Redstate

#5 is no different from what she did except someone else facilitates it in a different facility. Besides, there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion. And there should never be "access" to it.

I still think terminating the pregnancy in the 1st trimester would be preferable to this tragedy. However, I would prefer that the girl and the father had never gotten themselves in this situation in the first place.

No argument from me on your second point.

Just a typical, small town, British-American girl...

I certainly understand and appreciate the "life begins at conception" argument. However, I do see this situation as several magnitudes worse than an early term abortion.

I do see this situation as several magnitudes worse than an early term abortion

Your ability to do this makes you no less a moral relativist than the liberals you decry in your article.

Be not afraid

Because the question of abortion comes down to the question of when life begins. Ending a life for no better reason than because you want to is a terrible thing.
Preventing a "potential life" from becoming a life is not so much.

It all depends on where you fall on the spectrum. I have and always will oppose any abortion beyond 5 months, regardless of health or other concerns. You having a living human who, thanks to the wonders of modern technology, can not only be born alive (possible w/o the tech), but can survive more than a few moments after birth (not possible w/o the tech).
At 3 months, no. Not so much.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

If you consider that, as a vegetarian, I will not eat even unfertilized chicken eggs, I think you know what I think about a "five months" line in the sand. Abortion is either murder, or it's not. It doesn't matter WHEN. What this country needs is not "5. Access to safe and inexpensive abortion as an option." What we need is a guilt-free, shame-free celebration of a new life coming into the world along with easier adoption procedures favoring infertile heterosexual couples. It should not cost tens of thousands of dollars to adopt a child. If government should fund anything, it should be the legal fees associated with pairing an unwanted child with a family that can't have any of their own. OR a requirement that the ambulance-chasers do a certain amount of adoption work pro bono. And, yes, I would accept this amount of socialism if it meant saving the lives of ALL these poor innocents.

Be not afraid

adoption saves lives. I'm adopted from a teen pregnancy and consider it my civic duty to adopt a child some day, even if my wife and I can have children of our own

There is no question when life begins. That is a scientific fact that has been known for over a century and is no more debatable than whether the sun is a star. It is not a matter belief and is not personal. The condition of dependency is totally irrelevant to whether one is alive. Such a basis is an invalid reason to support abortion.

With respect for your right to hold whatever beliefs you cherish, please review the difference between the terms "opinion" and "fact". They are not interchangeable, regardless of the strength of your convictions in the matter at hand.

I think it's helpful here to define the ambiguous term "life". Much of the difficulty in communicating on this subject comes from the fact that people mean different things when they talk about when "life" begins. It is indeed true that life, in the sense of something being a living organism, begins at conception. This is the same sense we use when saying that we're looking for "life" on Mars by searching for microbes or other living things.

But that's not what we're talking about when we discuss when life begins in the context of abortion. At least, that's not what /I'm/ talking about, because I don't have any special regard for living organisms in my body (such as stomach bacteria or cancer) simply because they're alive, and most murder laws refer specifically to the killing of a human being or a person. What both the law and I are concerned with here is /personhood/--when something stops being a collection of living organic matter and becomes a human being, a person with legal rights that must be protected.

And on that point, there is not and indeed cannot (with current technology) be a definitive scientific answer. We can measure a fetus' growth and the development of physical traits, but the question of personhood is a legal and philosophical matter, the lines drawn inherently arbitrary.

If you doubt this, consider: if the threshold of personhood was an inarguable scientific fact as you claim, there would be no debate over whether or not abortion was legally considered the killing of a human being, and the law on this would be settled. The only matter up for debate would be under what /emergency/ circumstances it was permissible.

Human defines a species. As soon as life begins, it is completely human. Again, that is basic science.

I believe this "personhood" crap was cooked up in order to devalue human life, which is what the debate is REALLY about. At one time it was justified for blacks.

No one should EVER be able to use his or her personal beliefs to decide which humans have value or deserve to live and which ones don't.

So whether one wants to admit it or not, this is about the value of actual human life.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Yet another word with no accepted definition. This also poses a lot of problems with evolution theory.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

I'm trying to think of successful interbreeding of truly distinct species but I really can't recall any. "Sub-species" is definitely an abused term because, while some species are incredibly diverse, such as canus lupus, there is that genetic compatibility. It's why I always had a problem with the "Star Trek" idea of certain interbred characters (but I'm not talking about Spock).

I don't know the whole truth of the "beefalo" but one of my uncles, a livestock professional, was always skeptical because buffalo are closer to antelopes than the bovine family.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

If you can't figure that out, you need to go back to elementary school. The point I'm making is that the unborn are homo sapiens (humans). They are whole distinct living humans, and that you choose to devalue them does not make them less so. You can't go tweaking words around for convenience.

What an interesting concept "...the threshold of personhood...".

You could extend that argument to the critically ill. After all, what kind of quality of life can you have if you're throwing up because of chemo or radiation. Not to mention the monitary cost of keeping someone marginally alive.

Oh, and then there are those pesky retards. You know, those funny looking mongoliods and those people who need 24/7 care because their brain doesn't work in a way that allows them to care for themselves.

How about some minorities? Lately, it seems that even some prominent black folk (Rev Wright for one) are noting that blacks don't process information the same way whites do. Does that make them less "persons"? Margaret Sanger probably thought so.

