|
 |
February 17, 2004 ABORTION IN WICHITA....The LA Times has an interesting feature today about Troy Newman, one of the country's most aggressive and obsessive abortion activists. He's recently turned his sights on Wichita:
Charming, isn't it? Apparently invasion of privacy is not a crime in Kansas, so Newman's tactics are all legal. Posted by Kevin Drum at February 17, 2004 10:41 AM | TrackBackComments
These people are pigs. Makes me want to become an abortion provider -- so's I could confront them every day. These tactics tend to backfire. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 17, 2004 10:44 AM | PERMALINKIs there a collection being taken up to pay for restraining orders against this stalker? Posted by: A Texan in Maryland at February 17, 2004 10:44 AM | PERMALINKIf it's not illegal, then what's the big deal?! Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 10:46 AM | PERMALINKUm, because it's utterly obnoxious and serves no purpose other than terrorizing people? Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 17, 2004 10:48 AM | PERMALINKCharlie, are you really a conservative, or are you just kidding? Do you really think these tactics are appropriate? Or were you talking about abortion? After all, that's not illegal either...moron. Posted by: G C at February 17, 2004 10:48 AM | PERMALINKthe best part: "Newman now supplements his income with a side business he will not describe: 'I'm not going to divulge my private life.'" hypocrite. Posted by: astro at February 17, 2004 10:48 AM | PERMALINKIf it's not illegal, then what's the big deal?! Boggles the mind... Posted by: aelph at February 17, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINKIf it's not illegal, then what's the big deal?! Of course! Charlie makes perfect sense here, abortion isn't illegal, so why is Newman making such a big deal out of it? Posted by: ChrisS at February 17, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINKI sort of liked the part of the article where Newman pounded the table and shouted that he'd never, NEVER resort to violence. Just back away slooowly now... Posted by: David W. at February 17, 2004 10:51 AM | PERMALINKToo bad Charlie's mother didn't make the other choice! Posted by: S at February 17, 2004 10:52 AM | PERMALINKI can't think of a better argument in favor of abortion than these so-called pro-life activists. Charlie - if you can't tell the difference, perhaps you wouldn't be opposed to some radical gay activists following you around, and harrassing you at your home and place of business, and during your private time, making sure everyone you know is well-informed of your small-minded stance on issues. It's not illegal, so there's no problem, right? Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at February 17, 2004 10:54 AM | PERMALINKHmm, let's see what do we need; photos of dead people, meaning ones
killed by lunatics for being abortion providers, their data
(mothers/fathers of so and so many children that have been left behind).
List of people hurt in bombings etc. Red arrows with the word hate
mongerer, photos of this guy with the text, "warning stalker" and a
short description of what he does, attached under the picture, more
arrows with the words useless, donogooder, creep, etc. NARAL and interested bloggers in that area should find out what Newman's sideline business is. Then go around and telling his business partners exactly how he harasses people. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 17, 2004 10:56 AM | PERMALINKWhat about intentional infliction of emotional distress? Damages are available where the conduct complained of is sufficiently outrageous to "shock the conscience." I think this kind of harrassment fits that description. Posted by: Ryan at February 17, 2004 10:56 AM | PERMALINKYeah, I did clinic defense in Milwaukee back in early 90's and those guys were real classy.
The really sad thing was is that a lot of the anti-choicer recruits were "adopted" from the local homeless shelters. It was quite easy for them to find some mentally unstable people desperate for a food and shelter and give them a purpose in life (harassing women trying to enter clinics). Fortunately I'm a pretty intimidating guy so they never pulled that crap with me around. It did successfully intimidate some of volunteers tho'. Posted by: Gryn at February 17, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINKdon't look now, but the abortion story may be the next AWOL.... The Daily News is publishing a piece about Larry Flynt claiming he has the Bush-abortion story "nailed down". http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/165111p-144622c.html of course, this story was around in 2000 as well, with Flynt claiming he had basically the same information. But NOW, he is claiming that the whole story will be published.... And true or not, you gotta admire Flynt's timing---what better time than the aftermath of the "Kerry/intern" rumor and rebuttal for the left wing to publicize THIS rumor in the same way that the Kerry rumor was spread.... Posted by: paul lukasiak at February 17, 2004 11:02 AM | PERMALINK"Um, because it's utterly obnoxious and serves no purpose other than terrorizing people?" Again, I simply asked a question: "If it's not illegal, then what's the big deal?!" If there's an "intentional infliction of emtional distress" cause of action, then file a lawsuit. And, yes, abortion is "legal" (for now, anyways). As long as the pro-life protestors are trying to change that through legal means, I don't see what exactly you could complain about - which is why I asked the question actually. (P.S. to S. I'm obviously glad my mother did not make the other choice - as I assume all of those millions of unborn Americans, who were instead aborted, would have been too : ( Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINKAs somebody from Kansas, I should offer a defense of our state...Oh fuck it. I want out of here like everybody else that has a functional mind untainted by the religious fervor crap that is lambasted into our skulls. And I grew up in the only town in the country to have a daylong celebration of the Bible. It's name?, you're probably asking. Biblesta, of course. Complete with a parade of themed floats in the order of chapter and verse. Posted by: Ryan.m. at February 17, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINKI pretty much agree with Tony. Moreover, I think that there will be *FAR* more damage done by making this sort of thing illegal than by making it unpleasant for the people pulling it. Before asking for new stuff to be made illegal, imagine Republicans controlling the Senate, House, Supreme Court, and Presidency for the next two decades. Posted by: Jaybird at February 17, 2004 11:04 AM | PERMALINKCharlie, if this happened to you, would you cheerily proclaim that you had nothing to complain about? Sheesh. Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 17, 2004 11:06 AM | PERMALINKDo Anti-abortion activists now meet the definition of "terrorist"? Posted by: j Swift at February 17, 2004 11:06 AM | PERMALINKAs long as the pro-life protestors are trying to change that through legal means, I don't see what exactly you could complain about - which is why I asked the question actually. See, here you drift into dangerous territory by implying that Newman's tactics - the "legal means" you refer to - are morally and substantively indistinguishable from attempting to pass new legislation, which is what most normal human beings think of when the phrase "legal means" is bandied about. And then there's the phrase "pro-life protestors" - as if these people were just marching across the street from a clinic, waving signs and singing hymns. Nice try. It really was doubleplusgood. "what's the big deal?!" He's winding you up, people. He doesn't merit a response. Really, Charles. If this is what you do for fun, I pity you. I don't know anything about Kansas law as it pertains to privacy, but I wonder if there could be any action based on violation of the health care workers' civil rights. I would love to see these SOBs put away, but I suppose that's too
much to hope for. Still, a successful harassment lawsuit might be fun.
It would be a delicious irony to attach Newman's earnings from his other
business to pay damages to the harassed workers. Wonder if the Government is tracking down the background of THESE protesters like they are doing the war protesters.... Posted by: jillian at February 17, 2004 11:13 AM | PERMALINKI think that there's a far more likely possibility that the anti-abortion activists may find themselves unwelcome in Wichita than of them making the employees of the clinic unwelcome. Posted by: Brian C.B. at February 17, 2004 11:13 AM | PERMALINKNARAL and interested bloggers in that area should find out what Newman's sideline business is. Five bucks says that his sideline business is collecting fees from clinics and doctors who'd rather not have Newman yelling at them 24/7. What the hell, it works for the Mafia... Posted by: the Fourth Man at February 17, 2004 11:13 AM | PERMALINKApparently invasion of privacy is not a crime in Kansas I'm not sure how this is "invasion of privacy"... all of the protesters' tactics seem to be in PUBLIC areas. Posted by: Al (the real one) at February 17, 2004 11:14 AM | PERMALINKFive bucks says that his sideline business is collecting fees from
clinics and doctors who'd rather not have Newman yelling at them 24/7. What the hell, it works for the Mafia... And Jesse Jackson! Posted by: Al (the real one) at February 17, 2004 11:16 AM | PERMALINKCharlie, abortion isn't "legal," it's legal. Posted by: Dr. BDH at February 17, 2004 11:20 AM | PERMALINKBy the way, welcome back, "Charlie." During the freeperatization of these comments last week, I actually began to miss Al's and your comments here at Calpundit Cafe. Though your assertions are uniformly wrong, they are at least free of personal attack and maintain some thin strand of attachment to reality. It's better, after all, to have a crazy uncle in the spare bedroom whom one can use as a fourth for bridge than a gang of pyromaniacs setting up a squat in the apartment next door. Posted by: Brian C.B. at February 17, 2004 11:21 AM | PERMALINKI wonder how the 'wingers will respond to a hypothetical revelation that Bush paid for an abortion for (then) his 15 year girfriend? Posted by: jri at February 17, 2004 11:23 AM | PERMALINK"I'm not sure how this is "invasion of privacy"... all of the protesters' tactics seem to be in PUBLIC areas." Er, wow. Are you really that obtuse? The point of an invasion of privacy is that it makes PUBLIC what you want PRIVATE. I mean, holy crap, dude. Posted by: Kenneth G. Cavness at February 17, 2004 11:25 AM | PERMALINKI have a question -- is "abortion activist" the standard term for such people? I thought it was someone who was pro-abortion, which was a bit incredible. (For instance "gay activists" are pro-gay.) And it sounds like stalking to me; if this is legal then Kansas needs many changes made to their laws. That man has no right to be harassing people no matter what his views of their 100% legal work. It's abominable. If he has a problem with the law, he has many other avenues to express his views and instigate change. Posted by: Sugar Plum Fairy at February 17, 2004 11:26 AM | PERMALINK"Um, because it's utterly obnoxious and serves no purpose other than terrorizing people?" Again, I simply asked a question: "If it's not illegal, then what's the big deal?!" Fine. Next time picketers show up at your door to call you evil, people rummage through your trash to discover your personal information, or screaming zealots call you "baby murderer" in public, you can smile and thank them for exercising their rights. If there's an "intentional infliction of emtional distress" cause of action, then file a lawsuit. And, yes, abortion is "legal" (for now, anyways). As long as the pro-life protestors are trying to change that through legal means, I don't see what exactly you could complain about - which is why I asked the question actually. How about calling the cops because of harrassment, stalking, and threatened assault? Not to mention attempting to block entry to a legitimate business... or medical facility. And trying to change the law isn't the point of such activities. Their "protests" involve attacks -- physical, financial, emotional -- on people doing something legal, private, and not affecting the protesters or their lives in any way except offending their sensibilities. They disrupt lives, medical care, and businesses, all because they regard a fetus (which they would frankly not give two shits about once born) as a helpless victim of evil monsters, i.e., the mother and the clinic. (P.S. to S. I'm obviously glad my mother did not make the other choice - as I assume all of those millions of unborn Americans, who were instead aborted, would have been too : ( I'll say this once, using small words and large type, for anyone and everyone who has ever used this argument: IF YOUR MOTHER HAD CHOSEN TO ABORT THE FETUS THAT BECAME YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE NEVER KNOWN, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T EXIST. (And if you actually believe there's some vast netherworld of aborted fetuses, wailing how they were never born, you and/or your religion really, really need help.) What part of "live and let live" do these people not understand!? Posted by: filkertom at February 17, 2004 11:26 AM | PERMALINKAs long as the pro-life protestors are trying to change that through legal means, I don't see what exactly you could complain about Regardless of one's feelings on abortion, all of us can agree (including you, I assume, Charlie) that this guy in Kansas is a socially maladjusted ass. He reminds me of the Phelps clan, actually. What IS it with Kansas, anyway? Posted by: Constantine at February 17, 2004 11:26 AM | PERMALINKLOL Al! scarshapedstar: "Charlie, if this happened to you, would you cheerily proclaim that you had nothing to complain about?" If I were performing abortions, I would hope this would serve as a wake-up call . . . j Swift: "Do Anti-abortion activists now meet the definition of 'terrorist'?" Not under the Patriot Act(s). Ed Zeppelin: If they ARE "legal", they certainly are morally and substantively indistinguishable from attempting to pass new legislation. "And then there's the phrase "pro-life protestors" - as if these people were just marching across the street from a clinic, waving signs and singing hymns." That's among what I include - too bad freedom of speech was restricted recently to preclude such PEACEFUL from the public sidewalks right in front of said clinic. "Nice try. It really was doubleplusgood." I do my best to speak the truth, not doublespeak. Paul: "Really, Charles. If this is what you do for fun, I pity you." It's actually deadly serious - although with freedom of speech being restricted every day in this country, don't worry - you won't have to hear from me much longer or waste your pity. And, if you recently changed your name from Paul B., it is you, sir, who does not merit a response. Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 11:26 AM | PERMALINKI'm not sure how this is "invasion of privacy"... say Al, where do you keep your trash? i think i might want to snoop around in it and see what you and your family do for fun - see what kind of medications you take, how much you pay for your cars, where you like to shop, see if you have any embarassing digsetive problems this week, any baldness issues, what kind of birth control you use, maybe findout what it takes before you or your wife throws out a pair of underwear, etc.. and i'd like to publish all that on my web site. Posted by: cleek at February 17, 2004 11:26 AM | PERMALINKWhups. Missed the placement of the italic there.... Posted by: filkertom at February 17, 2004 11:28 AM | PERMALINKcleek - as we said, if you aren't breaking any law, then we fail to see what the big deal is? Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 11:29 AM | PERMALINKThis is the problem with moralists like Charlie -- they don't want the government spending your money, but they *need* the government to tell them how to behave. They cannot live without the Daddy State smacking their hands when they do something wrong. This is why they run crying to Daddy whenever they think there's something out there that needs to be punished. If it's not illegal, then there's nothing wrong with it, see? The mind scarcely has the courage to boggle. Posted by: Kenneth G. Cavness at February 17, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINK(The inherent contradictions in this line of attack should be obvious to the least among us, of course. It's almost so laughably bad of an argument that I wonder if Charlie is advancing it in order to lay some sort of trap. I mean, nobody's that supercilious. Posted by: Kenneth G. Cavness at February 17, 2004 11:34 AM | PERMALINKIf they ARE "legal", they certainly are morally and substantively indistinguishable from attempting to pass new legislation. I see you believe that abortion is "morally and substantively indistinguishable from attempting to pass new legislation"? It is legal, after all. Posted by: aelph at February 17, 2004 11:34 AM | PERMALINKBut here's the thing. If you believe that abortion is the voluntary killing of an innocent human life, then abortion in America today is right up there with chattel slavery as a great evil. And I doubt that you'd object so strongly to someone back in 1850 trying to ostracize cruel slaveowners or displaying pictures of mistreated slaves. So isn't this really just the same old disagreement over basic moral premises about human life, rather than disagreement over what tactics are appropriate in the service of what ends? Posted by: Chris at February 17, 2004 11:34 AM | PERMALINKKenneth, the proper term is "moronalist". Posted by: Ras_Nesta at February 17, 2004 11:34 AM | PERMALINKif you aren't breaking any law, then we fail to see what the big deal is? please, try it out. go digging through your neighbors' garbage, post your findings around town. see how well that line plays with your community. personally, i'd shoot anyone i caught digging through my garbage (with a BB gun, of course). Posted by: cleek at February 17, 2004 11:37 AM | PERMALINKDr. BDH: "Charlie, abortion isn't "legal," it's legal." I'm not understanding this - you are saying "abortion isn't 'X' it's 'X' - maybe you meant a different word? Brian C.B.: "By the way, welcome back, "Charlie." During the freeperatization of these comments last week, I actually began to miss Al's and your comments here at Calpundit Cafe." Thanks. "Though your assertions are uniformly wrong, they are at least free of personal attack and maintain some thin strand of attachment to reality . . ." As opposed to those resorting to cursing at us? jri: "I wonder how the 'wingers will respond to a hypothetical revelation that Bush paid for an abortion for (then) his 15 year girfriend?" Was that before, or after, he found salvation through Jesus Christ? filkertom: Well, I would point out to them I am not a baby murderer - but if they do nothing illegal - what else would you want me to do? ". . . What part of 'live and let live' do these people not understand!?" Thw part about killing human beings = "let live"? Constantine: "Regardless of one's feelings on abortion, all of us can agree (including you, I assume, Charlie) that this guy in Kansas is a socially maladjusted ass." If he's not doing anything illegal, I would not agree with that. "He reminds me of the Phelps clan, actually." Did Phelps violate some law I'm unaware of? "What IS it with Kansas, anyway?" It is made up (mostly) of good, God-fearing Americans? Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 11:37 AM | PERMALINKCharlie--- Dr. BDH was pointing out that you didn't need to use the scare quotes b/c abortion is legal. Posted by: Sean at February 17, 2004 11:40 AM | PERMALINKNegligent infliction of emotional distress; I live in Wichita. For some reason, we have been the focus of anti-choice groups for a number of years. We even boast the likes of Kansan Fred Phelps demonstrating at one of our churches when a gay man's funeral took place (and that was the subject of a "Law and Order" episode--we're infamous!). The interesting thing to me is that the leaders of these abortion protests are always men (sorry, guys, but you don't have a birth canal) and their interest in the fetus disappears the minute it draws a breath. Then, they're quite willing to let someone else take care of the children. But, then, all of that has been said before. Hatred, violence...all in the name of God. Randall whatever his name was, the national "Pro-Life" guru who headed up the Summer of Mercy (or Summer of Mercilessness) in Wichita 15 or so years ago was divorced by his wife shortly thereafter. Apparently she got tired of more than his rhetoric. Ah, well. We must now hunker down for another hate campaign by these judgmental do-gooders who have time to meddle in everyone else's business but no time to take care of their own. Posted by: Gini at February 17, 2004 11:41 AM | PERMALINKI think it's best phrased thus: "If you don't like abortions, don't have one." Posted by: Skail at February 17, 2004 11:46 AM | PERMALINKLarry Flynt is a TRUE AMERICAN HERO. He took a bullet for freedom. I voted for him for Governor of California. Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at February 17, 2004 11:47 AM | PERMALINK" So isn't this really just the same old disagreement over basic moral premises about human life, rather than disagreement over what tactics are appropriate in the service of what ends?" No, dumbass. It is a disagreement over tactics. You can believe whatever you want, but your right to disagree with me ends when you cross the line protecting my privacy and my rights. Is that clear enough? Posted by: jri at February 17, 2004 11:47 AM | PERMALINKWhat especially bothers me about harassing clinics, such as the Women's Health Care Services, is I'm not aware of any clinics whose sole purpose is to provide abortions. A few years ago a Family Planning Clinic in my city was targeted by these people. This clinic was the main source of free female health care in a very low income area. During the 2 months that the clinic was surrounded by these nuts, the number of patients receiving ANY type of service dropped dramatically. I have a friend who worked there at the time and she said that it was hell for anyone to have to walk through the mass of people with their gory pictues and shouts of 'killer', and whatever. One embarassed and harassed patient ended up freaking out and shouting 'I'm just having a PAP mear!!' Posted by: maryc. at February 17, 2004 11:47 AM | PERMALINKIf he's not doing anything illegal, I would not agree with that. /"He reminds me of the Phelps clan, actually." /Did Phelps violate some law I'm unaware of? /"What IS it with Kansas, anyway?"/It is made up (mostly) of good, God-fearing Americans? Charlies, none of your replies are in anyway connected my original statements. Why would you not agree that this guy is a boorish unstable ass? Is this the kind of person you hang around with? Do you have any moral reasoning capacity? Your lack of ability in this case is just as stark as your theological shortcomings in associating our charming friend Newman here with God-fearing Americans. How about instead of lashing out at the posters here, you say something positive about Newman, if you can. Posted by: Constantine at February 17, 2004 11:48 AM | PERMALINKWhat's to say? I remember Charlie on another board standing up for Phelps and thought it a good thing when his creeps showed up at Matthew Shephard's funeral shouting "Death to Fags". When someone thinks that is a good thing, he is simply less human than the rest of us. Not worth talking to him, not worth dealing with him, I suggest you ban him forthwith. Posted by: Norman at February 17, 2004 11:49 AM | PERMALINKOn the issue of whether its legal, one determinant would be whether the stalker is attempting to engender fear. Fear, as in terror, as in terrorist. Believe me, if the intent is to provoke fear, our shiny new Patriot Act is broad enough for a prosecution. Posted by: Ursus at February 17, 2004 11:50 AM | PERMALINK"too bad freedom of speech was restricted recently to preclude such PEACEFUL protests from the public sidewalks right in front of said clinic." And to preclude those who disagree with the President's policies from getting even as close as across the street to his public appearances. If you stand in a crowd *peacefully* holding an anti-Bush sign, you are likely to be hustled out by security or police to a remote "First Amendment Zone", no matter how non-threatening you are. I'm assuming you take umbrage at this also? Posted by: Karen Underwood at February 17, 2004 11:51 AM | PERMALINKIt occurs to me that the tactics that Troy-boy is using would be perfect cover for an identity-theft ring. Maybe that's his, "side business". Posted by: Indiana Joe at February 17, 2004 11:54 AM | PERMALINK"Fine. Next time picketers show up at your door to call you evil, people rummage through your trash to discover your personal information, or screaming zealots call you "baby murderer" in public, you can smile and thank them for exercising their rights." Well, I would point out to them I am not a baby murderer - but if they do nothing illegal - what else would you want me to do? Try to get it through your head that maybe, just maybe, they aren't baby murderers. They are women undergoing a medical procedure. ". . . What part of 'live and let live' do these people not understand!?" Thw part about killing human beings = "let live"?
