(Advertisement)

PUBLIC VIEWPOINT: Abortion Solved By Saying ‘No’

Posted: February 13, 2013 at 2:18 a.m.

I just read Carla Martin’s rant in your paper (Public Viewpoint, Feb. 6) about abortion. She goes on about how people should focus on child hunger, health care for children, access for handicapped children, etc., instead of worrying about aborted children.

This story is only available from our archives.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 02/13/2013

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

BETWEEN THE LINES: Lawmakers Miss On Medicaid

State lawmakers are apparently too busy fiddling with concealed-carry legislation to deal with the Medicaid expansion issue that was supposed to dominate this session. Read »

Next Story »

Thank heavens

NOBODY can blame all the people who filed out of KUAF Friday afternoon headed for home. Fast. There had been a shooting. There was screaming. There was blood. Who wouldn’t ... Read »

Hey Doug,

Did you know that there is no 100% effective form of birth control? Even women who opt for surgical sterilization still face a slight risk of becoming pregnant after tubal ligation. This happens to about 5 out of 1,000 women after 1 year. After a total of 5 years following tubal ligation, about 13 out of 1,000 women will have become pregnant. (Pollack AE, et al. (2007). Female and male sterilization. In RA Hatcher et al., eds., Contraceptive Technology, 19th ed., pp. 361-401. New York: Ardent Media.)

I'm curious about your inclusion of "casual" (i.e. "unprotected casual sex") in your condemnation of couples' sexual activity. Are you suggesting abstinence for married couples who are seeking to avoid pregnancy? Because ultimately that is what would be required. If we put up these draconian obstacles which will essentially ban abortion, all women who are not seeking to become pregnant would have to adhere to a policy of strict abstinence, including many wives. Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: SarahMarsh

February 13, 2013 at 8:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

When life begins is not a debatable issue. When life begins is not an opinion. Nature has defined when life begins. Life begins when anything starts to grow. Nothing dead ever grows. Anything in nature including a human being is alive when it begins to grow. Any species growing is alive and grows to maturity and lives its life dictated by nature and then it dies and begins deteriorating. That is not debatable. That is a fact. To debate when life begins is as stupid as debating if a human being can fly or if a human being can live without breathing. It is a fact that a human being cannot fly. It’s a fact that a human being cannot live without breathing. It is a fact when anything is growing it is alive. No one intelligent debates facts.
The constitution, paraphrasing, says all men are created equal and have the right to pursuit of happiness. Human beings are created when the sperm units with the egg, conception happens and they begin to grow. That is a fact. It is not debatable.
Nature dictates what kind of life it is. An Elephant bred to an elephant has never given birth to a Giraffe. A human egg conceived with human sperm has never given birth to anything but a human. That is not debatable.
The very fact that they have to kill the baby to keep it from growing screams it is alive! How stupid are these people?
Anyone want to jump up and down screaming I’m flying and contradict this?

Posted by: woodw

February 13, 2013 at 9:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Doug P & woodw - I agree 100%.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 13, 2013 at 9:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

When you eat a walnut are you killing a tree? What about when you pull a weed? At what point should a nut receive the same protections as a tree? According to our City Ordinances, when a seedling reaches 6" in diameter then it is awarded the protection of a tree. I would argue that it becomes a tree when you can no longer pull it up by the root and must resort to cutting it down. I'm sure there are other opinions as well.

Should we sacrifice or compromise the tall trees to ensure that every seedling that has sprouted has enough sunlight to grow? Or do we nurture the health of our tall trees and plant the seedlings in the places where they will most likely thrive and pull the ones that sprout up in undesirable locations?

Are nut eaters tree killers? Using your logic, they most certainly are.

Instead of sacrificing women's health, autonomy, and ability to pursue happiness, employment, and education, to ensure every fertilized egg is born, let's empower women and couples to avoid unplanned pregnancy with education and contraception. When those things fail, or when rape or incest occurs, or when nature produces a nonviable or especially challenging pregnancy, let's honor a woman's constitutionally protected right to terminate her pregnancy. Let's enable her to do it as early as is possible and not prolong her misery or suffering. Fetal pain is speculation, but women's pain is real.

Posted by: SarahMarsh

February 13, 2013 at 9:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Notice how Doug begins by using language inaccurately:

"...the fate of the defenseless infant?">>

Woodw sure tries to debate a bunch of things he informs us aren't debatable.

Woo: "When life begins is not a debatable issue.">>

Actually, it is. In fact, what is life, and when is something "alive," is a huge area of interest in science.