It's an interesting argument, that personhood thing. Adolph Hitler honed it to a pretty fine tune.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Let me know if you need any help cleaning up all that straw. Because when you're done, I'd take it as a kindness if you'd try to read the words I wrote instead of using your imagination.

It is just as necessary to have a legal definition of "person" as it is to have one for "marriage", or "murder", or "shall not be abridged". It defines a category of things which have certain legal rights and status, and these definitions are necessary in order for the law to function at all. The simple fact is that somewhere in between the moment the egg and sperm meet and the time a baby emerges into the world, living biological tissue with no legal status becomes a person in the eyes of the law. This debate isn't about deciding that these people over here are less human than those people over there, or any ludicrous reduction to absurdity like that. It's about defining, in order for our legal system to work and reflect our best understanding of scientific fact, the point at which that undifferentiated collection of living cells becomes a separate legal entity.

You can blithely toss around as many eugenics references as you like, if it makes you feel better. It won't make them any more worth taking seriously than they presently are, which is to say: not at all. It's the frivolous, unserious argument of someone who has no facts on their side and is forced to resort to waving around Hitler and Sanger--as if doing so had any meaning other than to demonstrate your lack of understanding of why any competent system of law needs to define the parameters of what constitutes a person, including at what point that person comes into existence.

No, the points are both very serious and perfectly valid. "Person" is not quite as powerful a legal term as you make it out to be. Several laws modify the defintion of "person" for the purposes of the particular law itself, so it is not necessary to define for any law to exist.

No one has said the US Constitution currently protects the life of the unborn, and what it currently protects is not the point being argued. Moreover, by resorting to the current law, you could make the same legal argument about slaves before the Constitution was amended.

Regardless, laws throughout history and today have taught us that you do not need to count the unborn as legal "persons" to prohibit abortion. Whether a legal "person" or not, it's enough to recognize the purpose of the medical profession and the right and OBLIGATION of states to control that profession and to keep it in line with its purpose.

Can be guaranteed to avoid getting into this situation. Not one.
Here's an idea: Teach abstinence. It works. It's guaranteed.
Here's another, provide education on what a pregnant mother needs to do to ensure a healthy child. Didn't there used to be classes like that?

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Unfortunately, we know that abstinence education does not equal abstinent kids. That's why I favor the comprehensive approach. We need to provide as much information as possible. And, yes, prenatal care and education as well as post partum care and education are essential. Kids need to know the consequences and options pre-sex and post-pregnancy.

My bad.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

is better than drowning a toddler which is preferable to gunning down a ten year old. But they are all wrong and morally no different from one another.

6. There's a sixth: A safe haven law, which allows a mother to drop off a baby at a police station and other locations -- no questions, no judgment, no crime, no pressure, no lecture. Just take the baby. Here's a description of Indiana's law: http://www.dunebrook.org/haven/index.html.

And, yes, though I'd like never to see another abortion & think Roe wrong decided, I agree that 5 should remain on the table.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

It's worked wonderfully since the State has spent some money and time publicizing it. There is no reason for this kind of thing to have to happen. This poor girl will not be prosecuted for a crime and of course bear the burden of having committed this horrible crime on her own son.

You said, "This poor girl will not be prosecuted..."

Did you mean "This poor girl would not be prosecuted"?

That would seem to support the context of your argument.

Proudly supporting John S. McCain for President (McCain/Romney?)

a safe haven law and it worked remarkably well.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

a safe haven law and it worked remarkably well.

Indiana's safe haven law has saved at least six children (http://www.theindychannel.com/news/16710426/detail.html). Since perfect isn't on the table, let's work together towards better. Perhaps we can start by better publicizing the law.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

there is no evidence that the Indiana law "saved" anyone. The fact that six children have been given up through the program over 8 years seems to me to be a resounding public policy failure unless feel-goodism now constitutes success.

In light of the fact that there are over 11,000 abortions in Indiana each year, touting this law as anything but a salve to the collective pro-choice conscience, such as exists, seems more than a little disingenuous.

The point, which either escaped you in the midst of your high dudgeon or is simply, to coin a phrase, an inconvenient truth is that in your post you say:

6. There's a sixth: A safe haven law, which allows a mother to drop off a baby at a police station and other locations -- no questions, no judgment, no crime, no pressure, no lecture.

Texas has such a law. The story takes place in Texas. So it would seem that safe haven laws do absolutely nothing to prevent a young, pregnant girl from dropping her baby head first into a toilet.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

You said what I was going to say.

There is no evidence that kids dropped off at hospitals or fire stations would have been murdered.

But it is good that these programs exist because it gives a less-awful option for mothers who won't or can't raise a child.

Proudly supporting John S. McCain for President (McCain/Romney?)

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Isn't that the whole idea?
-- Can't Feed 'em? Don't Breed 'em! --

I understand the sentiment that gave rise to your suggestions of better sex-ed, more birth control readily available, and more and safer(?) abortions, but I must say that all those suggestions fundamentally miss the point. The failure around this girl that enabled her failure in the moment was not one of anything mechanistic or fleshy. The failure was in the people around her who should have prevented her from getting into a situation and relationship that would result in her becoming pregnant. The failure was in her not knowing of her own dignity and worth and the value of her own and another person's life and integrity. The failure was in those who should have, but didn't, help her know that they love her and would love her no matter what happened. The failure was with those who should have provided her with information about how to live a life and respect others' lives rather than merely how to indulge her appetites.

