The bishops suggested that the final document include the message that "aggressively pro-abortion policies" would be viewed "as an attack on the church."
Are they going to pretend that respecting the personal belief systems of people of every faith could be considered "aggressive polic[y]?" They don't find it even slightly hypocritical to claim that the only belief systems worth protecting are their own? Are they going to pretend that the personal belief systems of the many clergy who support reproductive freedom (including Catholics) are somehow less deserving of respect than theirs? Really?
There are several buttons and images that you can re-post on the NARAL Prochoice America website... please display these as a show of support for our pro-choice representatives!!!
Go here to download this and various other buttons/images!!
Peace & Love to you all,
But, suffering is very much a part of life, and everyone must come to terms that we all must suffer at one point or another.
You've gotta love the sado-masochists. Hey dude... suffer all you want, hold it real tight because it's yours and I'll have no part of it. I do what I can to ease the suffering of others (call me crazy)
Outside of the argument of rape, what gives a person power to choose whether or not she will have the baby?
What makes the fertilized egg that was the result of rape any different from the fertilized egg that was the result of consensual sex? That's what I thought... look out, it's the morality police and they're coming for YOU! Bwahahahaha!
Not for the many people who are actively sexing it up but have finished with the procreation (or have chosen to forgo that whole scene.) I'm done having children... I will not gestate or give birth ever again. That certainly doesn't mean I'm done having sex. My husband had a vasectomy and now we will happily have sex that feels really good without even being open to the possibility of procreation.
As good as sex feels, it's main purpose is procreation.
When is a seed considered a child? Conception
That sentence is just yucky... ew, I can't get it off of me. A seed? A seed is never, ever considered a child. YIK!
This deduction clearly states that abortion is murder. Regardless if you think it isn't, it very much is.
I love this... this is the crux of their argument. "It doesn't matter what your personal belief system is because what I say is the absolute truth. My thoughts, beliefs and opinions trump yours because... well, because I say so!" And then there is much foot stomping and hmph-ing.
By the way, the scientific community acknowledges the fact that birth begins
No, seriously... he/she ("anonymous" surprise!) wrote that. That's right ladies and gentlemen... scientists are now saying that Conception is the new Birth! I couldn't make this shit up.
If you support Obama you clearly have no knowledge of basic economy or the basics of capitalism for that matter. Let me point out that that statement is not meant to be insulting; I'm just stating the truth.
I just threw this nugget in because of it's absolute absurdity. And to prove that these people exist (if only on the anonymous Internet.)
Inflected Form(s): plural lives \ˈlīvz\
Etymology: Middle English lif, from Old English līf; akin to Old English libban to live — more at live
Date: before 12th century
1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2 a: the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b: one or more aspects of the process of living
3: biography 1
4: spiritual existence transcending physical death
5 a: the period from birth to death b: a specific phase of earthly existence
6: a way or manner of living
8: a vital or living being ; specifically : person
9: an animating and shaping force or principle
10: spirit , animation
11: the form or pattern of something existing in reality
12: the period of duration, usefulness, or popularity of something
13: the period of existence (as of a subatomic particle) — compare half-life
14: a property (as resilience or elasticity) of an inanimate substance or object resembling the animate quality of a living being
15: living beings (as of a particular kind or environment)
16 a: human activities b: animate activity and movement
17: one providing interest and vigor
18: an opportunity for continued viability
19: capitalized Christian Science : god 1b
20: something resembling animate life
It always seems as if people discussing "life" are referring to different meanings of the word. How can people argue about two different interpretations of the same word? It gets very confusing. It's like debating personhood. The "life begins at conception" crowd is always aghast that any person could deny this absolute truth. But, what do they mean? Do they mean the the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body? Well, what is meant by a "vital and functioning being?" Do they mean an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction? The fertilized egg does have the capacity for those things but studies done have proven that 1/3 of all embryo's fail. They certainly can't mean the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual - these things would occur after birth, right? I know that they don't mean the spiritual existence transcending physical death. Obviously they do not mean the period from birth to death. Do they mean a vital or living being (if so, we're back to the whole question of what constitutes "living"?)
I believe it is really difficult to argue an interpretation or perception. I think it is equally difficult to argue a personal belief system. I believe that each individual is capable of deciding for her or his self what these things mean to them. It would be wrong to force ones interpretation, perception or personal belief system upon the general population. Therefor I believe that is it every persons right to decide for themselves what life and/or personhood means when referencing abortion and to decide for themselves what the best moral decision would be. Now, why is that concept such a difficult one to comprehend?
Just a few of the reasons to vote NO on Measure 11: No exceptions if baby wont survive outside the womb; Women can be forced to carry their pregnancies to term; Exceptions for "health" are dangerously vague.
If you'd like more information, please visit the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families site.
If you're wondering how this ban will affect women, here is just one excerpt from a Doctor in SD (one of very few) who perform abortions for seriously ill women...
Dr. Buehner is an obstetrician and gynecologist from Rapid City, SD who opposes the abortion ban. Buehner has previously stated that he would no longer perform abortions for seriously ill patients if the abortion ban passes, at the risk of spending 10 years in prison. He said that the phrase “accepted standards of medical practice is so vague and nebulous that no physicians I know, myself included, would take that chance.” [Wall Street Journal, 8/12/08] Such a situation would have chilling effect on a doctor’s ability to properly care for his or her patients.
In the video, Dr. Buehner says, “It’s a very difficult decision for any woman to make, but especially for women with health complications in pregnancy. […] [Under Measure 11] the decision would probably be made by attorneys, rather than the physicians or the patients themselves.”
