Friday, October 17, 2008

Abortion ad hits home for a lot of Americans

I was on my way to work this morning when I heard a radio ad that almost brought a tear to my eye (I stress "almost"). This ad is the exact reason I feel the reversal of Roe v. Wade would be the worst decision of my lifetime.

Here is the ad.


AntiSocialism said...

Yes, this girls story is tragic. I can't imagine the scars that she will carry with her the rest of her life. However, what percentage of abortions are for situations like this (incest included)? Most are performed merely to eliminate an inconvenience. Don't give me that hypocritical "civil liberties" BS either. This country wanted to crucify Michael Vick for killing puppies. Makes me sick to my stomach that we will stand up for a dog, but not a helpless human.

RedWing said...

Easy to cry foul while blaming all the other abortions out there, antisocialism. The bottom line is if you take away this, it is only the beginning of taking away everything.

If you want the government out of your life so much and fear Socialism like it's Armageddon, leave the government out of a woman's reproductive rights, as well.

With the NRA, gun totin' conservatives across rural America who enjoy killing at the end of life but save a pre-life "human" proves they are nothing but hyprocrits.

I hope you aren't in that category. If you're pro-life, then you better be against capital punishment.

I am pro-death when it comes to capital punishment. Death to proven murderers and rapists and child molestors.

I am pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Having a baby on the way makes me even more so. I cannot imagine the government telling me what my wife can or can't do with an unborn child.

I think you'll find the abortions as a matter of 'convenience' are lower than you think. Each circumstance is different... and not you or the government should ever pretend you "understand" what goes on in a woman's mind. Convenience, please...

AntiSocialism said...

Pre-life "human"??? They are not a tumor or a cancer. They are alive and growing. Just because they are not cute and cuddly until later on, doesn't make them any less alive or human. There is a chance that child won't be perfect, but it won't come out with feathers and a beak. You throw in the NRA rant too. Yes, I have hunted (and fished) before. I have killed a deer, many fish, and a few rabbits in my time. But comparing a child to my food is completely ridiculous. And then there is the death penalty. Once again you are making an apples and oranges comparison. You are comparing an child with a murderer. What about this scenario? If you kill a pregnant woman, you will be charged with two counts of homicide. But according to you and many others, that child is not alive, so how can it be murder? According to your beacon of truth, wikipedia, in 2000,rape and incest accounted for 1% of all abortions. Thats 13,000 out of 1.3 MILLION. The number one reason....wanted to postpone childbearing. Abortion is the most selfish act any human being can commit against another, and I don't want my government condoning it.

AntiSocialism said...

Justice should be blind, but not stupid! Sorry, I've just always wanted to say that.

AntiSocialism said...

I think this topic should be renamed, "Abortion ad hits home for .004% of Americans".

Larry said...

In the redneck thread I compared the media bias of Dem. Mahoney to Rep. Foley. Redwing thought I should be ashamed of myself for comparing the two because Foley's crime was more horrific, to which I agree it was, although my point was only on bias not the crimes.

But now my friends, Redwing wants to compare a murderer on death row to the killing of an innocent unborn baby. Hmmm, quite interesting.

Now, regarding this ad that was posted, I think the girl should have the right to choose to abort early on, because of the circumstances. But if she carries the baby for 5 or 6 months, then too bad. I also think Palin said she personally would not condone abortion, but her policy would be to first counsel females in this situation so they were aware of all options. I don't believe she went further on into what a McCain/Palin administration would allow or fight against. McCain is more tolerant than Palin is I think, and he would be the president.

RedWing said...

Sigh...once again anger from your conservative roots pours out of you in a fit of emotion leading to your warped sense of what I was actually saying.

I put "human" in quotes because there has not yet been a court case that has decided when life begins, that I know of. Before a human is a human it is a fetus...a fetus is not a human. Sorry, but those are the facts. And to say that I somehow compare children to food is utterly moronic.

I was also not speaking of the NRA to say anything about your hunting of animals. I don't even know if you're a member of the NRA, thus that argument is invalidated. Stop being so angry and thinking everyone is against you and perhaps you can lend something constructive to the conversation.

