COMMENTS: 49
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
November 3, 2009 |
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.
Advertisement
Crossing the lobby outside the Scranton (Pa.) Hilton Hotel ballroom required passing through a phalanx of tables that displayed bloody pictures of aborted fetuses; glossy flyers on the dangers of abortion, condoms, same-sex marriage and euthanasia; a scrubbed russet potato in the shape of a fetus; and a 3-by-5-foot poster of Terri Schiavo in her wedding dress.
It was 9:30 on a Saturday morning, and I had come to attend the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation's annual conference, this year titled, "Lighting the Way for Life in the Electric City."
From the doorway I estimated that the ballroom held about 300 patient and pale-white attendees, all quietly sitting at round tables that had been covered with white cloths, each adorned with a water pitcher. The group was predominantly made up of seniors, although I did spot a handful of women and men not yet white-haired.
Taking a seat at a table near the front, already occupied by two retired couples, I was irrationally fearful of being detected as an outsider. I am white, female and 40. But I am also a divorced, childless feminist who writes about religion and end-of-life issues.
I was in Scranton on an assignment of sorts: to hear Bobby Schindler, brother of Terri Schiavo and a full time "pro-life" activist, speak about the "culture of death" and the "brutal killing" of his sister. As one of the more dominant voices against what conservatives call euthanasia, Schindler has spent the nearly five years since his sister's death working tirelessly to keep persistent-vegetative-state (PVS) patients on life support.
But my foray into the "pro-life" conference circuit was also a kind of homecoming. I had spent a number of my idealistic high school and college years as a member of various student "pro-life" groups, handing out anti-abortion tracts on street corners.
My family were Mennonites from Lancaster County, Pa.; I had been steeped in conservative values, and I had chosen to go through Catholic catechism in college. Yes, because of a boyfriend.
When I found sex, at the seemingly late age of 20 in a university dorm room to the tunes of Led Zeppelin, all my absolute ideas about religion, moral certitude and God's jurisdiction over my body went right out the open window.
Polite greetings with my neighbors at the table were interrupted by the county commissioner, A.J. Munchak, a self-described "pro-life, Polish politician from Pennsylvania," chastising his fellow local politicians for declining to speak that day.
"Pennsylvania is 'pro-life' country," he blared into the microphone from a stage festooned with pots of chrysanthemums, fake fall leaves and a white-and-green cross-stitched banner. It must have taken many months to stitch all those little Xs. "I never use the word fetus," Munchak said, "I use 'babies.' "
"Aww," sighed the crowd around me. I quickly learned that this was the appropriate response to any mention or image of babies.
With meaty hands waving, he told us we were there to get educated, get rejuvenated and to pass on the pro-life message to "the people who are, I don't want to say it, ignorant." He tossed his hands in the air; the crowd applauded.
Michael Ciccocioppo, the CEO of Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation and the oldest of 15 children, cautioned us to wear our badges at all times so that disruptive, unregistered outsiders wouldn't wander in, then invited us to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
After sitting stone-faced through the hokey introduction jokes and baby "awws," I felt able to participate. With hands on hearts, the group and I chanted with one voice:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.
The last bit caught me off guard. I looked around the room. The movement had seen it fit to amend the pledge with "born and unborn?" My neighbors glanced suspiciously at my badge.
The morning was occupied by two sessions, one featuring a testimonial by Teresa Teomeo, the former "radical feminist" news anchor-turned-syndicated Catholic radio personality. Having "been there," she was qualified to warn us of the dangers of women who pursue careers and of the liberal bias of mainstream media. She plugged her books on teen chastity and the "groupthink" of dominant newspapers and news channels. Our youth were being brainwashed, she told us.
She gave the stage up to David Prentice of the Family Research Council. With his greased-back hair, stiff mustache and unkempt navy suit, he could have walked off the set of a comedy skit.
He played his talk on the "holocaust" of stem-cell research straight though, infusing the room with animated horror at the institutionalized killing of potential babies. In other company, I might have snickered through his PowerPoint proof that in the cold depths of laboratory freezers resided not the cure for pancreatic cancer but the next Beethoven.
Ann Neumann is writing a book about death, grief and travel. She lives in Red Hook in Brooklyn, N.Y. She authors the blog
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
COMMENTS ( 49 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR
REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
Comments are closed-
RE: Both the Pro Choice and Pro Life crowds loudly scream “It’s a Child, Not a Choice.”
Posted by: teddy on Nov 3, 2009 5:06 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: teddy on Nov 3, 2009 5:06 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not the child that's the "bastard" - it's the wretch of a father of that unlucky child.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Both the Pro Choice and Pro Life crowds loudly scream “It’s a Child, Not a Choice.”
Posted by: Bibsisis
Comments are closed-
Hasn't your "point" been exhaustively refuted here before?
Posted by: Curio on Nov 3, 2009 7:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Curio on Nov 3, 2009 7:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men have "choice," as well-- they just have to make their choice earlier in the process. Men can opt for a vasectomy or take contraceptive measures of their own prior to copulation, but with the understanding that any failure of those measures does obligate them to the potential consequences thereof. Women are able to make their choice later because pregnancy has a direct bearing on their health and poses potential risk to their lives, which clearly trumps any concerns men may have over paying child support.
Men being required by the state to contribute financially to the welfare and upbringing of their progeny is completely reasonable. It is not the equivalent of excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment (Amendment VIII), involuntary servitude (Amendment XIII) or being deprived of property without due process of law (Amendment XIV). Give it a rest, Honky.
