published Sunday, April 17th, 2011

Abortion Rights

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 ...

130
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.
OllieH said...

Excellent, Clay!

This should be fun to watch.

April 17, 2011 at 12:25 a.m.
fairmon said...

If preganancy and birth were rotated between the male and female there would rarely be more than two off spring if the husband were the first to be preganant.

The fact is there should have been more abortions. I used to resent the use of tax money but later realized it may be one of the better uses and investment of the money confiscated by governments.

April 17, 2011 at 12:51 a.m.
nucanuck said...

...and how about neighborhood clinics offering low cost vasectomies and tubal ligations? I would pay more tax to subsidize that!

April 17, 2011 at 1:09 a.m.
fairmon said...

nucanuck,

So would I. The clinics should be top notch, conveniently located and highly advertised.

I would even support a discount or zero cost for those that advocate a larger and more intrusive government.....lol

April 17, 2011 at 1:26 a.m.
canarysong said...

One of your very best, Clay! So, so true!

April 17, 2011 at 1:26 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

america lost it's exceptionalism with roe v wade.

a woman has a "right" to kill it's unborn baby, but not to make a lunch for school for her child.

that's how the liberal mind works.

the greatest example of the liberal's desire to control.....no different than the blood thirsty goons who have been in charge of china.

you sicken me, you libs.....

over 50 million abortions since roe v wade. that's genocide.

pure evil....that's when we lost our moral authority.....that's when the devaluation of human life became the norm.

preying on the most vulnarable.......that's something worth fighting for.

a woman who kills her unborn baby is a murderer. if a pregnant woman is murdered..and the unborn baby dies as well. the murderer is charged with two murders. yet abortion is ok?

the logic escapes me.

we're losing the right to do many things...but the right to kill an unborn baby is untouchable?

roe v wade, pushed by liberals and feminists, gave the green light to kill because of invconvenience.

i don't want to hear you liberals spout off about genocide in rawanda, sudan or anywhere else, when you have no problem with abortion......

you're hypocrites...and you're ghouls....

abortion is an industry..which makes big money......it's one industry you libs have no problem with.

April 17, 2011 at 3:03 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

you're cold...you libs..very cold......

great men and women have been born into less than ideal circumstances.....to play god and decide who will be born and who won't be born because you're inconvenienced or you're child isn't perfect is simply hitleresque.

April 17, 2011 at 3:11 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Good one Clay!

If men could get pregnant, they would be giving abortions at Walmart.

April 17, 2011 at 3:35 a.m.
fairmon said...

If pro-choice is OK why was Kevorkian wrong? Perhaps he wasn't but the law is?

April 17, 2011 at 5:18 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

What part of "The murder of little babies is evil" don't pro-aborts understand? If men got pregnant, it'd still be true: The murder of little babies is evil. Even though abortion is a clever GOP conspiracy to kill baby Democrats, it's still true: the murder of little babies is evil. (Conspiracy? Just kidding. I hope.) The wicked fall into the trap that they themselves make. Even though abortion reveals liberal 'compassion' to be hypocrisy--we care for the helpless, so we make sure it's lawful to murder them--it's still true: the murder of little babies is evil. Even though abortion shows a lack of perspective and of realism in our cartoonist--instead of mocking the real problem of the tax code near tax day, he gives us another trip to fantasyland--it's still true: the murder of little babies is evil.

April 17, 2011 at 5:31 a.m.
woody said...

I have always been for a woman's right to choose. And if I needed additional reasons for thinking so..SeaMonkey is "Exhibit A"

Keep up the good work, Clay..Woody

April 17, 2011 at 5:33 a.m.
fairmon said...

liberal defined;

Maximum individual freedom especially as guaranteed and protected by law. (Pro-choice fits).

Another;

Giving freely or abundantly. (Voluntary donations of time or wealth to charitable or other causes fits).

How does advocating confiscating from some to give to others result in a liberal label? Would necessitarian be a more accurate label?

What distinguishes a liberal from a libertarian? Both claim to support free will and freedom of individual choice. The labels given by the media to individuals and political parties are confusing.

How does the usurping of state and local governments rights by both parties result in a label of conservative or liberal for the national party?

April 17, 2011 at 6:17 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

"The fact is there should have been more abortions. I used to resent the use of tax money but later realized it may be one of the better uses and investment of the money confiscated by governments."

"Good one Clay!

If men could get pregnant, they would be giving abortions at Walmart."

YES, GOOD ONE, CLAY, MORE REVELATION OF THE LIBERAL MINDSET:

IF THE LIBERALS (INTELLECTUALS?) HAD THEIR WAY, ABORTIONS WOULD NOT ONLY BE FREE BUT WOULD, INDEED, BE AVAILABLE AT WALMART. ALL PAID FOR BY THE WORKING CLASS AND THE RICH, OF COURSE. RIGHT, CLAY? CLAY? CLAY? WHERE'D HE GO? OH, HE'S OVER THERE IN JURASSIC PARK HUGGING A FUR TREE.

April 17, 2011 at 7:49 a.m.
sd said...

...Does anyone have anything new to add to this debate?

Didn't think so.

April 17, 2011 at 8:03 a.m.
TforTXTforTN said...

Guess who said "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." Margaret Sanger founder of planned parenthood. Also guess who has 78% of their clinics in minority neighborhoods, planed parenthood. The most dangerous place for a black child is truly in it's mothers womb and if you believe pp is providing low cost health services to women who can't afford them you are wrong, it's black genocide pure and simple.

April 17, 2011 at 8:33 a.m.
fairmon said...

Is abortion an important issue in today's economic crisis? Why should anyone or any party be able to impose their beliefs on others? What justification is there for governments to be involved in personal matters that should be between an individual and their physician? Is abortion a platform item for political reasons not a moral belief?

The logic or lack thereof of political parties is amazing. They label the 5% that pay over 60% of taxes as "rich" "greedy" and "mean spirited" instead of successful. America needs capital, jobs, innovation and increased productivity none of which the government can provide although they promise them.

Would the lowest business tax rates in the world instead of the highest result in fewer or more businesses in the U.S.? If we had a flat rate tax for everyone would we have more or fewer wealthy people coming to the U.S. instead of leaving? If we had no estate taxes on business assets would we have more or fewer family owned businesses continuing to operate? Would we be better off or worse off if the 5% pool paying 60%+ of all taxes were increased?

Why is it that regardless of the tax structure the revenue seems to always move to 20% of GDP? Does that indicate we need to be more productive instead of constantly tweaking the tax codes, social agendas and welfare systems?

Why is the GOP trying to reduce spending without increasing revenue which would mean no increase or reduction in taxes would be needed? Why are they willing to stop some spending but not subsidies such as ethanol, farming etc. while failing to address tax manipulation via simplification.

Why are the democrats insisting they can provide capital, jobs and innovation while promising prosperity and success to the masses which they cannot possibly do?

Could it be both are appealing to the electorates greed and envy and beliefs in their pandering for votes?

April 17, 2011 at 8:35 a.m.
Rivieravol said...

Once again Bennett makes a complete fool out of himself with a cartoon completely divorced from reality.

A Gallup poll in 2009 found that for the first time ever more women were pro-life than pro-choice, 49%. So any notion that being pro-life is completely a male position is ludicrous.

But again, never confuse a Liberal with the facts. And in the interest of full disclosure, I am a pro-choice Republican.