It was not a failure of the contraception-abortion culture to adequately inform and equip her to indulge her own and her man's appetites without consequences; it was a failure of dignity and love on the part of those who had the sacred charge to help her know those vital building blocks of a healthy life.

Extending contraception and abortion as you suggest make this sort of tragedy more, not less, likely, as those measures would signal that such risky behavior is perfectly acceptable because society will assist in getting rid of the messy consequence. More contraception, sex-ed, and abortions will not solve the problem of the girl's heart being wounded and her sense of dignity non-existent, rather they will project to her, "Go ahead, engage in love-less sex if you like."

The problem was with her heart, not the apparatus around her.

This failure lies squarely at the feet of the champions of modern liberalism because the failure comes only when the intrinsic dignity of the person -- any person, no matter how small or sickly -- is compromised and denied. This compromise and denial lies at the diseased relativist heart of modern liberalism.

And the Democrats nominated an apt standard bearer.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

by the modern liberalism crowd to recognize that this girl needs further help, and not just because she killed her baby. You don't have to be a sociologist to see that this girl is a prime candidate for suicide. Whoever failed her and how they failed her are secondary issues now. Restoring her own dignity and moral compass are paramount if we want to save her from the precipice.

I would rather not have the crowd that are the enablers of contraception and abortion guiding her now.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

All of these suggestions are merely an indication of what lengths liberals are willing to go to to avoid responsibility and blame for their own actions.

1. Education - What this really means is 'propaganda'. We had education in place - it was called parenting back in the day. Of course, due to the judgmental attitudes of liberals, they can't condone parental influence over their own kids, now, can they? They have to replace that influence with group training.

2. Better communication between child and parent - Astoundingly ridiculous - first they seek to usurp the parental responsibility and training, then turn around and try to improve it after having damaged it in the first place. What a crock ! Better to have left the sex training at home in the hands of parents in the first place, and insisted that parents keep the responsibility, it doesn't belong in the public schools.

3. Access to better birth control - Ah - my favorite. Make something that was free, a boon to condom producers everywhere, the teen market. Abstinence was free and had the added advantage of teaching teens self-discipline and responsibility.

4. More robust adoption programs - another way to miss the point entirely. If an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure - this is a ton of cure and no prevention because social problems under the (watchful - NOT) care of liberal ideologues only grow worse and worse.

5. Access to safe and inexpensive abortion as an option -
I wish I had a nickel for all the abortions in this country - after all, in the liberal mindset, humans are only meat and can be discarded like yesterdays unused hamburger.

Birth control failure rates.

1) the pill 5% failure per year

(yes I know the "studies" say 99.8% effective, but that is in ideal study settings, same time every day, no skipping, missing, travel, throwing up pills, or drug interations)

In the community according to the resources we look at in Med school the failure rate is 5%. So if onset of sex is 17 and average marriage age is 27 then !!!!50% of girls who rely solely on the pill for birth control will get pregnant out of wedlock!!!!

2) Let's try this again with condoms. Condoms have a 20% per year failure rate in the community (possibly due to improper use and intermitant use) so if a girl relies just on condoms for contriception for the ten years between first sex encounter and marriage she will get pregnant an average of two times before marriage!!

3) Many teens are good about using condoms initially, so it's not like we are not getting the message out. 70% of high school Juniors who are sexually active report condom use, however this number drops as couples are togather for longer periods of time, so that by Senior year this number has already fallen to the low 60's.

4) a controversial study done by a Christian orginization suggests that while divorce rated within the church are no different than rates outside the church, divorce rates are less in couples who did not live togather before marriage and even less in couples who abstained. (sorry, I don't have the link-I read this article during pre-marital counciling)

Don't know about a Christian group's controversial study, but here's a CDC study...

Among the findings in the report: unmarried cohabitations overall are less stable than marriages. The probability of a first marriage ending in separation or divorce within 5 years is 20 percent, but the probability of a premarital cohabitation breaking up within 5 years is 49 percent. After 10 years, the probability of a first marriage ending is 33 percent, compared with 62 percent for cohabitations.

But I've also seen higher rates in places I cannot currently source.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

Your list on the whole is why this 'child' is where she is right now. Birth control for a 14 year old is ridiculous - - she should have been taught by our society and her parents that sex was meant for emotionally committed adults, not kids.

Access to safe and inexpensive abortion is exactly what made this young girl believe that the child she just gave birth to and held in her arms didn't matter. He did matter, of course, long before she gave birth to him in a restroom.

What amazes me is how we have lead our children down this road of 'me first' because I'm a woman and continue down that road without any thought to what we have become. I held my Granddaughter for the first time recently. She was 4 week early and I couldn't help but wonder as I looked into that wonderful, beautiful face, how anyone could even entertain the idea that she didn't count.

We must teach our children what is right and wrong. This was horribly wrong and an abortion would have only made it something she could try to forget. She'll never forget this...nor will I.

