in her post about what happens when access to abortion is denied. I can't believe that people can't see the connection between severely restricted access to contraception and abortion until the early 90s and Romanias orphans today.

I am speechless. How many children need to be born into a life of pain before the pro-lifers realize we first have to make sure every child born ends each day tucked into a warm, safe bed with a full belly and a loving word? I would have much more respect for your position if you would take the time, energy and money you spend pushing your own agenda and use it to create a loving and safe environment for the children already here. When that is accomplished and each child is assured of being born into a world where they wont suffer then lets talk about banning abortion. I suspect, if that happens, women would naturally choose to give birth over aborting.

And for the pro-lifers out there  could you walk among the orphans in Romania and feel proud that through banning abortion they were given life? Would you tell the children of a world where there is safety and warmth? Where there is enough food and medical care? A world that is full of adults who are waiting to love and guide them through life? Would you tell them of hugs and kisses, where a hand would be put to their forehead if they didnt feel well? Would you tell them of computers, television and Disney World? And if you did could you make it a reality for them?

Next time you voiced your pro-life opinion maybe you should think of it as your pro-what-kind-of-life opinion. And maybe you would get your priorities straight and work toward healing the lives of the children already here.

Watch the Republicans and their anti-abortion stance during campaign 2000. LOOK at the nice clothes, the banquets, and the faces. They either dont know or dont care about the kind of suffering their anti-abortion stance creates. Ask yourself how many would give up just their closet full of nice clothes to feed some of these orphans for a while. Am I the only one who sees what a JOKE they are? And a very dangerous joke at that. (Not all Republications are anti-abortion. It is the Republican platform I am addressing)

The following is worth the read in its entirety:

Legal Abortion: the Sign of a Civilized Society

Abstract: This paper outlines some of the harsh realities about the incidence and safety of legal versus illegal abortion in the modern world. Countries where abortion is legal are compared to countries where it is illegal to highlight the shocking injustice being done to women who do not have access to safe, legal abortion. That, and the tragedy of unwanted children, highlights the far-reaching health and social benefits of legalized abortion.

Civilization: a human society with a high level of intellectual, social, and cultural development. Civilized: to be brought into a state of civilization; to be enlightened.

Introduction

Mandatory motherhood is a unique kind of slavery that specifically victimizes women and children. About one-third of the world's women live in countries where enforced motherhood rules the day. Not too long ago, perhaps women's biology was their destiny. But no more. With the advent of modern contraception and quality reproductive care, there's no excuse for forcing women to bear children against their will, or failing to provide basic maternal care, or compelling women to seek out illegal, unsafe abortions. There's no excuse for forcing children to be born unwanted, sentencing them to a probable life of dysfunction. The future of any society rests in its children, and a civilized society is one that invests in children and parents by providing a healthy, loving environment in which to raise kids

Some Basic Information about Abortion Around the World

Abortion is probably the world's most common surgical procedure. About 46 million abortions are performed every year, 20 million of them illegal. Abortion is practiced widely by women all over the world, across all social classes, and regardless of laws against abortion. Since the beginning of recorded history, abortion has been commonly practiced by almost all societies, including ancient China, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and countless others. In fact, abortion could be called a fundamental aspect of human behaviour

Countries Where Abortion is/was Illegal

Romania

One of the succeeding government's first acts was to legalize abortion as an emergency health measure. International family planning agencies were invited to set up clinics in Romania, and they found that 40% of women of childbearing-age had reproductive tract damage left by illegal abortions. Continued economic chaos and lack of medical care means than Romania has a very high abortion rate even today, about 1.3 million for every half-million live births. Even so, almost 2,000 babies were abandoned at maternity hospitals in 1994. Countless thousands of children still languish today in orphanages, in squalid conditions, and another 10,000 wander the streets of Romanian cities, homeless. School enrollment has dropped by 21% since 1992 and over 400,000 children have quit school since 1992. About 2,500 Romanian kids are HIV positive, more than the combined total of all Western Europe. And dozens of pedophiles from Western Europe travel regularly to Romania because of its reputation as a country where children are desperate and vulnerable

Countries Where Abortion is Legal

In the Netherlands, abortion is freely available on demand. Yet the Netherlands boasts the lowest abortion rate in the world, about 6 abortions per 1000 women per year, and the complication and death rates for abortion are miniscule. How do they do it? First of all, contraception is widely available and free -- it's covered by the national health insurance plan. Holland also carries out extensive public education on contraception, family planning, and sexuality. An ethic of personal responsibility for one's sexual activity is strongly promoted. Of course, 

Canada has no law at all restricting abortion. The safety of abortion is governed just like any other medical procedure, and most abortions are funded by government health insurance. Because there's no law, anti-choice groups in Canada complain about how women are having casual abortions right up to their ninth month of pregnancy, but in practice, 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and no doctor will perform abortions past about 20 or 21 weeks unless it's for compelling health or genetic reasons

the American woman's right to abortion and contraception has been undermined by extreme anti-choice violence and harassment, and numerous legal, social, and political obstacles. America's large and politically powerful anti-choice movement is also against contraception, with the result that 1.3 million American women still have abortions every year, a rate of 24 per 1000 women, unnecessarily high for such an advanced, democratic country

The Critical Role of Contraception

there are still 120-150 million women around the world who want to limit or space their pregnancies, but they lack information about contraception and access to family planning services. The failure to meet family planning needs has negative effects on women and their families. Effective family planning services help women improve their lives, stay healthy, and provide for their families. This in turn has a positive impact on the whole community

The Plight of Unwanted Children

The anti-choice suffer from what I call the "fetus focus fallacy." They put fetuses ahead of just about everything else, including women's lives and rights, the alleviation of human suffering, freedom of conscience and religion, and truth itself. But let's take a look at these "unborn children", the ones who end up being aborted, but who should, according to anti-abortionists, be forced to live

Benefits of Legal Abortion

Besides the tremendous benefit to society of ensuring that every child is a wanted child, legal abortion has clearly been a significant factor in saving women's lives and health:

The Anti-choice Campaign Against Abortion

For the anti-choice, I believe the heart of the abortion controversy is not about the fate of unborn babies. It's about the value of women in society. In North America, for example, many anti-abortion leaders oppose ideas and programs that could help women achieve equality and freedom, and protect the health and well-being of families. For instance, they oppose affirmative action programs that help women gain equity in the job market. They force poor women to have babies and then cut off their welfare. They lobby against health and nutrition programs for children. They condone the bombing of clinics providing reproductive services, and the killing of doctors and staff. These uncivilized actions reveal the true nature of anti-choice goals. They want a return to the days when women had few choices in life. They don't like women having too much freedom, especially in controlling their reproductive lives. They're convinced that women can't be trusted to make their own decisions. And they certainly don't like women having sex for fun without paying for it

Conclusion

The high rates of death and serious injury associated with unsafe and illegal abortion prove that governments, public health officials, and right-wing religious groups are blind and indifferent to the realities of women's lives. These people continue to believe that laws against abortion will stop abortion, in spite of obvious contrary evidence. The only thing that laws against abortion do is make abortion dangerous, turn most women into criminals, produce millions of disadvantaged children, and create wide disrespect for the law. When it's plain to see that tens of millions of women willingly risk their lives to end an unwanted pregnancy, the hypocrisy of those in power is nothing less than criminal

 We probably won't be able to change laws against abortion without some kind of universal consensus, like we have on slavery, but I believe we're getting closer and closer to that universal consensus. The day may soon come when women all around the world will have the legal right to decide for themselves when and whether to have children, and the means to exercise that right, safely. And children will have the fundamental right to be wanted, to grow up safe, happy, and healthy. On that day, the world will become truly civilized

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 02, 2000

Answers

Debra,

Citizen Ruth and you are both wrong.

Romania has had access to abortions for 10 1/2 YEARS. Your inability to reason clearly on this subject is almost dumbfounding. I guess that your passion for killing babies in the womb clouds your cognitive skills.

If a civilized society is defined by the legal killing of its children, then give me a barbarous society any day.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 02, 2000.

J,

How many 11, 12, 13...year olds are orphans?

I suppose you would call a society civilized that has babies and doesn't feed them? Or keep them safe?

Do me a favor. Don't insult my intelligence and I won't insult yours. However, if you choose to speak to me as you spoke to Citizen Ruth you WILL recieve the same in return.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 02, 2000.

Debra,

Are you claiming that the majority of the orphans are 11, 12, & 13 years old?

Society will NEVER be able to keep ALL children fed or safe. As an analogy, are you advocating no automobile travel because there are fatal accidents?

Do ME a favor. Don't insult my intelligence by assuming that I will believe that your OPINION of abortion is FACT. That essay that you posted is nothing more than propaganda, not fact. The FACT is that Romania has had access to legal abortions for 10 1/2 YEARS. Are you trying to say that the lack of access to abortions over a decade ago is to blame for the current crop of "orphans"? If so, how is it to blame?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 02, 2000.

Hey J-

Yesterday you were arguing that the situation in Romania was due to Communism, even though the country hasn't been Communist a dozen years. NOW you're saying that the orphanage problem is not due to a lack of choice because abortion has been legal in Romania for about a dozen years. That's a pretty huge inconsistancy. Either the policies of a dozen years ago play a part in today's Romania or they don't. Pick one or the other, but don't talk out of both sides of your mouth.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 02, 2000.

***For the anti-choice, I believe the heart of the abortion controversy is not about the fate of unborn babies. It's about the value of women in society***

And what of the value of a woman's soul after *SHE*, the one who is instinctively meant to protect that child, even with her own life, has in fact paid someone to kill that child?

And how many women who have made it to the top career-wise, realize that after all, they wish they could have gone back and had children?

There is nothing so fulfilling as having your child hug you tightly, and whisper in your ear that they love you. Nothing

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 02, 2000.

Tarzan,

Though we fundamentally disagree on the abortion issue, I have grown accustomed to quality debate when we clash. That is why I am a bit surprised by what you posted above.

Yesterday I argued, and am still arguing today, that the "orphan" problem in Romania today is due to failed communist economic policies. You see, economic policies that destroy the ability of a nation to provide for its citizenry often have far- reaching consequences. The Romanian economy, due to the misguided communist economic policies of over a decade ago, is still in such a bad shape today that families are unable to provide for their children.

Please explain how the lack of access to abortion 10 1/2 years ago is causing women to have unwanted babies today, when abortion is legal and accessible?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 02, 2000.

And what of the value of a woman's soul after *SHE*, the one who is instinctively meant to protect that child, even with her own life, has in fact paid someone to kill that child?

Personally, I don't believe in the soul. However, I've had a lot of experience as a volunteer clinic escort. I've never seen anyone it bothered, unless they had to have the abortion out of medical necessity.

And how many women who have made it to the top career-wise, realize that after all, they wish they could have gone back and had children?

How many women who've given up their careers realize that after all they wish they could have gone back and postponed or avoided having children? Your going for sentimentlism here. Everyone has regrets of one sort or another, men and women, successful and non- successful.

There is nothing so fulfilling as having your child hug you tightly, and whisper in your ear that they love you. Nothing.

For YOU. There are plenty of people who disagree. Just look at the childless-by-choice movement.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 02, 2000.

Tarzan, I pity you.

I am done on this thread.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 02, 2000.

Yesterday I argued, and am still arguing today, that the "orphan" problem in Romania today is due to failed communist economic policies. You see, economic policies that destroy the ability of a nation to provide for its citizenry often have far- reaching consequences. The Romanian economy, due to the misguided communist economic policies of over a decade ago, is still in such a bad shape today that families are unable to provide for their children.

Please explain how the lack of access to abortion 10 1/2 years ago is causing women to have unwanted babies today, when abortion is legal and accessible?

So misguided economic policies continue to hurt after 11 years, but misguided reproductive policies don't? Explain that one!

If I remember correctly, Romania outlawed birth control and sex education as well as abortion. So you have an uneducated population glutted with children it can't care for. Do you think those children disappeared when Ceacescu died? Do you think that it started raining condoms from heaven? Do you think that Saint Margaret Sanger suddenly appeared to the population en masse and enlightened them on how to avoid getting pregnant?

No, just as you have an eroded economic base from Communism, so you have an eroded family planning base from the sort of vicious pro-life regime Romania had. You can't say that Communism has a long reaching effect on the population without saying that outlawing family planning and reproductive choices also had a long reaching effect.

Every time it rains it rains... condoms from heaven

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 02, 2000.

Cin-

Well, that's one way of admitting defeat...

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 02, 2000.

Tarzan,

You said, "You can't say that Communism has a long reaching effect on the population without saying that outlawing family planning and reproductive choices also had a long reaching effect".

Yes, I can. The Romanian economy, by all accounts, is still suffering from the effects of communism.

Romanian women, by most accounts (Link), are more than willing to avail themselves to abortion. You may hold that a policy from over a decade ago is still causing Romanian women to forego abortions today, but there is scant evidence that this is the case. It appears that the children that are ending up in orphanages are not unwanted children that Romanian women were forced to bear, but that they are children who were wanted at birth, but whose parents were unable to care for them due to the economic conditions in Romania.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 02, 2000.

It is interesting to note that the proponents of abortion are alive and well.They can babble freely on why they believe as they do.Well how about the babys that were denied any choice in the matter ?What do you think the last thoughts were that went thru their minds?How about,I'm sure glad I'm being chopped to pieces.Now I won't have to worry about being cold, or hungry, or happy, or anything ever.I'm grateful to be able to make the bastard doing this to me rich.It just thrills me to death to have my skin and body parts taken, to be sold to those who have enough money to afford them.And last,but certainly not least,my eternal gratitude to Debra for helping to make this happen.May she be childless forever.May her womb be as barren as her heart.

-- Dan Newsome (BOONSTAR1@webtv.net), August 02, 2000.

wow =**(

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 02, 2000.

You may hold that a policy from over a decade ago is still causing Romanian women to forego abortions today, but there is scant evidence that this is the case.

No, the problem is that Romanian women lack access to contraception and family planning education to this day. Simply put, there's no facilities to produce them, little money to buy them, and few people who know how/when/where to use them. I read in a WHO report that a month's worth of birth conrol pills cost three times what an abortion costs in Romania. I'll try to dig out the cite this evening.

It appears that the children that are ending up in orphanages are not unwanted children that Romanian women were forced to bear, but that they are children who were wanted at birth, but whose parents were unable to care for them due to the economic conditions in Romania.

Just because children are wanted does not mean they are planned. My great grandmother had ten children. She didn't mean to have so many, in her words, "They just kept coming,". She wouldn't have had an abortion at the time even if such an option had been available, but the fact of the matter is she shouldn't have had so many kids- the last three died of starvation and all of the surviving children suffered from rickets due to malnutrition. All of her surviving children limited their families or didn't have any kids at all.

Well how about the babys that were denied any choice in the matter ?What do you think the last thoughts were that went thru their minds?

Did you give your tonsils a choice in the matter before having them removed? How about your appendix? What were the last thoughts that went through it's head before it was removed?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 02, 2000.

Tarz--

You should have quit while you were even (you were never ahead). An unborn life = an appendix? C'est tragique.

-- Lars (lars@indy. net), August 02, 2000.

Sounds as if Tarzan is trying to convince HIMSELF.

If I can get past the horror of it all, I KNOW, those precious children are at The Lord's side. And they are at peace now. Heaven help the person who does this and seeks no forgiveness and change to their lives.

-- c'est (tragique@in.deed), August 02, 2000.

Tarzan,

The title of this thread is, "Citizen Ruth is Right". This thread is a continuation of a previous thread, started by Citizen Ruth, which was titled, "Here's what happens without access to abortion". Therefore, the argument put forth by Citizen Ruth and (by the extension of this thread) Debra is that the "orphan" problem in Romania is the result of no access to abortion in Romania. With your last post, you have agreed with me against their argument by concurring that lack of access to abortions in Romania is NOT the cause of the "orphan" problem there, since there is obviously NO lack of access to abortions in Romania today.

Your statement that your great grandmother, "shouldn't have had so many kids" implies to me that you not only feel that Romanian women should have ample access to abortions (they do), but also that they should have ample access to contraceptives (they don't). If the women of Romania were to have ample access to contraceptives, and yet find the "orphan" problem none the better, what would you conclude? What would you propose?

I surely hope that the pro-choice group is not just for the choice to abort, but also for the choice to bear children, even when the mothers in question "shouldn't have so many kids".

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 02, 2000.

Tarz..Are you saying that abortion is like circumsision?I suppose that doesn't hurt either.Why do baby boys cry when it is being done? Are you saying that abortion is like cutting a toenail off,you dumb ass.

-- Dan Newsome (BOONSTAR1@webtv.net), August 02, 2000.

"If I can get past the horror of it all, I KNOW, those precious children are at The Lord's side. And they are at peace now. Heaven help the person who does this and seeks no forgiveness and change to their lives." -- c'est (tragique@in.deed)

Don't forget to pray for the children left in the hell-holes here. They certainly are not at peace. Why would you condemn so many more?