One female comic used to do a joke about going to picketed clinics for regular gynecological services. "The protesters pissed me off so much that I got an abortion just to spite them. And I wasn't even pregnant." I am beginning to conclude that this anti-abortion crusade really is all about men. Cutting funding to the United Nations Population Fund--in spite of Bush's own commission's report that it provided no funds for coercive abortion--weighs heavily against the UNPF's work in contraception (a preventive for abortion) and STD prevention and basic women's health care (including for life-saving fistula hospitals). I think this bothers the crusader's not one bit. I recall the signing ceremony for the "partial-birth abortion ban" with white, male legislators surrounding Bush. I'd have to think that, if there is a karma, that Randall Terry and these guys should plan on severe monthly cramping in the next life, or perhaps being in labor and alone in the horn of Africa at thirteen. Posted by: Brian C.B. at February 17, 2004 12:01 PM | PERMALINKI'm gonna try that again, to get the emphasis right. Something in italics just isn't working today: "Fine. Next time picketers show up at your door to call you evil, people rummage through your trash to discover your personal information, or screaming zealots call you "baby murderer" in public, you can smile and thank them for exercising their rights." Well, I would point out to them I am not a baby murderer - but if they do nothing illegal - what else would you want me to do? Try to get it through your head that maybe, just maybe, they aren't baby murderers. They are women undergoing a medical procedure. That would make it "none of your business". ". . . What part of 'live and let live' do these people not understand!?" Thw part about killing human beings = "let live"? Unfortunately phrased on my part, but still apt. FETUSES ARE NOT
HUMAN BEINGS. They are potential human beings. Until they are born, no. I
should've said something about privacy, rights, and other concepts you
and the original subject of the article seem not to grasp. Let's ignore my first reaction to this, which involves a Barrett .50, and go to the second: A counter protest. I don't mean linint up in front of a clinic to oppose these guys, I'm talking about doing so at family events, when their children are picked up from school, etc. Sauce for the gander. Posted by: Matthew Saroff at February 17, 2004 12:04 PM | PERMALINKAs a Kansan (Wichitan), I'd like to know what a "good, God-FEARING American" is. And why do people always assume Kansas has more of them than other states? I thought they were just buffalo...roaming...in their home. Posted by: Gini at February 17, 2004 12:06 PM | PERMALINKMatthew -- I must disagree. Again, none of our business. Besides being right, and defending ourselves through every legal means before even considering others, we have to be better than they are. Otherwise, we just give them excuses -- "See!? They did it!" Posted by: filkertom at February 17, 2004 12:06 PM | PERMALINKThe point of an invasion of privacy is that it makes PUBLIC what you want PRIVATE. But, of course, where a person works is hardly private. Posted by: Al (the real one) at February 17, 2004 12:10 PM | PERMALINKI always have a really tough time getting a handle on how those who oppose the right to have an abortion (as opposed to the actual act) and yet, at the same time, cheerlead this country to bomb the hell out of people who live in a country that has never attacked our country or was even a credible threat. How many of those abortion rights protesters cheered on the bombing of North Vietnam, whose occupants were nothing more than dirt poor farmers. Posted by: squid at February 17, 2004 12:11 PM | PERMALINKThree words for Mr. Newman: Two. Way. Street. Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at February 17, 2004 12:16 PM | PERMALINK" How many of those abortion rights protesters cheered on the bombing of North Vietnam, whose occupants were nothing more than dirt poor farmers." That's different. Posted by: jri at February 17, 2004 12:16 PM | PERMALINKHey Al, please post your home and work addresses. And your real email address while you're at it. Posted by: chris at February 17, 2004 12:17 PM | PERMALINKIf you're going to change your argument, Al, at least have the decency to admit that your first attempt was at best moronic. Your second half-assed attempt, however, is at least arguable. You're right; where someone works is hardly private. Some people may not wish for the world to know where they work, however. Some people, such as the receptionist, may be working at a place like Planned Parenthood wholly unrelated to abortion procedures. Some people would probably like to just live their lives, make their money, and go home. Since what they're doing is legal and all, as Charlie says, where's the problem? Just because it's possible to discover where a person works and just because it's possible to hound that person at their home, church, and school doesn't mean that it's right to do so. It is an invasion of their private lives. And thus, it's an invasion of privacy. Posted by: Kenneth G. Cavness at February 17, 2004 12:19 PM | PERMALINKDoes anybody know if some sort of nuisance claim could be brought? Of course, this conduct might still fall under the ambit of free speech. paging Professor Volokh ... Posted by: pennywit at February 17, 2004 12:23 PM | PERMALINK
I think my neighbor's teenage son works at that Baby Killer store. Tonight I'll dig through their trash to make sure. There is a solution to this, of course, which is to get a group together descend on stalkers and give them a good kicking. Not entirely legal, but in much better taste then what they are doing. Posted by: Jay at February 17, 2004 12:33 PM | PERMALINKIt is time to fight fire with fire. We should use the same tactics against their families, friends, places of business, homes etc. I would gladly support such a fund. Hire thugs if necessary. The best defense is a good offense. It is working on aWol, it will work on these miscreants also. Posted by: prob at February 17, 2004 12:34 PM | PERMALINKOops. Meant "get a group together to descend on the stalkers" Damn prepositions and articles... Posted by: Jay at February 17, 2004 12:37 PM | PERMALINKTo generalize about these anti-abortion nuts: it's painfully obvious that they are only interested in life in the abstract. They get all teary-eyed over a group of cells, but couldn't care less what kind of life awaits that group of cells in another few years, especially if it happens to be born into poverty or to a resentful mother forced to give birth by draconian right-wing legislation. No, at that point, the child should magically draw on the power of his own bootstraps to pull himself up and out of his situation (with help from the bible, of course). If he should make it to eighteen, he'll be useful as cannon fodder for some chickenhawk's war, unless he ends up in prison for some terrible crime, at which point these "pro-lifers" will be clamoring for the death penalty. These nuts tend to despise the world and everything in it. Sin is everywhere, most natural instincts and actions are evil. They exist in an abstract realm in their heads (and console themselves with obsessing over one that they think awaits them after they die), where a fetus, devoid of thought or action, represents the ultimate in purity and innocence - until it comes out and joins the rest of us sinners. They are thoroughly anti-life, which is what they should be called. Posted by: Screaming Weirdo at February 17, 2004 12:41 PM | PERMALINKPrivacy law appears to be somewhat too narrow to apply to this case, unfortunately (and I expect these assholes know it) unless they invade private property or steal information from someone who had a reasonable expectation of privacy. But there appear to be good grounds for a tort action based on "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by Extreme & Outrageous Conduct". The best way to go after these dangerous morons is to take their money away. Sue the SOBs and collect. Hey Al, please post your home and work addresses. No. My Mom won't let me. Posted by: Al (the real one) at February 17, 2004 12:53 PM | PERMALINKYay! Time for Glenn's abortion question to come out again. Who will answer it? I wait with hushed breath... If life begins at conception, then do those lives deserve protection? And if they do deserve protection, then what about cases where the mother was negiligent of her pregnancy and endangered the child? And in those cases, should the mother be charged with manslaughter? But how would we know? We would need mandatory pregnancy testing, that's what. Just to make sure nothing "funny" is going on. And when have you ever heard that argument coming from any anti-abortion advocate? Never. (If I'm Because I have not heard that argument, I assume that anti-abortion protestors are motivated by something else. My guess is some radical obession with overpopulation and how lowering population rates affects the turnout at their local place of worship. If I believed life began at conception and abortion needed to be stopped? I WOULD advocate all of the preceeding. As much as I could. It would be that important. Good thing I don't! Posted by: Karmakin at February 17, 2004 12:55 PM | PERMALINKFor those wondering about italics (and, I believe, boldface) here on Calpundit, note that italics don't cross paragraph boundaries. Thus, if I type this (with angle-brackets for parentheses, of course): --- (i)This is the first line of text This is the second line of text(/i) --- What I get is this: --- This is the first line of text This is the second line of text --- To get each paragraph italicized you must italicize each paragraph individually, like so: --- (i)This is the first line of text(/i) (i)This is the second line of text(/i) --- Which produces this: --- This is the first line of text This is the second line of text --- This also applies to boldface, fwiw. Posted by: Anarch at February 17, 2004 12:57 PM | PERMALINKGracias, Anarch. I discovered part of that the hard way.... B-7 Posted by: filkertom at February 17, 2004 01:13 PM | PERMALINKJust camp out in front of their church with images of the horrors Christianity has gifted the world with. Follow them around pointing out to all and sundry that these folks are religious nutcases on a level with the Taliban. Great them at their favorite restraunt with pics of slaughtered Jews, newly christened slaves, religious war and ignorant bigotry. Picket their houses, go through their trash, learn and publish their routines, unsettle and disgust their friends, relatives, etc. etc. Make it clear they're not welcome in civilization. Posted by: Harry Tuttle at February 17, 2004 01:14 PM | PERMALINKI'm not a Catholic, but let's give them credit where credit is due. They oppose abortion and the death penalty, and support social welfare programs. They are consistent in what they do, as opposed to the "save the embryo and starve the baby" crowd. Posted by: Matthew Saroff at February 17, 2004 01:29 PM | PERMALINK[bang!] "Oops, I thought he was a burglar." ...problem solved. Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 17, 2004 01:38 PM | PERMALINKSean: "Dr. BDH was pointing out that you didn't need to use the scare quotes b/c abortion is legal." I know it's legal. I don't know what "scare quotes" means though. Have a nice day (regardless of your foul mouth). Cal: "Negligent infliction of emotional distress; Except for that last one, as I said earlier, if any of those are valid causes of action in Kansas, great - if not, what's the big deal - no one has answered that question. Gini: And your point is? ". . . and their interest in the fetus disappears the minute it draws a breath." Actually, you get me ANY unwanted but living, breathing newborn in America, and I will get him / her adopted. Is that still "interest in the fetus disappearing the minute he / she draws a breath"? ALL humans (mother AND child) are created in God's image, and we are called to love them both. Or, is that just more of what you would call "hatred and violence"? Skail: "I think it's best phrased thus: 'If you don't like abortions, don't have one.'" Luckily for you, that is not society's best response to things like murder, rape, etc. Occam's Cuisinart: "Larry Flynt is a TRUE AMERICAN HERO." As opposed to say, George Washington or Martin Luther King Jr.? "He took a bullet for freedom." So did MLK. Interesting choice of role models you have there. "I voted for him for Governor of California." And I voted for Tom McClintock. maryc: If I could show you that at least one piece of good medical data came from the the Nazi concentration camp at Birkenau, would that make the Holocaust go away? Constantine: "Why would you not agree that this guy is a boorish unstable ass?" Because, based on what has been posted (if none of it is in fact illegal), I don't have enough information to base such a conclusion. I guess that's about as "positive" as I can get re: Newman. "Is this the kind of person you hang around with?" No. "Do you have any moral reasoning capacity?" Yes. "Your lack of ability in this case is just as stark as your theological shortcomings in associating our charming friend Newman here with God-fearing Americans." You mean all the other ones NOT volating any law either? "How about instead of lashing out at the posters here, you say something positive about Newman, if you can." I'm not lashing out at ANYONE - if you'll re-read who is cursing above, I think you would come to different conclusion. Norman: "I remember Charlie on another board standing up for Phelps and thought it a good thing when his creeps showed up at Matthew Shephard's funeral shouting 'Death to Fags'." Perhaps that was a different "Charlie" you're think of? "When someone thinks that is a good thing, he is simply less human than the rest of us. Not worth talking to him, not worth dealing with him, I suggest you ban him forthwith." That's how the Holocaust started, Norman (and Harry Tuttle with all of your FALSE accusations). Karen Underwood: "And to preclude those who disagree with the President's policies from getting even as close as across the street to his public appearances." Unfortuantely, we are at war with REAL terrorists (not Americans simply exercising their freedom of speech) and within reason, we can't be too careful with the President's security. Brian C.B.: Please see my question to maryc above - BTW: I don't believe in karma or reincarnation. Matthew Saroff: As long as you don't break any laws (your first "reaction" and Jay's suggestion sounded pretty close - Grand Moff Texan, if you had "an apparent present ability" to follow through with your threat, now THAT's a perfect example of what would be illegal), more power to you. Screaming Weirdo: Same goes for you as I offered to Gini above: "you get me ANY unwanted but living, breathing newborn in America, and I will get him / her adopted." Karmakin: Sounds like a good idea - but if we can't even manage to stop partial birth abortions, we aren't going to stop any earlier abortions - it's called "setting priorities" : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 01:48 PM | PERMALINKThanks Anarch for the "italics" lesson. I would have thought you'd comment on the subject matter by now though. : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINKOur resident humorist, Charlie, wrote: "And, if you recently changed your name from Paul B., it is you, sir, who does not merit a response." Nope, sorry, Charlie. That's the reason I chose "PaulB" as a handle in the first place -- too many Paul's out there. You're maligning another Paul. Although now that I think about it, being ignored by you is a badge of honor, so perhaps I should complain that another is unjustly being given that distinction! As to your original question, there are quite a few things I can think of that are not illegal but that are unethical and/or immoral. This is one of them. That you see no problem with these tactics speaks volumes about your own standards. Posted by: PaulB at February 17, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINKDid you hear that, President Bush drove a former girlfriend to an abortion clinic, and paid for her abortion? Posted by: Smick at February 17, 2004 01:56 PM | PERMALINKJeez. John Brown only raided the Harper's Ferry armory. That was much less annoying. Posted by: Grumpy at February 17, 2004 01:57 PM | PERMALINKOur resident clown, Charlie, wrote: "if not, what's the big deal - no one has answered that question." Actually, they have. You're just not paying attention because you don't like the answer. The Golden Rule, Charlie. Ever hear of that? Also, I would have thought that "God-fearing Americans" would understand that this isn't the way that Jesus taught people to behave, but perhaps you're reading a different Bible than I am. Posted by: PaulB at February 17, 2004 02:00 PM | PERMALINKWell, then Paul - sorry for the misidentification. As you can see, your post started to sound quite a bit like Paul B, which is why I needed that bit of clarification. The rest of my comments to you, about this being deadly serious, freedom of speech being restricted every day in this country, etc. stand. If you'd like to discuss anything else, please let me know. Smick: "Did you hear that, President Bush drove a former girlfriend to an abortion clinic, and paid for her abortion?" And, as I asked the last time that rumor was thrown against the wall: "Was that before, or after, he found salvation through Jesus Christ?" Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 02:12 PM | PERMALINKCharlie:So you think the wholesale elimination of privacy for women is worth it? Thanks for playing! First one ever. Congratulations. You actually have my respct...and my concern. I still stand by what I said. If that's a "good idea", why isn't it presented straight out? Why the stealth mechanics of it all? Oh right. It's disgusting and people would never stand for it. But I don't think that shaping your image has any place in a crusade. It makes you look like a liar and a sneak. Posted by: Karmakin at February 17, 2004 02:14 PM | PERMALINK"And, as I asked the last time that rumor was thrown against the wall: "Was that before, or after, he found salvation through Jesus Christ?"" The answer is uncertain. However, it was before it was legal. Salvation may wash away sin, but it won't wash away a crime. Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at February 17, 2004 02:14 PM | PERMALINKIf you don't believe me, ask Karla Faye Tucker. Oh, wait. She's dead. Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at February 17, 2004 02:17 PM | PERMALINKdear charlie, if your belief system is based around jesus christ, and this belief shapes your morality, and this morality leads you to conclude that fetuses are babies, then don't have any abortions. please keep your jesus out of my laws. fucking moralizing christians think that everybody must obey their godforsaken bible. oh, save me jeebus. why even debate with the guy? his argument will inevitably conclude with the statement, "cause the bible says so, see right here." let the viruses come. Posted by: cereal breath at February 17, 2004 02:27 PM | PERMALINKKarmakin: "If that's a 'good idea', why isn't it presented straight out? Why the stealth mechanics of it all?" You asked me a question, and I answered it. What exactly is so stealth about that? Setting priorities "makes me look like a liar and a sneak"?! Quaker: "The answer is uncertain." Only God and GWB know for sure - for my purpose, I have seen enough to know. "However, it was before it was legal. Salvation may wash away sin, but it won't wash away a crime." What was the statute of limitations on said crime, and has any such crime been prosecuted since Roe v. Wade? "If you don't believe me, ask Karla Faye Tucker." How does that apply to the topic in this thread: "Abortion in Wichita"? cereal breath: Using the very same logic, I could argue for the abolishing of a great many things: "if your belief system is based around jesus christ, and this belief shapes your morality, and this morality leads you to conclude that any human beings are worth protecting, then don't commit murder. please keep your jesus out of my laws." As for the curse words and viruses, I'll leave those out for now. Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 02:32 PM | PERMALINKAlert!!! Alert!!! bible states forced child slavery is fine and dandy: Exodus 21:7: "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." keep her in the house where she belongs. preferably in the bedroon (wink wink nudge nudge). apologetic engines on! Posted by: cereal breath at February 17, 2004 02:33 PM | PERMALINK"Using the very same logic, I could argue for the abolishing of a great many things" yes, you could but they would be crappy arguments. one can conceive
of an argument as to why murder is amoral that is divorced from the
notion that jesus is special. "What was the statute of limitations on said crime, and has any such crime been prosecuted since Roe v. Wade?" I think you're on to something there, Charlie. Vote Bush: He's got Jesus and the Statute of Limitations on his side! Kinda long for a bumper sticker, but it does have a certain rhythm to it. Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at February 17, 2004 02:37 PM | PERMALINKSpeaking of abortion, has anyone read the DAILY NEWS piece where Larry Flynt claims to have the goods on Bush's girl-friend's abortion? The little shit is once again exposed for the hypocrite he is. Posted by: Lupin at February 17, 2004 02:39 PM | PERMALINKAs for Ms. Tucker, she is relevant to your point that Mr. Bush's alleged act was prior to his salvation, and is thus excusable. Ms. Tucker's bad acts were also prior to a well-recognized acceptance of salvation, yet your Mr. Bush did not allow that to sway his evaluation of her circumstances. Put plainly, even though she was saved, he fried her. Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at February 17, 2004 02:40 PM | PERMALINK"Paul Hill-American Hero The Authorized Paul Hill website. Paul Hill links page. The Paul Hill message board. http://www.armyofgod.com Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 02:44 PM | PERMALINKI that Newman is going too far when he proposes to follow the clinic employees to their homes and to the grocery store, but I don't have a problem with those pictures of dead fetuses and the like. Weren't many of the antiwar types here calling for Bush to attend more funerals? Wasn't Ted Kennedy decrying press "censorship" of caskets being unloaded at Dover AFB? How many times have I heard antiwar liberals complain about how the press "never reports" the number of Iraqi casualties? Aren't those dead fetus pictures functionally the same thing? What is the difference? I don't like looking at them. I once lived near an abortion clinic and would see those grusome pictures every Saturday and Sunday morning on my way to work. The picutres are simply factual depictions of what happens to the fetus. What is wrong with ensuring that someone who is contemplating having an abortion knows exactly what the consequences of their choice will be? Posted by: Joe Schmoe at February 17, 2004 03:09 PM | PERMALINKIf fetuses are people, why aren't there funerals for miscarriages? Posted by: Garbo at February 17, 2004 03:09 PM | PERMALINK"j Swift: "Do Anti-abortion activists now meet the definition of 'terrorist'?" Not under the Patriot Act(s). "why aren't there funerals for miscarriages?" Sometimes there are. Please be careful with that line of reasoning. Posted by: Quaker in a Basement at February 17, 2004 03:32 PM | PERMALINKIs he going to picket the White House, now that we learn that Dubya paid for an abortion for his girlfriend in the early 1970's? (See Atrios this morning.) Posted by: Frederick at February 17, 2004 03:38 PM | PERMALINK"What is wrong with ensuring that someone who is contemplating having an abortion knows exactly what the consequences of their choice will be?" i don't think anyone here is arguing that people don't have the right to hold up photographs. sometimes viewing grotesque images makes one confront their morality. but you if consider abortion a medical procedure then veiwing pictures of an aborted fetus is akin to viewing this: http://tinyurl.com/3xez9 the aesthetics of medical procedures...i don't like to look at aborted fetuses or rectal prolapse surgery (or dead, bloody mutilated war victims or the bodies of president bushes executions) . are the people having rectal prolapse surgey being confronted by pictures of the procedure in order to know the "consequences of their choice" (which, incidentaly is a bloody mass of flesh. if you squint it even kind of looks like a person. rush limbaugh maybe?)?
