Cal Thomas on how Iraq is a subplot in a much larger storyline 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Kentucky Senate passes ultrasound bill
Here in my adopted home state of Kentucky, the Senate passed legislation Monday that would require doctors “to show a woman an ultrasound image of her fetus and explain how it is developing before performing an abortion.”
By an overwhelming vote of 32-4, Senate Bill 38 encountered no difficulty passing in the Senate. However, the fight for the bill begins in earnest now that it moves to the Kentucky House, where similar bills have died in committee in the past.
We can pray that this bill finds support among legislators in the Kentucky House, and passes into law. As the main sponsor of the bill, Sen. Elizabeth Tori, R-Elizabethtown said, “This bill rights a wrong. An ultrasound is nothing more than an X-ray in motion.”
Here is an excerpt from the bill itself:
(1) Prior to a woman giving informed consent to having any part of an abortion performed, the physician who is to perform the abortion or a certified technician working in conjunction with the physician shall:
(a) Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman;
(b) Provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting, which shall include the presence and location of the unborn child within the uterus and the number of unborn children depicted and also, if the ultrasound image indicates that fetal demise has occurred, inform the woman of that fact;
(c) Display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them; and
(d) Provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician, technician, nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if the pregnant woman refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images.
Let us remember the words of the Psalmist:
“My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth” (Psalm 139:15).
back to top183 Comments to “Kentucky Senate passes ultrasound bill”
this bill will help in stopping some of the killing of babies.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Kentucky Senate.
Perhaps the full Kentucky House should observe a full length viewing of an abortion, from the showing of the ultrasound and the step by step procedure of an abortion.
Lets keep the Kentucky House in fervent prayer.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno, the reaons the baby killing companies hate the ultrasound is once you watch one. It leaves no doubt that it is a baby not a fetus. An the baby killing companies can not let that happen.
Report comment to moderator
I would support this bill so long as the state also requires every KFC customer to watch a short video on the treatment of poultry in factory farming prior to ordering a chicken dinner.
I mean, let’s be consistent.
Report comment to moderator
Equating a chicken to a baby? What?
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t equating chickens and human fetuses, so much as observing a similarity in expected reactions of would-be abortion clients and would-be chicken dinner eaters.
But sure, chickens do bear noteworthy similarities to human fetuses.
Report comment to moderator
This is great news. Hopefully it will catch on in other states.
The great thing about this country is that people like CT are entirely free to pursue whatever ideas they want. If he can persuade enough of his fellow voters that his anti-chicken-eating law would be a good idea, perhaps his local or state legislatures can put it to a vote.
So have at it, CT.
But you know as well as I do that there is a difference between humans and non-human species and that at the root of all our beliefs is the fundamental uniqueness and superiority of the human being. You also know that, while the ultrasound-before-abortion idea is being seriously considered and voted on in legislatures across the nation, your chicken idea would be laughed out of the statehouse as the nonsense that it is.
But again, go for it. It’s your right as an American to defend nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
David L,
Between chickens and human fetuses there are similarities and differences. You focus on the differences. A racist focuses on the difference between races within the human species. To differentiate your position from that of the racist, you must identify the morally significant difference marked by the category Homo sapiens. In other words, the difficult task is to justify your assertion that the proposal is “nonsense”.
Report comment to moderator
CT is just playing the usual genocidalist wordgame – take a segment of people you don’t want or who are not politically expedient, label or classify them as non-humans, and then eliminate them.
The fat German burgher in 1938 listening to the cries of his Jewish neighbors as they were loaded into the waiting lorries had the same response as CT and other supporters of child murder.
The Soviet functionary in the Ukraine in the 1930’s who watched the peasants outside starve to death as he sat in his dacha eating pastries and drinking vodka – no different.
Etc.
It is an old and bloody trick, as old as the human race.
It takes no intelligence and no thought – just a slavish natural disposition to aiding and abetting the killing of children.
Report comment to moderator
Drill,
If this is such an old game (as old as your slippery slope fallacy?), then it’s high time for you to put it to rest, here and now. I eagerly await your reasoned arguments.
Report comment to moderator
IAF – #5 – ,
Clearly CT thinks that chickens are people too!
(That’s a M*A*S*H* reference folks).
Report comment to moderator
Also, he’s never read the first 5 chapters of Genesis.
Report comment to moderator
That must be it Rondu. Thanks for your insight.
Report comment to moderator
“I mean, let’s be consistent”
Fine with me, I see no problem with such a trade off.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll gladly watch a chicken video before KFC consumption.
Now that that’s settled, the Kentucky House can pass the bill like the Senate.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, do you think the issue here is whether or not you enjoy watching chickens being butchered before lunch?
Report comment to moderator
I didnt say anything about enjoying it CT. I’m just glad to make the trade off. I can submit myself to a chicken video if it means someone else gets to submit themselves to an ultrasound.
That is what you simply suggested right? That your willing to agree to ultrasounds if chicken videos are also on the table?
Are you going back on your offer?
Report comment to moderator
CT: What is the “issue” here?
Killing chickens or killing the unborn?
Report comment to moderator
Let’s go ahead and amend the bill.
Report comment to moderator
Arguments about what, CT?
I do not argue that children are not people.
I do not argue that children should be butchered.
You do.
And I am not interested in the arguments you make that children are not people and that children should be butchered.
I am only interested in the evil that you and your kind do.
And how to stop it dead in its tracks.
Report comment to moderator
Roger Patno, you’re a bit slow on the uptake again. Read the thread, and stop and think about post #6.
Report comment to moderator
CT – nobody said they had to watch a video of the baby being sucked out and dismembered (that is what happens in abortion). The bill says that you get to watch a video of the baby in the womb and see the hands forming, the heart beating, the legs forming, all the attributes of a human being that are formed in the first trimester in the womb.
Now if you would like me to watch a video of an egg in vitro before I eat at KFC, sure why not, it may be entertaining.
Report comment to moderator
Back door support for the killing of unborn with tonque in cheek remarks is still hateful to the extreme and no amount of spin and side stepping will hide that fact.
Report comment to moderator
Has anyone wondered if our friend CT might be a Reader’s Digest version of our dear friend Musing?
Not saying, just curious.
Report comment to moderator
IAF,
You’ll see the parallel if you step up a level of abstraction. The more general issue regards whether we should have a policy that more or less forces the would-be customer/abortion to face information related to the action at hand. In both cases, the emotional impact of the information would have foreseable effects.
Report comment to moderator
Yes it would have a forseable effect. A human life may be saved. Nothing abstract about that.
Report comment to moderator
Drill #20,
You seem to be massively confused. Where do I argue that “children are not people”, or that “children should be butchered”? I can now understand why you are upset–but it probably has a lot to do with your own confusion.
Another victim, it seems, of zeal without knowledge. Or, more accurately: lack of knowledge inflaming a fury of misguided zeal. Hopefully that misguided zeal has not left you completely blind.
Report comment to moderator
A real choice is a fully-informed choice. So this bill is very “pro-choice.” Heck, the mother even gets the choice not to see the ultrasound if that is her preference (see section (d)(2) quoted in the post).
Report comment to moderator
…make that just plain old section (2)…
Report comment to moderator
CT @ 27 – a very common debate tactic around here is a false restatement of the opposition’s viewpoint. This puts the victim in a position of having to correct that which he did not say or imply. It also derails the discussion and camoflauges any weaknesses in the perpetrator’s argument.
I could call it “Drilling”, but that would be equally dishonest – lots of people here do it.
The best way to handle it is to ignore the one who does it. Such a person has lost all credibility in the debate, at least in the eyes of any thinking reader.
Report comment to moderator
Ah. Perhaps I misunderstood you, CT. So please answer the following question so that I may understand you:
Do you maintain that it is acceptable to classify a child in the womb as a non-human (or a non-person) in order to kill her legally?
Note that this is a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question.
However, if you use the usual genocidal linguistics of pro-Deaths and attempt to refrain from answering the question by saying that a child in the womb is not a child or that the very plain question is ‘meaningless’, etc., you have then equivalently answered the question with an unqualified ‘Yes.’
So.
Yes or No.
Which is it?
Report comment to moderator
“In both cases, the emotional impact of the information would have foreseable effects.”
Are any foreseable effects negative under our amendment? Or are you now considering the chick fil a cow lobbyists position? Why make a suggestion for compromise and consistancy and then start wimping out?
Amend the bill indeed. No one should have a problem watching a video about a chicken egg and the inside of such. If the KFC customers dont want to each chicken afterwards, they dont have too and they still can eat if they want.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1: We are already well appraised of your unconditional and enthusiastic support of the murder of children via abortion; the bloody corpse bumps behind you with every step you take and every meaninglessly empty post you write on the subject. You have no argument for it except your invariable and fundamentally uninteresting acceptance of whatever your fetid culture tells you to accept, no matter how evil.
Report comment to moderator
Abortion is not just another political choice – you can support a candidate because you like his or her position on increasing the numbers of lamp posts on Main street even though you don’t like his or her position on garbage pickup days, and so be it; that is a political choice – stupid or smart or whatever.