If you could manage to get past your horror maybe you might think about stopping the INSANITY. If the people on this planet cannot take care of the children they have they have no business having more.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 02, 2000.

"Legal abortion the sign of a civilized society"...

.....or, better said; government approved, sanctioned and subsidized murder of babies in the womb is the sign of a civilized society... which proves me right once again; the whole world is on it's ear.

-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), August 02, 2000.

"Well how about the babys that were denied any choice in the matter ?What do you think the last thoughts were that went thru their minds?How about,I'm sure glad I'm being chopped to pieces." --- Dan Newsome

Good Dan. Now why don't you describe the pain the children who were born feel? Want to start with what hunger feels like? You can follow it up with cold, no loving human contact, etc..

Wouldn't it be great if ALL children could be born and ALL children could be taken care of?

BTW ... lay off the personal attacks.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 02, 2000.

Debra,

Not to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying that abortion is a good thing, because these kids' lives are so miserable they would be better off had they been aborted. Is that an accurate asssessment of your belief? If not, if you think their lives (though miserable) are still better then not being born, why would you be for abortion? If so, and you think their lives are WORSE than not being born, would you agree that it would be in their best interests just to kill them now as kids and save them further suffering? (performing a fourth trimester abortion as it were)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 02, 2000.

Generally, societies (defined in terms of legal jurisdiction) follow one of three options when addressing the issue of unwanted pregnancies.

1) Prohibit all abortions. This inevitably leads to black market abortions and bungled abortion attempts, as always happens when the powerful attempt to cram their religious principles down everyone elses' throats. And equally inevitably, this prohibition never seems to extend to those who imposed this restriction -- when *they* want an abortion, they get one easily. The number of unwanted children is nonetheless unnecessarily high, and they frequently live unfulfilling lives (at best).

2) Make abortion mandatory. Usually done for population control. Once again, this leads to serious social problems. China has terrible mother hunts as people try desperately to have traditionally large families or to exceed childbirth limits to have a male child. In China, the ratio of males to females is becoming unbalanced. And also once again, those in power, who act to limit the size of everyone else's family, don't seem to suffer the same restrictions themselves.

3) Make abortion optional, up to the individual. As always, this works best. Those in power can't abuse that power by flouting the rules they impost on others, and citizens don't find themselves being defined as lawbreakers due to state coercion. The only problem with this approach is, there are always some people who believe their morality should be FORCED on everyone else, so long as this is a one- way street and others don't get to force their own morality back. This kind of selfishness is probably part of the condition of being human.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 02, 2000.

Or you could make it law that men pay for each unwanted child they sire by having one nut forcibly 'harvested' per accidental pregnancy.

Two strikes, you're out.

-- lisa (lisa@home.now), August 02, 2000.

J:

You said:

Society will NEVER be able to keep ALL children fed or safe.

This is not true. There is enough food in the world to feed everybody. The amount of food thrown away in New York City in one day could feed a number of Romanian villages for a week. If you are going to say something like this, please clarify that it is POLITICAL issues that cause mass starvation. If each one of us were to take action to change the systems of the world that cause other people to starve, then we would really be doing something.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), August 02, 2000.

Flint, you said,

1) Prohibit all abortions. This inevitably leads to black market abortions and bungled abortion attempts, as always happens when the powerful attempt to cram their religious principles down everyone elses' throats.

This thread *was* related to the prior one on Romania. Are you saying that the Communists were trying to cram their *religious principles* down their populace's throats?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 02, 2000.

Lisa,

Sounds good to me. One nut and one ovary per preg mandatory.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 02, 2000.

Your statement that your great grandmother, "shouldn't have had so many kids" implies to me that you not only feel that Romanian women should have ample access to abortions (they do), but also that they should have ample access to contraceptives (they don't).

Yes. Their lack of access to contraception and sex education is a result of the pro-life regime of Nicoli Ceacescu.

If the women of Romania were to have ample access to contraceptives, and yet find the "orphan" problem none the better, what would you conclude? What would you propose?

I would conclude that they really want to sell their children and I would propose that this should be outlawed. If the women of Romania were to have ample access to contraception and found the orphan problem better, what would YOU conclude?

I surely hope that the pro-choice group is not just for the choice to abort, but also for the choice to bear children, even when the mothers in question "shouldn't have so many kids".

Pro-choice people are not only for the freedom to choose abortion but also for the freedom to choose to prevent pregnancy in the first place. While my great grandmother would not have chosen to give up one of her children, I have no doubt that she would have chosen not to conceive her three children who later starved to death.

Tarz..Are you saying that abortion is like circumsision?I suppose that doesn't hurt either.Why do baby boys cry when it is being done? Are you saying that abortion is like cutting a toenail off,you dumb ass.

The majority of medical professionals believe babies who are being circumcised cry because they are surprised by the strange new world they are suddenly confronted with and are not yet capable of feeling complex sensations such as pain. Others theorize that baby boys can feel pain. What that has to do with abortion is anyone's guess. I'm not saying that abortion is like cutting off a toenail, I'm saying that it's like major surgery, dip shit.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 02, 2000.

Hey, racing to foil the renegade HTML.... old TB pastime....

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), August 02, 2000.

Off

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 02, 2000.

**bungled abortion attempts**

Why is it so horrific and shocking that a woman may lose HER life, while trying to take the life of her own child?

-- c'est (tragique@in.deed), August 02, 2000.

[I do not believe in abortion.In your case,I would make an exception.]

Ah yes, how flexible our beliefs become to suit our immediate purposes. Exceptions are fine in MY circumstances, but forbidden in YOUR circumstances. Uh huh. This is the value of providing options -- each person can determine their own circumstances.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 02, 2000.

Some observations from north of the border on this rather incendiary topic.

Canadian women have only had relatively easy access to abortion since 1988. Prior to that date, a women had to convince a panel of doctors at her local hospital that she needed an abortion for "medical reasons". Not much fun if you lived in a small town and had to go in front of that panel.

The main opposition party in Canada - the Canadian Alliance - has recently elected a new party leader, Stockwell Day, who is very much anti-abortion (he is a Pentecostal former lay preacher). Mr Day has promised that he won't impose his private views on public policy. A cynic might conclude that he has adopted this position in response to polls showing the majority of Canadians opposing the outright banning of access to abortion.

Three Canadian abortion providers have been shot and injured in the past 4 years. The suspect is thought to be an American involved in the extreme end of the anti-abortion movement. One of the doctors who was shot was also the victim of a stabbing about a month ago in his Vancouver office.

I find it ironic that the most visible people opposing abortion tend to be what I call 3M: Male, middle-class and middle-aged. I also find it ironic that many people (in my personal experience) who oppose abortion also oppose the dissemination (no pun intended) of birth control information.

Prohibition did not succeed in stopping people from drinking. "The War on Drugs" has not succeeded in getting rid of drug use. Similarly, making abortion illegal won't be the end of abortion. Women will just go underground, use the black market etc.

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), August 02, 2000.

Dan,

You would make an exception in my case. That's ok.

If I found you hungry, cold and thirsty I would invite you by the fire and share with you my food and water.

I have to ask you -- what do children know of temporary conditions? They know they hurt and that's all they know. You don't sound like you know children very well.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 02, 2000.

DC Mayor Kills Contraceptive Bill

Washington DC Mayor Anthony Williams Tuesday refused to sign a bill that would have required DC employer-provided health care to cover contraceptives. Mayor Williams sided with the Catholic Church, objecting to the bill on the grounds that it had no opt-out clause for churches or other employers who object to contraception on "religious or moral grounds." Although the bill had previously been unanimously approved by the City Council, Williams' failure to sign the bill effectively vetoes it for the current session. When the Council returns in September, they plan to renegotiate the bill with exceptions for certain employers.

[Sources: Infobeat - August 2, 2000]

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 02, 2000.

Amendment Banning Access to Emergency Contraception Puts Teens At Risk for Unintended Pregnancy

Conservative Amendment Jeopardizes Health of American Teens

CONTACT: Bill Smith, (202) 265-2405

WASHINGTON, DC (June 30, 2000) Citing the fact that each year in the United States almost a million teens become pregnant, Advocates for Youth and the Sexuality Information & Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) condemn a conservative amendment offered by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) that prohibits federal funding for emergency contraception provided to adolescents in a school-based health clinic.

An attempt to table the restrictive amendment failed today on a 41-54 vote. The amendment was then added to the Labor, HHS bill by voice vote.

James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, calls on politicians to stop putting their political agendas above the health and wellbeing of American young people. Its ironic that by restricting federal funding for emergency contraception, the very politicians who oppose abortion are passing laws that make abortion more likely, said Wagoner.

The Congressional leadership is sending the wrong message to our young people. With 70 percent of all U.S. teens sexually active by age 18, and with 75 percent of the decrease in teen pregnancy rates among sexually experienced teens due to increased use of contraception, denying teens access to contraception will only jeopardize this progress and put our young people at risk, said Bill Smith, SIECUS director of public policy.

Emergency contraception can be used to prevent pregnancy after having unprotected sexual intercourse or if a method of birth control fails. Emergency contraception does not terminate an already established pregnancy.

Almost 90 percent of the teen pregnancies each year are unintended and approximately 40 percent end in abortion. The Helms amendment will not deter teens from having sex, but it will ensure that we have more teen pregnancies and more abortions, said Wagoner. This misguided prohibition is contrary to the national goal of reducing unintended pregnancy and is harmful to teens.

Advocates for Youth is a national, nonprofit organization that creates programs and supports policies that help young people make safe, responsible decisions about their sexual and reproductive health.

SIECUS is a national nonprofit organization, which affirms that sexuality is a natural and healthy part of living. SIECUS develops, collects, and disseminates information; promotes comprehensive education about sexuality; and advocates for the right of individuals to make responsible sexual choices. SIECUS believes all people have the right to comprehensive sexuality education, which addresses the biological, socio-cultural, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of sexuality. SIECUS has offices in New York and Washington, DC.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 02, 2000.

FutureShock,

It is true.

I did not say that there was not enough food in the world to feed everyone. I said that society, being made up of imperfect humans, will NEVER be able to keep ALL children fed or safe.

The world is a rough place. There are no guarantees. Basing policy decisions on some make believe utopian ideal is foolish. For instance, you could extrapolate Debra's argument to the point of not allowing children to be born unless a certain household income was attained.

Debra seems to be inconsistent with her pro-choice belief. According to her, Romanians should be able to choose an abortion, but because of their dismal economic situation, they should not be able to choose to bring children into this world.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 02, 2000.

The basic problem here is, the acceptability of abortion is a matter of definition, not observation. We only use observed consequences of different abortion policies as ammunition to support our beliefs, selecting what we choose in our favor and ignoring observations we don't like.

Essentially, our observations could be completely one-sided -- one belief could be supported by ALL observations, and it wouldn't make a whit of difference to those who believed the opposite. Beliefs are fixed and a priori, evidence be damned.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 02, 2000.

The world is a rough place?

You'd better believe it...when they want to kill you before you're even born!

And you KNOW that Dan did not mean that. Heat of the argument. I, for one, could think of a few things I'd like to do to those who perform or counsel for abortions. But of course I wouldn't do it. This issue is extremely enraging.

But you know...they WILL eventually pay the piper.

-- abstinence (isthe@best.choice), August 02, 2000.

Love that old time christian vengeance-sittin' around, biding the time until all people WHO YOU HAVE JUDGED-are thrown into the eternal pit. How truly sad this is-folks just passing judgement and wishing that any women who ever had an abortion would go to hell.

Like Ra has said in the past-if heaven is full of you fucking hypocrits, hell seems like a finer place to be.

-- FuckYou (And@theboatyoucamein.on), August 02, 2000.

**How truly sad this is-folks just passing judgement and wishing that any women who ever had an abortion would go to hell.**

YOU are WRONG! I did not say that, oh sloppy reader you.

I know The Lord will forgive those who beg of Him. It's hard for a human to understand completely that kind of grace. Nor do I expect you to understand it.

Why would you have so much hate in your heart for someone who doesn't wish innocent babies to be killed. Why do you call me a hypocrite? How am I a hypocrite? I am not judging you. That must be your own conscience you are hearing.

-- abstinence (isthe@best.choice), August 03, 2000.

Tarzan,

You said, "I would conclude that they really want to sell their children and I would propose that this should be outlawed".

The answer might be that these women, contraceptives or not, poverty or not, are having children because they want to have them. It could be that they are having these children with the intent of raising them, but find themselves unable to do so because of their economic situation.

You also said, "Pro-choice people are not only for the freedom to choose abortion but also for the freedom to choose to prevent pregnancy in the first place".

I understand that. Are pro-choice people also for the freedom to choose to bear children? Even when those children might be later given to an orphanage or starve to death?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 03, 2000.

Love that old time christian vengeance-sittin' around, biding the time until all people WHO YOU HAVE JUDGED-are thrown into the eternal pit.

Hi F_You. I am not interested in joining into this argument but I would like to take a moment to revisit the basis of Christianity: Love one another. For everything else - be it tales of eternal damnation, the notion of predestination, bizarre rituals, etc. - you can thank an early church with considerable power and control over the old country.

-- another heated talk about (prod@uct.ion), August 03, 2000.

Debra, thanks for posting the article. I've added it to my favorites; articles such as these I file under FREEDOMS.

My mother, now deceased, was born in 1899, and she once told me that women used all sorts of bizarre measures to prevent contraception back before diaphrams and the pill. This was when women just couln't say "No," for the Bible verse trumpeted from the pulpit was, women obey your husbands.

And to you holy-santified jerks who oppose women's right to choose, I like Debra, refuse to argue with fools. To support fools in their judgemental, ignorance is to fill the world with fools--we're overloaded now.

Now about what the fetus feels and misses. Exactly how much do you remember from your days in the womb? In fact, how much do you remember of your first year, or second year of life on year? If my mother had had an abortion, I'm sure I would not be roaming through the universe bemoaning the fact that I never got to experience life on earth.

And to you that think parenthood is more important than anythingin life--fine. I love my child dearly, even though he's a grown man and I'm a grandmother. But I have, and have always had an interesting, full life before and after motherhood. I would be quite happy had I never had a child. I think that is not true of everyone, but while I'm glad I had a child, I do not, and did not feel that my emotional happiness depended on having a child. My happiness comes from within. A child, husband, nice home, are wonderful. They enhance life greatly, but I would have been happy without them.

As usual Flint, you are the voice of reason among the unreasonable. lisa, I liked your solution.

Why do the anti's get so virtuous about a fetus that can remember nothing in the womb, and that couldn't live or breathe without being connected to the womb, its host. But these same virtuous anti's do little, or nothing to help the millions of disregarded, abused, castoff, hated, unwanted, unwashed, underfed, children that could use their help in this country. Hey, you anti's--put your big mouthes where it will help, and give sorely needed aid a child that is walking around in isolation, misery and pain, and can feel it every single day.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 03, 2000.

Food for thought for all pro-life people:

Anti-Abortion States Deprive Kids

A new study has clearly demonstrated that states with the most restrictive anti-abortion laws spend the least money on needy children, and that strongly pro-choice states spend the most.

States with strict anti-abortion laws provide less funding per child for foster care, lower stipends for parents who adopt children with special needs, less money for child welfare programs and education, and lower payments for poor women with dependent children, than do states with strong abortion rights laws. For example, the average monthly total spent on each poor child in Louisiana, the most repressive anti-choice state in the nation, was $602. This compared to $4,648 in Hawaii, one of the most pro-choice states. Other examples included the anti-abortion state Mississippi, which spent an average of $411, compared to pro-choice Delaware, which spent $3,471. Most of the strictest anti-abortion states are not in the poorer South, however, but also include Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, all of which spend lower amounts than other, more pro-choice states.

"'Basically the evidence supports the pro-choice claim that their opponents' concern for the child stops at birth. Pro-life states make it difficult for women to have abortions, but they do not help these women provide for the children once born," said Jean Schroedel, an associate professor of political science at the Claremont Graduate University in California. Her study also found that anti-abortion states consistently accorded lower political, social, and economic status to women.

In response to the study, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy stated in its December 1999 newsletter: "Considering the empirical evidence that indicates those states with the strictest abortion laws offer a profoundly lower quality of life for women and children, one is left wondering just what the term 'pro-life' means."

When beginning her research, Schroedel had expected to find that "pro- life" states were doing the most to help children, but after she completed her research, she joined both Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) and sent them money. Schroedel's findings are contained in her new book: Is the Fetus a Person: A Comparison of Fetal Policies Across 50 States.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 03, 2000.

A new study has clearly demonstrated that states with the most restrictive anti-abortion laws spend the least money on needy children, and that strongly pro-choice states spend the most.

It would appear that the Pro-Choice lobby believes that Life begins at birth and ends at death, whereas the Pro-Life lobby believes that Life begins at conception and ends at birth.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 03, 2000.

