Reflections from the Grounded Center


So it begins...

It has been a while since I have added anything, but having been inspired by a particular song this morning getting ready for work, and after reading the below article, I felt compelled to again sound my "voice."

Bill seeks abortion's end in Ohio
Backers say it could help overturn Roe v. Wade

By Jon CraigEnquirer Columbus Bureau

COLUMBUS - A Cincinnati legislator's bill to ban abortion in Ohio drew widespread support here Wednesday from a dozen groups eager to trigger a review of Roe v. Wade by what they see as an increasingly conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

At a Statehouse news conference marking this week's 33rd anniversary of the landmark 1973 decision, opponents called on the Ohio General Assembly to debate a bill banning all abortions.
Introduced nine months ago by Rep. Tom Brinkman, R-Mount Lookout, House Bill 228 would make it a felony to carry out abortions or transport a woman across state lines to have one. It would allow abortions only to save the life of a mother.

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, warned that anti-abortion advocates "are using the states as laboratories" in their efforts to overturn Roe. Indiana, too, is considering a ban on abortions, and other states are adding restrictions to when abortions are allowed.
Mark Harrington, executive director for the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Midwest, called Brinkman's bill a test case. Anti-abortion groups say that a Supreme Court reshaped by President Bush - with new justices John Roberts and, expected soon, Samuel Alito - will be inclined to overturn Roe.

"House Bill 228 provides the necessary constitutional challenge to strike down Roe versus Wade," Harrington said. "It will immediately be challenged in the courts, and that's the strategy. House Bill 228 is a trigger law. The U.S. Supreme Court needs a law to trigger a review of Roe versus Wade."

Cincinnati attorney Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, who represents a number of abortion providers across Ohio including Cincinnati Women's Services, questioned whether the ban would pass in Columbus.

"I guess I thought that was dead," Gerhardstein said. "If they pass a law knowing full well that it's unconstitutional, sure, there'll be a test case."

Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted, a Republican, earlier this month said the House would not hold hearings on Brinkman's bill, then reversed himself. Brinkman said Husted promised "at least one hearing."

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, states would have to pass their own laws, Brinkman said. "Abortion will not end in America automatically," he said. "Each state will have their own right to decide what is the best public policy for their state."

Rep. Michelle Schneider, R-Madeira; Dr. John Wilke, president of the Life Issues Institute of College Hill; Cincinnati attorney Thomas Condit of the Pro Family Network; and spokeswomen from Cincinnati-area anti-abortion groups also expressed support for Brinkman's bill.


Why is it always fat, loud-mouthed white men with really bad (and in this case, poorly tied) neck ties that want to keep the people down (um...I don't think that diet Pepsi is going to help you there Tommy) ? Maybe it is over-compensating for something, or maybe it is just that no one will sleep with them and they want to ensure that when they finally get the chance to knock someone up, they can take advantage of their only chance to procreate. Who knows...we may never know the anatomy of the brain of such tools as Tommy B.

OK, so that was cheap...but come on...I haven't written in a while and needed to get some frusutration off my chest.

In all seriousness, there are a couple points in this article that I think deserve mention. One of my favorite parts is:

"House Bill 228 provides the necessary constitutional challenge to strike down Roe versus Wade," Harrington said. "It will immediately be challenged in the courts, and that's the strategy. House Bill 228 is a trigger law. The U.S. Supreme Court needs a law to trigger a review of Roe versus Wade."

This is clear evidence that it is not the left that intends on benching legislative judges, but rather the reactionary fascist movement that seeks to destroy our nation and our Constitutional rights through the courts. Just listen to the words, "The Supreme Court needs a law, etc., etc., etc." The way it is quoted, it is as if the new judges appointed by W are sitting around, licking their lips and gnashing their teeth, waiting for the case that will allow them to exact their agenda.

In addition, the section before that speaks to the case as a test that will test the waters. I am so glad that while 45 million Americans (and counting) go on without health care, while our high school students continue to seriously lag behind students in places like North Korea and Russia in basic skills and while our government is spying on its own people - Soviet-style - all during a war in which there seems to be no end, no reprieve, outrageous costs and no winners, we are forced to spend our tax dollars on matters that have been settled for 30 years by the courts...let's just hope that everything John R. and Sam A. said about precedent holds true.

