The forgotten victims of Planned Parenthood
Not everyone gets to walked out of the clinic with the “I had an abortion” t-shirt and a smile on her face. The San Jose Mercury News reports today that the mother of a young woman who died at a Riverside, Calif., Planned Parenthood clinic has sued the abortion provider blaming malpractice for her daughter’s toxic shock syndrome death:
Aletheia Meloncon filed the Superior Court lawsuit this week, claiming her daughter Edrica Goode, 21, died Feb. 14 because cervical dilators used in advance of second-trimester abortions were left in too long.
Goode allegedly went to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Riverside for an abortion on Jan. 31 and a nurse inserted the dilators, which are usually left in overnight before an abortion.
The suit said Goode, who didn’t return to the clinic to have the dilators removed, had an infection and the dilators became a conduit, spreading it throughout her body.
“My daughter made a choice, but she didn’t choose to die,” Meloncon said. “A lost dog gets more attention than my daughter did. This has really torn at my family.”
She is not alone:
Vince Hall, director of communications for Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside counties, refused to comment on the lawsuit to the Times and claimed that the “health and safety of our patients is our highest priority.”
However, Goode is the third woman to die at Planned Parenthood abortion centers in the last four years.
The first was Holly Patterson, an 18 year-old from Livermore who died after she received a lethal bacterial infection after using the abortion drug she obtained at Planned Parenthood Golden Gate. Diana Lopez, a 25-year-old Huntington Park woman, bled to death after an abortion she had punctured her cervix.
Will the predators of Planned Parenthood get away with it again? Not if Aletheia Meloncon can help it.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Jesus is Lord, A Worshipping Christian’s Blog » Blog Archive » "The forgotten victims of Planned Parenthood" by Michelle Malkin
- The World Wide Rant » Blog Archive » Doctor’s Orders!
- Michelle Malkin » Planned Parenthood’s obscene profits
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Abortion
Right Pundits
» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’Legal Insurrection
» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care CzarRiehl World View
» Obama: No Military Death Shall Go UnexploitedLegal Insurrection
» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No ReidThe Other McCain
» Paralysis by analysisThe Powers That Be
» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to ConclusionsLegal Insurrection
» NY Times Names Names
Personally this issue is what ticks me off the most about Baby Bushie. He’s splitting our party apart with this amnesty bill. Mean while if a Dem gets the white house next year we can pretty much forget about getting the justices needed to throw out Roe like the trash it is.
…..and all I got was this stupid t-shirt!
Its not a matter of “a woman’s right to choose”, this entire issue is about the right to life of a Child in the womb. What ever happened to LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS??? Doesn’t a baby that is only weeks away form being born have the right to life? If this is truly about a woman’s right to choose, I have no problem with Liberals who want to crush their own sculls in but lets not do it to babys. OK?!?!?!?!?
While nothing should surprise me anymore, I cannot fathom any young woman wearing a T shirt like this proudly. I am obviously a dinosaur living in a world of chaos.
Please stop bolding your entire comments. Thank you.
Sorry……:-[
The amount of abortions that have occurred in America since the Roe V. Wade decision is in the tens of millions. This story makes me wonder about how many girls and women have died or have been physically and/or mentally damaged because of their abortions. I am sure that Planned Parenthood would not be very entertaining in giving out numbers if they had any.
This young woman had the dilators inserted by a PP nurse and never went back to the clinic to have them removed, despite being instructed to do so both in person at the clinic and via mail. Where does the malpractice come in exactly?
I’m just praying that I never encounter someone wearing that shirt. It would take every ounce of self-control to keep myself from doing physical harm to her. (”I mustn’t hit girls… I mustn’t hit girls…”) Indeed, the so-called “woman’s right to choose,” ignoring the “baby’s right to live,” is so horribly contradictory, immoral, unethical, etc. that I don’t understand how anyone who gets/performs an abortion could possibly live with themselves. I guess the ex-mother thinks she “owns” that life she just took, which is ironic, because similar mothers love to dump their children off at a daycare center all day and subject them to indoctrination… but I digress. Anyway, if you want to hold an opinion, make sure it actually makes sense.
I’m curious… Did PP ever move away from the eugenics beliefs of its founder, Margaret Sanger? I haven’t looked too closely at them, but remember that about Sanger (amongst other nuggets)… so, curious. Anyone have the answer?
The abortion clinics in America are manned by people who take delight in the abortion, not helping the patient. They have morphed in bizarre sadists on the order of Kervorkian. Doctors have become very uncomfortable with abortion after the first trimester and many refuse to do them unless it is the first 2 weeks (pharmecuetical abortions). Drs can see the ultrsound too.
What ever happened to the ’sense of shame’? Doesn’t anyone have it anymore? Guess I’m a dinosaur too.
Pro choice… The woman’s right to choose.
What about the baby’s right to choose?
Hey, Ms. “Pro Choice”. I bet you’d not be ok with YOUR parents being pro choice when they had you, huh?
You can always tell a liberal in a crowd when they refuse to be responsible for thier actions.
I find it troubling that a legislative body has the power to determine when a person is a person in the eyes of the law, complete with Constitutional protection. Wouldn’t the criterion be the DNA of the organism?
If so, then the fetus is a person protected by the Constitution, and the mother’s right to choose is a choice of a crime — murder.
Not everyone wants to, thank God!
I bet PlannedParenthood makes no mention that you might die if you have an abortion.
This is just sad. Don’t these young women know that there are other options besides abortion? Please support organizations like AlternateAvenues They inform women and men that they do have a choice and that life is the better option. They also council women that have made the wrong choice.
You know, by the numbers, 3 in 4 years isn’t all that bad…
I’m just saying that without more numbers to give context, those three don’t work me up…
Yeah, they never mention the emotional damage that you can’t just erase with an abortion. Abortion is more than just a surgical procedure. It not only changes the babies life, but the mother’s life as well. I’m sure that most would-be mothers who had abortions will from time to time think about what might have happened if they had had the baby, how old he/she might be.
In 2004, presidential candidate John Kerry said he believed that “life begins at conception,” but a first-trimester abortion is not murder because the embryo is “not a person yet.” His opinion reflected the stance of pro-choice advocates that human life begins at conception, but “personhood” is a legal quality that the unborn are endowed with later, and only “persons” can be murdered.
I have great difficulty with that moral relativism.
Also in 2004, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that from 1970–2001, approximately 42,301,576 legal abortions were performed in the United States.
THAT is a number to be concerned about. Most people would never guess that the number is so high.
These days it seems that the deadliest place on earth for an American to be is inside the womb.
What’s the difference between an abortion doctor and the butcher at your local grocer? The butcher typically belongs to the union.