J:

"I understand that. Are pro-choice people also for the freedom to choose to bear children? Even when those children might be later given to an orphanage or starve to death?"

I can only speak for myself, J, but I consider bringing a child into the world a lifetime commitment. I think that bearing nine children and giving seven of them away is as atrocious as getting pregnant nine times and aborting seven of them.

If abortion is cheaper than contraception, how much does sterilization cost in Romania? I have to believe that these women are reproducing for profit. The other options in my mind are a) they still haven't figured out cause and effect or b) they simply don't care if their offspring die in orphanges.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Gilda, how can you equate having a child to having a nice home? Do you think children are just "things" that you acquire? grrrr

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 03, 2000.

oops I hit the submit...where was I....

So a doctor who performs your abortion is sort of like a realtor, when you decide you don't want your house anymore? I'm surprised that you feel this way, seeing that you had a child of your own. If that's the case then I agree that people like you should not have children. But should practice methods of birth control if married, or abstain if single. And NOT decide to get rid of your child by killing it.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 03, 2000.

Gilda, how can you equate having a child to having a nice home? Do you think children are just "things" that you acquire?

Actually, gilda's statement was this:

I would be quite happy had I never had a child. I think that is not true of everyone, but while I'm glad I had a child, I do not, and did not feel that my emotional happiness depended on having a child. My happiness comes from within. A child, husband, nice home, are wonderful. They enhance life greatly, but I would have been happy without them.

She only "equates" having a child to "having a nice home" in that they are both wonderful, but she could live without them. You then made the leap to the assumption that she actually equates a child with a home as a possession. You'll note that she also listed "husband" as well. Why are you not complaining that she thinks a husband is a thing to be acquired as well?

And just to make sure you paint her in the most cruel and insensitive light, you add this absurdity:

So a doctor who performs your abortion is sort of like a realtor, when you decide you don't want your house anymore?

So, you went from gilda saying that a child is something that is wonderful that she could still be happy without, to her equating an abortion doctor with a realtor, despite the fact that this was not at all what she said.

I believe this is what we call the "straw man argument."

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 03, 2000.

Cin is the type of person who'll say anything for her great and noble cause.

-- Choice (choice@mylife.not.yours), August 03, 2000.

Hmmm:

I just want to thank you for presenting your last two posts to this thread. You remain objective despite all the subjectivity around you. I particularly congratulate you on your response to Cin. You and I both knew why she didn't include what she didn't include, but while I sat scratching my head on how to tactfully suggest that the road from A to C typically goes through B if folks are inclined to suggest that one particular road is the only given path, you simply asked why this piece of that path was excluded.

The next time my kids get together here, I'm going to ask them if they would have preferred that I abort them or give them to an orphange, where they could have died by starvation and lack of attention. I can pretty much guarantee that they'll huddle together and say, "Do you think mom's lost it? WHAT is an orphange?"

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

hmmmmmmm, I just came on and want to thank you for posting an answer to cin's post--except yours was much better than mine would have been. I too found it amusing that cin picked on only two words, "nice home," out of my entire statement, but that's the norm for emotional, spurious arguments.

I was recently on a grandparents forum where I disagreed with those who were "pro" the woman suing her daughter-in-law for visiting over-night priviledges with her grands. No matter how bad I wanted to see my grands, I would never alienate everyone I know by doing something that stupid and hurtful.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 03, 2000.

I'll make you a deal. If Cin and J will get knocked up and then go get abortions, I'll have Dan Newsome's kid. Whattayasay?

-- Trailer Park Tammy (tammy@doublewide.com), August 03, 2000.

The following essay is the only one of its kind that I've run across. I'm not even sure what I think about it yet. But think about it I do. Especially the part that says:

...many Christians think unjust suffering improves one's chances of making it to heaven.

What Makes Pro-Lifers Tick?

by Tom Flynn

Tom Flynn is an American author and editor. This article is reprinted from the Secular Humanist Bulletin, Vol. 8, No. 2, Summer 1992.

What makes right-to-lifers tick? Most pro-choice activists I know have no idea. For them, pro-lifers' motivation is a cipher. ... Abortion-rights advocates need to know that there's more than inconsistency afoot when right-to-lifers oppose abortion and birth control simultaneouslyor when they oppose abortion without concern about poverty, child abuse, injustice, and other outrages against the already born.

Take it from a former hard-line Catholic: these positions are not incoherent. For their supporters, they proceed from erroneous first principles with inexorable logicthe same logic that brought forth Treblinka from the principles of Mein Kampf. And there's the danger. Pro-choicers who shrink from understanding pro-life thinking don't just walk away from potentially fruitful counter-arguments. They needlessly limit their ability to predict their adversaries' moves. Worse, they doom themselves to go on underestimating the danger their opponents truly represent.

So how can pro-life supporters coherently oppose abortion and birth control at the same time? It's easywhat they're really opposed to is sex. Sensual pleasure, untrammelled by the chains of obligation or the fear of punishment, violates their sense of sin. As novelist John Irving wrote in a recent New York Times piece, "What really makes [pro-lifers] sore is the idea of women having sex and somehow not having to pay for itpay in the sense of suffering all the way through an unwanted pregnancy." Irving errs only in restricting the onus to women: from St. Paul to the present, Christian prudes have used the risks and consequences of pleasure as a club against both sexes.

Historically, a single movement has opposed first birth control and now abortion in [the U.S.], repeating many of the same arguments in each context. Facing Margaret Sanger in a 1921 debate, birth-control opponent Winter Russell eulogized the unborn in words that could have fallen from Randall Terry's pen last week: ". . . the great unborn . . . are being murdered by the thousands, if not millions, in a manner that far transcends the method of warfare." (Of course, Terry would mean the aborted, while Russell meant the unconceived.) Russell then made the argument Irving detests: "You can't have pleasure in this world without paying for it. . . That is the law of lifeof Godyou have to pay."

For religious ultraconservatives, then, abortion and birth control are targets of convenience. Their real quarry is sensuality itself, which ought to tell us something about the goals they might choose next if they win on abortion.

Knowing that, what can we conclude when pro-lifers fight for the unborn but have little concern for actual children born into poverty, abuse, despair, or oppression? "It's morally inconsistent to manifest such concern for the poor fetus in a society that shows absolutely no pity for the poor child after it's born," Irving laments elsewhere in his op-ed. Sorry, Garp, this time you missed the boat.

There's nothing inconsistent in caring everything for the fetus, nothing for the child. All you need is a theology that portrays abortion as a fate worse than death. As Tom Foster Digby has observed, conservative Christianity provides that in lavender. Begin with the presumption that fetuses are endowed at conception with the souls they must carry throughout the trial of life, and the rest falls into place. Whatever agony the child must endure, the possibility of salvation remains; indeed, many Christians think unjust suffering improves one's chances of making it to heaven.

But what if a healthy fetus, on this view already ensouled and intended by God to survive, is aborted? Conservative Catholics still say its soul goes to limbo, a concept church teaching has abandoned. Some fundamentalists say it goes to hell, if only for lack of anywhere else to send it. Whatever the details, most pro-lifers agree that abortion deprives a human soul of the only chance to work out its own salvation that it will ever, ever, havefor all eternity.

For one who takes that literally, anything that happens after birth, however repellent or unjust, may be acceptable. It can always be recompensed in the afterlife. There's only one irreversible evil: abortion, which cuts off the soul from afterwordly justice. Obviously, such a view demands fanatical defense of fetuses. Yet it can accept laissez-faire or even hostile attitudes toward children, without the slightest danger of contradiction.

Still, this is not a position that commands much assent outside fundamentalist circles today. Contemporary pro-lifers have learned to stress lines of argument that ring truer to modern ears. But Winter Russell lived in a more innocent time; if we return to his more primitive anti-birth control rhetoric, we will see the core Christian argument stated openly: "The great mass of so-called Americans are today voluntarily but blindly shutting the unborn out from the Heaven to which I hope we will all ultimately reach."

When we understand pro-life thinking in this waythe thinking that surely animates much of the movement's leadership, if not its rank and filewe better understand the challenge. Pro-choice does not enjoy the luxury of confronting an opponent whose position must soon collapse under the weight of internal contradictions. Pro-life rhetoric is consistent. The problem lies in the philosophy and world view it embodies so consistently, which is clearly anti-human and which most Americans would reject if they really understood it. We who defend abortion rights need to work harder at understanding the thinking behind the pro-life positionif only so that we can better expose what it actually implies.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 03, 2000.

Trailer Park Tammy, LOL.

Good Grief Debra, that was a fantastic essay. I agree with every word of it. And do you know that there has never been a Right to Lifer that was intentionally hurt by a Pro-choice person, nor has a Right to Life person ever been killed by a Pro-choice person. Yet the Right to Life bunch bomb, kill, obstruct and threaten people gving abortions, clinics, and threaten people seeking abortions.

Damned evil hypocrits, worrying about a fetus and killing doctors who have families and patients that need them. And the damned sanctimonious bastards wouldn't life a finger to help a little kid that was living in a terrible situation. For that would mean they might have to make an effort beyond running their stupid mouthes.

Yes!! They still want women to suffer in childbirth, just as the stinkin' old Bible says. They want to lay guilt, sin, shame and fear on women. And they are blind to the plight of women and especially women that already have a child or children. Right to Lifers dont worry about the possiblity of children being orphans if their mother dies of a botched, back alley abortion.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 03, 2000.

Debra:

I [basically] agree with Gilda on this one. She speaks more vehemently than I, but this doesn't mean our core principles don't coincide. I've, personally, been amazed for many years at how pro- lifers didn't want abortion, didn't want contraception, and don't even MENTION supporting the children born out of wedlock. That's not the responsibility of the people who have taken away all alternatives outside of abstinence, which isn't even practiced by the folks who think everyone else should.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 03, 2000.

Debra,

I am a pro-lifer. I am not against birth control. I am not against sensual pleasure. That essay is a load of crap. Debra, you offer more propaganda, but no coherent arguments. Surely you can do better.


gilda,

"Good Grief Debra, that was a fantastic essay. I agree with every word of it".

Agreeing with every word of non-factual propaganda is somewhat of an embarrassing admittance in thinking circles.

Last fall I took 2 children into my home who had no heat at theirs. I fed them, clothed them, and provided shelter for them until a family member could. If a family member couldn't step up, I was willing to provide for them indefinitely. Don't spout your mouth off about that which you know so little. It makes you look like a complete and utter fool.


Anita

I would think long and hard about agreeing with the drivel that gilda just spouted, even though you couched it with, "[basically]". We disagree on the issue of abortion, but usually your debating skills are light years ahead of gilda's. Please rethink your statement that throws ALL pro-lifers into the no contraception camp. It is an untenable position to hold.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 04, 2000.

Uh Anita, there ARE people who practice abstinence. Just because YOU can't abstain, doesn't mean that others can't. It's not easy but it's a life choice that I think is well worth it.

And Gilda, you sound like a bitter old woman. Do you actually think women have it so bad in this day and age? What plight of women? The best way to avoid dying from a botched abortion, is to NOT HAVE ONE. Like I said before, why is it so horrific and shocking that a mother should die in the process of having her child killed? What's that old adage..."live by abortion - die by abortion".

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 04, 2000.

Uh Anita, there ARE people who practice abstinence. Just because YOU can't abstain, doesn't mean that others can't.

Where did Anita indicate that she can't abstain? Please cite the reference.

Like I said before, why is it so horrific and shocking that a mother should die in the process of having her child killed? What's that old adage..."live by abortion - die by abortion".

I take it, then, that you feel that a mother dying in this way is neither shocking, nor horrific to you? How do you feel about it, then?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 04, 2000.

"I am a pro-lifer. I am not against birth control. I am not against sensual pleasure." ---J

You simply don't address the outrages against the already born, why? For that matter, I don't believe one pro-lifer here has. WHY? The above essay is the only thing that begins to make sense.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 04, 2000.

Like I said before, why is it so horrific and shocking that a mother should die in the process of having her child killed? What's that old adage..."live by abortion - die by abortion".

Anyone want to take bets on when Cin will join the Army of God and start murdering clinic workers?

-- Choice (choice@mylife.not.yours), August 04, 2000.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, J. I've been up against the wall at work.

Back when we were still talking about Romanian women and not abortion in general, J said

The answer might be that these women, contraceptives or not, poverty or not, are having children because they want to have them. It could be that they are having these children with the intent of raising them, but find themselves unable to do so because of their economic situation.

It could also be that the sun is roughly the size and shape of a tennis ball. Without ever examining it, we will never know. Just because the possibility exists that Romanian women want to have children without regard to whether they can raise them does not mean that they shouldn't have access to contraception and sex education. Let's let them make an informed choice.

Are pro-choice people also for the freedom to choose to bear children? Even when those children might be later given to an orphanage or starve to death?

I thought that was obvious. After all, how many abortion clinics do you see masquerading as adoption centers? How many choice advocates do you see picketing the churches of prominent anti-choicers? How many attempts has NARAL made to outlaw adoption?

-- Tarzan theApe Man (taran@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 04, 2000.

Absolutely not. I wouldn't even kill a spider. Just because I believe that what comes around, goes around...does NOT make me a killer. Of a woman who should die from a back-alley abortion- I think it's tragic but I also think it's her own damned fault. Afterall, what makes HER life more precious than that child's. When you commit murder, you will have to pay for it somehow. If not immediately, then someday. If not with your life, then another way. Do you think that you won't look back on what you did without mental anguish and guilt. Don't you realize that it will haunt you for the rest of your life. And all of your justification NOW, will mean nothing to you then.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 04, 2000.

Of a woman who should die from a back-alley abortion- I think it's tragic but I also think it's her own damned fault. Afterall, what makes HER life more precious than that child's.

Do you believe, therefore, that a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion even if it is clear that she will die during childbirth?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 04, 2000.

It's not much of a step from saying, "Women who have abortions are committing murder along with the doctors who perform these abortions. Any woman who dies from an abortion is getting exactly what she deserves," to saying, "Abortion is murder, and I will do anything to stop it. An abortionist is a murderer, and God says murderers should die. I am but an insturment of His will,"

-- Choice (choice@mylife.not.yours), August 04, 2000.

Debra,

If not for the grim subject matter at hand, your "reasoning" would almost be hilarious. You are basically saying that since bad things happen to children, they should be aborted. You, nor I, can guarantee a perfect world to children.

I will ask again: Do you believe in the choice to bear a child under any circumstances? Or do you believe that when economic circumstances are dire, that the only choices are contraception and/or abortion?

Lastly, can you read, or do you just ignore the items that conflict with your agenda? Is the act of bringing children into my home that have no heat in theirs due to their mother's poor choices in life not "addressing the outrages against the already born", or not?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 04, 2000.

Tarzan,

I am not against contraception. I also think that everyone should be taught where babies come from (but not from someone with an agenda, but that's another argument). I am open to your line of thought that the "orphan" problem in Romania is due to lack of access to contraceptives (it is obviously not from the lack of access to abortions). I am also open to the line of thought that these women are purposefully having babies to sell them, horrific as it sounds. Why is it inconceivable (no pun intended : ) ) to you that Romanian women are purposefully having children with the intent of raising them?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 04, 2000.

J:

You rightly chastised me for my omission of a qualifier, such as MOST or MANY. I've been through this conversation with the anonymous poster who began the anti-abortion threads on this forum. He wasn't against contraception either. OTOH, I watched a portion of the Republican Convention Platform Committee last week and there was an amendment up for discussion regarding whether teenagers should be taught contraception. Several doctors stated that abstinence was fine, but they were seeing pregnant teens who'd learned NOTHING regarding sex and cause and effect. They felt that if the abortion rate were to be effectively reduced, someone needs to educate the youth. Simply stating "Don't do it." to a teen oftentimes results in increased curiosity regarding the forbidden fruit. Folks opposed to the amendment stated that one was sending a mixed message if contraception was introduced [not that abstinence isn't a form of contraception in itself.] They felt that the Republican Party should unify in suggesting that there was no other alternative than abstinence. The amendment failed, 50-39.

On another forum, I've encountered pro-life folks who condemned contraception education as well. They'd then start another thread in which they stated that they didn't want their tax dollars to be spent to help unwed mothers. Oftentimes, the families of unwed mothers kick them out for not adhering to the family ethics of maintaining abstinence. Some even commit suicide for fear of exposing their parents to disgrace.

I'd, personally, much rather see a program that encourages abstinence in youth, but that presents information on contraception as well, just in case one finds oneself in a position where abstinence fails, either due to circumstances or simply a desire to taste the forbidden fruit.

Regarding this "Perhaps women just WANT to have babies" argument of yours, that's a common emotion of some teenagers that feel unloved. They think that a baby will be all theirs and love them unconditionally [either unlike their parents or the rest of society.] There were some programs set up a few years back to deal with this, wherein young women were forced to haul a doll around everywhere they went. When their friends went out, they had to stay home to care for the doll, etc. It was a cooperative effort between parents who had daughters who'd expressed a desire to have a baby and the program in force at the time.

