Abortion and Nazi Germany

[Gregory Carlin]

If you don't believe in abortion, fine - don't have one! Nobody's forcing you to, but these pro-lifers keep insisting that because they believe something,  because their god-of-choice says so,  it should become LAW. Seperation of church & state, MAYBE you've heard of it - or have you ignored my governmental rights recently?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Church and State can be separate, the ideology, the philosophy, they can be integrated into the personal or the collective politics of elected office. Opposition to abortion as a political idea is not controversial within a global context.

In the United Kingdom the State and Church are linked & Prime Minister Blair has the job of approving the Anglican hierarchy. The state religion may be running a poor second to the Roman Catholic faith with worshippers.

[Guest John Gillespie]

John,

I love good discourse but this is nasty. I suspect there are those who have been verbally reprimanded for name calling on this site, which is just what THIS is:

"And then these pro-life nitwits..."

"you and your braindead pro-life cronies..."

I'm sure my response will elicit invective just as I am sure that the tirade will be sanctioned, indeed praised, to wit:

"Nic: You’re a credit to your generation. The only problem is that people like Tim Gratz are running your country. Let us hope that people like you get control one day."

That's nothing if not scary. I happen to be pro choice but I'd like to see something other than howling.

Obviously, Mr. Gratz has become a favorite target of some, but he appears to have conducted himself as a gentleman here - at least that is the conclusion I've drawn since joining a couple of months ago - and has presented his sides of arguments well.

Hang in there, Tim. You ARE a gentleman.

John Gillespie

Edited August 30, 2005 by John Gillespie

[Tim Gratz]

Thank you, John. I am afraid that on occasion I responded in kind but I have apologized for doing so. But I think most objective readers of the Forum would recognize the truth of what you posted.

I once read, and I believe it is true, that the mark of political maturity is the refusal to impugn an opponent's motives or sincerity.

Granted, there are "disinformation agents" and there have been people with "hidden agendas" but unless proof of such conduct exists I think it is appropriate to assume that a debating opponent sincerely believes in the merits of his or her position.

Take the "intelligent design" debate. It is clear that there are brilliant intellects on both sides of the question. Each side should recognize that. Each side should also recognize that "truth" cannot be determined by assessing the number or percentage of educated people asserting one of the positions. Certainly the history of both science and medicine teaches us that new evidence and increased knowledge often invalidates theories that have been widely held for years. Proponents of intelligent design should accept that opponents sincerely believe that intelligent design can never be a part of science and that its teaching denigrates science. On the other hand, opponents of intelligent design should accept that proponents sincerely believe that evolution is only a theory and a theory that cannot address important questions such as the origin of matter and life.

I strongly believe that civil debate is important for two reasons: not only can it lead to the discovery of new truths but it can also lead to the understanding of the humanity of the opponent so the opponent is respected rather than being villified.

[Guest John Gillespie]

Tim,

You're certainly welcome. I thought it appropriate that the hateful rant from which I quoted comes under the thread of 'Abortion And Nazi Germany." I thought the responses under it (actually there were two, as I recall) were shameful and cowardly, like people I saw here in Boston who were gushing over the Mapplethorpe exhibit(s) some years ago.

I reiterate I am pro choice but the caveat REALLY upsets the Progessives: pro choice and no government funding! Ted Kennedy is personally opposed, but...as he used to say quite often. He wants the government to underwrite, though.

But lately I confess I've been pondering the efficacy of establishing clinics on the Mexican border (ingress only) or even in Guantanamo. Hey, everybody wins!

Regarding Intelligent Design, it comes down to the lack of humility before God (ohmig_ _; am I allowed to use the G word? I mean, it's ok to engage in vicious personal attacks with the requisite name calling but we've got standards of decorum here.

So, Tim, the next time people decide to belch innuendo regarding your professional background and make with the personally malicious mots just tell 'em you understand. It's not be design.

Yours truly, John Gillespie

[Tim Gratz]

Nic wrote:

If you don't believe in abortion, fine - don't have one! Nobody's forcing you to, but these pro-lifers keep insisting that because they believe something, because their god-of-choice says so, it should become LAW. Seperation of church & state, MAYBE you've heard of it - or have you ignored my governmental rights recently?

Nic, I will do my best to keep this civil.

The fact that the Bible states "Thou shalt not steal" does not mean that laws against theft, forgery, etc violate the doctrine of separation of church and state. Do you really believe that the government only has the right to criminalize conduct that is not condemned in the Bible? That position would also exclude laws against perjury.

The question, of course, is whether the unborn child living within the mother is a human life worthy of protection. The latter three words are of the greatest importance because, I submit, it is impossible to deny the fetus is a separate human life.

