Good morning, Darvo Denise!

I have to admit I tend to get excited when I see a cut-n-paste from you with no link to back it up. That raises a red flag with me, telling me you're going beyond your usual selective cherry-picking of facts, and are instead actively distorting someone's words (usually by omission).

So I googled your headline and yup, there it was! Small wonder you didn't link the article, because people would have seen the "money quote" from the author of the study:

"She admitted there was no conclusive evidence linking readily-available contraception and pregnancy and abortion rates." LINK

Nice try, though!

Have a splendid day!

and go play in traffic.

Hey Take back Fayette, that's so nice of you to invite Denise to play. But I would guess she's too busy paring the blows from Bas. But can I come too? I'll bring my bike. Oh just by the way...are you still on your red tricycle or have you graduated to training wheels yet?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!

"go play in traffic" -- Are you in elementary school or kindergarten?

Surely, you know that that's not safe and could cause a serious accident.

___________________________

Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!

Not in the road. At the end of runway three.
There is about as much chance of the mahjority of young people skipping sex til marriage as there is for herion addicts, overeaters, and death being reversed!
Deniseis Don Quixote, female style, I guess.

"Not in the road. At the end of runway three." -- That would likely cause a plane crash. Is this a new Islamist terrorist tactic?

Are you trying to hurt my feelings?

Something to think about -- Should schools be places that lower the bar or raise it?

Notice -- There are NO blue links up to this point; so, it's safe for you to read this far & it won't kill you to continue.

Re-read exactly what sex ed classes are like today, not 30-40 years ago. Look for the paragraph beginning "SIECUS-produced school materials include condom discussions to erase all inhibitions."

Be forewarned, though -- this is not for whale killers or whales afflicted with "prudeness" or "prudishness."

_________________________

"Neither fraud, nor deceit, nor malice had yet interfered with truth and plain dealing."

"Sanity may be madness but the maddest of all is to see life as it is and not as it should be."

"One man scorned and covered with scars still strove with his last ounce of courage to reach the unreachable stars; and the world was better for this." ~ Don Quixote

_________________________

”The Impossible Dream” from The Man of La Mancha

To dream the impossible dream,
To fight the unbeatable foe,
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go;
To right the unrightable wrong.

This is my Quest, to follow that star,
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far,
To fight for the right, without question or pause
To be willing to march into hell, for a Heavenly cause

And I know, if I'll only be true, to this glorious Quest,
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm,
When I'm laid to my rest.

And the world will be better for this:
That one [wo]man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove, with [her] last ounce of courage,
To reach the unreachable stars!

Honda’s Impossible Dream Video for motorcycle enthusiasts

It is impossible to be prudish, madame quixote, abstinent, and a whale killer at the same time!
Those who are for everything, always positive, love windmill fighting, hate evil whales, think sex is not here to stay, think teenagers can be convinced sex is not good, and won't stand at the end of the runway, are more likely to be disappointed than Quixote was.

There is about as much chance of the sic mahjority of young people skipping sex til marriage as there is for herion addicts, overeaters, and death being reversed!
Deniseis Don Quixote, female style, I guess.

To assume that our young people, in total have no more self control than a bunch of farm animals is to do them (at least the ones I know) a great,and undeserved, disservice. Do you advice your sons to keep their "black book" after marriage just in case things don't work out? People tend to rise to what you expect from them. The message you are sending is that "real men" don't have honor or self control.

I disagree.

__________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

Your argument is the standard one used to throw off the logic of something like sex before marriage. Exaggeration.
"Self control of farm animals": only a very few do that and they have a lack of control of severe urges, or need extreme attention to survive.
MOST have pre-martial sex once or twice before marriage (female), males somewhat higher.
Some, a minority, do have several partners over 6-7 years.
Also, when they do marry, most live a fine life in spite of the few chances. Most divorces are certainly not because one or the other partner suddenly finds out they didn't marry a virgin.
These facts are not to promote pre-martial sex, due to danger of disease mostly, but it certainly doesn't mean these kids were animals.

Rush Limbaugh is someone who the world considers conservative. The front runners in the GOP presidential race are conservatives. Giuliani, McCain, and Limbaugh (not to mention Gingrich) have all admitted to sex outside of marraige. I would not call the sex outside of marraige dishonerable (marraige vows not withstanding), but I will say I think their actions were absolutely common to being born human, with weaknesses, desires, and that pesky sinful nature that each and every human has, whether they admit it or not. Even men of the cloth in the highest levels of the Catholic Church, with vows of celibacy to guide them, at times fall prey to sexual attraction and desire. To try to somehow reverse this inate desire with a "just say no" class is not realistic, in my liberal opinion.

Kevin "Hack" King

Believe me, my opinion of Rudy,McCain,Gingrich as Presidential material is low.

To their credit, they don't endorse birth control, Plan B, etc. as a safety net but have, at least verbally, said they actions were wrong. I might question the sincerity, but feel obligated to take them at their word until I can know otherwise.

their actions were absolutely common to being born human, with weaknesses, desires, and that pesky sinful nature that each and every human has, whether they admit it or not.

No argument with that.

To try to somehow reverse this innate desire with a "just say no" class is not realistic, in my liberal opinion

The problem with the above is that we never use the same logic on other moral problems. Really, wouldn't you laugh to scorn an educational program that says, "Don't murder, but since it will happen anyway, be sure you protect yourself by buying insurance that will pay the victims family." That would be an insane approach. Yet, that's exactly the logic we apply to most sex education courses.

It's no exaggeration to say that you can "murder" a young person's innocence and your own health in this area.

People will fail in this area. We need to help them get a second chance. But would you rather we load up a young woman in a crisis pregnancy with birth control or teach the value of abstinence? Which will really help her most?

Thus it seems to me, the highest number of youth would be helped by telling the truth about the only “safe sex.” Help people when they fail, but don’t deviate from your message. There is no condom for the heart of a young person. All these damage control methods in the world can’t help a young girl whose emotional health may never be restored.

__________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

I'll just wrap up (no pun) by saying that I believe the big contrast is that consensual sex is somewhat of a victimless crime, if done responsibly between two people who understand the ramifications and risks. Shower time!!

Cheers and good day

Kevin "Hack" King

I'll just wrap up (no pun) by saying that I believe the big contrast is that consensual sex is somewhat of a victimless crime, if done responsibly between two people who understand the ramifications and risks. Shower time!!

Cheers and good day

Kevin "Hack" King

Paul, I'm not sure I follow your moral equivalence argument vis-a-vis murder and sex.

From the time people are old enough to grasp the concept, the value "murder is wrong" is drummed into them. That message is a constant, it does not change over time.

Contrast that to the message we send about sex:
"Sex is wrong, think of the consequences"
"Sex is wrong, think of the consequences"
"Sex is wrong, think of the consequences"
Then, you get married, and the message suddenly changes overnight!
"Sex is great, go make babies!"
"Sex is great, go make babies!"

I think young people reject the notion that their concept of sex should change solely because they have government and/or religious sanction to procreate.

No analogy is completely perfect so let me elaborate a bit on this.

My comment was "It's no exaggeration to say that you can "murder" a young person's innocence and your own health in this area. In the sense that once a child’s innocence is violated, it can never be recovered, it’s a fair comparison. If the average teen/adult knew the full effects of STDs my comments regarding killing your own health is probably understated.

That said I’m not saying the two are 100% equal. With proper help you can recover from a moral failure, but not from physical death. Maybe there is a better analogy to use but lets not miss the main point. I can give many examples of adults who are still struggling with either the moral or physical (via STD) results of some very poor moral choices of their youth.

We’re not talking about courses on how to avoid paper cuts in the office. If we were, I would not worry too much about your method being much less effective. We’re talking about things that can affect an adolescent for the rest of their life.

Then, you get married, and the message suddenly changes overnight!
"Sex is great, go make babies!"
"Sex is great, go make babies!"
I think young people reject the notion that their concept of sex should change solely because they have government and/or religious sanction to procreate.

I am curious about one thing. Where in the world in my three previous posts, did you derive that I equated getting married with being ready to have children?

_________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

Paul, I hear where you're coming from, but the simple fact is that the vast majority (somewhere between 84 to 88 percent depending upon who did the survey) of all people have sex before they are married.

