Opinion

A grand bargain to save the planet and call truce in the abortion war

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., third from right, speaks to reporters as she walks out of the Senate Chamber following two failed votes on ending the partial government shutdown on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Jan. 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

(RNS) — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the face of the new freshman class in the House (and of the new direction of a significant younger segment of the Democratic Party) is very good at getting in the news cycle. Quite an accomplishment given the competition in the age of Trump.

Take her recent appearance on Steven Colbert’s show, in which she provocatively insisted that the “world is going to end in 12 years” because of climate change — shorthand for an existential threat that will lead to mass death of the vulnerable who don’t have the resources to adapt to a changing climate.

This looming catastrophe has compelled Ocasio-Cortez, in part because of the demands of her serious Catholic faith, to act dramatically. She is leading the charge for what is being called a “Green New Deal.” According to reporting from Vox, though the details “remain to be worked out,” she is proposing a “massive program of investments in clean-energy jobs and infrastructure, meant to transform not just the energy sector, but the entire economy.” And many Democrats are following her lead.

But the only way Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal gets done is either if Republicans currently in power in the Senate get on board or Democrats somehow manage to win the presidency and a 60-vote majority in the Senate. (A Democratic president could also declare a state of emergency, I suppose, and do it by executive order, but our republic might not survive such a decision — especially after Democrats rightly criticized Trump for proposing this strategy for building a border wall.)

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., speaks during the Women’s March Alliance, on Jan. 19, 2019, in New York. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

Given that Democrats need to make up a whopping 12 seats, the “take the Senate” scenario isn’t likely. Filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate are incredibly rare, and Democrats already find themselves at a structural disadvantage.

That leaves option one. With only 12 years left, it’s time for a grand bargain to save the planet. But what could Democrats give Republicans that is weighty enough?

Legal protections for prenatal children. Though Republican leadership is bad at making abortion a priority, it is at the heart of the GOP grassroots — or what is left of the Republican Party. Millions held their nose and voted for Trump primarily because they wanted pro-life judges on the Supreme Court.

The pro-life movement continues to be the most effective Republican “get out the vote” machine, but activists are constantly and rightly frustrated the party doesn’t make them a priority. “Why is all the emphasis on the border?” asked Live Action’s Lila Rose at this year’s March for Life. “We should build a wall between taxpayer funds and the biggest abortion company that’s killing 900 children a day.”

So here’s a proposal: Democrats get a Green New Deal in exchange for a law that mirrors Portugal’s abortion policy. Under a law passed in 2007, Portugal bans the procedure after 10 weeks (with significant exceptions) and requires a three-day waiting period.

Anti-abortion activists march toward the U.S. Supreme Court during the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 18, 2019. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

This law has not produced the deaths that abortion activists warned us about. Indeed, Portugal has significantly better maternal mortality rates than the United States.

Democrats may balk at this proposal, but the current pro-life majority of the Supreme Court could well create law that is even more restrictive — for which they would get nothing. Plus, it would take the political wind out of pro-life sails for years, as most Americans would think that they got more than enough. It may even be the beginning of the end of the abortion wars, which have disproportionately helped the GOP.

Republicans (though many are quite eco-friendly) could also balk. But there is almost no legislative chance for a dramatic change to U.S. abortion policy without some kind of grand bargain. My proposal would test just how important pro-life priorities are for GOP leadership. Do they care more about neoliberal economics or about justice under law for prenatal children?

It would also test just how strongly Democrats believe that climate change is on the verge of causing catastrophe. If the lives of millions hang in the balance, adopting Portugal’s abortion policy ought to be an easy decision. Does Democratic leadership really believe in an existential threat from climate change or is a 10-week limit on abortion the real end of the world for them?

And finally, for a Catholic like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, getting behind this proposal would be a wonderful reflection of the fullness of her faith. It would signal an end to stale, binary political categories and assumptions of the 1970s and point toward a genuinely creative and hopeful political future.

Charles C. Camosy is on the board of Democrats for Life and author of the forthcoming book Resisting Throwaway Culture.

The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily represent those of Religion News Service.

About the author

Charles C. Camosy

Charlie Camosy, though a native of very rural Wisconsin, has spent more than the last decade as a professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University. He is the author of five books, including, most recently, "Resisting Throwaway Culture." He is the father of four children, three of whom were adopted from Philippines.

324 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Abortion is not the primary cause of conservative religious people voting for Trumpism. They are just as adamant, if not more so, about blocking any obligation for them to respect the rights of LGBT people, about blocking what they see as militant feminism on other matters that are not abortion, about blocking any demographic takeover of government by a coalition of black and brown people, about getting public financial and judicial support for advertisement and perpetuation of their total-Bible doctrines, and for that matter, about never allowing scientific or environmental arguments to get in the way of the world views they preach. So, if anyone thinks an abortion compromise will bring Evangelical Church to sense and cooperation on everything else, such person is dreaming out of reality. It’s actual plan is to run over anybody like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to not even admit she is a person with whom there is any reason to discuss “bargains”—–let alone to actually make any bargains with her or with anyone like her.

  • I was trying to think of the proper reply to camosy’s opinion, because I knew with just about certainty that if camosy made an argument, there would be something in it smart-but-not-quite-smart-enough. you hit the nail on the head.
    The compromise that is appropriate is religious freedom: you conservative religionists stop trying force your purely theological and theo-politcal concerns on the lives of people who don’t share them, and keep it within your own homes and your own churches and out of the civil laws that govern all of us, and we’ll ignore you.

  • First, this new wave Catholic Democrat is theologically challenged as Catholics and other Christians are doubting the foundation of their religion and in 12 years, said religions will be replaced by secular morality.

    Second, the move to green energy is well on its way without the new darling of the left. To wit, from today’s CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/business/solar-wind-coal-power-renewable-energy/index.html

    “Solar and wind are booming, while coal keeps shrinking.”

  • No compromise is possible nor desired with people who are willing to lie so readily and demonize others as “baby killers”.

    Fetus worshipers will not stop at anything less than a total ban in abortion. So no need to give them anything. They don’t seek compromise so neither should the people who oppose their immoral stance.

    The author points out to one thing fetus worship has been useful to mobilize votes. Generally for other parts of the conservative agendas such as plundering public resources to benefit the wealthy, attack the economic interests of working people and undermine democratic institutions. Conservative voters have let themselves get grifted in the promise of reducing women to chattel property if the state.

    Camosy’s point, give in on abortion or we will wreck the rest of the country out of spite.

  • And let us heq4 your plans for the world? Let’s see if you can do a better sell with whatever your agenda is.

    What sank Hillary was the Catholic vote. The last straw for many of them had litte to do with what you have just spelled out.
    it was not respecting the rights of nuns, to opt out of birth control purchases offered by Obamacare. Because he or whomever would not bend on that matter, the Dems lost the election.

    Remember, people voted against, a REACTION to not be listened to.

  • I am sure you must know the story of ex-slaver John Newton who wrote “Amazing Grace”. He was haunted with the “ghosts”, the memories, of those he enslaved for years. If you would ever dare to be a participant-observer, like a sociologist, at a March for Life in Washington, you’d soon learn that many are there out of the pain they carry in their memories..day after day and night after night. I have a relative who has been “sleep walking” like Lady Macbeth about 40 years now for an abortion she had at 16. Her screaming almost destroyed our family. It is not mean or demonization for one who has “been there” to say, “Be forewarned.” We want informed consent before surgery about potential outcomes that are negative.
    What I am saying, out of love, is not about fetus worship.

  • Ridiculous !! The issues are completely unrelated.

    Climate change action will occur when corporations finally decide action is in their interest.

    Doesn’t the author know that despite any laws…abortions will continue no matter what, illegally maybe, but no law will stop them.

  • Your last sentence is true to quite an extent. A lot of people voted AGAINST Hillary, and stuck themselves and the rest of us with a president who is now on record with over 7,000 lies to the American people. If you are a Catholic and are proud of ruining our country in this manner, please brag about it to someone else other than me. It’s offensive to begin with and a dubious claim anyway. See https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/04/06/new-data-suggest-clinton-not-trump

    As for nuns and birth control, nuns are celibate and the issue of birth control for other people who are not nuns is absolutely none of their business. THEY are not at risk of being “the old woman who lived in a shoe and had so many children she didn’t know what to do”. Everyone else, including employees in Catholic places, have real-world concerns that the nuns do not.

  • The March for Life is an astroturf affair of people advocating turning women into chattel property of the state. Organized to make it easier to get people to vote against their economic interests.
    People whose goal involves the immoral interjection into the lives and personal decisions of others.

    No doubt your relative wasn’t helped very much by a family who treated her as a “baby killer” or cajoled her into guilt over her action.

    “What I am saying, out of love, is not about fetus worship.”

    There is no love where there is no respect for people and their lives. Your “concern for the unborn” generally translates into utter indifference or outright hostility to the lives of women and their person. It is merely arrogance and empty self-righteousness.

  • “It was not respecting the rights of nuns, to opt out of birth control purchases offered by Obamacare.”

    The nuns were full of crap and were used as a tool against employee rights. Signing a paper to let employees make their own choice and “pay for their contraception”* was too much for them. They had to be control freaks and foreclose that option to them. This is why they lost their appeal and the case got remanded back down to the lower court. Where they lost.

    *No employer “pays for contraception”. They pay for insurance companies to provide services. Insurance companies have minimum coverage standards set by government regulation. Insurance companies give out contraception for free when possible, on their own accord. It is a net benefit for them because the costs of contraception are cheaper than costs of covering children.

  • LEgal protections for “prenatal children” means taking away legal protections from the WOMAN! I notice “prolifers” almost never recommend the things that really reduce the abortion rate. Easy access to free/low cost birth control, medically accurate sex education, higher minimum wages, paid family leave, universal health care and child care help.

  • “Abortion is not the primary cause of conservative religious people voting for Trumpism.”

    That is a bad start.

  • Slight correction:

    “you conservative religionists stop trying force your purely theological and theo-politcal concerns”

    should read:

    “you b-stards I disagree with stop trying to participate in the democratic process”.

  • The Obama Administration attacks on participation of those with religious beliefs in the public square did not enhance his anointed successor’s chances.

    Her calling them names sealed her fate.

  • “As for nuns and birth control, nuns are celibate and the issue of birth
    control for other people who are not nuns is absolutely none of their
    business.”

    That may be the best example of fuzzy illogic based on imaginary “facts” I’ve read so far in 2019.

    The issue which led to the Supreme Court compelling the government to supplement its brief, whereupon it had to admit the Obama Administration had concocted its case, was the attempt to FORCE the sisters to participate in providing birth control.

  • The sisters (not nuns) were so full of crap that after the government ‘fessed up that it had fabricated the need for the sisters to anything at all, the Supreme Court sent them packing.

    The “They had to be control freaks and foreclose that option to them.”

    should read:

    “They had to be annoying and insist on their rights under law.”

    and “Where they lost.”

    should read:

    “Where they won.”

    It amazes me that you continue to state a fabricated account of Zubik et al v. Burwell that does not in any way comport with the actual case and outcomes.

  • Legal protections for the unborn means correcting an error perpetrated by Harry Andrew Blackmun, who is probably experiencing being repeatedly aborted in H-ll, which made valuing some lives over others a “basic human right”.

  • Vlad: hey Donnie you got this dog runt Mark Connelly doing great work for my Research Agency but back in Siberia you need train him not eat so much yellow snow yes. He sniffs butts like yours too much too.

    Donald TRump: Pootie baby I’m so scared. Big mean Pelosi is terrifying me and I had to cave big time on shutdown. And now strong Mueller got stoner Roger locked up too and maybe I’m coming into orange jumpsuit next and never get wall named after me. What I do? This is too much for my ego. Can I come to Moscow and hide under your penthouse?

  • Vlad: hey Donnie you got this dog Mark Connelly doing great work for my Research Agency but back in Siberia you need train him not eat so much yellow snow yes.

    Donald TRump: Pootie baby I’m so scared. Big mean Pelosi is terrifying me and I had to cave big time on shutdown. And now strong Mueller got Roger Stoner locked up too and maybe I’m coming into orange jumpsuit next and never get wall named after me. What I do? This is too much for my ego. Can I come to Moscow and hide under your penthouse?

  • Vlad: hey Donnie you got this dog runt Mark Connelly doing great work for my Research Agency but back in Siberia you need train him not eat so much yellow snow yes. He licks butts also so much that he is full of crap.

    Donald TRump: Pootie baby I’m so scared. Big mean Pelosi is terrifying me and I had to cave big time on shutdown. And now strong Mueller got Roger Stoner locked up too and maybe I’m coming into orange jumpsuit next and never get wall named after me. What I do? This is too much for my ego. Can I come to Moscow and hide under your penthouse?

