Earlier this year, NARAL Pro-choice held its tastelessly marketed "Evening of Decadence / Death by Chocolate" event at SAFECO Field, a provocational slap at the pro-life side of the electorate.
In June, a gang of NARAL protesters picketed a Life Choices crisis pregnancy center in the University district in Seattle with signs reading "Lies, tricks, manipulation available here," and "Fake Clinic."
The reason for this hate-mongering? The non-profit clinic offers free ultrasounds to pregnant women (is that what they mean by manipulation?) and significant financial help for those who choose to keep or give the baby up for adoption. But they do not offer or pressure abortion services. Note that less than 1% of those who go to Planned Parenthood "clinics" choose a life option, which is very lucrative for abortionists-- and costly for us taxpayers. It offends the aggressive NARAL that this privately funded organization has made a choice: not to push abortion, but to foster the choice of life. "The Stranger" unsoundly labels this an "anti-choice clinic," which clarifies to us that 'choice' no longer means free choice, it's just a euphemism for abortion.
You know what other choice ticks NARAL off? Abstinence, and anyone daring to suggest abstinence is a responsible choice for singles that don't want to get pregnant. Tonight, they will be holding a "Sc**w Abstinence" party in Seattle. The theme is eponymously obvious: forget self-control, indulge yourself. And just like the chocolate soiree in February, this event raises funds for NARAL Pro-Choice Washington. No word on whether Mayor Greg Nickels or King County Council members will be there this time.
Further thoughts on the nature of the manipulative hate-speech phrase, "anti-choice":
In the unsound Stranger article, the reporter refers to "typical anti-choice rants" against abortion clinics. But that's a distortion of the language.
It's one thing to reject a choice, another to try to convince others to not make that choice, and yet another thing entirely to remove that choice through legislation. It is not reasonable to call a protest at a clinic "anti-choice," or call an adoption-oriented crisis pregnancy clinic "anti-choice." In those instances, no one is taking away another's capacity to make a choice, they're simply advocating one choice over another. But the distinction is gutted because they refuse to use the term "pro-life." The term "anti-abortion" would be fair.
Posted by Brian Crouch at July 14, 2005 11:08 AM | Email ThisAnd Seattlites think this is waht "enlightenment" is all about. Sad.
Posted by: Eyago on July 14, 2005 11:24 AMI notice that in the text of their party invite they encourage attendees to "keep it real". I've found that the use of that phrase is generally a pretty solid indicator of degeneracy.
Posted by: Benzer on July 14, 2005 11:24 AMWant to turn your children into sluts?
Want to increase their risk of getting an STD?
Want your teens to be experimenting with actions that they are not emotionally capable of handling yet?
All you need to do is join NARAL and follow their advice.
Posted by: Jaybo on July 14, 2005 11:26 AMI guess you don't have it all that clearly.
A husband and wife most likely wouldn't be sleeping with others. So no real risk of contracting an STD.
Also, usually once a married couple is certian they don't want children or anymore children they have one of them get their tubes tied. No real chance of an unwanted pregnancy there. Abstinence becomes moot in that case. So if you want to compare married people with the target audience of NARAL then to be clear...You want to advocate that procedure for a 13 to 15 year old?
Posted by: Mark D on July 14, 2005 11:39 AMHuman nature will make the goal of total abstinance before marriage a dream anyway.
That does not mean, however, that we should give the green light to teens that are not really emotionally ready for sex.
Naral has really exposed itself as an organization that cares nothing for the emotional health of our children.
I guess it gives a totally new meaning to what liberals mean when they talk so much about diversity and not being judgemental.
Posted by: Jaybo on July 14, 2005 11:44 AMGiven that, I think the two sides should work towards respect of each other. The decadent chocolate display is an unneeded slap. Women who really do want this choice, have it, so why rub it in.
On the other side, constantly rallying to try and abolish abortion, or the terrorism directed at abortion clinics is also wrong.
This genie is not going back in the bottle, so we should all show one another the respect of the very momentious and emotional issues that one has to grapple with if one chooses abortion, and the spiritual discomfort that it causes for many who view it as a sacred religious issue.