However, the support of pro-abort (pro-Death) politicians makes you a willing supporter and enabler of the brutal murders of children behind the steel walls of the so-called ‘clinics’, a participant as it were, probably morally more culpable than the pathetic deranged people who actually do the butchering.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for the warning Thomas1. I’ve appreciated your voice around here.
Thorn #32, it seems you’ve not fully understood post #25; you’ve missed the main points. Have another try, then re-phrase your questions that remain.
Report comment to moderator
See, Drill, there you go again.
I am against abortion, I think it’s wrong, I wouldn’t have one if I was a woman, and I wouldn’t encourage one if I was in the postion to do so. I have no argument for it because I have no argument for it.
(Curiously, I associate with a fairly large group which includes both liberals and conservatives, and none that I know of have ever faced this issue. Odd.)
I oppose criminalization of abortion, and all that may imply.
The bloody corpses of your comments reek of fetid, uninteresting lies.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you CT. I’ll let you discover the other perpetrators on your own, though. See Drill at 33 for the ne plus ultra of the genre.
Report comment to moderator
I see the local representatives of Child Murder, Inc. have apparently run out of arguments for what they do and support and enable.
As always.
Meanwhile, in the 3 or so hours that this post has been active, approximately 400 children have been murdered in abortion clinics in America alone . . . thanks in large part to the support and enabling of the activities in these clinics by the votes and posturing of the Thomas1’s and CT’s and other like-minded (such as their minds are represented) groupies of the current Culture of Death.
Report comment to moderator
Yo, people, think about this for a minute. Everyone seems to agree that this bill supports informing people of the truth. So someone says, “I would support informing people of truth in area A as long as people also find out the truth in area B.” That person has just agreed that the bill exposes truth in area A. (My point is: nevermind that it is unclear why an individual would only support finding out truth in area A if, in their view, people also found out truth in area B. The fact that that is really somewhat nonsensical is beside the point.)
Report comment to moderator
Stop feeding them!
Report comment to moderator
Why stop there? Women need more information to protect the little babies…
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/new_law_requires_women_to_name
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy #39,
Yours is a thoughtful post. I’d hesitate, however, before characterizing this issue simply as “informing people about truth.” Showing middle schools students pornographic photos does more than informs them about truth. There is also the element of coercion here. The morally loaded aspects of the policy need to be considered.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with NJL….never heard of this poster before but for anybody to equate eating chicken with the senseless and brutal killing of a child is absolutely ridiculous. And of course Thomas will get away with mocking the poster as usual while if I were to do the same I would be put in posters timeout by the moderator.
It is amazing that the people who support murdering children cannot tolerate torture or eating of an animal.
But that is the Progressive compassion, whatever gains you more government controls.
This bill does quite the opposite, it takes government controls off and puts the CHOICE back in the hands of the consumer. So by all means amend the bill to make it so that anybody who eats chicken or beef or port has to watch a video of an egg, a pregnant cow or a pregnant pig. The meaning will still be the same….hard to gin up compassion for a pig fetus as compared to a baby in the womb.
But keep confusing the matter all together CT and Thomas, it shows just how much compassion you have.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t be fooled by mynock’s “more information” – the adolescent satire he links to has nothing to do with that. Instead it’s trying to equate the giving of truthful information with the forcing of women to prepare and furnish a nursery before getting an abortion. The two things obviously have nothing to do with each other — at least that is obvious to anyone capable of thinking a rational thought (which would appear to exclude the folks at the onion).
Report comment to moderator
This is interesting regarding CT – Computed tomography (CT)produces a volume of data which can be manipulated, through a process known as “windowing”, in order to demonstrate various bodily structures based on their ability to block the X-ray/Röntgen beam. Although historically the images generated were in the axial or transverse plane, orthogonal to the long axis of the body, modern scanners allow this volume of data to be reformatted in various planes or even as volumetric (3D) representations of structures.
So we could use CT to show the baby in the womb and have even more data showing that it is a real live baby in there instead of just a bunch of microbes or whatever the pro-abortion folks are calling it these days.
Report comment to moderator
wow so much personal attacks
Report comment to moderator
And of course Thomas will get away with mocking the poster as usual while if I were to do the same I would be put in posters timeout by the moderator.
I mocked no one. But you deserve a time out for saying I did.
Report comment to moderator
folks even if this becomes law the companies that are making money off of the killing of babies will surly take this to court.
Report comment to moderator
Christians, just a heads up: if you allow this thread to be sidetracked, it will devolve into a discussion of “why it’s better for the fetus if the fetus is killed.” Trust me. This discussion has happened many times in past months. Don’t fall into the trap here.
Report comment to moderator
Again, most politicians are mere reflections of their constituency. The amoralist says it’s not a moral issue. The fact that the abortion holocaust has been a ‘constitutional right’ for nearly forty years reflects badly on the nation as a whole. The remnant of Christianity that remains lost its influence decades ago. Only a miracle could change the amoral heart of this nation.
Report comment to moderator
IAF,
“for anybody to equate eating chicken with the senseless and brutal killing of a child…”
Who do you think is doing this? If you think that I am making this equation, then you’re descending to Drill’s level, and you might read #27. But please, IAF, re-read my actual comments.
Report comment to moderator
CT @ 51 – did you notice how I got lumped in with that false restatement of your views, also? It’s hilarious; I didn’t even comment on chickens. IAF can’t help it – if you’ve disagreed with him once, you automatically are on the opposite side of every issue.
Even when you’re not.
Report comment to moderator
CT,
In post #4 you clearly said youd support the bill if your proposal was added.
I’ve agreed.
Now your wimping out?
Dont ask for consistency when you wont keep it yourself. I have no problem watching a video on poultry farming and the killing of chickens before I eat at KFC. We put warning labels on cigarette boxes, why not an ultrasound and a chicken video?
Although if want to keep the consistancy of abstraction level, you would need to show a video of the abortion process, but I’m willing ot concede that level for just an ultrasound.
So you still get a better end in the trade, so why do you balk now?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn #53,
It’s difficult to make sense of your suggestions here. Are you mistaking this dialogue as a contest of masculinity? And, again, the issue is not really about your enjoyment/toleration of animal slaughter.
You raise a good question though: “why not a chicken video?” Seriously, consider it: why shouldn’t Kentucky pass a bill requiring every KFC customer to watch a short video on the industrial treatment and slaughter of poultry prior to placing their order? Can you really think of no reasons why this shouldn’t be made into law?
Report comment to moderator
Wouldn’t it have to be a video about the chickens that ended up at that KFC restaurant? I mean, the bill under discussion doesn’t require the showing of any old ultrasound, but an ultrasound of the specific fetus that the mother is carrying. Plus, suppose KFC started using free-range chickens; then it would be unfair to show a video of a practice that they no longer used.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy,
I’m happy to let you alter some of the details, but I’m not convinced they’re all that relevant.
Suppose KFC did use only humanely raised, organic, free-range, happy chickens. Suppose that, it was possible to show each would-be customer a video of the slaughter of his/her chicken dinner? Aren’t there still reasons against the state requiring such a viewing?
Report comment to moderator
Also, don’t folks here have a sense of humor? Mynock’s #41 deserves consideration.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I suppose the law would have to allow a person to avert their eyes, just as the bill in question allows the mother not to watch the ultrasound if she chooses not to. That provision tends to diminish concerns relating to coercion, while still promoting a fully-informed choice.
Report comment to moderator
I watched the video linked at 41, and found it rather sophomoric. So accuse me of being an old geezer, it just wasn’t very clever because the underlying argument didn’t make any sense.
Report comment to moderator
And KFC could still, of course, be allowed offer its would-be customers earplugs and eyemasks during the screening.
Would this make the KFC law legitimate and reasonable?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy #59, I think you’re failing to appreciate Onion humor for what it is. That’s not as bad as failing to appreciate great literature, but still, I think you’re missing something.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, maybe I’m not very onionated. As for the KFC law, I think simply allowing the customer to avert her eyes would be sufficient, otherwise the meal might become prohibitively expensive at the margin (have you seen their prices lately?).
Plus, such a law might actually be beneficial because, if a woman’s boyfriend or parent is pressuring her to eat at KFC against her true desires, they would have to watch the chicken video too and then maybe they’d have second thoughts about forcing her to go through with it.
Report comment to moderator
“I would support this bill so long as the state also requires every KFC customer to watch a short video on the treatment of poultry in factory farming prior to ordering a chicken dinner.”
It was your suggestion CT. I’m not arguing masculinity. Another synomym would be renig, go back on, take back, etc.
You made the above reference to when you would support the bill. So I’m simply agreeing to your proposal. Are you now in support of the required ultrasound, or are you still refusing to give your support?
Report comment to moderator
“Don’t be fooled by mynock’s “more information” – the adolescent satire he links to has nothing to do with that. Instead it’s trying to equate the giving of truthful information with the forcing of women to prepare and furnish a nursery before getting an abortion.”
