The Real Issue With Abortion

In a previous post, Erick addressed the issue of abortion, particularly in regards to this AJC story, and the fact that GRTL has endorsed Bill Stephens because Karen Handel violated what Baxter/Galloway called the “one-exception mandate.”

I started to comment on that post, but wanted to put my comments on the front page, because this is an issue that hits close to home for me personally, and it has been on my mind for some time now.  I typically shy away from this issue, because I have basically come to the conclusion that the issue is not adequately understood, in addition to the fact that fear admittedly plays a role, because I fear I will get labeled an extremist or radical. 

I have decided not to answer that claim, if in fact it is made, except to say that I am not a radical – I just vote (and support leaders) based on morals, ethics, and the Good Teachings about which I have been taught.  If you claim that that makes me a radical, then by all means, yell away, but forgive me for thinking that is quality criteria, on which the founding fathers also sympathized. 

I have had people tell me, since I am a male, I don’t have the right to restrict women from doing what they want with their bodies, but that is just putting another kind of litmus test on this issue.  Perhaps I don’t have the right to tell women what they should do with their bodies, but I would also argue that restricting what they do with their bodies is acceptable when it comes to preserving a human life.  The law restricts me from driving drunk, with the goal of preserving innocent life.  I have also been told by pro-abortion supporters that unborn babies, by definition, are simply parasites on the mother until birth, and that is just not what I was taught (in biology or church), nor is it accurate. 

The abortion issue has been politicized more than any other issue out there.  Erick is correct that there has been a litmus test placed on this issue, but that isn’t the problem.  The issue is that politicians have placed caveats on abortion, in order to remain politicians.  The bottom line:  if you support life of the baby, then you are pro-life.  If you believe there is ANY legitimate reasoning in aborting a baby, whether you consider it a fetus or a living human (or parasite), then that is not pro-life. 

Erick said this:

“””I could never look into the eyes of a loved one and tell her she must be forcibly reminded for nine months that she was raped””” and I take issue with my friend on that comment.

What about looking into the eyes of the child and telling them they aren’t worth saving as much?  Is it easier b/c we don’t have to look them in the eye and say that?  That’s like saying the baby was worth it when it was the parent’s fault, but when it was someone else’s fault, all the sudden, the baby wasn’t worth saving. 

Is it politically smart to make abortion a key issue?  Probably not in today’s political environment.  Does it win you any points with our increasingly uneducated college students in our growing liberal institutions?  Most likely, no.  Will you likely be the brunt of thousands of sweaty, screaming NARAL supporters on the Mall standing with Susan Sarandon and Janine Garofalo?  Very likely. 

But, for goodness sakes, stand for what you believe and what is right, whether it is political, personal, religious, moral, etc.  It doesn’t make you a radical … it just gives you integrity. 

And one final note, I am typically not a supporter of Georgia Right To Life, except for the fact that we stand side-by-side on the issue of protecting ALL human life.  I do not agree with a lot of their politics.  Going further, for those real extremists who believe murdering and destruction as a means of punishment for those who support or perform abortions is appropriate, they are not only wrong and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent, but they also place signficant damage on the pro-life movement.  It is people with that kind of wrong mentality who are the parasites on those who really stand to protect life, in addition to being a true menace to our society. 

If you have an opinion on abortion, then it is inevitably a sensitive issue for you, and I realize the original post perhaps was not meant to strike debate about the philosophy, theology, and biology behind abortion.  Nevertheless, it is important, and that is where I am taking the debate; and as usual, if that makes some of you mad, then so be it. 

153 comments

  1. GAWire,

    I know you’re not a real fan of the facts but here they are:

    We don’t have ENOUGH abortions.

    In fact, think of how much better the world would be if Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler, Michael Jackson and others had been aborted. There would have been no holocaust, no 9/11 and no Neverland Ranch!

    Unaborted babies are the root of all evil…when was the last time an aborted fetus blew up a building, killed a minority, or molested a child?

    MORE ABORTIONS PLEASE!

  2. duluthmom says:

    GAWire, this is not directed at you but rather a commentary on the topic; although I did use some of your phrasing.

    The real issue with abortion is that too many of those who call themselves pro-life are only pro-birth in actuality. They cry over the idea that a fetus might not be born because they are “worth saving” but the minute that child is born, it is as if their job is over.

    And even more troubling are those who willfully support policies contrary to the welfare of that child who has now been born. Policies like: budgets that cut WIC benefits; not supporting healthcare coverage for all children; elimination of educational funding…the list goes on and on. Suddenly, when faced with increased taxes or funding many pro-lifers seem it act as if that child is no longer “worth saving”.

    I’d rather see someone put their energy into preserving the welfare of a child from birth to adulthood rather then focusing on a mere 9 months.

  3. Jeff Emanuel says:

    I left this comment on Erick’s post, and will do so here as well:

    One benefit of being an outside organization is that you can be as idealistic as you like. An example of this would be think-tanks like Club for Growth, Heritage foundation, or the Cato Institute, which are advocate pure conservative or libertarian ideas without the real-world factors of practicality and applicability interrupting their assessments and recommendations.

    Right to Life is similar to these; they can stand up and advocate for the most idealistic abortion-related circumstances without having to actually do the work to get their policies enacted, fight the ensuing battles in the courts, or even, as Erick and Chris pointed out, deal with the repercussions of their policy preferences with respect to forcing a loved one to carry a baby conceived by rape to term–in large part because these idealistic policies will never make it through the legislative process.

    While the sticking to principle of GRTL is admirable, and no conservative wants to inject politics into life and death situations, cooler and more pragmatic heads must prevail on issues like abortion. I have often used what I call the “Shawshank analogy” in describing how I think the best, most long-term-effective method for eliminating the vast majority of abortions: rather than immediately enacting sweeping, drastic, and unpopular legislation which is bound to galvanize pro-abort support and to be thrown out by courts, the pro-life movement should continue to chip away at the issue as though at a stone wall with a rock hammer. Eventually, with enough dedication and small changes, especially those focusing on access to information (like the ones passed in Georgia earlier this year), we will be able to tunnel our way out of the “prison” that is an abortion-on-demand society.

    I was lucky enough to speak with conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly for a little while back in February, on this and other issues. In regard to the movement to stamp out abortion, she scoffed at the blanket ban on abortion passed by South Dakota earlier this year and maintained that, with the current composition of the Supreme Court (5-4 liberal, with the increasing defection of Kennedy), an attempt to immediately end abortion through law could well set the entire pro-life movement back 30 years or more.

    I agree with this to a large degree. As a pro-life conservative, I want to see abortions restricted to the most extreme and rarest of situations…namely, in my mind, rape and life of the mother. However, while GRTL and other organizations can staunchly advocate that that be law NOW, they (again) do not have to do the legwork to actually see such policy through to passage and enactment. As such, their endorsement may be valuable, but it cannot be everything in a system where people actually have to have a pragmatic approach to legislation in order to get it passed and in order to avoid it being overturned by today’s courts.

  4. Rusty says:

    Asking a fourteen-year-old girl who was raped and impregnated by her pedophile uncle to carry that spawn to term; to be reminded of that incestuous rape every time she looks in its eyes; and to carry the financial burden for her uncle’s perversion is incomprehensibly immoral to me.

