Capitol Ideas

By Joe Cobb

February 14, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

I’d have to say the death of the unborn child would have to be classified if the unborn child could live outside of the womb either barely assisted or unassisted. Basically a premature baby could be considered but a first trimester shouldn’t.

By Alysia

February 14, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

I feel that abortion is a choice, a shooting is intentional. Women are raped, which makes it easier to kill an unborn fetus, I think that the bill should have stipulations…no abortion more than the 1st trimester

By Kristen

February 14, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Alysia says “abortion is a choice, a shooting is intentional”…either way a helpless child is being killed. Murder is murder and so is abortion. Stop trying to separate the two so you can justify one of them.

If I ripped your arms and legs off and threw your remains in a trash can, I’d be arrested for murder. Somehow the same doesn’t apply when innocent unborn children are involved.

Joe Cobb…you were a first trimester baby in your mother’s womb once too. Don’t you think that if she had been shot and killed your father/family might have wanted the killer prosecuted for murdering his/their baby boy too?

By Pedro

February 14, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

I always thought getting pregnant was a choice. A rape is an exception but an unplanned or “accidental” pregnancy is simply unconscionable in today’s world of birth prevention options. Pregnant is pregnant and killing a fetus is the same no matter how it happens.

By Mother-To-Be

February 14, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Hard topic. I’ll be 30 years old this year and I am in my 21st week of pregnancy and after an abortion in high school (I was 8 weeks), I realize the damaging affects it can have on a person. However, I wasn’t ready to be anyone’s mother and can’t say that I regret my decision.

I found out I was pregnant during my 6th week and my family was full of excitement. Had anything happened to me and my child, I am sure my family would be all for prosecuting for the life of two. I am my father’s only child and his only chance at being a grandfather. Accidental or not, we have to make people responsible for their actions regardless to how privileged or underprivileged they are.

I do not believe that abortion is murder, at earlier stages of the pregnancy. But I do not believe it is Godly either. If a child is surely not to live if given birth to at 12 weeks, what’s the difference? Should a 13 year old give birth to a child? Should a woman that’s raped be forced to have a child? Should adoption always be the answer when most of the children aren’t cared for adequately? And how many of those who are pro-life, have actually adopted or cared for at least one child in foster care?

If an emotionally abusive man intentionally causes me mental/emotional stress so that I will miscarry and I’m only a few weeks, is he then guilty of killing his child, even though he never touched me?

If a seventeen year old girl gets into a fight at school with another girl, who doesn’t realize she is pregnant, and the seventeen year old miscarries, is the other girl guilty of murder if she didn’t know about the pregnancy?

Lots of stipulations…I agree.

By Susie

February 14, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

A shooting inflicted on one person by another is different than a woman making the decision to go in and have a medical procedure performed to terminate a pregnancy. I am NOT pro-abortion, but even I can distinguish the difference between killing a mother, thereby killing the child, and having an abortion.

I don’t think it should matter what the stage of pregnancy, because someone out firing guns at people needs to be locked up good and tight, and if you can get him/her for two murders, all the better.

By Working Mother

February 14, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Murder is murder…whether by bullet or by medical vacuums. When someone purposely ends the life of a baby, regardless of what stage, it is murder. Except in cases of rape, incest or danger to mother, abortion should be outlawed. It is not a means of birth control and for anyone to state different, we all know how to prevent pregnancy in the first place. Just as Scott Peterson was sent to prison for murdering his child, so should the mother who lets a doctor suck out a baby with instruments.

By Working Mother

February 14, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Oh by the way, I actually AM in the process of adopting foster children and have been pursuing this for one year….it takes that long for the classes, the home study and the approval. I am a pro-lifer who is putting my words where my mouth is! I’m taking action to adopt two children that were unwanted and abused.

By Chad

February 14, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

I’d think it’d be WAY, WAY too complicated to get into whether she was at the end of the first trimester or beginning of the second for instance. Think of it from the father’s perspective here….he lost his wife and unborn child. No matter how far along she is, he still lost his unborn child, you know? We’re not exactly debating between someone spending 2 days in jail for one murder but LIFE for that second one….either way they’re going away for a long time for doing it.

Some say that’s not fair, but hey when you kill a woman I guess you have to take on that risk.

By mel

February 14, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

Working Mother, good for you for adopting children. More people should take that route!! If more people felt like their child/fetus/unborn surprise would be well taken care of, maybe the abortion rate would drop.

