published Saturday, August 25th, 2012

Personhood

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 ...

121
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.
Jack_Dennis said...

insulting

August 25, 2012 at 12:06 a.m.
David_Franks said...

Jack_Dennis--

Oh, all right. You ARE a baby.

Sheesh: what a baby.

August 25, 2012 at 12:50 a.m.
OllieH said...

This cartoon is not insulting. A fetus is no more a person than an egg is a chicken.

What IS insulting is a political/religious movement that would strip away the reproductive rights of the women in America. What IS insulting is extending the same rights to a zygote as you would to a living, breathing adult woman.

Groups across the country are currently pushing 'personhood' amendments that establish law based on the declaration that life is sacred from the moment of conception. If enacted, the laws would not only ban ALL abortions under almost every circumstance, but would also effectively outlaw the use of many forms of contraception, as well.

Thankfully, every time one of these initiatives actually made it on a ballot, voters have soundly rejected it. But not so among those writing the 2012 Republican Party Platform. Apparently, the GOP now fully embraces the 'personhood' movement.

Now, THAT is insulting.

August 25, 2012 at 1:03 a.m.
alprova said...

It never ceases to amaze me when I read commentary coming from abortion opponents, who claim that the Democrats are always attempting to regulate everyone's lives.

They never reflect for one minute, the hypocrisy in making such a statement, especially when they are totally on board with the cause of outlawing any and all abortions.

The goal set forth with the recently passed Republican Party platform, clearly and undeniably states that their goal is to to pass legislation that will prohibit any and all abortions, without exception, and end the prescribing of the "morning after pill," even when administered by a medical professional in a hospital emergency room.

Under the guise of "protecting life," it is equally an attempt to seize ownership rights to the reproductive organs of every human female who resides in this nation.

No matter the circumstances surrounding the creation of any embryo inside the womb of any female, the Republican Party has declared the desire to adopt a stern regulation that the host of that embryo provide every available chance to give birth to it.

Most, but not all pro-lifers, want to outlaw abortion for reasons of religious belief. And like most people who cling to their Bibles, it's never enough for them to apply their beliefs to their own lives. For some reason, religious zealots always attempt to force others to adopt their platform of beliefs and are always attempting to find ways of forcing others to live their lives as they do.

There's nothing at all wrong with anyone who adopts religious principles and applying it to their own life. It should be encouraged at every opportunity. But there is something terribly wrong when someone, or any mob of people, band together in any attempt to force people to comply with even so much as one chosen principle, especially and categorically when it takes away the God given right to free will from one soul.

I have little doubt that most women who make a choice to terminated a pregnancy, contemplate such a choice very carefully, after weighing any and all implications or complications that a pregnancy affects their future life.

What gives these pro-lifers any right to attempt to interfere with any life impacting decision that someone else must make when the outcome of that decision will not burden themselves for one second?

A child can be a blessing indeed, but a child can also be a tremendous burden if a woman is unprepared to be a mother, if the pregnancy was the result of rape, incest, or if the continuation of a pregnancy threatens her own life.

(Cont.)

August 25, 2012 at 2:11 a.m.
alprova said...

(Cont.)

Some believe that life begins at conception. Others believe that life begins and that the soul enters when a baby draws its first breath of independent life, free from the womb. The latter theory seems to make more sense, because there is little disagreement that the soul departs our bodies when one ceases to breathe.

Whatever anyone believes, the one thing that all people need to do, is to mind their own business, tend to their own souls, and allow others to do the same.

God would not have it any other way. We are all equally responsible for our own life decisions, we all will answer to him for them, and he of all people (yes, he made us in his own image), granted us the free will to make those life decisions, right or wrong.

People who live their lives, confident that they are morally superior, will never understand why a woman would make a conscience choice to terminate a pregnancy, and no one expects you to understand such a decision, but you are expected to butt-out of the lives of those who do.

August 25, 2012 at 2:11 a.m.
fairmon said...

3 of the last 4 toons are this subject. It is worn out. Don't comment just read prior post.

August 25, 2012 at 3:30 a.m.
fairmon said...

Party platforms are like modern art graffiti. Splotches of paint splatters from any special interest group hoping the candidate will include it in his or her agenda if elected.

August 25, 2012 at 3:38 a.m.
Reardon said...

Ya, this subject has been beat to death this week, but allow me to QUESTION Al's premises. And no, I'm not a religious zealot -- an agnostic, at best:

1) What justifies a human life form? A first breath, a first kick, a first heart beat, the sperm and the egg interacting?

2) Is there any inherent ethical difference between a human life-to-be and a human living outside the womb?

Thus:

If it's morally positive to "terminate" a "human-to-be," then:

-When does a "human-to-be" stop being that and begin being a human?

However, if we consider a "human-to-be" (defined as the conjoining of sperm and egg) morally equivalent to a human being:

-Do circumstances out of the human-to-be's control assign them to a sub-class of being, and allow us to ethically kill the life form?

One last thing -- considering the weight of the subject, we cannot be so insulting as suggesting a "belief" is suitable justification to decide whether or not a life form is allowed to exist.

Just the facts, ma'am.

August 25, 2012 at 5:34 a.m.
tenben62 said...

Why do libs have a "War on Babies"?

August 25, 2012 at 6:04 a.m.
EaTn said...

tenben62 said... "Why do libs have a "War on Babies"?"

All libs do not have war on babies, any more than all cons have war on the elderly. The Supreme Court made the decision that women have control of their bodies. I believe that life begins with the unborn's first heartbeat. I had the pleasure of watching the monitor of the ultrasound of my grandson; I said "look, there's his eyes" and the technician said "no, that's his kidneys".

August 25, 2012 at 6:31 a.m.
Reardon said...

EaTn -- honest question, don't mean to piss you off -- if your daughter-in-law/daughter terminated your future grandson a day before the heart began beating, how would you feel about the morality of that decision?

August 25, 2012 at 6:40 a.m.
degage said...

With rape there is the morning after pill if it is reported, so many aren't until it is to late. My problem with abortion is so many young people use it as birth control and even then it is tramatic to that young girl. I along with some others believe when you have a heart beat and are told what sex the child is it is a human being. What about the child born alive in a botched abortion,Obama believes it is alright to let it die, that is murder since the child took its first breath. This subject has been beat to death.

August 25, 2012 at 7:05 a.m.
rick1 said...

degage, you are correct this subejct has been beat to death because Obama can not talk about jobs and the economy.

"Across the country, in almost every demographic, Americans earn less today than they did in June 2009, when the recovery technically started. As of June, the median household income for all Americans was $50,964, or 4.8 percent lower than its level three years earlier, when the inflation-adjusted median income was $53,508."

"The decline looks even worse when comparing today’s incomes to those when the recession began in December 2007. Then, the median household income was $54,916, meaning that incomes have fallen 7.2 percent since the economy last peaked."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/big-income-losses-for-those-near-retirement/

Stephanie Cutter, President Obama's deputy campaign manager, recently boasted to Willie Geist of MSNBC that, from an employment perspective, the recovery of the economy under President Obama compares favorably with the Reagan recovery.

This link will show Ms. Cutter does not have her facts straight. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/jobs_reagan_versus_obama.html#ixzz24Yc46iG7

August 25, 2012 at 7:44 a.m.
joepulitzer said...

Ollie, if "A fetus is no more a person than an egg is a chicken," how do you explain this: http://www.babycentre.co.uk/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment/08weeks/

And, how did Bennett cross the road?

August 25, 2012 at 7:53 a.m.
joneses said...

rick1

Stephanie Cutter and other Hussein Obama worshipers know what they are doing when they lie. They realize that 50% of the people in this country are stupid and are capable of believing anything they say.

August 25, 2012 at 7:55 a.m.
EaTn said...

"Reardon said... EaTn -- honest question, don't mean to piss you off -- if your daughter-in-law/daughter terminated your future grandson a day before the heart began beating, how would you feel about the morality of that decision?"