I don't regard people who have premarital sex as lacking "honor" or "self control".

If you choose to put those 12 to 14 percent who opt to remain chaste upon some sort of pedestal, that's certainly your right, but I think I'd prefer to have people "sow their wild oats" prior to marriage.

Just my two cents from a guy with a pocketful of change!

Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge [actually, an epidemic] in the United States. The CDC estimates that 19 million new infections occur each year [as of 2005], almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.

In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.1 billion annually.

Many cases of notifiable STDs go undiagnosed, and some highly prevalent viral infections, such as human papillomavirus and genital herpes, are not reported at all.

________________________________

STD Facts from the CDC

Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year.

The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual.

For those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections. However, it is difficult to determine whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected.

For those choosing to be sexually active and who are not in long-term mutually monogamous relationships, reducing the number of sexual partners and choosing a partner less likely to be infected may reduce the risk of genital HPV infection. Partners less likely to be infected include those who have had no or few prior sex partners.

HPV infection can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered. While the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.

________________________________

Chlamydia is the most frequently reported bacterial sexually transmitted disease in the United States. In 2004, 929,462 chlamydial infections were reported to CDC from 50 states and the District of Columbia. Under-reporting is substantial because most people with chlamydia are not aware of their infections and do not seek testing. Also, testing is not often done if patients are treated for their symptoms. An estimated 2.8 million Americans are infected with chlamydia each year. Women are frequently re-infected if their sex partners are not treated.

The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual contact, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and is known to be uninfected.

Persons with chlamydia should abstain from sexual intercourse until they and their sex partners have completed treatment, otherwise re-infection is possible.
________________________________

Gonorrhea is a very common infectious disease. CDC estimates that more than 700,000 persons in the U.S. get new gonorrheal infections each year.

Like chlamydia, however, gonorrhea is substantially under-diagnosed and under-reported, and approximately twice as many new infections are estimated to occur each year as are reported.

The person and all of his or her sex partners must avoid sex until they have completed their treatment for gonorrhea.

________________________________

Results of a nationally representative study show that genital herpes infection is common in the United States. Nationwide, at least 45 million people ages 12 and older, or one out of five adolescents and adults, have had genital HSV infection. Between the late 1970s and the early 1990s, the number of Americans with genital herpes infection increased 30 percent.

The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including genital herpes, is to abstain from sexual contact, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and is known to be uninfected.

Genital ulcer diseases can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered.

________________________________

This should be the goal, not "sowing wild oats," which brings disease and misery. Educators and parents should promote a healthy lifestyle, not one that is known to be highly risky. If you play with fire, you're very likely to be burned.

BTW, to abstain requires self-control. To be promiscuous [having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners] does not.

Honorable means "marked by uprightness in principle and action; ethical, principled, respectable." Dishonorable can mean "that which causes shame." Sadly, there is too little shame today, or men like Imus, rappers, or Genarlow Wilson (or women like B. Spears) would not be admired.

________________________________

"When we are motivated by goals that have deep meaning, by dreams that need completion, by pure love that needs expressing, then we truly live life." ~ Greg Anderson

"Man is a goal-seeking [creature]. His life only has meaning if he is reaching out and striving for his goals." ~ Aristotle

________________________________

"A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sin and suffering." ~ Thomas Jefferson

I was counting on your innate intellectual dishonesty to spin this to your advantage! Your failed abstinence programs have not accomplished their mission of reducing premarital sex, so you turn it on its head and say hey, they didn't increase! (which of course was NOT a goal) and declare victory!

Nice "guilt by association" logical fallacy in addition to your usual smarmy blend of "fear uncertainty and doubt" . You serve your true master well!

Hey didja see the New York Times on Sunday noting that nine states had pulled the plug on failed abstinence programs? The governor of Massachusetts went so far as to decline federal funds earmarked for your failed programs....when was the last time you saw a politician turning down money? You and your type are being quickly consigned to the dustbin of discarded ideas! That's a good thing!

"'Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"

Quote the study if you want to discredit me.

Massachusetts -- What a surprise!

I see you're posting family pictures now. A Black Sabbath fan, no doubt.

Is this you with the tatoo?

The quote from Moby Dick of the ungodly, tremendously proud Captain Ahab who lords over his ship like a dark god of vengeance gave your identity away. Captain Ahab is a monomaniac whose desire for revenge leads to his death. Moby-Dick is unable to be killed by human hands, an immortal creature that takes on mythical overtones, as an avenging angel, and even possibly God himself.

I would have thought whale-killing to be against your environmentalist affections.

"to the last I grapple with thee" -- I'm up to the challenge.

"from hell's heart I stab at thee" -- Back to being "Most Angry & Vicious" blogger?

"for hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!" -- Have you ever tried anger management?

The good news about schizophrenia is that, although there is no cure, it can be treated effectively with prescription medications. Zyprexa or Seroquel should be tried before chlorpromazine is initiated. In most medication-resistant patients, however, clozapine can be used with mood stabilizers (such as lithium), anti-depressants, other atypical anti-psychotics, typical anti-psychotics, or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).

I think I'll take 2 aspirin tablets and call a friend. Reading the abstinence study has been quite intensive.

What a Wonderful World

I tried to read your books today, couldn't get through the one where I couldn't really tell what it was about!
Anyway, it appears you will never run out of Kook-Aid to drink. Oops, I meant, Kool-Aid, sorry.
As to sex training, no teen worth his salt in the 40s to the 50s would even think about going on a date without one preventer in his billfold. The girls wouldn't let you to second base without one. Most of the time it didn't make any difference anyway, they weren't willing. They pretend to take pills now, but sometimes they run out of money to buy them.
Pretension and prudeness are bad enough, but to add haughtiness to the fold makes for a difficult clarity.

Prudeness? is that a real word.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Yes, it is a word---or was used sometime ago, to mean nearly the same thing as prudishness, which is more correct as I used it.

See your own blurb above!

While the students dragooned into flawed abstinence-only programs may THINK they are getting sufficient information, their education is by definition incomplete as Section 510 specifically prohibits discussion of contraception. "Yeah Cletus I know all 'bout that sex stuff, 'cept for birth control pills and rubbers and stuff".

In any event thank you for the link, Denise. It is encouraging to note that the number of school systems in Georgia teaching the ineffective abstinence-only sex education programs has dwindled from 42 systems to 25 over the past 5 years.

I have been reading up on the topic, most professionals think that an abstinence-BASED program (as opposed to an abstinence-ONLY program) is the most effective way of teaching students, and I was pleased to hear that Fayette county schools teach an abstinence-based curriculum.

Unintended consequences department: Virginity pledges, heavily promoted by certain Christianist elements, have an interesting outcome: girls start later in life having vaginal sex, but have the exact same rates of sexually transmitted diseases despite having far fewer sexual partners. Possible explanation? Pressure to remain a "technical virgin" may force a teenage girl to engage in far riskier sexual activities, with unfortunate consequences.
________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

Don't mean to "parse" your sentence, but by "dragooned" are you implying that students are subjugated or even persecuted by the imposition of troops?

The troops are mostly all in Iraq now, I believe.

Republicans don't put the military on the borders; so, I really doubt that they'd be willing to put the troops in schools when the Dems bring them home.

If you mean compelling by violent measures or threats, then you must be referring to a NARAL demonstration.

Watch The Patriot to see the real Dragoons. They have more in common with Islamists than "Christianists."

When I used the term "dragooned", Ms. Change-the-subject, I was of course referring to the classic definition of dragooned as a verb:
compel by coercion, threats, or crude means

A little context goes a long way, doesn't it?

Some synonyms for "dragooned" include "coerce", "pressure" and "force", three concepts you'll no doubt recognize as core tenets of the Christianist philosophy.

________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

You know- like banmani having an entire bogus slanderous, inaccurate article libeling a dead judge (and veteran of course!) in place of a eulogy. (Click Here)

Or like the National Organization of Women - not talking about sexual harassment during the Clinton years.

Or like the gay rights groups not defending Mark Foley even though the kid was of 'legal consent' age in Florida.

Or like the National Organization of Women, NOW, embracing Ted Kennedy for killing and abandoning his secretary.