Excerpt from: http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/intro5.html

"[one] classification scheme concerning when human life begins [there are others]:

1. The metabolic view. There is no point when life begins. The sperm cell and egg cell are as alive as any other organism.

2. The genetic view. A new individual is created at fertilization. This is when the genes from the two parents combine to form an individual with unique properties.

3. The embryological view. In humans, identical twinning can occur as late as day 12 pc. Such twinning produces two individuals with different lives. Even conjoined ("Siamese") twins can have different personalities. Thus, a single individuality is not fixed earlier than day 12. [snip]

4. The neurological view. Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) be defined as when a human life has begun....

5. The ecological/technological view. This view sees the human life as beginning when it can exist separately from its maternal biological environment. The natural limit of viability occurs when the lungs mature,...

6. The immunological view. This view sees human life as beginning when the organism recognizes the distinction between self and non-self. In humans, this occurs around the time of birth.

7. The integrated physiological view. This sees human life as beginning when it has become independent of the mother and has its own functioning circulatory system, alimentary system, and respiratory system. This is the traditional birthday when the baby is born into the world and the umbilical cord is cut." --ibid

Look at that, turns out, it is debatable.

Woo: "Nature has defined when life begins.">>

And which of the seven above views does "nature" have?

Woo: "Life begins when anything starts to grow.">>

Well, sperm grow and they are genetically unique and certainly alive. Your body made about 11 million of them in the last hour. And they're all going to die. Why don't you try to do something to save them?

Woo: "It is a fact that a human being cannot fly.">>

That was more true over a hundred years ago.

Woo: "It’s a fact that a human being cannot live without breathing.">>

Then I guess a fetus isn't alive. It doesn't breathe.

Maybe you ought to think a bit more about this subject before you go on about it and dismiss the topic as not debatable.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 13, 2013 at 10:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

There is a 100% sure method to avoid pregnancy.. avoid sexual intercourse unless in a position to care for a child. It works.

Posted by: proud

February 13, 2013 at 12:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Life begins when anything starts to grow."
Human ova and sperm cells grew at some point, so how do we protect them?
Can we find a way to save the contents of menstruation and night emissions?
What can be done to save the millions of sperm cells that die because they don't make it to an ovum?
Let's save everything.

Posted by: Coralie

February 13, 2013 at 2:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mr Free Thinker. Your different "Views" do not negate the "fact" that you started to grow the instant your Father's sperm united with your Mother's egg. Or do you believe that Nine months later you just instantly became 7 lbs or whatever you weighed and popped out? I can't believe you actually think a baby grows nine months in the womb without breathing. No, it doesn't "breath" as in "diaphragm compressions" but it is receiving oxygen which is a form of breathing. I guess I should have said, "Live without Oxygen". Your comment about humans flying just shows you have no comment. I do not believe you didn't understand I meant one singe human being flapping the arms a flying through the air. Sperm grows only in the since of development not in the since of human life. It does not become life until it units with the human egg.

Posted by: woodw

February 13, 2013 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

proud advocates total sexual abstinence unless for conscious decision to make a baby?
How many married couples, especially younger ones, could really comply with this?
Why should they have to?
+++
Make contraception available and affordable, and teach youths about it. Then you get low, low rates of teen pregnancy and much lower rates of abortions as in Scandinavia and Western Europe.

Posted by: Coralie

February 13, 2013 at 2:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Give him hell, woodw. Freeby's baloon lost it helium a long time ago and not he tries to fly with lukewarm air.

Posted by: JailBird

February 13, 2013 at 2:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Your different 'Views' do not negate the 'fact' that you started to grow the instant your Father's sperm united with your Mother's egg."
Stalactites and stalagmites grow. Salt crystals grow. Clouds grow. Growth is not strictly a characteristic of life. Bone spurs grow. Benign tumors grow. Cancer grows. Growth is not in and of itself a characteristic only of life that needs to be saved. The fact you cite is not as important as you make it out to be.

RE "I guess I should have said, 'Live without Oxygen'."
You should have thought about what you meant, and premeditated the use of honest, accurate language, before writing at all.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 13, 2013 at 2:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat. We are talking about Human Beings here not cancer or salt crystals. And yes if they are increasing in size they are Growing. That is why they have to kill the cancer to stop it from growing. That is why they have to kill the baby to stop it from growing. You don't have kill anything dead to stop it from growing. I sorry about not being honest and using accurate language. Some people just can't relate breathing to oxygen.

Posted by: woodw

February 13, 2013 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "We are talking about Human Beings here not cancer or salt crystals."
It is not entirely clear what you are talking about, because your thought processes and use of language are imprecise. You were making a big deal about growth, as if it were the be-all-end-all of humanity and value. It isn't.

