- Fresh Beats: Drake does it again and again
- Student movie passes for ‘The Wedding Ringer’ early screening
- Singers and songwriters jam at UPC’s Acoustic Art Series
- New Asian restaurants bring in college crowd
- Fresh Beats: Fall Out Boy and more new music
- New gourmet doughnut shop set for opening
- Fresh Beats: 8/28/14
- Five restaurants Denton needs
- First Friday of the month showcases artists
- A Calcium For Your Funny Bone Web Series – A Q&A w/ Brandon H. Rodriguez
Republicans focus too much on abortion
OPINION
During the 2010 elections, Republicans primarily focused on the economy to win back Congressional seats. Months after they took control of the House, not a single piece of legislation has been put forth to create jobs. Instead, Republicans have zeroed in on issues that were barely addressed during the campaign season — particularly abortion.
In one bill proposed by Republicans, the rape exception for a ban on any Medicaid funding for abortions would have been changed to “forcible rape” only.
Of course, not all rapes involve “force.”
Rapes that involve the use of the date-rape drug Rohypnol, underage girls, women with limited mental capacity and many incest cases don’t qualify as “forcible.” Thankfully, enough political pressure built that Republicans had to drop the change, but it is extremely disturbing they thought redefining rape was of legislative importance (and now they’re proposing to have the IRS conduct “abortion audits” to determine why individual women terminated their pregnancies).
Along with other draconian budget cuts to programs for the middle class and poor, Republicans in Congress also recently voted to defund Planned Parenthood, citing that the organization performs abortions.
This is disingenuous because the Hyde Amendment has long banned federal funding for abortion, and it ignores that Planned Parenthood provides lots of other health care services for women who can’t get it anywhere else, particularly if they are uninsured.
By cutting off all funds to Planned Parenthood, Republicans are denying millions of women screenings for cervical and breast cancer, tests and treatments for STDs, and access to contraception, which, of course, prevents many unwanted pregnancies, and thus, abortions.
Unfortunately, it is not only Republicans in Congress that have made restricting abortion a top priority. Despite facing a $27 billion dollar budget shortfall of its own making (resulting in drastic cuts to education, affecting UNT and other schools), the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature has decided to focus on a bill requiring women get a sonogram before being able to attain an abortion. Gov. Rick Perry even designated it as “emergency” legislation.
Although the Senate bill requires it be performed only two hours before an abortion, the House version requires no less than a 24-hour period, meaning that women — many of whom must travel long distances to make the difficult, personal choice to terminate a pregnancy — would have to make two separate trips.
Given increasing gas prices, this adds additional strain to those seeking what is still supposed to be legal in this country.
But what is most important that people understand about this legislation is the required sonogram would not be conducted by putting jelly on the abdomen as most would assume, but rather by use of a “trans-vaginal probe” (it’s what you think).
Worse still, the House bill contains no exception for women who are victims of rape and incest from this violation. No doubt many women would rather have an abortion than suffer through such a nightmare — but that’s the real purpose here.
These tactics are disgusting and hypocritical. As we can see, the same conservative legislators who criticize government mandates for everyone to obtain health insurance have no problem mandating invasive medical procedures.
As Democratic state Senator Leticia Van de Putte said, they want “to shrink government to fit inside a woman’s uterus.”
Republicans in Congress and the state Legislature should stop their insidious assault on women and focus on real problems instead.
Courtney Jones is an information science senior. She can be reached at lewisvillefunnygirl@yahoo.com.
104 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
Swipe cards with caution this holiday seasonDalton LaFerney / Senior Staff Writer The...
- November 5, 2014
-
Former NSA head speaks at HyattRhiannon Saegert / Senior Staff Writer Former National Security...
- November 5, 2014
-
Power surge: elections favor Republican partyDalton LaFerney / Senior Staff Writer The balance of...
- November 5, 2014
-
UNT cop fired after blogging from work
By Josh Pherigo / Managing Editor – A veteran...
- January 28, 2011
-
Republicans focus too much on abortion
OPINION During the 2010 elections, Republicans primarily focused on...
- March 30, 2011
-
UNT students march for marijuana legalization
By Adam Blaylock / Senior Staff Writer – Student...
- October 25, 2010
Courtney
March 31, 2011 at 8:35 am
“No doubt many women would rather *forego* an abortion than suffer through such a nightmare – but that’s the real purpose here” was the line I wrote.
BC
March 31, 2011 at 11:21 am
Typically “forego” means to precede or come before, which probably led to the confusion of the editing here. On the other hand, the less common spelling “forgo” usually means to skip, omit, or decline something. So for example in the movie “Last of the Mohicans,” when our protagonist says “I guess you’ll just have to forgo the pleasure of hanging me”.
Jacqueline
March 31, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Yes, there are much more important things that the dismemberment of 4000+ children every day! The only ones trying to protect these children should focus a little less on the murder of babies and more about money Priorities, people!
Jacqueline
March 31, 2011 at 12:09 pm
P.S. If legislation to protect unborn children is an “insidious assault on women,” how can abortion not be considered a violent outright assault on women in the womb?
Eric the Red
March 31, 2011 at 12:20 pm
The “forcible rape” thing is a smokescreen. Read the damn bill.
Courtney
March 31, 2011 at 1:33 pm
BC, you are correct. But the the sentence doesn’t make any sense the way it was edited either. The point I was trying to get across is many woman would rather *not* have an abortion than go through an invasive medical procedure, and that’s the point of this kind of legislation, not simple “information gathering.”
I think it is useless to have a debate about abortion itself since no one is going to change any minds, but even most pro-lifers make exceptions for rape and incest, defunding Planned Parenthood hurts women and doesn’t affect abortions at all, and mandating medical procedures and IRS abortion audits is in no way “small government.” And Republicans did not run on a platform of imposing exteneme anti-choice laws, but that has been a major focus. These are the specific points of this particular article.
While the “forcible” language was removed, it was only done so after political pressure.
Jeremy Dixon
March 31, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Jacqueline, shut up. Courtney is not arguing for abortion. She’s arguing against the dumbass politicians focusing on legislation that has no product, except increasing difficulty in getting an abortion. I wonder how much time and resources have been wasted on abortion legislation. Your emotions betry you. Great article by the way.
Courtney
March 31, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Indeed, as I pointed out, reducing funding for contraceptives is only going to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies – which will, in turn, increase the number of abortions. This kind of policy would seriously backfire on those who are pro-life (whose views I respect, but disagree with). The best way to reduce abortion is to reduce the need for it – which I think we can all agree is a worthy goal – and the best way to do is by preventing unwanted pregnancies through education (unlike the abstinence-only programs we have in Texas that leave us with the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation) and contraception access. Banning abortion outright would simply push it underground, hurting everyone.