Or why NOW doesn't sing the praises of Bush for liberating millions of women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Or why no apology was ever given by Al Sharpton to the prosecutor he slandered and libeled.

Or why the Duke LaCross team doesn't have marches by Jackson and Sharpton on their behalf.

Or why young Jeezy can use the 'N' word and 'Ho' 27 times in one song but Imus can't use it once.

Or why 'you and I' are the cause of 'global warming' and need to reduce your 'carbon footprint' but Al Gore's private jet flights, Zinc Mine, and 4 homes, or 22 times the national average consumption of electricity in just ONE home is not.

Or why Edwards can claim there are "two Americas" while living in a 22,000 sq. ft. on 105 acres house with an indoor gym.

Or why Edwards can belittle his working class neighbor who has had his 45 acres of family land for three generations because it is "unsightly and junky" and fears him because he is a "Rabid Republican" neighbor.

Or why banmani (or most liberals) will never watch you abortion video, view your pictures, or see your explanations to Trent (is that what banmani will show to public school kids in his complete well rounded sex ed classes?).

It's all about context Denise! It's all about 'context'!

_____________________________________________________________________

Why you can’t believe banmani

cigar and wind down a bit. I can sense the twinkle of killer instinct in your eye, and I'm scared you might have a flash back and wake up in the woods with blood on your hands and pants legs. Tai chi, bruh. Tai chi.

Kevin "Hack" King

ps: Why pick on John Edwards for being rich, but still caring for those that are not? Should he say, "Hey, I got mine"?

I have some beautiful Churchill size Dominicans with a gorgeous Maduro wrapper that would make a grown man cry. I have some in the Humidor that have gorgeous little white blooms on them. They are waiting for a nice day of golf, good conversation, and an ice cold coke.

Unfortunately, if I share them with you, I would lose my anonymity.

I would then cease to be an Enigma
______________________________________________________

Why you can’t believe banmani

If you gentleman meet for a cigar, count me in.

Might I suggest a Partagas, CAO, Gurkha, 5 Vegas (Cinco Vegas) or a nice La Gloria Cubana?

Mixer

Cohiba and Montecristo are best.....

On the issue of abstinence, I have a friend who has had sex with 75 different women in the span of 30 years....how to explain that?

-----------------------------------
Making you think twice......

Sex Ed Instructor -- That's a scary thought

"girls start later in life" -- Am I missing something here?

Since when did that become a bad thing, unless you're one of those types who prowl on MySpace?

"the exact same rates of sexually transmitted diseases despite having far fewer sexual partners"-- Where's the support for that claim?

To quote the CDC:

"The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection [and all other STDs] is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual.

For those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections. However, it is difficult to determine whether a partner who has been sexually active in the past is currently infected.

For those choosing to be sexually active and who are not in long-term mutually monogamous relationships, reducing the number of sexual partners and choosing a partner less likely to be infected may reduce the risk of genital HPV infection. Partners less likely to be infected include those who have had no or few prior sex partners."

It's medical science, not perverted Basmatism.

If you want to gamble with your physical and mental health, then "hook up" with every Tom . . . . Well, you get my point.

Abstinence ed is only part of the solution, a very small part since parents let their daughters dress and act like they belong on a street corner, and popular music and culture encourages women to think of themselves as *** and men to treat them as such.

"Pressure" -- So, we do nothing to counter the pressure to conform -- everybody else's doing it, so I have to be like everybody else?

Why not have the same attitude with drugs, smoking, etc.? At least, you'd be consistent.

If you'll re-read the DHR study and talk to actual instructors (which I have), then you'll find that girls want and need all the help that they can get to just say "no."

"technical virgin" -- perverted Basmatism again

"may force a teenage girl" -- HAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Behavior is a choice, not a force. (My JJ imitation there.)

Therefore, one is held responsible for one's choices and suffers the consequences. That's one way that some people learn. Others can weigh the consequences and decide not to engage in risky behavior.

"far riskier sexual activities" -- Exactly what do you mean? Maybe I shouldn't ask.

If you mean college age by "later in life," then M-F dorms with "community" baths and drunken parties and "Women's Studies" would have nothing to do with sexual behavior, I suppose? If parents pay for this kind of environment, then expect the consequences.

I remember one sole voice of sanity in the media coverage of Natalie Holloway's disappearance -- If parents pay for their kids' "good times" where a licentious atmosphere prevails, then be prepared for the worst.

Just wondering -- How did civilization ever survive before the sexual revolution of the 60s?

_________________________________________________________

Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!

The real focus here should be on the beauty and importance of each and every one of our children and, in particulars, our daughters. Mrs. Conner understands that one of the biggest casualties of this Open Sex movement expoused by Basmati is the heart of the young person. I think that Basmati is urging a position that endorses aggressive teen sex conduct and that this will create problems for life.

Cogito, I likes ya, you're one of the only true conservative voices on here.

For the record, though, I am not a proponent of any "Open Sex movement". I favor comprehensive abstinence-based sex education.

________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

"I favor comprehensive abstinence-based sex education."

Applying for a job or running for mayor?

Comprehensive, as in, large in scope?

Guess you'd be the first to volunteer for the banana demonstration.

My, you do have an obsession, or should I say fetish, with this topic.

You seem to be the self-proclaimed expert on anal sex (among women, of course), and every other kind, too.

Then, there's your other blog "Condoms and High School Students," and your expert opinions on sex and the HPV vaccine.

I think the idea is to counter the prevailing culture -- to stem the tide -- not to give teens more of the same. They get plenty of that when they watch TV and go to most college.

___________________________________________________

Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!

Yes, Comprehensive and empirically-based abstinence-based sex education programs. This would include information on birth control.

Do you have a problem with this?
________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

ABORTIONS?

_________________________________________________________
Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!

Trent

Just start by viewing these pictures to get a basis for further comments.

This is abortion

Choose from these encoding options

Dilation & Evacuation Abortion

**Warning** Contains some graphic pictures

Honestly. Remember, this is like the newspaper in your house. Anyone can access it. I viewed the pics, but I wouldn't want a kid to stumble upon them unwarned. The abortion issue is an incredibly difficult and devicive subject. And what the hey. I'll weigh in.

I would never force my wife, sister, daughter, mom, or you to bare a rapist's baby.

Second: I don't quite understand how, if all life is in God's hands and precious, many who are pro life are also in support of the death penalty and support wars (even the discretionary kind as is Iraq).

I don't get angry about this subject. I'll promise to remain rational if you wish to discuss it.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

BTW, do you prefer to be addressed as Kevin or Hack or?

*STUPID* mistake, as in "a lack of care or close attention," not because of a lack of interest in others

You're so right. I was in a hurry & forgot the disclaimer, I guess, but that's no excuse.

Can I put in a warning now?

"I'll promise to remain rational if you wish to discuss it." -- "Rational," what more could I ask for?

When I glanced at the posts, yours caught my eye, and I wanted to admit my carelessness first thing.

More discussion later, as if you couldn't guess!

-----------------------

Here are a couple of sites where you can find out more for yourself. They say it better than I could.

Dr. Alveda C. King is the daughter of the late slain civil rights activist Rev. A. D. King, the brother(?) of Dr. M. L. King, Jr. I've heard her speak and have corresponded with her. Quite a lady!

She speaks from personal experience: her first abortion (involuntary) was done by a doctor who decided that she had enough (or too many?) children already. Her next abortion (voluntary) was after the Roe v. Wade decision.

"There was adverse pressure and threat of violence from the baby’s father. The ease and convenience provided through Roe v. Wade made it too easy for me to make the fateful and fatal decision to abort our child."

"How can the 'Dream' survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate."

How can the “Dream” survive if we murder the children?

-----------------------

Another good source is LEARN (Life Education and Resource Network to ensure the survival of all races of people and improve our quality of life without sacrificing our children).

Abortion and the Black Community

**Warning** Contains some graphic pictures

BlackGenocide.org

"The Dawning of a King's Dream"

-----------------------

I took the time to re-read Pastor Childress's sermon tonight. Just don't much feel like watching mindless TV now ~

________________________________________________

Reformers who are always compromising have not yet grasped the idea that truth is the only safe ground to stand upon.

~ Elizabeth Cady Stanton

I spin up about Iraq sometimes, but I understand the deep personal level of the abortion issue. I also understand that my perspective, as a man, is incomplete. I look forward to future info. Good night.

