Letter to the Editor
The facts of life
Published Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Aug. 15, 2008
To the editor:
Within the first month of pregnancy, eyes are developed, foundations laid for brain and spinal cord, the heart beats regularly, arm and leg buds appear and muscles are forming. Yet most abortions are performed after this time.
Just a thought, if a child were to grow at the rate they did from conception to the second month, they would weigh about 14 tons at full-term birth. Why do some still ignore the life and amazing development within?
By nine weeks, all the structures necessary for pain sensation are functioning, and as early as six weeks there are brain waves (what are those little minds thinking?), making it impossible for abortionists to say truthfully that these babies feel no pain.
Although an OB-GYN can tell you not to drink or take certain medicines while trying to conceive because it can cause birth defects, abortionists still deny the life within by calling it just a fetus.
Knowing these facts, why do some still support and perform abortions? Please fight for the facts of life, an unborn child.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Can we please all stop this discussion and agree to disagree? It's my body, I will do with it what I want, get over it.
Amen NomadSal
um...as soon as that baby can survive without your body, it's not simply a matter of being simply YOUR BODY, get it? And if you should decide to murder your helpless baby, you should pay for it yourself, as well as the associated medical costs.
3 times as many babies are born alive after abortion attempts as there are people killed by dogs each year. I shouldn't have to tell you what a bloody mess they are either. They usually die on their own within a few hours of birth. No doubt NomadSal is a Barry Obama supporter, a man who supports a woman's right to kill that baby, even after he's born in the afore-mentioned manner and doesn't die right away.
Don't ask or expect us to make your collective decisions to murder babies easy for you. Let's agree you're toxic trousered self-obsessed tarts with empty holes where your hearts should be. Amen to that!
And the onslaught by religious extremists continues... To no one's surprise they select a few facts of biological development in an attempt to cause an emotional response in normal people with the hopes of easing their guilty conciences imposed by farcical belief systems. Cheers, freaks.
brassmonkey - Do you actually think about the stupid things you say befor you post it? No one said anything about religion. Just because you are not mentally capable of having an educated comment does not mean that no one else is.
Put aside religion and all of the things that we know about pregnacy, and remember that until you have all the facts about why someone would make a life altering decision like that, you should not comment on their decision!
I am not talking about these people that use it as a form of birth control-(that is a whole other story)But a woman who has been raped, molested, is an addict, physical or mental issues are not just taking this issue lightly and be shown love and support. Don't sit on your decision and judge!
-- This writer, while attempting to avoid the appearance of being a religious freak, alludes to her lack of rationality when she argues "...amazing development within?" This is akin to creationists who lack creativity of thought due to their intellectual laziness and declare "god done it" without regard to an enormous body of scientific knowledge. It is necessary for cells to divide at such a rate early on, or the gestation period would be much longer (and we might have a much higher abortion rate). Amazing or not, it doesn't stop miscarriages due to any number of reasons from happening naturally either prior to or after the second month. Since these are natural proceses, are they too amazing? Does that warrant a reverent attitude towards miscarriages? I think most mothers would disagree.
-- As for "not commenting on their decision", I don't believe I commented on anyone's decision, but perhaps you and this letter writer should heed your own advise.
-- This writer, while attempting to avoid the appearance of being a religious freak, alludes to her lack of rationality when she argues "...amazing development within?" This is akin to creationists who lack creativity of thought due to their intellectual laziness and declare "god done it" without regard to an enormous body of scientific knowledge. It is necessary for cells to divide at such a rate early on, or the gestation period would be much longer (and we might have a much higher abortion rate). Amazing or not, it doesn't stop miscarriages due to any number of reasons from happening naturally either prior to or after the second month. Since these are natural proceses, are they too amazing? Does that warrant a reverent attitude towards miscarriages? I think most mothers would disagree.
-- As for "not commenting on their decision", I don't believe I commented on anyone's decision, but perhaps you and this letter writer should heed your own advice.
brassmonkey - One can recognize that the entire birth process from beginning to end is an "amazing development within" without having some form of religious zeal. Many aspects of biology are "amazing" - ever consider your eyesight? Your hearing? How about digestive processes? C'mon man. It's all amazing, regardless of your belief structure (or lack thereof).
To highlight one more of your zingers: "in an attempt to cause an emotional response in normal people with the hopes of easing their guilty conciences imposed by farcical belief systems"...I'm curious - have you actually spoken with anyone who is a mother, (regardless of their religious affiliations)? I'm willing to bet that the great majority of them ("normal" or not) will tell you quite frankly that pregnancy, birth and/or the raising of children to adulthood is rife with emotion. Have you ever spoken with an expectant mother who has lost the baby? Many of them blame themselves (feel guilt), again, it often has little to do with religion.
Pregnancy in and of itself is an emotional time and that's part of why people speak with emotion on the topic. Just a thought.
Use the morning after pill.
-- Once again, Dana, I actually agree with you.
-- Perhaps a more appropriate identifier of the motives of this particular letter was the multiple uses of the misnomer, "abortionist." People who "perform abortions" generally perform other services as well which constitute the vast majority of their business. Additionally, most are medical abortions (drug induced) which are out-patient procedures.
Fair enough, brassmonkey. I can see your point and I appreciate your willingness to see mine.
Why must people continually try to foist their ideas and beliefs on everyone else? If you don't like it, don't do it and mind your own business.
One fact of life you forgot to mention is that everyone has free will. Here's another, everyone doesn't agree with you. The last one I'll leave you with, everyone has the right to choose.
allhaileris says "as soon as that baby can survive without your body, it's not simply a matter of being simply YOUR BODY, get it?"
Ok, so, after about 5 or 6 months, we shouldn't allow abortions, right? That's fine. I believe that in MOST cases that's not allowed anyhow...
There are thousand to millions of unwanted, abused, neglected, or starving children already in this world. And, our entire planet is faced with overpopulation in the next few generations.
Knowing these facts, why do some still oppose performing abortions?
Dana VanDam - Thank you!
brassmonkey - The only decision I commented on, is your decision to post!
Simply put yourself in someone else's shoes and know the fact's before you judge them on their decision. This is a fight that will go on until the end of time, There will never be a right of wrong answer to it, there are far to many things involved!
-- Dana, regarding emotional decisions, of course I have spoken with mothers, and can appreciate all the emotional experiences they have. I do feel strongly, though, that policy decisions be made on the basis of rational thought. If we allow emotional thought into policy decisions, we might as well submit to biblical law, sharia law or have no law at all.
This is absolulty wrong for FDN to print this without a pro choice letter next to it. Newspapers are supposed to be "nuteral territory" for everyone to be able to discuss subjects in a semi rational manner. It is time for the executive staff at FDN to re-examine who authorizes letters like these to be printed and let the editor know that letters like these needs to hear both sides of the story REGARLESS OF HIS OWN PERSONAL CHOICE!
Only a small town paper in a Bible belt environment would publish a letter such as this. There is no point to it: those who are pro-life will agree with it, those who are pro-choice will get annoyed, and nothing will change. It adds nothing to the public discourse. It just makes me wonder, as so many of the letters that appear in the DNM often do, who it is who is choosing the letters which are published, and what motivates their decision-making?
You know eskimobabee, you are absolutely correct!
I'm guessing though that the right-wing bible thumping fanatics (the ones that write these letters so often) do not have a left-wing equivalent of "rabid abortion supporters". There is simply no point - after all, abortion is already legal.
Personally, I think the news miner is not doing anyone any favors by printing these inane rantings of a return to back alley abortion barbarism.
What about the fathers of these unborn children?
Guess we're only counted in when child support is needed, not when they want the children to live. Ironic.
Women who want abortions should use birth control or keep their legs closed.
Case closed.
Yeah, right. And Catholic priests should practice abstinence. We all know how well that has worked out. *shakes head*
Authentic----Women who want abortions?????? What does that mean....one morning she woke up and said "today I think I will go get pregnant, so I can have an abortion". Why don't the men insist on using a condom or keep it on.....hell use two or I know...KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS. As far as I know it takes two to make a baby, but only one to carry the product.
brassmonkey,
I absolutely agree that emotion should have little to do with policy decisions on any topic, this one included - unfortunately, that is often not the case (witness abortion, environmentalism, gun control/rights, euthanasia, homosexual union - the list goes on and rarely without emotion on one side or both). My intention was only to point out why civilians, on both sides of this particular argument, may speak from emotion.
I know clearly where my emotions stand on this issue. I also regulate with my head and differentiate between my morality and the government's role in my life.
eskimobabe - You are absolutely wrong about the newsminer's responsibility to print an opposing viewpoint about this, or any other, opinion. There are cases, (like ballot initiatives, or the piece about John Hartmann or political candidacy) where the paper, as the primary contributor, should offer both sides of the issue. However, this is the Letter to the Editor section. I am quite positive that if you chose to write a letter from the pro-choice perspective, the DNM would print it. They've always printed mine in the past. In addition, you are provided with a forum right here (that you commented on) to present your viewpoint on this issue. To suggest that something other than the allowance for rational debate is happening with the printing of this letter is asinine.
In America, you are provided with freedom of speech, not the freedom to be heard - freedom of speech as I understand it is for the protection of unpopular speech, not a provision for me to give one side and you to give another. That whole "Fairness Doctrine" idea is dumb. Would you require side-by-side creation and evolution opinion pieces (I know I wouldn't)? Or just the requirement for alternate viewpoints on opinions that you disagree with?
Is there a more selfish act than abortion? If you can't deal with having a baby, don't have sex.
Skagdog -- Insisting that all pregnancies are carried to term regardless of the circumstances of the conception and/or parent(s) is FAR MORE SELFISH!!!
And, I wish all of you would stop with the "just don't have sex" argument. It is ridiculous to assume that many people can actually do that. It is one of the strongest basic biological drives.
Like I already said, look at how well abstinence has worked out for the Catholic priests. Those who are supposed to be devoted "men of God" can't even do it - what makes you think the rest of us mere mortals can?
The Creationists insist we all populate, it's the lord's command.
The Environmentalists want to DE-populate, it's mother Gaia's command.
It's all about control. I sure wish people would stop acting like it's their way or the highway. Live your own damn life, and leave the rest of us alone.
God, Gaia, God, Gaia, right, left....give it up already.
Ecologists use the term "carrying capacity" when referring to sustainable population size. The gist is that concentrated populations lead to strains on resources, thus limiting the potential size of a given population. Humans, through modern society have circumvented this problem. Wars are then fought to settle disputes over access to resources. If we desire peace and stability, common sense mandates that we manage (plan) our procreation. Thus it is not "creationists vs environmentalists." It is an endeavor to properly educate all of humanity.
lagirl is right. But men have absolutely zero rights with regard to our unborn children. We can't force a woman to abort a baby, or do anything to stop them if we want to keep our baby. So in that sense, it does boil down exclusively to what a woman wants and feels is the right decision.
newsreader
Partial-birth abortion or late-term abortion is in fact still legal. It remains in the purview of state legislatures. An estimated 2,880 babies are murdered each year in the United States in the following manner. These are fully formed babies with bones and skin.
Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole...
The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
Sometimes the procedure is botched and the baby lives for a few hours before dying. Barry Obama advocates for a woman's right to continue efforts to murder the baby even after he's born. Approximately 60 babies per year are born this way. Very rarely the abortion is botched so badly that the baby can go on living. According to Barry Obama, the right of the mother to kill even this baby should be preserved.
We're all a part of society. We don't allow you to inject yourself with drugs, or sell your body for money, and various other things because in some cases your decisions affect us all. While the baby can't survive on its own outside the mother, for better or worse, the baby is merely an extension of the mother. When it becomes capable though, around 6 months, abortion is clearly murder. It's not in our self interest to allow you to commit murder.