Family sues D.C. Planned Parenthood for $50 million
You won’t read about it on the front page of the NYT or WaPo, but Students for Life reports that a $50 million lawsuit has been filed against the D.C. Planned Parenthood. The family of Shantese Butler, who was 13 when the D.C. office performed an abortion on her, is seeking damages after the procedure left the girl permanently injured and infertile:
Students for Life of America has discovered that a lawsuit was filed against Planned Parenthood Metropolitan located in Washington, D.C. on February 12, 2008.
Emma Jean Butler, mother of Shantese Butler, is suing Planned Parenthood for $50 million dollars in damages. Butler took her daughter to the D.C. Planned Parenthood on September 7, 2006 to abort a child conceived in rape. During the abortion, Shantese sustained severe abdominal bleeding, severe vaginal injury, severe injury to the cervix, significant uterine perforation, and a small bowel tear. In addition, parts of the child were found inside Shantese’s abdomen on September 8, 2006. Because of these injuries, Shantese will be infertile for the rest of her life.
Planned Parenthood Metropolitan has denied the injuries suffered and the infertility of Shantese Butler. In addition, they state in their answer that Butler’s claims are barred by the doctrines of informed consent and assumption of risk.
Kristan Hawkins, SFLA’s Executive Director, remarked, “This is a horrible situation. Our thoughts go out to Shantese and her family as she recovers from her injuries both from the rape and abortion. Further, it is outrageous that Planned Parenthood thinks they are excused from being held liable because Shantese was informed of possible risks associated with abortion. In no other medical profession would this be acceptable. How ironic is it that the pro-abortion movement claims they want abortions to be ’safe, legal, and rare’ when in this poster case for abortion, Shantese was permanently injured. Making abortion harmful and almost deadly to the young girl.”
SFLA has the lawsuit documents and Planned Parenthood’s response. CRC’s Kristina Grabosky notes that the news comes after yesterday’s settlement in Nebraska of a botched abortion that PP did as well. It’s your tax dollars at work:
This unfortunate story falls completely in line with the overall national story that PP must be, at the very least, audited by the feds since they receive over $300 million a year in taxpayer dollars. Congress has been investigating several other industries that don’t receive gov $$ for shady business practices (oil, credit card, mortgage companies), yet they fail to glance at PP who has criminal charges pending in Kansas, is suspected of defrauding taxpayers in CA $180 million, has been caught accepting donations earmarked for [the abortion of ] black babies, and is now suspected of severely botching an abortion on a minor.
When will see Planned Parenthood executives–who head a bloody billion-dollar empire supported with our public money–put on the hot seat and grilled in congressional hearings for their sins?
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.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Choosing Life and Beating the Odds
February 11, 2012 11:50 AM by Doug Powers
32 CommentsObama’s fraudulent abortion mandate “accommodation” Updated: Prez condemns “cynical” opposition
February 10, 2012 10:05 AM by Michelle Malkin
245 Comments‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
195 CommentsFirst, they came for the Catholics
January 31, 2012 10:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
181 CommentsThe March for Life 2012
January 23, 2012 10:21 AM by Michelle Malkin
132 CommentsShredding Kathleen Sebelius
October 28, 2011 10:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
155 CommentsAccording to Nancy Pelosi, 11 House Democrats are Willing to Allow Women to ‘Die on the Floor’
October 14, 2011 08:46 AM by Doug Powers
52 CommentsJoe Biden ‘Fully Understands’ China’s ‘Millions of Children Left Behind’ Policy
August 22, 2011 07:01 PM by Doug Powers
59 Comments
The victims of nationalized health care
July 5, 2011 02:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
123 Comments
Categories: Abortion
Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's war on conscience, cont'dBabalu Blog
» Greece is BurningBetsys Page
» Cruising the WebPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On Stupid
Well, Rusty,
Legally, black people were not fully human beings either, according to the Dred Scott Decision.
Just because it’s law, doesn’t necessarily make it RIGHT. Justices are fallible humans, and we know now how egregiously they erred in that case.
Roe v. Wade is another “Dred Scott” decision.
Just for the record, a fetus is, indisputably, human. A DNA test will verify. The “not human” definition was based on viability, not humanity, and was done decades ago. Given the increasing success with prematurely born infants (some “not human,” per Rusty’s definition), this definition will undoubtedly change, albeit with kicking and screaming by the abortion enthusiasts, but it will change.
I think you are confusing “not human” with “not wanted.”
That last statement would be made false by this very lawsuit, would it not?
As a biologist myself, all I can tell you is that one of the most useful tenets of scientific research is “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Time and time again, scientific studies will catch up to that oft cited “anecdotal evidence” and the world is alright once again.