It's a fair question. It probably would depend on the circumstances--would the birth jeopardize her own life, would the child be born with a condition requiring 24/7 care for the rest of it's life, was it because her mental state was such that she didn't think she could handle a baby? I may understand or I may not understand the reasons? But in the end the mother has control of her body and has to live with any decisions she makes, whether it be abortion or drug addiction.

August 25, 2012 at 8:03 a.m.
Salsa said...

Must be part of the Democrat's War on Women.

August 25, 2012 at 8:16 a.m.
conservative said...

It still amazes me that people can be so openly evil in trying to justify killing the unborn.

August 25, 2012 at 8:28 a.m.
moon4kat said...

The primary decision to have a child rests with the woman. If she doesn't want the pregnancy, forcing her to give birth will not create a happy result.
It is cruel to bring unwanted children into the world, to be neglected, abused, abandoned, shunted around to different "homes," feeling they were an unpleasant accident, not a loving choice.
Throughout history women have found ways to end unwanted pregnancies that were harmful to their health and/or the survival of the existing family. The government has no right to tell women what to do with their own bodies.

August 25, 2012 at 8:40 a.m.
NGAdad said...

Just to review: I believe in all forms of birth control, to wit that families should not have children they can't afford to support. I believe that children should be the product of love, not sex. No law can either create love nor stop it. Why would there be any law to force a child be carried to birth if love is absent, or the mother can't physically withstand the pregnancy?

August 25, 2012 at 8:46 a.m.
moon4kat said...

joneses, when you say "50% of the people in this country are stupid and are capable of believing anything," you are obviously referring to the audience of Faux "news."

August 25, 2012 at 8:50 a.m.
NGAdad said...

All you fake defenders of the unborn listen up. With modern technology there is probably a way to have the zygote implanted in you or your female relative. Since you believe you are in control of women perhaps you should start a group standing at the ready to receive these zygotes, then carry them to birth. You should insist that yourself or women you control do this. Meanwhile leave the rest of us alone you bunch of hypocrites.

August 25, 2012 at 8:55 a.m.
moon4kat said...

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." Florynce Kennedy

August 25, 2012 at 9:02 a.m.
conservative said...

Has even a pregnant Liberal woman ever worn such a shirt?

August 25, 2012 at 9:03 a.m.
joneses said...

moonkat

I am referring to gullible sheep like you that are to afraid to talk of the real issues facing America and the failed policy of this fool you helped occupy the White House. All you sheep want to talk about is sex, abortion, a lie called the war on women. Did you ever think that the biggest threat facing women is Hussein Obama's failed economic policies and his massive 6 trillion dollars he added to the debt? Did you ever think that women are more concerned about the prospects of their children having jobs when they graduate from college? Neither Hussein Obama or Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney have any power over the legality of abortion but their decisions can effect the economic stability of America. So yes, the 50% of the people that fall into this trap of a nonissue like abortion are stupid. The only reason you liberals dislike Fox news is because they tell both sides of the argument and you think only your side should be heard. Why do yo continue to support a fool that lied to get elected and to this day continues to lie and break every promise he made to you? You can pretty well bet your ass if Romney is elected and he lie I will be here to hold him accountable. Why can't you liberals do that to Hussein Obama? Take your blinders off.

August 25, 2012 at 9:07 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

alpo: You've outdone even yourself for useless opinionated blather.

Clearly the left engages in a War on Babies.

August 25, 2012 at 9:14 a.m.
conservative said...

"It's easy to sit around and make decisions that will affect someone elses life isn't it."

You mean like the 50,000,000 evil decisions to end the lives of the unborn in the United States alone.

August 25, 2012 at 9:30 a.m.
delmar said...

Excellent post alprova, some Michigan Representatives also articulated their views as well.

August 25, 2012 at 9:42 a.m.
alprova said...

Jack_Dennis wrote: "alpo: You've outdone even yourself for useless opinionated blather."

Didn't your mother teach you to excuse yourself when you pass gas in the presence of others?

August 25, 2012 at 9:50 a.m.
conservative said...

"Just curious, how many of the unwanted orphans have you adopted?"

It is obvious the orphans were wanted up untill the day one or both parents died.

August 25, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "You mean like the 50,000,000 evil decisions to end the lives of the unborn in the United States alone."

Let's suppose that half of that amount were born to poor, single mothers with no financial means by which to raise them. What then?

You probably don't realize that your position on the issue of assisting the poor puts you squarely at odds with a demand that all embryos be downloaded.

You typify every other hypocritical conservative who opines on this issue, whose concern for life ends the minute a child is born and then it becomes someone else's responsibility to provide for its needs.

If its not your child, it is not your concern. Your opinion is not worth a dime, unless you personally are going to substantially contribute to the costs of raising those 50,000,000 lives.

August 25, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.
conservative said...

"Just curious, how many of the unwanted orphans have you adopted?"

Just curious, how many of those "ten's of thousands" of orphaned children do you want to kill?

August 25, 2012 at 10:05 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Waiting for the next new law from the same folks who brought you Biblical rape, incest, and slavery, sent you for back-alley abortions (or a legal D&C if you were a Christian with connections), and believe that King David's 700 wives and 300 concubines was dandy because God said so. (King David didn't die of old age; he just petered out.)

"Introducing Onan's Law." According to the Bible (Genesis 38:8-10) any seed (semen) spilling shall be punished by death.

Let's enact Onan's Law and stop the slaughter of innocent sperm. Remember the hymn from "The Meaning of Life" movie by Monty Python "Every Sperm is Sacred" before you go spilling, destroying, or damaging your seed.

No longer can you only go blind, but now you must die. Ultra-fundamentalists are counting on this law to wipe out heathen Episcopalians and United Methodists, and half of Southern Baptists.

To avoid death by fundamentalism, remember to obey Onan's Law by following these three commandments. 1. Hands must be visible at all times. 2. Boys and men must never be in a circle. 3. Any suspected pornography must be turned over to church authorities for close and repeated study.

Nocturnal emissions are no exception. The Christian Ladies Auxiliary Hit Squad may enter any home or college dorm without warrant and check the linen. Don't be caught with your pants down! Dream only of Jesus and not Mary Magdalene.

Don't be Slain in the Flesh by Spilling Your Seed! Onan's Law protects those little wiggily children-to-be just as God intended.

The next time you have those thoughts that may lead to spillage think of Pat Roberson, Mother Teresa, or the women of Trinity Broadcast Network. That should stop you.

August 25, 2012 at 10:10 a.m.
mymy said...

73 Days to Go!

Oh, how easily it is to distract the sheep.

Any subject other than Obama’s record. It’s still the economy/job!

August 25, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Alpo said "If its not your child, it is not your concern. Your opinion is not worth a dime, unless you personally are going to substantially contribute to the costs of raising those 50,000,000 lives." ...Hey Alp, since when did a leftist have concerns of cost?

August 25, 2012 at 10:20 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

The murder of little babies is evil.

I worship triune Jehovah with one family that has adopted at least 9 children and another that has adopted at least 4. (Both husband-fathers are bishops). My wife had 4 children from a bad situation when I married her, and we didn't exactly plan the two we've added. (Our new one gets an impressive range squirting poop while her diaper is being changed at 3am. I'm not sure if she's gotten my wife yet, but she's gotten me.)

If you or someone you care about has an unwanted or shakily wanted pregnancy, call "Choices" at 267-7943 or 892-0803 and ask the pro-lifers there for advice and practical help and a listening ear. I've known a respectable middle-class church couple in Hixson to let an unwed mother live with them for several months until her baby was born and settled.

Behind 50 million choices to murder babies lie tens of millions of choices to have sex outside marriage, and millions of marriages that could use more and wiser love. Choices to risk making babies without arranging for any resulting babies to be born into households of functioning love. ("Love" includes much more than sex, of course; 3am diapers, for instance.) Murder is sin. So is fornication of every sort, and I think churches, including good evangelical churches, tend to sin by not preaching against fornication and in favor of sex in its proper place inside holy marriage. How many self-proclaimed Christians have been excommunicated for unrepented fornication in Chattanooga lately? If you're worth having sex with, you're worth waiting for sex until you've made reasonable arrangements for a lifetime of mutual love with your prospective spouse. Give your hand before you give your crotch.