RE "That is why they have to kill the baby to stop it from growing."
There you go again. An abortion doesn't kill a baby.

RE "I sorry about not being honest and using accurate language."
Don't just apologize-- do better.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 13, 2013 at 3:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Woo: " the "fact" that you started to grow the instant your Father's sperm united with your Mother's egg.">>

You are just arbitrarily picking a point in the continuum. A sperm is alive, genetically unique, is essential to the process of becoming a human, grows and is human (but not a human). Thus it fits all of your sloppy definition of what is alive, thus far.

Woo: "I can't believe you actually think a baby grows nine months in the womb without breathing.">>

Perhaps you should learn what breathing is. A fetus shares oxygenated blood with the womb owner. That's not breathing, but it is an adequate temporary substitute.

Woo: "I meant one singe human being flapping the arms a flying through the air.">>

People fly all the time without flapping their arms. It's not too much to ask that you be a little more precise with language. The truth is in the details and these details become important in such exchanges.

Woo :"Sperm grows only in the since of development not in the since of human life.">>

It is a necessary moment on the continuum of the development of a human. Your arbitrarily picking a certain point and proclaiming that that is the only point that matters, is not persuasive for reasons already given above.

It's not nearly as cut and dried and simple as you would like to believe.

Woo: "It does not become life until it units with the human egg.">>

Mere assertion, question begging and plainly wrong. Sperm are alive. What is "life" is an entirely different and messy question, as I've shown above.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 13, 2013 at 4:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

woodw, you won this debate two posts ago, now all Freeby and Kitty can do is sour grapes and Freeby has the sourest grapes of all. He doesn't even know when he has lost. When they start personal insults, they have lost. Congrats woodw.

Posted by: JailBird

February 13, 2013 at 5:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How self serving we have become. I don't know why you even try, woolw. When one has no feeling for an unborn child, which should just be innate, you don't have a chance in changing their mind.

They just play games and spin the issue like liberals do. The baby never crosses their mind.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 13, 2013 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mandatory sterilization for any child delivered by aid of Obamacare, we solid Tea Party Benton County Republicans say. It's not abortion, and . . . well, it'll solve the problem in a generation or two.

Heck, while we're at it, ligate the Obama mama's tubes postpartum - the independent contractor's there and working, anyway. Even better, a full hysterectomy. But, only do it only as soon as that potential, yet still precious, drain on society is safely ejected from Mom.

Shoot, while you're at it, track down Daddy too - and give him a vasectomy. Even better, an orchiectomy.

That'd solve the problem for both sides of the equation. God help us if an unproven quantity (predictably birthed by a woman of gender) should be allowed to germinate to fruition. And the rest of us have to pay for it.

Posted by: CaptainQuint

February 13, 2013 at 7:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If that were the case, I'm confident there would be a lot fewer pregnancies. All of a sudden, prevention isn't such a problem. Better them suffer than the innocent.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 13, 2013 at 8:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What's an orchiectomy, if its in the butt region, I may have had one.

Posted by: JailBird

February 13, 2013 at 8:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cast-er-ation, Money, Cast-er-ation - that's what an oligarchy is, castration.

As for you, MyCent - anybody who can do simple ... well, simple anything ... can tell you that everyone suffers, and all the time. Abortion does the unborn a favor.

Posted by: CaptainQuint

February 13, 2013 at 8:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MM: "FFT has the sourest grapes of all.">>

Big and juicy too. I wish you had some grapes.

Oh Mr. woodw, forgot to tell you. In order to make your stay here more pleasant, a personal ankle nipping cheerleader will be assigned to you in order to help cheer you up when times are tough and your assertions are falling flat. Don't worry, they yap a lot, do little victory dances and shake their little pom poms, but unfortunately they are all bark and never bite. That's because in order to land a bite, they would need to invest the time to put a coherent argument together. Apparently yapping and shaking pom poms is much easier.

D.
--------------
"You are of the Devil and you are his child. He is a liar, the father of lies, and the truth is not in him.... A tree is judged by the fruit it bears. Your apples are rotten and your grapes are sour and both are filled with poison."
--Ankle biter MrD (now KingG), going on about my grapes, on this forum, September 19, 2011.
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/se...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 13, 2013 at 9:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>And why shouldn’t the father of the child have equal influence regarding the fate of the defenseless infant? You both made an adult decision to create a life, so why should it be the mother’s right exclusively to terminate the life of that human being?<<

Ever checked with our local child support officer at the courthouse?

You'll find this area and all of Ark have an abundance of dead-beat dads. There's a few notable ones too:
Rep Joe Walsh (R-Ill) and Ted Nugent (R-Nutsville).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wals...)