Men being required by the state to contribute financially to the welfare and upbringing of their progeny is completely reasonable. It is not the equivalent of excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment (Amendment VIII), involuntary servitude (Amendment XIII) or being deprived of property without due process of law (Amendment XIV). Give it a rest, Honky.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
I still think we can make this matter moot if....
Posted by: mtatasmith on Nov 3, 2009 6:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mtatasmith on Nov 3, 2009 6:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we could come up with(NPI) a vaccine administered at birth that would inhibit sperm production until a fella turns 30 - (extended release) by that time they should be responsible enough to create babies/fetus' that they want to take care of. I think it is time to face the facts - girls/women wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies if boys/men didn't add the "ingredients"!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I still think we can make this matter moot if....
Posted by: Wendiego
Comments are closed-
The pro-life hypocrites
Posted by: zooeyhall on Nov 3, 2009 6:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: zooeyhall on Nov 3, 2009 6:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just start talking to some of these people and find out just how "pro-life" they really are. Bring up some subjects like universal health care and the death penalty.
Thousands of people die every year in this country due to lack of affordable health care. But these people are at the forefront of the fight against affordable universal health care. They are the ones who scream "Socialist!" at any efforts at providing universal health care.
Most of them are also for the Death Penalty in criminal cases. Not only having it but expanding it. They may weep and wail about fetuses, but once the child is born and grown up: well, if the little bastard ever makes any trouble FRY HIM!
I remember back in the 1980's, when Saint Ronnie Reagan (a saint to these people, anyway) was busily expanding nuclear and conventional weaponry--getting ready for the "big showdown" with the Commies. These very same "pro-life" people were at the forefront of opposing nuclear disarmament and approving Reagan's hawkish policies.
They oppose welfare and aid by the government to the poorest and neediest in our society--including children.
They may be "pro-life" but they are social and economic Darwinists. If you really start talking to these people (as I have) you find out that they believe women only exist on this planet to make babies. Gays and other "perverts" are doomed to hell. They are "The Handmaid's Tale" incarnate.
Thousands of people die every year in this country due to lack of affordable health care. But these people are at the forefront of the fight against affordable universal health care. They are the ones who scream "Socialist!" at any efforts at providing universal health care.
Most of them are also for the Death Penalty in criminal cases. Not only having it but expanding it. They may weep and wail about fetuses, but once the child is born and grown up: well, if the little bastard ever makes any trouble FRY HIM!
I remember back in the 1980's, when Saint Ronnie Reagan (a saint to these people, anyway) was busily expanding nuclear and conventional weaponry--getting ready for the "big showdown" with the Commies. These very same "pro-life" people were at the forefront of opposing nuclear disarmament and approving Reagan's hawkish policies.
They oppose welfare and aid by the government to the poorest and neediest in our society--including children.
They may be "pro-life" but they are social and economic Darwinists. If you really start talking to these people (as I have) you find out that they believe women only exist on this planet to make babies. Gays and other "perverts" are doomed to hell. They are "The Handmaid's Tale" incarnate.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» WELL SAID, ZOOEYHALL AND WHERE ARE OBAMA'S CROWD-CONTROL POLICE?
Posted by: smf1403
» If this was a meeting of Muslims, the FBI and DHS would be all over the place
Posted by: raginghormones
» RE: good point!
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: The pro-life hypocrites
Posted by: Spiritgirl
» THE MEN FEEL SUPERIOR FORCING WOMEN TO HAVE THE BABY
Posted by: smf1403
» RE: The pro-life hypocrites
Posted by: Path to War
» RE: The pro-life hypocrites
Posted by: Bibsisis
Comments are closed-
who says "you don't have to protect the unborn" ? The Bible supports abortion rights
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 3, 2009 7:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 3, 2009 7:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.
Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.
Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:
"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."
Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life, it gains full human status after birth only.
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.
The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.
This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.
There are additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.
Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.
Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism oppose government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.
The New Testament is more permissive than the Old. Paul claims Jesus told him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring Jesus' and Paul's other teachings.
Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.
Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:
"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."
Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life, it gains full human status after birth only.
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.
The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.
This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.
There are additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.
Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.
Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism oppose government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.
The New Testament is more permissive than the Old. Paul claims Jesus told him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring Jesus' and Paul's other teachings.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: who says "you don't have to protect the unborn" ? The Bible supports abortion rights
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
» Gosh darn that permissive Bible!
Posted by: morticia
» RE: who says "you don't have to protect the unborn" ? The Bible supports abortion rights
Posted by: Adastra
Comments are closed-
An Idaho fetus
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Nov 3, 2009 7:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Nov 3, 2009 7:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Er, would that be a FETATO?
OH, MOMMMMEEEE!!!!
OH, MOMMMMEEEE!!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: or the cute little rubber fetus?
Posted by: peterjkraus
» RE: or the cute little rubber fetus?
Posted by: fc7711
Comments are closed-
The connection is clear
Posted by: zipper696 on Nov 3, 2009 7:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: zipper696 on Nov 3, 2009 7:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are the SAME middle class, middle aged white Teabaggers that we have seen on our TV screens too many times this last 12 months.
It would be educational to actually poll the "pro-life/anti-Choice" protesters for their political affiliations, if it is not more than 90% GOP then I'm a fruitbat.