Oh, that darned CDC. Government agencies are always trying to cover up the truth. If you think that government agencies are less objective than studies from a site dedicated to outlawing abortion, there is no hope for you.
Denying objective government sources is ridiculous. That’s some Truther BS.
Who cares about afterabortion.org?
One more time and I will type slow so you can follow along. Drop the web site reference. You do not refute the studies (we did not link stats) the web site references.
This abortion/suicide link is well known among professionals who counsel suicidal persons. For example, Meta Uchtman, director of the Cincinnati chapter of Suiciders Anonymous, reported that in a 35 month period her group worked with 4000 women, of whom 1800 or more had abortions. Of those who had abortions, 1400 were between the ages of 15 and 24, the age group with the fastest growing suicide rate in the country.
Cincinnati chapter of Suiciders Anonymous? Goes against cRusty’s grain so they must be partisan.
Source of atricle cRusty will NOT refute:
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ABORTION
“Partisan” references:
1. “Abortion in Hawaii”, Family Planning Perspectives (Winter 1973) 5(1):Table 8.
2. “Annual Ectopic Totals Rose Steadily in 1970′s But Mortality Fell”, Family Planning Perspectives (1983) vol.15,p.85.
3. Ashton,”They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion”, British Journal of Ob&Gyn.(1980),vol.87,p1115-1122.
4. Atrash, et.al., “Ectopic Pregnancy in the United States, 1970-1983″ MMRW, Center for Disease Control, vol.35, no.2ss9.29ss.
5. Badgley,et.al.,Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law(Ottawa:Supply and Services,1977) pp.313-321.
6. Cavenar, et.al., “Psychiatric Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortions”, North Carolina Medical Journal (1978),vol.39.
7. Chung, et.al. Effects of Induced Abortion on Subsequent Reproductive Function and Pregnancy Outcome, University of Hawaii (Honolulu, 1981).
8. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978).
9. Frank, et.al., “Induced Abortion Operations and Their Early Sequelae”, Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners (April 1985), vol.35,no.73,pp175-180.
10. Friedman,et.al.,”The Decision-Making Process and the Outcome of Therapeutic Abortion”, American Journal of Psychiatry (December 12, 1974), vol.131,pp1332-1337.
11. Grimes and Cates, “Abortion: Methods and Complications”, Human Reproduction, 2nd ed., 796-813.
12. Harlap and Davies, “Late Sequelae of Induced Abortion: Complications and Outcome of Pregnancy and Labor”, American Journal of Epidemiology (1975), vol.102,no.3.
13. Heath,”Psychiatry and Abortion”,Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal (1971), vol.16, pp55-63)
14. Hilgers, “The Medical Hazards of Legally Induced Abortion,” in Hilgers and Horan, eds., Abortion and Social Justice(New York: Sheed and Ward, 1972).
15. Hogue,”Impact of Abortion on Subsequent Fecundity”, Clinics in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (March 1986), vol.13,no.1.
16. Hogue, Cates and Tietze, “Impact of Vacuum Aspiration Abortion on Future Childbearing: A Review”, Family Planning Perspectives (May-June 1983),vol.15, no.3.
17. Kent, et al., “Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report”, World Journal of Psychosynthesis (Autumn-Winter 1981), vol.13,nos.3-4.
18. Kent, et.al., “Emotional Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion: A Comparative Study”, presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychiatric Association at Saskatoon, Sept. 1977.
19. Lembrych, “Fertility Problems Following Aborted First Pregnancy”,eds.Hilgers, et.al., New Perspectives on Human Abortion (Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America, 1981).
20. Levin, et.al., “Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion”, American Journal of Public Health (1982), vol.72,p253.
21. Mattinson, “The Effects of Abortion on a Marriage”,1985 Abortion: Medical Progress and Social Implications,(Ciba Foundation Symposium, London: Pitman, 1985).
22. Pare and Raven,”Follow-up of Patients Referred for Termination of Pregnancy”,The Lancet(1970) vol.1,pp635-638.
23. Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987).
24. Reardon,”Criteria for the Identification of High Risk Abortion Patients: Analysis of An In-Depth Survey of 100 Aborted Women”, Presented at the 1987 Paper Session of the Association for Interdisciplinary Research, Denver.
25. Russel, “Sexual Activity and Its Consequences in the Teenager”, Clinics in Ob&Gyn, (Dec. 1974). vol.1,no.3,pp683-698.
26. Schulz, et.al., “Measures to Prevent Cervical Injury During Suction Curettage Abortion”, The Lancet (May 28, 1983),pp1182-1184.
27. Stallworthy, “Legal Abortion, A Critical Assessment of Its Risks”, The Lancet (December 4, 1971) pp1245-1249.
28. Wadhera, “Legal Abortion Among Teens, 1974-1978″, Canadian Medical Association Journal (June 1980), vol.122,pp1386-1389.