I don't know how these anti-abortion fruitballoons would feel about having non-medical personnel make their private medical decisions (perhaps they'd be just A-okay with it) but I would prefer that every single one of my medical decisions were made by myself after proper counsel with those whose lives have been dedicated to medicine. I'll keep the legal decisions for those who have dedicated themselves to the law.
Following is a li'l tidbit from a severly uneducated person who thinks abortion is icky... now, to be fair and all, I personally know people who are morally opposed to abortion and they are intelligent people who are capable of acknowledging both science and the law. For the most part, their distaste for abortion comes from the belief that a fetus is a "person" with a "soul" although some (not all) have no response to (or find it very difficult to articulate) why abortion would be acceptable in the case of rape or incest since there would be no apparent difference between the fertilized egg that was the result of rape and the fertilized egg that was the result of consensual sex (aside from the obvious differences regarding the intercourse.) Which leads one to believe that their stance on abortion has far less to do with the moral or physical status of the zygote/embryo/fetus and more to do with the intercourse itself (enjoying it without being open to the possibility of gestating a pregnancy.) But I digress... this person who (perhaps in a deliberate attempt at irony) calls him/herself "truth" makes the following statement regarding embryology (which is a branch of biology dealing with embryos and their development also the features and phenomena exhibited in the formation and development of an embryo.)
Truthiness: Seems like Embryology is a farse...
my thoughts: Yes, I just made it up, right now.
Truthiness: It just seems that Embryology takes the focus off the child developing in the womb and makes it seem like it's just another animal.my thoughts: So what you're saying is that embryology takes the focus off of the embryo? Hmm, okay. Would you be okay with it if you could change this branch of biology to "thechilddevelopinginthewombology"? I mean, come on... put forth a tiny, little effort.
Truthiness: Do you think that Humans are just animals with higher functioning brain capacity?
I swear to God, I could not make this shit up if I tried.
ps. farce is spelled with a "c"... it doesn't really matter, I knew what he/she meant... I'm just saying.
The Appellate Court properly noted that the Illinois law cited by the Cook County Judge was never intended to grant rights to an unimplanted, fertilized egg. In an amicus curiae brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, we also noted that the decision relied on antiquated, scientifically-invalid Illinois abortion laws that long ago were blocked from enforcement by federal courts. The Appellate Court today acted swiftly and directly to reverse this lower court's error.
One of the comments from the coverage at RH Reality Check says (and I'm not embellishing):
This Godless judge needs a Biology 101 class!! (truthiness, is that you?)
"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile, so that when you want a child you cannot have it." — Planned Parenthood
That PP "quote" is another anti-abortion myth that the extremist claim came from a 1963 pamphlet from PP. Now, I don't doubt that illegal abortion most certainly caused sterility and even death - but this is a very good argument for keeping abortion safe and legal - legal abortion is safer than childbirth, for crying out loud. The baby stuff is pure nonsense... no pregnancy, no birth, no baby.
They are so good... the only thing I can bare to watch on SNL is the political satire and "the news"... enjoy!
Ah well... does any of this actually surprise anyone? Smear tactics and politics as usual in the McCain camp... par for the course and all that. What a maverick of change, no?
Here it is and it is fabulous.
John McCain is worse than George W. Bush on abortion rights.
From supporting failed abstinence-only sex education,
The stakes have been raised.
Mellankelly: How lovely that you would risk a woman's life and her reproductive future by "allowing" her to have a Cesarean Section. Only (and correct me if I'm wrong here) there is not an instance where some third party with no stake whatsoever in the outcome is allowed to make private medical decisions for another person... that's too bad, since it sounded like such a win-win scenario and all. Perhaps you should be fighting laws which restrict you (and any other like-minded person) from being able to decide which medical procedures are in a woman's best interest... Lord knows that Doctors just don't know what the heck they're doing, right?
Mr. Jasper: If I had a born child with either of those 2 conditions, could I terminate his life?
Mellankelly: If it was your child, you would be the one to decide which procedures, if any, your child would have. I suppose, for many parents, the treatment (if any) would depend upon the severity of the brain damage and paralysis, how developed the problem was prior to and at birth would also factor into the treatment options. The bottom line is... each parent would decide for themselves whether or not to start any treatment at all, and if so, which treatments they would be willing to inflict upon their child. See, their child = their decision. Your child = your decision. Are you getting it yet?
Mr. Jasper: Btw: that mother referred to unborn baby as her 'child'.
Mellankelly: Of course she did... this was a very wanted pregnancy that went terribly wrong. I forgot to add this bit to my original posting:
"I wrote my doctor a long thank-you note on my good, wedding stationery. I thanked him for his compassion and his kindness. I wrote that it must be hard, what he does, but that I hoped he found consolation in the fact that he was helping vulnerable women in their most vulnerable of times. He keeps my note, along with all the others he's received, in a large bundle. And he keeps that
bundle right next to his stack of hate mail. They are about the same size"
And this really got to me because the people who invented the "PB" phrase (no such medical procedure... SURPRISE!) and the President who helped outlaw certain procedures have caused many good Doctors who have helped countless women to deny future women these options.
This is so very sad...
"The doctor who performed my termination talks about the women he has helped through the years -- the pregnant woman who was diagnosed with metastic melanoma and needed immediate chemotherapy, the woman who was carrying conjoined twins that had only one set of lungs and one heart, the woman whose baby had a three-chambered heart and would never live. Now, he is turning these women away. 'Now, today, I can say no, but what is she going to do?' he says sadly. 'What is she going to do?'"