  • Vlad: hey Donnie you got this dog runt Mark Connelly doing great work for my Research Agency but back in Siberia you need train him not eat so much yellow snow yes. He licks butts also so much that he is full of crap. He learn that so well from you.

    Donald TRump: Pootie baby I’m so scared. Big mean Pelosi is terrifying me and I had to cave big time on shutdown. And now strong Mueller got Roger Stoner locked up too and maybe I’m coming into orange jumpsuit next and never get wall named after me. What I do? This is too much for my ego. Can I come to Moscow and hide under your penthouse?

  • Vlad: hey Donnie you got this dog runt Mark Connelly doing great work for my Research Agency but back in Siberia you need train him not eat so much yellow snow yes. He licks butts also so much that he is full of crap like you and Kushner.

    Donald TRump: Pootie baby I’m so scared. Big mean Pelosi is terrifying me and I had to cave big time on shutdown. And now strong Mueller got Roger Stoner locked up too and maybe I’m coming into orange jumpsuit next and never get wall named after me. What I do? This is too much for my ego. Can I come to Moscow and hide under your penthouse?

  • The inconvenient truth with which you must deal is that all citizens of this nation have every right under the COTUS to participate in the political process ever how it does or does not please any other citizen of the body politic. Of course a dynamic interpretation of the COTUS might possibly allow the political left to muzzle Conservatives and relegate them to a social/political ghetto. Happily recent appointments to the federal judiciary have greatly served to restore balance to the judicial process that had previously be far to weighted to the left. Especially this has been so in appointment to the SCOTUS. When once the left was pleased to use the courts as a extra-Constitutional method of advancing their social/political agenda without having to go through the legislative process as required by the COTUS, now the left is faced with having to actually get citizens, i.e., voters to support what they seek to advance. They are finding that a bit of a higher hill to climb than when they once only had to find a friendly appellate court to give them access to a left inclined SCOTUS.

  • You know I would get on the environmental wagon if it wasn’t such a money grab for those of us who are barely getting by as it is. Instead, the whole environmental movement is about penalizing people for living, pushing laws that do NOTHING for the environment and are so short sighted it’s dumbfounding. I also do not support any and all of those behavior modification laws/taxes that not only discriminate against working and poor people ( I guess the wealthy’s behavior does not need to change) but actually make people poor while the rich are immune.

    As far as AOC, she’s nothing more than a radical who wants to not only make a name for herself, but does not have the understanding or intelligence to fully think out the repercussions of her so called “new deal”. Some people want to give the young more influence, but as we can see how social media has exploded into the complete nonsense it is, and by the way has fueled social unrest and division, they have proven to be irresponsible and at times colossally idiotic.

  • Planned Parenthood wants to provide full and complete information AND choices to women AND access to health care and birth control that is right for them.

    IF the “March for Life” folks really cared about LIFE they would support Planned Parenthood and be pro-choice!

    As to the member of your family. Why didn’t you get her psychiatric help so should could deal with her abortion rather than dwell on it? It sounds as though you failed her.

  • “With only 12 years left, it’s time for a grand bargain to save the planet.”

    Charles, I love your Solomonic idea. It’s time for both parties to put up or shut up. Is global warming really going to kill us in 12 years? Is abortion really the defining moral atrocity of our time? Well then. Make a deal.

    I doubt (but wish) such a deal would be consummated. And I doubt it would come from any but the pro-life Democrats and Republicans, because I suspect that, like the thieving mother in 1 Kings 3, the pro-abortion side wants the whole live baby or wants it dead. But the deal would go far to clarify the situation, and I fervently want it proposed.

    Thanks for being a voice for our children and our world, Charles. God bless you.

  • The Health of our Planet should NOT be pitted against Women’s Health. They are separate issues, not connected in any way. You don’t sacrifice one for the other. Or if you do you are a seriously flawed human being.

  • I agree with you 100% that every citizen has the right to participate in the political process. Where I don’t agree, and with the constitution apparently doesn’t agree is that you have the right to force your purely theological concerns on people who don’t share of them. That’s what they know establishment clause of the Constitution means: the government will not force those a purely theological concerns on others.

  • Only the Father knows when the end of the earth will be.
    “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away”
    36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of [f]heaven, but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.”

  • What they refuse to understand…..for His reason, and His reasons alone, Christ put Trump in power, so let’s wait and see what He had in mind

  • ” I notice “prolifers” almost never recommend the things that really reduce the abortion rate”
    Here, let me provide you with a word used by “pro-lifers” that no one has taught you. I’ll even provide a definition for it to help you:
    abstinence: the practice of abstaining oneself from something – typically alcohol or sex”
    There you go – fool proof means of not getting pregnant

  • I’m sorry that you believe that the environment is some sort of popularity bandwagon. It’s not a money grab for anybody. It’s about preserving the life that we have. Pollution and overpopulation— the two are inextricably linked— are killing us and our planet. Air pollution in cities means increases in Lung disease. Too many people means that the oceans are overfished, fresh water is disappearing. fracking in Oklahoma is producing earthquakes. There is an island of garbage the size of Texas in the middle of the Pacific ocean. The list goes on and on and on.

  • The “pro-life” movement is actually an “anti-sex” movement. It is a backdoor way to interfere with people’s personal sex lives. They really don’t care about babies. What really gets them mad is that people are having “sex without consequences” as Rick Santorum would put it. According to the Catholics every time you have sex it should be with the expectation that you impregnate a woman. Pleasure has no part in it! This comes to us from Catholic priests who don’t have sex – at least not with adults and not with females. If you are really AGAINST abortion then you should be FOR condoms at the very least.

  • Poppycock!

    Pew Research report as of October 2018: “As of 2018, public support for legal abortion remains as high as it has been in two decades of polling. Currently, 58% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% say it should be illegal in all or most cases..”

    Making abortion illegal may bring out a big number of those who focus on that issue – lots of that 37%. But there is a majority of people in this country who absolutely do not support making abortion illegal. Try it and you will have a huge well deserved backlash.

    The only steps that can reasonably be taken with respect to limiting abortion are:
    First, assuring women have access to effective contraceptives. The most effective tool to reducing the number of abortions is to assure access to contraceptives. And the Catholic Church, Catholic bishops, and religious zealots want to be able to control not just themselves but to control what those who work for them can do.

    Second, compromises that keep abortion legal in the early months of pregnancy and address issues that come up later in pregnancy are the only kinds of limits that would be acceptable in this country. This is what has been done in many European countries, along with assuring women have basic income needs met and universal health care. If you want to force a woman to go through a pregnancy then be prepared to pay for it. Government pays for health care, birthing costs, and a living supplement while a woman is pregnant and until she can work after a birth.

    Issues that need to be addressed are assuring that women have access to abortion when a pregnancy endangers her life or her health. She decides, based on what her doctors advise her. NO BISHOPS OPINIONS ALLOWED. We also need to develop guidelines on what constitutes a fetal defect which will make a forced late term delivery allowable.

    Finally, the issue of the damage done due to failure to address climate change is an issue that is as important – if not more important – than the issue of abortion. We are endangering the ability for humanity to exist. We are killing people by despoiling their rivers, by clear cutting their forests, by poisoning their land with mine tailing behind dams that burst. We poison the air. We trash the oceans. THIS is a whole issue that needs to be dealt with if we never deal with the small (and shrinking) percentage of women who have abortions.

    Camosy, this will never work and any attempt to even try to build this kind of trade-off will be ripped to shreds.

  • So lets take the garbage patch in the Pacific. Is it disastrous? Yes. Does it do real harm? Yes. Does something need to be done about it? Yes. Do we need to do something to make sure it does not happen again once it is cleaned up? Yes. Am I concerned? Yes.

    Now, after we all agree that the garbage patch, the size of Texas, is bad and does real harm to the environment, what do we do? Do we find out how its getting there? I have yet to hear any information as to why its there in the first place. What do I hear? Plastic is destroying the environment, so we must ban straws, plastic bags, it is what is killing the environment. There is nothing addressing the overt use of plastic in packaging which does not have a direct effect in daily living. What is negated in the bans of plastic straws and plastic bags is that there is a reason they are even around. To most of the anti-straw people all they see is a sea turtle with a straw stuck in its mouth and now straws are evil. They do not go further in their thoughts to acknowledge that straws that seem like a luxury are necessary for many people who are incapable of lifting a container and drinking. They need straws in order to drink or take in any other liquid. There are many drinks that are incapable to be drunk without a straw, thick drinks, drinks with ice, as well as situations where unless you are still and can take a drink without fear of spilling it. Now there are paper straws which would seem to solve the problem, but as we know from the past when paper straws were used exclusively, they become weakened and are rendered useless after a short period of time. Now, why are’nt the anti-straw people going to the straw industry as well as the recycling industry and coming up with something that lasts for the period of use needed, and yet either decomposes properly or is recyclable?

    Then look at the plastic bag bans happening around the country. Again people see that some are not disposed of properly and are found littering in trees, waterways, oceans, and again the sea turtle, and they think lets ban them. Well what was the reason they came about any way? Were we not told back in the late 80’s/early 90’s that paper products were contributing to deforestation? That the over use of paper was assisting in creating the hole in the ozone layer? So plastic bags came about. We all started using them not only for groceries, but for many other uses in the home, office, car. Now we can’t recycle them as with other plastics and they are being banned. Just as with the straws, they do not go further in their thought process and see how it effects people. Unless you want to buy the expensive bags with handles, which become dirty and infected with bacteria and mold, one gets to use a paper bag which I thought was contributing to deforestation, that do not come with handles. So after shopping one say has more than two bags, how are people carrying those bags if they do not have a car and a few steps into their homes? Do the anti-plastic bag people think about those who take public transportation, or those who must walk and carry their bags home, or how many flights of stairs they need to carry their bags up? You can carry at least 6 plastic bags in one trip but now that is turned into three trips. If the anti-baggers also knew the many other uses these bags are used for too, they will realize that people need to buy plastic bags anyway to line waste baskets, for cleaning up litter boxes, for anything needed for hygiene, storage, etc.

    Do they again go to the source and like the straws try to make bags that are more friendly, but still do the job? No, they force people with their superficial notions of doing good. Has anyone addressed the recycling industry and how that can be expanded to include more items? Then of course there is the possibility that the recycling industry is not doing their jobs either and in order to be profitable are not recycling everything that could be.

    What new feel good items will be deemed hazardous to the environment next and what next are we going to be forced to pay for to make it happen. When in reality, this is nothing more than feel good laws that will have zero impact in the long run because they, the environmentalist, will see nothing much has changed because they need to go to the sources rather than the users.

    It is those like AOC who just want to ramrod their views into laws which will make millions more poorer and society more surly. It is the wealthy that does not need to abide by these laws either because not only do they have the money to just pay up, but do more damage themselves. When LA had that water ban in effect a year or two ago it was getting to the point where people could not shower daily. The masses were told they could be fined for using over their allotment. The wealthy however, were able to keep on watering their lawns and filling their pools, and bathing as they pleased because they could afford any monetary hit. That is why those behavior modification laws are discriminatory towards the working and poor. That is why I would like to support environmental issues, but in their current incarnation I can not. The so called enlightened, the so called “woke” people, really are not but they have neither the will or humility, or intelligence to look at important issues fully.

  • Picking plastic vs. paper.
    Paper bags are made from renewable resources. in theory, they ought to be made all from recycled paper, as should packing boxes and so forth. Paper bags can decompose, and rather quickly, making them suitable for compost.
    Plastic bags are made from ever decreasing oil resources. They don’t decompose, and cannot often be recycled. So, why use them? You can go to a dollar store and save 70% on plastic bags for lining trash, etc.
    Picking water.
    We recycle our water as much as we can. Rich people should be under the same restrictions as poor people. But poorer people waste water, too. Last week, at my gym, which is definitely not upscale, I guy came in and turned on the shower and left. He didn’t want to wait 15 seconds for the water to get hot. I got out of the shower– I try to limit my showers to two or three minutes– saw the water was running, and turned it off. I went into the locker room, went back into the showers, and turned the water on– AGAIN.

  • I don’t think Mr. Camosy is paying attention. He may favor a Faustian bargain in which women’s rights are put to use as a political football, but Ms. Ocasio-Cortez seems unlikely to agree, at least on the proposal he puts forward here. From her campaign website:

    Reproductive freedom is especially essential for all individuals of marginalized genders, including cisgender women and trans people. Alexandria does not accept any federal, state or local rollbacks, cuts or restrictions on the ability of individuals to access quality reproductive healthcare services, birth control, HIV/AIDS care and prevention, or medically accurate sexuality education. This means open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion, birth control, and family planning services, as well as access to adequate, affordable pre- and post-natal care, for all people, regardless of income, location or education. [Emphasis added]

    Then again, pragmatism or realpolitik may push the candidate to compromise her stated principles. I don’t put anything past politicians. Nevertheless, he seems rather flippant to even make a such a proposal given the stakes.