There's another subset of women who just don't feel right unless they have an infant. It's another function of an unmet emotional need. I think the study was done on welfare mothers who continued to have children, although oftentimes ignored the children as they grew out of the infant stage, opting to bear another to fulfill their need for an infant only.

There are a lot of issues to deal with [from the psychological area alone] when one approaches the topic of child-bearing. I don't think "I just want to have a baby" is a good enough reason to have one unless one is prepared to accept that this baby will be a lifetime responsibility. Of course no one can foresee an unfortunate circumstance wherein job loss or other misfortune puts one in need of help from others.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 04, 2000.

I am not against contraception.

I know you're not. However, many pro-lifers, inclucing the Ceaucescu regime, are against contraception. And, since Romanians do not have a lot of access to contraception, it remains a point worth mentioning that this is almost certainly a contributing factor in Romania's problem.

I also think that everyone should be taught where babies come from (but not from someone with an agenda, but that's another argument).

I take it you would exclude anti-choice advocates and Christian missionaries by that statement. In that case, we are in agreement.

I am open to your line of thought that the "orphan" problem in Romania is due to lack of access to contraceptives (it is obviously not from the lack of access to abortions).

So now me must discuss how to get them that access. I propose the first thing we should do is to end US oppposition to UN family planning efforts. The second thing we should do is reach out to the Red Cross, CARE, and other charities to aid International Planned Parenthood in their education and contraception provision efforts. The third thing we should do is give a tax break to any American contraception manufacturer who sets up operations in Romania, the same sort of tax break we give other industries in other regions.

I am also open to the line of thought that these women are purposefully having babies to sell them, horrific as it sounds.

It's a distinct possibility. Regardless of the reason, we need to examine the role Americans play in all of this. In an ironic twist of fate, a man in my office is adopting a Romanian child. This man is single, 53 years old and suffers from prostate cancer. He is, needless to say, disqualified for adoption in the US by his age, health, and family situation. When he dies, he does not have any relatives who will be able to care for this child. I suspect that part of his reason for wanting to adopt is social (i.e., he thinks it will earn him some sort of social points). He says he wants to "share his love with a needy child". I asked him why doesn't simply become a foster parent, and he said that foster children are "more problematic" than infants. I don't think he's thought about how several months of neglect in a Romanian orphanage might make a child "problematic".

Why is it inconceivable (no pun intended : ) ) to you that Romanian women are purposefully having children with the intent of raising them?

It's hardly inconceivable, in fact it's appalingly obvious. Since human beings are biologically driven to reproduce and since having children with the intent of raising them is the #1 reason for everyone everywhere to have children, I figured that reason was a great big "duh".

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 04, 2000.

WHOOPS! I need to clarify that post. Anti-choice advocates and anti- contraception missionaries should be excluded. Those who actually want to teach family planning instead of "let God plan your family for you" should be welcomed in Romania with open arms.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 04, 2000.

Tarzan,

You stated, "Since human beings are biologically driven to reproduce and since having children with the intent of raising them is the #1 reason for everyone everywhere to have children, I figured that reason was a great big "duh" ".

If the #1 reason that Romanian women are having babies is that they are CHOOSING to have babies that they intend to raise, then no amount of access to abortion, or even access to contraception, for that matter, will eliminate the "orphan" problem there. If a dire financial situation will not stop women from having babies that they intend to raise, then the problem is not that they are lacking in ways that prevent them from having babies (for having babies is clearly what they want to do); the problem is that they are unable to financially provide for the children due to the economic mess that was left behind by the communist government.

Remember, the original argument put forth by Citizen Ruth, and later carried forward by Debra, was that the "orphan" problem in Romania was the fault of no access to abortion. My rebuttal was that economic hardship brought on by failed communist policies was to blame. Therefore, if we take the fact that Romanian women not only have access to abortion, but that they seem to be frequently utilizing this access, and couple it with your statement (which is my belief also) that "the #1 reason women everywhere have children" is with the intent of raising them, then it would appear obvious in conclusion that: 1) lack of access to abortion is not the reason for the "orphan" problem, and that 2) the failed economic policies of the former communist government, while not the only reason, are definitely a large reason for the "orphan" problem.

I did not embark on this argument to prove that abortion is wrong, I set out to prove that Citizen Ruth's statement, "Here's what happens without access to abortion", as it applied to the Romanian "orphan" situation, was false, and that she was either lying or ignorant. I have proven just that.

I would ask Citizen Ruth one more time whether she was lying or ignorant, but she long ago abandoned these threads when the truth appeared.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 04, 2000.

If the #1 reason that Romanian women are having babies is that they are CHOOSING to have babies that they intend to raise, then no amount of access to abortion, or even access to contraception, for that matter, will eliminate the "orphan" problem there.

It's not a black or white equation, J. A woman may choose to have two kids, but end up with six because she didn't have access to contraception. Another woman may be forced to give birth to a baby she doesn't want because she is so ignorant about family planning and reproduction that she isn't aware she's pregnant until it's too late to get an abortion (this is actually fairly common among teens whose cycles aren't consistant yet). Other women, even in Romania, may give birth to children they don't want because they can't get an abortion. There are places in rural Romania where one must travel extensively to get an abortion. Other women may have been forced to give birth by their partners and/or their families. Still others may have been convinced that abortion is murder, and then not taught about how to avoid getting pregnant in the first place.

It's almost as though you're saying: "Abortion is legal in Romania. The number one reason for giving birth is to have children to raise. Therefore, every birth in Romania is planned,"

"If a dire financial situation will not stop women from having babies that they intend to raise, then the problem is not that they are lacking in ways that prevent them from having babies (for having babies is clearly what they want to do); the problem is that they are unable to financially provide for the children due to the economic mess that was left behind by the communist government."

If women who are living in a dire financial situation do not have access to birth control and are not taught how to prevent pregnancy, then they will have children they neither want nor can care for. The problem is not only due to the economic mess in Romania but also due to decades of pro-life rule.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 04, 2000.

cin, you must be almost perfect to be so judgmental, as you view the weaknesses of others form your lofty perch. Yes, I think lots of women have lives that no one would envy, and in this day and age too.

Some do things out of ignorance, foolishness, or falling for the wrong guy, or a number of reasons. So should they be forced to have a child they don't want because they made a mistake. As Anita says, raising a child is a lifetime committment and some can't do it. Not everyone in this world is emotionally or physically strong. Some people are just weak period, and probably wouldn't make very good parents. If they had any sense, then they would have used birth control of some sort, but they screwed up, (no pun) so why should only one of the parents have to pay.

You call me a bitter old woman. You're right about the old, but I never called someone that diagreed with me a "bitter old woman," just because they were old. What goes around, comes around--isn't that what you said.

J, I don't mind you slamming my debating skills. I admit Anita is a better debater, but just because I agree with the essay Debra posted, doesn't mean my thinking skills are impaired. It just means that since you don't agree with it, then of course it's propaganda.

There was a site on the Internet that encourange killed abortion doctors, and provided a list of names, and even advised readers how to harass people who were pro-abortiion. It was one of the most awful sites I've ever seen. But I suppose a thinking person like you would fee it was just fine.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), August 04, 2000.

J>"I would ask Citizen Ruth one more time whether she was lying or ignorant,"

Well, J, you're either lying or ignorant when you assume that abortion being legal automatically means that women can get them easily, or at all. There are plenty of places in the US where women have a mighty hard time getting one of those "legal" abortions. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to imagine that some pregnant Romanian teenager might face as many obstacles. Or even more. I wonder, what does J think of contraception? It wouldn't surprise me if J was against contraception as well as abortion.

Legal abortion does not mean "accessible" abortion. Shame on you for equating the two, J.

J>"but she long ago abandoned these threads when the truth appeared."

It DID? The TRUTH? Damn, I missed it. Where was it? Couldn't possibly have been in one of your posts, J.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 04, 2000.

"Lastly, can you read, or do you just ignore the items that conflict with your agenda? Is the act of bringing children into my home that have no heat in theirs due to their mother's poor choices in life not "addressing the outrages against the already born", or not?"

J has helped TWO children but totally ignores the THOUSANDS of others who suffer unimaginably. That's the TRUTH.

J blames the mother of these TWO children for making bad choices but forgets to "honor" her choice to give birth. That's the TRUTH.

Trying to follow J's reasoning gives me a head-ache. That's the TRUTH.

So you see, Access, there is a TRUTH to be seen in J's posts.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 04, 2000.

I would not go so far as to say that Citizen Ruth is right, since there is apparently some degree of access to abortion in Romania. But at the same time, it really doesn't matter what the reason for the orphan problem is, so J's argument is misplaced. Abortion, however morally repugnant some posters may find it, is one possible contributing solution to the issue. There are already plenty of orphans over there, and likely to be more. Human beings will have sex, no matter how much J or anyone else tells them to "just say no."

A combination of solutions is called for here. Abortion must be made as available and as safe as possible to help reduce the number of children being born into these circumstances. Contraception must be made as available and as inexpensive as possible, as must sex education, as those contribute to reducing the problem as well.

I will not go so far as to call for international assistance, but it wouldn't be a bad idea.

The truly bad idea in all of this is that contraception, sex education or abortion are somehow wrong or are not applicable here. The sole solution of the pro-lifers appears to be "let them suffer."

J, your whole argument here does not appear to be aimed at proving a point, but rather at disproving one. You're not advancing any sort of solution for the problem -- all you're doing is prattling on about how abortion isn't going to help. Incorrect. Abortion WILL help; the problem is that you won't be comfortable with it. That's too bad.

When the pro-lifers here in the US start building some nice big orphanages and also start adopting some of these kids (domestic as well as international orphans), then I'll listen to what they have to say about abortion.

Until then, they're hypocrites. You may even be one of them, J.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 04, 2000.

gilda,

From the Webster's New World College Dictionary: Propaganda-noun 2)any systematic, widespread dissemination or promotion of particular ideas, doctrines, practices, etc. to further one's own cause or to damage an opposing one 3)ideas, doctrines, or allegations so spread: now often used disparagingly to connote DECEPTION or DISTORTION (emphasis mine).

The essay is propaganda in the most current use of the word because it both deceives and distorts. I am a pro-life advocate, but that is about all that I have in common with the picture that Tom Flynn paints of a pro-lifer. Do you really believe that all pro-life people are against contraception and sex? When you put it in writing for all the world to see that you agree with such absurd statements as the Tom Flynn essay, then you invite criticism of your thinking/reasoning skills. It's as if because you feel the way that he does, you suspend any logical critique of his writing, no matter how preposterous his claims.

I don't think that sites that promote killing are just fine. How a doctor could take the life of one of his patients for the convenience of another of his patients is hard to fathom, but I do not advocate the killing of said doctor.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2000.

Access For All,

Mr. (or is it Ms. ?) Johnny-come-lately to the argument just had to get your two cents in. I am neither lying nor ignorant, but since you haven't read the entire threads (or understood what you have read in them), you will not be able to understand that. According to a PRO-CHOICE source that I linked to before, Romania has the second highest abortion rate in the WORLD. You may hope for the sake of your flimsy "argument" that Romanian teenagers are having a hard time getting abortions, but the FACT is that Romanian women have more abortions per capita than the rest of the WORLD, save one country.

Again, if you would read (or comprehend what you read), you would know what I think about contraception.

Of course you missed the truth, dear. It is painfully obvious that you wouldn't know the truth if it were staring you in the face.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2000.

Debra,

First, you agree with Citizen Ruth that the Romanian "orphan" problem is due to lack of access to abortion. WRONG. Romanians have the second highest abortion rate in the world.

Next, Frank eloquently corners you on your, "the poor children might get a hangnail so lets abort them" argument, and you completely avoid his question.

Then, in your response to Dan, you say, "what do children know of temporary conditions"? This is more of your argument that if a child is cold, or hungry, or unloved, or lonely, even if just temporarily, then they should have been aborted.

Then you post some miscellaneous pro-choice articles, topped off by the Tom Flynn propaganda essay.

Next, you assume that I don't care about the already born because I don't "address the outrages". WRONG AGAIN.

And now, most recently, when proven wrong again, you admit that I have helped two children, but accuse me of "ignoring the THOUSANDS of others who suffer unimaginably". If I prove that I have helped thousands, will you come back with, "but he has ignored the MILLIONS of others who might someday stub their toe"? Or will it be, "He surely can't have enough hours in the day to help those millions of children who have skinned their knee, why oh why didn't we ABORT THEM ALL"!

So have you helped THOUSANDS of needy children, Debra? Or are you just so INCREDIBLY STUPID that the only solution that you can come up with for the suffering children of this world is to abort them?

Obviously trying to follow my reasoning gives you a headache. You think and reason in some make- believe utopia where children live perfect lives devoid of any form of suffering, heartache, or displeasure.

You have no debating skills that I can see. If you can build a factual argument in the future, I will engage you in debate. Otherwise, I will from this point forward ignore your emotional whining.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2000.

Access For All,

"I would not go so far as to say that Citizen Ruth is right, since there is apparently some degree of access to abortion in Romania".

Are you for real?

Citizen Ruth is dead wrong, because Romania has the second highest abortion rate in the world!

"But at the same time, it really doesn't matter what the reason for the orphan problem is, so J's argument is misplaced".

You are completely clueless. The ENTIRE point of the argument is that Citizen Ruth claimed that the Romanian "orphan" problem was due to lack of access to abortion, while I claimed that it was due to failed communist economic policies. Do you actually think before you type?

"You're not advancing any sort of solution for the problem -- all you're doing is prattling on about how abortion isn't going to help. Incorrect. Abortion WILL help; the problem is that you won't be comfortable with it. That's too bad".

Did you go to the Debra school of debate? I never claimed to be advancing any sort of solution for the problem. I have, however, proven that the CAUSE of the problem is not the lack of access to abortion. That was the original point of contention on these threads.

Put your thesaurus down now, I wasn't "prattling" on about anything. Since Romania already has the second highest abortion rate in the world, how is it that abortion WILL help the problem as you say? Are you proposing that it should be a mandatory procedure? How about promotions? Get an abortion, and we'll throw in a free toaster!

The fact is that accessible abortion hasn't solved the problem. The problem goes beyond that. It's too bad that you don't understand the facts and what it is that they mean.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 05, 2000.

"Is the act of bringing children into my home that have no heat in theirs due to their mother's poor choices in life not "addressing the outrages against the already born", or not?"

Sounds very, very familiar. J is your middle initial, right?

-- Alice in Wonder Bra (alice@wonder.bra), August 05, 2000.

Thus spake the Great and Powerful OZ, I mean "J" --

From the Webster's New World College Dictionary: Propaganda-noun 2) any systematic, widespread dissemination or promotion of particular ideas, doctrines, practices, etc. to further one's own cause or to damage an opposing one 3)ideas, doctrines, or allegations so spread: now often used disparagingly to connote DECEPTION or DISTORTION (emphasis mine).

Hee hee! Youre a funny one, J. You do realize what the 1, 2, and 3 mean in the context of multiple dictionary definitions dont you? Lets see if he can figure this one out, folks.

The essay is propaganda in the most current use of the word because it both deceives and distorts. I am a pro-life advocate, but that is about all that I have in common with the picture that Tom Flynn paints of a pro-lifer.

You know, J, if you didnt recognize that piece as Flynns opinions, that youre a lot less intelligent than I gave you credit for. People here are trying to talk to you politely, and I think most of us recognize that youre trying to do the same. However, your constant refusal to examine the arguments of others and your constant insistence on attacking abortion (at the expense of defending your points) really make your posts tedious, pointless and devoid of logic. Something is not propaganda simply because you say it is.

Do you really believe that all pro-life people are against contraception and sex?

Apparently Tom Flynn thinks so. Whether or not each individual poster here thinks that is a matter for each individual poster to decide. You, however, appear to have decided that all pro-choice posters here believe that. Typical.

When you put it in writing for all the world to see that you agree with such absurd statements as the Tom Flynn essay, then you invite criticism of your thinking/reasoning skills. It's as if because you feel the way that he does, you suspend any logical critique of his writing, no matter how preposterous his claims.

Many pro-choice advocates feel that way about pro-lifers. When some pro-life advocates shoot doctors or bomb clinics, and the rest of the pro-life community doesnt speak out against it (and disavow such actions every chance they get), its pretty easy for us to claim that pro-lifers are suspending all of their logical faculties, too.

Consider this, J. You once said:

J>If a civilized society is defined by the legal killing of its children, then give me a barbarous society any day.

Well, J, if a moral society accepts the murder of doctors and the terrorist bombings of medical clinics engaged in a legal procedure, then give me an immoral society any day.

I don't think that sites that promote killing are just fine. How a doctor could take the life of one of his patients for the convenience of another of his patients is hard to fathom, but I do not advocate the killing of said doctor.

Maybe you dont advocate the killing of those doctors, but you are confusing the fact that there is one patient involved in abortion cases. Not two. Your moral objections do not change medical reality.

