« Has it been Two Years? | Main | guest blogger responds »

Friday, January 19, 2007



This really helps.


Proof, Bobby?

Bobby Smith

I just wanted to say that I think you are doing a great service to the community with this blog and I will definitely tell my church group about it. I firmly believe abortion is murder and that God will smite those who endure such crimes in the afterlife. Abortion is murder. Plain and simple.


Well, Mike, you should have expanded on your thoughts in the first place. Now you have made yourself much clearer.
All abortion providers are alike in that they believe women have the right to decide for themselves and they want to help women who have decided on an abortion. Where abortion providers diverge is some are better at preparing women for this important procedure than others. But how are prospective abortion providers to learn how to do this when many schools have dropped this critical training?

Mike J

Julie, I don't disagree with your evaluation of my debating skills, but I hardly think that is relevant.

I was prompted to post my comment by three main factors: the "convenient" quote from the article, the reuters article about this premature baby, and the experiences of two of my closest female friends, post-abortion. I felt the need to speak out about the convenience aspect of the debate because my friends were convinced(I'm sure they wanted to be convinced)by the Dr at the abortion clinic, using friendly euphemisms, that the "procedure" to remove "the tissue" would be quick and easy, almost without consequence. While they were informed of possible emotional repercussions, the issue was down-played. I don't think they got a fair shake. Seeing their pain angered me. If someone is considering an abortion they should not be cajoled/misled into thinking it is an easy choice. Because in the future they may very well become convinced that they killed their child.

Honestly I am not a pro-life nutjob, I don't oppose a woman's right to make a choice for her self (I don't have a womb, so how could I) but I have seen the pain these girls went through because they had not fully comprehended their choice (happy, fairly well adjusted girls going through years of depression/second-guessing/zero self-esteem). I don't want anyone to feel that pain. So I guess my main point was: thinking of it as a choice born of considerations of convenience is not doing anyone a favor. My post was made in the hopes that it would cause someone to think a little harder about their choice beforehand, or cause a provider to try harder to ensure that the choice is well thought out. Some people WILL feel an unbearable sense of guilt after an abortion, and some abortion providers WILL NOT encourage them to consider this.


Mike J: Just what is "convenient"? Being able to run to a store for milk at 2 am in the morning is convenient. But abortion is not convenient. It is a difficult decision for a woman to make. In a nutshell: People who rely on rhetoric like that is a brilliant neon red flag. It tells me the person who equates convenience with abortion has poor debating skills.

Mike J

A previous poster wrote:

"...it's no surprise that we're constantly forced to choose between ourselves and our children when an unplanned pregnancy does occur"

What kind of choice is this? Please tell me again, when does life begin? How late are abortions allowed? Maybe read this (from reuters, a known conservative stronghold :-)


A quote from TFA about the worlds most premature baby, born at 21 weeks (THAT’S “TWENTY-ONE” WEEKS):

"She breathed without assistance at birth and even tried to cry."


Please don't confuse that which is convenient with that which is right and true.


It saddens me so much with people who call themselves pro-life threaten, harrass, or intimidate anyone. Anyone who is so misled and misguided in their values to think that such actions have anything to do with being pro-life do nothing but make it difficult for the rest of us to do what really needs to be done - reach out to women and help them make the healthiest and happiest choice possibe.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's great to see that Lou has such a vested interest in helping her clients to make a healthy decision for them. Now, from my perspective as a post-abortive woman who has had a lot of trouble dealing with the loss of my son, my goal in reaching out to women is to help them never HAVE to make the decision to abort. Unfortunately, the way women are constantly devalued and encouraged to throw away all the most beautiful parts of our femininity, it's no surprise that we're constantly forced to take medication to surpress the natural and wonderful functions of our bodies, and are forced to choose between ourselves and our children when an unplanned pregnancy does occur. I think it's a lot more important to impress upon women that they aren't just 'wombs with legs' (which certainly is an interesting image), but also that they're a lot more than sex objects for men.
We should be empowered and have the strength to say, "You know what? I respect myself, my body, and my own fertility enough to not put myself in the position of having a baby I can't care for by having irresponsible sex." And in those cases where unplanned pregnancy does occur (since we're not living in la-la land), women should not suffer the social stigma that currently exists against single mothers and women who put up children for adoption. There should be more support avaiable for women who need it. After all - I think we would all prefer a world with less unplanned pregnancies and less abortions. I think we as women should trust ourselves enough to know that we CAN accomplish such a future, instead of just resigning ourselves to have our natural state as women being trampled down by the confines of societal norms (which, did I mention, are often STILL being set by the opposite sex?).


Oh boy! More claims for Zelda to prove. Think you can put your money where your mouth is this time? The facts talk, but bull roar walks.


Zelda, we're not going to agree while we're working with different data sets. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to dig up citations, so I'm not going to throw numbers at you. However, as long as women die due to pregnancy, they have the right to end pregnancies. I don't have to give you a kidney. I probably would if I knew you and you needed one, but I don't have to.