It would be educational to actually poll the "pro-life/anti-Choice" protesters for their political affiliations, if it is not more than 90% GOP then I'm a fruitbat.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The connection is clear
Posted by: fc7711
Comments are closed-
It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea to
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 3, 2009 8:20 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 3, 2009 8:20 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
use abortion as a form of birth control? I think not!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea
Posted by: Mousey
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea to
Posted by: morticia
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea to
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea to
Posted by: Bibsisis
Comments are closed-
In an over sized brown suit that extended his shoulders and piled in folds at his wrists and ankles,
Posted by: bitsfick on Nov 3, 2009 9:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: bitsfick on Nov 3, 2009 9:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find your description of the way of the way some of these men were dressed interesting, and going by that I will bet the overwhelming majority of these people live either in poverty or on the ragged edge of it. The true republicans (that is corporate America) consider these nuts cases to be useful idiots.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
DrBob
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 3, 2009 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 3, 2009 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate on abortion is merely opinion. Moral values are based on either self-centered, God-based or society-based non-provable basic assumptions. For the Catholic viewpoint let me excerpt from the free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” (http://andgulliverreturns.info) The Abortion chapter in Book 4 elaborates the pros and cons of the 3 ethical assumptions. Let me attempt to summarize the changing Catholic position. From the 13th Century the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, that male embryos got their souls about 4 weeks after conception, females somewhat later, were the standard. His was a Christionized view of Aristotle’s ideas.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
DrBob
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 3, 2009 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 3, 2009 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate on abortion is merely opinion. Moral values are based on either self-centered, God-based or society-based non-provable basic assumptions. For the Catholic viewpoint let me excerpt from the free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” (http://andgulliverreturns.info) The Abortion chapter in Book 4 elaborates the pros and cons of the 3 ethical assumptions. Let me attempt to summarize the changing Catholic position. From the 13th Century the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, that male embryos got their souls about 4 weeks after conception, females somewhat later, were the standard. His was a Christionized view of Aristotle’s ideas.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
I hate to break it to you but....
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Nov 3, 2009 9:48 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Nov 3, 2009 9:48 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so sorry for posting this, however i strongly feel that the "pro abortion" stance of the progressives will cause us to loose ground to the moderately "spiritual people" like myself and give more ammunition to the wing nut crazy WASPS.
Well, some might think that's OK but i feel that there are many potential allies that the left is abandoning by choosing this policy of absolutism and pro "woman's rights". I also fear that science will not back up this notion that a fetus is not a living organism and can be discarded like a tampon into the toilet, or used to make facial cosmetics with....
If we bother to read about the developmental stages of a human being, we will find that a baby's heart begins to beat at a very early stages of the 9 month gestation cycle, sorry but it is not like jacking off at all. When we decide to terminate a beating heart, we are terminating a life, not too different than Texas executions of death row prisoners by George, is it?
I understand there will be accidents, but we need to provide a supporting and accepting community/society where a woman's opportunities are not hindered just because she decides to keep her baby. There are other ways to prevent a pregnancy and to control the world population. In my opinion the human population can only be controlled by a massive educational/economic investment by a socially responsible and socially accountable government system, capitalism will only create more misery.
I can not with a clear conscience ever support a careless termination of a life cycle unless there are extremely good reasons to do so. I sense that the progressive community will split into two categories of pro and anti abortion groups if it hasn't already continuing on this path of single minded mule like black and white attitudes.
Well, some might think that's OK but i feel that there are many potential allies that the left is abandoning by choosing this policy of absolutism and pro "woman's rights". I also fear that science will not back up this notion that a fetus is not a living organism and can be discarded like a tampon into the toilet, or used to make facial cosmetics with....
If we bother to read about the developmental stages of a human being, we will find that a baby's heart begins to beat at a very early stages of the 9 month gestation cycle, sorry but it is not like jacking off at all. When we decide to terminate a beating heart, we are terminating a life, not too different than Texas executions of death row prisoners by George, is it?
I understand there will be accidents, but we need to provide a supporting and accepting community/society where a woman's opportunities are not hindered just because she decides to keep her baby. There are other ways to prevent a pregnancy and to control the world population. In my opinion the human population can only be controlled by a massive educational/economic investment by a socially responsible and socially accountable government system, capitalism will only create more misery.
I can not with a clear conscience ever support a careless termination of a life cycle unless there are extremely good reasons to do so. I sense that the progressive community will split into two categories of pro and anti abortion groups if it hasn't already continuing on this path of single minded mule like black and white attitudes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Do you know anything at all...
Posted by: morticia
» And not just yesteryear.....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: I hate to break it to you but....
Posted by: IntlDad
» RE: I hate to break it to you but....
Posted by: morticia
» Whoops - you missed a few wee little facts there buddy.
Posted by: wolfgangmo75
» There Is No "Pro-Abortion" Progressive Stance
Posted by: armorypk
» RE: I hate to break it to you but....
Posted by: J_Mo
Comments are closed-
And how many
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 3, 2009 10:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 3, 2009 10:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of these oh so concerned pro lifers relish capital punishment? How many of them would like to be present when some individual draws his last tortured breath? I know these perverse hypocrites. They're present everywhere, unfortunately.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: And how many
Posted by: vasumurti
» You're a rabid something-or-other...