I agree with a previous post that said there is a difference in the woman choosing to terminate and that choice being taken away by some fool with a gun. I don’t think I could make that choice, and I never want to be in that situation where I have to make it.

By Jo

February 14, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Killing the woman? DEFINATELY throw the book at the murderer; he/she took a life. But they should only be charged with one murder. I don’t care WHAT all the religious fanatics/anti-Semites say, a fetus is NOT a person, it’s a lump of flesh that cannot live outside the mother

By Mad As Zell

February 14, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

Anyone who kills a woman and a child, whether the child is inside the womb or outside the womb in any circumstance is about the lowest type of inhuman life form there is around. Those type of monsters need to go straight to the death chamber, gas chamber, electric chair or whatever it is they use to execute cold-blooded psycho murderers here in Georgia.

Personally I feel that anyone who murders a child should burn in hell and doesn’t deserve the dignity or humanity that even a state-sponsored execution provides. Those type of monsters need to be hunted in the woods, brutally tracked down for sport and have justice unmercifully administered to them like the savage animals they are.

By Mad As Zell

February 14, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Hey Jo: since you think that “a fetus is not a person” but only “a lump of flesh”, how would you feel if you or a woman you love was pregnant and survived a brutal gun attack by some primitive low-life piece of scum but lost the baby, no matter what stage the pregnancy. I myself would want to hunt that animal down and inflict the amount of pain that they inflicted on me and my loved ones. Hell couldn’t possibly have the amount of fury that I would have on that miserable son-of-a-gun who would be begging for mercy at the hands of the state because I’d make sure he’d die the slowest, most painful, agonizing death that’s probably not even imaginable to most.

Let’s just say that the word “PAIN” would have a whole new meaning after I’d made that murderer beg for life after what they did to my loved ones. God have mercy on their soul because I sure as hell won’t.

By Kristen

February 14, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Well Jo…since you don’t care what the religious fanatics have to say, maybe you’ll listen to the facts.

As much as you might want to dispute it, a fetus is not ‘a lump of flesh’…it is a developing human child. One tactic of pro-choice (anti-life?) activists is to disassociate emotion and abortion by using phrases like “lump of flesh”…as if an abortion is nothing more than a tonsillectomy. Obviously they are quite different…you don’t see people mourning their tonsils or appendixes like post-abortion patients mourn their children. You don’t see depression, suicide and a sense of loss in appendectomy patients. You don’t see the doctors performing these procedures experiencing intense emotional trauma because of them…but you do in abortionists.

Sorry for the off-topic post, but it needs to be said.

By B-boy

February 14, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

Okay, Pro-lifers, I know this is off the topic slightly, But if all of you are so pro-life. Why are so many of you pro death penality? Murder is mureder and that surely is murder. Sure they had a trial but we all know how screwed up our legal system is. If you are going to protect life then protect all life.

While we are at it. Perhaps the law were really need is one that requires you to have a liscense to have a child. You have to have one to be married, so why not one to have a child. Perhaps that would help cut down on unwanted children and even lower the abortion rate. We fine people heavily for unliscensed pregancy. Those fines can be collected at the hospital from any one that does not have a liscense to be a parent (that the have had for 10+ months). Fines would also be leveled on top of the abortion fee. Might make more folks take more responsiblity for their actions.

By Mad As Zell

February 14, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

B-Boy: because supporting the death penality just means that most, if not all, Pro-lifers are ANTI-SCUM. You already know that I would use the death penality as a back-up, you know just in case I couldn’t do ‘em in first.

By Confused

February 14, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

I am a little torn on this issue. After reading the comment, I knew it would turn into a pro-life vs. pro-choice issue. My comment is a little long so here we go…..

I am currently expecting. I feel the baby, talk to the baby, read to the baby, etc. However, in my heart of hearts, I know that this isn’t a baby until it is out and breathing on its on. Anything can happen from now until the birth. Things that are beyond my control.

Now, do I expect the baby to live? yes. Do I expect to go full term? yes. Am I doing everything to ensure this? Yes, within my powers (good exercise, eathing healthy, etc). So do we proceed on the notion that the child will live in the womb until full term with no complications….

Getting back to the original question in the blog…

Do we prosecute people on the future possibilities? I don’t know. Can a doctor determine if a baby can breath on its own after a certain point during gestation? We don’t know. Every baby is different. We have heard the stories of some premies making it and not others. Why? Why not?

Murder is Murder??? If someone breaks into your home and they attempt to kill you and you in turn kill them, is this okay? Don’t state the law (self defence, etc), but think about the statement murder is murder.