"KABUL, Feb 27,1998 (Reuters) - Afghanistan's Taliban Islamic authorities gave a woman 100 lashes for adultery and amputated the right hands of two men for theft in Kabul on Friday as thousands of looked on. A Taleban speaker read out the verdicts of a religious court, saying that Sohaila, a single woman from Kabul, had admitted adultery. He said the two men -- Hamidullah of Paktiya province and Habibullah from Kapisa province -- had confessed their sins without any pressure. The sentences were carried out in Kabul's sports stadium, where more than 20,000 residents of the war-shattered capital gathered to watch. Sohaila was brought to the stadium in a car accompanied by two other women wearing the all-enveloping Burqa veil. A Taleban fighter lashed Sohaila 100 times with a roughly one-metre (three foot three inch) whip as a speaker chanted Islamic slogans. ``Thanks to the Taleban, the army of God, that we can protect the honour of people,'' the speaker said. ``Thanks to God that we are followers of God not of the West,'' he said. " Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 03:46 PM | PERMALINKCharlie: "i don't think anyone here is arguing that people don't have the right to hold up photographs. sometimes viewing grotesque images makes one confront their morality. but you if consider abortion a medical procedure then veiwing pictures of an aborted fetus is akin to viewing this: Posted by cereal breath" Or this? Another snip from the above article: "A Taleban fighter carried one amputated hand around and said: ``Anyone committing theft or adultery will face such punishment. Look at this, it is the hand of one of the thieves.''" Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 03:53 PM | PERMALINK"Thanks to the Taleban, the army of God" i have a great idea. why don't we build a giant stadium, huge, like
ten miles square, with a roof. then we'll enlist all the crazy
religious fanatics. each religious sect will be a team. the logistics
of whether all muslims/christians will be on one team or separated into
different sects will be decided later on (probably after a bloody
confrontation or two). once a week, two teams from opposing religions
can battle it out for supremecy of god. all tactics are available for
killing your opponent, no rules, anything goes. pay per view. the smart money is on the muslims. christians have gone all soft, with all that secular liberalism floating around. Posted by: cereal breath at February 17, 2004 04:03 PM | PERMALINKI wonder how these folks would react to a taste of their own medicine...i.e., if someone stalked them, rummaged through their trash to find out where they did their business, confronted them with oh, I dunno, pictures of starving or abandoned kids. I bet they'd freak. Posted by: James at February 17, 2004 04:12 PM | PERMALINKConstatine ? Regardless of one's feelings on abortion, all of us can agree (including you, I assume, Charlie) that this guy in Kansas is a socially maladjusted ass. He reminds me of the Phelps clan, actually. What IS it with Kansas, anyway? MaryC ? What especially bothers me about harassing clinics, such as the Women's Health Care Services, is I'm not aware of any clinics whose sole purpose is to provide abortions. Trust me, Wichita and Kansas in general would rather do without these idiots. Constatine, remember that Newman is not a Kansan, and neither was Randall Terry. They come here from other states. Phelps unfortunately is a Kansan, and the cities and the state legislature have tried various means to deal with him, but that pesky First Amendment gets in the way. One of the sacrifices of living in this country is we have to tolerate hearing messages that are objectionable and disgusting. By the way, there is a stalking statute here, and I?m sure it will be used to full effect if violated. MaryC raises another issue. Don?t kid yourselves. In this case, ?Women?s Health Care Services? is a pretty euphemism. This is an abortion clinic. If they perform other services, they are truly incidental. Wichita has one of the few clinics in the country with a doctor who will perform third-trimester elective abortions on demand. That makes him a hero in some eyes, the devil in others. But it makes it pretty clear why Wichita is a magnet for these protests. Posted by: denise at February 17, 2004 04:12 PM | PERMALINKCharlie says, "Actually, you get me ANY unwanted but living, breathing newborn in America, and I will get him / her adopted." Well, then get to it. How can you justify spending your time responding us on this website, when you should really be here: http://www.childsworld.ca.gov/ Once you're done seeing to it that all of those kids are in homes where thay can be properly cared for and educated, then you can come back and harass us about abortion. Posted by: JerseyExport at February 17, 2004 04:13 PM | PERMALINKYou know what pro-choice people need to do? START SHOOTING BACK. Posted by: Deb at February 17, 2004 04:14 PM | PERMALINKInvasion of privacy might not be a crime in Kansas, but stalking is, and there are criminal penalties for it. Following is the text of Kansas Statute Annotated section 21-3438, which I think sounds pretty close to what these idiots plan to do to abortion providers and their employees. The victims should have a credible criminal complaint and be able to get appropriate judicial restraints on these thugs. K.S.A. 21-3438 (a) Stalking is an intentional, malicious and repeated following or harassment of another person and making a credible threat with the intent to place such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety. * * * (d) For the purposes of this section: (1) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose and which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." (2) "Harassment" means a knowing and intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. (3) "Credible threat" means a verbal or written threat, including that which is communicated via electronic means, or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal or written statements and conduct made with the intent and the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for such person's safety. The present incarceration of a person making the threat shall not be a bar to prosecution under this section. (4) "Electronic means" includes, but is not limited to, telephones,
cellular phones, computers, video recorders, fax machines, pagers and
computer networks. Can I just say I love this country? Discussions like these are impossible in some others, either because of social, legal, ideological or religious constraints. :) Charlie, you might like it better there. Posted by: Sugar Plum Fairy at February 17, 2004 04:31 PM | PERMALINKCharlie: Yes, as a matter of fact George Washington is my hero too!
Unfortunately for you and your narrow-minded cause, he was not a
Christian. (hence the 1st Amendment). He was a Deist. And he grew
hemp, and was breeding it for potency. He spent 7% of his pay as
president on Alcohol. Oh my gosh! The immorality of it all! Please Lord, save us from these libertines! bah! Posted by: Occam's Cuisinart at February 17, 2004 04:54 PM | PERMALINK"Apparently invasion of privacy is not a crime in Kansas, so Newman's tactics are all legal." What about harassment? Same danm team, cereal, good job missing the point. ""Thanks to the Taleban, the army of God" i have a great idea. why don't we build a giant stadium, huge, like
ten miles square, with a roof. then we'll enlist all the crazy religious
fanatics. each religious sect will be a team. the logistics of whether
all muslims/christians will be on one team or separated into different
sects will be decided later on (probably after a bloody confrontation or
two). once a week, two teams from opposing religions can battle it out
for supremecy of god. all tactics are available for killing your
opponent, no rules, anything goes. pay per view. Charlie, it's amazing that you can type- what with your knuckles all bleeding and sore from dragging on the ground. It's amazing that he finds the time to troll here, I mean he must be so busy taking care of all those unwanted babies and finding homes for them! Posted by: dd at February 17, 2004 05:14 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, I have read through many of your posts in the past few days, and on this topic, I finally wanted to chip in something. You said earlier that you'd try to create adoptions of unwanted children. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of children in this country that are in need of adoption. Many of them are not wanted, or adoption laws prevent decent people from adopting them, so many Americans adopt overseas. Thus, there is a supply, and a demand, for adoption. Supply seems to outpace demand. Even changing the laws, supply would likely still outpace demand. I think that when these children in need of adoption are all adopted - let's say a consistant (3yr+) weighted national adoption rate of 98% within 6 months (subject to change if avg & median time-to-adopt is much higher), the anti-abortion crowd should come back to the table and show that there truly is a good future and happy life for currently unwanted babies. When we get there, I bet there is much less support for a woman's right to choose her, and her prospective baby's future. I think that you would agree that you shouldn't increase the number of babies that need adoption until you can create enough demand to deal with the current number. Otherwise, you will create an ever-spiralling problem of unwanted, poor children begetting more children with the same conditions, etc. We can certainly discuss abortion as a moral issue anytime you like. I think you'll find that no one wants abortion, but that this single view must be placed in balance with many other views and facts, and that the balance shifts to allowing a woman to choose for herself within clearly defined limits (as is the case now). When the problems and complications for a pregnant woman who does not want her baby are not the hurdle they are now, you will see many more women carry their babies to term. Abortion can be ended. It just takes a little faith, hard work, and a good plan. Actions speak louder than words. Militancy loses over time.
Al Nice post Gary, it's giving me plans. *thumbs up* Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 05:35 PM | PERMALINKBut thank goodness that Charlie posts here. His anal and somewhat delusional view of much of the world can produce enough adrenalin to cause an elephant to stroke out. Further, he inspires responses that, when not devolving into profane personal attacks, can be hilarious. Posted by: Keith G at February 17, 2004 05:39 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, tell us about your favorite guy/girl, your son/daughter. Fatherhoods a beautiful thing, eh? He/She's an 'unwanted' child, yes??? Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 05:42 PM | PERMALINK"But thank goodness that Charlie posts here. His anal and somewhat
delusional view of much of the world can produce enough adrenalin to
cause an elephant to stroke out. Further, he inspires responses that,
when not devolving into profane personal attacks, can be hilarious. That kind of elitist attitude won't win you any points, keep it up, ya commie, you'll lose in november. LMFAright the fuckO! Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 05:49 PM | PERMALINKBack in the bad old days of Randall Terry and Operation Rescue trying to block entrances to clinics, Planned Parenthood here in CA used to use protests as a fundraising tactic. Supporters would pledge X amount per protester who showed up. The more protesters, the more money donated to keep the clinics open. Used to piss off the protesters something fierce when the clinic personnel would announce via bullhorn each day how much money had been raised by their mere presence. Would love to see something similar in Kansas. If memory serves, I believe Randall Terry and his organization were brought into court under RICO (a federal statute), as well as sued in a multitude of civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy, emotional distress and the like, and bankrupted. Criminal charges like stalking and the exciting possibility of using the Patriot Act against anti-choice conspirators is sexy, but nothing brings them to their knees like losing their funding. Posted by: Lisa at February 17, 2004 05:54 PM | PERMALINKBlack clothed ninjas with cellphones, calling 911, love it.
Oh, if conservatives want to really want to end all or almost all abortions as are now practiced, they need to consider three steps, 1)universally provided birth control information provided early and often, 2) universally provided medical care ? thus assuring that basic economic facts are less of a reason for abortion or abandonment, 3) a greater investment in education in general so that teenagers and young adults are better able to construct a positive view of the world and their own life that will encourage more responsible decision making. That would serve as a start and be much more effective, humane and dare I say Christian, than the current strategies of assault. Posted by: Keith G at February 17, 2004 05:57 PM | PERMALINKYap...."That kind of elitist attitude won't win you any points, keep it up, ya commie, you'll lose in november." What type of elitism do I display? And, what am I to lose in November? Enlighten me so I may respond. Posted by: Keith G at February 17, 2004 06:01 PM | PERMALINKQuaker in a Basement: "Ms. Tucker's bad acts were also prior to a well-recognized acceptance of salvation, yet your Mr. Bush did not allow that to sway his evaluation of her circumstances." Oh, I see the connection you were trying to make now. Unfortunately for Ms. Tucker, there is NO statute of limitations for REAL murder. Gini: "Put your money and actions where your mouth is. Somehow, I doubt that has ever happened." I have told you: "get me ANY unwanted but living, breathing newborn in America, and I will get him / her adopted." You have no idea how many adoptions I've facilitated so far. "As for 'created in God's image' what exactly IS that?" Every human being has a soul, we are all created with a longing to be with God in Heaven, whether you want to admit it or not. DC Al: "You said earlier that you'd try to create adoptions of unwanted children." I actually said "newborns" specifically. I understand that there are many, too many, older children who are very difficult to place - right now, I'm dealing with what I can : ) "I think that you would agree that you shouldn't increase the number of babies that need adoption until you can create enough demand to deal with the current number." There already is MUCH MORE demand for newborns than supply - maybe I'm not understanding your points. "Abortion can be ended. It just takes a little faith, hard work, and a good plan. Actions speak louder than words." Agreed - gotta go now - have a good night. Keith G.: "But thank goodness that Charlie posts here." You're welcome. "His anal and somewhat delusional view of much of the world can produce enough adrenalin to cause an elephant to stroke out." Ouch. "Further, he inspires responses that, when not devolving into profane personal attacks, can be hilarious." Actually, even the personal attacks are hilarious - it's one easy way of deciding who gets on my ignore-list ; ) "Oh, if conservatives want to really want to end all or almost all abortions as are now practiced, they need to consider three steps . . ." And you should consider whether removing the natural consequences of sex outside of marriage is really the best answer. Yap: "Charlie, tell us about your favorite guy/girl, your son/daughter. Fatherhoods a beautiful thing, eh? He/She's an 'unwanted' child, yes???" Not sure what you're asking - because I have not personally adopted an "unwanted" child (yet), that has bearing on what exactly? Also, the cursing toward Keith G. is probably unwarranted. Posted by: Charlie at February 17, 2004 06:05 PM | PERMALINKWhatever. Tell me about how you love being a father, maybe then I'll take your word. Have you ever impregnated a woman? "What to do, what to do...." Trollassbitchwhore, nice fucking haircut! Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 06:15 PM | PERMALINKOh, and I did notice that I owned your ass above. Army of God, baby? Knives are out, junior, and our teeth are sharp. Tastes like chicken. Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 06:26 PM | PERMALINK?And you should consider whether removing the natural consequences of sex outside of marriage is really the best answer.? Complicated social problem usually require very complicated
?solutions? (Part mf my jigsaw theorem of social problem solving). Of
course, consequences are a part of the arsenal. I'd hit it. Monica's smooth creamy ass, mmmm. Badonkadonk. Posted by: Yap at February 17, 2004 06:46 PM | PERMALINKI'm not a criminal lawyer, but I was unaware that invasion of privacy was a crime. Disturbing the peace may be, but that is relatively limited. Did you have something else in mind? Posted by: raj at February 17, 2004 07:19 PM | PERMALINKFucking idiots? Mook, mook? And yes, I am happy and glad, slut.
A true story: One summer day in Wichita approximately twenty years ago, my tearful steady girlfriend of more than 5 years informed me that she was pregnant. She was 17, and had one more year of high school in front of her. I was 18, and getting ready to head off to college. I told her I would marry her, if she wanted, or support her in any other way within my ability. We discussed it with a maturity that neither of us had ever displayed up to then, and which amazes me to this day. Before the news, we had already decided to split up. Although we loved each other as deeply as you can at that age, we were already coming to the realization that we wanted completely different things out of life, and we just weren't right for each other. It was her decision to get an abortion. A decision that tormented us both, but that I felt was hers to make. I took $250 out of my college savings, and accompanied her to the clinic. We were accosted outside the clinic by some deranged woman blocking our path into the clinic, shaking prayer beads in her face, and literally screaming, with red face and spittle, two inches from her face "You're killing your baby, you slut!" I grabbed hold of the prayer beads, and calmly but firmly told the woman that if she didn't get the fuck out of the way, I was going to shove them down her vile throat. She backed off. Today my old girlfriend is married to a fantastic guy, and they have three beautiful daughters. She is living the life she knew she wanted. I am married to a woman who makes me thankful for every day I spend in her company. I pursued my life and career, and like to think I've done some good along the way. I think we did the right thing. Posted by: Anonymous at February 18, 2004 07:12 AM | PERMALINKSimple solution: "Free speech zones". If it works for Bush it should work for everyone..... Posted by: trulib at February 18, 2004 08:11 AM | PERMALINKJeez, Yap, switch to decaf already... Charlie: I would have thought you'd comment on the subject matter by now though. Ehhh. Don't really have much to say. On the one hand, there's no law against being an asshole; on the other, I don't regard their actions as particularly worthy of He Whom They Claim To Represent. So lousy Christians, sure... but beyond that, what's to say? Posted by: Anarch at February 18, 2004 01:12 PM | PERMALINKI will add, though, that although I agree that George Bush converted to Christianity, I don't believe that he "found salvation" except perhaps in his own mind. YMMV. Posted by: Anarch at February 18, 2004 01:15 PM | PERMALINKA quick hypothetical: If you honestly believed that innocent children - not lumps of tissue, not parasites, *children* - were being systematically executed to the tune of hundreds per year at, say, the local Republican party headquarters, with the approval and protection of local and state authorities . . . what would you do? You folks who hold candlelight vigils at every execution of a convicted murderer - what would you do? You folks who quail at the casual cruelty of animal testing - what would you do? Those of you who meet by the thousands to condemn our government for undertaking reckless wars and partnerning with genocidal dictators - what would you do? Would you be upset? Certainly. Would you protest? Absolutely. Why? Because you value life. Because life is precious, and the preciousness of life outweighs any claim of personal convenience or state prerogative. This man - however misguided you might think his tactics - is convinced that innocent *children* are being murdered at abortion clinics. You may disagree with him on this point (though I absolutely do not). You may think that human life begins at birth, not conception. Still, I'd like to think that, were it not for this one philosophical difference, you folks would be just as passionate in your protests of abortion providers as you are in protesting other practitioners of genocide. Disagree with his philosophy? Frown on his methods? Well and good. But his zeal is understandable. He values innocent lives. Posted by: Dave Reese at February 18, 2004 01:47 PM | PERMALINKKeith G: "Darn it all Charlie, if only it was that simple . . ." Ahm but it IS simple - follow God's commands and we wouldn't have 99% of these problems. I'm glad you agree that "consequences are a part of the arsenal" in solving these problems ; ) Anonymous: "A true story . . ." While I'm glad it seems to have all worked out for you and your ex-girlfriend, I wish there had been some way it could have worked out for your child as well. And while I'm not sure if the lady who accosted you broke any laws, from how you described it, and short of something like self-defense or what she said being "fighting words", you certainly perpetrated a common law battery. trulib: "Simple solution: 'Free speech zones'. If it works for Bush it should work for everyone . . ." Last time I checked, though, ordinary citizens are not afforded Secret Service protection under the law ; ) Anarch: "Jeez, Yap, switch to decaf already . . ." Yeah - something's gone haywire with him / her. "On the one hand, there's no law against being an asshole; on the other, I don't regard their actions as particularly worthy of He Whom They Claim To Represent. So lousy Christians, sure . . ." Why so "sure" if he really is NOT breaking any law - maybe the Holy Spirit led him to do exactly what he is doing? "I will add, though, that although I agree that George Bush converted to Christianity, I don't believe that he 'found salvation' except perhaps in his own mind." Ouch! I have yet to see anything that would make me question his salvation - but that is ultimately between him and God. "YMMV". Your Mileage May Vary? Dave Reese: Good points : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 18, 2004 02:32 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, why aren't you busy finding homes for all those unwanted
babies you care so much about? Maybe David can help you! C'mon, post
us your Fed Ex account number and other personal information, you know-
so we can drop 'em all off right on your doorstep. And if anyone uses