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Respect and Contempt
Posted by: Red State Gal on Nov 3, 2009 2:00 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Red State Gal on Nov 3, 2009 2:00 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tim_s_eb wrote:
"I can not with a clear conscience ever support a careless termination of a life cycle unless there are extremely good reasons to do so. I sense that the progressive community will split into two categories of pro and anti abortion groups if it hasn't already continuing on this path of single minded mule like black and white attitudes."
I agree with this. The article reeks with utter and complete contempt and self-righteous smugness. It does not encourage civility or respect for one's opponent: it encourages loathing. You might say, well, that's what the pro-life side does! Ok, a lot do--so why do you do the same? How does that help anything?
And yes, there are a lot of feminists who think abortion is a tragedy. And that the cause of abortion is MEN, and that it is high time to talk about this. Abortion is a bandaid for a gaping wound between men and women in our society, and like all bandaids it doesn't actually help the wound.
I agree that the black-and-white thinking exemplified in this article is one reason why over half of Americans now identify themselves as pro-life, with the trajectory of that affiliation rising, not falling over time. This article is a perfect case in point of why this phenomenon is occurring.
Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists
"I can not with a clear conscience ever support a careless termination of a life cycle unless there are extremely good reasons to do so. I sense that the progressive community will split into two categories of pro and anti abortion groups if it hasn't already continuing on this path of single minded mule like black and white attitudes."
I agree with this. The article reeks with utter and complete contempt and self-righteous smugness. It does not encourage civility or respect for one's opponent: it encourages loathing. You might say, well, that's what the pro-life side does! Ok, a lot do--so why do you do the same? How does that help anything?
And yes, there are a lot of feminists who think abortion is a tragedy. And that the cause of abortion is MEN, and that it is high time to talk about this. Abortion is a bandaid for a gaping wound between men and women in our society, and like all bandaids it doesn't actually help the wound.
I agree that the black-and-white thinking exemplified in this article is one reason why over half of Americans now identify themselves as pro-life, with the trajectory of that affiliation rising, not falling over time. This article is a perfect case in point of why this phenomenon is occurring.
Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: espect and Contempt
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
new baby taters
Posted by: sirios on Nov 3, 2009 7:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sirios on Nov 3, 2009 7:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author failed to mention that the flip side of the fetus shaped potato had an image of jesus, or was it mother mary, kind of hard to tell as they both had long hair.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Bullies !
Posted by: fc7711 on Nov 3, 2009 9:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: fc7711 on Nov 3, 2009 9:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing pisses me off more than seeing Anti-Choice Protesters outside of a clinic. Geez, it's hard enough on the poor ladies that are going in there, they don't need a guilt trip and intimidation. Especially these young girls, it's just so wrong to see hate filled faces screaming at those poor kids. I've seen them a couple of times and both times it was all I could do not to bash their faces in. Men that protest abortion clinics should have psychological testing, it's just such a weird thing for a man to do, to go intimidate women . If these people think that a woman has a 'casual" abortion, I think that they are terribly misguided. I'm a man but I honestly don't think that it's something any woman would take lightly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bullies !
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Article disappoints
Posted by: Bouldercreeker on Nov 4, 2009 8:34 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Bouldercreeker on Nov 4, 2009 8:34 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article seemed to focus more on what attendees were wearing and how they looked than on any substantive issues. Ironically, the author criticizes the conference for lacking depth or exploring complexities, but her judgmental focus on 'meaty' hands and poorly fitting blazers caused me to actually have sympathy for the anti-choice attendees. And this is coming from a strongly prochoice feminist who used to work as an abortion counselor! As a psychotherapist, I've counseled hundreds of children and adults whose depressed/ dysfunctional lives were essentially a 'slow death' process due to having parents who 'chose life' but did not have the willingness or capacity to do the 24/7 job of meeting their children's physical, emotional, spiritual needs.
I know an orthodox catholic family with strongly anti-abortion views. There are 15 childen in the newest generation under the age of 4; many of these children are starving for affection and attention, which is heartbreaking to witness. None of the families in this actively anti-abortion church have adopted children. Sometimes I imagine picketing the anti-choice picketers with signs like: 'Who is taking care of your children while you're here picketing?' or 'How many children have you adopted?'
I know an orthodox catholic family with strongly anti-abortion views. There are 15 childen in the newest generation under the age of 4; many of these children are starving for affection and attention, which is heartbreaking to witness. None of the families in this actively anti-abortion church have adopted children. Sometimes I imagine picketing the anti-choice picketers with signs like: 'Who is taking care of your children while you're here picketing?' or 'How many children have you adopted?'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Picketing
Posted by: astudent
Comments are closed-
potato fetuses
Posted by: ML561 on Nov 19, 2009 8:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: ML561 on Nov 19, 2009 8:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a catholic I do believe that life begins at conception. However, many of those who call themselves "pro-life" should rightly style themselves "anti-abortion", as they only seem to care about getting a child born, and nothing about the mother, or the fate of the child after birth. Many Catholics ignore the teaching of the church that life is to be held sacred from conception until natural death. Logically, that means that anyone who is truly pro-life must take a stand against the death penalty, against war, against poverty and disease which needlessly kills mothers, children, and unborn babies. But I see many members of my church who are focused only on getting those babies born, never mind helping their mothers or fathers, or getting the children fed, clothed, and educated. In many so-called "pro-life" circles, women are regarded as expendable containers for the next generation, and there is a subtle message that an unexpected pregnancy is a punishment. If abortion is to be reduced or stopped, it is going to take a lot more than standing in front of abortion clinics with gruesome pictures of aborted babies, threatening clinic workers, and intimidating patients. The early feminists opposed abortion because they saw, and rightly so, that abortion provided a convenient way for MEN to escape responsibility for the baby they helped create. Among many things, our whole attitude as a society needs to change. Stop viewing women as sex objects and men as studs whose whole worth is based on how much sex they can have and with how many. Change public policy so that pregnant women and mothers of young children can get decent health care. Provide counseling and housing for women who find themselves alone facing an unexpected pregnancy. And impose more severe penalties on sexual predators, especially those who impregnate underage women. Inform younger women that they are worth so much more that just their sexual desirability. I don't claim to have all the answers, but these are just a few that might help.Peace be with all of you.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Alternet Comments:
» RE: Both the Pro Choice and Pro Life crowds loudly scream “It’s a Child, Not a Choice.”