Yes, lets prosecute for the murder of the mother. Let’s think about the murder of the unborn.

Let’s define birth, unborn…. This topic leads to further discussions….. Not just pro-life vs. pro-choice.

By voiceofreason

February 14, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

“murder is murder, except in cases of…”

This is a direct contradiction. Either “murder is murder” or there are exceptions. If murder is murder, then regardless of stage of pregnancy and regardless of whether its a 3rd party of the mother of the fetus, he/she should be prosecuted. On the other hand, if there are exceptions in “some cases” then there are surely to be more unconceived exceptions. I am not a pro-abortion advocate, but I am not strictly anti-abortion either. I believe there are cases, some that we can rattle right off (i.e. rape,) and others that we may not be able to think of now, that warrant an individual the discretion of choice. As for a 3rd party who kills a woman, a popular phrase in law is “one who commits a wrong against another takes his victim as he is.” That is to say, if she is pregnant, the shooter should be held accountable regardless of the stage of pregancy the woman.

By Jo

February 14, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

Interesting points, Kristen & M.A.Z. While you may not agree with what I’ve said and am about to say, why not at least respect my honesty? A lot of people do feel as I do but don’t have the guts to vocalize it. Oh, if a woman I know, or even DON’T know, lost her unborn baby under any circumstances, I’d be happy for her & for the environment. The world is too overpopulated, our resources are being depleted & I’m so sick of this breeder-centric society. As it is, children rule, & adults are losing their rights bit by bit. You can’t even discipline your own child without legal repercussions. No wonder we hear about so many chilren who rape & murder. My husband is always telling me he’s happy to have found a lady who feels as he does, especially since he wouldn’t want to share me with some squalling brat. Now THAT is love, people. If it was me who was pregnant & lost the fetus (notice I don’t say “baby”), again, under any circumstances, I’d jump for joy. Just think of the money I’d save not having to have an abortion, as I’d have originally planned. And ugh, I can’t stand whiners who practically go into a Victorian decline when they miscarry. It’s a FETUS, not a CHILD. Bleaughhh, too touchy-feely for me!

By Kim

February 14, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

This is one more transparent effort of the “pro-life” group to chip away at abortion. An organism that can not live outside the human body is a parasite, not a baby, not a fetus. To the “pro-lifers” a woman is just a vessel; the death of a woman is no tragedy, but GASP OF HORROR, a woman that is pregnant??? TRAGEDY!!!!

By Jo

February 14, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Ah, Kim, there IS intelligent life here! THANK YOU! Don’t you wish everyone else would GET IT???

By Kristen

February 14, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Kim…you are completely wrong. To pro-lifers it is the loss of life that is important. I would expect that you might have gathered that from the term “pro-life”…but I guess not.

Loss of life applies to women, men, children and unborn children.

Jo…if your mother had “gotten” your point you wouldn’t be around to entertain the rest of us with your unintelligent and sadly clueless posts.

By Working Mother

February 14, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

Jo, I take it you’ve never had a miscarriage or infertility issues. So how can you spew such idiotic statements? I’ve had two miscarriages followed by infertility issues. And then by some miracle of God, I conceived and carried a boy. I never forget the babies I lost and once you have loved a child, you never get over one you lose because even an unborn baby represents a lost life you’ll never know or love. Please don’t have any children…you are too selfish and unfeeling to raise a healthy, happy person. Your children would probably be the ones who make fun of others who maybe aren’t so pretty, or as smart, or as wealthy. Because they would be just like you…unable to feel pain. Therefore, no empathy. Guess what…the fetus has a heartbeat. That to me represents life.

By Mad As Zell

February 14, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this

You know Jo, Kim, you pro-abortion people pretty much dig your own graves just by opening your mouths….You’d be happy for a woman and the environment if she loses her baby? An unborn child that cannot live outside the human body is not a baby or a fetus but an organism that is a parasite? Are you even listening to yourselves talk or seeing what you’re typing is garbage and seriously un-human? You people are nuts and in need of immediate serious mental help!

Anytime a woman loses a baby is a tragedy and what we’re talking about is holding murderers accountable for killing both the mother and the child because that unborn child is still a life who needs air, food, water and shelter for it to live, but most of all it needs a mother so that it can live to be born. It’s MOTHER AND CHILD you ANTI-LIFE, ANTI-HUMANITY NUMNUTS. You pro-abortion people don’t seem to sound or be much better, mentally, than the murderers that you’re always trying to defend.