Finally, does anyone else see the extraoridinary flip-flop in these scenarios? So abortion is murder, right? (Just go with it for a second). And murder is never acceptable in a society ruled by law that ensure its people the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, why is it that all of these groups think that it is OK to abort a zygote when the mother's life is in trouble? So, in that situation it is OK to murder? I mean, if someone comes at me with a knife, and in the struggle for my life I end up killing him or her, it is not murder, it is self-defense. But the cluster of cells in her womb has no choice whether it is endangering the mother or not, and certainly not wielding a why is it suddenly not murder in these situations when none of the circumstances have changed? Aren't you still killing a baby?

I guess a political movement that doesn't care about it's executive powers peering into the details of their personal lives at will can hardly be expected to comprehend nuance or care about reason.


Anonymous Gerd said...

It is a sad day for civilization. It is reprehensible that a group would specifically propose a bill fully knowing that it is in itself utterly unconstitutional.
They do this with the hope that it will challenge Roe Vs Wade. Why do certain groups feel the need to meddle in the affairs of others? Why must they push their views on others? If you don't want an abortion because you think its wrong, then don't get one. But you have no right to interviene forcibly to change the moral values of others.

Do these anti-abortion groups really think that just like Congress and the Executive branch, that even the Supreme Court itself has fallen prey to special interest groups? I would hope that even with its new "conservative cancer" the Supreme Court will stand firm in what is constitutional, and not "What Would Jesus Do?"

Government is the tool to mediate disputes between people, and create a common set of "rules" in which people play. It is not meant to be a weapon to force your personal ethics on others in an attempt to suck the joy of diversity, culture, and humanity out of a country.


Blogger KOB said...

At long last – some new subject matter. Let me be the first on the right to welcome you back to class.

First of all, let me point out that you started your commentary with a fantastic exercise in stereotyping… or was that profiling, I can’t keep my liberal talking points straight these days – oh yeah “culture of corruption,” that’s it. Either way, I know you were kidding so I won’t be pushing for reparations any time soon, even though politically incorrect jokes are so passé. Then again it’s not politically incorrect when making fun of conservatives or straight white men, right?

On to the good stuff, I think you have twisted what it means to legislate from the bench. Legislating from the bench refers to effectively creating law through shaping interpretation of laws to fit your beliefs in a court ruling. This is dangerous as there is no power of the people to remove lifelong appointees making these rulings. In the case in this article, the court would be ruling on a law that would need to actually be passed by the elected legislative branch of government. This was the original intent of the judicial branch’s power of checks and balances. If the law is not passed, or appeals not filed at several levels, it will never reach the Supreme Court. The SC should only rule on whether the law as written meets the hurdles set forth in the constitution and nothing more. Why are pro-deathers so afraid of laws that are passed by popular vote and not set in place by court precedent?

To that point, you mention that it is a waste of taxpayer’s money for the SC to rule on “matters that have been settled for 30 years.” I know you haven’t thought this statement through, as you cannot be advocating that we not re-address social issues from time to time in our legislative and legal systems. I don’t think I need to call out any specific social issues that are currently “settled” that you may wish to be re-examined in the future. You can’t pick which issues are closed for good and which we get to keep reaffirming.

Finally, does it make you feel better to call it a zygote instead of a baby? It is still killing when you abort - mother’s life at stake or not. You made that point perfectly in your example. If another person threatens your life, there’s a good chance you won’t be charged with murder by killing that person because you were forced to make the choice to die or kill. However, if you kill a person because they are making life inconvenient for you, you will be charged because you did not have to choose between killing and dying. If a mother’s life is not at risk, she is choosing to kill another without being forced to make the decision to kill. If she will die by carrying that child to term, she is making a decision between her own life and the baby’s life. Granted that there is a difference in intent between the criminal and the child, but the choice still has to be made. Besides, without this stipulation, anti-abortion laws in these situations would in effect be state-sponsored murder as the mother would not have a choice but to die. I would also suggest that the vast majority of abortions that occur as the result of grave danger to the mother are children that would otherwise have been allowed to live without the presence of that grave danger. How’s that for nuance and reason?

By the way, the 9/11 highjackers all lived in this country before they smoked your city, but that was Bush’s fault for not listening to their chatter, right?


Blogger A. K. Brown said...



Anonymous Gerd said...