Ezekiel
April 1, 2011 at 1:10 am
It might be sad to hear, but population control is an issue we need to address…unless we can colonize the moon.
Justin
April 1, 2011 at 1:19 pm
More fun for you. Chris Smith, probably the number one anti-abortion Representative and the guy behind the bill which would have redefined rape, went to Kenya to protest a change in THEIR laws which would allow for abortion if it would save the life of the mother all on tax payer’s money.
He’s so pro-life even if it kills you.
Courtney
April 1, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Here’s what Republicans are doing in other state legislatures across the country:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/03/23/wave_of_anti_abortion_bills_advance_in_the_states/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed3
John
April 1, 2011 at 4:17 pm
The purpose of the 24-hour rule is to allow women to have to sleep on the fact that they are about to terminate a would-be life. I think it’s a great thing that the decision to end life should be thought through.
And Ezekiel, population control is not the problem. It’s population distribution. We could fit every person on planet Earth inside the state of Texas. Look it up.
Courtney
April 1, 2011 at 4:40 pm
John, it is ridiculous to believe that women haven’t ‘thought through’ this choice. The purpose of the 24-hour rule is to put up an obstacle to getting an aborton, since many women have to travel to obtain one and this would mean at least two trips.
Courtney
April 1, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Also, let’s be straight: They are making it a requirement that women have a probe inserted into their vagina to conduct the ultrasound. And they may not include an exception for women who have been raped!
WalkerW
April 1, 2011 at 5:36 pm
In response to the “population control” comment, I suggest those interested read Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (HarperCollins, 2010).
Since the 1800s, despite the population multiplying six times, average life expectancy has more than doubled and real income has risen nine times. Just in the past 50 years, the average income (adjusted for inflation) has tripled, food production is up by 1/3, child mortality is down 2/3, and life expectancy is up 1/3. We are less likely to die as a result of war, murder, childbirth, accidents, tornadoes, flooding, famine, whooping cough, tuberculosis, malaria, diphtheria, typhus, typhoid, measles, smallpox, scurvy and polio. We are more likely to be literate, finish school, own a telephone, a flush toilet, a refrigerator, electricity, and a car. Absolute poverty (i.e. less than a 1985 dollar a day) worldwide has been cut by half in the past 50 years, with the poor in the developing world growing their consumption twice as fast as the world as a whole between 1980 and 2000. The average 1955 working man could now qualify for welfare and still didn’t have eBay, Amazon, Starbucks, Google, or Blackberry. The majority of today’s poor have electricity, running water, flush toilets, a refrigerator, a television, a telephone, a car, and air conditioning (only 36% of all Americans had air conditioning in 1970, whereas 79% of poor households had it as of 2005). The average individual only has to work 1/2 a second (less than that, actually) for the hour of reading light each night, rather than the 8 seconds in the 1950s, the 15 minutes in the 1880s, or the six hours of the early 1800s.
The more people, the more exchange, the more ideas, the more innovation. Innovation is what raises living standards.
WalkerW
April 1, 2011 at 5:40 pm
As for the abortion debate, some of the strongest arguments against it that I have read comes from the work of Princeton professor Robert P. George.
Courtney
April 1, 2011 at 6:31 pm
I think population control is off-topic.
Reklaw
April 1, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Walker, it’s one thing to act like your arguments are well thought-out by “suggesting” that we read your favorite pseudo-intellectual libertarian writers, but it’s another thing to impulsively comment on your own pieces and post successive (and superfluous) comments on other op-eds. We get it, you read (or pretend to read, but nobody cares either way) plenty of authors who promote your point of view. Referencing them (instead of any form of objective data) doesn’t impress anybody.
John
April 2, 2011 at 12:37 am
If the purpose is to put up an extra obstacle, then I’m all for it. Let’s make it as inconvenient for the woman as that pesky unborn baby would be.
At any rate, a word to the wise. It’s amateurish to comment on your own op-Ed pieces. Makes you look scrappy. If you have a good argument, let us hear it and leave us mere mortals to duke it out. This constant responding to every person who disagrees with you just looks frantic and sloppy. That goes for you too WalkerW. Dont think you slipped by on this one. This has got to change.
Also, I kind of find the title of this piece ironic, seeing as the focus of it is abortion and was clearly not written by a member of the Grand Ol Party. It seems to me the Dems are the ones focused on abortion.If they had there way there would be a dead baby depot in every strip mall.
WalkerW
April 2, 2011 at 2:37 am
“act like your arguments are well thought-out”
I don’t see how providing information for a position equals “acting.”
“by “suggesting””
What’s with the quotations?
“your favorite pseudo-intellectual libertarian writers”
Not sure what makes (in this case) Matt Ridley a “pseudo-intellectual” aside from your apparent disdain for him (or perhaps libertarians).
“impulsively comment on your own pieces”
The only comments I make are in order to list the source material for the article (since I am unable to do so in the piece itself), clarify a stance (this happened once), or respond to another’s comment.
“and post successive (and superfluous) comments on other op-eds.”
You are entitled to your opinion regarding the quality of my comments. But given the run-of-the-mill comments on this website, I find mine to be no more superfluous than that of anyone else (including yours).
“We get it, you read”
Then you didn’t get it because that wasn’t the point.
“or pretend to read”
People pretend to read? Who does that?
“but nobody cares either way”
You seem to care enough to make a comment about it and even question it.
“plenty of authors who promote your point of view”
I’m willing to bet you know little of my “point of view” (whatever that even means in this context) or my reading list. For the record, Ridley’s book challenged a number of assumptions I had, including overpopulation.
“Referencing them (instead of any form of objective data) doesn’t impress anybody.”
I care very little about impressing largely anonymous commenters on the NT Daily website. I care about circulating ideas and information. Those who are interested can easily check out the book, review the sources, and draw their own conclusions.
Why you felt compelled to respond to me the way you did is puzzling, but I won’t lose sleep over it.
WalkerW
April 2, 2011 at 2:52 am
“If you have a good argument, let us hear it and leave us mere mortals to duke it out.”
Why do all you “mere mortals” get to have all the fun? 300-500 words isn’t a lot.
Bob
April 3, 2011 at 7:36 pm
I will believe the GOP to be “pro-life” the day it bans the death penalty, ends our wars, makes health care a right to our elderly and disabled citizens, and puts the defense budget towards anti hunger and disease initiatives in the third world. Further the state GOP froze the funding of the WIC (Women Infants and Children) program that helps poor mothers get the nutrients they need during pregnancy. It is one of the best abortion alternatives and the GOP froze its funding. I also find it rich that Christians claim to be “pro life.” I wonder, with the Mormons spending well over $30 million to fight gay marriage in California, how many children could have gone to sleep full with that money?