And a chilling quote from that Doctor:
"Now, it's like the Stone Age, it's like a Muslim country here," says the doctor who performed my procedure. "This is the most backward law, it is not for a civilized country. If this was Iran, Iraq, I wouldn't be surprised. But to pass this law in the United States, what is this government doing?"
You said it, Doctor! And how!
When Congress first considered the ban in 1995, Watts testified on Capitol Hill. So did Viki Wilson of Fresno, Calif., who had a late-term abortion because the brain of the fetus she was carrying had developed outside the skull. So did Vikki Stella of Naperville, Ill., whose fetus had dwarfism, no brain tissue and seven other major abnormalities.
All three women told legislators they owed their health to late-term abortions and that a continuation of their doomed pregnancies posed grave health risks such as stroke, paralysis, infertility or even death.
As they campaign to save access to these procedures, Watts, Stella and Wilson point out that in virtually all cases, late-term abortions are the only way to respond to unanticipated complications: the death of the fetus inside the womb, problems that mean the fetus can't live outside the womb, or serious threats to the mother's health.
"No women has these procedures for frivolous reasons," says Stella. "They have them because it's their only choice."
In its Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court acknowledged this fact, giving states permission to regulate--or even proscribe--terminations of pregnancies except "where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother."
Reference and full article can be found here.
Here is another equally compelling story which highlights why it is important that the decision of whether or not to have a late-term abortion should lie with the pregnant woman, her loved ones and her doctor... and why "maternal health" is an important distinction from "maternal life".
Instead of cinnamon and spice, our child came with technical terms like hydrocephalus and spina bifida. The spine, she said, had not closed properly, and because of the location of the opening, it was as bad as it got. What they knew -- that the baby would certainly be paralyzed and incontinent, that the baby's brain was being tugged against the opening in the base of the skull and the cranium was full of fluid -- was awful. What they didn't know -- whether the baby would live at all, and if so, with what sort of mental and developmental defects -- was devastating. Countless surgeries would be required if the baby did live. None of them would repair the damage that was already done.
We met with a genetic counselor, but given the known as well as the unknown, we both knew what we needed to do. Though the baby might live, it was not a life that we would choose for our child, a child that we already loved. We decided to terminate the pregnancy. It was our last parental decision.
Reference and full article can be found here.
That was their decision to make... not yours or mine or any other third party who would not be directly affected by this decision... that was theirs and theirs alone!
"the cortex isn’t needed to feel pain. The thalamus is needed and is functioning at 8 weeks. Even complete removal of the cortex does not eliminate the sensation of pain. Indeed there seems to be little evidence that pain information reaches the sensory cortex."Now, if we go to the Mayo Clinic we would find the following regarding the thalamus:
"What the thalamus does is act as a sorting and switching station located deep inside the brain. The thalamus quickly forwards the pain message simultaneously to three specialized regions of the brain: the physical sensation region (somatosensory cortex), the emotional feeling region (limbic system) and the thinking region (frontal cortex). Your brain responds to pain by sending messages that moderate the pain in the spinal cord. "
Ummm... you might be asking yourself just how the heck any stimulus could be "felt" if one "completely removes the cortex" considering the thalamus forwards the stimulus message directly to the somatosensory, limbic system and the frontal cortex. You're right... it can't be "felt" without the cortex.
But hey... scientific facts? Who needs 'em... they just think abortion is icky.
It seems that the anti-abortion extremists enjoy using misinformation (considering that they tend to employ this tactic quite regularly.) I'm not sure if they think this will make women decide not to have abortions (although, as far as I know, no woman has ever listed a reason for terminating a pregnancy as "my fetus cannot feel pain.") But never mind those sneaky devils, there will always be people around to ensure that these woman receive accurate medical information (thanks Mayo Clinic!)
On another note... I recently had a fellah (yes, a person who will never know the emotional or physical -not to mention the financial- responsibilities of giving birth to a child) chastise me for using a photograph of a 6 week abortion. He would prefer that I use the photographs that the anti-abortion extremists use (usually very much wanted pregnancies which ended in still birth or therapeutic abortion). Apparently, he is of the mind that a 6 week abortion looks just like a 40 week full term baby (killed moments prior to birth, no less.) OH, the emotional horror!!!
Listen dude... I'm sorry... but this is what a 6 week abortion looks like...
And may I add (for the record and all) that if I feel compelled to use terms such as "dude", I can use my God-given right (free will... thanks God!) to use this term (and any other I so deem necessary) whenever and where ever I like. It is not enough that this guy wants to control my reproduction and my choice of medically accurate information... he would also like to control my use of verbiage.
Hey Jasper... go fuck yourself.
- I'm not Sorry
- Project Voice
- Voices of Choice: Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health
- Our Truths-Nuestras Verdades
- My Good Abortion
- The Abortion Conversation Project
- The Abortion Access Project
- Many Voices, Many Choices
- Your Abortion Stories - Abortion Clinic Days
- Sunshine for Women - Abortion with an Attitude
- The Wisdom of Abortion
- Abortion on Demand and Without Apology
- The Abortion Diaries
- Women Claiming the Power of Pregnancy - women who have chosen abortion and pregnancy at different points in their lives.
- Conversations with God
- Prenatal Testing: Two Stories
- My Late Term Abortion
- Unexpected Pregnancies: Personal Stories
- Our Abortion Stories
* God loves women.
* God loves women who have terminated their pregnancies.
* God loves all of Her creatures.
* God loves pro-choice and anti-abortion people.
* Abortion has existed as long as women have been biologically able to become pregnant.
* Abortion is a good, moral choice for a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.
* Abortion is not a sin.
* God does not create zombies via raising dead people from their graves - that's freaky-deaky!
