Monday, May 29, 2006

Only Blonde, Blue-Eyed Babies Need Apply

After reading Dr. Roy's Thoughts on the British Sunday Times report that otherwise healthy babies are being aborted for treatable defects such as having a club foot, I was left with a feeling of disgust and revulsion. (H/T to Dr. Roy and Nealenews)

One baby had been aborted at 7 months for having a cleft palate! Canadian singer Rita MacNeil had a cleft palate which was corrected by surgery. What if her parents had decided that such a defect would render her undesirable? (No wise cracks, please).

The article is quite an alarming read. I am struck with two thoughts. First of all, with our publicly funded abortion-on-demand philosophy, what is stopping us from going there, if we aren't at this point already? Also, with new research and developments in genetics, aren't we awfully close to an industry of "Designer Babies", with easy disposal of the mistakes?

One thing for sure, Hitler would approve of this aspect of our "socially progressive" mentality.


Tamara said...

It's so tough to listen to stories like these. Being pregnant myself (just past 20 weeks), there's no way I could convince myself that the little guy in there isn't his own person (I certainly wouldn't kick myself in the bladder like that). I can't imagine aborting at this stage over something that, in the long run, wouldn't affect his life that greatly.

Zac said...

It's very sad to hear how they would abort a child because of "webbed fingers or extra digits". That seems to be cosmetic nature in nature.

Stories like these upset even the pro-choicers like myself.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Tamara, thank God for women such as yourself.

However, how moral is it to allow people to regard having a child something akin to picking out the best car, etc.? At what point do we as a society say that abortion used to select a designer baby just isn't right? That children aren't commodities?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac, thanks for your honesty. My you are incredibly non-partisan today! ;)

Zac said...

Abortion, I don't think is really much of a partisan issue. Both our parties are split over it and you'll even find some dippers opposed to it...if you look hard enough.

Soccermom said...

OH MY GOD, WHERE DO I START? This story hits close to my heart. It makes me very sad. I have a child with Down Syndrome. Many Down Syndrome babies are terminated in this country. People say they couldn't handle raising such a child. They underestimate the power they have if they just try - and have a little faith. I would not trade my little guy for anything. The road has not been easy, but it has been rewarding and I have become a better person because of him. People think they are owed an easy life. If you haven't figured it out by now, people, life isn't meant to be an easy cake-walk and it never will be. We are meant to learn from every experience, positive and negative, that we come across. Running and hiding from every bump in the road makes us cowards. Perfection does not exist; never will. We are human, after all.

People aborting babies with club feet! I shake my head and feel such pity for these people. Where is the compassion our society prides itself on? There is absolutely no compassion in this world for an unwanted, unborn child. If you don't want your club-footed baby (or Down Syndrome baby, or green-eyed healthy baby), give him or her up for adoption, don't kill the poor unborn child. This is so ridiculous!

I fault the doctors for not educating the parents properly on this. I cannot believe how stupid this is. Shame on all of those idiots, including the parents, for not doing some research. What a sick, disposable society we live in.

There is so much more I could say on this, but I'm probably on the verge of verbal diarrhea with this one already!!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Soccermom, thanks so much for your comments, and please don't ever apologize for contributing to this blog.

There are some people very close to me with afflictions that some might have thought worthy of aborting. The person I am thinking of is very, very special to our family and I thank God that her birth mother chose to give her life.

Soccermom, you already read Journal of an Insomniac's "I am not an accident", so you know who I am talking about.

Yes, your child is precious too and nobody has the right to decide otherwise.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac the problem is that the Dippers aren't allowed to have their own opinion. It's always about the party line. Not very democratic, IMO.

Soccermom said...

Joanne, thanks for your kind words. I get so worked up sometime on certain topics that I'm not sure if I'm coherent!

If you are ever interested, or if anyone else is facing similar challenges, I can recommend a wonderful book that brought me much comfort over the years with regards to my son. It's called "A Special Gift" by Carrie T. Gruman-Trinkner. Specifically, it's a true story about a mom raising a child with unique challenges. He is such a joy in her life! There are great lessons for many to learn in this book, regardless of what disability you are dealing with. It is also faith-based which got me through so many rough times.