  • You come to Mother Russia next and get good job with Research Academy posting propaganda from there too.

  • “Is global warming really going to kill us in 12 years? Is abortion
    really the defining moral atrocity of our time? Well then. Make a
    deal.”

    The correct conclusion is “Well then, they’re not moral equivalents.”

    Of course the other problem is one nearly a complete fiction, and the other is government-created.

  • Well, it’s an “anti-sex” movement in the sense that if you’re irresponsible git who wants to take out your lack of self-control and humping while drunk on defenseless prenatal life, you’ll get a recommendation that you keep your knees together.

    As to the rest of your anti-Catholic diatribe, bigots can’t be choosers.

  • LOL no fatty I am not your hon and you are not rational. DonnieBoy Orangeman TRump is my hon and I am his. You are just a peon but we make use you good in Academy in Russia soon.

  • I cannot imagine anyone thinking Ms. Ocasio-Cortez would engage in any sort of pragmatic engagement with those who disagree with her, anymore than Nancy Pelosi will get Vulcan mind meld and suddenly knock off the sloganeering.

  • “Where I don’t agree, and with the constitution apparently doesn’t agree
    is that you have the right to force your purely theological concerns on
    people who don’t share of them.”

    Of course you’re not competent, nor is the government, to determine what is a purely theological concern. So, unless it establishes a religion – e.g., makes you attend or tithe for the State Church – you are S.O.L..

    You just do not like the democratic process, no more, no less.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Planned Parenthood wants to feed at the government trough and perform abortions, sometimes on underage girls without telling their parent or guardians.

    If they make a few bucks selling fetal body parts, that’s all the better.

    Since the “March for Life” folks really care about LIFE, which you cannot have if your aborted, they cut a deal with Planned Parenthood or become pro-abortion like yourself.

    What psychiatric help would relieve the pain of knowing you made an immoral choice?

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark Connelly is a complete fiction but the person is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes and insult females too like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Which is advocating doing nothing at all and ignoring the situation. More immoral garbage and hostility to people from fetus worshipers.

  • You just proved my point. Is that why priests molest boys? They can’t get them pregnant? They keep trying, though. Nice try, Father.

  • Poppycock!

    What the Pew Research report as of October 2018 did not mention is that most Americans believe abortion ends a human life, only support it in the “hard cases” like rape and incest, and oppose using abortion as backup birth control.

    In any case, polls do NOT substitute for moral analysis.

    The most effective step that can be taken with respect to limiting abortion is amending the Constitution to restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to rights enumerated in the Constitution, excluding invented “rights” from the “penumbra”, and restoring the states’ right to control abortion, marriage, and so on.

    Better the people in California vote their own way to hell than the Gang of Nine drag the nation as a whole into these hare-brained immoral schemes.

    And of course you oppose the Catholic Church, Catholic bishops, and orthodox Christians (which you call “religious zealots”) because they reject your situation ethics and specious arguments, e.g,: “NO BISHOPS OPINIONS ALLOWED”.

    Of course all of these people you dislike are citizens, entitled to express their opinions, to act on their religious faiths, and influence legislation in the public square.

  • ‘The correct conclusion is “Well then, they’re not moral equivalents.”‘

    We agree on the big picture, Mark, but I think you’re missing Camosy’s point: Of course they’re not moral equivalents. The proposal is a political and moral wedge.

    I am pro-environment because I am pro-human. You and I suspect, however, that many who push the environmental issue profit from the resulting hysteria and have dubious or at least conflicting motivations. And I think many Republicans simply want to harness pro-life voters’ passion while maintaining the status quo.

    Camosy’s wedge would powerfully reveal each side’s true priorities and move the debate forward.

  • No, I am familiar with Camosy and his hare-brained schemes.

    One gains a sense of his detachment from reality when one notes he is ” on the board of Democrats for Life”.

    Otherwise one might think that Camosy is writing something along the lines of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal For preventing the Children of Poor People From being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For making them Beneficial to the Publick” suggesting that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies.

    Waiting for the Republicans in Congress is like waiting for hell to freeze over.

    The states can propose a constitutional convention, and that is where the change has to come from.

  • You proved my point with “Is that why priests molest boys? They can’t get them pregnant? They keep trying, though. Nice try, Father.”, my troglodyte anti-Catholic little correspondent.

  • Knowing my correspondent and her many thousands of attacks on prenatal life, commonsense, and facts over the years, I think it was apt and appropriate.

    Sweet reason is for the reasonable.

  • “Waiting for the Republicans in Congress is like waiting for hell to freeze over.”

    Which is exactly the point. And despite Camosy’s other ideas, dubious or not, this is a good one. Camosy’s proposal would force the issue and move the debate forward.

    He should be affirmed for this idea and opposed for any “hare-brained” ones.


    “Stand with anyone that is right; stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.” – A. Lincoln

  • “…one might think that Camosy is writing something along the lines of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal…”

    I agree. But we apparently disagree on the import of “A Modest Proposal”, whose ruthless satire is a powerful weapon against abortion and its intellectual pretensions.

  • “The states can propose a constitutional convention, and that is where the change has to come from.”

    Perhaps. But we would do well to consider the lesson of the 18th Amendment. Not that it was ill-conceived (I think it had an excellent basis), but that an amendment will not settle the issue.

  • There is no doubt at all that the Red states, given an end to interference by the appointed unelected Federal judiciary, will rein in both abortion and “same sex marriage”.

    Both the relevant cases, Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, involved the fabrication of a new “right”, the usurpation of states’ rights, in opinions written by some of the zanier members of the SCOTUS.

    The 18th Amendment overrode the will of the people and the rights of the states.

  • “The 18th Amendment overrode the will of the people and the rights of the states.”

    Despite its good intentions, it seems so. Which explains my caution about a pro-life amendment. I would agree with it but think much more work remains to be done.

  • True, and a rod for the backs of fools. But still: you can’t *really* think the insult will bring anyone to our side–and it may drive some away.

  • The NE clause applies to elected service. It is irrelevant to a discussion of political participation by a legal citizen or coordinated with other citizens ala political party, etc. It is not unconstitutional for those hostile to the tenets of Christian faith to act to restrict/marginalize or make of no consequence the application of those tenets to items of communal concern. It is not unconstitutional for those who hold to various tenets of Christian faith to act so as to apply, focus, inform, guide, direct items of communal concern. The objections posed by persons of faith are to the pagan secularists of no consequence. There is no reason to expect that the particular concerns of pagan secularists will be given deference by persons of faith. The market place of ideas is a chaos … not a closed system where only what one particular group approves is allowed for discussion, etc. Vox populi!

  • “They really don’t care about babies.”

    RIght. You know who does care about babies? Planned Parenthood, who will lovingly mutilate them–inside their own mothers–for a reasonable fee.

    By contrast, those thousands of crisis pregnancy centers cynically provide pre-and postnatal care, education, shelter, transportation, and clothing. For free!

    I hate those anti-baby posers!

  • “The NE clause applies to elected service.” And with that nonsense, our discussion is ended. way too many strawmen to deal with here.

  • That is a dodge. The issue is a woman’s sexual freedom. YOU only care about punnishing women for having sex.

  • If women want to sex without consequences there is always sterilization.

    The issues appear to revolve around mature responsibility, the valuing of some lives over others, and the constant control and theology canards inserted by the unthinking – usually in the form of slogans, e.g.: “The issue is a woman’s sexual freedom.”

  • Which is nobody in general. Hence a perfect record of never working as a general policy. Even priests can’t seem to follow it.

  • Yes, much of the pro-life movement is really about doing a guilt-trip about sex. Especially sexy-time for women!

    Conservative religious people hate that adults have the right to have sex outside of what is proscribed in their ridiculous holy books. They go nuts especially when women have sex on their own terms — or decide to use contraception or even end a pregnancy without male clergy approval.

  • I already am one.

    You can bet not a single person who claimed to be celibate before marriage was or did so by their own volition.

  • Obviously I have posted her a lot longer than you have and know the avatars I am responding to better and longer than you.

  • I did not suggest a “pro-life amendment”.

    That would never fly.

    I suggested an amendment restoring the rights of the states usurped by the Federal judiciary, which most people would support.

    There is simply no way “We can destroy all at once.” through legislation.

  • Actually what he was pointing, correctly, is that the nonsense was your suggestion – a strawman – that the First Amendment in any way, shape, or form prohibits citizens from voting based on their beliefs, even if their beliefs are theological or religious.

    And he correctly notes, as others have before, that your opposition is in fact to the Vox Populi, the democratic process.

  • “You can bet not a single person who claimed to be celibate before marriage was or did so by their own volition.”

    That tells us a lot about you and nothing about celibacy.

  • There are millions of abortions every year and I am sure some the women many not have been mentally stable before the abortion, so don’t everyone by the same standard. In a world with 7.5 billion people fighting over resources, millions of unwanted children born every year is not going to make things better. Women should have the right to decide when they want to start a family and with whom they want to start that family with. Not pro abortion, not anti abortion, but just the right to choose.

  • Wow, my comment discussing the environment I guess hit some nerves as it was labeled as spam. I guess some people cannot stand differing statements on the shortcomings of the environmental movement. How tolerant.

  • I heard you are female, Tater. I think you don’t know anything about what you are saying and your safest place would be to remain quiet on that opinion

  • Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is not considered “murder” in any Country in the Western world.

  • If you didn’t guilty, you wouldn’t write “much of the pro-life movement is really about doing a guilt-trip about sex”.

    You’d be otherwise occupied.

  • “YOU only care about punnishing women for having sex.”

    And YOU see right through me, Joe M! That whole “Mutilating children in their mother’s wombs” objection is just window-dressing for me wanting to “punnish” women for having sex.

    And this despite the fact that I personally am the result of a woman having sex, as are my two girls, and my three nieces, and all my sisters-in-law and brothers, and shoot, even my parents. And I still haven’t figured out how to punish lesbians for having sex, or how to punish heterosexual women who have non-penetrative sex.

    And men! Men having sex is an even bigger problem. How can I punish them? Your thoughts welcome.

    Until then, I’ll just pretend that I hate for mothers to pay doctors to kill their unborn children. Seems weird to me.

  • “I suggested an amendment restoring the rights of the states usurped by the Federal judiciary…”

    Such as?

  • “Terminating an unwanted pregnancy is not considered “murder”…”

    False all the way:
    – “Terminating an unwanted pregnancy” is fine. All pregnancies terminate eventually. We simply object to the deliberate killing of unborn children.
    – “Abortion”–a euphemism, in this case, for deliberately killing one’s unborn child–remains murder by the laws of Germany (their Basic Law) and the United Kingdom (Offences Against the Person Act of 1861), although they have engineered work-arounds.
    – All Western nations except Canada and the U.S. have gestational limits on killing unborn children. In other words: it’s murder to kill your kids beyond a certain date of pregnancy. Why should this be so if they’re just clumps of cells or part of mom?

  • Doubtless. But you still don’t think your insult will bring anyone to our side, do you.

    No. You do not.

  • Yes, if you kill a pregnant woman it is a double murder for the purpose of giving the murderer the maximum, including capital punishment. Do you know of one woman languishing in prison for terminating an unwanted pregnancy, anywhere in the Western world. Please name a case? If it were murder, you would have to imprison everyone involved in the murder, from the doctor and nurses, to the person diving them to the scene of the crime for the purpose of abortion.

  • LOL no fatty I am not your hon and you are not rational. DonnieBoy Orangeman TRump is my hon and I am his. You are just a peon but we make use you so good in Academy in Russia soon.

  • LOL no lazy fatty I am not your hon and you are not rational. DonnieBoy Orangeman TRump is my hon and I am his. You are just a peon but we make use you so good in Academy in Russia soon.

  • Vlad: hey hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly very good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • “Yes, if you kill a pregnant woman it is a double murder…”

    But why is it okay if the mom kills her own little girl? And why not kill the little girl after she is born–does her mom’s vagina have magical human-rights-conferring abilities?

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He pretty good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions and fake news yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he is pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • “…one woman languishing in prison for terminating an unwanted pregnancy…”

    Again: no one objects to terminating an unwanted pregnancy, as all pregnancies terminate eventually. We just think moms ought not kill their children.

    Again: is it murder if the mom kills her wanted girl?

  • “Do you know of one woman languishing in prison…?”

    This is a dodge. You’re wrong that no Western nation views “abortion” (deliberately killing one’s unborn child) as murder.
    – abortion term limits, however arbitrary, define murder vs non-murder

    Why should this be? Start there.

  • I see now what your amendment would entail. Although such an amendment would be redundant (!), it’s worth considering. And I agree with the rest of your post here as well.