But really, with terrorism, serious energy woes, transportation problems, cancer, etc. we ought to be focusing our efforts on the far more pressing problems and learning to agree to disagree on abortion.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 14, 2005 11:51 AMAbortion is avoidance of the responsibility of consequences of sex.
Medical science a few years ago made a discovery, pregnancy is cause by sex (with one notable exception). What we have is the consequence of the do what ever feels good and do it now culture, we have ways to mitigate the consequences of your behavior.
This is just one battle in the culture war between left and right. The left wants to mitigate consequences of destruction behavior. Too lazy to work, tent city. Too drunk to work, the apartment for drinking drunks. Sexually active, abortion will take care of that little consequence.
Posted by: JCM on July 14, 2005 11:57 AMOn the other hand, it's quite possible that a very normal, very conservative, very hard working, adult, yet unmarried couple could find the joy of sex quite rewarding.
There's clearly a middle ground.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 14, 2005 12:01 PMIf, as the left believe, abortion is supported by a significant portion of the population, then more Ds would get elected to ensure that abortion remains legal, which would hurt the Rs.
Posted by: fred on July 14, 2005 12:07 PMI agree that the left constantly preaches to us to avoid responsibility, however, one has to take into account the life altering effect that a woman has to bear if she has a baby. The reason that abortion is a choice, albeit a very hard one, is that the potentiality of human life does not trump the actual human life who must bear it.
There is no rational position for forcing a women to bear a child she does not want. There is indeed a religious position.
This is why we have to agree to disagree on abortion. There are some who feel that this is sacred and some who do not. In this society, we have formed a government that allows us more lattitude to make these choices for better or worse.
That said, I think a good compromise, and again in the spirit of agreeing to disagree, would be to put some kind of date on the maximum term of a pregnancy where abortion can be legally performed. I know this is difficult for those who are religious, but the reality is that in completely banning abortion, we would not stop prenanciy, and instead, it would most likely create other health issues that we would also have to address.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 14, 2005 12:14 PM"Tired of Bush & Co. spending your tax dollars on abstinence-only-until-marriage initiatives that promote dangerous misinformation?"
In other words, NARAL's objection is not to "abstinence," per se, but rather to spending government funds on private programs that often promote partial, distorted, and flat out incorrect information. The shortcomings of such programs have been well documented on 60 Minutes, amongst many other sources.
Posted by: bartelby on July 14, 2005 12:31 PMWomen do have a choice - that is to risk getting pregnant or not. It is not a religious argument to say you have made that choice, live with it. It is my choice to drink and drive, I do not get a 'get out of jail free' card if I make that choice and something happens that I did not want to happen - I have to accept the consequences.
The view of "forcing women to have children they do not want' argument only works in rape - that is when women are forced. Freely choosing to have sex is NOT forcing. The anti-abortion people think that one must live with the consequences of that choice, given that choice created life.
The discussion of when life begins will always be argued. Judges have ruled that life does not start until after the baby is separated (not born - separated) from the mother, as in the decision that a 'woman' killed the child after it was born, but before the cord was cut did not commit murder. Given that defining this is purely arbitrary (other than at conception) I'm not sure why it is defined as religious. Why isn't a religious position to say three months, 4.5 months, or nine months? It is an individual judgment of when it is too late to have an abortion. Some think that 9 months is fine (many liberal politicians and many judges), some at zero seconds. My feeling is a significant majority of the country would settle on three months, but again that is an arbitrary number.
Posted by: fred on July 14, 2005 12:39 PMIs that the same bunch that so accurately documented and reported on Bush's National Guard record?
How much does NARAL inform people about abstenence? How is that different from what you claim is "often promote partial, distorted, and flat out incorrect information"?
Posted by: fred on July 14, 2005 12:44 PMCheck out this website: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0074.html,
or any of the others from a yahoo or google search on the success of the abstinence program in Uganda. Seems like it works pretty well to me.
Can you imagine these NARAL people at a lecture before kids? "Sc**w abstinence, y'all."
Posted by: Brian Crouch on July 14, 2005 01:02 PMLeave it to a moonbat to somehow change the subject from NARAL to Bush's National Guard Service.
Do you people have the ability to debate issues on your own or do you constantly have to refer back to your "Loonie Left Talking Points" cheat sheet?