Fisk, I agree that in a perfect world and even in this imperfect one, your approach is the ideal. That's the approach I'm taking with my own children. I try to teach them lessons that embues them with self respect, respect for their fellow man and a healthy respect for the institution of marriage and of family. However, I will also teach them about birth control and arm them with as much information to make the best decisions possible. My hope is that they wait to have sex until they are married, but the likelihood is that despite my fondest wishes, they will be sexually active before they get married. I am not about to keep them ignorant about how to protect themselves just because I want to cling to the "ideal".

So, you are right that birth control for a 14 year old is ridiculous. The only thing more ridiculous and tragic is a 14 year old giving birth to a baby and then flushing it down the toilet.

So we are supposed to give teens BC because "they are going to do it anyway-so we might as well protest them?" this is the kind of logic that resulted in gun control, prohibition, outlawing of fireworks and will likely result in driverless cars, government restriction of fat and salt content of foods etc....because we just can't be expected to be responsible can we???

The truth is you get more of what you allow. Sure there will always be some unfortunate individuals who will make mistakes, however if we teach responsibility rather than avoidance of consequences these numbers will decrease. Birth control education is like bandaging a septic wound, the problem is covered up, but will continue to grow as our society rots. What we need instead is the antibiotic of abstinance and personal responsibility and delayed gratification.

First, blockhead, Baytown Texas is an eastern suburb of Houston Texas, one of the two liberal epicenters in what is otherwise a nice and conservative state. (The other one being Austin, though Dallas is an upcoming third)

So it appears that YOU are doing the assuming by thinking "Oh, it is in Texas, it is all those Redstater's fault!"

Second, you have no clue what she was taught in sex ed, but you're apparently having no problems blaming this all on conservatives and uptight parents.

You don't like the results of liberalism in the schools, welcome to the club. You want to try and cloud everything by pointing fingers are conservatives, turn a stool upside down, sit and spin.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

on "Liberalism" is ok but making baseless claims that blames it on "Conservatives" is worthy of self inflicted sodomy? Maybe you don't know any Liberals in the obviously pure circles you run in, but I know plenty of them. I don't know one who wouldn't think this was a horrible senseless tragedy. None of us here know the circumstances of this situation. The girl's parents could be commies, fascists, liberals or conservatives. She could have been in the church choir or a memeber of junior atheists for America. Trying to score political points on this is silly and pointless.

But then, I also have been arguing with schools, school administrators, teachers, and school boards all throughout my education. I happen to know more of them and more about those that I know than is in any way comfortable.
Many are nice people. A few are even smart and/or wise on top of that. But more just don't care so long as they have their jobs. It is only a real handful that actually work toward a specific agenda, on either side.

Most are simply incapable of hiding their biases and teach what they feel rather than anything even similar to the truth.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

90%+ of Americans all want the same thing. We share most of the same values. We just have different approaches to how best to accomplish the American Dream.

That I should have included the specific line I was responding to:
"I don't know one who wouldn't think this was a horrible senseless tragedy."

As I said. I know a few. All of them in the education system (but I'm not as deep into politics as I have been in the ed system, so I'm sure I'll meet some more as I get farther).

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

70% maybe. 90% would be closer to the number of folks who want someone else to solve their problems.

Which is why we stick with what we DO know: The Sex Ed programs, as instituted by the Public Schools, are failing our children and having the OPPOSITE effect as was originally promised.

These programs are put in place by the Education System, which is squarely under the control of the liberal side of the equation, between the NEA's left wing spin and that of the folks pushing such sex ed programs.

I have family that lived in Baytown. (I say lived because they died a bit over a year ago) I also have family that works in the Houston area as a teacher. Don't tell me what I do or do not know.

This type of event is EXACTLY what those opposed to the current form of Sex Ed predicted would happen and, now that it is happening, you see fit to sit there and try to fill everything with smoke and mirrors.

This IS what happens when you teach children that there is no consequences for their actions, teach them that it's ok to have sex whenever you want because it is fun, and teach them that their prudish parents "wouldn't understand".

I'll go a step further. This case will be used as an example of why girls of any age need to have 'free and easy access' to abortions without parental consent.

This IS the result of the left's constant chipping away at the traditional nuclear family and christian moral values. This girl committed a horrible act and, despite any punishment from the Justice Department, will have a much more horrible punishment on her heart and mind for the rest of her life.

For her action, she needs to be punished. For her situation, blame goes DIRECTLY to those who have been doing the educating: The Left.

Now, if you want to sit here and defend the Left, go for it. But then, I guess I'm just a rabid-right winger to you anyway.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

You don't know this girl's situation. You don't know what she learned or didn't learn. In my school district, the sex education is comprehensive and talks about consequences including pregnancy and VD. Parent, however, can opt out and some do. You don't know if this girl ever even went through any of sex ed course.

I'm not defending "Liberals". I'm defending Americans. I'm defending human beings. In your little fantasy hate world, half the country is anti-family, anti-American, anti-values. Sorry. That's a good story to whip up votes among the "base" but it's just bull crap. I always wonder how those who so vociferously lament our crumbling moral culture happened to make it through life unscathed? Obviously, only the very righteous like yourself, can withstand the evil pull of the anti-Christian forces. Oh, and somehow I made it through too. And so have most people. There are some very bad things that our part of our culture but most Americans get by just fine. Most of us also fail at time but don't throw our hands up and blame the culture or the "evil Left".