* "Abortion" has no "desire" (abortion is a medical procedure not capable of desiring anything.)
* A woman has an abortion when her desire is to not have a baby (kudos on keeping with the anti-abortion attempt to take women out of the equation.)
* For some women facing an unwanted pregnancy, abortion is the only choice filled with hope.
* Satan is imaginary. (due to man-kinds inability to accept responsibility for it's own misfortune.)
* Abortion is not evil.
* Evil is the logical opposite to the concept of good (which all of Gods creation possess.) without evil mankind could not perfect it's soul.
* The pregnant woman/embryo*fetus relationship is unitary... the only reason this relationship could ever be considered adversarial is when anti-abortion extremists believe that they (and not the pregnant woman) know what is best for the woman and her embryo/fetus (whereby taking rights away from pregnant women and giving them to her embryo/fetus.)
* Abortion plays no role in the relationship between men and women, mothers and children, or people and God.
PS "hisman" sounds like a real wanker. - why would some whack-job claim to speak for God or Satan? And why should I care what his personal opinions are?
"A considerable number of anti-abortion visuals feature an almost fully developed fetus. Abortions preformed at this stage via hysterotomy or D&Xabortions are rare [approximately 0.08% are performed after 24weeks, when the fetus may be viable - no fetal demise] A July 1992 LIFE magazine article, The Great Divide, reported that Reverend Robert Schenk, member of anti-choice coalition Operation rescue, attended a demonstration outside an abortion clinic in Buffalo, NY, with "Baby Tia", a7-inch, gray-tinted and formaldehyde-soaked dead fetus. In the escalating madness of the crowd, the fetus was dropped onto the sneaker-trodden street. Authorities arrested Schenk and confiscated the fetus, which was taken to a coroner, only to be identified as an approximately 20-week-old stillborn. The article reads, "Many pro-choice supporters in Buffalo are angry about the distance between their reality-what they see in the clinics-and the images the anti-abortionists present as fact. 'What they are showing to the public is a lie,' says Joni Ladowski, a nurse at a nearby clinic, as she unfolds a length of gauze. In the center lies what appears to be a clot the size of a peanut. It is a fetus, nine weeks old.'This is an abortion,' she says."
You know, without misinformation, pseudoscience and/or outright lies, the anti-abortion extremists would have nothing (except their religion/personal belief system) Those of us who live within the realm of reality will always be here to provide accurate information in order to educate the average person about the truth surrounding abortion... the information is there.
More on the misrepresentations and misinformation used by the anti-abortion forces:
"Through the construction of public fetal images as 'baby pictures,' the fetus is visibly separated from its mother and can consequently enter the social imagination alone. It is relatively easy to untangle the symbolic reasons that would encourage fetal autonomy: Embryo photography has personified the fetus by replacing the mother with empty space. As Daniels (1993) has said, 'In much of the promotional literature of the anti-abortion movement, the fetus is visually severed from the mother, presented as an autonomous free-floating being, attached tenuously to the 'mother ship' by the umbilical cord.' or, as Franklin (1991) says, 'The conditions for spectator recognition of and identification with the fetus are achieved on the basis of its separation and individuation from the mother.'"
~Taylor, Janelle. 1998. Image of Contradiction: Obstetrical Ultrasound in American Culture. In Franklin, S. and Ragone, H. (eds.) Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power and Technological Innovation. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia.
~Daniels, Cynthia R. 1993. At Women's Expense: State Power and the Politics of Fetal Rights. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
"The experiments, detailed online yesterday in the journal Nature, raise the prospect that patients suffering from not only diabetes but also heart disease, strokes and many other ailments could eventually have some of their cells reprogrammed to cure their afflictions without the need for drugs, transplants or other therapies."
I hope they are able to test this on actual people soon - the article mentioned that one scientist is hoping to start studies involving people with diabetes within a year (how exciting!)
- 74% Concern for/Responsibility to other Individuals
- 73% Cannot afford a baby now
- 69% A baby would interfere with school/employment/ability to care for dependents
- 48% Would be a single parent/having relationship problems
- 38% Have completed childbearing
Mellankelly: Oooh... "dehumanize [my] unborn child"... sounds deliciously evil, doesn't it? Way to appear rational, Mr. Jasper. By the way...
"I no longer refer to it as "alien". He or she is my bean. I don't know why I referred to baby as alien in the first place, it seems so mean. Maybe I was scared to bond with it because of the chances of miscarriage"
~from Baby says "Baff" blog
"The more people I tell about our baby bean birkel (which is how we refer to our baby at present, it being the size of a bean)"
~from Baby Birkel blog
"Well, when Dam and I saw our first ultrasound the words that popped out of my mouth was, 'It looks like a little kidney bean.' From there Dam referred to it as Bean."
~from try, try, try again blog
"I've known pregnant women who refer to their fetus as "the bean." I was briefly pregnant once, and I referred to the lil' thing as "Spud." Some women grow beans, apparently I was growing a potato. The fact that it didn't take is evidence that humans were not meant to birth potatoes. "
~from the MetaFilter community weblog entitled "your fetus as produce."
I found a lot more but I think anyone reading will get the point (not too sure if Mr. Jasper can grasp the concept) that many women refer to their fetus or their "belly" as many different things during pregnancy, including "the bean" or "bean" or sometimes "baby bean" - they certainly aren't dehumanizing anything... that is utter rubbish.
Mr. Jasper: Let’s see, you slaughtered and killed one of your babies and I’m the person lacking in judgment or prudence? Maybe you should let your other children know that you killed their sibling.
Mellankelly: When you use words like "slaughtered" and "babies" to describe abortion, yes, I find words like "lacking in judgment or prudence" befitting their subject.