If you are for capital punishment, then you are not pro-life. You are anti-abortion. That is fine by me, but list it correctly.

Again, I have never considered Wikipedia a "Beacon of truth" as you have stated. Putting words into my mouth isn't the way to win an argument. To your point, though. You are saying that 99% of all abortions are a matter of 'convenience.' That statement is utterly horrific. To pretend that you or any government official would know that a decision like that is just "convenience" shows how little empathy you have towards the female mind. If I ever, God forbid, had to follow through in a decision so horrific, it would hardly be a matter of "convenience."

Also, your ad hominem attacks of disguising calling me "stupid" through justice don't work either. I am above name calling. If you weren't, then I apologize.

Back to the issue at hand...since, again, you have distorted it. The U.S. government not now or EVER, has condoned abortion. This is you putting out falsehoods in hopes to win an unwinnable argument. No government that I know of "CONDONES" abortion. Allowing a woman to make a personal decision about her own body is not condoning the choice she is allowing her BEING ABLE to choose. Being able to choose what happens to your body is a right everyone should have, and currently DO have.

Just because YOU (and many others) want the government stepping in everytime a woman has to make a choice about her body doesn't mean everyone feels the same way. What's next? Forcing her to not use Birth Control because you're killing the 'potential' for life? It's absolutely ridiculous and I will forever be against the government dictating reproduction rights of women.

RedWing said...

Larry, just see my previous post. Neither side will ever win this argument. The majority is in favor of a woman's right to choose. Get over it.

Larry said...

nothing in your post to antisocialism applies to me. You were comparing the two. This either means I am right that you shouldn't be comparing the two, OR I was right on comparing Foley/Mahoney to show the media bias. Which is it? Come on now, you have to give me one of them. But I will bet you won't and come back with some other convoluted statement to "make me look ignorant".

I see how it is really in this nation of ours. Republicans hate government involvement except when it comes to abortion and Democrates love government involvement except when it comes to abortion. What a country we live in!!

AntiSocialism said...

To clarify something, I didn't call you stupid. By no means do I think you are stupid.

RedWing said...


Well since you want me to be that way, I will.

Larry you are full of double standards. In one comment you say you want to just debate and educate each other and then in another you attack my character with statements like, "Redwing wants to compare a murderer on death row to the killing of an innocent unborn baby." Then you add, "Hmmm, quite interesting." in a condescending manner quite reminecent of a certain individual you dislike in our office.

The comparison of a child molestor to a run of the mill cheater just to prove media bias is ridiculous and shameful. The cases are nothing alike and I stand by that.

On the 5 to 6 months and beyond on abortion, I agree with you. I've stated this before so there is no need to argue about that. Late term abortions should be illegal unless the life of the mother is in jeapardy. Sarah Palin does not even want that stipulation. She would prefer to let the mother die so the unborn child can live.

Your use of the term "pro-abortion" in the debate thread is misleading and downright false. I have never met a "pro-abortion" individual. Again, you try and bring out emotions to gain ground in an unwinnable argument. It doesn't work with me. I didn't catch it, but if McCain used the term "Pro-Abortion" in reference to the "Pro-Choice" movement he should be ashamed of himself, and you for repeating it.

Just stop with the double standards. If you want to debate, then do it civily without attacking my character. Instead of focusing on what I believe, just state your argument on what YOU believe. You are just like John McCain in that reference. Instead of speaking on his issues, he just attacks Obama on his. That's what he does when he's run out of things to say...and I know have NOT run out of things to say. :)

Both sides will say they are right on this issue until they die. There is no need to attack someone personally for their beliefs on abortion. Just state your case and stick to the topic, not the person responding.

RandomCleo said...

Let me make this comment...based on a women's point of view. I do not believe that government should dictate what I do with my body. Nor do I think that abortion should be a form of birth control. I'm pro-choice....which means I am for CHOICES...

Unfortunately, in our current times, being pro-choice makes most pro-lifers think that I'm for-abortion...which isn't true. I believe it is a woman's choice and I don't think anyone should be able to take that CHOICE away from her.