Kevin "Hack" King

Hack, you are asking Denise to forego one of the key elements of her debate arsenal: lurid visuals.

Denise relies upon lurid photos and video clips (like last week's gay pride pix) to shore up her meager rhetorical skills. You'll notice a lack of quality responses by her to the original subject of this blog. She was losing, and she knew it. So she is attempting to re-cast the argument here (another of her favorite techniques) to make this blog a referendum on abortion, instead.
________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

Hack, you are asking Denise to forego one of the key elements of her debate arsenal: lurid visuals.

Yet another example of your hypocrisy Bas. In this same blog you wrote here:

You serve your true master well!

And what does that link go to? A drawing of a demon. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the links to sites Ms. Conner posted are real photographs of what happens when abortions are performed. No one argues they are shocking, but they are real. Your picture on the other hand is a cartoon that insults Ms. Conner by connecting her to a demon. Her pictures weren't directed to you, Basmati. Your picture was a deliberate attempt to be rude and insulting. Her pictures were in response to a question from another user.

I just love the irony that in the same blog you tell Denise not to post "lurid" pictures you post a "lurid" ("Marked by sensationalism") picture yourself. Basmati, MAV, Most Annoying Veteran (here on thecitizen.com that is), whatever name you go by currently, please add another one: #1 Hypocrite on The Citizen.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Get Firefox for a better, safer, and more enjoyable web browsing experience!

We have no words for this crime.
I am sad that you do know this word. this is the -baby hunting- word meaning in Creek- "estuce fayetv"
I do not belong in this discussing
I am not going to be here again
Thank you
Trent

Abortion is the cornerstone of the progressive left. After all in their mind it is birth control because if life began at conception, they would be murdering. That's why emrionic stem cell research is OK with them too.

________________________________________________________________
Fighting for truth, justice and the American way, while ignoring the ignorant!

It is a false claim that abortion is the cornerstone of the left. Getting out of Iraq is the cornerstone of the left. Democrats are all over the map on abortion. Libertarians are the "don't tell me what to do with my body" crowd. Giuliani is a pro, Romney was, or maybe is still, if you can corner him. I know personally conservatives who have made the difficult decision of which we are blogging. And remember, no republican administration has pushed and passed legislation to make all abortions illegal. And as long as conservatives have daughters in college with fake i.d.s and occasional drunkenness, republicans will not make abortion illegal. I promise that.

Kevin "Hack" King

I would think there are more Pro-Choice Repubs than Pro-Life Dems? No?
Might be interesting to check on that.

I take it from your collective writings that Hack is a democrat and so is basmati, Denise is a Republican?

I would first predicate my statement by saying that I don't think anyone likes the idea of, or wants to see more abortions performed.

I think the battle is over how best to limit and regulate/perform those abortions that are 'needed' and WHO should define what 'needed' is. {How do you like the bold? I just learned that.}

This discussion actually started with that topic- sex education- correct?

After all, all medical procedures that terminate pregnancy are termed 'abortions'. Example: If a placenta begins to spontaneously detach, and the mother is bleeding to death, and a delivery is required to stop the bleeding, it's still considered an abortion (even though without it- both the mother and fetus would 'expire').

This is certainly not a very pleasant topic and may be more of an ethics/morality discussion than can be effectively made via text. I suppose ultimately it becomes political only when you try to decide WHO or WHAT entity decides if the procedure is performed. {Assuming there are no women being FORCED to have an abortion that is.}

I'm with Trent Rivers {is he 'for real'?} on this one, I'm out of it but I will watch, read, and learn.

Comment Deleted

You've managed to distill the argument down to it's essence. I commend you.

As you said, there are two distinct components to the debate: the morality/ethics portion and the political aspect of who gets to make the rules regarding the practical application of the abortion procedure.

The battle lines have been drawn and neither side seems willing to budge off their established "line in the sand". Not conducive to compromise and/or finding a common ground, I must admit. I thought "working together to make abortions safe and rare" might be a solution, but it would appear that both sides have divergent opinions as to what constitutes "safe and rare".

________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

There are those among us (Gingrich, Bush, Kennedy) who do seriously think that they can rant and rave about abortion, drinking, divorcing, etc., and when the time comes they have to face such, immediately think, oh well, it is me now, I can stretch things a little because of who I am, just this once. There is a name for them (hy.......)

Hack as you may have noticed, honesty has never been one of the little major's strong points. But then, given that he is a man completely devoid of honor, I suppose this lack of honesty should come as no surprise.
________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

Don't want to get caught in the crossfire between you guys. But I do welcome abortion discussions. It strikes me as a good wedge issue that is not enforceable. I want honest discussion without anger. Here is the big, big, big question: If President Bush's daughter was raped by Rahim, do you believe the Bush family would eventually be raising little Rahim? I'm not trying to provoke anger; just thought. Will anyone push a vote that would force Laura to bare a rapist's child? I never, ever would. And I'd support the death penalty for that Rahim. And I would apply the same to child predator rapists as well. I invite all comments. PLEASE CHECK YOUR ANGER AT THE FRONT DOOR. The MANAGEMENT

Kevin "Hack" King

You'll notice that when cornered, Christianists historically try to turn the discussion to one of four major wedge issues of our time: Abortion, Stem Cells, Gay Marriage and/or That Lyin' Librul Media.

Insofar as your hypothetical situation above, should Laura find herself impregnated by Rahim, I suspect a clandestine "D&C" would be arranged to terminate the pregnancy. President Stumbletongue would still blather on the sanctity of life, even though there is strong evidence that he got his old girlfriend in a family way and helped her have an abortion (Google "Robin Lowman").

"Do as we say, not as we do" would continue to be official policy.
________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

"Progressive" -- Isn't it interesting how they prefer that term instead of liberal?

They're for the progressive income tax, too.

There's nothing advanced or forward moving about abortion.

Even pagan Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine & author of the Hippocratic Oath, more than 2000 years ago (that would be B.C. -- before Christ -- to all anti-"Christianists") said,

"I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients [all gynecologists recognize that there are 2 patients when a woman is pregnant] according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug [that would include RU-486, which induces abortion in women up to nine weeks pregnant] nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion."
___________________________________________________________

The True Progressives:

-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton who classified abortion as a form of "infanticide"

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

-- Susan B. Anthony who referred to abortion as "child murder"

"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

-- Mary Wollstonecraft who wrote "A Vindication of the Rights of Women" (1792)

"Women becoming, consequently, weaker...than they ought to be...have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection...either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast if off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity."

Feminists probably excise this part in college "Women's Studies."

For a better perspective, see Feminists for Life

___________________________________________________________

If you or someone you love has experienced the personal tragedy of abortion and you are looking for help, please click on the links below for more information.

There is HOPE after the abortion

For healing after abortion

Silent No More

"Comprehensive sexual education", in my mind anyway, includes information about abortion too. Also the RU-486 abortion pill and the Plan B "morning after" pill as well.

Am I to assume you have an issue with this?
________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

Will you please explain why you think that teens need information about RU 486?

As I said earlier, Denise, I favor comprehensive sex education being taught in school. As such, a discussion on RU486 is warranted. I feel that an educated child is the best hope for our future. Feel free to disagree.

Even many adults don't realize that the RU486 pill, which is typically used as an alternative to suction abortion procedures up until 8 weeks of gestation, can also be used (in much smaller doses) as an emergency contraceptive if taken in the time period between sexual intercourse and ovulation.
________________________________________________________
Why bother to BAN troublemakers if you're just going to let them RE-REGISTER?

WARNING: If mifepristone does not cause a complete abortion (fetal death), surgery may be necessary.

Abortions caused by Cytotec (misoprostol) may be incomplete, which could lead to dangerous bleeding, hospitalization, surgery, infertility, or maternal or fetal death.

______________________________

Basmati, since you "favor comprehensive sex education," I must point out some of your misinformation.

According to the Office of Population Research at Princeton University and the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals:

“The abortion pill, also known as mifepristone or RU-486 ("medical abortion" or "medication abortion"), is a completely different drug from Plan B and the other brands of birth control pills that you can use for emergency contraception.”