Jason
April 4, 2011 at 8:10 am
@Bob: I am a strong conservative and I believe in abolition of both the death penalty and abortion. Of course, my reasons for being against the death penalty are probably not what you would like. I oppose the death penalty because of all the taxpayer money that is wasted carrying out a practice which has little deterrent value. My opinion might be different if the appeals process took less than a year and if the condemned were still executed public by hanging. The way things are now, I would prefer we simply give out “life at hard labor” sentences and put those we would otherwise kill on chain gangs. First job for the chain gang: build that massive border fence.
Jacqueline
April 4, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Jeremy, impeding access to abortions DOES decrease them. I will make it as hard as possible for anyone to kill their child. It’s not a waste of resources, especially for the kids that don’t end up in a dumpster.
Grow a conscience, kid.
John
April 4, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Jeremy, maybe you should grow some decency along with that conscience. What kind of person tells a woman to “shut up” because he disagrees with her? Why don’t you try addressing the things Jacqueline said rather than being overtly and intentionally offensive? That was not cute, and you are not impressive.
Courtney
April 4, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Banning abortion never stops abortion. The rich will go to Canada and the poor will get them in a back alley or try to do it to themselves in horrible ways. You want to stop abortions? Keep funding Planned Parenthood (remember the Hyde amendment already bans any funding for abortions they provide) so women can retain their birth control.
And Bob, you are absolutely right that these so-called “pro-life” politicians stop carrying about life once the child is born.
John, aren’t you telling me to “shut up” by saying not to comment on my own article? Jacqueline just makes emotional statements, none of which address the specific points in this piece.
Jeremy Dixon
April 4, 2011 at 4:44 pm
I told her to shut up because she bases her beleifs on emotions and not logistics, they are two different functions of the brain. My conscience tells me that if a woman doesn’t want a fetus in her womb, she won’t want a child out of the womb. That’s why I believe in a choice. Because without it, the mother will hate her child for symbolically representing the loss of freedom. Abortions limit suffering for both child and mother, but unfortunately we have crazy christians running around who believe suffering is God testing ones faith, so they want everybody to suffer with them.
Bob makes a very good point, something that doesn’t register with you people who use the emotional side of your brain to interprate everything. Waste of legislation, waste of breath, me including.
Jeremy Dixon
April 4, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Oh, and I did address the things she said, and I will do it again.
@ Jacqueline, what you have said is inherently emotional, and incredibly stupid. You should probably stop watching Faux News if you would like to remain on par with fellow college students. It might not sound nice, but at least someone finally showed you the decency of telling you the truth.
Jeremy Dixon
April 4, 2011 at 5:36 pm
@ John, if you knew anything about population you would know it grows at an exponential rate. We’ve gone from 1 billion to 6 billion people in 100 years. Population control is the biggest problem facing the human race, and by stating “everyone can fit in Texas” doesn’t refute the evidence that resources are being used at an unprecedented rate. You should take an environmental science class, it is really scary.
John
April 4, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Thanks Jeremy. I did not know that “logistics” was a function of the brain. Maybe that was the function you were using while you typed your vitriol. The problem here is that your goal is not to hold a meaningful discussion. It’s easier and more expedient for you to set up straw men and knock them down with your killer logic (or logistics? Perhaps?). You didn’t post on this website with the hopes of reaching some deeper understanding of other view points; you posted on here so you can distort truth to whatever fits your agenda.
The ironic part is that people who fancy themselves as freethinkers (including Mr. Dixson) are completely and resolutely shut off to the idea that something outside of their paradigm could be reality. He is quick to disrespect women (really classy), all while trying to parade as some sort of champion for women’s rights. Very sad, and not too consistent. I thought we could have an actual conversation.
It’s shocking to me that you say “Abortions limit suffering for both child and mother.” I’m not sure that getting murdered in a womb without having a say in it is “limiting suffering.” Moreover, the psychological trauma and sexual dysfunctions associated with abortion for the mother certainly to not lend credit to your insidious claims.
Jeremy, instead of using personal attacks in an attempt to dissuade Christians (because you believe them to be intellectual inferiors), maybe you could try to live up to the level of your “free thinking” proselytizing, and ask some questions to try and reach a common middle ground. The reason I say this is because your view on Christians suffering is completely incorrect. No mainline Christian denomination believes what you portrayed.
Also, please be sure to read the post that WalkerW posted about population control issues. He is dead on. I’m not sure what your intro level environmental science graduate school teacher taught you, but you would be well served to pick up a book and read.
Courtney
April 4, 2011 at 9:03 pm
“Moreover, the psychological trauma and sexual dysfunctions associated with abortion for the mother…”
What scientific evidence do you have to support this claim?
John
April 4, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978).
Reardon, Aborted Women-Silent No More, (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987).
Kent, et.al., “Emotional Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion: A Comparative Study”, presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychiatric Association at Saskatoon, Sept 1977.
Jeremy Dixon
April 5, 2011 at 12:06 am
Reality is the absence of human conscience.
Your either a christian or a crazy christian you can’t be both
Pathos v logos
Death ends suffering
Westboro church certainly does
I’m not trying to dissuade anyone
And I only disrespect those who are incapable from dettaching from their identity or don’t believe in science
Courtney
April 5, 2011 at 8:05 am
John, do you have any studies that are not more than 24 years old? Abortion was barely legal in this country at the time of two of those studies. These side effects seem no more likely than the medically inaccurate beliefs that abortion is linked to breast cancer (which the Indiana legislature wants to mandate doctors tell their patients anyway) and depression.
John
April 5, 2011 at 8:52 am
There is a whole world wide web out there, Courtney, or perhaps you prefer Lewisvillefunnygirl, either way, I suggest you start at http://www.google.com
Courtney
April 5, 2011 at 10:56 am
So, in other words, you can’t back up your ridiculous claims.
Jeremy Dixon
April 5, 2011 at 4:52 pm
We are focusing to much on Abortion, the issue should have been settled in Roe v Wade
wendy
April 7, 2011 at 8:58 am
John the psychological trauma and sexual dysfunctions associated with abortion for the mother?
Are you speaking from personal experience? I’ve known a lot of women who have had abortions including myself, and there wasn’t any psychological trauma or sexual dysfunction as a result. Sounds like it’s more traumatic for you than it is for the women. Here’s an idea why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and adopt a bunch of unwanted babies.
Jacqueline
April 7, 2011 at 10:05 am
Jeremy, I am not a fellow college student: I’m faculty. So I am not on par with you, I exceed you. And unless you are a senior, I teach students that out-rank you. Don’t start a pissing contest on intelligence with me, kiddo, cause you will lose.