I drank in high school, had a couple of cigarettes and even had a little pre-marital sex. Since no one ever sinned in that manner before the "Left" came to power in the 60's, 40's or whenever, it must be the Lefties' fault. I guess I'm just not a American or as Christian or as Republican as you because I'm sure you've never done anything like that.

I'll try to spell it out this way:

No one is saying those who call themselves "liberal" have the market cornered on evil. Lord knows (literally) that I'm no saint. But I will assert that the kind of thinking that I am calling "modern liberalism" is the kind of thinking that led me to do those things of which I am not proud. I'll say that again, bold and italicized: I have acted according to the sort of thinking that I argue is the underlying philosophy of modern liberalism!

The differences are I managed not to do something quite as bad this girl did, and I matured before anything worse could happen in an atmosphere that assisted me in learning the value of life and love and my own personal integrity. This girl may well have had an apparatus that would have taught her those things also, but she had the misfortune of being "bitten" by awful circumstances and her own poor decisions before coming to that point where she was fully her own woman.

The point is not that only non-Christian heathen Democrats are evil or even capable of evil, the point is that the philosophy which underlies modern liberalism (which all of us can access and do at times) leads to tragedies like this.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

If your point is that the most extreme forms of social liberalism are potentially directly in line with the circumstances here, then I think you are correct. Like all forms of extremism or fundamentalism, extreme social liberalism which is actually a form of anarchy and nihilism would support an environment that could lead to this type of situation. My point is that we simply don't know the circumstances in this case. For all we know this girl could have mental problems. She could be from a broken home or have abusive parents. Or she could just be a bad person. It's hard to believe, but by 14, some kids are just beyond repair.

So, if you want to argue that we need to champion responsibility and community and family, I'm with you. If you want to state that anarchy and nihilism in the form of extreme social liberalism creates a toxic environment where this kind of thing may be more likely to happen, I would grant that you have a strong argument. If, however, you want to say that the Democrats or Liberals are directly to blame for this tragedy, I must object.

You are absolutely correct that I do not know the exact situation of this particular girl. My commentary is based on a number of assumptions -- not unfair assumptions, I would argue -- grounded in the circumstances of the case, a familiarity with modern pop culture and its ubiquitous messages, a familiarity with adolescents involuntarily immersed in that pop culture, and a familiarity with the modern education system, especially on sex-ed.

If the girls has mental problems then that certainly would mitigate much of my commentary as applied here, but not in general as other examples of this sort of thing are woefully too common. If she is from a broken home or "beyond repair" then my argument holds because either would represent the failure by those who should be her guardians as I laid out in this comment.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

I fully expect that liberals would be aghast at her actions. Anyone who is not aghast should be monitored. But a lack of intellectual curiosity, a dearth of rigorous discursive argumentation, and an inability to see the forest for the trees are hallmarks of modern liberalism -- it's all casuistry; nary an objective principle to stick to. (An aside: this is why modern liberal talk radio fails -- it cannot sustain an intelligent discussion before devolving into invective and ad hominem) Liberals would rightly be horrified by this girl's actions, precisely because she crossed one of those lines which I mentioned in the post. She crossed a line which "everyone knows" should not be crossed, but liberals struggle to give a good reason for that line's existence -- and those who do give a rationale for the lines that shouldn't be crossed are hard-pressed to agree on the rationale. The only thing they agree on is the RIGHT each person has to be free of trouble -- even from the trouble one brings upon oneself (up to a point -- hence the "lines").

I trust I've made it even more obscure...

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

You missed the larger point of the post and some of the, yes, assumptions I made -- not unfair assumptions, either. I'm not inclined to spell out each one just because you've reacted with shallow disgust, ad hominem, and inaccurate flailing. If you take issue with some part of my argument in particular I'd entertain your objection, but until you show you understand what I've actually laid out please keep your knee-jerk disgust to yourself. Please read it again, slowly, and consider that there's something deeper you're missing.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

10 minutes and head position are about the only differences as far as I can tell.

Of course, others will try to fuzzy the issue with legalese and court rulings.... but, to support their position, one would have to.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Sorry, but i muddle the distinction with my jewish relgious heritage and the laws of the talmud - if that's not good enough for you to provide evidence that there is legitimate moral disagreement on the precise relation between fetus and human then I am sorry.

Science has already determined that the unborn are fully human. That is a biological FACT. They are a unique living member of the human species from fertilization on. The law cannot use religious defintions in its laws, especially on something this important.

Anyone with any common sense who says an unborn child is not fully human needs to go back and look at basic high school biology. Such a religious teaching contradicts actual scientific observation.

regarding an abortion provider (i cannot use the word "doctor" for these people). The provider was Jewish. The main CSI guy explained to his partner, who was trying to deal with this aborter, that Jews believe that "life is in the blood." And that the baby has its blood formed very early (i would have to guess less than 6 weeks). So abortion after this time would be against Jewish beliefs that life is in the blood.

-- "Planned Parenthood" -- the biggest misnomer known to man.
-- Can't Feed 'em? Don't Breed 'em! --

I hope your understanding of Judaism isn't derived fom CSI - in any case the tv writer here didn't get it right itis very clear in Jewish law from the Talmud that the fetus is not moral equivalent to a human until birth.

So the thesis that "the life is in the blood" is not quite correct? Do you disagree with the theory, or its application in this situation?