Oh, gosh... when my son was old enough to talk about an act as evil as rape (and including circumstances which concerned him), I most certainly explained the situation to him. I think it extremely important that women share their personal experience with unwanted pregnancy in order to put things into perspective; considering the anti-abortion extremists wish to demonize women or take women out of the picture all together. It is imperative that rational people are exposed to the truth when it comes to the real reasons why women terminate their pregnancies... I think reading about or speaking with women who have made that decision open the eyes of those people who have been led to believe that women who terminate their pregnancies are harlots who get pregnant and abort on a whim.
Now, even my 16 year old son can recognize that an embryo is not a sibling... your judgement is clouded by your unhealthy fixation with the reproductive choices of complete strangers, you really ought to see someone about that.
Further, I've never killed a baby... I've given birth to three and there are still three hangin' around my house... again, it may help to take deep breaths prior to typing.
Mr. Jasper: I guess you’re right, I should except much thought from a selfish heathen.
Mellankelly: I'm not sure what you meant to write there, it appears as if you get flustered easily and lose track of your thoughts. I believe you meant "accept such thoughts?" Please correct me if I'm wrong. Although I'm not sure if "heathen" is the correct term as I do not doubt that we are all praying to the same God. However, I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant as it was written by men. Now the selfish part is debatable... I suppose there are aspects of our lives where we can tend to be selfish but on the whole I would have to disagree that selfish would be a proper adjective in which to describe me, as a person (particularly since you're just some random guy on the Internet.)
PS. Mr. Jasper... please seek help.
Mellankelly: I did not refer to my fetus as my "unborn child" and yes, when quickening began, we called it "The Bean" - like a Mexican jumping bean... you find that weird yet you continue to refer to abortion as infanticide and genocide (that's not weird at all). I also made reference that I terminated my second pregnancy prior to quickening and that I think whatever colloquial terms one chooses to use does not have any consequence whatsoever on either of our arguments... you obviously disagree. Probably because you believe that if you said it, it must be true. Here we disagree once again.
Mr. Jasper: A cop out I would say. You refered to your unborn child as the "baby' didn't you? I have you all twisted up now, your back against the wall... you're not even willing to admit or give the basic respect and dignity to your own children, your own flesh and blood when they were inside you. How shameful. You have such a hard heart, examine your conscience.
Mellankelly: By that reasoning, my dog (Molly Beatrice Sorci) is not only a part of my family, she is a person. It's true, right? Because that is how we refer to her... I'm her mommy, my husband is her daddy and my children are her siblings. Sometimes we refer to her as a baby... we say things like "Who's my baby?" and "There's my baby!" Yes, your argument that whatever one chooses to call something actually alters what that thing is sounds completely grounded in logic and not at all driven by your abhorrence of abortion. And as far as having me "all twisted up" or "against the wall", well, this is merely one more reason why I bestow upon you the title of Jackass (fool; a person lacking in judgment or prudence.) I make that statement because I believe, as evidenced by your very words, that you lack the ability to discipline yourself by the use of reason. You appear to become so haughtily contemptuous that your argument is secondary to your emotive babbling. Try stepping back and taking a deep breath... next, use logic and reason as a basis for your argument - I think things would be a lot clearer for anyone reading your words (or, perhaps you'd realize how ridiculous your words are). Well, just a suggestion... clearly, you are free to argue in any manner you see fit.
Mr. Jasper: Cardinal Eagan put it well addressing Bella Pelosi
Mellankelly: Now Jasper, why on earth would what Cardinal Eagan has to say matter in the least to me? Just out of curiosity, would that be Cardinal Edward Egan? The same Cardinal Eagan that incited a group of priests to issue a letter urging the archdiocesan clergy to cast a vote of ”no confidence” against him? That aside, a man who could be so cruel and uncaring towards the many real hardships facing women (hardships, might I add, that he will never have the displeasure of experiencing) with these words: "...'chooses' to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason" Yes, his Jesus would be so proud. What a horrible little man hiding behind his religious notions. Just YIK! Who's glad she's not a Catholic? You betchya, I am!
Mellankelly: Oh really... following are the links to both of my responses (thus far). I answered your question and shortly thereafter (perhaps due to your reading comprehension issues?) you asked the exact same question again... not only did I refer you to the link for my original answer but I also reiterated my answer for you. Now, since this is the third time you've asked the question (which makes me question whether or not you are, in fact, a classmate of my seven year old) I'm beginning to believe that you just do not like my answer. Simply because I didn't answer your question the way in which you wish that I had does not mean that I haven't answered your question. And seriously, if I were your "Mom" I would weep at my apparent inability to have taught you the very basics of human kindness/compassion.
In case you've a poor memory... here are the links to my previous responses to your inane question.
Reading comprehension is a must - first response
round and round and round he goes - second response
Mr. Jasper: You're partly right, I meant selective infanticide for abortion survivors.
Mellankelly: Has never happened, my dear... this is a non-issue. No politician supports infanticide of any kind... please, with the Drama Queen.
Mr. Jasper: Ok, let me try again. It is not a trick question. when you were pregnant with your children, when they kicked inside of you, did you say "the baby kicked" or "the fetus kicked" which was it? How did you refer to unborn child?
Mellankelly: Listen, redundancy, although a tactic quite often used by those who have no valid argument, is most certainly not a virtue. If you insist upon asking the same questions, even after they have been answered, I will simply refer you back to my previous response found here. I see no reason why referring to a pregnancy in any colloquial terms would factor into either of our arguments. What I do see is your desperate attempts to move the conversation away from the rights of pregnant women apparently due to your lack of a compelling reason to deny pregnant women these rights.