Access For All,

Yes?

Mr. (or is it Ms. ?)

Does my gender matter to you so much? I imagine youd like to know what color I am, where I live, how much money I make and what my educational level is, Census-person.

Johnny-come-lately to the argument just had to get your two cents in.

It doesnt matter if Ive been on this board for 15 seconds or 15 years. I can post what I please, and I dont need your permission to do so. Further, your views are not more valid than mine simply because theyve been here longer than mine, you arrogant little person.

I am neither lying nor ignorant,

I disagree. I think you are at least one of the two, if not both.

but since you haven't read the entire threads

Strike one, WRONG.

(or understood what you have read in them),

Strike two, WRONG.

you will not be able to understand that.

Strike three, WRONG. Youre out.

According to a PRO-CHOICE source that I linked to before, Romania has the second highest abortion rate in the WORLD. You may hope for the sake of your flimsy "argument" that Romanian teenagers are having a hard time getting abortions, but the FACT is that Romanian women have more abortions per capita than the rest of the WORLD, save one country.

Oh, please, J. That says absolutely NOTHING about the relative ease or difficulty of actually receiving an abortion in Romania. For example, we do not know how many Romanian women abort by themselves, or without the aid of medical professionals. We do not know how many Romanian women seek, but cannot obtain an abortion (for whatever reason) and therefore carry to term. We also do not know how many women who would have sought an abortion are discouraged or prevented from doing so by family or other individuals. The raw number of abortions says NOTHING about these other statistics, J. Go back to your college statistics or basic logic class.

We could, for example, argue that Saudi Arabia had the highest abortion rate in the Middle East in 1999 (note: these statistics are totally made up, and used for the sake of argument). If, however, we were to dig further and find that only five abortions were performed in that country in that year, well, that would cast that abortion rate statistic in a totally different light. You seem incapable of recognizing that statistical extrapolation is not proof, J.

The fact of the matter here, J, is that the LACK of those figures do not detract from my point. The lack of those figures IS my point. Your flimsy attempt at refutation is precisely that; an attempt only. You may HOPE that your argument has some value, but it hasnt any.

Again, if you would read (or comprehend what you read), you would know what I think about contraception.

I asked you a question. If you cant be bothered to answer it, then youre a rude person, in addition to being a particularly arrogant and illogical one.

Of course you missed the truth, dear. It is painfully obvious that you wouldn't know the truth if it were staring you in the face.

Ah. I see. Js pronouncements are automatically the truth. How perfectly irreverent of me not to recognize the words of the only right person on the Internet. No proof needed, then? I didnt think so. When automatically-correct persons like yourself are compelled to prove their positions, they always come up lacking. And we cant have you being proven wrong, can we, J?

Debra, First, you agree with Citizen Ruth that the Romanian "orphan" problem is due to lack of access to abortion. WRONG. Romanians have the second highest abortion rate in the world.

WRONG, J. Abortion rates say nothing about access or lack thereof. Try again. You use statistics like a feminist, which is to say rather poorly, if at all.

Next, Frank eloquently corners you on your, "the poor children might get a hangnail so lets abort them" argument, and you completely avoid his question.

Oh, I dont think so. Frank set up a straw man, nothing more. Such a pitiful argument deserves no response. No one here is advocating aborting children because something bad MIGHT happen to them in the future. The pro-choicers here are arguing against bringing MORE children into a situation that is ALREADY intolerable. The pro-life argument here seems to be but their lives are infinitely precious, so you must give them that chance, while the pro-choice argument here appears to be why on Earth would you want to cause further pain and suffering? Wheres your compassion, J? Or is it that you want others to suffer for YOUR principles?

Then, in your response to Dan, you say, "what do children know of temporary conditions"? This is more of your argument that if a child is cold, or hungry, or unloved, or lonely, even if just temporarily, then they should have been aborted.

So, the conditions in Romania are being remedied? The situation there is getting better? Please, illuminate us all. Perhaps you will win some people over to your argument if you can show us that. Of course, if you cant, then you might consider explaining why you advocate precipitating more want and suffering in that nation. The children of Timisoara await your reply.

Then you post some miscellaneous pro-choice articles, topped off by the Tom Flynn propaganda essay. Next, you assume that I don't care about the already born because I don't "address the outrages". WRONG AGAIN.

So, whats your solution? You havent posted one so far on this thread. It appears that all you have done is refuse to consider the solutions of others.

And now, most recently, when proven wrong again, you admit that I have helped two children,

Can it be? Is J actually Dennis J. Olson? Hey, Dennis, what did the sheriff say when he came to your house?

Listen, Dennis  helping two children doesnt give you the right or the moral authority to tell OTHERS how to help children. Get involved yourself, or pipe down.

but accuse me of "ignoring the THOUSANDS of others who suffer unimaginably".

Well, here are some pro-lifers who are trying to help, but you tell them theyre wrong, yet dont offer a solution of your own. Seems like youre ignoring the thousands who suffer unimaginably.

If I prove that I have helped thousands,

Cough up your proof, sweetie.

will you come back with, "but he has ignored the MILLIONS of others who might someday stub their toe"?

Thats a mischaracterization of the argument, and you know it. No one here is advocating aborting children because something bad MIGHT happen to them in the future. The pro-choicers here are arguing against bringing MORE children into a situation that is ALREADY intolerable. The pro-life argument here seems to be but their lives are infinitely precious, so you must give them that chance, while the pro-choice argument here appears to be why on Earth would you want to cause further pain and suffering? Wheres your compassion, J? Or is it that you want others to suffer for YOUR principles?

Or will it be, "He surely can't have enough hours in the day to help those millions of children who have skinned their knee, why oh why didn't we ABORT THEM ALL"!

Thats a mischaracterization of the argument, and you know it. No one here is advocating aborting children because something bad MIGHT happen to them in the future. The pro-choicers here are arguing against bringing MORE children into a situation that is ALREADY intolerable. The pro-life argument here seems to be but their lives are infinitely precious, so you must give them that chance, while the pro-choice argument here appears to be why on Earth would you want to cause further pain and suffering? Wheres your compassion, J? Or is it that you want others to suffer for YOUR principles?

So have you helped THOUSANDS of needy children, Debra? Or are you just so INCREDIBLY STUPID that the only solution that you can come up with for the suffering children of this world is to abort them?

I presented a multi-faceted solution, and you ignored it. Or are you just so INCREDIBLY STUPID that you ignore any solution that includes abortion as one of its tools?

Obviously trying to follow my reasoning gives you a headache. You think and reason in some make- believe utopia where children live perfect lives devoid of any form of suffering, heartache, or displeasure.

No one has made that point. No one has argued that. Pro-choicers on this thread are arguing against making an ALREADY intolerable situation even worse. Pro-lifers on this thread are offering no alternative. Therefore, we can only conclude that you consider that intolerable situation desirable and supportable.

You have no debating skills that I can see.

Put on your glasses, Dennis.

If you can build a factual argument in the future, I will engage you in debate. Otherwise, I will from this point forward ignore your emotional whining.

Dennis, if you can present statistics that prove your point in the future, I will engage you in debate. Otherwise, I shall continue to taunt you and point out the logical fallacies and inconsistencies in your gibbering posts. Ill also get lots of mileage out of your emotional whining.

Access For All, I would not go so far as to say that Citizen Ruth is right, since there is apparently some degree of access to abortion in Romania".

Are you for real?

J, are you literate?

Citizen Ruth is dead wrong, because Romania has the second highest abortion rate in the world!

No. That fact has no bearing on other points I have made thus far. Your singleminded insistence on grabbing one statistic and running toward the wrong goal line with it hasnt moved your argument one millimeter closer to being proven. Inference is not proof, J.

"But at the same time, it really doesn't matter what the reason for the orphan problem is, so J's argument is misplaced".

You are completely clueless. The ENTIRE point of the argument is that Citizen Ruth claimed that the Romanian "orphan" problem was due to lack of access to abortion, while I claimed that it was due to failed communist economic policies. Do you actually think before you type?

I always think before I type, unlike some pro-lifers named Dennis. The ENTIRE POINT of the argument is that there is incredible suffering in Romania, and that a solution is needed posthaste. However, youre more concerned with advancing a pro-life agenda than you are with alleviating the situation and finding a way for the Romanians to solve the problem in both the short and long term. Thats typical, J. Pro-life advocates wring their hands over pwecious fetuses, but cant be bothered to help those who are already born. You need to keep your eye on the ISSUE, J, not worry about your foolish anti-abortion rhetoric.

Or are you more gratified by building straw men than by helping others? Mighty Christ-like of you. Im sure God is giving you an A for effort.

"You're not advancing any sort of solution for the problem -- all you're doing is prattling on about how abortion isn't going to help. Incorrect. Abortion WILL help; the problem is that you won't be comfortable with it. That's too bad".

Did you go to the Debra school of debate? I never claimed to be advancing any sort of solution for the problem.

And therein lies my argument against you, J. If you refuse to advance a solution, then by logical exclusion, you are arguing FOR the alternative, which is the perpetuation of the intolerable orphan situation in Romania.

You have just lost the argument, Dennis.

I have, however, proven that the CAUSE of the problem is not the lack of access to abortion.

You have done no such thing. Your single statistic does not bear on that point. You may, however, go back and try again. Heres a hint, though  you will need MORE and DIFFERENT statistics to prove your point.

That was the original point of contention on these threads.

The ENTIRE POINT of the argument is that there is incredible suffering in Romania, and that a solution is needed posthaste. However, youre more concerned with advancing a pro-life agenda than you are with alleviating the situation and finding a way for the Romanians to solve the problem in both the short and long term. Thats typical, J. Pro-life advocates wring their hands over pwecious fetuses, but cant be bothered to help those who are already born. You need to keep your eye on the ISSUE, J, not worry about your foolish anti-abortion rhetoric.

Or are you more gratified by building straw men than by helping others? Mighty Christ-like of you. Im sure God is giving you an A for effort.

Put your thesaurus down now, I wasn't "prattling" on about anything.

I need no thesaurus. My vocabulary is apparently considerably larger than yours, are are my reasoning, logic and debating skills. But dont lose hope, Dennis. Practice makes perfect.

Since Romania already has the second highest abortion rate in the world, how is it that abortion WILL help the problem as you say? Are you proposing that it should be a mandatory procedure? How about promotions? Get an abortion, and we'll throw in a free toaster!

More straw men. Since youre all for people READING before they post, I will refrain from calling your critical reading skills into question (whoops, I just did). Obviously, you missed this in my earlier post

A combination of solutions is called for here. Abortion must be made as available and as safe as possible to help reduce the number of children being born into these circumstances. Contraception must be made as available and as inexpensive as possible, as must sex education, as those contribute to reducing the problem as well. I will not go so far as to call for international assistance, but it wouldn't be a bad idea.

The fact is that accessible abortion hasn't solved the problem.

The fact is that I claimed it is one part of a multi-faceted solution. A further fact is that you failed to address that. Your straw man wont stand.

The problem goes beyond that.

I agree. Too bad your brain locked up when you saw the word abortion in my solution. You apparently didnt see anything past that.

It's too bad that you don't understand the facts and what it is that they mean.

Dennis, Ive just called your local school system. The RIF van will be coming by with some Dr. Seuss books for you next week. Sharpen up your reading skills with those and get back to me. After weve gotten you reading at the sixth-grade level, well start working on basic reasoning and logic. You ought to be suitable for polite company by the time you run out of Hamburger Helper and toilet paper.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 05, 2000.

MFB, you said,

Oh, I dont think so. Frank set up a straw man, nothing more. Such a pitiful argument deserves no response.

I'll bypass this part, as it doesn't contribute anything. Then,

No one here is advocating aborting children because something bad MIGHT happen to them in the future. The pro-choicers here are arguing against bringing MORE children into a situation that is ALREADY intolerable.

What are you talking about? The whole reason being put forth FOR abortion is that the children's lives MIGHT be bad. My point is that the situation isn't SO intolerable that we want to kill the children living there now (as their lives are intolerable), so by extension if we let the children (who are currently aborted) be born, it wouldn't be so intolerable for them that their lives wouldn't be worth living either.

The pro-life argument here seems to be but their lives are infinitely precious, so you must give them that chance,

Almost exactly. I would say "uniquely precious" but yes.

while the pro-choice argument here appears to be why on Earth would you want to cause further pain and suffering? Wheres your compassion, J? Or is it that you want others to suffer for YOUR principles?

Again, it's because on the balance to me a life of what YOU would consider suffering is better than no life at all. I just hope for YOUR grandchildren's sake that in the future it isn't Bill Gates who decides what economic level we should draw the line at in deciding what life is worth living.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 05, 2000.

Again, it's because on the balance to me a life of what YOU would consider suffering is better than no life at all. I just hope for YOUR grandchildren's sake that in the future it isn't Bill Gates who decides what economic level we should draw the line at in deciding what life is worth living.

I don't know if you read my previous posts, but my great grandmother had ten children, only seven of which survived, the other three starved to death. My grandmother, who nearly starved to death herself, once told me that she believed her brother and sisters would have been better off not being born in the first place than to die the way they did (starvation's a pretty bad way to go). People should be able to decide how many children they can raise and at what stage in their lives.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 05, 2000.

"MFB, you said, 'Oh, I dont think so. Frank set up a straw man, nothing more. Such a pitiful argument deserves no response."

"I'll bypass this part, as it doesn't contribute anything."

No, Frank, I'm not some MFB person. Maybe it is easier for you to prop up your straw man by claiming that I'm actually another poster, but the fact here is that I saw your straw man for what it is and knocked it down. Your argument contained nothing of merit, and your response to my refutation of it contains even less.

Who I *am,* however, is a member of Ed Yourdon's Mobile Censorship Enforcement Team. I move around incognito on a number of message boards, and if the Yourdon-approved faithful don't espouse the proper world-view on each and every board they post to, then I advise Ed to kick 'em off. So parse your next few posts VERY carefully, Frank, because you're being watched.

"Then, 'No one here is advocating aborting children because something bad MIGHT happen to them in the future. The pro-choicers here are arguing against bringing MORE children into a situation that is ALREADY intolerable."

Yes, that's what I said. That also happens to be what most of the pro-choicers here are trying to say to you. You refuse to hear it.

"What are you talking about? The whole reason being put forth FOR abortion is that the children's lives MIGHT be bad."

Incorrect. The reason being put forth for multiple approaches to the problem (including abortion) is because conditions in Romania are ALREADY bad, Frank. Not that they MIGHT be bad, or that they might one day BECOME bad, but that they are ALREADY bad. I agree that abortion is one tool that can be used to fix this situation. Education, contraception and yes, even encouragement to abstinence are other tools that can be used. I don't personally place much stock in encouragement to abstinence, but it can have value, particularly with the very religious. Unfortunately, once you hear the word "abortion" mentioned as part of a proposed solution, your brain switches off, just like J's does.

"My point is that the situation isn't SO intolerable that we want to kill the children living there now (as their lives are intolerable),"

No one is encouraging the killing of those children who have already been born. This is a mischaracterization of the pro-choice position, and you know it. It's also another of your straw men.

"so by extension if we let the children (who are currently aborted) be born, it wouldn't be so intolerable for them that their lives wouldn't be worth living either."

Who, exactly, are you to be making this judgment? Who are you to tell someone "your circumstances aren't so bad, don't complain?" Frank, you would you refuse food to a homeless person because they're not yet in the final stages of starvation, wouldn't you? You would refuse treatment to a cancer patient because they aren't 'sick enough,' wouldn't you? You make me sick, Frank.

By your logic, Frank, we should do away with hospitals and schools, because there's no need for them. If human beings can live a marginally survivable existence without any kind of assistance, then there's no need whatsoever for that assistance, right? Life is so absolutely precious that its value outweighs whatever imminent pain, poverty, suffering and misery wait for that life right outside the birth canal, right? And you want all indigent pregnant women (especially those in poor countries) to wind up raising children they can't support, right?

Well, Frank, if you agree with that, then you're a sad, pitiful excuse for a person. You want others to suffer for the sake of your principles. You want infants to be born into abject suffering, poverty and disease just so you can feel better about it. And obviously, you don't trust women and families enough to make the abortion decision themselves -- but you DO trust them enough to force them to support and raise a "pwecious fetus." How tremendously inconsistent.

So Frank, women can't be trusted to make a decision, but they CAN be trusted with an infant? Amazing how foolish and illogical the fanatic can become when one of their principles is involved.

"The pro-life argument here seems to be but their lives are infinitely precious, so you must give them that chance,

"Almost exactly. I would say "uniquely precious" but yes."

This sounds familiar. Has anyone else here ever heard the phrase "it's not the odds, it's the stakes" before? Well, we know how that panned out. That mantra didn't stand the doomers in very good stead, and I doubt you'll get much support out of it, either, Frank.