  • Later term abortion is defined as being able to survive outside the uterus, and I understand that reasoning to limit it to certain circumstances.

    You can couch it anyway that you want, but women have the “right” to decide when they want to start a family and with whom they want to start that family with. It is not your call! If it were up to you, there would be millions of more unwed teenage mothers on welfare, instead of finishing their education and going on to marry a committed partner from a good family and then start a family.

  • There is a limit to everything. Pew Research Center 2018: “Today, a 58% majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases”.

  • As Roe and Obergefell demonstrate, it is not redundant.

    The SCOTUS has undertaken writing new amendments under the guise of interpretation and is destroying the federal relationship of dual sovereigns.

  • If you were so upset about “mutilating babies” as you say then why are you wasting time trying to convince people like me who are unimpressed with your rationalle and conviction. Shouldn’t you be out there assassinating these fifteen year-olds and their doctors or these murderers as people like you portray them? Even you don’t believe the very words that you say. How do you expect me to believe you?

  • This new wave Catholic Democrat is theologically challenged as Catholics and other Christians are doubting the foundation of their religion and in 12 years, said religions will be replaced by secular morality.

    And the move to green energy is well on its way without the new darling of the left. To wit, from today’s CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2019/01

    “Solar and wind are booming, while coal keeps shrinking.”

  • Being pro-life and pro-sex is quite easy as long as you practice safe sex!!! Been doing it successfully for 50 years!!!

  • It is my impression that you are the exception rather than the rule. You are aware that the Catholic Church sees you as committing “mortal sin”, yes?

  • I personally don’t give a sh-t what you live by.

    However, if folks pass laws you don’t agree with, I expect you to obey them or face the consequences like a man.

  • “Shouldn’t you be out there assassinating these fifteen year-olds and their doctors or these murderers as people like you portray them?”

    Doing that would be contrary to the very moral code he outlined following.

    The fact that apparently slipped by – and your question makes that clear – seems to support the conclusion you lack the mental horsepower to engage him.

  • Catholic church is history as it no longer has any moral authority. It also fails theologically as there was no Easter.

  • “If you were so upset about “mutilating babies” as you say then why are you wasting time trying to convince people like me…”

    Yes. Why am I not out slaughtering my opponents instead of trying to reason with them? That is a deep mystery.

    Also a deep mystery: How does mutilating kids in their mothers’ wombs seem okay to you, Joe?

  • “…you lack the mental horsepower to engage him.”

    Maybe, maybe not. But as you and I know, Mark, integrity > intelligence. Only integrity matters.

  • “As Roe and Obergefell demonstrate, it is not redundant.”

    No; I think even you would say those two decisions are judicial fiat, willful and egregious misinterpretations of the Constitution as it now stands.

    For example: the 5th and 14th Amendments already prohibit forfeiture of life, liberty, or property without due process. In the context of existing “Offences Against the Person” anti-abortion legislation common throughout the States and England during the 1860s (the 14th was ratified in 1868), “person” clearly includes unborn human beings. And insofar as “child” describes an unborn human being–and has for hundreds of years–and both terms are synonymous with “person”, the 5th and 14th Amendments extend their protection to humans from the very beginning of life.

    Moreover: the 10th Amendment reserves, for the states or the people, “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution”–so that if somehow we could argue that the 5th and 15th Amendments don’t protect unborn children (as the Roe majority in fact did argue, outrageously), the issue would still be remanded to the States or the people.

    Plainly, the Supreme Court has made war on the Constitution. I have no confidence, then, that an additional, explicit amendment would avail anything in the face of such bloodthirsty insanity. The problem is bloodthirsty insanity, not explicitness. But as I said, I think such an amendment deserves consideration–at least to raise awareness of the problem.

  • ‘Yes, it is a double murder of both a mother and an “expected” child.’

    You made up the “expected” part. Just what do you suggest is in there?

    And are you saying the law just pretends there’s a human being in there so it can give the murderer something he doesn’t deserve?


    Child: 1a : an unborn or recently born person. (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

    Child: “Old English cild “fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person,” from Proto-Germanic *kiltham (source also of Gothic kilþei “womb,” inkilþo “pregnant;” Danish kuld “children of the same marriage;” Old Swedish kulder “litter;” Old English cildhama “womb,” lit. “child-home”)…”

    ‘The wider sense “young person before the onset of puberty” developed in late Old English. Phrase with child “pregnant” (late 12c.) retains the original sense.’ (etymonline)

  • “Later term abortion is defined as being able to survive outside the uterus…”

    You made that up. Here’s the actual definition:

    “Most researchers adopt the criterion of 12/13 weeks to mark the divide between early (first trimester) and late (second trimester…[but]…there is an argument that nine weeks would be a more suitable–and clinically meaningful–criterion.”

    “The term ‘very late’ abortions is sometimes used to describe procedures that occur towards the end of the second trimester, above 20 weeks or so.”

    Rowlands, S. (Ed.). (2014). Abortion Care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107338623

  • “women have the “right” to decide when they want to start a family and with whom they want to start that family with.”

    I agree! But this is a huge, rotten red herring, and you get it all to yourself.

    I am pro-choice for every decision a mom can make, except for decisions that impinge on other people’s rights–i.e., killing her own child.

    Yes. “Abortion” is a euphemism for killing one’s own child. It is utterly evil. I think we ought to be honest about that instead of pretending it’s about, well, anything else.

  • “Good point about “magical vaginas”!”

    Thank you. But for real: if it’s okay to kill my child before she’s born, why is it not okay to kill her afterward?

    I will entertain the idea–but only briefly–that a trip through my vagina magically confers personhood on my daughter.

  • “…I understand that reasoning to limit it to certain circumstances.”

    That’s arbitrary. Are you suggesting it’s okay to kill my child based on her location or degree of dependency?

  • “…being able to survive outside the uterus, and I understand that reasoning to limit it to certain circumstances.”

    Are you aware that “abortion” (killing one’s unborn child) is legal in all 50 states until the moment of birth, and seven states + Washington, DC don’t even pretend to require a reason?

    Do you know that the U.S. is one of only seven nations worldwide that permit abortion without restriction after 20 weeks?

    This is a great moral outrage! Especially for a nation that fancies itself a beacon of hope and human rights for the world. We are NOT morally advanced. We are disgusting to legalize and defend “abortion”.

    But God can forgive even this. And we can change.

  • No, an “expected”child is a real term for a wanted pregnancy. I do not support late term abortion, but a woman has a right to decide when she wants to start a family and with whom she wants to start that family with. It is a simple concept that the majority of Americans and most 21st century Western countries understand and accept as a viable solution to an unwanted pregnancy.

  • A fertilized egg, an embryo, and fetus, yes, a conscious child, no. I was a good father and am a good grandfather of five grandchildren.

    I have a high school friend that had an abortion after her aggressive knucklehead boyfriend forced himself on her. She went on to finish university, started a career, and married a good man from a good family. Today she has a big family and lives very good life, as opposed to being another unwed teenage mother on welfare without a committed partner. She made a wise choice. Now try to shame her for that!

  • No, it is not murder, it is the termination of an unwanted pregnancy. The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists, not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question. We do flush fertilized human eggs down the toilet every day of the week without calling it murder.

  • I can’t say I don’t sympathize with your position, o.f. It’s just that aborton seems to be a pet sin”

  • “…aborton seems to be a ‘pet sin’.”

    Yes, it’s my favorite one–much as I suspect Dietrich Bonhoeffer must have considered Nazi genocide his favorite sin. It makes me feel morally superior to suggest that killing our children by the millions is a little bit off.

    But to my question: How does mutilating kids in their mothers’ wombs seem okay to you, Joe?

  • “…Syrian toddler found face-down on a Turkish beach? I didn’t hear any pro-lifers get bent out of shape over that.”

    Would you like to? I will.

    But here’s the thing, Joe. As horrific an affront to humanity as that child’s death is, you’re using it as a distraction. A red herring. Because the issue before us isn’t the unjust killing of Syrian toddlers (which everyone can agree on) but the legalized, systematic, human-rights-sanctified murder of our own kids right here at home.

    And we have little right to decry injustice abroad when we have this kind of atrocity being promoted, defended, and perpetrated–by our own physicians and mothers, no less–right in front of us. And that’s what you don’t want to discuss.

    I mean that in the kindest possible way. Abortion is abhorrent. And given our state of moral degeneracy, it’s a logical waypoint on the road to hell. But that doesn’t mean we have to accept it.

  • “Remember that Syrian toddler found face-down on a Turkish beach?”

    Why is a 3-year-old’s death a tragedy–and it is!–while the mutilation of a 12-week girl in her mother’s womb just a routine medical procedure?

  • “…an ‘expected’ child is a real term for a wanted pregnancy.”

    Got it. “Expected” is apparently a colloquialism for “not marked for death”.

    Turns of phrase aside, and just to be clear: the child is actually, scientifically, medically, definitionally a real child at every point of her existence, “expected” or not.

  • “…a woman has a right to decide when she wants to start a family and with whom she wants to start that family with…”

    We’ve been over this red herring. Eat it. It’s yours, and no one else wants it.

    I am pro-choice. I am pro-choice for every conceivable decision except those that hurt other people. Killing one’s child is murder, not a legitimate moral choice. It is the defining moral atrocity of our time. Abortion is anti-human, anti-love, anti-gentleness, anti-reason. Abortion is violence. Abortion is anti-choice.

    But God can forgive even this. And we can change.

  • “She made a wise choice. Now try to shame her for that!”

    I wouldn’t dream of shaming a woman for doing what society tells her is no big deal.

    But I suspect she feels shame and regret nevertheless. She knows that no matter how wonderful her family, there is one missing.

  • “No, it is not murder, it is the termination of an unwanted pregnancy.”

    Again with the red herrings and euphemisms. No one objects to terminating an unwanted pregnancy. All pregnancies terminate eventually.

    What we object to is the systematic, legalized, medicalized, maternal killing of tiny, helpless children. The euphemism for that is “abortion”.

  • “The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.”

    It’s amazing you see such disparity between “human being” and “person”. They are the same thing.

    Person: “a human being” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

    Child: 1a : “an unborn or recently born person.” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

    “The fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” -Moore’s Essentials of Human Embryology

  • “…lives very good life, as opposed to being another unwed teenage mother on welfare…”

    This is the false dichotomy used to justify killing our children, and it is a lie. Adoption would have allowed her child to live while giving her the same options.

    And a book I’m reading now–“Treatment Kind and Fair”, by Dr. Perri Klass–is written by a mother to her son, who was born in her second year of medical school and is embarking on medical school himself. It’s incredibly poignant. And it further puts the lie to that widely-perpetrated myth of yours.

  • “We do flush fertilized human eggs down the toilet every day of the week without calling it murder.”

    1. Do you know the difference between being killed and simply dying? Yes. Then you’re conflating the two on purpose. That is known colloquially as “lying”. But there is no defense of abortion apart from lying.
    2. Are you trying (erroneously) to describe a normal menstrual cycle or simply a miscarriage? Neither of which, obviously, is murder, and neither of which bears any resemblance to the act or intent of “abortion”?

    I reiterate: there is no defense of abortion apart from lies. And you are lying here. But I am no better, and God can forgive even this.

  • Abortion was not an issue for the Republicans until the 70’s. There are some writings by the Southern Baptists at the time that actually poked fun at the Catholics for having their views. It wasn’t until the 70’s that the Moral Majority needed an issue around which to coalesce and abortion was it!
    I am not using the Syrian kids death as a distraction. How about this one: Sandy Hook. Could anything be done to stop this from happening in the future. “Thoughts and prayers” were useless then and they have been ever since. The very same voices complaining about abortion were the ones questioning whether or not the Sandy Hook families were crisis actors. They were also the same ones who actually mocked MSD High school in Florida. Why have compassion for unborn babies and then make fun of people who have survived and lost friends when a gunman let loose?
    I have a daughter with trisomy 21. We knew when she was in utero at 15 weeks that she had T21 and we went ahead with the birth. She is now six. All of the voices -COUGHBETSYDEVOSSCOUGH- who complain about people having abortions when they find out that their children have a disability all of the sudden wand to roll back funding for special ed. Even some anti-abortion voices here suddenly become Randian free-market economists and then question why they should be forced to pay for my daughter’s education.

  • “I am not using the Syrian kids death as a distraction. How about this one: Sandy Hook.”

    Still a distraction. I do not know anyone of what must be an exceedingly small minority who think Sandy Hook families are actors. That’s insane. And it’s horrible that these people pile on to the tragedy and make it worse.

    But I think you’ll agree that these tragedies–and the reverberating tragedies caused by sadistic hangers-on–have nothing to do with abortion. I will not excuse, nor can I comprehend, the vocal few who mock survivors. If you can provide any examples of pro-lifers who do this, I will confront them myself. It’s evil.