that info to harass you, well- hey, if it's legal, what's the big deal? "And while I'm not sure if the lady who accosted you broke any laws, from how you described it, and short of something like self-defense or what she said being "fighting words", you certainly perpetrated a common law battery." More like assault, Charlie. And I'd do it again. But I think you missed the point. Posted by: Anonymous at February 18, 2004 06:15 PM | PERMALINK"On the one hand, there's no law against being an asshole; on the other, I don't regard their actions as particularly worthy of He Whom They Claim To Represent. So lousy Christians, sure . . ." Why so "sure" if he really is NOT breaking any law - maybe the Holy Spirit led him to do exactly what he is doing? First, most theologies would agree that the Holy Spirit, however defined, trumps any manmade law; therefore the abiding by the letter of secular law doesn't really constitute evidence for or against the proposition that the Holy Spirit is inspiring him. Second, the problem with that line of argument is that I've heard it used to justify everything from my grandparents' mission to China -- which, so far as I know, had only positive effects, given that the people who remembered them were overjoyed to see my grandmother 40 years later -- to genocide. He might believe, and probably does, that the Holy Spirit is inspiring him; but I, lacking the infinite insight to determine the truth, can only weigh his actions by how I believe a Christian should act. Now this is a personal evaluation that should not be codified into law, but yes, I think he's a lousy Christian whether or not he thinks he's being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Beyond that, the only thing to be said is that if he does break the law he should be punished accordingly. ...but [his salvation] is ultimately between [Bush] and God. As long as he doesn't drag the rest of us into it, yes. And yes, YMMV did most definitely mean "Your Mileage May Vary" :) Posted by: Anarch at February 18, 2004 07:11 PM | PERMALINKQuote from my favorite Kansan, to whom I sent this post: Anonymous: No, I think I got the point just fine - you participated in the killing of your unborn child but you "think we did the right thing" and feel especially justified in the face of someone who was being obnoxious. You're wrong about the battery, as well, since your "offensive touching" was when you "grabbed hold of her prayer beads" (I'd have to double check whether an assault was subsumed in the battery at common law - of course, I don't know what jurisdiction you were in at the time, so my legal opinion does not extend to what statute(s) you actually violated). I guess you consider yourself lucky all around though - as I said before, it's a shame your child never got a chance to share in ANY luck. Anarch: Of course the Holy Spirit trumps any man-made law, and no, we can't know for sure in this case, BUT if (and I agree that's a big "if") he's actually being led to do this, I can't say "he's a lousy Christian" ; ) Have a good night. Posted by: Charlie at February 18, 2004 10:06 PM | PERMALINKAnonymous: You DID do the right thing. If the shoe was on the other foot, if Charlie had a gay man harassing him and screaming in his face calling him ignorant, homophobe and asshole, trying to block him from entering somewhere, and if he grabbed him and yelled back, he'd try to find a way to argue that it was self defense and totally justified. Then he'd piously call anyone who got obnoxious with him about the way he handled it "hateful". You terminated a pregnancy- an embryo whose rights do not trump the rights of your fully developed ex-girlfriend carrying it. These morons will do anything to try & guilt you, telling you a fertilized egg was an "innnocent child." Yes, to folks like Charlie, fertilized eggs are people, but women aren't. No, you were responsible and because you and your ex didn't choose to enter into parenthood before you were ready, your lives are better. On both counts, you did the right thing. Thank you for sharing your story. Posted by: dd at February 19, 2004 04:03 AM | PERMALINKShorter Charlie: "If we'd just been following the Bible, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years." Posted by: thom at February 19, 2004 08:32 AM | PERMALINKThe saddest most silly thing about these on-fire-for-god right to lifer cru-sadists is that these SAME people think sex education is wrong, birth CONTROL is wrong and many oppose welfare for women who have more than 2.2 children... interestingly sick isn't it? Not to mention, as has been in the preceeding posts: how many of them justify murder and dismemberment as a viable prevention of abortion. Why is it so much the human tendancy to blatantly beat their heads agaist the brick wall of 'result' than to work toward 'prevention'. Does the very idea take a rocket scientist? Well, then I'm missing a few hundred paychecks from NASA... sheesh. It would be nice to see Newmans home address made public. Maybe childish, but nice. Funny, it seems to be unlisted...hmm. Perhaps he was an abused child whose parents told him he COULD have been an abortion. Perhaps, he was adopted (as, from the photos you could estimate his age as 'birth pre dating R. v W.') and was told he was saved from ending up as an abortion... You have to wonder what motivated this fanatic sooo powerfully. I guess leading your own life is too much to ask. Does anyone know if he donates any money to adoption agencies, orphanages, welfare mothers or women/ childrens shelters for abused families? I just wonder if he will manage to raise enough money to pay for the psych. bills for his children... not everyone falls that close to the tree. Posted by: Avylon at February 19, 2004 11:43 AM | PERMALINKHey Charlie, Which COPY of the bible do you follow? Are you an old or new testamenter? Do you believe Jesus was blonde and blue? Oh, and please enlighten us, historically, just HOW MANY people died because Jesus loves them? How many cultures were lost, babies and mothers killed all because some guy channeled 'gods voice' and it told them that no other belief than 'this god' on 'this channel' was worthy and maybe possibly good...you know, considering the bible says we were created by god...is god then saying "Damn, I messed up. You there, go fix that for me, I'm tired." The bible is literature that has been translated and adapted according to the people in power at various times throughout history. Literature provides an insight to the past, not a prescription for the future. It, like all other knowledge, should grow and adapt. Yet it, of all most seemingly influential texts, fails to do so...WHY? Because it is a PERCEPTION, and like all perception, it is subject to those doing the perceiving. You see, to follow that bible we hear being thumped, humanity would have to live in a vacuum of time where nothing had changed from the days of it's first printing. You do realize that a book of suggested survival and or moral 'codes' from even 50 years ago is outdated in these times? Where I most certainly do not share your views, it is possible to respect that they are YOUR views and that you honestly believe that there is no other way to live. Even though I myself do not subscribe to your belief, you have the right to go about your business. All anyone can ask is that you abide by that shining Golden Rule layed down by your faith and allow others the same right. Try as people might,faith and religious dogma cannot be forced. If it is, it is not pure. Fear leaves little room for understanding, love and most of all, peace. Ideas can be shared, but differences are to be expected. It is the natural order and if you believe that god created natural order, wouldn't it seem apt to say he created ideas and difference as well? Posted by: Avylon at February 19, 2004 12:17 PM | PERMALINKI happened upon this site quite by accident, but had to respond. This is really long, but please, all of you, if you took the time to read all these many posts, you can take the time to read my answers to many of your comments. If anyone wants URLs as proof of all these facts, just email me, but after you've read to the end, please. I?ll be glad to send you all the sources. In a study done in 2000, 78 % of The National Abortion Rights Action League?s (NARAL) membership was female, while 63 % of National Right to Life Committee?s was female. 32 % of NARAL?s women members admitted having had an abortion. Only 3 % of the NRL women had had an abortion. NARAL had a total membership of 156,000, while NRL had 12 million. So 32 % of 78 % of 156,000 gives 39,000 such members, while 3 % of 63 % of 12 million yields 226,800 women who have had abortions. SIX times as many become pro-woman / pro-child after regretting their abortions. (This is paraphrased from the book, _ACHIEVING PEACE IN THE ABORTION WAR: Predictions on Possible Social Impacts of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Cognitive Dissonance as Structural Stressors, by Rachel M. MacNair, Ph.D.; found online here: http://www.fnsa.org/apaw/ch13.html ) As for someone?s comment about "And, as I asked the last time that rumor was thrown against the wall: "Was that before, or after, he found salvation through Jesus Christ?"" The answer is uncertain. However, it was before it was legal. Salvation may wash away sin, but it won't wash away a crime:? That thinking convicts Kate Michelman too, NARAL?s President. In 1970, before abortion was legal, Michelman?s husband deserted her and their three daughters, and shortly after, she learned she was pregnant. Rather than allow her baby to be adopted, she made a decision similar to the one in the movie "Sophie?s Choice." Twenty-eight years later, in a speech to the Commonwealth Club of California in January 1998,** she said: "Abortion was illegal [then]. It was shrouded in shame and wrapped in danger?I had to struggle with the moral and ethical questions alone - to debate my obligations to my children against my responsibility to the developing life inside me. In the end, I chose my children. I chose abortion." Her emotional distress is palpable. But she only "chose" three of her children, rather than let one be adopted. Michelman also told how she felt when abortion was legalized in 1973: "I was quite overcome. It felt somehow like a benediction ? a retroactive reprieve that helped restore my sense of worth, my integrity." But benediction means "blessing." Reprieve means "a pardon." But if she truly had no regret, if she truly felt she had done nothing wrong, then a "pardon" from WHAT? I am one of those hundreds of thousands of women who had an abortion and now deeply regret it after denying it for 20+ years. I personally know hundreds of women whose lives have been destroyed by the aftermath of their abortions, and over one-thousand who have gone public and into court with their stories. I even know a dozen men who feel this way. And I believe, if the Bush story is true, then he certainly is another of them. So that hopefully answers the question, "I wonder how the 'wingers will respond to a hypothetical revelation that Bush paid for an abortion for (then) his 15 year girlfriend?" If someone comes to humbly regret something they did wrong, it doesn?t make one hypocritical. Only if you say, ?It was OK for me but not OK for you to do it,? are you hypocritical. It is the difference between righteous and self-righteous. ?I am beginning to conclude that this anti-abortion crusade really is all about men.? When Bush signed the PBA Ban Act, it was a shame that you all only saw the old white men standing next to him. But you all seem to have bought, hook, line and sinker, what the mass media WANTED you to see. In fact, there were hundreds of women, friends of mine, just like me, there that day in that crowd. The media blacks this news out from everyone, but we have lived through how our abortions also caused our infections, breast cancer, painful endometriosis, premature births later on, life-threatening tubal pregnancies and PID, and increased Sexually-Transmitted Diseases. We found too late that our abortions prevented us from having other children. We battled with unexplained drug and alcohol abuse, relationship problems, depression, suicidal feelings, eating disorders. One woman here in Connecticut is suing a local abortionist for cutting into her bladder and causing her to need a hysterectomy. That abortionist has had four formal complaints against him for negligence and incompetence. One-thousand of us signed publicly-available legal affidavits about how abortion damaged us physically and emotionally. You only need to read some of the stories to know that most of us DIDN?T start out ?damaged.? Many women even STILL die from legal abortion. Many who support abortion like to ?report? that women who suffer after abortion may have been mentally unstable to begin with. They say that information about women suffering after abortion is "just a story or two." Yet they discredit and in some cases go to court to block the kind of comprehensive research that would reveal how widespread the suffering is. You want to read some truth, go to http://thesiclecell.blogspot.com and http://www.precious-life.com/my_story.htm . This doesn?t account for what is NOT publicly available. These are just some women strong enough to go public, in itself a harrowing thing. ?The really sad thing was is that a lot of the anti-choicer recruits were "adopted" from the local homeless shelters.? ??there's the phrase "pro-life protestors" - as if these people were just marching across the street from a clinic, waving signs and singing hymns.? I think we are exaggerating a bit on the first line? I?ve never seen, heard nor read of that, but it?s safe to say that the great majority of pro-life sidewalk folks are not from homeless shelters. Most of us ARE just marching, holding signs, and singing, although we are too busy offering and giving help to the moms to sing much. I?ve been going to the same abortion clinic where I had my abortion 25 years ago, and I hold a sign that says, ?25 YEARS LATER, MY ?CHOICE? HURTS ME STILL. LET US HELP YOU & YOUR BABY.? And that is just what my friends and I do, there. We see women change their minds every time and get the help from us that they need to survive and either keep their baby or give another loving couple a chance to adopt. And contrary to what you see in the media, that is what MOST pro-life ?activists? today do. We abhor and condemn the actions of a minute few who have gotten the message of Christianity all wrong, but rarely if ever do we get quoted saying that. What Newman did is NOT even close to ?attempting to pass new legislation.? I recently received a fundraising email from Randall Terry?s group and I refused. He is not representative of the majority of people on those sidewalks, and the vast majority of us believe that if anyone is sifting through someone?s garbage and following them to their hairdresser or what not, AND WORSE, then whether it is legal or not, it is wrong and we do NOT condone that. We hate it as much as you do. People like that, in their zeal, miss the point entirely. Just as gravely as the Catholic Church did once upon a time and, in another issue, more recently. Do you condemn a whole group of people for a 3% anomaly? Isn?t THAT ?profiling??? The ?eye for an eye? attitudes of a very few prevent the majority of us from helping women survive best by avoiding the harm that abortion will bring upon them personally. But the mass media WANT you all to think we?re all ?nuts.? Why do you think you never see the real good that so many of us do? Because that doesn?t sell newspapers or Viagra ads on the 6 o?clock news. ?screaming zealots call you "baby murderer" in public? ??Their "protests" involve attacks -- physical, financial, emotional?? ?To generalize about these anti-abortion nuts: it's painfully obvious that they are only interested in life in the abstract?These nuts tend to despise the world and everything in it? They are thoroughly anti-life.???". . . and their interest in the fetus disappears the minute it draws a breath." That just is not true. Many of us take the women who change their minds to get healthcare, a place to live, baby supplies, or even help their boyfriends find a job. Some of us visit them the day their babies are born in the hospital. It is much harder to ?walk with? the women for the 9 months of pregnancy than it is to escort them the five minutes into the door of the abortion clinic, and we go further than that. There are over 4,800 life-affirming agencies (3,400 in the US) doing all of that too. Many women come back to visit us at the sidewalks a year after they decided to have their babies, bringing them to brag about them! The vast majority of us define Pro-life as ?Pro-woman and pro-baby.? ?Love Them Both? is the predominant theme and bumper sticker nowadays. But the media doesn?t want you to know that. Even still, I can vouch that there are some who still display hateful or attacking behavior. On the day I went for my abortion, if someone had shown me they cared about ME or offered to pray with or help ME, I wouldn't have done what I did. But no one did, then. Outside the clinic, there were only some Catholics yelling condemnation and violent words. I heard them yell, ?If you go in there, you are guilty of murder!!? I even heard one shout, "If you die in there on that table today, then you DESERVE to die!" ?How could I have turned to them for the help I needed? They were yelling at me, denouncing me. And guess what? At my state?s RTL Convention, as an invited speaker, I TOLD those very words to a couple hundred Catholics, many of whom knew the person who yelled that at me 25 years ago. And instead of booing me off the stage, they gave me a standing ovation at the end of my talk. THAT?s the face of the Respect Life movement today. That same hate-filled person is there today still, saying the same things, when I go to help the moms and the dads. I have told him he is wrong, to his face. I have tried everything to stop him, but cannot. If you think YOU hate hearing those things, imagine how I feel hearing them, again, after 25 years? ?Charlie, abortion isn't "legal," it's legal.? ?FETUSES ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS. They are potential human beings.? ?Cutting funding to the United Nations Population Fund --in spite of Bush's own commission's report that it provided no funds for coercive abortion--? Consider this: ?"Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher describes the experience of a Chinese doctor. If for some reason an unborn child is not aborted by poison, he said, doctors and nurses are told not to let the baby cry for fear of sending the mother into hysteria. If the baby is still alive, Mosher explained, a nurse will place a hand over its mouth, then drown it in a garbage can filled with water." Bush defunded UNPFA and also one of UNPFA?s partners in China, Marie Stopes International, one of the world's largest and richest abortionists, which together set up reproductive health programs in 32 Chinese counties. Their main goal was to broaden China?s One Child population law. The U.S. and the U.K. both investigated what MSI and UNPFA were doing, and just last August, both found evidence of massive fines, sometimes as much as 3 years worth of family income, charged against women who had second or third children instead of abortions. Show me the ?Bush Commission? report. What you will find probably is really a non-Bush, privately-funded fact-finding tour of China by pro-abortion religious, organized by those who call themselves Catholic but act in direct opposition to Catholic teaching. They spoke to 100 Chinese citizens, but tell me: what Chinese citizen is going to readily admit to a group of strange foreigners any proof of forced abortions, especially when it makes their government not only look bad, but lose millions of dollars? ?If life begins at conception, then do those lives deserve protection? And if they do deserve protection, then what about cases where the mother was negiligent of her pregnancy and endangered the child? And in those cases, should the mother be charged with manslaughter? And when have you ever heard that argument coming from any anti-abortion advocate? Never. (If I'm wrong, please give me a website.? I know no one who wants to have a pregnant mother incarcerated or otherwise punished for being negligent of her unborn baby. It isn?t what those who believe in Christ or God have been taught, to believe in ?an eye for an eye.? But to use this argument as your support in hating or condemning pro-life advocates as hypocrites, is a dodge. There are other issues though. Surely you all have seen the uproar over Connor Peterson, and the resulting Unborn Victims of Violence Act introduced by Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH)? In late 2002, a WWW.VOTE.COM Poll asked people, ?Congress Should Make It A Federal Crime To Harm A Fetus During An Assault On A Pregnant Woman.? With 57,071 votes cast, 82% said YES. It?s not a website you wanted, but check out ?wwwAfterAbortion.blogspot.com? once in awhile, for a lot of this kind of news. "why aren't there funerals for miscarriages?? Sometimes there are. Please be careful with that line of reasoning.? There are, in different ways. One of the many Memorial Services is
part of Rachel?s Vineyard Retreats, www.rachelsvineyard.org , for those
suffering after miscarriages, stillbirths, and abortions, for
Non-Catholics too (heck, there was even a Jewish person on my retreat),
women and men, private, anonymous, non-judgmental. 1-877-HOPE-4-ME. And
this was one woman's story recently: ""One of our daughters has been
unable to carry a baby to term. Last year as Mother's Day approached,
she approached the pastor to let him know how painful it was to sit in
the Mother's Day morning worship service and watch all the mothers and
grandmothers being recognized. ?George Washington?was not a Christian? He was a Deist.? ?When the problems and complications for a pregnant woman who does not want her baby are not the hurdle they are now, you will see many more women carry their babies to term??.?I think that you would agree that you shouldn't increase the number of babies that need adoption until you can create enough demand to deal with the current number.? 42 States have "Safe Haven" laws that allow parents to transfer unwanted newborns to hospitals or health workers anonymously without being charged with infant abandonment. Spread the word. No questions are asked. The states pick up the tab, and as for adoptions, there are at least 2 million couples waiting to adopt every year. There?s about 1.3 million babies aborted each year. ?Oh, if conservatives want to really want to end all or almost all abortions as are now practiced, they need to consider three steps, 1)universally provided birth control information provided early and often,? Abstinence is more effective, actually, and the teens are already buying this better than their parents are: A study last spring in the magazine _Adolescent and Family Health_ said that 67% of the drop in teen pregnancy rates and 100% of the decrease in teen birthrates can be attributed to teens not having sex. Joanna Mohn, M.D., the study's main researcher, showed how earlier research studies made serious mistakes in giving ?condom use? the credit for the decreases. And if you want to argue about AIDS: the most successful African AIDS prevention campaign is in Uganda, which stresses abstinence and marital fidelity and has achieve a national infection rate of 6%, down from 21%. President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda said he won?t accept that ?only a thin piece of rubber stands between us and the death of our continent?? [The country?s best way to prevent AIDS is to] ?convince our people to return to their traditional values of chastity and faithfulness? ? what Ugandans have dubbed "zero grazing." ?2) universally provided medical care ? thus assuring that basic economic facts are less of a reason for abortion or abandonment,? Agreed, we have a long way to go with this one. So why doesn?t Planned Parenthood spend some of its annual $670 million ($241million of which came from OUR tax dollars) to help provide this for women who want to have their babies or give them to loving adoptive couples? Because they make 99% of their service revenues from providing abortions. There isn?t anything IN it for them to do otherwise. ?3) a greater investment in education in general so that teenagers and young adults are better able to construct a positive view of the world and their own life that will encourage more responsible decision making.? Education only goes so far. Good parenting, equally important, has been abandoned by my own generation (I?m 45). Maybe when teens? and YAs? role models of ?responsible decision making? stop being Janet, Justin, Britney, Madonna, Survivors, Sex in the City babes, and their own spoiled, Yuppie parents, they?ll be able to do what you say is missing. (I can say that because I was a Yuppie once too) The maxim ?Anything goes as long as I get mine, it feels good and doesn?t hurt anybody? is not really a ?positive view of the world.? I ought to know; all I could think of when I got my abortion was myself. That kind of thinking isn?t needed by this world, especially now. It can still hurt us, ourselves, as we are finding out about abortion. We are all connected, folks. We all need each other to keep this planet from falling apart. We are all the human race. Calling each other names and expletives before we really reach past the media-induced haze of misperception, doesn?t help, it only hurts. ?Actions speak louder than words.? ?Nuff said. I?m doing something and making a difference, two or three lives (mom, baby, and dad if he?s around) at a time. What are you all doing to make this world better? If you want to know where I get off talking like this, please get to know me a little, before you flame me. Write me or check out what I?ve written. Annie Banno Web Columnist, http://catholicexchange.com/vm/archives.asp?vm_id=26&aut=553 Posted by: Annie Banno at February 19, 2004 03:02 PM | PERMALINKI'm 49, had an abortion 26 years ago, and do not regret it at all. I can certainly believe that there are women out there who have had abortions they regret, but I am living proof of those who do not. I won't post statistics or websites in favor of my point of view, nor am I going to relay my whole abortion story. I do not "brag" that I had the procedure done, nor do I tell others to do what I did if it is not right for them. It is still a personal, private decision that must be made with a clear head, and no force or influence from folks on either side of the issue. Easier said than done, right? Whenever there are choices offered, there is the chance of regret. It does not mean we must take the choice away. Using that logic, we can easily argue that because of those who have had bad experiences with religion, be it Catholic, Mormon, or what have you- that we should ban religion. I know from my experience, no matter how much emotional support I was offered, I knew I did not want to continue my pregnancy. My life has definitely been better due to the fact that I had a choice. I volunteer at a battered women's shelter and a soup kitchen, if you are really wondering what I'm doing to make a difference. Pro-lifers can compare the treatment of a fetus to slavery all they want, but nothing is considered more as slavery to me as forcing a woman to bear an unwanted child. No person is required to donate their organs to support another, even if they will die as a result. A woman should not be required to support a developing embryo/fetus/zygote in the same manner. A woman, being a fully developed, sentinent human being, (an actual) should not have her rights trumped by an undeveloped potential human. An acorn is still not a tree. I can tell you right off that there is no evidence that abortion causes breast cancer (although a fact sheet on the NCI website was altered by Bush from pressure from anti-abortion members of congress, when scientific evidence previously had overwhelmingly denied the scare-tactic, Dec. 2002) I do not believe the scare tactics that say that women can die from having abortions- you can certainly die from complications from any surgical procedure, but your risk is still lower than it is in childbirth. Abstinence-only education will not work, as long as people desire sex, they will have it- whether anyone here likes it or not or what people think it should be. The desire for sex is entirely different from the desire to procreate. There is a good reason why countries like Denmark are better off than we are (and that is also taking population proportion into consideration) in terms of lower abortion rates and unwanted pregnancies. Not just their accessibility of abortions, but of birth control and sex education as well. Speaking of suiffering-as far as those who deny stories of women suffering or dying from back-alley abortions, one only needs to look at how many women