Abortion is not safer than childbirth. Even with the bad data that the abortion industry isn't even required to keep, we know that abortion is far more dangerous. Ask Lou how often the Department of Health checks in on her facility to make sure it is up to code. It's completely arbitrary in most states. In that light, we treat dogs who are about to be euthanized better than women seeking abortions. But let's not let hygiene stand in the way of the paid assassins.

And then you're going to assert that being forced to carry a child to term is the same as being forced to have an abortion? I can think of one major difference. In one, the mother continues on with her life and the baby lives. In the other, the mother continues on with her life and the baby is dead. As parents, we are required by law to protect our children as long as doing so doesn't put our lives in immediate jeopardy. Pregnancy in almost all cases does nothing of the kind. So mama, as the parent, has the legal obligation to protect her baby unless her life is in immediate danger. The location of the child is irrelevant.


Zelda, that sounds like an admirable way to preserve women's right to choose. Being forced to have an abortion is no different from being forced to have an unwanted child-- okay, small difference, an abortion is safer. I'm in favor of almost any support for pregnant women and women in general.

As interesting as what-makes-this-cell-different-from-all-other-cells is, I still don't think it makes a difference whether or not a zygote is an official person. I still don't have to risk my life so that another person can live.

The Truth

I am trying to abort my older brother. Can you help?( NOTE: It is a VERY late term abortion)

Sister Anne

A fetus, embryo, zygote, unborn baby--the terminology used doesn't change the situation--is certainly alive, is certainly human, and certainly has unique DNA, but it cannot be considered a "separate entity" from its mother. It is literally part of its mother's body, dependent on her vital organs and nutritional intake for its continued existence. Separate the two and the baby will die.

This treatment of the fetus (again, substitute unborn baby if you prefer) as an independent creature, an abstraction to be considered apart from the female body from which it cannot actually be separated, removes the whole abortion debate from the realm of physical reality to that of theory. Conclusions which might hang together on a theoretical plane have a tendency to shatter quite painfully when brought back down to earth, where real people live and make decisions. The notion that her baby is an independent person and therefore deserving of life, while it might be theoretically compelling to a woman, still will not produce money for food, child care during time spent at a job to earn that money for food, a tolerable mate to help raise the child or the desire and ability to parent a child in the first place, where these things do not exist.

That women are the ones burdened with bringing life into the world is not, as Zelda says, a conspiracy by evil men. The way that life-giving ability is used to manipulate, control and limit women and their roles in the world, though? Definitely an element of conspiracy at work there, and the anti-abortion movement is very much part of it.

If Lou is, as Zelda says, a murderer, she certainly ought to go to jail at the very least--that is standard in most murder cases. And the substantial chunk of the current female U.S. population who have had abortions--probably around 20 to 25%--ought at the very least to be charged as accessories to murder, a sentence that also generally carries jail time. What sentences would Zelda recommend for Lou and for the women she provides abortions to? And--excuse my pragmatism--where are these sixty or seventy-odd million women to be housed while they do their time?


DP - You don't have to apologize. I rarely take offense.

Some rudimentary scientific facts for you, just so you are properly armed for debate:

Sperm contains the DNA of the gentleman and belongs to him exclusively. Eggs contain the DNA of the lady and belong to her exclusively. Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. contain the DNA of a completely different individual. That individual is both human and living and is a seperate entity entirely from his or her mother and father. Our Declaration of Independence protects all persons upon their creation.

That women are the ones burdened with bringing life into the world is not a vast conspiracy by evil men, but simply a biological necessity.

The premise of our equality as human beings is that we are all created equal. Nowhere is this more apparent than during pregnancy. Abortion makes a hideous mockery of this concept, and I will never accept it even if I am the only one.

The pro-life groups I support help mothers who are being pressured to have abortions and don't want them, and I don't approve of murdering abortionists or the death penalty. So I have no idea what you're talking about.


DP, you have nothing to apologize about. Because Zelda also went over the line into personal comment. I wonder what the color of the sky is in the parallel world you live on, Zelda.
And why have an abortion? Oh, lessee. The woman doesn't want to be pregnant. She doesn't want to have the baby of a criminal (rapist, or incestuous family member). She's not a womb with legs. The reason is her call - not yours.


Zelda: I apologize for the last paragraph in my last post. I clearly went over the line into excessively personal comments and I regret it.


Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, babies, etc are human beings. If they weren't alive, you wouldn't have to abort them in order to be unburdened with their presence.

The sperm and oocyte were alive too and human. So are cancer cells. Does that make fertilization (which changes two live cells into one) and chemotherapy (which kills millions of normal and abnormal cells) murder?

Actually, of course, many third trimester abortions are performed on dead fetuses. Usually when a fetus dies in utero the body rids itself of the necrotic tissue--but not always. In cases where the pregnancy continues, it will kill the mother if it is not treated by abortion.

If you've given money to pro-life causes you've almost certainly contributed to murders of abortion providers, not to mention threats to small children because you don't like their parents. How do you live with yourself?