“These days it seems that the deadliest place on earth for an American to be is inside the womb.”
Joshua,
That is one of the most thought provoking words I have ever read. THOSE words should be on a T shirt.
There have been several articles over the last few years about the impact of abortion on the electorate. The last one I saw was here. I think that if we teach our children that having an abortion is wrong and that placing life above our discomfort at having a baby in circumstances we don’t like, then eventually, we win and the Souters and Ginsbergs lose.
I do like Joshua’s t-shirt idea, too.
I guess we can thank the public schools for this as well. Young women are taught that abortion is no big deal, all the while the slaughter continues. I for once hope this lawsuit produces a windfall judgement and hits them where it hurts.
When I was back in college I came across a group of women who were adamant, ADAMANT, that Planned Parenthood never engaged in abortion on demand because of the health risks involved. At most only two abortions per patient would be allowed, and it was strictly enforced within the community.
Yeah, sure. I had already known a close friend who had THREE abortions in the past. What a despicable agency.
Miss Malkin, I just wanted to a second to thank you for all the work you’re doing to bring all these important issues to the forefront. I know you’ve heard it a million times before, but you’re one of my biggest heroes and a daily source of inspiration for me. God bless you!
The lack of and deliberate withholding of information by Planned Parenthood, is unconscionable. The victim is the baby and in many cases, eventually the Mother.
I have to point out some misleading information from this post. (If you try arguing with the points posted, your opponent will bring up these details).
Planned Parenthood attempted to get in contact with Goode, to get her to come in and have dialators removed.
Her mother is suing PP saying ~They didn’t try hard enough to get in touch with her~
The Director declined to comment on pending litigation, this is standard procedure for almost any large entity facing a lawsuit. (I’m assuming the comments about the letters sent by PP, is from a lawyer, the article doesn’t say).
The details are found here:
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_6195970?nclick_check=1
The issue shouldn’t be about abortion. The issue should be about proper birth control. Stop suppressing our natural sexual feelings.
What is sex so evil? If two responsible adults agree to have sex and they follow every precaution, why not?
The suppression of sex leads to abortions. Proper sex education will reduce the need of abortions.
I’m curious the see the number of married women having abortions.
Life starts with the male sperm. And millions of sperm are killed every day. Where’s the pro choice people on this issue?
But, but, Abortion is safer than childbirth! These deaths are nothing but accidents! This is just an infortunate incident gone wrong in a safe procedure! /Expect to see this response from the pro-aborts.
I absolutely despise Planned Parenthood. They are a cancer on society. First is was that “Superhero for Choice” video a few years ago. (MSM coverage: nil.) Then of course you have the displayed “I Had an abortion” T-Shirt. Then you have that coverup for child predators. (MSM coverage: nil, bar when Michelle talked about it on The Factor.)
Who wants to bet this girl gets thrown under the bus by the MSM too, because girls dying in Planned Parenthood clinics doesn’t fit the agenda of the MSM? Getting killed while killing your own child is a tragedy, but neither of them would have died if abortion were heavily restricted or left out of the hands of the courts entirely. Let New York attract all the babykillers.
Please Michelle, I implore you to report this monstrosity at every news outlet you can. Too long has this crap been allowed to build and fester. We should do to the pro-aborts what they do to us: mercilessly attack even a single instance of foul play, real or imagined.
The MSM won’t even use pro-life in thier stories, although they have zero problems using pro-choice. We need to take these stories, put them up for everyone to see, plaster them on walls, and show the pro-abortion lobby for the monsters that they are.
Some people view abortion as first-resort birth control. Others view it as last-resort birth control, after they’ve already been sold on cheap rubbers and pills. The only birth control they won’t try is waiting for the right person.
And who are these phantoms “suppressing your sexual feelings?”
Who called sex evil? Why, only you. In fact, only the pro-aborts seem to have hangups on the nature of sex.
Actually, the glorification of casual sex leads to abortions. Abortions spiked from a falsified 100,000 number from PP to sell abortion to around 1.5 million abortions in the first 10 years of legalization.
It was the casual-sex, “free-loving” flowerchildren of the 60’s and 70’s who not only put the idea into people’s head that casual sex was just “natural sexual feelings,” they also made sure to fight for an easy out to this irresponsibility: abortion.
The pro-choice people don’t care about the unborn. Most of them are feminists, so they believe the only place sperm has is in a donation facility so they can have their male-free society one day.
The Pro-life people realize the difference between sperm (millions produced daily, never going to become little humans on thier own) and the unborn (living human beings in the womb that only need time, nutrients, and attention), and focus accordingly.
Amen.
Natural feelings are ok and not evil?
Sometimes I want to strangle someone.
That’s natural, right? Should I go ahead
strangle them?
Just because you _can_ do something, doesn’t mean its ‘good’ or ‘right.’
And, I happen to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong because God said it was wrong. Look to all the things it can lead to.
Let me preface by saying that I’m adamantly opposed to abortion for any reasons except for to protect the life of the mother. In the absence of a total ban on abortions, abortion providers should be at the very least required to provide 4D ultrasounds to their clients and they also must offer a waiting period before any services can be performed. My wife and I love our kids dearly and are both adamantly pro-life, but even with us a 4D ultrasound gave us a tremendous perspective about how alive our baby was in the womb. I strongly believe that a mandatory 4D ultrasound would save thousands of unborn lives each year, because this “choice” that all the pro-abortion forces talk about would now appear as a life to many of the married women who are getting abortions as a convenience and to the young couples who simply “made a mistake”. It is no accident that the pro-abortionists fight a waiting period so strongly. They realize that if you give a person the resources and a little bit of time, usually they will make a better choice.
I’m really new at this Trackbacks thing, but I’ve linked this post at my blog.
http://kennedysmusings.townhall.com/g/e48a63ab-3dae-44b5-9c68-a5745a9dd562
Any help using the trackback feature would be greatly appreciated. Hopefully my n00bery isn’t showing.
Life doesn’t ’start as male sperm.’ In order for life to start, an ova must be present. IOW, it takes two. And in all this, the woman takes responsibility for the death of the child she co created so the cad who impregnated her can go off and impregnate someone else because of ‘natural sexual feelings.’
No joke, I was in the local Wally’s the other day. Two young women were discussing their baby’s daddy, who turned out to have fathered all their children…three total I think.
He only visited them when the check came.
Spaying and neutering, anyone? We do this to prevent the overpopulation of cats and dogs and to keep the breed pure. No wonder Margaret Sanger was
pro family planning via abortion.
Sick. Just sick. At least Bush didn’t sign the stem cell research bill.
