BLOG: Abortion Is A Dirty Word

Bryan Dubois
Sep 16, 2010

The mere mention of the word is controversial - even though supporting the right to abortion is a tenet of the modern day Democratic party.

Debate any abortion supporter and they'll object to your use of the phrase 'pro-abortion' to describe their position. They'll claim that using the phrase in unfair and inaccurate because nobody wants abortions.  Nobody likes abortion.  The existence of such a grisly, barbaric act exists to the dismay of all, you see.  Democrats simply believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

So if you oppose abortion, don't bother demonizing those who don't.  All people recognize the inhuman nature of terminating a child's life because of the inconvenience the child may introduce into the parent's life.  Yes, the majority of abortions in this country fall under this category.

So don't bother.  You couldn't possibly demonize a concept that most people feel uncomfortable talking about already.  What you should do is continue pointing out the reality of abortion.  Abortion can only exist if supporters don't have to face the reality of abortion. 

For example:  How many supporters of abortion would be willing to describe to you - during a debate - the detailed procedure of a D & X abortion?  (aka dilation & extraction, partial-birth abortion).  If any of them even know the details of the procedure, I'd bet money that they'd decline to explain it to you. 

Common sense says, I'm not going to explain the procedure because I'd sound like a monster for supporting it.  Can we just describe it as a 'medical procedure?'

Opposers should concede that the act is a "medical procedure" by responding with a poster of an aborted child with the Hippocratic oath posted beneath it.

"...never do harm to anyone."

Let common sense do the arguing.

You might as well agree with them that abortion is wrong and that nobody likes it - and then simply point out that on such a divisive issue there are two groups of people: 

Those who disagree with abortion because it's inhuman and wrong, and those who disagree with abortion because it's inhuman and wrong - but are quite willing to tolerate it.

***

Kinda related:

What's in a name?

The makers of high fructose corn syrup have abandoned the idea of doing a name-saving campaign. 

Once a word has become so reviled, you can't even mention it without turning people off.

Comments

Unabasho

"Holy oldie, Batman! There's a new story on gays in the military, and these people are still on last week's story?!"

brutus smith

 When it is not against the law I'm not one to tell other people what they can or cannot do. I believe the decision is between the woman, her Doctor, and if she believes in a higher power, then she/he too.

Unabasho

Tea Party haiku:

Love it or leave it.
It's our way or the highway.
Divided we stand.

No thank you. Take your tea and bag it -- I'm drinking coffee.

"The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them."


http://www.coffeepartyusa.com/

Informed

Bryan, if I am not mistaken, Laci Peterson was long past the point of viability in her pregnancy, thus the charge.  If she had been one month pregnant, I doubt that there would have been a charge or a conviction.

The morning after pill in this country is called Plan b.  Look it up.  It doesn't contain the ingredient in RU 486.  It is used to prevent ovulation or implantation of a fertilized egg.  Pregnancy only occurs if a fertilized egg is implanted.  This is not the same action as RU 486.  Taking Plan b is no different than taking more than one dose of standard oral contraceptives.  Do you want birth control pills banned?

I guess you still aren't getting the crux of my point.  Just because you believe that abortion in the early stages is killing a baby, doesn't mean that other people do.  The law does not define an embryo or a fetus as a person.  And certainly not a fetus before the point of viability.

Truth or Dare

 The Supreme Court  couldn't and didn't allow their personal  political/religious ideologies to  stand in the way of making a decision that effects the reproductive rights of ALL WOMEN.  It's called Separation of Church and State.  Wouldn't it be nice if there was a box somehwere we could check that would state where we prefer our tax $$$$'s to go too, or not?  I would choose social programs that better educated our children, and help those that birthcontrol is unavailable too.

Realizing the stats are low, in the case of rape and/or incest, a woman or young girl finds herself pregnant by no choice of their own.   They choose abortion.  Is that considered murder?  A woman, for medical reasons, lets say is diagnosed w/some form of cancer and must undergo chemo and radiation treatments, steroids are prescribed along w/any other different kind of  medication that has rather diverse side-effects not only on the patiient, but the fetus, they choose to abort, is that murder?  Let's say you're  one in a million who is on birthcontrol, takes it responsibley, and finds themselves pregnant.  It happens.  You choose abortion, is that murder?

Do anti-abortionists teach their children abstinance only, or do they support  education as to how to better protect oneself from unwanted pregnancies, it's called planned parenthood, as well the plethora of STD's out there, some leading to cancer in women and we know what AIDS can do?  How bout those  that opt for voluntary sterilization, like a tubaligation?  That's if you can find a physician that won't tell ya you're too young to know whether you want children or not, or anymore for that mattert!  How bout men that opt for a vasectomy?  Is that murder?  You're stopping the natural process of pro-creation, right?   How bout those that try and try, but can't get pregnant.  They opt for infitro, or take fertility drugs, or find a surrogate to carry their child.  They wrong?  Shouldn't those wombs remain barren, as God evidently made them?  Embryonic stem-cell research.....yes potential life, and could be healing and/or mean  life to a recipient through transplanting.  Wrong?  Even Christ healed the sick, didn'e He!?! 