    I don’t know why any pro-lifer would want to roll back funding for special education. I don’t know anything about Betsy DeVos’ views on abortion. But I agree: we should provide adequate resources for our special needs kids. I respect you and your wife/partner for not killing your daughter in the womb; that’s unusual, it takes guts, and it’s love in action. Thank you.

    But I’m sticking to my guns. If you think Betsy DeVos or conspiracy theorists or the Republican Party has anything to do with whether or not systematically killing our kids is just, you’re wrong.

    Killing our kids is wrong no matter what hypocrites say about it, for or against. And to assert otherwise is to choose distraction over discussion.

  • According to HHS, in 2012 some 21,000,000 (21 million) fetuses worldwide suffered miscarriage and died – and that number has been increasing annually.

    God is the most prolific abortionist humanity has ever known.

    According to UNICEF – about 29,000 children under the age of five – 21 each minute – die every day.

    The pain God inflicts on these children and their families, esp their mothers, is beyond that committed by any human monster or group of monsters since the advent of the human species.

    Only God can perpetuate such sadistic inhumanity

  • “Simply dying”, being allowed to die vs murder is another philosophical argument. I reiterate: Every woman should have the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and start a family when she is fully able to, along with a committed partner or her choice, not yours. In general, it benefits society, the children, and the mother.

    God is just a concept, not a physical entity that controls the universe. Making false claims about the concept of God is tantamount to lying. I have been to war and never saw this all loving, all merciful being. I have been to some of the poorest parts of the world and see the suffering decade after decade with no relief, no matter how hard they pray.

    Everywhere that you have over population, you have more food shortages, unclean environment, disease, violence, poverty, under-education, and massive waste management issues. If the rest of the world did not provide humanitarian aid every year, those people would die off to manageable levels. This is called the law of nature. We think we are making it better with inoculations and providing food and medicine that allows the populations to double, triple, and quadruple, and then it becomes a mathematical conundrum, for you which you probably still think that praying will fix it. It is like the guy praying in the corner before a boxing match. It means nothing if he cannot fight.

  • I agree to limits set for medical reasons and moral standards. Do you have a moral standard for feeding these unwanted children. We have 40 million Americans on food assistance programs. 26% of abortions are by those living at the federal poverty level. 49% of aborting are by those living “below” the federal poverty level. Source: American Journal of Public Health, 2017. The majority of the poor in this Country are woman making babies without a committed partner. It is part of the cycle of poverty. You can see what a dilemma this is, even without abortions.

  • I repeat: You can couch it anyway that you want, but women should have the “right” to decide when they want to start a family and with whom they want to start that family with. It is not your call! If it were up to you, there would be millions of more unwed teenage mothers on welfare, instead of finishing their education and going on to marry a committed partner from a good family and then start a family.

  • One tailors communications to the audience.

    Few if any of your opponents on-line will be won or converted.

    They are here from other sites like Friendly Atheists, JoeMyGod, and the former Comments at National Catholic Reporter.

    For them this is a NOT debate, it is a target-rich hunting ground.

  • A woman is a person and a human being who has reproductive rights, and you want to reverse that. That is fine for a personal choice, it is not your call for the millions of women who are not mentally or physically or financially prepared to bring an unwanted pregnancy to full term. It is just not your call.

  • Every life, according to Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is a direct creation of the Creator.

    If you happen to run across an abortionist who creates life, and therefore owns it, you’ll be cooking with gas.

    As it is you appear to simply have gas.

    The fact that people die is one of the reasons, btw, that you’re not up to armpits in people 100 to hundreds of thousands of years old.

    Every religion recognizes that life involves pain. If you never existed, you’d never experience it.

    I am impressed at your sudden reference for life and in particular pain, however.

    If you hang in there with that you’ll eventually figure why abortion is reprehensible.

    As to the “…. pain God inflicts on these children and their families, esp their mothers …”, if you shared with folks the source of your comments in your personal life, you might gain some sympathy.

    As it is you simply appear to be whiney.

  • Sorry buddy, Babies are born. None are killed in abortion. The alleged concern you have for the unborn is a dodge for the contempt you have for people. Especially women.

    Planned Parenthood employs medical professionals to deal with issues of women’s health besides decisions concerning pregnancies. They rely on informed consent of the patients and are under no mandate to push patients into a given decision.

    Crisis pregnancy centers are designed to DELIBERATELY LIE AND CAJOLE women into keeping their pregnancies. The people going to such places are not patients, they are congregation. They are not staffed professionals in any sense.

    If your view was so moral, why does it require organized efforts to lie to people and coercion?

  • You are also the result of a woman choosing to bear her pregnancy.

    Your post only demonstrates your position has nothing to do with concern with life, but on controlling people.

  • You worship the unborn but apparently have little to no regard for people at all.

    You do not support human rights at all since you are demanding that women be considered property of the state.

    There is nothing pro-life about your position. There is nothing moral about such selective concern. It is really no concern at all.

    You have latched on to this issue in order to aggrandize yourself and pretend a level of moral superiority to others. Egotism in the plainest sense.

  • “…(21 million) fetuses worldwide suffered miscarriage and died – and that number has been increasing annually.”

    Think bigger, patrick. If you can blame God for chromosomal abnormalities, advanced maternal age, obesity, diabetes, tobacco smoke, thyroid problems, and other exogenous and endogenous problems contributing to miscarriage, then you can blame him for pretty much anything.

    Do you sincerely think God kills babies as an abortionist does?

  • LOL no laz​y fatty I am not your hon and you are not rational. DonnieBoy Orangeman TRump is my hon and I am his. You are just a peon but we make use you so good in Academy in Russia soon.

  • Vlad: hey DonnieBoy this Mark Connelly he doing good work spinning fake news for my Research Academy yes.

    Donald TRump: Pootie Baby waaaaa I can’t get money for my wall. You got cheap bricks for me from East Germany left over somewhere? Maybe I have to ask China for big money loan. Nancy Pelosi whupped my fat ass and Mueller is coming for me and now I so scared.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he is a pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he is pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens good just like you do everyday. Maybe he is pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens good just like you haha. Maybe he pssy grabber too just like you, but now old far&#8203t whup his ass here too like Pelosi did to you last week.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Vlad: hey Orange1 we teach this Mark Connelly good at Research Academy yes? He so good at twisting and make fake diversions yes. And he insult womens much often just like you haha. Maybe he pssy grabber too just like you.

    Donald TRump: yeah Pootie Baby, Mark C is a useful peasant for new Russiamerica. Now I got BIG problems. I got no money to build big wall and now I so scared of strong Nancy Pelosi. She WHUPPED my ass in my shutdown and now I also got big MEAN Mueller on my tail too and he already got Stoned Roger in jail. Now I need escape to Moscow. You can save me and I put my small hands on your big bare chest again.That would be TERRIFIC and AWESOME.

  • Only about 3% of PP’s budget goes for abortions. PP prevents abortions by providing contraceptive care.

  • What if I was against abortion because of a sincere desire not to kill? What if I don’t care about women having sex (so long as my wife is faithful to me and vice versa)?

    You see this isn’t theoretical for me my mother had an abortion against her will and it has tormented her emotionally for decades. My wife and I had a pregnancy scare last year and I had to confront what I really believed about this. So my position is this:

    Abortion as birth control is VILE, but… it is a very personal decision for which I have decided not to judge anyone. It should be safe, legal and RARE. Reasonable restrictions are not objectionable. Terminating any fetus that is (or could be) viable outside the womb is murder. Before that, individual conscience should rule.

    Children are a blessing but we live under an evil economic system that makes them a burden for far too many people. We love things more than our neighbors and that is why the blood of the innocents cries out for justice. We foolishly and judgmentally tend to blame the proximate cause (i.e. the irresponsible sexual behavior of those with very little money or power) instead of the underlying disease (i.e. the toxic combination of wealth inequality, crony capitalism, corporate consolidation, and the exploitative relationship between labor and capital in America).

  • Now that is a good argument. Hypocrisy is rampant in the American church and it is disgusting. I say that as a Christian with many faults that I need God’s help to manage. +1

  • When you let go and allow your children to make their own choices, you have to respect those choices and resist the urge to nulify the natural consequences that follow.

    A parent might help an adult/teen to mitigate the consequences of bad decisions, even if the parent is the one administering those consequences. However only a bad parent goes back on their word when it’s time to punish disobedience.

    Sure enough, we find the same consistency of a loving parent with God…

    We rebelled and disobeyed, so He punished us as He promised to do. However, He also gave us a way to minimize those consequences if we trust Him and agree to do things His way.

    The suffering of children is permitted by God, but it is not His choice that caused the suffering they experience… that suffering is one of the natural consequences of sin. God’s way leads to life, but sin leads to death (both deserved and undeserved).

    The only truly innocent man to live was Jesus and God gave him up to be tortured and executed. Why do we expect better? The answer is because we love ourselves way too much and because we foolishly think we could do better than God.

  • “Sorry buddy, Babies are born. None are killed in abortion.”

    Well then, call off the crusade! Boy, is my my face red.

    ———-
    “I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.”
    ― Faye Wattleton, former president of Planned Parenthood

  • “… [Abortion is a very personal decision for which I have decided not to judge anyone. It should be safe, legal and RARE.”

    I’m glad you choose not to judge sinners–that’s God’s job–but don’t fool yourself: you are pro-abortion.

  • “Well then, call off the crusade! Boy, is my my face red.”

    OK. Good. Now you can engage in more fruitful and moral pursuits.

    Quotes without online attribution from Planned Parenthood from a fetus worshiper = phony quote.
    Sorry, but someone who extols crisis pregnancy centers is used to lying to people without shame or forethought. So pardon me if I call BS on your quote there.

    Got a link to it? If not, I will just assume its a deliberate misquote from a fetus worship site.

    “Reproductive freedom is critical to a whole range of issues. If we can’t take charge of this most personal aspect of our lives, we can’t take care of anything. It should not be seen as a privilege or as a benefit, but a fundamental human right.”
    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/252971-reproductive-freedom-is-critical-to-a-whole-range-of-issues

  • “Got a link to it? If not, I will just assume its a deliberate misquote from a fetus worship site.”

    Close! It was a deliberate quote from a proud fetus killer.

    Faye Wattleton, “Speaking Frankly,” Ms., May / June 1997, Volume VII, Number 6, 67.

    ———-
    “The opponents of abortion claim that abortion is wrong because ‘it ends the life of the unborn child’ whereas for abortion’s supporters ending life in the womb is precisely its point.” ― Ann Furedi, “The Moral Case for Abortion” (2016)

  • “Reproductive freedom…”

    Hold the phone. I thought “abortion” was about killing freely, not reproducing freely.

    Is this another one of those euphemisms, like the Nazis’ “special treatment”?

  • So no link. You copied and pasted it from a fetus worship site claiming to quote it. Its not like you were trying to be credible here. Lying comes natural to fetus worshipers. It is part in parcel with their selective considerations and nonsense rhetoric

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining
    Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner’s viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don’t in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize.[note 1] It’s a way of lying.

  • Oooh poorly used nazi references! How entirely cliched from fetus worshipers. Of course Nazis banned abortion for German citizens, just like what you want.

    Its funny how you think you have a claim to control the bodies of women, as if they are your property. Nazis loved enslaving women too.

    Sorry buddy, not your body, never your choice. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. If you don’t like anyone else having one, tough luck.

  • “So no link.”

    Yep. Not everything from 1997 has a link. Try the library.

    While you’re there, check out Ann Furedi’s book:

    “The opponents of abortion claim that abortion is wrong because ‘it ends the life of the unborn child’ whereas for abortion’s supporters ending life in the womb is precisely its point.” ― Ann Furedi, “The Moral Case for Abortion” (2016)

  • Another fake quote from a liar. How cute. You are copying and pasting, so there is a link. 🙂

    “I’m not copying and pasting I am getting it from print sources”
    Oldest bullcrap line on the internet. Usually used by people who love being dishonest like:
    Creationists
    Holocaust deniers
    Fetus worshipers
    Climate change deniers

    What you are telling me here is you are embarrassed from the site you are cribbing from. Typical liar.

    “When a woman is pregnant, her freedom to choose her future for herself – and to act on that choice, whatever it may be – is the most powerful express of human agency there can be.”
    ― Ann Furedi, The Moral Case for Abortion

  • “…not your body, never your choice.”

    Couldn’t agree more, Spuddie. The body inside your body is not your body.

    “Abortion” (killing an unborn child) is not your body.

    Not your body. Not your choice.

    ———-
    “When we try to act like a pregnancy doesn’t involve human life, we wind up drawing stupid semantic lines in the sand: first trimester abortion vs. second trimester vs. late term, dancing around the issue trying to decide if there’s a single magic moment when a fetus becomes a person. Are you human only when you’re born? Only when you’re viable outside of the womb? Are you less of a human life when you look like a tadpole than when you can suck on your thumb?”