And my statements weren’t emotional, but simply true. If a woman doesn’t want a child in her womb, then yes, she likely won’t want a child out of the womb. But if she didn’t want a child in the womb, SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE PUT A CHILD IN HER WOMB. The fact remains that there is a CHILD there, who deserves to live like a child elsewhere deserves to live. And if she doesn’t want a child out of the womb, there are millions of waiting couples who certainly do. Not wanting a child is not a rational argument for killing a human being.
Wendy, I’m sorry to hear about your loss. While I’m glad you aren’t suffering from your choice like so many other women do, I am horrified that you are so callous about having killed your son or daughter. I would have gratefully adopted him/her but I know that you wouldn’t have give him/her that chance. You didn’t want to be pregnant, and so you aborted. So don’t feign like your advocacy of abortion has anything to do with unwanted babies.
Jacqueline
April 7, 2011 at 10:26 am
John, if you have a facebook, please message eaglesforlife@groups.facebook.com
Jacqueline
April 7, 2011 at 11:42 am
P.S. I love how no one addressed what I said but dismissed me as “emotional.” I would contend that anyone who has no emotions regarding the dismemberment of human beings by their own mothers should be deeply disturbed.
Adam
April 7, 2011 at 12:09 pm
“Jeremy, I am not a fellow college student: I’m faculty. So I am not on par with you, I exceed you. And unless you are a senior, I teach students that out-rank you. Don’t start a pissing contest on intelligence with me, kiddo, cause you will lose.”
Wow, you’re faculty? I would expect better arguments.
Michael Watts
April 7, 2011 at 12:34 pm
“Jeremy, I am not a fellow college student: I’m faculty. So I am not on par with you, I exceed you. And unless you are a senior, I teach students that out-rank you. Don’t start a pissing contest on intelligence with me, kiddo, cause you will lose.”
I have to agree with Adam.
And the fact that this university allows someone with such a condescending attitude towards students to teach shows that UNT must be REALLY desperate in hiring.
Jorge O'Malley
April 7, 2011 at 2:02 pm
I wasn’t aware that teaching fellows were faculty.
This is such a typical response from a pro-lifer. They are smarter than you are, they know what is best for everyone, and by golly they will impose that through draconian laws, puritanical policies, and denial of basic human rights.
Survivor of rape or incest? Tough. You should have kept your legs shut. Serious threat to your health if you carry to term? Tough. God must not love you. But he loves that baby more, so no abortion for you. Teen pregnancy running rampant? Tough. Better give more money to abstinence-only classes.
Also, “But if she didn’t want a child in the womb, SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE PUT A CHILD IN HER WOMB… And if she doesn’t want a child out of the womb, there are millions of waiting couples who certainly do”
See the above about sex ed. Women don’t put children in their wombs. And they are not required to stay pregnant just because someone else wants a baby.
Adam
April 7, 2011 at 3:14 pm
“I wasn’t aware that teaching fellows were faculty.”
LOL!
Courtney
April 7, 2011 at 3:25 pm
The Idaho legislature has just passed an abortion ban that doesn’t exempt victims of rape and incest because, apparently, rape is the ‘hand of the Almighty’ at work: http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/07/idaho-almighty-abortion/
These are the kinds of measures being pushed all across the country. Look, people aren’t going to have their minds changed on the fundamental questions of abortion, life at conception, etc. (though I’m curious if people like Jacqueline would recommend the death penalty for Wendy since she’s a ‘killed’ her ‘child’). But the point of my article was to examine how the far right is pushing laws that the vast majority of people, be they “pro-choice” or “pro-life,” find to be *extreme such as the one linked above. Only a small minority want to force women to have their rapist’s baby, cut off all family planning, and subject women to medical rape with vaginal probes. People do not know the ilk they elected to office.
BC
April 7, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Congrats guys,
We’ve made it almost 50 comments in and nobody has accused anybody else of emulating Hitler… yet.
Whoops, sorry to break the flow of the debate. Let’s recap. Pro-life started out with the “dismembered babies” opening, followed by pro-choice’s “shut up” defense, equivalent to the Ruy Lopez and the Smyslov Defense, so opening C93 for those keeping up. Both sides put on an exciting mid-game, bringing out the “population control” variation on our original opening. Now we’re finally entering the endgame, and unfortunately it’s been a turgid, unexciting, and predictable match in which nobody has made any headway at all.
I’m certain, though, that one side will prevail outright and by the time we reach comment #100 we’ll have this ethical dilemma cleared up and solved for all future generations.
-BC
Jeremy Dixon
April 7, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Shes probably not faculty. Shes only pissed because non of her arguments have a point besides “babies are dying”. Which is not even an argument, its a fact. And they are not “babies”, they are fetuses that have the potential to develop into newborns.
This shouldn’t be an issue in the current political climate because the only party clinging to “prolife” are republicans who argue “We believe you know how to spend your money better than the government.” But who also argue “the government should decide your fate, because you got pregnant”
There must be a choice, because without choice there is oppression. Some people do not have the means to support a child. So don’t bitch about your taxes increasing when you would like to force already poor mothers to have children, when their most immediate source of survival is welfare.
It is impossible to work a full time job, take 12 hrs of classes, and raise a child on your own while making 20k a year. I have friends who can’t afford to go to college making 20k a year and they don;t have children.
Children are the biggest responsibility someone can take on during a lifetime. It shouldn’t be up to the government to tell a women that she is ready, or that she must be abstinent until she is.
P.S. Just because I used republicans as an example doesn’t mean I have a party affiliation.
Jeremy Dixon
April 7, 2011 at 6:14 pm
@Jacqueline, I know fetuses are being disposed of, but I also know there is nothing I can do about it. And even if I did consider myself “prolife”, I wouldn’t force my personal opinions onto someone else through legislative means.
Jacqueline
April 7, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Convenient way to wash your hands of something deplorable and simultaneously support it through policy, Jeremy. And you are awfully quick to force your opinions on unborn human beings, quite violently. You claim a fetus isn’t a person (yet), but we all know it’s a stage of human development like newborn, toddler, or an adult. Redefining terms to make your position more palatable doesn’t change this basic fact. I will give it to you that it does take a degree of intelligence to attempt to refashion natural law and basic biology to sanction a human mother killing her own child. Those arguments never actually *work*, but the self-evident truth is so repugnant that it takes mental gymnastics to try to justify something clearly despicable. You are choosing to believe what you want to believe because it’s cognitively comfortable. This doesn’t change the truth, but it makes it easier for you to live whatever lifestyle you want, innocent children be damned.
Psuedo-arguments like “shut up” or “you’re stupid” are not on-par with college students- but if so, I am quite glad to point out that I haven’t been merely a college student in a very long time. This dialogue doesn’t cut it in the real world any more than “I’m rubber, you’re glue.”