We don't need dead beats, cut-n-run dads making choices about life and death matters, as you frame it.

Posted by: cdawg

February 14, 2013 at 12:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You really need to read Sen Rapert and Rep Mayberry's bills pending in the Ark General Assembly. One, if not both bills, would require a woman to take to full tern a brain dead fetus.

Perhaps they can invite Rick Santorum down and have a dead baby worship ceremony.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/...

Posted by: cdawg

February 14, 2013 at 12:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

American adults (the overwhelming majority) know where babies come from. Unless the woman has been raped or is a victim of incest, why should an abortion be legal? Babies are human beings. There is a plethora of qualified married couples looking for children to adopt as their own. Maybe instead of making abortion easier, we should be making adoption easier. Ever wonder why so many people adopt abroad?

I'm not judging anyone on this, but I don't agree with abortion unless it has to do with rape or incest and I don't think the government should be paying for it, mandating coverage for it, or otherwise endorsing it. Those just happen to be my personal takes I am entitled to.

However, if a woman wants to make that personal choice protected under the law, let that decision weigh on her and the father of the child. Of coarse, this all could change with the law one day.

Hang in there, woodw. Here is a pom shake just for you, FFT:

http://www.misanthropytoday.com/wp-co...

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 14, 2013 at 12:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg,

Your reference to Senator Santorum's dead baby displays a complete lack of class. Shame.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 14, 2013 at 1 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Excerpt from Cdawg's classy ABC News link:

"In a 2005 New York Times Magazine profile by writer Mike Sokolove described how the Santorum family reacted to the tragedy: “Rick and Karen Santorum would not let the morgue take the corpse of their newborn; they slept that night in the hospital with their lifeless baby between them.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/...

Sometimes one forgets what a whack job Santorum is. Doesn't hurt to have a reminder once in a while.

D.
-----------
Want to know who the biggest abortionist of all time is? The "designer" of the human body.

From Discover magazine.

***
The Good Egg

Determining when life begins is complicated by a process that unfolds months before a sperm meets an egg

Excerpt:

"[Reproduction is]... horribly inefficient in humans.
Much more often than not, the process fails. Although the statistics on the failure rate of human fertilization are not entirely robust, given the biological and ethical delicacy of conducting research in this area, the numbers consistently suggest that, at minimum, two-thirds of all human eggs fertilized [or as Santorum likes to call them, "people" --FFT] during normal conception either fail to implant at the end of the first week or later spontaneously abort. Some experts suggest that the numbers are even more dramatic. John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, told the President’s Council on Bioethics last September that preimplantation embryo loss is “enormous. Estimates range all the way from 60 percent to 80 percent of the very earliest stages, cleavage stages, for example, that are lost.” Moreover, an estimated 31 percent of implanted embryos later miscarry, according to a 1988 New England Journal of Medicine study headed by Allen Wilcox of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.”

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 14, 2013 at 1:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good News for Wichita:

"We're Not Going to Be Pushed Around by the Antis"
Julie Burkhart is working to bring abortion care back to Wichita.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...

Posted by: cdawg

February 14, 2013 at 2:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Your reference to Senator Santorum's dead baby displays a complete lack of class. Shame.<<

Trying to share your abundance of shame?

Did I post something false?

Any "shame" involved should be Santorum's visiting their fetus fetish upon their other young children.

Another source of shame should have been upon the Santorums for broadcasting such a deed to the media. It could have been kept entirely private had they so desired it. But, "lack of class."

Posted by: cdawg

February 14, 2013 at 2:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hey Doug,

Why is it not equally the man's responsibility to avoid unprotected sex?

Posted by: Vickie55

February 14, 2013 at 8:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Read this and tell me why there should not be exceptions to the law on abortions: http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/...

Posted by: Dexter

February 14, 2013 at 10:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dexter says read this: http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/...

Exactly. Wow.

D.
-----------
"Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) has long advocated the removal of all classroom sex education from every school, public and private, in the nation."
--Stop Planned Parenthood (STOPP) newsletter, January 1996

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 14, 2013 at 12:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank says "Unless the woman has been raped or is a victim of incest, why should an abortion be legal?"
You are how old? and have never heard about medical conditions that make abortion imperative to save the life of the mother? The fetus wouldn't last long in a dead body.
Or what of a fetus so defective that it is dying or would die shortly after birth? And the mother knows this, but is forced to carry it to term?