Does anyone else remember when wearing a t-shirt like this would have been like wearing a “Scarlet Letter”?
Does anyone else remember when killing someone’s grandchild wasn’t trivialized as a “choice” “my daughter made”?
the pill = conception control
abortion = birth/life control
There are so many people who want a child but can’t have one, why don’t more of these girls choose to give their child another chance in a home that wants one?
Arbortion is a frighteningly clinical term for murder. Whether it’s in the womb or in a cradle, that child is completely dependent on its mommmy. Drawing distinctions (or by journalists blurring them by freely interchanging the terms “fetus” and “unborn baby” in the same article) is self-serving.
swj719AWG You are kidding – right? That is what they will admit to. Ever wonder why nobody knows how many women have died? It is because they do not have to report deaths. The right to privacy bill was pushed through to protect the abortion industry because if the figures came out about how many women were dying from this “life saving” procedure, Roe v. Wade would be history. Now, maybe you can diminish 3 deaths but I can’t. These women die horrible deaths. I sure that is one of the deaths was your daughter, you could get worked up! Don’t even get me going on RU-486. It causes women to hemorrhage and they are told if they have to go to the emergency room, tell the Doctor it is a miscarriage. Know whose policy that is? Planned Parenthood.
One thing that is missing is the rights of the father and his input into the decision making process. If the mother wants to have an abortion and the father doesn’t, what about his rights???? I have never ever any seen any mention what so ever of the father’s rights if he wants the child and the mother wants an abortion. I have had discussions with women about this issue and thier point of view is that the father is just the sperm donor and doesn’t have any rights. If that is the case, then why should a father even pay child support if his rights are going to be denied/ignored from the start?
I’ve always wondered why killing babies is so important to Democrats. Seems to me that promoting personal responsibility and moral behavior is a much more positive mission.
GRRRRR. That comment made me so mad, I couldn’t think and type properly.
I am sure if one of the deaths was your daughter, you could get worked up!
That is better – I think?
I wonder what the Planned Parenthoodlums would say about my T-shirt idea:
“I chose not to kill my baby”
Back on topic: As for Planned Parenthood, it’s shameful they can beat their chests about “choice” and tempt young women into a “quick” solution to a “problem” and have absolutely no accountability.
Question: Did PP really offer free abortions to 9-11 widows?
Please read with an open mind an alternative point of view and respond as you will
1. Consider the world before legalized abortions. There were still abortions. Only they were far more dangerous and done in back alley clinics. If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, the need for abortions would not actually decrease, women would instead either a. choose to keep an unwanted child b. put that baby up for adoption or c. get a back alley illegal abortion. Anybody with a realistic understanding of society and the way Judeo-Christian morality leads to the shaming of unwed mothers, must confront that a large percentage of women will choose the abortion option, no matter it’s legality.
2. Life does not have an absolute value. Consider the dilemma of the burning medical research center. If you could only save one baby or ten viable embryos. Which do you save? Certainly life would be easier if things were always black and white, but I contend that simplifying such essential philosophical questions as when life begins by simply stating abortion always equals murder is not willing to contend with difficult intellectual or moral questions, preferring to gloss over them and regurgitate what others have told them before.
3. Opposition to abortion is not an absolute. Polls consistently show that the majority of Americans would prefer legalized abortions in the first trimester with a few exceptions, while being vehemently opposed to late-term abortions. There is middle ground in this issue.
3. There is compelling evidence that abortion has radically curtailed crime in America. Read the book Freakonimics for the author’s detailed analysis of why Roe v. Wade was the cause of the recent massive drop off in crime rates across America.
These are simply my opinions. I respect the views of those opposed to abortion. I merely wish to start some discussion and provoke thought. Thank you.
I think these “I just had an abortion” t-shirts are fantastic. Every time the liberals go “in your face” it’s a good thing, because the lashback is palpable.
The person wearing the shirt is basically a lost cause. You have to be suffering pretty significant brain damage to wear something so disgusting.
These shirts brand the wearer in a repugnant way – a way that other people considering abortion and/or supporting it will view as unpalatable.
There are many men who could wear T-Shirts stating “I left my old wife for a hot younger chick who likes my money. Now my kids hate me.” It’s a perfectly legitimate thing to wear on your chest – if you’re an imbecile.
From a societal perspective, however, it would likely give a few guys pause before they did the same stupid thing.
I’m betting that these abortion shirts are much the same. It’s up to us, of course, to keep the revulsion-quotient high.
So Pro-choicers would go from just killing babies to killing women and babies. That is what would happen. Pro-lifers aren’t going to turn around and start offering under-the-table abortions, pro-choicers will.
Moreover, it is not the government’s job to protect people from their own stupidity.
Finally, Christians already have an immense network of support systems for the poor and downtrodden.
I contend this is an apples to oranges comparison because abortion is an argument over whether it is better to save the lives of two people or the convenience of one. Life exceptions have already been put in place, making any extention of this comparison invalid. Observe your first statement:
The declaration itself clearly articulates that life is a right given to us by a creator. By extention, all human life has value. Only pro-choicers go around telling us life doesn’t have an absolute value. Interestingly enough, they usually exempt themselves from that statement. I guess they just want to gloss over the moral an intellectual questions it poses.
And yet, Planned Parenthood and their ilk actively oppose the commonsense measures most Americans want. There was a Prop 52 in California a few years ago that would have required parental notification for abortions(a popular idea among people polled about it) but Planned Parenthood types poo-pooed it because it might inform abusive parents, and they couldn’t be having child abuse now could they?
They keep Roe alive through judicial fiat when, if they really wanted to serve the people’s opinion, they would have made no statements and left it to the much more maleable legislatures.
These are the people we are dealing with rogahdodgah. If they wanted what Americans wanted we would already have it.
Freakanomics has already been thouroughly debunked. Citation: Here Freakonomics basic crime was expounding on hypothetical future crimes that would be prevented due to abortions today, but the numbers don’t support that. Its a long read, but it explains everything better than I can.
I will address them.
1. Leave out the Judeo-Christian morality. There are Jews how believe it is wrong. Shoot there are even atheists who believe it is wrong. The fact that there were abortions before legalization did not make them right.
2. Life has absolute value, it is absolutely priceless! I would wager you would not cut off you hand for a million bucks. If you would not cut off you hand for money, how much more value does your life have? You are asking to draw a round square. Like value = priceless.
3. Only because the public is so skewed by the lack of information on abortion. How do you think public opinion would change if the networks showed how brutal these “fetuses” were torn apart? How about a wiggling baby while its brains are being sucked out then the little lifeless body going limp. I am disgusted at even my rant at this point. There is NO middle ground to taking a life – it is a choice.