Jeremy Dixon
April 7, 2011 at 9:42 pm
I told you to shut up, and I called you stupid because you have not made one argument besides “killing babies is wrong.” The truth is that there is no evidence to support the interpretation that human beings should be held at a higher standard than any other animal or innate form of matter that our race might encounter. Although, anthropocentric thought does sound appealing from where we stand.
While the article in question deals with political ideologies, you are pressing moral ideologies. And while politics must essentially portray a nation’s morals, American politics deplores the authority of precedence to dictate legal matters. Roe v Wade established that no governmental entity may restrict abortion. So fighting against abortion, is in the sense of politics, futile and void.
So you can fight, whine, and cry as much as you want about what is good and what is bad. But when you open up your mouth, please regard the incorrigible inertia that you call your voice, to the issue of discussion. Not whatever whimsical emotion is fleeting through your brain.
WalkerW
April 8, 2011 at 1:30 am
Three main things grating on my nerves:
1. The emotion vs. reason argument: Emotions are essential for decision making, particularly in terms of social interaction. Emotions act as “markers” of decisions, determining whether the decision is good, bad, or indifferent. Rationality is incomplete and near impossible without emotion. For those who disagree, see Antonio Damasio, Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (Grosset/Putnam, 1994). This isn’t to say that one can’t be overemotional, but the whole “I’m rational and you’re emotional” line is just naive (and, ironically, overemotional).
2. The fetus vs. baby argument: Of course a fetus is not a newborn baby. The point is whether or not both a fetus and baby are considered human beings. Biologically speaking, they both qualify. As William P. Cheshire, Professor of Neurology and Director of the Clinical Neurophysiology Laboratory at the Mayo Clinic in Florida, said, “Publication of the human genetic blueprint has forever transformed the way we think about humanity and, indeed, about early human life…The human embryo, from the moment of conception, possesses a complete and distinct human genome…Every embryo of human origin is genetically a member of the human species, is genetically male or female, and, with the exception of identical twins and (hypothetically) clones, is genetically unique…Moreover, through the genome the continuity of human genetic identity is maintained throughout an individual’s lifetime. The genome seated within the zygote, the first cell of the human life span, is the very same genome a person will have in old age. The Orwellian terms “pre-embryo” and “potential human being” no longer have any scientific validity…Science informs us that the human embryo is, objectively speaking, an early human life, and the same kind of being, a human being, as the scientist” (“Human Embryo Research After the Genome,” The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity, November 14, 2002). The arguments must focus on the implications of this information (there isn’t much to dispute genetically).
3. The vulgarity and arrogance: Try to be a bit more civil, humble, and articulate in your debating tactics.
Carry on.
Jeremy Dixon
April 8, 2011 at 1:57 am
If you consider “shut up” and “your stupid” vulgarities in our culture, you should probably upgrade from Disney channel to HBO.
WalkerW
April 8, 2011 at 2:08 am
Perhaps you should review the various definitions of “vulgar.”
WalkerW
April 8, 2011 at 2:12 am
And I didn’t identify “shut up” and “you’re stupid” as the sole vulgarities. I find your entire presentation to be rather unrefined.
Adam
April 8, 2011 at 8:33 am
I don’t think anyone would argue that an embryo has the same DNA, biology, etc. as an adult human. Of course, they do. But genetic tissue does not separate humans from every other living thing on the planet – from fellow mammals (we share 99% of the same DNA with apes, and even something like a banana isn’t too far off) to the lowest bacteria. What separates us is our high intelligence and sentience – none of which an embryo has. A fetus does not have brain activity, cannot feel pain, and cannot live outside the womb until close to six months of gestation. That is why late-term abortion is banned throughout the United States, which is allowed under Roe v. Wade.
Now, some believe that a “soul” is inserted into human life at the time of conception, but this has no scientific basis and that’s why abortion is tantamount to murder. But this is purely a religious belief, and thus we cannot legislate based on it. Instead, we must weigh the right of a fetus to develop versus the right of a woman to have control of her own body. Since a fetus is not self-aware and is completely dependend on a woman for its survivival until the point of “viability,” it is hard to argue a woman should not have abortion rights during that period. Post-viability, one can reasonably argue that a fetus has sufficient rights of its own to prevent abortion (except in instances where it may cause the death of the mother – a choice which should up to the woman and her family as she has empowered them). And what I have described is more or less the framework worked out by the courts over the years on the issue.
No doubt it is a complicated issue (one in which I have struggled from time to time), and Americans have very complicated opinions about it. Polls show a plurality or a majority refer to themselves as ‘pro life’ but a very strong majority are opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade. Many are personally opposed to abortion… but like me, they do not want to make that choice for others.
Adam
April 8, 2011 at 8:34 am
That first line should read: “I don’t think anyone would argue that an embryo *doesn’t have* the same DNA, biology, etc. as an adult human. “
Adam
April 8, 2011 at 8:44 am
Admittedly poor editing skills this morning. This should read: “Now, some believe that a “soul” is inserted into human life at the time of conception and that’s why abortion is tantamount to murder, but this has no scientific basis.”
WalkerW
April 8, 2011 at 10:08 am
“No doubt it is a complicated issue (one in which I have struggled from time to time), and Americans have very complicated opinions about it.”
Summarized my feelings exactly.
Thanks for actually posting something of substance. This is the kind of argumentation we need to see. Whether one disagrees with you or not (which I do to some degree), I don’t think anyone could accuse you of being careless or illogical in your thought process.
Adam
April 8, 2011 at 11:19 am
Thanks, Walker. I appreciate that.
John
April 8, 2011 at 11:34 am
I, too, appreciate this posting, Adam. The only problem I have with it is the notion that because something cannot sustain life on its own, we have the “right” to destroy it. If we followed this assumption to its logical ending, we would be able to rationalize killing old folks on pace-makers, ventilators, and the like. The same goes for people with mental handicaps that rely daily on parents or assisted living communities for food. After all, they are relying on the assistance of someone or something else to live.
Please reflect on the very nature of this conversation. The reason why it’s such a hot-button issue is because of the very fact that it seems to go against our reason and conscience (some of us anyway). The fact that we are even talking about this is significant evidence that we have a conscience, a “soul,” or sentience. We can think thoughts, feel emotions, reason through situations. We are not a fight or flight, eat or be eaten, reactive, Darwinist species. We do things that are completely illogical. We give our own money away to people who are less fortunate. Companies like Tom’s Shoes are wildly successful because people feel an obligation to raise the standard of living for all humanity. We cringe at the horror of the loss of a friend or parent, and horrible natural disasters in places like Japan. Why? If we were just another species, we would say “they had it coming,” or, “maybe they should have prepared better for this.” But we don’t! We respond in compassion and giving. We take the money that we’ve worked hard for, and we send what little we can to people we’ve never seen, or met, and who look different than we do.