Posted by: Coralie

February 14, 2013 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Medical conditions indicating need for abortion include:
impending miscarriage
ectopic pregnancy
placenta previa
severe fetal deformities
heart disease
cancer
HIV or AIDS or certain other STDs
gestational diabetes
pregnancy-induced hypertension (leading to eclampsia, if you saw recent episode of Downton Abbey)

Posted by: Coralie

February 14, 2013 at 1:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dexter, your link to the Ark Times story is exactly why I wrote above:

"You really need to read Sen Rapert and Rep Mayberry's bills pending in the Ark General Assembly. One, if not both bills, would require a woman to take to full term a brain dead fetus." (sp corrected.)

Posted by: cdawg

February 14, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie, there is never a need for abortion or not, that decision should be left to a woman and her doctor, not you or the government. If a woman wants to take to full term a brain dead child, that is her decision not mine or yours. And Tank, cdawg does not suffer from a lack of class, he was born without class, it is the nature of the beast.

Posted by: JailBird

February 14, 2013 at 4:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "If a woman wants to take to full term a brain dead child, that is her decision not mine or yours."
And forcing women to do so (either directly or indirectly through elected representatives) takes that decision away from them-- which was Coralie's point. Women are generally not forced to have abortions-- and if they are, that is an even bigger problem.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 14, 2013 at 5:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Very, very few women would want to take a dead fetus to full term.
It is a horrible idea, besides which it could be medically risky for the woman..
Do you have any empathy whatsoever?
Are you capable of putting yourself in someone else's shoes or do you just think in slogans and abstractions?

Posted by: Coralie

February 14, 2013 at 5:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The moral or medical risk or non-risk is not yours or I or the government to decide, it is up to the woman and her doctor. Is that so hard to understand. My enpathy is also up to myself and my doctor.

Posted by: JailBird

February 14, 2013 at 7:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I would like to know why on earth we are still discussing this issue decades after it has been decided. Women have the choice over what to do with their own bodies. Opponents need to just get over it and perhaps spend their energies lobbying to help neglected, abused, disabled, or otherwise unfortunate children that already exist. Better yet, why don't these people take their issue to the fertility clinics that dispose of more fetuses than abortion clinics do? I'll never understand how it can be such a big deal to have an abortion, yet no one seems to give a crap about all of the wasted fetuses in fertility procedures. That seems to point to the real issue of simply wanting control over women's sexuality. Since the loudest voices in this pro-life debate are male, I think that is the real underlying issue. Frankly, I am sick and tired of hearing some man talk about what I should and shouldn't be allowed to do with my own body. Get a life of your own already, and stop worrying about how I choose to live mine.

Posted by: taminatress

February 14, 2013 at 8:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

taminatress, what you do with your own body should be between you and your doctor and if your doctor is female there should be no male involved except maybe on the start of things. I think everone here has a problem with this concept.

Posted by: JailBird

February 15, 2013 at 12:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moneymyst, I think your last sentence " I think everyone here has a problem with this concept." speaks volumes and wisdom more than a lot of people can understand. Here is, I believe, the reason why. This is from Romans 1st Chapter.

21 Although they knew God, they didn’t honor God as God or thank him. Instead, their reasoning became pointless, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22 While they were claiming to be wise, they made fools of themselves.

23 They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images that look like mortal humans: birds, animals, and reptiles.

24 So God abandoned them to their hearts’ desires.

25 They traded God’s truth for a lie, and they worshipped and served the creation instead of the creator, who is blessed forever.

28 Since they didn’t think it was worthwhile to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to a defective mind to do inappropriate things.

29 So they were filled with all injustice, wicked behavior, greed, and evil behavior. They are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, deception, and malice. They are gossips,

30 They slander people, and they hate God. They are rude and proud, and they brag. They invent ways to be evil, and they are disobedient to their parents.

31 They are without understanding, disloyal, without affection, and without mercy.

32 Though they know God’s decision that those who persist in such practices deserve death, they not only keep doing these things but also approve others who practice them.

Posted by: woodw

February 15, 2013 at 8:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

woodw, I will never be forced to make a decision to take a child in abortion and I certainly am not qualified the decide these matters for others. Government is also not qualified. Religious groups or churches are not qualified. The woman, her Doctor, with his professional skills and her situation in consultation. Then they live with the decision whatever it is.

Posted by: JailBird

February 15, 2013 at 10:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

like the new photo Fayfreethinker,
and thanks for the really thought out opinion
sarah m
i also wonder why we are so critical of a woman aborting when the same bloggers have so little compasion for a woman who applies for monetary help from goverment like welfare or medicaid in order to care for a child?
it is a unlucky child who is born into poverty, no father, unwanted families, who can not care for them properly!! it is sometimes a blessing if they abort that fetus. it is being responsible to the unborn not yet person, it is actually the loving thing to do in many situations.
have some compassion and remember the self appointed righteous may actually be the poison who spoils the good fruit.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

February 15, 2013 at 10:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The Government should not be anti or pro abortion. That is not the function of any Government. Nor should the Government be paying for abortions, that is a form of approval. If a woman wants a breast enhancement and I pay for it, that means I approve of it. This is getting into a moral, money, political, medical, & sexual quagmire. A woman and her doctor.