"By the way, the 9/11 highjackers all lived in this country before they smoked your city, but that was Bush’s fault for not listening to their chatter, right?"

No, that was Bush's fault for ignoring the intelligence that was available at the time and ignoring a certain memo that crossed his desk. But hey hindsight is 20/20 right?

Sigh, well yes KOB a fertlized egg is called a zygote. And no, its NOT a baby, its a zygote. Calling such a thing a "baby" is a matter of opinion, so we'll reach no common ground here, except that we have to disagree.

So are you against fertillity clinics then? I mean they commit embryonic genocide on a daily basis. Or should the "Good Evangelicals" that are all anti-abortion do the "right thing" and preserve life by birthing all the unwanted extra fertillized eggs? I mean they are a "culture of morals" and a "culture of life" right?

Its about time they put their uterus where there mouth is.


Blogger KOB said...

Notice I didn’t address your first comment Gerd – I didn’t know where to start. However, since you seem much more likely to attack others than to form a logical opinion on your own, here we go.

“It is a sad day for civilization. It is reprehensible that a group would specifically propose a bill fully knowing that it is in itself utterly unconstitutional.”

So is it a sad day and equally reprehensible when gay marriages are performed to test standing laws to the contrary as well? The abortion debate is fueled by those that have a moral problem with abortion, but the legal battle revolves around the belief by some that these types of laws are NOT unconstitutional and that the Roe decision was legally flawed. Therefore, it is not proposed “knowing” that it is unconstitutional; it is proposed to test its constitutionality.

“Why do certain groups feel the need to meddle in the affairs of others? Why must they push their views on others? If you don't want an abortion because you think its wrong, then don't get one. But you have no right to interviene forcibly to change the moral values of others.”

What if my moral values support shooting at cars on the highway? Thousands of laws have been written to enforce moral values – that’s what laws are. Where do these laws come from? Let’s not start a discussion on the origins of our statutes from the teachings of the Bible. Abortion, like many other hot issues, just happens to be a left over value that some would rather drop out of inconvenience and disguise that action as right to privacy. What if my moral values oppose gun control, gay marriage, or affirmative action? Do you have the right to forcibly intervene to change my moral values in those instances?

“Government is the tool to mediate disputes between people, and create a common set of "rules" in which people play. It is not meant to be a weapon to force your personal ethics on others in an attempt to suck the joy of diversity, culture, and humanity out of a country.”

To quote Alex, AMEN! For once we agree on something Gerd. I will remember to bring this piece of wisdom forward into future discussions.


Blogger KOB said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Anonymous EAM said...

While I share beliefs on the "liberal" side of the abortion argument, I am disappointed at the quality of the argument put forth. It does not stand up as prior pragmatist commentary has in the past. I guess AKB is a little rusty.

Not being much for confrontation I have just a few comments to which I wish to respond.

KOB wrote: "Why are pro-deathers so afraid of laws that are passed by popular vote and not set in place by court precedent?" First, you've chastised Gerd for his personal attacks on individuals while also insisting that people interested in the freedom of choice are innately pro-death. Is that profiling again? The implication of such a connection is stereotyping as much as AKB's fat white male (I still believe the old adage that if man had babies there would be NO debate about abortion). Personally, I am pro-choice, and I would have difficulty killing an attacker in self-defense. Second, laws are passed by the legislative branch. Yes, these folks are elected by the people. How many candidates do you get to choose with whom you agree upon EVERY subject? Even Democrats in PA are all anti-abortionists. Does that mean all Pennsylvanians are anti-abortion? No. I know at least a handful that are not. The only true laws "passed by popular vote" are those enacted via referendum so that indeed the public votes for itself.

On the other hand, I agree with KOB with respect to revisiting social appropriateness of the interpretations of long-standing statute. Without it, we would not have had civil rights reforms for women and African Americans. And while touching a clearly sensitive topic, it is certainly impossible to legalize gay marriages nationally without such scrutiny.

Finally, one minor point about the eavesdropping by Bush. I think the pragmatist himself called it Soviet -Style. While not a huge fan of anything Bush has done since taking office (and guilty of voting for him in the first election), Soviet style would further indicate removing innocent people who speak out against the ideology of the regime. It does not necessarily suggest questioning those suspects already identified as possible al queda operatives and overheard plotting attacks. There is a difference. It is great to be free. Personally, after having been at the towers on 9/11 and working during all the bomb and anthrax scares in the heart of Manhattan, I would like to enjoy that freedom in one piece. If we need to take more extreme measures (as are done by Israel), so be it. It has taken us a long time to wake up and realize we are not idolized by the world and we are certainly not untouchable.

