How can you tolerate so many abortion deaths?

Opinion: Letters To The Editor

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Print

You don't know me, but I am pro-life. I am one of the people you have called stupid, hypocritical, arrogant, narrow-minded, gun-toting and warmongering. Like so many other racial, political and religious stereotypes applied in the past against other groups in our society, your characterization of me and other people in the pro-life movement is untrue, unfair and ugly.

Most of the people I know in the pro-life movement do not fit neatly within your depiction. You might be shocked to learn that a fair number of us have even made financial contributions to preserve rain forests and protect endangered species.

Whatever might be our individual religious, political or racial differences, what unites all of us in the pro-life movement is something about which you didn't even bother to mention in your commentary. Since the legalization of abortion after Roe v. Wade, it is estimated that almost 55 million babies have been killed through so-called legal abortions. 55 million!

Again, you don't know me and I don't know you, but I certainly hope that you are good-hearted enough to be greatly troubled by this horrible statistic. Quite frankly, I find it hard to imagine that you can support the killing of the unborn. So, must I assume that like so many other people in our country you may have simply come to accept the killing of the unborn?

How can we possibly tolerate the killing of 55 million unborn babies?

I am sorry if you might take this question as being impertinent or indicating a certain moral self-righteousness on my part. I do not mean it to be. Truly. The fact is, I am genuinely curious how a person like you — or anyone else for that matter — can rationalize the fact that this year alone in the United States more than a million unborn children will be killed.

Max Douglas Brown

River Forest

Reader Comments

90 Comments - Add Your Comment

Comment Policy

rj  

Posted: May 1st, 2013 2:16 AM

Speedway- Sounds to me like you're doing a whole lot of judging about people who don't agree with you. I've always believed abortion was what it is, murder. It's not my problem you want to call it something else to justify a lack of conscience. Just another excuse & false judgment on your part to assume that my current reproductive status changes my stance on this issue. Some of us hold on to basic truths despite life changing circumstances. Ever hear of responsibility? 3300 per day a few?

Speedway from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: May 1st, 2013 1:04 AM

Most people are good and honest folk. Then there are some that have to pull a knife or gun. The majority, these thugs are not. rj- Why do you use a small minority of people to emphasize your point. I love it when people develop anti-abortion morals when it is no longer an issue for themselves but feel it is ok to judge everyone else.

rj  

Posted: April 30th, 2013 11:14 PM

Audra - People have two choices. When one of those choices results in pregnancy that's where life begins whether one is 16 or 36 & no matter how much one can find justification their future is more important than the life unintentionally created. This attitude is why the Kermit Gosnells of the world 'abort' 6-9 month term babies. Viable enough to live outside the womb but killed by cutting their spinal cords & thrown into the toilet or garbage, as we're learning from the trial in Philadelphia.

Audra from Oak park  

Posted: April 30th, 2013 10:00 PM

cont. You are thankful for one thing. That you live in this country and not in Romania. Bottom line: You have no right to an opinion from a religious, moralistic or abstract perspective until you have walked in the shoes of a pregnant girl.

Audra from Oak Park  

Posted: April 30th, 2013 9:58 PM

cont. What matters to you then is that you the boy who just convinced you to have sex with him is gone, your parents expect you to go to med school and not to be a pregnant teen and you are in the church choir where you can hardly hold your head up. You panic. You need to make the situation go away. You don't care if its legal or illegal. You have one goal. Go back to the life you had 2 weeks ago before you were pregnant. You have two choices. Coat hanger or doctor.

Audra from Oak Park  

Posted: April 30th, 2013 9:55 PM

It doesn't matter when life begins. Its a pointless debate. It doesn't make it any better or worse to create a fictional point at which life begins. What matters is what it is like to be 16, to have just had sex for the first time in your life and suddenly you are pregnant. You have no money, no friend to turn to and no way you can have a baby. Does it matter to you then what you call the pregnancy? No.