29. Wallerstein,et.al., “Psychosocial Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion in Young Unmarried Women”, Archives of General Psychiatry (1972) vol.27.
30. Wilke, Abortion: Questions and Answers,(Cincinnati, Hayes Publishing Co., 1985).
31. Wilke, Handbook on Abortion, (Cincinnati, Hayes Publishing Co., 1979).
32. Wren, “Cervical Incompetence–Aetiology and Management”, Medical Journal of Australia (December 29, 1973), vol.60.
33. Wynn and Wynn, “Some Consequences of Induced Abortion to Children Born Subsequently”, British Medical Journal (March 3, 1973), and Foundation for Education and Research in Child Bearing (London, 1972).
34. United States Supreme Court, Roe v Wade, U.S. Reports, October Term, 1972, 149,163.
35. Zimmerman, Passage Through Abortion (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977).
——————————————————————————–
Copyright 1990 Elliot Institute, David C. Reardon, text from a brochure
Again, sorry for the long post but it is needed to shut cRusty’s tripe down.
EVERYBODY thinks they are objective. Nobody is, being human. CDC included. That is why there are peer reviews. But even then, don’t get in the way of a scientist that believes that his/her data is the only possible, correct data.
Been bitten by that bug….
And what did the baby elect?
And what did the child growing in her uterus have to do with that violation? Did the baby rape her? You’re stuck on stupid here.
I wonder what the baby was thinking just before it was puréed.
Count me in.
I think it’s safe to say, from your ardent support of abortion as a convenient alternative to adoption, you’re a sick person. You’ve proven yourself no better than a eugenist.
Funniest thing Rusty said all day.
From the greatest politician of my time, possibly one of the greatest of all time President Ronald Reagan:
Planned Barenhood runs a “protected” industry. With powerful friends in the government, they will manage to get the lawsuit aborted in short order, and liberals everywhere will wonder why Shantese isn’t thankful that she will never have to worry about being punished with a child.
Rusty:
Abortion IS murder!!!!
As far as Nader goes: Go complain about that on Kos. Republicans didn’t keep him (or Stephen Colbert, for that matter) OFF THE BALLET!
Be careful how you wield that, Rusty. It often works against your causes.
On May 28th, 2008 at 12:08 pm, Rusty said:
On tort reform, the surest way of getting it passed into law is to break the financial backs of liberal organizations like PP.
Once these organizations – literally arms of the DNC – begin to experience the same type of financial burden and loss trial lawyers heap upon America’s medical and business professions, Democrats in both Houses will see to it that tort reform is retroactively passed, post haste.
“Foolishly?!” Really?
Soap, the reason I mention Afterabortion.org is because it’s run by the Elliot Institute which is in turn run by David Reardon. He is not an objective source. He’s a known anti-choice advocate so, again, I am going to take his work with many grains of salt. He has every reason to pick and choose the studies that promote his views. He has never pretended to be objective.
As mentioned earlier, you would do the same if I presented you with a study commissioned by Planned Parenthood. That’s the reason I was looking for non-partisan sources. If you think Reardon’s work is somehow more objective than PP or Guttmacher, then there’s really nothing more I can say to you.
Also, I don’t know how much you know about statistics, but that information from the Suiciders Anonymous is completely useless. It’s a self-selected group from a one particular city. It’s nothing but anecdote on a larger scale.
“Anti Choice”.
Rusty, with your head up your a** again, promoting the murder of the unborn, I wonder if you realize that you are the direct descendant of those Democrats who opposed the ban on slavery before the Civil War.
For them, the slave was not a human being, but “property”, to be disposed of by the owner.
Funny, how you people keep on coming back every generation, and how you always back the wrong horse.
You did it before WWII, with your pacifism and pro Nazi views, and you do it again now, in support of Islam, abortion, gay marriage, etc…
Pathetic.
Indeed atheling, but I’m not too worried by cowards and weasels like Rusty. I at least know where he stands and if he wants to put himself out there as an enemy to life and liberty for the future children of America then that is fine with me. Future generations of Americans can look back and read this blog and many others and see there were good men and women willing to stand up to fools like him.
There has always been a strong God-fearing, gun-toting, country-loving and military-loving (and serving) sector of the American population who was there to do the bleeding so these whiners could sit back and play armchair general from the saftey of their home and country while ignoring and slandering those who bled before us that created their safety for them in the first place.
If you really believe that, you’re not that bright. Look at en electoral map of the 1860 election and look at one from 2004. The pro-slave states are solidly Republican. Does Nixon’s Southern Strategy ring a bell?