“At a far lower dose, mifepristone has been shown to also be effective for preventing pregnancy, like emergency contraceptive pills, but it is only available for this use in China.”

______________________________

According to the Guttmacher Institute (a special affiliate of Planned Parenthood and collaborators with the ACLU & NARAL):

“Emergency contraception (EC) is not 'the abortion pill' (mifepristone or RU-486) and will not abort an established pregnancy -- i.e., one in which the fertilized egg has already attached itself to the wall of the uterus, according to the World Health Organization definition of a pregnancy.”

(Alan F. Guttmacher was president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America [PPFA] for more than a decade until his death in 1974.)

______________________________

Also, "RU 486" should not be used during the 8th week.
______________________________

“RU 486,” the French abortion pill so named after Roussel-Uclaf, the French company that developed the drug mifepristone, is a two-drug abortion process. Mifepristone (brand name Mifeprex), with anti-progestational effects, causes the death of the unborn child by depriving her of vital nutrition. A second drug, misoprostol is given to induce uterine contractions, which then expels the now-dead baby. This process usually takes between 3 days to 2 weeks but can take 3 to 4 weeks to expel the baby.

RU 486 is not taken by itself because it has a failure rate of about 40%. However, even with the prostaglandin, misoprostol, abortions have been incomplete. If the two deadly drugs do not accomplish the task, a surgical abortion must be performed to "finish the job."

This chemical abortion method is typically used through the seventh week of pregnancy (within the first 49 days of pregnancy – where day one of pregnancy is defined as the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period or LMP, meaning up to 5 weeks after conception). This procedure is only given under direct MD supervision, in a doctor's office, clinic, or hospital.

Bleeding and cramping are expected during this treatment. Nearly all of the women who receive Mifeprex and misoprostol will report adverse reactions [nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, dizziness, and fatigue], and many can be expected to report more than one such reaction. About 90% of patients report adverse reactions following administration of misoprostol on day three of the treatment procedure. Women also typically experience abdominal pain, and nearly 70% of women needed medication for their pain. 80 to 90% of women reported very heavy bleeding, which may require a blood transfusion. Bleeding and spotting may last up to 30 days and may be greater than a normal, heavy period.

8% of women will need surgical intervention to remove the “products of conception” (i.e., pregnancy, or being “with child”) because of uncontrolled hemorrhaging from incomplete expulsion or an ongoing pregnancy. Sometimes the woman can have cramps and bleeding and still be pregnant. The risks from an incomplete abortion include infection and possibly death and-or hemorrhaging that can lead to death. Misoprostol can also cause uterine ruptures.

The procedure requires at least 3 visits to the clinic or hospital. Failure to comply could lead to the retention of fetal tissue after the induced abortion, infections that could cause sterility or death, or an undetected pregnancy and a high rate of birth defects.

The uncertainty about where the woman will be when she aborts, along with the side effects of severe cramping and bleeding, demonstrate the fact that the drug mixture is not as painlessly simple as its proponents claim and women tend to believe.

______________________________

While all abortion procedures carry the rare risk of sepsis, septic shock, or death, RU 486 is associated with several deaths of healthy and vibrant women who had no previous medical problems. In all cases, bacterial infection with the absence of the typical symptoms of infection (fever and-or abdominal tenderness) swiftly took these women's lives.

A California teenager, Holly Patterson, died from septic shock in September 2003 after taking RU-486. She went to an emergency room for severe abdominal cramping several days after receiving the abortion pills. She was told "her pain and bleeding were normal, and she was sent home with painkillers." Holly had no fever or abdominal tenderness, typical signs of infection. Three days later, she returned to the hospital, complaining of nausea, vomiting, and weakness. She had low blood pressure and an elevated heart rate. She died about 10 hours after admission.

RU-486 is touted to be safe, especially by Planned Parenthood. “Still, when it is your child who dies, statistics don't matter. The only relevant context is the wedding bouquet she'll never toss, the kindergartner she'll never walk to school, the toasts she'll never make at Christmas dinner. When it is your child who dies, safety records are cold comfort.”

So Holly’s father is asking questions. “He wants to know why most abortion clinics – including the Planned Parenthood one his daughter visited – don't follow the FDA-approved pill regimen, why his daughter wasn't sent to a specially trained doctor when she called the Planned Parenthood hot line for help, and why women aren't given more explicit information about the risks of medical abortions. He wonders, too, how girls and young women are supposed to recognize what's OK and what isn't during the bleeding, cramping and elevated temperatures that are normal during an abortion with RU-486.”

______________________________

“Anti-abortionists” and concerned parents aren’t the only ones expressing criticism of this abortion method. Feminists Against Eugenics in Liverpool, England, emphasize, “Its long-term impact on the health of women and their future fertility, and on children subsequently born to women who use it, is unknown. At best it is experimental; at its worst, lethal . . . . What has been presented as a simple, pill-popping exercise is, in fact, an intensely medicalized and painful procedure which can involve up to four clinic visits and last up to 12 days . . . . RU486 is dangerous, experimental and – ultimately – misogynistic. We oppose it with every means possible.”

“In September, 1991, a group of women scientists from the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT's) Institute on Women and Technology issued a report under the name of "Feminist International Network of Resistance to Reproductive and Genetic Engineering" (FINRRAGE),” comparing the procedure to taking a "drug cocktail" with severe and sometimes fatal side effects.

Dr. Esther Sternberg of the NIH, as well as biologists and medical scientists, reported that mifepristone enhances the severity and lethality of bacterial and viral infections by suppressing immune response.

In a World Health Organization (WHO) study, 30% of women who had incomplete RU-486 abortions developed pelvic-genital tract infections because one effect of the drugs’ combination is to suppress immune system response. In fact, the WHO study calls for women to receive antibiotics for six weeks following an RU-486 abortion.

The manufacturer of misoprostol released this warning: "Searle regards the administration of misoprostol (Cytotec, an anti-ulcer drug, intended for patients at risk of developing stomach ulcers from high doses of aspirin-like medications taken for conditions such as arthritis), either alone or in combination with other drugs to interfere with the course of pregnancy, as misuse of the product . . . . We strongly condemn misuse of the product."

Compare the sparse information given by Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of abortion and contraceptive services, with the more comprehensive information that can be obtained elsewhere.

The former chairman of Roussel-Uclaf (the French company that developed RU-486) told a reporter, "As abortifacient procedures go, RU-486 is not at all easy to use . . . . True, no anaesthetic is required. But a woman who wants to end her pregnancy has to 'live' with her abortion for at least a week using this technique. It's an appalling psychological ordeal."

A spokeswoman for a French manufacturer of RU-486 said, "The tiny embryo in an amorphous sac begins to look very much like a baby, with a discernible head and limbs.” She recalls a nurse remembering one day when she saw six embryos by the sink. “It was upsetting. It was like looking at a little row of people. The women too were shocked when they looked at what they had expelled.”

RU-486 is advertised as more natural and private, “but psychologically it hits you much harder. You preside over the killing of a baby [rather than an abortionist], completely unblinkingly. For women who are confused or vulnerable, and of course, so many are in this position, it is really terrible."

______________________________

To decide for yourself, please see these pictures and description of fetal development at Pregnancy.org, an educational, comprehensive pregnancy information site (non-abortion related).

"Amazing! There simply is not another word worthy to describe the development of your baby! Just think, within approximately a 40 week period, your little one will have transformed from a single cell to a fully formed human -- filled by wonderment and prepared to change your world forever.

The first trimester (0 - 14 weeks), is one of the most crucial for your baby. Within this trimester you will find the most rapid rate of growth and development taking place. By the end of the 1st trimester, your son or daughter will have grown to 3.4 inches (8.7 cm) long and weigh about 1.5 ounces (43 grams). Your infant will develop everything from limbs to vital organs. Week by week the changes are astounding!"

Thank you for your lengthy cut and paste, Denise. I'd like to take this opportunity to correct the record as to what you believe is misinformation.

_____________________________________
You said:
Basmati, since you "favor comprehensive sex education," I must point out some of your misinformation.

According to the Office of Population Research at Princeton University and the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals:

“The abortion pill, also known as mifepristone or RU-486 ("medical abortion" or "medication abortion"), is a completely different drug from Plan B and the other brands of birth control pills that you can use for emergency contraception.”