Posted by: Bibsisis
» RE: I still think we can make this matter moot if....
Posted by: Wendiego
» WELL SAID, ZOOEYHALL AND WHERE ARE OBAMA'S CROWD-CONTROL POLICE?
Posted by: smf1403
» If this was a meeting of Muslims, the FBI and DHS would be all over the place
Posted by: raginghormones
» RE: good point!
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: The pro-life hypocrites
Posted by: Spiritgirl
» THE MEN FEEL SUPERIOR FORCING WOMEN TO HAVE THE BABY
Posted by: smf1403
» RE: The pro-life hypocrites
Posted by: Path to War
» RE: The pro-life hypocrites
Posted by: Bibsisis
» RE: who says "you don't have to protect the unborn" ? The Bible supports abortion rights
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
» Gosh darn that permissive Bible!
Posted by: morticia
» RE: who says "you don't have to protect the unborn" ? The Bible supports abortion rights
Posted by: Adastra
» RE: or the cute little rubber fetus?
Posted by: peterjkraus
» RE: or the cute little rubber fetus?
Posted by: fc7711
» RE: The connection is clear
Posted by: fc7711
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea
Posted by: Mousey
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea to
Posted by: morticia
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea to
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea to
Posted by: Bibsisis
» Do you know anything at all...
Posted by: morticia
» And not just yesteryear.....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: I hate to break it to you but....
Posted by: IntlDad
» RE: I hate to break it to you but....
Posted by: morticia
» Whoops - you missed a few wee little facts there buddy.
Posted by: wolfgangmo75
» There Is No "Pro-Abortion" Progressive Stance
Posted by: armorypk
» RE: I hate to break it to you but....
Posted by: J_Mo
» RE: And how many
Posted by: vasumurti
» You're a rabid something-or-other...
Posted by: morticia
» RE: espect and Contempt
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Bullies !
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Picketing
Posted by: astudent
Comments are closed-
RE: Both the Pro Choice and Pro Life crowds loudly scream “It’s a Child, Not a Choice.”
Posted by: teddy on Nov 3, 2009 5:06 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: teddy on Nov 3, 2009 5:06 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not the child that's the "bastard" - it's the wretch of a father of that unlucky child.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Both the Pro Choice and Pro Life crowds loudly scream “It’s a Child, Not a Choice.”
Posted by: Bibsisis
Comments are closed-
Hasn't your "point" been exhaustively refuted here before?
Posted by: Curio on Nov 3, 2009 7:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Curio on Nov 3, 2009 7:52 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Men have "choice," as well-- they just have to make their choice earlier in the process. Men can opt for a vasectomy or take contraceptive measures of their own prior to copulation, but with the understanding that any failure of those measures does obligate them to the potential consequences thereof. Women are able to make their choice later because pregnancy has a direct bearing on their health and poses potential risk to their lives, which clearly trumps any concerns men may have over paying child support.
Men being required by the state to contribute financially to the welfare and upbringing of their progeny is completely reasonable. It is not the equivalent of excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment (Amendment VIII), involuntary servitude (Amendment XIII) or being deprived of property without due process of law (Amendment XIV). Give it a rest, Honky.
Men being required by the state to contribute financially to the welfare and upbringing of their progeny is completely reasonable. It is not the equivalent of excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment (Amendment VIII), involuntary servitude (Amendment XIII) or being deprived of property without due process of law (Amendment XIV). Give it a rest, Honky.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
I still think we can make this matter moot if....
Posted by: mtatasmith on Nov 3, 2009 6:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: mtatasmith on Nov 3, 2009 6:17 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we could come up with(NPI) a vaccine administered at birth that would inhibit sperm production until a fella turns 30 - (extended release) by that time they should be responsible enough to create babies/fetus' that they want to take care of. I think it is time to face the facts - girls/women wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies if boys/men didn't add the "ingredients"!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I still think we can make this matter moot if....
Posted by: Wendiego
Comments are closed-
The pro-life hypocrites
Posted by: zooeyhall on Nov 3, 2009 6:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: zooeyhall on Nov 3, 2009 6:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just start talking to some of these people and find out just how "pro-life" they really are. Bring up some subjects like universal health care and the death penalty.
Thousands of people die every year in this country due to lack of affordable health care. But these people are at the forefront of the fight against affordable universal health care. They are the ones who scream "Socialist!" at any efforts at providing universal health care.