die now per year in Latin-American countries where abortion is not legal. While I may only speak for myself and from my own experience, I know there are plenty of others out there like me. I don't regret my abortion and still stand on my opinion that it needs to be safe, legal, and rare. Posted by: edi at February 19, 2004 05:48 PM | PERMALINKI've never understood the insistence that abortion be "rare". Tonsillectomies, appendectomies, nosejobs, breast implants, lasix surgery, wart removals and other routine medical procedures are performed millions of times a year on an as-needed basis, without anyone stipulating that they need to be made rarer. Why is abortion different? I also don't understand what it means for a woman to make the abortion decision "with a clear head, and no force or influence from folks on either side of the issue." How is she to decide when the fetus becomes a person in the first instance -- by flipping a coin? Does she get to decide that a fetus isn't deserving of protection at seven months, or is she compelled to be "forced and influenced" by the Supreme Court's contrary edict in Roe v Wade? Did the Supreme Court reach that determination without any influence by either side? Posted by: The Raving Atheist at February 19, 2004 06:46 PM | PERMALINKHow is a woman compelled by the court to force and influence her to have an abortion? I heard both sides of the issue and decided to have an abortion. If a woman does not agree with abortion, no one is forcing or compelling her to have one. Posted by: edi at February 19, 2004 07:40 PM | PERMALINKI still don't understand the expressed need for "rareness" with respect to abortions. All those other procedures I mentioned also require at least an afternoon in the clinic that might have been spent more productively, but there's no outcry to reduce their numbers. My impression is that most people who insist that abortion be made "rare" are suggesting that there's some special moral problem with the act besides the resulting waste of time it causes. If a woman does make the mistake of actually talking to someone about the moral aspects of abortion and is thereby influenced (one way or the other), how to undo the damage? Are there other people with perfectly neutral views who can restore her head to the proper, pre-existing state of clearness? The Supreme Court in Roe permitted states to forbid elective abortion after the second trimester. That plainly interferes with a woman's ability to act on her feelings with respect to a later-stage fetus. In states that do impose such restrictions, should people try to influence the legislature to remove those barriers so that conscience can be pursued unfettered? And of a state doesn't have any restrictions on late-term abortion, are those who lobby to impose them guilty of trying to impermissibly influence women? Posted by: The Raving Atheist at February 19, 2004 08:20 PM | PERMALINKI didn't say the Supreme Court forced her to have an abortion . . . I said that by permitting it to be restricted after six months, the court is influencing a women NOT to have an abortion despite her view that a later-stage fetus is undeserving of protection. Posted by: The Raving Atheist at February 19, 2004 08:27 PM | PERMALINKedi, (and to all others with the courage to read on to the end), I felt exactly like you did, until Year 20. It?s different for everyone. There are 70- and 80-something women who come up to me in tears and thank me for opening the door to letting them get this off their chests after 50-60 years. (Yes, even though it was illegal then) I can tell you right off that there is no evidence that abortion causes breast cancer Who says that abortion increases breast cancer risk, while the American Cancer Society and NCI deny it? (although a fact sheet on the NCI website was altered by Bush from pressure from anti-abortion members of congress, when scientific evidence previously had overwhelmingly denied the scare-tactic, Dec. 2002) NCI has dismissed all of the above research, and some they themselves commissioned. The ?scientific evidence? you probably are quoting includes at least the 1997 Melbye study (also known as the Danish study, ironically, see below) 1) Melbye has been severely criticized for its errors; 2) Its researchers started counting the incidence of the disease -- recorded during a 5 year period -- before counting abortions, the cause of increased risk factor for the disease; 3) Melbye misclassified 60,000 women who'd had abortions as not having had abortions; 4) Even Melbye reported that for each week of gestation, a 3 % increased risk was found, so that after the 18th week there was a statistically significant 89% increased risk for women choosing an abortion. The American Cancer Society continues to rely on Melbye, even though it was severely criticized in 1997 in the New England Journal of Medicine, for its errors of misclassification and data adjustment. I held a sign with the above list on it, in peaceful witness, at a local ACS Relay For Life last year. They tried to have me booted off the public property until I quietly told them I?d spoken with the police and had a right to stand there silently with my sign. The ACS person replied angrily, "We HIRED the police for this; we'll call them and see about that!" I stood there for several hours, despite the ACS having tried to violate my freedom of speech. Believe me, I am not happy to know I?ve doubled my breast cancer risk by my abortion. I?ve also doubled my risk of cervical cancer because I once was on The Pill for over 10 years (for 5-9 years increased risk by 60%, and for under 5 years, a 10% increased risk). And women taking birth control pills are 14 times more likely to develop blood clots from airplane travel. Again, you aren?t going to read all this in Time Magazine or see it on ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS or FOX. Ten years from now, though, you just might see lawsuits by women who developed cancers and other illnesses BECAUSE these were brought on by their abortions. It could happen. I do not believe the scare tactics that say that women can die from having abortions Abstinence-only education will not work There is a good reason why countries like Denmark are better off than we are (and that is also taking population proportion into consideration) in terms of lower abortion rates and unwanted pregnancies. See the Melbye study above for how much better off Denmark is because of legal abortion. The NCI chooses to rely on another Danish study, too. Danish medical records were surveyed in that one, but since they didn?t count abortions prior to 1973 (even though it was legal since about 1930), it eliminated the chance of getting all the abortion-related cancer among older women. Further, when this survey reviewed the cases of younger women, it confirmed that higher rates of breast cancer are found among abortion survivors. In 1979, a study was published in Dissertation Abstracts International that found that Danish women who had abortions were significantly more likely, than others who had no abortions, to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital. Teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion, were at particularly high risk for this. as far as those who deny stories of women suffering or dying from back-alley abortions, one only needs to look at how many women die now per year in Latin-American countries where abortion is not legal. The truth in the U.S. is that, before 1973, 90% of illegal abortions were done by licensed physicians and not ?back-alley butchers.? The evidence points to 1,231 abortion-related deaths in 1942, 133 deaths in 1968, 114 deaths in 1963, and only 39 in 1972 from illegal abortions. NOT the 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year that National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood STILL cart out in speeches. Even Planned Parenthood?s Dr. Christopher Tietze called the 5,000-10,000 numbers "unmitigated nonsense." NARAL Co-founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson (now a devout, pro-life Catholic) admits he ?... knew the figure was totally false.? Even one death is one too many! But you have to question the logic of anyone who looks at any medically voluntary procedure, KNOWS that it kills or severely hurts women, and says that the activity should remain legal. As far as Latin America, legal abortion will not solve their problems, it will make them worse. A late 1990?s Population Council report described efforts that pay cash incentives to be sterilized in Latin America and elsewhere. It told the true story of a man named Khairul who became sterilized only when his life and that of his children was on the line. More recent reports from Latin America indicate this is getting worse. In 1997, the UNPFA (see my earlier post) raised its ugly head in the form of Marisela Padron, director of the Latin America and Caribbean division of UNPFA, applauding Peru's birth control program, saying it is one of the most effective in Latin America. We have already talked about their tactics, above. And you want to trust them with working to provide legal abortions there? In Brazil, Dr. Wanda Deifelt, the first Latin American Lutheran woman theologian who holds a Doctorate in Theology, wrote an article in 1992 about the use of Brazilian women as guinea pigs in experimental contraceptive vaccine tests. Side effects included irregular bleeding. In the poorer parts of Brazil, she found that pregnant women reported undergoing tubal ligations (female sterilization) without knowing or even agreeing to it, when the doctor performed a C-section. Latin America is mostly Catholic. They are already guinea pigs for our ?reproductive services.? Leave them alone. And here?s why: Abortion laws and a pro-life climate DO reduce the number of abortions. When the Russians left Poland (also a very Catholic country), its religious and philanthropic customs were allowed to revive. In the 1980s, Poland saw 100,000 abortions a year, but ten years later, they were down to 59,417. It has happened that when a people see abortion as wrong, they do start to change their conduct. How many do die in Latin America from illegal abortions, by the way? I couldn?t find the number. I know there are plenty of others out there like me. 226,000 times 24 is almost 5 and one-half million women, silently suffering. (Thanks, RA, I loved the Amen, esp. coming from someone with your moniker!) I'll have to check out your blog... Posted by: Annie Banno at February 19, 2004 09:23 PM | PERMALINKI didn't come on this board to engage in a debate with Raving Atheist or Annie, so I'm going to leave this post as short and sweet as possible and will not be responding to any further posts from them. I am not an "activist" of any sort and do not claim to be. I had my abortion years ago and know plenty of others like myself that do not have any regrets, despite others telling or implying to me that I somehow should. I've read the same facts you have- are you trying to "educate" me on how wrong abortion is, or to *guilt* me? I had no problem with the morality of abortion, and you could say I am referring to the unwanted pregnancies are what need to be lowered, or made more "rare". My decision was 100% mine, and I sense alot of these regretful women are trying to imply somehow that they were coerced, instead of making a responsible, informed decision. I do not believe abstinence is going to magically be the key to solve our problems, (yes, we already know it is 100% effective, is it realistic? No.) I do not believe any of Annie's other "facts" from biased sources (yeah Annie, I checked them out) about breast cancer risks (not *causes*), illegal abortions that didn't happen from butchers, or your life being at stake when you have an abortion. I was lurking on this thread reading about a crazed loon in Wichita, KS who resorts to stalking and harassment- (sad to see this sort of tactic is still around.) again, not to engage in a debate with RA and Annie. Sorry guys, you haven't changed my mind like you were probably hoping to. Posted by: edi at February 20, 2004 04:01 AM | PERMALINKI couldn't possibly change your mind since (1) I have no idea what your position is on the morality of abortion at any stage (2) I have no idea what you believe the law should be regarding abortion or how it should be formulated, (2) you don't believe than any woman should allow herself to listen to, much less be influenced by, what anyone has to say on either side of the issue. Posted by: The Raving Atheist at February 20, 2004 05:35 AM | PERMALINKEdi, did you see the papers today? NPR and Harvard?s Kennedy School of Government just published results of a poll that showed that a full 61 % of Amercian adults believe that ?schools should teach that abstinence is best? OR that belief combined with this: ?should also provide information about condoms and contraception.? Realistic or not, you can't knock it till we've tried it as a nation. It works, when it's tried in good faith. I understand you won?t reply, but I do not try to ?guilt? anyone, edi. I am saddened and sorry you jumped to such a conclusion as to even ask that question. If it is guilt you are starting to feel, it is from hearing the truth that can't be denied anymore. Don't shoot the messenger, edi. I care about every woman who had an abortion, whether she "agrees with me" or not. And the truth is that many women were and are still being coerced. If you really want to "check it out," go read the affidavits at http://www.operationoutcry.org/stories/storiesDir.asp This March 2, Norma McCorvey (the former "Jane Roe" of "Roe v. Wade") goes before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to tell the court that SHE was coerced into being Jane Roe by her laywers 31 years ago, and to ask the court to overturn Roe v. Wade, along with my affidavit and over one-thousand others. Read HER affidavit there, and tell me you don't believe her words: By her own admission, Norma's lawyers got her plastered on beer 31 years ago, WHILE she was pregnant, to get her to sign on as Jane Roe, in that condition. It's right there in the court document. Yeah, that's a real strike for women's rights, all right. But since you choose not to believe bona fide facts and books that simply publish the recorded facts from crime/police records and sworn court statements about women dying and being maimed by legal abortions, or well-known breast cancer experts (pro-choice Daling is a former NCI doctor, and they refused to invite her to their most recent conference on the subject: Tell me, WHO?s BIASED?), then you won?t believe anything that?s put before you unless it matches what you think. No, I don?t think I could change your mind. I DO hope to get you to consider that maybe what you have read/heard/seen from the mass media isn?t the gospel-truth you?ve accepted at face-value and continue to quote. You have been deceived as I was, edi. You couldn?t possibly have ?checked out? every fact I gave, every article, for yourself. THAT?s what I hope readers of my comments will actually do, rather than take the sound-bites spoon-fed to them by mass media which paints the REAL biased picture and has done so for over 30 years. Big Brother isn?t watching, Big Brother is getting US to watch and regurgitate what they want us to believe. Posted by: Annie Banno at February 20, 2004 10:08 AM | PERMALINKOk, I know I said I wasn't going to reply to you two, but this is plain ridiculous..... RA, you seem to like twisting around my words, I guess to you, if I have no problem with the morality of abortion, that must mean I should think we should have more and more, not reduce the amount needed. Also, I'm sorry you have a problem with my saying that a woman should not be forced to have an abortion, and not forced to bear a child against her will. "(2) you don't believe than any woman should allow herself to listen to, much less be influenced by, what anyone has to say on either side of the issue." Notice how you stuck in the words "listen to" where I never said I wasn't willing to "listen". In any case, where this is going is you have a problem with my not being influenced by what is being said on *your* side of the issue. Done with you now. Annie: Good arguments, but they'd be better if they were true. I know you aren't the one who said this, but you defended him: "Was that before, or after, he found salvation through Jesus Christ?" GWB has found his "salvation" and is now against abortion, but his "salvation" taught him nothing about the Iraqi children killed or the grown children of many who were sent to Iraq for reasons he lied about. "saying GW was a deist amounts to nothing if you?re trying to form some defense that Christianity should be avoided at all costs in this country." Who is saying it should be avoided at all costs in this country? What people believe in their private lives is their business, and it's not what we take issue with. It should not be intertwined with our government.
They do. Adoption counseling and assistance is offered, as well as coverage of pregnancy & birth expenses, housing, and financial aid referrals.
In every field of medicine, not just abortion alone- there will always be surgeries gone wrong, complications, and unethical doctors. Awful things happen in surgery with Ear, nose, and throat psecialists, too. Should we not go to ALL ENT's because of the bad apples? Legal abortions *are* safer than illegal ones. http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3502503.html
Yes. They also deserve the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or not. Women deserve better than being forced to be incubators when they don't want to be, as punishment for enjoying sex. Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregnancy.
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3502503.html Yeah, it was probably higher than that. Because it was illegal, and therefore back-alley abortion deaths were not reported as such nearly as often as they happened. "But you have to question the logic of anyone who looks at any medically voluntary procedure, KNOWS that it kills or severely hurts women, and says that the activity should remain legal." Yes, coat hangers and knitting needles are much better. "As far as Latin America, legal abortion will not solve their problems, it will make them worse." Oh really? So, we're better off with untrained doctors, unwanted pregnancies and poverty?
Um, no- abortions still exist there, just illegaly. Also, read the bottom of the article about strong Catholic influence in the schools. It's pretty debatable that the public just "changed their minds." http://www.kentucky.com/mld/twincities/news/world/3889789.htm "How many do die in Latin America from illegal abortions, by the way? I couldn?t find the number." Not surprisingly, Latin America has the highest incidence of illegal abortions of any other region worldwide, according to a 1996 World Health Organization report. Some 41 of every 1,000 women undergo unsafe abortions, and 6,000 women die each year as a direct result. Each year, four million women in the region undergo abortions. -Korey Capozza "61 % of Amercian adults believe that ?schools should teach that abstinence is best? OR that belief combined with this:?should also provide information about condoms and contraception.?" Yes, see the second part after "OR" :?should also provide information about condoms and contraception.? This is quite different from *abstinence-only*. "Realistic or not, you can't knock it till we've tried it as a nation." The whole nation actually "trying it" after they are taught abstinence-only IS the unrealistic part. I find it funny that you believe kids will just magically not have sex because they're told not to. Lord knows, if we don't teach kids about condoms, they won't have sex! Yeah, when they have it anyway, and are more ignorant about birth control than before, and have less access to condoms, I'm sure that'll work wonders for our teen pregnancy, AIDS, and STD problems. Sure, I guess after the disease rate skyrockets, we'll all want to be abstinent after that (for the wrong reasons) won't we? "If it is guilt you are starting to feel, it is from hearing the truth that can't be denied anymore." Like I said, I do not feel guilt nor regret. Sorry to disappoint you.
You refuse to believe I've checked your statistics and articles, and I should know that mainstream media is biased, but I should check out the above link. Fair and Balanced News!
Roe got herself plastered many times before that, and after. She worked as an abortion counsellor in a North-Texas clinic. Enter Flip Benham, the Dallas-based anti-choicer who makes a career out of wooing the media and invading the Dallas Planned Parenthood on Greenville Ave. She got, I think, something in the neighborhood of ten grand from him to get a new start on life, then got a job, then got groomed for media exposure by his extremely savvy group of handlers. So now she's pro-life instead of pro-choice. Norma McCorvey is simply a woman who tells people what they want to hear so that they'll give her money and a place to live. She's not whoring herself any less for the PLers than she did for the PCers. "But since you choose not to believe bona fide facts....." I've read your same studies on the ABC link before. The studies are *still* inconclusive. It isn't the facts that are in question, it is the conclusions you are drawing from them. Correlations do not necessarily show cause and effect, and the link isn't proven to not be due to ther factors. Here's a good summary of the studies done: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_canc.htm And no, I don't believe everything I hear from Dr. Reardon & the Elliot Institute. http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/cmaj-study.html "then you won?t believe anything that?s put before you unless it matches what you think." And you won't believe anything I say unless it matches exactly what you think. I'm not losing any sleep over it. "Big Brother isn?t watching, Big Brother is getting US to watch and regurgitate what they want us to believe." Wow, he sure is! Here's some other great articles on Abstinence and Breast Cancer! http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/example_breast_cancer.htm http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/example_abstinence.htm I think, *now* I'm done replying to you both. -Laws based on moral issues will inevitably fail in a free society, for when they succeed, that society is no longer free. Charlie: "Again, I simply asked a question: "If it's not illegal, then what's the big deal?!"" Are you sure it isn't illegal? That kind of activity probably violates Kansas's stalking law: [excerpt of law] (1) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose and which would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." To my knowledge, following a receptionist to a restaurant brandishing photos of the mangled heads of fetuses isn't "constitutionally protected activity." Plus, other patrons of the same restaurant subjected to this stunt may have good reason to file suit themselves. It would certainly qualify in Kansas as harassment (part of the stalking law): [excerpt of law] "(2) "Harassment" means a knowing and intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose." Attempting to "disgust friends and associates" of people who work at
women's health clinics does not serve a legitimate purpose, so don't
even go there. I have no sources for this at the moment (and I really don't feel like looking), but I understand that, depending on state laws, for the most part going through someone's trash IS legal. I first learned this about a year or two ago when I read about a case involving a man who had sued someone who went through his trash. It wasn't an invasion of privacy or theft. I was surprised. From what I vaguely recall, it had something to do with placing trash cans on the curb (or having them in a specific spot on your property with the intention of their contents being discarded) rendered their contents available for public access. Like I said, I don't have any handy sources. I might have some specifics wrong, but the general gist of what I wrote is probably right. Others who have the time and interest might want to look further into it. Posted by: Trish Wilson at February 21, 2004 10:37 AM | PERMALINKGood arguments, but they'd be better if they were true. What people believe in their private lives is their business, and
it's not what we take issue with. It should not be intertwined with our
government. The ACLU and others know full well that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has said the First Amendment has been misinterpreted both by the Supreme Court and lower courts. They all know that Supreme Court Justice William Douglas, in a court opinion, said, "...The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State." All the First Amendment says is that Congress cannot pass a law adopting any particular religion as "the religion" of the country. "So why doesn?t Planned Parenthood spend some of its annual $670
million ($241million of which came from OUR tax dollars) to help provide
this for women who want to have their babies or give them to loving
adoptive couples?" They do. Adoption counseling and assistance is
offered, as well as coverage of pregnancy & birth expenses, housing,
and financial aid referrals. And the prenatal care everyone thinks they offer? Prenatal INFORMATION they offer, their website says, but not ?care!? Planned Parenthood, for the past 5 years, made $300 million profit, 99% of that from abortions. These facts are from their own annual report. In every field of medicine, not just abortion alone- there will
always be surgeries gone wrong, complications, and unethical doctors.
Awful things happen in surgery with Ear, nose, and throat psecialists,
too. Should we not go to ALL ENT's because of the bad apples? Legal
abortions *are* safer than illegal ones.
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3502503.html "Even Planned Parenthood?s Dr. Christopher Tietze called the
5,000-10,000 numbers "unmitigated nonsense." NARAL Co-founder Dr.