    Politicians focus on the abortion procedure to drudge up emotional reactions that win elections. If they were even remotely interested in doing something productive to prevent abortions, they would put more resources into sex education and contraceptive distribution in order to prevent the unplanned pregnancies that lead to abortions. And they wouldn’t waste money on abstinence-only “education” that doesn’t work.

  5. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Rusty, here’s the one problem I have with your comment:

    If they were even remotely interested in doing something productive to prevent
    abortions, they would put more resources into sex education and contraceptive
    distribution in order to prevent the unplanned pregnancies that lead to abortions. And they wouldn’t waste money on abstinence-only “education

  6. Demonbeck says:

    Mary got pregnant without having sex.

    Personally I am pro-life with exception to the three exceptions, but unlike most of my pro-life compadres, I also believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. (With, of course, the same background checks as straight people.) I have a real moral problem with forcing people to essentially create orphans and limiting potential parents at the same time.

  7. duluthmom says:

    The CDC center for STD/HIV education has found that abstinence only education does delay sexual activity by an average of 18 months BUT an overwhelming number of teens who have been taught it, are less likely to use contraception once they do become sexually active. Why? Many of the abstinence only programs, like Choose the Best Path, willfully distort the reliability studies of contraceptives, using imperfect use stats to bolster their claims that contracepptives aren’t safe. Hence, more unintended pregnancies.

  8. bird says:

    Jeff, I’m sure you knew what Rusty meant, and your failure to address his argument shows the weakness of your stance.

    “[T]here do not currently exist any abstinence-only programs with reasonably strong evidence that they actually delay the initiation of sex or reduce its frequency.” D. Kirby, National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy, at 88 (May 2001).

    Or,

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8470845/
    CHICAGO – A leading group of pediatricians says teenagers need access to birth control and emergency contraception, not the abstinence-only approach to sex education favored by religious groups and President Bush.

    The recommendations are part of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated teen pregnancy policy.

    “Even though there is great enthusiasm in some circles for abstinence-only interventions, the evidence does not support abstinence-only interventions as the best way to keep young people from unintended pregnancy,

  9. GAWire says:

    I have worked closely with Eagle Forum and know Schlafly well, and I think her point of not supporting abortion ban through SCOTUS is that it will not be effective – stopping abortion will have to take place at a legislative level, rather than attempting to impose a law against existing precedent. The only thing with that, which Eagle Forum fails to embrace is that legislative means political, and there most likely will never be a majority on the Hill that is willing to take on that task.

    Jeff, not trying to go against your point, just want to clarify and take it a little further.

    I can also see your points on abstinence, but that is not the issue at hand, either. The point is that, one is either pro-life and they support ALL life because it is living, or they are not, which means they support exceptions to the rule that ALL life should be preserved and protected.

    As much as I distance myself from groups like GRTL politically, we agree on protecting life and that is the point here.

    I would also like to use this point to discuss the current application, meaning what does the abortion issue have to do with SoS candidates? Well, it doesn’t, except for the fact that organizations like GRTL have the opportunity to endorse, thus swaying support in the race. Will it win the race for Stephens and lose it for Handel? No, but I will tell you that this is a perfect example of how Karen is not in line with many Georgia conservatives, and as we learned in 2002, folks outside the Atlanta metro area have significant pull still.

    Finally, our nation is a great place, built on a system, whcih 99.9% of the population do not even remotely understand. Most people think that system is built on a freedom to choose, but in reality our nation is built on a system that applies freedoms, which in many cases is a freedom to choose, but more importantly, it is based on goodness, which relies upon a freedom to life. That whole “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness …” wasn’t included b/c it had a nice ring to it. That freedom applies to all, even the humans pending birth, even the humans with disabilities, the humans with short lives, the humans with long lives, and so on.

    Further, our system is based on a mentality that with that freedom of life, comes tremendous opportunity. There will always be unfortunate situations and there will always be bad people. But, the freedom of life must prevail, amongst pain, amongst death, amongst hardship.

    The mother from Duluth brings up a good point, which is that we must look to preserving life after birth, in that there are thousands of deaths that result from lack of care. What about welfare? What about healthcare? All of these things are vital to the overall system, and that system was created with the sense that there will be government support, but the ultimate drive is the goodwill, dedication, and determination of the great people in this country. You see, welfare isn’t the key, but a system that provides opportunity to gain strength from the Creator and lead a productive life is what makes all the difference. Further, subsidized healthcare isn’t the solution – it is a vital component, perhaps – but a system of access to quality and affordable healthcare is what the should really be based.

    And what’s more, to Jeff’s point about the organizations themselves … this isn’t about groups taking a stance while ignoring the realities – it’s about people taking a stance, period. It goes back to my original point, this issue has been politicized and quite frankly, politics has created middle ground on abortion. If you look at the original players – Christian groups, Catholic church, NARAL, NOW, etc – they still remain on the same sides they were originally on, and misinformed individuals listening to even more misinformed politicians are the ones moving to middle ground, because there is a new and prevailing attitude or sentiment that says middle ground equals positive solution for all. This is the kind of naivite that is prevailing throughout the country as a result of Inside the Beltway politics.

    To be honest with you, I’m tired of people suggesting us to move to middle ground on some of the most important issues and am ready for someone to stand on their beliefs, principles, and moral ideals. Sure, there are issues that can have acceptable compromise, but when lives are in question, there is no compromise and there is no middle ground.

  10. Rusty says:

    Sure, there are issues that can have acceptable compromise, but when lives are in question, there is no compromise and there is no middle ground.

    I encourage you to espouse that position. It will only marginalize your cause further.

  11. bird says:

    GAWire–I, like a majority of Americans, do not believe that at the moment a sperm touches an egg, a sentient human being is created and a human soul attaches. If I believed that, I would feel differently about the abortion issue as would most Americans. I believe only a two-cell entity with the potential for human life has been created.

    That, in my opinion, is the primary disagreement in the discussion regarding abortion. Can we agree on that?

  12. GAWire says:

    bird, we can agree on this: you and I disagree. How’s that?

    I will point out, however, that the majority of Americans in fact do not support your stance. Nevertheless, it is your stance.

  13. str8tfromtheheart says:

    People forget also what a wonderful thing adoption can be….These young girls who are raped do not have to take on the financial burden. There are plenty of loving people in the world who cannot have kids and want them.

  14. Tommy_a2b says:

    I agree w/ str8tfromtheheart on the adoption as an answer to the financial burden. I know many people who wait for very long periods of time to adopt, sometimes years. Sometimes you wait and technicalities stand in the way of the adoption so you start all over again.

  15. Rusty says:

    str8tfromtheheart,
    You neglect to point out it can cost upwards of $30,000 to adopt a child, and that adoption is a long and arduous process. Just because many families want to adopt a child doesn’t mean that many families can.

  16. duluthmom says:

    To the last two posters–ste8tfromtheheart and tommy_a2b–in the case of rape it is not an issue of financial burden, it is an issue of mental health.