"Again, it's because on the balance to me a life of what YOU would consider suffering is better than no life at all. I just hope for YOUR grandchildren's sake that in the future it isn't Bill Gates who decides what economic level we should draw the line at in deciding what life is worth living."

Frank, this may seem really hard for you to believe, but you need to try. No one here is advocating the creation of a Central Eugenics Committee to determine which feti get aborted and which don't. The whole POINT of the pro-choice position is that each individual woman should make that decision on her own, based on her own circumstances and her own means. If she wants input from her husband, family, doctor or religious leader, that's her CHOICE. If she wants no input from anyone, and wants to make the decision on her own, then that's her CHOICE, too. Get it?

Strangely enough, Frank, you seem terrified at the idea of a central authority deciding which feti get aborted and which don't. I agree. That concept is abhorrent to me as well. But you raise the idea of a central authority *preventing* abortion quite readily, and don't bat an eye at that sort of decision being made by TPTB. Perhaps your problem is that you're all for TPTB making rules to run people's lives, so long as those rules are ones that you support personally.

What I am saying, and what many other posters here are saying, is that Romanian women should have the choice of abortion. Not to be forced into it, not even to be encouraged to do it, but simply to have it available. Your blatant mischaracterization of the pro-life position as some sort of science-fiction eugenics program, presided over by a faceless group of THEM, is laughable in the extreme. I wonder, Frank, have you got any arguments that aren't made of straw?

I particularly enjoyed this snippet from Tarzan,

"People should be able to decide how many children they can raise and at what stage in their lives."

Oh, my goodness, yes. I wholeheartedly agree.

Do you see, Frank? Free people freely making their own life choices? Or are you not an advocate of freedom?

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 05, 2000.

I am speechless. How many children need to be born into a life of pain before the pro-lifers realize we first have to make sure every child born ends each day tucked into a warm, safe bed with a full belly and a loving word?

Otherwise, it's best to kill them? Your logic thankfully escapes me Debra. Your opinions on the subject are just as sick as the society we live in that condones and even encourages abortion.

Abortion is a selfish act. A sacrifice of an innocent life for selfish reasons of a sinful life. You mention Aids in you pitiful defense of killing of an innocent child in the womb? Another result of sin, spread first through homosexuality.

Those who advocate abortion, including yourself Debra, are no better than Hitler with your rationalizations for extermination. It is a sick society that kills its own offspring. Know this....you will be judged by God, as we all will. Go ahead, rant, rave, rationilize, laugh, condemn the church, curse God, but you still....will face your maker.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), August 05, 2000.

People should be able to decide how many children they can raise and at what stage in their lives.

Yep Tarzan, before they conceive the child. Abortion isn't a choice, its outright killing of an innocent life, and nothing you can say will remove this fact. You too will face your maker Tarzan, from a previous post of yours, it seems you almost have once before....is this what you choose to do in your last days, defend abortion? A sad choice....

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), August 05, 2000.

"Abortion is a selfish act. A sacrifice of an innocent life for selfish reasons of a sinful life. You mention Aids in you pitiful defense of killing of an innocent child in the womb? Another result of sin, spread first through homosexuality."

So, is a child a blessing or a punishment? Think carefully, FactFinder. Are women blessed by getting pregnant, or are they punished by getting pregnant? Which is it? Surely a "pwecious fetus" can't be both a blessing AND a punishment, can it?

Don't try to tell us that Shimmer is a floor wax *and* a dessert topping.

BTW, FactFinder, if a woman gets pregnant as a result of a rape, just exactly whose sin is she paying for? Or did your loving god send the rapist to punish her for something that she would have otherwise 'gotten away with?'

"Those who advocate abortion, including yourself Debra, are no better than Hitler with your rationalizations for extermination."

FactFinder has compared his/her opponents to Hitler. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. FactFinder has just lost the debate.

"Know this....you will be judged by God, as we all will."

Know this . . . that's your opinion and your belief. Your religious views are not held by everyone, and others aren't bound to live by your beliefs any more than you are bound to live by theirs.

"Go ahead, rant, rave, rationilize, laugh, condemn the church, curse God, but you still....will face your maker."

Go ahead, scream, howl, condemn, rail, condemn those who don't believe as you do and invoke your god, but your belief isn't everyone's belief.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 05, 2000.

Abortion - The effects on women:

Dr. Anne Speckhard, Ph.D, in her study on Post Abortion Syndrome, found the following effects on women.

Events Related to Abortion

23% had hallucinations related to the abortion 35% perceived visitation from the aborted child 54% had nightmares related to the abortion 69% experienced feelings of "craziness" 73% had flashbacks of abortion experience 81% had a preoccupation with the aborted child Most Common Behavioral Problems After Abortion

61% increased their use of alcohol 65% had thoughts of suicide 69% were sexually inhibited 73% had flashbacks of the abortion 77% experienced an inability to communicate 81% experienced frequent crying

Source: http://www.catholic-church.org/hla/HLA_Supp/SUP_TOPC.html

Abortion a Form of Infanticide? Abortion is a moral evil because it is a form of infanticide: the killing of a small child. One usually thinks of infanticide as the killing of a born child. But the killing of a preborn child is not any different. He is hidden from view, he is smaller, more dependent, more fragile. But he is a real person, just like the born child. He is simply at an earlier stage of his life and development. If it is wrong to kill him later (post-birth infanticide) it is equally wrong earlier (prebirth infanticide).11

The moral equivalence of infanticide (afterbirth) and abortion (before birth) is illustrated clearly in the Kamchadal practice: "The Kamchadal of northern Siberia ... have practitioners who specialize in killing a fetus through the wall of the abdomen, during the last stages of pregnancy. This may result in a stillbirth or in the birth of an injured but living infant that is killed forthwith."12

Is this abortion or infanticide? It is abortion because the child is killed while still in the womb. It is infanticide because a person aims a knife or dagger directly at a child in order to kill him, a child whose presence is obvious by the bulge in the mother's abdomen, a child who could be seen and touched except for the abdominal wall that shields him. It is infanticide because it is killing a baby who is right there.

What this practice shows with unmistakable clarity is a practical identity of abortion and infanticide. It is not really one rather than the other. It is a form of abortion that vividly displays the identity of abortion and infanticide, and precludes any attempt to draw a line between them rationally.

What the Kamchadal practice amounts to is simply early infanticide: one doesn't even wait for the child to be born. What are called abortions, such as saline injections, D & C, and D & E are basically Kamchadal-like practices carried out earlier, and with different instruments. In D & C, for example, the knife has to be carefully inserted into the womb, because the baby is hidden away and not protruding as in the Kamchadal practice. In other words, it is easier to do a late Kamchadal because the baby is protruding in his mother's abdomen, it is more difficult to do an early Kamchadal (e.g., D & C or suction) because the baby is more remote. But morally, there is nothing that differentiates them.

Abortion is infanticide. Whether the child is killed while still in the womb or after she has emerged from the womb is morally irrelevant. It is the same child before and after.

Source:http://www.ohiolife.org/mqa/2-2.htm

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), August 05, 2000.

Abortion is a selfish act. A sacrifice of an innocent life for selfish reasons of a sinful life.

Do you believe that a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion even if it is clear that she will die during childbirth?

You mention Aids in you pitiful defense of killing of an innocent child in the womb? Another result of sin, spread first through homosexuality.

Do you believe that those who contract Aids through blood transfusions have contracted the disease as a result of sin?

Those who advocate abortion, including yourself Debra, are no better than Hitler with your rationalizations for extermination.

In what way is Debra no better than Hitler? Hitler's rationalizations for extermination were based on his desire to create a master race of humans. Do you believe Debra is also trying to create a master race of humans through abortion?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 05, 2000.

Attention, Dennis J. Olson.

FactFouler has just posted two *actual* examples of propaganda. Please take notes, as there will be a test later.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 05, 2000.

Access, You should be man/woman enough to accept the consequences of what you defend. Do you deny the drawing that depicts one of the abortion procedures, partial birth abortion? Or do you disagree with this particular procedure, and if so, on what grounds? Are early abortions ok, but later ones not?

Shall I bring pictures of what you defend, instead of just drawings?

I answer to God, and stand with the innocent. You will one day answer to God as well.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), August 05, 2000.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 05, 2000.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 05, 2000.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 05, 2000.

Responding to the questions,

Do you believe that a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion even if it is clear that she will die during childbirth?

This is a diversionary question. The vast majority of abortions are performed to end the pregnancy and the life of the mother is not in question. Please tell me how you defend THIS far more common practice of killing the innocent life.

Do you believe that those who contract Aids through blood transfusions have contracted the disease as a result of sin? No, but this is another diversionary question. As I clearly stated, homosexuality is where Aids was first started.

In what way is Debra no better than Hitler? Hitler's rationalizations for extermination were based on his desire to create a master race of humans. Do you believe Debra is also trying to create a master race of humans through abortion?

A strawman argument you present, pro-abortion advocates don't have to want a "master race" in order to be no better than Hitler. * Hitler rationilized that exterminating Jews would lead to a better society. Pro-abortionists believe that abortion provides us with a better society by improving "quality of life" (not for the unborn child I would like to point out). The common denomiator is the ability of both to rationalize killing as "good."

But look, why argue with me? It is God who will judge us. Go argue with Him.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), August 05, 2000.

Now trying to fix the link color.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 05, 2000.

"Access, You should be man/woman enough to accept the consequences of what you defend."

FactFouler, you should be adult enough to recognize that images and pictures are not arguments. I recognize the consequences of what I defend. OTOH, people like you, J and Frank apparently do not recognize the consequences of what YOU defend. Those consequences are forcing women to bring children into the world, regardless of those women's ability to care for, sustain or support those children. You would gladly visit suffering and pain on people who you will never know, all in the name of propitiating your mythical deity. A loving god would never permit such a dilemma to exist.

"Do you deny the drawing that depicts one of the abortion procedures, partial birth abortion?"

Of course not. That's what it is. Why deny a fact? Many other of your "facts," however, are simply your beliefs and interpretations, and in no way factual.

"Or do you disagree with this particular procedure, and if so, on what grounds? Are early abortions ok, but later ones not?"

I personally think that waiting so long to have an abortion is rather foolish on the part of the woman involved. Early-term abortions cause fewer health consequences than later-term ones. However, if the procedure is legal, and if a woman chooses to have it performed, then who am I to deny her? For that matter, who are you to deny her?

BTW, I think that a woman who waits so late to have an abortion is about as foolish as the doomer family who waits until the last week of December 1999 to find a family to kinda-sorta adopt their infant grandson until, you know, a real adoption could be performed post- rollover. If society isn't a smoking ruin, you know.

Did you catch that, Dennis?

"Shall I bring pictures of what you defend, instead of just drawings?"

Why bother? Pictures aren't arguments, and they don't make points. This common tactic of the anti-choice movement is to shock people into behaving the way the anti-choice folks want them to. When the compulsory-pregnancy crowd wants to frighten people into avoiding abortions, they show pictures of aborted fetuses. When they want people to worship their god, they threaten them with their mythical hell. It's all about fear and emotional arguments, regardless of what posters like J claim. If you and your crew were against rhinoplasty, I'm sure we could dredge up some particularly horrifying pictures of nose jobs on the web. A 10 x 14 glossy photo of Michael Jackson would probably frighten lots of people out of having plastic surgery done.

"I answer to God,"

You answer to your mythical deity. I answer to my conscience, in which your mythical deity has no place.

"and stand with the innocent."

You're not standing with innocent victims of rape. You want to force them to give birth, too. Answer the question, FactFouler -- whose sin is being punished in such a case? And did your 'loving god' send the rapist to punish the woman, or what?

So, is a child a blessing or a punishment? Think carefully, FactFinder. Are women blessed by getting pregnant, or are they punished by getting pregnant? Which is it? Surely a "pwecious fetus" can't be both a blessing AND a punishment, can it?

"You will one day answer to God as well."

No. I won't answer to your mythical god any more than I will answer to Zeus, Thor, Ra or Ahura-Mazda. I simply haven't got the time to please every made-up deity the fevered minds of fanatics can cook up.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 05, 2000.

Abortion - The effects on women: Source: http://www.catholic-church.org/hla/HLA_Supp/SUP_TOPC.html

FactFinder,

You know what the Catholic Church taught my 12 year old catechism class? They taught us that if we masturbated our arm would fall off. That scared me, especially since no matter where I looked EVERYONE had two arms. Masturbation was SO BAD that NOBODY did it!

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 05, 2000.

Do you believe that a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion even if it is clear that she will die during childbirth?

This is a diversionary question.

It's only diversionary in that you are attemtping to avoid answering it.

The vast majority of abortions are performed to end the pregnancy and the life of the mother is not in question. Please tell me how you defend THIS far more common practice of killing the innocent life.

I don't defend it at all.

Now perhaps you will answer my question. Do you believe that a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion even if it is clear that she will die during childbirth?

Do you believe that those who contract Aids through blood transfusions have contracted the disease as a result of sin?

No, but this is another diversionary question. As I clearly stated, homosexuality is where Aids was first started.

No, what you clearly stated was this:

You mention Aids in you pitiful defense of killing of an innocent child in the womb? Another result of sin, spread first through homosexuality.

You said that Aids was "another result of sin" which would imply that anyone who contracted Aids did so as a result of sin. Or is this a case where it simply originated with sin and some people now contract the disease due to sin (homosexuality) and others just get it due to plain ol' dumb luck?

In what way is Debra no better than Hitler? Hitler's rationalizations for extermination were based on his desire to create a master race of humans. Do you believe Debra is also trying to create a master race of humans through abortion?

A strawman argument you present,

LOL. You were the one who brought up Hitler. You're aware, of course, that likening your opponent to either Hitler or Nazis is one of the oldest straw man tactics in the book, are you not?

pro-abortion advocates don't have to want a "master race" in order to be no better than Hitler. * Hitler rationilized that exterminating Jews would lead to a better society. Pro-abortionists believe that abortion provides us with a better society by improving "quality of life" (not for the unborn child I would like to point out). The common denomiator is the ability of both to rationalize killing as "good."

Would you say then that those who support the death penalty or killing during wartime are also no better than Hitler?

But look, why argue with me? It is God who will judge us. Go argue with Him.

I would, but He isn't posting here and you are.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 05, 2000.

"Do you believe that a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion even if it is clear that she will die during childbirth?"

"This is a diversionary question. The vast majority of abortions are performed to end the pregnancy and the life of the mother is not in question. Please tell me how you defend THIS far more common practice of killing the innocent life."

This is not a diversionary question. The question is obviously intended to establish whether or not you believe there should be any exceptions whatsoever to your enforced-pregnancy fantasy. Kindly answer the question.

"Do you believe that those who contract Aids through blood transfusions have contracted the disease as a result of sin?"

"No, but this is another diversionary question. As I clearly stated, homosexuality is where Aids was first started."

Incorrect. Homosexuality and intravenous drug use were what initially caused the spread of the disease, but they did not create it. I can refer you to some medical literature, if you'd care to educate yourself.

Further, the question is not diversionary. The question is obviously intended to determine your attitude toward innocent victims of a horrible disease. You appear to have a great deal of concern about "innocent" feti; why don't you have a similar amount of concern about "innocent" AIDS victims?

"In what way is Debra no better than Hitler? Hitler's rationalizations for extermination were based on his desire to create a master race of humans. Do you believe Debra is also trying to create a master race of humans through abortion?"

"A strawman argument you present, pro-abortion advocates don't have to want a "master race" in order to be no better than Hitler.*"

Incorrect. Hitler believed that Jews were the CAUSE of German (and world) society's ills. No one has advanced the belief that feti are the cause of the world's problems. Your argument is misplaced.

Further, Hitler did, in fact, put a eugenics program into place, in which certain individuals were graded according to several factors. The long-term objective was, in fact, to breed a "master race." Perhaps you could show us where pro-choice advocates call for such a monstrous program?

"Hitler rationilized that exterminating Jews would lead to a better society. Pro-abortionists believe that abortion provides us with a better society by improving "quality of life" (not for the unborn child I would like to point out)."

Your argument is disjunctive and invalid. Hitler did not "rationalize" the killing of Jews; he simply ordered it. Further, pro-life advocates on this thread are not advancing abortion as a method of *improving* the quality of life -- they are advancing it as one of many tools to keep an *already* horrific problem (Romanian poverty, etc.) from getting any WORSE.

However, your convoluted response does, in fact, indicate that you do believe that abortion is an organized eugenics program. I thought so.

"The common denomiator is the ability of both to rationalize killing as "good."

Abortion does not involve killing. That's simply your religious interpretation.

"But look, why argue with me? It is God who will judge us. Go argue with Him."

Translation: "I'm getting tired of defending my indefensible viewpoint. Go off and talk to my nonexistent deity, because when everyone believes exactly as I do, everything will be okay."

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 05, 2000.

Access...is that what you think? That *you* were a punishment intended for your mother? How I pity you.