Most of them are also for the Death Penalty in criminal cases. Not only having it but expanding it. They may weep and wail about fetuses, but once the child is born and grown up: well, if the little bastard ever makes any trouble FRY HIM!
I remember back in the 1980's, when Saint Ronnie Reagan (a saint to these people, anyway) was busily expanding nuclear and conventional weaponry--getting ready for the "big showdown" with the Commies. These very same "pro-life" people were at the forefront of opposing nuclear disarmament and approving Reagan's hawkish policies.
They oppose welfare and aid by the government to the poorest and neediest in our society--including children.
They may be "pro-life" but they are social and economic Darwinists. If you really start talking to these people (as I have) you find out that they believe women only exist on this planet to make babies. Gays and other "perverts" are doomed to hell. They are "The Handmaid's Tale" incarnate.
Thousands of people die every year in this country due to lack of affordable health care. But these people are at the forefront of the fight against affordable universal health care. They are the ones who scream "Socialist!" at any efforts at providing universal health care.
Most of them are also for the Death Penalty in criminal cases. Not only having it but expanding it. They may weep and wail about fetuses, but once the child is born and grown up: well, if the little bastard ever makes any trouble FRY HIM!
I remember back in the 1980's, when Saint Ronnie Reagan (a saint to these people, anyway) was busily expanding nuclear and conventional weaponry--getting ready for the "big showdown" with the Commies. These very same "pro-life" people were at the forefront of opposing nuclear disarmament and approving Reagan's hawkish policies.
They oppose welfare and aid by the government to the poorest and neediest in our society--including children.
They may be "pro-life" but they are social and economic Darwinists. If you really start talking to these people (as I have) you find out that they believe women only exist on this planet to make babies. Gays and other "perverts" are doomed to hell. They are "The Handmaid's Tale" incarnate.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» WELL SAID, ZOOEYHALL AND WHERE ARE OBAMA'S CROWD-CONTROL POLICE?
Posted by: smf1403
» If this was a meeting of Muslims, the FBI and DHS would be all over the place
Posted by: raginghormones
» RE: good point!
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: The pro-life hypocrites
Posted by: Spiritgirl
» THE MEN FEEL SUPERIOR FORCING WOMEN TO HAVE THE BABY
Posted by: smf1403
» RE: The pro-life hypocrites
Posted by: Path to War
» RE: The pro-life hypocrites
Posted by: Bibsisis
Comments are closed-
who says "you don't have to protect the unborn" ? The Bible supports abortion rights
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 3, 2009 7:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 3, 2009 7:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.
Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.
Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:
"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."
Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life, it gains full human status after birth only.
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.
The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.
This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.
There are additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.
Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.
Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism oppose government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.
The New Testament is more permissive than the Old. Paul claims Jesus told him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring Jesus' and Paul's other teachings.
Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.
Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:
"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."
Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life, it gains full human status after birth only.
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.
The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.
This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.
There are additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.
Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.
Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism oppose government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.
The New Testament is more permissive than the Old. Paul claims Jesus told him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring Jesus' and Paul's other teachings.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: who says "you don't have to protect the unborn" ? The Bible supports abortion rights
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com
» Gosh darn that permissive Bible!
Posted by: morticia
» RE: who says "you don't have to protect the unborn" ? The Bible supports abortion rights
Posted by: Adastra
Comments are closed-
An Idaho fetus
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Nov 3, 2009 7:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Nov 3, 2009 7:16 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Er, would that be a FETATO?
OH, MOMMMMEEEE!!!!
OH, MOMMMMEEEE!!!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: or the cute little rubber fetus?
Posted by: peterjkraus
» RE: or the cute little rubber fetus?
Posted by: fc7711
Comments are closed-
The connection is clear
Posted by: zipper696 on Nov 3, 2009 7:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: zipper696 on Nov 3, 2009 7:39 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These are the SAME middle class, middle aged white Teabaggers that we have seen on our TV screens too many times this last 12 months.
It would be educational to actually poll the "pro-life/anti-Choice" protesters for their political affiliations, if it is not more than 90% GOP then I'm a fruitbat.
It would be educational to actually poll the "pro-life/anti-Choice" protesters for their political affiliations, if it is not more than 90% GOP then I'm a fruitbat.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The connection is clear
Posted by: fc7711
Comments are closed-
It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea to
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 3, 2009 8:20 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 3, 2009 8:20 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
use abortion as a form of birth control? I think not!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea
Posted by: Mousey
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea to
Posted by: morticia
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea to
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: It's not practical nor is is right to make abortion illegal. That said, is it really a good idea to
Posted by: Bibsisis
Comments are closed-
In an over sized brown suit that extended his shoulders and piled in folds at his wrists and ankles,
Posted by: bitsfick on Nov 3, 2009 9:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: bitsfick on Nov 3, 2009 9:26 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find your description of the way of the way some of these men were dressed interesting, and going by that I will bet the overwhelming majority of these people live either in poverty or on the ragged edge of it. The true republicans (that is corporate America) consider these nuts cases to be useful idiots.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
DrBob
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 3, 2009 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 3, 2009 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate on abortion is merely opinion. Moral values are based on either self-centered, God-based or society-based non-provable basic assumptions. For the Catholic viewpoint let me excerpt from the free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” (http://andgulliverreturns.info) The Abortion chapter in Book 4 elaborates the pros and cons of the 3 ethical assumptions. Let me attempt to summarize the changing Catholic position. From the 13th Century the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, that male embryos got their souls about 4 weeks after conception, females somewhat later, were the standard. His was a Christionized view of Aristotle’s ideas.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
DrBob
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 3, 2009 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 3, 2009 9:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate on abortion is merely opinion. Moral values are based on either self-centered, God-based or society-based non-provable basic assumptions. For the Catholic viewpoint let me excerpt from the free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” (http://andgulliverreturns.info) The Abortion chapter in Book 4 elaborates the pros and cons of the 3 ethical assumptions. Let me attempt to summarize the changing Catholic position. From the 13th Century the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, that male embryos got their souls about 4 weeks after conception, females somewhat later, were the standard. His was a Christionized view of Aristotle’s ideas.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
I hate to break it to you but....
