http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452 Planned Parenthood was the organizational stepchild of Margaret Sanger. Sanger was not a nice woman. In fact, she was a racist and an ardent foe of the disabled. She wrote about her views. Her own words confirm this fact of history. &nbsp; LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - &ldquo;To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom...&quot; Pope John Paul II, (&quot;The Gospel of Life,&quot; No. 20) &nbsp; Thirty five years ago, on January 22, 1973, seven unelected justices of the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion which will live in infamy, indirectly aided a National bloodbath. Roe v Wade has given legal cover to the killing of over fifty million children through legalized abortion. The opinion also laid the groundwork for the growing movement to legally sanction the killing of the elderly and the infirm under a profane and misguided notion of &ldquo;mercy&rdquo;. &nbsp; The Roe v Wade decision was not based on sound legal precedent. Rather, it was based on a legal fiction, set into motion years earlier in a series of poorly decided Court rulings concerning contraception and consensual sexual activity between unmarried adults. Those decisions were set into motion, indeed orchestrated, through the efforts of activists who intended to change the law and the culture. They succeeded. This series of judicial decisions created out of whole cloth a &ldquo;penumbra&rdquo; around the First Amendment to the United States Constitution within which the Supreme Court then found a so called &ldquo;right to privacy&rdquo;. This term was borrowed from astronomy where it refers to the outer portion of a shadow in an eclipse. It certainly has cast a shadow and is bringing an increasing darkness not only on America but throughout the West. Utilizing this fiction, this verbal construct, the Justices dismantled the real constitutional right, the Right to Life, and the real freedom, the Freedom to be born. This legal fiction, judicially created out of whole cloth, was then bolstered within this poorly written Roe opinion by references to patently incorrect history on abortion in the West and indisputably junk medical science. Roe v Wade is clearly one of the worst legal opinions ever written by the United States Supreme Court. A study of the earlier decisions which set up the Roe opinion reveals that there was a clear legal and cultural strategy, directly attributable to the activist organization Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was the organizational stepchild of Margaret Sanger. Sanger was not a nice woman. In fact, she was a racist and an ardent foe of the disabled. She wrote about her views. Her own words confirm this fact of history. She supported the killing of minority children in the womb and expressed frequent disdain for the handicapped. She was well known for her promotion and endorsement of eugenics. Current leaders of Planned Parenthood balk at such claims. However, they are factual claims and cannot be refuted. The death of fifty million children since the Roe decision has created what the late Servant of God John Paul II rightly labeled a &ldquo;Culture of Death&rdquo; in America and beyond. The unprecedented legal decision overrode any restrictions on abortion in all 50 States. That was until recently, when the most heinous form of feticide, the delivery of a child to within one inch of actual birth and the deliberate crushing of her skull causing her death, was finally upheld as a permissible &ldquo;restriction&rdquo; on the so called &lsquo;abortion right&rsquo;. A University of Chicago economist and a Stanford University law professor released the results of a study entitled &quot;Legalized Abortion and Crime&quot; in 1999. It made the front page of a number of national newspapers. Its claim was that legal abortion has lowered the crime rate by eliminating many of the potential criminals. The alleged &quot;scientific&quot; research with the attendant &quot;statistics&quot; was also accompanied by a claim of neutrality by its authors and heralded by the new Malthusians and social engineers. The story and the outrage it generated quickly faded. Yet, the fact exists that educated people were arguing that abortion, the intentional taking of the life of a human person in the womb, had societal benefits by somehow protecting us all from more &lsquo;criminals&rsquo;. Could eugenics be far behind? In pre-World War II Germany, Dr. Karl Binding, a law professor and one of Europe's foremost authorities on criminal law, and Dr. Alfred Hoche, a distinguished psychiatrist and professor of medicine, laid out the results of their &quot;study&quot; in two companion essays entitled &quot;Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life.&quot; Hoche proclaimed that &quot;.....a new age will arrive --- operating with a higher morality and with great sacrifice --- which will give up the requirement of an exaggerated humanism and overvaluation of mere human existence.&quot; Most now agree that this team of intellectual elites laid the framework for the eugenics program of the National Socialist regime. &nbsp; &quot;Come now,&quot; some would say, &quot;we have learned the lessons of history. There is no eugenic abortion in the United States.&rdquo; Oh, really? Little has been written or reported of the effusive support of Planned Parenthood offered by both Democratic contenders for the Presidency. Both candidates have made that support crystal clear. Both opposed the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case, Gonzales v. Carhart, handed down on April 18, 2007. Gonzales upheld the federal ban on the infanticide referred to as &ldquo;partial birth abortion&rdquo;. The High Court found that the ban did not impose an undue burden on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion. On July 17, 2007 Senator Barack Obama gave a fiery speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. He supported and praised their work. He also opposed Gonzales v. Carhart: &ldquo;To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held&mdash;upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court&rsquo;s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women&rsquo;s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court&mdash;not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong. Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure&mdash;that it&rsquo;s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.... ...I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women&rsquo;s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation&mdash;laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I&rsquo;ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito&rdquo; That same day, Senator Hillary Clinton addressed the same gathering. In her speech she not only praised the organization, but she advocated the &ldquo;Plan B&rdquo; pill be made available with Federal funding, called for a massive expansion of so called &ldquo;sex education&rdquo; in our schools and then made equally clear her support of continuing the regime which denies the right to life and substitutes in its place a so called &ldquo;right&rdquo; to take life, as long as it is life in the womb. All of this, along with expressing her opposition to the holding in the Gonzales case: &ldquo;Now, finally, when I am president, we will stand up for choice and nominate judges to our court who protect and preserve our Constitutional rights. For six and a half years, President Bush has appointed one ideological, anti-choice judge after another&mdash;Judges Pryor and Owen to the, in the circuit courts, to Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. Now when I voted against both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito [applause], I made statements that expressed my fear that they would use their seats on the Court to undermine Roe. I hoped that I was wrong; I&rsquo;m sorry to see that I was right. With Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court handed down Gonzales versus Carhart. And with that one decision, five justices dismissed four decades of precedent protecting women&rsquo;s health&mdash;basically denying medical decision making and undermining the right to choose. So let me be clear, when I am president, I will appoint judges to our courts who understand the role of precedent. That it actually does mean something. And also the importance of Roe v. Wade--that it truly is the touchstone of reproductive freedom and the embodiment of our most fundamental rights. That no one&mdash;no judge, no governor, no senator, no president --has the right to take away.&rdquo; This Gonzales decision was limited to Partial Birth abortion, which is never medically supportable and which the overwhelming majority of decent Americans oppose. Yet both of these candidates want to see it overturned. They simply support an unrestricted approach to Abortion. An approach where abortion can be chosen for any reason and at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. Recent investigative coverage, reported by Lifesite news, has revealed a horrid incident involving Planned Parenthoods&rsquo; fund raising efforts. A phone counselor was asked by a potential donor if they could specify that his or her funds only be used to abort black children. The ensuing dialogue is shocking and reveals overt racism. The Planned Parenthood representative assures the potential donor that such a donation would be accepted. &nbsp; A Student newspaper broke the story, complete with recording and transcript. Planned Parenthood responded by calling the student group &ldquo;anti-choice&rdquo; extremists and targeting the employee. Of course, they denied any racism. They are equal opportunity accomplices to killing. Let&rsquo;s be honest. Eugenic abortion is actually supported by our national public policy and protected by our positive law. No-one has to give any reason whatsoever for taking the life of a child in the womb. That child is treated as property and has no rights. The killing is sanctioned by law --- called a &quot;right&quot;, even though it is wrong. We rightly decry the sex selection abortions in India. How many are done here? We are rightly outraged at the hint of the use of abortion in a manner that is explicitly racist, yet is it actually being done? In his prophetic encyclical, &quot;The Gospel of Life,&quot; the late Servant of God John Paul II, spoke truth to what he rightly called this &quot;perverse idea of freedom&quot; and reaffirmed the &quot;essential link&quot; between freedom and truth. In &quot;The Splendor of Truth,&quot; another prophetic encyclical, he encouraged all those who truly cherish freedom to effective action by reminding us that &quot;freedom itself needs to be set free.&quot; In an age that trumpets the &quot;freedom of choice&quot; as the highest value, we must again proclaim the essential connection between freedom, truth and responsibility. We may be free to choose, but we are not free to make the objects of our choice right or wrong, good or evil. Any procured abortion is intrinsically evil. The substitution of license for liberty is exactly what John Paul warned of as &quot;a notion of freedom, which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them.&quot; It has, as the prophet in the chair of Peter warned, resulted from the &quot;eclipse of the sense of God and of man typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism.&quot; When a Nation loses its conviction that the right to life is inalienable and that the dignity of every human person is the foundation of authentic human freedom, it loses freedom itself. It kills it --- in the womb --- or at the bedside of the suffering. Oh, it may continue to mouth the word, and even develop a certain veneer of compassion, and language of &quot;tolerance&quot; behind which it hides its barbarism. But the Lord still &quot;hears the cry of the poor.&quot; In His Incarnation He took up residence in a womb and He died on an instrument of torture reserved only for the worst of criminals. From His wounded side He birthed a new creation, which, clothed with the same power that raised His glorified Body from the tomb, has a mission to speak truth to unbridled power, in so doing, to expose the lies of the &quot;cultures of death&quot; throughout the last two thousand years. Sometimes, just when the darkness looks like it will sure sweep the truth away, the Church, through her members seems to lead the way to a rebirth of truth, life and authentic freedom. As we walk ahead into what is clearly a new missionary age, the third Christian millennium, the task has passed to us. In a particular way, it has fallen to Catholic Christians. We have been given the treasury of truth in the teaching of the Catholic Church. As the scripture makes clear &quot;...to those to whom much is given, much more will be required.