A woman isn’t vessel, she’s a living, breathing human being and a baby is not just a lump of flesh, it’s the love of God sent in the form of a human being who holds all the hopes of the future of humanity.

By Nikita

February 14, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

We might as well identify this law for what it is — an attempt to create a precedent which gives potential life legal status at all stages of development. Never mind that it might not become a baby due to factors beyond all control. Never mind that it subsumes the rights of women to determine their own health care. Never mind that a seemingly compassionate law is in fact an exceptional intrusion into the basic rights of self-determination that most of us take for granted. Just never you mind that, since apparently a clump of cells (which is exactly what we’re talking about when we’re referencing the pee stick above) has more rights than the born and breathing.

Moving on to answering the question, there are some real problems with granting fetuses or even blastocysts equal rights to the independently sustaining. For example, in the example listed above, what of fetuses who are viable, but unborn? Would there not be pressure to act to save the fetus regardless of the impact on the woman carrying it?

By Nikita

February 14, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Also, moving on ‘cause I see this coming…

Can we please discuss this civilly? Name calling isn’t getting anyone anywhere.

Also, two random thoughts from upthread: 1. I am fertile and medically fragile. So I won’t be having children. And thus I do not know the pain of infertility, but I do know what it is like to be limited from childbirth. I am in the process of adopting, and am quite grateful for the opportunity. 2. “even an unborn baby represents a lost life you’ll never know or love.” What does that mean? Is every unfertilized egg a child you’ll never know? Is every period that passes without a pregnancy a tragic occurrence?

By Working Mother

February 14, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Oh Jeez…here we go Nikita. Someone making judgements about feelings they haven’t even experienced yet. You need to adopt and feel what it is to have love for a child before you can make judgements. Don’t you think? You’re putting the horse before the cart. My sister is unable to have babies also and she adopted. And she feels exactly as I do now that she knows what it means to love a child. She was just like you before then and had to deal with the pain of being infertile. The one child I did carry has ADHD and other emotional/behavioral issues so the fact that I miracously had ONE child is not a picnic for me but I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’m adopting foster children the ages of 8 and 9 years old…not newborns because I am capable of loving older children the same as a newborn. What does it mean to lose a life you’ll never know or love? It means a life that was conceived has been lost. I know the pain and emptiness of being infertile so I speak from experience. I’m an older mother that lived my entire 20’s and 30’s with the pain of being childless. A mother who aborts a baby is no better than the guy with the gun who points it at a pregnant woman. Let’s stick to the article and stop nitpicking silly statements just for the sake of controversy.

By B-boy

February 14, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

What about frozon embryos! If I defrost the one’s I have on ice since I am about to have twins, and don’t want more than two.

Will I be charged with murder?

Perhaps if our government was more in engaged in working on improving education and healthcare, Abortion would be less of an issue. And really as we all know that is what this issue is about.

As a soon to be father of two, I can honestly say I support a woman’s right to make her own choice about her body, free from government involvement. It is her choice alone. Right or Wrong for her is not for me to judge, and nor should any other human being. It is between her and her God.

By Robin

February 14, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Until you have walked in a woman, or young girl’s shoes, who is pregnant and faced with making that horrible, agonizing decision to abort her baby, …. please don’t spout off your thoughts. You have absolutely no idea what it is like to have to make that decision. You have no idea what it feels like, even 24 years later, to think of the child you did not have. You have no idea what it is like to see other 24 year old people, and wonder if I made a different choice, what would my child be doing. At every year, at each age, we think of that question. IT remains with us forever, but you can never come close to understanding what it is like.

I was 17, and in an abusive relationship. I could not tell my parents about the pregnancy. It is easy for you to sit in judgement on me, and other females who choose abortion, but you will never, ever know or understand what it is really like.

Do you think that some females really WANT to have an abortion? It’s kind of like a divorce,……….it’s not something that when you are 5 years old, you say to yourself, :Gee, I want to have an abortion when I grow up. No, it is more a horrible decision between your own life, and the life of your unborn child.

Do I regret my decision? No. There is no doubt in my mind, that had I had the baby, that the baby and I both would have been dead over 20 years ago.

So, before you judge us, at least try to walk in our shoes.

By Susan

February 14, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

Hey, Mad As Hell, you really need to take a pill, maybe a dozen, and just chill out. Obviously you are on some sort of crusade to save womanhood. Are you sure your real name isn’t Chuck Norris?