“At a far lower dose, mifepristone has been shown to also be effective for preventing pregnancy, like emergency contraceptive pills, but it is only available for this use in China.”
___________________________________________________________
(All emphasis yours above)

1. First of all, if you will review the previous posts in this thread you will see that I took great pains to distinguish between RU486 and Plan B emergency contraceptives. Your emphasis would seem to indicate that this was not the case. I simply pointed out in my most recent post that RU486 COULD be used as an emergency contraceptive. I would submit that the "misinformation" was on your end.

2. Your comment about "only available in China". An important distinction needs to be made here: the FDA has approved RU486 as an abortifacient in the United States. You are correct that RU486 has not been approved as an emergency contraceptive. Nonetheless, Off-label use of non-narcotic drugs in the United States is NOT prohibited. As such, there is no legal restriction on physicians to prevent them from prescribing RU486 in lesser dosages as an emergency contraceptive. Again, I would submit that the "misinformation" was on your end.

______________________________________________________
You said:
Also, "RU 486" should not be used during the 8th week.
______________________________________________________

You will note that I was careful to point out that RU486 was an alternative up to the 8th week. I did not say "up to and including" the 8th week. At the risk of being pedantic, I would submit that the "misinformation" was on your end once again.

I note that you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort focusing on anecdotal evidence to support your position, e.g. "Suzy So-and-so had an abortion and 3 weeks later she developed a rash". May I suggest that verifiable statistics might be a better way of proving your point?

Additionally, I think everyone here is cognizant of the fact that just about every medication under the sun some carries some degree of risk. Have you seen the warning labels on garden-variety aspirin lately? I don't feel like you are advancing your argument by cutting and pasting warning labels from medications. Feel free to disagree.

In summary, I am of the opinion that you failed to meet the burden of proof insofar as characterizing any of my statements as "misinformation". I suggest that in the future if you want to critique the facts in my posts, you may wish to have a stronger grasp of facts that you wish to use as evidence!

Have a splendid day!
________________________________________________________
I urge you to think twice before insulting most army veterans

"Cut and paste" You think Denise likes to cut and paste? Try this on for size:

Submitted by most army veterans (banmani)on Fri, 04/20/2007 - 2:25pm.
This says it best:
========
I wrote this months ago, Harry Reid just said it today. Either way, it's what the overwhelming majority of Americans already know in their hearts - George Bush lost the war in Iraq a long time ago. And it does no one any favors - neither our troops, their families, nor any other American who cares about the future of our country - to pretend otherwise. The far-right extremists currently in control of the Republican party don't care about doing the right thing, and certainly don't care about our troops - as we witnessed with the body armor debacle when the war started, and now the Walter Reed catastrophe. They care about saving their own behinds. This is their war, George Bush's war. And they lost this war through their utter mismanagement. Rather than admit that truth, and accept the blame and responsibility for their own mistakes, and bring our troops home, they'd rather continue lying to the American people and lying to our troops as they send tens of thousands more of them into an out of control civil war. The extremists running the Republican party would rather risk the lives of American soldiers for a cause they already know is lost, than accept responsibility for a gross mistake of their own making. Their ego is more important than the life of an American service member.
Now who hates the troops?
========
I didn't write the above, I found it Here and I concur 100%

++++++++++++

End article plagerised by banmani (most army veterans or whatever she is going by this week)

++++++++++++

Wow,
Nice “basmati”, I mean “banmani”, I mean “most army veterans”, really supportive of the troops. So, if we lost- who won? WHO WON???

Way too many techs!
Abortion is abortion, no matter if Bill Gates wife has it done or Mrs. Bush, or some unknown ghetto woman or 12 year old!
You can not legislate sex!

But you can legislate murder!

____________________________

Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!

And with the recent Supreme Court decision there is hope that more of that legislation will be coming quickly.

Maximus

Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive. ~Author Unknown

We would be having a very different debate about abortion laws if 8 of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices were women and if 80% of the members of Congress and the state leglislatures were women. But then most women are silly little things who cannot be trusted to make the right moral choices. Best leave those important decisions to male politicians and church leaders as we have for thousands of years.

Greeting Lion (and pardon the pun above)
Here's a fact
Arguments don't have gender, but people do, so it's the argument you have to defeat.

No matter who sits on the Courts or in Congress the premise is - It's morally wrong to kill innocent life.

Check out my posts above where I present factual info. Show me abortion doesn't kill innocent human life. Prove that it's no different than having your tooth pulled and I'll actually help people get them!

"Best leave those important decisions to male politicians and church leaders as we have for thousands of years."

BTW-shouldn't a church leader be against the taking of innocent life?

____________________________________________________________________
I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born. ~Ronald Reagan, quoted in New York Times, 22 September 1980

Arguments may not have gender, but arguments plus power trump arguments without power most of the time.

If the moral choice is so absolutely clear, why not trust women to also reach that conclusion?

"Also the RU-486 abortion pill and the Plan B "morning after" pill as well."

I'd never have guessed that you wanted that, too!

Once the camel gets its nose in the tent . . . .
_____________________________________________________

Out! Out! You demons of stupidity!

Denise, you want to criminalize abortion and I want to keep it safe and rare. Neither of us is going to convince the other to change our mind.

What I will ask you, though, is the following: isn't your position a bit contradictory in nature? One might think that you'd want teens to have knowledge about contraception in order to decrease the possibility of having an abortion?
________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

Denise, you want to criminalize abortion and I want to keep it safe and rare. Neither of us is going to convince the other to change our mind.

Bas-my question is safe for whom? It's certainly less than safe (actually fatal) for the child.

You also criticize Denise for using visuals.

I'm curious to know if you are also are against school children being shown pictures of the Holocaust with Jewish bodies stacked like cord wood?

Are you also against the videos of civil rights proponents being hit with water cannons and attack dogs?

I would wager that you can't name one social justice issue in the last 50 years that hasn't been fueled by truthful pictures that demonstrate wrong actions against the innocent victims.

The links included in the above post make us face the reality that abortion takes an innocent human life.

We aren't even supposed to see our dead soldiers, sailors, Airmen and marines returned to this country, even in a closed box!
There are a lot of ostrichs' with their head in the sand.
If you can't look at it, don't do it.

Bas-my question is safe for whom? It's certainly less than safe (actually fatal) for the child.
Hello Paul, welcome to the Citizen blog. When I say "safe" I saying safe for the woman, of course, as opposed to the unsafe backalley abortions pre-Roe v. Wade. You may opt to call a fetus a "child" if you like. Medical science and I differ with your interpretation.

You also criticize Denise for using visuals.
I certainly do. They were inappropriate for a general interest blog, particularly without warning.

I'm curious to know if you are also are against school children being shown pictures of the Holocaust with Jewish bodies stacked like cord wood?
Are you also against the videos of civil rights proponents being hit with water cannons and attack dogs?
I recognize that you are attempting to conflate abortion with the Holocaust and civil rights demonstrations. To treat those as injustices that are somehow "equal" insofar as moral outrage goes would necessarily force one to subscribe to your unstated notion that life begins at conception. In essence you are asking people to accept your religious dogma as an undeniable truth. Forcing religious values upon someone is contrary to the American way.

I would wager that you can't name one social justice issue in the last 50 years that hasn't been fueled by truthful pictures that demonstrate wrong actions against the innocent victims.
I'm well aware that a picture is worth a thousand words. Again, your perceived "wrong" requires me to accept your particular interpretation of religious beliefs.

The links included in the above post make us face the reality that abortion takes an innocent human life.
The link was both lurid and inappropriate. If I were to post gruesome pictures of decapitated car accident victims in a thread about traffic safety, would you consider that appropriate?
________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

Thanks for the welcome comment. I have been reading quite a while and finally decided to “jump in.”

Unlike most who debate this issue, I think you have hit the main point.

The real question is what is the unborn?

If the answer via medical science and/or philosophy is that the pre-born are members of the human race, then they have an unalienable right to life.

You may opt to call a fetus a "child" if you like. Medical science and I differ with your interpretation.

Since the Latin word fetus means “young one,” I have no problem using them interchangeably.

I do think you’ll have an impossible task proving the medical science agrees with your above quote.

By the way, since you don’t believe an unborn fetus is a member of human species, yet you believe that newborn children are, correct me if this not the case, (some well-know abortion advocates propose that parents should be able to kill their children up to 30-90 days after birth and, yes, I can give you the quotes in you need them) I would be honestly interested in when you think life does occur AND what your reasoning and proof of this would be.

“you are asking people to accept your religious dogma as an undeniable truth. Forcing religious values upon someone is contrary to the American way.”

You mistook my statement. I did not reference any dogma religious or otherwise.

Here’s some medical science that’s hard to overcome. Please note that none of this is from the “Christianists” that you seem to dislike but from medical school textbooks.

Human Embryology & Teratology 3rd ed --“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization … is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.” (p. 8)

Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects –Drs Moore & Persaud 2nd ed p.2 –
This cell, formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Medical science has long established the law of biogenesis in every textbook on embryology.

Simply put, this means that living things produce after their kind. Dogs have dogs, cats have cats, and humans have… (surprise!)… humans.

Since even the youngest zygote has human DNA and exhibits metabolism, growth, etc., the burden of proof seems to fall on you to deny its humanity.

How about an adamant pro-abortion speaker quote? Wayne Sumner in Abortion and Moral Theory (Princeton University Press) says that “a human fetus in not a nonhuman animal; it is a stage of human being.” In the interest of full disclosure he does go on to say that it’s ok to kill unwanted human beings. What was it you were saying about the Holocaust not being a good example?

Note that all these secular sources keep getting back to the word human.

You spoke of the “American way” in your reply. Seems to me that if we establish that the unborn are members of the human family then the “American Way’ would be that they are entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

The last two are impossible without the first.

I look forward to any medical or ethical information you’d like to present on this.

Hello again Paul. Thank you for a well thought out posting. I must say you misstate my position far less than most others on this site, and I truly appreciate that. (Denise Connor could learn from you!).

As you might have anticipated, I disagree with a number of your points. Let me say for the record that I recognize that you are using the logical fallacy of "appeal to emotion" when you arbitrarily substitute the word "child" for "fetus". Neologisms like "pre-born" (as opposed to the established term "unborn") make me think of a used car huckster substituting "previously owned" in place of "used". Semantic wrangling aside, I think you are quite correct in identifying "what constitutes the unborn" as the key argument. Better men than us have argued this, I can only hope to do my position justice.

I take issue with your characterization of my position as somehow denying the "Human-ness" of a fetus. Nothing could be further from the truth. A fetus IS a human fetus, period. Having said that though, I do not seek to automatically confer the "inalienable rights" of personhood upon a clump of cells like you appear to do. (And if I'm mischaracterizing your position, by all means feel free to set me straight!).

Personally, I am of the opinion that one should not begin to consider a non-viable fetus as having any rights, inalienable or otherwise. The vast majority of medical science has established that viability of a fetus occurs at approximately the 23rd week of gestation, plus or minus 3 weeks. This standard of viability has not changed appreciably since the 1970s. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that a woman should retain absolute control over her body through a minimum of 20 weeks of gestation (I'll give you the three weeks), or approximately 5 months. Let's stipulate that anything beyond 5 months as the subject for an altogether different debate...I'm trying to not muddy the waters too much here.

As an aside, I am quite cognizant of the fact that there are extremists on both sides of the debate. I believe you when you claim that you have some abortion proponent on record as saying that termination should be permissible to 120 days post-partum, I also think you and I can agree that that extreme position in no way shape or form represents the mainstream of "pro choice" beliefs. I think you'd consider it equally unfair if I were to equate your garden variety abortion clinic protestor with a clinic bomber.

I realize that you are attempting to establish yourself as the "moral high ground" in your previous post. With that having been said, I would ask your reaction to the classic "burning building" delimma:

You are in a burning building with only seconds to act. The building is an in-vitro fertilization clinic. There is a helpless one year old screaming in the corner. You have time to do only one of the following: A) rescue about a dozen in-vitro fertilizations in their petri dishes, or B) rescue the one year old.

Now, I'll tell you in advance that I appear to lack the refined moral compass that you appear to have. I would not hesitate, I would save the one year old. But that is just me. I don't equate the "inalienable rights" of a collection of living cells in a petri dish vs. a living breathing child. I truly wonder how you would react in this situation, and why.

I look forward to your response.
________________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

10:45 PM 4/22/07
Good evening Basmati,

Work has finally slowed a bit this week and I was able to read your last post.
I can tell you have put some thought into this response, yet I believe there are flaws in your reasoning when it is consistently applied.

Under “old business” I had a good conversation with Hack on the subject of the proper and appropriate use of imagery. Here is the link. Every school child in America should know the story of Emmett Till but his story is impossible to understand without the images.

In a formal debate, you should always be ready to give a synopsis of your position in 30 seconds or less. Here’s a summary of the pro-life view.

The fetus is growing and alive (otherwise abortionists would not need to kill it)
It had human parents and is therefore human.
All human life deserves respect and a right to live.

I’m glad you agree that the unborn child is a human being. The debate is now centered on which members of the human race can claim the right to live. My take on your last post is that you draw a line between the personhood vs. the humanity of the unborn. We’re now at a point that science, by its own admission, can go no further. Medical science can prove that the unborn is a member of the human family, but it cannot tell us (by empirical scientific methods) what rights humans should have. For example, medical science proves that Canadians are human, but it cannot prove that they should have a right to life more that an American. For this we rely on metaphysics (think of ethics as a synonym). Let’s start building on one more fact that science does reveal and then see if the pro-abortion arguments you mention can withstand some logical tests.

Both sides agree that human life is a continuum.

Every human goes through the various stages of zygote, embryo, fetus, child, adolescent, adult, senior citizen, etc. It is a given that to kill human life at any of the above stages ends any and all subsequent stages. If someone had killed Basmati the child, then he has killed the future Basmati the adult. Although you could not think in abstract concepts as a young child, all you needed to reach that heightened state of mental awareness was time, a proper environment, and nutrition. Has it occurred to you that those same three needs are all the unborn need to reach any level of maturity that you use to define personhood?

I do not seek to automatically confer the "inalienable rights" of personhood upon a clump of cells like you appear to do.

So what are you but clump of cells with more time and nutrition that the fetus has had?

Since when does size define human personhood?

You should beware if you are in an elevator with a group of professional basketball players - you are the smallest person there – should they consider your life less valuable? Do you judge the value of people by the size of their body? I’m certain you do not judge them by skin color (racism) or gender (sexism). Why then practice sizism (judging a person’s worth by the size of their body)? Is it not a gross inconsistency of logic to deny their personhood when you claim personhood but were the same size when you were the same age as the fetus?

Wait you say, it’s not the size it’s the fact I have self-awareness and the fetus doesn’t. Beware again, Basmasti! Since when do we judge one’s humanity (personhood) by that standard? Many residents of a nursing home have some degree of Alzheimer’s and are not completely self aware. Do we take away their right to life and or personhood because of this? Hopefully, you never have to be put into a medically induced coma but if that happens are you then not a person or human because you have no self awareness?
Not at all!

Others have said to me, the fetus can’t be a human person because it’s dependent upon its mother’s body. Beware yet again my friend. Since when do we ever define a person’s worth by the fact he is dependent on someone or something. Do we consider those who depend on insulin less valuable the rest of us? We’re all dependent on someone. Only the degree of dependency varies between the unborn and the 2 month old newborn. Both are dependent upon their mother or caregiver.

The vast majority of medical science has established that viability of a fetus occurs at approximately the 23rd week of gestation, plus or minus 3 weeks. This standard of viability has not changed appreciably since the 1970s. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that a woman should retain absolute control over her body through a minimum of 20 weeks of gestation (I'll give you the three weeks), or approximately 5 months. Let's stipulate that anything beyond 5 months as the subject for an altogether different debate...I'm trying to not muddy the waters too much here.

Whoa – I take issue with some of your facts. Viability is the weakest of all the arguments. In Roe v. Wade, the court used 28 weeks as a standard of viability and thus gave the state limited rights to restrict abortion after that point. Justice Blackmun stated in the majority opinion that we cannot "resolve the difficult question of when life begins." He concluded, "If this suggestion of (fetal) personhood is established, the (case in support of legal abortion) collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment."

You correctly mention that now the viability standard is 19-24 weeks. Babies who are in this range are now viable due to improved medical science. Should not we wonder about the human life killed in prior years before the technology improved? Did 23 weeks olds who were aborted in the past now magically become persons by your definition and thus protected by law? As medical science improves and viability becomes a smaller number (say 17 weeks) will we once again recreate the definition of personhood? Do you see a problem with defining the right to live based upon a standard that has and will keep changing!

Let's stipulate that anything beyond 5 months as the subject for an altogether different

I appreciate your candor on this. But again, logically, I fail to see why you think some unknown or unseen thing happens at 5 months that transforms the unborn and makes he or she worthy of the right to life. What is it? How do you measure it? What if you are wrong and it’s really 4 months? Furthermore, what if you are right? Could I them assume you are against partial birth abortion which can be performed at nine months? Viability is certainly there at 9 months. Does just three more inches out of the birth canal magically make you a person when you were not such 60 seconds earlier? Could you obtain a more capricious and ad hoc standard than this if you tried?

I realize that you are attempting to establish yourself as the "moral high ground" in your previous post. With that having been said, I would ask your reaction to the classic "burning building" dilemma:

I don’t care about high, low, or middle ground. My position is based on medical science and an ethical stand that is consistent in how it treats human life.

I’ve heard this burning building question many, many, times before. So far, it’s always been a one of those “are you still beating your wife” questions that any answer you give is twisted to misrepresent one’s stand on this topic. However, since you credited me with not distorting your position, I’ll assume it’s an honest inquiry. Let’s make your question even harder. On one side we have your 1 year toddler and the embryos. On the other side is my 1 year old child. I’m going to save my child in that scenario. You’d do the same for your child and no one would fault you for it. Our respective choices do not mean we consider either child less human or less worthy of life. I can understand how hearing and seeing a one year old registers on one’s eyes and ears and could lead to an instinctive grabbing of the child, but consider the following truth.

Our instincts about something’s value have nothing to do with its intrinsic value. Hitler’s instincts told him that Jews were less valuable than blond-haired, blue-eyed men. No facts supported his view and every argument he used was just as ad hoc and arbitrary as the pro-abort “logic.”

Abortion is morally wrong because it kills an innocent human life. Every single one of the arguments used to justify killing the unborn will work just as well for killing newborns, the elderly, and those with abilities deemed to be below someone’s acceptable level as demonstrated above. People don’t cease to be people when they are unwanted or inconvenient. It’s a dangerous path for a society to follow.

I read your rather long treatise above about abortion. I have found during my long life that such batting around of this and that are interesting to indicate knowledge in several areas, but it really has nothing to do with each individual human's feelings about such things as abortions. They are different than when one murders another human, who doesn't belong to some female who carries his body.
A woman has the right to determine the fate of that which she carries. Even if it is "wrong," only she has to answer for whatever she does about it.
Of course, if a female is under the age of reason, or handicapped, when pregnant, then those entrusted with her care are to follow the same laws that apply to other minors.

This will be short. A number of questions were raised hence the long answer.

Help me out on this. If someone kills their 2 year old toddler, they alone are responsible.

Are then for getting rid of the child abuse laws?

A woman has the right to determine the fate of that which she carries.

Why??? How about defending instead of just saying a point. How about some logical reasons for your justification of taking innocent life?

Pardon me for butting in, but, dollaradayandfound is really not quite all there.

You can try to reason with him if you want, but if you go back and look at his blogs you will see that he seldom makes sense. Don't get me wrong - occasionally I think I can make a point simple enough for him to get it - but I'm mistaken.

In other words, put simply, he's harmless but he really is nuts.

Why is it any of your business concerning someone else?

Once a child is born and beyond the dependence of the Mother, it is different than when carried. I thought I made that clear. What do 2 year olds, etc., have to do with carried fetuses?

There are millions of automatic abortions every year, some caused by unknown reasons, some due to malfunctions, some due to gene defects, and some births simply prevented from happening at all by artifical means. This sort of thing isn't new; it has been with us since we occured.

We have to be responsible about who we present pictures of dismembered fetuses to and how we do this. Should they be in the Citizen? I don't know. But my gut tells me this is dangerous. There is another link here that leads to profane language. That is dangerous territory as well. But riddle me this, Paul. If for the sake of argument, your wife, daughter, or mother were a victim of rape and impregnated, would you support a law mandating that they view aborted fetuses prior to deciding how to proceed? Please don't use the "this doesn't happen much" argument, because I know living and breathing examples of this. I look forward to your reply, and I'll read with open mind.

Kevin "Hack" King

I think you raise a good question and one that needs to be answered.

To take the easy question first, the images should have a disclaimer and I’m against forcing anyone to view them.

I am somewhat amused at parents (present company excluded) who let their children attend Freddie Kruger and Friday the 13th sequel number 18 who then are worried about the kids seeing a teaching or medical video with graphic images.

You may be aware of the photos of Emmett Till that were shown at his funeral. Emmett was a young black man brutally murdered by the Klan in Mississippi. His face was beaten beyond recognition but his mother refused to have a closed casket because she wanted the world to see what racism was and is. Subsequently, Rosa Parks credited those images with helping to have the courage not to give up her seat on the bus. Truthful images, even when graphic, help us stand for things we know are right.

Hard as they are to watch, the videos that Mrs. Conner linked to are vital in proving the fact that abortion takes an innocent human life. I personally belief that the pro-abortion groups don’t like them because you really can’t look at human hands, feet, and faces without admitting to yourself that it is a innocent human who was cut to pieces.

For reference purposes, I bring some “real world” experience to this. I work with an organization in Fayette County that tries to help young women caught in very difficult situations. Some of these include unplanned pregnancies. Your heart has to go out to people struggling with an abortion decision. We’ve helped some of them to stay in college while raising a child but no one is saying that it’s an easy road or one without hard decisions.

But while this decision is psychologically hard and often very complex, it’s not morally complex at all.

Here are the questions to ponder- how does a just and civilized society treat people that make our live economically hard? Do we have a right to kill them?

What if innocent people remind us of bad events in our life? Do we have the right to reduce their right to life?

Would a just and civilized society allow parents to kill a two year old toddler because he has become a financial burden? Then why if the medical evidence shows (only humans have human DNA – present at the earliest stages of human development) that the preborn are human would we take their life any more than we would allow the killing of the toddler?

Why would I be against any law that requires full disclose to the patient? Factual information is always empowering to any medical (or any other) decision.

And here’s perhaps the hardest question to ponder. Does the way that people are conceived make them any less human?

If you’re as old as I, you may have heard of Ethel Waters a renowned gospel singer.
Ethel was conceived via rape. As terrible as that is – is she any less human than you or I?

The undeniable truth is that how you are conceived does not make you any less human.

Since we don’t execute the children of bank robbers for the crimes of their parents, how does a just and civilized country justify taking innocent life for the sexual crimes of the father?

Please don't use the "this doesn't happen much" argument, because I know living and breathing examples of this.

I know of some as well and most of them would gladly share that their road to recovery was aided by not having the guilt of taking a child’s life.

I recommend Mrs. Waters’ book His Eye is on the Sparrow. It goes into some of these questions from a first hand view.

It's as if we're sitting across a table sharing cups of coffee. And that is a refreshing tone for this subject. I do believe time since conception is relevant. I dare say there are few funerals for miscarraiges in the first trimester. And it also comes down to who decides what happens to the seed of a rapist. We must remember that pedophile rapists care not about their victims age. Many girls can become pregnant at 11. Some begin menstruation earlier still. I could not sign into law a requirement that they, after being raped and impregnated, view a fetus being aborted prior to making decisions. Next thing youknow, we'll be showing our soldiers and their families pictures of US soldiers being blown up so that they understand the full ramifications of war. Paul, I do not foresee major changes in our laws. There are too many potential victims out there who would feel victimized a second time with video viewings and public shamings. Thanks for your openness. I enjoyed the coffee.

Kevin "Hack" King

If abortions were allowed for rape and incest, would you agree to end birth control by vacum?

How do you feel about that horrible brain scrambling Partial birth abortion? Oh, I mean late term.

________________________________________________________________
Fighting for truth, justice and the American way, while ignoring the ignorant!