Bernard Nathanson (now a devout, pro-life Catholic) admits he ?... knew
the figure was totally false.? Yeah, [deaths from illegal abortions were] probably higher than that. Yes, coat hangers and knitting needles are much better. So, we're better off with untrained doctors, unwanted pregnancies and poverty? I looked up your URLs, how about these? Dr. Philip G. Ney, Psychiatry, Univ. of British Columbia, Canada, and founder of International Institute for Pregnancy Loss and Child Abuse Research and Recovery (IIPLCARR) has published extensively on this issue: "Abortion not only increases the rate of child battering at present; it will increase the tendency to batter and abort in succeeding generations." [Dr. Philip G. Ney, M.D., Abortion and Child Abuse: Which is Cause, Which is Effect? Address at conference on "Psychological Aspects of Abortion" sponsored by the Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois (Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 1978)] PP doesn?t tell you the fact that, in the 23 years between 1973 (when
abortion was legalized) and 1996, CHILD ABUSE IN THE U.S. HAS INCREASED
MORE THAN 1,000 PERCENT, according to the National Center of Child
Abuse and Neglect. After New York legalized abortion in 1968, there was a
44% per year rise in child abuse. Washington state made it legal in
1970, and in just the first 2 years, child abuse in its largest city
(Seattle) skyrocketed 379%. As for UNWANTED CHILDREN: PP and others don?t tell women the facts
from child-abuse centers: that in families where children WERE abused,
between 91 and 96% of those children were WANTED, not unwanted. Dr. Edward Lenoski, USC, School of Medicine, Dept. of Pediatrics, 1980. http://www.abortionno.org/pdf/faq.pdf Dr. Vincent Fontana, author of "The Maltreated Child," (Macmillan, 1973): "Dr. Vincent Fontana has investigated thousands of abuse cases nationwide. He personally directed the establishment of the first (and largest) medical facility devoted exclusively to the treatment of abused and battered children. In his book, _Somewhere A Child Is Crying_, Dr. Fontana wrote: ?It is unfair, uninformed, and, I believe dangerous to preach the doctrine that abused and neglected children are unwanted and to imply that unplanned children are going to be maltreated. The assumption that every battered child is an unwanted is totally false. Many maltreated children are children who were very much wanted before birth In search of a quick and easy solution to the ugly reality of child abuse, a great many people have come up with glib answers based on the pill and other birth control devices, planned parenthood, vasectomies, and abortions for the asking. Abortion is the favorite theme of the moment. At might be a wonderfully neat solution, if it were only not quite so sweeping and simplistic, or if it were only valid.?? So if the children are allowed to live, it does NOT follow automatically that they will be abused. Let?s spend the millions of dollars we?d fund to UNPFA and MSI for abortions and pills, to help feed those children and educate their parents instead. World Health Organization report. Yes, see the second part after "OR" :?should also provide
information about condoms and contraception.? This is quite different
from *abstinence-only*. I find it funny that you believe kids will just magically not have sex because they're told not to. Lord knows, if we don't teach kids about condoms, they won't have
sex! Yeah, when they have it anyway, and are more ignorant about birth
control than before, and have less access to condoms, I'm sure that'll
work wonders for our teen pregnancy, AIDS, and STD problems. Sure, I
guess after the disease rate skyrockets ?Veteran Harvard medical anthropologist Edward Green admits that ?many of us in the AIDS and public health communities didn't believe that abstinence and faithfulness were realistic goals. It now seems we were wrong. The Ugandan model has the most to teach the rest of the world.? John Richens of London's University College, an expert on sexually transmitted disease, argues that ?condoms encourage risky behavior? and ?increased condom use leads to more cases of condom failure.? ?Safe sex? campaigns, Richens is honest enough to acknowledge, have largely failed, in part because of these hard facts.? I could list so many more of those quotes, but I won?t. Like I said, I do not feel guilt nor regret. Sorry to disappoint you. You refuse to believe I've checked your statistics and articles,
and I should know that mainstream media is biased, but I should check
out the above link. Fair and Balanced News! Roe got herself plastered many times before that, and after. Flip Benham,...She got, I think, something in the neighborhood of ten grand from him to get a new start on life,? I've read your same studies on the ABC link before. The studies are *still* inconclusive. The "Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer" published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) showed breast cancer rates jumping more than 40% between 1987 and 1998 for exclusively the youngest of three generations -- the Roe v. Wade generation. ?Health Magazine" didn?t publish that info, but rather focused on the story they wanted to print, of the ?well-documented record of concealment and scientific misconduct involving the cancer fundraising establishment and premier U.S. medical journals. Perhaps this was due to the emotional investment of at least one of two writers. One wonders if the editors of this Time Magazine-owned publication have given their rubber stamp of approval to the government's undeniable cover-up of the research during the last half century.? http://www.lifenews.com/oped18.html Here?s another one: Minnepolis Star-Tribune Censors Abortion-Breast Cancer Facts, http://www.lifenews.com/oped23.html http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/example_breast_cancer.htm Laws based on moral issues will inevitably fail in a free society, for when they succeed, that society is no longer free. We've had a free society for almost the first 200 years, whose laws were based on morals. The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold tthese truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed **by their Creator** with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Life IS, after all, the first "inalienable right," written ? with good reason - BEFORE Liberty ("freedom"), in our Declaration of Independence. WE did not bring religion into this; the Founding Fathers based the Declaration on the recognition of a higher power, acknowledging that our nation and its actions would be measured by God. The Founding Fathers were primarily Protestant Christians. THEY KNEW THAT THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT EXISTS ONLY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO US ALL, NOT BY THE GOVERNMENT, BUT BY OUR CREATOR and which are unassailable. That means protected, unable to be assaulted, unconquerable. No one?s ?rights? overrule a pre-born infant?s right to live, either. With the right to drive, people must drive responsibly and consider other human beings on the road. With the right to drink, they must drink responsibly and not drive or otherwise put other human beings in danger. There are laws governing these responsibilities: with all rights, we must still honor the rights of other human beings to life. ?Reproductive rights,? today, are the only rights that don?t come with this same responsibility to our fellow human beings. That will change. Posted by: Annie Banno at February 21, 2004 10:39 AM | PERMALINK?RA, you seem to like twisting around my words, I guess to you, if I have no problem with the morality of abortion, that must mean I should think we should have more and more, not reduce the amount needed.? If you have no problem with the morality of abortion, you shouldn?t care whether there are more or less of them. For my part, I certainly hope that the number of wart removals INCREASE if there is an increase in the number of people needing them ? because I have no problem with the morality of wart removal. But I have a serious problem with the morality of abortion and believe they should be made illegal except where they threaten the life of the mother. You originally indicated (and this was the issue I was addressing) that you believed they should be RARE. This indicates that you DO a problem with the morality of abortion, although what it is (and at what stage of the pregnancy it arises) I still haven?t a clue. ?Also, I'm sorry you have a problem with my saying that a woman should not be forced to have an abortion, and not forced to bear a child against her will.? I?m not sorry you don?t believe in forced abortions ? I?m glad you don?t. My problem is with your objection to women being forced to bear children against their will, to the extent that they are prohibited from having abortions. My point in this respect was that the Supreme Court DOES technically force a woman to bear a child against her will after the six month mark. But you seem to agree with Roe v Wade, so I assume you agree with forcing women to give birth to late stage fetuses ? despite what they subjectively view the moral status of the fetus to be. ?Notice how you stuck in the words "listen to" where I never said I wasn't willing to "listen". In any case, where this is going is you have a problem with my not being influenced by what is being said on *your* side of the issue.? You originally said that the abortion decision is ?a personal, private decision that must be made with a clear head, and no force or influence from folks on either side of the issue.? Plainly listening subjects one to being ?influenced?, so my natural conclusion was that you thought women should make the decision in a complete vacuum, or presumably by listening to people who have no position on the issue at all (whatever that could mean). And yes, I have a problem with people not being influenced by what is said on my side of the issue because I am on the right side of the issue. I would assume you?d have the same problem with people not being influenced by your views against infanticide. And I?d assume you?d think I was crazy if I suggested that a woman should make her decision about infanticide without being influenced by anyone on either side of the issue. Never done with you, now or ever. Perhaps I missed something, but RA, wanted to add a bit about your comment that "...the Supreme Court DOES technically force a woman to bear a child against her will after the six month mark." That is not the case. Roe vs. Wade legalized abortion for any reason during the first trimester, and allowed it in the second trimester if there was a medical reason, requiring it to be done in a hospital by a medical doctor. Third trimester abortions were allowed ONLY in the case of rape, incest or to preserve the life/health of the mother. DOE v. BOLTON (the COMPANION CASE to ROE V. WADE) was handed down by the same Court on the So any woman could claim she'd "suffer mentally" with no proof from a doctor or anyone, or that she already had a child and couldn't afford another one, etc., and she could abort her unborn baby right up until the day it would be born normally. In 1989, the Supreme Court's "WEBSTER v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES" struck down the trimester system established in Roe v. Wade, but abortion is still legal at all points of the pregnancy. In case there's any confusion, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act DOES allow exceptions if ever needed to save mothers? lives. That was in the bill since 1995. The Ban does NOT ban "all late-term abortions," but a PROCEDURE primarily used in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy (when babies can survive outside the womb) as well as later. This ban corrects the errors of _Stenberg v. Carhart_. The procedure?s definition today is much more precise and clear-cut than that in the Nebraska ban reversed by the Supreme Court in 2000. The Ban does say that PBA is unnecessary to protect the mother?s "health" based on massive congressional data from many years of investigational hearings. Congress, including Congressman Chris Shays (CT), SAW the scientific facts that PBA actually poses real risks to the MOTHER. Congress learned that virtually all "medical necessities" are NOT mother?s health risks, but represent parents learning their baby has Down Syndrome, spina bifida, etc. (There are actually parents LINED UP to adopt such "disabled" babies.) Both parts of Congress voted FOR the ban, twice before, but then-President Clinton vetoed it twice. And in _The New York Times_, even Ron Fitzsimmons, director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, denounced his industry?s false "party line": "[I] lied through my teeth?and in the vast majority of cases, the [PBA] procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus [at] 20 weeks or more." Posted by: Annie Banno at February 21, 2004 04:10 PM | PERMALINKAnnie: Agreed. That's why I qualified my statement by saying that Roe "technically" forces a woman to carry a late-stage fetus to term. I realize that even that part of the decision has been in large part gutted by Doe's "health" exception. What I was responding to primarily was Edi 's statement "everyone
does have different view of what is a conscious person- be it a fetus,
zygote, embryo, or fertilized egg." My point was that the Supreme
Court, albeit only technically, was rejecting that theory with respect
to fetuses in the third trimester, and theoretically forcing women to
carry to term after that point. And I was trying to determine whether,
if she did in fact accept Roe, she shared the view that there was was
some point in a pregnancy at which the moral status of the fetus wasn't
just a product of the mother's feeling, and at which society could
"influence" her, through legal compulsion, not to abort. Annie Banno: The federal PBA ban has already been blocked and is almost certain to be found unconstitutional. Congress cannot override the requirement for a "health of the mother" exception simply by claiming that no such exception is necessary. That is a matter for the courts to decide, not Congress, and with respect to PBA the Supreme Court has already found that the exception is necessary. Even if the PBA ban somehow became enforceable law, it is doubtful
that it would prevent even a single abortion, since another procedure
could be substituted for it. The anti-abortion movement has expended an
enormous amount of time, money and political capital on a law that is
unconstitutional and would be useless for their purposes even if it were
constitutional. Annie Banno: There is no credible evidence of any significant link between abortion and breast cancer. If there is a relationship at all, it is insignificant. See, for example, this: Researchers Conclude No Link Between Abortion And Breast Cancer Money Quote: "Concluding a three-day conference at the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) in Maryland, breast cancer researchers today confidently announced
that the strongest statistical evidence shows no link between abortion and breast cancer." You are peddling lies and falsehoods in a transparent attempt to frighten women into not having abortions. Shame on you. Posted by: Don P at February 21, 2004 11:13 PM | PERMALINKAnnie Banno: No one?s ?rights? overrule a pre-born infant?s right to live, either. In the vast majority of cases, a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy overrides a fetus's right, if any, to life. The right to life does not include the right to use another person's body as a life-support system. A fetus does not have the right to use a woman's body to sustain its life. That is why abortion is legal. That is why abortion is a constitutional right. Posted by: Don P at February 21, 2004 11:23 PM | PERMALINKDon P.: Abortion is a constitutional right because the Supreme Court said it was a constitutional right. The determination that something is a constitutional right does not necessarily rest on moral grounds. In the past, the court has found that blacks were not "persons," whereas as corporations were. "A woman is about 10 times more likely to die from completing a pregnancy and giving birth than she is from having an abortion." She's also probably 1,000 times more likely to die from having an abortion, than from avoiding the pregnancy altogether by not having sex. Perhaps sex should be made unconstitutional. On the other hand, you were infinity times more likely not to exist had you been aborted, than had you not been. You are peddling lies and falsehoods in a transparent attempt to frighten women into not having children. Shame on you. Posted by: The Raving Atheist at February 22, 2004 01:03 PM | PERMALINKRaving: Abortion is a constitutional right because the Supreme Court said it was a constitutional right. So what? All constitutional rights are constitutional rights because the Supreme Court says so. The determination that something is a constitutional right does not necessarily rest on moral grounds. Right. It rests on legal grounds. She's also probably 1,000 times more likely to die from having an abortion, than from avoiding the pregnancy altogether by not having sex. I doubt that. But once she is pregnant, terminating the pregnancy is far, far safer than completing it. Perhaps sex should be made unconstitutional. You think so, do you? Good luck with that proposal. On the other hand, you were infinity times more likely not to exist had you been aborted, than had you not been. Huh? I would be equally non-existent whether my mother had had an abortion when she was pregnant with me or whether she had never conceived me at all. You're not making much sense. You are peddling lies and falsehoods in a transparent attempt to frighten women into not having children. No I'm not. I am telling you the facts. You and Annie Banno are
peddling lies and falsehoods. You should be ashamed of yourselves. To Don P: Did you even read all of my posts carefully? It is painfully apparent that you didn?t, or you discarded it all summarily. Why? Are you afraid of learning that some of what you rabidly believe is just not true, that you and millions of others have been deceived by what the mass media chooses to have told you all these years? Congress cannot override the requirement for a "health of the
mother" exception simply by claiming that no such exception is
necessary. That is a matter for the courts to decide, not Congress, with respect to PBA the Supreme Court has already found that the exception is necessary. Even if the PBA ban somehow became enforceable law, it is doubtful that it would prevent even a single abortion There is no credible evidence of any significant link between
abortion and breast cancer. If there is a relationship at all, it is
insignificant. See, for example, this: Researchers Conclude No Link
Between Abortion And Breast Cancer Money Quote Ditto above. And when your tax dollars and mine are paying for the legions of women in their 20s and 30s with advanced breast cancer, when 30 years ago this phenomenon was unheard of, there will be the money quote. Worth nothing. You are peddling lies and falsehoods in a transparent attempt to frighten women into not having abortions. Shame on you. Norma McCorvey?s (the former Jane Roe) attorneys will be the only attorneys arguing, since neither the state nor the district attorney have filed briefs in the case. Among McCorvey?s 5,437 pages of evidence are affidavits from more than 1,000 women who testify having an abortion has had devastating emotional, physical and psychological effects. Do you know how many women?s affidavits the Courts, including the Supreme Court, used to decide Roe v. Wade and for that matter Doe v. Bolton? IN EACH CASE, ONE SINGLE WOMAN?S AFFIDAVIT. There are over ONE-THOUSAND TIMES MORE EVIDENCE IN THESE MOTIONS THAN WERE USED TO CREATE ?REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS? AS ?RIGHTS? FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME. The right to life does not include the right to use another person's body as a life-support system. And as RA aptly put it, ?Abortion is a constitutional right because the Supreme Court said it was a constitutional right. The determination that something is a constitutional right does not necessarily rest on moral grounds. In the past, the court has found that blacks were not "persons," whereas as corporations were. "A woman is about 10 times more likely to die from completing a pregnancy and giving birth than she is from having an abortion." It sounds like you don?t believe in God or people?s souls, but to follow along the Beethoven lines, what if one of those aborted children was the one who would cure cancers? Or AIDS? Or be a world leader to unite the nations in peace? What have we done, then? Posted by: Annie Banno at February 22, 2004 03:35 PM | PERMALINKDon P.: "So what? All constitutional rights are constitutional rights because the Supreme Court says so . . . [Right. [the right to abortion] rests on legal grounds [rather than moral grounds]." You originally said that the reason "why" abortion was legal and constitutional was that "[t]he right to life does not include the right to use another person's body as a life-support system . . . [a] fetus does not have the right to use a woman's body to sustain its life." But if the Supreme Court had ruled otherwise, banning abortion would be legal and constitutional, despite those moral reasons. And even under Roe, a fetus DOES have the right to use a woman's body to sustain its life, unless her health is endangered. So you're not making any sense. And what, precisely, is the lie that I'm peddling? That an eight month old fetus shouldn't be killed because the mother doesn't feel like raising it or putting it up for adoption? That a first trimester fetus shouldn't be killed for the same reasons? And how does what I'm saying frighten anyone? Posted by: The Raving Atheist at February 22, 2004 04:41 PM | PERMALINKAnnie Banno: You don't understand the nature of constitutional government. Congress cannot override the Supreme Court. The whole point of having an independent judiciary empowered to strike down laws that violate the Constitution is to act as a check on the power of the legislative branch (i.e., Congress). It is established constitutional law that any ban on abortion must contain an exception to protect the health of the pregnant woman. The federal PBA ban contains no such exception. Therefore, the federal PBA ban is unconstitutional. There is virtually unanimous agreement amoung constitutional scholars that the PBA ban will not stand. Posted by: Don P at February 23, 2004 09:19 AM | PERMALINKAnnie Banno: Again, you choose to believe only the one side of the research that the mass media has let you see, not having read or cared to really research what I quoted and listed above, What you quote above is not credible evidence. As the link I provided illustrates, the consensus opinion amoung the nation's leading cancer researchers, after careful review of all the relevant scientific research, is that there is no credible evidence of a significant link between abortion and breast cancer. You simply ignore this finding because it contradicts your faith-based beliefs. You don't really care whether there is a link at all. You don't care about facts. You don't care about women's health. All you care about is your fanatical hatred of abortion. Posted by: Don P at February 23, 2004 09:26 AM | PERMALINKAnnie Banno: You cannot try to shame me into silence, when thousands of my sisters have died, been maimed, or experienced years of other suffering because of their abortions. Far, far, far more women have died or been maimed or experienced years of other suffering from completing a pregnancy than from terminating it through abortion. The risk of death from pregnancy and childbirth is about ten times higher than the risk of death from abortion. When are you going to start telling women that? When are you going to start telling the truth, the whole truth? Posted by: Don P at February 23, 2004 09:31 AM | PERMALINKRaving: You originally said that the reason "why" abortion was legal and constitutional was that "[t]he right to life does not include the right to use another person's body as a life-support system . . . [a] fetus does not have the right to use a woman's body to sustain its life." But if the Supreme Court had ruled otherwise, banning abortion would be legal and constitutional, despite those moral reasons. That's right. If the Supreme Court had found that abortion is not protected by the Constitution then it wouldn't be a constitutional right. But that was not the finding of the court. The finding of the court, a finding that it has repeatedly reaffirmed, is that abortion is a constitutional right. And even under Roe, a fetus DOES have the right to use a woman's body to sustain its life, unless her health is endangered. No, that is not what Roe says. During the first two trimesters of pregnancy, the period during which 99% of all abortions in America are performed, the fetus has no right to use a woman's body to sustain its life. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. A woman can terminate her pregnancy during this period for any reason whatsoever. And during the last trimester, a woman may terminate her pregnancy to protect her life or health, which effectively provides for legal abortion on demand during that period also. Posted by: Don P at February 23, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINKAnnie Banno: An opportune, cliched phrasing to repaint ?the way of nature? in a negative light. An unwanted pregnancy is a negative "way of nature." The way of nature often is negative. That's why we so often interfere with nature to produce a more positive outcome. But the issue here isn't the way of nature, anyway. It's the right to life. As I said, the right to life does not include the right to use someone else's physical body as a life-support system. That choice belongs to the person whose body is needed for that purpose. In the case of abortion, that person is the pregnant woman. Her body, her choice. Not yours. Not the Pope's. Not the government's. Hers. Even if the risks [of pregnancy] were 100 times greater, I would gladly risk my own life to have my daughter, who would have been 25 today. Fine. That's your choice because it's your body that you're risking. Other women make different choices. You need to learn to respect that. Posted by: Don P at February 23, 2004 12:23 PM | PERMALINKDon P. Thank you for confirming that 1) the reason why the Supreme Court found abortion constitutional had nothing to do with the alleged moral reasons you cited and 2) Roe does permit a fetus to use a woman's body as a life support system (after six months and absent health reasons, which is precisely what I had said before). Posted by: The Raving Atheist at February 23, 2004 01:00 PM | PERMALINKRaving: Thank you for confirming that 1) the reason why the Supreme Court found abortion constitutional had nothing to do with the alleged moral reasons you cited and I didn't cite a "moral reason," I cited a right. Laws exist to secure rights (read the Declaration of Independence). Roe v. Wade secured the right to abortion. 2) Roe does permit a fetus to use a woman's body as a life support system (after six months and absent health reasons, which is precisely what I had said before). No, what you said was: "And even under Roe, a fetus DOES have the right to use a woman's body to sustain its life, unless her health is endangered." That statement is factually incorrect. Roe does not recognize any such right during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, regardless of the risk of continued pregnancy to the woman's health. A fetus has no right at all to use a woman's body to sustain its life during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. 99% of all abortions in America are performed during the first two trimsters. As for the remaining 1%, as you noted yourself, the health exception is so broad that it can justify virtually any abortion. So the fetus effectively has no right to use the woman's body even during the final trimester of pregnancy. I love that this enrages you so. Posted by: Don P at February 23, 2004 01:24 PM | PERMALINKDon P. Also, I think you will find that Roe LEGALIZED abortion in all 50 states, justifying the decision under the Constitution's "right to privacy." Not the under term ?right to abortion.? There?s a big difference. Critics of the PBA Ban Act, including some constitutional lawyers, have written often using the terms "invasion of privacy" and "unconstitutional." Neither the 14th amendment (used in _Roe v. Wade_) nor ANYTHING in the Constitution assures the "right to privacy." Look it up. You won?t find a right to privacy in that amendment, or anywhere else in any part of the Constitution. That amendment only guarantees that no state "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law." Meaning, you CAN lose your life, freedoms, etc., but only when our government takes the proper steps (arrest, fair trial, etc.). And that has nothing whatsoever to do with the right to privacy. But in _Roe v. Wade_, that?s what the Supreme Court based its decision on, using something called "substantive due process." That means that, instead of assuring we all get fair treatment by the law, the Supreme Court contradicted and stretched the wording to say that we also will be promised a certain OUTCOME. Legal experts on both sides have exposed this as faulty reasoning. Since Roe, the Supreme Court hasn?t used the false ?substantive due process? interpretation in any of its decisions, that is, until the Lawrence v. Texas decision, which saw the High Court making sodomy legal by a vote of 6 to 3, saying that we shouldn?t ?demean the lives of homosexual persons? or infringe upon their right to privacy. And because of this ?sex act,? two dear friends, both gay men, died in their thirties from AIDS or AIDS-related complications, which is the gay life expectancy, according to much research. Because of this sex act, gay men suffer more from anal cancer, hepatitis, gonorrhea and "gay bowel disease" than heteros do. I just don?t understand why they pursue something that kills them off so painfully and so soon. It made no sense to make it legal, knowing the truth of the scientific evidence available on that issue, but that?s another thread. I?d like to see my friends live, thank you, not be encouraged to die so young. (And please don't fling the media sound-bites of "homophobia" and "fomenting hatred and intolerance," though I'm sure some will since it's convenient. I am not afraid of nor do I condemn my gay friends, many of whom I've known or worked with for decades. If you want to bring up "the Pope" again, [I didn't bring him up], here's what the Catholic Church teaches in black and white in its Catechism: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." Any Catholic who doesn't do accordingly is not really a practicing Catholic.) What you quote above is not credible evidence. As the link I provided illustrates, the consensus opinion amoung the nation's leading cancer researchers, But you aren?t quoting the nation?s leading cancer researchers, that?s just it. At least not all of them. You simply ignore this finding because it contradicts your
faith-based beliefs. You don't really care whether there is a link at
all. You don't care about facts. You don't care about women's health.