Be gentle. . .


Blogger KOB said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Blogger KOB said...

Great post eam! I like the points you made and the reasoning behind them. I only wish to comment on the pro-death point (surprise).

I used the term partly for it's over-the-top shock value and partly because I do think it holds some truth. Here's the reasoning:

We could go on for days arguing the actual start of "life" (as the SC did in their deliberations of Roe v. Wade), but even if the "zygote" is not a human being, you are in fact killing the cells that comprise that zygote.

If you believe that abortion should be legal, you are an abortion advocate, which is in effect, advocating the act of killing these cells/person. Put another way, pro-choice means supporting the choice to kill the cells/person. While I understand that you yourself may never make the choice to cause death, and only wish to support the rights of others to make that choice, you are, by neglecting to condemn the act through word or action, supporting the act of choosing convenience over life.

Therefore, while pro-death may be too harsh in its accusation, I believe pro-choice is too lenient.

I also submit that if men had babies and women didn't, women would want a say in what happens to something that they would potentially parent just as men do now. We can't assume that women would have the same perspective that they do today if the they were not the focus of the debate. In fact, women are generally more sensitive to imposing physical harm to others than men are so it may actually be more of a debate!

Once again, good post.


Blogger A. K. Brown said...

We're really wading in it now, huh? And I will thank you to retract the "rusty" comment ;^] My comment of white, bald, fat men was really just to get KOB a little fired up...clearly a predictable response.

These posts are case-in-point of why we still have little compromise in the way of abortion rights (which, Constitutionally, they are). The purpose of my post was to simply point out a sign that there are indeed many that are, and have been, plotting to bring our worst nightmares of a theocratic state to fruition. Hence the title of the post, "So it begins." EAM, your comment regaridng men having babies is dead on.

As for revisiting social appropriateness, you again are dead on (I knew there was a reason I was friends with you). That is why it is frightening to think of the zealots that could be placed on the courts to exact their agenda rather than consider the rights of an individual in a free society.

This is also precisely why there is no argument that the Constitution is indeed a living document, able to adhere to the circumstances of contemporary times through interpretation by a governement able to recoginze freedoms to which we were not originally and explicitly entitled. By the way, it is only since the Industrial Revolution, when women were sentenced to an even more private, domestic existence, leaving the heavy lifting (i.e. work) to the men, that abortion has even been an issue. That change in an already patriarchical society also led to an enormous influx of single mothers and divorce which, by the way, is also a HUGE moral and religious disaster in our country, right?

As for spying, we have no idea who his admin. spied on. For a long time I have not trusted a thing out of GW's mouth, so why would I believe that political enemies were not on that list? That is truly Soviet style, in every sense of the phrase. Just because he hasn't used them yet (note: midterm elections are in November) doesn't mean he wont. I for one, am not ready to give an executive power the right to decide behind closed doors, without any oversight, who should and should not be spied on.

He didn't just not go to the court, he had to skip the SECRET court that was established only for this reason. Do you know how many warrants have been turned down in the entire time this court has existed? TWO!!!!

And what was the excuse? It took too long to get a warrant. So, they knew enough about these people to know that that they were Al Quaeda (CIA flags just went up on my blog) and exactly where they lived, for a long enough time to know to bug them, but it takes too long to get a warrant from the speedy SECRET court that was established, by Congress mind you, to expressly handle that situation??? Sorry, that is lame, even for his brokedown palace.

Be careful when you decide to give up your rights, EAM. Just like guns, right KOB? Once you go down the path to taking them away, there is no turning back!


Anonymous EAM said...

KOB, I see what you are trying to conclude re: pro-death. But simply, pro-death is for death and the "if for choice, then a muderer," logic just doesn't work for me. I'm not convinced. I am not an "Advocate" for abortion. If pro-choice meant therefore one is an Advocate for abortion, pro-choice supporters would approach all pregnant women and encourage abortions. advocate is perhaps a strong word. That implies arguing for abortion for the sake of abortion. Advocate for the RIGHT of an abortion may be more spot on. There is a fine line, yet an important one. And I still haven't been convinced that an "unborn child" or "zygote" (whatever your preference)is a life to be taken yet.