April 17, 2011 at 8:49 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Rivieravol says..."A Gallup poll in 2009 found that for the first time ever more women were pro-life than pro-choice, 49%... But again, never confuse a Liberal with the facts." lol

joepulitzer...what's a fur tree? I see the u is next to the i on my qwertyboard, so I guess this was a typo(?).

seamonkey... you would deny sex education, birth control, abortion, child care, free milk, affirmative action, etc., then gladly execute a criminal who's offense you deemed heinous. Talk about playing God. You need to listen to Elvis singing "In the Ghetto" today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n3ebu...

April 17, 2011 at 9:29 a.m.
dl said...

Glad I kept reading - the debate will not end and a lot of interesting thoughts (though nothing new) were thrown out.

The Elvis link.....as a non-Elvis fan I loved it! As a younger generation person I thought all Elvis was songs like Hound Dog, etc. This was a great song and I'll be digging around itunes for some Elvis later.

April 17, 2011 at 9:48 a.m.
fairmon said...

Elvis could do it all. Gospel, pop, rock, country, classics, show tunes and a touch of opera. He was indeed the greatest.

April 17, 2011 at 10:08 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

pro-choice means you believe a mother has the right to kill or not to kill her unborn baby. it's up to her.

you have to suspend all empathy and humanity in order to believe that a mother, because of invonenience, has the right to kill her unborn baby....and we are talking about inconvenience.....appalling..

rape, incest, the mother's life being in danger or anything else..are real, but the the vast majority, nearly all abortions are done because of inconvenience...women spreading their legs and men not being able to keep their pants on......hey, who cares about the consequences...we can just get rid of it......like a cancerous mole.

you libs have succeeded in devaluing an unborn human being to the point to which it's looked upon as nothing more than a bowel movement.

"i have always been for a woman's right to choose"...wow. woody..you're so modern, so enlightened..so with it.......you're so damn hip........

once again i'll point the incredible corruption of the liberal mind.....

a woman does not have the right to make a sandwich for her child to take to school, but she has the right to kill an unborn child.

so it is in the city of chicago......one of the liberals pits of america.

abortion, sodomy, guaranteed vacations, benefits for life and pot...as long as no one stands in the way of that you lib's will turn everything else over to the government.

you'll fight tooth and nail to save some dumb species from going extinct or ponder for hours how to stop dolphins from beaching themselves..but you have no problem killing an unborn human being...because it'll get in the way of your "plans"...

disgusting...

April 17, 2011 at 10:25 a.m.
Julian1 said...

These so-called "pro-life" folk are often hypocrites. They want to protect the unborn, but allow the living to die in great big bleeding batches (gun worship, nonstop war, capital punishment, swinging cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that condemn the old, the sick, the poor, and the unfortunate to early graves). Give me a break.

April 17, 2011 at 10:38 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Monkey wrote "pro-choice means you believe a mother has the right to kill or not to kill her unborn baby. it's up to her."

To make it simpler, it's not up to you.

April 17, 2011 at 10:38 a.m.
nucanuck said...

At seven billion people and counting, our planet is showing many signs of resourse depletion and degradation. Humans are driving other species into extinction. We are rapidly fouling our own nest.

Whether you believe a woman should have the right to choose or not, it is definitely time to discuss how to rein in population growth. Even at 7B people we are faced with starvation and lack of sufficient water on many parts of the earth. To imagine the continuation of the population explosion underway is to imagine conditions for human extinction.

It can't go on, we have to face an obvious fact.

April 17, 2011 at 10:47 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

the worst kind of hypocrites are christians who go to church, but vote for liberal candidates, or whatever kind of candidate... who support abortion. you cannot believe a woman has the right to murder her unborn baby and be a christian.

i saw many obama-biden bumper stickers in parking lots of churches in 2008. all hypocrites..everyone......obama believes in the most extreme form of abortion

April 17, 2011 at 10:50 a.m.
Julian1 said...

The worst kind of hypocrites are actually those Christians who go to church, but vote for conservative "values" candidates who support budget-busting tax breaks to billionaires funded out of death-dealing cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. With such evident hypocrisy, is it any wonder that, outside the Old South, Americans are abandoning Christianity in droves?

April 17, 2011 at 11:10 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

the worst kind of hypocrites are christians who go to church, but vote for conservative candidates, or whatever kind of candidate... who support the death penalty. you cannot believe a person has the right to murder another person and be a christian.

i saw many McCain-Palin bumper stickers in parking lots of churches in 2008. all hypocrites..everyone......Palin believes in the most extreme form of everything.

April 17, 2011 at 11:24 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

This is fun.

April 17, 2011 at 11:25 a.m.
canarysong said...

Well, I was just sitting down to write my post, but I see that Julian1, Nucanuck, and SeaSmokie have articulated my points perfectly. Well said guys!

April 17, 2011 at 11:29 a.m.
woody said...

Harp..I believe "necessitarian" should not only be included in the next copy of the dictionary, but it could conceivably garner the "Word of the Year" honors if, in fact, there are any.

And to answer an earlier question(?)..I believe I have a very close and personal relationship with God..and Heaven knows I have given him plenty of chances to 'take me out' in the past. And, yes, I do believe in the "death penalty"..and I defy anyone to point to any place in the Bible where it even indicates "Thou shalt not punish."

I know..today's topic pertains to "Freedom of Choice", more than anything else..but if you can't tell the difference between murder and punishment then you likely have a closed mind to any opinion other than your own.

Don't be too harsh on me..Woody

April 17, 2011 at 11:57 a.m.
canarysong said...

Since dude_abides and dl brought up Elvis, I have a gift for everyone...

Check out this fabulous music video on YouTube. It's a Dutch techno remix of Elvis' 1968 performance of 'A Little More Conversation'. It is pure Elvis at his coolest and sounds completely current. I can't imagine anyone, regardless of their age or musical preferences, not loving this! It has everything.... hip hop dancers, ballerinas, break dancers, tap dancers, pole dancers, gospel singers, cheerleaders, tie-dye, mohawks, saddle shoes, and a preacher at a pulpit (seriously!). FUN!! I dare you to sit still in your chair!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HIb7sf23CA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

(SeaMonkey, if this doesn't put a big smile on your face then you are truly beyond hope.)

April 17, 2011 at 12:23 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

CONFIRMATION BIAS

Okay, kids. Today's topic is 'Confirmation Bias,' so let's see how many of you employ this cognitive behavior. Here's one definition:

"Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis. "As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

Do you discount stories, articles, or polls that disagree with you?

Do you seek out stories, articles, or polls that agree with you?

Congratulations! Now that you know what it's called, maybe now you'll be more objective!

Not holding my breath, but a boy can dream.

April 17, 2011 at 1:22 p.m.
Julian1 said...

"I defy anyone to point to any place in the Bible where it even indicates "Thou shalt not punish."

I defy anyone to point to any place in the Bible where it indicates "Thou shalt not keep slaves." Slavery was not questioned in the Bible, and was indeed condoned, because it was considered a normal, accepted institution in ancient societies and for the men who wrote the Bible. Unlike the men who wrote the Bible, we now find slavery morally repulsive. Perhaps our modern thinking about punishment should also demonstrate a moral improvement over the values of biblical times?

April 17, 2011 at 1:22 p.m.
Rufus_T_Firefly said...

Republicans are all about constitutional rights as long as it puts a $$ in their pocket.

A Republican believes that life begins at conception and ends at birth.

Once that egg has escaped the uterus, let it fend for itself!