Democrats were pro-Nazi? Someone forgot to tell FDR.
And how equating gay marriage to abortion hurts your case. If you believe that abortion kills millions of “babies,” then, fine, you are entitled to that and you should fight for your cause. But who exactly does gay marriage hurt?
Oh really now:
Abraham Lincoln: Republican, 180 electoral votes, 1.8 million popular vote
John Breckinridge: Southern Democratic Party, 72 electoral votes, 847K popular vote
Oh, but you meant that the south now, 225 years later, is now Republican in its voting. Well duh dumb***, and the states that voted for a Republican in 1860 now heavily vote Democrat so what’s your point?
You want stats cRusty?
Two women debated you yesterday. Of the two, one had an abortion and suffered great physical and mental harm. That is 50% in my book. Since your argument is that there is no link, then Joy was either a total liar your there is never going to be a chance that you will ever believe in the link. I am going with the latter which is too bad because there is evidence – but not from YOUR chosen sources.
Fortunately, we also know where he squats. Just sayin’.
Correction on the years later, sorry for the mistake, its 148 years later. Thanks.
cRusty has his head up his a** and that’s why he has s*** for brains.
He can’t even defend his position. All he does is spew lies and evade the questions and evidence presented to him.
Go back under that rock, cRusty.
My point is that saying that my political ancestors supported slavery is ridiculous. The 1860 Republicans were a liberal party and the Democrats were conservative. The ideologies didn’t switch until the Depression and even then, the Racist South* didn’t start going GOP until very recently.
So, are you a liberal or a conservative? Because it was the liberals fighting to end slavery. To say otherwise is false.
Soap, God bless you for the work you do. But if you really think what you wrote makes any sense, then you are truly, hopelessly dumb. I am speechless at the ignorant ramblings I just read.
If I told you I know four people who had abortions and none tried to commit suicide….well, that’s 0%! Zero percent of people who get abortions attempt suicide. Game, set, and match!
That’s the argument you’re presenting me. So don’t get snippy when I point out how hopelessly stupid it is.
Honestly, think about what your reaction would be if I tried to use two examples as proof positive that I am right. Then, if you disagreed, I would accuse you of calling the people who had abortions liars. You would never stand for such behavior. I’ve been humoring you too long. Put the show on the other foot before you write something dumb.
For the zillionth time, I’m not even arguing that there isn’t a link. I’m arguing that your sources are hopelessly flawed (objectively true) and that even if there were a link, it would have no bearing on the legality of the procedure.
Lmao.
Unfortunately, you won’t read some of the message boards on Afterabortion.org, Rachel’s Vineyard or the like. There is suffering.
And, quite frankly, given your rather cavalier attitude about post-abortion trauma, could it be these people won’t share any suffering with you because you consider that suffering “tenuous”? I know I’d have a hell of a hard time telling someone who believes post-abortion trauma is a biased lie that I’m suffering.
Here, alone, we have at least four participants I can think of off the top of my head who have shared their deeply painful, personal stories and their regret over their abortion.
I know many others.
You aren’t going to win any points with your cold, calculating attitude toward suffering, Rusty.
I don’t think the suffering is tenuous. I think a scientific link between abortion and depression/suicide is tenuous.
It’s a problem – in terms of research, not in terms of personal belief – when you have people who regret the decision to abort because of new religious or moral attitudes.
Yes, because we certainly can’t allow religious belief or moral (read: correct) attitudes override the sacrament of abortion.
Re-read what you’ve written. “It’s a problem” for your position that people – whether through religious beliefs or a shift in moral attitude – decide abortion is the horror it really is. It’s a “problem” when people in our age range realize all that stood between them and life was whether or not their mother believed in their humanity and worth or whether pro-aborts coerced their mother into “choosing” abortion (most women report being forced, coerced, bullied, or pressured into getting abortions…so much for “choice”, huh?)
What, pray tell, do you think about groups like Athiests Against Abortion? Being pro-life is not solely a religious movement, but a position of people who realize a sane, just society does not classify fellow humans as unwanted, unplanned, imperfect and destroy them. Or to allow women to suffer.
For those of you who suffer with abortion, please forgive what I’m about to write:
Rusty, do you have any idea what abortion entails? Usually, it involves dismembering the baby in the womb before extracting it. Or burning the baby to death with a chemical solution. In the case of partial-birth abortion, it involves sticking a scissors in the base of the baby’s skull, extracting the brains, and crushing the head to complete delivery.
Watch video or look at pictures of abortion. It is horrific, and clearly shows the baby that was aborted is not some indistinguishable mass of cells, but a developing human being.
It is barbaric. No better than what ancient tribes used to do. To classify hthis as a “necessary evil” is beyond the pale.