By Working Mother

February 14, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Like I said…we all know how to prevent pregnancy but to choose abortion as a means of birth control? What is a 17 year old doing getting pregnant anyway? Accidents don’t happen at 17…just carelessness. And by the way, I did have to choose to abort my baby, thank you very much! That was one of my miscarriages because she was fertilized with two sperm and had full blown triploidy…69 chromosomes. She was dying in my belly at 6 months into pregnancy and there was no amniotic fluid. I had to make the difficult choice of letting her die in my belly and then delivering within a few weeks or let the doctors be humane. What you did was selfish. You could have given the baby up for adoption. Your aborted baby was healthy..mine was dying. So I can make judgement. I’m one of the few women who’ve walked in ALL shoes. I too have been in abusive relationships requiring trips to the hospital for stitches, but I made sure I didn’t get pregnant. Sorry, no pity party for you. Congratulations on moving on from an abusive relationship but I’ve been there and done it too.

By Jo

February 14, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

Kim, you stick to your guns & don’t pay attention to the Kristens of the world; a lump of flesh isn’t “life” & you have to wonder about the mentality of anyone who questions the intelligence of an individual just because their opinion differs from yours. Working Mother (well at least you’re not a lazy, stay-at-home “legal prostitute”), you’re mistaken on several counts. I sure did have a miscarriage & I was relieved not to have to spend money on an abortion. Oh, don’t worry, clearly, I have no intention of breeding. And if I did want/have children & I ever caught them disrespecting someone for the way they look, they’d get severely punished. I happen to be an advocate for the physically handicapped/disfigured. In fact, I have a dear friend who was seriously disigured in an accident & woe is anyone who even LOOKS at her askance! M.A.Z, no, you’re right, a baby is NOT just a lump of flesh. A fetus, however, is. Go thump a Bible & burn a few crosses on a Jewish family’s lawn; doubtless, those are probably your fields of expertise. Nikita & Robin, I really enjoyed YOUR posts!

By Jeff

February 14, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Anybody ever stop to consider the father in this?(I know, off topic). What about the father’s right to determine if his child lives or dies? I do know that if I ever get a woman pregnant - even if we were married - and she aborts my child, that relationship is over. My first and foremost duty as a man is to protect my family AT ALL COSTS. So to have my woman - the one who is biologically pre-ordained to be more nuturing than me - kill my child, it produces a conflict that I cannot live with: The very woman I love IS the biggest threat to my family. And when that siutaion comes up, I only have one choice: She chose to end the family, so I must choose to leave her and make it official.

Back on topic: I agree with much of what Mad as Zell is saying. Two died, and the consequence should fit that crime. (Though I also agree with him about what to deal with child-murderers… and sexual predators. I’ve heard of a torture method in a Clancy book that sounds GREAT. When I first read through the scene - which also has a sexual predator as the victim - my only thought was “this is perfect!”)

By Jo

February 14, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Noooo, what Robin chose to do was decidedly UNselfish. Think of all the teenage girls who choose to keep their babies to collect welfare checks, have “someone to love me” or to trap the father into an alliance he doesn’t want any part of. Yes, she could have given it up for adoption but going through the pregnancy would mean possibly missing months of school & jeopardizing her future & there is NO guarantee that a good home would be found for the baby. Robin, the world is full of ignoramuses, dear. Try to ignore them even though it IS difficult at times

By Jo

February 14, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

Oooh, Jeff, I pity the woman who ends up married to YOU. Somehow the Rolling Stones’ song “Under My Thumb” comes to mind here..

By l

February 14, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

I don’t want to get into the abortion or right to life agrument. The agrument is whether a pregnant women is killed, does that count as two killing? I believe it should be up to the family affected by a senseless act, like a murder of the mother, to pursuit any legal actions on behalf of the unborn baby. Now, if it is a accident, totally unavoidable, I don’t believe in proscuting a person in “two” deaths.

By Robin

February 14, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

To Working Mother-

I didn’t choose abortion as a means of birth control. Thank you for not judging me.

I am sorry for you loss, and all the grief and sorrow you have experienced.

Although, I chose abortion, I also suffered a loss,………albeit at my decision.

You will never understand.

I will try to explain, and maybe you won’t be so harsh toward the next woman in that situation.

Well, let’s see if I can give you the abridged version.

Was I stupid? Yes.

DId I have good knowledge of pregnancy prevention? No.

Do I regret getting pregnant? Yes.

If I could turn back time and do things differently, would I? Of course.