And, I eagerly await how you feel about the fertility clinics gerd mentions. That would make fertility doctors murderers along with the couples they are treating.

You are anti legislation/restriction according to akb's post. If abortion is a tool for murder and its "advocates" are murderers what are folks who are "pro-gun" (and somehow i don't think you'd call yourself that)? IF one supports others' ability to bear arms, yet many kids die in their home every year (for just ONE example)due to accidents with a family owned gun, how does that supporter define his/herself as anything less than a murderer by your logic?


Anonymous gerd said...

Great response eam. Sadly you are experiencing a classic KOB behavior.

This classic KOB behavior is why I have "divorced" myself of him and discussion with him on this forum.

You point out the obvious flaws in his logic and ask how he might reconcile this. You then ask for his opinion or views on a subject that doesn't quite fit into his arguements. The example being gun control and in my case the fertility clinics.

Instead of addressing our valid concerns and points, he instead ignores them and tries to divert our attention away from the current argument by posting an off topic inflamatory post.

The post of course being Hillary Clinton's comments in Alex's blog post after this one.


Blogger KOB said...

And this is classic Gerd - saying that he has divorced from debate and then continuing via a third party conversation with EAM. Just in case anyone was paying attention, I haven't posted since EAM made these most recent points. My post in the other thread was before her most recent post. Also, there's a good chance I'd post on THIS thread if my intention was to divert attention. I'm sure that this makes sense to EAM, maybe you can ask her to explain it to you while you hide behind her Gerd. Anyway, enough wasting my time on trolls, I've got an intelligent person to converse with now.

EAM, I understand your point you made about the pro-abortion moniker, but maybe I explained my point poorly. I wasn't making the case for "if for choice, then a muderer." The point I was making was that if you are pro-choice, you are promoting the ability to legally make the decision to abort. I know that it sounds like semantics, but if you support the ability to choose, even if you would not make that choice yourself, you support those that make that decision. So it's more like "if for choice, then for murderers." That is, unless you believe it's not murder. I think there are really only two beliefs you can hold if you are pro-choice, either you believe that abortion is morally acceptable, or you do not want to make a decision on the issue one way or the other. By being pro-choice, you don't have to decide for yourself, it's a cop-out on the issue. On the other side, there are only those who have decided that it is not morally acceptable.

As for the other issues, which fertility clinics are we talking about? There are many different methods of treating fertiliity problems and I need more information to make any kind of decison about whether I support their actions or not. At first thought, my assumption is that fertility clinics exist to create life, not destroy it, but again, I need more information about their practices.

I also don't believe that your gun argument is analagous to the abortion issue. Abortion is not a tool for killing unborn babies, it is the VERY ACT of killing itself. It is the very purpose for the existence of abortion. A gun does no exist to kill children in their homes. The deaths you mention are the result of accidents and are largely due to lack of responsibility in those homes. You wouldn't argue to ban electricity because kids accidentally die of electricution each year would you? Gun advocates are among the strongest supporters of gun safety education to prevent these accidents. In fact, the NRA is the primary provider of these classes to private citizens in this country. Oh and the right to bear arms IS expressly granted in the constitution unlike the creative interpretation that claims abortion is a protected right.


Anonymous gerd said...

Your classic behavoir continues KOB.

You did not address fertility clinics. She asked you about those too....

Do you see why I can't have an intelligent conversation with someone so full of irrational propaganda as yourself?

How do the countless "deaths" of embryos in a fertility clinic fit into your twisted world view?

The world may never know....


Blogger KOB said...

Uh oh, we've entered censorship....


Blogger KOB said...

I ask again, do you actually read my whole posts before you reply? I had a whole paragraph on fertility clinics. It's like a bad SNL skit.


Anonymous gerd said...

"I ask again, do you actually read my whole posts before you reply?"

I routinely ask you the same thing, yet you never seem to read mine. Yes I saw that you tried to address them, but you deflected them.

Fertility clinics exist to create life, as does stem cell research (or at least save lives), but just like stem cell research, embryos are sacrificed.

This is the hypocracy that the Christian Right and many Republicans fall into.