And you continue to justify this as a “right” important to the survival of women. When, in reality, all seems to be is a way for you (as a man) to absolve yourself of the necessity of committing to, caring for, or being responsible for a woman and your unborn child. Under the guise of being “compassionate” and “progressive”.
A man who supports abortion is far more misogynistic than a man who is pro-life.
My hope and prayer is you one day realize the true nature of what you so vocally support and start to work to better humanity through creating a culture of life.
That’s blatantly untrue. EQ, I expect better than lies.
And it has nothing to do with my position. If every woman who had an abortion regretted it, it wouldn’t change my position on its legality. People regret lots of legal things. I regret losing $500 in Atlantic City. I regret dating an awful person in college. I regret saying some nasty things to my Mom when I was 15. So what!? The choices we make don’t lead to depression. Being prone to depression, having that chemical imbalance does. If abortion triggers that, so be it.
The entire abortion leads to depression argument is a red herring. Just another front where anti-choicers can lie by using anecdotes and bogus studies. Just like the invented connection between abortion and breast cancer and abortion and infertility.
At least have the decency to stick with “I think abortion should be illegal because it’s the destruction of something that has human potential.” I disagree, but I have no issue with that line of thinking. All this additional crap is just that: crap.
If I were half as eager to make things up, use anecdotes instead of studies, and all sorts of other dishonest tactics as the people on this thread were, I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night.
I use to sympathize with the “pro-life” movement. But, man, the crazy that people write on these threads makes that incredibly difficult.
Coming from a liar? Funny stuff
The difference between the choices you describe and abortion is that those choices affect only you, Rusty.
Not another individual.
No, it isn’t. And I expect better than you calling me a liar. I cannot find the link to the report where I received this information, but I will look for it when I have time.
And thanks for calling me crazy. Me – the one who thinks a “potential human” is still a human, and that there’s something inherently wrong with ripping that human being apart, limb from limb.
Guess it’s only sane people who 1) think abortion is good, 2) abortion causes no problems and 3) abortion should have no restrictions.
You are. Every time you deny the humanity of an unborn child, or the fetal pain indicators, you’re making stuff up. Every time you deny the real, genuine suffering that comes from abortion, you’re making stuff up.
I’d delve further into dishonest tactics – like pro-aborts going apopleptic over pre-abortion ultrasounds, information on fetal development, etc. – or their hysterical hand-wringing when abortion rates drop (so much for “safe, legal, and rare”). But that would take far too long.
Why debate with that creature called Rusty?
He has no humanity. He has no brains. He is a “hollow man”, as Eliot put it, with no backbone, no principles, no morals, no conscience.
A straw man. A stick figure. A liar who simply spews the talking points of the leftist mantra of evil.
A puppet of the Enemy. He is too far gone.
That is the same argument every time you talk about the Dimocrap party keepong African-Americans from voting for almost 80 years. And he calls me “hopelessly dumb”.
You set up the straw house.
I’m starting to agree with you, it’s like trying to wake up King Theoden from the spell of Saruman and the influence of Wormtongue (your LotR references from the other thread is rubbing off on me). But that is too nice an anology because even if Rusty grew a conscience he has a long way to go to ever becoming king-like.
EQ, there were, according to the CDC, 850,000 legal abortions performed in the US in 2002. You honestly think that at least 425,000 of those were borne out of coercion? You’d think that people would’ve heard something about that before now.
I don’t think it’s insane or crazy to think “1) think abortion is bad, 2) abortion causes problems and 3) abortion should have restrictions.” I respect those who oppose abortion while remaining in disagreement.
I think it’s crazy to associate abortion with breast cancer, abortion with infertility, or give me a bunch of hooey studies from an anti-choice advocate and expect me to believe them. And I think it’s a little crazy that many people here have no grasp on reading comprehension.
There is a difference between opposing abortion because of a moral stance and opposing abortion by making stuff up. I wish some people who buy into “thou shalt not murder” also take some time to think about bearing false witness.
And in light of #132, I think it is truly hopeless. Might as well just treat him as the demon-puppet he is then.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:02 pm, englishqueen01;
Top-drawer post, EQ!
You have correctly and succinctly identified the main reason why abortion – as easily contestable and poorly written as is the Roe v. Wade decision, and as unnecessary and barbaric as is the procedure – continues to be benightedly put forth to women as an acceptable alternative to an unintended pregnancy: It is because abortion benefits men far more than women!
Thus, despite all the evidence and personal testimony we in the Pro-life movement may cite in decrying of the heinousness of elective abortion to humanity and morality – as long as it affords philandering men and their over-sexed sons a “get out of jail free” card to the responsibilities of fatherhood and adult behavior, and as long as there are naive feminsts who are silly enough to believe the lie that abortion benefits only women and not men – there will always be nay-sayers like Rusty around to wag their fingers and tell us we’re wrong.