April 17, 2011 at 1:35 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

no, seasmokie...your post is pathetic

abortion is no more an unquestionable right than it is for someone to shoot another person from behind or hit them in the back of the head with a shovel because they don't like the way they look...or because they're walking in front them on the sidewalk.

it's been repeated so often by you libs, hollywood and the liberal media that it's a right that lazy citizens take it as such.

the stupid tired old camparison between the being in favor of the death penalty and against abortion...doesn't cut it anymore.

a murderer can very much can be a christian.... he can ask for forgiveness....but it's still murder. he's still a murder...

a woman who has had an abortion can very much be a christian....but it's still murder..she's still committed murder....she can ask for forgiveness

but those that promote abortion, and that means backing candidates that want to perpetuate it, are hyporcrites of the worst kind.

being pro abortion, which means being pro murder, which means being ok with preying on the most vulnarable, is not consistant with being a christian and is evil...pure evil..

to believe abortion is ok with god, is pure denial.

how can anyone possibly defend the murder of an unborn baby because the baby's mother would be inconvenienced? that's what it boils down to.

it's twisted logic and immoral.

April 17, 2011 at 1:43 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have a question for you, Monkey. Do you believe that a fertilized egg is a person and is due the same rights as any other person? My next question will depend on your answer to this one.

April 17, 2011 at 1:47 p.m.
canarysong said...

Rivieravol wrote;

"A Gallup poll in 2009 found that for the first time ever more women were pro-life than pro-choice, 49%." "...never confuse a Liberal with the facts."

--- If you want to argue based on polls you should get your own facts straight; support for legal abortion is going up. Here is the latest information (March 3, 2011):

"Pew Poll Finds Support for Legal Abortion Goes Up, So Does Support for Gay Marriage"

"A new poll from Pew Research reports that 54 percent of folks support legal abortion in all or most cases, compared to just 42 percent who think it should be illegal in all or most cases. This is a big jump from just two years ago when the numbers where 46 in favor to 44 opposed."

And of course, the numbers break down according to party line:

"Support for legal abortion is higher among Democrats and independents than among Republicans. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats (65%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, as do 58% of independents. Among Republicans, just 34% support legal abortion." There was not a significant difference in opinion along gender lines.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/513366/pew_poll_finds_support_for_legal_abortion_goes_up,_so_does_support_for_gay_marriage/

April 17, 2011 at 2:52 p.m.
woody said...

lkeithlu..if you are waiting on a cohesive answer from "The Monk", I wouldn't hold my breath. Remember, the only point he can honestly lay claim to is between his ears.

And, yes, I feel vindicated calling him a he..for the life of me I can't think of any female, alive or dead, who could spew anything close to what comes out of him..and that would include all of my exwives or their mothers.

Chuckle..chuckle..Woody

April 17, 2011 at 2:57 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

yeah, the monkey really only spews rather than answering questions, but who knows? Crazier things have happened...

April 17, 2011 at 3:09 p.m.

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign." - Mother Teresa

April 17, 2011 at 3:47 p.m.
PrometheusX303 said...

That's quite the implication. Any facts to back it up?

April 17, 2011 at 3:50 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Abortion has been available in this country well before Roe v Wade. Abortion (safe, clean, on-demand with no pressure to change your mind, private) was available to wealthy white women in hospitals. The poor and minorities got abortions too, but they were not often safe. Many women died or were rendered sterile by procedures performed in secret and under unsafe conditions.

The advent of safe and affordable birth control as well as the right to privacy make it possible to avoid pregnancy when you are unable to care for a child, whatever the reasons. Unwanted pregnancy is borne ENTIRELY by the mother; only now with DNA testing can a father be held accountable.

No one likes abortion. Few women use abortion as a form of birth control unless they are unable to obtain birth control, have psychological issues, are drug and alcohol addicted or are ignorant of their own reproduction. (all good reasons NOT to be a parent) The way to end abortion is to make it UNNECESSARY: work to make all pregnancies wanted, planned and involving women who have the emotional stability, safe home environment and resources to care for a child to the age of 18.

April 17, 2011 at 4:08 p.m.
Rivieravol said...

"There was not a significant difference in opinion along gender lines."

Canary , thanks for the updated poll numbers. However the statement above from the Pew poll confirmed the point of my original post. Bennett is completely divorced from the real world if he thinks women are more pro-choice than men.

April 17, 2011 at 6:06 p.m.
ITguy said...

Good post lkeithlu. The decision of whether to have an abortion should be left to the woman and her Dr. The notion that a fetus is a person, is nonsense. To call abortion murder is also nonsense. There are many reasons why a woman might choose to have an abortion, and they are none of Andrew's business and none of sea monkey's business.

The self righteous posters on this board need to rub some elbows in the real world and stop assuming that they know the hearts of other people.

April 17, 2011 at 6:13 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Thanks, ITguy. Unfortunately the right wing vilifies one of the most important organizations that is helping to assure pregnancies are planned and unwanted pregnancies are reduced. Makes me wonder what conservatives' motives are.

April 17, 2011 at 6:29 p.m.
limric said...

Here’s a new twist to the abortion debate. Left-wing mediums have responded to a tactic favored by conservatives, where they claim to be the voice of innocent babies who cannot speak for themselves. (the last part alone makes me laugh so hard milk comes out of my nose)…but I digress.

Borrowing from the same conservative tome of magic; a version of a the séance - that allows communication with people after they leave this world, the wine-drinking, Subaru-driving mediums have created the préance to communicate with babies before they come into this world.

Their plan is that this way, each baby can be asked whether it wishes to be born or not. The mediums communicate race, income level and demographics to the unborn thereby allowing them the liberty to choose. The mention of liberty had at first brought about wild approval within the Tea Party, but has, as of this writing, evolved to mild confusion and much head scratching.

With the exception Tennessee, this new magic has already shown reduced birth rates in states below the Mason Dixon Line.

China, India, and all of Africa are seeing declines as well.

The mediums responsible for this break through are not resting though, and are working on a new version whereby ovulating women can communicate with their ova in deciding who to mate with.

Current experiments have resulted in overwhelming mentions of Leonardo DiCaprio, Johnny Depp, Will Smith, and a stern warning to stay away from anyone who even remotely reminds them of Newt Gingrich.

In an effort to show they won’t be cowed by witchery, Republicans have decided to remove all free market magic provisions from Rep. Paul Ryan’s current Medicare and budget proposal

April 17, 2011 at 7:43 p.m.
joepulitzer said...

dude_abides, you ignoramus, a fur tree is one that is not close by. Good grief, man!

April 17, 2011 at 8:23 p.m.
limric said...

Canarysong,

Quote: "If you want to argue based on polls you should get your own facts straight; support for legal abortion is going up."

I think you should rephrase that to: Support for the affirmation of a woman's right to chose. Key word, whether the hypocritic right likes it or not, it is your - "right."

April 17, 2011 at 8:34 p.m.
aidehua said...

I suffered through Gail Collins article in yesterday's paper. No where was the word "adoption" mentioned. I suppose "abortion" is the liberal litmus test - the holy grail to prove one's political correctness. I see no reason why we taxpayers should subsidize abortion or Planned Parenthood. That is an abomination! Roe vs. Wade is a judicial travesty that keeps this controversy from being decided by legislatures around the country.

April 17, 2011 at 9:48 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Sorry, joepulitzer, I didn't realize your dialogue was of an idiomatic nature. Let's see how your sentence looks now... "oh, he's over there in Jurassic Park hugging a tree that is not close by!" Nope, still seems kind of clunky. But, from now on, I will try to read your posts with a rural twang. Thanky fer the crekshun!