&quot; This treasury has not been given so that we can retreat from this culture. We must not see ourselves as a beleaguered &quot;victim&quot; group and simply protect ourselves. We carry on the redemptive mission of the Author of life and the One who is Truth. He still hears the cry of the poor and He expects that we will be His hands to protect them, lift them up, and to provide freedom to the captives. Planned Parenthood is an evil enterprise. It must be exposed. The truth about its founder, Margaret Sanger, also needs to be told. And the killing must come to an end. &nbsp; &nbsp; Planned Parenthood was the organizational stepchild of Margaret Sanger. Sanger was not a nice woman. In fact, she was a racist and an ardent foe of the disabled. She wrote about her views. Her own words confirm this fact of history. &nbsp; LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - &ldquo;To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom...&quot; Pope John Paul II, (&quot;The Gospel of Life,&quot; No. 20) &nbsp; Thirty five years ago, on January 22, 1973, seven unelected justices of the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion which will live in infamy, indirectly aided a National bloodbath. Roe v Wade has given legal cover to the killing of over fifty million children through legalized abortion. The opinion also laid the groundwork for the growing movement to legally sanction the killing of the elderly and the infirm under a profane and misguided notion of &ldquo;mercy&rdquo;. &nbsp; The Roe v Wade decision was not based on sound legal precedent. Rather, it was based on a legal fiction, set into motion years earlier in a series of poorly decided Court rulings concerning contraception and consensual sexual activity between unmarried adults. Those decisions were set into motion, indeed orchestrated, through the efforts of activists who intended to change the law and the culture. They succeeded. This series of judicial decisions created out of whole cloth a &ldquo;penumbra&rdquo; around the First Amendment to the United States Constitution within which the Supreme Court then found a so called &ldquo;right to privacy&rdquo;. This term was borrowed from astronomy where it refers to the outer portion of a shadow in an eclipse. It certainly has cast a shadow and is bringing an increasing darkness not only on America but throughout the West. Utilizing this fiction, this verbal construct, the Justices dismantled the real constitutional right, the Right to Life, and the real freedom, the Freedom to be born. This legal fiction, judicially created out of whole cloth, was then bolstered within this poorly written Roe opinion by references to patently incorrect history on abortion in the West and indisputably junk medical science. Roe v Wade is clearly one of the worst legal opinions ever written by the United States Supreme Court. A study of the earlier decisions which set up the Roe opinion reveals that there was a clear legal and cultural strategy, directly attributable to the activist organization Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood was the organizational stepchild of Margaret Sanger. Sanger was not a nice woman. In fact, she was a racist and an ardent foe of the disabled. She wrote about her views. Her own words confirm this fact of history. She supported the killing of minority children in the womb and expressed frequent disdain for the handicapped. She was well known for her promotion and endorsement of eugenics. Current leaders of Planned Parenthood balk at such claims. However, they are factual claims and cannot be refuted. The death of fifty million children since the Roe decision has created what the late Servant of God John Paul II rightly labeled a &ldquo;Culture of Death&rdquo; in America and beyond. The unprecedented legal decision overrode any restrictions on abortion in all 50 States. That was until recently, when the most heinous form of feticide, the delivery of a child to within one inch of actual birth and the deliberate crushing of her skull causing her death, was finally upheld as a permissible &ldquo;restriction&rdquo; on the so called &lsquo;abortion right&rsquo;. A University of Chicago economist and a Stanford University law professor released the results of a study entitled &quot;Legalized Abortion and Crime&quot; in 1999. It made the front page of a number of national newspapers. Its claim was that legal abortion has lowered the crime rate by eliminating many of the potential criminals. The alleged &quot;scientific&quot; research with the attendant &quot;statistics&quot; was also accompanied by a claim of neutrality by its authors and heralded by the new Malthusians and social engineers. The story and the outrage it generated quickly faded. Yet, the fact exists that educated people were arguing that abortion, the intentional taking of the life of a human person in the womb, had societal benefits by somehow protecting us all from more &lsquo;criminals&rsquo;. Could eugenics be far behind? In pre-World War II Germany, Dr. Karl Binding, a law professor and one of Europe's foremost authorities on criminal law, and Dr. Alfred Hoche, a distinguished psychiatrist and professor of medicine, laid out the results of their &quot;study&quot; in two companion essays entitled &quot;Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life.&quot; Hoche proclaimed that &quot;.....a new age will arrive --- operating with a higher morality and with great sacrifice --- which will give up the requirement of an exaggerated humanism and overvaluation of mere human existence.&quot; Most now agree that this team of intellectual elites laid the framework for the eugenics program of the National Socialist regime. &nbsp; &quot;Come now,&quot; some would say, &quot;we have learned the lessons of history. There is no eugenic abortion in the United States.&rdquo; Oh, really? Little has been written or reported of the effusive support of Planned Parenthood offered by both Democratic contenders for the Presidency. Both candidates have made that support crystal clear. Both opposed the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case, Gonzales v. Carhart, handed down on April 18, 2007. Gonzales upheld the federal ban on the infanticide referred to as &ldquo;partial birth abortion&rdquo;. The High Court found that the ban did not impose an undue burden on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion. On July 17, 2007 Senator Barack Obama gave a fiery speech before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. He supported and praised their work. He also opposed Gonzales v. Carhart: &ldquo;To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held&mdash;upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court&rsquo;s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women&rsquo;s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court&mdash;not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong. Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure&mdash;that it&rsquo;s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.... ...I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women&rsquo;s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation&mdash;laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I&rsquo;ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito&rdquo; That same day, Senator Hillary Clinton addressed the same gathering. In her speech she not only praised the organization, but she advocated the &ldquo;Plan B&rdquo; pill be made available with Federal funding, called for a massive expansion of so called &ldquo;sex education&rdquo; in our schools and then made equally clear her support of continuing the regime which denies the right to life and substitutes in its place a so called &ldquo;right&rdquo; to take life, as long as it is life in the womb. All of this, along with expressing her opposition to the holding in the Gonzales case: &ldquo;Now, finally, when I am president, we will stand up for choice and nominate judges to our court who protect and preserve our Constitutional rights. For six and a half years, President Bush has appointed one ideological, anti-choice judge after another&mdash;Judges Pryor and Owen to the, in the circuit courts, to Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. Now when I voted against both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito [applause], I made statements that expressed my fear that they would use their seats on the Court to undermine Roe. I hoped that I was wrong; I&rsquo;m sorry to see that I was right. With Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court handed down Gonzales versus Carhart. And with that one decision, five justices dismissed four decades of precedent protecting women&rsquo;s health&mdash;basically denying medical decision making and undermining the right to choose. So let me be clear, when I am president, I will appoint judges to our courts who understand the role of precedent. That it actually does mean something. And also the importance of Roe v. Wade--that it truly is the touchstone of reproductive freedom and the embodiment of our most fundamental rights. That no one&mdash;no judge, no governor, no senator, no president --has the right to take away.&rdquo; This Gonzales decision was limited to Partial Birth abortion, which is never medically supportable and which the overwhelming majority of decent Americans oppose. Yet both of these candidates want to see it overturned. They simply support an unrestricted approach to Abortion. An approach where abortion can be chosen for any reason and at any time throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. Recent investigative coverage, reported by Lifesite news, has revealed a horrid incident involving Planned Parenthoods&rsquo; fund raising efforts. A phone counselor was asked by a potential donor if they could specify that his or her funds only be used to abort black children. The ensuing dialogue is shocking and reveals overt racism. The Planned Parenthood representative assures the potential donor that such a donation would be accepted. &nbsp; A Student newspaper broke the story, complete with recording and transcript. Planned Parenthood responded by calling the student group &ldquo;anti-choice&rdquo; extremists and targeting the employee. Of course, they denied any racism. They are equal opportunity accomplices to killing. Let&rsquo;s be honest. Eugenic abortion is actually supported by our national public policy and protected by our positive law. No-one has to give any reason whatsoever for taking the life of a child in the womb. That child is treated as property and has no rights. The killing is sanctioned by law --- called a &quot;right&quot;, even though it is wrong. We rightly decry the sex selection abortions in India. How many are done here? We are rightly outraged at the hint of the use of abortion in a manner that is explicitly racist, yet is it actually being done? In his prophetic encyclical, &quot;The Gospel of Life,&quot; the late Servant of God John Paul II, spoke truth to what he rightly called this &quot;perverse idea of freedom&quot; and reaffirmed the &quot;essential link&quot; between freedom and truth. In &quot;The Splendor of Truth,&quot; another prophetic encyclical, he encouraged all those who truly cherish freedom to effective action by reminding us that &quot;freedom itself needs to be set free.&quot; In an age that trumpets the &quot;freedom of choice&quot; as the highest value, we must again proclaim the essential connection between freedom, truth and responsibility. We may be free to choose, but we are not free to make the objects of our choice right or wrong, good or evil. Any procured abortion is intrinsically evil. The substitution of license for liberty is exactly what John Paul warned of as &quot;a notion of freedom, which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them.&quot; It has, as the prophet in the chair of Peter warned, resulted from the &quot;eclipse of the sense of God and of man typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism.&quot; When a Nation loses its conviction that the right to life is inalienable and that the dignity of every human person is the foundation of authentic human freedom, it loses freedom itself. It kills it --- in the womb --- or at the bedside of the suffering. Oh, it may continue to mouth the word, and even develop a certain veneer of compassion, and language of &quot;tolerance&quot; behind which it hides its barbarism. But the Lord still &quot;hears the cry of the poor.