LOL
Posted by: Jaybo on July 14, 2005 01:07 PMI should have read your post more carefully.
Posted by: Jaybo on July 14, 2005 01:10 PMIt is possible that I missed your sarcasm in the post, if so, I'm sorry. If not:
Bartleby said "In other words, NARAL's objection is not to "abstinence," per se, but rather to spending government funds on private programs that often promote partial, distorted, and flat out incorrect information. The shortcomings of such programs have been well documented on 60 Minutes, amongst many other sources."
Hence my response on the great credibility of 60 minutes "Is that the same bunch that so accurately documented and reported on Bush's National Guard record? "
Posted by: fred on July 14, 2005 01:15 PMBut, before you launch into the whole "medicaid covers abortions..." spiel, realize that your taxes also fund adoption agencies, foster services, and the inevitable social work needs that arise from unwanted children....
Posted by: A Moderate on July 14, 2005 01:28 PMThe abortion pushers and peddlers are all about MONEY, MONEY! and even MORE MONEY and nothing else.
Posted by: Cheryl on July 14, 2005 01:34 PMUsing it, or not, is a choice. When more risky methods are chosen, then bad things can happen more often.
Per Bartlesby: "In other words, NARAL's objection is not to "abstinence," per se, but rather to spending government funds on private programs that often promote partial, distorted, and flat out incorrect information."
The government spends hundreds of millions to support Planned Parenthood and others. How many unwanted pregnancies, STDs, ruined lives and even unwanted, but "necessary" abortions occurred from this use of government funds?
If the government pushes the idea of abstinence as a viable "choice", and people choose it - how is this more "dangerous" than what NARAL is doing?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 14, 2005 01:38 PMWant proof?
Ask your "friendly" liberal deadbaby junkie who's oh so so anxious to regulate DRUG COMPANY PROFITS if they would support profit regulations/price controls for abortionists.
The concepts of free love and approval of premarital sex have not freed young women; they have trapped them. A teenage girl who is being pressured by her boyfriend to have sex used to be able to object, "But I might get pregnant. But others will disapprove. Etc." Now she has almost nothing to back her up. He says, "Use a pill or condom. And if you get pregnant we can get an abortion easily. Everyone else does it. You're weird if you don't."
Abstinence education and good parents, youth leaders and maybe even wise friends (if she has them) can provide that back-up. She can say, "No, I'm not weird for wanting to wait until marriage. Others do too. Why don't you love me enough to wait?"
But NARAL hates that idea. And then there's the money issue. How do Planned Parenthood and NARAL make money? By providing abortions. If fewer kids engaged in sex, there would be less need for abortions.
Posted by: Shannon K on July 14, 2005 01:54 PMIn high school I would have laughed you off. Young-kid-wanting-to-be-older syndrom. Clueless as to the reprocussions. Older & wiser now.
Like minded-friends are a big influence. Same for drug use. It certainly was for guys. Birds of a feather" is true.
The self-respect and control is also 100% right. That's why I liked those corny 'teen baby' things where you keep this pain-in-ass doll for a week and kill your plans, social things and sleep 'caring' for a child. That would have convinced me at that age. Luckily, the shame and good parents were good enough to keep me safe.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 14, 2005 02:10 PMTheir mission is to try to help kids be "safer" while they inevitably have sex. If a pregnancy occurs, abortion is the ONLY answer - oops, "choice".
If someone tries to convince you that you are safer if you abstain, they really want to kill you. By abstaining, you'll have more unprotected sex more often and raise the risk of contracting STDs. By abstaining, you are more likely to put yourself in a position to have to decide for an enevitable abortion "choice".
http://www.naral.org/facts/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=16537
It's also rather irresponsible, as bartelby pointed out above, to criticize the group for a fundraiser opposing abstinence, no matter how (un)cleverly titled, when it's very clear that they are "[t]ired of Bush & Co. spending your tax dollars on abstinence-only-until-marriage initiatives that promote dangerous misinformation" and not the simple concept of abstinence.
Believe what you want about NARAL and its issues, but at least raise rational objections, and not simply resort to silly name-calling...
Posted by: Mickymse on July 14, 2005 02:33 PMMark D
Posted by: Mark D on July 14, 2005 03:08 PMThe Biological Definition of Life:
The four main types of biological entities described above share some unique characteristics that can allow us to distinguish them from non-living things. These characteristics are:
(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.