RedWing said...

Thanks antisocialism, I was hoping that wasn't the case. I consider you someone of superior intelligence, as I am.

It's just too bad the Palin IQ of 83 hasn't been disproven yet. It would be nice to know her intelligence is closer to ours. However, I do enjoy knowing you will be voting for someone that could, quite possibly, have an IQ only 8 points higher than Forrest Gump. :)

RedWing said...

Oops, I meant "As I am, according to my IQ score" in the last comment. I don't want to seem full of myself which is likely what you all think anyway.

Larry said...

I said that I would like to start having intelligent debates. You ignored my request, maybe meaning you agree I don't know. For you to say I should be ashamed of myself for copying and posting what McCain said to the country in the debate is all I need to hear. You won't hear another word from me.

RedWing said...

Sorry Larry, but you did more than copy/paste a quote. You analyzed the quote with your own commentary afterwards and DID use the term "pro-abortion." Here is your quote:

"If health means the mother will have morning sickness for 9 months, then of course this is ridiculous. And I wouldn't doubt pro-abortion people trying to use that one."

Who's right on this? Doesn't matter. But don't try to get out of it by saying I did something I clearly didn't do, which was to blame YOU for a quote McCain made. I blamed McCain for his quote and then you for your commentary.

I use "ashamed" and "shameful" now quite a bit since you decided to hit me with it a few weeks ago. I do this to lessen the intensity of the word like African-Americans have done with the "N-word."

I don't think anyone should be ashamed of how they feel, as long as the feeling isn't derived from ignorance. But since you started the "shameful" comments about me, I decided to hit back. If that's sent you into a "I'm never commenting here again" fit of rage...I apologize.

How about we both be careful when using the "shame" derivatives from now on? :)

Jack said...

I didnt watch the video, because I don't feel I need to. It doesn't matter what it says, NO ONE in our government should TELL a woman what to do with her body. period.
And a FYI NO ONE goes into a clinic and has an abortion like she just bought a pair of shoes! The law does insist she first undergo a counseling session to be sure she is aware of ALL options and has the mental capacity to make such a decision. These clinics either have in house licensed therapists or schedule the abortion seeker with one within a 24-48 hour period.
NO ONE takes abortion lightly. Not even those seeking them.
I also do NOT agree it should be used as a form of 'birth control', but when our government refuses to assist in the funding of THAT education this is what happens, this is the consequence.
I fully believe that we can ALL agree that the PREVENTION of unwanted pregnancies would benefit us all regardless of which side of the fence we stand.
If you prevent the 'cause' you wont need laws. But it is truly any woman's civil liberties and constitutional rights to CHOOSE what she wishes to do to her body and it should be!
and I just don't think alot of men get that.

Grey Fedora said...

As much as I wanted to stay out of this argument, as it will never end, I have two cents to put in.
The fetus has never been conferred the same rights as human life. The penalties for abortion, intentional miscarriage, etc. have never carried the same penalties as murder. It is a moral choice, and the government has no business legislating morality.

Although there are some universal moral precepts, this one is subjective. To call it the equivalent of murder has no precedent, legally or morally.

Even the gold standard of the anti-choice movement in America, The Bible, has a mixed message on the rights of the fetus:

And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.

And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.

And in process of time the daughter of Shuah Judah's wife died; and Judah was comforted, and went up unto his sheepshearers to Timnath, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep. And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.

When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.)

And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?
And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?
And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.
And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood.
And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman's hand: but he found her not.
Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place.
And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in this place.
And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her.

And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.
When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff.
And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.

(Genesis, Chapter 38)

The point isn't the obscure laws of primogeniture based inheritance, the effectiveness of coitus interuptus as birth control, the treatment of women as chattel, and the authority of a patriarch to put a family member to death, all of which have been superceded, but that after "about three months," presumably when she began to show, Tamar was sentenced to be burned at the stake.

There was no consideration for the fetus, even though it was by this time mid-term. It never occurred to Judah to wait until after she had given birth before executing her.
The point is morality is subjective, societal, and evolving.