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Can't Feed 'em? Don't Breed 'em! --

The notion that jews believe 'life is in the blood' is incorrect. It is, most likely, derived from a non-traditionaly Jewish reading of Leviticus 17 (which, among other things, prohibits eating the blood from animals) which I beleive is also the basis of jehovah's whitnesses' avoidace of blood transfusions.

Bottom line, the writers didn't check with any rabbinic or academic when writing that line.

You seem to like saying that the beginning of life is already determined by science. What's your source?

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

It's a matter of definitions, and in any reasonable definition used in science, a developing, unborn person is still definitely a form of human life, but merely in an early developmental stage.

There are magic turning points in human development where radical changes happen, the first being conception itself. Coming out of the birth canal is not one of them, so I really don't see any rational definition that would put life beginning right at that moment.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

took me a few looks, but then it came to me like those computer-generated 3-D images you have to cross your eyes to see...

"It's not a schooner, you ------; it's a sailboat."

"A schooner is a sailboat."

"YOU KNOW WHAT, KID? THERE IS NO EASTER BUNNY!"

okay, I'm done.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

You can check any high school biology textbook or other basic biology reference to see the criteria for life. Anything that is made of cells, takes in nutrients, grows, and exchanges gases is alive. Such criteria are necessary for the science of biology to exist!

Anyway, it has been known since the early 1800's, when fertilization was observed, all those criteria are met then. That is one of the main reasons abortion had been prohibited in most of the world around that time.

It's very basic science, and it would seem anyone with any common sense (and especially anyone with a high school education) could make that determination by observation.

Our moral worth is not derived fom our biological state - I'm sorry if you can't accept that different religions view the question of when humaness begins differently than yours but there is no scientific fact that declares when killing life is morally wrong- and there never could be.

As I said earlier, "human" is still a biological term, and the unborn are completely human. However, as I also stated, personal beliefs and religion should have no place in determining the value of human life recognized under the law. That same argument promoted slavery and racism, and it does not support legalizing the killing of the unborn.

Religion, philosophy, personal belief - that is the only source which can give value to human life. Biology provides no more a basis for valuing human life over a cow.

That is all we have, it has changed over time to be sure (and that is what makes the questin of the death penalty so compelling) but it is still rooted in religion and personal belief.

Funny how it was also religious, philosophical, and personal beliefs used to support slavery and segregation for so long. They were ones Margaret Sanger held dear. A society that protects human life cannot justifiably discriminate on the basis of appearance, physical location, or condition of dependency, and it certainly cannot do so on the basis of convenience. That holds even more true for the medical profession as evidenced by the main reason abortion had been made illegal in the first place.

It's sad the law sometimes does value cows more. At least they have to be killed in a humane manner. And of course, many people are starting to value certain animal life. Spain is about to grant legal protection to apes. We heard recently Switzerland wants to protect flowers. It appears to be a growing movement in Europe.

And those followers of biology have never found a scientific basis for inhumane experiments, murder and sterilization...

Yeah, humans are imperfect, have an imperfect recod when it comes to morality and there will be future generations that look back on our acts as unenlightened, immoral decision that are unthinkable.

A society that protects human life does discrimnate on many basis and always will (death penalty, war, self defense are all compromises on absolute protection). You can assert all you want that the fetus must be protected as much as born humans but that doesn't make it a 'fact'. From my perspective, a fetus is not the equivalent of a born human, that doeans't mean it has no value and should be indiscrimnately killed, but it does mean that there are occasions when it is perfectly legitimate (and I would argue some where it is mandatory - when the life of the mother is truly at risk).

Why do we care what the teachers noticed? It's not their job to babysit her.

Where were her parents? Did they not notice? If not, why not?

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Do a word search for that phrase on this post's comments page and read the comment in which that phrase is found. Then re-read my post.

Then get back to me if you still don't get it.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

Are you at all familiar with this country's laws on child support? Do you know how they are enforced?

Considering her age, how about statutory rape charges?
Hell, regardless of age, have you any knowledge of how rape laws are enforced in this country?

A tiny, very minute, amount of effort by the girl or her parent can easily ruin the father's life. All of the rest of his life. There will be no counseling for him. No respite from financial responsibility. No freedom. No privacy. For the rest of his entire life.
Even at this late date, they could press home the charges and lawsuits.

So don't ever claim the man gets away scot free. He Never does if the girl or her parents decide to have a say in it. Ever.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

You act so afraid of it that you won't even call it by its name. And why only 'first trimester?'

What happens on that arbitrary date that turns it from a 'choice' into a crime?

HTML Help for Red Staters

If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy,for whatever reason (rape/incest/underage/one night stand/coercion...whatever)and makes the choice to have an abortion, she should do it as soon as she is aware of the pregnancy. I only support abortion to the extent that the woman makes that choice as soon as she finds out she is pregnant or shortly thereafter. A woman should know if she is pregnant in the first trimester. That is why this fourteen year old's case is tragic. Why wait until the baby is born and then kill it? What was the justification for waiting?

And no, I have no qualms about calling it abortion. But it is a choice. They are all choices. Pro-life women are pro-choice. They just choose to have the babies.