 You all must be counselors, right?  You sit within the walls of abortion clinics counseling these woman, girls, right?   You truely believe they don't suffer consequences, have no regrets, no matter their reason for such a choice?!   How self-righteous and judgemental can you people be that you feel you have the right to control anothers' reproductive desires, or not!  The scriptures I read, states that only God can judge, and we'll all stand in judgement, will we not?  Evidently Christ wasn't needed, as  we have enough pharisees (sp) out here to tell us what is right and wrong for us.  God may have given us the right of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", if you were fortunate enough to be born within the U.S.,  but He also gave us FREE WILL.  There is always someone, or alotta someones that do, or will at least try to take ourt personal and private right(s) away.      

stormy

Unabasho:  Thanx for posting the Coffee Party's creed, and thereby exposing its hypocricy.  "We recognize that the federal gov't is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will...."  What a big, steaming pile THAT is!

Many months ago, the fed gov't DEFIED the collective will of the people, passing a healthcare bill that a supermajority of the american people opposed.  Every poll had the opposition running at 55-65 %.  And remember, it's no secret that coastal areas and cities are over-represented; the polling firms have always neglected interior and rural areas, so the actual percentage was probably higher.

I'll never join the Tea Party, but neither will I partake of the spiked coffee that this outfit serves.

stormy

Okay, this time I'll stick to the topic.

I had to wait until my neighbor the lawyer got home, to ask him about something written by Informed.  He said that Ohio's murder law doesn't differentiate between a viable fetus and a pre-viable one.  If my girlfriend gets pregnant and wants the baby, and I slip her some RU-486, I can be convicted of murder even if the pregnancy is just a couple of weeks along.  If she takes it over my objection, it's no harm, no foul.  Even more ironic: if I want her to abort and she refuses, she can still force me to pay child support for the next 18 years; never mind that she lied, and said she was on the pill when she wasn't.

Incidentally, none of that stuff has ever happened to me.  I'm a firm believer in putting on a "wetsuit" before letting the ol' schwantz go for a dip.  However, the previous paragraph just goes to show the unfairness of leaving the father out of the decision-making process.

To GetReal:  you may not have read all of the earlier comments.  Meowmix already suggested that men should stay out of this fight; we declined to oblige her.  Do you believe that people who don't own real estate should not be allowed to vote on property taxes?  That people who don't have jobs should not be allowed to help choose legislators who may raise our income taxes?  Unless your honest answer to both questions is a resounding "yes," your suggestion that I "stay out of it" is hypocritical at best.  This is a republic; we all get to have our say, and if you don't like it, feel free to emigrate.  And one more thing: as long as a woman has the legal power to destroy my son or daughter in utero, I have a stake in this.

To She-Who-Named-Herself-After-A-Victorious-Feminine-Hygiene-Product: your suggestion that conservatives hate poor people gets my vote for dumbest comment on here today.  I know many conservatives who are generous and charitable as individuals.  Objecting to a compulsory and inefficient redistribution of wealth is not hatred per se.

Folks, it is disingenuous to treat this as a "rich vs. poor" issue.  Poor women ALREADY have very few abortions; Medicaid doesn't cover it, remember?  Most of the abortions performed in this country are on middle and upper class women.

In the interest of fairness, I also take issue with Bryan's statement that most Democrats don't believe in God.  Most of the ones I know are not atheists, and many of them are people of strong and sincere faith (something I don't have much of, I must confess).

Question for Informed: would you mind IDENTIFYING the "documents our Founding Fathers created defining a person?"  I've read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), the Federalist Papers, even the Articles of Confederation.  There's nothing in any of 'em that restricts "personhood" to the post-born, or even the post-viable.  If it's in one of those specific documents, please be so kind as to say WHERE...I must have missed it.

 

Chung Lee

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines

stormy

Moderators have removed this comment because it contained personal attacks. Discussion Guidelines

stormy

And it wasn't me who flagged your stupid comment!

Chung Lee

Chung Lee is not into boys so Chung Lee is not interested in some sort of Larry Craig type meeting.  Chung Lee think you have Freudian slip when you think of Chung Lee in Chung Lee underwear.

Informed

Stormy, ever hear of the term "natural born person"?  And please cite a case where a person in Ohio has been convicted of murder of a zygote or embryo, or a fetus less than 22 weeks gestation.  Not what your supposed lawyer neighbor states hypothetically what could happen, I am talking about reality.  If Ohio law doesn't distinguish that, then why aren't doctors who dispose of fertilized embryos in a clinic charged with murder?       