Run4Life said...

Why is abortion such a hot topic? The answer lies in whether you believe that the unborn fetus is a child or at what moment it becomes a child. I cannot answer that question. I do not have the expertise. I do not believe that anyone has the expertise to make the case. Extreme example, is a victim of an accident that resulted in a vegetable state human? Do they have a right to life? Does someone have the right to terminate the victim’s life? Is there any hope that the victim could recover and live? Does it matter whether the victim could recover? This may be another topic, but bear with me.

Back to abortion... Does the fetus have a right to life, regardless of its status as a being? Science does show that something miraculous happens the moment the egg becomes fertilized. Is that life? In nature is anything comparable that we do not consider life? Please have patience as I walk through this.

The aurora borealis is pretty spectacular. It is the result of certain conditions in the northern hemisphere. “This is a reaction of the Earth’s magnetosphere, mostly electrons but also protons and heavier particles, with atoms and molecules of Earth’s upper atmosphere” (Wikipedia, Please do not take offense by my comparing what some consider life to a natural visual phenomenon. I am merely trying to search for a reasonable comparison, and this is a stepping stone. Plus, I believe, as spectacular as the aurora borealis is, it is not as spectacular or amazing as what happens to a fertilized egg. Please submit other comments regarding miraculous reactions that we do not consider life. Do any compare to the egg phenomenon? Help me determine if there is or isn’t a distinct difference.

Does it matter if we consider the fetus an unborn child? I will answer this one. Yes, it does matter because it is the difference between “terminating the pregnancy” and murder.

I have debated this issue from both sides. The answer eludes me. In the past I have taken the stance that if the unborn has a chance at life, real life, then it should be allowed to live. I am open to other opinions. I have even debated my own feelings when confronted with the possibility of becoming a father myself. Fortunately, the decision didn’t have to be made. I am a hypocrite in this regard, and I truly hate the convenience reason for abortions.

Let me end this comment with this, please respond with evidence or examples of miraculous phenomenon that we do not consider life. Let us use this as our basis.

RedWing said...

Grey Fedora,

Your post has enlightened me in a way I never thought possible. The use of the bible to show God has performed an abortion is both scary and comforting at the same time. He saw a baby that wasn't right and got rid of it. I believe a lot of cases of abortion could be taken in the same way. A matter of "convenience" could be perceived as saving a child's future horrific life. I'm sure many will think me sacreligious because of that view, but I don't care.


Wow, that was an excellent philisophical post that could be debated for many years, and I believe, has been.

I suppose we could use the birth of a star, a nova or a supernova as an example of a "miraculous" event that we do not consider life. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with choice. Humans do not have the technology to affect something so grand at this stage of our development. Because of this I'd like to use the Alien movie with Sigourney Weaver as an example.

In Alien, Sigourney Weaver (Ripley) was tasked with killing one of her crewmates because something had grown inside of it that burst out. Had this person had the choice of removing it, I'm sure they would have. This could be used as an example of "killing the mother" that Sarah Palin is against. According to Palin, she would allow the "Alien" to be birthed even if it killed the mother, which it tends to do.

However, I think this could be applied to any type of abortion if you chose to think outside the box. If any woman who has an unwanted fetus growing inside her body wants it OUT...she should be allowed to make that choice. While it matters to me, it shouldn't matter to someone else what happens inside of another woman's belly. If she wants it out, she wants it out.

I do think there should be laws that say once 6 months has hit, there cannot be an abortion. At that point, adoption should be considered if the pregnancy is unwanted. At that point the child has developed enough that it could survive outside the womb in an incubator. Now, once our technology raises to the level where we can have babies survive outside the womb from 2-3 months forward, then you'd need to develop a procedure that is as non-invasive as possible. Only then can you change any law from 6 months to perhaps 3 months.

So, in my opinion, the choice of a mother should directly correlate with what technology can provide an unwanted baby outside the womb where it would live. If it won't live, then abortion should be allowed as it is not "sustainable" life. That's just my techie viewpoint on the subject...

Great posts Grey and Run4Life.