But, I can’t turn back time. And, I didn’t have the knowledge and maturity then, that I do now.

It is a loss. Please don’t judge us for the horrible decisions we had to make. You will never understand.

Thank you.

By Working Mother

February 14, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Sorry to disappoint, but I happen to be adopting biracial children…so much for burning crosses on lawns. Movements of racial or religious hatred are things that never enter my mind but they’re obviously on yours Jo. Is that what you do for entertainment other than wish away the children of the world?

By Jeff

February 14, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

Jo, you know nothing about me. Matter of fact, as a teacher my biggest WEAKNESS right now is that I don’t control people enough. ;{ (sorry, can’t figure out a way to translate my “eat sh!t grin here!)

By Working Mother

February 14, 2006 04:16 PM | Link to this

Jeff, you obviously are a person that has a great deal of love children since you are a teacher. I applause your conviction to not saddle yourself with a woman who could just end your child’s life. There is nothing chauvanistic or medieval about those thoughts. There are some women out there, but for no other reason than they don’t want the burden and responsibility, who will abort. Jo obviously is one of those women so you know the profile to avoid when selecting a life long partner to love and have a family with.

By Jo

February 14, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Robin, that’s a LOT for a 17 year old to go through; you were a very brave young lady! WM, the cross-burning comment was directed to Mad As Zell, unless you are one & the same? What do I do for entertainment? Well, for one, I lobby to end discrimination against people who are deformed/disfigured, a fitting pastime for anyone as “selfish” as I am. Oh, but don’t forget, discrimination against the ugly is, after all, the last acceptable prejudice. OK, Jeff, I know very LITTLE about you, but I do know that alas, you & I can never be…

By Steve

February 14, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

The writer of this piece starts by showing their bias. It is no more possible to be “a little bit pregnant” than it is to be “a little bit dead”. Either you are or you are not.

By Jo

February 14, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Oh boy, Working Mother & I actually agreed on something! I breathe a sigh of relief that she’s hardly likely to set me up on a date with Jeff!

By Working Mother

February 14, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

okay Jo…truce. you made me laugh. :-) It’s obvious this is one of the most controversial subjects of recent decades and there will never be a resolution. We just each really have to answer to ourselves in what makes us happy.

By Jo

February 14, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

Oh for sure, Working Mother! Believe it or not, I’ve had a number of close friends who are as pro-life as I am pro-choice. And no offense, Jeff. For all I know, you could very well be the hottest man in town; see what I may be missing???

By Mad As Zell

February 14, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Nikita, Susan: I’m just supposed to chill out and sit by and be willing to “civilly” ask some savage killer who doesn’t care about their own life much less the lives of others “why they did it?” while the state sits around for years with their thumbs up their butts taking their sweet little time to decide whether their going to execute a heartless murder who’s going to get a million chances to appeal to the courts and beg for their life? That mother and unborn child that they murderered probably didn’t get the chance to beg for their lives and if they did it was probably only to the murderer’s amusement. That mother and unborn child didn’t get endless court appeals, last requests and the choice of their last meal. There is civil law and there’s laws of nature and I’m just talking about giving cold-blooded killers a taste of their own medicine and making them experience the type of pain that they have inflicted on others.

Pro-abortion people just always seem to come down on the wrong side of the argument by being unwilling to compromise on any part of a position that looks to be tolerant of cold-blooded murder of women with unborn children. Just because a few of you whacked out pro-abortionists don’t want their babies doesn’t mean that everybody else doesn’t. How could you possibly be against prosecuting a murderer for two deaths when it comes the murder of a mother and her unborn child.

On abortion you could at least defer to a more moderate, reasonable position of “Legal, but rare” (one of Hillary Clinton’s oft-used slogans, even though I doubt she means really it), but you anti-lifers don’t even seem to want to reduce the number of abortions and child murders (a positon which pro-abortionist Jo stated pretty clearly when she said that she’s happy when women lose their babies in this “bleeder-centic society”). That type of extreme left-wing rhetoric makes people sick to their stomach and turns off most Americans to your argument.

Your un-willingness to give-in to any reasonable concessions on the issues of unborn children is why you anti-lifers will come away from the table with nothing if and when Roe is ever overturned because of your demand for unlimited abortions ever for underaged children. The way it stands now, you pro-abortionists are fighting a losing battle in a losing war, but I guess that makes sense because you’re all a bunch of murderous, godless, atheist losers anyway who are going to get every bit of what you deserve.