The cats already out of the bag, Buzzy. “Pastor” Roy’s number 1 has already demonstrated that the intention of the law isn’t to provide more factual information (information that wasn’t requested and probably not appreciated), it’s to emotionally manipulate women into making a different choice. And that isn’t the legitimate function of the government.
“This bill does quite the opposite, it takes government controls off and puts the CHOICE back in the hands of the consumer.”
This is the most silliest thing I’ve heard today (and today a German Prince married to Zsa Zsa Gabor announced he’s running to be governor of California)! This is sillier. It’s also plainly false since the act would in fact have the direct effect of adding a government control to the medical procedure.
If Republicans can’t tell addition from subtraction, I think there is a good argument to not seat Scott Brown until we verify that they know filling in the little bubble is +1, not the other way around.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t realize Pastor Roy had drafted the bill or voted on it.
Report comment to moderator
Some people are just so afraid of the truth. As I said in another thread, they get more desperate with every advance in ultrasound technology because their entire case collapses.
Report comment to moderator
In my experience, regular people (i.e., non-idealogues) generally appreciate having truthful information about very important decisions they are about to make, and about which they may be under some pressure from boyfriends and family members.
Report comment to moderator
Since mynock opposes women being empowered to make a fully-informed choice, he must be anti-choice.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy,
I think you’re still failing to appreciate how showing pictures is not simply about the transmission of information and truth. Few people (not many share Thorn’s tastes) want to see a chicken being slaughtered dinner. This is true even if, during cooler moments of reflection, the KFC customer realizes (let’s take the counterfactual case) that the chicken has lived a good life, and its slaughter is as humane as possible. The customer may agree that this is nothing morally wrong about this use of the chicken. Still, he loses his appetite. As it is, eating at KFC is a barely tolerable culinary experience. The new legislation takes a bad thing and makes it worse. And the customer hasn’t really gained any information that she might not have gained through some less unappetizing alternative.
Think of this as a bit of a parable. As Jesus said, “Let him who has ears to hear, hear.”
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy 01.26.10 AT 5:47 PM
I didn’t realize Pastor Roy had drafted the bill or voted on it.
–
that makes two of us.
Report comment to moderator
“And the customer hasn’t really gained any information that she might not have gained through some less unappetizing alternative.”
And how is this chicken/video argument in any way applicable to the bill in question?
Explain, if you are able.
Report comment to moderator
Who knew that having a baby was un-American:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583999,00.html
Report comment to moderator
Well, CT, perhaps you are right. While some women know exactly what they’re doing, others have no clue what the baby looks like in its current stage of development. When they find out the truth, they may go ahead anyway, or they may not. But at least they then have more information to base their decision on, so that they don’t end up saying, remorsefully, “If only I had known…” And you can be sure that, without this type of legislation, the abortion provider is not going to let her see an ultrasound. So, just as showing chicken-killings may cut into KFC’s profits, giving abortion-minded women the full picture of what they’re doing may cut into the profits of abortion providers, and I suspect that’s one of the main reasons why anyone would be against this bill (another reason being that some people see abortion as a positive good in order to reduce population, and so are literally pro-abortion rather than pro-choice). The other dynamic, in my experience, is that many times a woman is accompanied by her mother or boyfriend to the clinic. The woman has misgivings about going through with it, but is under substantial emotional pressure to “get rid of the problem.” Once the woman’s mother or boyfriend sees their grandchild or child, as the case may be, they may ease up on the pressure and allow the woman to make the decision of her own free will. That’s the other sense in which this type of legislation promotes freedom of choice.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: Your not a “stealth” drafter are you?
Report comment to moderator
Chyrl D: Men like to fight, women like to talk about kitties and dogs.
OH the chauvinism in me is spilling out!
Report comment to moderator
NJL – oh my goodness, the rhetoric the abortion-advocacy groups are using in that article is over the top. I guess that, as I said in #66, they’re getting desperate because their argument is collapsing in the face of technological advances.
Report comment to moderator
Roger -
Next to lovin, I like Fightin
I like fightin, it’s excitin’
Next to loving I fightin best
Next to being hugged and kissed
I like makin me a fist
Next to lovin’ I like fightin’ best
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry, but this is disgusting. It is wonderful that all of your religious ideals seem like they have say when there legally should be a Separation of Church and State, but this is not your place.
An abortion is a legal procedure that is not easy on a woman, but through the ignorance and disgust of some of you who pride in things like this, you will put them through even more pain.
All of you Pro-Lifers love to talk about saving a baby, but I highly doubt ANY of you would like taxes to rise for the welfare of that child after birth. I doubt any of you have adopted any of those children, nor would you, yet you pride yourself in so-called “saving a life”.
Any of you who are actual pastors should lose your tax exemptions for poking your nose into issues that legally do not concern you. You don’t pay taxes, therefore you should have NO say in politics.
Report comment to moderator
Skeptic – very funny. We know you’re pro-life and you’re just trying to make the other side look bad. Nice try but we’re not that easily fooled
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, no I am Pro-Choice because I actually value the legal choices of a woman over your religious ideologies. I still figure the replies back will be silent over helping those children born when it comes to taxes. I don’t see any of you adopting or probably endorsing the spending of money for welfare.
I find this even more disgusting if all of you Pro-Lifers actually think this practice should be done with to a woman impregnated during a rape?
Report comment to moderator
Skeptic – come on, really? I guess taxes were sooooo much higher before 1973, eh? And so was the rate of child abuse (not!). And your statement that no pro-lifers adopt unwanted children is laughable. You’ve really got to get out more. I still say you’re pro-life and are trying to make pro-abortion folks look ignorant and presumptuous.
Report comment to moderator
Guys, I don’t know why y’all are having trouble with CT’s point here. S/he obviously just wants to be able to eat babies after watching an ultrasound. Kentucky Fried Children is a vast, untapped market opportunity.
Report comment to moderator
#78
Skeptic,
What makes you think pastors don’t pay taxes?
Report comment to moderator
Comment deleted by moderator.
Report comment to moderator
I lol’d.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline… As part of a congregation, they have exemptions.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
— Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) vs. Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA)
The compensation that a church or religious organization pays to its ministers for performing services in the exercise
of ministry is not subject to FICA taxes. However, income that a minister earns in performing services in the exercise of his ministry is subject to SECA tax, unless the minister has timely applied for and received an exemption from SECA tax.
Report comment to moderator
Skeptic #84 – Buzzy, you are a ….
Uh, you might want to run that one by the moderator. See, they have this RIGHT WAY/WRONG WAY thing goin’ on, and they might send you an electric shock that would be very unpleasant. Just sayin’.
[Comment edited by moderator.]
Report comment to moderator
#84: Now really, Skeptic. Too far. I will, however, leave it up to Buzzy to report you.
You have uncovered our evil master plan, indeed. Force women to have children! Next step: insemination and human farms! And then… TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!
Outside the box? Buddy, you’re so far in the box, you’re threatening Jack’s job security.
Report comment to moderator
Comment deleted by moderator.
Report comment to moderator
Comment deleted by moderator.
Report comment to moderator
This site can go back to random illiterate people celebrating more suffering of a woman.
We will soooo miss you skeptic. It just wasn’t fun around here till you arrived. But if you must go, please, do what you have to do and pay no attention to our tears.
Report comment to moderator
Awe, you can’t take criticism and reality so you ban those who bring it? Have fun with that. If you haven’t noticed the amount of traffic coming in from certain sites. It is because others like myself are coming to see the crazy people like yourself justify humiliating and guilting women you don’t know.
Report comment to moderator
#89: Honestly, calm down. If you must know, this really doesn’t fall much under the separation of church and state. Attacking conservatives for their “inconsistency” in opposing both big government and abortion is misguided. Providing justice for crimes like murder, theft, etc. is a nearly universally agreed-upon function of the government. In fact, the only ones that disagree would be anarchists and murderers themselves. Of course we think government has a place in law enforcement.
And, nowhere in the Bible does it state that abortion is wrong. It states that murder is wrong. Pro-life views come from the idea that there is only an artificial difference between the two. It’s a matter of consistency: if murder is wrong, why is abortion okay? No one’s forcing religious beliefs on anyone, per se. Well, actually, I have argued that the only reason one would think murder is wrong is because of religion, so, in that sense, maybe.
Report comment to moderator
Alright, I hear you Catlover. Still, this kind of provision is nothing more than guilting and humiliating a woman to be pushed by those who want to infringe on the lives of others. This kind of thing serves no real medical purpose other than the intrusion of the views of others.
The majority of abortions happen in the first trimester. No fetus has been born during the first trimester even with the intervention of medical advancements has lived to hit a year old. As far as I’m concerned, a fetus is not a human being until they are developed to at least live under medical advancements.
Still, even the idea of the start of “life” is redundant given both the sperm and egg are, in fact, alive! It is more like the transferal of life as an infinite process. Those who are religious push their ideals of “when life is created” to justify calling abortion murder.
I find it funny that most religious only call the killing of humans as murder, while they eat their McDonald’s burgers. No, I’m not a PETA nut, but this illumination over the human race over all other living beings is smug.
Report comment to moderator
Skeptic:
America is not a Christian Nation, no matter how many evangelicals wish it to be one.
However, this is a Christian blog. Please refrain from using Christ’s name as an epithet, and don’t call people names. It lowers the tone of debate and violates the TOS. It also does damage to your underlying valid point that few people on the pro-life side have answers about how to help that life achieve anything, once born, and the icky criminalization problem details are often not addressed by them/us.
Welcome, and thanks.
[Comment edited by moderator.]
Report comment to moderator
I guess full disclosure so that a person can make an informed decision is out of the question for some.
Report comment to moderator
Skeptic,
This is my first and last comment to you. Henceforth, I will ignore ANYTHING that you post and treat you as if you had never existed.
First, however, I want to point out that if you had ever read the 1st amendment, you would have plainly seen that there is no such thing as the “separation of church and state”.
Report comment to moderator
This thread has been going on since 11:35 a.m. and much of skeptic’s ground has been covered. It does not appear that he read any of the previous posts before jumping in with his two cents. Given his rude and abusive approach, this doesn’t surprise me. Rondu, I am with you: I’m just going to ignore him from now on.
Report comment to moderator
Rondu,
I would recommend you re-reading the first amendment; ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
or as Thomas Jefferson put it:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State”
Report comment to moderator
#94:
I actually view provisions like this as helping women to throw off others’ infringement on their lives. It is drummed into these women that fetuses are nothing more than a bunch of tissue, like, I don’t know, a cancer or something. The ultrasounds give them a clear and accurate view of what is really going on. It can’t hurt them.
You’re basing your view of what a human being is on current medicine? Yikes. What if, in the future, doctors are able to keep fetuses alive from the moment of conception? Would your views change? How about 100 years ago? I would be unable to survive under the medicine of that era. I need insulin. Would I have been less of a person then?
The sperm and the egg are cells, and, left alone, will always be cells. When they come together, they make a new life, which will grow until it’s death, hopefully some 70-90 years later.
Whoa! You see no difference between humans and animals? My answer is that humans are made in the image of God. You answer is …? FI you’re not a PETA nut, you must have one yourself.
Report comment to moderator
RONDU…
The First Amendment was created for the very reason to separate Church from State as Thomas Jefferson had stated. This country’s very creation was the direct result of pushing away from religious hold.
I don’t mind you completely ignoring me, but that just reflects onto yourself as someone who cannot take criticism. I’ve responded to all criticism towards myself. When there is a debate, shutting down and leaving the room is the loser’s way out of discussion.
Report comment to moderator
When someone starts vomiting his hatred all over the room, the only sensible thing to do is leave. Have a good evening.
Report comment to moderator
See – #99 –
The quote from Jefferson (if correct) is an opinion. The LANGUAGE is NOT in the bill of rights!
Report comment to moderator
Catlover…
I don’t see how this helps a woman by forcing her to view an image when she is already in a position of mental pain. You probably have and never will have an abortion. My ex girlfriend had one (not mine), and the doctor forgot to take the ultrasound off the monitor. She saw it, and it hurt her more. It didn’t help her.
So I’m basing my stance on modern medicine. Yes, I am. Still, there are things like stem cell research and cloning that are artificial uses of modern science that could be of use. Conservatives and religious are against both. If you are trying to claim that future medical accomplishments could allow a fetus to survive outside the womb, I’m sure your base would be strongly against because that is “acting like God”.
Sperm and egg cells harness the genetic design to create an entire human being with just the need of creating a couple blanks (stem cells) that are then formed into body tissue specific cells. Cancer works in the same way except these are cells never stop replicating, which is coded into every cell.
As for “humans made in God’s Image”. That is a dead end argument. That is like arguing if Unicorns live on the planet Venus. You can’t use faith to explain the real world. Your understanding of God was hardwired into you from a very early age by your parents who are guided by whatever religious sect you belong to. There are far too many religions for someone to claim one to be the ‘one true path’.
You can say we are made in his image all day long, but that would either make us perfect, or make him flawed. If there is a God that does intervene with the real world, it is sadistic.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, I’m out of here also!
Report comment to moderator
The phrase “separation of church and state” is NOT in the Constitution.
Excellent idea regarding ignoring certain posts. It’s just not worth it.
Report comment to moderator
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Report comment to moderator
I guess full disclosure so that a person can make an informed decision is out of the question for some.
Not for me. I’d go far beyond a required ultrasound.
In another thread, I praised my dentist for explaining what he’d do before he did it.
I have NO objection to a legal requirement that a woman view a video of a full abortion before having one, including the physical results. If a root canal is explained in detail by the very best dentists, then something that dire deserves full disclosure.
There is no reason not to do this.
That said – I don’t want to force a woman to carry a baby to term.
A lot more would do it anyway if my idea were implemented.
Report comment to moderator
>There is no reason not to do this.
Well there is the matter of costs(to be paid by the patient from what I see?), time and in the case of rape victims increased trauma. (Early ultrasound requires quite intrusive measures)
Report comment to moderator
BUZZY…
Hatred would be the person who supports destroying a young woman by forcing her to see a picture of a fetus they are aborting based on religious views and ideals. The sensible thing to do is to keep to your own business. If you are Pro-Life… don’t have abortions. If you are anti-gay, don’t fall in love with the same sex. Stop trying to impose your views on those who are only hurt by your stance.
RONDU
As said, the entire First Amendment was the full basis of Separation. This is like arguing the Second Amendment as not pertaining to guns… or including shape-charge explosives as “arms”. Still, the Constitution is not the cornerstone of the USA, but a starting point. There are laws on the books where tax exemption is taken away from religious groups based on their improper political intrusion. Again I say, if you don’t pay taxes, you should have no say in politics.
Report comment to moderator
SEE – I’d make an exemption for victims of rape or incest, though many here would not.
Report comment to moderator
#104:
Oh, I’m sorry. I should have clarified: it does present the truth, which may be hurtful. If the woman has conscience issues about it, that is the whole point. And, you have to ask yourself why it bugs her conscience. Does she perhaps understand on some level what is happening?
If you admit to basing your stance on modern medicine, how do you get around the issues I already brought up? Instead, you’ve generalized about conservatives and religious people. For your information, I would definitely not be against allowing a fetus to survive outside the womb. I am against stem cell research, but only the embryonic variety, because it by definition involves an abortion. Cloning, too, would necessitate the willful killing of people.
You know what I mean. Cancer does not become a person.
I did say that’s my answer, and I can too use faith to describe the world. I dare say I use less “faith,” as you mean it, than you do. You must have faith that there is no God, which, in turn, means you must have faith that the universe’s existence, and everything that follows, makes sense, and works, somehow. (Which, BTW, it doesn’t.) There are infinite answers to every question, but one of them is right. You can say that 2 + 2 equals anything you like, but there’s still a right answer. Religion is like that, only more so. The number of “answers” has no effect on which is the truth.
I can’t believe you’ve never heard the existence of evil discussed before. Many, many books have been written on the subject. You must have some idea what I’m going to say. Anyway: We were created in the image of God. Then we fell. Evil was brought into the world through our choice, and there are consequences. Why did God allow a choice? If He hadn’t, our lives and worship would be meaningless, and we nothing more than automatons with preprogramed decisions. God is both wholly good and wholly just. Therefore, a price did have to be paid for our sins. Cue Jesus. Now, we have another choice.
Report comment to moderator
Much ado about nothing;
I hardly think this is enforceable as it would require an intrusion of the state into doctor patient privacy. I doubt the state will be able to demand proof of presentation to be produced upon request.
Secondly, I hardly think a doctor specializing in abortion will fulfill the requirements of the bill as envisioned by the writers. Many of us click “I agree” when downloading software, music, but I doubt when read the agreement. Similarly, I expect the doctor to quickly ramble the minimal required information, asked the patient to sign an informed consent in small print, and go on with the procedure.
As for viewing the ultrasound, offer the patient a towel.
The bill is more about appealing to a certain demographic for both monetary support and votes.
As for abortion in general, there will never be an agreement on this site until terms such as viability, person, human etc are defined and agreed. I don’t see that happening.
Report comment to moderator
The evolution of this discussion is both amusing and predictable. When one side (SKEPTIC) uses rational thought and discussion, the other side (those that believe in the adult version of me…”he sees you when you’re sleeping…so be good for goodness sake”) start leaving in droves because they don’t want to listen to “vomiting hate” or other such nonsensical terms for logical and rational thought. A question for the abortion foes is: When is abortion ok? Catholic school teachers love to say that a soul is imparted at the moment of conception, but this is a classic religious fallacy of limited resolution, where everything must be reducible to a binary yes/no conidtion. There is no “moment” of conception. The whole process of reproduction is fuzzy and gradual. Before science knew that eggs and sperm existed, the very act of sex was considered “conception”, but we all (hopefully) know that not to be completely true. Regardless of this, referring to abortion as “killing babies” is merely a play on emotions, just as would be showing chicken killing videos at KFC, or forcing parents to watch circumcision videos before that brutal tradition.
All this bill does is attempt to remove some of the woman’s logical decision making ability by encouraging her to feel the emotional weakness that others, especially the religious types, feel – which is not your, or the government’s right to do. Should women considering NOT having an abortion and in dire financial situations have to watch a video on welfare, Section 8, food stamps and the effort and stress of raising a child without income before being allowed to make such a decision? No. Of course not. That would be savage. Just as this bill is.
And before you religious “save the children” crusaders jump down my throat, think about this: There is a price on human life. Economics DO matter when considering how much money to spend on prolonging life (you don’t think the state should spend 10 million of your tax dollars to keep a 95 year old person on medicate alive for 24 more hours, do you?). So saying that as a society, we should spend the money to keep every human alive without any regard for the cost to all of us is absolute insanity. I cannot quote the unaborted fetus–>welfare statistics here, but I’m willing to bet that the majority of women considering abortions that change their minds due to government intervention do not become self-sustaining mothers. I’m not saying for a minute that all people are worthless, only that as a society, country, and planet we do not have unlimited resources, and “keeping every human alive no matter what the cost” is not a sustainable option.
Report comment to moderator
Ok… came across this story and find actually read through all these comments. Wow it got a little asinine for a bit in the middle, anyways.
I don’t see this bill as anything more than an apeasment of a base of constituants. If this were truly about patient’s rights, this would not be about forcing the woman to view the ultrasound. As someone said ealier, a patients rights is about knowledge. When younger I had to drive a close friend of mine to get an abortion. It was not an easy decision for her, it was also a series of appointments over a month I believe before they would allow. Afterwards she was down and had depression, no more different than post-partum depression that many mothers experience once giving birth.
That being said, the reasons for my thoughts of the nature of this bill. From a legal point, you want to make sure this can be held up in court, enforcable.
————————————
(1) Prior to ……the physician shall:
**AGREE WITH, if there are any unforseen complications this will help, again… patient is who im keeping in mind*** (a) Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman;
***DISAGREE, while it would be nice to have a disclosure in place that requires the Dr. to offer this, and cannot refuse if asked to provide this info, forcing her to listen to this can cause more undue stress on an already difficult choice. ALSO, using unborn child in this legislation instead of medical terms again reiterates that this is all for show and not for true rights on either side. ***
(b) Provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting, which shall include the presence and location of the unborn child within the uterus and the number of unborn children depicted and also, if the ultrasound image indicates that fetal demise has occurred, inform the woman of that fact;
**** DISAGREE, see above. require it to be offered, not forced. We all sign off on those patient rights documents when we go to a hospital, this would be the same. ***
(c) Display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them; and
**** So its a fetus now? Not an unborn child??****
(d) Provide a medical description of the ultrasound images, which shall include the dimensions of the embryo or fetus and the presence of external members and internal organs, if present and viewable.
*** While the woman can refuse to look at the ultrasound, as mentioned above she is still forced to listen to DETAIL discriptions, side note, while no punishment is administered, how long till its decided that there should be when this law is patients refuse to see the ultrasound as is their right according to stated here. ****
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes from the ultrasound images required to be provided to and reviewed with her. Neither the physician, technician, nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if the pregnant woman refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images.
Yeah yeah I know was a lot. As for the chicken – embryo… not the same but a good attempt. The basis it seems for that comment was about informing the customer. Which is what many pro-lifers are basing this on as well.
Religion is not a good ground to stand on for this, while faith and religion are great supports in life, personally they should not be your foundation. If my life was a house, My foundation:Friends and Family, Faith:Frame (agnostic, I dont rule out or criticize others religions, followers however are fairgame
), and the rest is work and life experiences and all that.
On some of the comments.
To Ben Franklin statement listed is indeed true, its a letter written to Denbury Baptists in 1802.
The comment about taxes. The durress we have placed on middle class with taxes was created during Reagan era when the tax rate for the wealthy was cut in half.
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/
Also the hypothetical in the future we might be able to carry to term outside of the uteris, this has no grounds on the NOW, if this was the case or even in the works any progress how minimal would be shoved all over the news in an effort to alternatives to abortion as around the corner, and labeling abortion as barbaric.
So ending this with four questions:
For those that have issues with access to universal healthcare and how that would be govt intrusion, how is this not?
For those that see abortion as murder, then lets do this right. How many years in federal prison, if not the death penalty, does someone get for pre-meditated murder now-a-days?
Would it be so wrong to make this as a requirement or be presented to the patient instead of a force?
Could this bill be considered cruel and unusual punishment? Torture? We have charged people with more for forcing people to endure similar graphic things.
Oh quick one, for the man is different than anything on earth and thats it…. show me an ultrasound of a money, chimpanzee, and if it looks different than a human fetus, ill be more inclined.
Report comment to moderator
Looks like a memo must have gone out in the abortion industry to hijack threads like this.
Report comment to moderator
They must really see full disclosure as a threat to their bottom line.
Report comment to moderator
#80 Skeptic
” I don’t see any of you adopting…”
My wife and I adopted three children, all born right here in the good ‘ol USA.
Report comment to moderator
…and with good reason. If women found out the truth, there would be far fewer abortions, and so there’s a lot of money at stake.
Report comment to moderator
Bob – we’ve adopted here in the U.S. on multiple occasions as well, and I know other regulars here at WMB have too. Skeptic just likes to make unfounded assumptions and accusaations.
Report comment to moderator
With much of what has been said, I can say I now believe in Santa Claus… well the poster that is!
He or she made the valid point that there is a price on life. So many people fight so very hard against abortion, but ironically will support things like War and The Death Penalty. They also justify the killing of combatants as means of protecting us, while justifying the collateral damage in the form of innocent men, woman, and children with similar excuses.
Well, Santa brought up the point of keeping people alive. Another poster on here, I think it was Catlover, had blasted me for bringing up modern science as a result of no 1st trimester fetuses have ever lived even with modern medicine saying the future may change that. Still, we have modern medicine that keeps people alive even when they are clinically dead. The second you pull the plug, dead. Where do those against abortion draw the line?
On a religious note, I have a question. A recent story hit the net of a baby that was born without a brain turning one year old. The mother called her baby (figured to die within the year) a “miracle”. Is this a miracle? Wouldn’t it be more of a miracle if the baby was born WITH a brain? If caught early on, should this have been an abortion?
Report comment to moderator
Lose a point and…
Just move on, there’s nothing to see here.
Just move on.
Report comment to moderator
BUZZY, full disclosure is given within the consultations. Forcing someone to view an image of the fetus is nothing more than religious people pushing to guilt the woman.
Extreme Pro-Life seem to also be pro-slavery by thinking that a woman does not have the right to terminate a fetus regardless of how they are impregnated. In actuality, Pro-Life believes a woman must be the host to an underdeveloped baby.
Before claiming that guilting a poor woman into keeping a child as disclosure, how about you take the time to look at the other side? Let’s say she keeps the child to term. That is 9 months of devotion, and then possibly putting them up for adoption. If they keep the child, do you not think they weigh the options they have to support the child? If they are a single mother, this makes it more difficult. I doubt anyone on this blog would push to really help single mothers. Think of the money for diapers, food, and the time needed.
A man can walk away from a pregnant woman, and only face paying child support. That’s it, but a having a child is a life changing thing for a woman. They have the right to deny that drastic change.
Report comment to moderator
This is absolutely absurd. This bill will do nothing to prevent abortion. As previous commenters have pointed out, there’s not a drive-thru window you can drive up to and have an abortion. It’s already quite an ordeal, not taken lightly. All this does is put them through more pain and suffering and I agree that I don’t think this is lawfully sound. There’s no medical reason to make someone look at an ultrasound so how can this bill be considered anything but religious meddling?
Report comment to moderator
This bill is an excellent idea… I do have one qualm though, I would like to have the medical professionals show a recreation of the forcible rape that may have brought them to the clinic in the first place. That way they will realize all of the “love” that went in to conceiving the child!
Hi Reddit!
Report comment to moderator
Authoritarians win a battle. But thank goodness legal abortion is still the law of the land!
Report comment to moderator
#116: Wow, you might be right…
Report comment to moderator
I’m not saying I agree / disagree with abortion, I do not think its my place to comment on the subject.
However this bill is incredibly wrong, what you are doing is taking a woman who has made an extremely difficult / painful decision and forcing her to go through what can only be described as nothing short of torture.
There are many reasons for abortion, none of which any of those supporting this bill could understand. All the people who are praising this bill should take a lesson in empathy.
Note: Hi reddit
Report comment to moderator
An other leaf fan;
you may find debating the evangelical right similar to being a leaf fan. You bang your head against the wall on a daily basis but nothing changes. Both are irrational – the leaf franchise and the evangelical right.
I would say there’s always next year but they traded the next two years away.
Report comment to moderator
I see the Franchise of Child Murder, Inc., HAS indeed targeted this thread for hijacking; here represented by the likes of HRW, Leafsfan, Skeptic and other pathetic pro-Death aborts.
The parallel between the mentality (what there is of it) of these enablers and accomplices in the butchering of children and the Nazis who executed and excused the Holocaust is astounding.