Thanks again!

Red Tory said...

Oh my god, no… it’s the “thin edge of the wedge” argument! First, it’s webbed fingers or a cleft palette; next, it will be a publicly-funded program of eugenics to create a race of √úbermensch!

But seriously, the cases cited are clearly an abuse of a tragically flawed system that allows such things to occur. The original provision in the law seems like it was well-intentioned (to prevent pain and suffering when the fetus appeared to be doomed), but we all know where that road leads to… In this instance, to the unintended consequence of needless abortions sanctioned by the callous, selfish and/or ignorant parents of babies with minor defects. They are reprehensible idiots who, in my opinion, probably shouldn’t be procreating in the first place.

Soccermom said...

Yes, Red Tory, I certainly hope all of those parents are not able to conceive again after doing something so selfish and stupid. They truly do not deserve to be parents.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

OMG, Red Tory is agreeing? Is it possible that we might have a consensus on this subject? Where are those annoying Liberal trolls today (Blake and JDvae)?

I want some confrontation on this!

Zac said...

"I want some confrontation on this!"

I know how much you like to round and round on the abortion issue Joanne but I don't think you'll find many people who would agree that this is something that should be permissable.

Perhaps you should just post the word "abortion: yes or no" on your next post and see what rolls in. I'm sure you'll hear from jdave on that one.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac, can you assure me then that this could never happen in Canada, given the lack of laws we have at the present time?

Is there a doctor reading this who know if this is ever done?

vicki said... you think 'reason for terminating the pregnancy' has been only for noble reasons?Abortions are used for birth control. Is one reason more acceptable than others?Just asking, because you expressed concern over the cleft palate reason.Usually pro choice are ok with whatever reason.

Chuckercanuck said...

Off-topic, but not off-topic:

At the end In State of Fear, Michael Chriton's novel about eco-terrorists, the author adds an essay on global warming paranoia.

He points out that scientists have never been in more agreement over a principle like global warming except at the turn of the century when you couldn't find a scientist who didn't think eugenics was a fine idea.

Santayana: those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.

Zac said...

"Usually pro choice are ok with whatever reason."

As you can tell from mine and RT's comments, us pro-choicers come in all shapes and sizes. This is a shamefull story, it upsets me just like it would upset anyone. Vicki, you have to understand that us pro-choicers are not necessarily monsters who get pleasure out seeing women get abortions...believe it or not we have hearts too.

On your note about "birth control", I know and have known women who don't use condoms when having sex because they figure, "hey, I'll just get an abortion if something bad happens." This attitude disgusts me also, and I can let you know as well that it is quite a common view amongst university students.

So, I get where your coming from on that on.

So....not to get drawn into a debate with your fine ladies this evening, but there's my two cents on the subject.

Red Tory said...

Sorry to disappoint you Joanne, but I am not “pro-abortion” even though I support a woman’s right to choice in the matter. Like most liberals I know, I believe that abortion should be safe, accessible and… rare.

Soccermom said...

It certainly isn't rare, though, is it?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - Yes, that would be the ideal, but human nature being what it is, what is expedient usually is what occurs.

Chucker - Still trying to wrap my head around that, but I feel it is significant. I am going to think about it.

Vicki - It seems that we threw the baby out with the dishwater when it comes to abortion. Everything is legal. No restrictions. No laws. And we call ourselves civilized.

Red Tory said...

soccermom -- Well, "rare" is a relative term. I'm sure that ONE would too many for your taste.

Roy Eappen said...

The problem is by cheapening the value of life, this is exactly what happens. I am sure it happens here as well.One woman , when I was a student had an abortion so she could go on holiday wihout nausea. She wanted to have a child later.
I posed this question to Morgentaler , who gave us a lecture( he got a very hostile response from my medical school class 20 years ago) . He was unable to answer. He thought it wrong to abort female babies for being female. It was pointed out that any reason was supposed to be ok, because its abortion on demand. There are fewer and fewer of my colleagues interested in doing this ghastly procedure.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Dr. Roy, thanks for your input. That is horrible about the woman wanting an abortion because of the nausea. Unreal.

Do you know if doctors are ever forced to do abortions?

Sara said...

This is horrifying.......... holy fuck!!!!!!!!

sorry but I had to say that... My children are perfect whether you think so or not! Thats how parents are supposed to protect their children....
The biggest part of me being a mom is my life for my children...

vicki said...

Thanks zac for answering and rt for your comments...I had a misconception that 'pro choice' also meant that you were not offended by some of these 'choices'.I'm encouraged by what you have said. BTW jo anne there are NO laws in Canada regarding abortion, so yes this could be happening .

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol. Sara, we'll forgive the outburst.. It is horrifying. Dr. Roy says he is sure it happens here as well. I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on abortions done in Canada.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I am confused. RT says pro-choice is not the same thing as pro-abortion. Zac also seems to want to give women the right to choose but feels repulsed by some of the choices. So we will give the woman the choice to do anything she wants to her unborn child, but we hate what she's doing. Is that it?

Red Tory said...

I am confused. RT says pro-choice is not the same thing as pro-abortion. Zac also seems to want to give women the right to choose but feels repulsed by some of the choices. So we will give the woman the choice to do anything she wants to her unborn child, but we hate what she's doing. Is that it?

Joanne -- I don’t like the way you are attempting to frame this argument. I do not equate a woman’s right to choose over decisions regarding her body and the fetal life therein, with being “pro-abortion.” Perhaps this is a matter of semantics, but the latter term makes it sound like those on our side of the fence are rah-rah, all in favour of it. “I’m pro guns! I’m pro football!” Or, for that matter, “I’m pro Eskimo Pies!” This is hardly the case. In fact, it’s insulting and demeaning.

You are reducing the argument to a simplistic black and white scenario. Why can you just not acknowledge that some (indeed many, if not most) pro-choice advocates are appalled at egregious abuses such as you’ve pointed out. I don’t see why you need to be confounded by this or why it is necessary to take the argument to the extremities of the absurd (i.e., “we will give the woman the choice to do anything…”)

Let me ask you a very simple question. Do you have any children?

Roy Eappen said...

Fortunately no physician is ever forced to do this repulsive procedure. There are really no statistics kept on reasons for abortion in Canada. I am sure the Pro Choic peopel would go nuts if that were the case. Abortion is a tragedy. I wouldn't out law it , but I would really want to discourage it. It is tragic to me that the woman's movement as decided that killing babies is some kind of victory. I am sure this happens here! Abortion for the sex of the baby happens here as well. Though some attempts are made to stop that.

Candace said...

Wow, it's not real often I agree with Red Tory, but I have to weigh in on his side on this issue. I am pro-choice, but I do not agree that abortions for any reason other than threatening the mother's life (really, not just a mild or even severe depression barring extremely unusual circumstances) should occur after the first trimester. How friggin' hard is it to decide if you want to carry that child to term, for God's sake?

As for the BS around aborting over sex or easily fixed deformities like a cleft palate or club foot? Well, if it has to be permitted by law, then sterilization should occur at the same time IMHO. People that surface are likely going to be pretty crappy parents.

I have to agree with RT - this is NOT a black & white issue, and I get a tad perturbed when people try to turn it into one. It's easy to say "abstain" but I must say, if my daughter were to come home in a couple of years, say at 15 or 16 or even 18, with tears in her eyes, I'd be hard-pressed to rejoice & start shopping for a crib, and would most likely counsel against it. Yes, I preach abstinence, but the schools and her peers don't. I can only hope & trust that what I say makes sense to her. Since she herself is a "condom baby" maybe she'll get it?

Some of the stats I've seen on abortions in the US (which we have to extrapolate since there don't seem to be any for Canada) are pretty scary. I don't know what difference a time limit would make, but I have to ask what inhumane person would agree to late-term abortion and the abomination that it is over things discussed in the post.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - "Let me ask you a very simple question. Do you have any children?"

Do you? What's your point?

Red Tory said...

Joanne -- Yes, I do. Four as a matter of fact. Please answer the question.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - "I don’t see why you need to be confounded by this or why it is necessary to take the argument to the extremities of the absurd"

What is absurd is that there appear to be no restrictions on abortion at all, for whatever reason. Tell me if I'm wrong. I would love to be told otherwise.

Dr. Roy -"Abortion is a tragedy. I wouldn't out law it , but I would really want to discourage it. It is tragic to me that the woman's movement as decided that killing babies is some kind of victory."

Absolutely. I agree (unlike many pro-lifers), that there can be circumstances where an abortion would be warranted, and the preservation of the life of the mother is certainly one of them.

But as Zac mentioned earlier, too often young women use this as a type of birth control ("I can let you know as well that it is quite a common view amongst university students"), because they don't like condoms or whatever. Not only can you get pregnant with that kind of thinking; you can also die from STD's.

Candace - "I have to agree with RT - this is NOT a black & white issue, and I get a tad perturbed when people try to turn it into one. It's easy to say "abstain" but I must say, if my daughter were to come home in a couple of years, say at 15 or 16 or even 18, with tears in her eyes, I'd be hard-pressed to rejoice & start shopping for a crib, and would most likely counsel against it."

Wouldn't you be able to suggest adoption as an option? I know someone who did just that, and was involved in an open adoption, and now has a beautiful little boy who is part of a loving home, and whom she sees on a regular basis, as a family friend rather than "mom". She is so glad she made this choice.

Dr. Roy - "There are really no statistics kept on reasons for abortion in Canada. I am sure the Pro Choice people would go nuts if that were the case"

Why is this the case? Why don't we have stats? Are we that afraid of the militant feminists?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - "Please answer the question."

Please answer mine: What's your point?

Sara said...

I assumed pro-choice and por-abortion were the same thing, but since Joanne's question I get it now. Pro-choice is for a threat on the mother or baby but pro-abortion is for all...

That was not a stupid question as I say before there are no stupid questions just stupid answers and red tory you proved that one.


Thanks for caring for what matters.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Sara. What I am getting at here is that there seems to be a continuum of opinion, with no clearly defined "sides", and yet we currently have no law at all and no restrictions whatsoever. If I am wrong, will somebody please please correct me? I want to be proven wrong in this situation.

I want to know that Canada actually does draw a line at some point, and that a human fetus in Canada actually does have more rights than an eagle's egg in the U.S.

Please enlighten me!

Sara said...

Zac, as for the fat comment of Harper. I am fat was fat and probably always will be, personally I couldn't care less but to judge me because I am fat is wrong. To judge anyone is wrong but to no agree with Harper because of his beliefs is fine, therefore to make fun of his common sense is different than saying he's a bad PM because he's fat...

now I really still don't care what you call him, seriously I don't I'm just trying to get my point across.

I am really bad at making inappropriate joke, you should see me in a church. My husband hates taking me to church hehe...

liberal supporter said...

What do you mean there is no law? We do have a law. We do draw a line. Once you are born, you are a separate individual, with basic rights to life and security.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. - Please tell me when during that act of "being born" the emerging infant magically becomes a "person"? Is it when the head emerges or the whole body?

Does anyone have a legal reference for this? Thanks.

Red Tory said...

A simple question, asked not once, but twice and not answered. What is so difficult about this?

And to answer YOUR question, my "point" will depend on your answer to my first question.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

O.K. I'll bite, although I really don't think it's AOYB. Two kids. Again, what's your point?

Zac said...

Sara, are you talking about my "hungry, hungry hippo-crit" comment from another post?

I don't judge Harper because I think he's gained a bit of weight. Obviously, he and I are on different sides of the political spectrum and have different ideas about how the country should be run.

I poke fun at him because, well, it's fun. If I ever had the chance to debate him (not bloody likely) i wouldn't call him fat and mock his appearence, but rather discuss ideas.

Comedians make fun of his weight, check out Air Farce of This Hour Has 22 Minutes. While I make no claim to be a comedian, or even funny for that matter, it does happen and it is all in good fun. Every public figure gets lampooned from time to time. It's all in jest.

BTW Sara, looking at your picture, you don't look fat at all to me.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sara, I agree with Zac that you don't look fat. I saw you on T.V. once, and you looked just great.

However, I hear you about being sensitive about people with more pounds on them than they want. I am constantly fighting that myself in spite of working out regularly and watching what I eat. It can be a result of metabolism, hormones, etc. It is so frustrating to be constantly battling this demon, and remarks about weight just don't help.

Zac, I stopped watching Air Farce and 22 Minutes. I don't find them particularly funny.

Zac said...

What about Rick Mercer, he's hillarious.

Perhaps in the future some smart ass kid on the internet will poke fun at my weight and I'll get my come-up-in's.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

When I think of Rick Mercer, I think of One Ton Challenge. 'Nuff said.

liberal supporter said...

Nice try with "when does the emerging baby become a person". We are talking about a legal change of status. I've heard of people on the day of their 19th birthday being refused service in a bar just after midnight, even though they are of legal age at that point. It is entirely arbitrary.

Suppose the baby is born around midnight? Consider various stages of emergence from the birth canal at the stroke of midnight. For each case what will be recorded as the date of birth?

Yes, people name their children before they are born, but nobody is added to the birth records, or has a date of birth until they are born. We don't celebrate our conception day, or point at which we were probably viable day, it's the birth day that counts.

You can cite cases like the club foot baby being aborted, there were 20 of these cases over 8 years, out of likely more than 800,000 abortions in the same time in the UK, but those cases are actually the least likely to be prevented by making abortion illegal.

The money you would spend on the abortion police should go towards creating conditions so that abortions naturally decline.

Things like education (about abstinence, contraceptives), medical practice standards that discourage designer babies (a bigger issue is designer baby interventions in test tubes before conception - especially for sex selection). Support systems so that single moms can stay in school where that applies, support systems so that child support is paid on time, instead of waiting for the family responsibility office to collect.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. Nice try with your condescending diatribe. Are you a legal expert?

I am asking for a legal opinion. Your argument about time is a red herring. What is considered to be birth? There must be a legal definition, or else how can we distinguish between abortion and murder?

Red Tory said...

My point was simply that I don’t like the way you constantly trivialize abortion by simply highlighting cases that are feckless or which demonstrate irresponsible behavior by certain individuals. Anyone who has had a child and considered the possibility of abortion knows this is by no means an easy decision to make. My wife and I agonized for a time over this with our first child. We were extremely young then (23 and 21), hadn’t been married long and the prospect of having an unplanned child was, to be honest, traumatic. We had used protection, but my wife wasn’t able to go on the pill and… well… you know… shit happens. Quite suddenly, our plans had to change radically and it was literally an abrupt, life-altering decision for the both of us. We elected not have an abortion (even though it would have been vastly more convenient to do so), but had we NOT made that decision, I don’t think that would have made us horrible people for having done so. As I said, it was not something we took lightly at all. I think when you sneer at those who do opt to have an abortion with your “holier than thou” attitude you demean them by presuming they are somehow morally reprehensible villains.

In asking you whether you had children of your own I wanted to better understand what is at the root of your deep-seated objection to abortion in principle, and also to know whether you had ever faced the moral dilemma of considering having one yourself. Yes, perhaps it is none of my business, but I figure when people put themselves “out there” on a blog, they are to some degree inviting a bit of public scrutiny as well, especially when discussing an issue as personal and sensitive as abortion. Had you said “none” -- well, my derision would have been effusive, to say the least.

liberal supporter said...

My apologies Joanne. I am not a legal expert. Yes, there is probably a legal definition of birth, but I don't know what it is. I was guessing, giving examples related to determining date of birth. How is the first baby of the New Year determined?

I think that in reality, there are cases where children already born by any definition are allowed to die by withholding life support, or by not performing "heroics", but nobody is charged with murder there either. So I don't know whether a precise legal definition helps here.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. Yes, I have heard of cases like that too. Botched abortions where the otherwise viable baby is left to die without intervention, when a similar child whose mother want him, would be labelled a premie and given all kinds of assistance.

So I all boils down to what does the pregnant female want? She has the power of God to decide a person's fate. It is amazing to me.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - Thanks for your very candid comment. My kids were both an answer to prayer so the thought of abortion never entered my mind.

I'm glad you and your wife made the choice you did, and I'm sure your oldest is also grateful.

"but had we NOT made that decision, I don’t think that would have made us horrible people for having done so."

I don't look down on people who make these choices. I just wonder how a supposedly "just" and "compassionate" society puts no restriction at all on late-term abortions? As Sara said, surely by the last trimester you have a clue whether or not you want the baby! I just don't know how any doctor can perform such a procedure on a fully formed healthy human being. It blows my mind.

Who is at fault here? Not you; not me, but all of us together.

Red Tory said...

Joanne, I have to say that putting the focus on late-term abortions really skews the debate unfairly in my opinion. Again, you are approaching the issue from extreme angles and it seems to me that in doing so you’re being more than a little disingenuous. Late term abortions are, to my knowledge, the exception rather than the rule. From your posts and your comments, it seems to me that you are opposed to abortion: period. If that’s the case, fine. But why not just come out and admit that rather than artfully dancing around the issue? Okay, so you’re anti-abortion… next? Better yet, why don’t you outline where you stand on the issue? Lay it all out there in no uncertain terms.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - Do you really want to hear my position, or are you just wanting something else to jump all over and feel better about yourself in so doing?

Red Tory said...

You can characterize my remarks as you like and read into them what you will, but I meant exactly what I said. Why not just plainly state what your position is on the issue of abortion? Seems like a fairly straightforward proposition to me.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - O.K. I want to put some thought in this though. I'll get back to you.

Red Tory said...

Joanne -- It's a complex subject. Better more time and less ambiguity.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

O.K. I think this is it in a nutshell: In an ideal world there would be no abortion and no unwanted babies. I realize that that is not realistic.

Therefore, let's at least remove the greater evil, which I see as late-term abortions. Granted they are rare (I hope), but there needs to be a law.

I have no scientific facts to back me up on this, but I'm thinking that a human being in utero can feel pain five minutes before birth just as easily as five minutes afterwards. They used to do circumcisions routinely thinking that newborns felt no pain. Of course, now we know otherwise.

The difficult thing is to determine where the line would be drawn whereby abortions wouldn't be legal except in extreme circumstances of threat to maternal life, etc.

Those are my thoughts.

Red Tory said...

Joanne -- Hmmm. The expression “greater evil” disturbs me. Would it be fair to assume from this that everything below the threshold of a late term abortion is a “lesser evil”? If so, I deduce that you believe abortion, no matter what stage of fetal development, is still evil.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Evil; not desirable. Whatever. We're arguing about semantics. The point is that destroying a fetus is something to be avoided if possible. I think we all can agree on that.

Sara said...


I was just referring to my making a point of the fat comment, keep saying it, it really doesn't bother me.


Thanks for the comment but I lost 60lbs and am still about 25lbs over weight, either way I'm happy fat or not. I've always been secure about me you see my personality wins all lol...


You're a man no one looks fat to you lol

Red Tory said...

Joanne -- I hate to get all nit-picky here, but there’s a HUGE difference between “evil” and “not desirable.” To simply slough it off as a pesky matter of “semantics” seems rather, I don’t know… again, for lack of a better word perhaps, disingenuous. It’s my impression that there’s a real lack of intellectual honesty and integrity in what you are saying. You want to get down the finest of fine strokes when it comes to the matter of determining when life begins and when it can be terminated in utero, but when it comes to “evil” vs. “not desirable” your attitude is… “Eh. Whatever! Six of one, half a dozen of the other.” Weird. Not to mention contradictory.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sara - You lost 60 lbs? How??

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - It is an expression; like the lesser of two evils...

Anyway, you asked my opinion. Now you have it. Call me disingenuous or anything else you want to hurl at me. Is this an ad hominem argument? Stephen Taylor has a great post on logical fallacies.

TangoJuliette said...

Heidi-ho dear hearts:

Trueblue Joanne: Just got back to your blog and am amazed at what I've been missing.

This ( RT ) dude seems to not be a great listener. If it's the same individual using the sane moniker as the one on your post a few weeks back when your kids were mentioned in dispatches. Seems to be a guy (generic gender term) highly enamoured with the thrill of picking flyshit out of pepper.

This whole issue is a really tough call. Citing extreme cases, one way or another, may or may not help the debate. I harbour my own personal thoughts and feelings.

The conundrum, as I see the situation, seems to be:

1.) all life is sacred (at this point, feel free to insert the one word you feel is more closely aligned with your world-view.) "Life" itself is a tough label to zero in on. Is it anywhere from fertilization to the descent down the birth canal (preferably in the correct orientation.)

Or does it start when the head emerges, or is it when the shoulders do? Or when the body is clear of the mother? Or is it after the doctor's life-giving kick-start slap on the buttocks to get the baby breathing? Or after the umbellical chord is cut and the new-born gets stuck with his/her own personal "outie" or "innie"?

2.) abortions are a lousy form of birth control and most certainly are a horrific form of selective, superficial human engineering.

3.) While not all may agree, sometimes abortions may be deemed to be necessary.

4.) These abortions should certainly be safely performed, by qualified specialists.

5.) Some very serious education seems to be called for.

6.) It CAN BECOME / IS the thin edge of the wedge at the top of a very slippery slope. To wit: early 1970's film series by Dr. Francis Schaeffer and his son Franky Schaeffer. Series was called "How then shall we live." Yes, it comes from a Christian perspective. It's also well thought out, well filmed and well produced, while being extremely prescient about where we today, find ourselves heading. What they saw in the late 60's, wrote about and filmed in the early 70's, is just so BANG ON!!Check it out, if you can.

7.) Chilling in it's etymological roots, the word "abortion" is derived from the Latin term "ab oriri" meaning 'to amiss' or 'to prevent' from 'being born.' or 'standing.'

8.) In this lifetime, there shall be no easy, workable answers. And we move through the universe, working out our salvation, in fear and trmbling.

the last bit of the previous chapter probably comes from Kierkegaard.

Zac: some dynamite insights and mature understanding. In my humble opinion: great analysis and thinking.


L.H. & K.

Red Tory said...

It is an expression; like the lesser of two evils...

REALLY? Golly-willickers, I'd never heard that before. Well, back to the turnip wagon for me!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Tango - Glad you're back, and thanks for that incredibly lucid and articulate commentary. Lots of food for thought there.

Also glad to see you and Zac have made up. :) You are both excellent contributors to this blog and always welcome.

RT - Sarcasm doesn't become you. You have too much intelligence to have to resort to that to make your point. You have been trying to goad me into backing down, by trying to prove that I am somehow a bigot or that I have a holier-than-thou attitude? Whatever. Just like Aussie Yam, it is a waste of my time to be responding.

TangoJuliette said...


Think: "preferably under it."

ciao, BIG daddy rt!

L.H. &. K.

Sara said...

was finished having children so I decided my body was my own again and went on a low-carb, nothing fancy just did it on my own. Cut out bread and white stuff, potatoe, rice etc... I ate meat and salads, fruit and no sugar drinks then lost gallbladder so I couldn't eat anything for a month anyways lol.. just went from there I was 205. Thats what babies and eating binges will do to yah lol but I'll do it again and again it was worth it.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Good for you, Sara! I'm trying to stay away from the "white death" too, as much as possible. Yeah, it's amazing how much you would do for your kids. And you would do it without questioning. It's an incredible kind of love.

Candace said...

Back to "when is a fetus not a fetus?" - At the advice of a client who is/was a child psychologist focusing on learning disabilities, I started playing soothing & relaxing music (I picked Enya's "Watermark") at month 7 (when the auditory system is fully developed). Later, when she was colicky, I'd pop her in her (rockable) carseat and Enya in the stereo and *magic* she fell asleep. In Grade 4, her teacher would play Enya (sometimes Watermark, sometimes not) during focused study times, and she would fight to stay awake in class.

It still works. A memory was placed waaaay deep that reminds her of the safety of the womb.

To me, a fetus turns into a "person" when they are viable, ie could live outside the womb. With modern medicine, that can now be as early as 4 to 4.5 months into the pregnancy.

I'd prefer to see abortion limited after the first trimester (because REALLY! if you're old enough to get pregnant, you're old enough to make a life-changing decision).

Re: could I not counsel adoption? To be perfectly honest, depending on her age at the time, it would be choice #2, as I'm not sure that she'd be able to actually follow through with the adoption, at which point her life would TRULY be changed forever. She's 12 now, and brings home every stray (person, we have enough pets, although she's working on me for that) and is a "fixer" so I'm not sure she'd be able to carry a child to term and give it up. However, she's also psychologically pretty strong due to some major crap she's already had to deal with, so I could be wrong. At this point, it's difficult to predict. If she knew the couple adopting (eg we have friends that did adopt, but the mom took the baby back after 5 days - so if they were willing to take the baby, she might be okay with that...strangers? I'm not so sure), that would likely make a huge difference.

I had a number of miscarriages prior to having her - when she was about 4, she said something I'll never forget. "Mom, I waited a long time to be born. A couple of times, I thought it was going to happen and it didn't" No $hit. Interestingly enough, she no longer remembers saying that or thinking that. One of those questions on my list to ask God when I get the chance (it's a long one that she & I add to on occasion).

Sorry about the long post.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Candace, please don't apologize for the long post. When I read what your daughter said at age four, I got shivers up and down my spine.

That is awesome.

The music thing is a good point. It points to the fact that preborn infants can indeed respond to outside stimuli at a certain point.

I agree with you that the "personhood" should most certainly be defined at least as early as the point where a baby could survive outside the womb, given the abilities that modern science now affords to premies.

Candace, I really appreciate this particular comment of yours. Thanks so much.

TangoJuliette said...

Dear Greg (of THAT Brady Bunch?):

Thanks for your succinctly phrased, erudite and extremely well-thought out and cogent rebuttal to my earlier posting. Please know that I find your contributions to the discourse...interesting, to say the least. I suspect that the corollary to your 'new adage would be the 'New Corollary.' That's the one that goes along the lines of exercising caution in certain situations. Caution AND discretion.

IF your I.Q. measures a number smaller than your shoe size, be careful about what you say. People may wonder about your sanity.

IF your I.Q. is smaller than your hat-band, don't say anything at all. Otherwise people will be certain that you are a mental midget.

IF your I.Q. measures less than your Johnson, don't ever try to put your simple and feeble-minded thoughts down on paper or in pixels. Your glaring ignorance will be openly displayed and readily re-called by anyone looking for examples of truly lousy debating skills.

I'd be more than happy to challenge you to a duel of wits, but I promised my dear mumsie on her death bed, that I would never fight an unarmed man. You would call yourself a man, wouldn't you? I gotta hand it to you, cause you're either as dumb, shallow and insensitive as your comments make you out to be, or you've got more nerve than Dick Tracy. I'm betting on the former, 'cause I strongly believe that being a Liberal is a mental disorder, and an example of true anti-social, criminal inclination. Your riposte was so elaborate that I almost had trouble following the absolute wisdom of it all. To the best of my abilities this is what I understood you put down for posterity.

"I think that TangoJuliette just said something that I might not fully understand, but might be somewhat inclined to disagree with. I'm not sure. I'll guess that I'll just go with Liberal Speaking Points and Plan Highest Priority--I may not have the brains to discuss the issues so I'll get all righteous and attack the individual. I will launch my most utmostest devastating personal attack on Tango while simultaneously making fun of people suffering from alcoholism, just to show the world my utter brilliance in being a professing fiberal. Being an all-inclusive, encompassing and tolerant member of the Liberal Big Tent Circus of Clowns, Fools, Dolts, Liars and Thieves. Yeah. That's it! That's the ticket."

I guess that this blog thing has to be pretty difficult for you to process, right Greg? Not enough pictures? Too many words? Some of them are BIG too? Dang.

TangoJuliette said...

Just a simple question for the legal brains in the room, please.

If I were to take a flame-thrower and use it to burn down my neighbour's twenty five acres of corn stalks, none of which have ears of corn on them,what is my liability.

After a trial and conviction, am I responsible for compensating farmer Jones for twenty-five acres of cobless corn stalks, with a monetary value of next to nothing, as sillage.

Or am I going to be held responsible for the twenty five acres of "potential corn" that my flame-thrower and I have deprived him of. The second alternative having a higher, much higher, price tag attached to it.

Our legal system already has sliding scales of ju$tice, with monetary values appended. There are legal decisions made that are based on the reality that some situations are in a state of flux or evolution.

L.H. & K.