(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.
(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.
(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.
(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.
(7). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection. This process acts over relatively long periods of time.
A fertilized egg meets all the parameters with the arguable exception of (2) the embryo is dependent on the mother for nutrients, the embryo unquestionably has metabolism. However an newborn is also completely dependent some one to feed it. Many organism require very specific parameters to live.
I would contend based on the definition of life as set forth biologists, a fertilized egg is alive.
Second issue "part of the women's body."
Biology Online defines individual as:
individual
Marked by a distinctness and a complexity within a unity that characterizes organized things, concepts, organic beings and persons.
I fertilized egg is genetically distinct from the mother. This genetic distinct by definition classes it as an individual.
By scientific definition a fertilized egg is a living individual. We don't need the religious argument on when life starts.
Posted by: JCM on July 14, 2005 03:13 PMI see where you are going with that, but you are assuming that abortion does not exist when you disagree that it would be "forcing a women to bear a child she did not want."
That's my point, the genie is out of the bottle, abortions are possible, and there will always be a market for those who fail to be more responsible with sex. Just look at your DUI example. There's a whole bunch of good lawyers that get first time DUI offenders off with minimal responsibility. There's a market. Abortion is knowledge that we have, and so by denying that choice to women who are pregnant, you are essentially forcing them to carry the baby to term, even if that's not what they want. And especially if it's legislated.
I don't think we are prepared as a society, nor should we be, to throw anyone who gets pregnant in jail for not carrying a baby to full term. And that would essentially be the force applied if abortion was made illegal. And there would have to be a whole addition to the bureaucracy to manage the increase in full term pregnancies and the additional load that would place on adoption. Not to mention punishing all those who had been caught trying to have abortions, etc. And this doesn't even consider the long term implications to population growth.
Any other way of looking at this is living in the past. There may have been a time when a woman who was pregnant had no choice but to have the baby, but that time is now past. If we ignore this reality, it will create other problems.
I'm not saying that I don't respect those who believe that there should be no abortion. Nor that I would even make this my own choice. I'm just saying that we are in the situation where this issue will not be resolved absolutely to the liking of all sides. We would be much better served by seeking some sort of rational compromise.
And as you bring up Fred, if this issue carries a huge amount of political weight then it behooves Republicans to try and find some middle ground rather than flat out ignoring the issue at the expense of votes. Votes that matter a lot more for immediate issues such as whether or not we are willing to confront the preachers of hatred who are spreading terror to any willing young Muslim.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 14, 2005 03:23 PMI do not think this country would want to get into the population growth (China?) as an argument FOR abortion.
My comment about three months was a statement more on what would be generally acceptable as opposed to either extreme - not until the cord is cut to point of conception.
Cloning is possible too. Just because it is possible doesn't mean it is right. There will be a market for clones. Do you think that clones should follow the same logic? There is also a market for hired killers/drug dealers/car thieves/arsonists/etc. They will be hired. Again it doesn't mean it is right. My point here is that I disagree with rationalizing an action because it is possible or because there is a market for something.
On an issue like this I'm not sure there is a compromise. If someone believes that life begins at conception (reason why does not matter), then you cannot expect them to compromise on murder. I do not think anyone would accept that life begins 20 months after conception. Any arbitrary time after conception is one of convenience that cannot be rationalized over any other time. That is why it is such a difficult issue for a group resolution.
I have just stated some of the points of the issue, not my opinion (yet). I do, though, strongly disagree with the NARAL (back on topic) bunch and their type with zero tolerance for abstinence or anything else but promiscuous rather than responsible behavior.
Posted by: fred on July 14, 2005 03:56 PMGUIDELINES FOR SEXUAL HEALTH INFORMATION AND DISEASE PREVENTION:
Evidence suggests that sex education programs that provide information about both abstinence and contraception can delay the onset of sexual activity in teenagers, reduce their number of sexual partners and increase contraceptive use when they become sexually active.
FYI: this isn't about choice, it's about $$$$$$.
http://www.k12.wa.us/curriculumInstruct/healthfitness/pubdocs/SexEdGuidelines011005.doc
I call that "rooting for the reaper". Others call it a death cult.