At the end of the day, the belief that you hold will not change. Nor, will mine, or anyone else’s for that matter. Not unless there is a significant emotional event in your life having to do with abortion. For better or for worse.
Adam
April 8, 2011 at 3:08 pm
“The only problem I have with it is the notion that because something cannot sustain life on its own, we have the “right” to destroy it. If we followed this assumption to its logical ending, we would be able to rationalize killing old folks on pace-makers, ventilators, and the like. The same goes for people with mental handicaps that rely daily on parents or assisted living communities for food. After all, they are relying on the assistance of someone or something else to live.”
Well, the more apt description of what I was saying is not necessarily that we the “right” to destroy it, but rather its value must be weighed against the rights of women to control their bodies. If an embryo could grow and have no consequences on anyone else, no one would argue for abortion rights. But it cannot.
First let me say I don’t think an old person on a ventillator is the same… because they were born, they had a life, etc. But, we do, in fact, let people decide on their fate, be it the family, a doctor, etc. Sometimes this is based on their wishes and sometimes not if they never stated them. And while someone may be of low intelligence, they still have brain function.. they still have sentience. Just because they need help doesn’t put them on the level of something that actually is growing inside someone’s body. Plus, there is the possibility of medical cures in the future that can change their situation. If it were medically possible to grow a fetus outside the womb from the embyonic stage, one might argue this could replace abortion (of course, we would need a society and state willing to pay for them).
As for humans being doing things that are illogical but compassionate, I agree with you. Our capability of this is the beauty of mankind (though I do not believe this is do to a “soul” but because humans have developed the intelligence to understand concepts that other animals cannot. Besides, I personally believe it benefits me if everyone is living well), but I’m not sure how this fact enters in. Might one not argue for compassion on the women in such situations? I do not, for one, believe that decision is made easily and callously by the vast majority of women who get abortions.
Thanks for your contribution. I’m glad we have moved this to more reasoned discussion.
Hammer
April 8, 2011 at 8:58 pm
“This is disingenuous because the Hyde Amendment has long banned federal funding for abortion, and it ignores that Planned Parenthood provides lots of other health care services for women who can’t get it anywhere else, particularly if they are uninsured.”
What is truly disingenuous is that you ignore the basic fact that Planned Parenthood provides abortions. You justify funding an institution that provides abortions simply because it provides other health services.
You also ignore the basic fact that any federal or state tax dollars that go to Planned Parenthood helps them in ALL areas, including providing abortions. If I give a drug addict money to pay his utility bills, am I not enabling his drug addiction at the same time. If I give money to Hamas, an organization in Palestine that provides humanitarian aid and simultaneously supports terrorist activity, would not also be helping them better carry out terrorist attacks if I gave them money simply because of their humanitarian work?
It’s time that some in government realize that subsidizing murder is immoral and take a stand on the issue. Abortion destroys a human life. Life has stages and it begins at conception, not the moment one exits the womb.
Courtney
April 8, 2011 at 9:23 pm
I never ignored anything. What I said was completely factually true. Only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services are abortions and no federal funding supports it. The other 97% of their services go to treating STDs, breast cancer screenings, and providing contraception – which prevents abortions.
Hammer
April 10, 2011 at 10:26 pm
So the basis of your argument is that the American government should subsidize an institution that kills in order to prevent further deaths? Ma’am, it does not matter it they provide one abortion or thousands of abortions a year, one fact plain as day is that Planned Parenthood centers perform abortions. Statistics do not lie, but people use statistics to lie, or at least in your case to distort the truth. You distort the truth by implicitly saying that the relatively low number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood when compared to the overall “other” services that they offer, justifies funding Planned Parenthood. Do women need these other service? Yes! However, you can not use statistics downplay the fact that Planned Parenthood provides abortions. The very statistics you provide pull the rug from right beneath your own feet.
Courtney
April 11, 2011 at 7:07 am
I never denied Planned Parenthood performs abortions. The point has always been that federal funding does not go to this service.
I can’t argue with someone who refuses to see reality.
Adam
April 11, 2011 at 10:00 am
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/apr/11/fact-checking-claims-about-planned-parenthood/
Elizabeth
April 22, 2011 at 5:05 pm
@Hammer: “So the basis of your argument is that the American government should subsidize an institution that kills in order to prevent further deaths?”
There’s this thing called the “defense budget,” you moron.
I presume this genius line was retorted to, but I had to stop wasting time perusing the heinous commentary on this thread.
Julie
April 24, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Something I thought was interesting to think about… A fetus is considered a parasite until it is born. It lives off its host which is the person carrying the baby. A parasite is defined as a living thing, so therefore the fetus is a living thing.
I am torn about planned parenthood’s funding being taken away. I was raped when I was younger and had no where else to go for medical testing, etc… But I do not like that now that a huge portion of planned parenthood’s federal funding goes to abortions. They are now even performing abortions by skype… the patients don’t meet with their doctors to receive the pill abortion. And the doctors aren’t there with them when they go through the side effects. Look into the sife effects of these pill abortions, they are usually far worse for the woman than the medical procedure. Also, they are performing abortions at a point when the babies can feel pain. I was pro-choice til I watched a video of one at only 12 WEEKS and you can seek the baby jerking away from the abortion instrument. I would encourage anyone who is pro-choice to watch a video as well in order to take an informed stance on the matter.
Morally, I do think abortion is wrong, and yes it is very infuriating to know that I am funding abortions through my taxes. As a rape victim myself, yes I agree there are considerations like rape and when the woman’s health is in danger. But let’s be honest here, those are NOT the most common reasons for abortions particularly one performed by planned parenthood. I would not mind Planned Parenthood used the money to get serious about educating minors about contraceptives.
Courtney
April 25, 2011 at 9:54 am
Julie, I am deeply sorry about what happened to you and that is why we need places like Planned Parenthood. But, as has been pointed out many times, ZERO federal funding goes to abortions.
Julie
April 25, 2011 at 5:02 pm
That may be true, but of all the pregnant women and young girls who come in to Planned Parenthood 95% of them receive abortions verses pre-natal care. They are known to discourage things like sonograms before the abortion procedure is done, even if the mother asks to see the sonogram, etc… I don’t know the statistics, but I can almost guarantee you that the majority of those abortions are not the result of rape and just a way to take care of an inconvenience.