Informed

And the fact that some states, including Ohio, have fetal homicide laws only further muddies the water with inconsistencies.  Either a fertilized egg is a person, or it's not.  I for one am not ready for the societal consequences on numerous levels if the law decided that a fertilzed egg is in fact a person and is entitled to the same rights and protections under the law that natural born persons are.

stormy

informed, please cite exactly where that term is used, so I can look it up.  The term "natural born citizen" is one I'm familiar with; it's used to differentiate between citizens born in the U.S. and naturalized ones.  One thing seems certain: the Framers were not attempting to differentiate between the post-born and the pre-born, since the latter group was not being massacred back in the 18th Century.

You may not be ready to recognize a zygote as a person, but many of us are.  I won't repeat my reasons; they're listed in one of my earlier comments.  If you look, you'll note that they're not based on religious beliefs.  They're based on biological facts, even though my conclusion is an opinion.

Your conclusion, that a fetus isn't a person until it is viable, is likewise an opinion; a less logical one than mine.  Logically, "personhood" should have a uniform starting point.  Yours is variable; it's also convenient, enabling you to justify the unconscionable.

I once did some construction work for a Hindu sect.  They referred to terms like "fetus," "pro-choice" and "termination of pregnancy" as the LANGUAGE OF UNCONSCIOUSNESS.  Yes, these terms do a nice job of numbing the heart and mind to the barbarism for which they stand.  Kinda like "final solution."

stormy

HEY, BRYAN!!!!!

If the "Whispering Coward" award hasn't been handed out yet, I'd like to nominate Chung!  He is the very incarnation of it.

While nearly all of us post anonymously, under made-up usernames, Chunk adds an extra layer of anonymity, in the form of a phony chinese persona.  How do I know it's fake?  Because no self-respecting asian-american would write in cheesy pidgin English, like a bad imitation of Charley Chan at the tail-end of a three-day bender.

More importantly, Chunk attacks without provocation, hurling cheap insults like penny candy from a parade float.  Yes, I've tossed a few; many of us go overboard now and then, but Chunk relishes it.  Then there's the fact that he won't accept my challenge to fight, even at a time and place of his choosing.  Perhaps that's just as well; I'd show up as a point of honor, and probably get arrested on the spot.  He'd stay home, giggling to himself in Mama-San's basement.

And if there's an award for the runner-up, the rest of the left-wingers on here should share it collectively, for NEVER taking Chunk to task for his behavior.  If he were conservative, they would be on him like soy sauce on fried rice for his two-bit coolie routine.  But no, they just smile and go along with it.

Bryan Dubois

Anybody wanna second that motion?

Mime Bloggling's picture
Mime Bloggling

Here! Here!.....I'll second that.

Chung Flung Poo again??   Stormy Lightening fast retort...snort snort. ;-)

Ya gotta respect a guy who protects and defends Ol' Schwantz.

Bryan Dubois

Very well.

Writing up the citation now.

Bryan Dubois

Chung Lee, you are hereby awarded the title of WHISPERING COWARD - a title originating from the cartooning work of Mr. Don Lee.

The title of whispering coward should not be taken lightly.  Only after a severe pattern of cowardly rhetoric posted on the digital pages of the Sandusky Register, shall this title be awarded.

After having shown a well-established pattern of cowardly, unprovoked, anonymous, personal attacks against your fellow citizens, you shall be adorned with this most dishonorable title.  You have consistently used incendiary and offensive language, unfair debate tactics, and have been a general nuisance for all who seek civil discourse in our community, we hereby award you this most deserving and infamous distinction.

Chung Lee....

You Are The Whispering Coward.

Chung Lee

Chung Lee think there is no doubt that the Whispering Coward should go to the pseudo journalist who claims to be one thing and clearly has an agenda and yet denies it.  Interesting that as the moderator, Bryan is quick to disagree with those with a contrary viewpoint and admoninish those who he claims not to be civil.  Amazing that a user who shares his opinion has threatened Chung Lee with physical violence and the only thing that the former regugitator tool can say is "will anybody second that"?  Keep it classy Bryan.  Maybe if you actually went to school to be a journalist you would realized how much of an idiot your really are, but your ignorance and inablity to reflect on your own motives clearly prevents that from hapening.  Chung Lee will gladly wear your honor of whispering coward and will strive to one day be as good ast the founder of the Reguritator. 

Massengill Wins...

It is clear that Chung has a point.  This Whispering Coward Award was only going to be available to one of the liberal commentors.  Seems that the original "whispering coward" nomination blog only received 15 comments over a month ago and no nominations.  It appears that it is very fitting that Mr. Dubois chose the dead of night to bring it to the forefront.  It is also very alarming that instead of correcting stormy for threatening another poster or at least reporting the clear violation of guidelines..... he instead takes his nomination and crowns Chung Lee the Whispering Coward!  Does anybody else find it ironic that the nomination for this "award" was made by one user threatening another user (for at least the 3rd time) and instead calling him out....... they basically condone his comments.  I sure hope Chung Lee contacts one of the adults at the Register and straightens this out because it is very clear that Mr. Dubois is only using his position to mislead and to promote his childish political agenda and in this case a personal vendetta.  To me Mr. Dubois has earned the Whispering Coward hands down.along with a Yellow Journalism Award!

Factitious

It's not enough that Mr. Dubois comments 11 times in on his own column to argue with his readers -- now he's calling them names?!

Factitious

Chung Lee's incisive, irreverent wit blows away Dubois' self-serious wingnut blather. Dubois get to much play. Chung Lee should get his column.

Massengill Wins...

I sure hope the Register takes a look at this because regardless of the name calling, one commentor threatens another and Mr. Dubois ignores the threat?  Funny this award was supposed to single out the name callers which the original nomination was packed with and then in his "presentation" he throws on some more? 

Raoul Duke

As I've stated, I'm against abortion. But I began commenting because I don't think that God or Jesus or religion in general has anything to do with this subject. If I were an athiest, I would still think it is wrong to kill people(unborn children OR adults). But I have to say Bryan, you have almost convinced me, through your childish behavior on this comment section, to profess myself as pro-choice, if for no other reason than to NOT agree with anything that you believe in. Are you one of those high school students interning with the Register, or are you an adult professional? It's really hard to tell sometimes...

Pastor Ron

Drive by Commentator?  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  Mocking and misrepresenting the beliefs of Christians?  I am a man of God armed and empowered by the word of God.  If anybody is on here misrepresenting the beliefs of others it is you Mr. Dubois.  Many time you call your beliefs rooted in Christianity but it is clear that your beliefs are not Christian but those of the corporations that have tricked the simple minded to vote against their own best interest.  Though I am no liberal, I have time and time again prayed for your soul because of your outlandish lies that cast dispersions on all true Christian.  I teach the word of the Lord Jesus and I am much more of a preacher than you are an intellectual or a jourunalist. 

Though I am not fond of that heathen Chung Lee you have brought false witness upon him.  You have accused him of being a coward and with that act showed that you indeed were the real coward.  When others advocated violence you said nothing, when others made ethnic slurs against him you said nothing, you created this award to identify the name callers and in doing so engaged in name calling.  Acts like this will not earn you a crown in heaven but it appears you can wear your own crown with pride!

Informed

   So if a citizen is either classified as natural born or naturalized, what is a zygote/embryo/fetus?  They are neither.  So therefore they can't be citizens of the USA.  But if they are all considered persons, then they need to be treated like persons.  Let's start with something like miscarriage, which is the death of an embryo/fetus before viability.  Causes of death are determined on people who are born, so if an embryo/fetus is a person as well, cause of death will need to be determined on embryos/fetuses as well.  Since it is estimated that anywhere from 25%-50% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage before the woman even realizes she might be pregnant, how do we determine when a death occured?  Are we going to start analyzing menstrual fluid of all sexually active women to make sure a death didn't occur?  Because what you are saying is a dead baby is a dead baby, no matter if it is a year old or if it is 2 weeks gestation.  What about miscarriages that are known to have occurred--is there going to be an investigation as to the exact cause of death?  Who is going to pay for that?

Now, how about tax purposes?  Why can't we claim unborn children as dependents?  Why can't they get a social security number?

Do you understand the point I am trying to make? 

Chung Lee

Chung Lee admit that when debating conservatives..... Chung Lee use unfair tactics.  Those tactics being facts and logic.  Unfortunately the conservatives only seem to have opinions and emotions (particularly anger). 

Factitious

Few members of either party would agree with every plank in their party's platform. Chimera is entitled to her personal opinion and I presume is still welcome in the Democratic party, as she presumably would be welcome in the GOP if she were a pro-choice Republican. What she doesn't get to do is hijack a party event to promote here contrary personal opinion.

stormy

I never threatened the little weasel; I simply offered him the opportunity to fight, if he had the stones to come out of the shadows and insult me to my face.  He doesn't, so it's a moot point.

I'm 48 yrs old; so yeah, I know that fighting is childish.  It's also illegal, so I'm just as happy that the punk would rather sit at home and throw insults in safety.  Funny; y'all get your noses out of joint over a mere invitation, but HIS shenanigans are just fine with you.  Twice in the past couple of weeks, this giggling lowlife has attacked me when I hadn't even addressed him.  I was trying to keep it relatively clean on this thread; the worst I've written was that one comment was the dumbest I'd seen all day.  I don't know who's worse; chung or his apologists.

But Bryan, you probably should've allowed some debate before handing out the award.

Pages