Mr. Jasper: ..the personal belief systems of a few? no not quite. As you may have noticed, your hero, that wolf in sheeps clothing, Obama is being exposed for his support of selective infanticide.
Mellankelly: Honestly, I've never indicated in any way how I feel about Obama - and to make a statement that he is "my hero" is absurd. Have you ever noticed that these generalizations and misinformation say more about you than they do about anyone else? It appears as if redundancy is second only to ad hominem attacks when it comes to anti-abortion extremists. No politician supports infanticide, you damned fool... maybe you should find places other than anti-abortion sites to obtain your information, eh? Infanticide... seriously? You sound like a bloody lunatic.
Mr. Jasper: did you read that? CREATED equal, endowed by their CREATOR. It doesn't say our rights come from the government or a bunch radical feminists but from from our CREATOR.
Mellankelly: What the heck does that have to do with anything? God has nothing to do with public policy, my dear. She gave us free will for a reason, no? She did not pen our Constitution. If you actually believed that we were all created equal you would cease treating women as if they are inherently lesser than men due to their (God-given) biology. If you believe that we are all equal you would trust women to make their own decisions regarding their reproduction... but you don't believe women are equal, do you? You do not believe that women are capable of making good, informed choices regarding their sexuality or their reproduction. I just happen to disagree with you and it appears as if you just don't like that at all (ergo, your emotive outbursts.)
Mr. Jasper: You when claim the right to slaughter innocent unborn children, you are forcing the nation to accept genocide. The good people of this country will not allow this to go on.
Mellankelly: Poppycock. When I make the very true statement that women born or naturalized in the US are entitled to their full citizenship rights under our Constitution, I am doing nothing more than arguing for the truth: Women (and their doctors/loved ones) are most qualified to make their own medical decisions - would you prefer legislatures make your personal medical decisions for you?
Seriously Mr. Jasper, you must understand that stomping your feet and plugging your ears while spouting anti-abortion rhetoric will get you nowhere. Neither will your emotive babbling about your biblegod - no person in this Country is obliged to agree with your notions about God.
Mr. Jasper: Well, its obvious we just don't share the same values. You certainly can't be a beliver in Christ.
Mellankelly: Well boo for you, Mr. Jasper. The country that we live in (a democracy) is a far cry from the imaginary country you wish it was (a theocracy). Thankfully, this country was founded by the notion that we are free to practice any religion as evidenced in the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Freedom of conscience is the basis of the free exercise clause, and government may not penalize or discriminate against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views nor may it compel persons to affirm any particular beliefs. So while you may fancy yourself a "believer in Christ" it has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever. Further, I have many friends and family members who are Christian and do not share you limited views; I would also direct you to the The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice where you will find that religious people of many faiths support a woman's reproductive choices... are you now going to proclaim that they're not "real" Christians because their belief system compels them to protect the rights of all people (including - gasp - pregnant women?) Remember, "A closed mind is not only closed to outside thoughts, it is often closed to itself as well. It is closed to new thoughts and anything that threatens the status quo. But if you can open the doors, maybe just a crack at first, the ideas that have been patiently waiting at your gates will flood in."
And regarding your stories... rape victims and rape victims alone get to decide whether or not to gestate a pregnancy that was the result of rape. I believe that only a coward would hide behind his religion when insisting that women gestate rape-related pregnancies. You have proven yourself to be a coward on more than one occasion... and you've clearly demonstrated that your concern is not with "life" per se, but begins at conception and ends at birth. I pity you and I'm sorry that your religion prohibits you from caring about the life of women facing unwanted pregnancies (including rape victims). I will pray for you, Mr. Jasper.
Oh, and regarding your bogus photo ... debunked: This picture, also distributed on a 3 x 5 inch card and used in numerous anti-abortion campaigns is equally inconsistent. If the forceps securing its head over the jar are standard OR ring forceps, the ring is 1 x 0.5 centimeters, which would mean that the head is too small to be in its third trimester, yet one less developed would not have that much hair, says Dr. Ross. "I strongly suspect that this picture is fake, and the information on the back of the card certainly does not match what's shown," he adds. The second, and most obvious, fallacy lies within the description. It says that the pictured fetus was aborted in 1987 in Texas. However, that was the year that third trimester abortions were banned, rendering the alleged procedure altogether illegal
Mellankelly: Well, if you don't understand what bodily integrity is and you you cannot comprehend human reproduction, then there is nothing more that I can do. The bottom line is that you simply cannot subordinate a pregnant woman's rights to a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus.
Mr. Jasper: Do mean the so-called "right to privacy" that scummy lawyers and judges invented to fit there agenda and allow baby killing?
Mellankelly: When I speak of defending women's ("so-called"?) civil liberties I assure you that I am speaking of legal arguments which were not invented by "scummy lawyers and judges." I am speaking of things such as: a lack of compelling state interest, procedural due process, equal protection, and also the right to privacy (combination of the first, third, fourth, fifth, ninth amendments and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - further, both federal and state courts have recognized a constitutional right of privacy in medical records and patient/physician relationships.) - privacy also covers bodily integrity and self sovereignty... not to mention discrimination (there is no comparative circumstance where a males bodily integrity is forcibly violated to provide for another "person.")
Mr. Jasper: My story is completely relevent, you must not having paying attention.
Mellankelly: Okay... you like to use fairy tales and tell stories to support your personal belief system, I prefer to use legal precedent, factual information and good ole' common sense to argue for the rights of every person in our country (including pregnant women).
Mr. Jasper: Yes, you take that risk when you sleep with a man.