&quot; In His Incarnation He took up residence in a womb and He died on an instrument of torture reserved only for the worst of criminals. From His wounded side He birthed a new creation, which, clothed with the same power that raised His glorified Body from the tomb, has a mission to speak truth to unbridled power, in so doing, to expose the lies of the &quot;cultures of death&quot; throughout the last two thousand years. Sometimes, just when the darkness looks like it will sure sweep the truth away, the Church, through her members seems to lead the way to a rebirth of truth, life and authentic freedom. As we walk ahead into what is clearly a new missionary age, the third Christian millennium, the task has passed to us. In a particular way, it has fallen to Catholic Christians. We have been given the treasury of truth in the teaching of the Catholic Church. As the scripture makes clear &quot;...to those to whom much is given, much more will be required.&quot; This treasury has not been given so that we can retreat from this culture. We must not see ourselves as a beleaguered &quot;victim&quot; group and simply protect ourselves. We carry on the redemptive mission of the Author of life and the One who is Truth. He still hears the cry of the poor and He expects that we will be His hands to protect them, lift them up, and to provide freedom to the captives. Planned Parenthood is an evil enterprise. It must be exposed. The truth about its founder, Margaret Sanger, also needs to be told. And the killing must come to an end. &nbsp; &nbsp; en-us <p>You do realize that the ban on so-called &quot;partial birth abortion&quot; (AKA D&amp;X procedure) hasn't stopped one single abortion, don't you? There are other, still legal, ways of terminating a late pregnancy. They are just more dangerous for the mother. This procedure was developed as a way of protecting the mother's health&nbsp;&amp; future reproductive activities.</p> <p>I find it extremely disingenuous of folks who oppose this operation, thinking it helps their anti-choice cause. It's a red herring, folks. Don't buy into the lies they try to sell.</p> <p>http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213380 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213380 <p>You do realize that the ban on so-called &quot;partial birth abortion&quot; (AKA D&amp;X procedure) hasn't stopped one single abortion, don't you? There are other, still legal, ways of terminating a late pregnancy. They are just more dangerous for the mother. This procedure was developed as a way of protecting the mother's health&nbsp;&amp; future reproductive activities.</p> <p>I find it extremely disingenuous of folks who oppose this operation, thinking it helps their anti-choice cause. It's a red herring, folks. Don't buy into the lies they try to sell.</p> <p>http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;You can't always use the &quot;health of the mother&quot; as your justification for abortion. Those account for the minority of abortions. The majority are from women who find out the there baby has a health problem or disorder and they won't have there perfect baby, or they don't want to be bothered with caring for a child with health problems, or the woman that is rising in her career and finds out she is pregnant but it isn't the right time, or the woman that already has children and finds out she is pregnant and doesn't want to be bothered with one more child. None of those are reasons for killing an innocent child. If it isn't the right time, or you don't want anymore children, you should be responsible and not have sex, or try other means of not getting pregnant, abortion isn't the answer. As for those people that find out their child is going to have a disorder, or health problem and choose to kill the child instead, do you know how many false positive tests happen all to the time. I know many people that were told that their child was going to have down syndrome, or serious heart problems, and they chose to love the child they had and bring that wonderful life into the world, and low and behold the babies were born with no abnormalities. So I find it disgusting that people will use any excuse to kill an innocent child. Do you think that God advocates killing innocent babies, NO he doesn't.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213434 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213434 <p>&nbsp;You can't always use the &quot;health of the mother&quot; as your justification for abortion. Those account for the minority of abortions. The majority are from women who find out the there baby has a health problem or disorder and they won't have there perfect baby, or they don't want to be bothered with caring for a child with health problems, or the woman that is rising in her career and finds out she is pregnant but it isn't the right time, or the woman that already has children and finds out she is pregnant and doesn't want to be bothered with one more child. None of those are reasons for killing an innocent child. If it isn't the right time, or you don't want anymore children, you should be responsible and not have sex, or try other means of not getting pregnant, abortion isn't the answer. As for those people that find out their child is going to have a disorder, or health problem and choose to kill the child instead, do you know how many false positive tests happen all to the time. I know many people that were told that their child was going to have down syndrome, or serious heart problems, and they chose to love the child they had and bring that wonderful life into the world, and low and behold the babies were born with no abnormalities. So I find it disgusting that people will use any excuse to kill an innocent child. Do you think that God advocates killing innocent babies, NO he doesn't.</p> <p>&nbsp;First of all, I don't believe there's a God who takes particular interest in the day to day lives of individuals. Second, I was pointing out that so-called PBAs aren't the only way to terminate a late-term pregnancy. Third,&nbsp;the great majority of&nbsp;abortions occur in the first trimester, making your whole argument about the D&amp;X procedure moot.</p> <p>I know the reasons why women have abortions. I've known women who've decided for the procedure, &amp; those who've decided against it. Isn't it wonderful that they all have the choice to decide what happens inside their own bodies? If you want to counsel women about the procedure, go right ahead. But don't try to force your moral values on other people, I find <i>that </i>disgusting; that's not what our country is about.</p> <p>A blastocyst,&nbsp;embryo or fetus is not a person, or a baby. Otherwise, they wouldn't be called by their more&nbsp;medically correct names. If they <i>were</i> considered legally as persons, then we would count them in the national census &amp; folks would be able to use their pregnancies as tax deductions. The law does not recognize a pregnancy as a person.</p> <p>If you are so concerned about saving human lives, why aren't you advocating the forced extraction of viable organs from recently deceased persons to save all those people who die every year needing an organ transplant? Because the law recognizes the rights of those people, &amp; their families, to decide what is right for them in their particular circumstances. They get to choose what to do with their own bodies, in consultation with their family physician. That's exactly how abortions should be, and are, handled.</p> <p>Make your own choice about your life, &amp; let other women make their own decisions, too. I may not believe in gods, but I do know you're not one of them.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213466 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213466 <p>&nbsp;First of all, I don't believe there's a God who takes particular interest in the day to day lives of individuals. Second, I was pointing out that so-called PBAs aren't the only way to terminate a late-term pregnancy. Third,&nbsp;the great majority of&nbsp;abortions occur in the first trimester, making your whole argument about the D&amp;X procedure moot.</p> <p>I know the reasons why women have abortions. I've known women who've decided for the procedure, &amp; those who've decided against it. Isn't it wonderful that they all have the choice to decide what happens inside their own bodies? If you want to counsel women about the procedure, go right ahead. But don't try to force your moral values on other people, I find <i>that </i>disgusting; that's not what our country is about.</p> <p>A blastocyst,&nbsp;embryo or fetus is not a person, or a baby. Otherwise, they wouldn't be called by their more&nbsp;medically correct names. If they <i>were</i> considered legally as persons, then we would count them in the national census &amp; folks would be able to use their pregnancies as tax deductions. The law does not recognize a pregnancy as a person.</p> <p>If you are so concerned about saving human lives, why aren't you advocating the forced extraction of viable organs from recently deceased persons to save all those people who die every year needing an organ transplant? Because the law recognizes the rights of those people, &amp; their families, to decide what is right for them in their particular circumstances. They get to choose what to do with their own bodies, in consultation with their family physician. That's exactly how abortions should be, and are, handled.</p> <p>Make your own choice about your life, &amp; let other women make their own decisions, too. I may not believe in gods, but I do know you're not one of them.</p> <p>&nbsp;I'm pretty much over arguing this topic on here. You should all know where I stand on this by now, if not, I agree with concerned 100%.</p> <p>Oohchild, if I was you I wouldn't believe in God either. I'm curious....what are your thoughts on Sarah's Law (or the&nbsp;Parents Right To Know)??&nbsp;</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213525 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213525 <p>&nbsp;I'm pretty much over arguing this topic on here. You should all know where I stand on this by now, if not, I agree with concerned 100%.</p> <p>Oohchild, if I was you I wouldn't believe in God either. I'm curious....what are your thoughts on Sarah's Law (or the&nbsp;Parents Right To Know)??&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;oochild, you get on here and blast me for voicing my opinion and my&nbsp;beliefs, but you keep on pushing your opinions or beliefs on to me and others. Why don't you stop being a hypocrite and take some of your own medicine.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213541 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213541 <p>&nbsp;oochild, you get on here and blast me for voicing my opinion and my&nbsp;beliefs, but you keep on pushing your opinions or beliefs on to me and others. Why don't you stop being a hypocrite and take some of your own medicine.</p> <p>concerned, it's not my opinion that there are other procedures that end late term pregnancies, it's a fact. It's not my opinion that&nbsp;families are not forced to donate their relatives' organs for transplant, &amp; that folks die every day for lack of organs,&nbsp;it's a fact. It's not my opinion that the government doesn't recognize pregnancies as persons, it's a fact. I'm not forcing you to not believe in gods, go right ahead &amp; believe in them. It's not my fault that my facts make you uncomfortable; maybe you should re-examine your own hypocritical ideologies.</p> <p>Link please, countygirl?</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213547 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213547 <p>concerned, it's not my opinion that there are other procedures that end late term pregnancies, it's a fact. It's not my opinion that&nbsp;families are not forced to donate their relatives' organs for transplant, &amp; that folks die every day for lack of organs,&nbsp;it's a fact. It's not my opinion that the government doesn't recognize pregnancies as persons, it's a fact. I'm not forcing you to not believe in gods, go right ahead &amp; believe in them. It's not my fault that my facts make you uncomfortable; maybe you should re-examine your own hypocritical ideologies.</p> <p>Link please, countygirl?</p> <p> <a href="http://www.friendsofsarah.com/">http://www.friendsofsarah.com/</a></p> <p>Here ya go!</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213559 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213559 <p> <a href="http://www.friendsofsarah.com/">http://www.friendsofsarah.com/</a></p> <p>Here ya go!</p> <p> So what happens in a state with Sarah's Law when it's a case of abuse or incest?  Does the child have to go to the police first?  Go to a lawyer to try to be declared an independent minor?</p> <br /> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213596 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213596 <p> So what happens in a state with Sarah's Law when it's a case of abuse or incest?  Does the child have to go to the police first?  Go to a lawyer to try to be declared an independent minor?</p> <br /> <p><span style="font-size: small">Well unfortunately my computer is running weird and I couldn't get into the friends of sarah web page so I don't know what that is. </span><span style="font-size: small">I have done study on late term abortions.  In the cases of health or rape that is only a small percentage of abortions.  So approximately 97% of abortions are due to perhaps lack of planning.  As far as donating organs that is completely different.  We are talking about someone who has to match up with someone elses organ or their body could reject it.  I personally believe that all life is sacred no matter what stage it is in.  When people become old and invalid we don't think of them as an abortion do we?   They are completely dependent on someone else in order to stay alive.  I think of a fetus the same way.  I knew a lot of girls as a teenager who used abortion as a way out.  That way they could still have "fun" and not have to worry about it.  </span> <span style="font-size: small">I'm just wondering why this type of argument is on this kind of venue?  This is an extremely personal belief for a lot of people, so why get on the soap box about it?  Boredom?  </span></p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213626 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213626 <p><span style="font-size: small">Well unfortunately my computer is running weird and I couldn't get into the friends of sarah web page so I don't know what that is. </span><span style="font-size: small">I have done study on late term abortions.  In the cases of health or rape that is only a small percentage of abortions.  So approximately 97% of abortions are due to perhaps lack of planning.  As far as donating organs that is completely different.  We are talking about someone who has to match up with someone elses organ or their body could reject it.  I personally believe that all life is sacred no matter what stage it is in.  When people become old and invalid we don't think of them as an abortion do we?   They are completely dependent on someone else in order to stay alive.  I think of a fetus the same way.  I knew a lot of girls as a teenager who used abortion as a way out.  That way they could still have "fun" and not have to worry about it.  </span> <span style="font-size: small">I'm just wondering why this type of argument is on this kind of venue?  This is an extremely personal belief for a lot of people, so why get on the soap box about it?  Boredom?  </span></p> <p>I don't want to force my opinion on anyone. However, I do like the fact that in America we women have a right to choose what to do with our own bodies. .</p> <p>I would also like to point out that most women who have abortions believe in God, so that shouldn't be the issue here. </p> <p><strong>Who's having abortions (religion)?<br /> </strong>Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical</p> <p><b>The abortion rate has dropped since the 70's because of contraceptives and sex education.... </b></p> <p><b>Education is the key as always. </b></p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213694 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213694 <p>I don't want to force my opinion on anyone. However, I do like the fact that in America we women have a right to choose what to do with our own bodies. .</p> <p>I would also like to point out that most women who have abortions believe in God, so that shouldn't be the issue here. </p> <p><strong>Who's having abortions (religion)?<br /> </strong>Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical</p> <p><b>The abortion rate has dropped since the 70's because of contraceptives and sex education.... </b></p> <p><b>Education is the key as always. </b></p> <p>&nbsp;I have enough trouble thinking about my tax money funding bombs and bullets in our military escapades.&nbsp; I can't believe my tax money funds the biggest provider of abortion services, Planned Parenthood.</p> <p>Thus, all of our taxes fund the greatest evil on this earth right now.&nbsp; Against the will of many, taxes fund just under 2 million abortions each year in this country.&nbsp; In the time it takes to read this short note, a child has been murdered, and there is blood on the hands of all who stand as pro-abortion, all who support this carnage.</p> <p>And we wonder why the skies are growing dark over the once great United States of America.</p> <p>Jeff Johnson, Collegeville</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213697 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213697 <p>&nbsp;I have enough trouble thinking about my tax money funding bombs and bullets in our military escapades.&nbsp; I can't believe my tax money funds the biggest provider of abortion services, Planned Parenthood.</p> <p>Thus, all of our taxes fund the greatest evil on this earth right now.&nbsp; Against the will of many, taxes fund just under 2 million abortions each year in this country.&nbsp; In the time it takes to read this short note, a child has been murdered, and there is blood on the hands of all who stand as pro-abortion, all who support this carnage.</p> <p>And we wonder why the skies are growing dark over the once great United States of America.</p> <p>Jeff Johnson, Collegeville</p> <p>&nbsp;Just because people who say they believe in God have abortions doesn't make belief in God a non-issue in this debate. Christians have owned slaves, participated in massacres &quot;for God,&quot; etc.&nbsp; Christians aren't perfect, and those who &quot;identify themselves as [Christians]&quot; don't necessarily follow the things they say they believe.&nbsp; About 75% of our country &quot;identify themselves as Christians,&quot; but don't know basic tenets of the faith they claim.&nbsp; I imagine it's the same with other faiths.</p> <p>I am a church worker.&nbsp; I am <u>appalled</u> that the money I earn in my ministry goes to taxes that pay for a children's holocaust, which is what I believe abortion is.&nbsp; I don't believe the convenient lie of &quot;it's not a person yet&quot; that the devil has whispered in people's ears.&nbsp; God has told us that He knit us together in our mother's womb and that He knew us from conception.&nbsp; I'll take my Creator's word about when I was a person over an abortion activist's any day (or a scientist who supports abortion.&nbsp; There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the pro-choice scientists about when a person is a person).</p> <p>By the way, entering into a debate makes the whole &quot;you're forcing your opinion on me&quot; thing moot.&nbsp; That's what a debate is: facts and opinions.&nbsp; Also, if you think someone blogging is forcing their opinion, then don't read blogs.&nbsp; To moan and groan about people forcing their opinion is called defensiveness.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213727 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213727 <p>&nbsp;Just because people who say they believe in God have abortions doesn't make belief in God a non-issue in this debate. Christians have owned slaves, participated in massacres &quot;for God,&quot; etc.&nbsp; Christians aren't perfect, and those who &quot;identify themselves as [Christians]&quot; don't necessarily follow the things they say they believe.&nbsp; About 75% of our country &quot;identify themselves as Christians,&quot; but don't know basic tenets of the faith they claim.&nbsp; I imagine it's the same with other faiths.</p> <p>I am a church worker.&nbsp; I am <u>appalled</u> that the money I earn in my ministry goes to taxes that pay for a children's holocaust, which is what I believe abortion is.&nbsp; I don't believe the convenient lie of &quot;it's not a person yet&quot; that the devil has whispered in people's ears.&nbsp; God has told us that He knit us together in our mother's womb and that He knew us from conception.&nbsp; I'll take my Creator's word about when I was a person over an abortion activist's any day (or a scientist who supports abortion.&nbsp; There are plenty of scientists who disagree with the pro-choice scientists about when a person is a person).</p> <p>By the way, entering into a debate makes the whole &quot;you're forcing your opinion on me&quot; thing moot.&nbsp; That's what a debate is: facts and opinions.&nbsp; Also, if you think someone blogging is forcing their opinion, then don't read blogs.&nbsp; To moan and groan about people forcing their opinion is called defensiveness.</p> <p>&nbsp;I agree, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars funding the Iraq war, where there is much killing and bloodshed of living, breathing human beings, and I don't blame some of you who are against Planned Parenthood for not wanting to fund them.&nbsp;&nbsp; I wish we could pick and choose which taxes we pay!.&nbsp;&nbsp; I could save a bundle if I weren't helping to pay for the trillion dollar Iraq war.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213758 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213758 <p>&nbsp;I agree, I don't like the idea of my tax dollars funding the Iraq war, where there is much killing and bloodshed of living, breathing human beings, and I don't blame some of you who are against Planned Parenthood for not wanting to fund them.&nbsp;&nbsp; I wish we could pick and choose which taxes we pay!.&nbsp;&nbsp; I could save a bundle if I weren't helping to pay for the trillion dollar Iraq war.</p> <p><span style="font-size: small">&nbsp;countygirl, thanks for the link. I really don't have a problem with parental notification laws, as long as there's an out for the kinds of circumstances mentioned by madkow. From what I've read on the issue, most teens already involve a parent when confronting an unplanned pregnancy, so the number of girls this law would cover is minuscule compared to the number of abortions in this country.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">Vickinyg, you're conflating two issues, so-called PBA &amp; all abortions in general. The D&amp;X procedure was used when the health of the mother was in jeopardy, or when the fetus was so malformed as to destine it to a short life of pain &amp; misery before its death. No woman goes through 7 or 8 months of pregnancy, only to wake up one morning &amp; decide &quot;I don't want to be pregnant anymore.&quot; These women usually wanted the pregnancy &amp; are devastated when they find out they won't be getting their much desired baby. For an example, just google &quot;harlequin baby&quot;. But be for warned; the photos you will see are very graphic &amp; painful. The whole reason the D&amp;X procedure was developed in the first place was to minimize the risks to the mother. Instead, now they must either perform a C section or dismember the fetus in the womb for removal, and both of these options are much more hazardous for the mother.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">Regarding the issue of organ transplant: you don't understand my point. If there were more organs available through routine removal after death, without prior consent, then there would be many more lives saved every year despite the matching issue. More organs available = more chances for matched donations. So why don't we change the laws in order to save more people every year? Because the courts &amp; society deem it a personal, family decision whether or not to donate organs. We as a country have decided that what happens to a person's body is there own business when it comes to medical procedures. Now, if you truly believe that a woman doesn't have the right to decide what happens to her body, would you also agree that a dead person (or their family) shouldn't have the right to deny life to another individual by withholding a needed transplant? If you don't agree, then please explain to me the difference. It's not a matter of matching organs; the organs available from that dead person <i>would</i> match <i>somebody</i> in need.</span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213759 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213759 <p><span style="font-size: small">&nbsp;countygirl, thanks for the link. I really don't have a problem with parental notification laws, as long as there's an out for the kinds of circumstances mentioned by madkow. From what I've read on the issue, most teens already involve a parent when confronting an unplanned pregnancy, so the number of girls this law would cover is minuscule compared to the number of abortions in this country.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">Vickinyg, you're conflating two issues, so-called PBA &amp; all abortions in general. The D&amp;X procedure was used when the health of the mother was in jeopardy, or when the fetus was so malformed as to destine it to a short life of pain &amp; misery before its death. No woman goes through 7 or 8 months of pregnancy, only to wake up one morning &amp; decide &quot;I don't want to be pregnant anymore.