Courtney
April 25, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Well, there is a lot of misinformation about Planned Parenthood. I’d like to see some good sources on that. And as pointed out in my article and subsequent comments, Republicans are targeting abortion even in cases of rape and incest on the federal and state level.
alex
April 26, 2011 at 12:14 pm
the only problem saying that the federal funded planned parenthood doesn’t use federal money for abortions is how does anyone know? i do not know if women have to pay for planned parenthood services (since it is government funded), if someone could tell me if they do or not, and show facts, that would be great. if it true that women do have to pay, then planned parenthood would have to show that the money of customers (and not the government) is the only money going towards abortions. i don’t know if that is actually possible, but until that it is proven, planned parenthood cannot be funded by the government, plain and simple. there’s no argument you can make against that. abortion should be illegal in the first place. saying that its the woman’s body and she can do whatever she wants can justify saying that drugs should be legal because people should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies.
alex
April 26, 2011 at 12:16 pm
also wanted to add that i think its funny that planned parenthood does abortions. if you get an abortion, you’re not a parent. they should either change their name, or they should stop performing abortions and just stick to other services
Adam
April 26, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Alex, drugs should also be legal. Criminalizing them doesn’t stop people from taking them, puts people in jail for victimless crimes, and feeds a black market of drug dealers and gangs.
It’s called Planned Parenthood because it allows people to plan parenthood, be it now or in the future through contraception or abortion, obviously.
UNT Student
April 26, 2011 at 1:03 pm
And what do you base this claim that “abortion should be illegal” on? Is it the age-old argument that “life starts at conception”? Is it for religious reasons? Or something else entirely?
People should have the decision to what they do with their bodies, plain and simple. Men, women, those in between. All of them. Providing services for an unplanned pregnancy (which, in most cases, will severely strain either the mother or her finances) should be allowed, whether or not it is through adoption or abortion. Many Americans would rather have their parasitic entity (which is what a fetus is before the third trimester, look it up) mature to full life outside the womb, in case you don’t know. The argument is not, “Should we have all women get abortions?” It is, pure and simple, “Should we have a choice in the matter?”
For men, this is a moot point. Men only provide the genetic material; after that, they don’t do much, biologically speaking. For a woman, well, let’s take into account EVERYTHING that goes into having a baby: frequent trips to the doctor, morning sickness, unpaid maternity leave (in many cases), and all around hormonal imbalances the likes of which a sufferer of bipolar disorder has never even thought of before. In short, a pretty bad deal, not only physically, but financially. Of course, you can say that the partner should care for her, but really, does that happen? Allowing a woman to choose what happens to her own body (which, up until the cord is cut, the fetus is still a part of her body, regardless of whether or not it has its own sentience) not only gives her confidence in herself, but makes society a much more liberated place overall.
Now, do I like abortion? Not at all, I think that abortion should be limited to certain circumstances. But, number one, I am not having a child any time soon, and number two, I am not female. Therefore, according to what I said, I should not have any say in what happens. And I am fine with that. Make of it what you will.
EagleFreak
April 26, 2011 at 3:37 pm
While the focus of the article is on the funding of Planned Parenthood, many of these comments focus on whether abortion. Many comments will state something along the lines that a woman has a choice about what to do with her body. Yes she does, and she did have a choice, as well as the man involved when the two of them had sex. What pro-abortion people want is the ability to have actions without consequences and to misapply the label of “freedom of choice.”
Other comments have talked about the inconvenience a child can present. It is sad that our society has reduced life to a state where life can be lowered to level where it can regarded as an inconvenience.
Many of the comments focus on the rights of women. What about the rights of that unborn child? There was a time in our society where the law of the land stated that African Americans were not citizens and therefore had no rights under the Constitution (Dred Scott decision). In much the same way today, as a result of Roe v. Wade, the unborn are regarded as less than human and have no rights.
Adam
April 26, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Firstly, no one is “pro-abortion.” And I’ve already written an extensive comment on the question of life. It’s not as black and white as you make it sound.
What do you think the penalty should be for getting an abortion, EagleFreak? Should women be given the death penalty because it is murder? Do you think abortion should be allowed if the women is raped? If so, why? Is the fetus not still a human life? Do you think it should be allowed if the women’s life is in danger? Who gets to decide whose life is more important? This issue is very complicated and there are no simple answers. Perhaps that is why people want choice.
EagleFreak
April 26, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Adam, you ignore the crux of the issue–the fact that human life can be lowered to the status of an “inconvenience,” and making a life or death decision for another. You call “freedom of choice” the ability to act without restraint.
What I am against is unrestricted access to abortion. There are plenty of people out there who are “pro-abortion” in the sense that they desire no impediments to access to abortion in any form or fashion. In that sense, it is black and white, there is no middle ground.
Courtney
April 26, 2011 at 9:23 pm
“What I am against is unrestricted access to abortion. There are plenty of people out there who are “pro-abortion” in the sense that they desire no impediments to access to abortion in any form or fashion. In that sense, it is black and white, there is no middle ground.”
Abortions are actually really hard to get in this country and late-term abortions are pretty much banned everywhere. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t favor any restrictions.
EagleFreak
April 26, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Courtney, while doctors and centers that perform abortions are not as readily available as a plain family practitioner, abortions are available for those who wish to obtain them. The only real obstacle for some might be finding a means of transportation. While not all Planned Parenthood centers provide abortion, they readily refer those seeking one to a facility that does provide them.
You state that you know of no one who wants unrestricted access to abortion. I don’t know of an individual–I know of a group–the very group you speak so highly of in your article. I’ll let them speak for themselves:
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/positions/federal-state-bans-restrictions-abortion-644.htm
TheIdiot
April 27, 2011 at 12:24 am
A child is not merely an inconvenience, and to say so is a discredit to parents everywhere. It takes a great amount of money, time, patience, and responsibility to raise a child. There is no unrestricted abortion in this country, why are you even attempting to argue otherwise?
Oh, and fetuses aren’t human until they can survive out of the womb.
Adam
April 27, 2011 at 8:32 am
Many states have severely restricted abortion and just this year 916 new measures have been introduced. States like Nebraska have more or less banned all abortion.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/2011/statetrends12011.html
Roe v. Wade is technically still the law of the land, but it is not followed in practice.
Courtney
April 27, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Abortion is all-but-illegal in many states, despite Supreme Court decisions:
http://www.slate.com/id/2291596/
ohtheirony
April 27, 2011 at 10:32 pm
I find it hilarious that there has been at least three articles written by leftists addressing abortion in the Daily within the last few days. . . and yet this article proclaims that it is the right that focuses too much attention on the abortion issue.
America #1
April 28, 2011 at 6:31 pm
I am so darn sick of these liberal college students tryin’ to work against this country.
Courtney
April 28, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Eaglefreak, I am not a professional “journalist.” I wrote a guest *editorial*. While they should of course be well-researched and well-reasoned if you hope to convince someone of your argument, they are not like the other articles published in the NT Daily. It’s not reporting, it’s opinion. There is no ethical code. Anyone can write in. That is the purpose of having guest columns. Do you understand how it works?