Is it difficult for you to understand that pro-life people believe that all human life deserves protection and that the destruction of the life within the mother's womb is tantamount to murder? You do not agree with the position, of course, but surely you are capable of understanding it.

By the same token, anti-abortionists must understand the position of pro-choice advocates that comes down, I think, to the following: even though the fetus is a separate living organism, because it is living within and dependent upon the mother's body, the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy because she has the right to control her own body.

Surely you would not contend that after a baby is delivered, the mother or father has the right to kill the newborn. The philosophical choice whether the unborn life is as worthy of protection by the state as life after birth may be difficult but certainly society has the right to make that decision.

Your first sentence is tantamount to asserting: "If you don't believe in murder, fine, do not commit one." The logic is clearly specious. It all comes down to the decision whether unborn life merits state protection.

I would also point out that there are atheists who are also against abortion, e.g. Nat Hentoff. And Dr. Nathason was an atheist when he became anti-abortion.

[Nic Martin]

You see, the problem with your "points," Mr. Gillespie, is that you do not know me. This summer, I volunteered as an escort at an abortion clinic. I saw first-hand protestors throwing things at girls that were raped by their family members, and had to make a choice based on their own mental health. I heard them shouting, "WHORE!" and "YOU F***ING SINNER." That doesn't make you all nice and cushy comforted around people just like that. When you're taking all of that so some poor young girl doesn't have to, and you have people like Mr. Gratz in that crowd, you eventually get to a point where you just SNAP, and you refuse to sit back and let these girls be judged unfairly by people with made-up statistics and complete bullxxxx rationalizations, "YOU CAN'T CONTROL YOUR LIFE BECAUSE MY GOD SAYS SO!"

I admit that it's not necessary to use name-calling, and I admit it makes me a hypocrite, considering I spend a lot of my time trying to stop fights on the JFK board. However, you deal with half of what I saw, and not want to just slap the woman with 4 kids that doesn't believe in birth control - even after FIVE miscarriages & 2 of her 4 living children being mentally disabled ( don't you think that's your body's way of saying, HEY, I CAN'T HANDLE THIS? ), when she says, "YOU STUPID WHORE!" to a girl who was a virgin until her brother took PCP and raped her for TWO HOURS.

And, Mr. Gratz - the problem with what "the bible says" is that not EVERYONE reads or believes YOUR bible. There are different religions, with different belief structures. I have my own beliefs about this world, and none of them include the existance of your god, or a need for your bible.

There's a law in this country now, where if a robber shoots a woman that, didn't even know she was pregnant yet - he can get an extra sentence for a life that nobody knew was there. That's BS. That's steaming, fly-infested, BS. But I digress...

I don't have issue if you drink, smoke, eat meat ( which, considering I was a vegan for 3 years until I had to stop due to a health problem - I could say OMG YOU'RE MURDERING ANIMALS YOU MEAN MEAN MAN! ), get tattoos, get piercings, or want to play with anal beads until you get off. It's your body. It's your life. I believe that, beneath all your rigid beliefs in institutions such as religion, there's actually a man intelligent enough to make your own decisions about your life. What I don't understand is how you deny me the same courtesy, and why you won't keep your rosaries off of my ovaries.

I saw an article, about a woman who had an abortion, and the result was left inside of her, which could have killed her. It was about, a centimeter big. Looked like a little pink blob. Do I think that's wrong? No. It doesn't even have a fully-developed heart to pump through it's non-existant system, so how is it alive?

As previously mentioned, grass is alive, yet you mow it. Animals are alive, yet you eat them. Plants are alive, I imagine you eat them too. "BUT PLANTS & GRASS DOESN'T HAVE FAMILIES!" Animals do. Animals have families, have feelings, have emotions. Yet you see no problem killing them. Why just humans? Why be so arrogant that you think humans are all that's worth protecting? And if humans are so valuable, why do you support the war? Why would you insist that a girl like me, whose body cannot handle carrying a child to term, has to die for a baby she doesn't want - when the baby would die anyway?

I realize that for the continuation of the human race, people have to breed, it's a fact of life. However, when 400,000 children die a DAY due to starvation, I don't think it's your right to insist that I MUST BREED OMG!

If you would care to work for a medical license, Mr. Gratz, and perform an endometrial ablation, as well as a tubal ligation on EVERY SINGLE woman that doesn't want kids EVER, maybe you'd see the abortion rate go down. I have friends that have had multiple abortions due to circumstances beyond their control ( such as a girl I knew that was continually raped by family, and couldn't talk to anyone until she mentioned it in her suicide note ).