    Any victim of a violent crime will tell you that it takes years to get over the trauma of that incident. And even then when you think you’ve managed to deal with it,a dream or something minor can trigger the memory all over again. At those times the fear and anguish seem as real as it was at the time of the attack. Now take all that and add to it the emotional toll of pregnancy and childbirth.

    If a victim of rape wants to carry the pregnancy to term, fine. However, forcing a woman who has already endured the most horrific crime of her life to carry a child which is a minute by minute reminder of that event, is monsterous.

  17. kspencer says:

    Str8tfromthehheart and Tommy_a2b – yes, you’re right, so long as the children don’t have problems. Sorry, but I’ve worked too long with adoption agencies to think otherwise.

    If the child is physically impaired – due to genetics (typical of incest) or drug use by the mother or any other cause – it tends to reach adulthood unadopted. If the child is mixed race, it tends to go unadopted. If the child is any race but caucasian, it tends to go unadopted.

    I’ve become cynical about the issue. There are lots of words said – people talking about how “there are plenty of loving people” – but they’re not backed up by experience.

    Note that I agree with the comments of frustration about waits and technicalities. One that bit me was that every time I moved I had to start over. The whole process, not just an evaluation of my new residence. Sadly there are good reasons for this – the few bad apples ruining it for the majority. But it isn’t helped at all by the fact that most of those hunting children aren’t willing to accept the majority of those available – they want a baby that looks like them and that will ‘be a credit to the family’.

    Kirk

  18. kspencer says:

    Some questions need at least considered if not answered.

    If abortions are made illegal, are the women who seek and/or obtain them to be charged?

    Are you willing to authorize or require investigators to check every miscarriage to eliminate the possibility that it might be an abortion?

    Are you willing to allow education and access to ALL means of reducing the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies?

    When a female gets pregnant, are you going to require that the male responsible provides support for carrying the pregnancy to term? How do you intend to enforce this in light of the use of rohypnol and other ‘date rape’ drugs that make it impossible for the woman to identify the man?

    Kirk

  19. Michael C says:

    However, forcing a woman who has already endured the most horrific crime of her life to carry a child which is a minute by minute reminder of that event, is monsterous.

    My response to this is rather pithy, but I look at all children as a joy, not monsterous.

  20. Rusty says:

    Michael C,
    Tell that to someone who has been raped. And call me before you do so I can film it and put it on the Internet. I think a video of such an exchange would be instructive.

  21. Dignan says:

    Can someone explain to me why we are discussing an issue around an exception that happens less than .01% of the time? Not that it isn’t important at all, but I have never understood how people get hung up on tiny little exceptions. I certainly don’t mean to say that this isn’t a huge deal to those few who are faced with this choice after being raped. It is a huge deal and should be dealt with very carefully. But the discussion of abortion has little to do with this exception.

  22. Rusty says:

    Dignan,
    When someone advocates a position of no exceptions, it is relevant to base an ensuing discussion around exceptions.

  23. GAWire says:

    >>”””If a victim of rape wants to carry the pregnancy to term, fine. However, forcing a woman who has already endured the most horrific crime of her life to carry a child which is a minute by minute reminder of that event, is monsterous.”””

    I am going to go further than Mike C’s “pithy-ness” …

    There is NO doubt that experiencing rape would be horrific, but I would have to argue that death would be worse. I naively wish there was no rape, but I also wish there was no innocent deaths.

    I also have to point s/t out about this statement:

    “””Are you willing to authorize or require investigators to check every miscarriage to eliminate the possibility that it might be an abortion?”””

    This isn’t the case. I assume you aren’t an OB/GYN b/c currently in the case of miscarriages, a doctor’s exam is required anyways for the health of the mother, and it can be determined if the baby was aborted. What I am trying to say is that there actually already are “investigators” eliminating the possibility that a pregnancy was terminated and not miscarried.

  24. jsm says:

    A lot of arguments here. I’ll just respond in short to a few:

    flamingmoderate,
    What if Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, or Billy Graham had been aborted? When’s the last time an aborted life did anything to make the world a better place? Among the millions of babies that have been aborted may have been some potential world leaders.

    Rusty/duluthmom,
    The mental distress of a young girl being raped is horrible. But why add the distress of living with the fact that she aborted a baby in her womb? I submit that the lifelong regret and mental anguish of having had an abortion can be as difficult, if not moreso, than delivering the baby and giving it for adoption.

    kspencer,
    I know of three couples who have been foster parents for years because they want to adopt. None of them care what the child’s race or gender is. They are all willing to accept a child with special needs. They are willing to pay the financial cost. The process is keeping them from adopting. That’s my experience to back up the fact that “there are plenty of loving people” out there who want to adopt.

  25. bird says:

    Here is a good synopsis of the polling on the issue, and it really points out how out of step GAWire & Co. are.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

    A Fox News poll conducted Feb. 28-March 1, 2006. found that 74% of Americans support the right to an abortion where “the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.” 6% were unsure.

    I didn’t look at all the polls, but this seems fairly representative.

  26. duluthmom says:

    GAWire, you said:
    This isn’t the case. I assume you aren’t an OB/GYN b/c currently in the case of miscarriages, a doctor’s exam is required anyways for the health of the mother, and it can be determined if the baby was aborted. What I am trying to say is that there actually already are “investigators

  27. GAWire says:

    Rusty, explain to me why you are qualified to tell a mother, “it’s ok to end your baby’s life, even though they have done nothing wrong, because you don’t want it.”

  28. GAWire says:

    If those 40% of miscarriages occurr without the mother knowing she was pregnant, then I don’t guess she could have aborted the baby she didn’t know about either, which makes that a non-issue. The point is that, no, there will not need to be investigators to determine miscarriages, b/c in the case of miscarraiges, if a doctor’s exam is needed, and it is always recommended, then it can be determined that the baby was not terminated, but in fact died by natural causes.

  29. GAWire says:

    “GAWire & Co.,” huh? Perhaps I should start some sort of official organization that will compensate for the time I am spending at PeachPundit when I should be doing other work. Can I steal that from you, bird?

  30. LINDA says:

    The bottom line is that abortion has been around for centuries, and we can only teach love for humanity to those close to us. Abortions should not be funded by taxpayers, and that would eliminate much of this practice. If the parasites that thrive on the misfortunes of others could no longer enrich themselves, many abortion clinics would be shut down. All abortion clinics should be required to educate young girls and young women about the fetus that is growing inside of them, and there should be a waiting period before any abortion could be performed. Some of these things are going on today, but there is more that could be done.

  31. duluthmom says:

    How would a doctor determine that? By the state of the woman’s cervix or uterus? In either early miscarriage or abortion it would be impossible to tell the difference since in both cases the cervix dialates. By a drug test? Perhaps they could dtermine if the mother took something to bring on the abortion, but that too is unlikely. By the fetus itself? The majority of abortions are obtained before 12 weeks where it is difficult to discern features, let alone the function of organs to determine the cause of death. The truth is, they wouldn’t be able to determine that at all.

    The only way they are able to determine it in El Salvador is via a perforated uterus in late stage abortion attempts.

  32. GAWire says:

    I guess it makes it easier that the babies can’t speak, huh, Rusty?