All you care about is your fanatical hatred of abortion. If YOU really cared about women?s health, you would WANT to know ALL the facts, all the truth, and yet you don?t. You do everything you can to hide, silence or deny the truth. Why is that? I am just one who has suffered physically and emotionally from my abortion, and am on the road to healing. So are the thousand others who?ve gone public. And there are more being added every day we refuse to let anyone shame us into silence. The truth is that your denying the problem doesn?t make it go away. But it is attitudes like yours that make it impossible for women, maybe even the women in your life, to admit they regret it and/or are silently suffering. What if it?s YOUR sister, wife, mother, daughter, grandmother who had an abortion, and you don?t know about it? Maybe she has early-onset breast cancer that most women her age just simply don?t get? Or maybe she?s had fertility problems forever that no doctor has been able to explain or fix? You just don?t know, do you? And you may never know, nor know what she could really be feeling. After all, how could she admit to you that she regrets her abortion or wonders if her physical problems just might be linked to her abortion? You attack women who regret theirs, and even find joy in doing so. She probably thinks you?d dismiss her feelings or even be angry with her. You will never know. She?s damned if she does admit it and damned if she doesn?t. If she tells anyone, some pro-life people -- the ones like Newman and the ones with bullhorns -- will condemn her. And the pro-choice people will call her crazy for feeling regret! They?ll say she?s unstable and it?s all in her head! She CAN?T WIN. Both sides make it impossible for her to seek healing from her regret and pain. That?s why so many women don?t talk about their regret. NO ONE makes it easy. When are you going to start telling the truth, the whole truth? It's the right to life. With rights come responsibilities, as I made the case before; unfortunately in all cases except this, for now. I myself made the mistake of thinking it was ?just my body? and I had a ?right? to do with it what I ?chose.? See, that was the original argument for decades. That?s the lie I was sold, and the same one we are still being sold. Only now, it?s been augmented by the ?no using a woman's body as a life support system? one. Because now even abortion-rights advocates cannot deny there is really a human life in there, that would even NEED ?life support.? But even the President of NARAL herself knew better than to say that about her abortion. She knew and admitted that it was a human being in there, AND that she had ?my responsibility to the developing life inside.? All women do, deep down inside, whether we want to admit it or not. I may not be perfectly qualified to speak for all women, as you are quick to point out, but who are you, Don P., to speak for even SOME women? Even if you could personally poll every last one of us who ever lived, they wouldn?t tell you the truth if their truth was the same as mine and a couple hundred thousand, maybe millions, of women who do regret it. They wouldn?t tell you because you would call them ?fanatical,? ?liars,? and say that you ?love that this enrages [them] so.? Personally, I?m not enraged, not even surprised at your words. I have heard it all before. Just think about the women in your life, Don P. Two out of every five women who you personally know, have had at least one abortion. And if you don?t already know about their abortions, and if they regret them, you will NEVER know. I just feel sad for those women, and for you. Posted by: Annie Banno at February 23, 2004 07:08 PM | PERMALINKAnnie worte: The U.S. and the U.K. both investigated what MSI and UNPFA were doing, and just last August, both found evidence of massive fines, sometimes as much as 3 years worth of family income, charged against women who had second or third children instead of abortions. Are these goverment reports, or reports by pro-life organizations? (You forgot to include links or citations). Show me the ?Bush Commission? report. What you will find probably is really a non-Bush, privately-funded fact-finding tour of China by pro-abortion religious, organized by those who call themselves Catholic but act in direct opposition to Catholic teaching. You're misinformed. The State Department, under Bush, sent a fact-finding mission to China to investigate the claims against UNFPA. The Bush mission found (reported in their letter to Colin Powell) no evidence of coercion in the counties in which UNFPA operates, since UNFPA set up its program. They did find "ample evidence" of coercion - but they're careful to specify that this is referring to "abusive and coercive practices outside the 32 counties" UNFPA operates in. Of course, that's the Bush administration?s version of events, which is spun to avoid making UNPFA look good. They carefully skip over the most important fact about UNFPA's participation in China - which is that UNFPA negotiated with China to end China's coercive policies in those 32 counties. If it wasn't for UNFPA, thousands of Chinese women who have been released from China's horrible population-control policies would still be suffering under those policies. That's what the fact-finding team you strongly implied didn't exist found, Annie. Another team of fact-finders was sent by England, including Conservative MP Edward Leigh, who has been one of UNFPA's most dedicated opponants in the British Parliment. When he examined what was happening in person, however, Leigh changed his mind. From the British MPs report (pdf link): [UNFPA's] project is being implemented throughout 32 counties in 22 provinces. The Chinese Government, while still pursuing China's overall national demographic targets, agreed to lift acceptor targets and birth quotas in these areas. [...] The study team found no evidence of UNFPA advocating or facilitating coercive FP [Family Planning] laws. Indeed, it seemed precisely the opposite applied. The UNFPA projects, based on the IDPD Programme of Action, helped empower women by ensuring that they had the fullest possible information about reproductive health and choices. [...] And yes, Catholics for Choice did send a fact-finding mission to China, composed of ministers, academics, and ethicists (I guess you assume they're all liars?). However, since the UN Population Fund is anti-abortion (they don't advocate abortion, they don't fund abortion, they don't perform abortion), I don't know why you assume that pro-choice Catholics are biased. Their findings (pdf file) matched those of the Bush and UK teams. When pro-life and pro-choice factfinding teams all agree that UNFPA is innocent - and is in fact a force for positive change in China - isn't it likely that they're telling the truth? The alternative is to beleive that there's some sort of pro-UNFPA conspiracy to hide the truth which spans across the Bush administration, a conservative British MP, a number of pro-choice ministers and ethicists, and the Dutch fact-finding team as well. That doesn't seem very plausible to me. The sad thing is, the evidence suggests that UNFPA actually prevents hundreds of thousands of abortions, by providing birth control throughout the world (UNFPA provides birth control and medical help to mothers in more countries than any other organization in the world). They also do more to fight coercive abortion in China than any other organization in the world. By defunding them, pro-lifers are in fact increasing abortion worldwide and helping the Chinese goverment abuse Chinese women. If you really want to prevent abortions, by far the best thing for you to do is to vote for the Democrat in the 2004 election. A Democrat in the White House would refund UNFPA, which would prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions. In contrast, I don't think re-electing Bush will prevent many abortions at all. * * * I'm not going to write about the PBA ban right now, because this is already getting too long; but you can read my posts on the subject here, if you're interested. * * * One last point: The country with the lowest abortion rate in the world is the Netherlands, which has liberal abortion laws and goverment-funded abortions. Even despotic pro-life regimes - regimes that use far, far harsher penalties to discourage abortion than would ever be acceptable in the USA - haven't been able to reduce abortion as much as the Netherlands. Given how much more freedom US citizens have, and how much less harsh the penalties will be here, it's totally implausible that outlawing abortion in the US will be more effective than outlawing it in (say) Kenya has been. If the goal is to have the lowest possible abortion rate, then it makes far more sense to emulate the Netherlands formula than Kenya's. Support for single mothers, free birth control, widespread sex education among youth (including abstinance, but not abstinance-only), etc. - in the real world, this has been proven to bring about a lower abortion rate than pro-life laws ever have. Posted by: Ampersand at February 24, 2004 11:58 AM | PERMALINKI think you might want to read that May 29 report you linked to, in its entirety, one more time, ampersand. What follows are lengthy excerpts, but believe me, for any of the casual readers here, the actual documents are incredibly longer, but feel free to read them entirely on your own. Are these goverment reports, or reports by pro-life organizations? (You forgot to include links or citations). You're misinformed. The State Department, under Bush, sent a fact-finding mission to China to investigate the claims against UNFPA. The Bush mission found (reported in their letter to Colin Powell) no evidence of coercion in the counties in which UNFPA operates, since UNFPA set up its program. I don?t think I am misinformed, and actually that?s not quite what it said. Again, I suggest you read that May 29, 2002 State Dept. Letter you linked to again. What it actually said, is quite different than what you claim it said. It said, verbatim, ?We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. First Recommendation: We therefore recommend that not more than $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA. [that means ?no further money?] Second Finding: We find that notwithstanding some relaxation in the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved, the population programs of the PRC [People?s Republic of China] retain coercive elements in law and in practice. [meaning, ?all of PRC?s programs still have some coercion?] Second Recommendation: We therefore recommend that unless and until all forms of coercion in the PRC law and in practice are eliminated, no U.S. Government funds be allocated for population programs in the PRC.? [meaning, ?including any population programs run or affiliated with UNFPA?]?Third Recommendation: We therefore recommend that appropriate resources be allocated to monitor and evaluate PRC population control programs?[meaning, ?not to fund their activities?]?UNFPA is stretched to its extremes and is unable to monitor even its own 32 program counties effectively. China?s control of its own population ranks high on the PRC?s list of issues of national security concern. China?s population control programs, therefore, should be high on the U.S. list of national security concerns.? From that May 29, 2002 Letter you linked to: ?The ?Project Document Between the Government of the People?s Republic of China and the United Nations Population Fund? signed on September 11, 1998 after three years of difficult negotiations. This document sets forth joint reproductive health/family planning and other projects in 32 counties during the period mid 1998-2000 and has been since extended.? It also said, ?In sum, based on what we heard, saw, and read, we find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC. Indeed, UNFPA has registered its strong opposition to such practices. However, from our perspective, UNFPA?s Beijing office lacks adequate resources to monitor and evaluate this important issue satisfactorily.? That report went on: ?During our meetings with local State Family Planning Commission (SFPC), Ministry of Health officials and magistrates, while admitting that coercive practices had taken place in the past, they denied that coercive abortions, involuntary sterilization, or indeed any other coercive practices were taking place in their jurisdictions. As previously noted, they denied that the social compensation fees (or "society raising children fees") were coercive or that they were a significant source of revenue for the counties? The fact remains, however, that on the books these fees for the first "out of plan" child are often set at two to three times the couple?s annual salary for the previous year, a level which for many must be so punitive as to be, in our view, coercive.? That was written in May 29, 2002. The following report, the 2002 Human Rights Report on China, was released March 31, 2003: ?The Government's human rights record throughout the year remained poor, and the Government continued to commit numerous and serious abuses?.The Government continued to implement its coercive policy of restricting the number of children a family could have. ..Violence against women (including imposition of a birth limitation policy coercive in nature that resulted in instances of forced abortion and forced sterilization), prostitution, discrimination against women, abuse of children, and discrimination against persons with disabilities and minorities all were problems?The Government codified its comprehensive birth planning policies, which include coercive elements intended to limit births. ?The new Population and Family Planning Law, the country's first formal law on this subject, entered into force on September 1, 2002?The law grants married couples the right to have a single child and allows eligible couples to apply for permission to have a second child if they meet conditions stipulated in local and provincial regulations?The law requires couples who have an unapproved child to pay a "social compensation fee"?The country's population control policy relied on education, propaganda, and economic incentives, as well as on more coercive measures such as the threat of job loss or demotion and social compensation fees. Psychological and economic pressure were very common; during unauthorized pregnancies, women sometimes were visited by birth planning workers who reminded the parents of their potential liability to pay the social compensation fees. The fees were assessed at widely varying levels and were generally extremely high, sometimes equaling several years' wages for an average worker. Additional disciplinary measures against those who violated the limited child policy by having an unapproved child or helping another to do so included the withholding of social services, higher tuition costs when the child goes to school, job loss or demotion, loss of promotion opportunity for 1 or more years, expulsion from the Party (membership in which was an unofficial requirement for certain jobs), and other administrative punishments, including in some cases the destruction of property. Government employees were particularly vulnerable to loss of employment when they had a child without permission. In many provinces, penalties for excess births in an area also can be levied against local officials and the mother's work unit, creating multiple sources of pressure. These Draconian penalties sometimes left expecting mothers with little choice but to undergo abortion or sterilization.? The report goes on: ?Senior officials stated repeatedly that the Government "made it a principle to ban coercion at any level," and the [Chinese government?s] State Family Planning Commission (SFPC) has issued circulars nationwide prohibiting birth planning officials from coercing women to undergo abortions or sterilization against their will. However, the Government does not consider social compensation fees and other administrative punishments to be coercive. ?Corruption related to social compensation fees was a widespread problem. In response, State Council Decree 357 established during the year that collected ?social compensation fees? must be submitted directly to the National Treasury, rather than retained by local birth planning authorities. During the year, SFPC officials reported that they responded to more than 10,000 complaints against local officials. ?From 1998 through 2002, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) conducted a 4-year pilot project in 32 counties?The SFPC worked closely with the UNFPA to prepare informational materials and to provide training for officials and the general public in the project counties. However, these counties retained the birth limitation policy, including the requirement that couples employ effective birth control methods, and enforced it through other means, such as social compensation fees. ?Laws and regulations forbid the termination of pregnancies based on the sex of the fetus, but because of the intersection of birth limitations with the traditional preference for male children, particularly in rural areas, many families used ultrasound technology to identify female fetuses and terminate pregnancies (see Section 5). The use of ultrasound for this purpose is prohibited specifically by the Population Law and by the Maternal and Child Health Care Law, both of which mandate punishment of medical practitioners who violate the provision. According to the SFPC, a few doctors have been charged under these laws. However, enforcement of this provision has been rare.? You can read all the rest for yourselves. Catholics for Choice did send a fact-finding mission to China, composed of ministers, academics, and ethicists (I guess you assume they're all liars?) I don't call or think of people as ?liars.? that was an earlier poster. And ?Catholics for Choice? is in truth an oxymoron. I ought to know: I used to be such a person who thought I could pick and choose what I liked out of the Catholic Catechism and teachings. That?s how I could get rid of the cognitive dissonance of having aborted my daughter and but still receive Communion and go to Mass. I?ve since learned the truth, though. Before any "Catholics for Choice" reply, first read pages 606-608 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church (# 2270-2275, and # 2319, 2322-2323). Some excerpts: ?Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person-among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life?The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a consititutive element of a civil society and its legislation?Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being?Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person ? among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.? However, it also says this (# 982): "There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. ?There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest.?? I wasn?t a real Catholic until I ?got? all that. The sad thing is, most ?Catholics? haven?t ?gotten it? yet either. it makes far more sense to emulate the Netherlands formula ?free birth control I won?t bother with most of the URLs since you won?t accept them anyway, but this first one was an email from a friend: ?A few days ago I was interviewed by the editor of a daily newspaper in the Netherlands. He lamented his country?s plunge into radical secularism, pointing out that among other things (including legalized drugs, prostitution and frontal nudity on daytime television), some 45% of Dutch households are made up of unmarried couples. He asked me if I thought America was headed down the same path. I told him that unless we see a spiritual awakening and moral renewal, I?m afraid it is.? April 30, 2003: ?In April 2002, euthanasia became legal in the Netherlands. The startling number of euthanasia cases has many Dutch residents carrying wallet cards asking doctors to do all they can to save their lives in case of an accident that leaves them unable to make decisions for themselves in an ER or operating room. The number of reported incidents of euthanasia has dropped by 15 percent during the past four years, but it is suspected the actual ?mercy killing? figure is double the amount of recorded cases.? ?Studies reveal that Dutch doctors give lethal injections to over a thousand patients a year with no explicit request to do so from the patients.? - Jonathan Imbody, senior policy analyst for the Christian Medical Association, March 7, 2003. Ampersand, perhaps you didn?t read the points I made about birth control?s negatives in earlier posts? Here?s more: In Washington State, where emergency birth control pills are already available without a prescription, chlamydia infection has risen nearly 20%. Not to mention the disease?s personal impact, have you factored in the increased economic burden the government will shoulder for the costs of treating these increased STDs? The UK Public Health Laboratory Service showed that, after four years of giving out free emergency contraceptives to women and girls in local pharmacies, syphilis among British men has grown 612% in the six years ending in 2001 and in women, it has grown 206%. In the same time period, chlamydia infections for men and women have grown more than 100%, while herpes, genital warts, and gonorrhea have all grown substantially. (Figures released May 2002 or ?03) The economic costs of the explosion in STDs in this country alone is something on the order of $17 BILLION in 1994 dollars (now ten-year-old data!) since the sexual promiscuity explosion beginning in the Sixties. (From The Hidden Epidemic: Confronting Sexually Transmitted Diseases (1997), Institute of Medicine, http://books.nap.edu/books/0309054958/html/58.html#pagetop ) And yes, I was part of that "explosion." I'm not proud of it anymore, but I admit it. And the Netherlands also has ?same-sex marriage.? Sorry, I can?t see that whole picture as a model to emulate. Posted by: Annie Banno at February 24, 2004 03:53 PM | PERMALINKDon P.: "I didn't cite a "moral reason," I cited a right. Laws exist to secure rights (read the Declaration of Independence). Roe v. Wade secured the right to abortion." Thank you for confirming that your conception of rights has nothing to do with morality. "No, what you said was . . . factually incorrect." What I said about Roe was correct, either by itself or when read in context with my previous posts. As you concede, Roe forbids elective third trimester abortions, notwithstanding that doctors may collude to undermine that part of the holding. A law that forbids "x" under certain circumstances is said to "forbid x", notwithstanding that it permits it under others. "I love that this enrages you so." It doesn't surprise me that a person who adopts a theory of rights divorced from morality is amused at the rage of people who reject such a silly theory. Posted by: The Raving Atheist at February 24, 2004 08:30 PM | PERMALINKI stand by what I said about the Bush administration report. They clearly find "no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC." They also find "some relaxation in the 32 counties in which UNFPA is involved," in contrast to ample evidence exists of heavy-handed abusive and coercive practices outside the 32 counties" UNFPA works in. As the quotes you pulled indicate, things are not perfect in China - not even in the 32 counties the UNFPA operates in. However, demanding perfection is illogical, because that's not how things improve in the real world. The real question should be, would Chinese women be better or worse off if UNFPA wasn't there? Any fair reading of even the Bush department report - which has been sput to cast the worst possible light on UNFPA they could without outright lying - shows that the UNFPA's work is improving things for Chinese women. Even the Bush department report shows a big difference between what's going on in the 32 UNFPA counties and the "ample" evidence of coercion outside those counties. You also ignore the British MP's report. Again, that report - co-authored by a conservative British MP who has a demonstrated record of dislike for and skepticism about UNFPA - entirely disproves everything you've claimed about UNFPA here. I'm not interested in your opinions as to who is a good Catholic or a bad Catholic - even if "Catholics for Choice" are bad Catholics (a matter that I would think would be up to God to judge, not you, but what do I know?), that doesn't establish anything about UNFPA. The question is, do you have any logical reason to dismiss the truthfulness of the ethicists and ministers who went to China and wrote the Catholics for Choice report? * * * I won?t bother with most of the URLs since you won?t accept them anyway Huh? Where did this come from? When in this exchange have I EVER refused to look at a URL? On the contrary, I very much wish you would post URLs for your references, and find it suspicious that you evidently prefer not to do so. * * * Nothing about taking on the Netherlands approach to preventing abortion requires taking on their laws about euthanasia. So you're saying that even if the Netherlands rules were more effective at preventing abortion, you'd rather have more abortions than risk paying more tax dollars to treat STDs? That seems odd to me. I mean, I don't beleive that zygotes and fetuses are babies; but if I DID beleive that, surely I'd beleive that saving babies lives is much more important than preventing STDs. It seems to me that "less abortions, more STDs" is a trade-off pro-lifers should be willing to live with. By the way, in Africa, a HUGE portion of public health costs goes to treating the results of illegal abortions (not to mention the deaths of tens of thousands of women every year). That's an additional cost imposed by pro-life laws, which I suspect you haven't "factored in." Posted by: Ampersand at February 25, 2004 04:57 AM | PERMALINKI stand by what I said about the Bush administration report. ...Amazing. You can read in black and white that entire report and still think it is calling ?night? ?day.? entirely disproves everything you've claimed about UNFPA here....I didn?t ?claim? it, the reports said it. I'm not interested in your opinions as to who is a good Catholic or a bad Catholic - even if "Catholics for Choice" are bad Catholics (a matter that I would think would be up to God to judge, not you, but what do I know?) You brought up Catholics For Choice as though that lent credence to your beliefs on that subject to you and/or that was supposed to validate your beliefs for me. You put words in my mouth ("bad Catholics") as did other posters in other instances, and I?m not surprised. The Catechism is what it is; it isn?t I who judge just because I remind Catholics of what it says. Actually that?s what any good Christian is called to do by Jesus Christ Himself (ask others nicely but firmly to reacquaint themselves with their true faith and really return to God), but I?ll spare you the scripture quotes from Him about that. do you have any logical reason to dismiss the truthfulness of the ethicists and ministers who went to China and wrote the Catholics for Choice report? Then you haven?t read my posts above in their entirety. I did give a logical reason. ?I won?t bother with most of the URLs since you won?t accept them anyway?? Huh? Where did this come from? When in this exchange have I EVER refused to look at a URL? From here: ?Are these goverment reports, or reports by pro-life organizations?? You don?t hide your disdain for the latter very well, so why bother? ALL the pro-life groups get their info from the gov?t and professional/scientific sources, but you don?t buy that either even if