Arguing with you is much like arguing with a brick wall. No matter how many times I shoot down something you say ( such as your claim that most women regret abortions, which is just flat-out not true ), you don't even try to admit that you were wrong. Bringing up the religion card, though, I believe is a sign of desperation - or extreme narcissism ( then again, reproduction is narcissism ), to think everyone has to bend down to what a god they might not believe in "says" through a book "he" probably had nothing to do with. I believe that it's no mistake that everything listed as a sin in the bible, was frowned upon by society before the bible was written. "Hey kiddies, if some invisible man in the sky says that you can't do this or he'll put you in time out, people would avoid doing it! Hee!"

The fact is, there is a difference between walking up to someone and shooting them point-blank, then the removal of a parasite that you never gave permission to be there.

So, Mr. Gratz, let me ask you this. Are you prepared to sterilize women who never want children? What about women, like myself, that could die before the fetus-in-question had transformed enough to survive? Sterilize them, too? Are you prepared to visit adoption centers all over the country, and look at the overcrowding and say that women should suffer through pregnancies they don't want in order to further crowd those centers? SEVERAL adoption centers won't take a child unless it's a "pure-bred" white baby, so what about all the Asian, black, or Hispanic babies? Where do they go when their parents don't want them? Well, they'll probably wind up in a dumpster - and then people like you will condemn the mothers, even though you put them in that situation.

[Guest John Gillespie]

They're not my "points", as you put it. I never used that word but simply quoted the salient parts of your angry, venomous and personally mean-spirited vitriol. Do not misquote me; and I've got MUCH better ways to spend my time than reading your empty dispatches and wondering why you're still allowed to participate here. Go ahead, take your best shot. I won't read it but maybe some of your invertebrate partners will be amused.

[Nic Martin]

They're not my "points", as you put it.  I never used that word but simply quoted the salient parts of your angry, venomous and personally mean-spirited vitriol.  Do not misquote me; and I've got MUCH better ways to spend my time than reading your empty dispatches and wondering why you're still allowed to participate here.  Go ahead, take your best shot.  I won't read it but maybe some of your invertebrate partners will be amused.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One question, though - if you're so against caring, why did you bother replying at all? If you have things so more important, why waste your time in the first place? It's all fine and good to say you don't care, but the fact is, you still took your precious time to rag on me. More than once.

[Gregory Carlin]

There's a law in this country now, where if a robber shoots a woman that, didn't even know she was pregnant yet - he can get an extra sentence for a life that nobody knew was there. That's BS. That's steaming, fly-infested, BS. But I digress...

I

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pregnant women can often be specifically targeted for murder. Homicide is a leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States.

Laws that differentiate between types of victim are not entirely uncommon.

Murdering a judge is now a capital crime in Texas (due to legislative change) and shooting a police officer may be viewed similarly etc.

The alleged superfluousness or unreasonableness of mandatory and consecutive tariffs for multiple crimes is a different issue.

[Tim Gratz]

Nic wrote:

Arguing with you is much like arguing with a brick wall. No matter how many times I shoot down something you say ( such as your claim that most women regret abortions, which is just flat-out not true ), you don't even try to admit that you were wrong.

This is exactly what I wrote:

It is often true that women who undergo abortions suffer deep psychological effects as they later realize that they have indeed taken an innocent human life. These possible consequences are never discussed by the doctors who profit from performing abortions.

Perhaps since Nic apparently does not read correctly, perhaps she does not hear correctly either. I would really like to try to verify her complaints about epithets being yelled at people entering abortion clinics. Even if it did happen, it of course adds nothing to the debate about whether society should protect the unborn.

I would also point out, as John has noticed, that on this thread it is you that has called pro-life adherents "morons" and "nit-wits". Again, the fact that you use invective does not disqualify your argument, but from an objective standpoint, I don't think it in anyway advances your points with anyone who might be undecided.

Nic, I never said most women regret abortions. I wrote that often happens. Often could be, e.g. 25%, perhaps even 20%. Most means more than 50%.

So since you claim I did not apologize, I submit it is now YOUR turn. But let's not stop with just one apology.

You also wrote:

I realize that for the continuation of the human race, people have to breed, it's a fact of life. However, when 400,000 children die a DAY due to starvation, I don't think it's your right to insist that I MUST BREED OMG!

Whatever led you to believe that I thought it morally wrong for you (or any other man or woman) to reproduce if you do not want children? If you do not take adequate precautions, however, I believe the proper solution is to offer the child you conceive for adoption, not to kill it.