April 17, 2011 at 10:04 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Can any conservatives here explain the thought process behind not wanting to allow legal abortion as an option for a victim of rape or incest, or to protect the health of the mother? I'm sure nobody here agrees with this mindset, but I'm sure that wouldn't stop you from voting for those that do.

April 17, 2011 at 10:36 p.m.
canarysong said...

Ikeithlu, you wrote some great posts today!

Limric,

LMAO! I loved how you emphasized "evolved". "Préance", I can't stand it, I'm laughing all over again! And you definitely have it nailed with the Subarus; I live right in the middle of just that type (you should add Birkenstocks and pachouli to the picture). I think that you should submit that to The Onion; you're a natural!

I agree with your suggestion on the phrasing. It's a difficult issue with a lot of grey areas, and pro-choice certainly does not mean pro-abortion. I think that it really comes back to that suggestion (based on the recent brain research) that liberals are more able to deal with complexity.

April 18, 2011 at 1:45 a.m.
potcat said...

~~Plagiarism~~

April 18, 2011 at 2:39 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

Good, dude, there maybe hope for you liberals, yet.

April 18, 2011 at 5:55 a.m.
BobMKE said...

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks here or does. Anytime we do something we have to ask ourselves, is it pleasing to the Lord? Is abortion pleasing to the Lord? No one is powerful enough to shake their fist in the face of God and get away with it because He wins in the end. This also applies to A la carte Christians.

April 18, 2011 at 8:28 a.m.
holdout said...

Why is abortion limited to in the womb people? Shouldn't we allow parents a few years to see how the kids are working out before making the choice? If your kid isn't up to snuff by say tenth grade then abort them and try again. I bet it would make the little varmits study harder and show a little more respect to their elders. maybe the schools could give an exam and grade it on a curve and we could lop off the bottom 5% each year. Man! I can imagine kids fighting for library time to get that homework done! I bet Colledge Park would be empty in the evenings.

April 18, 2011 at 9:04 a.m.
chet123 said...

LISTEN to all the BS coming from all these purist,self righteous bozo....who was waving american flags when bush bombed iraq in a preempt strike which killed 10th of thousands women and children...Segment of American was Drooling even the Churches and Pastor like Southern Baptist Charles Stanley ,,congregation in Atlanta applaud one Sunday worship service in regard to attack on iraq....where was the pro-lifer...where was the pro-lifer when man is shot 40times on his own porch...hmmmmmmmm where are the purist and pro-lifer.. where were the pro-lifer when people are excuted in prison because of flawed defense attorney(pure evidence is cover up.....i like to know where are these pro-lifer when childen school lunch are cut back(reagan did when he was in office)where are pro-lifer when poor and middle class people are taken advantage of with sky rocket premiun by private insurance company(which max. their return on their investment,,redistributing wealth upward),which result of poor people cutting back on doctor visit and shorting their life...Where are these folks then,,,where are them...please be consistence and not just saying something because it cultural popular.....i knew you were full of BS when i saw sea monkey leading the Charge LOL LOL LOL........that why you cant get any levelage or respect or taken seriously.....you are so inconsistent

April 18, 2011 at 9:12 a.m.

The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

"But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love, and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even his life to love us. So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion. " - Mother Teresa

April 18, 2011 at 10:37 a.m.
Leaf said...

I think the difference between pro-life and pro-choice boils down to brain chemistry and situational ethics. Pro-life people can't see shades of gray easily, and confused by too many variables they fall back to the default position "killing a fetus is bad."

Pro-choice people can theorize many scenarios when doing something bad can lead to a greater good. If a girl has been raped by her father for example, perhaps it would be better to abort that fetus. Instead of raising that baby with all sorts of problems, the woman could go on to have a better life and raise other kids she wouldn't have had if she had been forced to carry the first one.

It's sort of the whole, "would you kill Hitler in 1933 if you had the chance" question. Sadly, only those able to understand shades of gray can appreciate this argument.

April 18, 2011 at 10:54 a.m.
dude_abides said...

whats_wrong_with_mother_teresa:

While I have always had respect for Mother Teresa, I don't think of her as the be-all end-all on matters of personal choice. She kinda sorta disqualified herself, in my opinion, from being an expert on anything related to sex, contraception, childbirth, etc. by taking the vow to abstain from those very items. WWWTW, would you take her stand on contraception as gospel? I wouldn't hire a steeplejack to fix my plumbing, so to speak.

"Mother Teresa's philosophy and implementation have faced some criticism. Catholic newspaper editor David Scott wrote that Mother Teresa limited herself to keeping people alive rather than tackling poverty itself.[43] She has also been criticized for her view on suffering. She felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.[44] Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International , criticised the failure to give pain killers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could “hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's bizarre philosophy, it is ‘the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ’.”[45] The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis.[46] Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as "haphazard", as volunteers without medical knowledge had to take decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors. He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.[47]

April 18, 2011 at 11:01 a.m.
dude_abides said...

...Colette Livermore, a former Missionary of Charity, describes her reasons for leaving the order in her book Hope Endures: Leaving Mother Teresa, Losing Faith, and Searching for Meaning. Livermore found what she called Mother Teresa's "theology of suffering" to be flawed, despite being a good and courageous person. Though Mother Teresa instructed her followers on the importance of spreading the Gospel through actions rather than theological lessons, Livermore could not reconcile this with some of the practices of the organization. Examples she gives include unnecessarily refusing to help the needy when they approached the nuns at the wrong time according to the prescribed schedule, discouraging nuns from seeking medical training to deal with the illnesses they encountered (with the justification that God empowers the weak and ignorant), and imposition of "unjust" punishments, such as being transferred away from friends. Livermore says that the Missionaries of Charity "infantilized" its nuns by prohibiting the reading of secular books and newspapers, and emphasizing obedience over independent thinking and problem-solving."

April 18, 2011 at 11:02 a.m.
potcat said...

India was the first country to establish a policy for population control. India's population will rise to just over 1.6 billion people by 2050. ~~ At Lok Nayak Hospital, on the edge of the chaotic and densely peopled nest of lanes that is OLD Delhi, a human tide flows through the entrance gate every morning and crowds inside on the lobby floor. "who could see this and not be worried about the population of India?" a surgeon named Chandan Bortamuly asked one afternoon as he made his way toward his VASECTOMY CLINIC. Bortamuly stepped into a small operating room. Inside two MEN lay stretched out on examination tables, their TESTICLES Poking up through holes in the green sheets. A ceiling fan pushed cool air from two window units around thr room. A no-scaple vasectomy costs far less and is Easier on a man than a tubal ligation is on a woman.In the operating theater Bortamuly worked quickly. "they say the Needle Pricks like an ant bite," he explained, when the first patient Flinched at the local anesthetic. Using the Pointed Tip of a Forceps, Bortamuly made a tiny hole in the skin of the SCROTUM and pulled out an oxbow of white, stringy vas deferens- the sperm conduit from the patient's Right Testicle. He tied off both ends of the oxbow with black thread, snipped them, and pushed them back under the skin. In less than seven minutes- a nurse timed him- the patient was walking out without so much as a band-aid. THE GOVERMENT WILL PAY Bortamuly an incentive fee for every procedure. NATIONAL GEOGRAPIC-January 2011- Population 7 BILLION-Robert Kunzig.