&quot; These women usually wanted the pregnancy &amp; are devastated when they find out they won't be getting their much desired baby. For an example, just google &quot;harlequin baby&quot;. But be for warned; the photos you will see are very graphic &amp; painful. The whole reason the D&amp;X procedure was developed in the first place was to minimize the risks to the mother. Instead, now they must either perform a C section or dismember the fetus in the womb for removal, and both of these options are much more hazardous for the mother.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">Regarding the issue of organ transplant: you don't understand my point. If there were more organs available through routine removal after death, without prior consent, then there would be many more lives saved every year despite the matching issue. More organs available = more chances for matched donations. So why don't we change the laws in order to save more people every year? Because the courts &amp; society deem it a personal, family decision whether or not to donate organs. We as a country have decided that what happens to a person's body is there own business when it comes to medical procedures. Now, if you truly believe that a woman doesn't have the right to decide what happens to her body, would you also agree that a dead person (or their family) shouldn't have the right to deny life to another individual by withholding a needed transplant? If you don't agree, then please explain to me the difference. It's not a matter of matching organs; the organs available from that dead person <i>would</i> match <i>somebody</i> in need.</span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>I actually was at planned parenthood a few weeks ago to pick up birth control pills as I do not yet have a doctor. I was shocked when after they gave me my pills, they also gave me 'The morning after pill'......Plan B..I found that a little disturbing myself as I never once brought it up, asked about it, requested it....</p> <p>Everyone seems to think Planned Parenthood is the evil do-er here, contributing to the abortion numbers but do you ever stop to think about how many people are there for the same reason I was there-to pick up birth control.I have a feeling that Planned Parenthood prevents millions of unwanted pregnancies every year by supplying birth control and other contraceptives/giving information/advice so girls can make informed decisions.&nbsp; Everytime I have been there it has been packed full of women/girls so obviously there is a need for the services they provide.&nbsp;Why is people only focus on the negatives they see and never on the positive impact an organization like planned parenthood has on a community.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213791 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213791 <p>I actually was at planned parenthood a few weeks ago to pick up birth control pills as I do not yet have a doctor. I was shocked when after they gave me my pills, they also gave me 'The morning after pill'......Plan B..I found that a little disturbing myself as I never once brought it up, asked about it, requested it....</p> <p>Everyone seems to think Planned Parenthood is the evil do-er here, contributing to the abortion numbers but do you ever stop to think about how many people are there for the same reason I was there-to pick up birth control.I have a feeling that Planned Parenthood prevents millions of unwanted pregnancies every year by supplying birth control and other contraceptives/giving information/advice so girls can make informed decisions.&nbsp; Everytime I have been there it has been packed full of women/girls so obviously there is a need for the services they provide.&nbsp;Why is people only focus on the negatives they see and never on the positive impact an organization like planned parenthood has on a community.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The idea that the baby is killed and that therefore the method of abortion does not matter illustrates a mode of thinking that we do not allow when discussing animals. </p> <p>For example, Michael Vick was roundly (and correctly in my opinion) condemned for strangling, drowning, and shooting dogs in a way that he would not have been had he humanely euthanized the dogs - as of course the "rescuers" did to several of the dogs taken after the ring was broken up. </p> <p>It is entirely consistent with our legal system that method matters, and that one method of doing something may be criminalized while another is allowed.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213795 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213795 <p>The idea that the baby is killed and that therefore the method of abortion does not matter illustrates a mode of thinking that we do not allow when discussing animals. </p> <p>For example, Michael Vick was roundly (and correctly in my opinion) condemned for strangling, drowning, and shooting dogs in a way that he would not have been had he humanely euthanized the dogs - as of course the "rescuers" did to several of the dogs taken after the ring was broken up. </p> <p>It is entirely consistent with our legal system that method matters, and that one method of doing something may be criminalized while another is allowed.</p> <p><span style="font-size: small">&nbsp;That's true, PD, but folks who railed against so-called PBAs thought that banning the procedure would stop the terminations altogether. Once the ban was put in place, some were surprised to find that it would not stop one single abortion. Some leaders of the anti-choice movement pointed out this fact in essays &amp; articles published on the web, but the rank &amp; file paid no heed to their message.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">It's an important point for those women faced with such a tragic choice, that their lives are being put in danger just to make a&nbsp;small political gain.</span></p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213833 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213833 <p><span style="font-size: small">&nbsp;That's true, PD, but folks who railed against so-called PBAs thought that banning the procedure would stop the terminations altogether. Once the ban was put in place, some were surprised to find that it would not stop one single abortion. Some leaders of the anti-choice movement pointed out this fact in essays &amp; articles published on the web, but the rank &amp; file paid no heed to their message.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">It's an important point for those women faced with such a tragic choice, that their lives are being put in danger just to make a&nbsp;small political gain.</span></p> <p>I don't think your characterizations are&nbsp;true.&nbsp; I think that people were (and are) disgusted by the ugly brutality of a procedure&nbsp;that sucks the brains out of&nbsp;a nearly-full term unborn child and wanted it banned, even people willing to support abortion in general.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213876 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213876 <p>I don't think your characterizations are&nbsp;true.&nbsp; I think that people were (and are) disgusted by the ugly brutality of a procedure&nbsp;that sucks the brains out of&nbsp;a nearly-full term unborn child and wanted it banned, even people willing to support abortion in general.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;And yet the D&amp;E procedure is the main alternative being used in late-term pregnancy terminations. Do you know the difference between the two procedures?</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213916 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213916 <p>&nbsp;And yet the D&amp;E procedure is the main alternative being used in late-term pregnancy terminations. Do you know the difference between the two procedures?</p> <p><span style="font-size: small">oohchild, I&nbsp;agree with you and your points 100%. But it's futile to try to educate some of these people. And I wonder just how many of them who cry&nbsp;and moan about abortions have put their money where their mouth is and adopted or&nbsp;even fostered&nbsp;children who&nbsp;were <i><b>not</b></i> aborted, but&nbsp;unwanted and abandoned? I read complaints about tax dollars funding abortions, just where do you think the money to take care of all these parentless children in the system comes from? </span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">Someone made a comment about older people. The way we treat senior citizens in this country is more atrocious than aborting a clump of cells that would not sustain life outside its host, but where is the hue and cry about that?</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">I've said it&nbsp;before and I'll say it again...government and religion stay the hell out of my womb!</span></p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213997 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213997 <p><span style="font-size: small">oohchild, I&nbsp;agree with you and your points 100%. But it's futile to try to educate some of these people. And I wonder just how many of them who cry&nbsp;and moan about abortions have put their money where their mouth is and adopted or&nbsp;even fostered&nbsp;children who&nbsp;were <i><b>not</b></i> aborted, but&nbsp;unwanted and abandoned? I read complaints about tax dollars funding abortions, just where do you think the money to take care of all these parentless children in the system comes from? </span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">Someone made a comment about older people. The way we treat senior citizens in this country is more atrocious than aborting a clump of cells that would not sustain life outside its host, but where is the hue and cry about that?</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">I've said it&nbsp;before and I'll say it again...government and religion stay the hell out of my womb!</span></p> <p>&nbsp;Sorry oohchild but you have your facts wrong. Before PBA's &nbsp;were banned it was found that the majority of them being preformed WERE on healthy babies with healthy mothers and they were also many more preformed than they had previously admitted to. This was brought to light by one of the Pro-Choice head people. I'll try to find a link for you.</p> <p>Have you ever really studied the testing process(AFP) and the timing they are done at? I am doing this right now and am very surprised at the difference a few weeks make, and what a difference those few weeks means as far as terminating the pregnancy. Kind of scary actually. The whole thing is a mess and needs to be completely redone! Their current process is NOT acceptable!</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213999 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_213999 <p>&nbsp;Sorry oohchild but you have your facts wrong. Before PBA's &nbsp;were banned it was found that the majority of them being preformed WERE on healthy babies with healthy mothers and they were also many more preformed than they had previously admitted to. This was brought to light by one of the Pro-Choice head people. I'll try to find a link for you.</p> <p>Have you ever really studied the testing process(AFP) and the timing they are done at? I am doing this right now and am very surprised at the difference a few weeks make, and what a difference those few weeks means as far as terminating the pregnancy. Kind of scary actually. The whole thing is a mess and needs to be completely redone! Their current process is NOT acceptable!</p> <p>&nbsp;I am consistent in my opposition to both partial-birth abortion and to D&amp;E abortion (where the baby is dismembered and brought out of the womb in pieces), oochild.&nbsp;</p> <p>I merely stated a possible logic, contrary to your assumptions, &nbsp;that might have presuaded otherwise pro-abortion politicians to support the ban on partial birth abortion, not my own logic.&nbsp; Since it got 70 senate votes, its support wasn't limited to normal anti-abortion politicians.</p> <p>To restate my comparison, to many people&nbsp;causing the&nbsp;death of a dog through a gunshot to&nbsp;its head is unacceptable, while the causing of it though the injection of drugs is.&nbsp; Lawmakers are free to legislate this community will through the banning of one type of killing and not the other, and the argument that the dog is dead either way likely won't carry much weight with many of them, nor, I suspect, with you.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214018 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214018 <p>&nbsp;I am consistent in my opposition to both partial-birth abortion and to D&amp;E abortion (where the baby is dismembered and brought out of the womb in pieces), oochild.&nbsp;</p> <p>I merely stated a possible logic, contrary to your assumptions, &nbsp;that might have presuaded otherwise pro-abortion politicians to support the ban on partial birth abortion, not my own logic.&nbsp; Since it got 70 senate votes, its support wasn't limited to normal anti-abortion politicians.