Mellankelly: Malarkey! I have sex with my husband without even being open to the possibility of becoming pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to term. Luckily for me, my husband had a vasectomy in 2001 so my chances of becoming pregnant are slim to none (she says while knocking on wood). And a woman who is raped certainly wouldn't be "taking that risk", right? Your personal opinions about intercourse and pregnancy have absolutely no relevance in any life other than yours. Your personal belief system is not a compelling reason to take rights away from pregnant women.
Mr. Jasper: Not good enough precautions..try abstinance and stop sleeping around. Most women who have abortions are not married. Fornication is a sin.
Mellankelly: Says you. Consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other is most certainly not a sin. Your religious notions have absolutely no relevance in the lives of others who do not share your faith (myself included). A higher rate of unplanned pregnancy is linked much more closely to economic status (women below the federal poverty level have abortion rates almost four times those of higher income women.) If your comments are any indication, you appear to be driven by your religious beliefs and not the moral status of a fertilized egg. Your religiousness and your biblegod have absolutely no relevance in the lives of others (aside from those who share your rather limited views). Why on earth should I be forced to adhere to your personal belief system?
Mr. Jasper: It's a metaphor. and yes it does have relevance
Mellankelly: Please enlighten me... how would your "opening the gate" possibly be compared to consensual sex in which the partners used precautions to ensure that they would not become pregnant. You can't.... your comment has absolutely no relevance to that scenario. You just don't like pre-marital sex quite possibly as much as you don't like abortion. Hey, those are your opinions and you're certainly entitled to them... however, your opinion does not a fact make and certainly you have no right to force your personal religious beliefs upon me or anyone else.
Mellankelly: Again dear, I say what I mean and I mean exactly what I say. I'm saying that a person, even children (no need for adjectives or qualifiers - it is simply not necessary to change the meaning of certain words in order to get my point across) have no right to force another person, even their parents to endure any form of bodily invasion (I used "blood test" as an example). You cannot give a fertilized egg greater rights than a person (that would be unconstitutional).
Mr. Jasper: when you were pregnant with children, tell me, when they kicked inside of you, did you say "the baby kicked" or "the fetus kicked" or maybe you said (since you believe in bodily invasions) "the alien kicked". which was it?
Mellankelly: I've no idea why this would be of any consequence. I've been pregnant four times and experienced quickening three of the four times. I terminated my second pregnancy prior to quickening. During my first pregnancy we referred to my belly as "The Bean." My question for you sir is why would it be of any consequence which colloquial terms one chooses to refer to her pregnancy? Clearly, using adjectives and/or qualifiers such as "unborn" or "preborn" does not change what a fertilized egg is and neither would a colloquialism. Kind of sounds like Mr. Jasper is grasping at straws, no?
Mr. Jasper: Look, I don't doubt you're a good Mom, I bet you are. I think you get the point I was trying to make.
Mellankelly: I might have, if you'd actually made a point. As it stands, all you did was question my parenting skills... something that you know nothing about, may I add. Oh well, ad hominem is par for the course with anti-abortion extremists.
Mr. Jasper: Your side will never be able to win this debate. We are not a great nation if we allow the killing of unborn children
Mellankelly: My "side"? Really? We live in the greatest country in the world, a country where the rights of any person born or naturalized (this includes pregnant women) are fully protected by our Constitution. Considering that 43 million women of reproductive age (7 in 10), are sexually active and do not wish to become pregnant, I highly doubt that they would support legislation which would prohibit them from using any contraceptive method that may potentially harm a fertilized egg (such as the pill or EC). This great nation will not allow for rights and personal liberties to be taken away from half of its population due to the personal belief systems of a few... never. I thank God (daily) that I was born into a country where abortion was a safe and legal option for me.
Mellankelly: Tsk, Tsk... Mr. Jasper, you simply must keep up dear. This is where reading comprehension becomes an issue. I wrote what I meant and I meant exactly what I wrote: No person (including a child) has the right to force another person (inluding it's parent) to undergo any form of bodily invasion (not even a blood test) without the persons consent. Both common law and statutory law have long upheld the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity. If you do not understand how our legal system works, I suggest you do a little research... all of the information is out there just waiting for you, Jasper.
Further, your silly little fairy tale has absolutely no relevance to an unwanted pregnancy - do you honestly believe that every time a woman has sex she is consenting to become pregnant? That would be completely contrary to reality. The fact is that over half of the women who experience an unwanted pregnancy were using birth control during the month that they became pregnant - they took precausions to ensure that they would not become pregnant. Your little "opening the gate" comment (which is quite vulgar, in my opinion) has no relevance in that circumstance.
Mr. Jasper: Like I said in my 'fairy tale', you open gate and let the child into womb, it wasn't the child's decision
Mellankelly: What child? That's disgusting, Jasper.
Mr. Jasper: You DO NOT have the right to murder the child.
Mellankelly: Exactly. NEITHER DO you.
Mr. Jasper: Now go tell your children they invaded your body. I dare you. Nice Mom you are.
Mellankelly: Okay. Oh, my son wonders if that's why I make him clean the house like my "personal maid", walk the dog & scoop the poop and fold & put away his own clothes (hmmm, come to think of it, maybe that is the reason). Also, he really loved that movie, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, so he's way cool with the thought of having invaded my body. He wanted me to ad a P.S. - he thinks I'm the greatest mom, ever (although I must admit that he's recently had his 16th birthday and is still awaiting his gift from us so maybe that was a bit of a stretch.) Thanks for that!