Anyone who would consider a beautiful newborn baby or a just-learning- to-walkntalk toddler a *punishment*, has a serious psychological problem or some serious emotional baggage that needs addressing. Not to mention, very spiritually sick.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 05, 2000.

Access...is that what you think? That *you* were a punishment intended for your mother? How I pity you.

Where did Access imply that he was a punishment intended for his mother?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 05, 2000.

I'll answer that question. I would give my life for my child. That INCLUDES giving my life for my unborn child. As I think that any mother should. When you become pregnant, you are then RESPONSIBLE to protect that child.

Tarzan...you say that several of your grandmothers children died of starvation? And why, I ask you, did SHE survive? Obviously she ate and they didn't. The reasons why you are the way you are are becoming clearer every time you respond.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 05, 2000.

I am a rape victim. I became pregnant at that time. I love this child more than you could ever fathom. He's the most beautiful thing I have ever seen.

I WOULD give my life for him. I WOULD starve so that he could live.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 05, 2000.

Tarzan...you say that several of your grandmothers children died of starvation? And why, I ask you, did SHE survive? Obviously she ate and they didn't. The reasons why you are the way you are are becoming clearer every time you respond.

Cin, it takes longer for an adult to starve to death than a young child, even without food. You really are a mean-spirited moron, aren't you?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 05, 2000.

I'll answer that question. I would give my life for my child. That INCLUDES giving my life for my unborn child. As I think that any mother should. When you become pregnant, you are then RESPONSIBLE to protect that child.

So you believe, therefore, that the unborn child's life is more important than the mother's, correct?

Do you believe, therefore, that a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion even if it is clear that she and the child will die during childbirth?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 05, 2000.

Where did Access imply that he was a punishment intended for his mother?

Access asked if children were a blessing or a punishment. I think what s/he was getting at is this: if motherhood is a blessing and fornication a sin, why are women who fornicate blessed with motherhood?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 05, 2000.

Access asked if children were a blessing or a punishment. I think what s/he was getting at is this: if motherhood is a blessing and fornication a sin, why are women who fornicate blessed with motherhood?

Thanks for the clarification. It appears that cin made another leap from Access asking if children were a blessing or a punishment to:

Access...is that what you think? That *you* were a punishment intended for your mother?

And, of course, her follow-up based on her leap to an illogical conclusion:

How I pity you.

Does having this many straw men in a single thread constitute a fire hazard?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 05, 2000.

Access,

I referred to you as MFB because the (two?) of you seem to be the only ones on the forum currently who like taking 10 pages to express what they could have in one. Also, the insults, always the insults.

And please read the thread before making assertions like you have. All of what you are trying to say has been covered and refuted by J.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 05, 2000.

cin --

"Access...is that what you think? That *you* were a punishment intended for your mother? How I pity you."

No, Cin, that's what pro-lifers think, that children are alternately punishments or blessings, depending on the circumstances of their conception. I don't believe that children are *either* a blessing or a punishment, because I don't believe in your mythical god.

I have asked FactFouler twice whether he/she thinks a innocent rape victim gets blessed with a child or gets punished with a child. And if such a rape victim is getting punished, then exactly whose sin is being punished? And if the child is a punishment, then did your all- merciful god choose to send the rapist as the method of punishment?

What a perfect example of your mythical god's boundless love, sending a rapist to impregnate an innocent woman. Following this logic, it is obviously a sin for a woman to *resist* a rapist, because the rapist is a "tool" (ha ha) of your mythical god's will.

"Anyone who would consider a beautiful newborn baby or a just- learning- to-walkntalk toddler a *punishment*, has a serious psychological problem or some serious emotional baggage that needs addressing. Not to mention, very spiritually sick."

Yes, I agree. So, maybe you or FactFouler could tell us, under what circumstances is one supposed to consider a child a punishment? Or, if you claim that children are always a blessing, why would a woman who has recreational sex outside of marriage actually be *blessed* with a child?

Does your mythical god bless indiscriminate sex? Or are children, at times,a punishment? Which is it, Cin?

"I'll answer that question. I would give my life for my child. That INCLUDES giving my life for my unborn child. As I think that any mother should."

Well, that's what you believe. Not every woman believes that. And if a single woman gives her life for her unborn child, where, exactly, does that leave the newborn child? Probably in an orphanage, *that's* where. Of course, you'd like that, wouldn't you?

"When you become pregnant, you are then RESPONSIBLE to protect that child."

Attention, all posters. Cin the Lawgiver has spoken. YOU SHALL BE JUDGED.

Hey, Cin, J, Frank, FF . . . you're *right!* It *is* fun to be blindly judgmental of others!

Get it? Judge? Mental?

"Tarzan...you say that several of your grandmothers children died of starvation? And why, I ask you, did SHE survive? Obviously she ate and they didn't. The reasons why you are the way you are are becoming clearer every time you respond."

And this is why pro-lifers need to do their research. Infants and children deprived of food die in shorter order than adults do. Cin, it is not at all obvious that Tarzan's grandmother ate at the expense of her children. It is, however, obvious, that you will grab onto any tenuous scrap in order to make your hateful, spiteful point.

Go to your church today and pray for forgiveness from your mythical god. I think your holy book tells adherents not to be so hateful and spiteful of others. In fact, why don't you print out this thread, give it to your pastor and ask for his advice on how to reply? If you're doing your mythical god's work, then you should be proud to show this to your pastor.

"I am a rape victim. I became pregnant at that time. I love this child more than you could ever fathom. He's the most beautiful thing I have ever seen."

Well, if that's true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then you chose to give birth to that child, and I support your choice. However, the choice you made does not compel other women to choose likewise.

I support the choice of ALL impregnated rape victims to choose to have those children or not. Obviously, you believe that your choice should be forced upon other women.

"I WOULD give my life for him. I WOULD starve so that he could live."

That's your choice, and I support that. However, nothing gives you the right or authority to impose your choice on others.

Frank --

"Access, I referred to you as MFB because the (two?) of you seem to be the only ones on the forum currently who like taking 10 pages to express what they could have in one."

Frank, there are eighteen million people on the Net in the US, and you don't think that *two* of them in the same place could have similar methods of posting? I might observe that your posts share characteristics with people like Chuck, a Night Driver, or with Robert E. Cook, but in the final analysis, who you are makes no difference here. It is the relative strength or weakness of your posts that matters. And yours are pretty weak.

If you don't like the length of my posts, that's a shame. Going through life reading only the Reader's Digest Condensed version of things means that you're obviously going to miss a few things. Sometimes, Frank, you need to stretch your mind a bit and wrap it around topics that seem difficult or contrary. And if I need more space than you to make my point, what's it to you?

I don't post in soundbites. If you're only capable of reading in them, that's your problem. Maybe you should try the TV or talk radio instead.

"Also, the insults, always the insults."

Oh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's christians who are commanded to "turn the other cheek." If christians on this board can't be bothered to follow their own tenets, then I fail to see why I should do so. Especially since I was doing a better job of it than J in the first place.

Now that I think of it, maybe *J* is MFB. Or maybe Hawk. Or CPR. Or Manny. Those posters seem to spout a lot more insults than I am.

"And please read the thread before making assertions like you have. All of what you are trying to say has been covered and refuted by J."

Really? Is that kind of like the "truth" that J claims was posted here but can't present? I don't think the questions I've been asking were covered by J at *all.* I ask questions, and J dodges them.

Be thou not afraid, Frank and J, for the TRUTH shall set you free.

Tell me, Frank, where's the problem in this passage?

Well, J, you're either lying or ignorant when you assume that abortion being legal automatically means that women can get them easily, or at all. There are plenty of places in the US where women have a mighty hard time getting one of those "legal" abortions. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to imagine that some pregnant Romanian teenager might face as many obstacles. Or even more. I wonder, what does J think of contraception? It wouldn't surprise me if J was against contraception as well as abortion.

Legal abortion does not mean "accessible" abortion. Shame on you for equating the two, J.

Go ahead, Frank. Give it a try. If everything I am trying to say has already been covered or refuted by J, then you should have an easy time of it reposting those coverages and refutations.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 06, 2000.

Access, I don't know who told you that a child is a punishment.

A child is never a punishment from God. It's only a punishment if YOU perceive it to be. But never an intended punishment from God.

I feel that children are always a blessing. Even a child who is conceived through rape or through sex outside of marriage. Perhaps a child is a reminder of God's love for us when we really need that reminder. Or maybe a chance to turn our lives around.

Access, I don't feel hateful or spiteful towards you. What's in YOUR heart is not necessarily in my heart. You are projecting your feelings. What I do feel is sadness, and pity. I only hope that you can someday feel the warmth of God's Love and Acceptance. =o)

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 06, 2000.

ITS A BABY! [Pro-Lifers]

ITS HER CHOICE! [Pro-Choicers]

I am and always will be Pro-Choice. I believe if a womans choice is taken from her it will always be given to someone else. I have to remember that the opposite of forced pregnancy is forced abortion. [And how do we know that Romanias supposedly high abortion rates are not for this reason.] I stand firm in the conviction that there is no one more qualified to make this decision than the woman herself. I stand firm in the conviction that society has not provided for women decent circumstances under which to make this decision. I stand firm in the conviction that bringing children into this world to live in nothing but pain and suffering is uncivilized.

Sometimes we come across a read that makes us stop and think. I believe the following essay does this.

Seeking Abortion's Middle Ground

by Frederica Mathewes-Green

I was pro-choice at one point in my life, but I came over to a pro- life position years ago. I've been there ever since. Perhaps because of my background, I think there's a logic to the pro-choice position that deserves respect, even as we engage it critically. It is possible to disagree with somebody without calling them baby-killers, without believing that they are monsters. It is possible to disagree in an agreeable way.

The abortion argument is essentially an argument among women. It's been a bitter and ugly debate, and I find that embarrassing. For me, that gives a special urgency to this conference.

To reach agreement in any kind of conflict, you need to be able to back up and see far enough into the distance to locate a point you can actually agree on. What the two sides have in common is this: Each of us would like to see a world where women no longer want abortions. I don't believe that even among the most fervent pro- choice people there is anybody who rejoices over abortion. I think we both wish that there were better solutions that could make abortion unnecessary, or prevent pregnancies in the first place. We'd like to see the demand for the procedure reduced, by resolving women's problems and alleviating the pressure for abortion. We can go along this road together as far as we can, and there will come a time when pro-choicers are satisfied, and pro-lifers want to keep going, but that doesn't mean we can't go together for now.

A few years ago, quite by accident, I discovered an important piece of common ground. Something I wrote in a conservative think-tank journal was picked up and quoted widely. I had written: "There is a tremendous sadness and loneliness in the cry 'A woman's right to choose.' No one wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg."

What surprised me was where it appeared: I started getting clips in the mail from friends, showing the quote featured in pro-choice publications. I realized I had stumbled across one of those points of agreement: We all know that no one leaves the abortion clinic skipping. This made me think that there was common ground, that instead of marching against each other, maybe we could envision a world without abortion, a world we could reach by marching together.

The problem thus far, and I believe the pro-life movement has been especially complicit in this, is that we have focused only on abortion, and not on women's needs. We in the pro-life movement have perpetuated a dichotomy where it's the baby against the woman, and we're on the baby's side. You can look over 25 years of pro-life rhetoric and basically boil it down to three words: "It's a baby." We have our little-feet lapel pins, our "Abortion stops a beating heart" bumperstickers, and we've pounded on that message.

In the process we have contributed to what I think is a false concept- -an unnatural and even bizarre concept--that women and their unborn children are mortal enemies. We have contributed to the idea that they've got to duke it out, it's going to be a fight to the finish. Either the woman is going to lose control of her life, or the child is going to lose its life.

It occurred to me that there's something wrong with this picture. When we presume this degree of conflict between women and their own children, we're locating the conflict in the wrong place. Women and their own children are not naturally mortal enemies, and the problem is not located inside women's bodies, it's within society. Social expectations make unwanted pregnancy more likely to occur and harder for women to bear. Unwed mothers are supposed to have abortions, to save the rest of us from all the costs of bringing an "unwanted" child into the world.

There are three drawbacks to emphasizing "It's a baby" as the sole message. One is that it contributes to the present deadlock in this debate. We say "It's a baby," and our friends on the pro-choice side say, "No, it's her right," and the arguments don't even engage each other. It's an endless, interminable argument that can go on for another 25 years if we don't find a way to break through.

Second, the "It's a baby" message alienates the woman distressed by a difficult pregnancy. There's a pro-life message that I sometimes hear which makes me cringe: "Women only want abortions for convenience. They do this for frivolous reasons. She wants to fit into her prom dress. She wants to go on a cruise." But this alienates the very person to whom we need to show compassion. If we're going to begin finding ways to live without abortion, we need to understand her problems better.

The third problem with this rhetoric is that it enables the people in the great mushy middle, the ones who are neither strongly pro-life or strongly pro-choice, to go on shrugging off the problem. While both sides know that women don't actually want abortions in any positive sense, the middle is convinced they do. And that's because both sides are telling it they do. Pro-lifers say, "She wants an abortion because she's selfish"; pro-choicers say, "She wants an abortion because it will set her free." No wonder the middle believes us; it's one of the few things we appear to agree on.

But both sides know that abortion is usually a very unhappy choice. If women are lining up by the thousands every day to do something they do not want to do, it's not liberation we've won. But our rhetoric in the pro-life movement, our insistence that "It's a baby and she's just selfish," keeps the middle thinking that abortion really is what women want, so there's no need for change and nothing to fix. I want to recognize my side's complicity in contributing to this deadlock and confusion.

I can understand why my pro-life allies put the emphasis on "It's a baby." It's a powerful and essential message. Visualizing the violence against the unborn was the conversion point for me and many others. But it cannot be the sole message. Polls on American attitudes toward abortion show that between 70 and 80 percent already agree that it's a baby--especially since the advent of sonograms. So when we say, "It's a baby," we're answering a question nobody's asking anymore. I believe there is a question they are asking about abortion, and the question is, "How could we live without abortion?"

The abortion rate in this country is about a million and a half a year, a rate that has held fairly stable for about 15 years. Divide that figure by 365 and that equals about 4,100 abortions every day.

Now imagine for a moment that in the middle of the country there is a big abortion store, and outside it 4,100 women got in a long line, one behind the other--and that's just today. It's a sobering image. And the short-sighted pro-life response has been, "Put a padlock on the abortion store." But that's not going to solve the problem. You cannot reduce the demand by shutting off the supply. If 4,100 women were lining up every day to get breast implants, we'd be saying, "What's causing this demand? What's going on here?"

How can we solve the problems that contribute to the demand for abortion? If this were easy, we would have done it by now. It's not easy. There are two obvious components: preventing the unwanted pregnancy in the first place, and assisting women who slip through the cracks and become pregnant anyway.

The obvious tool for pregnancy prevention is contraception, but the pro-life movement has been very reluctant to support the contraceptive option. I come from a religious tradition that permits some forms of contraception, so it's not been a theological problem for me. So when I started considering this, I thought, "This is great! I'll get a helicopter, fill it with condoms, get a snow shovel, and just fly over the country tossing 'em out. We'll close all of the abortion clinics tomorrow!"

But then I began to analyze it a little deeper. While I believe the pro-life movement needs to make a strong stand in favor of preventing these unplanned pregnancies, I became skeptical of the contraceptive solution. For example, there's the recent study showing about two- thirds of births to teenage moms in California involved a dad who was an adult, and another one that found teen mothers had been forced into sex at a young age and that the men who molested them had an average age of 27. Closer to home, a friend of mine was brought to an abortion clinic by her older brother, who molested her when she was 12; they gave her a bag of condoms and told her to be more careful. You're not going to solve problems like these by tossing a handful of condoms at it.

But leaving aside the question of sexual abuse, I think we need to look hard at the consequences of the sexual revolution that began in the 1960s. When I entered college in the early 1970s, the revolution was in full bloom. It seemed at the time a pretty care-free enterprise. Condoms, pills and diaphragms were readily available and abortion had just been legalized by the Supreme Court. But I gradually began to think that it was a con game being played on women. We were "expected to behave according to men's notions of sexuality," to use author Adrienne Rich's phrase. Instead of gaining respect and security in our bodies, we were expected to be more physically available, more vulnerable than before, with little offered in return.

What women found out is that we have hearts in here along with all our other physical equipment, and you can't put a condom on your heart. So in answering the question, "How do we live without abortion?", I'd say we need to look at restoring respect and righting the balance of power in male-female sexual relationships.

What can we do to help women who get pregnant and would rather not be? For a book I was writing, I went around the country talking to women who have had an abortion and to women who provide care for pregnant women. I had presumed that most abortions are prompted by problems that are financial or practical in nature.

But to my surprise, I found something very different. What I heard most frequently in my interviews was that the reason for the abortion was not financial or practical. The core reason I heard was, "I had the abortion because someone I love told me to." It was either the father of the child, or else her own mother, who was pressuring the woman to have the abortion.