[Tim Gratz]

Nic wrote:

As previously mentioned, grass is alive, yet you mow it. Animals are alive, yet you eat them. Plants are alive, I imagine you eat them too. "BUT PLANTS & GRASS DOESN'T HAVE FAMILIES!" Animals do. Animals have families, have feelings, have emotions. Yet you see no problem killing them. Why just humans?to be added

Something seems to be wrong with this logic.

What is Nic's position? Since our society (well, since every society since Sumeria) believes the taking of a human like wrong but not the destruction of plants and grass, Nic seems a problem with this?

What does she advocate? That since one can kill grass in Texas, one should also be allowed to kill people? A frightening thought if that is her position. JFK was killed in Texas, I guess she might as well quit the assassination forum.

Or is it her position that society should prohibit the killing of all life, both plant and animal life? That position is frightening for different reasons, of course.

Nic, you may not agree with me, but it is my (moronic, nit-wit) position that society has the right to take the position that it can criminalize the taking of human life without making it a crime to mow the lawn.

Does John seriously think it better for people who follow your logic to be ruling this country?

Edited September 2, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

From today's "Key West Citizen":

KEY WEST — Sarah Bleckley's parents cried as a guard led their daughter away in handcuffs Wednesday to begin a five-year prison sentence for leaving her newborn baby in the stairwell of a Key West hotel in May of 2003.

Bleckley, 25, pleaded no contest to manslaughter. Her sentence includes an additional 10 years of probation after her release.

Judge Mark Jones had to decide on a prison sentence between three and seven years, giving Bleckley credit for the 352 days she had already spent in the Monroe County Detention Center.

In 2003 Bleckley, then 23, gave birth to a baby girl in the Radisson hotel in Key West. She wrapped the infant in towels, placed her in a plastic bag and left the bundle in an outdoor stairwell. A hotel security guard later found the bag and began to deliver it to the garbage, but while separating the hotel's towels from what he thought was garbage, he found the dead newborn.

Kill a baby a day before it is due, no problem.

Kill a newborn baby, get five years.

Something is wrong with this picture!

[Nic Martin]

Two words: Oh please.

Tim, it's time for me to be brutally honest. I think your logic goes somewhere along the lines of the people that voted Peroutka.

You keep throwing out nonsense comments to attempt to discredit ME without coming up with any facts, actual statistics, or support AT ALL for your conclusions. Since you can't attack my facts, which are entirely true - you attack me? Who DOES that after about 4th grade?

You keep slinging out that it's killing a BAYBEE, and tell me that I could put it up for adoption. I don't know about YOUR ability to read, but as I've said before in this topic, I could not medically carry a child very long into the 2nd trimester without dying myself. My body can't take it. I have health problems, and GETTING PREGNANT would KILL ME. Not GIVING BIRTH, actually BEING PREGNANT. I cannot have a parasite leeching off of my body, because I WILL. NOT. SURVIVE. That means BAYBEE won't either. Great, the funeral home would be burying a girl that's actually APPLYING herself in her life ( as opposed to the hundreds of my peers that are getting knocked up and don't get to go to college ) because someone thought it was their right to tell me I had to die, because they wouldn't grant me an abortion. What's murder now? But as long as I don't try to save my own life with an abortion, I'm okay by you?

Women like this are common, so it's not just me. 670,000 women die a YEAR in America from pregnancy related complications. A woman is 13x more likely to die during childbirth and pregnancy than by an abortion. Fact. What would you say, Mr. Gratz, if you were a doctor, and had to look at that woman's parents, and tell them that because of the politics of people like you, they have to bury their daughter. Or their sister, or their friend, or their wife. Would you be prepared to do it 670,000 times a year?

Your views are stuck somewhere between, "BITCH FIX ME SOME PIE," and not letting women vote. The 50's is over, there aren't any June Cleavers today. Telling a woman that she has to die so you can sleep better that she didn't have the right to stop it, is a really scary idea. It sounds a lot like what a serial killer's thought process would be like - taking control of a woman's right to her OWN LIFE, and only letting her die. And you have the balls to call ME a murderer?

I'll give you fair warning now, if you can't actually put up facts, or attempt to shoot mine down, I'm no longer interested in your immature bickering. You've proved your point, you're a close-minded asshole that can't support anything you believe in with fact - and I've proved mine. To use a common phrase, "Put up or shut up."

[Nic Martin]

Just another comment..

Tim, I respect you as a JFK researcher. I respect pretty much everyone on that board, for what they do. This isn't about JFK.

[Guest]

I think it is rather unfortunate that this thread has been allowed to degenerate into name calling and unpleasantness.

I would urge members to continue to make their points as firmly as they like but within the parameters of acceptable academic discourse.