` The number one killer of WOMEN and CHILDREN from the beginning of time has been Child birth. You wouldn't want me to describe the horrors of that! ~

April 18, 2011 at 11:11 a.m.
dude_abides said...

yes, potcat, there is a vas deferens between a vasectomy and tubal litigation. No, Screamhonky, twoball libation would be incorrect, you nutcase. i know, i know, puns are the lowest form of humor.

April 18, 2011 at 11:32 a.m.
limric said...

What Ho potcat,

You learned the origins, but not yet the meaning of “Limric”. Much of my witty prose and antagonistic writings, those that ingratiate you so, are products of studies of the likes of Geoffrey Chaucer. I am merely his scion – SonofChaucer. Nice detective work.
Now, can you link the name “Limric”, it’s definition and Chaucer? Can you?

Some of my twisted scribbling must be credited to John McLaughlin - emeritus English professor from East Stroudsburg, Sigmund Eisner is a emeritus of English at the University of Arizona, indirectly, author Hunter S. Thompson, and as of late, Greg Crites. There are others of course, but you get the idea.

I have spent much of my professional life as a cranky liberal, a *slush pile writer, philosopher of ill repute, cub astronomer, unabashed intellectual and pompous ass. That last bit comes from a certain tiny sea creature, which, since I can’t just throw him in front of an angry horde of speeding Hells Angels, I’ll live with.

I’ve been writing this fluff for a long time, and for various publishers and web sites (including the *Onion). Only recently have I had the privilege to test the waters in the heart of the deep south, Chattanooga Tennessee.

Nowher so besy a man as he ther n’ as, And yet he semed besier than he was.

Back to the subject. All of the theological and ethics spin around square dance miss THE one important point. And it is here where the true hypocrite wallows in their own filth. Quotes: “The murder of little babies is evil, murder her unborn baby, abortion is no more an unquestionable right than it is for someone to shoot another person from behind or hit them in the back of the head with a shovel, how can anyone possibly defend the murder of an unborn baby, The greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.” Doesn’t matter who said what. It’s all the same. The underlying conception of abortion here is that it is murder – plain and simple. Murder has a pretty cut and dried definition that doesn’t allow much wiggle room for anyone...except for ‘pro-life advocates.’ Is it not they that have made their own exceptions for ‘murder’? Abortion is murder – except for rape or incest. Hmm, who made them god. And. Isn’t an unborn child conceived from a rape just as innocent as any other? If not, why not. How do you reconcile this?

All men (and women) would have or demand an abortion for their own wife or daughter were they a victim of rape. This is a fact. It is not arguable. Any who say or even hint otherwise are liars. This thereby negates their counter spin, ‘There are certain exceptions to murder, such as self defense, war etc’, because their overlying conception, the very basis for their argument - is predicated on one word. “Innocent.”

I’ll be out te slop you hogs just afore sundown.

April 18, 2011 at 11:49 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Monkey wrote - "a murderer can very much can be a christian.... he can ask for forgiveness....but it's still murder. he's still a murder...

a woman who has had an abortion can very much be a christian....but it's still murder..she's still committed murder....she can ask for forgiveness

... so basically you saying it's between the mother and her Savior? Her choice?

Thank you for making my point. You're the best friend liberals can have.

April 18, 2011 at 12:04 p.m.
fairmon said...

Woody,

You had me wondering if I had created a word but it is a currently legitimate term, check your dictionary (google), see necessitarian. example; not canarysong as I expected.

Abortion is a complex and difficult issue and I don't approve of it. However, If I were the King and made the laws there would be no law therefore a patient and her physicians decision. I don't think the government or anyone else should be able to dictate personal or moral decisions. Morals can't be legislated, If they could be we would have no drug, alcohol or theft problems and may have better people in political and other influential positions.

April 18, 2011 at 12:20 p.m.

Someone has pointed out that many liberals become conservatives when their daughters become teenagers. For those who remain liberals, elective abortions are a way to evade the inevitable consequences of their permissive sexual ethos of modern liberalism. Women are routinely manipulated and ruthlessly pressured into aborting their babies by self-serving parents and boyfriends. Rarely is it an independent, autonomous choice of the woman involved. Humans simply don’t exist in such a world of autonomous choice-making.

In addition to considerations for the health and liberty of the expectant mother, we should also consider the welfare of the human being at the other end of the umbilical cord. If you accept the gender-privileging component of the arguments favoring legal elective abortions, males will have a legitimate interest in the debate as long as a portion of aborted babies are males.

In China and India, the overwhelming majority of aborted babies are female. There, the social utility function of abortion is taken seriously, and the effects are chilling. (“Gendercide: The War on Baby Girls,” http://www.economist.com/node/15606229)

April 18, 2011 at 12:28 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

"Women are routinely manipulated and ruthlessly pressured into sex"

There-corrected that for you.

April 18, 2011 at 12:49 p.m.

lkeithlu said...

"Women are routinely manipulated and ruthlessly pressured into sex." "There-corrected that for you."

--

Yes. Both types of pressure are routinely applied.

April 18, 2011 at 3:04 p.m.
chet123 said...

WHAT WRONG WITH THE WORLD...what wrong with you!....there you go one track minded again.....would love to see you get pregnant...lol..lol your opinion would change on a dime LOL LOL....just make sure you have done the right thing...and stop meddling where your nose dont belong.....notice you are critical of any minority...white female....you seen to blind when its white narrow minded male are transgressors lol lol lol.....be a real man...and stop trying to rule weaker segment of society.....be a real man.....if you are so hung up with this issue....work thru your church....this is a spiritual issue....too bad the church dont have the power of early believer(Church)...who could tranform unbeleiver after the day of pentecost in repentence of their sins, the early church had the power to heal the sick, restore sight to the blind,and other miracles....today church have sold out to evil, corporates greed,oligarchy...they dont profess the teaching of christ(more like a social club..day care,single group, ect)...but i understand that prople like you wont go against the powerful...you chicken,,,chicken hearted....the group you in would run you out of town....and dont give me that tax money crap...my taxes money go to Oil subsidies...but you will never say anything about that.......DO YOU HAVE A SOUL??? how can you be so self rightous........!!

April 18, 2011 at 3:54 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Whoa-Chet. Slow down, breathe, and write in complete sentences. Check your work before clicking "post comment". Your posts are nearly incoherent-reminds me too much of the Monkey. Also, you are WAY over-using the LOL, dude (or dudette).

April 18, 2011 at 4:07 p.m.
chet123 said...

and WHAT WROnG...the words Liberal,conservative, democrat,republican, not in the bibles....so dont play this childish game on NAMES......only republican play that game....a page from "lee atwater"..redefined your enemy!!!! LOL LOL LOL research him....from credible source...not your bias think tanks LOL LOL

April 18, 2011 at 4:10 p.m.
chet123 said...

hey english teacher....bring on some substance..and accuracy...who give a rat butt about i's dotted and t's crossed...get real MAN

April 18, 2011 at 4:12 p.m.
chet123 said...

IKEITHlU...dont have anything to say huh..LOL LOL

April 18, 2011 at 4:14 p.m.
chet123 said...

let uncle chet give you a lesson on your history...in the south and america

April 18, 2011 at 4:15 p.m.
chet123 said...

because nothing you have said amount to anything.....thing just dont happen...they slowly evovles from past action...MAN!!!