3b. There is compelling evidence that abortion causes the woman a great deal of problems later in life. Women are being harmed and killed – still. You use the back alley and they use the clinic – no difference. Babies are still dying.
Michelle – I think it is awesome that you are trying something new with opening up the comments on your blog.
I also appreciate you always keeping the sanctity of human life on the front burner in your writings and reporting.
It would surprise me if the girl’s mother wins this litigation since the girl didn’t return to the clinic. She probably regretted ever going in the first place — possibly she became ill having those terrible instruments of death inside her body. In this case, unfortunately, the pro-abortion camp got two for the price of one.
This debate is nicely framed by “pro-choice” people in terms of a woman’s rights. I can do what I want with my body. Suppressing sexual feelings is unnatural – it’s my right to express myself. It’s my right to get pregnant, and it’s my right to choose for an abortion.
This framework is all wrong. Getting pregnant is not a right; it’s a privilege. Just ask couples who can’t conceive. The whole point being that it’s not about me and what I feel and what I want. That’s selfish irresponsibility. Once there is another life (for which you have made yourself responsible), your own “rights” and convenience are secondary – by choice.
Couples need to ask themselves whether they are ready and willing to be selfless and responsible about the consequences of their actions. This includes men, who seem to be ignored when abortion is discussed.
Women who have abortions “solve” a temporary “problem” but create many more, not the least psychological trauma. Consider also the under-reported ABC.
It all comes down to respect for life.
I do not believe the first trimester fetus is a person. It has less brain function than Terry Schiavo.
Some people regret having an abortion. Some who did not regret that. Does allowing abortion increase regret?
Some people are injured during an abortion. Statistics show childbirth is more dangerous than abortion.
Yes, childbirth is more dangerous than abortion, thanks to John Edwards.
I had a roommate in college tell me she had two abortions because she didn’t want to put her children in a potentially abusive situation.
Killing them then, was the only option she had.
Moonbat logic.
OH.MY.GOD!!! lgm – you must be an abortion provider. Terry Schiavo was a person who was deeply loved by her parents and family and had her lovely life snuffed out by an uncaring “husband”. If less brain function is a reason to end a life I say – you first!
Years later there are many women who express regret. They had their “problem” fixed it and it came back with a vengeance.
Show the statistics or shut up. Provide proof that child birth is more dangerous. You can’t even get true numbers from the abortion industry on the number of deaths let alone how many women who have been hurt. And you are totally discounting how many men are being hurt.
Women die in cars, kill the autos!!!
Your ignorance is showing.
lgm, here is where there is some problems with your logic. Terry Schaivo was not going to get better, she was not going to develop higher brain functions. Left alone (unless there is a genetic defect) that first trimester will.
Regret? well that’s an emotion and while I am not a Vulcan, I don’t feel emotion should be the decision maker here.
Childbirth more dangerous than abortion? Not really, over 50% of the participants in abortions die.
Great last line billhedrick. I bet lgm misses it. One woman dies and it pushes it over 50%.
I’ve had a belly full of remarks like this. I’ve taught and coached in public schools for 21 years. I have NEVER heard or seen any of these great liberal indoctrinations that many conservatives howl about. I am as conservative as they come. The part of the conservative movement that bashes schools at every turn have no basis in reality.
Where are you getting your information that public schools teach anything about abortions, let alone glorify them?
The older I get the more certain opinions I have on things change . Good or Bad . Not Sure. I am torn on this issue Between free will and thou shalt not kill. Personally I could not condone an abortion if I was the father .I Am a God-fearing man. However to force my religious beliefs upon someone else is something I will not do.I do not know why I see a baby and a fetus in a different way . I just do. Like I said . Torn. But I do think if you must , please , only as a last resort.
However the fact that PP has made this into a form of birth control is wrong in so many ways.
#18 Thacker Agency
I know I do. I live with my sin everyday and thank God that I eventually found Him, eventhough it wasn’t soon enough.
It took years of therapy and prayer for me to forgive myself and I’m not sure that I’ve even completely forgiven myself. All I can do now is to speak out against abortion and teach my daughters abstinence and personal responsibility for their own fertility (I know that I can’t control what they do when they leave my house and I sure don’t want them to go through an abortion at 18 like I did!)
Please don’t judge me too harshly, I was young, liberal and dumb.
Most important questions to ask anyone on the fence about abortion:
Who are you?
Who were you yesterday?
Who were you the day you were born?
Who were you the day before you were born?
Who were you a month before you were born?
Who were you the moment your mother knew she was pregnant?
Who were you the moment you were conceived?
Elevate the discussion, logic is inescapable.
-justjason
Just a few FYI’s regarding Abortions:
I had an abortion, legally in 1971 (I was 16) here in California at a Hollywood Hospital. The procedure was performed by a certificed doctor with nurses, etc. Not some abortion clinic, but a reputable hospital. I almost died a few days later. Why? The doctor left a miniscule amount in my uterus.
Years of research have shown that women who have abortions are most likely to contract some form of Breast Cancer. Guess What? I am a 7 year survivor of Breast Cancer.
I am a walking testimony that before Roe V Wade abortions were happening legally and people were still risking death. I am also living proof that abortions can cause death even if done legally by medical professionals. Besides the risk of cancer what will it take for these monsters to realize that abortion is not the panacea they proclaim?
Understanding the debate and those on the opposing side, is how we need to address the abortion issue. Also, using the tactics the left has used to create their monsters, through the judicial system. Great Idea!
Pulchritudinous Patriot
GOD Bless you! If you have given that sin over to the LORD, it is no longer yours! All have sinned and come up short. A lie is as big a sin as a murder to GOD. I am a man and I am just as guilty as you. That being said, I am just as forgiven – Praise GOD!
Peace dear sister.
I’m against abortion unless absolutely necessary, but the condemnation against Planned Parenthood in this instance is misguided at best. I’m not going to argue on the issue of abortion in general, but it sounds like they’re not responsible here. They attempted to contact the girl to have it removed. The onus is on the patient to come in for follow ups, no? It’s also possible that they weren’t responsible for the bacteria in the medication. Two out of three wouldn’t win in a courtroom and only the case of the pierced cervix sounds like true malpractice.
Unless there is other evidence, I don’t think it behooves the pro-life movement to exaggerate innocuous circumstance. It lessens the credibility of the larger argument.