If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy and for whatever reason (rape/incest/underage/one night stand/coercion), makes the decision to have an abortion, she should do it as soon as she is aware of the pregnancy. I only support abortion to the extent that the woman makes that choice as soon as she finds out she is pregnant or shortly thereafter. A woman should know if she is pregnant in the first trimester. That is why this fourteen year old's case is tragic. Why wait until the baby is born and then kill it? What was the justification for waiting?

And no, I have no qualms about calling it abortion. But it is a choice. They are all choices. Pro-life women are pro-choice. They just choose to have the babies.

A woman should know if she is pregnant in the first trimester.

But this wasn't a woman, was it? It was a 14-year old GIRL.

For all we know, she was blissfully ignorant until birth.

Which, to my mind, is a signficant fault of whoever is supposedly raising her. A woman should know. A girl should have parents/caregivers who know.

--------------------------------------
GOP McCain for President, 2008

That contradicts the data showing that over 70 percent of abortions done after 16 weeks were delayed as a result of women not knowing they were pregnant. I've heard of a few women who did not know until birth.

While it is true that in rare cases a woman may still have her period as normal through the 1st trimester, it ceases completely by the 5th month. And then there's morning sickness and increased appetite and weight gain. It may not be much weight gain, but it's still there. Then you've got movement of the baby by the 6th month (often earlier)...
No way that a woman could miss being pregnant until she gave birth.

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

See here for percentages.

Although I don't have links to them, I do recall news stories about women who did not know they were pregnant until they gave birth. Doctors were quoted as saying it is rare, but it does happen. It IS possible.

How about a link to your sources of this info...?

"Always be honest with yourself. Even if you are honest with no one else."
--me

Ummmm... That wouldn't be your paycheck getting garnered now would it??? Or you losing visitation rights when mommy sues for sole custody and an even bigger chunk of that check?? It affects men, just not nessicarily proportionatly...at least historically. With more college admissions being female we'll have to see if this bears out in the future

Men do not suffer any consequences for unprotected sex.

OK, laying aside the vast array of STD's that one can acquire, the man is still at the whim and mercy of the mother. If the mother (yes, mother, not fetus-carrier) decides to have an abortion against the father's wishes, then she relieves herself of any burden while the man who was perfectly willing to own up and be a father gets to cry every night at the fact that his child is now dead.

On the converse side of that, if the mother decides to keep the child against the father's wishes, he now has to go through a life where he pays a significant portion of his wages to the mother (which he should be willing to financially support the child), in the hopes that she will actually use it properly for the sake of the child. Visitation of the child is not guaranteed, nor is oversight that the mother is spending it on the child and not using it for "club funds."

Your argument rests on the precept that 9 months of carrying a child should allow the mother to end the life of the child. You make absolutely no remarks on the situation post-partum. In that, I find an amazing amount of selfishness, although maybe I will concede a point-after all, stretch marks are a pain in the ass, and no 'life of the child' argument should force a woman to have to endure THAT.

So, in my final closing thoughts, I would like to state the following:

In politics, you have your word and your friends; go back on either and you're dead. (Rule #11 of the public policy process)

There are some men out there for whom a pregnancy was unanticipated but still welcome because it's a life issue and, I would think, the human thing to do. Some of these men are thrown new obstacles, despite doing their part, by the mother for her own reasons and with the help of a traditionally prejudiced family court.

That's as much as I want to say about it for now. I've laid off commenting on the most recent infanticide/abortion threads because there are plenty of other contributions and because I don't like to say the same things too many times.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

there is exactly one victim in this story. He drowned.

Choice does take care of this. Choosing not to have sex is a viable alternative. If by choice you mean abortion, then your solution, as Crowe points out, differs only by moments and millimeters from what happened in that bathroom.

"A man does what he can and endures what he must."

Planned Parenthood is anything but that. It should be called Planned Un-parenthood, for its solution is to not be a parent.
It's like calling McDonalds a Diet Center.

And the consequence of sex is not pregnancy, but motherhood and carrying a human life. That's the part they will not admit to.

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Can't Feed 'em? Don't Breed 'em! --

That's why I call it Planned Barrenhood or sometimes Banned Parenthood.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

______________________________________

NObama...no way!.....McCain '08 !

The fact that you can't even piece together who wrote this piece shows you to be a lazy thrower of grenades at best.

HTML Help for Red Staters

"Like a 14 year old drowning her baby in the toilet at school, the liberal short-term feel-good approach is fatally flawed from the outset and results, unless interrupted by some preternatural surge of true morality, in the abolition of man."

That really is a good, succinct summary of what comes before. Thanks!

The rest of your critique tells me that I did fail in a way. I failed to make my meaning as clear as some people needed it to be. But I believe I addressed this problem in a number of the comments in which I responded to criticisms similar to yours. So that you can be a fair one and avoid the charge of laziness, I'll ask you kindly to take a look at some of my other comments which elucidate my meaning more fully. Perhaps then you'll see why your critique is off-point while also inelegant.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

Global warming is the name given to a collection of phenomena that are observable and measurable and (at the risk of having a global warming fight break out in this thread) wholly beyond our control as humans. That's the very limited purview of science.

Questions of moral activity are in the realm of philosophy and psychology where we examine in purely immaterial consideration the underlying reasoning and premises that give rise to systems of thought and guiding principles which in turn spur decisions at the moment when a moment of choice presents options which cannot be avoided.