Mellankelly: No, it's not... a baby rights are not questionable... any person born or naturalized in the US is entitled to her full rights under the Constitution. Why, may I ask, should a woman suddenly be forced to give up her rights when she becomes pregnant (regardless of whether or not the pregnancy is wanted?) The person most qualified to make decisions regarding her pregnancy is the pregnant woman... but I'm sure that you'd be okay with legislatures making your medical decisions for you, right?
Mr. Anonymous: Look at it this way... [insert fairy tale here]
Mellankelly: Listen, there is nothing that can be compared to the pregnant woman/embryo*fetus relationship... and you belittle the emotional and physical (sometimes life-threatening) endeavor that is pregnancy and the labor/birth process when you compare it to an old lady entering your yard. Have you never been pregnant? Do you dare trivialize the impact that pregnancy, childbirth (not to mention child rearing) has on a woman's physical and emotional well-being? I get that you're pro-(fetal)life and that the women whose lives are affected by an unwanted or doomed pregnancy are secondary (at best.) That's just something that I'll never understand. It's unconscionable.
Mr. Anonymous: By saying that you have the right to kill your child, they ARE interfering, not with your rights, but with the childs.
Mellankelly: I've never claimed a right to kill my children... when people kill their children they go to jail or spend a serious amount of time in a psychiatric facility. Children are protected by the constitution... interestingly enough though, they do not have the right to force another person (including their parents) to undergo any form of bodily invasion for any reason.
Mellankelly: You sneaky devil... it certainly isn't surprising that you've used misinformation in an attempt to get your point across. Perhaps this was an honest mistake but methinks it quite doubtful. The bill that passed was not the same as the original bill presented. Obama had this to say about the original bill:
"I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants."
And in case your issue is with reading comprehension (which is not optional), that was precisely my point... there was already a bill in place regarding the standard of care for infants. When BAIPA passed the Illinois legislature in 2005 it had added a clause that specifically stated that the legislation would have no effect on existing state abortion laws.
Mr. Anonymous: What kind of a monster are you?
Mellankelly: The kind that cares about women (including their mental and physical health) and the children/families they have, the kind that believes that the decision of whether or not to continue with any pregnancy is between the pregnant woman, her doctor and her loved ones... how positively evil of me. Hey, but kudos on the ad hominem attack... it's good to know that you dare not deviate from this anti-abortion tactic, no matter how unsuccessful it ends up being.
Mellankelly: And what, exactly, does this have to do with voting NO on prop. 48? This may mean something to you but in my opinion, quoting from the latest Stephen King novel would have been more compelling.
Mr. Anonymous: The unholy, yet inevitable, consequence of that pride is disobedience - eating the forbidden fruit
Mellankelly: Yeah, so? I love all fruit and I'll eat it whenever I want... the only "consequence" being timely digestion, thank you very much.
Mr. Anonymous: The ultimate end is death, as God said it would be.
Mellankelly: Well, that must be such a loverly concept for you, however, death is in no way "the end" - certainly we will all go home to God, as She wishes - mostly though, this occurs sometime after death - of course, there is always the possibility of coming back to this place (YIKES!)
Mr. Anonymous: The prototypical sin is pride, the pride that seeks to exalt the creature above the Creator: "I can be like God.
Mellankelly: Whatever dude... God is in each one of us. Regarding pride (a reasonable or justifiable self-respect), being the standard for sin... POPPYCOCK! Pride is not necessarily a bad thing - God would like us to have a reasonable or justifiable self-respect... I'm so sorry that your faith teaches you otherwise.
Mr. Anonymous: It was then a short and easy step to infanticide.
Mellankelly: Wow. Drama Queen much?
Mr. Anonymous: The exclamation point at the end of the death wish is that...
Mellankelly: There was no exclamation point at the end of the 1974 Award Winning movie, Death Wish... although, now that you mention it, it would've given the title a little more pizazz. I'll write to Michael Winner immediately.
Mr. Anonymous: It's hard to believe that we have degenerated to the point that we'll murder a helpless baby should it escape the violence of an abortion and be born alive.
Mellankelly: Nice try but there already exists a standard in regards to newly born infants. If you'd care to do the research (although it would appear as if you and factual information do not have a real close relationship) feel free to visit The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics to find that the standards are already in place. The verbiage of this law is ambiguous (at best) and will not "save" any premature infants... all it will do is cause unnecessary lawsuits against Doctors (at the expense of the tax payers; not to mention cause our insurance rates to go through the roof.) You will find the following statement from the NRP Steering Committee regarding BAIPA "at the time of delivery... the medical condition and prognosis of the newly born infant should be assessed. At that point decisions about withholding or discontinuing medical treatment that is considered futile may be considered by... providers in conjunction with the parents acting in the best interest of their child." and "The BAIPA indiscriminately defines 'born alive' to include an infant 'at any stage of development... regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion,' and it makes no reference to standards of care or best interests, nor does it specifically protect a parent’s decision-making authority" Bottom line: BAIPA is anti-abortion legislation - the objective of those vehemently opposed to abortion is to criminalize abortion. Period.
Mr. Anonymous: May God grant us the grace to awake from this deadly moral slumber, renounce the death wish, and live like truly free men and women - in the glorious freedom of the children of God
Mellankelly: No, you mean "live like truly free men" because if you happen to be a pregnant woman (regardless of whether or not that pregnancy is wanted) in your little imaginary world... you wouldn't be free - you'd be a slave to the legislatures who would have the ultimate say over what you may or may not do with your body. No thank you... you can go live in your little Theocracy if you'd wish, but I will stay right here in the the Country that I was lucky enough to be born into! The Country where a Doctor and a pregnant woman (and her loved ones) get to decide which medical procedures are in her best interest.