I prove it to you, piece by piece as I just did above. You could be thinking you?re having fun, keeping me just spinning my wheels on you, expending the energy, because you refuse to learn from this dialogue. What YOU have to tell me about your beliefs, I already knew. Because I already believed them too, once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away. So you're saying that even if the Netherlands rules were more effective at preventing abortion, you'd rather have more abortions than risk paying more tax dollars to treat STDs? Uh, excuse me?? Really, ampersand! That has got to be the winner-take-all for putting words in my mouth. Honestly, where do you come by all this kind of thinking? I said the Netherlands has ?radical secularism,? legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, frontal nudity on daytime TV, legal euthanasia, Dutch residents carrying wallet cards to keep doctors from mercy-killing them, twice as many actual ?mercy killings? as recorded, and Dutch doctors murdering over a thousand patients a year. You said they have liberal abortion laws, goverment-funded abortions, and free birth control, and I pointed out several places with whopping costs due to the massive increase in STDs where free birth control is available. You said to ?emulate the Netherlands formula.? I showed you the rest of the totality of the "Netherlands formula" and said, ?I can?t see that whole picture as a model to emulate.? What part of that statement is unclear? Someone can try to pump hot air into my words all they want, but that doesn?t mean it?s gonna fly. It seems to me that "less abortions, more STDs" is a trade-off pro-lifers should be willing to live with. I can just imagine you having a good laugh with your buddies over how you think you got this ?wingnut? all frothed up at the mouth, but I'm sorry to disappoint you. I don?t ?froth? anymore! People sometimes DIE from STDs, or are unable to have children. Quality of life dies, if not the physical life, from STDs. The PRO-LIFE movement is about RESPECTING AND CARING FOR ALL HUMAN LIFE, not just the unborn. Looks like the mass media has been successful in getting you to think we only care about the unborn human beings. Since your arguments dismiss the facts and now have descended into comical word-twisting and accusation, I?ll bid you, ampersand, adieu now. Nothing more you could say would be worth dignifying with a response, after these last few words of yours. Sorry. If anyone ever wants to intelligently, compassionately, genuinely just talk, or seek some kind of help or healing from abortion, man, woman, Jew, Muslim, Christian, whatever, feel free to email me personally. smok22@charter.net . I have been exactly where you might be right now. No judgment, and only straight confidentiality. That?s the real reason why I posted all this stuff here: in case it might help even just one person find some peace about a truth they just haven?t been able to divulge for fear of shame from people like ampersand, Don P. etc. If you don?t feel comfortable talking with me, call 1-877-HOPE-4-ME or 1-800-395-HELP (the websites are Rachels Vineyard, and and Silent No More), for any one of those 3,800 groups of people who can help with pre AND post abortion problems, without judging or mashing religion in your face. And if for some reason you find one group that doesn?t quite suit you, go find another that does. There are some out there who might be a little too evangelical, I?ll admit. There are lots of others all across the U.S. Go find the next one . Don?t worry about not contacting me: I don?t need to know if you?ve found help. What?s important is that you find it. NO ONE on this blog, or anywhere else, will ever know. Posted by: Annie Banno at February 25, 2004 10:26 AM | PERMALINKSry, this isn't about the topic on hand....but Charlie has just accumulated a lot of strikes against him under last weeks issue....amybe he should check that out Posted by: Who cares at February 25, 2004 06:09 PM | PERMALINKDon P and Ampersand: You both hit the nail on the head :-) Posted by: edi at February 25, 2004 06:52 PM | PERMALINK"I can just imagine you having a good laugh with your buddies over how you think you got this ?wingnut? all frothed up at the mouth, but I'm sorry to disappoint you." Oh no, Annie, I'm not disappointed, you've been frothing away. You refuse to believe I have checked out your "facts" you have posted here (and the ones you didn't post) There is nothing you've said that I haven't heard before, it is not hard to look for articles on the web on what you are talking about (because you've been so silenced!), and see they are mostly from biased pro-life organizations. Froth at the mouth all you want over how we've all been duped by the mainstream media and that we "ignore the truth" and that "your" belief is the only *real* Catholic belief and so on- your repeating these things does not make them true. I love how Annie rails against Don P for daring to know how *some* women feel, while claiming "she doesn't speak for all women." First of all, as a woman who's had an abortion, Don P summed it up fine for me. I don't feel my body should be used to support a developing embryo- a potential life against my will. She might as well be claiming to speak for all women when she says she regrets her abortion, so therefore *all* women will, and it harms *all* women, she is willing to let her body be of service to a fetus and we *all* should be required to do so, and she would be willing to face childbirth/maternal death risks so we *all* should be required to do so. Telling him not in so many words that because he doesn't think women should be forced to be incubators that he doesn't care about women is a laugh, too. I'm sure as long as he's not "pro-life" that will be the case, and of course only if he's "pro-life" will he be able to speak for all women. If I sound pissed off and sarcastic, it is because I do not appreciate people like Annie or Raving trying to speak for me, or claim they are being "attacked" and "silenced" because they regret their abortions. Annie really doesn't know what she's talking about with PP. I have a friend whom they gave adoption information, assistance, and prenatal care when she chose to go that route. No one was pushing the option of abortion on her. Annie and her ilk are upset mainly because they don't act like the "pregnancy crisis centers" that do their best to talk scared teenage girls out of abortion at any cost. As if it wasn't obvious before, I know exactly where folks like this are coming from when they start talking about abstinence-only, the evils of birth control, what a *bad* role model the Netherlands must be if they allow same-sex people to marry those they love, while piously claiming to be on the holy moral high ground. That morality should be legislated- according to Annie's morals, I'm sure. I've also seen this before where people from her group appear on discussion boards having anything to do with abortion in an attempt to spread their gospel, to "change one mind, save one life" as I heard it quoted from someone on another board. Talk about "regurgitated". This is the same pro-life tripe I've seen time and time again, no matter how it's put. If I sound pissed off edi, that is "frothing." And as others, you put words in my mouth that aren't there. I know you can't hear or see me or the calm with which I wrote all the above. Perhaps even if you could, you still would say I've been "frothing" because I spoke up at all. I know I won't change your mind. I don't have to change your mind, though. All I was doing was answering all the claims and defenses of abortion as a "women's right." If I am "upset" at all it is because I myself once thought as you do: that a growing human life in need of "life support" is less important than ourselves and therefore worth snuffing out, and doing ourselves harm in the process. But I never once "put words in your mouth" in order to explain what I think. I did not come looking for this discussion, nor did I do it to "attempt to spread [my] gospel." As I opened my first post, I happened on it by researching an item about Bush and abortion. The accusation and dismissal of my words because of what you assume, are unfounded. Do you honestly think I would have gone looking for this kind of treatment, including name-calling? Still, I'm glad I tried to have a debate here. You see, I'm not afraid to do so anymore. I wish you the best of luck and peace in your life, edi. That is not a sarcastic snide remark. It is heartfelt, even if you choose not to believe that. Posted by: Annie Banno at March 1, 2004 05:25 AM | PERMALINKC'mon- you *have* been frothing, even though you think only pro-choicers froth. Just because you were once on our side of the fence, it does not give you authority to know how all other women will feel, and as far as I am concerned-my rights DO come before those of an embryo/zygote/fetus. "I wish you the best of luck and peace in your life, edi." Thank you. Fortunately, I am blessed with plenty of luck, love, and peace in my life. I wish the same to you- and no, I'm not being snide or sarcastic either when I say that. Posted by: edi at March 1, 2004 04:55 PM | PERMALINKSorry, edi. I even said in earlier posts that I do think some pro-LIFE people (Newman for one, the hate-filled Catholic man who condemned me as I went for my abortion, for a second) get wrongly "frothed up,? and wish they would not because that?s what the media feeds you and you come to believe is the only truth about us. You just don?t know my heart, edi, and that is a shame. I wish you could understand the peace and concern for the ?common good? and the ?general Welfare? (as it says in our Constitution) that has come to me in the past few years. It is that which drives me to speak up in defense of all life, intelligently, calmly, but firmly; otherwise I would do this belief a horrible disservice, as do Newman et. al., if I just ranted and raved. You are just so convinced that all pro-lifers froth, no matter what, though. That?s the trouble with the written word. Two quotes as final comment: ?In this century America has abandoned the basic principle that each person has inherent rights ? and has treated our founding principles as impediments to liberty...No longer are laws created for the common good. Instead they are created to protect the eccentricities of factions; selfish groups who have no concern for the common good. Government has abandoned its central function of seeking the common good and has replaced it with the protection of minorities. This has led our country into a system where groups or individuals who have intense feelings for special rights get special attention while those with 'lukewarm' are ignored. Intensity and commitment have replaced reason as the new political validation." ~ Allan Bloom, "The Closing of the American Mind" (1987) And Thomas Jefferson, our third President, stated, ?The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.? Posted by: Annie Banno at March 3, 2004 07:26 AM | PERMALINKAnnie, again- I have already read you getting "frothed up" over my comments, Don P's comments, and Ampersand's. When you were disagreed with, you accused us of bad treatment and "name-calling." Then accused us of frothing at you. Nowhere in any of my posts did I personally call you names. Post all the quotes you want, but I do not believe that any woman should be forced to service a developing embryo/zygote/fetus against her will, and no, I do not believe that is for everyone's "common good." Don't tell me that you didn't purposely come to this site either. Even if you didn't at first, why are you still here? I'm here often because I like this site. I don't go over to conservative or pro-life blogs and try to preach to everyone posting there, claiming pious concern for the common good. While you might not be a bad person, claiming to know what is best for all women and wanting to legislate that women carry unwanted pregnancies to term (or otherwise they're "selfish") certainly does not make you a good person- it makes you more self-righteous, but that's about it. This time for sure I will be posting no more responses to you, because it only continues this dialogue, where you keep repeating the same things I've heard before over & over again, and then I keep telling you I don't agree. I really do hope some day you find peace. No matter what side of the issue you are on, life begins when you get one. Posted by: edi at March 6, 2004 08:31 AM | PERMALINKOh, edi. I just don?t understand why you must try to hurt me so. I never tried or wanted to hurt you. I already have found more peace than you might ever let yourself understand. It?s what enables me to withstand the insults I?ve endured here and not be cowed by all the diatribes here and elsewhere. But I guess if you believed that, it would destroy your entire belief system. You call me a liar when you steadfastly refuse to believe how I even found this site, and that I don?t rant and rave, and then you insult me by insinuating I ?don?t have a life? just because I respond to these accusations and insults. Is that supposed to make me refrain from standing up for my beliefs and instead continue to let others run roughshod over me because it makes them uncomfortable/pissed off when I speak up? I never said you called me names; that referred to ALL the pro-choice posters here generally, who said some terrible things about pro-life people as a whole (?These people are pigs,? ?moron,? etc.), but you took my words wrongly as a personal attack, even though it wasn?t directed at you. Then again, ampersand and Don P. wrongly said I was ?suspicious,? judgmental as if I was God, and ?peddling lies? and you said ?Don P and Ampersand: You both hit the nail on the head :-)? And just now, you called me preachy, pious (an insult coming from you, it seems?), self-righteous (wrongly used here, esp. if you?d read when I already defined that word earlier), and ?not?a good person?? Edi, I pray for a lot of people who are good, and you are going to be one of them. You may not like that, may call it preachy or ?holier than thou,? but that?s just the point, I, of all people, am NOT. I just happen to have returned to a belief in a God who put us and this universe here and wants to love us and give us all great things forever, whether or not we love Him back, but wants us to love Him, at least someday. And I'm willing to be persecuted for that belief because I hope for this kind of peace for others. So I will pray for you and your needs, even if you hate me for it. Posted by: Annie Banno at March 6, 2004 04:41 PM | PERMALINKEdi, good for you for not responding any more to this wingnut. Trolls love attention. You get nowhere arguing with a fanatic like this. I don't intend to respond to her either if she rears her ugly head again. She is indeed posting and peddling falsehoods, sounding more and more pious in every post ("Whyyyyyyy must you try and huuuuurrrrrt me soooo?") and thinks the word self-righteous is being wrongly used when it applies to her. I'm reading her posts and it sounds to me like she thinks she has the market cornered on knowing just what God wants and doesn't, which is pretty arrogant for a Christian if you ask me. As for complaining about her treatment here because others do not agree with her, but claiming she's been "silenced" and run-over if she doesn't cram her opinion down our throats- did she think this was a nice little tea party where she was going to hand out the address to aborshunizbad.com and everyone was just going to swallow it? Funny how she also took issue with a poster writing about extremist groups picking through people's garbage and harassing them and calling them "pigs". "oooooh, they said some terrible things about prolifers!" Maybe she just sees herself in these posts. In any case, who cares. Ciao! Posted by: amused at March 20, 2004 10:53 AM | PERMALINKOh, and by the way Annie, have you picked up the newspaper lately? Here's the latest study that confirms that there is NO link between abortion or miscarriage and breast cancer:
A miscarriage or abortion does not increase a woman's risk of breast cancer, according to a study published Friday that analyzed data from more than 50 previous studies. Some of those studies had suggested a possible connection, but the authors of the report published in The Lancet medical journal said that was the result of an error in methodology. "We hope that this research will put a stop, once and for all, to the persistent claims that abortion is a risk factor for the disease and help give reassurance to women," said Delyth Morgan, chief executive of Breatkthrough Breast Cancer, a British breast cancer research organization which was not involved in The Lancet report. >> Read on for more... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/03/26/international0906EST0520.DTL
You are indeed peddling lies and falsehoods. You probably saw the most recent articles out about how well abstinence-only education is working (snork!) and how 80% of the Promise-Keepers broke their promise, were less likely to use condoms when they DID end up having sex, how their disease rate was just as high, and how they didn't seek help for their condition because they were ignorant about what was happening to them as a result of abstinence-only education! Great experiment, huh? Please spare us in telling us that the main stream media is against you and it's aaaaaalllllll propaganda. No, that was what YOU peddled here already. Cheerio. Posted by: amused at April 1, 2004 04:44 PM | PERMALINKphentermine online and adipex is the fastest growing online source for buy phentermine and buy adipex prescription medication that phentermine you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for cheap adipex and cheap phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/ Posted by: buy phentermine at May 17, 2004 02:41 AM | PERMALINKThere has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003.cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. Also try levitra best pill, or visit these sites for news buy levitra and side effects. Try tramadol for pain relief. Please be patient soma best prices. Best scheme is fioricet that go to. Also you can buy cheap propecia for hair loss. Try to loose weight with the best phentermine pill , the best choice also is adipex pill. Also do not forget to start your phentermine diet pills. Please look at your wardrobe at see if youhave a dose of cialis or big feet levitra drug. But many many time ago cialis is best. Dont you think. I reallylike buy cialis because it makes me feelgood. You can go online to apply for payday loan, you can also try to get a loan , but best for you will be mortgage application. Try to get your free debt consolidation service here! Please advise if you have the money.Try to see if you free credit report is good. I really recommend you startr workinng, because this will improve very much your money and with this i hope you can get much high free credit report score. That's for sure. If you do not have them, please try gambling online , you have pretty good chances in this casino Las Vegas , you can try all the games in the casino, but I prefer to play poker and also you can try the best online game blackjack even more go to the board and play bingo too best wishes. You can try the to contact ne if you want on best personals dating service sites. It is pretty populat to go chatting in those dating sites. Posted by: phentermine at May 17, 2004 02:46 AM | PERMALINKIt is really sad to see all the people out there who do not have a clue.Stop listening to all the political and legal crap out there.Take the time to figure out the basics. First off a fetus which is the Latin word for "young one" is a person.Not at any stage of development in the womb do we suddenly morph into a person.Our cells are human from the very beginning.If they were something else, none of us would be people.Also we are fully formed by the eight week of development.After that we only have to grow.So as far as the rights of a fully formed women over that of her fetus, well there you go into gray areas again.We are all different shapes and sizes.So what is considered a fully formed women a size 1 or a size 12.Mind you we have all we need by the eighth week of developement. As far as harm to women wake up and pay attention to the infertillaty rate that is going on in this country.I know quite a few women who have had legal abortions and over half of them are now infertile and others have had other complications. Please do not shake your head and whine at this statement.Just think.It is possible that abortion does do damage and that it jepordizes future children being carried to term.I also know two women who had to stop having abortions because of the damage being done to them.One girl had to give birth to the last child she concieved because they told her that if she did not,when she finnaly decided to keep a for herself she would not be able to.She gave the child that she was told she had to carry up for adoption.Which she could have done with the other children she aborted. I could go on about the ill effects that aborton has on women.The emotional damage that is does to a mother to kill her of spring.Indeed it is a rare women who can say she is glad she killed her child.It is also sad.The children in the womb are innocent and do need to be protected.The women do too. Cancer is connected to abortion as well as chemical birth control.Just go find the information yourself.I did I don't take anyones word for nothing, I believe it when I know for myself. I know the reaction that some of you are having reading this, so I will just say this. Go and read the medical books on fetal development.It is all there.We all became a person from the moment we were conceived.The greatest amount of growth and development we go through is in the womb.The placenta, amniotic sac, the umbilical cord, everything comes from the developing child.The only thing the mother does is to keep the child safe until birth.Which by the way the child is the one who triggers labor as well. Once you have been pregnant you have been a mother.Regaurdless of the outcome.There has still been a chlid in your womb. I leave you with this last question. Why don't men have any say in abortion? A women can snag a man by intentionally getting pregnant, he cannot force her to get an abortion.On the other hand if he wants the child he cannot stop her.Even if it is his wife.He has no say if he wants that child or not.And in the land of equallity I think it is a cheap way out to just say it is because we carry the children. If a man wants to really be a father, how can he do that if he cannot stop his children from being aborted? Posted by: Robin at May 19, 2004 05:02 PM | PERMALINKAll Online Casino Gambling sites chosen & recommended here at Online Casino have been thoroughly tested by us for fairness, reliability, online casino game play realism, casino payout percentages, game speed, and bonuses. We have tested hundreds of casino sites ourselves in an effort to bring you the very best online casino promotions. The following is a small sampling of internet casino - only the best from Online Casino Rewards. http://www.666-casino.com Posted by: casino at May 25, 2004 05:31 AM | PERMALINKA room without books is like a body without a soul. Posted by: Goldberg Myla at June 30, 2004 10:33 AM | PERMALINKkiwi casino.com | lucky emperor.com | lucky nugget.com | lucky nugget poker.com | magic box casino.com | magic oasis.com | miami paradise.com | milionaire casino.com | music hall casino.com | net detective.com | net detective plus.com | new york casino.com Posted by: showdown casino at July 1, 2004 12:39 AM | PERMALINKomni casino.com | orbital casino.com | palace of chance.com | party poker.com | phoenician casino.com | planet luck.com | platinum play.com | play and deal.com | poker room.com | portofino casino.com Posted by: showdown casino at July 1, 2004 12:40 AM | PERMALINKOnline Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com Posted by: tramadol at July 1, 2004 07:30 AM | PERMALINKSorry to keep you Tramadol, but there Tramadol HCL is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Ultram Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.x-tramadol.com Posted by: tramadol at July 1, 2004 07:31 AM | PERMALINKGot here Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com Posted by: fioricet at July 1, 2004 07:31 AM | PERMALINKUltram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability fioricet of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com Posted by: fioricet at July 1, 2004 07:31 AM | PERMALINKBest Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm or visit these sites for news and side effects : http://www.one-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at July 1, 2004 07:31 AM | PERMALINKWe provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Levitra that is true Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.one-levitra.com http://www.one-cialis.com http://www.one-levitra.com Posted by: levitra at July 1, 2004 07:31 AM | PERMALINKThat is the case tramadol is one of the best pain ever treatments the world. Most think and use ave taken cheap tramadol is best to relieve all kind of buy tramadol pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By reducing the amount of pain signals that travel throughout the body, tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! buy tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.i-buy-tramadol.com Posted by: buy tramadol at July 1, 2004 07:31 AM | PERMALINKBest Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.hot-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at July 1, 2004 07:31 AM | PERMALINKBest buy ultram fioricet reversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 and thus online fioricet yeah, because this is the true Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others fioricet explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.fioricet-online-fioricet.com Posted by: buy fioricet at July 1, 2004 07:31 AM | PERMALINKBest Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.new-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at July 1, 2004 07:32 AM | PERMALINKBest Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.top-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at July 1, 2004 07:32 AM | PERMALINKWe provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Levitra that is true Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.hot-levitra.com Posted by: levitra at July 1, 2004 07:32 AM | PERMALINK4592 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 02:13 PM | PERMALINK5427 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 4072 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 12:48 PM | PERMALINKExcellent site. Keep up the good work. http://www.888-online-casino.biz Posted by: online casino at August 10, 2004 12:51 PM | PERMALINK1372 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 03:02 PM | PERMALINK3624 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: buy viagra at August 14, 2004 06:18 AM | PERMALINK8128 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 04:01 PM | PERMALINK194 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 7193 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 18, 2004 10:41 PM | PERMALINK2556 Brittish smut at its best! go here http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 6586 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 10:05 AM | PERMALINK7760 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 04:32 AM | PERMALINK4721 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 06:02 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