Fertility clincs don't just make "one" fertilized egg, they make many. But of course only one is used and inserted into the woman.

So what then happens to all these other embryos?

They are saved for a time, then DESTROYED.

So why aren't the Christian Right and the Republican's attacking this? And if they don't care about these embryos why can't they be given to scientists to do stem cell research?

If they are a culture of "values" or "morals" and want to save every life, shouldn't they stop these clincs? Or at the very least offer these embryos a home in their own wombs?

here's a link that describes in vitro fertilization

mulitple eggs are extracted and fertilized.


Blogger KOB said...

If I understand correctly, in vitro and storage of frozen embryos are the final hope for those that are infertile. Therefore, the use of the term fertility clinics is far too general as they may aid in pegnancy success without resorting to these more scientifically radical procedures. I studied the site you gave me and I wasn't able to find information regarding the destruction of embryos. However, I did find a fairly low success rate for these procedures (50% for fresh embryos and 31% for frozen), which suggests to me that the manual destruction of embryos is far less of an issue than you described. Still, you do pose an intersting question and one I would like to explore further.

I did find another interesting snippet on that website.

"...selection is the only advantage of blastocyst culture, and this selection has nothing to do with the "quality" of the baby, but rather just whether the embryo "makes it" or not to becoming a baby."

It would be interesting to better understand exactly when these doctors switch from using the term "embryo" to the term "baby." My question to you is this, does it make a difference whether the scientific community considers it a baby or embryo at the time of abortion if the central agrument for abortion rights centers on the rights of the mother?


Blogger KOB said...

One more thing I forgot, it is common practice to insert multiple embryos to improve the chances of pregnancy. Between the number of eggs extracted, the number then selected for fertilization, the number that survive that process for at least 3 days, and the fact that multiples are then inserted, I just don't know how many are left over. Of those left, only 30% survive the freezing process to be used later. I'm just not sure how many are actually "destroyed."


Anonymous gerd said...

Right KOB, the process is very "iffy" and there is a grey area that exists as to when an embryo is called, or is every called a baby.

I'd first like to point out that a scientist most likely did not construct that website or other websites like the one I sent you. They are for the lay person. With that said, "we" being the scientific community refer to such things as blastocysts and embryos. The term "baby" is used for the benefit of a fertility clinic site. It is the hope that the embryo will become a baby. It is personal opinion when such a thing is actually human life.

Now back to the "iffy" results. Yes several eggs are fertilized and watched over the course of days to see which ones develop, and it is heard of for multiple embryos to be inserted into the womb. The problem that the Christian Right and many Republicans fail to grasp is that embryos are destroyed. Even if it is only, say 30% or even 5% or less, embryos are destroyed.

With that said, since the Evangelical population seems to view everything in terms of absolutes how can they be fine with fertility clinics?

They are against abortion and stem cells yet they support the "abortion" of other embryos that are discarded during the in vitro fertilization process.

So if they are for fertility clinics then logically they don't think an embryo is human life and therefore must allow stem cell research. But of course they don't, because of their own hypocracy.

Do you see the problem finally?


Anonymous gerd said...

"Of those left, only 30% survive the freezing process to be used later. I'm just not sure how many are actually "destroyed."

So you don't see that embryos are destroyed on that site? Of course they won't specifically say on the website how the unused embryo's are discarded.

If you read carefully KOB you're quote proves that embryos are destroyed, they just don't say it outright.

They say that they take viable embryos or "babies," if you're an Evangelical Christian, and then freeze them. Of those that they freeze only 30% survive. So right there, they've just destroyed or "aborted" 70% of the embryos that they've made.

Its all there in front of you.


Blogger KOB said...

That's some kind of great logic you got there. First, the couple tries to get pregnant naturally. Then, they go to a clinic who knows how many times to get some help via testing, timing, fertility drugs, etc. Next, they go through the process of ARTIFICIALLY creating life through the miracle of science. After that, only select viable embryos survive, of which several are implanted. Finally, they attempt to preserve as many as they have left for the purpose of creating a baby in the future. As a result of all of this effort to create a human being, embryos die despite their very best efforts to keep them all alive. This you call the moral equivalent of scraping a baby from the uterus even after that baby may survive if removed alive. An act that is designed to snuff out any life that may possibly exist because the mother may not be able to party if she has a baby.