    Mary Elizabeth Williams in Salon (2013): https://goo.gl/ebfs7R

  • “Another fake quote from a liar.”

    Yes, I am a liar. But Ann Furedi, whose book I have on Kindle (location 1183 of 3022, 40% of the way through the book), is telling the truth:

    “The opponents of abortion claim that abortion is wrong because ‘it ends the life of the unborn child’ whereas for abortion’s supporters ending life in the womb is precisely its point.” ― Ann Furedi, “The Moral Case for Abortion” (2016)

  • More from Williams:

    “When we on the pro-choice side get cagey around the life question, it makes us illogically contradictory. I have friends who have referred to their abortions in terms of “scraping out a bunch of cells” and then a few years later were exultant over the pregnancies that they unhesitatingly described in terms of “the baby” and “this kid.” I know women who have been relieved at their abortions and grieved over their miscarriages. Why can’t we agree that how they felt about their pregnancies was vastly different, but that it’s pretty silly to pretend that what was growing inside of them wasn’t the same? Fetuses aren’t selective like that. They don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born…”

    Mary Elizabeth Williams in Salon (2013): https://goo.gl/ebfs7R

  • Still no links to cuts and pastes. Oh well you didn’t want to be taken seriously anyway.

    “Yes, I am a liar.”

    OK. Didn’t need to read past that. You aren’t reading the book and typing. You are cutting and pasting from elsewhere but are too ashamed to link to it.

    Its not an actual quote from the book.

  • I can do this until long after you tire. From Naomi Wolf (find The New Republic “link” at the library):

    “Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life… we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.”

    Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” The New Republic, October 16, 1995, 26.

  • ” The body inside your body is not your body.”

    Nope. Unless you can take possession of a fetus, its the mother’s and hers alone. People make decisions. People are born. Women are not property. If she doesn’t want a pregnancy, you have no say in the matter. If you don’t like it, tough luck.

    From the same article
    “a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”
    https://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

  • From the same article
    https://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/

    “Some argue that abortion takes lives, but I know that abortion saves lives, too.” She understands that it saves lives not just in the most medically literal way, but in the roads that women who have choice then get to go down, in the possibilities for them and for their families. And I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.

  • “Its not an actual quote from the book.”

    Do you have the book? Have you read it? Do you know what you’re talking about? No. You are what you’re accusing me of. You are lying. You are a liar.

    But this is only because you defend the indefensible. Lying is required. If you are defending “abortion”, you are lying. And you are not just lying about abortion. You are lying when you accuse me falsely and without evidence.

    Here’s the quote in context, Liar. Because the book is right in front of me.

    “Many of abortion’s opponents hold a view of what is important about human life that is profoundly different to those who find abortion acceptable. The opponents of abortion claim that abortion is wrong because “it ends the life of the unborn child” whereas for abortion’s supporters ending life in the womb is precisely its point. At the heart of any decision about abortion is the question: which life matters more?”

    Yes, you are lying to defend the indefensible: killing our children. This is disgusting, Spuddie. Absolutely rank atrocity. But God can forgive even this.

  • “…the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.”

    Yes. My kingdom for that kind of honesty out of you.

  • “Unless you can take possession of a fetus, its the mother’s and hers alone.”

    Yes: “possession of a fetus.” The “abortion” mindset makes the unborn child her mother’s property, chattel, to be disposed of (or not) at the whim of her owner. Disgusting.

    ———-
    ”If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.” — Jesse Jackson https://goo.gl/pMzTdq

  • “Unless you can take possession of a fetus, its the mother’s and hers alone.”

    As abhorrent as your quote is, I note the shifting goalposts. You had said, “…not your body, never your choice.” But when I agreed emphatically, you demurred: Well, you can own another body…

    Which is it?

  • Not at all. It is entirely consistent with my point of what goes on in her body is her choice. You have no say in the matter.

    Your argument is crap because it fails to take into account the facts that a woman has 100% of all the physical burdens of the fetus inside her body and you have zero. You are simply trying to take possession of a fetus for yourself as if her body is your property. The only way you justify your argument is by pretend the woman’s personhood is of no consequence. To dehumanize and reduce her to simply your plaything but pretend the fetus has value. It is immoral garbage because such disregard for people means your level of concern after birth is undoubtedly non-existent. Life has value beyond gestation, but you don’t hold it in any regard.

  • Multiple responses to the same post is rather rude. As if you are trying a gish gallop spamfest rather than a discussion.

    Possession of a fetus is what a pregnancy is. Its inside her body. Her will keeps it alive and is the only thing which does. You are annoyed by reality. It is her property. Until it is born, it is not a person. Personhood and the autonomy it confers only comes by birth. Until then, it is a foreign body putting burdens on her systems. One she has sole choice as to its existence.

    You are annoyed because there is no room for your opinion here. No room to claim you have a say in the matter. Your annoyance is strictly your ego talking. You want control over others but have no right to it. Tough luck

  • “…what goes on in her body is her choice.”

    Aha! The goalposts have shifted ever so subtly 180 degrees. They went from “…not your body, never your choice” to “…what goes on in her body is her choice.”

    But “what goes on” is another human being, perhaps a little boy, but statistically a little girl. And to be clear, you’re defending the choice to kill her.

    Spuddie, look at me. Look.

    THAT. IS. DISGUSTING.

    But I am no better, and God can forgive even this.

  • I have never gave a flying blank about when life begins. It was a silly reductive question which caters to fetus worshiper omissions and nonsense.

    I always cared where life resides. If its inside the body of a woman, then it is her choice to keep it or not. People make choices and their bodies are their own. Abortion is not infanticide, it is not murder. One has to be born for such things. (Fetal murder laws are crimes against mothers first and foremost).

  • “It is her property.”

    Now you’re being honest: the child is the mother’s property, not her body. It’s insane, but it’s honest.

    ———-
    ”If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.” — Jesse Jackson https://goo.gl/pMzTdq

  • You are lying to me in the most obvious way people do online. You are cutting and pasting from a website. You don’t have the book in front of you. This is a common trait for people who are typically taking material from veracity impaired sources.

    You do not have the book in front of you.

    There is plenty of defense of abortion. It is none of your business what a woman does with her body and her pregnancy. Your concern for the unborn is phony. It is merely a sham to demand control over the bodies of women. A person can’t be genuinely concerned with the born but utterly reductive and hostile to the born. So naturally it is not concern at all.

    Your position is immoral, depends on lying, and is hostile to people. It is nothing but egotism. A demand for power over others.

  • “…their bodies are their own.”

    Totally agree here, Spuddie. Good job.

    Wait. You mean unborn children’s bodies too…right?

  • “I always cared where life resides. If its inside the body of a woman, then it is her choice to keep it or not.”

    That’s incommensurate with your emphatic “not your body, never your choice” mantra, which became, Well, you can “own” another person’s body (child slavery–really?!), which is now joined by “I always cared where life resides”–so you can “keep it or not.”

    For the record: I’d be perfectly happy if women didn’t “keep” their babies but gave them away. But what you’re really talking about–“keep”–is another of your euphemisms for “special treatment”…er, killing the child.

    So to be clear: you’re defending the lawful killing of a child based on location. Because the child is “owned” by her mother, and therefore no one else’s business.

    Look at me, Spuddie. Look at me.

    THAT. IS. DISGUSTING!

    But I am no better, and God can forgive even this.

  • “You do not have the book in front of you.”

    Doubling down, eh? Have some more context from the book, which is indeed in front of me–via Kindle, which makes it exceptionally easy to copy and paste, perhaps to the point of violating copyright laws. The quote I cited is in bold. This is from Location 1183 of 3022 of Ann’s book.

    In other words, you’re a lying liar who’s trying to cover her lies about abortion by repeating the same stupid lie about an obvious, publicly-available book. Here, buy it for $24, as I did: https://goo.gl/SH4FAU

    All these lies in support of abortion, the defining moral atrocity of our time. But I am no better, and God can forgive even this.

    ———–
    “Essentially, both sides are concerned about “the meaning of life”—but the “meaning of life” means something different to both sides, even to the point of dispute as to whose life is meaningful. For abortion’s opponents it is the life of the fetus that matters, while supporters of abortion focus on the lives of the women seeking to have an abortion. Many of abortion’s opponents hold a view of what is important about human life that is profoundly different to those who find abortion acceptable. The opponents of abortion claim that abortion is wrong because “it ends the life of the unborn child” whereas for abortion’s supporters ending life in the womb is precisely its point.

    “At the heart of any decision about abortion is the question: which life matters more? Both the life of the woman and the life of the fetus may be valued—but for those on either side of the issue, the value of one life is weighed in relation to the value of the other. For some of us, abortion causes us to consider the “relative value” of human embryonic or fetal life in relation to the life that the woman chooses to live. This weighing of lives according to a balance of “worth” seems appalling to those who believe in the equivalence of all human life from conception. The moral equivalence of a woman with rights and responsibilities with a biologically undeveloped and unconscious entity is equally appalling to those who don’t.”

    Furedi, Ann. The Moral Case for Abortion . Palgrave Macmillan UK. Kindle Edition.

  • Look, Spuddie. You’re not fooling anyone. I don’t think you’re even fooling yourself.

    So why this persistent denial? Have you had an abortion? Known someone who has? I don’t care to judge you or her. That’s God’s business, not mine, and he’s far kinder and wiser than we can comprehend, much less emulate. Whatever you have going on, he knows about it already.

    And though I’m doing it imperfectly, he wants me to tell you that he has known you since you were a zygote, and he wants you. You are not alone, forsaken. God loves you, and he wants you back.

    That is all for now. Good night, Spuddie.

  • “Sorry buddy, Babies are born. None are killed in abortion.”

    You’re half right. All babies are born. One-fourth are born in pieces because a physician killed them. That’s called “abortion.”

    ———-
    “It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them. I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.” — Feminist Judith Arcana at https://goo.gl/XjhKoJ (emphasis mine)

  • “Unless you can take possession of a fetus, its the mother’s and hers alone…Women are not property.”

    Right! As you say: women are owners. Children are property.

    ———-
    “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.”

    – Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) Organizer of the first women’s rights convention in the United States; leader in the anti-slavery and women’s suffrage movements https://goo.gl/aJ1aMy

  • Thank you, Tony.

    Let me be clear, at least for me, nobody likes abortion. Many have reservations about it – even the ones who have the procedure done. But there is a binary here. Either the choice lies with the women or it lies with another person. I think both sides miss the point in many ways but the lion’s share of the blame in the “misunderstanding” is with the Pro-lifers and it is for political rather than moral impetus.

    I have three children and the youngest is disabled. In her case she was not a surprise – we knew at about fifteen weeks in utero (within the legal threshold to abort) that she had Down syndrome. Now, I am an RN who spent most of his adult life working with special needs populations. My wife is a social worker. There are probably few couples who were as prepared as we were to raise a disabled child but it is still difficult. We noticed that the VERY SAME people who are the staunchest anti-abortion voices are also the ones who want to roll back protections and educational resources for the special needs population. They always talk about “small government” but to police their anti-abortion laws they are suddenly “big government”.

  • “…. 21,000,000 (21 million) fetuses worldwide suffered miscarriage and died….”

    But God knows the pre-natal state of these mothers-to-be. Right ?

    And God knows that these mothers’ fetuses will die in miscarriage. Right ?

    God is ” all powerful “. Right ?

    Since God gives life – he can also withhold or prevent life. Right ?

    Why doesn’t a ” warm and loving ” God prevent the man’s sperm from fertilizing the woman’s egg. Right ?

    God has the power to prevent all the deaths of the fetus’ by miscarriage. Right ?

    So God is either not ” warm and loving “, or not ” all powerful ” – or both. Right ?

    Since God has the power to prevent miscarriages and doesn’t, he is indeed the boundless inflicter of such sadistic pain and suffering on Humankind. Right ?

    Instead of ” God the Father “, Mankind needs ” God the Mother “. Right ?

    God the Mother would never allow women and their families to suffer such tragedies.

    Right ?

  • ” And God wants me to tell you there’s forgiveness and healing, no matter what you believe or what you’ve done.

    The Gods, du jour, have only been fashionable for a few thousand yrs, and is only one of several thousand currently extant Gods.

    Mankind has been around for 200,000 – 300,000 yrs. There were thousands of Gods who were around long before JC’s alleged father seduced a very minor girl-child, and cuckolded her husband. Something like you would read in
    an unexpurgated story by the Brothers Grimm.

    The current Gods du jour will join the ranks of Osiris, Marduk and Baal, who were the Gods du jour of their day.

    The Christian God, in the not too distant future, will be replaced by another God du jour.

    Her name will probably be something like : Srekcus, Duarf or even Malf-Milf etc….

    And her sheep will gather bleating of her goodness and power much as the sheep of today bleat about their Christian God. (du jour) “

  • I posted something here and it was marked as SPAM. I have many contributions to this thread and none of them were for selling anything.

  • When you’re god and you can make life out of nothing, you’ll be in a better position to make your argument.

    As it stands you appear to be the ant on the mountain bellowing.

  • What he means is that even if a conservative SCOTUS should restore the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, a future liberal SCOTUS could undo that. An amendment expressly removing abortion from the feds’ hands would prevent that.

  • Because a fetus can never be a person or sabeky treated as one. Birth created personhood. That physical attachment between fetus and mother renders your alleged concern pointless. You are not protecting the unborn, just attacking people. Sure a fetus is human, but it’s not a person. It has no independent existence that all people have. In the womb nobody but the mother has any say In it’s existence.

    Since you can’t do anything other than attack it’s mother, your position is delusional narcissistic immoral garbage.

  • Nope. But cute attempt at a hysterical appeal. Abortions are not births. You don’t like they women make decisions about what giew on in their bodies. Well tough luck. Unless it’s your own body, you have no say in the matter. Nobody requires your input or permission in such matters.

  • You are giving me a line which is common to people who rejuvenate on dishonest appeals and quite mining.

    You already made it clear your desire to lie to people to further your agenda. You cannot be taken at your word.

    Your obvious quote mining efforts do not help your credibility here. It’s too overused a tactic to take seriously. I’ve noticed that only the least credible posters use your line of argument.

    Even the few times you posted a link, it was obvious you were trying to take statements out of context.

    You have been acting like a typical online l1ar.

  • Funny. By all means be indignant. I source my citations so people can check them. I don’t extol lying to people like you to.

  • I can’t help it if you do everything possible to give the impression of a liar cutting and pasting from sources they are ashamed to reveal.

    But you are. Maybe try something more honest than garbage quote mining.

  • Hardly you want to treat women as your personal property because you don’t like the idea they make decisions you do not care for. As if your input or permission is required.

    Analogies are garbage here because there is no situation with people analogous to gestation. Slavery involves people. Those already born. You wish to enslave women abs control their bodies.

    THAT IS DISGUSTING.

    I don’t give a crap what you think of a woman’s decisions. Nobody has to. The fact that you demand a say in such matters is immoral repugnant crap. It shows you have no concern for life or people beyond your petty narcissistic desire to control them. If you have no respect for the lives of the born, your concern for the unborn means nothing either

  • Nope. People have such rights. People are born. A fetus only exists because the mother wills it. You are not part of that equation

  • It’s her body. She is not your property. Unless you can take any of the physical burden of a pregnancy, your input is not needed or asked for.

  • Nope. You just don’t want to address the point made. Your concern for s fetus is actually just hostility to women as people. There is no actual care about life only control.

    You want to treat a fetus as something with rights but it’s mother as property. Except people cannot be property. People are born.

  • Okay, Spuddie. This discussion is not productive, so I’m going to put you on “mute” for a month. Best wishes.

  • If you act like someone who is deliberately doing something dishonest, you should expect people not to take you seriously.

  • Since God has the power to prevent miscarriages and doesn’t, he is indeed the boundless inflicter of such sadistic pain and suffering on Humankind. Right ?

    Perhaps. Is allowing consequences evil?
    Is it ever good?

  • The Christian God, in the not too distant future, will be replaced by another God du jour.

    We’ll see.

  • …nobody likes abortion.

    Joe. Seriously. Many influential people like abortion, are proud of abortion, and want to protect and promote abortion. This is pro-abortion.

    If you like, promote, and defend something’s existence, you are pro-that-thing. And when we consider that the “choice” in “pro-choice” is universally known to be “abortion”, obviously: “pro-choice” is “pro-abortion.”

    Look up “shoutyourabortion”, where you can even buy stickers that say “God loves abortion” and “Abortion is for lovers”. Founder Lindy West says “Abortion is liberty.” https://goo.gl/SZQEqT And who doesn’t like liberty? This is pro-abortion.

    Elizabeth Warren says abortion is “now safer than getting your tonsils out.” This is a common trope. She also says abortion has improved the economic futures of millions of women (see also “The Socioeconomic Benefits of Abortion https://goo.gl/WH3mZJ). Chelsea Clinton says essentially the same, and she says banning abortions would be “unChristian”. Take note: this is pro-abortion.

    On that topic: it’s not uncommon to see Christian reverends blessing abortion clinics. Late-term abortionist Leroy Carhartt told Rachel Maddow: “Most of us that perform abortions are very religious people. We believe that abortion is both a moral right and a religious right.”
    https://goo.gl/dpg3vF Absolutely pro-abortion.

    The Supreme Court said abortion is a constitutional right. The U.N. says abortion is a human right. Abortion-as-human-right is emphatically pro-abortion.

    Last July, comedian Michelle Wolf gave a star-spangled “Salute to Abortion” on Netflix about how abortion is pro-woman, while anti-abortion is anti-woman. She concluded emphatically: “God bless abortions, and God bless America!”. https://goo.gl/pAX1bp Clearly, she is pro-abortion.

    I can multiply these pro-abortion examples until long after you tire of them. Clearly, you’re wrong that “nobody likes abortion”.

    Anyone who claims to be pro-woman should defend a woman’s right to life. For her whole life.

    ———-
    “Despite my pro-abortion stance (I call the term pro-choice ‘a cowardly euphemism’), I profoundly respect the pro-life viewpoint, which I think has the moral high ground.”

    — Camille Paglia, feminist (Salon, 2016) https://goo.gl/eVt2om

  • …the VERY SAME people who are the staunchest anti-abortion voices are also the ones who want to roll back protections and educational resources…

    Hypocrisy justifies nothing, Joe. Using others’ hypocrisy to justify killing the helpless is quite possibly the worst kind of hypocrisy. It is depraved.

    And all credit for not killing your youngest. But that generosity only makes your reasoning here especially macabre, given that your youngest has Down syndrome. It’s just revolting.

    But I am no better, and God can forgive us both.

  • From an article at The Federalist https://goo.gl/sqWvtZ :

    In the 1950s, the Academy Award-winning actress Pat Neal aborted the child she had with Gary Cooper. In her autobiography, “As I Am,” Neal stated that she grieved her entire life over that child. Although she later had five children, she wrote: “If I had only one thing to do over in my life, I would have that baby.”

  • Few if any of your opponents on-line will be won or converted.

    True. But if I can tell the truth in love–itself a monumental task–I can leave the winning and conversion to God.

    It’s not clear that I’ve done that with Spuddie (which is why I disengaged), but that’s my goal.

  • “…reproductive rights…”

    Euphemism. I am all for reproductive rights. But you don’t mean “reproduction” at all, which gives babies life. You mean “killing babies”, which violently destroys them after you have given them life.

    See below for an abortion pioneer’s discussion on euphemisms surrounding “abortion”, which is itself a euphemism for “killing babies”:

    ———-

    We don’t ever talk about babies, we don’t ever talk about what is being decided in abortion. We never talk about responsibility. The word ‘choice’ is the biggest euphemism. Some use the phrases ‘products of conception’ and ‘contents of the uterus,’ or exchange the word ‘pregnancy’ for the word ‘fetus.’ I think this is a mistake tactically and strategically, and I think it’s wrong. And indeed, it has not worked – we have lost the high ground we had when Roe was decided.

    My objection here is not only that we have lost ground, but also that our tactics are not good ones; they may even constitute bad faith. It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them. I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favour of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening. That pretence has allowed the anti-abortion people to hold the high-ground only because we never talk about it! When they talk about the life of the baby, we talk about the life of the woman. This is a big mistake, not a useful or even accurate way to frame the situation.

    — Judith Arcana at https://goo.gl/XjhKoJ (emphasis mine)

  • …women should have the “right” to decide when they want to start a family and with whom they want to start that family with.

    Red herring. Everyone’s in favor of this.

    What you’re actually talking about is a supposed “right” for a mother to kill her unborn baby. That’s revolting.

    And why should it be limited to prenatal babies? Giubilini and Minerva (2012) discuss “post-birth abortion”–the euphemism of all euphemisms!–employing your rationale to defend killing infants, toddlers, whatever. From “Why should the baby live?”

    ———-

    ABSTRACT
    Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not
    have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing
    that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the
    same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that
    both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3)
    adoption is not always in the best interest of actual
    people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth
    abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all
    the cases where abortion is, including cases where the
    newborn is not disabled.

    https://goo.gl/7UaXLs (emphasis mine)

  • “unwanted pregnancy…”

    Euphemism.

    ———-
    The word ‘choice’ is the biggest euphemism. Some use the phrases ‘products of conception’ and ‘contents of the uterus,’ or exchange the word ‘pregnancy’ for the word ‘fetus.’ I think this is a mistake tactically and strategically, and I think it’s wrong.

    — Judith Arcana at https://goo.gl/XjhKoJ (emphasis mine)

  • No, it is an unwanted pregnancy, and in most cases it is by someone who is either/or not mentally, physically, or financially ready to start a family.

  • “…unwanted pregnancy…”

    That’s called a euphemism. “I think it’s wrong,” says Judith Arcana–no friend of the pro-life cause.

    No: the point is not to end the pregnancy, because all pregnancies end, and the baby would be adopted immediately. The point is to kill the baby.

    ———-
    “…abortion seems different from self-defense since killing the fetus is not simply a means to the end of terminating the pregnancy; it is the true purpose of the abortion, its objective.

    “The hard truth is that women most commonly choose to have an abortion because they do not want the growing fetus inside them to exist anymore.” — Kolb and Dorf, “Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights (2016), Page 87 https://goo.gl/ttWBCB (emphasis mine)

    “The opponents of abortion claim that abortion is wrong because ‘it ends the life of the unborn child’ whereas for abortion’s supporters ending life in the womb is precisely its point.” — Ann Furedi, “The Moral Case for Abortion” (2016) https://goo.gl/6ZPDCR (emphasis mine)

  • Euphemisms are place-holders for important concepts. They may disguise a practice which one might abhor if it were given another name. In Nazi Germany during World War II, euphemisms were used to desensitize
    physicians and society to the horrors of a program of euthanasia.”

    Mitchell, C. Ben. “Of Euphemisms and Euthanasia: The Language Games of the Nazi Doctors and Some Implications for the Modern Euthanasia Movement.” OMEGA – Journal of Death and Dying, vol. 40, no. 1, 2000, pp. 255–265., https://goo.gl/4dwMmf

  • Again, it is not Nazism, is an unwanted pregnancy, and in most cases it is by someone who is either/or not mentally, physically, or financially ready to start a family. Better to finish your education, have a career to fall back on, and marry a committed partner from a good family. Statistically it is the different between rich and poor. There are formulas for success and formulas for failure. You advocate on the side of statistical failure.

  • “… unwanted pregnancy…”

    You keep saying this, and I keep refuting it.
    – “unwanted pregnancy” is a euphemism for another euphemism (“abortion”)
    – “abortion” is a euphemism for “killing an unborn child”–which is the point of abortion
    – when your euphemism needs a euphemism, something is rotten
    – she’s a human being (a baby), not a “pregnancy” (a condition)
    – she’s not “unwanted”. Only 10% of hopeful domestic adoptive parents are placed with a baby, meaning 90% want but don’t have that baby. https://goo.gl/HTkZPL — and 36 couples for every available baby https://goo.gl/T3Dp97
    – Nazis employed euphemisms to enable them to commit the most horrific, legal, state-sponsored atrocities

    ———-
    “…the erosion of medicine under Hitler was, at least in part, due to the way euphemisms for medicalized murder were used so effectively.”

    “As we now know, the euthanasia program did not stop with the killing of the mentally disabled, the feeble, and the terminally ill.”

    “What Lifton (1986) called “detoxifying language” contributed to an ethos which allowed physicians to turn from healers to killers…the Nazi use of euphemisms enable physicians in the Third Reich to commit horrendous atrocities and yet sleep well at night…”

    “…the ever-present use of euphemisms in the contemporary debate over medicalized killing contributes to ambiguity and has the effect of salving the consciences of many who embrace its tenets…”

    — Mitchell, C. Ben. “Of Euphemisms and Euthanasia: The Language Games of the Nazi Doctors and Some Implications for the Modern Euthanasia Movement.” https://goo.gl/4dwMmf (emphasis mine)

  • “You try to refute it, what you say will not change the mathematical equation.”

    I refute it with evidence and citations. You just assert the same list of euphemisms senselessly.

    What “mathematical equation”? This is the first you’ve mentioned that term.

  • Because you pretend that an unwanted pregnancy is simply a euphemism, when in fact it is calling it what it actually is.