You realize the intense and complete depravity of the human soul, reading their sick and bloody-minded drivel and excuses for their support and enabling and love of murder.
There is even pride in their direct participation in the murder of children.
What complete and utter evil people.
It makes me nauseated.
What evil would infest a human heart to support and enable and participate in the brutal murder of a child?
One thing that definitely comes out of this is that one realizes that Satan is alive and well and quite active.
He hates human life and he has his various toads and orcs working overtime to kill as many children as possible.
Report comment to moderator
SKEPTIC: If you are going to participate in the discussion here, then read our Website Policies. We strive for a civil discourse without name-calling. Discuss the topic not the other individual commenters.
Report comment to moderator
… and watch your language here.
Report comment to moderator
A couple good points from the website linking here:
A) Should the Governor of Kentucky be forced to spend a day with each death row inmate before they are executed? At least meet them and shake hands?
B) This bill has no penalties for failure to comply.
C) What about blind women? Deaf women who can’t hear the “simultaneous explanation?”
D) It will probably be struck down by the USSC because it isn’t medically necessary. Early ultrasounds are done invasively, not over the belly.
And I add:
E) This bill raises the cost of an abortion, making it more profitable (extra, non-required services that be charged for).
F) If this bill does nothing to change the rate of abortion in Kentucky, would you consider not trying to push it on any other state?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and the best one, a bit comic…
G) Too bad they didn’t pass a law forcing every legislator to read a bill before they voted for it!
Report comment to moderator
Drill #130 – Skeptic even gave it away in #92 (”If you haven’t noticed the amount of traffic coming in from certain sites…”).
Report comment to moderator
Dear moderator: thank you for cleaning up some of the litter around here. It can’t be a fun job, so I just wanted to express my appreciation.
Report comment to moderator
@pastorroy, who said anything about killing babies? I thought the article was about abortions.
Report comment to moderator
I should clarify something: when I say orcs and toads sent out from Satan, I mean JUST that.
I am not referring to the (pathetic) pro-Death commentators here or elsewhere whom I ASSUME are merely humans, albeit twisted and perverted beyond my ability to describe or comprehend. (Although one could construct science-fiction-like scenarios where that might – frighteningly – not be true; it could certainly explain the Screwtape-like depravity of the rhetoric used.)
But Satan definitely has his demons which he uses to co-opt and enlist gullible or malicious humans.
And the raw naked bone-chilling bloody purpose and preferred activity of Satan, at least on this suffering planet, is nowhere more obvious than in the brutalities and butchery that goes on behind the closed doors of abortion ‘clinics’.
Satan hates life. He particularly hates human life. And he hates children most of all, in my opinion; because a child represents a hope and a promise and a gift from God.
And that is why the pro-aborts are so desperate to continue the killing, no matter what.
They are merely doing the bidding of their Master.
Report comment to moderator
#138 The devil would be lonely without souls to corrupt. The devil needs to maximize the population, so more fall through the cracks and can be easily tempted.
Report comment to moderator
Drill/Buzzy,
My system is working well today – avoiding those on my “Haters” list. I’m still smiling today.
However, I have to add more (I was going to say people) names to the list!
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy-
“Looks like a memo must have gone out in the abortion industry to hijack threads like this.”
This is quite apparent. I don’t think that these people are interested in honest debate. They just want to demagogue. Any argument contary to their world view is met with derision.
Mickey, I would suggest that you have your work cut out for you. My opinion, I will avoid such threads, because there is nothing here but hate from those that are opposed to any efforts from the Pro-LIFE community.
Report comment to moderator
The increased traffic and the new commenters come courtesy of a link posted at Reddit (WARNING: Vulgar language) yesterday.
We welcome our new visitors, but you are expected to show respect to others here when commenting. I encourage you to read our Website Policies before joining the discussion.
A note to our regulars here: If the comments get out of line and violate our Rules of Engagement, please assist me by using the “Report comment to moderator” link. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
WMB Editor – will do, thanks for the encouragement.
Rondu – My system is working well today – avoiding those on my “Haters” list. I’m still smiling today.
Glad to hear it. This actually ties in with the five leadership lessons from the Churchill bio that WMB blogged yesterday (and that Scott Lamb was kind enough to summarize for the sake of my mental health). The last two were: don’t waste energy on the meanness of life, and find joy. Our methodology is in keeping with those lessons.
Report comment to moderator
I am from Reddit as well, I read all these comments so I might as well write something.
I think it would be healthy for those on both sides to consider the fact that their opinion is their opinion alone.
There is no constitutional right to legislate your opinion on others.
Enjoy your day.
Report comment to moderator
There is no constitutional right to legislate your opinion on others.
No leglislating is being done here. It is being done only in the legislature, which most certainly does have the “right” (technically, the power or authority) to legislate according to its members’ opinions.
Report comment to moderator
@Buzzy
If you are really interested in living the type of life you described in post 143 I think this idea is of crucial importance to you. You will never control what everyone else in the country/world does, and you shouldn’t seek to.
Report comment to moderator
Fermugle,
If we didn’t have laws against theft, would it make sense for me to tell you to stop advocating such since you’ll never control what everyone else does, anyway?
Report comment to moderator
If you are really interested in living the type of life you described in post 143 I think this idea is of crucial importance to you. You will never control what everyone else in the country/world does, and you shouldn’t seek to.
Translation, please?
Report comment to moderator
I think those in favor of this bill should be forced to watch a woman being raped and to watch a documentary on the average life of a children raised in a poor neighborhood by a single mother or foster parents. People don’t use abortion like birth control, they CHOOSE to abort because they are in no condition to raise a child. Considering the obscene poverty levels for children in this country, one would think they wouldn’t want to force a woman to give birth to an unwanted child. If you don’t like abortions, don’t have them.
Report comment to moderator
the main reason i am against bills like this is because it is backed by religious nuts who force their religious ideas onto the rest of the world.
if christians really did what thier “bible” told them to do, we wouldnt have gay rights, we would be murdering them in the streets. anyone playing football on sunday would have to be killed.
the idea is simple. people have a right to their body. the debate as to the baby / fetus and its legal status will never end.
What reasonable people should consider is that, people dont dream at night hoping they can grow up to abort their pregnated self. I dont think people are having sex to abort babies.
Similar to watching the chicken video before ordering KFC, how about having people stand on scales at fast food resturants, and when the weight is displayed, its on a big screen so everyone can see.
Christians can not even follow their own laws, as people become more intelligent, religions come out with new versions of their text.
Christians practise what you preach, stop judging people. Stop wearing clothing made of different types of cloths, dont grow certain crops next to one another, and when you see gays out and about, kill them like your bible says to.
Pick / judge / pray. Wow the line for people wanting to be christian has to be getting shorter, or are people becoming more ignorant.
Report comment to moderator
Drill
I have been contributing to the discussion here for over 5 years i.e. longer than you. And although I’m at the opposite end of the political spectrum, I do not hijack threads — I contribute and debate.
Drill — I’m not pro-death. In fact, my position on health care, welfare, education, etc reflect deep care for all individuals in society.
Speaking of how long I contributed here, I see Josh Narins decided to come back for a guest appearance. And as I tried to point out before, he also states the law is unenforceable and since its unnecessary medical intervention it will probably not passed through the court system. Thus, we have a misguided attempt to appease a base which results in more discord in already heated issue.
Report comment to moderator
Actually HRW, I have been on WMB longer than 5 years, considerably longer. I know I was here before Lynn Vincent was moderator although I don’t remember who was; I had another moniker then. I have been ‘Drill’ for a very long time though, since early in Lynn Vincent’s tenure.
I also vaguely remember when you came on; primarily because you stated you were Canadian, I believe. That was interesting enough to remember your debut, I believe.
Yes, you are pro-Death – as much as you support, aid, abet, argue for, or facilitate in any way the murder of children via abortion.
And since you said above that evangelicals are ‘irrational’; the context of the thread topic being abortion, your plain sense is that being against the butchery of abortion is ‘irrational’. So, yes, you are indeed pro-Death and a willing proponent and advocate of Child Murder, Inc.
Abortion is not a ‘heated issue’. It is murder. A ‘heated issue’ might be arguing about taxes versus tax cuts, or health care government mandated coverage versus the Constitution, or Iraq, or the proper course to deal with terrorism.
Calling murder murder is not ‘irrational’, HRW.
Excusing murder is not ‘irrational’ either.
It is plain and unadulterated evil.
Report comment to moderator
Why change monikers?
My apologies for the way I worded my post. My intention was to state that debating the evangelical right and cheering for the leafs were both irrational; not that the evangelical right and the leafs were irrational. In fact the leafs are very rational — my pension plan owns a majority share and it is the most profitable hockey franchise.
As for abortion, it is a heated debate which is symbolized by the very fact you come down so hard on one side. You declare it murder which very little room for civilized discourse. Before calling abortion murder, you need to assert and prove a few things, most importantly at what point does the fetus become a person?
As for my own opinion, I haven’t given it. I’ve given my opinion on this legislation; designed to appeal to a certain segment of the population but will do nothing to resolve the issue one way or the other. For a number of reasons its unenforceable and hence a waste of time. So instead of bringing about changes it will only over heat the debate.