Posted by: Dishman on July 14, 2005 05:25 PMDishman is right, "rooting for the reaper".
Posted by: JCM on July 14, 2005 05:52 PMDon't anyone dare be so naive and stupid as to tell me that abortion is an easy and painless choice. None of the ladies I assessed were happy about the choice they made. They came with emotional damage, infections, hemorrhaging, and overwhelming self-loathing and anger.
Anyone care to guess the last time I had a patient who was suicidal, suffered from sepsis, or was bleeding to death out of her vagina because she practiced abstinence?
Still waiting... anyone?
That's right. Never.
So don't presume to spout pro-abortion and anti-abstinence bullsh*t in my immediate vicinity. I've met enough human wreckage courtesy of NARAL and Planned Parenthood to have developed an overwhelming desire to smack the everlovin' s**t out of these people for what they've done to so many women.
You can argue about viability all you want. I don't care about viability. I care about what this is doing to our daughters and sisters.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 14, 2005 06:22 PMThat's very sad and unfortunate.
However, as I'm sure you're aware, you work in an Emergency Room. Healthy people don't tend to hang out in those.
So, while I'm sure that everything that your observations are valid, please prove that you don't see the tiny percentage of unfortunate abortion outcomes, while the vast majority walk by you, every day, without your knowledge....
ACK! I just did a google search on *NARAL population control* and that appears to be ALL they are about! They are very much into China's "one child per family" rule - and praise China's overall abortion rates!
I expect NARAL to get into euthanasia - if they haven't all ready....
Killing babies, the sick and elderly?......Aren't they who the bible says we are to protect?
Funny...But I don't see how the babies, the sick and the elderly have a *choice* in this so-called pro-choice issue.....
Posted by: Deborah on July 14, 2005 09:10 PM2. Abortion hurts women. A lot of women. The medical and scientific evindence bears this out as well. To say only sick people go to the emergency room and that people who don't are walking by you everyday in nonsensical and does not prove that those people are healthy. There are a lot of hurt people walking around who never see a doctor or talk to a friend about their troubles. When it comes to abortion this is especially true.
Next let's remember our history:
1. NARAL is the group that came up with the slogan "pro-choice" to make people more comfortable with abortion. Read any of the books by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of NARAL.) NARAL is the trade group for abortionists i.e. people who sell abortion. They are the AFL-CIO of abortion. AFL-CIO is pro-labor. NARAL is pro-abortion. It's just that simple.
2. When abortion was illegal women were not generally prosecuted. It was the abortionist they were after. It was difficult to get a woman to testify against the abortionist if the police were going after her too.
Now we can start asking the questions:
When is it ok to kill another human being?
Does our free will control us or do we control it?
Just because we have the power and knowledge to kill someone weaker than ourselves does that make it right? Does the state have a roll in this?
Finally, what should our response to a woman in a crisis pregnancy be? -- Compassion and love? Or rejection and refusal to care for her and her child. In other words, I want her to have an abortion because...I don't want to be a dad...There's too many people in the world anyway...I don't want to pay for her child...She will bring shame on the family...She should have been more responsible...I need to pay off my medical school bills and performing abortions will help me do that...I need to pay my mortgage and performing abortion will help me do that...I had an abortion and I need to keep supporting abortion in order to keep telling myself I did the right thing...I heard only Catholics are against abortion and I don't like Catholics...Fill in your response here.
Here's the kicker -- If your reaction is one of those in the list above does that make you pro-abortion?
We need the same shock training to balance the NARAL shock training cries to sc##w abstinence. Like visiting the morgue or your place to see the REAL effects of actions. Choices are never free of consequences. Same for sex ed and abortions. Let's get the not-so-pc sides of the story if NARAL wants to be so "in your face" about issues. Door swings both ways.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 15, 2005 10:43 AMAnother thing that's downplayed in our culture is the epidemic of STDs. So-called "safe sex" condoms do NOT prevent most STDs and STDs can lead to many physical (and emotional) problems, including later miscarriages, infertility and cervical cancer.