</p> <p>To restate my comparison, to many people&nbsp;causing the&nbsp;death of a dog through a gunshot to&nbsp;its head is unacceptable, while the causing of it though the injection of drugs is.&nbsp; Lawmakers are free to legislate this community will through the banning of one type of killing and not the other, and the argument that the dog is dead either way likely won't carry much weight with many of them, nor, I suspect, with you.</p> <p>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2086">http://www.slate.com/id/2086</a> <b>- Article about Ron Fitzsimmons</b></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><b>Just some facts...............................................................</b></p> <p>- <a target="_blank" href="http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/statistics.asp">AbortionFacts.com</a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;<a href="http://realweb.ifastnet.com/stats.html">http://realweb.ifastnet.com/stats.html</a></p> <p align="center"><img height="21" alt="Abortion Statistics" width="173" src="http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/images/abfacts_head.gif" /><br /> <br /> <font face="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular">The following is a list of useful abortion statistics as well as some facts on <a href="http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html#anchor">abortifacients</a>. All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's <i>Family Planning Perspectives.</i></font></p> <p><font face="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php?scope=U.S.%20specific">Click here for the Guttmacher Institute's latest fact sheet on abortion.</a></font></p> <p><font face="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular"><a href="http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html#anchor">http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html#anchor</a></font></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214040 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214040 <p>&nbsp;<a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2086">http://www.slate.com/id/2086</a> <b>- Article about Ron Fitzsimmons</b></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><b>Just some facts...............................................................</b></p> <p>- <a target="_blank" href="http://www.abortionfacts.com/statistics/statistics.asp">AbortionFacts.com</a></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;<a href="http://realweb.ifastnet.com/stats.html">http://realweb.ifastnet.com/stats.html</a></p> <p align="center"><img height="21" alt="Abortion Statistics" width="173" src="http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/images/abfacts_head.gif" /><br /> <br /> <font face="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular">The following is a list of useful abortion statistics as well as some facts on <a href="http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html#anchor">abortifacients</a>. All abortion numbers are derived from pro-abortion sources courtesy of The Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's <i>Family Planning Perspectives.</i></font></p> <p><font face="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php?scope=U.S.%20specific">Click here for the Guttmacher Institute's latest fact sheet on abortion.</a></font></p> <p><font face="Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular"><a href="http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html#anchor">http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html#anchor</a></font></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p> I really agree with you, Smokey, that Planned Parenthood does do a wonderful service to many girls and women by providing contraceptives and information.  Sanger may not have been perfect, but she is admirable for pushing past the legalities of her time to get women the birth control they needed.  I don't mean to strictly attack the Catholic Church, but not all of us can handle having ten kids and the rhythm method is hardly reliable.</p> <p>I always find it interesting with the abortion issue that many people talk about "forcing morals on others" and the like.  What do you think laws are?  They are codified morals!  What our laws are just depends on who is in control at the time.  (Or who is in the Supreme Court at the time... but, aha, that is a different story altogether.)  Personally I find some of our laws to be in complete opposition to my morals.  But I'm not the one at the top, I suppose.</p> <p> Countygirl- I noticed the particular timing of the AFP testing seemed to coincide with the legal abortion timeline...  I haven't put any time into studying it though.  Just an observation when they were trying to push me into testing.  Kind of ironic that I vehemently asserted my right to choose not to test ;)</p> <p>Joty- I totally agree that people should be willing to take in orphans/abandoned children, especially when they say that abortion is unnecessary while there are people waiting to adopt.  If only people would take responsibility!  It sometimes seems we fail our children over and over, right from birth to death (whether it's at a young age or an old age).</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214043 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214043 <p> I really agree with you, Smokey, that Planned Parenthood does do a wonderful service to many girls and women by providing contraceptives and information.  Sanger may not have been perfect, but she is admirable for pushing past the legalities of her time to get women the birth control they needed.  I don't mean to strictly attack the Catholic Church, but not all of us can handle having ten kids and the rhythm method is hardly reliable.</p> <p>I always find it interesting with the abortion issue that many people talk about "forcing morals on others" and the like.  What do you think laws are?  They are codified morals!  What our laws are just depends on who is in control at the time.  (Or who is in the Supreme Court at the time... but, aha, that is a different story altogether.)  Personally I find some of our laws to be in complete opposition to my morals.  But I'm not the one at the top, I suppose.</p> <p> Countygirl- I noticed the particular timing of the AFP testing seemed to coincide with the legal abortion timeline...  I haven't put any time into studying it though.  Just an observation when they were trying to push me into testing.  Kind of ironic that I vehemently asserted my right to choose not to test ;)</p> <p>Joty- I totally agree that people should be willing to take in orphans/abandoned children, especially when they say that abortion is unnecessary while there are people waiting to adopt.  If only people would take responsibility!  It sometimes seems we fail our children over and over, right from birth to death (whether it's at a young age or an old age).</p> <p>&nbsp;WOW, Countygirl!&nbsp; I was totally shocked by some of those numbers- especially the liklihood of abortion.&nbsp; <i>43% of all women?</i>&nbsp; And what's with all those Catholic women getting abortions?&nbsp; How insanely odd.</p> <br /> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214046 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214046 <p>&nbsp;WOW, Countygirl!&nbsp; I was totally shocked by some of those numbers- especially the liklihood of abortion.&nbsp; <i>43% of all women?</i>&nbsp; And what's with all those Catholic women getting abortions?&nbsp; How insanely odd.</p> <br /> <p>&nbsp;You don't know how many &quot;Catholic&quot; people I know Madkow!&nbsp;&nbsp;LOL!&nbsp; Many know nothing about their faith. Sad but true. You know us Catholics we&nbsp;love traditions. It seems that doesn't change when it comes to baptizing&nbsp;our kids either. I mean I have three nephews that have been baptized in the Catholic Church and they've yet to return. :)</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214056 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214056 <p>&nbsp;You don't know how many &quot;Catholic&quot; people I know Madkow!&nbsp;&nbsp;LOL!&nbsp; Many know nothing about their faith. Sad but true. You know us Catholics we&nbsp;love traditions. It seems that doesn't change when it comes to baptizing&nbsp;our kids either. I mean I have three nephews that have been baptized in the Catholic Church and they've yet to return. :)</p> <p>&nbsp;Sorry countygirl, but your links actually <i>support </i>the link I provided in my first post. did you even read my link? From the site:</p> <p> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> &nbsp; <!--mstheme--><font face="trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica">One often quoted figure was that over 1000 D&amp;Xs had been performed annually in New Jersey. From this number, many inflated national totals were estimated. But the New Jersey figure appears to be an anomaly. A single physician in a single NJ hospital had been ignoring the regulations of the state medical association and performing D&amp;Xs in cases not involving the potential death or serious disability of the woman.&nbsp;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> &nbsp; <!--mstheme--><font face="trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica">Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the <i>National Coalition of Abortion Providers</i>, estimated (Nightline program, 1997-FEB-26) a total of 3,000 to 4,000 annually in the US -- about ten a day.&nbsp;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> <img height="15" alt="bullet" hspace="13" src="http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif" width="15" /> <!--mstheme--><font face="trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica">Pro-life groups uncovered an internal memo by <i>Planned Parenthood</i> which estimated that up to 60 (0.24%) of the more than 25,000 abortions performed annually in Virginia were D&amp;Xs. _{<b>1 </b>}If this figure is accurate nationally, then there would be up to 2,880 D&amp;X procedures per year in the U.S.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> &nbsp; <!--mstheme--><font face="trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica">Referring to a Virginia state law, Bennet Greenberg, executive director of <i>Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia</i> said: &quot;<i>I'm not aware of a need for this bill in the first place, since this procedure is very, very rare, and I'm not aware it's ever been used [in Virginia].</i></font> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> </tr> </tbody> </table> </p> <p>You must remember we are talking about two different procedures here: D&amp;X, which is banned, and D&amp;E, which isn't. D&amp;E's are performed before the fetus is viable; D&amp;X's were used much later in the pregnancy, when dismemberment would jeopardize the health of the mother since bone structures in the fetus are likely to perforate the mother internally. Why would a woman decide to abort a healthly, viable fetus? She wouldn't. Now, D&amp;E's are performed before fetal viability for a multitude of reasons; perhaps the woman found out late about her pregnancy, perhaps her health deteriorated during the pregnancy, perhaps her circumstances changed during the pregnancy putting an undue strain on the mother. Let's not confuse pre-viable, legal abortions (which can be obtained for any reason) &amp; post-viable, necessary abortions because of fetal illness or health risks to the mother (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.)</p> <p>Have you ever read any of the heart-wrenching testimony of women who want a child, only to find out late in the pregnancy that the child would not live?</p> <p><a href="http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2046">http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2046</a></p> <p><b>&quot;If the ban were in place in 1995, Tammy Watts would likely be dead, she says.</b></p> <p><b>In March of that year, Watts was in the eighth month of a much-wanted pregnancy and was eagerly anticipating the birth of her first child. During a routine ultrasound (the only way to detect abnormalities that require late-term abortion), she discovered her baby had Trisomy 13, a chromosomal abnormality that causes severe deformities and carries no hope of survival.</b></p> <p><b>Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X), the procedure that Bush condemns as &quot;brutal.&quot;</b></p> <p><b>&quot;Losing my baby at the end of my pregnancy was agonizing,&quot; says Watts. &quot;But the way the right deals with this issue makes it even worse. When I heard Bush mention 'partial birth abortion' during the debates, I thought 'How dare you stand there and tell flat-out lies?' There is no such thing as this procedure! Why won't the politicians listen to us?