To say the above does not make me pro-death only a pragmatic realist.
Report comment to moderator
If the legislation does ANYTHING to reduce the number of murders of children in abortion clinics (until we can eliminate abortion using legal means), I would be for it. And maybe I am optimistic enough about mothers and motherhood in general that I would think that seeing a mother who sees their child would be more reluctant to opt to be a participant in murdering that child.
Further if the proposed legislation imposes a legal burden on the murder-mills that allows prosecution and closure for not following the law, that is good as well. The more legal burdens on State-sanctioned murder, the better.
Most of the ‘problematics’ that are alluded to regarding making abortion illegal or hard to obtain are non-existent. For instance, only 1% of abortions are associated with rape and incest – and yet that is all that we ever hear about when discussing this issue. Almost 50% of abortions are performed on women who have ALREADY had abortions – i.e. they are using abortion as birth control – BECAUSE THEY CAN.
Why did I change my moniker? That was a long time ago. I used the moniker ‘Pondering Dude’ for a while (I wrote posts under the Pondering Dude as a kind of countrified non-intellectual non-political character – humorous posts only, if I remember correctly).
At some point I decided to weigh in on political matters as well and decided a new moniker was best and chose ‘Drill’ for no particular reason. As you still know, I still try to go for humor on topics that invite humor (whether or not my attempts work is another question) but the moniker Pondering Dude, because of his general non-political character, restricted me greatly, or so I felt.
That was a long time ago; I really do not remember when.
Report comment to moderator
Oh boy look at #130. You get really scared here when logic shows it’s face. I could almost smell your perspiration through the tubes.
The religious zealots in this thread seem to be very worried about one particular thing. That of which is the killing of “babies”.
I looked up the definition of “baby”, which is, ” An infant; a newborn child.”. So can we ALL (hint: people frequenting worldmag) stop using this term and call it what it IS, fetus. THANKS! Because I don’t believe we are killing any newborns here. And THAT is where you people misunderstand us. You think that because our definition of “person” is the correct one and not yours, then it must snowball into meaning that we love the holocaust. Makes perfect sense, except it doesn’t. This is NOT logic. Moving on.
Where should you define when a person becomes a person. I think it makes sense that if the current medical thought of the day is that a fetus (or whatever stage it’s in at the moment) can be aborted if there’s no possible way to sustain the life using artificial means. The beauty behind this, and what’s great about science, is that it can CHANGE. You definition doesn’t remain stagnant, and you can do more good for society.
Besides, what do you usually call an object that can’t live on it’s own without sucking some life energy from a host? You call that a parasite. Same thing as a tape worm, or fungus. I’m not calling a fetus that but at that moment in time for the fetus, the adult is in control and more important.
Thoughts on the difference between humans and “animals”. The only difference is some changes in the arrangement of chemicals in DNA. We can not fully communicate with animals, even though we can do a lot with chimps and dolphins, and therefore will NEVER know, now, what is going on in their brain. How can you murder billions of creatures without knowing what’s going on in their brain completely. They are living just as we are. Forget all your Religion BS.
Report comment to moderator
Has any of the pro-death crowd here considered that there are people on their side of the issue that believe a parent should have the right to “abort” their child up to two years AFTER birth?!!!
Just curious. If you have a problem with that, why? At what point is a life REALLY self aware?
Report comment to moderator
Cazro, an infant cannot survive on his or her own. Should we be able to abort him or her?
Report comment to moderator
At what point can a person survive without assistance?
Report comment to moderator
Drill, I appreciate your posts.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, do you identify with these new pro-deathers?
Report comment to moderator
Localidiot-
God loves you. No matter how mad you get at Him or us, He still loves you.
Report comment to moderator
I think that those that are for abortion, and defend it in legislations, should be forced to watch 20 live abortions, in full color, from beginning to end, in as many different periods of gestation as possible.
Report comment to moderator
And when they are done watching, I would like to buy them a plate of spaghetti and discuss what they saw and felt.
Report comment to moderator
@ HRW
that was the best analogy I’ve heard in awhile, props to you.
@ Drill
Thank-you for the personal attack, apparently you didn’t read my post properly, maybe you should read it again. I was not commenting on abortion itself, I was merely commenting on the bill which I still believe is wrong.
My post was merely stating that within all the talks of dead babies that there are woman who will be put through very horrible ordeal if this bill is passed. I will reiterate that one should have empathy for them as well. Having to go through with an abortion is horrible enough without having this bill.
Report comment to moderator
Comment deleted by moderator.
Report comment to moderator
Brother Dan
Its strange that one who usually argues for capitalism and individual responsibility seems intent on applying collective responsibility. IF someone argues for two year old abortion does not mean that the viability argument presented here is invalid. In fact, its irrelevant. You’re not going to change minds or win debates when you try lump one person’s view with a more extreme view he or she doesn’t espouse.
As for whom I identify with …. myself.
Report comment to moderator
Plenty of religious nuts here…
Funny how you’re so quick to call any1 ‘child butchers’ and Nazis
you should tone it down Drill, I fear for your sanity
Report comment to moderator
and btw for all you conspiracy paranoids, there is no ‘Child butcher’ Inc. Or however you call it.
Report comment to moderator
Well, then. I think there’s too much to directly quote, so I’ll just go with general ideas. (If I don’t get to you, don’t feel bad: I was probably too busy laughing and/or rolling my eyes at your post to notice that you actually made a point.
)
I see a lot of analogies. “If you support this bill, you should support making X watch Y before doing Z!” No. Abortion is nothing at all like welfare, or food, or whatever. Abortion involves killing someone. (Well, I think so: to make it more general, however, we could go with possibly killing someone.)
Less specific to the bill, I see analogies to war and the death penalty. Again, no. The death associated with war is against enemy combatants, and usually is about righting a wrong or defense. Alright, well, it should be. When it is not, we have things like “war crimes.” Are you suggesting that we are at war with fetuses? Yeah, it does sound ridiculous, doesn’t it?
The death penalty analogy makes even less sense. The death penalty is about justice. These are people who have committed heinous crimes. If there were to be a mix-up, then we might talk. However, even in that case, a) it’s probably happened all of once, and b) it would be classified as accidental, which abortions are not. Abortion is different from either of these cases: the fetus is legally innocent, and helpless.
For those who have advocated the “economic” argument: do you realize what you are saying? Do you really want to go there? The jump to “keeping every human alive no matter the cost” is a ridiculous slippery slope.
The suggestion that keeping a fetus alive is at all similar to keeping a old, dying person alive is ridiculous. The old person will die: the fetus will likely grow up normally.
I think Sinfuljosh was the only one to ask, but I agree: if we’re going to view abortion as murder, let’s be consistent. I’m not a lawyer, but I expect that legal punishments would be reasonable given murder laws and precedent.
Skeptic, you never answered me. As I said, fetuses are nothing like dying old people.
When people bring up that women should have the right to deny such a huge life change, I have to say that I agree. Let’s start by not having sex, mmkay? I recently read, on a comment thread, somewhere on the internet: “Of course I’m pro-choice, you stupid … It means I can … anyone I want whenever I want and … the consequences.” Ladies and gentlemen, that is what abortion is all about.
Report comment to moderator
HRW makes, I think, the best point. I don’t know how useful this bill will be. If indeed it is unenforceable, and pointless, then it looks like some lawyers didn’t do their job very well. Or, perhaps they did it exceptionally well.
Of course, I also agree with Drill when he says that it is worth it if it does anything to help.
Report comment to moderator
HRW-
I identify you with the current crop of people that have come here to insult and demean. It seems that you won’t criticize them. I won’t address them, as my Lord has said, “Don’t cast your pears before swine”.
But you. I expect better from you. Your extreme left has shown up. The fringe. Or, as some would call them, “the lunatic left fringe”. (If I get reprimanded for this, so be it)
I’m sorry if you, HRW, cannot see the validity in my point. If a baby is born, that needs life sustaining measures, is that baby still eligible to be strangled to death? Why not? Please be consistent with your answer. I don’t believe that you can present a consistent, cogent argument for why a baby inside the womb, on life-support via an umbilical cord, is any different than one outside the womb on artificial life support.
Please, get beyond the snide remarks, and respond with intelligence, not attack.
Report comment to moderator
Particularly lol-worthy:
It’s called a translation. There are these things, you see, called languages. Please enlighten me with you heretofore-undiscovered knowledge of how the Bible has changed. Or, perhaps you were being clever with wording: using the more generic “religions.” The Mormons are particularly infamous. Clever, except not.
It would seem that no law is valid before the all-encompassing tide of relativism! This is where, i think, a visual demonstration would be helpful. I could strangle a kitten, or steal your wallet at gunpoint, or something, and then ask you what right you had to be upset.
BEEP! Wrong.
LOL! I’ll get right on that.
Report comment to moderator
I meant to include this somewhere:
People are acting like women are being forced to watch hardcore pornography or graphic violence or something awful. It’s an ultrasound, people. The horror!