August 25, 2012 at 10:20 a.m.
una61 said...

The T-Shirts used to read, "Baby On Board".

August 25, 2012 at 10:25 a.m.
una61 said...

In the past, the T-shirts read, "Baby On Board".

August 25, 2012 at 10:26 a.m.
delmar said...

conservative, Judging from your posts would it be safe to assume that you are as vehement against war as you are against abortion?

August 25, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

mymy: Not if the Obama camp and the MSM have their way. No talk of the economy from The Community Organizer's cadre of thug backers.

August 25, 2012 at 10:40 a.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

AndrewLohr 10:20a You could be run out of town with views like that.

August 25, 2012 at 10:50 a.m.
mymy said...

Regardless of ones opinion on abortion, it is out of control! Our tax dollars should not be paying for them.

“Pro-choice does not mean pro-partial-birth abortion — not to a pro-choice Republican or most pro-choice Democrats.”

DNC platform supports partial-birth abortion, excludes language for abortion to be ‘rare’

“Additionally, in 2008, the DNC removed from its platform language specifying the position that abortion be "safe, legal and rare" in apparent opposition to the "rare" part. How many pro-choice Americans do not want the need for abortion to be "rare"? Aside from Democratic Party leaders and operatives, including President Obama, and those who profit financially in the abortion industry, it's safe to say almost none.

Interesting.

While the country is still essentially split on the issue of abortion rights, 59 percent of Democrats stand opposed to partial-birth abortion. Yet the Democrats appear intent on increasing the number of abortions in the country as a political strategy. Apparently, an ever-expanding and thriving abortion cottage industry is a good thing for the Democratic Party. But you won't hear that in the media.

August 25, 2012 at 10:55 a.m.
EaTn said...

I'm just curious why some think that abortion is totally wrong (no grey area) but that in some circumstances capital punishment is ok? The way I see it, if there's no middle ground on one there's no middle ground on the other. Has anyone got any sound-bites on this one?

August 25, 2012 at 10:55 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Keep having them babies. Who else will grow-up to kill heathens, infidels, and freethinkers with Christian love?

"Jesus loves the little children, All the children of the world. Just as long as they are white They are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world."

August 25, 2012 at 11:14 a.m.
degage said...

Al, single mothers shouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place without being able to afford the child. they are using abortion for birth control . Now you are going to say they may not be able to afford prevention, then they should keep their pants on. The responsibility is that of the person having sex not of every one else.

August 25, 2012 at 11:25 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

"All you fake defenders of the unborn listen up. With modern technology there is probably a way to have the zygote implanted in you or your female relative. Since you believe you are in control of women perhaps you should start a group standing at the ready to receive these zygotes, then carry them to birth. You should insist that yourself or women you control do this. Meanwhile leave the rest of us alone you bunch of hypocrites." - NGAdad

Great post, NGAdad. It was so good I thought it was worth repeating.

They indeed are a bunch of gd hypocrites. They claim to think that every life is so "precious." Yet the moment that "precious" little cherub of God comes popping out of the womb of that (most likely) young, unwed, poor, uneducated woman who is ill equipped to raise a child, that "precious" little cherub of God becomes a drain on society, one of those "takers" and "leeches" that they complain about. They think it should be government's job to force a woman to bear a child, even if she is ill equipped to raise one, but they somehow absolve government of all responsiblility for seeing to it that that unwanted child born into poverty and a less than healthy and nurturing enviroment will be provided even the minimum of living standards to ensure that it can become a productive human being. These anti-govermment goons are somehow PRO-government when it comes to protecting the life of the "precious" unborn but then they become ANTI-government again the moment the unborn becomes an actual human being.

They no more care about the unborn than they care about rats or roaches. The unborn to them are invisible and not their responsibility. They just use them as a platform to sound high and holy. Effin' hpocrites, every one of 'em.

August 25, 2012 at 11:34 a.m.
michaelb said...

Wow Mr cartoonist, Nazi humor.

August 25, 2012 at 11:39 a.m.
songbird said...

What's wrong with abortion anyway? It really has nothing to do with wanting to control a woman's reproductive organs. We just say it enough to stir the masses. You see, minorities are three times as likely to have one! Our dear blessed holy mother Margaret Sanger once penned in her sacred scriptures that "We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population." Let's make sure we keep that a secret. Or what about those that are "a dead weight of human waste," and "aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world...who never should have been born at all." With abortion, we get to play the role of the God we don't even believe in, by getting to decide who should even be born. I may have misspoke because i should have said "what" should even be born instead of "who." "Who" just sounds too humanly. So, let's look at the positives here instead of always having to focus on the rights of an unborn human child. Oops sorry, referred to them as humans again. Abortion keeps taxes low due to less entitlements that will be paid out, with the added bonus of decreasing the minority population and any other human we deem unnecessary. Besides, doesn't it keep the prison population down too? 

August 25, 2012 at 11:42 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Degage, you say that single women shouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place, that they should be taking responsibility for themselves. But even with the best parental supervision teens still do stupid things and act irresponsibly and irrationally, especially when it comes to sex. Hell, when it comes to sex, even otherwise mature adults act irrationally. If you want to take away the decision-making process from all women and force them to bear children, even against their will, then the government should force all single women to take birth control, to ensure that they don't get pregnant in the first place. Or if they don't force them to take birth control, then the government should ensure that the newborn will be raised with at least a minimum standard of health and care.

You want to give government the power to force a woman to bring a child into the world against her wishes but you absolve government of any responsibility once the child is born. You and your anti-abortion luntic ilk don't give a rat's ass about the unborn or what's moral or right; you just want to punish those who you think acted irresponsibly, who dared to have sex outside the "holy" bounds of matrimony and had the misfortune of getting pregnant. You high-and-mighty sanctimonious twits are disgusting.

August 25, 2012 at 11:59 a.m.
joneses said...

Atheist are proving just exactly what a bunch of pussies they actually are.

American Atheists claims that showing the the cross at ground zero violates the separation of church and state. The cross’ very existence has caused “symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish” in members, the group gripes.

First there is no clause in the U.S. Constitution that has the term "separation of church and state"

Second, if a cross causes “symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish” then maybe instead of pissing and moaning about the cross they need to have a mental evaluation.

What a bunch of pussies!

August 25, 2012 at 12:19 p.m.

alprova, you are correct, it is controlling of a woman. I could respect the pro-life movement if they were to own up to it, but since they intersect with the "freedom" libertarians, they really can't admit to their actions being so dictatorial.

They could at least admit that they're supporting regulation that they find justified. But they won't, because hyperbole is better.

degage, I fully support the availability of contraceptives and the provision of sex education to prevent unintended pregnancies. It is not the pro-choice movement which has acted against those things, but in fact the pro-life movement who has done so. The only thing that seems acceptable to many in the pro-life movement is the concept of abstinence-only rather than making available the options that prevent the objectionable abortions as a means of family planning. They even seek to outlaw the morning-after pill, so maybe you should look at where the problem truly lies.

But you are correct that your comment about Obama has been beaten to death. As the lying misrepresentation it is.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-02-24/politics/politics_fact-checking-gingrich-infanticide-charge_1_bar-abortions-opponents-of-abortion-rights-barack-obama?_s=PM:POLITICS

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/10/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-said-obama-said-any-child-born-prema/

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/obama-and-infanticide/

Do keep up with the lies though, such empty rhetoric is discrediting you as always.

NGADad, unfortunately for them, they can't, because such transfers are not medically viable at this time. It is possible to do so at early stages, with embryos, but that's hardly a time when such would be needed anyway.

EaTN, there are a few in the pro-life movement who oppose capital punishment as well, but not as many as one would hope. I consider those who stand against both to at least being able to commit to their principles sincerely, the ones who don't are just pretending to consider life sacred even while finding excuses to justify taking it in other circumstances. They could at least recognize what they're doing.

But they don't. They prefer to claim to be on a pedestal.