I, too, have had a belly full of blanket statements such as the ones above. As a public school teacher of middle school students, at NO time has anyone ever espoused abortion, planned parenthood, or even discussed what a student should do. That is the stuff lawsuits are made from. We have school counselors, psychologists, and yes, parent contact to all take into account. While there are plenty of issues to blame publich schools for, abortion is NOT one of them, in my opinion. Let’s keep the facts straigt and the biases out of it.
guess we can thank the public schools for this as well
My edit: I, too, have had a belly full of blanket statements such as the ones above. As a public school teacher of middle school students, at NO time has anyone ever espoused abortion, planned parenthood, or even discussed what a student should do. That is the stuff lawsuits are made from. We have school counselors, psychologists, and yes, parent contact to all take into account. While there are plenty of issues to blame public
hschools for, abortion is NOT one of them, in my opinion. Let’s keep the facts straight and the biases out of it.The courts have repeatedly found people who have killed pregnant mothers guilty of double homicide. The same courts would have no problem if the mothers killed the child themselves (with the help of an MD).
It just doesn’t make any sense to me. Either it’s right, or it is not.
There are far more quacks in the abortion industry than anyone will let on. I even know of lawyers who have made a steady stream of business suing abortionists who have left their “patients” injured and infertile. A girl who had gone to my high school almost died at a clinic thanks to a boo-boo that caused her to nearly bleed to death.
#60 Thanks, on my soap box.
#64 – Look at the Scott Peterson case. (I personally think the double murder charge was justified, but it’s a double standard if abortion is legal).
The only difference between the last statement and an abortion, in my opinion, is the word “unlawfully,” yet organizations such as Planned Parenthood in California are permitted to condone the destruction of a fetus as to not inconvenience a woman’s life.
Pulchritudinous Patriot –
Read Luke 7:41-50, which contains the story of the creditor and the two debtors. I love this story, and I think that you will find great comfort in it.
God bless!
For conservativecoach and MarshK: When I was in high school in the 1970s, Planned Parenthood got to come in and give us sex education. This included demonstrating how to put a condom on, and to their credit, it included a mention of abstinence. However, they left piles of literature about their clinics, and I doubt that they’ve been barred from most blue-state high schools. The message we received was that abortion was the solution if we ran into the inconvenience of a pregnancy. Nowadays, they seem more self-righteous than they were then–just take a gander at that disgusting t-shirt!
Pulchritudinous Patriot:
I believe that God is a loving Being and that you have atoned fully for it.
He loves you. Go forward with your life, and make it a good one.
Conservativecoach, it is the public schools that are forced to teach this nonsense if they want federal funding.
I remember high school in the 70s with our PE teachers having to teach sex ed
and PP leaving literature about their services. One of my friends in hs got pregnant and I went with her to the PP counseling and she was TOLD that statistically, having an abortion was safer than having the baby, that she would be free to do other things with her life and that it was just a ‘blob of tissue.’
“These days it seems that the deadliest place on earth for an American to be is inside the womb.”
The problem with this statement is that it’s actually impossible for an American to be inside a womb. An American is a person born in the US or a person who has become a citizen through the proper channels. A fetus has done neither of these things and is therefore not a US citizen.
Perhaps that immigration bill should include something about citizenship being granted on the basis of where one is conceived…all these poor fetuses with no nationality or country to call home. What a tragedy.
Out of curiosity, how many women have died in childbirth in the past four years?
I am very opposed to abortion. Even those from incest. I don’t think Lord Jesus would like me sending my wife to an abortion clinic. I want 20 kids. I wouldn’t censor the t-shirt though…..
Citizenship goes with the mother or if there is a domain issue such as dual citizenship at birth.
If my daughter came home with that t-shirt, she’d wish her mother had gotten one.
On June 22nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm, quarp said:
Haven’t you heard Reid? People here illegally are just undocumented Americans. It isn’t a stretch to assume people not “born legally” qualify as well, following Reid logic.
It’s irrelevant anyway, the right to life isn’t something that comes from American citizenship. It is a God-given right.
Probably more than have in abortions, but the abortion number is underreported, and the only real metric you could use in that case is the rate. There have been a lot more births than abortions.
This would be a lot easier if the Planned Parenthood folks actually kept records of the “medical procedure” they love so much, just like real doctors performing actual procedures do.
Oh yeah, and since half of fetuses are female, that number is about 2,600,000.
“Perhaps that immigration bill should include something about citizenship being granted on the basis of where one is conceived…” This is at best, IMO, a dumb idea. Can you imagine the difficulty of proving and documenting where a baby was conceived? And if your parents were American missionaries, say in Haiti, would you want to be forced to be a citizen of that nation? What we have has worked and should continue to work.
The young woman’s mother is quoted in my local paper as saying, “My daughter made a choice, but she didn’t choose to die.” True. If you read the article, you see the woman made a number of choices: She chose not to tell her family she was pregnant; she chose not to tell her family she was going to Planned Parenthood (what a misnomer!); she chose to terminate her pregnancy. What a shame that all these poor choices led to her untimely death.
JConrad999 (#13) said:
I am ecstatic that my parents were pro-choice when they had me. (They made the right choice, by the way, because I am pretty awesome.) I’m glad that I was someone my parents chose to have instead of a burden.
Once again, where are your facts. This is absolutely false.
It might have gone on in the 70’s but I can tell you it isn’t the way it is now. Almost all sex education is abstinence based now.
Sex education is one of the areas conservatives are gaining ground in. Praise the Lord too, Planned Parenthood’s literature is probably all reprints from 1974.
Most distressing is when classrooms get used for indoctrination, such as the Science professor who went on a BDS bent, or Jay Bennish using his Social Studies class to talk about Bushitler, et al. College campuses have it pretty bad, I even had a brush with it at Bryant.
Massachusetts gets the propaganda from the homosexual lobby in thier public schools. See, Gay marriage is “legal” now, so if they want to give schoolchildren books supporting gay relationships, it is “tolerant.” Kids shouldn’t be exposed to that. It will mess up thier sense of right and wrong. But homosexuals in MA don’t care about right and wrong. The homosexual lobby and PP seem to be in a contest for most backward, perverted, evil lobby.
Both don’t care about lying to support thier cause because they are working “for the greater good(TM),” both really don’t care about the central moral pillar of America: strong, unified families built around Judeo-Christian principles. The only difference is one wants a moral genocide to wash over society, the other wants physical genocide on “the unworthy.”
BKennedy:
It seems we have already given ourselves the power to revoke this right from time to time. See, for instance, the death penalty, killing in self-defense, and war. Obviously, then, this alleged “right to life” (that you have decided to simply claim exists, providing no evidence, but for the sake of argument I’ll allow it) can and often is revoked.
And anyway, my comment was actually more tongue in cheek. I found the original comment to be overly sentimental and emotional, so I mocked it a bit.