Don’t allow them to discourage or cause you to loose your cool you! Remember – Roe v. Wade won’t stand forever; the time to make the case for life will come. Chin up!
So, any evidence to the contrary to what you believe is “made up stuff” or we can’t read or we are crazy… I am sure the women who have suffered would not agree with your position and I find your comments callous at best and at the very least cold and inhuman. Now you say there is no link to abortion and infertility. You started out saying there was no link to depression/suicide and then you claimed you never said there was no link but the studies are made up stuff.
As for your ability to now turn Biblical terms into an argument in your favor, how about that “thou shall not kill (murder)”? You, being a “Christian” and all, can sit there and say killing babies is okay with GOD now? When GOD said: “I knit you in your mother’s womb”, at what point did GOD decide He knitted a baby and not an unviable clump of cells? You call me stupid and yet, you can sit there and say WE need to worry about false witness? Don’t tell me GOD is okay with abortion because HE cannot give you stats/evidence to the contrary that He is not.
If given the choice of thinking like you or being ignorant and stupid (but knowing the truth), I choose the latter. To be like you is to be too conflicted.
With you. I see no evidence of a “Christian”. Pro-death (of babies) and throws down the F-bomb (and crap in the park) every chance he gets on his blog. If that is what a “Christian” is, I am glad I chose to be a “believer” long ago.
Did you see his post titled “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead!” I think I threw up in my mouth a little after clicking on that Wikipedia article.
alaskangrizzly:
I found a lot of analogies in LOTR and what we are seeing today in the world. Human nature has not changed.
War is thrust upon us, and many people in denial. An implacable enemy who will NOT STOP (and has not stopped for 1400 years) and our people with no fortitude or sense of reality.
Rusty is no Christian. He’s as “Christian” as Obama and the racist, hate-spewing members of his “church” in Chicago.
You would know about crap.
I can’t imagine any woman wanting to be involved with a man so eager to take another human life, simply because it’s inconvenient or painful to look at.
To the women on this board – how many of you, after reading the many posts Rusty, um, deposited here, would consider him someone worth getting to know? Trusting? Confiding in? Committing to in a loving relationship? Remember – if you have a baby and want it dead, he wants to help. It’s your right to take its life – it doesn’t legally exist!
The Rustys of this world are the ones who use the “free love” ethos to their own full advantage.
70% of the poorest people in this country are single women with children.
The Rustys of this world are the missing half, who merrily goes his way, telling her that she is “liberated” and he “supports” that.
The personal attacks are a bit much.
Really? And yet there are always people on this site complaining about men not having a say if their partner (whether for one night or one lifetime)has an abortion. Yeah, abortion really benefits those guys.
Abortion benefits women because they don’t have to unwillingly put their bodies through something they want no part of. If you choose to believe that’s wrong, God speed to you. But what another person chooses is, frankly, none of your business. Western religion may believe that life begins at conception, but science doesn’t back that up. Who are you to impose your religion on others?
I am not arguing that abortion is acceptable under any Christian belief system. That’s obviously not the case. But I wouldn’t legislate Christian law any more than I would legislate Islamic law.
What I am saying is that lying and murder are both banned under the Ten Commandments. I have never urged a person to abort a fetus. Yet you people continue to use lies and falsehoods to make your point. So we’re both clear on any murder charges. Yet the people who claim that there is evidence linking abortion to any number of terrible things are either woefully misinfored or lying. So why am I the bad Christian? I’m not bearing false witness.
Pro-death (of babies) and throws down the F-bomb (and crap in the park) every chance he gets on his blog. If that is what a “Christian” is, I am glad I chose to be a “believer” long ago.
Rusty:
You support the murder of unborn babies.
That pretty much makes you pondscum.
That’s it in a nutshell.
Didn’t realize killing a defenseless baby was a matter of religious conviction, or “Western religion.” I guess I presumed murder to be an inherent moral code. Silly me.
Better.
Again – Atheists for Life. They are not an anomoly.
Being pro-life spans all racial, ethnic, religious and irreligious categories.
It’s the product of a people rational enough to think there’s something seriously f-ed up with butchering small children in the womb. A people who realize there is no future when you kill off 850,000 children annually and consider that “progress!”
Science supports the fact that – at conception – the unborn child is a separate, unique individual with his own DNA.
The notion that because – at the developing stages – a baby doesn’t “look human” or is still “potentially human” is absolute BS. My son – after birth – required my total support and assistance in order to survive. He could breathe on his own, but – aside from that – he’s pretty much depending on another human being to live.