Posted by: Shannon K on July 15, 2005 12:45 PMSure, this is a difficult choice. But don't bulls**t me. Abortion is NOT the moral equivalent of pushing a sick passenger out of the lifeboat in order to save the rest of the survivors. This is the premeditated ending of a defenseless life.
Now I cannot sit here and roundly condemn each and every woman who has had an abortion. That is not what I am about here. We live in a fallen world, and sometimes women are faced with impossible choices through extroardinary circumstances. I could not say that I would have decided differently if I was in the same situation (which, since I am a man, is highly unlikely).
No, I am not talking about in extremis cases, although a small percent of the suicidal cases I see are women who were rape or molestation victims. I can honestly say that at least 95% of the wrecks are women who simply had abortions because they were tought by Planned Parenthood and NARAL that it was simply another form of birth control- easy, safe, discrete, and convenient.
And FYI, Planned Parenthood was founded by one Ruth Streeter. Streeter was probably the most militant voice for eugenics in history, and her book that promoted the practice was the inspiration for Nazi Germany's Final Solution. Eugenics simply is the practice of eliminating the genetically unsound, the feeble and the retarded for the sake of promoting the physically strong and more "genetically superior."
So great was the outcry in the US against Streeter that she retreated from her "official" stance and began advertising PP as a women's advocacy organization- but the practice of eugenics still pervades PP's philosophy and practice. For more on that,simply visit the PP website and see for yourself. Read what they say: it is chilling. But I digress.
Streeter wrote a book promoting her ideas that, after hue and cry rose against her, she had pulled from bookstores and libraries in order to protect herself from incrimination. She was as despicable and malevolent a human as ever existed. And her destructive legacy lives on in PP and NARAL.
As regards the "viability" argument- don't bother. Abortion is abortion. No matter when the pregnancy was terminated, the women for whom I had cared had one thing in common- that they knew they had killed their babies. And my patients ran the gamut from 11 weeks to 5 months gestation at the time of termination. No one was more or less bereft than another.
The viability argument is a red herring. It is a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is the ending of defenseless life, period, and the emotional and physical destruction that the woman must cope with for the remainder of her life- and how to dispatch the abominable collection of bastards who promote the practice.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 15, 2005 05:37 PMI was a prolifer for 15 years before I became a Christian. Bernard Nathanson became prolife while he was still an athiest. It's not a faith issue; it's a human rights issue. Nobody has the right to snuff another person.
Posted by: Christina on July 16, 2005 05:51 PMThis wasn't the case before Roe. It was the docs and their accomplices that went to jail. The woman was a material witness. I don't think there was a single case of the woman being prosecuted for an abortion until a recent post-Roe prosecution for doing a home abortion with illegally obtained drugs.
Posted by: Christina on July 16, 2005 05:56 PMI'd love to journal my experiences and lessons learned. But I really don't know where to start. Besides, if I had my own blog, nobody would read it but me anyway. The nursing mags have a distinctly feminist bent. As much as I hate to hog bandwidth, SP is my sole outlet for speaking out on social issues.
Posted by: ERNurse on July 16, 2005 06:36 PMAnd you do so quite well. Don't be too quick to discount Christina's suggestion ;'}
(See then you could feature me with "The nitwits corner with Alphabet Soup!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 16, 2005 09:27 PMHere's what we do know - by the time a woman typically knows she's pregnant, you have a very distinct individual with its own DNA, its own blood type, a functioning heart and measurable brain waves not to mention gender. These facts have nothing to do with religion or philosophy. They are scientifically verifiable. Abortion-rights advocates hate it when you suggest that people be educated about fetal development - it's deemed "too emotional." (That is, it draws people away from the correct choice). Choice thus becomes a euphemism for "do what we think." In fact, the whole abortion-rights movement is filled with ephemisms. A popular feminism book from the 70s entitled something like, "Our Bodies, Our Selves" referred to an 8 week old preborn as a "mass of differentiated tissue acting as a parisite within the mother's body." This is an ugly, hate-filled misreprestation of the facts. In my opinion it's Planned Parenthood, NARAL, et al that are the real parasites and they are truly sucking the life out of us. If you're interested in some more facts, go check out the life of Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Find out who she talked with in Germany in the early 1900s and the values they held in common. It's quite shocking if you care to know.
Posted by: Marty Knapp on July 17, 2005 04:39 PM