How do you know that if the abortion number is underreported?
Rhetorical question. I understand the rate is what matters, and I already know that abortion really is safer than childbirth. I was just making the point that this is false outrage, and I say that because
1. People die in hospitals and from surgery (and childbirth) all the time. Sometimes it’s malpractice, sometimes just plain old bad luck, whatever. I see no evidence that abortion providers are more incompetent or more likely to kill patients than other health care providers.
2. Banning abortion – which I assume many of the posters here would support – would increase rather than reduce the dead women count, so you’ll understand if I believe that reducing the number of dead women isn’t really a top priority here.
People are just using this case to bash Planned Parenthood because they don’t like PP. While I don’t doubt everyone is genuinely saddened by the death of this woman, if her death had been caused by an anti-abortion policy of some sort I doubt we’d even be talking about it.
Going back to the DoI, “we proclaim these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by thier Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
According to our founding father’s, life has intrinsic value and the principle of such is self-evident. I suppose you could ask Hitler and Stalin for a second opinion on that. Fortunately, dictatorial maniacs didn’t found our country. If that isn’t enough evidence for you, I recommend boning up on the founders of our nation and the philosophies of John Locke by whom they were greatly influenced.
Moreover, one looks for the justification for any revocation of the right for life. Death Penalty: Only used on criminals guilty of murder themselves. Self-Defense: Your life takes priority over an attacker’s. War: Almost always between militaries designed for the purpose of war, and started by agression by one nation on another. It is basically the macro version of Self-Defense.
Abortion is taking an innocent life for selfish human reasons over 90% of the time. It is simply not justifiable for anyone who believes in the founding principles of our nation.
Nah, we’d probably just have it plastered all over the MSM 24/7, as happens any time a pro-lifer shows any signs of malfeasance in opposing the sacred right to abortion.
People don’t like PP for several reasons, most of which I have outlined in my blog post on the subject here.
Among the links are Planned Parenthood’s Superhero for Choice video, a re-link to the “I had an abortion” T-shirt photo, and of course a link to Planned Parenthood’s coverup for pedophiles.
This is just one more example of PP’s evil in a sea of other examples.
One forgotten fact about abortion: It increased under W over what it was under Clinton. The truth is that Clinton’s policies that helped poor and working class people resulted in less Americans choosing to abort.
Then again, there are many “inconvenient truths” you Conservatives ignore, such as:
(1) The divorce rate is lowest in Mass. (despite gay marriage)and highest in Arkansas. You red staters really have family values don’t you?
(2) The safest neighborhoods in the US are those with first generation and, yes, illegal immigrants. Want to decrease crime? Bring in the illegals.
(3) The murder rate is highest in states with the death penalty (got that, Texas).
(4) Ronald Reagan, conservative hero: (1) cut and ran in Lebanon; (2)increased government spending every year he was in office; (3) Met with and made treaties with horrible regimes; (4)signed the alleged “amnesty law”.
(5) Bush “cut and ran” from Afghanistan resulting in the resurgence of the Taliban who actually had something to do with 9-11 as opposed to Iraq.
(6) Conservative talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Hannity were openly critical of our military while our troops were in “harm’s way” in Bosnia. Aren’t they “traitors” by their own standards?
Because as we all know, a sitting President has a direct effect on who decides to get abortions. Women think “hmmm… who is the President of the US” before getting an abortion.
Then again, there are many “inconvenient truths” you Conservatives ignore, such as:
Massachusetts also has among the lowest marriage rates whereas Arkansas has the third highest, after Nevada and Hawaii which are significantly larger.
So less people are getting divorced, but less are also getting married. Moreover, what does divorce have to do with family values? Since when did liberals find divorce immoral? Feminists recommend it!
Yeah, illegals are great. They only make up 25% of the prison population, even though at 12 million they represent 4% of the population. There’s also the drug smuggling, leech on the health care system, identity theft… yeah, if you love illegals so much, get out of your gated community and live among them.
Incidentelly, Texas also has a huge illegal alien problem. Fancy that.
No one proclaimed Ronald Reagan perfect, although at least he didn’t pull out of an intern. As to points 2 and 3, he was the President, its in his job description. At least he didn’t sell nuclear technology to Kimmy.
Yeah, cause we all know Saddam didn’t have terror training camps. There are no documented incidents of him eeting with terrorist leaders. The WMD are not theorized to have been moved to Syria. Saddam was not giving the IAEA the runaround. Saddam was not shooting down planes in the No Fly Zone. Nobody said Bush hasn’t made mistakes either. Not that I think you care about Afghanistan anyway since you’re a lefty troll that doesn’t have his facts strait.
Yeah, Ima gonna need proof of that one. Lefty trolls aren’t known for any kind of honesty.
Well according to the dude at the gas station I’ve got a great ass, but I’m not about to claim that as holy truth.
And again: why it’s ok to revoke that right sometimes but not others? If asserting only this “right to life” is enough, why are war and the death penalty and murder in self-defense ok? I see that you went through your reasons later in the post, and that’s fine, but my point was just that simply asserting a right to life is not enough to argue against abortion.
Irrelevant, actually, since this discussion started with you arguing the fetus’ nationality didn’t matter. In reality, your assertion that a god or gods has granted everyone this “right to life” is as valid as someone else’s assertion that s/he/they have not. Neither one of you can prove anything, really. That’s why I feel it’s wiser to base legal rights and responsibilities on what it is that helps us build a better, more just civilization. I find the intro to the constitution a little more appropriate for that reason.
Evidence of what? That god grants a “right to life”? If I’m not going to accept your word for it why would I accept someone else’s word for it? You haven’t provided evidence, just quoted someone else (sort of) saying the same thing you said.
And actually, I’m almost tempted to argue that a fetus hasn’t actually been created yet – it is a person in the process of being created and so therefore hasn’t been granted these rights yet. Technicality, perhaps, but true.
Anyway, since we’re boning up on the founding fathers and using their standards for a discussion on abortion, you should know that abortion was basically legal back then until quickening, which I believe is about 21 weeks, though obviously it varies. So, it seems they would probably disagree with you on when this “right to life” starts applying to the fetus.
Certainly, and I would simply argue that that justification exists with abortion. You would obviously disagree, but we can skip the debate on that point since I’m pretty sure I am not going to change your mind.
Except, of course, that it was allowed by the founding fathers, so…yeah. Tough break.
Well, I think pro-lifers killing abortion providers deserves media coverage, if only for the irony. Women dying of medical complications, well…dog bites man, you know?
Oh, I know that, I was just saying that this particular reason doesn’t really hold up.
But it’s not. A woman died from medical complications, possibly because she failed to follow the doctor’s orders. If you want to say this is evil then you have to say the same thing about every medical malpractice case. You have to oppose all hospitals where patients have died from complications or negligence, calling them “evil” and writing blog entires about them. That’s obviously not the case, though, because that would be just slightly absurd.
I only have one question for you quarp:
What are the intellectual merits of arguing against an intrinsic right to life?
If we assume the right to life is intrinsic and unalieanable (ignore God-given for now, you obviously have a religion hangup), we are protected from people who would violate it. If they violate our right to life, they get punished.
If we assume that every time a life is destroyed that someone has to argue for the value of that life… well, exactly who do you expect to prosecute the killer? Your idea creates a nightmarish situation where any vigiliante thug can go on a killing spree, and “deep thinkers” like you will be asking “were those lives really valuable?”
Perhaps you might find Kant’s categorical imperative useful. Act as if anything you do can be applied as a universal law. If you lie, so can everyone else. If you kill, so can everyone else. If you split hairs over whether someone else’s life is valuable enough, when you get culled people can do the same.
Your philosophy doesn’t hold up to the categorical imperative.
Killing in self defense does. Fighting a war against an agressor does. Killing people only after they have been given a trial by jury and convicted passes muster as well. Killing others for your convenience doesn’t. Oh sure, you wrap it up in nice arguments about “personhood,” but you always define yourself as a person whenever you would be persecuted. You want two sets of rules, one for the “undesirables” and another for yourself.
I do hope you won’t find Kant’s philosophy equivalent to the opinions of your gas station attendant on your posterior like you do with our founding fathers on natural rights.
As to the founding father’s allowing abortion? Abortion was made legal in 1973. Abortions might have happened (so did murder and theft), but they certainly wern’t approved of before then.
Like I articulated in my post elsewhere, its possible that this woman just didn’t pay attention to instructions, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if PP didn’t give her any, given thier past. If I ask myself, “what is the most important thing to Planned Parenthood?” The answer is clearly cold, hard cash, no matter how many cold, hard bodies come with it.
BKennedy:
Unless they violate it under allowable circumstances, correct?
The fact of those allowable circumstances is all I was getting at. Killing is acceptable to us in certain situations, so you can’t say abortion is wrong because it is killing. You have to go beyond that obvious fact.
Why would we assume that? I have not argued this.
No, actually, I wouldn’t, and it doesn’t appear that you do either. You say:
But then go on to draw the boundaries in a way that suits you. First you say:
but then:
You are no longer talking about killing – you are talking about killing under certain conditions. How is that universal?
Actually, I don’t. While I personally don’t believe the fetus is a person I don’t think this point is relevant to arguing for abortion rights.
Oh, what the hell, here you go: It’s very simple, actually. The state should not be allowed – and would never be allowed – to force a parent to donate organs to a child (or anyone else for that matter). So if your 5 year old has leukemia, and you are the only bone marrow match in the whole world, and you choose not to save him, that is your right. The government can not force you to save that child’s life.
I would argue the situation is the same with a pregnant woman. If she does not want to donate her organs to this fetus-person, the state can not force her. Those who oppose abortion rights are really just in favor of special fetal rights.
Yeah, actually, they were. Before it was made legal in 1973 it was first made illegal in the late 1800s. The founding fathers did not outlaw abortion and, interestingly enough, did not ban it when writing the constitution.
By the way, the founding fathers did allow slavery, so I’m not sure that using their actions as the standard for today is all that wise, but you’re the one who brought it up. Just wanted to be clear on that point. Since you invoked them as some sort of authority you have to deal with the fact that abortion was legal for nearly the first 100 years of American history.
Here’s the thing: you don’t like abortion, so you don’t like PP because they provide abortions. That’s fine, but it’s disingenuous to use these other things against them. This is a non-profit organization that usually charges women on a sliding scale, according to income, and it works in under-served communities, so the idea that they’re after cold, hard cash is a bit absurd.
But even if they were, it is a capitalist society, is it not? What’s wrong with wanting to make money? Do you rant against cigarette companies, which really don’t care how many cold, hard bodies come with their cash?
quarp: You haven’t answered my simple question, surely you haven’t missed it.
I’ll post it again: What are the intellectual merits of arguing against an intrinsic right to life?
Look, I make it my policy to spend a maximum of two posts arguing with trolls. After that, I cease with long narratives.
You aren’t engaging in good faith, therefore I have no need to continue to waste time with you.
There is only one point I’m going to address because it is so incredibly stupid. There are no such thing as “special rights” for the unborn. They aren’t space invaders; they don’t just haphazardly show up in a uterus. Any woman with a baby in her womb had to open up her legs first. Usually the sex is consensual. Even if it isn’t there’s no malicious intent involved on the part of the child. Its like inviting someone into your home and then blowing their head off with a shotgun for trespassing.
Besides, the idea we approve of “special rights” for the unborn is ridiculous, abortion supporters support the special right of women to unilaterally kill another human being with no consequences, for any reason or no reason. Women are the one’s getting special rights here, the unborn are the ones getting slaughtered on a scale of thousands per day.
I did answer your question, but I’ll be more explicit: in questioning this right to life I draw attention to the fact that it doesn’t always hold, that as a society we do make exceptions for it, and that it is therefore intellectually dishonest to invoke it as some sort of stand alone defense.
Now, for the questions you didn’t answer:
1. How can you argue that rules for killing should be universal when you clearly believe that whether or not killing is acceptable depends on the circumstances?
2. How do you respond to the fact that abortion was allowed in early US history?
3. What is wrong with an organization making money in a capitalist society? And do you believe that cigarette manufacturers should be shut down?
C’mon. You completely ignored every point I made in my post and are now calling me a troll just to to make your inability to respond look good. I just trampled all over your arguments, is all, and you feel like a fool. If calling me a troll makes you feel better, knock yourself out, but let’s not pretend I haven’t provided legitimate responses and questions to your posts.
And you base this on what? And what is a good faith engagement on abortion, exactly?
Is this an example of engaging in good faith?
Who said they do? How the person ends up in the situation doesn’t really matter. All that matters is that people don’t have a right to each other’s organs. That rule applies to unborn children as much as it applies to born children, and all adults. Arguing that unborn children should get special access to the organs of other people really is saying they should have rights no one else does, i.e., they should have special rights.
I never said there was malicious intent, and the intent also is irrelevant. There’s no malicious intent on the part of the child with leukemia, for instance – he just needs someone’s bone marrow – but that doesn’t mean the state can force anyone, including his parents, to give it to him.
It comes down to this: do you think the government should be able to force people to give of their bodies – meaning their organs – to their children even when they don’t want to?