I have engaged in moral philosophy, not mere scientific observation. Your likening my post to a greenie reacting to a warm day doesn't hold water.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

turn all philosophic when science gets in the way of getting rid of an impediment to making the BMW payments.

so which is it?

Science affirms a developing human life once the sperm fertilizes the egg and attaches to the uterine wall and is identifiable by its own DNA signature.

Philosophy would say that its a life before it attaches to the uterine wall.

Yet libs want to kill the baby even as its 8 mos, 29 day old legs legs dangle towards Earth with its scissors accessible skull till tucked behind a vagina?

What philosophy is that?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

It's supported in the writings of the ancient Greek Oestupidos; then there's the Roman writer Maximus Pleasurus and much later the German philospher Giwmievoteivontnau Schnell.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

Science affirms a developing human life once the sperm fertilizes the egg and attaches to the uterine wall and is identifiable by its own DNA signature. Philosophy would say that its a life before it attaches to the uterine wall.

Huh? I don't get this, GC. Honestly, my understanding is that science affirms the existence of unique life from conception. Yes there's a gray area there where the fusion of egg and sperm occur. But once that fusion is complete, certainly from two cells onwards, it's alive. We don't need philosophy to get us that far back.

Attachment to the uterine lining is in itself not a requirement for life, just a requirement for continued life. That there are a variety of natural reasons why this may occur doesn't change that.

The "shame" that silenced her is probably the only part of all this that doesn't spring directly from the modern liberal mindset -- a mindset that eschews "shame" in the name of "I'll live as I like regardless of how you feel about it or whether it's 'right' or 'wrong.'" The shame would have been her conscience actually kicking in, but her reaction to the shame was the problem. Rather than be guided by the shame and own up to the consequences of her action as a responsible and moral person would have done, she hid her shame and stayed silent. Shame is not a bad thing in itself; it helps us know we've violated our conscience.

Conservatives do tend to cast more hellfire and brimstone, yes, but "yeah, well you're a meany too" doesn't avoid the crux of my argument. I neither advocated nor defended the hellfire and brimstone because that isn't what I see as the antidote to the problem.

And conservatives have a higher rate of opposing contraception and abortion (what you cleanly just lump together as "most form of birth control") because conservatives more consistently recognize Ultimate Truth and Moral Absolutes and other things that make liberals itchy but which are absolutely necessary for a person to function well. Everyone acknowledges absolute truths, even if they've never really thought about it -- indeed, society would not be possible without some absolute truths and moral principles. The point of this post is that this girl made the choice to have sex in accordance with a relativist moral philosophy that is at the root of modern liberalism. Once she was pregnant, that philosophy and those who espouse it failed to equip her with what to do about it in a responsible manner that respects her own dignity and that of her child. Her silence came not just from shame, but ignorance and confusion when she had a whole new set of questions and the message makers who had enabled the high-risk behavior were suddenly silent.

No one has to pitch "have as much unprotected sex." Pitching contraception and "safe" sex is only a shade better, but largely has the same result. Contraception may have prevented this particular instance, but it would not have solved the problem. Contraceptive practices lead to more, not less, risky behavior. It could fail. It could be ignored. Perhaps there isn't a condom handy "at the moment." Perhaps her man is much older and manipulates her to "allow" the sex without a condom. Perhaps her man is younger and didn't use it properly in the heat of the moment. The solution is not more permissive sex policies but a culture of life and love and personal human dignity.

I'll even go so far as to say "abstinence" education that simply tells people, "Don't have sex because if you do you'll get pregnant or get a disease," isn't enough. It must be chastity education, not mere abstinence education. Chastity is so much more than mere abstinence -- it's life and love and respect and personal dignity and responsibility. But, again, that includes a set of moral norms, which may mean telling people "no," a prospect that is abhorrent to the modern liberal mindset.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)

unprotected sex as you want", liberals are generally in favor of "have as much sex as you want, anytime you want, as long as you try to use birth control". It doesn't seem to matter if its in marital, premarital, extra, etc. In contrast, conservatives don't tend to be such big proponents of sex outside of marriage (not that it doesn't exist among conservatives, it just isn't our policy to encourage it generally). So, while you are technically correct, your side is going to lead to such problems much more often than ours. We try to encourage self-control.

Moreover, either abstinence or safe sex practices would have prevented this outcome.

Sorry, but for all we know, she and her sex partner practiced safe sex (maybe that's why it is called "practice"). The failure rate of the supposed safe sex methods is much higher than most imagine for children of her age. Actions have consequences, no matter what the libs who run the public schools say. The inane privacy laws that say that this 14-year-old is capable of making life-and death decisions, and zero rights to parents are truly making this "A Brave New World" where everything is taken care of by the state.

As for my family, we direct our own children's education (aka home-school). No public-school nazis for us.

-- A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Anyone care to change sides?
-- Can't Feed 'em? Don't Breed 'em! --

That's one of my favorite bits of contradiction within our laws.

But what if the baby survives the homicide of the mother? According to Sen. Obama and his opinion on BAIPA, that child could be "shelved" since it *should* have died. And if it does die, the perp could be charged with a double homicide... but the doctor wouldn't be charged with anything...

I suppose I'm just not sophisticated enough to understand the nuances and fine distinctions that make this other than maddening.

"Do not fear, only believe." (Mark 5:36)