If abortion weren't the ending of a life that mama wants no part of, then why have an abortion? Zygotes, embryos, fetuses, babies, etc are human beings. If they weren't alive, you wouldn't have to abort them in order to be unburdened with their presence.

I've said before, with the exception of a woman's life being in mortal danger from a pregnancy, there is no sob story that can be told which compares to having your arms and legs, head and eyes ripped to pieces, reassembled (just to make sure you don't cause any more trouble), and then thrown into the trash (or if you're like George Tiller, you will charge people for the funeral - almost as if they're real people. I mean why trash perfectly good human remains when you can use them to extort more money from the irrationally grieving mother).

You are a murderer, Lou. And you murder innocent babies who have no choice and no defense whatsoever. But you can always stop.


One thing to remember is that, until a certain point, it doesn't matter if the embryo/fetus is a person with rights or not. I do not have to put myself at risk to save the life of anyone. It would be wrong to force someone to give a kidney to someone she didn't know. If she gave the kidney voluntarily, good for her, but she is not wrong to deny it because she doesn't have to be at risk.
Up until the fetus is viable without my assistance, it's not an issue of personhood.


And now you have laws that say that abortion isn't murder, use your head, eventually they will be overturned also..................


Laws don't prove anything. We used to have a body of law upholding the notion that African-Americans weren't really human beings. Did that make it so? Did they only become fully human when those laws were overturned?

Laws are not evidence. Try again.


I have found some evidence that proves that a fetus is a living human being.......

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law which defines violent assault committed against pregnant women as being a crime against two persons: the woman and the fetus she carries.

This law was passed in 2004 after the murder of the then pregnant Laci Peterson and her fetus, Connor Peterson.

Wait there's more,

The "born alive" rule is a legal principle that holds that various aspects of the criminal law, such as the statutes relating to homicide and to assault, apply only to a child that is "born alive". Recent advances in the state of medical science have led to court decisions that have overturned this rule, and in several jurisdictions statutes have been explicitly framed or amended to include unborn children.

The born alive rule was originally a principle at common law in England that was carried to the United States. Its original basis was that because of the (then) state of medical science and because of the rate of still births and miscarriages, it was impossible to determine whether a child would be a living being. This inability to determine whether a child in the womb was in fact alive, and would be successfully born, had ramifications with respect to the laws relating to assault and to homicide. (It is not possible to kill a child that has already died, for example.) Thus the act of a live birth was taken to be the point at which it could be reliably determined, in law, that the various laws applied.[1][2]

However, advances in the state of the art in medical science, including ultrasonography, foetal heart monitoring, and foetoscopy, have since made it possible to determine that a child is alive within the womb, and as a consequence many jurisdictions, in particular in the United States, have taken steps to supplant or abolish this common law principle.[1]

As of 2002, 23 states in the United States still employed the rule, to lesser or greater extent.[2]

The abolition of the rule has proceeded piecemeal, from case to case and from statute to statute, rather than wholesale. One such landmark case with respect to the rule was Commonwealth vs. Cass, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the court held that the stillbirth of an eight-month-old foetus, whose mother had been injured by a motorist, constituted vehicular homicide. By a majority decision, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that the foetus constituted a "person" for the purposes of the Massachusetts statute relating to vehicular homicide. In the opinion of the justices, "We think that the better rule is that infliction of perinatal injuries resulting in the death of a viable foetus, before or after it is born, is homicide.


Dawn, why should Lou feel guilty about helping women come to a difficult decision on their own? You have to realize not everyone thinks like you do. As a result, pro choicers don't see abortion as quote "ending the life of a baby" unquote. I realize you are angry because some people refuse to feel the guilt you want them to feel, but that is reality, hon.


Nope, never given money to prolife causes. I don't think those causes actually pay the people to go and kill the doctors...so I don't see your point. Even if I did give to a prolife organization, I am not in support of killing abortion doctors/nurses/providers/counselors. I would hope those who threaten the lives of any of these people get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If the law doesn't put them behind bars for long enough to protect such providers, etc. the law needs to be changed and I would support that. Terrorism of this sort can not be tolerated.

Lou does though, counsel patients and these patients many times decide to have an abortion. Though she doesn't tell anyone to have one (at least I hope not) she does take them through steps that lead many of them in this direction. She not only supports women who want abortion, she gets paid directly by the providers for her job (unless she volunteers, but I don't see evidence of that here). Yes, she might also get some women who choose not to have abortion because they are being coerced or because they would be in too much turmoil to have an abortion. But the others, if everything looks a-okay, are encouraged by her to go right on ahead and abort. She even makes them feel okay and maybe even good about this choice to end the life of their baby. It seems odd to me that she does ceremonies (or at least some at the clinic) such as baptism and prayer for forgiveness for killing their baby, but she sees nothing wrong with abortion (at least not that I can tell from the postings here). I was just wondering if she feels guilty and how she handles her guilt since some of these women feel they have done something wrong enough to need forgiveness for it.

The comments to this entry are closed.