What this will come to is the eventual justification of infanticide. Because, hey, we can’t burden the mother with an actual baby, either.
Hell, forget that. Barack Obama already is in favor of infanticide. See his votes against the “Born Alive Act.”
We have countries in this world who protect bald eagle eggs because they recognize the embryo will be come a bald eagle.
We have countries and people who advocate giving personhood not only to apes, but to plants.
Yet we decide it’s perfectly natural, normal and – indeed – “moral” to send women into what amount to butcher shops. To have their children killed in ways deemed unacceptable for convicted murderers.
Sick, absolutely sick.
The canard that because something represents “Christian law” means it can’t progress into civil law is also BS – in that line of thinking, we should do away with laws regarding robbery, murder, rape, etc. All those are mentioned in the Ten Commandments, and we can’t have those pesky Christians dictating public policy.
With regards to bearing false witness, I kindly suggest you remove the plank from your own eye before fishing for our splinters.
You’ve made every hyper attempt possible to ignore any and all studies that don’t support your position – calling them “biased” – while expecting us to accept your assertion that the links between abortion and health issues are merely “tenuous”.
EQ: 5,000
DP: 0
On May 30th, 2008 at 12:50 am, Rusty said:
Yes. Abortion really only benefits men who are scoundrels, philanderers and chronically adulterous, which pretty much encompasses a large number of middle-age rich guys and their spoiled, selfish sons.
As for the men on this site who object to abortion because it eliminates them from the decision making process, I perfectly agree with them.
These guys, unlike the jerks previously mentioned, are stand-up men; real men who are no doubt in loving and committed relationships, given the level of sentiment they have expressed in their posts on this subject, and are ready to accept their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions.
Unless these women are impregnated against their will, i.e. rape/incest, I have no pity for them. They should know unprotected, promiscuous sex has consequences and pregnancy is one of them. Personal responsibility should be taken into concern before the clothes come off!
Ah, but the question is – would you admit it if science did back it up?
If you don’t think that studies from the Eliot Institute are inherently biased, that’s your call. If I wanted, I could read all the Guttmacher studies in the world and allow the benefits of my personal echo chamber to wash over me like a warm rain.
You know what causes depression? A chemical imbalance. Abortion does not cause chemical imbalances in the brain. Abortion can certainly be a trigger for those who already have that imbalance, but so can the loss of a job or the death of a family member or getting dumped or divorced.
EQ, your reasoning behind believing abortion to be immoral will always be respected by me. If you, and others, think it’s a sick waste of life, that’s absolutely fine and it’s a moral duty to be anti-choice. The high number of abortions bothers me too and I truly wish that abortion were truly rare. My position isn’t uncommon among the pro-choice. As you probably know, the only Catholic priest to serve in the halls of Congress supported abortion rights.
But me accepting studies from an organization dedicated to outlawing abortion…no. Not going to happen. It’s just as likely as you accepting articles like this.
From the wikipedia article on his life you linked:
Amen to that Mr. O’Connor.
Exactly, which is why DP has dodged EQ’s pointing out that there are atheist groups against abortion.
Exactly, people like DP argue that 26 weeks is when they will accept that a fetus (aka child in the womb) can “survive on it’s own outside the womb”. UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, lol? Sure it can “breathe” on its own and manage to not die….. so long as someone is there for the next 2 years to feed it and bathe it and clothe it and protect it since it CANNOT “survive” own its own until it has learned to do those things on its own.
We don’t want to burden these mother’s who decided 9 months later they didn’t want the burden of raising a child. It would be incredibly unsympathetic to force a mother to actually feed a child and take care of it when it has no ability to do so on its own so the mother should have the right to choose to kill her 1 month old infant son. /sarc
P.S. Try taking a basic biology course DP, any textbook in the field will tell you what is defined as alive. What you are really arguing is that a fetus isn’t really a human until it can survive outside of the womb (with the mandatory assistance of someone to feed it, clothe it, shelter it, and protect it of course not to mention all those machines keeping the baby going for the first few weeks in the cases of premature birth). How you can differentiate a fetus at 14 weeks that is dependent on its mother for food and protection inside the womb versus a 1 month old that is dependent on its mother for food and protection outside the womb is beyond me and anyone else that values life.
But then again that is what defines you as the demon-puppet.
Rusty,
What causes the chemical (hormonal) imbalance?
God didn’t give me, or you, the right to determine who is worthy of life. You’ve got a lot of gall to suggest otherwise.
Oh man; the irony, it’s rich. Just rich!
In which case, he should probably be defrocked or reprimanded by Rome for clearly preaching against the teachings of the Church.
You want to make abortions rare? Yeah.