Me? Should such a technology be developed that would allow the transfer of a fetus at somewhere close to the same medical risk as an abortion, I would absolutely support implementing it.

August 25, 2012 at 12:27 p.m.
mymy said...

Society is broken. When people do not take personal responsibility for their behavior it's their problem. If left to deal with it without government help, they might not repeat a behavior. There used to be consequences for bad behavior--not these day. Too many live and act like animals. Who said the human ainimal is the smartest.

It is no longer just the occassional teen problem.

August 25, 2012 at 12:29 p.m.
degage said...

rickaroo, So its all right to abort because you can't afford a child so why not kill all the unwanted kids in the world? Thats statement is as stupid as yours. In some countrys they kill a child if it is a girl. Even in this country some women are having an abortion because they don't like the sex of the child. I'm not saying there is not some times abortion is nessasary because there is but using it as birth control is wrong. I stand by, if you can't afford the child or prevention, keep your pants on.

August 25, 2012 at 12:32 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Abortion is heart breaking. Partial birth abortion unconscionable.

August 25, 2012 at 12:58 p.m.
LaughingBoy said...

"Moonkat" wrote, "It is cruel to bring unwanted children into the world, to be neglected, abused, abandoned, shunted around to different "homes," feeling they were an unpleasant accident, not a loving choice."

Why not just round up such infants and toddlers and put them out of their misery? They can even be done away with mercifully, not with the sharp object to the skull and brain-vacuum unborn babies get. There's no difference, neither unborn or born babies can get by without aid.

August 25, 2012 at 1:23 p.m.
miraweb said...

I think there are principled, thoughtful people on both sides of this issue. What I find sad is that the virulence of the discussion leads people to feel they must hold their nose and support a political party who talks the talks but never gets around to walking the walk.

The Republican's abortion plank is a real problem for the vast majority of the country. It has no effect on any laws and candidates run from it like the plague, yet there it sits.

Akin's unbelievable views really make it look like the inmates are running the asylum but there is a method to the madness. A former Christian Coalition head in Missouri says her phone is ringing off the hook from pastors who can't figure out who they should rightly support.

When a pastor is asking advice from a politician, something has become very mixed up.

August 25, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

Mira: First off, Akins is FOS. Second, if the Pubs modified their plank to include "except in....", would that put them more in the mainstream? Thirdly, the virulence cuts both ways.

August 25, 2012 at 1:34 p.m.
miraweb said...

Even fewer people, left or right, support partial-birth abortion than those who think rape victims must carry and raise their rapist's child.

Akin is FOS, I completely agree. However, Akin's FOS ideals are the actual Republican platform. Partial-birth abortion is not in any platform.

There are some anti-Akin's on the left who have what I would consider extreme views.

In my view, this is a tough, personal medical decision and those types decisions of are not well made by politicians or by the public peanut gallery.

The medically safest policy for women is for early, legal abortion to be available. It isn't an ideal solution, but it is also not a decision generally made under ideal circumstances.

I have respect for my friends whose abortion views differ from mine. In general, my friends return that respect.

August 25, 2012 at 1:40 p.m.
miraweb said...

No, it really is. The Human Life Amendment movement began with a Catholic group. Their mission statement is as follows:

We are committed to full legal recognition of the right to life of the unborn child, and will not rest in our efforts until society respects the inherent worth and dignity of every member of the human race. . . . Archbishop John Roach

The official Republican position is for no exceptions for rape, incest, or to save the life of the woman. The Republican National Committee voted to stick with that view on Wednesday. The full convention will vote on it on Monday (Hurricane Isaac willing).

http://nchla.org/about.asp

August 25, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
miraweb said...

Which is why the Supreme Court ruled constitutional our actual law that is neither of those two options.

August 25, 2012 at 2:12 p.m.
patriot1 said...

fetus, infant, child, adolescense, adult....aren't these all just stages of life?

August 25, 2012 at 4:11 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

cancer, leprosy, flesh-eating bacteria, smallpox, ebola . . .aren't these just stages of life?

Don't these deserve protection as God's creations?

August 25, 2012 at 4:27 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

daytonsdarwin: what's your point?

August 25, 2012 at 4:38 p.m.
miraweb said...

There are a lot of folks now deciding that the Republican platform is something other than what it says it is. Most commonly they are reading into it statements that are not written to soften what the language actually says. Here are three that I'm seeing most often:

1) There are really exceptions to "no exceptions" except we didn't state any.

2) We meant the states could make up exceptions if they want to our constitutional amendment though they really can't but it sounds better if we say they can - the other side of the 14th Amendment.

3) It's just boilerplate. We know we don't really mean any of that and so should you.

The third one actually carries some truth to it. That comes back to my first question - if they only "talk the talk" is that enough reason to vote for the rest of what they actually do?

August 25, 2012 at 4:44 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

If all life is sacred, certainly diseases are life. Why would you be for protecting a parasitic body in the womb, but not diseases?

When the anti-abortionists stop having surgeries, taking medicine, and killing innocent little bacteria, then they'll be defending all life.

Let the religious mumbo-jumbo begin.

August 25, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.
miraweb said...

Ok - list the exceptions:

.

.

.

Take your time

.

.

.

.

.

.

Whenever you're ready

.

.

.

Found 'em yet?

August 25, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

EaTN said: “I'm just curious why some think that abortion is totally wrong (no grey area) but that in some circumstances capital punishment is ok? The way I see it, if there's no middle ground on one there's no middle ground on the other.”

Good question, EaTN. The moral inconsistencies involved in the political positions of some of these people are such that one can’t help but doubt their intent and sincerity. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lot of such questions.

A couple of weeks ago, I read that some of the investors that Mitt Romney solicited for Bain Capitol belonged to wealthy and powerful Central America families that had financed the right wing death squads in El Salvador, and that his solicitations occurred at a time when U.S. officials and human rights groups were publicly denouncing the atrocities being committed by these death squads.

I find Mitt Romney’s conduct totally disgusting. According to the news reports, two years before Mitt Romney began raising money from these Central American oligarchs, El Salvador's independent Human Rights Commission reported that, of the 35,000 civilians killed, "most" died at the hands of death squads.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/19/nation/la-na-bain-creation-20120719

August 25, 2012 at 5:04 p.m.
miraweb said...

It's true that some of the proposals in that index have exceptions. It is also true that the site hosting that index is sponsored by the Catholic Bishops. It would be a bit of leap to say they support all of the proposals they are tracking based on that group.

Now, they are private lobbying group linked to a church. Let's see what is actually making it into Congress. If we're going to do dueling documents (and really, the Supreme Court can't have all the fun) take a look at this one:

January 7, 2011 - House Resolution 212

    (1) the Congress declares that--

        (A) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is

vested in each human being, and is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person; and

        (B) the life of each human being

begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

    (2) the Congress affirms that the

Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.212:

Sixty-four cosponsors signed onto that one. Here is the full list (including both Akin and Ryan, as it happens).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00212:@@@P

August 25, 2012 at 5:18 p.m.
miraweb said...

One of the surveys (on a Republican site, as it happened) had what I thought was a very interesting number. Men over the age of 55 are the largest supporters of restricting abortion. If you look at that list in the post above, only six of the signees are women.

Women are still a little cautious about a system where older fellas feel a strong need to supervise women's lives. An awful lot of the debate seems to boil down to a lack of confidence that "the girls" can make the right decisions all on their own.

August 25, 2012 at 5:24 p.m.
mhbraganza said...

Of course a fetus is not a baby. Nobody could sensibly claim that it is. The only question is whether it is a person, with the same rights as those who have been born. If it is, then the circumstances of its conception, its defects, viability, the life of its mother, are no more relevant to its termination than they would be for a 3 year-old child and all pregnant women must be forced to give birth. If a fetus isn't a person, then pregancy terminations should be available by request for any reason. But the Romney/Ryan platform that they would ban all abortion "except for rape/incest" is completely illogical and idiotic.

August 25, 2012 at 5:27 p.m.
miraweb said...