And Sarah, the answer to who paid for all those little roads is taxes and those taxes is not your money. Tax money belongs to us who paid it. Government 101

Posted by: JailBird

February 15, 2013 at 11:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

The day I see all these government-haters going out and paving their own sidewalks and roads, is the day I'll believe they're sincere.

Posted by: Coralie

February 15, 2013 at 4:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Send me the money and I'll pave twice as many and hand you some money back.

Posted by: JailBird

February 15, 2013 at 4:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie,

RE-

"You are how old?"

How old are you? It isn't really relevant. 45 million babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade. 45 million. You are not going to convince me there is any call for that. I've seen some comment on here about deadbeat dads. Sure, there out there in numbers.

What about those deadbeat moms that have multiple children by multiple fathers? You want to pay for there abortions, subsidize their housing, give them a food stamp card, shell out cell phones, etc. right. I'm all for taking care of the kids. That is no question. Some others are all for not offending their party's voting base. There is no excuse for how irresponsibility has become a protected and expected right in this country.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 17, 2013 at 7:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank: "45 million babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade. 45 million.">>

Coralie alluded to this constant misuse of language by the anti-choice league in her excellent letter in the paper today:

"Opponents misuse language; they call a fetus, embryo or fertilized cell a “baby,” thus confusing medically ignorant people into thinking an early abortion equals infanticide."

The rest can be read here: http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2013/fe...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 17, 2013 at 11:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "What about those deadbeat moms that have multiple children by multiple fathers?"
Please provide figures on the number of abortions that these "deadbeat moms" have. While you're at it, show that they're "deadbeat".

RE: "You want to pay for there abortions,"
We do not pay for their abortions, as tax dollars are not used for abortions. But wouldn't it be cheaper to pay for abortions than years of food and shelter, Mr. Fiscal Conservative?

RE "subsidize their housing, give them a food stamp card,"
Oh-- there's that food and shelter. Damned George W. Bush and his admiistration's lowering of the poverty level.

RE "shell out cell phones"
Damned George W. Bush and his administration's program to make basic phone service available to the poor. And cell phones are so expensive! But have you priced landlines lately?

RE "I'm all for taking care of the kids."
No, you're not. If you were, you would not complain about making housing, food, and basic communication available to families.

RE "There is no excuse for how irresponsibility has become a protected and expected right in this country."
Except that these efforts don't really protect irresponsibility; they protect the children who are victims of irresponsibility.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 17, 2013 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

well said AlphaCat you got it right. exposed the hypocracy.
enjoyed the excellent letter Coralie!

Posted by: ladyLiberty

February 17, 2013 at 6:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"why aren’t they smart enough to say “no” to unprotected casual sex?"

Ah, not even trying to hide what you really think, eh? No really about the "babies" eh?

Buzz off and leave women's bodies alone.

Posted by: mcs

February 17, 2013 at 7:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha,

RE-

"No, you're not." You a mind reader now?

The basic problem with utra liberals is you think when someone disagrees with you, they are greedy, homophobe, bigotted, rascists.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 6:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE-

"But wouldn't it be cheaper to pay for abortions than years of food and shelter"

If you want to take a Stalinist murder type approach.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 6:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank ERsley,

How do you know what AlphaCat is thinking!?
yoiu may gain valuable information if you just ask him. Alpha, are you greedy? are you a homophobe, are you biggotted, rascist?

also Tank,
you made another critical thinking error when you generalized that all liberals are the same. do you really believe that? and do you think that is constructive or even reasonable?

it appears you are smarter than that and are just closing a channel like holding your hands over your ears. someone hit a nerve did they?

i am asking you because i do NOT know what you are thinking and will not assume i do.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

February 18, 2013 at 9:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You want to tally the generalized comments up from this site, ladyLiberal?

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 12:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "You a mind reader now?"
No; I simply read the rest of your post. You clearly are not "all for taking care of the kids." You are "somewhat" for taking care of the kids, as long as you don't have to pay any increment of the cost as part of a societal effort to make America more exceptional.