&quot;</b></p> <p>Even your own links, countygirl, admit the number of D&amp;X's that were performed in this country were minuscule to the total number of abortions performed yearly.</p> <p><b>&quot;Whether the correct figure is nearer 500 or 5,000, it is a minuscule percentage of the 1.5 million abortions performed each year in the United States.&quot;</b></p> <p>Now, I read your links. Did you read all of mine? Did you google &quot;harlequin baby&quot; as I suggested? Would you subject a mother, or child, to that kind of horror?</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214131 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214131 <p>&nbsp;Sorry countygirl, but your links actually <i>support </i>the link I provided in my first post. did you even read my link? From the site:</p> <p> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> &nbsp; <!--mstheme--><font face="trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica">One often quoted figure was that over 1000 D&amp;Xs had been performed annually in New Jersey. From this number, many inflated national totals were estimated. But the New Jersey figure appears to be an anomaly. A single physician in a single NJ hospital had been ignoring the regulations of the state medical association and performing D&amp;Xs in cases not involving the potential death or serious disability of the woman.&nbsp;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> &nbsp; <!--mstheme--><font face="trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica">Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the <i>National Coalition of Abortion Providers</i>, estimated (Nightline program, 1997-FEB-26) a total of 3,000 to 4,000 annually in the US -- about ten a day.&nbsp;<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> <img height="15" alt="bullet" hspace="13" src="http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif" width="15" /> <!--mstheme--><font face="trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica">Pro-life groups uncovered an internal memo by <i>Planned Parenthood</i> which estimated that up to 60 (0.24%) of the more than 25,000 abortions performed annually in Virginia were D&amp;Xs. _{<b>1 </b>}If this figure is accurate nationally, then there would be up to 2,880 D&amp;X procedures per year in the U.S.<!--mstheme--></font><!--msthemelist--> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> &nbsp; <!--mstheme--><font face="trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica">Referring to a Virginia state law, Bennet Greenberg, executive director of <i>Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia</i> said: &quot;<i>I'm not aware of a need for this bill in the first place, since this procedure is very, very rare, and I'm not aware it's ever been used [in Virginia].</i></font> </tr> </tbody> </table> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> </tr> <!--msthemelist--> <tr> </tr> </tbody> </table> </p> <p>You must remember we are talking about two different procedures here: D&amp;X, which is banned, and D&amp;E, which isn't. D&amp;E's are performed before the fetus is viable; D&amp;X's were used much later in the pregnancy, when dismemberment would jeopardize the health of the mother since bone structures in the fetus are likely to perforate the mother internally. Why would a woman decide to abort a healthly, viable fetus? She wouldn't. Now, D&amp;E's are performed before fetal viability for a multitude of reasons; perhaps the woman found out late about her pregnancy, perhaps her health deteriorated during the pregnancy, perhaps her circumstances changed during the pregnancy putting an undue strain on the mother. Let's not confuse pre-viable, legal abortions (which can be obtained for any reason) &amp; post-viable, necessary abortions because of fetal illness or health risks to the mother (cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc.)</p> <p>Have you ever read any of the heart-wrenching testimony of women who want a child, only to find out late in the pregnancy that the child would not live?</p> <p><a href="http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2046">http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2046</a></p> <p><b>&quot;If the ban were in place in 1995, Tammy Watts would likely be dead, she says.</b></p> <p><b>In March of that year, Watts was in the eighth month of a much-wanted pregnancy and was eagerly anticipating the birth of her first child. During a routine ultrasound (the only way to detect abnormalities that require late-term abortion), she discovered her baby had Trisomy 13, a chromosomal abnormality that causes severe deformities and carries no hope of survival.</b></p> <p><b>Because her baby was already dying and because this put her own life at stake, Watts had an intact dilation and extraction (D and X), the procedure that Bush condemns as &quot;brutal.&quot;</b></p> <p><b>&quot;Losing my baby at the end of my pregnancy was agonizing,&quot; says Watts. &quot;But the way the right deals with this issue makes it even worse. When I heard Bush mention 'partial birth abortion' during the debates, I thought 'How dare you stand there and tell flat-out lies?' There is no such thing as this procedure! Why won't the politicians listen to us?&quot;</b></p> <p>Even your own links, countygirl, admit the number of D&amp;X's that were performed in this country were minuscule to the total number of abortions performed yearly.</p> <p><b>&quot;Whether the correct figure is nearer 500 or 5,000, it is a minuscule percentage of the 1.5 million abortions performed each year in the United States.&quot;</b></p> <p>Now, I read your links. Did you read all of mine? Did you google &quot;harlequin baby&quot; as I suggested? Would you subject a mother, or child, to that kind of horror?</p> <p>&nbsp;Wow, I'm not sure why my post is split up like it is, but the bulk of it is above the OP. I wonder if the TN can fix this?</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214141 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214141 <p>&nbsp;Wow, I'm not sure why my post is split up like it is, but the bulk of it is above the OP. I wonder if the TN can fix this?</p> <p>It seems to sometimes split when there is text copied into the comment box...&nbsp; I'm wondering if there is some html or css code being inadvertantly inserted.&nbsp; Just a guess?</p> <br type="_moz" /> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214148 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214148 <p>It seems to sometimes split when there is text copied into the comment box...&nbsp; I'm wondering if there is some html or css code being inadvertantly inserted.&nbsp; Just a guess?</p> <br type="_moz" /> <p>&nbsp;Hah, Countygirl!&nbsp; I remember my parents getting so upset about the twice-a-year Catholics.&nbsp; My mom is still livid that I won't baptize my son.&nbsp; But (as she reminds me everytime I see her) she prays for us every day!&nbsp; I'm afraid I never made it through CCD, especially after my last teacher practically pulled her hair out over my questions :)</p> <br /> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214153 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214153 <p>&nbsp;Hah, Countygirl!&nbsp; I remember my parents getting so upset about the twice-a-year Catholics.&nbsp; My mom is still livid that I won't baptize my son.&nbsp; But (as she reminds me everytime I see her) she prays for us every day!&nbsp; I'm afraid I never made it through CCD, especially after my last teacher practically pulled her hair out over my questions :)</p> <br /> <p>&nbsp;D&amp;E's are preformed between 15-21 weeks when the fetus isn't &quot;viable&quot;.</p> <p>What a difference a week makes.....http://www.muhc.ca/media/ensemble/2002june/premature/</p> <p>Did you know that AFP testing is done between week 16-18?&nbsp; At that point in time you are only seeing your doctor once a month. It takes about a week to get your results, and who knows how long to wait for a specialist for ultrasounds, an amino, etc. Cutting it awfully close wouldn't you say. If you think twice about your decision chances are you will be having a D&amp;X.</p> <p>Oohchild, I don't think anyone was arguing that the number of PBA's preformed&nbsp;are close to those of 1st or 2nd term abortions. You keep saying that women wouldn't abort a healthy, viable baby and you've stated that you read my links. Funny thing is my links prove otherwise. As sad as it sounds women would kill a healthy viable baby. It happens everyday, and they are criminally charged for it. If PBA's weren't limited do you really think those women would not use those means instead of dumping them in the trash, leaving them in toilets, drowning them, or whatever else they&nbsp;see fit to kill their children instead of surrendering them to a hospital or fire station or any other save haven, especially if they won't be charged with anything?? Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.</p> <p>I've already read your story about Tammy Watts and I've already respond to it. If I remember correctly I was attacked for my views then so I won't go into it again.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214181 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214181 <p>&nbsp;D&amp;E's are preformed between 15-21 weeks when the fetus isn't &quot;viable&quot;.</p> <p>What a difference a week makes.....http://www.muhc.ca/media/ensemble/2002june/premature/</p> <p>Did you know that AFP testing is done between week 16-18?&nbsp; At that point in time you are only seeing your doctor once a month. It takes about a week to get your results, and who knows how long to wait for a specialist for ultrasounds, an amino, etc. Cutting it awfully close wouldn't you say. If you think twice about your decision chances are you will be having a D&amp;X.</p> <p>Oohchild, I don't think anyone was arguing that the number of PBA's preformed&nbsp;are close to those of 1st or 2nd term abortions. You keep saying that women wouldn't abort a healthy, viable baby and you've stated that you read my links. Funny thing is my links prove otherwise. As sad as it sounds women would kill a healthy viable baby. It happens everyday, and they are criminally charged for it. If PBA's weren't limited do you really think those women would not use those means instead of dumping them in the trash, leaving them in toilets, drowning them, or whatever else they&nbsp;see fit to kill their children instead of surrendering them to a hospital or fire station or any other save haven, especially if they won't be charged with anything?? Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.</p> <p>I've already read your story about Tammy Watts and I've already respond to it. If I remember correctly I was attacked for my views then so I won't go into it again.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;Mine did the same thing oohchild. I had to delete my pastes and just go with the links.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214183 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214183 <p>&nbsp;Mine did the same thing oohchild. I had to delete my pastes and just go with the links.</p> <p>&nbsp;The women who have to terminate a late-term pregnancy are not the same type of women who leave their born infants in trash dumpsters or restroom toilets. Those women&nbsp;are usually in denial about their pregnancies in the first place. The women who need terminations late in their pregnancy <i>know </i>that they are pregnant.</p> <p>I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject.</p> <p>I'm curious about&nbsp; folks here who oppose abortion; why no response to my points about organ transplants? If you support a change in the law to prevent abortion on demand (with the goal being to save a human life), do you also support a change in the law to require organ donation from the dead, in order to save a human life?</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214206 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214206 <p>&nbsp;The women who have to terminate a late-term pregnancy are not the same type of women who leave their born infants in trash dumpsters or restroom toilets. Those women&nbsp;are usually in denial about their pregnancies in the first place. The women who need terminations late in their pregnancy <i>know </i>that they are pregnant.</p> <p>I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the subject.</p> <p>I'm curious about&nbsp; folks here who oppose abortion; why no response to my points about organ transplants? If you support a change in the law to prevent abortion on demand (with the goal being to save a human life), do you also support a change in the law to require organ donation from the dead, in order to save a human life?</p> <p>&nbsp;It's one thing to sign a form that says &quot;Yes, please use my organs when I die.&quot;&nbsp; It's a totally different thing to sign a form saying &quot;Yes, please take the fetus out of my body.