You're right, it's all there in front of me. BTW, I thought you gave up on debating me?


Blogger A. K. Brown said...

You are SO clearly out of touch if you a think a woman chooses to abort her to-be baby because she, "may not be able to party if she has a baby." The fact that you think it is that shallow of a motivation, or that easy of a decision, only solidifies my belief that you and others like you have no place making decisions of this calibur.

Stick to trying to cut taxes and social services for the disadvantaged...I think that is more on your level.


Anonymous gerd said...

"That's some kind of great logic you got there."

Actually its just called math. 100-30 is 70. So 70% of the embryos are destroyed.

"Finally, they attempt to preserve as many as they have left for the purpose of creating a baby in the future."

Oh my dear KOB, the hypocracy that you're missing is that they KNOW the freezing process will kill 70% of them. They wouldn't have to freeze them if all the good "Christian" women would actually hold to their values of "life" and support these "babies" so none need to die. By allowing this to continue YOU are endorsing the destruction of embryos. Since the fundamentalist controlled republican party can only see in black and white, you are therefore "murdering" according to your own dogma.

You said it before youself KOB, there is no grey for the moral right and the republicans. So don't hide in the grey area when it suites you're purposes.

"You're right, it's all there in front of me. BTW, I thought you gave up on debating me?"

I'm not, I'm trying to educate you on how fertility clinics work, but you don't want to listen.


Blogger KOB said...

You are the one that keeps asserting that right wingers only see in absolute terms. Of course there are grey areas in life. We just draw different lines than you.

For instance, you see the imperfect act of creating life through science as destroying life - glass half empty. I see it as doing miracle work. You see aborting an unborn child as the right to privacy for the mother, I see it as a violation of the child's right to life.

I don't think that losing embryos is the equivalent of destroying them. According to this logic, doctors would be killing people if they tried to remove a brain tumor and lost the patient. I believe in God, but I also believe that he acts through science. For me, abortion is a secular choice, not God's.

Like I said, different lines and different grey areas.


Blogger KOB said...

"You are SO clearly out of touch if you a think a woman chooses to abort her to-be baby because she, "may not be able to party if she has a baby.""

Are you saying that the decision is never based on this thought? If so, it's true that lefties are ideological to the point of naivity.


Blogger A. K. Brown said...

I am saying that I am not willing to put myself in the heads or the hearts of all the woman that make this difficult decision each year, and that your comment is ridiculous, oversimplified and asanine.

The fact that you are willing to make such an astoundingly ignorant statement is apalling and only works to make you sound like a loon espousing an ill-conceived idea, rather than a rational, concerned citizen.


Blogger KOB said...

Interesting. So you think that abortion is used only in extreme circumstances when the woman sees no alternative but to abort and agonizes over the choice?


Blogger A. K. Brown said...

No, I mean that I can't make a blanket statement about abortion, nor can you, and to think you can is case-in-point why you (or I, for that matter) shouldn't make these decisions for people.


Blogger KOB said...

I never made a blanket statement. My original use of that phrase was as a singular example of moral equivalence between abortion and the unfortunate loss of embryos in fertility clinics.

It may be a lesser used rationale for an abortion decision, but the fact remains that it is a legally valid reason under the right to privacy argument supported by the Roe decision.

While morally inflammatory, it does exist when no limitations are placed on the act.


Blogger A. K. Brown said...

No, you don't make a blanet statement, you dance around what you are really trying to say ("may possibly be..."). Have some balls, if you think abortion exists so sluts can sleep with as many people as they want whenever they want, have the guts to say it.

Again though, I can not comment on others' motivations. I have been presented with no evidence to support your claim, and heresay coming from a man that has never been (as far as I know) and most likely never will be in that drastic of a situation means very little in the scheme of things and makes little difference in my opinion, if any at all.


Blogger KOB said...

How's this sound to you?

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

According to a USA Today, CNN Gallup Poll in May, 1999 - 16% of Americans believe abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy and 55% of American believe abortion should be legal only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.
According to a Gallup Poll in January, 2001 - People who considered themselves to be pro-life rose from 33% to 43% in the past 5 years, and people who considered themselves to be pro-choice declined from 56% to 48%.


Blogger A. K. Brown said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Blogger A. K. Brown said...