RE "The basic problem with utra liberals is you think when someone disagrees with you, they are greedy, homophobe, bigotted, rascists."
Apparently one of your own problems is that you draw unfounded conclusions by applying gross generalization to opinions you haven't paid enough attention to. I suggest you reread our conversation. Greed is addressed only tangentially, and homophobia, bigotry and racism are not addressed at all.

For the record, I don't think you are homophobic or racist, or even particularly greedy. If you actually believe some of the things you consistently say about people who receive social assistance, then you appear to be somewhat bigoted. However, I attribute this to the fact that you are misinformed, not to innate bigotry on your part.

RE "If you want to take a Stalinist murder type approach."
Regardless of the approach taken, it is a simple fact that an abortion costs less than taking care of a child for any span of years. Keep in mind: Stalin was a social conservative.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 18, 2013 at 12:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaC: "...a societal effort to make America more exceptional.">>

Shirley you jest. Is that even possible?

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 18, 2013 at 1:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha,

RE-

"Stalin was a social conservative"

No, he was an atheist.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 2:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "No, he was an atheist."
And a social conservative. One's religion, or lack of it, has little bearing on social conservatism. For example, the Founding Fathers, heroes of our own social conservatives, were not particularly religious (indeed, many of them were atheists by some definition), yet social conservatives (and even very ignorant religious conservatives) make out their every act, work and intention to further the cause of social conservatism.

Social conservatism and religious conservatism are not the same thing.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 18, 2013 at 2:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Shirley you jest."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_...

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 18, 2013 at 2:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFt - Who is Shirley?

Posted by: mycentworth

February 18, 2013 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I'm not Shirley, my name is Money
Shirley left you years ago
Your nose was runney
And your breath was smelly
Shirley left you years ago."---ME and Jessie Colter

Posted by: JailBird

February 18, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Freeby, I sure hope you get over Shirley.

Posted by: JailBird

February 18, 2013 at 5:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth,
if you watched the video link posted by Alpha/Cat
you would know who Shirley was.
and I can not even guess what Moneymyst must be thinking! Shirley a diversion tactic?
or just an arrogant way to show that he is above following the conversation topics. similar to that guy who butts in front of you in line? Do you believe, Moneymyst that you are unique and rules of behavior and manners do not apply to you?

Posted by: ladyLiberty

February 18, 2013 at 6:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I was asking FFT - he did not reference the video.

Posted by: mycentworth

February 18, 2013 at 6:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes!

Posted by: JailBird

February 18, 2013 at 7:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Is that an improv based on a Watasha tune, Money?

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 7:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"LadyLib: "...just an arrogant way to show that he is above following the conversation topics.">>

That's what trolls do LadyL, They don't try to follow and participate in an exchange but rather attempt to deflect and derail and bring them down to their level. Typically this is because they know that on the substance of the issues, they've got nothing.

AlphaC: "Stalin was a social conservative">>
Tank: "No, he was an atheist.">>

That's like saying, "no, he was left handed." Category mistake. Beliefs about theism, or lack thereof, don't follow from any political label.

D.
-----------
MyC: "FFt - Who is Shirley?"

It's an old joke, circa 1980. AlphaCat provided the clip. See also: http://www.shirley-you-jest.net/

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 18, 2013 at 8:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

Stating that Stalin was a social conservative was done to link him to our modern social conservatism. You want to start listing some social Liberals (not classical (Liberals) from history?

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 11:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Stating that Stalin was a social conservative was done to link him to our modern social conservatism."
It was rather like your oblique attempt to link him to modern liberals by pointing out that he was an atheist, except that it was successful. Stalin is-- or should be-- more famous for his social conservatism than his atheism, as most of his heinous behavior is due to his social conservatism rather than to his atheism.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 18, 2013 at 11:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

RE-

"most of his heinous behavior is due to his social conservatism rather than to his atheism"

We'll have to let that stand as a disgreement between the two of us.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 18, 2013 at 11:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "We'll have to let that stand as a disgreement between the two of us."
Given your track record at failing to correct your errors in thought, you're probably right.

Posted by: AlphaCat

February 19, 2013 at 12:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "FFT,
Stating that Stalin was a social conservative was done to link him to our modern social conservatism.">>

Okay, not by me, but okay.

TNK: "You want to start listing some social Liberals...">>

I avoid like the plague quibbling over political semantic labels. Whatever precise political box one wants to put Stalin in (and these terms change and shift over time), it has nothing to do with his opinions about theism.

So when someone says: "Stalin was a [political X]"

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to respond:

"No, he was an atheist."

All political labels are quite compatible with all opinions about theism, because they are entirely different categories.