April 18, 2011 at 4:17 p.m.
chet123 said...

let me go...run off as always...you dont hear this stuff at home or the church....ITS CALLED THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

April 18, 2011 at 4:18 p.m.
chet123 said...

people with no real conviction ...runs....whey will come back like a chicken after i leave....i'm out of here

April 18, 2011 at 4:20 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

ikeithlu...that's true...and it has been for a long time...but, in this country feminism has made the reverse true as well....women are behaving more like the men that they condem...

the fact that abortion, the taking of an unborn human life, is just another issue like whether or not to build a highway, or whether or not to raise taxes.....is proof that since roe v wade human life has been devalued and we've lost our moral authority.....you libs bitch about the loss of our exceptionalism and our moral authority because of iraq or afghanistan. or watergate....but it's abortion that has left a stain on us that will never be removed.

to hear ad nauseam, "i'm for a woman's right to choose" , or "i'm pro choice"..as so many in this country say...speaks to our callousneess, our coldness, our lack of humanity and to why some many young people don't fear any condequences for their bahavior ...

aaah...it's no big deal..we'll just get rid of it...like a wart.

pathetic

April 18, 2011 at 4:30 p.m.
chet123 said...

there go Rev. seamoney.....did he say a stain.....like to see you pregnant seamonkey

April 18, 2011 at 4:51 p.m.
chet123 said...

the chanpion of justice....seamonkey just irgnore all other killing by white males on weaker people....this is his stain LOL LOL amen brother....dont include native american,,or the holocust of slavery,...or how many bubble in a bar of soap....you are the great self-righteous rev. seamonkey...LOL LOL LOL

April 18, 2011 at 4:55 p.m.
chet123 said...

scarey rabbits runs off again...

April 18, 2011 at 4:57 p.m.
rolando said...

A bit off topic but also a bit important:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/18/news/economy/us_credit_rating_outlook_lowered/index.htm

Anyone worried yet? Better yet, anyone care?

April 18, 2011 at 5:08 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Yeah, rolando-that story was the first that really had me concerned. It's a pretty bad sign.

April 18, 2011 at 5:12 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

SeaMonkey, perhaps you missed my question. Is a fertilized egg the same as a human and due all the same rights?

April 18, 2011 at 5:13 p.m.

chet123 said ... "DO YOU HAVE A SOUL??? how can you be so self rightous........!!"

--

If possessing a soul consists of commenting with all caps, or if self-righteousness is measured by exclamation marks, you’ve answered your own questions.

(To boast of having so much gray matter and ability to navigate the nuances and subtleties of complex issues, liberals can get rather dramatic and excessive with their punctuation (to say nothing of their fondness for ad hominem arguments).

"How many beats must a beating heart have -

before you call him a (hu)man?"

April 18, 2011 at 5:19 p.m.
chet123 said...

off topic...well i dont think so....i see a lot of controlling ...or trying to....i am against abortion...but that my choice....other should have a choice...keep government out...

April 18, 2011 at 5:20 p.m.
chet123 said...

WHATS WRONG you got to be an OLD man to talk that crazy....

April 18, 2011 at 5:22 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Julian 1 said: "These so-called "pro-life" folk are often hypocrites. They want to protect the unborn, but allow the living to die in great big bleeding batches (gun worship, nonstop war, capital punishment, swinging cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that condemn the old, the sick, the poor, and the unfortunate to early graves). Give me a break."

I came to this same conclusion some time ago, Julian1. I also believe the list you mention is actually longer when you consider the “anti-life” position many of these same people have taken when it comes to protecting the public from known cancer causing chemicals often found in our air, food chain, water, and environment. Where is the concern and compassion for human life when it involves these life threatening issues?

April 18, 2011 at 5:54 p.m.
moonpie said...

SeaMonkey,

I think it is easy to think of abortion in terms of moral absolutes, like binary code of right and wrong.

On paper, it's easier to think of things like this in those terms.

It's also easier to tell others how to live sometimes than it is to live your own life. Every parent has faced a moment of "Do as I say, not as I do." This does not make what the parent says wrong, but merely highlights the imperfection of humans.

I know you're old enough to remember life before Roe v Wade, but it sounds like you probably never had to care for women who were dying of sepsis after having an abortion by a person with inadequate training or who didn't use sterile technique.

It's interesting that the founding fathers didn't address this issue in the constitution since abortion was a commonly advertized practice at that time.

I'm not saying abortion is right. There were many women who had abortions who did so for social pressures which don't exist now to the same degree. Still many others had children they were already struggling to provide for. Right or wrong, these women sought abortion.

Right or wrong, legal or not, women will always seek abortion. From a practical issue, if we ever made it illegal, women would still seek abortion and it would not be as safe for her as a legal abortion. The social costs of this would be significant, as they were before....

When you combine this fact with the fact that more than half of unintended pregnancies are contraception failures, it's not like most women are simply using abortion as their front line birth control.

Currently insurance providers set up significant barriers for women to obtain adequate birth control. Out of pocket expenses for 1 pack of pills can be $40-60 per month and many carriers won't allow a woman to get more than 1 month at a time. In family planning clinics which supply 12 months of pills at once, pregnancy rates decline substantially. But of course, many on the Right want to defund Planned Parenthood, an organization which is breaking no laws and which could help ease this burden.

If you and others really want to decrease the number of abortions, do something to help women (and men) obtain adequate contraception. After vasectomy, an IUD is the cheapest, safest, most effective contraception on the market. Start funding programs like Planned Parenthood to provide these services at low or no cost. Don't run the other way.

Provide help. Preaching isn't helping much.

April 18, 2011 at 6:49 p.m.
fairmon said...

It doesn't appear anyone has changed their opinion and we have no consensus on the woman's right to kill her kid before giving birth issue which greatly diminishes the likelihood we will.

It is not surprising this issue is just as big a mess and as controversial as most things the federal government intervenes and becomes involved in.

Why are judges treated like some small deity to the point they come to believe they are? It is amazing that 9 people with the same information have 4 reach one conclusion and five others an entirely different one and the 5 set the law of the country. It would seem at least require a 2/3 majority to become law. This is law, not legislation.

The most litigious nation in the world and we still have only one supreme court with 9 people sitting as experts on everything. They are unable to address many issues due to a lack of time. They can just decline to hear a case for any reason or for no reason. I doubt the founders could picture ever needing more than an occasional session for the supreme court.

Lawyers and judges use precedents frequently, prior rulings and decisions. This is like saying they screwed it up in who vs. what in 1902 therefore henceforth we must all screw it up just as they did. Notice how it is always a lawyer or judge that says we have the greatest legal system on earth as they smile at the camera while getting in their new Mercedes or chauffeured limo. Could it be improved?

April 18, 2011 at 6:49 p.m.
rolando said...

Apparently, lkeithlu, me and you are the only ones here who even noticed...or cared. OK; you and I... /smile

April 18, 2011 at 8:11 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Indeed, rolando. I was feeling pretty confident about the (slow) recovery. Not sure after today.

April 18, 2011 at 8:24 p.m.

harp3339 said...

“It is not surprising this issue is just as big a mess and as controversial as most things the federal government intervenes and becomes involved in.

“Why are judges treated like some small deity to the point they come to believe they are? It is amazing that 9 people with the same information have 4 reach one conclusion and five others an entirely different one and the 5 set the law of the country. It would seem at least require a 2/3 majority to become law. This is law, not legislation.

“The most litigious nation in the world and we still have only one supreme court with 9 people sitting as experts on everything.”

