusive.

I probably should write a book on the subject, but friends have written articles and the coercion manuals speak for themselves:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090914/joyce

http://adoptiontruth-casjoh.blogspot.com/2009/05/birthmother-good-mother.html

http://www.exiledmothers.com/http://bastardette.blogspot.com/

Here are two of many adoptee activist sites:

http://bastardette.blogspot.com/

http://poundpuplegacy.org/

The adoption industry and pro-life organizations want us to be silent and ashamed. We're bad for business and throw a wrench in their propaganda machine.

April 8, 2010 at 7:21 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Two sad circumstances: young women being preyed upon by older men eager to make a "conquest" of a young pretty thing (sex in unequal relationships is all about ego and control) and the lack of solid knowledge on the part of women about their own physiology. For each there are multiple causes, but some of the most important ones are lack of empowerment for women and girls-in some socioeconomic groups and cultural groups women are subservient to men (yes, even here in the US-here in the south it can be pretty bad especially among rural whites) and lack of comprehensive sex education and access to birth control. The Bible belt has gutted their sex ed-a few areas will still teach basic physiology but often just one time. Schools are not the only problem-home school children, especially from fundamentalist families, can be at risk because the subject is so horrifying they simply won't mention it. (Consider the 13 year old who started her period and thought she was dying because her mother never told her about her own body-yes this really happened-and 13 is old enough to get pregnant)

Read the government and family planning statistics on how unintended pregnancies occur. Very few are due to outright irresponsibility. (there are some, though) Most can be tied to ignorance, lack of a woman's control over her own sex life, alcohol, unequal relationships (older controlling male) etc.

Keep abortion legal and safe until it isn't needed.

April 8, 2010 at 7:39 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Interesting posts lkeithlu and rolando, but there is one rather obvious point I feel needs to be made. It takes both a man and a woman to have sex (at least the kind that results in pregnancy). Each party is just as responsible as the other in taking the necessary steps to prevent it happening. All anyone does by blaming one sex over the other is to waste time debating the important points of the topic. Abstinence is the best birth control, but that is impossible it seems.

"Our society, such as it is, condones, even promotes, casual sexual promiscuity in our young today. It absolves the acts of all responsibility in the name of self-gratification and self-esteem. Feel-goodism, if you will."

-The progressive way. :(

April 8, 2010 at 8:20 a.m.
Clara said...

And from Job:24-9 from the King James Version.

"They pluck the fatherless from the breast, and take a pledge of the poor."

April 8, 2010 at 10:32 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

"All anyone does by blaming one sex over the other is to waste time debating the important points of the topic."

Sorry everyone, but that doesn't make sense. What I meant to say was; All anyone does by blaming one sex over the other is to waste time rather than debating the important points of the topic.

April 8, 2010 at 3:49 p.m.
princehal said...

Gee Whiz, SCOTTY, sure put me in my place with you're sardonic comments. Don't you belong in Texas with the rest of the right wingers who would like to change history?

April 8, 2010 at 4:59 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

ph, If you do not want your ignorance to be mocked, then you might want to refrain from writing such ignorant drivel.

Your comment regarding progressive fascism and conservatives is 180 degrees out of phase with objective reality. You are welcome to go on believing your own leftist fantasies about what happened in the last century, but I'll not sit idly by and let such ignorant proclamations go unchallenged.

Adolf Hitler would be on the "pro-choice" side of this debate. This is historical fact. He was not only a proponent of Eugenics, but a profligate practitioner. Planned Parenthood, which is responsible for the deaths of 10s of millions of humans, is a product of the Eugenics movement. The modern "progressives" who are such outspoken supporters of the murder of fellow humans are the ones who are aligned with the viewpoint of Hitler.

It is you who is attempting to rewrite history, not I.

April 8, 2010 at 7:18 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.