Civilization will bump along until we declare a fetus to be a corporation.

That must be one of the signs of the apocalypse.

August 25, 2012 at 5:42 p.m.
joneses said...

Does anyone see what the liberals are doing here? Please fellow conservatives stop falling into this abortion trap. The real issues are Hussein Obama's massive debt and deficit, Hussein Obama's failed Afghanistan policy, Hussein Obama's high unemployment rate, Hussein Obama's failed economic policies and all his other failures. Not one person can do anything about the continued liberal killing of babies. But we can vote this fool our of the White House so all his failure can be corrected.

August 25, 2012 at 6:02 p.m.
KnottaHero said...

Is Clay saying that he thinks Obama wasn't born in the U.S.?

August 25, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova....

"Let's suppose"

No, you suppose if you want too. I chose to deal in facts and reality not hypotheticals, straw men and imaginations. Any fool can "suppose", fantasize, or a construct a straw man wherein he prevails in the supposition he created.

You can "suppose" 25,000,000 less abortions but that doesn't change the fact that it is 50,000,000, it only reveals an evil and callous heart.

"Your opinion is not worth a dime,"

50,000,000 abortions is not an opinion and who made you judge and editor of opinions? Your arrogance seems to know no bounds and surprise, surprise, I don't care!

August 25, 2012 at 6:09 p.m.
miraweb said...

Good morning jonsey. Late night?

TQQ - I can blather on. One of my great gifts :)

Personhood is a legal construct, not a biological one.

Our country has been behind the curve pretty much all along in figuring out if servants, slaves, immigrants, women, and gay Americans have what it takes to be a "person".

I do have to wonder what the connecting construct is that lets a individual fight hard for the "personhood" of a fetus yet deny a fully grown adult the respect to choose with whom they want marry.

My personal opinion is the resistance may derive more from old tribal patriarchy than from Christianity.

It's seems so hard to give up power and let others live their lives according to their conscience.

There - that should give you a couple of sparks to play with.

August 25, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.
Jack_Dennis said...

MountainLaurel: Ok, I'll trade you. You get no death penalty, the US gets no abortion. Deal?

August 25, 2012 at 6:35 p.m.
rick1 said...

Conservative, don't forget Al in the past has defended Margaret Sanger's speech to the KKK. At 11:42am Songbird posted one of the quotes about how Sanger felt about blacks. Here are some more quotes from the loving and caring Sanger on abrotion:

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock." Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all."

Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on "The Cruelty of Charity," pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.Margaret Sanger. "

The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

Liberals to this day still worship and defend Sanger and are to blinded by their ignornace or stupidity to see abortaion is nothing but genocide.

August 25, 2012 at 6:40 p.m.
alprova said...

JonRoss wrote: "Mira sez "However, Akin's FOS ideals are the actual Republican platform." Not true, total BS dear."

No it's not. Five pieces of legislation, two of which were sponsored by Todd Akin and Paul Ryan, specifically contain the wording "forcible rape" and "legitimate rape," and neither of them contain any exemptions for any instance of rape.

That combined with the most recent abortion plank of the Republican platform, make it crystal clear that no exemptions will be offered in any proposed legislation to outlaw abortion in the near future by the Republicans.

It is indeed that same thing that Todd Akin was speaking to earlier this week.

August 25, 2012 at 7:14 p.m.
alprova said...

Jon Ross wrote: "No exceptions vs. kill at will even at 9 months. Hmmm..."

Now look who's being dishonest.

Not one person I am aware of has endorsed any late term or partial birth abortions, nor is has either issue been raised by anyone but the right, including in this very forum, as a means by which to distract and deflect serious discussion regarding abortion.

mymy raised and referred to partial birth abortion as if it were a current issue. It isn't and it hasn't been one since GWB was in office.

I know of no one who would defend waiting until late-term unless it was to save a mother's life, or for performing a partial-birth abortion under any circumstance whatsoever.

August 25, 2012 at 7:24 p.m.
conservative said...

Thanks for the info rick1 and tu quoque also.

patriot1 : "fetus, infant, child, adolescense, adult....aren't these all just stages of life?"

Yes they are, now consider :

MACMILLAN Dictionary :

FETUS : a developing baby human or animal, before it is born

So, a fetus, newborn, toddler, adolescent, child and teenager are all developing human beings.

August 25, 2012 at 7:31 p.m.
Reardon said...

EaTN -- thanks for your honest response.

So -- continuing along -- is human life a function of convenience to the BABY or the BEARER of the baby?

Does retardation justify death of a human-to-be?

Does a high-degree of death to the mother if the unborn is delivered justify death to the human-to-be?

Bottom line, does any circumstance NOT including potential for death to the mom, justify exterminating a human-to-be?

August 25, 2012 at 7:58 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "No, you suppose if you want too. I chose to deal in facts and reality not hypotheticals, straw men and imaginations."

You do? Aren't you the person who is always posting Biblical verses to justify most all of your positions? Is that "factual" evidence of a thing?

Your whole world is rooted in hypotheticals, straw man arguments, and imagination.

"You can "suppose" 25,000,000 less abortions but that doesn't change the fact that it is 50,000,000, it only reveals an evil and callous heart."

The only fact that has not been changed, especially with this, your latest retort, is that you are about the worst hypocrite to walk the planet. You have repeatedly posted your outrage with the Gov't "seizing" funds from you to be used to support the poor, yet you would have me believe for one second that you are a compassionate Christian who is so kind-of-heart, that every aborted fetus carried in the womb of an unmarried dirt-poor woman, should be given a chance to be born into abject poverty?

You're totally pathetic and in complete denial of your history in this forum.

"50,000,000 abortions is not an opinion and who made you judge and editor of opinions? Your arrogance seems to know no bounds and surprise, surprise, I don't care!"

I know that you don't care. What perplexes me is why you think that you could begin to convince me, or anyone else for that matter, that you have an ounce of care for anyone, including an unborn child, if it that child is not 100% self-supporting the second it takes its first breath of life.

You can dance all you want to, but you're never going to be Fred Astaire.

August 25, 2012 at 8:01 p.m.
Reardon said...

Man, just got back from working tonight --

Really disappointed you guys did not intellectually engage in my premises.

Instead, you liberal defenders of Machiavellian "free" will dump down the realm of politics, as if politics could answer any moral issue.

Oh well, guess you all are too dense to participate in thought and debate over tough questions?

/Resume chest-beating

August 25, 2012 at 8:05 p.m.
Reardon said...

AL -- Please read your post on late-term abortions in this VERY thread:

"Others believe that life begins and that the soul enters when a baby draws its first breath of independent life, free from the womb. *The latter theory seems to make more sense*, because there is little disagreement that the soul departs our bodies when one ceases to breathe."

August 25, 2012 at 8:14 p.m.
alprova said...

Reardon wrote: "So -- continuing along -- is human life a function of convenience to the BABY or the BEARER of the baby?"

Both, one or the other, or neither, depending on individual circumstances.

"Does retardation justify death of a human-to-be?"

That's a tricky one. The answer to that depends on what the quality of life expectations are for the impending child.

Retardation is not the only medical condition that needs to be pondered when deciding to continue with a pregnancy. What if there are known birth defects in evidence, such as an embryo developing with no arms or legs? What if there are likely inseparable conjoined twins? Downs Syndrome?

There are people who would be willing to accept anything and everything, and there are those who would not. It is, and will forever be, a personal choice to continue with or to terminate a pregnancy.

"Does a high-degree of death to the mother if the unborn is delivered justify death to the human-to-be?"

You betcha. Again, there are women who would risk all to give birth to a child. There are others who love life so much, that they would not be willing to exchange theirs to give life to a child that threatens theirs.

Who is anyone to judge either woman's choice as being right or wrong?

"Bottom line, does any circumstance NOT including potential for death to the mom, justify exterminating a human-to-be?"

Yes...yes....a thousand times yes. You may not agree with that answer, and that's where you need to leave it.

It's not your decision. It's not your life. It's not your child.

Mind your own business.