You are right on the money. Roe v. Wade has not only wreaked havoc in the lives of the most vulnerable and helpless members of our society, it played a pivotal role in moving the U.S. away from participatory democracy and toward rule by an unchecked oligarchy of nine. The Roe decision was a subversion of the will of the people as voiced through dozens of state legislatures throughout the U.S. These self-annointed demi-gods have pursued an agenda of creating law by fiat and constructing new “constitutional rights” (such as the “right of privacy”) in Roe v. Wade – all based on their own elitist social and moral agenda.

Subsequent decisions, such as Roe v. Washington and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as well as on issues unrelated to abortion, have accelerated their grab for power, which has served to alienate the people from their government and develop a sense of cynicism toward it. The people feel powerless knowing that the legislative and executive branches – and this politics itself – have been usurped and the will of the people circumvented. There were warnings about this direction of the court throughout the first half of the 20th century, with the process accelerating in the 1960s and 70s. As much as we have surrendered power to the federal government as a whole, the Supreme Court has reaped the lion’s share. There is an enormous amount of research backing this up, and I would love to track it down and share it, but I don’t have time at the moment. (If you are interested, the information isn’t hard to find.)

In the time that I had, I did come across this link to an article on “How Abortion Empowers Men”

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/07/her-choice-her-problem

April 18, 2011 at 8:44 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Interesting article, WWWTW, but I don't think you solve men's exploitation of women by making abortion illegal. You do this by educating and empowering women, making effective and safe birth control affordable and available. "Banning" abortion doesn't make abortion go away; it makes it dangerous for those who can't pay to have it done secretly.

Until recently medical insurance favored men. Birth control when I was child-bearing age was not covered, but out of pocket. Although pills had improved, they were still too strong and caused side effects. Not much money was being spent on research and development, and insurance was slow to cover new drugs. (On the other hand, Viagra was covered as soon as it hit the market) Comprehensive sex education was and still is being fought against by conservatives. And the age-old tension between girls, who are pressured by society to be good, and boys, who are driven by hormones to have sex, still exists: Boys pressure girls to "go all the way", girls enjoy and abuse the power they have over boys, and the culture and media exude sex in ways that it didn't even a generation ago.

The US leads western nations in teen pregnancy and birth, too many girls are ignorant about their own reproduction, and too many boys are not taught by their fathers that they assume an 18 year, $300,000 commitment called "parenthood" every time they have sex. Children are being born to slightly older children and raised by grandparents.

Solve the problems that lead to abortion rather than banning it. It will not go away just because it's illegal. The problems will get worse, and the burden will be born by those least able to bear it: the young, the mentally and emotionally undeveloped or handicapped, and those already in poverty. These in term will have children that have health problems due to drugs, alcohol, and inadequate prenatal care, and will grow up in homes that may be unstable, violent, or negligent.

April 18, 2011 at 9:16 p.m.
fairmon said...

wwwtw,

I am not against a woman having the choice. I am against the federal government taking any position on the issue. I am against any holier than thou judge deciding for them. I think the freedom to select assisted termination should exist on the other end of the life cycle. Visit any nursing home or alzheimer's unit and tell me any one of those people knowing how their existence would be wouldn't prefer to terminate first. As wrong as some think it is and as terrible as it seems I would prefer self termination than have a confined no quality, existing only life. Those same judges and many people that condone abortion condemn assisted termination, what is their justification?

April 18, 2011 at 10:27 p.m.

Any woman should have the choice, but, not at the tax payers expense. If you cant afford it, put an aspirin between your knees.

April 18, 2011 at 10:31 p.m.
chet123 said...

brainerdrebels67....oil company get subsidies at tax payer expense.....what good for the goose is good for the gander..i protest that...but donthear you crying out against

April 18, 2011 at 10:38 p.m.

chet/francis the cartoon has nothing to do with oil, dip stick.

April 18, 2011 at 10:48 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

A truer statement cannot be found, Clay.

April 18, 2011 at 11:14 p.m.
SavartiTN said...

And you are right, Rolando. You would think that there are more important things to worry about in today's world.

April 18, 2011 at 11:16 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

lkeithlu and rolando, I have been seeing similar reports over the past six months, and I'm definitely worried. Not to the point of panic... yet. But I dare say if I live a full life, I will at some point see a very devastating and abrupt change in my day-to-day life unless some brand new, currently unknown factor comes in to play that will allow us to rectify our financial woes. Hopefully the later will occur, but most likely...

April 18, 2011 at 11:30 p.m.
fairmon said...

SeaMonkey,

I have to ask. Would you have condemned Obama's mother if she had opted for an abortion due to her hardship at the time which may have prevented some, not all, of our current leadership hardship?

brainerdrebels67,

I think we have both stated the government should not be subsidizing anything including oil, farmers, banks, abortions etc. etc. ( I am not sure we wouldn't be better off paying for and maybe even encouraging more abortions ) nor should special tax treatment be provided as documented in a 4 ft. high stack of pages (70,000 I think) which are not comprehendable by a CPA or an IRS agent. In today's world there is no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy other than rape. Chet doesn't hear well when he is talking.

April 18, 2011 at 11:52 p.m.

Harp Few people here I agree with more than you. I would give what you and others are willing to give in taxes, but some things rub me the wrong way. Keeping your pants up is one of them. It comes down to how you are raised.

April 18, 2011 at 11:58 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

OFF TOPIC POST, BEWARNED! (but it lines up with what lkeithlu and rolando are talking about, or possibly ties into it anyway.)

This topic has been mentioned by people who post here in the past, but I was reminded about it as I was typing my last post. I wanted to offer the quote shown below, but preface it by asking you to check out this link after reading the quote.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a louse fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence:"

If you read on at the link, you will see an outline of the sequence of events with respect to our country's timeline. It makes sense, and lines up with the link rick1 posted to the letter written by Obama's former classmate as well. That's not to say I'm accusing him of those things now, but considering the possibility in all seriousness.

Obama did say that (paraphrasing) he thinks (in distaste) that the Constitution outlines too many things the government cannot do to you rather than how many things it can do for you (which is akin to the government control that Socialism is built upon). That interview is at this link (I've posted it before in case you've already seen it once) and showcases a couple of his far left ideals. (I'm not attacking just him here; extremists on either end receive a lot of skepticism from me.) Just something to think about as the events to come unfold. Maybe this theory will be proven wrong.

April 19, 2011 at midnight
fairmon said...

The first small event of many to come happened today. S&P down graded America's credit rating. Others will follow once QE2 is completed on or around 6/30/2011. Interest rate increases and inflation will follow. Both parties will talk and rave about reducing spending but neither will take the essential action. Taxes, fees and other revenue sources will increase along with bracket creep. We may all feel like we have had an abortion or that we are the aborted before long.

Who do you think will buy our bonds once the fed quits printing money to buy them with? Other countries either can't afford to or like China and the middle eastern countries don't want any more.

April 19, 2011 at 12:07 a.m.
Gideon_Planish said...

Jesus was a Jew.

Jesus followed Jewish Law.

The Apostles were Jews.

The Apostles followed Jewish Law.

The rabbinical interpretation is (most often) that human embryos do not have souls.

Soul: Judaism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul The Hebrew terms ruach (literally "wind"), and neshama (literally "breath") are used to describe the soul or spirit. The soul is believed to be given by God to a person by his/her first breath, as mentioned in Genesis, "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7). From this statement, the rabbinical interpretation is often that human embryos do not have souls, though the orthodox often oppose abortion as a form of birth control...