John, you can think whatever you want. I could care less what you think is tacky or that you believe that you don’t like arguments more complex than 500 words. You’re the only one who thinks it is at all relevant. I love how you want me to take the “high road,” admitting you’re down in the mud.
Michelle
April 28, 2011 at 11:57 pm
What is an abortion?
Adam
April 29, 2011 at 1:39 am
EagleFreak, who put you in charge of determining “civility?” Courtney has made plenty of well-reasoned, intelligent arguments in support of her position and it is disengenuous to claim otherwise. But when someone is repeatedly pointing out their personal pet peeve with someone commenting on their own articles (which, I too, find pretty silly), what else is their to say? Don’t act like you are somehow superior when both you and John stopped arguing about the issues and started harping on superficial things. You can’t lower the conversation and then indignantly jump on the person you intentionally dragged down to that level.
EagleFreak
April 27, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Those who seek out an abortion because they do not want the child, have lowered the unborn child to the level of an inconvenience. Why else would they seek to terminate the pregnancy and kill the unborn child?
Fetuses are human. To argue likewise demonstrates a lack of a true understanding of life and in my opinion, a disregard for anyone that can not provide for themselves. Life has stages, and the first stage is conception through birth.
You confuse obstacles and hurdles to restrictions. There may be plenty of laws that make an abortion more difficult to obtain, however abortions are readily available in all 50 states for those who wish to have one.
EagleFreak
April 27, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Have you read theeither Roe V. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions? They both provide room for limitations on access to abortion.
Adam
April 27, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Yes, I am familiar with both decisions. But many of these limitations do not comply with either.
Adam
April 27, 2011 at 3:12 pm
“There may be plenty of laws that make an abortion more difficult to obtain, however abortions are readily available in all 50 states for those who wish to have one.”
This is contradictory. Abortion is indeed difficult to obtain and thus it is *not* “readily available” in many states.
And I’m still waiting on your answers to my questions above. I have never ignored the question of human life and wrote extensively about it. Please see my previous comments.
Courtney
April 28, 2011 at 7:06 am
Stupid comment. First of all, the title of the article is from the Daily editors. Secondly, Republicans are focusing on abortion LEGISLATION, not just writing articles.
John
April 28, 2011 at 9:31 am
Actually, it’s Courtney (or “lewisvillefunnygirl” 8P LOLZ xoxoxoxox) that is seemingly “focused too much on abortion” as she has written the bulk of these articles.
She also loves commenting on her own articles. But I will hand it to you Courtney, you’ve figured out that talking about abortion garners what you’ve been craving–attention.
John
April 28, 2011 at 9:38 am
“I don’t know anyone who doesn’t favor any restrictions.”
Because you’re acknowledging that a line SHOULD be drawn somewhere, the question then becomes where? And why?
As you stated, Courtney, even you believe that at some point, it become inhumane to destroy human life. But how do you decide? Heartbeat? Brain activity? Viability outside of the womb?
In each stage, there is still a life in development.
Courtney
April 28, 2011 at 11:47 am
John, what is wrong with commenting on my own articles? This is ridiculous line of attack (couple with your immaturity about an email address erroneously published by the Daily). Articles are limited to 500 words, so there’s usually plenty more to say. I’m just supposed to let people endlessly comment without response? Why are you trying to silence me?
Yes, I crave attention because I’ve written two articles. Does your idiocy know any bounds?
Adam
April 28, 2011 at 11:50 am
John, this has already been discussed. These conversations are going in circles. The conservatives on here just seem to be ignoring whatever arguments and facts are presented, and re-posting the same response (PLANNED PARENTHOOD KILLS BABIES WITH MY TAX MONEY!!) no matter how wrong.
John
April 28, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Adam, I am little concerned with PP, and more concerned with the preservation of life. I believe that PP uses only 3% of their funding towards abortion, but even 1% is too much.
John
April 28, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Courtney, as Provocateur in Chief, even you must know that opining about abortion leaves you subject to responses from readers with varying degrees of civility.
Nobody is trying to silence you. In fact, I was hoping for a “thank you” for giving you this amount of free publicity. By responding to your banter, we kept your article from slipping into the obscure dark corners of the internet. We gave your article life, much more than you, or its content probably deserve.
And finally, I just think that commenting on your own articles is tacky. Take the high road. If 500 words isn’t enough, you probably don’t understand your position well enough to clearly and succinctly articulate what you believe.
EagleFreak
April 28, 2011 at 8:37 pm
Courtney…attacking people personally and lowering yourself to the level where you employ name-calling gestures shows a lack of professionalism and overall destroys your credibility as a journalist. To express one’s opinion in an editorial piece that is well researched and thought out is acceptable, your comments go beyond that scope. It is entirely acceptable for a journalist or editor to write a piece in reaction to the reactions their article receives. I see it happen from time to time in most any major publication; however when they do so, they either attempt to clarify their position or provide more facts than originally given. A journalist should expect personal attacks when they write a editorial piece, but they should not use the same method to refute their opponent. Such statements display a lack of reason, ethics, and professionalism, which causes one to not take you seriously.
EagleFreak
April 28, 2011 at 8:21 pm
You ignore the question of human life when you say that this issue is “complicated”. That’s a chop out for those who believe in abortion but want to appear to be sensitive to the “needs” of others and want to avoid angering others.
I have read your comments. You acknowledge that an unborn child is a stage of human development, but see it as having no rights until it is viable. That is once again a chop out for those who want to appear sensitive to others. Life has stages and even when the unborn child can not survive outside the womb, it is life–plain and simple, you seem to believe there is a “middle ground.” If you truly belief that life is sacred and has meaning at any level, there can be no middle ground. There can be no exceptions where convenience become the most important factor.
The most absurd comment you make is that abortion is a form of birth control: “It’s called Planned Parenthood because it allows people to plan parenthood, be it now or in the future through contraception or abortion, obviously.” You contradict yourself at every level with this comment. Abortion goes beyond simple birth control and family planning, it is destruction of life. You can not have it both ways on this issue.
John
April 28, 2011 at 10:23 pm
This is just a minor thing, it’s really just a pet peeve of mine but, I think what you meant to say was that you COULDN’T care less…because if you could care less, you probably would.
EagleFreak
April 28, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Professional journalist or not, you have still resorted to low blow name calling and personal attacks upon those who have responded to you. Such tactics destroy your credibility and displays a lack of reasoning and civility on your part. Telling people their comments are “stupid” and that their comments are displays of “idiocy” does not make you look very intelligent and makes you appear as though you are insecure in your position. If you can’t handle the heat, stay away from the fire!