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Nov 3, 2009 9:48 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: tim_s_eb@yahoo.com on Nov 3, 2009 9:48 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am so sorry for posting this, however i strongly feel that the "pro abortion" stance of the progressives will cause us to loose ground to the moderately "spiritual people" like myself and give more ammunition to the wing nut crazy WASPS.
Well, some might think that's OK but i feel that there are many potential allies that the left is abandoning by choosing this policy of absolutism and pro "woman's rights". I also fear that science will not back up this notion that a fetus is not a living organism and can be discarded like a tampon into the toilet, or used to make facial cosmetics with....
If we bother to read about the developmental stages of a human being, we will find that a baby's heart begins to beat at a very early stages of the 9 month gestation cycle, sorry but it is not like jacking off at all. When we decide to terminate a beating heart, we are terminating a life, not too different than Texas executions of death row prisoners by George, is it?
I understand there will be accidents, but we need to provide a supporting and accepting community/society where a woman's opportunities are not hindered just because she decides to keep her baby. There are other ways to prevent a pregnancy and to control the world population. In my opinion the human population can only be controlled by a massive educational/economic investment by a socially responsible and socially accountable government system, capitalism will only create more misery.
I can not with a clear conscience ever support a careless termination of a life cycle unless there are extremely good reasons to do so. I sense that the progressive community will split into two categories of pro and anti abortion groups if it hasn't already continuing on this path of single minded mule like black and white attitudes.
Well, some might think that's OK but i feel that there are many potential allies that the left is abandoning by choosing this policy of absolutism and pro "woman's rights". I also fear that science will not back up this notion that a fetus is not a living organism and can be discarded like a tampon into the toilet, or used to make facial cosmetics with....
If we bother to read about the developmental stages of a human being, we will find that a baby's heart begins to beat at a very early stages of the 9 month gestation cycle, sorry but it is not like jacking off at all. When we decide to terminate a beating heart, we are terminating a life, not too different than Texas executions of death row prisoners by George, is it?
I understand there will be accidents, but we need to provide a supporting and accepting community/society where a woman's opportunities are not hindered just because she decides to keep her baby. There are other ways to prevent a pregnancy and to control the world population. In my opinion the human population can only be controlled by a massive educational/economic investment by a socially responsible and socially accountable government system, capitalism will only create more misery.
I can not with a clear conscience ever support a careless termination of a life cycle unless there are extremely good reasons to do so. I sense that the progressive community will split into two categories of pro and anti abortion groups if it hasn't already continuing on this path of single minded mule like black and white attitudes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Do you know anything at all...
Posted by: morticia
» And not just yesteryear.....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: I hate to break it to you but....
Posted by: IntlDad
» RE: I hate to break it to you but....
Posted by: morticia
» Whoops - you missed a few wee little facts there buddy.
Posted by: wolfgangmo75
» There Is No "Pro-Abortion" Progressive Stance
Posted by: armorypk
» RE: I hate to break it to you but....
Posted by: J_Mo
Comments are closed-
And how many
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 3, 2009 10:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Archie1954 on Nov 3, 2009 10:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of these oh so concerned pro lifers relish capital punishment? How many of them would like to be present when some individual draws his last tortured breath? I know these perverse hypocrites. They're present everywhere, unfortunately.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: And how many
Posted by: vasumurti
» You're a rabid something-or-other...
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Respect and Contempt
Posted by: Red State Gal on Nov 3, 2009 2:00 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Red State Gal on Nov 3, 2009 2:00 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tim_s_eb wrote:
"I can not with a clear conscience ever support a careless termination of a life cycle unless there are extremely good reasons to do so. I sense that the progressive community will split into two categories of pro and anti abortion groups if it hasn't already continuing on this path of single minded mule like black and white attitudes."
I agree with this. The article reeks with utter and complete contempt and self-righteous smugness. It does not encourage civility or respect for one's opponent: it encourages loathing. You might say, well, that's what the pro-life side does! Ok, a lot do--so why do you do the same? How does that help anything?
And yes, there are a lot of feminists who think abortion is a tragedy. And that the cause of abortion is MEN, and that it is high time to talk about this. Abortion is a bandaid for a gaping wound between men and women in our society, and like all bandaids it doesn't actually help the wound.
I agree that the black-and-white thinking exemplified in this article is one reason why over half of Americans now identify themselves as pro-life, with the trajectory of that affiliation rising, not falling over time. This article is a perfect case in point of why this phenomenon is occurring.
Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists
"I can not with a clear conscience ever support a careless termination of a life cycle unless there are extremely good reasons to do so. I sense that the progressive community will split into two categories of pro and anti abortion groups if it hasn't already continuing on this path of single minded mule like black and white attitudes."