Birth and the First Month of Life http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm "In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body." - Judasim 101:

Bible in Basic English: Genesis 2:7 http://bible.cc/genesis/2-7.htm "And the Lord God made man from the dust of the earth, breathing into him the breath of life: and man became a living soul."

Neither the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) or the New Testament explicitly prohibits abortion.

God never explicitly prohibited abortion.

Moses never explicitly prohibited abortion.

Jesus never explicitly prohibited abortion.

The Apostles never explicitly prohibited abortion.

April 19, 2011 at 12:10 a.m.

Harp In your opinion, would you suggest I cash in my 401k? I no longer add to it as I am disabled and retired.

April 19, 2011 at 12:14 a.m.
fairmon said...

Musicman,

You got it. We have already exceeded the average of former dynasty's and republics. What many don't realize is the dictatorship is evolved to. It is not a wake up one morning and you have one. People are too willing to trade freedom and liberty for perceived safety beyond what a strong military provides against foreign invasion.

The safety people are drawn to and duped by are the multitude of welfare programs that invites them to avoid the struggle of providing for their own well being. Children, elderly and disabled should and can be provided for by local and state entities.

April 19, 2011 at 12:18 a.m.
fairmon said...

brainerdreb,

I am not sure about what to do with my own 401K and IRA. I am concerned that the government may require those in a 401K or IRA to buy federal bonds which decrease in value if interest rates go up unless they are held to full maturity. The quandary is what to do with the money if you do withdraw it. A good trust worthy financial planner is expensive but may be worth it if a substantial amount is involved.

April 19, 2011 at 12:30 a.m.

There is no penalty involved. I have let it set and it has grown because it is driven by the stock market. But it goes down when the market goes down.

April 19, 2011 at 12:46 a.m.
fairmon said...

A good adviser and accountant can help if they are good at what they do. 401k or IRA before tax contributions have to be reported as ordinary income when withdrawn. That can put you in a higher tax bracket and increase your medicare premium if taxable income exceeds a certain amount (I think 85,000 or so for single). Social security becomes taxable if income exceeds, I think around $32,000.

Those with higher incomes don't get breaks except those with extremely high incomes that can use the special breaks provided for the mega wealthy.

April 19, 2011 at 4:47 a.m.
fairmon said...

One prejudicial sounding but accurate statistic not mentioned yet is the difference in the birth rate of those on the welfare rolls compared to those that are successful and/or career oriented. An annual increase of 3% of the welfare roles would result in the number doubling in 24 years while the number of those supporting them stay static. This could suggest there is a need to support more abortions while placing more emphasis on education and opportunity. I should always add in my opinion which is very different than many.

April 19, 2011 at 5:17 a.m.

harp3339 said...

“Those same judges and many people that condone abortion condemn assisted termination, what is their justification?”


I think you meant to use “condemn” (twice) rather than “condone.” People who are pro-life are also usually against physician-assisted suicide. The common thread is that both practices are denials of the sanctity of all human life. The person who is concerned about quality of life in nursing homes should work to improve them by visiting them frequently (as it sounds like you probably do) or work to decrease the need for them. I know many who have lived in them who have lost hope. The solution, however, is not to facilitate their suicide. Or to prevent the possibility of them ever arriving at such a lot by aborting them. The solution is to patiently love them and facilitate others (especially their families) loving them.

Physicians take an oath to never do harm to their patients, even if requested to do so by the patient. Both pagan and biblical ethical traditions have affirmed that assisted suicide lies outside the purview of the healing arts. This position does not entail vitalism – the idea that life should be extended indefinitely no matter the condition of the patient. It simply recognizes the limitations of our ability as humans to determine when our “quality of life” is so poor that we have earned the right to end it. As is the case with abortion, no law will eliminate the practice of suicide. But society has no business legally condoning, facilitating, or financing it.

Many people consider committing suicide when they go through cycles of depression and despair. I know homeless people who often deal with those questions. The way to deal with it is through real friendship. It does not do them a service to allow them to isolate themselves in the bubble of autonomous individualism that modern western society promotes as the ideal. I think that is where I part ways with (those who call themselves) liberals, as well as some libertarians. Isolation is not the same as liberty.

April 19, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.

And the use of abortion or physician-assisted suicide as tools for social engineering is the frightening premise and conclusion of the movements which promote their legality. Who are we to determine when someone has or is likely to have a sufficient quality of life or to make a sufficient contribution to society that we can determine that they are fit to live? Planned Parenthood was founded by and continues to be supported by white, European, well-to-do progressives who believe that you solve problems of poverty and ethnic diversity by encouraging people to “do the responsible thing” and eliminate the vulnerable in society – those who threaten to hold us back from our destination in a brave new world. If all this sounds too philosophical or hypothetical, talk to elderly people in the Netherlands, where the eugenics movement has succeeded in implementing measures such as the ones you suggest. Many of them are terrified of entering nursing homes, or even hospitals, because they know that they have been counted among the undesirables, and that, by seeking treatment, they subject themselves to the utility calculus of social engineers.

Back to abortion: The pro-choice movement – through the federal courts – has made abortion a federal issue. And in our system, the only way to remove it as a federal issue is for the Supreme Court to reverse its decision in Roe. We can make high-minded pronouncements about neither side having all the answers (on abortion, the national debt, or whatever), but what is needed is the courage and patience to work toward incremental changes in the right direction rather than waiting for quick fixes or sweeping, revolutionary change. Call it conservative, or whatever, but I think history bears witness to the fact that in most cases, this is a wise course of action.

April 19, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

WWWTW: In a way I agree that it was poor legislation, but leaving privacy issues in the hands of groups that can be dominated by those who really believe that they should have a say in your medical care is a problem. Now, on Planned Parenthood: Are you really saying that PP counseling people not to have children they cannot afford to support is a bad thing? Or have I misunderstood your post?

April 19, 2011 at 8:09 a.m.
chet123 said...

What Wrong with...you continue to be so inconsistent......pro-life mean just that...determined to pound on a women right....keep attacking the weak IN THE NAME OF GOD!!! you cant cherry pick...and i will remind you

April 19, 2011 at 9:01 a.m.
rolando said...

Indeed, harp and lkeithlu. S&P's action is but a harbinger of "Things to Come".

Harp, your indirect link to Robert Heinlein's character Lazarus Long stirred my memory. I have a small book of "Long's" sayings...another good quote is on Duty.

April 19, 2011 at 9:02 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

Interesting post, Gideon.

April 19, 2011 at 11:37 p.m.
chet123 said...

What wrong...if we dont fix this health care we will become the Netherland(elderly cant afford to live)short on voucher!!!LOL LOL go paul ryan....can you beleive that plan ???? LOL so save your ink...you write just absolutly eloquent......but you are not consistent...it is so easy to punch holes in your arguments....i love the word you use like SOCIAL ENGNEERING(as if thats not going on now),...and you say "WHO ARE WE"...lol lol ..that exactly what you are doing "WE" how about the women privacy(that between her and GOD) "WE" dont will birth...man dont give birth...OH WELL....you and i are still friend my good man....hope you are not angry!These are just our opinion....Maybe one day we will have lunch together...on me!

April 22, 2011 at 8:34 a.m.

Why would a man go to a doctor just because he was pregnant? That is a female thing. He would just go to work and ignore the condition until delivery day. It is females that run off to the doctor for every little thing.

November 10, 2012 at 6:57 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.