D.
-------------
"To be an atheist requires strength of mind and goodness of heart found in not one of a thousand."
--Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834) English poet, critic, journalist, philosopher

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 19, 2013 at 12:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

That quote sums up what you no doubt probably think about yourself.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 19, 2013 at 12:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Hitchen's makes a good point on this old Stalin bit in a minute and a half:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRhczv...

Further fleshed out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUqcd7...

D.
--------------
"How many people have been killed in the name of Zahdism? None have, because there is no such religion as Zahdism. In the same way, if Judaism had never existed, none would have been massacred in its name. If Christianity had never existed, none would have been massacred in its name. If Islam had never existed, none would have been massacred in its name. This appears to be so axiomatic that I can't see how anyone can deny it." --anon

Likewise, Stalin and assorted dictators who do bad things do them because they can get away with them. They don't do it "in the name of atheism" as is done with religion. If anything they do it in the name of the state, which is a handy religion substitute because, as Hitchens points out, people have been so conveniently and thoroughly taught to worship and follow things (by religion), rather than think for themselves.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 19, 2013 at 12:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "That quote sums up...">>

Nope. Nothing about myself. Notice the time in which that fellow was making that observation. He was talking about being an atheist back before it was so doggone cool.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 19, 2013 at 12:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Like I already said, that quote sums up what you no doubt probably think about yourself, FFT.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 19, 2013 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I agree with Carla Martin. Disagree with Doug Parchman.

@ Doug... wish you could get pregnant and that you were single and made less than $10 an hour. You might change your tune about this.

Abortion is a woman's issue, period. Men who have a genuine concern about any kind of "murder" can stop all of the male-centered violence that we read about in our newspaper every day, up to and including terrorism and war. Think how much more money we'd have for life and people if men did not wage war. Think how much more money we'd have for life and people if a male-dominated Congress would "just saying No" to the military-industrial complex.

Posted by: SPA

February 19, 2013 at 9:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK: "...that quote sums up what you no doubt probably think about yourself...">>

Well is there "no doubt" or is it just "probably?" Those three words don't go along very well together. Maybe avoid conjecture about what you imagine others think about themselves. I'm just a lowly Arkansas goat farmer with a high school education, but I do have a strong mind and a good pump.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge observed about 200 years ago that to openly not believe in God at that time required a rare "strength of mind and goodness of heart." It's much easier to openly doubt such things these days, because atheism is just so doggone sexy.

D.
--------------
http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/f...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

February 19, 2013 at 12:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank, you can not know what FayFreethinker has in his mind! that is your thinking error will prove you uncredible. why not just ask him what he thinks of himself? as FFthinker humbly says to you:
" i have a strong mind and a good pump"
i will assume that is the truth.

enjoyed the post SPA, thanks for getting the subject back on track. i see you have a ability to see clearly in spite of the spin. notice the facts presented by helping hands report? 50% of all the homeless in NW arkansas are children under 18 yrs. old. the other 1/2 are grandparents raising grandchildren!! there is something very wrong. what do these facts tell you?

Posted by: ladyLiberty

February 19, 2013 at 2:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Freeby job discription: To be the Grand Kleagle of the Knights of Biblical and liberial mis-interpretation. His mission: To correct all those who would dare entertain beliefs and conclusions that are contrary to his own non-beliefs and false conclusions. Orders from Doug: These corrections are to be done with a vast number of words, vicious personal attacks, and numerous linqs to other moonbats who hold the same erroneous beliefs and conclusions.

How Money views Freeby: "Freeby is a believer in serious nothings and frivolous somethings and frervently incorrect about both."---ME

Posted by: JailBird

February 20, 2013 at 3:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

lady,

RE-

"50% of all the homeless in NW arkansas are children under 18 yrs. old. the other 1/2 are grandparents raising grandchildren!! there is something very wrong. what do these facts tell you?"

There is something very wrong with that. It tells me their is a parenting problem.

Posted by: Tankersley101

February 20, 2013 at 8:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

i agree with your assesment Tank.
maybe this think tank we have going could solve a real problem instead of waste our time reading diversion and clever nonsense from our joker Mm.?
it would be nice if our politicians came together and brainstormed idea to help arkansas parents to raise the children they have instead of worrying about the unborn. where are the parents of these homeless children?
abandoning or neglecting our children will exact the worse consequences for the culture of arkansas. we will all be better off if we solve this problem. these children are our future.
why is the media so quick to pounce on a politician who tried to help? Bill Halter had one idea that is not working well, but at least he tried to help them. it is obvious that this problem is too difficult for politicians and not popular to them. but lets insist they keep their eyes on the right ball. which is to aid in the betterment of all Arkansas citizens.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

February 20, 2013 at 8:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )