River Valley Blogs

Jane wrote on Jun 12, 2009 11:29 AM:

" kendra holly nude playboy
coyote 23cms for sale
niurca marco ensenando las tetas
bao tuoitre online
phep mau dvd taiwan
synonyms and antonyms worksheets
tollway i pass
tameka cottle pics
browning myspace layouts
medium curl out bob hairstyle
video de la primera guerra mundial
hannah montatn free printable birthday invitations
buffie da bodie nude pictures
olive garden mydish
main mall in santa ana movies
free rebel flag facebook layouts
vera bradley bingo maryland 2008
monique imes clothing line designs
myanmyar model sexy photo
up town fade "

Jane wrote on Jun 12, 2009 11:25 AM:

" pictures of mickie james naked
edible arrangements printable coupons
baby lock serger bl4 428 troubleshooting
chris daughtery album
wonderlic personnel test sample
www hawaai com
free fta bin files
viewsat ultra no prende
jessi combs accident
alphabet tagging letters graffiti
lisa robertson biography
boeing 737 400 seat map
xesy viet nam downloads
amelia airheart biography flight
disconnected bob hairstyle
free biker babes pictures com
donkey show tj
nikki aka hoopz website
fotos dorismar palyboy
diablo rune rank "

Neo wrote on May 2, 2009 3:24 AM:

" porno tube
donkey kong jungle beat
mp3 ringtone
nicole scherzinger nackt
habbo island
nissan 350 z
foto impact
hardware inventory
mona lisa frankfurt
ferienwohnung costa del sol
rally racing
death note
professor gefahrgut
astro tv
nudisten foto
hundehalter haftpflicht
gundam wing
mcafee virus scan
gartenarbeit muenchen
eigen webseite "

Heel wrote on Apr 9, 2009 6:30 AM:

" daniel pearl execution
dond dealornodeal com
hh gregg electronics
customer letter template miss you
gerald levert funeral services
superhead sex tape download
webkinz secret pet code
the brown bettie
nicole catsouras graphic pics
sears scratch and dent warehouse
thaimisc svens place
context clues worksheets
free imvu credits cheats
angelina jolie nuda
free snowman writing paper
las panochas mas peludas
fitness quest gazelle sprintmaster reviews
nikki catsouras crash images
albertsons bakery cakes breads
alicia machado follando gratis "

Hero wrote on Apr 9, 2009 6:08 AM:

" natalia jennifer toof
latinas famosas desnusdas
catsouras on myspace
car accident of nicole castouras
scarey maze game
belks department store charlotte
stat changer v3 1 free download
3gp domaci porno klipovi
nikki catsouras porsche crash pics
conwood grizzly web site
bazooka bubblegum lyrics
18 year old decapitated in porsche
free runescape stat changers
big boi pitbulls
nikki catsouras porsche girl pics
sasuke div layouts
wachovia routing numbers
awesome mugen characters
photos of stacy johnson klein
renee toney video "

Halo wrote on Apr 9, 2009 5:35 AM:

" mugen character data
dubliner elin nordegren photo
porsche carrera 911 crash nikki decapitated
megyn kelly photos
market basketgrocery store ma
calendario 2008 maripily mugen
catsouras ladera ranch
don felder fired
www ebt account jpmorgan com
nikki car photos
pictures of nikki catsouras car accident
maple story bypass to use ac
truyen thanh online
nikki catsouras uncensored
gwinnett county inmates
artie lange dana
bleach blade battlers 2nd pcsx2
daily ajit paper punjabi
jeff dunham video clips
alacranes musical pictures "

Jane wrote on Apr 9, 2009 4:48 AM:

" anneliese van der pol pictures
mugen screen pack
pittsburgh mills cinemas
alphabet graffiti style lettering
nbc com dealornodeal
mugen character search
att yahoo norton virus protection
job application at win dixie
star wars mugen characters
mickey james topless
phimtogo viet nam
sakura lemon archives fanfics
delta sigma theta sorority chants
free venn diagram
pantat gadis melayu bogel
role of women during ww1
porsche girl death photo
remington myspace backgrounds
alpha phi chants
kimber hand guns "

Diesel wrote on Apr 9, 2009 4:15 AM:

" millsberry com main
auto accident decapitation picture
pictures of trill ent
palmolive palma will devaughn sex scandal
chars naruto mugen
morbid porsche accidents
sock snowman craft
brachs chocolate cherries
carson praire scott
crocodile protein peptide
somewhere over the rainbow ukulele ringtone
nipples flava flav
the young and restless spoilers
free nanda nursing diagnosis listing
price of 50 cal sniper
poetry examples for assonance
nude pics of angel lola luv
nick turbo com
bumpy johnson bio
nikki hoopz wallpapers "

Aron wrote on Apr 9, 2009 4:08 AM:

" poems about cheating
folk nation gangs alliance
mugen rare character
ice t coco video
nikki catsouras picture
nikki catsouras chris wilson
kristy mcnickle actress
army mini awards rackbuilder
the dubliner elin nordegren woods
jc penny kiosk
christmas div layouts
nguoi mau khoa than
halo madness interactive
1974 evinrude skimer manual
naval exchange com
free mossy oak camo myspace layouts
dee ann donovan video
bigwhitebooty extremebooty bigassbooty thickblackbooty
unscramble letters scrabble
nordegren woods naked "

Kir wrote on Apr 9, 2009 3:39 AM:

" normal ichigo mugen
free online phim nguoi lon
niki car accident
piru blood knowledge brims
best way to masturbate
800 character mugen download
red seal chewing tobacco myspace codes
nanda nursing diagnosis
sabrina pettinato argentina
karrine steffans engaged
wicked weasel wednesday
hazelwood school district vs cathy kuhlmeier
mouth swab drug test
calendario de taina
www buffy the body com
undefeated shoe store
arie crown theatre
nicole austin videos
circ de sole
sbcglobal net login "

Bill wrote on Apr 9, 2009 2:57 AM:

" mills fleet farm catalog
att yahoo net
coi phim con heo mien phi
artie lange girlfriend
nicole catsouras death videos
www tva cano ca
nikki catsouras gruesome pics
knifty knitter christmas stocking
nikki c car crash
sakura lemon archives
archbishop veron ashe
pokemon creater battle arena
truth or and dare
lil wayne tatoos
nikki castouras death photos
alton brown recipes
clubpenguin money maker
holly bridget kendra pics
www skoal com
lolitas nymphet free "

Heel wrote on Mar 26, 2009 1:07 PM:

" find scary screen pop ups
free superhead video mr marcus
deer mossy oak myspace layouts
dallas disd employment
alo megatel honduras mensajitos
karrine stephens superhead videos
marysville prison inmate search ohio
genie operators pro screwdrive
homemade gun silencers suppressor
pictures of latest hairstyles
husqvarna 356bfx epinions
legend of zelda windwaker walkthrough
photos of flavor love boots
thinspiration pro ana
invisible micro braids
german k98 mauser manual
juicy catour website
angel king magazine 2007
the scarlet ibis short story
lizzy caplan nude pics "

Diesel wrote on Mar 26, 2009 12:50 PM:

" practice 5th grade taks test
list of nursing diagnosis
bileu realty statesville nc
disney channl com
b dalton bookstore website mall
viewsat vs 2000 ultra code
f2atv viewsat coolsat
soljaboy superman rap soulja boy
fancy cursive lettering alphabet
japanese teen pornredtube
mk armageddon 12 hit fatality
macy s employee insite
bronner brothers hairshow 2008
www bucky flav of com
how long before implantation bleeding
navy esams login
miley cyrus phone number and address
fubar skins layouts
casandra ventura posters
gecu ep og "

Kir wrote on Mar 25, 2009 1:32 PM:

" stink bug insects
mugen roster download
cazzi neri free
northstrom department store macy s
tracable letters and numbers
pei wei dallas menu
mugen chicken character download
web coi phim viet
santa ana main place mall movies
challengingprintable dot to puzzles
darden crew dish
home remedies for tooth abcess
www a z universal lyrics com
t j donkey show video
groove specs for serpentine belts automotive
lifetime benefits with hca
lisa left eye lopes autopsy pictures
eragon 2 release
ac moore discount coupon
keisha cole i remmeber lyrics "

Neo wrote on Mar 19, 2009 3:42 PM:

" delicious from flavor of love pictures
learn how to tag graffiti alphabet
lamb and lynx gaede
listen to steve harvey
dearborn gas heaters
nanda list of nursing diagnosis
examples of cinquain poems for kids
carson pirie scott outlet
examples of onomatopoeia sentences
las adelitas bar en tijuana
aramina bold star
jennifer toof naked
buca di pepo restaurant
gaia online profile layouts
joyce jimenez scandal
free kproxy https
palladium at the rim
sugarland s jennifer nettles tattoos
liz vega fotos desnuda
delicious flavor flav myspace page "

Diesel wrote on Feb 18, 2009 3:34 PM:

" pagans mc rape
pennysaver suffolk ny
freedom lolita board max2
cristal steverson pics
belle ragazze giapponesi
electric furnace not heating pictures
slightly dented appliances discount stores
desi maa indiansexstories
mickie jane nude
free neopets paint brushes
www carson prarie scott
dulce maria desnuda
photos of african pixie braids
hot pics of jessi combs
nude carrie from mythbusters
condolences free sample letter
conway freight oxnard ca
deborah sampson robert shurtleff
yahoo univicion republica deportiva
1970 marshall crash "

Richard Cranium wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:36 PM:

" It has been very interesting to say the least following this discussion. Although I don't agree with all of what Planet and kamikazefaase have to say, it's been a real pleasure being involved in this. I think if nothing else it shows how complicated this issue really is (and what it means to everyone). I had wanted to talk a little more about some related issues like the Gloucester Massachusetts pregnancy's,the cuts in foreign adoptions and "abortion doping". Actually, I was hoping that would be something Jimmy could bring up at some point for further discussion. It beats talking about politics all the time. But, I'm off to Milwaukeee for the weekend for a family visit. And to Michael if your still following, I'm hoping to pick up a Shostakovich CD. Thank You for getting me interested in something else!!! "

Planet wrote on Aug 15, 2008 2:02 PM:

" One point of yours that I will address is regarding restriction of choice. Everyones choices are limited every single day by the laws and rules of society. And, because abortion is a human rights violation of the unborn, I think it is a valid role of the Government to restrict the choice to do this. Further, due to the human rights violation that occurs with abortion, saying "you and your family do what you want, and I and my family will do what we want" doesn't address the issue. It is a human rights violation no matter who does it, therefore it is a valid function of Government to intervene on behalf of those who would be harmed by others. Your other points I addressed in previous posts. Hope you had a good vacation. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 15, 2008 11:18 AM:

" Planet, you stated that, "I don't consider it oppressive to limit someones choice when it comes to killing." Is this true when it comes to our military killing foreign civilians? What about the death penalty for murder or rape, especially that of children? What about war in general? What about those carrying guns for protection yet kill an innocent bystander? What about suicide? Or assisted suicide? What about hunting? Even in our so-called civilized society, killing is done with certain approval from its members. We kill anything that bugs us including the very insects trying to survive. The real question is are you a prolifer or simply an antiabortionist? A true prolifer considers the other above questions as well as the abortion issue. I'm simply for permitting women all possible choices and say pick the one that suits your needs best. This is what makes me a gentleman. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:45 AM:

" Planet, I recall these words from a sermon: "Conceived in sin, born into the world as sinners." This alone makes the unborn not the innocent party as you claimed. I use the term byproduct rather scientifically because of its truth. I don't infer a soul upon them until born because they could easily die within the womb as stillborns do. This is why I feel there is nothing for me to apologize over. You've previously stated you would sacrifice an unborn for the physical life of the mother. Until you are willing to step up to plate and provide the necessary resources including money, time and space for all these extra ones that abortion removes, I find your wanting their forced survival a penalty against those presently alive who need those same resources but are unable to get them. Consider the cost while trying to save this planet. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:22 AM:

" Since I'm going on vacation for a week and won't have Internet access, today will be our last day of correspondence on this particular blog. I'll explain my meaning in lack of truthfulness. If one cannot become pregnant, how does one really know how they feel when facing the situation? You might think this way because in reality you cannot become pregnant, but the real question happens when you really are facing the issue. I don't know if you have any daughters like I do, but I support their decision when it comes to this issue. I don't put someone elses morals ahead of their safety or needs. We discuss all the options taking into account how they feel about each. The final decision is hers and no one should limit that under any circumstance. You may practice your viewpoint within your family, but please stay out of mine. "

Planet to Kamikaze wrote on Aug 15, 2008 9:06 AM:

" If the fetus is a "byproduct" as you claim, it can't also be a guilty party to the crime. As someone who gave you the benefit of the doubt and attempted to treat you as a gentleman, I am disappointed that you refuse to apologize. I don't consider it oppresive to limit someones choice when it comes to killing. That should be understood as part of living in a civilized society. The acceptance of slaughtering our weakest and most vulnerable members makes ALL os us second class citizens. Also, please don't tell me I am not being truthful. I realize men can't get pregnant. That fact has nothing to do with the truthfulness of my statement that IF they could, I would feel the same way. Women can get pregnant, and many women agree with me. You can disagree with me, but please don't accuse me of not being truthful. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:46 PM:

" Planet, it's easy to say that you would feel the same way even if men could become pregnant. Men can't do this, therefore your stance here isn't completely truthful. Since you've most likely never been violated in this manner you fail to understand what the victim's needs. This results in your clouded judgment concerning the harse reality of the scars both physically and mentally that a victim goes through. To force a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is extremely cruel on your part. I provide her choices, you limit them. This fetus is the constant reminder of her painful experience and she shouldn't suffer more simply because of her gender. The male is merely a sex offender, she bears the scars for life. It would be like not removing the bullet from a gunshot victim when able to do so. This makes the fetus not the innocent third party. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:07 PM:

" Planet, I don't apologize for my remarks based on the evidence I've dealt with. I provide choices, you don't. Initial women's liberation dealt with economic injustice and inability to vote, not unwanted children. It wasn't until the issue of a woman's right to her body became apparent even for them that many sought change. What would I say to any woman raped yet bears the child? "Are you going to keep it or place it in adoption? You bear a great responsibility to yourself and this one's future. I wish you well." I won't expound on the child becoming fatherless in a society needing them to step up to the plate. The truth is simple: fetuses are the byproduct of a sexual encounter where human male sperm fertilizes the human female egg. Giving fetuses status before birth fails to be truthful concerning when the real independence of any infant begins. "

Planet to Kamikaze wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:47 AM:

" Many of the early pioneers in the womens lib movement were pro-life, so to say that a desire to protect the unborn is a desire to subject women to mens desires is simply not true. Because abortion is a human rights violation of the unborn, it has nothing to do with punishing someone simply because they are a woman-I would feel the same way if it was men who could get pregnant. Also, it is horrible of you to assert that the fetus is not an innocent third party. That was a hateful statement. Would you say that to a mother who chose to have a child that was the result of rape? Would you say that to the child? I think you need to rethink your views and apologize to anyone reading who may be in this situation. All your other points I have addressed in other posts. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 14, 2008 1:20 AM:

" Planet, one last thought. When it comes to rape and incest, the fetus is not an innocent third party; it's a byproduct of a crime committed against a woman. By requiring her to carry this fetus to term penalizes the woman for the nine months plus whatever her body does following delivery. This includes weight gain, hormone changes, milk production, etc. This is like giving her a Scarlet Letter. No woman should have to go through this act unchecked. Furthermore, the male, if caught, goes to jail and does not pay for this problem. He may leave society but doesn't provide support for this new being. It's this type of victimizing of women I must strongly object to because I have two daughters I would protect from this kind of punishment simply because they are female. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 14, 2008 1:04 AM:

" Planet, you've proven that your logic doesn't meet women's needs in today's society thereby makes them secondclass citizens. By refusing to help a woman being raped or incest proves this. I haven't altered my position because the woman is being victimized by men. The unborn should never be granted any status because it does make women secondclass by means of her being female. Once men can get pregnant, maybe you can then understand a woman's problem. This is why Roe is important in helping women choose the life they wish and not be subjected to any man's sexual desires. The Plan B pill protects women from this and can significantly reduce the need for abortion. Also by not providing the resources for all these extra babies your goals would produce will sacrifice the planet. Maybe you should change your name because you mock protecting this planet. "

Planet Part Two wrote on Aug 12, 2008 8:55 AM:

" For birth control, I recommend tubes tied for women and vasectomies for men. Possibly the barrier method, such as condoms. Obviously nothing is foolproof. Not sure the plan B pill is the best option ,as that borders on being "after the fact", but I am not clear on the science regarding that. Regarding rape or incest, I think it is a dangerous precedent to tell someone that since they are the victim of a crime, they have the right to go and kill an innocent party in order to ease their mental state re said crime. I don't think that is "good law", and simply foresee too many problems if we employ that logic. "

Planet to Kamikaze wrote on Aug 12, 2008 8:46 AM:

" Oh boy, where do I start? No fetus can hold office or vote, true, but neither can any baby. But, since you have stated you don't support the right of women to kill all babies, I reject this arguement. Next, I already stated my position regarding whether not allowing women to kill makes them 2nd-class citizens, so I won't repeat. The doctor does do harm when performing an abortion and is therefore in violation of his oath. I acknowledge that if I saw a woman going into the doctors office, I may not know if she is pregnant or overweight. But the doctor would know. And if the law prohibited abortion, the doctor would not be able to perform an abortion, but would be able to perform surgery to reduce her stomach. You are trying to make an issue here of something that really isn't an issue with this point. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 12, 2008 2:03 AM:

" Planet, you object to mental state issues. However, I found no reference to your stance concerning rape or incest. These actions can result in a female becoming pregnant causing havoc on her mental state. I ask that you explain yourself here. While you made some reference to birth control, does the include things like the 'Plan B' pill? I also made reference to being able to differentiate between a pregnant woman and someone simply overweight? You can't tell if she goes to the doctor's office for either an abortion or for surgery to reduce her stomach. This is another reason we must stay out of the patient's private consultation with the doctor and the recommended treatment. This is just another reason why I wait for the birth of a child as 'visible' proof for its existence. Ultrasounds provide certain information, but aren't available for our inspection without the patient's permission. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:33 AM:

" Planet, how many times can you tell if a woman is pregnant or overweight? The doctor must take into account all aspects of a woman's health. You make the false assumption saying the doctors are not doing their best for their patient. I disagree. While some women may regret their decision, the doctor can only act on the here and now. Doctors treat the patient whose ailment is causing the problem using their best available knowledge which sometimes includes the mental or financial abilities of the patient. Failing to do this, regardless of religious convictions, violates their oath. Denying the pregnant woman an abortion violates the oath because the doctor fails to treat the patient in a manner that is respectful of her situation. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 12, 2008 1:07 AM:

" Planet, the problem is that fetuses aren't citizens until birth according to the Constitution. No fetus can hold office or vote, can they? One must be born to be given even the most basic of rights including those of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I don't support changing the Constitution to recognize the unborn because this would make women secondclass citizens. You deny this basic concept, yet permit exceptions. Like the case between saving the life of the pregnant woman or the unborn, I'm in her corner everytime without exception. She isn't a secondclass citizen this way. In your world, she becomes subjected to men, thereby a secondclass person. It should be her choice regardless of circumstances and not imposed merely because of her sex. "

Planet Part two wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:20 AM:

" I find your arguement that the unborn are not deserving of protection because they aren't "visible" like one who is born, a little on the silly side. First, we do have ultrasounds and medical science, so we are not talking any big mystery here. Second, it is just not compelling to state it is ok to kill someone because they are dependent on you for survival. You speak of your fear of women being treated as second class citizens. My fear is that any society that allows the killing of its weakest and most vulnerable members causes every member of that society to be second-class citizens. "

Planet to Kamikaze wrote on Aug 11, 2008 10:13 AM:

" You are making the assumption that whenever an abortion is performed, it is always in the best interests of the mother, and that the doctor is doing their best for the patient. You use this false assumption to leap to the conclusion the doctor isn't violating his oath when performing an abortion. I did address the issue of being allowed to kill in order to help ones mental state in a previous post, so I won't repeat that here. Also, one doesn't have to make a choice between the mother or her unborn baby, as it is certainly possible to have both. And you can do so without making women second class citizens. Many early womens libbers-those who literally started the whole womens lib movement-were ardent anti-abortionists. They recognized a lot of those being killed were girls. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 9, 2008 3:32 PM:

" Planet, at least we can agree that there is a need for birth control. You've also stated that you're not against abortion if it's to protect the life of the mother. Protecting a woman from physical harm is what you limit yourself with. I see the whole patient meaning her mental state as well. I'm not sure of your answer to rape or incest, so I'm hoping you are showing them the deserved compassion for being victimized. Doctors aren't violating their oath when they're doing their best for the patient using the limited knowledge they have. Since no one can separate the fetus from the pregnant woman without causing the fetus harm, the unborn dies. This is reality and unless you wish to make women secondclass citizens, then the unborn cannot be recognized. It's either one or the other: pregnant women or the unborn. You can't have both. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 9, 2008 2:48 PM:

" Planet, I disagree with you concerning the doctor's oath. While the doctor attempts to do no harm to the patient, it's the patient that the doctor fights for. Nothing else matters. This includes with staff or insurance companies. The pregnant woman is the patient, not the unborn fetus. I don't give the unborn any rights because it can be the ailment causing the patient harm. Here I don't make exceptions like you do. That is how I separate the unborn from a "one year old" child. Anyone born is a visible individual who can be raised by anyone living and not reliant by being attached to one person for existance. The fetus or unborn relies exclusively on the pregnant woman. Once they are separated, I recognize each of them as individuals(with liberty and justice), but not before that. This makes my distinction not "in name only". "

Planet part two wrote on Aug 8, 2008 8:53 AM:

" The hippocratic oath(First, do no harm) does not apply to only the named patients of a doctor, but to anyone he comes in contact with in a medical setting. Most of your objections boil down to the fact that you don't recognize that the legal distinction made between the born and the unborn is a distinction in name only. If you change the word "fetus" to "one year old" in your arguments, you can see where your arguements fall apart. Medical science and biology confirms the fetus is alive(its own beating heart) and human(its own separate DNA). This is not in dispute. This is why Roe was a bad decision, not only morally, but also legally. "

Planet to Kamikaze wrote on Aug 8, 2008 8:48 AM:

" I see a flaw in your logic as well as false assumptions in your last few posts. First, I don't wish to increase the oversupplying of children, no more than anyyone who would be against killing children under 3 or 5 years old "wishes to increase the oversupplying of children". I am not against birth control, and I do believe a woman deserves the same privacy as a man. But you must compare apples to apples. I wouldn't want the Government barging into a doctors office to see if a man is sterilized. By the same token, we shouldn't barge in to see if a womans tubes are tied. You are correct in that doctors who perform abortions are not violating the law. But, they are violating their oath. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 7, 2008 7:10 PM:

" In examing your 12:45pm post of August 5th, I noted that you gave exception to saving the life of the mother. Does this include preventive means for a rape or incested victim as well? While I believe abortion is needed, the mental health issue is relevent when it comes to these types of victims. Their embarassment and other related issues makes their situation more complex than not acknowledging their needs. I believe the mentally challenged also have problems dealing in this manner as well. So to outlaw abortion fails to conform to today's reality. Dealing with wishful thinking only creates more problems that time and allocation of resources will only make life of those already living more miserable. Overpopulation results in urban sprawl, less land for food, more demands on energy and so much more. We must examine these consequences before penalizing abortion. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:55 PM:

" If we penalize the doctor's who do the abortions, are we not reducing the supply of doctors who are either surgeons or the types of doctors we need in practicing other areas of medicine? The fact that we have an undersupply of both doctors and nurses to care for all of us does concern me. Since these doctors aren't violating the law or their oaths because they are doing what is in the best interest of their patient (the pregnant female in this case which is what Roe is about), we should leave the matter alone. Remember the woman is the patient, not the fetus because it is the condition being treated. We don't go barging into a doctor's office to check to see if a male is sterilized or not because it's not our business. A woman expects the same privacy. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 7, 2008 6:40 PM:

" I'm sorry that it has taken me so long to return to this discussion. The very fact that without abortion or better birth control leaves women vunerable to men's desires in society. This will continue to make women not equals within society. Planet, you continue to amaze me in one aspect. In a country whose economics are supply and demand, you wish to increase the oversupplying of the number of children with fewer and fewer dollars to support them. And most prolifers or antiabortionists are against government interference unless it is to support interfering in the doctor's office. There are many children who need loving families now, why add to their misery as well? Our misery index (borrowed from the Reagan days) is at an all time high. Better paying jobs and health care access could significantly reduce abortions provide we don't mess with prevention means. "

Planet to Michael wrote on Aug 7, 2008 3:41 PM:

" I appreciate that Michael. You make some excellent points also. I would certainly throw some money in the kitty if I thought it would save some of these babies lives. Having said that, I am leery of giving her a pass due to not having access to the funds for medical care, as there have been others in her same situation who made better choices. "

Michael Welch Abortion Or Adoption In A Truly Great Society... wrote on Aug 7, 2008 12:23 PM:

" I commend again the exchanges between 'PS' and 'RC'; we should have THESE sorts of REAL discussions on other topics; youse guys have become great examples! I'd make my 'pitch' as per 'RC' that we oughtn't FEAR a government that would mitigate our human flaws and be able to respond to hapless folk like say Indra Book. If she'd had a single card that said basically Present this and ALL necessary medical treatment will be provided, she may have chosen to have an abortion sure but she also might have decided to have the baby as there'd be helpers with her -- doctors, public health nurses, an adoption service if she chose that. That's what I'd see as a POSSIBLE 'solution'; right now Republican politicos only USE anti-abortion people but they NEVER 'deliver'... "

Planet to RC wrote on Aug 7, 2008 8:56 AM:

" Well, you definitely make some valid points. And some of the questions regarding implementation, etc. definitely need to be discussed. Would making abortion illegal automatically stop all abortions? No, of course not. There will always be those who break the law. I would like to think laws against abortion would stop a good number of abortions, as a woman would be less likely to kill her baby if she knows the act isn't sanctioned, endorsed, "ok'd", whatever, by our Government. And, there would still be rogue doctors. But, the possibility of losing your medical license may be enough of a deterrent for most. I certainly don't have all the answers. I just know that what we are doing isn't working. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Aug 6, 2008 11:00 PM:

" My comment regarding unwanted children had more to do with what to do with even more of them than it did the legality of abortion. What do we do with more unwanted children because more women are forced to have the children they didn't want in the first place? Do we punish women because they had an abortion by putting them in jail? Are you going to let a women have an abortion who has been raped? (incest?) If we need the laws like you say, do you really want to leave the punishment up to judges like you have said before on a case by case basis? It was left up to the Supreme Court judges before and you feel they were wrong. Perhaps if some of the questions could be answered, it would be easier to make abortion illegal. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:43 PM:

" I prefer to solve problems with answers and I think I have some but we need much more before we just make laws that can't possibly/effectively be enforced. As far as answers to the problem of abortion not a whole lot has been brought to the table since Roe. Make no mistake, I do believe laws work. For example, it took laws for air bags in cars. It took laws for mileage standards to increase from twelve miles to the gallon. It took laws to get catalytic converters in cars to help control pollution. And its that way with many things besides autos. Our objective with abortion should be to discourage it though not to punish those who have them. If we just do that we will still be having this exchange another thirty years from now. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Aug 6, 2008 10:31 PM:

" To Planet: I rather enjoyed and appreciated your nine forty five am and your three forty eight pm posts. However, I'm not sure that "punishing" doctors would do much to resolve the issue of having abortions. If you remember before Roe lots of abortions were done by people that were not doctors. A lot of abortions were also done in foreign countries and still are to this day. Dr Kevorkian performed at least one hundred thirty assisted suicides knowing full well that he could have been prosecuted at any time. Still he continued... I never meant to imply that we have "everything" worked out before implementing laws but we need to have some guidelines and ideas in place if we ever hope to discourage women from ever having an abortion. "

Michael Welch Imagine Theres No Heaven -- Only Hell... wrote on Aug 6, 2008 8:10 PM:

" I'm not arguing against 'laws' per se but against RIGID interpretations; laws MUST be interpreted by those most familiar and experienced with the law and not subject to public clamor -- or else poor Ms Book'd be lynched by now, if you've read any of the comments on the Trib blog. Ever see 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'The Ox Bow Incident'? Popular reaction to ugly events often leads to more ugliness and even injustice. Locking up and throwing away the key puts hundreds of thousands into graduate schools for crime we call 'prisons'; it hardens and coarsens them and 'prevents' very little. If our prisons are going to be also filled with ordinary women and girls who've had illegal abortions we will have societal chaos... "

Planet to Michael wrote on Aug 6, 2008 3:48 PM:

" Well, thats true, but we don't know all the circumstances of a lot of people who commit crimes and antisocial acts that harm others.(the desperation of the person who robs a bank, etc). But, we still need those laws on the books. Thats my point. I am not arguing against mercy(as true justice is tempered with mercy to those who deserve it). But, we need the laws. "

Michael Welch The Procrustean Bed Of Rigid Thinking... wrote on Aug 6, 2008 12:26 PM:

" I wasn't trying to say that ALL killing is 'justified' under ANY circumstances but it is obvious that there ARE 'circumstances.' I was attempting to underscore the DESPERATION and seeming IGNORANCE of Indra Book and the truly pathetic events surrounding the death of her child. I was saying that ALL women and girls have unique aspects to which they are responding when they seek an abortion, aspects of their lives that most of us have no idea of. As I said we don't even know ANYTHING about her mother and father and what sort of life she's led. The procrustean bed will cut off your feet to 'fit' you to its length; but that's not 'justice'... "

To Richard Cranium wrote on Aug 6, 2008 11:09 AM:

" One of your arguements doesn't work. Just because I am not inclined to adopt an unwanted child under, say, 5, doesn't mean I can't assert it should remain illegal to kill unwanted children under 5. By the same token, asserting that the unborn should be protected by law does not compel one to adopt an unborn unwanted child. "

Planet to RC wrote on Aug 6, 2008 9:45 AM:

" In no way was I asserting or implying that your contributions caused the discussion to go south. I appreciated your input and thought it added to the discussion. When I mentioned "others joining in", I was talking about some comments on other boards that carried over from this discussion with Michael. Sorry for the misunderstanding. My suggestion of a case by case basis of judges determining the punishment is how things are done with our other laws, hence my example re rape laws. My first inclination is punishing the doctors would be more prudent than punishing the women, as the doctors should know better, and they are in violation of the hippocratic oath. I am open to ideas, but certainly don't think we need to have everything ironed out before implementing laws... "

Richard Cranium wrote on Aug 5, 2008 9:12 PM:

" After all of this including reminding me again about judges, the law etc, you still haven't produced any solutions to the abortion problem whatsoever. That is the reason I jumped into this discussion in the first place. I didn't feel it "went south". I was trying to engage you into another way of thinking about abortion. If you notice, everyone is either pro or con but most people don't want to suggest any solutions. I couldn't even get you to suggest any punishments and that's what we do to people that break the law. You were unsure about putting women/mothers in jail. You were also vague about adopting an unwanted child. So I guess your really saying is that we should make it illegal and leave the punishment up to judges without any guidelines in place? Where do we draw that line? On a case by case basis? "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Aug 5, 2008 3:26 PM:

" You may have misunderstood, in that I never asserted women have abortions BECAUSE fathers kill sons, etc., nor did I even mean to imply it. I was trying to get at how far and to what extent do we take the notion of "killing for convenience"? That is, if we allow mothers to kill their offspring because they don't wish to remain pregnant, where is the line? What or whose "whim" are acceptable for killing? At what point does individual choice simply result in lawlessness? I had thought you were being evasive, but perhaps you really did misunderstand?.... "

Michael Welch CLEVER But --... wrote on Aug 5, 2008 2:19 PM:

" I didn't say fathers don't kill sons and vice versa; I repeated that women and girls don't have abortions BECAUSE fathers kill sons etc., somehow justifies those abortions for them. Women and girls have abortions because they don't want to be mothers -- right now. Or they don't want to be mothers with the father as someone they will have to deal with for the next two decades or so. It would ALWAYS be preferable if folks used contraception -- though SOME anti-abortion attitudes don't endorse that either. 'Abstaining' is not a 'bad' idea per se yet it is really unreliable, especially with the young and the (sexually) restless. CLEVER argument you made yes -- but NOT based in actual behavior... "

Planet to Michael wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:51 PM:

" No basis in reality? Not sure about that-it DOES happen. Question is, will it ever be legal, like Roe? Anyway, your thoughts re next time sound good. Thanks for your input. "

Planet to Kamikaze wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Requiring Indra to seek help for her newborn is unjust. She should have full control of her actions. The baby could not speak and was fully dependant on her for its survival. Also, a father will always remain a father biologically, unless we allow him to kill his son or daughter. You choose to draw a distinction between being born and unborn, but in many cases it is a distinction in name only. For this reason, I don't believe Roe was a good decision legally or morally. I reject your "mental health" arguement as that would allow one to kill anyone who is causing them mental anguish. Having said all this, I never opposed abortion in order to save the life of the mother. But to talk about "mental health" and "being put out" as a justification to kill is just silliness. "

Michael Welch Better Next Time... wrote on Aug 5, 2008 12:35 PM:

" You seem to have a good discussion going with 'Faase' and at the moment I've nothing to add to abortion per se. I can't see that a question such as you posed was 'pertinent' -- it was intellectually slick I grant you but it had NO relevance to reality. I finally 'answered' it the only way it seemed I was 'required' to -- yeah sure let it happen that way too, if that's what you believe is 'logical.' Okay we'll do better next time huh?... "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:21 AM:

" One more to Planet: Your statement that the only alternative is to kill is explained in this way. A fetus is treated like an infection or tumor and is thereby removed. Yes, the tumor must die in order for the patient (in this case the pregnant woman) to live. But the choice of survival is made by the patient in consultation with the doctor. Since mental health is as important as physical health, the fetus dies like the tumor regardless of its human characteristics. While you might consider this murder, I don't because of the potential for complications in pregnancy that could harm the patient. And its the patient that stands in front of the doctor seeking treatment for her condition that can only speak. To give the unborn a say goes against this fundamental truth. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 5, 2008 11:00 AM:

" Once more to Planet: Men can more easily walk away from a child born than a woman can. He can sign off on his rights at any time. This permits the child to be adopted by the state or others wishing to do so once the mother also consents or is required to do so. It does take someone else to step up to replace the man so he is no longer the father, but he will always be biologically. I've always supported means for child born to at least be able to obtain family medical history from the parent's side to help accurately treat a child's ailments. An accurate family medical history does help doctors and the patient deal with certain ailments like cancer and other diagnoises. Can you see some of the complications involved in requiring a woman to give birth in all cases including rape and incest? "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 5, 2008 10:46 AM:

" To Planet: The major difference that Indra Book did was give birth. Once she gave birth, she was no longer protected by Roe in any way shape or form. She bored the consequences of her pregnancy to term. As I have always stated, once born the child becomes a recognized member of society beyond the potential of being stillborn or reliant on the mother for survival. Book's mistake was not seeking help for her problem in dealing with her newborn. The newborn is a child born where the unborn, while developing human characteristics, is not because it relies solely on the woman pregnant for in its survival. This difference makes Roe still worthy of its value in law. It was to clarify where a woman's right to health issues begins and where the government can intervene. Its the government's intervention that needs to be held in check. "

Planet to Kamikaze wrote on Aug 5, 2008 8:57 AM:

" I certainly don't disagree with you regarding birth control. Michael made a similar arguement as yours. He asserted it is immoral to compel a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Since the only alternative is to allow her to kill, I pointed out that logic doesn't work unless you were to also say we shouldn't force a mother to remain a mother against her will(Hence, what Indra Book did would not be illegal). Then, you can't leave men out. We shouldn't compel men to remain fathers against their will, etc. It's not so much a womans rights issue as it is a human rights issue. My position is that, since science and biology shows the unborn to be human, the law and Constitution must recognize this. A good measure of society is how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable. Sadly, we fall way short. "

kamikazefaase wrote on Aug 4, 2008 11:21 PM:

" To Planet Stasiak: Its unfortunate in this country that women need to have abortions. This could grow even worse if Bush has his way by muddling birth control prevention with abortion. This debate should be left alone but prolifers or antiabortionists can't. I do believe in a woman's right to choose because it is her body that bears the consequences, not a man's. Giving birth should be her choice and not forced upon her by her being female. Women need access to prevention and prenatal care so she has control as much as possible to her own life and all its consequences, not just those that men can control for themselves. Until birth, the Constitution and the law must not recognize the unborn. To do so otherwise makes women second class citizens and creates continued impovishment for them. There are plenty of stats that bear witness to that fact. "

Planet to Michael wrote on Aug 4, 2008 4:57 PM:

" I don't totally disagree with your thoughts posted at 2:15pm. I would only add that my academic point would, if taken to its logical conclusion, impact MANY fathers and sons lives...I guess I was trying to move beyond the abortion issue to see if your logic really "worked". Whether you said "yes" or "no" may not have made a difference, but when I FIRST asked it, I was sincerely interested in your response, that is, I thought I was being intelligent and thoughtful. Then, however, others joined in and things went south. "

Michael Welch A Modest Proposal... wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:15 PM:

" By hounding me on this rather academic point (it makes NO DIFFERENCE if I said yes or no; it did NOT touch the reality of women's lives at all) you just 'scored' in your own 'game' as you characterized it. You ignored everything I wrote in order to return only to this canard. It went on and on like the insipid 'Bama'SamaMama crapola and the CONSTANT 'infanticide' charges -- it amounted to harassment, not argument, and finally my responses (on other blogs) were harsh because NO ONE was 'discussing'; it WAS indeed 'only a game.' Below is the beginning of actual thoughtful discussion of an issue that is important and ought to be addressed intelligently. We should try to do it that way in the future hmm... "

Michael Welch Outside This Box... wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:07 PM:

" A society in which fathers are 'forced' to be fathers, mothers mothers and sons sons etc., is NOT the most likely to achieve any happy stablity. MY point about Indra Book was that she was apparently bereft of good counsel from her mother (about whom we have NO idea; she has NEVER been mentioned as far as I know) and Ms Book obviously did NOT want to be a mother herself. (Tells you something or it should about HER experience as a daughter.) She did a terrible and foolish thing but she was DESPERATE, in some sense of another, and/or raised in a criminally ignorant fashion. She could SEE no viable alternatives; why? She found it hard to approach a societal structure in which any governmental aid is constantly disparaged as 'welfare' and one must jump through hoop after hoop to get help?... "

Planet to Michael wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:06 AM:

" I would be happy to discuss some of these things with you. I somewhat addressed this on another board. I thought a good point was made by myself regarding the wording of your beliefs on abortion, and what I saw as a flaw in your logic. Rather than attempt to address it, you avoided it, and my "haranguing" was an attempt to encourage you to address it. But, I am happy to move on....the points made in your 2:15pm post are , I must admit, very compelling. But, I stated in my post to RC why I honestly thing abortion NEEDS to be illegal...and again, yes, your socialist structure may very well result in less illegal abortions, if that comes to pass. "

Planet to Richard wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:00 AM:

" We don't have specific punishments in place for people who break the law. Judges decide the punishments on a case by case basis. I have heard about rapists who get 20 years, and others convicted of the same crime who get probation. I believe we NEED to make abortion illegal because I believe there is no hope for a society that ALLOWS the slaughter of its most vulnerable members. A measure of a society is how does it treat its weakest. Will there be problems and unanswered questions if abortion is made illegal? Yes, as there were before Roe. But there are problems and questions regarding all of our laws. "

Michael Welch I Commend Richard For His Perceptive Comments Too... wrote on Aug 2, 2008 2:15 PM:

" The exchange here has become quite interesting; I wonder why someone can't be 'civil' to me too. I've written that pre Roe was hardly 'paradisical' AND I have advocated a government and society that would 'help' folks have families and take care of them properly; I have said that I believe if we had a socialist structure there would be FEWER, not more, abortions, even though abortion would be legal, because the society would actively aid anyone, married or not, in pre-natal care, counseling re: motherhood and NEVER 'abandon' her after she's given birth. VOLUNTARY groups haven't the resources to do these things on very large scales; only a gov dedicated to public health (in EVERY way!) could... "

Richard Cranium wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:48 PM:

" But Planet, we already had laws that prohibited abortion before. You know you have heard all the stories about what happened. I know I don't need to remind you. Why/how would it be any different this time if it's made illegal? I know you don't have all the answers but we need some of them in order for women to not want to have abortions. We don't have all the answers regarding all of our laws but we do have punishments in place for people that break the law. So far in our discussions you haven't suggested any punishments whatsoever that could be applied to someone that has an abortion. Don't you think you should have something in place if your going to make something illegal? You also said we NEED to make abortion illegal. Why? "

Planet to Richard wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:46 AM:

" I never stated abortion is felony murder, or if it would even be classified as such if it were illegal. I was using the example of that law to make the point that it is short-sighted to not make something illegal because we would not have all the answers regarding the possible repercussions. I don't have all the answers regarding felony murder laws, but that doesn't mean I don't think those laws should exist. We don't have all the answers regarding minors and how laws are applied. Heck, people don't have all the answers regarding ANY of our laws. But, my point is, we still NEED those laws. Just as,imo, we need laws prohibiting abortion. "

Richard Cranium to Planet Stasiak wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:36 PM:

" Not ironic at all. Some problems are easier to solve than others as you well know. Make smoking in cars illegal around children takes care of the problem immediately and the problems solved. Make abortion illegal and the problem just starts. I find it ironic that you want to make abortion illegal but don't have any solutions yourself to cope with the problems that arise afterward. Currently, having an abortion isn't felony murder. I didn't say anything about taking them "off the books". Some women that have abortions have had other children already. They are indeed mothers. Would you put mothers in jail or are you undecided about that too? What about mothers that are minors? See what I mean about the problems just starting? "

Planet Stasiak to RC wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:49 AM:

" We wouldn't be putting mothers in jail. They would have already killed their babies, so they would no longer be mothers. I know that crimes such as felony murder are illegal, but that not everyone who commits this crime necessarily goes to jail. I don't have a solution to this, but I don't think the felony murder laws should be taken off the books. Also, I find it somewhat ironic that you want it made illegal to smoke around babies in enclosed spaces, but want to delay making it illegal for mothers to kill them. "

Richard Cranium wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:59 AM:

" I'm not sure what the solution is, that's why I like to ask the people that want to make abortion illegal. If your going to make something illegal YOU should have some solutions to try and take care of the problem. I don't think that adults smoking in cars is morally right and should be illegal but it's not. My solution to that kind of problem would be to make it illegal to smoke around children in enclosed spaces like cars. Regarding the abortion issue, what I do believe is that putting mothers in jail and bombing abortion clinics is not the solution. Since you admitted you don't know what the punishment should be, perhaps that should be put in place and inroads could be made to then make it illegal. This as well as my nine thirty five post is not a solution but it's my answer. "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Jul 30, 2008 9:24 AM:

" I actually did respond to your post on that other blog. I respect your consistency and respect that you think both are wrong. But, as I pointed out, it is possible to see two things as wrong but STILL make a moral distinction between the two. I know that a mother killing her baby is wrong and that the Government has a duty to protect those from people who would harm them. Therfore, abortion should be illegal. As to the punishment? I honestly don't know. For all crimes, the punishment is decided by a judge on a case by case basis. How about you? Since we both agree abortion is wrong, what is your solution? "

To Planet Stasiak Cagefighter wrote on Jul 29, 2008 9:35 PM:

" Like I posted on another thread, I don't. Killing in my opinion is wrong whether it's a criminal or a poor defenseless unborn child. My moral clarity is intact. I don't want to make exceptions for things I don't necessarily agree with. I didn't ask if you wouldn't rule out adopting an unwanted baby, I asked if you would. How would you solve the problem of abortion? Would you throw the mothers in jail? The easy thing is to say something is wrong. The hardest thing is to do something about it. And, if your going to make it illegal, how about providing some solutions to the problems associated with it instead of just spinning wheels about whether it's wrong, or not? "

Cagefighter wrote on Jul 29, 2008 3:39 PM:

" Now I wonder if the anonymous poster will EVER respond to Planets post, now that Michael took his leave. What Michael doesn't address is that the ONLY alternative to NOT forcing women to remain pregnant is to allow them to kill their babies. So really, the only thing they are compelled to do is not kill. But, alas, Michael also sees no problem with the Government shutting down all fast food restaurants and compelling people to eat what they order them to. It is indeed a strange world. "

Michael Welch MY Last Post -- Here... wrote on Jul 29, 2008 12:22 PM:

" I'd refer this 'discussion' now to the 'McCain on economics' blog above as I'd only be repeating myself (yet again!) -- and as MUCH as everyone LOVES that repetition I see no 'purpose' in doing it on TWO Jim blogs at once! I WILL however (sigh!) 'repeat' here that I am against women and girls being made to be 'baby machines' against their wills. I will NEVER support the type of coercion necessary to FORCE women and girls to bear children if ever they become pregnant, under EVERY circumstance but danger to their own physical lives. That IS a fascist world similar to Hitler's 'awards' to 'Aryan' German women who increased their births. It would fall hardest of course on the poorest and most hapless; and you know -- I don't even believe George W Bush actually 'wants' this... "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Jul 29, 2008 8:37 AM:

" The three pm poster that you refer to DID respond to your question yesterday at 9:06am, but I see you chose to ignore that and focus on my response. I certainly wouldn't rule out adopting an unwanted baby. Having said that, even if I was not in a position to adopt an unwanted baby, I would STILL have every right to assert that what Indra Book did was wrong for the same reasons abortion is wrong. I will ask again--what moral(not legal) distinction, if any, do YOU make between the two? "

To Planet Stasiak wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:57 PM:

" The three pm poster said he wanted to explore some new ground. I was commenting to him not you. He didn't expound on what the "new ground" was. I'm waiting for him to do that. Also, since you appear so self righteous with your responses regarding abortion, why don't you offer some solutions to the problem? Would you yourself adopt an unwanted baby? How about a crack baby? Would you throw the mother that had an abortion in jail? What exactly would that solve? What exactly would you do? There, now do you think I'm wasting time? "

To Michael wrote on Jul 28, 2008 3:50 PM:

" You stated that you think it is immoral to force any woman to remain pregnant against her will. Well, let me ask you this: Do you think it is immoral to force any woman to remain a mother against her will? How about forcing a father to remain a father against his will? Or forcing a sone to remain a son against his will? Or forcing a daughter to remain a daughter against her will?(Lizzy Borden should not have been prosecuted, eh?) "

Michael Welch The Answers Are All Below -- Read... wrote on Jul 28, 2008 11:41 AM:

" The pharisees' reply! Jesus, stop saying what YOU believe and tell us what WE want you to say! I'm hardly 'wasting' your time; you're the ones who continue to write. As J said, If you are listening you will understand -- but why should I keep repeating myself when it is clear you CAN'T or WON'T understand? That would certainly be a 'waste of time'; I mean after all some ducks you can't teach the alphabet eh... "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Jul 28, 2008 10:08 AM:

" Come on 10:09pm, stop playing games. The poster specifically stated what he was trying to explore. If you want to discuss, fine, but stop dragging it out. Lets get to the meat and potatoes of this thing, or lets all just take our leave. Stop wasting time. "

To Michael wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:14 AM:

" Indulge me, humor me, "dumb it down" for me if you wish to look at it that way. All this dumb country boy saw in your posts was you simply restating your position on abortion. I saw no answer from you whatsoever regarding the questions and ideas put forth on 7/23 at 12:32pm, and restated somewhat on 7/24 at 3:27pm. An answer "I didn't like" could simply move the discussion forward. In that sense I would appreciate it even if I didn't agree with it. But, I saw no answer whatsoever. "

to ten o nine pm wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:06 AM:

" For starters, tackle the questions and ideas posed in the 7/24 3:27pm post. "

Michael Welch Wash Out Your Ears And Put On Your Glasses... wrote on Jul 27, 2008 2:47 PM:

" Actually I answered ALL the questions you posed; I just didn't answer them the WAY YOU wanted -- as 'someone' once had a habit of doing in those four gospels eh, when the pharisees sought to play their own word games. He would respond (remember?) when they claimed they didn't understand him -- 'He who has ears -- let him hear!'... "

To two o seven pm psoiter wrote on Jul 25, 2008 10:09 PM:

" What new ground did you want to explore? "

Re Michael and his supposed reply wrote on Jul 25, 2008 2:07 PM:

" I don't disagree with your last post at all, accept some punishment is certainly in order. But you could be spot on regarding her state of mind and mental state. Having said that, you still avoid ansering the questions posed. Maybe the person who just jumped into the dialogue would like to offer his/her take....? "

Michael Welch My Reply... wrote on Jul 25, 2008 12:20 PM:

" We are talking about this actual woman Indra Book who was obviously overwhelmed by the prospect of her pregnancy. I think she in effect suppressed even a conscious recognition of it; she certainly did NO preparation whatsoever -- fantasizing that 'somehow' it would 'just go away'? Her mental state most surely MUST be examined by the court precisely because she did NOTHING practical to either end her pregnancy or to arrange for adoption. Bearing a child in a bathtub all alone and then collapsing and sleeping the bad memory 'away' has a deeply pathetic quality. I only know she did NOT want ANY of 'this' -- all her actions and moreover LACK of action show it. I don't 'judge' her at all -- but with sad compassion -- she should NOT be 'punished'... "

Planet Stasiak wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:22 AM:

" re 6:59am-- In my 3:27pm post, I attempted to summarize what the poster was getting at. If you would like to respond to that post, I would certainly welcome you(or Michael) to do so. "

to six fifty nine am wrote on Jul 25, 2008 9:20 AM:

" Well, good. Please do try to help. Read the 12:32pm post. There are 4 questions asked at the end of the post. I was curious as to what Michaels answers are to these questions. I don't see where he ever did answer them.... "

To three pm poster wrote on Jul 25, 2008 6:59 AM:

" Michael DID answer your question with his next post. What "new ground" did you want to explore? I have to tell you, I've re-read these posts several times and I'M not sure what your getting at. Perhaps you and Planet could be a little more specific with your "questions". Once I understand I'll attempt to help with a response. "

Planet to Michael and his responder wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:27 PM:

" Actually, Michael avoided answering four questions. So, how about it Michael? Because "she" would be in a better position, that makes what your choice would have been for her more "moral" than her choice? So, whatever benefits you the most is moral? Forget the legal aspect-say both choices were illegal or both were legal-what MORAL distinction do you make between "your" choice for her and "her" actual choice? "

To Michael wrote on Jul 24, 2008 3:00 PM:

" At the end of my 12:32pm post, I asked you 3 different questions. You avoided answering each and every one of them. That is certainly within your right, but it is too bad because I was hoping to explore some new ground in this area. If you want to just restate and rehash the same old, same old-fine. But, it is quite obvious you need to do some serious thinking regarding what you believe and why. "

Michael Welch Round The Clock Yet Again... wrote on Jul 24, 2008 12:19 PM:

" Anyone who really doesn't 'want' to be a mother will get out of it one way or another -- often just through habitual neglect and lack of care or love. Sharing a household is no guarantee that 'successful' parenting is happening. I think this young woman found herself in a dilemma for which, for whatever 'reason' (ignorance and poor socialization from bad or practically non-existent parenting by her own mother and father?), she could not cope. She was not REQUIRED (certainly not by current law) to bear a child and it would have been much better for her to have had an abortion than be in the mess she is now. And yes as I've said over and over I believe my position IS moral and that your desire to force her to give birth is not... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 23, 2008 12:32 PM:

" It is the moral position I am attempting to explore. To answer your question, I don't necessarily think forcing an already pregnant woman to carry said pregnancy to term is immoral. The alternative-NOT forcing her to, thereby killing her baby, is what I see as immoral. What moral distinction do you make between this girl having an aborion or handling it how she chose to? If there is no legal aborion, you claim incidents like this would multiply...does that mean you look at it as "six of one, half a dozen of the other"? If so, why not just legalize what she did? Isn't forcing someone to remain a mother AGAINST HER WILL immoral? "

Michael Welch Mine Is A Moral Position -- More Like Jesus Actually... wrote on Jul 23, 2008 11:56 AM:

" Being 'legal' is always 'better' for your health -- incarceration IS a truly evil place. My moral position is that a woman or a girl should NOT be FORCED to carry a pregnancy to term AGAINST HER WILL. Do YOU disagree with that? I presume you do. We have discussed these 'frames' before and I have NEVER had a direct reply to MY 'frame' from you (whoever you are) either. I consider my position a MORAL position also. I believe this hapless, very young woman requires therapy and socialization; I have no desire to have her 'punished' for the sake of punishment. Particularly if she is a drug addict she ought to be helped. If there is no legal abortion by the way incidents like this will multiply -- in my opinion... "

Planet Stasiak to Michael wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:39 AM:

" Could you please explain how having an abortion is a "better" choice than what she did do? Since legal doesn't necessarily equal "moral" or "good", leave the legality of each choice out of the equation. "

To Michael wrote on Jul 23, 2008 8:35 AM:

" You are avoiding the obvious. I will ask you again. Why "should" she have gotten an abortion as opposed to what she did? Either way, she achieved her wish of killing her child. That was her "choice", and it was her choice as to how to achieve that. I sense that you find this choice morally repugnant, and you are trying to impose your morality on others, which is the same thing you accuse pro-life people of doing. "

Michael Welch Not Against Her Will... wrote on Jul 21, 2008 1:16 PM:

" I would not MAKE a 'choice' for her -- as you would. You would make it impossible for her NOT to have a baby once she had become pregnant; I would let her choose whether to be pregnant or not. I don't see that it can be 'moral' to FORCE a woman or a girl to carry her pregnancy to term against her will; you do apparently. I don't know why this Ms Book didn't seek an abortion or later, adoption -- obviously she ought to have done one or the other rather than what she did do. I'd like to find out why which is also why I recommend she get psychiatric help. She didn't want to be a mother is obvious and she had better 'choices' in order not to be... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 21, 2008 12:03 PM:

" Again, the end result is the same. She simply chose to go about killing her baby in a way other than abortion. I still don't understand how you can make a moral distinction between the two. Surely, you aren't asserting that just because something is legal it is moral, or just because something is illegal it is immoral? So, I ask again: what makes her "choice" of how to kill her baby less valid than what your "choice" would have been for her? "

harsch wrote on Jul 18, 2008 3:38 PM:

" Incarceration is by no means 'natural', and it has also been proven that it simply does not work. "

Michael Welch She Is Obviously A Girl In Her Mind Not A Woman... wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:43 AM:

" Having an abortion is legal or haven't you heard? I believe as I've written here MANY MANY MANY TIMES that a woman OR A GIRL should not be FORCED to bear children against her will. I don't know why this GIRL (she seems a 'girl' mentally) found it so difficult to have an abortion -- it may have been financial or ignorance of its availability plus her inability to ask the people who could have helped her or yes she may have had religious reservations; but it certainly is obvious she did not want to be a mother and didn't know how to be. Having given birth however she ought to have sought adoption services but again I think she did not because this is an VERY immature person for her age... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 16, 2008 2:53 PM:

" Wait a minute..you lost me...."she should have had an abortion"??!! The end result is the same, so what makes your "choice" of what she "should" have done more valid than her choice? "

Michael Welch Jesus Kicks Arse... wrote on Jul 16, 2008 11:46 AM:

" No one is saying that those accused of committing crimes shouldn't be tried and if found guilty be sentenced appropriately -- 'incarcerated' if necessary. But obviously this YOUNG woman is mentally and emotionally no more than a girl herself; she ought to have had an abortion sure, as she was certainly too overwhelmed by the responsibility of caring for a baby. Now she really NEEDS therapy, not 'punishment' per se. My impression of Jesus is that he, at his best, always 'votes' for clemancy and generosity over punishment -- THAT Jesus however is 'out ranked' by the bitter vindictive one in Matt's little apocalypse and in Revelation. I've been kicked around for repeatedly using the phrase 'You pays yer money an' picks yer Jesus' but it's proven a true and apt characterization... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 15, 2008 1:06 PM:

" Why should she have her head examined anymore than, say, a woman who kills her infant by having an abortion? How is she anymore desperate and immature than a woman who would have deliberately killed her baby a couple months earlier? Since men can't breastfeed, the arguement is the same, right? "her body, her choice"? I daresay, while Jesus would certainly oppose stoning this woman, I would think even He would agree it is very appropriate to jail people who kill their infants. I don't think the verse "He who is without sin..." can be interpreted to mean a society shouldn't punish criminals by incarcerating them. "

Michael Welch ROCK ME Jesus Or Rock Jesus... wrote on Jul 15, 2008 11:30 AM:

" I think the woman on the front page ought to have her head examined as they say; I think she is a desperate immature person who should be helped rather than punished for the sake of punishment. I think Jesus would say You who are without sin, cast the FIRST stone -- whereupon the 'Christians' who comment here would fire off so many rocks they'd be conking ol' Jees too; he'd have to scatter real quick to avoid the landslide. That's the impression you 'Christians' have given me so yeah THAT's what I'd expect -- correct?... "

To Michael wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:37 AM:

" So, I presume you think the girl on the front page should not be charged with a crime? After all, it is her body, her choice, right? Since the baby was dependant on the mother for survival, it is not really human, right? Since men can't breastfeed, they have no right to infringe on this womans right to choose. Correct? "

Michael Welch Its On Your Front Page Eh... wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:24 PM:

" Among the poor and the desperate infanticide does YET occur, both abroad and well, right in La Crosse re: the web site lead story... "

Michael Welch Many Will Kill Their Young Yes... wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:01 PM:

" Actually many animals, including primates, do kill their infants.

The bonobo that Rick Harsch writes of perhaps employ all manner of sexual behavior it is thought in order to prevent infanticide, which occurs regularly among chimpanzees.

Pigs and hogs are notorious for eating their litter and any number of mammals will not, for some reason or another, nurse a new born.

Infanticide is very common in nature (it is 'natural' one could say) and of course for millennia the poorest humans regularly 'exposed' babies they could not care for as well as those with disabilities.

With a life span for most, at half or less of 'westerners' today, life was 'hard'; in nature it remains so... "

Bucky Katt wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:32 PM:

" I've got this little problem with mood swings. But Dr. Phil is helping me. "

The Ghost of Old Yeller wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:10 PM:

" Most folks have no idea how I died. I smoked a bowl of marijuana, got the munchies and overdosed on my dog chow. "

Brian Griffin wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:05 PM:

" Good topic, Jimmy. Many of your readers will no doubt recognize me as the martini swilling dog on "Family Guy." Although I don't have any significant problems with depression, it's reassuring to know that there is help for us non-humans. "

Re Just some dude wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:22 PM:

" Those are some good points. I wonder if anyone knows what other species routinely kill their young? "

Michael Welch Eat Or Be Eaten... wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:15 AM:

" An old Roman aphorism was 'Love me, love my dog'; General George Armstrong Custer once had his hunting dogs, suffering from prickly pear cacti pricked paws, displace some injured troopers who were then transferred to supply wagons. This was in the 1870s. Dogs like Lassie and Rin Tin Tin of course 'worked' for their regard; indeed they were clearly brighter than most humans around them. Cats however are for 'display' really; if the master dies the dog will mourn (and maybe need to pop a pill!); your cat, if made hungry enough by your now 'fatal' lack of attention, will probably eat (or nibble at) you, for which he will NOT subsequently require ANY therapy... "

Cat Owner wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:59 AM:

" Have you ever met animals that had seperation anxiety or obsessive behaviors? These can be dangerous to the animals and humans. animals can scratch spots until they bleed, lick all their fur off, chew on a tail until it has to be amputated. People love their pets and are trying to cope instead of giving up and putting them down. "

Barfy wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:11 AM:

" I've been in therapy for years because Bill Keane gave me such a repulsive name. "

Snoopy wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:09 AM:

" I'm much happier these days since I went on Zoloft. You try living with Charlie Brown. "

Lassie wrote on Jul 14, 2008 10:03 AM:

" I'm doing much better these days because of Prozac. I mean it seemed like every other day Timmy fell down in the well and you know who had to rescue him. That got to be depressing. "

Just some dude wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:13 AM:

" We treat our animals better than our people in this country. Look at the case in todays Tribune about the woman who killed her baby. The baby was only a few days old, and granted these do represent somewhat isolated incidents. But, it does beg the question: Where are the Planned Parenthood and Pro-Choice fanatics preaching to us about respecting this womans right to choose? After all, who are we to judge or impose our morality on others? Also, how many unwanted children do the people condemning this woman take into their homes? Do any of these "arguements" sound familiar? Pathetic. These are probably the same people protesting the treatment of zoo and circus animals. Just the type of people this article is talking about. "

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »