I would have been more pro choice had I known the amount of idiots born that would elect Barry the Bankrupter into office.

Polling on Abortion has always had the problem explained by the old saying 'figures don't lie, but liars do figure.'

Recent studies do indicate some interesting changes in attitude, but abortion is a complicated issue to many people. Support for Roe v Wade hasn't declined at the same time more people say they are opposed to abortion.

The talking heads attribute it, among other things, to more women having ultra-sounds now, seeing their baby move around, and therefore having a hard time thinking of the baby as just a fetus..

But here's the main point.. moral issues are not up for a vote or a popularity contest. The Nazi's won elections in prewar Germany.. despite the fact that the Nazi credos were immoral. Sort of like truth.. 2 + 2 = 4.. and it doesn't matter how many people vote otherwise.

Abortion, for those of us that oppose it, is a moral issue, period. Killing babies as a planned and direct activity, especially for convenience, (and that for the most part, is all abortion is about) is wrong. Abortion, for reasons that are difficult to understand, has become over time the sacrament of the left. Its a terrible shame.

Abortion, for reasons that are difficult to understand, has become over time the sacrament of the left. Its a terrible shame.

Yeah! Wait! I mean...how does the "sacrament" part fit in with the "godless liberal" talking point, again?

As long as we're making ridiculous statements, I've got one, too.

All the fuss about numbers that support reproductive rights are irrelevant. It does not matter whether 68% or 6.8% support motherhood as a voluntary institution. The choice, legally and morally, must continue to be that of the embryo's host. ONLY the embryo's host. herm

I used to be about as pro-choice as one could get but the evolution of the pro-abortion line of reasoning crap has dramatically lessen my pro-choice viewpoint to where it could very well limit my future voting to only antiabortion candidates.

The scotchman refers to "pro-abortion" reasoning, and I must ask for a fuller explanation. In all my years of working for choice, I've never met a pro-abortion person. Most of us agree that abortion is a last resort for when contraception and meaningful sex education have failed. herm

Most of us agree that abortion is a last resort for when contraception and meaningful sex education have failed

----

Well that's obvious. You can't have an abortion when there is no pregnancy.

Well that's obvious. You can't have an abortion when there is no pregnancy.

#7 | POSTED BY PIRATE

A desperate need to express yourself, or did you total miss Herm's point?

Pirate-the question is-how does that translate AUTOMATICALLY to Pro-Abortion?

Those of us who are Pro-Choice would never FORCE anyone to have an Abortion.
It's the ANTI-Women crowd that wants to force their opinions on every woman's Uterus......

Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked...

...is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well, if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come when there's a miscarriage they don't have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say 'we have two children and one on the way' instead of saying 'we have three children?' People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process. Continuous, just keeps rolling along. Rolling, rolling, rolling along.

Thus spake Zarathustra. And Carlin. Wonderful. Nothing left to add. herm

A desperate need to express yourself, or did you total miss Herm's point?

----

I did not miss the point. I just notice there is never or rarely a second option discussed from the "pro-choice" crowd.

"I just notice there is never or rarely a second option discussed from the "pro-choice" crowd."

Really? Pretty much all pro-choice people I know recommend parenting or adoption over abortion.

That is exactly what Planned Parenthood advocates. They also advocate women making a decision on how to proceed early in their pregnancy so they can get proper prenatal care if they are going to try to carry the pregnancy to term or if abortion is the choice then the woman can avoid complications that can develop by waiting.

Maybe The Pirate, if not otherwise occupied in Somali waters, would favor us with some sample scripts. I wonder if any woman trapped in this dilemma does not already know about parenting and adoption options, but keeps running into pirate-like hostility. herm

www.prochoice.org has a small section on adoption as well. Yet, their website overwhelming has info on abortion and even lists abortion first over adoption.

Checked out their "Common Questions and Myths" second:

There are a lot of myths surrounding pregnancy, adoption, and abortion. Let these resources help you sort out the facts from fiction. More

Yet when you click on the link all the questions are about abortion.

Even check out Planned Parenthood. Under their Health Topics drop down, the first option is Abortion. Under their Centers and Services drop down the first option is Abortion Service and Abortion Referrals. Adoption is not found in either menu. It is found in Pregnancy section.

Both have sections on adopting but it's taking a big backseat to abortion.

...all the questions are about abortion.

#16 | Posted by Pirate

Maybe that's because there's such a concerted effort to spread outright lies about abortion?

That is because the site you link to is the national abortion federation, of course they are going to have more info about abortion than other options.

In the case of adoption and birthing they link to resources at other sites such as Planned Parenthood and the National Council for Adoption so visitors looking to learn more have easy access to the correct resources.

Zara,
So if a lady is preggos, and technology allows us to know in advance that it will be a gay child, is it ok to have an abortion because of this?

In the case of adoption and birthing they link to resources at other sites such as Planned Parenthood and the National Council for Adoption so visitors looking to learn more have easy access to the correct resources.

----

Yes, they may have a link or two to adoption. But they are marketing abortion over adoption.

Planned Parenthood's website is as well.

So if a lady is preggos, and technology allows us to know in advance that it will be a gay child, is it ok to have an abortion because of this?

I'll bite on Zara's worm...

Why would it not be OK?

Abortion is legal. Genetic testing of embryos is legal... (actually what would happen is you would test an embryo for a trait and then implant the one that did not have that trait).

The funny thing is that I bet fundies would do it. They would rather piss off god by aborting than bring a child into this world who would be predisposed to a sin that would land him/her in hell. The aborted go to heaven. Queers go to hell. That's their song and dance...

#21 | Posted by JimmiG

???

I think that question is a non-sequitur coming from somewhere way out in left field, but I'll take a stab at it anyway.

#24 is just MY opinion, by the way - which is what I was asked about.

I'd personally reserve abortions for extenuating circumstances - rape, incest, or when being born would cause the kid a whole lot of misery.

Zara - thanks for biting.

Reason I asked is because most people pro-choice, but also not anti-gay, including myself, get caught up in this dilemma. First reaction is to abhorr such a decision based on a characteristic that we accept as being diverse and not a physical or medical problem that many can reconcile with abortion such as downs syndrome.

But If you are really for choice, than you cannot then limit the reasons why someone gets an abortion. Afterall, it is their choice, not yours.

Your answer shows that people draw lines, and that it is sometimes hard to let others draw their own lines. Pro-choice requires giving up that choice, otherwise, your limiting it when applied to gay kids is just another shade of those limiting it to in cases of rape only.

Zombie - clever clever... caught on quick eh?

Zombie - clever clever... caught on quick eh?

Haha you give me too much credit. I posed a similar situation to Takitez the other day.

I got a torrent of meaningless scripture references thrown back in my face, and he wouldn't be more specific.

Zara, personally I would agree with you as to when I think it is justified - rape, incest or medical issue.

However pro-choice means letting people do it for whatever reason THEY feel, which can be unsettling, as per example above. But you take the lumps I suppose....

Seeing as how I have 2 kids, I think doing it for reasons of convenience is the wrong choice, but I am ok to let people make their own choice too.

However pro-choice means letting people do it for whatever reason THEY feel, which can be unsettling, as per example above.

#28 | Posted by JimmiG

Yeah, I agree here - the issue is a double-edged sword. Like ZH wrote in #23, I could envision some fundamentalists aborting a kid if it would turn out to be gay.

Thankfully, medical technology would have to advance quite a bit before we could administer a "litmus test" for the potentially homosexual fetus.

This question about aborting a gay fetus surely does not resonate with the rigid right, which continues to promulgate the myth that homosexuality is a choice, freely entered into by those who worship Satan. I would hope that the hypothetical soon becomes as meaningless as aborting a fetus because its eyes are brown and you wanted blue. herm

Herm, yet to be pro-choice, you'd have to allowe someone to abort for reasons such as hair/eye colour or even gender.
bit of a slippery slope... pro-choice can lead to some distateful things as tech improves.

Ironic - the more pro-choice, the fewer future liberals. Good.

You know it's funny. People on the Right declare that only Libeals get abortions Only liberals support Pro Choice avenues. But noone says shit about people like John McCain who said it was a private Personal matter. You know I believe the vast majority of Republican Politicians are pro choice they just outwardly clai to be Pro Life cause they don't want to alienate themselves from the base. Bunch of poppycock if You ask Me.

Larry

"I'd personally reserve abortions for extenuating circumstances - rape, incest, or when being born would cause the kid a whole lot of misery"

I've never understood that mindset.

I assume the primary reason people are pro-choice is that they believe abortion is destroying a human life, thus the slogan Abortion=Murder.

If that assumption is correct then I don't see why how the pregnancy came to be or whether or not the pregnancy is expected to result in an unhealthy child matters.

When I hear that point of view it makes me think the person is more interested in punishing the mother for perceived promiscuity than it is about stopping what they believe to be an immoral practice.

"People on the Right declare that only Libeals get abortions Only liberals support Pro Choice avenues. But noone says shit about people like John McCain who said it was a private Personal matter."

Larry, I'm going to call you out on that. I don't believe people on the right make those claims. I've heard plenty of conservatives voice their complaints about other conservatives who publicly express a pro-life opinion while privately support abortion when unintended pregnancy happens in their own families. They also attack other pro-lifers and ministries who are all words and no action because they are not out there protesting with them.

I also remember John McCain taking a lot of criticism from the right because of his stance on abortion. I believe John McCain paid a price politically for that stance in the election. A lot of evangelicals stayed home and didn't write him checks.

In fact I think your statement is contradicting yourself. If no says anything about people like McCain then why would others make false claims to avoid alienating the base?

"Herm, yet to be pro-choice, you'd have to allowe someone to abort for reasons such as hair/eye colour or even gender. bit of a slippery slope... "

Not at all. It's not up to me to "allow" or, for that matter, forbid anyone to abort. The whole point is that it's not my call, it's not up to me to interfere, whatever the reason may be. herm

The courts have ruled that abortion, while legal, may be restricted to some extent by the states.

Most people agree that some options should be left open to the woman's choosing while others closed for the sake of protecting life.

The Herms and the Elcids will just have to live with it.

If you agree with Roe v Wade then you have to accept that:

1)During the first trimester the matter is private between a woman and her physician.

2)In the later terms the states can restrict abortions.

"I just notice there is never or rarely a second option discussed from the "pro-choice" crowd."

what is the second option form the anti-choice crowd?

Suppose some female soldier is captured in afganistan, gang rape and impregnated by al queda. For medical reasons, if she carries to term, she dies and the baby lives.

What are her options as far as the anti-choice crowd?

And this may be an extreme example, but its not that far from a lot of cases.

And btw, this 68% is why the Republicans will do their song and dance for the evanjihadists' money, but will never touch Roe V Wade.

-And btw, this 68% is why the Republicans will do their song and dance for the evanjihadists' money, but will never touch Roe V Wade.

Ah, another Moment of Clarity Award recipient.

Suppose some female soldier is captured in afganistan, gang rape and impregnated by al queda. For medical reasons, if she carries to term, she dies and the baby lives.

What are her options as far as the anti-choice crowd?

And this may be an extreme example, but its not that far from a lot of cases.

Bullshit. It is a very extreme case and a million miles from normal.

HOw many people argue for "anti choice" in that example?

It's not up to me to "allow" or, for that matter, forbid anyone to abort. - HERMENGELE

It should not be up to you to determine anything HERM - not with your pro-death agenda.

If you agree with Roe v Wade then you have to accept that:
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

Roe V Wade has been mis interpreted since 1973. Except by the likes of HERM and his SS (Planned Parenthood).

"HOw many people argue for "anti choice" in that example?"

More importantly, how many "anti-choice" people allow for ANY exceptions? For those people, the answer to your question is ALL OF THEM.

Roe V Wade has been mis interpreted since 1973. Except by the likes of HERM and his SS (Planned Parenthood).

Posted by ELCIDCE90

I'm stunned that Bush went with Roberts and Alito for his SC picks with a great legal mind like that going to waste here.

More importantly, how many "anti-choice" people allow for ANY exceptions?

when the mothers life is in danger?.......virtually every "pro-life" person I know.

Here's the poll question I want asked.

"In the Roe v Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the abortion could not be prevented by the State if the abortion was performed based on her physician's medical judgment.

Answer yes or no:

Is the inability to afford a child a medical judgment?

Is the discomfort of being pregnant out of wedlock a medical judgment"

Is career interference a medical judgment?

Is 'too young' or 'too old' to be a mother a medical judgment?

Is the chance of the mother losing her life a medical judgment?"

If the poll is based on honest answers, I'd guess these questions above would dictate that the majority of abortions in the US do not meet Roe v Wade's prevention of State intervention.

"when the mothers life is in danger?"

Sorry, I missed that part. My bad.

But take out the "mother will die", and most anti-choicers don't care how many AQ rapists took part.

But take out the "mother will die", and most anti-choicers don't care how many AQ rapists took part.

I don't know. They get pretty silent when those senarios are presented from what I have seen. Rape and incest I mean.

They also get pretty silent when asked what jail sentence baby murderers should get.

#47 | Posted by Petrous

whooooooo you just opened up a can.

I don't know. They get pretty silent when those senarios are presented from what I have seen. Rape and incest I mean.
#49 | Posted by eberly at 2009-05-26 01:02 PM

They also get pretty silent when asked what jail sentence baby murderers should get.
#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-05-26 01:04 PM

Anybody posting on this yet?

I would have been more pro choice had I known the amount of idiots born that would elect Barry the Bankrupter into office.

#1 | Posted by cookfish at 2009-05-25 11:31 AM | Reply |

What blinding whit, where are my f'n shades??

Well, we have two kinds of rigid righties here, the absolutists like the ever-amusing Cidney, telling me what else I must believe if I endorse Roe v Wade, and the waffling ones willing to make exceptions for rape and incest, probably not looking into the dilemma that if aborting a fetus is "killing a baby," what difference does it make how it was conceived? I agree with the over-all impact of Roe, Cid, but not with the legalistic time nitpicking that goes with it. Thanks for asking. herm

Heathens!

#53 | Posted by freechoice

go ahead, i dare you.

I agree with the over-all impact of Roe, Cid, but not with the legalistic time nitpicking that goes with it. Thanks for asking. herm

Thats right. Herm is for unrestriced abortion anytime.

Afterall, it's not like it has a SS# anyway.

"HOw many people argue for "anti choice" in that example?"

More importantly, how many "anti-choice" people allow for ANY exceptions? For those people, the answer to your question is ALL OF THEM.

#44 | Posted by Danforth

How about the phrase "pro death" that might skew the results too.

Bullshit. It is a very extreme case and a million miles from normal.

HOw many people argue for "anti choice" in that example?

Anti-choice means no loophole for the mother's safety. The vast majority of people allow some fudging for things like this, but the evangelical base doesn't.

In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%).

Anti-choice means no loophole for the mother's safety. The vast majority of people allow some fudging for things like this, but the evangelical base doesn't.

In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%).

I forgot about this survey that was posted recently. I didn't consider that 23% of respondents meant to include the scenario of "mothers life in danger".

It's hard to believe that they all meant to include that situation.

"I'm pro-life and think these should definitely be exceptions."

Live or Die, this is a position I would like to know more about.

I'd like to know why a person who takes that view is opposed to abortion to begin with? And then I would like to know why the exception clause in the case of something like incest/rape.

This is a question I've asked several time and no one has ever given me an answer.

I'd like to know why a person who takes that view is opposed to abortion to begin with? And then I would like to know why the exception clause in the case of something like incest/rape.

Abortion is horrible....any way you view it.

However, people who are raped or a victim of something that was not their choice are in a difficult set of circumstances.

Those victims are not to be confused with people who knowingly and willingly engaged in sexual intercourse knowing that pregnancy was a possibility..........and now are looking for a way out.

An abortion is an abortion. Tragic in either set of circumstances and will stay legal. I'm not for criminalizing abortion but it doesn't change how I feel about it.

Live or Die, this is a position I would like to know more about.

I'd like to know why a person who takes that view is opposed to abortion to begin with? And then I would like to know why the exception clause in the case of something like incest/rape.

This is a question I've asked several time and no one has ever given me an answer.

#62 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2009-05-26 04:31 PM

I have two things to reconcile, my belief that something with a functioning brain, something with awareness, is human and should be protected, and that women are sometimes victims of circumstances beyond their control.

I have a messy ideology on abortion that seeks the best of both worlds on protecting life and providing women options for dealing with pregnancies. It changes frequently, and really wants a practical non-religious discussion.

I can't bring myself to accept flippantly destroying a later term fetus in the name of convenience considering what science can show us of it's development, senses, brain function, etc..

I also can't bring myself to force a definition of life on anyone when the life in question doesn't have any brain function or awareness (ie, clump of tissue).

Finally, in the case of rape or incest, I think the victim status of the mother in that case trumps protecting the child inside her.

My philosophy on the matter may seem inconsistent, but I still think a middle ground can be drawn that allows both abortions in some circumstances and protection of life in others.

LorD sounds unsure about the whole business. As long as you're wavering, why not lave the entire decision to the person hosting the embryo? THAT is what choice is about. herm

LorD, thanks for the response. I appreciate where you are coming from on that. I think that is a stance that is shared by many who are not on the extremes of the issue.

I also think though that you are not what I consider to be pro-life. Sounds to me like you are pro-choice with reasonable limitations. Yes, it is messy but seldom if ever are practical answers to complex social issues cut and dry.

If they were then it wouldn't really be an issue would it?

Thanks for your reply Eberly. I think your stance is similar to LorD's in that you are to a certain degree pro-choice on the matter.

I think what I'm really wanting to hear in the thoughts from a pro-life viewpoint on why exceptions should exist (i.e. John McCain's pov).

your messiah supports 3rd trimester abortions.

your messiah supports 3rd trimester abortions

The existence of people like you is the reason why he does...

CNN poll? That is like believing a NEW YORK SLIME POLL!

Ozzie, your not one of those "all news is biased except fox" are you?

LorD, thanks for the response. I appreciate where you are coming from on that. I think that is a stance that is shared by many who are not on the extremes of the issue.
#66 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2009-05-26 07:38 PM

I also think though that you are not what I consider to be pro-life. Sounds to me like you are pro-choice with reasonable limitations.
#66 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2009-05-26 07:38 PM

Yes, it is messy but seldom if ever are practical answers to complex social issues cut and dry.

If they were then it wouldn't really be an issue would it?
#66 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2009-05-26 07:38 PM

"...your messiah supports 3rd trimester abortions." This sort of bullshit - pardon, chickenshit - does even the rigid right no good. If only President O were a bit more tolerant in this vein! herm

"Pro-choice with reasonable limitations" sounds - well - moderate on its face. But who decides what those limitations are? Once you start setting ground rules for others, you're on a slippery slope from which there's no way off. herm

LorD sounds unsure about the whole business. As long as you're wavering, why not lave the entire decision to the person hosting the embryo? THAT is what choice is about. herm

#65 | Posted by herm at 2009-05-26 07:13 PM

"Depends on what we are talking about. If said embryo has turned into a fetus, with brain function, memory, senses, awareness; surely destroying it (is more than removing a mole)."

Indeed some knowledge of what one is talking about IS required. You offer not only an interesting and new (for me) differentiation between embryo and fetus, but attributing "brain function, memory, senses, awareness" to the latter displays a remarkable disconnect from reality. herm

I hate it when the polls and papers try to be divisive. Pro Life doesn't necessarily mean that you think everybody should never have an abortion and most of the Pro Choice people I've met think it should be legal but claim they would never have one on their own.

I think that most people are personally Pro Life and socially Pro Choice. Most people would never do it but also most people don't want it outlawed.

but attributing "brain function, memory, senses, awareness" to the latter displays a remarkable disconnect from reality. herm

#76 | Posted by herm at 2009-05-27 12:50 PM

"He sleeps, moves around, listens to sounds and has thoughts and memories."

He??? Does this ever sound patriarchal. Or are there "she" embryous too?

I have no idea what snake oil "health discovery" peddles, but this is such nonsense I'm embarrassed to comment. The zygote/fetus/embryo has no thoughts or memories. These require life experiences. Look up "tabula rasa" (blank slate) and then take your imagination and your hyperbole to a more - er - Christian site. herm

I have no idea what snake oil "health discovery" peddles, but this is such nonsense I'm embarrassed to comment.

----

It's Discovery Health. As in the Discovery Channel.

There's also parent.com which also publishes American Baby, Parents, and Family Circle.

Along with the ability to feel, see, and hear comes the capacity to learn and remember. For example, a fetus may be startled by a loud noise, but stops responding once the noise has been repeated several times.

Most of us agree that abortion is a last resort for when contraception and meaningful sex education have failed. herm

What a bullshit line you either feed to others or maybe you are so full of shit that you yourself actally beleive this line of crap. Maybe it's they are to lazy, stupid and careless about sex. THis isnt a last resort, it's a way of life for almost half of the slice and dice my baby crowd.

About half of all U.S. women having an abortion have had one previously.

Why women have abortions

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Abortion is the stupid man & womens method of birth control.

It should always include the decsion of the father if possible.

I have no idea what snake oil "health discovery" peddles, but this is such nonsense I'm embarrassed to comment. The zygote/fetus/embryo has no thoughts or memories. These require life experiences. Look up "tabula rasa" (blank slate) and then take your imagination and your hyperbole to a more - er - Christian site. herm

#79 | Posted by herm at 2009-05-27 03:03 PM

The rest of your post is full of straw men. I forgot that you are nearly incapable of constructing an argument without one. I'm not arguing from a Christian standpoint; I specifically said I'm interested in a non-religious discussion. Also, no one is suggesting that zygotes or embryos have thoughts or memories.

"a fetus may be startled by a loud noise, but stops responding once the noise has been repeated."

The same thing can be programmed into robots. It is NOT "life." And the notion that fetuses think - "hey, maybe ontogeny does recapitulate phylogeny" - or experience memories of the gold old days deserves no response from me. herm

The same thing can be programmed into robots

A fetus isn't a robot.

or experience memories of the gold old days deserves no response from me

Who remembers their 4th day of being alive? Brain development is still occurring.

The same thing can be programmed into robots. It is NOT "life." And the notion that fetuses think - "hey, maybe ontogeny does recapitulate phylogeny" - or experience memories of the gold old days deserves no response from me.

#83 | Posted by herm at 2009-05-27 03:19 PM

"I wouldn't wish a herm-post on anyone." Speaking of lacking substance, this sounds more like El Cid and his (?) rabid ilk than LorD. Are you totally out of ammo, lordie? herm

Considering that 93% of abortions are for convenience of the women, if the pollster shared this fact with people before taking the poll, my guess is the results would be quite different.

Speaking of lacking substance, this sounds more like El Cid and his (?) rabid ilk than LorD. Are you totally out of ammo, lordie? herm

#86 | Posted by herm at 2009-05-27 03:56 PM

I'd still be interested in reading whatever articles or studies you have to back up your claims, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Fetuses can survive when born premature, even at 24 weeks. I think you gotta limit abortion to 1st trimester even at full pro-choice.

"I'd still be interested in reading whatever articles or studies back your claims..."

I suppose I've been knocking my head against the wall against you fetal rights folks for so long that I've forgotten some fine points, but I do wonder to what claims you refer. You offer some health magazine, I think. I speak mostly from information that come from years pushing this cause. I doubt that I can offer you a "link" ... herm

I suppose I've been knocking my head against the wall against you fetal rights folks for so long that I've forgotten some fine points, but I do wonder to what claims you refer.

#90 | Posted by herm at 2009-05-27 04:44 PM

You offer some health magazine, I think.

#90 | Posted by herm at 2009-05-27 04:44 PM

I doubt that I can offer you a "link" ... herm

#90 | Posted by herm at 2009-05-27 04:44 PM

#90 | Posted by herm at 2009-05-27 04:44 PM | Reply | Flag: Cause I'm talking out my butt

From 2003:

Dr. Barbara Kisilevsky, a Queen's University professor of nursing along with a team of psychologists at Queen's and obstetricians in Hangzhou, China, found that fetuses are capable of learning in the womb and can remember and recognize their mother's voice before they are even born.

"Fetuses are capable of learning in the womb" and even sperm recoil when poked by a needle. I suppose the day's fetal rightist will label that a "claim" or a "fallacy" - but it does give credence to giving sperm and ova the vote. herm

I suppose the day's fetal rightist will label that a "claim" or a "fallacy" - but it does give credence to giving sperm and ova the vote. herm

Keep it up Herm. Making up silly assertions as if Live or Die or Pirate or WI Hunter or myself have made unreasonable arguments on this issue.

If you don't like the FACT that 93% of abortions are out of convenience then too bad.

Unless you think that isn't true.......

LOL

This post will be gone shortly since Herm and others all shot their ammo into their foot

"If you don't like the FACT that 93% of abortions are out of convenience then too bad. Unless you think that isn't true....... "

MORE bullshit from the fetal rights crowd. No, I don't think that's true, Eb, and I don't think you have a link. But maybe your Randall Terry defines "inconvenience" as not having the wherewithal to raise another kid.

Lotsa ammo left, W. herm

even sperm recoil when poked by a needle

So you're comparing recoil when poked by a needle with voice recognition?

Does this quote sound familiar?

but attributing "brain function, memory, senses, awareness" to the latter [fetus] displays a remarkable disconnect from reality

I'll give you a hint. It's post #76.

Give it up, buccaneer. You suggest the fetus recognizes a voice and says to itself "that's mama," or "that's Rush, bloviating again." Cap'n Kidd, you just cannot make an embryo into a full-fledged little Repub waiting to get out and vote no matter how hard you try. herm

You suggest the fetus recognizes a voice and says to itself "that's mama," or "that's Rush, bloviating again." Cap'n Kidd, you just cannot make an embryo into a full-fledged little Repub waiting to get out and vote no matter how hard you try

----

For about the umpteenth time on this site, I'm not a Republican.

The article I linked said the fetus recognizes it's mother's voice. You can believe it or not.

Here's another one:

Not only can fetuses hear outside noises, they sometimes remember what they've heard. One study found that infants who repeatedly heard a soap opera theme song in the womb reacted positively when they heard that same music after birth.

It is well known that unborn babies can recognize their mothers' voices and distinguish music from noise.

MORE bullshit from the fetal rights crowd.

More assignment of position that doesn't exist.

Keep it up herm......good job.

But maybe your Randall Terry defines "inconvenience" as not having the wherewithal to raise another kid.

I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if "wherewithal" is included.

Doesn't matter. If you haven't the means or mental capacity to raise a child then you shouldn't be engaging in the activity that creates this problem. I know you fail to understand that.

I suppose you would excuse a drunk driver for crashing into your car and killing someone wouldn't you?

LOL

you just cannot make an embryo into a full-fledged little Repub waiting to get out and vote no matter how hard you try. herm

YOu cannot dimiss the horrific act of an abortion by minimizing the life that is being killed either.

Go ahead and call me a "pro fetal rights" person again idiot.

Doesn't matter. If you haven't the means or mental capacity to raise a child then you shouldn't be engaging in the activity that creates this problem. I know you fail to understand that.

I suppose you would excuse a drunk driver for crashing into your car and killing someone wouldn't you?

Really bad Strawman Eb..

Really bad Strawman Eb..

Someone who has sex knowing that a pregnancy can occur feels the only way out (because their circumstances are so dire) is an abortion because is it is the only real remedy.......a very tragic ending.

That is being compared to a drunk driver who gets into a car and drives (this is like the person who is having sex in a very irresponsible manner) and a tragic ending results.

Both are irresponsible selfish acts that have tragic endings.

I almost hate to dignify the immortal Eberly by revisiting this quote, but: "If you haven't the means or mental capacity to raise a child then you shouldn't be engaging in the activity that creates this problem. I know you fail to understand that."

Let Eb tell us with a straight face that doesn't say that poor people should not - er - make love.

"Go ahead and call me a 'pro fetal rights' person again idiot."

Okay. You're a pro-fetal rights person again idiot. herm

And how many support killing the baby coming down the birth canal at 7 to 9 months?

How about 3-9 months?

Herm--you have the sad life of escorting women into an abortion clinic to kill their unborn child.

-------

"fetus recognizes it's mother's voice"

They do and the Daddy's voice too.

Give it up, buccaneer. You suggest the fetus recognizes a voice and says to itself "that's mama," or "that's Rush, bloviating again." Cap'n Kidd, you just cannot make an embryo into a full-fledged little Repub waiting to get out and vote no matter how hard you try. herm

#99 | Posted by herm at 2009-05-27 09:57 PM

I know there are better representatives of his cause. You know, people who argue with facts backed up by research. But Herm's not doing them any favors.

Let Eb tell us with a straight face that doesn't say that poor people should not - er - make love.

With a completely straight face I will tell you that NO they shouldn't.

Do you think they should drive drunk?
Do you think they should abuse drugs/alcohol?

It all falls into the category of doing things they aren't remotely responsible for the consequences.

Okay. You're a pro-fetal rights person again idiot. herm

You might as well call me a dirty nigger.

Good grief. You just don't like it that people judge the act of abortion to be wrong regardless of how they feel about the law.

Sounds like we got us a target rich environment!

Rightwing Domestic Terrorists