Report comment to moderator
TJS
I don’t know how useful this bill will be. If indeed it is unenforceable, and pointless, then it looks like some lawyers didn’t do their job very well.
It wasn’t written to be enforced. It was written to please a certain voting bloc.
People are acting like women are being forced to watch hardcore pornography or graphic violence or something awful. It’s an ultrasound, people. The horror!
Agreed except its a gov’t intrusion into what should be a decision made the patient and her doctor. Perhaps you made the same argument against public health care — a gov’t intrusion. Also,correct me if I’m wrong but to produce a clear ultrasound in the first three months (when most abortions occur) invasive methods must be used rather than simply placing the ultrasound on the belly.
Report comment to moderator
Brother
I identify you with the current crop of people that have come here to insult and demean. It seems that you won’t criticize them. I won’t address them,
So if you won’t address “them” and thus not criticize “them” am I to identify you with their opinion? I don’t espouse group or identity politics. I have my opinion and that’s the only one I should be tarred with and as I said before the legislation is unenforceable and does not contribute to a resolution on the abortion debate.
Your extreme left has shown up. The fringe. Or, as some would call them, “the lunatic left fringe”.
not my extreme left. I tend to be more moderate about social issues perhaps because its not a hot button issue where I live. A Canadian sense of politeness and personal space tends to prevent us from intervening in each other’s personal lives. Moreover, I tend to be more doctrinaire on economic issues and in fact the root of many social disagreements stem from economic inequality. Of courser all labels are relative to their location, you would be considered the lunatic right fringe on an other site. And in Europe Obama is right of center.
Report comment to moderator
Brother
I’m sorry if you, HRW, cannot see the validity in my point. If a baby is born, that needs life sustaining measures, is that baby still eligible to be strangled to death? Why not? Please be consistent with your answer. I don’t believe that you can present a consistent, cogent argument for why a baby inside the womb, on life-support via an umbilical cord, is any different than one outside the womb on artificial life support.
I never addressed your point hence I never determined whether it was valid or invalid. Since I didn’t make the original point you are arguing against I saw no need to defend it.
I will pull a Musing here: To discuss abortion with someone you need to define the following terms; person, human, and viability. There are more but these three are vital. On your particular point, no child born before 22 weeks gestation (I may be off a week) has survived. Hence, any fetus prior to that period isn’t viable no matter what life saving measures are taken. Your argument is good for only post 22 weeks. And its here I think a rough line can be drawn to limit elective abortions. There are other arguments concerning the health and rights of women which would need to be addressed and would make the 22 week line more ambiguous but here is where a debate can start. Dictating medical procedures is not a good way to address an issue not matter how emotionally vested you are.
Report comment to moderator
TJS
In reference to the analogy argument presented here:
The basis behind the Kentucky is the need to provide more information thus women will make a more informed choice. Now granted the stakes are higher for many in abortion but CT makes a valid point in a somewhat absurd manner. Should the state force an individual to have full knowledge of a product or service before it is consumed or used? Prior to entering Wal-Mart should consumers be forced to watch a documentary about child labor, sweatshop work conditions and the killing of labor activists? It would make for a more informed choice. Or prior to consuming fast food, should you be forced to read Fast Food Nation and watch Supersize Me?
The above argument is analogy, slippery slope and reduce to absurdity (my Latin fails me). Its effective in the sense that it should make you consider both the basis of the bill and the precedent set by the bill. However, it shouldn’t be seen (in my opinion anyway) as equivocating abortion to eating KFC.
Please note the above should not be used to judge my position on abortion rather my position on the arguments being used here.
Report comment to moderator
Again … argue the topic not the person. And keep the language clean, and that goes for barely disguised words with letters replaced by symbols, too.
Report comment to moderator
Finally a post note to Brother Dan;
Please, get beyond the snide remarks, and respond with intelligence, not attack
please show me the snide remarks or attacks I made. I may be arrogant but not snide and I attack arguments not people. I’ve been arguing contrary opinions here for over 5 years without a single reprimand which considering my opinions is quite impressive.
Report comment to moderator
HRW-
Thanks for your replies. I am sorry to “project” the hateful posts on you. I was wrong in that. I identified you with these.
I appreciated your replies.
I still do not agree with the determining factor being viability. Just the existance of artificial or natural life support shows that this is not a reasonable defense. Hypothetical point: your 22 week gestation mark is bound to change as medical advancements occur. What happens then? You just keep pushing that mark back? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
Report comment to moderator
You’re right if (and that’s a big if) viability is the only argument that the pro-choice side can muster. But arguments that rely on going back further along the causal line can become absurd. Why stop at conception, why not declare sperm and eggs separate life forms and hence protected. Perhaps Monty Python and the 1920s purity movement was correct about sperm. Plus if medical advancements push the mark back to conception and find a way to preserve that life form outside the womb for a full term pregnancy we would be looking at a “Brave New World” scenario. Most natural miscarriages occur prior to 16 weeks so until science develops a perfect womb the viability age may reach its limit at 16 weeks. In both cases, its absurd but once you move a mark where do you stop.
You need to look at other facets of the argument, in order to create a meaningful stop line. First, the rights and health of women should be taken into consideration. Even if the powers to be settled on 22 weeks, consideration must be given for post-22 weeks if a women’s health is in danger. At this point, you could argue that a C section may serve the save function, removing the fetus and saving the women’s health. An interesting suggestion but one I think is best left between the patient and physician.
Secondly, the fetus may have severe health problems not diagnosed earlier. Again in this case, abortion may be an option since its unnecessary to carry a fetus to full term if it won’t survive or is nearly dead already. Even with CVS and amino (sp?), diagnosis of problems usually doesn’t occur until 20 weeks (test is taken at about 17-18 weeks and allow for time for diagnosis) . Perhaps if diagnostic equipment improves we can move the 22 weeks back. Please note I’m not talking about children with Downs or similar handicaps but rather those either disfigured or ill quipped to be unable to survive or those who would die of an incurable disease shortly before or after birth.
The above two arguments are mostly concerned with the health of the mother. An other argument, both legal and philosophical, to consider is the point upon which a fetus can be consider a person and a human being. Arguing this occurs at conception may lead to absurd consequences regarding the sacred nature of sperm. As noted above some may even argue this occurs years after birth, which then leads to absurdity in the other direction. IF we were to list a series of attributes that distinguish a human from other species, and erring on the side of caution (too early rather than too late) arrive at a date in which most of these attributes have been met. Viability enters this argument as does form, shape, brain matter, communication, emotion, sympathy, spatial reasoning, etc. As an estimate, I think 20 or so weeks gestation would be appropriate.
Finally, the historical argument Other than health and safety late term abortions, most abortions occur in the first trimester ie pre-16 weeks gestation. Interestingly, even the Catholic church didn’t consider abortion before “quickening” to be wrong that is until celibate priest finally figured out what happened before the baby moved. Movement generally occurs around 16 to 18 weeks.
Thus, in my not so humble opinion, we should be debating between 16 to 22 weeks and to what extent the rights of women prevail for the rest of the pregnancy.
Report comment to moderator
#151 HRW, Thank you for remembering.
Reddit, with their atheism, science-osity, criticism of U.S. foreign policy, general political outlook, and, perhaps regrettably, sense of humor, pretty much agrees with me, and I’ve been there for a bit over a year. Couldn’t help stopping by when I’d seen they’d linked here
Thanks, again.
For everyone who thinks a “fully-informed choice” or “more information” is the goal here (and that’s the main defense) how about this contribution from a redditor:
“Informed consent is showing every pregnant lady the average cost of raising a person. The cost of diapers, formula, toys, school supplies, and college. The hours, years, she will spend taking care of this little person, with the responsibility of raising an individual, and hopefully a good citizen. The sacrifices she will have to make.”
Report comment to moderator
If we dispense with arguments about when life begins, and just say that life begins at conception, I think there is still a very strong legal and moral case for a woman’s right to have an abortion: her right to self-defense.
Let’s posit a woman – let’s call her Mary – who has someone – let’s call him Joshua – doing something to her body that she doesn’t want him to do. Regardless of Josh’s age, be he 30 years past birth or 2 seconds past conception, if he is doing something to her body that she doesn’t like, and she can’t get him to stop, she has the right to use reasonable force to get him to stop. And in situations where there is no other way to defend herself, lethal force is reasonable force.
And this has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of Josh – he could be completely innocent (criminally insane or simply unaware of his impact – undeveloped in some way, be he retarded or simply fetal). His guilt or innocence has no bearing on Mary’s right to defend the integrity of her own personhood. If Josh infringes on Mary’s body, and she has no other way of making him stop, Mary has the right to use lethal force to remove him.
Now, let me be clear: I don’t mean that Mary’s life, or even her health, has to be in danger – simply that someone is doing something to her body that she doesn’t want them to do, and the only way to stop them is to kill them.
So if we’ve already agreed that life begins at conception, then it’s certainly reasonable to say that abortion is killing a human being, but it’s not murder – it’s simply self-defense.
Can someone tell me the flaw in my logic?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's blogs to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!