REFUSE TO CHOOSE

That is the message Feminsts for Life is pushing. Wow. Just... wow. Women shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about whether or not they want or are capable of bringing a child into this world. We're simply baby-makers and we should fufill our babymaking destiny, right? Come on now (you oxymorons), there are many instances of girls and women who "refuse to choose" (refuse to think) about the fact that they're pregnant at all... then, they give birth quietly in some basement/bathroom/hotel and dump their newborns into dumpsters. Good advice, oh lovers-of-women. On another note, I came across this website and would like to encourage everyone to take notice:

Does Elvis speak to you?

Mr. Jasper: oh yea, you refered to your unborn child as "The Bean." Kinda wierd

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!

Response to Mr. Anonymous silliness

Mr. Anonymous: The genesis of the death wish is rooted in the fall of man that we see in the Book of Genesis.

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.

adjectives and qualifiers

So I was reading blogs on various social issues (I'm always interested in the point of view of those who see things differently than I do). I love reading opposing views particularly those that are introspective, thought-provoking and intelligent. I like how it challenges us to take a deeper look at our own opinions, beliefs and convictions. What I have a difficult time with are those people who insist upon using nonsensical ramblings (or "brain farts") which include not one bit of factual information to support the piffle they spew.

This example comes from a gal who undertakes to set herself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge... and we all know what happens when we do that! Anyhoo, she was writing of the horrible instances of crazy people who cut open women's abdomens and uterus' in order to take the nearly full term fetuses to pass of as their own. Way, way YIK and Evil. But here's what galled her:

"During the course of the show that focused on a few specific cases, some doctors and therapists and other experts were interviewed regarding the nature of these cases and the people who committed such horrible crimes. I was struck with how every "expert" referred to the unborn stolen children as Fetuses."

Here it appears to bother her that experts in the medical field use proper medical terminology when speaking of medical cases... go figure. These doctors could be completely anti-abortion, they may even be activists - simply because they use proper medical terms does not mean that they support abortion rights. Would she prefer that they had said something like "Well, they cut into her hoo-haw and sliced through the unborn receptacle thingymagiggy..."? Be serious. Then there is this:

It is pure hypocrisy to refer to unborn babies as fetuses and not refer to adults as homo sapiens and children as offspring.

Somebody doesn't understand the word "hypocrisy". No... if we're going to refer to a fetus as an "unborn baby" we should refer to adults as "undead corpses" otherwise she's comparing apples to orangutans. The truth is that a fetus is a fetus, a baby is a baby and a corpse is a corpse. And to be fair, one could be anti-abortion and accept proper medical terminology - a fetus has the potential to become a baby just as a fertilized egg has the potential to become a zygote and a zygote to become an embryo and an embryo to become a fetus (it's a bit tricky making it all that way as many studies reflect that anywhere from 30-70% of all fertilized eggs perish spontaneously). Why wouldn't one make the statement that one believes that killing a fetus (or zygote or embryo) is wrong? Why do they insist upon their cute little adjectives and qualifiers (like "unborn"baby and "preborn")? I'm guessing they believe that the use of emotionally charged words will grab the public ear better than truthful medical words. That was the explanation behind the Partial-Truth-Abortion-Ban... grabs ya a little more than Intact D&E or IDX, doesn't it?

Oh God... she goes on to say that the reason the term "fetus" is used is "...simply the pro-abortion community's influence at dehumanizing an unborn child." (there's that adjective again). Wow... I did not realize our reach went so far... YAY us!! So, I guess abortion will never be criminalized since the pro-choice community seems to have such an influence which surely reaches past the scientific realm and into other area's such as law, religion, philosophy and perhaps even thanatology.

This ended up being wa-hay longer than I thought so I will continue with my thoughts about a blog that I can respectfully disagree with next time...