&quot;&nbsp; Requiring organ donation would be a gross violation of constitutional rights anyway.&nbsp; As you have stated, fetuses don't have constitutional rights, so the situations don't exactly compare well, IMO.&nbsp; The right for a woman to have an abortion is based on the shaky ground of implied rights and controversial interpretations.&nbsp; Roe v. Wade was decided on a right to privacy, not the right to take a life.</p> <br /> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214230 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214230 <p>&nbsp;It's one thing to sign a form that says &quot;Yes, please use my organs when I die.&quot;&nbsp; It's a totally different thing to sign a form saying &quot;Yes, please take the fetus out of my body.&quot;&nbsp; Requiring organ donation would be a gross violation of constitutional rights anyway.&nbsp; As you have stated, fetuses don't have constitutional rights, so the situations don't exactly compare well, IMO.&nbsp; The right for a woman to have an abortion is based on the shaky ground of implied rights and controversial interpretations.&nbsp; Roe v. Wade was decided on a right to privacy, not the right to take a life.</p> <br /> <p> Ahh yes, madkow, the main thrust of the SCOTUS decision <i>was </i>the right to privacy. But those who wish to overturn Roe V. Wade use the "right to life" argument as an over-riding factor to our rights to privacy. Hence, my question. If it's more important to save a life, therefore trumping the right to privacy, why isn't it more important to save a life by taking organs that will either rot in the ground or be burned to a crisp? Seems like a waste to me.</p> <p>If the fetus depends on the mother for life (we're talking about pre-viable abortions here, which Roe V. Wade protects; the decision makes a distinction & viable fetuses are protected under the decision), then the organs needed also depend on the donor to retain the function to give life to another human. Why not require those organs go to another person who needs them in order to live?</p> <p>Why is requiring organ donation a violation of the Constitution, but requiring a woman to sustain what is basically a parasite, not?</p> <p>concerned, countygirl, PD, (and others) why aren't you also weighing in on this discussion? I applaud madkow for at least stepping up to the plate.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214395 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214395 <p> Ahh yes, madkow, the main thrust of the SCOTUS decision <i>was </i>the right to privacy. But those who wish to overturn Roe V. Wade use the "right to life" argument as an over-riding factor to our rights to privacy. Hence, my question. If it's more important to save a life, therefore trumping the right to privacy, why isn't it more important to save a life by taking organs that will either rot in the ground or be burned to a crisp? Seems like a waste to me.</p> <p>If the fetus depends on the mother for life (we're talking about pre-viable abortions here, which Roe V. Wade protects; the decision makes a distinction & viable fetuses are protected under the decision), then the organs needed also depend on the donor to retain the function to give life to another human. Why not require those organs go to another person who needs them in order to live?</p> <p>Why is requiring organ donation a violation of the Constitution, but requiring a woman to sustain what is basically a parasite, not?</p> <p>concerned, countygirl, PD, (and others) why aren't you also weighing in on this discussion? I applaud madkow for at least stepping up to the plate.</p> <p> Sorry oohchild I wasn't purposely trying to avoid that discussion. To be honest I'm not sure why this is considered wrong. I'd have no problems making that a law. I personally am a donor and I would support a law taking peoples usable organs after death rather than trying to clone or grow them. That is just so unnatural to me.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214435 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214435 <p> Sorry oohchild I wasn't purposely trying to avoid that discussion. To be honest I'm not sure why this is considered wrong. I'd have no problems making that a law. I personally am a donor and I would support a law taking peoples usable organs after death rather than trying to clone or grow them. That is just so unnatural to me.</p> <p> To require organ donation would violate many peoples religious beliefs, for one.  I'd say it also violates the right to property in the 14th.  I might even argue that it violates due process ;)  Granted, I'm not particularly well-versed on the Constitution.  (I remember carrying my sisters books when she was taking Constitutional Law, and, let me tell you, I've decided I don't want to know <i>that</i> much about it, lol!)</p> <p>I think that abortion should be adressed through the legislature, not through the courts.  I know a lot of people would disagree on this, but I think that it should be a state matter, with the federal government only having the right to impose certain restrictions.  Why should a liberal state (say, CA or NY) and a conservative state (say, NE or UT) have the same abortion laws?  Keep the laws closer to the people- and that will help allay this disparity between laws and morals.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214500 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214500 <p> To require organ donation would violate many peoples religious beliefs, for one.  I'd say it also violates the right to property in the 14th.  I might even argue that it violates due process ;)  Granted, I'm not particularly well-versed on the Constitution.  (I remember carrying my sisters books when she was taking Constitutional Law, and, let me tell you, I've decided I don't want to know <i>that</i> much about it, lol!)</p> <p>I think that abortion should be adressed through the legislature, not through the courts.  I know a lot of people would disagree on this, but I think that it should be a state matter, with the federal government only having the right to impose certain restrictions.  Why should a liberal state (say, CA or NY) and a conservative state (say, NE or UT) have the same abortion laws?  Keep the laws closer to the people- and that will help allay this disparity between laws and morals.</p> <p>&nbsp;<span style="font-size: small">Well oohchild, I think you misunderstood my post a little bit.&nbsp; I was just stating that only a mere 3% of abortions were late term due to health or rape reasons.&nbsp; I also had a problem with bringing such a high index and highly charged argument here.&nbsp; It's a lose/lose situation.&nbsp; We are all adults and have long made up our minds about this delicate issue.&nbsp; It's almost, dare I say, tacky?&nbsp; Maybe that's a little harsh...just my opinion.&nbsp; ;)</span></p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214786 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214786 <p>&nbsp;<span style="font-size: small">Well oohchild, I think you misunderstood my post a little bit.&nbsp; I was just stating that only a mere 3% of abortions were late term due to health or rape reasons.&nbsp; I also had a problem with bringing such a high index and highly charged argument here.&nbsp; It's a lose/lose situation.&nbsp; We are all adults and have long made up our minds about this delicate issue.&nbsp; It's almost, dare I say, tacky?&nbsp; Maybe that's a little harsh...just my opinion.&nbsp; ;)</span></p> <p> I'm not quite sure I understand why a debate is tacky.  Is it so bad to discuss issues, regardless of the delicacy of such issues?  We may have made up our minds long ago, but it's always good to hear new ideas and information.  Wouldn't want our minds to succumb to atrophy.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214884 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_214884 <p> I'm not quite sure I understand why a debate is tacky.  Is it so bad to discuss issues, regardless of the delicacy of such issues?  We may have made up our minds long ago, but it's always good to hear new ideas and information.  Wouldn't want our minds to succumb to atrophy.</p> <p> <span style="font-size: small">This kind of argument is better served in person since writing it doesn't accent on any type of eye contact or sincerity.  For instance, not knowing who you are madkow since we've never met, by just reading your posts I could describe you as harsh and judgemental and perhaps a little bossy, but like I've said I've never met you face to face so how would I know right?   Personally, I think it tacky.  It's too sensitive a subject matter.  I seriously doubt our minds would go into atrophy from lack of "abortion" talk.   Most of the time people on these posts get overly angry because they can not decipher how things are being communicated, so feelings get hurt and people get more upset because it is such a delicate issue.   </span></p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_215309 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_215309 <p> <span style="font-size: small">This kind of argument is better served in person since writing it doesn't accent on any type of eye contact or sincerity.  For instance, not knowing who you are madkow since we've never met, by just reading your posts I could describe you as harsh and judgemental and perhaps a little bossy, but like I've said I've never met you face to face so how would I know right?   Personally, I think it tacky.  It's too sensitive a subject matter.  I seriously doubt our minds would go into atrophy from lack of "abortion" talk.   Most of the time people on these posts get overly angry because they can not decipher how things are being communicated, so feelings get hurt and people get more upset because it is such a delicate issue.   </span></p> <p>I believe it was copied and pasted, but s/he just doesn't know how to properly cite a source.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_262416 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_262416 <p>I believe it was copied and pasted, but s/he just doesn't know how to properly cite a source.</p> <p><span style="font-size: larger;"><b>&nbsp;As the father of two daughters, I find abortion to be an unfortunate choice that is occasionally if not often used frivolously. Having said that I strongly oppose government telling either of my daughters or anyone else's daughters what they can and/or can not do with their own bodies. While it is bothersome to me to hear woman's rights activists speaking about terminating a pregnancy as if they were speaking about &quot;taking out the trash&quot;, I do not see it as the role of government, federal or state, to regulate such procedures.</b></span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_265652 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_265652 <p><span style="font-size: larger;"><b>&nbsp;As the father of two daughters, I find abortion to be an unfortunate choice that is occasionally if not often used frivolously. Having said that I strongly oppose government telling either of my daughters or anyone else's daughters what they can and/or can not do with their own bodies. While it is bothersome to me to hear woman's rights activists speaking about terminating a pregnancy as if they were speaking about &quot;taking out the trash&quot;, I do not see it as the role of government, federal or state, to regulate such procedures.</b></span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&quot; ...they don't want to be bothered with caring for a child with health problems...&quot;</p> <p>Obvious you have never cared for a multiple handicapped child from infancy to through adulthood.&nbsp; It is more than just a bother...I know people who have given up their lives to care for a severely handicapped person--one that will never walk, never talk, will always be in diapers, cannot eat, require a G tube for feedings and has no brain function.&nbsp; The parents usually divorce, which sentences mom and child or adult child to a life of poverty.&nbsp; The care giving mother is unable to work as she will need to care for the child or adult child 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as the father takes off.&nbsp; And these children do not just grow up--they require care throughout their adult lifetime.&nbsp;&nbsp; When the parents die or become too old to care for these multihandicapped adults, they are sentenced to live out the rest of there lives in an institution or nursing home. You need to walk in the shoes of a parent who cares for these special children before you condemn them for aborting a baby with health problems. </p> <p>As for me, I could never get an abortion, but support any woman's decision as to what she feels is best for her.</p> http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_266189 http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/concerned/23452/#c_266189 <p>&