  • Have you not seen and “replied” to these already? These are from authorities on abortion; Furedi operates the largest not-for-profit abortion chain in the UK. Who are you?

    “…abortion seems different from self-defense since killing the fetus is not simply a means to the end of terminating the pregnancy; it is the true purpose of the abortion, its objective.”

    “The hard truth is that women most commonly choose to have an abortion because they do not want the growing fetus inside them to exist anymore.” — Kolb and Dorf, “Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights (2016), Page 87 https://goo.gl/ttWBCB (emphasis mine)

    “The opponents of abortion claim that abortion is wrong because ‘it ends the life of the unborn child’ whereas for abortion’s supporters ending life in the womb is precisely its point.” — Ann Furedi, “The Moral Case for Abortion” (2016) https://goo.gl/6ZPDCR (emphasis mine)

  • If it is a murder, then certainly it would be on the books somewhere in the Western world and all the doctors and nurses that are involved in each abortion would be accomplices, along with the person who drove them to the murder scene. No where in the Western world is that happening.

  • “If it is a murder…”

    I said abortion’s purpose is to kill the unborn child, which you seem to regard as murder. Why?

    “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

  • How does Hitler fit into this? Nazism lasted ten years as a political entity. Hitler got fifty million white Christian Europeans killed, while the Vatican remained neutral. He rounded up millions of Jews for extermination, he devastated Germany, lost the war, and shot himself in head.

    A fertilized egg, an embryo, and fetus are not children. I would agree with you about later term abortion under most circumstances.

  • How does Hitler fit into this?

    Have you read anything–anything–I’ve been saying about euphemisms? Anything?

  • It does not change the equation. Hitler also wrote the superior race doctrine. It is a weak argument for you to use against a woman’s right to choose.

  • “A fertilized egg, an embryo, and fetus are not children.”

    Incorrect. All are children.

    ———-
    Person: “a human being” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

    Child: 1a : “an unborn or recently born person.” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

    Child: “Old English cild “fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person,” from Proto-Germanic *kiltham (source also of Gothic kilþei “womb,” inkilþo “pregnant;” Danish kuld “children of the same marriage;” Old Swedish kulder “litter;” Old English cildhama “womb,” lit. “child-home”)…”

    ‘The wider sense “young person before the onset of puberty” developed in late Old English. Phrase with child “pregnant” (late 12c.) retains the original sense.’ (etymonline)

    “The fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” -Moore’s Essentials of Human Embryology

  • “I would agree with you about later term abortion under most circumstances.”

    Why?

    Do you know that a child from 8 weeks’ gestation until birth is a “fetus” (Latin for “offspring”), which you mistakenly denied is a child?

  • “…a woman’s right to choose.”

    Another euphemism. I’m 100% “a woman’s right to choose”–but you’re only talking about one choice: “abortion”, which is a euphemism for killing one’s unborn child. When you need a euphemism for your euphemism, something’s rotten, peepsqueek.

    And what is “a woman’s right to choose” but a superior race doctrine–the strong vs the weak? Because if the unborn child could fight back, I’m willing to bet there’d be remarkably fewer “abortions”.

  • They are human cells with no consciousness, much like the egg you had for breakfast. Your argument is like calling masturbation a homosexual act and a sin. You are calling a woman’s right to choose “murder”.

  • “They are human cells…”

    No, that’s an ignorant response. They are humans. If you killed your son or daughter as a fetus, you have no son or daughter. Because science.

  • “No, it is a woman choosing when to start a family and with whom.”

    Incorrect. Once the woman is pregnant, she is a mother.

  • You don’t wait for an unwanted pregnancy to come to full term if you are not ready to start a family. It is a choice that you want to take away from all woman. You probably call yourself a Christian.

  • unwanted pregnancy

    There are no unwanted pregnancies. Adoption. See above.

    a choice that you want to take away from all woman.

    Killing one’s child is not a legitimate choice. Why do you think it is?

  • No, once the intended pregnancy comes to full term she is a mother by choice, not by you religious philosophy.

  • Incorrect. You’re just making it up as you go.

    At what point does the woman become a mother? Scientifically, definitionally: when a child is conceived.

    Person: “a human being” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

    Child: 1a : “an unborn or recently born person.” (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

    Child: “Old English cild “fetus, infant, unborn or newly born person,” from Proto-Germanic *kiltham (source also of Gothic kilþei “womb,” inkilþo “pregnant;” Danish kuld “children of the same marriage;” Old Swedish kulder “litter;” Old English cildhama “womb,” lit. “child-home”)…”

    ‘The wider sense “young person before the onset of puberty” developed in late Old English. Phrase with child “pregnant” (late 12c.) retains the original sense.’ (etymonline)

    “The fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.” -Moore’s Essentials of Human Embryology

  • How many of the millions of unwanted children have you adopted every year? As long as it is legal, it a viable choice. Hitler never gave anyone a choice, even though you constantly bring him up the the best example.

  • How many of the millions of unwanted children have you adopted every year?

    There are zero unwanted children. There are 36 hopeful adoptive couples for every available baby. See above.

  • Bring that argument to any Court in the Western world and start prosecuting every woman and all the accomplices and see what you get. That is how laws are changes. Make your argument before Congress.

  • start prosecuting…

    And this is the crux of your argument: force. And it’s the point of MLK’s quote about Hitler, Germany, and all his crimes being “legal”. Because for you, might makes right. Right?

    ———-
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

  • Even if the were true, which it is not, because you said “available baby”, and I am talking about millions of abortion every year and their would not be enough couples to play that game even if your force every pregnant to come to full term. It is not mathematically feasible.

  • When Jefferson wrote that, he did not mean women, blacks or native Americans. Native Americans were being decimated and Jefferson owned 200 slaves. Whose creator was he talking about?

  • “When Jefferson wrote that…”

    Oh, you’re an originalist. Interesting that your logic was employed for slavery by Chief Justice Taney in the horrid Dred Scott case.

    Tell me about this:

    nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… 14th Amendment (1868)

    “[The Declaration of Independence] then proceeds to say: `We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…'”

    “The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration…” – Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (Scott v. Sandford, 1857)

  • Stop the BS, as it says “reported abortions” and “legal abortions” many abortions are not reported and some are performed in other Counties Doing the math, most couples have been waiting for years, and many more do not fit the criteria to raise a child. You would tap out the available couples in the first year. Please think before you post.

  • Why? Because it has been determined to be too risky medically, both mentally and physically for a young woman.

  • Here you go: Guttmacher says: 926,200 abortions were performed in 2014–the previous year. https://goo.gl/gQau7Z

    That’s still 2 hopeful couples for every baby killed.

    ———-
    “A facet which makes the obstetrician’s burden unique in the whole field of medicine is his double obligation: he simultaneously cares for two patients, the mother and infant. Each has an individual right to life.”

    — Alan F. Guttmacher (former president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society), Pregnancy and Birth: A Book for Expectant Parents (1957):

  • “Because it has been determined to be too risky medically, both mentally and physically for a young woman.”

    How paternalistic of you! And here I thought you were all for “a woman’s right to choose [to kill her unborn child].”

    Which is it, peepsqueek?

  • “How does Hitler fit into this? Nazism lasted ten years…”

    Like abortion advocates, Hitler made extensive use of euphemisms to effect the brainwashing needed to perpetrate the desired atrocities.

    See “Nazi Euphemisms” at https://goo.gl/ffifom — “Seldom has language been so cynically misused.” Except as employed to kill our children today.

    And Nazism lasted 12 years, not 10. But whatever. https://goo.gl/X3fQ3W

  • To quote your website: Nazi euphemisms played an important role in the dehumanizing process of the Holocaust. From the beginning Hitler spoke of the need to “purify” and “cleanse,” to rid the Reich of the Jewish “vermin,” and to “decontaminate” or “disinfect” the Reich of the Jewish “bacillus.”

    “Purify and cleanse” are not euphemisms. “decontaminate” and “disinfect” are not “euphemisms. He meant mean exactly what he said. Jesus was “crucified”, is that a euphemism for murdered? No, he was crucified.

  • You have a right to choose your religious philosophy, but if a Jehovah’s Witness refuses a blood transfusion for a dying child, the doctor can override the parents decision. A woman has a right to choose, but if the doctor sees that their might be a problem, he can override or change his mind.

  • I am the grandfather of 5 beautiful grand children. My paternal instincts are very much intact. I had my family when I was ready to start one, with a loving partner and the means to raise a family. Please do not judge so quickly, just because I have a different opinion from yours.

  • ” do not judge so quickly…”

    That has nothing to do with it, peep. You say you’re for “a woman’s right to choose [to kill her unborn child].”

    Then you say, well, not all the time.

    At what point is a woman no longer qualified to kill her unborn child? 6 weeks? 24 weeks? 40 weeks?

  • You’re making my point, not yours.

    The blood transfusion would save the child’s life–a proper use of medical training.

    “Abortion” would violently end the child’s life–an outrageous perversion of medical training.

    A doctor doesn’t override an abortion. She just refuses.

  • The law says a woman has reproductive rights. To answer your question– It is not for me to give a definitive answer, but I suppose it depends on the circumstances surrounding the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

  • A conscientious medical doctor who specializes in safe abortions, has to use his or her best judgment when terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Before the people demanded a change in the law, doctors could not override the stated decision of the parents not to give a blood transfusion for religious reasons. Do you call yourself a Christian?

  • “‘Purify and cleanse’ are not euphemisms.”

    They are when used to denote the systematic, government-sponsored destruction of millions of human beings.

    You don’t understand, do you.

  • I understand completely! He used those terms in their exact meaning, When Hitler said that he wanted “racial purity” he was being as straight forward as you can get. He said that Europe must be “cleansed” of the inferior semitic race, he was as straight forward as you can get. He was wrong, but he was not “mincing words”, which is a euphemism for not being straight forward.

  • “…medical doctor who specializes in safe abortions…”

    “Safe abortions” is a euphemism within a euphemism: “abortion” (killing a prenatal child) + “safe” (though its intent is to kill).

    As in Nazi medicalized murder (“euthanasia”, their euphemism), physicians supposedly kill to heal in “abortion”. This is insane.

    Abortion is medicalized murder. Euphemisms cannot change this fact, but they can brainwash pro-aborts to lie about it more assiduously, as you have shown.

    And you still have not reconciled your “Abortion is a woman’s choice!” position with your wish to limit it. It’s either her choice to kill her child or it is not.

  • For you it is a “murder” for most of the rest of the world it is not a murder. It is clearly and directly the stopping of a pregnancy from coming to full term. It is a woman deciding when to start a family and with whom she wants to start it with.

    In most of the Countries where abortion is banned under any circumstances, they are some of the poorest countries in the world and have a tremendous humanitarian crisis. Do you think it is just a coincidence? Over the last 20 years, more than 35 countries have expanded safe access to abortion. But three countries in Central America – Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua – have tightened restrictions. Over the same period, democracy in these three states has weakened, argues Professor Larissa Arroyo Navarrete, suggesting a link between the lack of rule of law in a country, and threats to its women’s rights.

    Mexico no abortions unless it is necessary to save the mother’s life. Over the last 20 years, more than 35 countries have expanded safe access to abortion. But three countries in Central America – Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua – have tightened restrictions. What Countries do we see the most illegal immigrants pouring in from to try and make a better life??????????

    26 countries still ban abortion altogether, with no explicit legal reason for exception, according to The Guttmacher Institute. A pregnant woman living in the following states cannot legally terminate a pregnancy, even if it was the result of rape or incest, and whatever the consequences to her own health:
    Andorra; Malta; San Marino; Angola; Congo-Brazzaville; Congo-Kinshasa; Egypt; Gabon; Guinea-Bissau; Madagascar; Mauritania; São Tomé & Príncipe; Senegal; Iraq; Laos; Marshall Islands; Micronesia; Palau; Philippines; Tonga; Dominican Republic; El Salvador; Haiti; Honduras; Nicaragua; and Suriname. —

  • “…it is a ‘murder’…”

    I said (and substantiated that) abortion’s purpose is to kill the unborn child, which you seem to regard as murder. Why?

    “Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal.” — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

  • “‘Purify and cleanse’ are not euphemisms. ‘decontaminate’ and ‘disinfect’ are not “euphemisms.”

    Incorrect. They are euphemisms for “systematic murder of an entire group of human beings.”

    Much like “safe, legal abortion”.

    You do not understand what a euphemism is.

  • “…I suppose it depends on the circumstances…”

    If a woman’s alleged human right to kill her child may be overridden by mere “circumstances”, then why not by the fact that the child is a human being?

  • “…reproductive rights.”

    I am 100% for reproductive rights. Everyone is.

    What you’re talking about is not reproductive rights but killing rights.

    That’s a euphemism. You are full of euphemisms for killing children. Why?

ADVERTISEMENTs