Interesting...someone who believes in absolute rights and wrongs, and a "Republican" form of government is using polls to justify their beliefs (which, by the way, it doesn't). I smell a flip flop!!!

To me it sounds like there are a lot of different reasons for which abortion should be legal.

Don't bore me with your statistics or what others believe...this is a confirmed right of privacy for over 30 years. As such, other people's opinions mean nothing when making a very personal decision within your reproductive rights.

Try again.


Blogger KOB said...

Come on now, you said:

"I am saying that I am not willing to put myself in the heads or the hearts of all the woman that make this difficult decision each year" and then "I can not comment on others' motivations. I have been presented with no evidence to support your claim"

I then gave you the statistical evidence around the abortion decison from the lips of those who have had them so you wouldn't have to put yourself in heads of those people. Then you said:

"Don't bore me with your statistics or what others believe"

Don't ask for them then!

I wasn't using polls to justify my beliefs, I was using them to show you that I am NOT "SO clearly out of touch" On the contrary, the polls show that my beliefs fall in line with most of the country.

As for:

"..this is a confirmed right of privacy for over 30 years"

Things change, just ask millions who are allowed to vote and ride the front of the bus when they weren't for a lot longer than 30 years.


Blogger A. K. Brown said...

Nothing your statistics said supported your statement. There was no "To continue to party," category. They are very general terms, and in fact, some of the answers overlap each other quite a bit. In other words, it was not evidence of your statement's legitimacy - not even a little bit.

And yes you are right, things do change. The difference between the circumstances you present is that one empowers and frees a group (voting, buses, etc.), while the other represses a Consitutional right...which I am sure you don't care about considering your team essentially wipes your asses with the Bill of Rights.

I am just hoping in this instance it doesn't change, but with the fascists you all want on the court, you may have your way. As Gerd says, hope you are willing to pay for it, and I hope you will leave your son enough for him to as well.

And according to what I found, it doesn't look like Roe is as hated as you'd like.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Dec. 9-12, 2005. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.4.
"The Supreme Court's 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?"
Overturn 30%
Not Overturn 66%
Unsure 4%

Overturn 29%
Not Overturn 65%
Unsure 6%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 20-22, 2006. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Turning to abortion: Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?"
Yes, Overturn 25%
No, Not Overturn 66%
Unsure 9%

Yes, Overturn 28%
No, Not Overturn 63%
Unsure 9%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. June 24-26, 2005. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion --or vote to uphold it?"
Vote To Overturn 29%
Vote To Uphold 65%
Unsure 6%


Blogger KOB said...

You're right my statistics didn't back up my claim that partying is ever considered when making these decisions. I apologize for making such an outrageous claim. How could I ever think that having fun could be part of a decision based on "don't want children," or "want to postpone childbearing?" I'm sure the overwhelming number of teens and young adults making these decisions are bound to use a much more sophisticated decision making model than they did when they got drunk and knocked up in the first place.

And your poll numbers - they are different questions than the ones I posted. It's entirely possible the 55% of people in my poll that wanted legalized abortion for rape and life saving cases, could be the same ones in your 66% who want to keep abortion legal for those very reasons. I never said the country wanted to overturn Roe. I'm sure a poll on the number of people who could tell you any detail of the Roe decision would be very eye opening as well.

And tone it down with the name calling, you're starting to sound like a whacko. What you don't censor yourself?


Blogger A. K. Brown said...

OK you're name calling.

However, I am done with this. There is no hope for concensus when the phrase, "drunk and knocked up," is the verbiage of choice.

This is not the most pressing issue we have at hand to discuss anyway - just one of the most incendiary.


Blogger KOB said...

OK. Is it because of the blunt language I used, or it is your opinion that abortions are never the result of irresponsible sexual behavior while intoxicated, and the decisions to terminate these pregnancies are never based on the desire to continue that type of behavior. it really me that's out of touch?


Anonymous gerd said... it really me that's out of touch?

You agree with Bill O'Reilly.

You believe that fertility clinic's don't destroy embryos, or at least that's "okay" since they are sacrificed so that another may be born. But that is the same logic your party and the conservatives use to say that stem cell research is "not okay."

You feel religion has the right to dictate the rules to all.

You ignore the corruption, incompetence, and outlandish behavior of your party regardless of what it does because you are trapped in its dogma.

Yes, I do believe you are the one out of touch.



Post a Comment

<< Home