Dan from Tonawanda  

Posted: April 30th, 2013 8:45 PM

I'm shocked how the term "unwanted pregnancy" is used as if it justifies putting an end to newly formed life. Regardless of the label applied to various stages of new life, it is life nonetheless. We express shock, disbelief, and anger when innocent lives are taken by violence, but what life is more innocent than that of newly formed life? How do we turn a blind eye to our unborn and justify ending their future because they are "unwanted". Could you tell that to a 5 year old, and then kill her?

rj  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 5:05 PM

Jane - I would hope a 'Ben Carson' type president could probably bring about the confidence of an economy where all he said yesterday would be quite feasible for everyone at some point. Shouldn't that be the goal of a prez instead of everything G?

rj  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 4:27 PM

Speedway- You've got in upside down - it's the members of the democratic entitled party that are always standing there w/their glasses half empty. Conservatives fill their own glasses. Solution? Go online & find the prayer breakfast yesterday in DC & listen to Dr. Ben Carson's speech despite O sitting right there. There you would be some common sense solutions - I wouldn't care what party he belongs to.

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 4:07 PM

Let's put it this way, you shouldn't be a neurosurgeon if you don't believe in evolution. lol Or, at least, I wouldn't want him operating on me. "He's a great doctor, he just doesn't believe in ALL science!" lol

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 3:49 PM

Yeah... he really has no credibility and not all that bright... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 3:43 PM

The Dr. Ben Carson who has said publicly that he doesn't believe in evolution? He can't be THAT smart if he says something as dumb as that.

Jane  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 3:43 PM

Ben Carson also apparently believes in the existence of "death panels," and that somehow, people who can't afford insurance will manage to put money away in health savings accounts. So, you know, so much for his credibility.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 3:37 PM

Dr. Ben Carson absolutely destroyed Obama to his face at the National Prayer Breakfast. Google the video. The O didn't look too happy during his speech as Dr. Carson subtley blasted the left on self-reliance, political correctness, the debt, and then gave his answer to fixing health care - IT AIN"T OBAMACARE. Dr. Carson is one of the best brain surgeons in the world, black, and came from very humble beginnings.

not quite  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 3:33 PM

rj -- I didn't take issue with the doctor for having an opinion. I take issue with you presenting the doctor's opinion, attributing it to the President, and putting it in quotes. Is he credible? Perhaps. Perhaps not. He appears to have been a highly respected doctor but he's no longer practicing and now he's trying to sell a book. That isn't exactly a neutral source. And his opinion most definitely shouldn't be represented as a quote from the President. You harp about accuracy all the time.

rj  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 3:25 PM

Not quite- So an MD, who knows his profession & then chooses to interpret & write about OCare & how detrimental it'll be is somehow not credible? Yet the morons in G who came up w/a 2700 page bill written by all of their lobbying cronys, never reading it or understanding what was in it & then appointing an IPAB (dp) w/little or no health backgrounds to oversee this behemoth of a farce is more credible, while all these morons involved will have their unemcumbered Cadillac version. Incredible bs!

OP Transplant  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 12:31 PM

The state recognizes that life begins before birth, as evidenced by its fetal homicide laws. It has long been illegal to end the life of a fetus without the permission of the mother. I think what troubles many abortion opponents is one person being given this power of life or death over another. It's not unreasonable to think that, given the diversity of belief, the state might want to err on the side of not ending lives. Just one opinion.

Speedway from Oak Park  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 12:20 PM

rj - Your problem is you spew nothing but opinions or the opinion of some other person that you find to back up your own. I have still yet to see any solutions. We live in an imperfect world, our solutions to will be imperfect too. Hopefully, thru trial and error we can make this a better place. Unfortunately, rj I think your glass will always remain half empty.

not quite  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 11:37 AM

rj -- I was surprised to see the quote you attributed to Obama because it didn't sound likel something he, or any, political figure would say. When I searched online I can find several references to that statement but not as a quote from the President. Rather, what I can find is an interpretation on a blog of a short answer the given by the President. The statement posted is a pretty far away from what Obama actually said and it's written by a blogger -- an MD -- but a blogger selling a book.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 11:28 AM

rj, henny penny had more evidence to justify her claim that the sky was falling. At least there, an acorn actually fell on her head. All you have is your paranoid delusions and what you heard on Fox and Friends.

rj  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 11:24 AM

You are oh, so wrong about all this - the proof will be in that pain pill you'll be given long before it's necessary. Can't wait to hear the liberal whining, wailing, weeping & gnashing of teeth when this medusa is fully unleashed.

Mr. Middle  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 11:01 AM

Well Joe does not understand what the death panels where or how private HC companies handle end-of life. Nor does rj completely understand what O proposed. Kinda of hard to discuss. Tom you are exactly right about how stupid that was. What made it worse was they removed that provision from the VA as well. Imagine a 70 year old Vet unable to afford a lawyer but we spend $300K in the VA keeping him alive when he does not want it. Palin was and is an idiot.

rj  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 10:46 AM

Now you can put O into the nut bag column. June 24, 2009 on ABC, at a town hall meeting, O said "there would be an omnipotent panel acting at a distance & w/o any specific knowledge of particular cases that will tell a doctor when he/she can offer therapy or offer a pain pill." More yahoos making making life or death decisions. Death panels, though you liberals would favor calling this a green energy endeavor decreasing one's carbon footprint sooner than later.

joe from south oak park  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 10:44 AM

AHA doesn't need to cite death panels. All of our private health insurers already make these coverage determinations and have been doing so long before AHA ever came around.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 9:35 AM

Middle, you are probably right that that is to what rj refers but as usual, he couldn't be more wrong. The point of that provision was to enable people to make more intelligent decisions on their own healthcare. More importantly, via regulations passed in 2011, the administration stripped payments for advanced directive counseling from being comprehensible to Medicare providers. In essence, the admin caved to the nutballs like Palin and rj.

Mr. Middle  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 8:52 AM

However this country needs better HC access and needs a better solution. The abortion issue is one example on how AHA has gone to far. We should have removed any employer from determining your coverage and created a modified single payer. Think electric companies; heavily regulated but brings a business efficiency of getting things done. What we got mostly due to reactionary R was a G system that will not work and cost us a boat load. Rs screamed but never reasoned that an AHA was needed.

Mr. Middle  

Posted: February 8th, 2013 8:45 AM

rj will not find death panels in the AHA but he should. The provision he railed against paid for end-of-life legal fees to put a directive together for all people on medicare and also created a panel to set standards for care. It was a good part of AHA but went away because and idiot from Alaska did not understand it. Also, there is no one that hates the AHA more than I do as a small business person. Its financing methods and procedures are just plain stupid and oppressive...

Tom from River forest  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 9:31 PM

Still waiting for rj to cite the actual section of the ACA that creates the death panels....

Speedway from Oak Park  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 9:16 PM

@rj - You are good at finding fault. So where are your answers? Come on rj, you must have a positive answer for something.

rj  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 6:09 PM

Tom- Your so predicable - Try & get some updated info - oops - they don't allow that on liberal propaganda blogs or msm. When are you going to understand you're kept out of the loop otherwise you'd never vote for this crap. Except you Tom, you would. And Speedway, the CBO reports 8 million legals will remain uninsured by 2022. So what's the point of this massive overhaul, Tom? Do you ever answer anyones' questions, Tom?

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 5:40 PM

For rj sake then, let's hope that these imaginary death panels do not decide that paranoid delusions are a death eligible illness.

Speedway from Oak Park  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 5:35 PM

I'll take Obama's healthcare plan any day of the week. It sure beats watching people who can't afford health care die.

rj  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 5:28 PM

Mr Middle- Millions will lose their current insurance, individual mandate means more taxes & less liberty, your health care coverage will change to mandated upgrades, the Feds get to choose your treatment, the CBO has scored it lower than the ultimate cost. It was rushed through w/no one understanding it because they didn't have the time or initiative to read the 2,700 page bill. And you hope these yahoos in G can & will deliver quality healthcare. Wow! Let's all report back sometime in 2015.

Mr. Middle   

Posted: February 7th, 2013 4:36 PM

Hynes VA. She will tell you (and my personal knowledge will tell you) that 100s of patients come to die in the VA a year. Most with no Health directives leaving Drs and family members helpless in directing care. They never took the time to get their affairs in order. So $350K of unneeded and in some cases unwanted care occur. This happens 100s of times a year there. Now go to Loyola; directives in place and hospice care offered. The G does a horrible job at this now and can get better.

Mr. Middle  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 4:30 PM

rj is a little off his rocker yet Dylan stating that private HC companies deny coverage "all the time" is off base. As a plan administrator for 50+ people for over 20 years I have never come across a case of insurance denial. My agent of 20 years has dealt with 3-4 cases in the real world. Also do not tell rj; we already have death panels and its a good thing. Yet private HC does a better job at it than the G and that is the point of getting G involved. Talk with a Nurse over at the..

rj  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 4:14 PM

At some point, private insurance will no longer exist due to various mandated costs by G. They will be replaced with the single payer system - we'll all be in the G pool. You're kidding yourself if you think the G can or will give you as much quality care that private insurance would despite what you think of private insurance now. You know it'll be really bad when congress was quick to exempt themselves & their loved ones. Let's not forget the unions & their cronys.

Dylan Bellisle from Forest Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 3:22 PM

Tom, Exactly the point I was going to make. Insurance companies already deny services all the time. rj How is is that any different than what is happening right now with Health Insurance companies. Does it make it bad and evil because the government is doing it? If you don't like it then don't get insurance through the federal government. simple as that.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 3:18 PM

And rj, how is what you described any different than the approach that insurance companies now take in advance of denying coverage?

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 3:16 PM

Cite a section of the Act rj,.not some crazed poorly spelled rant that you read on Sarah Palin's facebook page.

rj  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 2:37 PM

Tom - In the healthcare law it established a panel of bureaucrats, not medical professionals, who will determine if it's cost effective to treat said 'unit', not patient, based on past outcomes with similar diagnosis. Their determination is all based on cost in relation to 'viability' of this 'unit's age. 'Viability' seems to be determined by ones usefulness to society. Birth to 8 or 10? & those over 65 will be denied care most often. DR's must get their permission to treat you in any manner.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 2:09 PM

rj, what section of the ACA contains the death panels since you have must have read the act with a fine tooth comb to determine what is embedded in it and what is not.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 2:07 PM

Nonsense - we already have rationing of health care both in the form of rationing by price and by queue. What do you call the decision of an insurance company to deny coverage to a treatment that it unilaterally determines is experimental?

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 2:06 PM

The panels would be about payment. I see your leap to "if grandma can't afford care it's all over." But the government isn't rationing care. It's lowering cost via what is considered necessary. Grandma can still go get her hip replaced if she wishes and pay for it on her own. Where others see nuance, you see death panels and unborn babies. lol It's a little more complicated than that. I'm done. Gotta go with Tom...this is getting too tinfoil hat for my tastes.

rj  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 1:51 PM

Tom - You have to keep up with current events - no more black helicopters - they have been replaced with drones. Military drones - not the liberal drones, Tom.

rj  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 1:44 PM

Keep it Legal - Krugman -tongue in cheek, foot in mouth - it doesn't matter. The panel is embedded as fact in the bill. The costs will be astronomical and the wait for care will be longer than anyone wants to tolerate.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 1:41 PM

There will be death panels. however, instead of calling it that, your care will just be denied due to age. ACA will lead to rationing of care as the basic laws of economics dictate under socialized medicne. So when granny slips and breaks a hip, don't act all surprised when the end of life counseling basically tells you she is too old to get a hip replacement. There will be some bureaucratic ROI calculation much worse than any private insurance company. Believe that...

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 1:40 PM

Sure rj, I am the one not living in reality. And there really are those black UN helicopter hovering over your home. SHHHH time for nappy now rj. and remember, take your meds. They will help you I promise.

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 1:37 PM

rj FYI Krugman was talking about deciding what is considered medically necessary and what is doctors over-billing. The "death panel" comment was making fun of people who want to call it death panels. It has nothing to do with withholding healthcare--just payment to keep costs down.

rj  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 1:34 PM

Moonbat Tom - Your constant, blatant denial of facts in a reality based world surely shows that you're terribly in need of some kind of professional counseling. You would soon discover that all your denials are all based on liberal hypocrisy which has no easy cure. Death panels have always been in the OCare law, as finally acknowledged by Krugman as a solution to OCare that can't be sustained.

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 1:11 PM

I had to Google to even figure out what rj was talking about...you mean Krugman's tongue in cheek comment that even conservative websites include that he was being snarky?

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 12:59 PM

rj - those meds your doctor prescribed are not optional. You need to take them every day. I know that it is hard for you accept this given your hazy state of consciousnesses right now, but Sarah Palin was lying to you. There are no death panels in the ACA. However, your health insurance company does have the functional equivalent in the form of the panel that decides that necessary treatments are experimental and thus not covered. Now, there is a "culture of death."

rj  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 12:46 PM

To continue the 'culture of death' - Krugman, progressives' sweetheart guru economist announces that 'death panels' for the elderly and higher taxes ultimately needed to sustain health care costs. I seem to recall when the right announced this reality it was an outrageous lie. Now is Krugman lying to you? This was all documented in the OCare law.

Jim Coughlin from Oak Park, Illinois  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 12:15 PM

Those who support reproductive rights understand that a woman's right to choose can not and should not be restricted. If Roe v. Wade was overturned, there would still be women seeking abortions and the rates of maternal mortality would most certainly rise. That number has decreased significantly under the current law.

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 11:44 AM

Gotcha. I understand your meaning now. I kind of feel the same way about the military though & that culture of death. lol Everything eventually goes to the bureaucrats, that's life. Actually, I do think abortion needs to be kept between a woman and her doctor with plenty of providers and ease of access. It's an individual decision that needs politicians, preachers, and other people generally, out of the equation.

rj  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 11:33 AM

Keep it Legal - I didn't mean to reference abortion to DNA selection. I meant that the culture of death, abortion, euthanasia, eugenics opens the door to bureaucrats, scientists, society elites to determine who lives & who dies for whatever reason based on current societal ills or wills. When man decides to play god the laws of nature don't necessarily apply any longer. If you look into trans humanism it's very interesting but very daunting. History shows us man does not do well playing God.

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 10:54 AM

(contd) But there's also a huge difference between altering DNA & using stem cells or genetically modified foods and some sort of grand social engineering. That's why the holocaust comparisons some people use are offensive & ridiculous...abortion is happening on a personal, individual level. It's not for society as a whole to have a say about. I don't like McDonalds but I also don't want to prevent other people from stuffing their faces with french fries.

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 10:51 AM

Whoa there, rj. You lost me. I had to read it again. Granted, there is a dark history in the US with many things...slavery, sexism, etc.. But abortion for, say, eye color or gender is a different debate altogether than abortion GENERALLY. Though I'm still undecided how I feel about parents pre-selecting via medical science the traits they'd like in their children. I'll give you that there are ethical concerns.

rj  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 10:50 AM

Keep it Legal - correction - my last post

rj  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 10:43 AM

Keep it Real- The US has a long history of eugenics in the 18th-19th C. This was a progressive reform campaign aimed at eliminating alleged social & hereditary impurities in society. There was compulsory sterilization in all 50 states based on psychiatric findings. The trans humanism movement today has scientists hard at work to develop a more pristine, higher state of humanity through alchemy & stem cells fusing man w/minerals, plants @ animals funded by our govt & private funding. Slippery?

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 7th, 2013 7:17 AM

rj, how did you get to eugenics from there? I mean this respectfully...the slippery slope argument misses everything in between. The abortion is murder crowd is missing a whole philosophical, moral, ethical, existential area in the middle. I don't mean to call it simplistic. I think pro-lifers mean well. But in their rush to love babies and "defend the innocent" there's this whole amazing world of interesting human stuff that you're missing between.

rj  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 10:55 PM

Keep it Legal - Just saw your 3:10pm post I missed earlier. Pets euthanized only when necessary, Euthanasia further establishes another column in the culture of death. Next would come eugenics, where, in all probability, some bureaucratic entity, might find you no longer ' viable' long before you're ready to be euthanized. You know, too many brown eyed, white skinned people, too many liberals, too many atheists, too many Catholics, too many Jews. Once you cross the line there is no line.

Sad Thinking  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 9:53 PM

What species is the zygote, fetus, infant, toddler, pre-teen, middle-aged adult, senile geriatric person? The answer (homo sapiens / human) is the same from beginning to end. If it is alive at all, it is a being. Your logic fails.

framing the question  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 6:45 PM

Shallow, you choose the question and then frame it in a manner where it appears black and white. However, your framing assumes much. Implicit in your question is the position that human life begins at conception. We both know that isn't universally agreed upon. Science hasn't settled the issue, either. It's a stretch to compare an embryo or fetus that can't survive on it's own to the disabled or elderly.

Pro choice   

Posted: February 6th, 2013 6:30 PM

Shallow thinking, what an aptly titled persona for what you just wrote. You are NOT killing an innocent "human being" when you perform an abortion within the first 2 or 3 weeks. It has not developed into anything other than a biological form, so there is no ethical dilemma on the part of pro choice people. It's not that hard to understand. What you have within the first few weeks is the "potential" for a developing human being, nothing more. Have you gotten pregnant from rape before?

Pro-choice  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 6:09 PM

It's a "life"? At what stage does it become a life? That is still open to question and many of the answers are based on religious beliefs, not fact. Is it a "life" if it is not viable outside of the womb? That is a question that must be answered by each person, for themselves, not for others.

rj  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 5:12 PM

Keep it Legal & Tom - Yes It's an individual choice & many times there's an emotional price to pay in the aftermath, whether it's abortion or adoption. It's a terribly difficult situation whatever the decision is. Don't think it's asking too much to understand the seriousness of this issue and to hope one day it's a rare procedure. The right can also have its own Utopian ideals.

Shallow Thinking  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 4:58 PM

The basic question is whether or not it is ever OK to purposely kill an innocent human being. That takes the word games out of the picture. The pro-life answer is "no", the pro-choice view is inescapably "yes". Both the developmental stage and viability arguments put all sorts of very worthwhile people in jeopardy. Thankfully, most pro-choicers abandon their own murderous logic when it comes the disabled; grandparents especially.

Pro choice  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 4:38 PM

Rei, it's always easy to make arm chair statements about how some rape victim should just have their rapists child, and then give it to someone. That decision should not be yours, or anyone else's, other than the mothers.

Pro choice.   

Posted: February 6th, 2013 4:36 PM

I agree that abortion is no substitute for contraception, but things happen, people get raped, teens do stupid things, condoms fail etc... When a child becomes a part of the world where parents aren't suited to be parents at that time, the child ultimately suffers more than the parent/parents. There are enough people on this earth that should even be parents but are. taking one's right away to determine if they are ready to have children is plain stupid.

Pro choice  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 4:32 PM

Rei, your opinion is completely subjective not based on science is you believe aborting within the first 2 or 3 weeks equates to "killing babies". YOU should do a little more research, as oppose to spreading your ideology around. It's people like you who take the control over one's own body out of one's hands. Abortions are ethical depending on the specific situations, and you'll just have to accept that whether you like it or not.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 4:24 PM

rj - no one is compelling you to get an abortion. The issue is the rights eagerness to tell women what they can do with their bodies.

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 4:21 PM

I know it was at Tom. I was just being difficult. lol It doesn't bother me at all that your values are different. It would only bother me if you were advocating to replace my currently legal choice with your values. Other than that, at least for me, I have no complaint. Not trying to tell you what to believe. Just fighting for people to be able to choose for themselves. Which is why the current law is correct.

rj  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 4:16 PM

Keep it Legal - My prior comment was directed to Tom re flannel, not you, you'll notice. Why does it bother some of you so much that we also have a choice to not believe as you do. Unfortunately you have the law on your side yet you choose to demean the values we have. Maybe we can agree there are varying degrees of inhumane circumstances. Just can't agree which are more important.

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 3:36 PM

I have nothing against flannel...or babies, rj. I just really, really love the moms I know. lol I love my kids, but if somebody told me I'd have to have them I'd consider it a most-inhumane punishment. I'm thankful to be a parent by choice!

rj  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 3:26 PM

And then there's Tom from River Forest again - always hovering somewhere between Moonbat and moronic. And now we learn, from an off topic, he has something against flannel shirts. Nothing is sacred with this guy, let along babies.

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 3:24 PM

LOL Thanks, Tom. Along the lines of Healthcare Pro, I'm winning to listen to the radical pro-lifers when I simultaneously hear about a vast expansion of pro-family items like paid maternity/paternity leave, a free healthcare system, free education, less complaining about food stamps, welfare, public housing. Show me you're really pro-life and I'm all ears!

rj  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 3:21 PM

Last I heard it was legal - last I heard it was far from rare. Perhaps if we could replace the feel good reference to 'fetus' with what it really is, a baby, we could have a more conscionable society.

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 3:14 PM

Legal - rj only cares about a "baby" while its a fetus. Once it is actually alive, that sucker is on his own in rj-land.

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 3:10 PM

For the record, I also support euthanizing animals who are suffering and the right of seniors and terminally ill patients to end their lives. The right to life and important decisions about managing the human condition includes the right to also choose death and limiting future suffering. Babies, babies, babies...everybody loves a cute little baby until it turns into a mouth to feed, house, educate. Talk to me about conscience when we're taking care of the suffering in the world better.

health care professional  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 3:03 PM

Let's see, we don't really need to have access to safe abortion because - all women have access to and information about birth control and partners who support their use - and all pregnancies progress with perfect health so nobody every has to deal with catastrophic health problems of mother or fetus. We can't live other people's lives. We need to respect their ability to make the health choices (including abortion) that fit their needs.

rj  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 2:53 PM

Keep It Legal - How about keep it real. Irresponsibility and inconvenience does not justify killing a baby. Your denying that does not make it so and replacing baby with 'fetus' only serves to justify this brutal procedure that is far from rare. Thanks to 'progressives' that line was crossed quickly & went from rare to partial birth abortion all the while still being called a 'fetus'. You can't have credibility without a conscience.

We're lucky  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 2:47 PM

Great discussion! I'm thinking that once conceived, I only get one shot at life, regardless of any physical or other burdens I may pose. I don't think that the decision to have an abortion is ever taken lightly, but our inalienable right to life loses all value if its very existence can be subject to anyone's conflicting opinions or interests. I would hope we're all in agreement, by looking in the mirror, that life is always inherently the most valuable decision. Cheers to you all and to life!

Tom from River Forest  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 2:21 PM

Uncommon - If you actually read Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe v. Wade, I think that you would see that he agreed with you. He tried to strike a reasonable balance and he found the tipping point to be viability. As for Rei, the idea that life begins at conception is a religious one. It is certainly not a biological one and it should not be a legal one. You are entitled to your opinion but you should not be able to force your religious beliefs on others.

Keep It Legal  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 2:08 PM

Condoms break and people forget to take their pills. For me, the issue is viability, Uncommon. I feel very differently at 3 weeks versus 30 weeks. @Rei pregnancy can be a very harmful condition for the mother even if her life isn't in jeopardy. Blood pressure, complications, even horrible morning sickness that interferes with job performance. It isn't so black and white as "you're killing a baby."

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 1:54 PM

Abortion should not be used a form of birth control imho. Given the number of abortions taking place annually, it leads me to believe there are a lot of stupid people in this world. How hard is to use a condom, birth control pills, etc? Abortions should be legal, but they should also be RARE.

Uncommon Sense  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 1:51 PM

I guess the issue I have is where do you draw the line? Yes, it could be debated that a 3 week pregnancy isn't really a "baby" or life. However, when does it cross that line? I have yet to hear a reasonable argument why there is a need for partial birth abortions or abortions at say four or five months other than the mother's life is in danger or the child may have serious medical/mental developmental issues.

Rei from Lexington  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 1:29 PM

I support this article to the fullest. They are babies--and by the way if you ever even looked up what the term means it means young one, which is alive. You all can't seem to grasp this is a LIFE--and if you do private adoptions the couple will pay for the pregnancy, and no child is murdered. They are babies, they are humans, and you all support the murder of them. Abortion is a horrible thing and should be banned completely, and more people should stop being stupid and look into adoption.

Pro choice  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 8:34 AM

Max, Like the others mention, there is a big difference between "babies" and "fetuses". It sounds like you have 2 gripes. 1, you don't want to be pigeon holed, which is fair enough. 2, you don't believe in pro choice, which you are free to believe. Here's a thought, other people's bodies are not yours to make decisions about. What would you tell a 14 year old rape victim with not money or support to give birth to her rapists child?

Keep it legal  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 7:47 AM

Gotta go with Speedway on this one...I am pro-choice and object to the attempt to claim that 55 million babies have been killed. Not babies. Living, yes? But not yet a person with rights that equal or trump a mother's. And you also must consider the countless women who have had needed legal abortion as a necessary means to avoid unwanted pregnancies. "Babies" who become children that cannot be cared for. Pregnancy alone is expensive and risky.

Speedway from Oak Park  

Posted: February 6th, 2013 5:04 AM

Max, nice article but I object to your use of the term babies. I believe fetus is the more correct term. It certainly changes the view on abortion. I remain for pro-choice. I can see you are probably male so will never have to personally deal with an unwanted pregnancy. You also say you live in RF so I assume your finances are pretty good. That said, you cannot understand the situation. I do appreciate how you feel but do not agree.

Quick Links

Sign-up to get the latest news updates for Oak Park and River Forest.


            
SubscribeClassifieds
Photo storeContact us
Submit Letter To The Editor

Latest Comments