So, please then, explain to me why pro-aborts get hyper every time proposals to offer pre-abortion counseling (including an ultrasound, alternative resources, etc.), or why they splash headlines when abortion rates decline?
More to the point – even recently – pro-aborts have gone after films like “Juno” and “Knocked Up” on the sole basis that the women in these films choose not to abort.
I see nothing on the pro-abort side that makes them pro-”choice”. Indeed, every time a woman chooses to have a child (be she fictional or otherwise), it is decried as a repression of abortion rights.
Furthermore, if abortionists support “choice”, why is it that they do not support “choice” when it comes to education, as in vouchers for private schools?
Why the hypocrisy?
I’m against laws that make viewing an ultrasound mandatory to get an abortion, but, I’m more or less right there with you. I would love it if abortion clinics had adoption brochures. I have no problem, in fact I prefer it, if the mother to be chooses life.
Some (not all or even a majority, mind you) people were really upset at Knocked Up and Juno. I will never understand that. They made their choices. If they chose otherwise, I don’t think the movies would have been as funny. Or as long.
Why? Scared they might actually see a baby in there and choose to let it live?
No. Because a woman shouldn’t have to jump through coercive hoops to get a legal medical procedure. If a woman wants to see an ultrasound, that should be made available to her. If she doesn’t, then that’s fine too.
This goes back to fully informed consent, Rusty.
At least 60% of women who do have ultrasounds choose not to abort. Often women who abort – especially women who have chemical abortions and “deliver” at home – report being absolutely devastated by seeing that the 8-, 10-, 12-week gestation baby actually looked like a baby and not an indistinguishable clump of cells. Many of the same said they wouldn’t have had an abortion if they had been told what their child was actually doing in regards to development.
It’s at least comforting to know you didn’t understand the anger toward those two films. I, however, do. In both cases, the women (fictional, mind you) chose life. I can’t remember the exact quote, but one columnist was appalled they didn’t at least consider abortion more seriously. That didn’t make sense to me because, in “Juno”, she actually goes to the clinic and decides to leave. I don’t know how much more serious needs to be, but…
I guess I hearken back to the quote by Harrison Hickman to NARAL back in 1989:
It’s a pretty telling quote. An ultrasound does nothing more than show what’s really there (a human being), smashing the pro-abortion notion that a baby doesn’t look or develop into a human until before birth (and then, if you’re Barack Obama, it might not be human after birth either).
I’ll toss that one on my doctor the next time insurance paperwork comes up to be filled out and see how it goes for me.
AK, fair point.
Which is great. But some women make the decision and don’t want to have second thoughts. That’s their right.
Rusty:
If you are so “supportive” of “choice”, why can’t parents “CHOOSE” what school their child attends?
Why such blatant hypocrisy?
Because school vouchers come at the expense of the children who are stuck in the sub-par public school. Taking away the best students and moving them to private education hurts those left behind.
I’m also against public money going to religious programs (such as parochial school).
I know the counter-argument is that abortion comes at the expense of the fetus, but many don’t consider the fetus to be a human being.
How convenient. When a fetus is wanted, it’s a baby. When it’s not, it’s an inhuman cell cluster.
While I don’t want to open up a new can of worms here, I find it sad that the good students should be denied access to a good education because it’s “unfair”.
Try coming to MPS once. See how the public schools run. Absolute chaos. Violence, disrespect, not doing homework, piss-poor graduation rates.
The kids hurt most by a lack of school choice are minorities. Those in Milwaukee fortunate enough to be in the choice program are far better served.
And it’s the choice – of the crappy parents, the misbehaving students, the ineffective administrators – that the schools, quite frankly, suck.
Kids who want an education so as to break out of the cycle of ignorance and poverty should not be denied.
Unfortunately for them, the baby is a human being by the very nature of his DNA. He is not a chicken, not a whale. A human being.
And with medical advancements, children as young as 22 weeks gestation are able to survive – and thrive – outside the womb.
It is my sincere hope that if hearts can’t be moved, medical science will make abortion irrelevant by discovering what pro-lifers have argued all along: a baby is a human being.
On May 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm, Rusty said:
That is absolutely incorrect!
Grouping students according to their ability to learn various segments-amounts of instructional material (i.e., special ed and AP classes) has been proven to be the optimal method of delivering instruction to high and low performing students for decades, and serves as an effective model in the argument for private education.
Not only would-do private schools offer advanced students the type of educational opportunities and experiences they could never hope to receive in public schools, by attracting a nominal number of the academically gifted away from public schools, they also help reduce the class load/size on public school teachers.
The reduction in class size would result in PS teachers being able to devote more time and resources to their less able students, ensuring that these kids learn the necessary skills and concepts they not otherwise grasp if they were in a diluted educational environment.