    I think your “logic” can be translated into something like this: “If the baby is conceived on purpose then it deserves all of the care and rights that we want them to have; however, if it is not conceived on purpose, then it is less human, less important, and ultimately less deserving of adequate, proper, and moral care that provides them a chance to live.”

  33. Rusty says:

    GAWire,
    There’s a difference in intent that you’re conflating here. “Oops, the condom broke” is a lot different than “My uncle raped me and now I’m pregnant with his incestuous child.”

    Seriously dude, let’s go to a rape counseling clinic and you can tell some victims that they should be required by law to carry a rapists’ child to term. I’ll record it and put it on the Net. I’ve been looking for an excuse to buy a DV camcorder anyway.

  34. GAWire says:

    You are correct, Rusty, that the two scenarios are indeed different; however, the result is the same: A baby that lives, or a baby that is terminated without a chance to live.

  35. kspencer says:

    jsm, I too know of several couples who are willing to adopt. It does not change the fact that these are exceptions, not the norm.

    GAwire, you state the investigations already happen when the ObGyn checks her health after a miscarriage. You miss the point. How does the state ensure that the ObGyn and pregnant woman didn’t collude in the abortion? The only answers I see are an independent audit/investigator or some sort of informant mechanism. The mechanism used for reporting potential child abuse runs into some difficulty – in that case we have good reason to trust that the medical staff isn’t complicit in the abuse.

    I’ve an analogy I’ve used on this subject I’d like to bring to this board’s attention.

    If I combine barley mash, hops, yeast, sugar and water in a fermenting pot it eventually becomes beer. Is it beer the instant it’s so combined? Or more applicably at what point in the process does pouring off a portion and serving it to a teenager make me liable for serving beer to a minor?

    Note for the literalists – it’s an analogy. I know people are not beer. If you cannot see the relevance I apologize for wasting your time.

    Kirk

  36. jsm says:

    Rusty,

    I am one who believes life begins at conception. Therefore, I believe government has the right to protect the unborn child’s life.

    Am I qualified to tell you that you cannot shoot and kill someone who has made themself a burden to you? What’s the difference?

  37. GAWire says:

    Rusty, you must have received your MD at a different school from the thousands of doctors who disagree with that statement about fetuses not being babies.

    As for your prior comment, I’ll let the rediculousness speak for itself.

    It’s a touchy and sensitive issue, though, that I understand, so I am not one to complain that Rusty is playing dirty. Still, everyone realizes how such a comment makes you sound.

  38. jacewalden says:

    GAWire,

    Actually I think you should answer Rusty’s question…if he raped your mother, would you ask her to carry his child to term?

    I think he’s making an excellent point. That one can talk big about human life this and human life that, but when it comes down to it, it’s much more…so man up GA Wire, answer the question.

  39. jacewalden says:

    Personally I think that human life should be considered before potential human life. I’m a proponent of the three exceptions rule (rape, incest, life threatening).

  40. GAWire says:

    By all means, let me answer the question this way … if someone would have raped YOUR mother before you ever came along, would you be ok with terminating THAT pregnancy?

    It’s different when it could have been you, huh?

  41. jacewalden says:

    Actually GAWire, I wouldn’t have minded, as I would have been a being INCAPABLE of conscious thought. But, I’m sure you would have rather had it that way now that we’ve put you in a position to actually answer a question…

    So, I don’t accept your answer. YES OR NO GAWIRE? Would you force her to carry it to term???

  42. jsm says:

    Rusty,

    Cell division does not happen unless there is life in those cells.

    We could go on and on debating this portion of the issue, and there is more scientific data on this than any of us could singly digest. We both know that women are obviously not purposely aborting pregnancies at the two-cell stage. Babies develop very quickly into recognizable life forms in the womb, often long before abortions are performed.

  43. jacewalden says:

    JSM,

    “We both know that women are obviously not purposely aborting pregnancies at the two-cell stage.”

    Ever heard of the morning after pill?

  44. jacewalden says:

    I’d like to throw this out there just as food for thought…

    I believe that the ability to “think rationally” is what makes us human. It’s what separates us from animals. I think that it is God’s greatest gift to us, even greater that the gift of life.

    After all, what’s life if you’re on the mental level of a dung beetle?

    With that being said, I don’t think a two-celled organism possesses that ability. In fact, I don’t really think a baby in the womb for 9 months possesses that ability…

    But like I said earlier, I only support abortion if it falls under the three exception rule…the rest is just food for thought.

  45. GAWire says:

    Jace, accept my answer or not … it is what it is. Interesting you say you wouldn’t have minded b/c you were incapable of rational thought … perhaps you were incapable then, but what about now.

    You have missed the point … whether you THINK humans are defined by being able to think rationally or whatever criteria you make up, you are wrong. Sorry, the definition of a human doesn’t go by what you THINK.

    With your rationale, I guess we should just go ahead and terminate those living humans with disabilities such as down syndrome, alzheimers, and other mentally debilitating conditions.

    I know in your head, what you THINK sound logical, but it doesn’t make sense when you attempt to apply some basic logic.

    However, preserving and protecting life is one of the most basic and logical things that any human can do.

  46. JRM2016 says:

    This is such a difficult issue. As a practicing Catholic, I believe every life is sacred and that we make no distinction whether a child is born from a loving marital union or a violent attack.

    However, as someone who believes strongly in a country of laws and not theocracy, I cannot impose such a moral holding upon my fellow man through force of law. As I have articulated for years, the true “pro-choice” position is the three exception position.

    In cases where the woman has a choice and chooses to engage in activity whose natural consequence is the creation of life, she then cannot state that having to carry the child to term is denying her choice. She had a choice to engage in sexual relations, she made it and she has to live with the consequence of that choice.

    Where a woman has no choice and she is forcibly raped or the victim of incest, we cannot state that she ever had the chance to avoid the pregnancy. Morally is that child less of a person that the child born out of the first situation? Of course not. And I would strongly urge anyone finding themselves in this terrible situation to carry their child to term. But I cannot in good conscience force that woman under penalty of law to carry that child to term, for she had no choice in whether or not she became pregnant.

    So there is the moral case against abortion, which is clear cut and includes all abortions.

    Then there is the legal argument which rests upon choice and consequence. We would not allow the law to punish someone criminally for something they did not do in the first place, so why would we allow the law to criminally punish women who became pregnant against their will?

  47. jacewalden says:

    GAWire,

    You have completely missed the point here. The point is that I would have had NO idea that I had been aborted. In fact, if my mom had been raped or her life had been in danger, I would have fully supported her aborting me…

    You know what, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I answered your questions. Now I’d appreciate if you would answer mine. If it’s as simple as you make it out to be, then you shouldn’t need to hesitate…you shouldn’t need to beat around the bush, or pussy-foot around…It should be simple, yes or no?

    If Rusty raped your mother would you force her to carry the baby to term?

    I await anything resembling a rational thought…

  48. jacewalden says:

    GAWire:

    P.S. I just offered the thinking stuff as food for thought…I have explicitly stated that I only support abortion in the cases of rape/incest/life-saving.

    Putting words into my mouth doesn’t strengthen your “argument”.

  49. GAWire says:

    >>”””if my mom had been raped or her life had been in danger, I would have fully supported her aborting me”””

    Truly profound.

    And to your question … I will not answer, not because I don’t have one, but because I just don’t respond to rediculous hypotheticals on such an issue. Call it beating around the bush or whatever, but it’s not going to happen.

  50. GAWire says:

    JRM, I’m not attacking you, here, but I take issue with those claiming to be Catholic, but saying regulating abortion is not right.

    The issue is not about imposing forces and penalties on women to have an unwanted baby, but in fact it is ALL about granting a greater right – a right to life – to all humans.

    Jrm, you articulated your point well.

    Jace/Rusty, your attacks and lack of ability to debate the issue with legitimate arguments tell me my points are resonating with you.

  51. Rusty says:

    Jace/Rusty, your attacks and lack of ability to debate the issue with legitimate arguments tell me my points are resonating with you.

    I asked you a legitimate question, and you’re too much of a coward to answer it. If you were so firm about your convictions, you would have answered yes without blinking. Since you refuse to answer, I’ll just assume your answer is no, you would not ask your mother to carry my love child, which makes you a hypocrite.

  52. jacewalden says:

    GAWire:

    Before I go any further, I would like to apologize to you for getting worked up. I have agreed with many of your opinions on here in the past. This is a respectful disagreement, that’s all.

    Here’s my point, and don’t get me wrong, words cannot describe how happy I am that I wasn’t aborted…However, had I been aborted, I would have never known the difference. I personally don’t think an unborn fetus/child/whatever is aware of his her existence, therefore I don’t think he/she would be aware if that existence was terminated/killed/aborted/whatever. That’s what I’m getting at.

    Also, I am a firm advocate for individual rights and personal responsibility. Before any debate goes further, we have to acknowledge that the mother is a living person who is entitled to the three unaliable rights–life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since there is dissention on whether or not an unborn fetus is in fact a living human being, from an individual rights standpoint, we must place the needs of the mother first, since there is no argument. Now, I also believe that individual rights breed personal responsibility. I a girl engages in consensual sex and gets pregnant, she has the responsibility to answer for her actions. However, if she is raped or incestually conceived, she bears no responsibility and it becomes an individual rights issue again.

    The one exception to both rules, is the girl who has consensual sex, conceives, and then finds out that her life will be in serious danger should she choose to carry to term. At this point, it becomes a matter of choice. And I think it is logical and reasonable for her to choose her own right to life, one of her three basic rights, since she is in FACT a living being.

    As far as the question goes, I would not judge you if your answer was “yes”. In fact, it would probably play to give your opinion more credibility. As opinionated as I am, abortion really isn’t that big of an issue to me. I think the question, however, is valid. And, just opinion, by refusing to answer it, I think my points are resonating with you.

    Like I said, a respectful disagreement. Let’s keep it that way.

  53. bowersville says:

    Look gang,
    I re-read all the comments since Ga-Wire made the original front page post and no one has commented on what I found most intriguing. The statement “this is an issue that hits close to home for me personally…” Bear in mind some of the scenarios discussed ( 3 rule exception) may be hypothetical to some, but real situations for others. I recommend you all re-read Jeff Emanuel’s post, I believe he has offered the most realistic solution for present times and conditions( it is a step). The reality of action speaks more than rhetoric.

  54. one big D says:

    Here’s the most hilarious part about this debate on abortion on Peach Pundit – how many of the posters are women? I am guessing maybe two or three including myself. So give me a break about what exceptions are valid or not valid, what you would tell a rape victim, or how adoption is the best option.

    Puh-leaze. Spare me your sanctimonious male bullshit.

    When you guys become the victim of some crazed and perverted male’s fantasies who craves for rape and sodomy, when you become the victim of a male with no consciousness for his sperm, or when you become a victim to a male with a sudden hearing disorder who doesn’t hear you screaming “no”, then I will, and many other women will also, listen to you boys debate the abortion issue.

    When males start holding males accountable for their actions in this pregnancy partnership, then please let the advice roll off your tongues. Do remember that a woman can’t get herself impregnated by purchasing a can of sperm at the local Kroger’s supermarket.

    Stop venting your theories on woman and start talking to all your brothers about their irresponsible behavior.

  55. bowersville says:

    Well,
    I guess it’s time for some males who don’t support date rape, rape and incest to speak up. I thought there were laws on the books and prosecutors and jurys holding these types accountable and sending them to prison, including deadbeat dads. Am I mistaken?

  56. UGAMatthew says:

    Alright.

    GAWire, you might be able to take a breather here. I suspect I’ll be coming under fire here in just a few seconds.

    I am wholly opposed to abortion, and Rusty, I’ll answer your question. I firmly believe that everything happens for a reason (yes its cliche, yes its religious). I WOULD submit that my mother birth any child she bore. Unlike many of my counterparts, I also am wholly opposed to the death sentence. It is not within my nor anyone’s purview to decide who lives and who dies.

    As for the bit about this being uninformed debate by males who haven’t been there…give me a break, big-d are you serious???
    Because my (hypothetical) sister hasn’t been raped, or better yet, because I haven’t been raped and forced to carry a child, I cannot form and debate opinions on the issue? You should step off your high-horse and join the conversation if you feel as if you have something to add…not proselytize.
    I’d wager to bet you carry an opinion on an issue which you’ve never been party to…that’s what intelligent human beings do. Its called critical thinking.

  57. Booray says:

    OneBigD –

    What jacewalden said.

    The whole “I am woman, you are not, therefore you are not permitted to have an opinion” is really old and worn out.

    And Busdriver is right – if Handel forked $500K over to an abortion provider like Planned Parenthood, this whole one-exception, three-exception thing is side note.

    Booray

  58. Demonbeck says:

    So one big D, if you were in a relationship with a man and had consensual unprotected sex and got pregnant as a result, would you think he had any say in whether or not that child should be aborted? That baby in your womb is just as much his as it is yours.

    While I understand that this is not the case regarding the three exceptions, it is the case when consensual sex is involved. This issue is not merely a woman’s issue.

  59. Amber says:

    Dear Peach Pundit commenters,

    I love how several people have just automatically discounted what One Big D has to say, when the fact is, s/he (interesting how people just assumed s/he is female, when s/he never said one way or another) is one of the few commenters on here making any shred of sense. I’m going to go ahead and step into this pit of disgustingness, which I usually avoid, simply to say that I agree with what s/he says – because no one else seems to be doing so. I’m betting my comments will be automatically discounted since I have a vagina, but that’s the way the game is played, isn’t it?

    Don’t worry, I won’t be back.

    Love,
    Amber

    P.S. Thanks for telling me what I can and can’t do with my body! Kisses!

  60. duluthmom says:

    As a woman, I will not even begin to make the “men don’t have a right to an opinion” argument. I agree that a man should have a say in any abortion decision, and frankly I’d expect any couple who faces an unintended pregnancy, to make the decision together. However, when the couple is at odds, the man’s opinion should never supercede the woman’s. That is to say a man should not force a woman to have an abortion or force her to carry the pregnancy to term. Now in the case of rape, there is no “couple”. The rapist has no right to any say whatsoever. Thankfully, the majority of victims of rape are given emergency contraception so that cases of pregnancy resulting from rape are rare.

    However, I do take issue with those of you who villify Planned Parenthood. While some of their clinics (and not all do) provide abortion services, that only accounts for 9% of their total services. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/fact-pp-by-numbers.xml
    What about the other 91%??? The majority of services are directed toward preventing unintended pregnancies and abortions, while others include gynecological care, Pap tests, breast exams, HIV/STD testing treatment and counseling,infertility screening and counseling, voluntary sterilization for women and men, adoption referrals, prenatal and primary care.

    I was a client of PP in college and as a result of this organization’s services, my husband and I never faced an unplanned pregnancy. That’s why I still support them monetarily today.

  61. Maurice Atkinson says:

    The Real Issue With Abortion cannot be judged merely on the issue of itself. As totalitarian has it is, it is only a result of a far greater problem. Personal responsibility is void in this society. Look at our schools, politicians scramble to find the quick fix. I have yet to see a meaningful political fix to many of societal ills. Look at the blatant disrespect for law. My fear is that we are on a slippery slope because of ignorance.

  62. duluthmom says:

    Meant to add, as for the good Catholics cannot support abotion rights comment made earlier, it might interest you to know that….
    Quote: In the 15th century, Antoninus, the saintly archbishop of Florence, did extensive work on abortion. He approved of early abortions to save the life of the woman… This became common teaching. He was not criticized by the Vatican for this. Indeed, he was later canonized as a saint and thus a model for all Catholics. Many Catholics do not know that there exists a pro-choice Catholic saint who was also an archbishop and a Dominican.

    From http://www.religiousconsultation.org

    (The author also has an interesting brief piece called Pro-Life Abortion)

  63. 4ofspades says:

    Booray –
    Let me see if I can follow the logic here. Stephens issues a press release slamming Handel for funding abortions, through Planned Parenthood. Handel responds that the county passed through funds as the state mandated for family planning. Stephens then agrees that the mandate came from the state, but it actually started with the federal government. Nice of Stephens to agree with Handel.

    I’m not in the government, but have worked with some government agencies in my career. Typically if a government is looking to get services they issue a RFP (request for proposal) in that document it outlines the services which are required to be performed. Numerous organizations then respond to the RFP, the staff then picks the winning vendor. It would appear that Planned Parenthood was the winning vendor in this mandate.

    As a state senator one would hope that he understands that it is illegal for a government to provide abortion services.

  64. Demonbeck says:

    Amber,

    We aren’t telling you what you can and cannot do with your body. We are telling you what you can and cannot do to the living being inside your body. A fetus is neither a virus nor a tumor that can be removed without feeling.

    Aside from the three exceptions, where I agree with you, performing the act of consensual sex is a choice a person makes to have.

  65. Booray says:

    4 of spades –

    I don’t believe a thing Handel says anymore. After trying to pretend she didn’t kowtow to the gay activists in Fulton County, I don’t believe her version of events on the Planned Parenthood thing either.

    Bottom line: Handel had LOTS of motive for being moderate to liberal in Fulton County – she HAD to be that way to get elected. I would respect her more if she just said openly – “Look, I catered to gays and liberals in Fulton so we could get a Republican chairman – it was the only way – I am now repudiating that because I no longer have to kiss up to them.”

    Instead, she runs a la-la land campaign pretending she never did those things. Give me a break.

  66. Amber says:

    Thanks for the lecture, Demonbeck. I feel so reassured now! You’re not actually out to control women’s bodies and actions… you care about the children!

    I’m unpacking my tiny violin right now…

  67. Demonbeck says:

    Well, sorry to force you to use your righteous idignation card so quickly Amber.

    Until an unborn child can give us their opinion on the matter, someone is going to have to do the caring for them. It’s quite clear you won’t be the one doing it.

  68. Rusty says:

    We aren’t telling you what you can and cannot do with your body. We are telling you what you can and cannot do to the living being inside your body.

    All kneel before our Lorde and Savior Demonbeck, who has bequeathed upon himself the authority to decide life and death. You must think an awful lot of yourself to say you should be the one to make that judgment. If you believed in God, you’d realize that’s sacrilegious.

  69. UGAMatthew says:

    Amber,

    If your violin is for the children…that’s sick.
    If your violin is for Demonbeck…you don’t address his stance, you just simply turn your nose at it. At least offer some cognizant counter.

    As for Handel, my question is if she kissed but in Fulton County to get a chairmanship, which seems a valid observation (becuase you don’t get a chairmanship in Fulton county being a conservative republican opposed to gay marriage)…why would she not continue to make those same concessions higher up in office. I’d honestly rather have some who doesn’t waver on an issue in lower office…where I know what they believe than someone in higher office, who may be on my side, but I don’t know exactly how they stand…

  70. Rusty says:

    Until an unborn child can give us their opinion on the matter, someone is going to have to do the caring for them. It’s quite clear you won’t be the one doing it.

    And they’re not unborn children, you toolbox. They’re embryos/zygotes/fetuses, depending on the stage. That’s not a life. That’s potential for life.

  71. UGAMatthew says:

    Rusty…using your logic here-in an abortion situation, the woman decides the same thing then. She determines whether or not the baby lives; not God. Does she have that right, effectively trumping the Lord? I find your point invalid.

  72. Demonbeck says:

    Rusty said:

    “All kneel before our Lorde and Savior Demonbeck, who has bequeathed upon himself the authority to decide life and death. You must think an awful lot of yourself to say you should be the one to make that judgment. If you believed in God, you’d realize that’s sacrilegious.”

    I am sorry, but doesn’t the same smarmy comment currently apply to the mother who chooses to abort the living fetus inside her womb?

    Spare me your rhetoric and take the crown of thorns off your head, Rusty.

  73. Demonbeck says:

    So, by your argument, Rusty, then it’s ok for me to go steal some bald eagle eggs and cook them up for breakfast, because they aren’t really endangered bald eagles yet, they are just the potential for bald eagles.

    Please. A fetus is not the potential for human life, a fetus is a baby that has yet to be born.

  74. Rusty says:

    UGAMatthew,
    I find your entire existence invalid, but I suppose you would argue otherwise.

    It’s an irrelevant thing to argue since we’re not actually talking about a life, only about something that has potential for life.

    But even if we were, for the sake of the argument, what gives you the right to tell someone not to sin or to pass judgement for that sin? Last I checked, only God has that right (if you actually buy into Christianity, which I don’t).

  75. Demonbeck says:

    Well, Rusty, let’s not forget about the Judicial System as well, they also have that right to tell you not to sin.

    And who gave you the Supreme Power to decide when life begins? Oh that’s right, you bequeathed that upon yourself.

  76. Rusty says:

    I am sorry, but doesn’t the same smarmy comment currently apply to the mother who chooses to abort the living fetus inside her womb?

    Yes, it does. But I still have yet to hear you explain why it is you get to decide if other people sin or not. From where do you draw that authority?

  77. UGAMatthew says:

    God’s right is judgement. Christians should encouarge others not to sin. That’s basic.

    And give me a break with the whole potential for life rhetoric. When a spermatozoon and an ooctye are fused to together, conception has occured, and life is created. A new organism exists…not a potential for life.

  78. Amber says:

    So, UGAMatthew, if you are so concerned about an organism of a few cells (really, I must question your priorities here), then how do you feel about all the zygotes that are discarded in the process of IV fertilization? That is mass murder!!

  79. Rusty says:

    And give me a break with the whole potential for life rhetoric. When a spermatozoon and an ooctye are fused to together, conception has occured, and life is created. A new organism exists…not a potential for life.

    Give me a break with your religious-driven bullshit that has no basis in scientific fact. And give me a break with using the phrases “give me a break” and “stop with the rhetoric.”

  80. UGAMatthew says:

    You’re arguing with the wrong person on this issue Amber. And call me what you may, IVF doesn’t sit well my belief of God’s or (maybe nature’s…that may work better for Rusty) intent. I know that didn’t work out the way you thougt it might have. If a couple can’t have kids, they should adopt.

  81. UGAMatthew says:

    Rusty, why does it matter what is driving my opinion?

    I form my opinions on the same things you do. Life experiences, upbringing, environment, education, moral conviction. Why are my opinions, which are influenced by all of the above, as well as my faith, less meaningful than yours…Is it because they have religious undertones?

    And if so, what if I find the undertones of your opinions baseless and innapropriate?

  82. UGAMatthew says:

    Amber, it said “might have” …there you go again with you improper reading. And the way you phrased your question, seemed as if you were trying to put me in between a rock and a hard place. If you weren’t, then you simply have an answer to my question about IFV.

  83. Rusty says:

    UGAMatthew,
    This is really funny. I love this play the victim game:

    You say: I find your opinion is worthless and invalid.
    I respond: Yes, well, your opinions are also worthless and invalid.
    You say: Why do you say my opinions are worthless and invalid? Can’t you have a reasoned debate?

    Someone invoke Hitler already and put this thread out of its misery.

  84. Demonbeck says:

    Rusty said:
    “I still have yet to hear you explain why it is you get to decide if other people sin or not. From where do you draw that authority? ”

    I derive the right to decide if other people abort or not from the same place you do. The Constitution provides it.

  85. Demonbeck says:

    Rusty Said:
    “Someone invoke Hitler already and put this thread out of its misery.”

    Rusty,

    Check the first post. LOL

  86. duluthmom says:

    Jeff-
    I won’t defend the T-shirt because I too think it is in poor taste.

    As an FYI:
    The original T-shirt in question was designed by a pro-choice activist who used PP to market them in Milwaukee in 2004. PP no longer sells them.

    http://store.ppfastore.org/

  87. Rusty says:

    The Constitution provides it.

    I don’t recall studying the “Demonbeck gets to pass judgement on sinners” amendment in high school civics class. Where was that exactly?

  88. Demonbeck says:

    Rusty,

    I take offense to your claims of my passing judgment on sinners. It was you who brought up sin, not me.

    My beliefs on this subject are personal in nature and are the result more of my morals rather than my religion. Now one can argue that my religion was vital in developing those morals and that may be true. Frankly, though, I do get rather turned off by the general tone of the pro-life argument, because I do not like forcing religion on others. This is why you will rarely, if ever, see me bring up the Bible or God unless the person I am arguing with does.

    You asked:
    “I don’t recall studying the “Demonbeck gets to pass judgement on sinners

  89. Demonbeck & Rusty & EVERYONE ELSE!!!

    You all have it WAY wrong. The problem isn’t abortion, or the amount of abortions performed every year.

    The REAL problem is the LACK of abortions…

    Demonbeck, according to your argument you supported the births of Adolf Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, AND WORST OF ALL MICHAEL JACKSON. All of you “anti-everything” type of folks are to blame for the terror, holocaust, and HORRIBLE music videos/child molestation!

    So, Demonbeck, next time you have tea with Osama Bin Laden, just remember: HE COULD HAVE BEEN ABORTED!

    Rusty,

    I think you are weak. You don’t speak strongly enough for more abortions. Your words are an embarassment to the entire anti-anti-abortion movement!

    MORE ABORTIONS PLEASE!!!

  90. Demonbeck says:

    Now, unlike most pro-lifers, I believe that it is unconsciable and immoral to force the creation of unwanted babies and orphans and also argue to limit the ability of loving couples to adopt. If your true argument is to provide a life for a child, then you should allow every opportunity for that child to live a life in a family and not an institution.

  91. You know what, let me hit you guys with some COLD HARD FACTS:

    0% of aborted babies have been found guilty of a violent crime

    0% of aborted babies have ever cheated on their taxes

    0% of aborted babies have committed acts of terror

    0% of aborted babies have ever cut me off in traffic

    100% of aborted babies mind their own business

    100% of aborted babies never promote communism

    100% of aborted babies are NOT Michael Jackson, Adolf Hitler, or Osama Bin Laden.

    The facts conclusively prove that aborted babies are productive members of society…

    How do you like them apples?

  92. Rusty says:

    flamingmoderate,
    We’ve got to take the fundies’ lead and infiltrate the system a little at a time rather than initiate sweeping change all at once. I’d like to be able to abort children up until the 3,000th trimester for some of the offenses you mentioned above, especially cutting me off in traffic.

  93. Bill Simon says:

    Rusty, maybe if you didn’t spend all your free time blogging, you wouldn’t have such a hair-trigger response to an offending driver.

  94. Demonbeck says:

    No, I don’t. But, I cannot argue with people who do. My biggest personal problem with this issue is deciding when a baby becomes a baby. Do I think life begins at conception? Frankly, no. But how does one legitimate when life begins? I don’t know if anyone can measure that.

    The problem with this issue is that both sides are arguing extremes where in all actualality, the best answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. If there was an alternative middle choice, I’d probably be for it. Since that is not the case, nor is it ever going to be, I am more pro-life than I am pro-choice.

    That being said, however, I am also pro-birth control (not RU-486) and pro-MAP. I am for teaching sex ed (with birth control AND abstinence). I am for the three exceptions and I am for gay adoption.

  95. UGAMatthew says:

    Rusty,
    I said that I thought your point was invalid, not your opinion. The example, or situation rather, did not prove to be wholly logical becuase the argument you were attempting to make fell apart because under that circumstance you were granting the woman the right you asserted only God had.

    Nevertheless…

  96. Rusty says:

    The example, or situation rather, did not prove to be wholly logical becuase the argument you were attempting to make fell apart because under that circumstance you were granting the woman the right you asserted only God had.

    First of all, God can wax my anus. I never asserted that any authority comes from a fictional character.

    Second, there is a difference in you or anyone else claiming you have the authority to tell someone what they can do with their uterus, and a woman deciding on her own what to do with it. That’s a point that you have yet to address, instead claiming logical fallacy where it doesn’t exist.

  97. buzzbrockway says:

    This thread demonstrates the problem we face as a nation with regard to abortion. Abortion involves opinions about the law, people’s personal faith and science, and thus passions run very high for most people. While I’m pro-life and think Roe v Wade is bad law, the idea of having Roe overturned and then watching legislative battles in all 50 state sends shivers down my spine.

  98. Demonbeck says:

    Buzz has it right. As I said in an earlier post, you can argue using religion until you are blue in the face, but at some point you need to realize that your religious views don’t mean squat to the person you are arguing with.

    Frankly, it is not a question of what a woman can do with her body, but a question of what rights the living being inside her body should have and at what point that being gains her or his rights.

  99. GAWire says:

    Wow, I spend the morning hanging out with Erick and this is what happens! Glad to see there are some logical people reading the blog still, as well as those that give us ammo to make our points.

    Rusty, thanks for reminding us why no one cares about your opinions. You have yet to argue your points with any legitimacy. Especially your last one descibing how you feel about God … that explains SO much about you.

    Jace, I will agree that you and I disagree on this issue – at least you argued your point with dignity and logic, even if I don’t necessarily agree.

    Amber, didn’t you say something about not coming back to Peach Pundit in your first post? Why get our hopes up only to dissapoint us?

    duluthmom, I will put your points about the pro-choice catholic saint right up there with da vinci’s cryptex that holds the answers to the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the Harvard professor who went on the quest for the holy grail with a french gal running from an albino monk sent from the church to dispel the legend, blah, blah, blah …

  100. jsm says:

    flaming said:

    “…next time you have tea with Osama Bin Laden, just remember: HE COULD HAVE BEEN ABORTED!”

    Same for the Pope. I hope your posts are in jest.

  101. Rusty says:

    GAWire,
    Why don’t you stick a tampon in and answer the question I asked to begin with instead of pissing and moaning about legitimacy?

    Pussy.

  102. Demonbeck says:

    That’s a bit over the top, Rusty. There is no need for anyone to start calling people names.

  103. Amber says:

    Rusty, thanks for reminding us why no one cares about your opinions. You have yet to argue your points with any legitimacy. Especially your last one descibing how you feel about God … that explains SO much about you.

    It explains why he likes blowjobs in church parking lots so much, for one.

    Amber, didn’t you say something about not coming back to Peach Pundit in your first post? Why get our hopes up only to dissapoint us?

    Because I just can’t make up my mind… typical broad.

  104. Demonbeck says:

    There are certainly more civil ways of telling someone that they being cowardly than that. And even though the feminine product to which you were referring probably contained materials made from Georgia pine, it was still uncalled for on a medium such as this.

  105. HEY RUSTY!

    HEY AMBER!

    HEY BILL SIMON!

    HEY DEMONBECK!

    HEY GAWIRE!

    You all need to accept the fact that MY position on this issue is the ONLY logical one. No one has argued against my cold hard facts.

    Either EVERYONE lives or EVERYONE dies, no middle ground. I SAY EVERYONE dies!

  106. duluthmom says:

    GAWire-
    Of all of my responses, the Catholic saint link is the one you pick to comment on? You were the one who brought the topic up, you were the one who said you saw the inconsistency between Catholicism and pro-choice. You have yet to respond to half of the information I provided for you on the rammifications of your eutopian ban, instead jumping to criticize the research of a well-respected theologian and compare it to a work of fiction. Nice way to evade the real issues.

  107. GAWire says:

    Seeing that we are talking about pro-choice saints and Bill is making his usual pointless comments, I’ll presume that 1) my point has sufficiently been made; 2) no one can legitimately argue against it; and 3) this debate is over.

  108. Bill Simon says:

    I can legitimately argue against it, GAW, but I have other things to do other than use-up time that you get to bill to clients who don’t care about your debating skills.

  109. bowersville says:

    GaWire,
    A non-hypothetical question: “…South Dakota banned all abortions except to save the life of the mother. Do you approve or disaprove of the South Dakota abortion law?”

  110. GAWire says:

    I do not support any abortion, bowersville, not even if the life of the mother is at risk. That to me is still saying that one life is worth trying to save over another, and that goes back to the basic issue with abortion.

    However, I would support the SD law, b/c regulating some abortion is better than regulating none.

    Logical question …

  111. bowersville says:

    Thanks for responding. But there are mitigating circumstances such as: When the placenta continues to grow, it will show a positive pregnancy test even though other tests show the fetus/baby is dead, and toxemia will set in and threaten the life of the mother. Prior to Roe (which I totally disagree with), A MD was prohibited under these very circumstances, from inducing labor, to save the life of the mother.
    I am pleased you made your statement “b/c regulating some abortion is better than regulating none.” I will take some liberties here in my analogy. I do not wish to offend my Jewish friends/brothers/sisters with this train of thought. I believe, we need to face reality on abortion and save those that we can. You made a movie analogy, so I will too. “Schindler’s List,” especially the movie trailer, when Schindler broke down and cryingly stated he wished he “could have saved more.” We need to save all we can, Jeff Emanuel presented, what I believe, to be the political reality of today. Let’s go with that for now, and like Schindler, we may regret it at the end of life, but for now we did the best we could and saved as many as possible. You may have allready had opportunity, but if not, visit Yad Vashem. It will give you a great appreciation of those who saved as many lives as they could, under their circumstances.

  112. Bill Simon says:

    B’ville,

    It’s not merely a matter of “offending,” but more like the wrong analogy by 500,000 degrees of difference. You’re not even close in your comparison, so I advise you to drop it and back-out of the situation as quietly as possible.

  113. duluthmom says:

    GAWire:

    1. Your point was not made; you simply repeated the no abortion manta ad nauseum without answering any of the relevant questions posed to you–like the real world rammifications of a total ban (Kirk/me) and the hypothetical situation (Rusty/jace).

    2. Many legitimately argued against it on practical and personal grounds, you simply chose to ignore those arguments.

    3. Declaring a debate over when others don’t agree with you is not standard debate protocal.

    And for you and others who found the hypothetical question about one of GAWire’s loved ones being raped as offensive, I offer you this.

    Think back to the 1988 Presidential race. In a series of debates Dukakis and Bush Sr. faced off. In one (10-13-88 to be exact) the issue of Capital Punishment came up.

    Bernard Shaw, the moderator of the debate, asked Dukakis, “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”

    Many Republicans gleefully latched on to the public perception that Dukakis was too unemotional in his response concerning his wife and they played it for all its worth.

    If the hypothetical rape of Kitty Dukakis was perceived as appropriate in a Presidential debate, how is Rusty’s hypothetical question any less relevant in this debate?

  114. Demonbeck says:

    Damn decency, this is the second time in as many days that I have had to hold my tongue on a great zinger.

  115. duluthmom says:

    If you’re worried about offending me, don’t be.

    (And thank you for the stemwinder comment which I take to be a compliment since I believe it is an issue we should all be passionate about.)

  116. Demonbeck says:

    I am not worried about offending you, I am more worried about the resulting backlash that would have resulted from a couple of rather offensive (though completely sarcastic) remarks.

    And the stemwinder comment was really directed at the fact that there were two threads that are currently nearing 200 posts on the same topic and frankly, I was getting tired of arguing them separately.

  117. m1tk4 says:

    Out of curiousity, since you support “protecting ALL human life”, you should also be against the capital punishment. Are you?

  118. Demonbeck says:

    m1tk4,

    I’m not, I like to explain why using an analogy:

    Those of us who grew up on the coast spent a lot of time fishing when we were younger and were always told to throw the smaller fish back so they could grow larger and create more fish. We always kept the larger fish to eat.

    Pro-choice liberals would be terrible fishermen.

Comments are closed.