Simple question, really, yes or no. And, in the spirit of Kant, it has to apply universally.
(And if you don’t answer it, does that mean I can call you a troll?)
What is your source for this?
Quarp, you left out the most important part of my answer to your “organ borrowing” problem:
Quote: Its like inviting someone into your home and then blowing their head off with a shotgun for trespassing.
Pregnancy is also nothing like bone marrow donation. As I said before, pregnancy comes naturally, therefore there is no malicious intent.
Second, Pregnancy is temporary where organ donations are generally permanent. There also doesn’t need to be an interfering agency for pregnancy, whereas organ donation is more complicated.
Your argument is essentially that any time any being had any use of your organs, no matter how they got there, you should be able to kill them without consequence. You are arguing for a special right of a pregnant woman to kill her own child because it is “borrowing her organs without her consent,” even though consent was clearly given when she decided to engage in sexual activity. I know what you’re thinking, its the same thing I’ve always heard. “Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.” Tell it to Biology, because feel-good statements like that don’t pass scientific muster. If you have sex there’s a good chance you get pregnant. There’s no liability waiver when it comes to biological truth.
Re trolling: Arguing in bad faith would be, for example, your whole founding fathers being equivalent to the opinions of your gas attendant. If you aren’t going to give credible sources on relevant topics the credence they deserve, you’re little more than a troll just goading me to post things you have no intention of understanding. I don’t waste time writing when it goes over the head of the person I’d adress it to. I also don’t need to buffer myself by arguing for the strength of my arguments. I know they are solid. I just don’t like wasting time articulating to those who ignore them.
Regarding Kant’s categorical imperitave, nothing says it has to be binary (either x is always wrong or x is always right).
Example:
“Killing is always wrong” is a nice, simple statement, but it cannot be applied universally because reality is not that simple. If Armageddonjad wakes up one day and decides to attack you with his suicide brigade, that maxim leads to nothing but more slaughter. The people who violate the maxim cause more destruction than if the maxim was better worded.
Contrast that to “Killing is always wrong, except in self-defense.” Now when Armageddonjad sends in his suicide squad and you take them out before they blow anything up, you have saved more lives. This maxim is better than the former one. It still says nearly all forms of killing are wrong, but makes a self-preservation exception. Essentially it maxes the maxim enforcable.
Now lets look at Armageddonjad’s maxim:
Killing is always wrong, unless they are an infidel scum.
Applied universally, all you have to do is argue anyone who disagrees with your religion is an infidel scum, and the maxim becomes pointless.
I left it out because it’s not a good analogy. In the case of a woman using birth control, for instance, you can’t say she really “invited” the fetus in. She pretty much locked the door in that case. And the more appropriate example in terms of the fundamental concept or right that we’re discussing here is a case where you force the person out of your house and she dies because she can’t survive on the outside.
And anyway, as I said before, how the situation develops doesn’t really matter. I can invite someone in and then change my mind and ask her to leave.
Leukemia comes naturally too. And as I said before, intent is irrelevant. The little boy with leukemia could be a perfect angel, but unfortunately for him the state still can not force me to give him my bone marrow. You have to think objectively here. Don’t let yourself get too emotional.
Bone marrow grows back, actually, and pregnancy can have permanent effects on your body (urinary and/or bowel incontinence, uterine or other pelvic organ prolapse, etc).
I don’t understand what that means – please explain.
No. I’m not saying you can kill the kid with leukemia, just that you’re not obligated to save him. And if you were to wake up attached to him for some reason you would have every right to disconnect yourself, even if that means he’ll die.
The fetus’ problem, of course, is that the process of removing it from the uterus kills it. If there was some way to just remove the up to 35 ml of tissue and let it try to survive on its own, would you be ok with that? I suspect not, so this point about actively killing vs. letting die isn’t really relevant here. You’d oppose abortion either way.
As you guessed, my response is that consenting to sexual activity is not the same as consenting to pregnancy. Seems pretty obvious, especially if the couple’s using birth control. I’d say the use of birth control is a pretty clear I DO NOT CONSENT.
But even if birth control isn’t used, it doesn’t matter. I mean, if someone gets an STD, is he denied treatment because he consented to the sex and therefore, according to you, to the STD? Who consents to an STD? That’s absurd. Where else does this sort of logic ever apply? Do I consent to be hit by drunk drivers when I get in my car at night? Do I consent to die in a plane accident when I fly? That doesn’t make any sense.
Actually, if you have sex and use birth control properly there’s a good chance you won’t get pregnant, so…yeah. You’re wrong. Again.
Who decides what a credible source is? Besides, as I noted, the fact that the founding fathers allowed slavery is, I think, a legitimate point to raise in deciding whether or not they should be looked to for moral guidance.
Furthermore, I’m not sure why you’re still trying to rely on them since we’ve already established that they were mostly A-OK with abortion. If anything they support my position, not yours.
By the way, this issue of abortion in early US history would be one of the questions in my previous post that you once again ignored.
I haven’t ignored them and they certainly haven’t gone over my head. I think we both know that. What I have done is asked legitimate questions – a couple of which you still haven’t answered – and in a few cases shown that your arguments simply don’t hold up. For instance,
Actually, what you initially said was:
So you did actually say that it was either always wrong or always right. I was the one arguing, as you are now, that whether or not actions are acceptable depends on the circumstances. Glad to see you agree with me.
On the abortion under W vs. Clinton point, abortions have actually continued to decline under W but at a slower pace. Here’s the report from AGI. The relevant part:
Between 2000 and 2003, the abortion rate declined by an average of only 0.8% per year; the 0.6% decline in 2002–2003 was the smallest in those three years. By comparison, the abortion rate declined by 3.4% per year in the early and mid-1990s.
The problem is not abortion, of course, but unintended pregnancies, and on that point the report shows that both parties have failed poor women. Neither party should be patting itself on the back here.
A “Choice” has been made when the woman “Chooses” to have SEX. Abortion is another example of our society finding another way to not be responsible for our actions and “Choices”. Our next step on this slippery slope will be the encouragement of Euthenasia (SP?) instead of Nursing Homes and the like. After all, Why should my life be changed by someone who is unwanted and past usefulness.
The proper birth control is to take that little birth control pill and its proper use is to place that pill between the knees and hold it there. Wait till you find your soul mate. Abortion on demand is not pro-choice. You should choose to abstain if you don’t want the consequences of that liaison that might feel good for a few minutes. My wife and I were pro-choice, we chose to have our three daughters and afterword, I chose to get a vasectomy because she suffers from severe anemia and another child would have killed her. That is true “pro-choice”.