Again and again, I learned that women had abortions because they felt abandoned, they felt isolated and afraid. As one woman said, "I felt like everyone would support me if I had the abortion, but if I had the baby I'd be alone." When I asked, "Is there anything anyone could have done? What would you have needed in order to have had that child?" I heard the same answer over and over: "I needed a friend. I felt so alone. I felt like I didn't have a choice. If only one person had stood by me, even a stranger, I would have had that baby."

We also must stop thinking about abortion in terms of pregnancy. We harp on pregnancy and forget all about what comes next. Getting through the pregnancy isn't nearly the dilemma that raising a child for 18 years is. In most families, marriage lightens the load, but for some people that isn't the best solution. A neglected option is adoption, which can free the woman to resume her life, while giving the child a loving home.

The numbers on this, however, are shocking. Only 2 percent of unwed pregnant women choose to place their babies for adoptions. Among clients at crisis pregnancy centers, it's 1 to 2 percent. Adoption is a difficult sell to make for a number of complex reasons, but the bottom line is that 80 to 90 percent of the clients who go through pregnancy care centers and have their babies end by setting up single- parent homes. This is very serious. Pregnancy care centers know this, but aren't sure what to do about it. I've been strongly encouraging that there be more emphasis on presenting adoption to clients, and equipping center volunteers so they feel comfortable with the topic and enabled to discuss it. Adoption is not a one-size-fits-all solution, but it's got to fit more than 1 or 2 percent. More women should try it on for size.

Let me finish with these thoughts. I want to encourage us to view the pregnant woman and child as a naturally-linked pair that we strive to keep together and support. Nature puts the mother and the child together; it doesn't make them enemies, it doesn't set one against the other in a battle to the death. If our rhetoric is tearing them apart, we're the ones who are out of step. The pro-life movement should be answering the question "How can we live without abortion?" by keeping mother and child together, looking into pregnant women's needs and examining how to meet them, and encouraging responsible sexual behavior that will prevent those pregnancies in the first place.

first published in the Washington Post, July 28, 1997

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 06, 2000.

Another great essay, Debra. As I mentioned above, there's so much to be treated psychologically regarding abortion...not just in the mind of the pregnant woman, but in the minds of the society around her.

I, personally, suspect that the women of the world could work it out to everyone's satisfaction if we were thrown into one place to work on it. As it stands, men get involved and there's stigma at either end. If you abort, you're a baby killer. If you bear, you're an insult to society [not to mention a drain on THEIR tax dollars.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 06, 2000.

Amen Anita.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 06, 2000.

With my Amen to Anita's post it is important to me to recognize the men on this thread who have spoken out about a child's right to a decent life and a women's right to choose. They have both my respect and my gratitude.

Women and children across this planet need support and help. There are many men who are giving it. That cannot be denied. TPTB include men that are giving it. That cannot be denied. BUT ... TPTB also include those who would deny a woman's right to choose and would subject untold MILLIONS of children to suffering. THAT CANNOT BE DENIED.

What also cannot be denied is that IT STILL IS A MAN'S WORLD. As much as I hate to say it I have to. This problem was created in a man's world and it has to be corrected in a man's world. As Anita said:

"...[she] suspect[s] that the women of the world could work it out to everyone's satisfaction if we were thrown into one place to work on it. As it stands, men get involved ..."

Like I said ... I am a woman who hates to admit it ... but I suspect that women's and children's futures depend on which men win the war. And make no mistake ... there is a war being fought.

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 06, 2000.

"Access", you said,

Frank, there are eighteen million people on the Net in the US, and you don't think that *two* of them in the same place could have similar methods of posting?

While there might be 18 mil. people on the net, are you implying they are all posting/reading *on this forum*??? I'd say the odds of two people using handles pertinent to the subject matter without identifying themselves in a consistent manner are much lower than 1 in 18 mil. ON THIS FORUM. My guess would be more like 1 in a couple hundred. But I assume you were just making an error, and not trying consciously to mislead me.

I might observe that your posts share characteristics with people like Chuck, a Night Driver, or with Robert E. Cook,

You could, but do they? And I always sign my name "Frank".

but in the final analysis, who you are makes no difference here. It is the relative strength or weakness of your posts that matters.

This is true, thankfully.

And yours are pretty weak.

And of course, your obligatory ad hominem

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 07, 2000.

Access couldn't be MFB. S/he doesn't use nearly enough swear words.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 07, 2000.

Cin-

"Access, I don't know who told you that a child is a punishment."

Lots of your fellow loving christians have. I bet you have said so, too. Let's go have a look at some of your old posts and see what we can dig up.

"A child is never a punishment from God. It's only a punishment if YOU perceive it to be. But never an intended punishment from God."

So your mythical god *rewards* fornication outside of marriage? Cool!

"I feel that children are always a blessing. Even a child who is conceived through rape or through sex outside of marriage. Perhaps a child is a reminder of God's love for us when we really need that reminder. Or maybe a chance to turn our lives around."

Or maybe a child is just a random happenstance of biology.

"Access, I don't feel hateful or spiteful towards you."

Nah, that acid and vitriol in your posts is just what I *perceived* in them, right? Then maybe you should start perceiving some love and kindness in your heart for me, since you CLAIM that's what's in there.

"What's in YOUR heart is not necessarily in my heart."

What's in my heart is unknowable to you.

"You are projecting your feelings."

You are guessing, and possibly projecting your own feelings.

"What I do feel is sadness, and pity."

Too bad you don't feel that for the suffering children of Romania.

"I only hope that you can someday feel the warmth of God's Love and Acceptance. =o)"

I only hope that you can someday figure out what a waste of time the whole christian myth is.

Frank-

"I might observe that your posts share characteristics with people like Chuck, a Night Driver, or with Robert E. Cook,"

"You could, but do they? And I always sign my name "Frank".

Maybe you don't sign "Frank" when you post as Chuck or Robert, though. Maybe you're slicker than I gave you credit for.

"but in the final analysis, who you are makes no difference here. It is the relative strength or weakness of your posts that matters."

"This is true, thankfully."

"And yours are pretty weak."

"And of course, your obligatory ad hominem"

Just returning the favor, Frank.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 07, 2000.

Tarzan,

Well, I have to agree. Either it's not MFB, or s/he's keeping a strong rein on their vocabulary.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 07, 2000.

Do you think Access is really ... CITIZEN RUTH?!

-- Debra (Thisis@it.com), August 07, 2000.

Be my guest.

And while you're at it, perhaps you should re-examine the reasons for your fight. Is it only for the sake of "winning an argument"? Or is it truly for those poor Romanian children. What is in your heart? It seems awful shallow to need to "dig-up" some old threads and quotes. Why would you need to do that?

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 07, 2000.

oops...I was replying to this quote made by access:

***Lots of your fellow loving christians have. I bet you have said so, too. Let's go have a look at some of your old posts and see what we can dig up.***

I have never ever thought of my children as punishment. In fact, they have been the ONLY reason at times that I have kept going when times got hard and I felt I just couldn't do this thing called life anymore. Know what I mean?

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 07, 2000.

What is in your heart? It seems awful shallow to need to "dig-up" some old threads and quotes.

Cin, at the risk of sounding like CPR, no one needs to dig up your old threads and quotes to know what's in your heart. Here's some examples from this current thread.

I am done on this thread. 08/02.00

Note the date on the post folks.

Here's a good example of what's in cin's heart folks. Obviously the gift of Christen discernment runs deep in her.

I agree that people like you should not have children. 08.03.00

Here's another aspect of the depth of cin's compassion. Of course it's possible that cin is just auditioning to be Eric Rudolph's next plural wife.

And Gilda, you sound like a bitter old woman. Do you actually think women have it so bad in this day and age? What plight of women? The best way to avoid dying from a botched abortion, is to NOT HAVE ONE. Like I said before, why is it so horrific and shocking that a mother should die in the process of having her child killed? What's that old adage..."live by abortion - die by abortion" 08/04/00

Just to be sure we really knows how cin feels about women who aren't lucky enough to live in a country where they have choices about their reproduction, she repeats her point.

Of a woman who should die from a back-alley abortion- I think it's tragic but I also think it's her own damned fault. 08/04/00

And here cin shows the depth of her compassion for women who DON'T have abortions and have families they can't support:

Tarzan...you say that several of your grandmothers children died of starvation? And why, I ask you, did SHE survive? Obviously she ate and they didn't. The reasons why you are the way you are are becoming clearer every time you respond 08/05/00

Wow, that's a heart-warming Hallmark moment.

This last one is particularly humorous.

What I do feel is sadness, and pity. I only hope that you can someday feel the warmth of God's Love and Acceptance. 08/06/00

I wonder which god is the source of the love and acceptance cin feels. Maybe it's the god of judgemental hypocrites? You've certainly served him well.

-- Observer (observer@observant.eye), August 07, 2000.

What is in your heart?

That's a good question. For example, what was in your heart when you made this comment about Tarzan's grandmother supposedly letting her own children starve:

Tarzan...you say that several of your grandmothers children died of starvation? And why, I ask you, did SHE survive? Obviously she ate and they didn't.

Was that simply you feeling "the warmth of God's Love and Acceptance?"

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 07, 2000.

Wow, I posted at the same time as Observer. Seems kinda redundant now. Oh well.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 07, 2000.

Stop fighting with your conscience and listen to it for a change.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 07, 2000.

Stop fighting with your conscience and listen to it for a change.

A good suggestion. One would think your conscience would be bothering you for implying that Tarzan's grandmother supposedly let her own children starve. Remember that quote? Here it is again. You and your conscience should read it:

Tarzan...you say that several of your grandmothers children died of starvation? And why, I ask you, did SHE survive? Obviously she ate and they didn't.

Does your conscience let you sleep at night saying such cruel things to people?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 07, 2000.

The truth hurts sometimes. Doesn't it?

If I could change the mind of one woman about to get an abortion, and save the life of one infant, it would be well worth having hurt your feelings.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 07, 2000.

Do you really believe that the vicious things you've said on this thread will encourage people to agree with you?

-- Observer (observer@observant.eye), August 07, 2000.

The truth hurts sometimes. Doesn't it?

So you are saying that you actually believe that Tarzan's grandmother ate while her children starved?

Is this all part of "the warmth of God's Love and Acceptance?" Making baseless accusation of murder against people's grandparents?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 07, 2000.

I'm sorry Tarzan

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 07, 2000.

Im sorry Gilda

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 07, 2000.

Cin --

Liar, liar, soul on fire.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 08, 2000.

Cin -

"And while you're at it, perhaps you should re-examine the reasons for your fight."

Maybe you ought to reexamine your own. Is your mythical god so important to you that you must encourage and support the intentional infliction of untold pain and suffering on innocents?

"Is it only for the sake of "winning an argument"?"

Who's arguing with you? You haven't got a leg to stand on.

"Or is it truly for those poor Romanian children."

Well, I'm not doing this for my health, if that's what you're asking.

"What is in your heart?"

I see that hate and judgment is in your heart.

"It seems awful shallow to need to "dig-up" some old threads and quotes."

It seems awfully interesting that you wouldn't want me to do that. Have you been saying things that you'd rather we didn't remember? Saying things that you'd rather not be reminded of? Saying things that you'd rather not have to defend?

"Why would you need to do that?"

In order to be able to demonstrate you for what you are, Cin . . . the hateful, spiteful follower of a hateful, spiteful, uncaring mythical god.

Have a nice day.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 08, 2000.

Careful Access. Don't blow a blood vessel. =)

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 08, 2000.

The truth hurts sometimes. Doesn't it?

LOL

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), August 08, 2000.

"When you commit murder, you will have to pay for it somehow. If not immediately, then someday. If not with your life, then another way. Do you think that you won't look back on what you did without mental anguish and guilt. Don't you realize that it will haunt you for the rest of your life. And all of your justification NOW, will mean nothing to you then." --cin

I had an abortion 20 years ago. I did not commit "murder." I have not "paid" for it in any way. I have not looked back on it with "mental anguish and guilt." It has not "haunted" me for the rest of my life. All of the reasons I did it then mean the same to me now, and I'd do it again all over if I had to, with no regrets whatsoever.

The "baby" I "killed" was a tiny bit of tissue taken from my womb. They showed it to me; it was a slip of tissue about the size of a split pea.

You must be really full of yourself to think you can read the moral lives of other women so well. If you weren't so scary, your being so off target about other women might be funny. Unfortunately, it's people like you who would like us to go back to a world where women die because they can't remove bits of tissue from their bodies within the safety of a doctor's office.

-- Pro-Choice and ProudMoral (pro@choice.com), August 09, 2000.

Pro-choice and, you said,

I have not "paid" for it in any way.

No, not yet. And Ted Kennedy likely won't pay for Chappaquiddic (Sic :-) ) during *this lifetime*, BUT, that's not to say you won't pay EVER.

Just a gamble like any other I suppose, but boy talk about betting the farm!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 09, 2000.

Frank-

All belief is a gamble. You're a Christian, which means you'll please the Christian god. But what if you die and find that the Muslims had it right? Boy, will Allah be pissed! And what if there's no Jehovah, no Allah, but instead the Vikings had it right and we're stuck in eternal battle just to get to Valhalla at the end of the day? Or how about the Hindus? Remember that big ol' steak you ate the other day? Well, sure you haven't paid for it yet, beyond a little indigestion and a slight increase in your cholesterol. But what about after you die, Frank? You've risked coming back as a snake or worse! Sure it's just a gamble like any other I suppose, but talk about betting the farm!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 09, 2000.

Careful, Cin. Don't piss off your mythical god. It might look bad on your permanent record.

The truth does hurt, doesn't it? Especially when you're exposed as hateful and spiteful. Put some clothes on, Cin.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), August 10, 2000.

Tarzan, you said,

which means you'll please the Christian god

I hope so Tarzan, but one never knows. I've got my share of Faults ;-) . And for Allah, He bears a striking similarity to God...

For the Vikings, I've got the bloodline, and could probably fight all day and feast all night if need be :-)

For the Hindus, if I'm brought back as a cow or something so what? What does a cow know? Besides, it's SO obvious they're wrong.

What was your point again,

Jovial regards this A.M.,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 10, 2000.

My point is that all belief systems are pretty much equally likely. A gamble to one person is a sure thing to another, and vice versa. You can't please all the gods all the time.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 10, 2000.

Cin:

"I have never ever thought of my children as punishment. In fact, they have been the ONLY reason at times that I have kept going when times got hard and I felt I just couldn't do this thing called life anymore. Know what I mean?"

Personally, Cin, I THINK what you mean is that you're using your kids as an emotional crutch.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 10, 2000.

You showing your true colors.

-- anita go (drink@another.beer), August 10, 2000.

gohaveanotherbeer:

I take it you're one of the anonymous from chat last night who heard me say I was off to get a beer. You must be on a different time-zone if your "beer" hour is this early. It's no wonder some folks worry about the lurkers in chat. *I* don't, but it's no wonder that some folks do. You ARE amusing.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 10, 2000.

Tarzan, you said,

My point is that all belief systems are pretty much equally likely. A gamble to one person is a sure thing to another, and vice versa.

And which major religion *supports* the idea of abortion? I can't comment on the Hindus, but know that Allah is pretty much aligned with Jehovah on this one. Don't know what Thor would have to say, but little warriors come from *some*where.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 10, 2000.

Anita apparently *your* beer hour is 24 hours long. Are you trying to numb yourself? What is it that you can't face without your beer Anita? Lot's of liquid courage eh?

You point your finger at Cin because she doesn't agree with your issues. Yet, what sort of mother are you when you are perpetually numbed and intoxicated. Great role-model you are Anita. Let's just hope your daughters take after their dad(s?)

-- yep (-@-.-), August 10, 2000.

Mr. Frank, I am begging to differ with you. In what way is it so obvious that Hindus are wrong? I would say that it is you that are possibly wrong.

-- Bhalaji (nota@coweater.com), August 10, 2000.

Gee, I love this forum. From where did you get the impression that my "beer hour" was 24 hours long? No proof? Conjecture? lol. Is this another "strawman", or is it simply a poor attempt at deflecting the topic from the words Cin posted?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), August 10, 2000.

Mr readitagain, Frank said of Hindus "Besides, it's SO obvious they're wrong."

Perhaps English is not my first language but I read it as well as most native speakers and better than many others.

-- Bhalaji (nota@coweater.com), August 10, 2000.

Bhalaji,

My comment on Hindus was meant as a joke to Tarzan. I assumed he would know this, but you might not have. No offense intended.

And please, it's "Frank" here, not "Mr. Frank".

Regards,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), August 10, 2000.

Mr Bjahali, I had missed one of Frank's posts. My apologies

-- missedthatpost (*@3.#), August 10, 2000.

geez how are you people getting this page to load anyway? it took 5 minutes here.

-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), August 10, 2000.

Here's a love offering for Mr. Dennis J. Olson, who posts as "Y2J." Here's looking at *you,* Cowardly Lion.

-- Access For All (mychoice@notyours.com), September 05, 2000.