By Working Mother

February 14, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Over and out…catch you on the next blog Jo, Robin and Jeff. Maybe they’ll pick a more palatable subject… like the health benefits of chocolate. Now who can argue with that? Happy Valentine’s Day all.

By Jeff

February 14, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

don’t know about the hottest man in town, but I AM single! (And no, not because of my over-protectiveness. More along these lines: I frequent ONLY 3 places: work, church, and home. Work is FULL of females, but only MAYBE 5 who are both not students AND single! Church there are only 3 single females near my age, and we’re just friends. Obviously nothing happens at home! Ah, the pitiful life of a 1st year teacher! :))

BTW Jo: I’ve had MANY good friends - even one trusted advisor - who are as liberal as I am conservative. Since a relationship is out of the question, wanna have a few margaritas somewhere and see what happens? :P (Obviously I’m joking around - half, anyway!) :P

By Kristen

February 14, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Jo,

I don’t question your intelligence because your ‘opinion’ differs from mine. I question it because you have not offered any logical statements to ‘prove’ your point. Your replies to this topic are all I have to judge you with, and I have yet to see an intelligent reponse from you.

So far your replies have consisted of generalizations and personal emotions that neither prove nor disprove your point. You tell another poster to ‘go thump a Bible and burn a few crosses on a Jewish family’s lawn’…THAT’S RIDICULOUS.

Why would you make such a hateful and absurd generalization? Lack of intelligence.

You argue that a woman has the right to make a choice, then you make a nasty comment about stay-at-home moms (“well at least you’re not a lazy, stay-at-home ‘legal prostitute’”). Wasn’t the choice to stay home their CHOICE?

Again, lack of intelligence.

Basically readers, what Jo is saying is: “Make MY choices and to hell with those of you who don’t”.

By Working Mother

February 14, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

Well, I just can’t stay away! Jeff, you are funny. Jo, give the guy a break and have a drink my friend. I see Kristen is back also. Before this article is blogged out, we’ll all be agreeing to meet for margaritas!

By Jo

February 14, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Mad As Zell: A few things I’d like to clear up. First of all, I DO believe in God, but since I go to synagogue to worship Him, that may not hold much water with you. Second of all, BREEDER-centric, not BLEEDER-centric. Third of all, I am VERY much against coddling & enabling violent criminals, in fact, I consider the death penalty too lenient for such scum. Working Mother, I don’t know about chocolate having health benefits but eating it sure makes me feel good especially if a handsome man is feeding it to me! Jeff, you need to network. Don’t be ashamed to ask your friends if they know any suitable single ladies. And seeing as you’re a teacher, don’t you ever meet single moms at PT conferences? Also try online dating, Christian singles dances & events..Oh, I KNOW what’ll happen if you & I get together for a drink..You’ll have to answer to my husband & our overprotective male roomate (who keeps an eagle eye on me!)

By Jeff

February 14, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Working,

I’m ALWAYS up for a margarita! (Particularly on the one day a month I have money before bills take it all away!)

Jo,

Who said they need know? :P (Joking, I have one simple rule about dating: If you meet the GA PSC’s Code of Ethics for Educators definition of “student” OR if you have a ring on the fourth finger of your left hand, you are STRICTLY off limits to me, no exceptions - no matter how good you look! :P)

By Jeff

February 14, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

In the words of that greatest of Georgians Alan Jackson: “It’s f’o clock somewhere!” For those who CAN, I recommend a margarita at the nearest bar. For those like me who still have work to get done before they have to drive 1.5 hrs home, at least put the song on to make you FEEL better!:P

By Dan

February 14, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Robin not being judgemental but your post is a good example of why there is such a divide. First whether or not it was a preconcieved idea when the reason for an abortion is the same as the reason for using birth control, maturity money not ready etc. It is in fact being used as an alternative albeit in hindsight. Second and again i am not beign judgemental and as a man I clearly can’t understand completely (although I have been involved in an abortion in the past) I can’t reconcile the horrible decision piece. If in fact it is OK because a fetus is not a person, why would it be horrible, or conversely if it is a horrible decision, how could it ever be OK?

By Robin

February 14, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

Hey -

Margaritas sound great!

Jeff - Maybe we can all bring a friend, and you will click with one of them!

By Working Mother

February 14, 2006 05:05 PM | Link to this

I’m hitting the local sports bar with hubby and son for beer and wings actually. We know that Alan Jackson song…when it hits noon on football Saturdays, we sing that 5 o’clock line and indulge! Sorry you have to work. Jo sounds like fun..especially since the roomie has to keep her in line.

By Robin

February 14, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

Hello Dan,

What you stated is exactly why having to make that choice is so horrible.

It is not okay, and never will be. It is a loss I will live with forever.

However, I believe abortion should be legal and available.

The real solution is to have free contraceptives available to all girls and boys, men and women, without asking for any information or questions.

Teenagers did, are, and will have sex. And, at younger and younger ages.

Many people seem to think that if contraceptives are available in schools, clubs, etc., that society is telling children to go have sex.

Hey, kids are going to have sex regardless. The majority will lose their virginity before they turn 16.

When i was 17, if I had better sex eduction (or ANY sex education), and available contraceptives, I would not have gotten pregnant.

This is how to prevent other girls from having to make that horrible choice.

By Dan

February 15, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this

Your comments about sex ed sound logical but are not supported by facts. Since the introduction of sex ed about 30 years ago unplanned pregnacies and abortions have soared. Is it due to sex ed? maybe, maybe not that is debateable (although unmanipulated facts suggest that) but it is undeniable that sex ed isn’t helping. That is a placebo answer not a real one. In any case not having the information is the parents or guardians fault in each and every case. It is certainly a good thing when society helps (but not their responsibility) and continuing to do things that have not shown results just because they sound good doesn’t help anyway

By Dan

February 15, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

Another thought jsut occured to me Robin comments that kids are having sex at younger and younger ages, which appears to be true. To combat this strangely enough it also seems public schools are starting sex ed at younger and younger ages, Could be a confusion between cause and effect here.

By Robin

February 15, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Good morning Dan,

In my previous comments regardin sex education, I realize I was not specific. I did not necessarily mean that the sex ed had to come from school. It needs to come from the parents.

Furthermore - All those years ago, I attended private school, and sex ed was not offered at my school at all. Hopefully it is offered at all schools today, public and private, but I don’t know. Do you?

And, I really don’t think that sex ed in schools has anything to do with kids having sex at younger ages. It has to do with the way our culture, society, and families behave.

Look at the music industry, hollywood, sports figures, and what do you see? Sex, multiple partners, many so called heros to our young people have children out of wedlock, and not only is it acceptable in today’s society, but it is celebrated! Here is an example:Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and on and on. The music industry is full of them, the sports celebrities are rampant with who has had the most sex partners, etc. I think you get the point.

25 years ago it was shocking for a high school student to be pregnant, and she did NOT continue school. Now, it is common. I am saying the pregnant girls should not continue school(I think they should!), so don’t go there. I am just saying that our society has accepted this behavior. And kids have sex at younger and younger ages.

By Robin

February 15, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Before everyone jumps on me - I had a typo in the previous post ………..

It should say:

I am NOT saying the pregnant girls should not continue school (I think they should continue school!)

By Dan

February 15, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

You have some good points and I don’t completely disagree, but lets not forget, human nature changes very little titilizing parts of society have always been there, from flappers and show girls to marilyn monroes skirts blowing up, mae wests come up and see me sometime to kids peeking through a grays anatomy book granted today that seems tame but at the time it sparked the very same natural urges. you can go back to literature from the 1100’s in chaucers tales and find a story about a young man crawling through a young ladies window for a tryst. The point is the essence of these things have changed little over time, what has changed more is our “enlightened” view of how to deal with it. You are right society has accepted it and part of that is the innane concept of introducing sex ed to 2nd and 3rd graders regardless of the parents wishes.

By Nikita

February 15, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Dear Zell and Working Mother —

When you resort to name calling and personal attacks, you’re more or less acknowledging that your original argument isn’t persuasive on its own merits and therefore you have no recourse beyond assault. Doubly so when you assume things you have no basis for.

A few comments, however — I want abortion to be rare, but legal. However, I think we have a fetish issue, which is that we fetishize the potential to the detriment of the actual. And this is not acceptable.

I am a moderate on this issue. I believe women MUST have the right to obtain healthcare and MUST have privacy — as men do. We do not sacrifice those rights merely because we have the ability to give birth.

That said, it would be reasonable to charge a criminal with an aggravated murder charge when a fetus is sufficiently developed that it can be established that its mother likely intended to carry it to term and was statistically likely to do so. That would be relatively late in the pregnancy and certainly not at “pee stick” stage.

By Jim

February 15, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Best site!!! Link: order-phentermine.tripod.com Visite now. Will not regret!