I agree with this. The article reeks with utter and complete contempt and self-righteous smugness. It does not encourage civility or respect for one's opponent: it encourages loathing. You might say, well, that's what the pro-life side does! Ok, a lot do--so why do you do the same? How does that help anything?
And yes, there are a lot of feminists who think abortion is a tragedy. And that the cause of abortion is MEN, and that it is high time to talk about this. Abortion is a bandaid for a gaping wound between men and women in our society, and like all bandaids it doesn't actually help the wound.
I agree that the black-and-white thinking exemplified in this article is one reason why over half of Americans now identify themselves as pro-life, with the trajectory of that affiliation rising, not falling over time. This article is a perfect case in point of why this phenomenon is occurring.
Red State Gal
RedStateFeminists
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: espect and Contempt
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
new baby taters
Posted by: sirios on Nov 3, 2009 7:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: sirios on Nov 3, 2009 7:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author failed to mention that the flip side of the fetus shaped potato had an image of jesus, or was it mother mary, kind of hard to tell as they both had long hair.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Bullies !
Posted by: fc7711 on Nov 3, 2009 9:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: fc7711 on Nov 3, 2009 9:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nothing pisses me off more than seeing Anti-Choice Protesters outside of a clinic. Geez, it's hard enough on the poor ladies that are going in there, they don't need a guilt trip and intimidation. Especially these young girls, it's just so wrong to see hate filled faces screaming at those poor kids. I've seen them a couple of times and both times it was all I could do not to bash their faces in. Men that protest abortion clinics should have psychological testing, it's just such a weird thing for a man to do, to go intimidate women . If these people think that a woman has a 'casual" abortion, I think that they are terribly misguided. I'm a man but I honestly don't think that it's something any woman would take lightly.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bullies !
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Article disappoints
Posted by: Bouldercreeker on Nov 4, 2009 8:34 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Bouldercreeker on Nov 4, 2009 8:34 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article seemed to focus more on what attendees were wearing and how they looked than on any substantive issues. Ironically, the author criticizes the conference for lacking depth or exploring complexities, but her judgmental focus on 'meaty' hands and poorly fitting blazers caused me to actually have sympathy for the anti-choice attendees. And this is coming from a strongly prochoice feminist who used to work as an abortion counselor! As a psychotherapist, I've counseled hundreds of children and adults whose depressed/ dysfunctional lives were essentially a 'slow death' process due to having parents who 'chose life' but did not have the willingness or capacity to do the 24/7 job of meeting their children's physical, emotional, spiritual needs.
I know an orthodox catholic family with strongly anti-abortion views. There are 15 childen in the newest generation under the age of 4; many of these children are starving for affection and attention, which is heartbreaking to witness. None of the families in this actively anti-abortion church have adopted children. Sometimes I imagine picketing the anti-choice picketers with signs like: 'Who is taking care of your children while you're here picketing?' or 'How many children have you adopted?'
I know an orthodox catholic family with strongly anti-abortion views. There are 15 childen in the newest generation under the age of 4; many of these children are starving for affection and attention, which is heartbreaking to witness. None of the families in this actively anti-abortion church have adopted children. Sometimes I imagine picketing the anti-choice picketers with signs like: 'Who is taking care of your children while you're here picketing?' or 'How many children have you adopted?'
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Picketing
Posted by: astudent
Comments are closed-
potato fetuses
Posted by: ML561 on Nov 19, 2009 8:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: ML561 on Nov 19, 2009 8:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a catholic I do believe that life begins at conception. However, many of those who call themselves "pro-life" should rightly style themselves "anti-abortion", as they only seem to care about getting a child born, and nothing about the mother, or the fate of the child after birth. Many Catholics ignore the teaching of the church that life is to be held sacred from conception until natural death. Logically, that means that anyone who is truly pro-life must take a stand against the death penalty, against war, against poverty and disease which needlessly kills mothers, children, and unborn babies. But I see many members of my church who are focused only on getting those babies born, never mind helping their mothers or fathers, or getting the children fed, clothed, and educated. In many so-called "pro-life" circles, women are regarded as expendable containers for the next generation, and there is a subtle message that an unexpected pregnancy is a punishment. If abortion is to be reduced or stopped, it is going to take a lot more than standing in front of abortion clinics with gruesome pictures of aborted babies, threatening clinic workers, and intimidating patients. The early feminists opposed abortion because they saw, and rightly so, that abortion provided a convenient way for MEN to escape responsibility for the baby they helped create. Among many things, our whole attitude as a society needs to change. Stop viewing women as sex objects and men as studs whose whole worth is based on how much sex they can have and with how many. Change public policy so that pregnant women and mothers of young children can get decent health care. Provide counseling and housing for women who find themselves alone facing an unexpected pregnancy. And impose more severe penalties on sexual predators, especially those who impregnate underage women. Inform younger women that they are worth so much more that just their sexual desirability. I don't claim to have all the answers, but these are just a few that might help.Peace be with all of you.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
PROGRESSIVE WIRE
Stop the Execution of an Innocent Man!
DNA testing could free Hank Skinner before Feb. 24 execution date.
Updated: Catholic Bishops Embrace Anti-Abortion Terrorizers Missy Smith and Randall Terry
10 Defining Feminist Moments of 2009
Going Undercover in the Crazy, Tragic World of Christian Gay-Conversion Therapy
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