Perhaps a law should be passed that demands that every male who has this intense desire to claim ownership and control over every woman's wombs in this country, must submit to the circumcision of their penis, or if already circumcised, undergo a vasectomy, to get an inkling of what your demands upon women represent.

August 25, 2012 at 8:26 p.m.
conservative said...

alprova...

Take a break. Your hate is going to kill you.

August 25, 2012 at 8:48 p.m.
fairmon said...

Why should anyone, male or female, have a say regarding what a woman decides regarding her own health and other issues involved with giving birth if they aren't paying for it. The truth is the abortion should be free and easy to obtain since the majority are born in poverty and will experience neglect and little education.

Those opposed to women making a choice should be willing and sign up to provide food, clothing, shelter, education, love and health care for the child. But, don't insist I help you pay for the cost of rearing the kid by an inefficient government taking from me and borrowing money and spreading it around.

Alprova goes berserk but I am willing to help pay for the first abortion where the female and male impregnating her agree to sterilization. Rape may be the only justification for an unwanted pregnancy in today's world. We got so excited we weren't thinking is BS.

August 25, 2012 at 8:50 p.m.
miraweb said...

Birth control is pretty effective when it is available, affordable and the couple has the knowledge how to use it correctly.

There are women who can't take pills for medical reasons (blood clots, blood pressure) and may have to use methods that are less sure.

There are women with religious beliefs that don't permit them to use birth control. They are adults - they can make up their own minds.

No form of birth control is perfect. They all fail to some percentage even when used correctly.

We still have states that do not educate young people on the best way to navigate this. That seems fairly inexcusable to me. Akin's level of ignorance is astounding - but he isn't the only person in the world with mistaken beliefs about conception.

Now - if you got squeamish during any part of this discussion - you may not be the right person to be making decisions on behalf of other people about this issue.

August 25, 2012 at 9:01 p.m.
alprova said...

Reardon wrote: "AL -- Please read your post on late-term abortions in this VERY thread:"

"Others believe that life begins and that the soul enters when a baby draws its first breath of independent life, free from the womb. The latter theory seems to make more sense, because there is little disagreement that the soul departs our bodies when one ceases to breathe."

What I wrote in no manner was any reference whatsoever to late-term abortions, and I resent your assertion that it was. It was in reference and a recantation of the controversy surrounding the issue of when life begins.

If your obsession with this issue is going to lead you to make illogical and false interpretations of words never expressed, then I will be happy to add you to my personal troll list and consider you unworthy of civil discussion in the future.

For the record, I categorically do not endorse late-term abortions, except when the life of the mother is in dire jeopardy, and I am vehemently opposed to the performing of a partial-birth abortion, without exception.

While I do not support any decision to abort a fetus simply because it was an 'oopsie,' or in cases when a child is merely unwanted for any other reason, I fully understand and accept that I have no right to interfere or attempt to influence any woman who has such a decision to make relative to her life, unless I were to have a 50% stake in the creation of the embryo currently residing in her womb.

I positively and without any hesitation whatsoever, support any woman who would make the decision to terminate a pregnancy after being a victim of any act considered to be rape, incest, or if the continuation of her pregnancy threatens her own life.

Copy and paste all the above for your record, so that there is no misunderstanding to my stated positions regarding the issue of abortion. It's all up there. It covers all the bases.

I would be most appreciative if you would henceforth show me the same courtesy I show you, in not putting words into my mouth or fingers, that have not been clearly expressed in the past.

August 25, 2012 at 9:01 p.m.
alprova said...

conservative wrote: "alprova...Take a break. Your hate is going to kill you."

You and a few other people who frequent this place need a remedial course in the English language to brush up on how the word "hate" is defined.

I do not hate a person, place, or thing on this planet.

I challenge you to copy and paste a thing I have ever written that would define me as having expressed one sentence of "hate."

August 25, 2012 at 9:10 p.m.
tderng said...

alprova,you do realize that the terms "forcible rape" and "legitimate rape" are terms that can be used to exclude such circumstances as consensual statutory rape such as a 18 y.o. having consensual sex with his 16 y.o. girlfriend,right? The left has jumped all over that dumbass little nobody state legislator for these terms of rape but they are legitimate.And before you go all 5000 word wahwah the man is a moron and I don't agree with him re his views.If the left wasn't so fast to jump on ANYTHING to distract from the real issues they may have realized this.

August 25, 2012 at 9:10 p.m.
ibshame said...

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romneny are gutless wimps who would throw their mother under the bus to get elected. Romney was for abortion before he was against it and Ryan the self-proclaimed protector of all "human life" from the time of conception has now flip-flopped to get on the Romney ticket. There was a time when the only person who could make George W. Bush look like a genius was Rick Perry sadly Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have competed and won that distinction from Rick Perry.

Repubs always overreach into people's personal lives. The last time they stepped into a national fray like the one Akins exposed them to was the Terri Schiavo affair. They got burned and they are going to get burned again. It's what they deserve and maybe once and for all when they speak of the government getting out of people's lives they will mean it or the voters will recognize their hypocrisy.

"Personhood Amendment

A much more far-reaching bill co-sponsored by Ryan, the 2011 Sanctity of Human Life Act, states that the “life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent” and empowers states to “protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions” that meet this definition of personhood.

Not only would this give states the ability to treat any kind of abortion as murder, experts have said it could also ban in vitro fertilization procedures and some forms of birth control like the “morning after” pill."

August 25, 2012 at 9:16 p.m.
tderng said...

miraweb said...There are women with religious beliefs that don't permit them to use birth control.

One would think that if they were so religious as to not take birth control because of their beliefs,then they wouldn't even consider having an abortion.

August 25, 2012 at 9:20 p.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "Alprova goes berserk but I am willing to help pay for the first abortion where the female and male impregnating her agree to sterilization."

I don't think I go bezerk at all on this issue. I'd like to have an understanding as to why you would offer such a statement.

You do not contribute, nor have you ever contributed one copper penny, to pay for any abortion performed in this nation, unless you did so of your own free will and directly from your own pockets, and you and I have sparred in the past over this silly notion of yours to sterilize those who seek an abortion.

That Sir, will never come to pass, and you know it.

What country are you under the imression that it is that you live in?

August 25, 2012 at 9:23 p.m.
miraweb said...

True. Some do take that position. They have every right to do so.

August 25, 2012 at 9:27 p.m.

If the heart of a fetus beats like that of a baby. If the form you observe in an ultrasound bears striking resemblance to that of a baby. If the fetus sucks his or her thumb like a baby. If parents, doctors, and every sane human being on the planet calls the unborn baby a baby, then, like it or not, you’re carrying a baby. Only in the hall of mirrors that is the pro-abortion movement does anyone delude themselves otherwise. And using abortion as a means of social engineering or poverty relief is a despicable indication of having a god complex. Even when the baby's prospects for living a healthy and fulfilling life and contributing to the well-being of other humans appear bleak to some presumptive god-wanna-be’s, there is a high degree of probability that this assessment will prove to have been nothing more than an (inhumane) ego-trip.

August 25, 2012 at 9:29 p.m.
rick1 said...

Al said You do not contribute, nor have you ever contributed one copper penny, to pay for any abortion performed in this nation, unless you did so of your own free will and directly from your own pockets, and you and I have sparred in the past over this silly notion of yours to sterilize those who seek an abortion.

Wrong again Al, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) received $487.4 million in tax dollars over a twelve-month period and performed 329,455 abortions.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/planned-parenthood-s-annual-report-got-4874m-tax-money-did-329445-abortions

http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_financials_2010_122711_web_vf?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage

August 25, 2012 at 9:52 p.m.
miraweb said...

WWwtW: There is a gulf here that is not easily crossed. But I respect your right to hold that view.

In my view:

Fewer women will seek abortion if birth control is free and available.

The GOP calls this restricting religion - and objects

Fewer women will seek abortion if they have enough food, medicine, and education available to support their children.

The GOP calls this redistribution of wealth - and objects

Fewer women will seek abortion if sex education is honest, effective, and includes information about birth control.

The GOP limits its support to abstinence only programs - and objects

If you really want fewer abortions, you have to consider these policies part of the problem.

There are women who will seek an abortion for none of these reasons. These women are entitled to their own beliefs. They are adults. That is their right.

August 25, 2012 at 9:59 p.m.
miraweb said...

On a lighter note - I am taking the cancellation of one day of a political convention due to weather as a sign that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

August 25, 2012 at 10:15 p.m.
alprova said...

tderng wrote: "alprova,you do realize that the terms "forcible rape" and "legitimate rape" are terms that can be used to exclude such circumstances as consensual statutory rape such as a 18 y.o. having consensual sex with his 16 y.o. girlfriend,right?"

Wrong. I have heard or read no less than six Republicans make public statements regarding the phrases "forcible rape" or "legitimate rape" to exclude women who would "claim to have been raped solely for the purpose of seeking an abortion," should those exemptions be included in anti-abortion legislation.

To many Republican polititions, date rape is a fantasy and as realistic as an actual photo capturing a unicorn dancing in a field of daisies.

Others have been quoted as having said that a woman dressed in skimpy or provocative attire is asking to be raped, and therefore has no complaint if she is indeed raped.

Statutory rape cases that results in pregnancy, involving females under the age of consent, are a very limited number of females who seek abortions. Statistically, any offering of statutory rape pregnancies as a reason for including sub-categories of rape in legislative attempts, is merely hype and a deflective technique used to excuse the inexcusable. Rape is rape.

"The left has jumped all over that dumbass little nobody state legislator for these terms of rape but they are legitimate."

The man is an active U.S. Congressman seeking to jump to the U.S. Senate. And again, rape is rape and there is nothing legitimate concerning any act of rape. It is a non-sensical term.

"And before you go all 5000 word wahwah the man is a moron and I don't agree with him re his views.If the left wasn't so fast to jump on ANYTHING to distract from the real issues they may have realized this."

You don't know me very well. Todd Akin's views that he expressed were totally ignorant of the facts, but he is not the only person to have believed what he stated. Among older adults, and among many Republicans of all description, what he stated is commonly believed.

I'm pleased as punch for the man, and admre his determination in standing his ground and for refusing to bow out of his political race for the Senate, despite pressure being applied to his jugular vein by so many shoes of his Republican cohorts.

Every last Republican who wanted his head on a platter, did not do so because they thought he was wrong. Their interest started and ended with how his words affected the party and themselves.

He apologized to the nation and retracted most of what he said. He stopped short of admitting his utter ignorance as to whether a raped woman could conceive, but he hit close.

I think the man is toast come November, because he screwed up royally in expressing that which is not usually talked about, but we shall see.

August 25, 2012 at 10:18 p.m.
alprova said...

tderng wrote: "One would think that if they were so religious as to not take birth control because of their beliefs,then they wouldn't even consider having an abortion."

That's an excellent point, and it dictates that another point be offered as well.

Do any of you militant anti-abortionists seriously believe for one second that every female who wanders into an abortion clinic to terminate a pregnancy is really a Democrat or a Liberal?

Unfortunately, I can offer no statistics to prove any numbers, because no one tracks the political or religious affiliation of those who seek abortions, but I'm quite confident that there are a substantial number of women who bat right, who sat in church pews every week, who aborted unwelcome fetuses while keeping a very low profile at the time, who will absolutely take that secret to their graves with them.

August 25, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.

miraweb said...

Fewer women will seek abortion if birth control is free and available. The GOP calls this restricting religion - and objects

No, I call it naïve to believe that anything is cost-free. If you strongly believe this to be an effective means of controlling abortions, you have the freedom, if not responsibility, to contribute to that cause. You do not have the right to force employers to pay the costs for or practice your beliefs.

Fewer women will seek abortion if they have enough food, medicine, and education available to support their children.

Maybe. However, since private agencies are a lot more effective in serving the poor in each of these areas, then expanding government programs is not the most efficient or compassionate method for addressing these needs.

Fewer women will seek abortion if sex education is honest, effective, and includes information about birth control.

That is the claim. However, excluding information about the many benefits of abstinence before marriage – benefits which include the greater likelihood of having needs met for food, medicine, and education – is not honest or effective. Assuming that young people, for example, are incapable of controlling their sexual desires – is degrading and sends the wrong signal to those not mature enough to make responsible decisions in the heat of the moment.

There are women who will seek an abortion for none of these reasons. These women are entitled to their own beliefs. They are adults. That is their right.

Unless, that is, their decision affects the life of another. When the exercise of your beliefs and “rights” results in stopping the heartbeat, and thus the life, of an innocent human being, then you have overstepped your natural rights, and the public has a right to curtail this unjust, violent treatment of unborn babies.

August 25, 2012 at 10:49 p.m.
dude_abides said...

dude_abides said (to tderng last night)... tderng said... " I have heard this quote since I was in my twenties and find it to be very accurate in its current form."

It's current form??? A quote can change form and origin in your world? So it's okay for me to quote Al Gore as having said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"? Or Mitt Romney's opinion that "if the glove don't fit, you have to acquit."? Who said "one small step for man, etc." in your world, David Bowie? Thanks for the chuckles.

August 24, 2012 at 11:03 p.m. <<< !!!

Armstrong died today. I think I will talk about joneses next.

August 25, 2012 at 11:02 p.m.
miraweb said...

WWwtW writes:

You do not have the right to force employers to pay the costs for or practice your beliefs.

I am pretty sure you are not arguing that money is more valuable than lives. If your core belief here is that you are saving human lives, yes, there is a cost here and it is one you must be prepared, if you are honest, to pay.

Maybe. However, since private agencies are a lot more effective in serving the poor in each of these areas, then expanding government programs is not the most efficient or compassionate method for addressing these needs.

I agree that the private agencies are doing a great work here. I also see they are not meeting the need. No one is stopping private agencies from doing these things - and they still cannot meet the needs.

Until they do, I believe that we will need an "all hands on deck" approach - which includes public money as well as private.

Fewer women will seek abortion if sex education is honest, effective, and includes information about birth control.

That is the claim. However, excluding information about the many benefits of abstinence before marriage – benefits which include the greater likelihood of having needs met for food, medicine, and education – is not honest or effective.

I agree that early marriage and having children have many difficult consequences. If people in their churches want to promote abstinence, I believe they have the right to do so.

The problem comes in when we then fail to educate people on human sexuality and the medical issues related to that.

With education we will have fewer fools of the Akin variety - and fewer unwanted pregnancies - and fewer abortions.

I see genuine, concerned people saying they would do anything to reduce the number of abortions. If money is more important than life, if valuing private charity over public charity is more important than life, and if supporting religious-focused education is more important than life - then there will be more abortions because of those choices.

I disagree with your last statement, but respect your right to hold that opinion

August 25, 2012 at 11:09 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

MORNING IN TEABAG TOWN

The republican party has changed dramatically since Reagan became President. Ronnie courted religious types like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to bleed voters from the openly christian and part time sunday school teacher Jimmy Carter. In 1976 Carter got about 70% of regular church going voters.

Abortion was an important issue to Falwell and Robertson so it became an important issue to the GOP, but over the years republicans haven't done much to overturn Roe v. Wade. They talk a good game but the abortion issue was fund raising gold. Why would they mess with such a lucrative revenue stream?

True, as more and more tea baggers and fundamentalists infiltrated main stream republican politics the abortion issue has become more politically relevant.

However, main stream republican wolves lost their sheep's clothing over this Todd Akin fiasco. Wow. How quickly did they all kick Akin under the bus? Oh, they loved you christian fundamentalists and tea baggers very much when they needed campaign cash and votes in November.

But when one of you makes the 'mistake' of verbalizing your beliefs out loud in front of god and TV cameras, well, the avalanche of condemnation was swift and sure. Republicans tried to act shocked. What did Todd Akin say that was so terrible? It's not like he started talking in tongues. What he said is pretty much the official Republican Platform.

Laughed out loud when Todd blamed the liberal media for trying to get him to quit the race. NOT TRUE! Liberals want you to stick it out to the end. Cling to your abortion principles, even as the republican party disavows and rejects your No Exceptions ideology.

Why do you tea bagging christians allow the republican party treat you like that? They said they loved you, they said they respected you, but now it's morning and they act like they never heard of you.

Exceptions? Of course Romney believes a total ban on abortion should have exceptions!

You probably feel like taking a shower about now.

August 25, 2012 at 11:16 p.m.
alprova said...

rick1 wrote: "Wrong again Al, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) received $487.4 million in tax dollars over a twelve-month period and performed 329,455 abortions."

No I am not. Read your quoted statement, as I decipher its content for accuracy.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) received $487.4 million in tax dollars over a twelve-month period...

I'll not challenge the accuracy in the stated amount that PPFA received over a twelve-month period. I found a different figure, but it's irrelevant.

...and performed 329,455 abortions."*

Again, the figure is worthy of challenging, because I have no idea where it was derived from, but it is irrelevant for the purposes of our discussion of taxpayer funded abortions.

What are you reading when you read your quoted claim as one sentence? Are you reading that the tax funds were used to pay for those 329,455 abortions, or are you assuming that because the separate claims appear in the same sentence?

PPFA receives three types of funding. They receive unrestricted funds, temporarily restricted funds, and permanently restricted funds. This is true of all donations, public or private.

Unrestricted funds may be used to pay for part or all of the costs of providing abortions.

Temporarily restricted funds come with donor restrictions that expire after a defined period of time or are donated with a preference as to how such funds are to be used, but they are donated allowing FFPA the discretion to use the funds for abortions if needed.

Permanently restricted funds are never allowed to be used to pay for any cost of an abortion. These funds are used to provide services of any and all types, with the express exception of any abortion.

Funds given to PPFA by the U.S. Gov't are always permanently restricted funds and are never used for the providing of any abortions....period.

Strict reporting and auditing of every penny assures that this is so at all times. Every cent donated to PPFA is accounted for and not one penny of taxpayer funds is used to pay for abortions...period.

The Republican establishment would have everyone believe that PPFA is in the abortion business. The fact is that abortions are a very small part of the services it provides to women.

PPFA is not known to most women in America for providing abortions. Most women who enter their facilities do so for many other services that it provides to the public.

Please take a few moments to go to the horse's mouth, so to speak, for the truth and facts surrounding the organization.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/images/PPFA_final_fy_2011.pdf

August 25, 2012 at 11:37 p.m.
alprova said...

dude_abides wrote: "Armstrong died today. I think I will talk about joneses next."

Yikes!!!

August 25, 2012 at 11:48 p.m.
fairmon said...

Aprova said...

You do not contribute, nor have you ever contributed one copper penny, to pay for any abortion performed in this nation, unless you did so of your own free will and directly from your own pockets, and you and I have sparred in the past over this silly notion of yours to sterilize those who seek an abortion.

I didn't suggest I had paid for an abortion but stated I would with conditions. Government accounting is not transparent enough to know specifically what money is spent on. But, if you insist you know I can't dispute it.

August 26, 2012 at 1:39 a.m.
alprova said...

Harp3339 wrote: "I didn't suggest I had paid for an abortion but stated I would with conditions. Government accounting is not transparent enough to know specifically what money is spent on. But, if you insist you know I can't dispute it."

Gov't accounting may not be transparent as scotch tape, but PPFA opens its books to all online. The organization itself doesn't release specific abortion numbers, but it does account for and releases how the funds are spent that it receives.

Because they are keenly aware that so many people are opposed to abortion, and because they receive an adequate amount of funding from private sources and people with no such opposition, they have no problem assuring the American people that no taxpayer funds are ever used to fund so much as one abortion.

The Republicans have tried for years to cut off all taxpayer funds to the organization because they are a major provider of abortions, and in their minds, they couldn't care less whether funds for various health care services are separated and accounted for very carefully.

In their convoluted minds, despite any and all evidence to the contrary, one penny given to PPFA is a contribution used to fund abortion, thus the vicious rumor has always existed that the taxpayers pay for abortions. They do not and they never have.

Many people are unaware that PPFA offers health care screening services to both men and women that are unsurpassed by the rest of the health care industry. Any attempt to cut funding for that organization will leave many of this nation's poor to lower middle class and uninsured without access to much needed reproductive health wellness checkups and screenings that are prohibitively expensive elsewhere.

It is the providing of those wellness programs that taxpayers fund, as well as counseling services up to an including the providing of information to people that may well encourage them to decide to continue with their pregnancies.

The name of the organization is Planned Parenthood, not Planned Abortion, as many on the right view them. The organization has been responsible for assuring that infinitely more infants have been brought into this world safe and sound, than they have ever been responsible for terminating.

Additionally, there are many women across this nation who owe their lives to the organization, including a sister-in-law of mine, whose breast cancer was caught and removed in an early stage.

It truly is a shame and disgrace that so many people go to great lengths to villify an organization that offers so many good and decent health care services to literally millions of people per year, and instead they focus all their attention on one controversial service that it provides to a very limited number of patients.

August 26, 2012 at 6:26 a.m.
rick1 said...

Al, wrote Again, the figure is worthy of challenging, because I have no idea where it was derived from, but it is irrelevant for the purposes of our discussion of taxpayer funded abortions.

Then why are you concerned about the numbers provided if they are irrelevnt?

Al, can you say with 100 percent certainty that Planned Parenthood is not using tax dollars to perform abortions?

You mentioned the strict reporting and auditing by Planned Parenthood, but being an accountant Al, you know how money can be moved around.

I have provided a link to a report that alleges that millions of dollars of waste, abuse, and potential fraud have been revealed in state and federal audits across the country. Of this waste, abuse, and potential fraud, at least $7,867,547.15 has been identified in separate state audits to have occurred in a total of seven audited Planned Parenthood affiliates in New York state, California, Washington state, and Texas due to a variety of abuses, including extensive overbilling and illegal billing for abortion-related procedures that are ineligible for government reimbursement under federal laws, including the Hyde Amendment;

Planned Parenthood has been known to fail to keep non-abortion tax funds separate, so they may go directly to fund abortion services.

In a memorandum seeking to defend the state of Indiana’s law defunding Planned Parenthood, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher indicated that Planned Parenthood of Indiana mixes the federal and state tax funds it receives with its other income in a way that commingles abortion funds with funds meant for family planning.

Abby Johnson, who worked for a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Texas for eight years, serving as its director for the last two years, said, “As clinic director, I saw how money received by Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics all went into one pot at the end of the day – it isn’t divvied up and directed to specific services.”

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/07/report-planned-parenthood-groups-engage-in-medicaid-fraud/

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/27/congress-to-investigate-planned-parenthood-abortion-business/

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/rtlofneo/pages/11/attachments/original/1338939785/pptax.pdf?1338939785

August 26, 2012 at 10 a.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Tuquoque said: “So guilt by association is all that you have.”

I believe you’re ignoring the main point, Tuquoque. How many American businessmen do you know who would seek out business “partners” who are known to be financing something like death squads? No, Mitt Romney can stand in his make shift pulpit for as many hours as he chooses, but the bottom line is that no one who values human life would be seeking out business partners who are known to be financing death squads.

August 26, 2012 at 12:04 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Jack_Dennis said: "Ok, I'll trade you. You get no death penalty, the US gets no abortion. Deal?"

Sorry, Jack, but I don’t believe that I have the right to endanger the life of another person or tell a rape victim or any other woman for that matter what she can and cannot do with her own body. The fact that you seem to think that you have the right to make these health and/or financial decisions for women says a lot about you. Have you always viewed women as property holdings?

August 26, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.

But hey, if he adopts that position, at least he won't be as much of a hypocrite.

I can respect that.

Though there's still other things to be concerned about.

Like how a Senator could lie about how much of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions, and get off by claiming it wasn't intended to be factual.

Maybe we need to require an Oath from Congress members to not lie when making a speech.

August 26, 2012 at 10:17 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.