Hi 54° | Lo 28°

Letter: Abortion is not health care

Re “Forty years safe and legal” (Monitor Forum, Jan. 21):

It is a matter for great shame that our society enshrines as a legal option the killing of a whole group of its members, i.e. those still in their mothers’ wombs. As Mother Teresa of Calcutta, the Nobel laureate, put it, “A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope.”

Since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, there have been some 70 million abortions in this nation. And yet to many people this is just another statistic. Thus, by and large, as a nation we have become anesthetized to this taking of human lives.

Making abortion legal has sanctioned it in many people’s minds as one more “health care option.” It needs to be said that, despite what Planned Parenthood says, yes, it is legal, but no, it is not safe. There have been numerous reports of unsafe facilities performing abortions which do not meet standards for proper health care. There is also the fact that many, many male sexual predators of underage teenage girls have gotten away scot-free without having their crimes reported, and thus Planned Parenthood becomes complicit in the abuse of young female victims.

However, thanks to ultrasound technology and the prevalence of many pro-life pregnancy care centers which do not provide abortion, the lives of many babies have been saved, and the mothers have been preserved from abortion’s devastating psychological aftermath. Furthermore, it is making it clearer to society at large that the fetus is indeed a life, not just a lifeless botch of cells. And therefore, no, abortion is not health care. The traditional Hippocratic oath affirms this, even though the present generation of doctors has sadly removed this clause.

We can only hope and pray that one day America will wake up and once again enshrine as a hallmark of a free people that all life is sacred.



for every person that comes to this forum with an opinion on this subject ....there is a mother that decided not to have an abortion

And that is supposed to mean what, exactly? For every opinion Sail comes to this forum with . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There's a dingleberry.

dingleberry? I guess I will use that one more often to prove the CM does not discriminate against the submissions from us mainstream Americans

During President Obama's inauguration there was an old man up in a tree yelling things similar to the wording of this letter. A young lady was interviewed on CNN with the man in the tree in the background. She said something like "If I ever need to make any decision about having an abortion, maybe I should consult with an old man up in a tree". The man was arrested when he eventually came down from the tree. Maybe he was released and then wrote this letter.

Kind of ironic, that the President was speaking of rights etc, and this guy who was using his right of free speech was seen as being wrong and should be removed, which he was. No doubt he was annoying to many, but does free speech only apply when it is convienent, not disruptive and annoying? Just asking..

Tree Man wasn't "removed" for "using his right of free speech".

Your right earthling. I had to research because the articles I read, 10 of them, did not mention he violated a law about that area in regards to climbing on statues, buildings etc. He also had been arrested for other disturbances at a game and in the rotunda carrying a doll as a baby to protest abortion. My error was not on purpose, just the usual when you read things they leave things out often. The articles I read were from liberal media by the way, not just conservative. Sure would be nice if the media would just print the facts instead of putting their own spin on things. You have to spend hours getting the facts. Annoying.

To RabbitNH (no reply button): Well, might have been right too: When we went to the Stewart/Colbert rally in 2011 there were some people near us climbing trees. We were packed in like sardines though, so I left my family there and went to sit down outside the fence. I said I'd be back, but as even more people came I had second thoughts and didn't try to squeeze back through all the people (plus I had found a great place to sit where I could see better than being back in the crowd :). At the end of the rally I looked for my family for a while in the sea of people. My cell phone didn't work because the system was overloaded. So I decided to get a cab back to the hotel. I didn't know the address of the hotel (my spouse knows all that stuff), so I said to the driver "The hotel is in Virginia, I think, and we crossed a bridge to get to the rally". Luckily he took me back to the right hotel. Then I watched TV for a few hours and hoped that they weren't still looking for me. Then they came back and said things like #$%&@ about looking for me for hours. After a while they calmed down and we went out to dinner. So, short story long, I don't think the people that were climbing trees near us in the crowd were arrested for injury to property - but I don't know for sure. They probably weren't violating a previous court order to stay away from the US Capitol though.

Abortion is not healthcare? Of course it is. The original impetus for legalizing abortion in this country came from healthcare authorities alarmed by the rising number of back alley abortions in the late 50's and 60's. Legal abortion, along with access to family planning/ contraceptives were seen as essential public health measures that would dramatically improve the lives of women. The gains women have made in the U.S., and indeed in every society where access to family planning and contraception has become more widely available, have made it easier for women to go on to college and careers--in short to reach their full potential. Only in the most backward and fundamentalist and poverty-stricken countries today is motherhood mandatory.

To Bruce Currie, Off topic, but you (and others) might be interested, regarding climate change and biochar: - scroll down to the comment by Erich Knight. Here's a youtube video link he provided:

"'Scientists analysing ancient ice samples say that the Greenland ice sheet withstood temps much higher than today's for many thousands of years during a period of global warming more than 120,000 years ago, losing just a quarter of its mass. IPCC said that any such warming would melt the entire sheet, leading to massive sea-level rises' -- 'So the models are evidently wrong and another IPCC doom warning has been consigned to the dustbin of history'"

IPCC also stand for International People Control Committee. That is really what the globull warming agenda is about, controlling the behavior and movement of people. I built a model for a new retail concept last week based on all of the research and evidence I have that it will be successful. Unfortunately my model is only as good as circumstances, projections and assumptions which were fed into the program. The same goes for computer models on the environment.

I notice quotation marks around your post. Who are you quoting? Maybe you forgot to provide the link.

Echoing earthling, you don't tell us what "scientists" you are talking about. Based upon past posts of yours on the same topic, one should surmise there's less here than meets the eye--much less. The climate of denial is still strong, and the winds of half-truth and distortion still fill the sail of...sail. Hence the lack of attribution, as ever.

The quote is from a denialist rag commenting on a new paper in Nature (which requires a subscription to read in its entirety). Here's a link to a piece in Nature commenting on the new study of ice cores from the far north of Greenland. The gist of the study, which sail's link reliably distorted to supposedly "disprove" once again that climate change is a serious problem. Suffice to say the study's findings imply that Greenland contributed less to the 6-8meter sea level that occurred 120,000 years ago than thought. But this only means that Antarctica contributed more--and parts of Antarctica are already warming nearly 2x faster than expected.

earthling, thanks for the link.

Bruce, Someone I know, who helped Don Booth design the energy efficient envelope house I have referred to before, knows a lot about the biochar process described in the youtube video link. He is now active in this organization: "The carbon in biochar resists degradation and can hold carbon in soils for hundreds to thousands of years. Biochar is produced through pyrolysis or gasification — processes that heat biomass in the absence (or under reduction) of oxygen. In addition to creating a soil enhancer, sustainable biochar practices can produce oil and gas byproducts that can be used as fuel, providing clean, renewable energy. When the biochar is buried in the ground as a soil enhancer, the system can become "carbon negative." Biochar and bioenergy co-production can help combat global climate change by displacing fossil fuel use and by sequestering carbon in stable soil carbon pools. It may also reduce emissions of nitrous oxide. We can use this simple, yet powerful, technology to store 2.2 gigatons of carbon annually by 2050. It’s one of the few technologies that is relatively inexpensive, widely applicable, and quickly scalable."

So the act of murder is healthcare?

Last time I checked, we still lived in a pluralistic democracy, and abortion was a right guaranteed under the Constitution. Much like the 2nd Amendment--which some on here seem to regard as the paramount right, from which all others flow. You seem to have the moral certainty of the true believer--much like the Taliban, and would impose your beliefs on others. Not everyone shares your opinion--and that includes medical science, which still has no single answer as to when a human life begins, but suffice to say it's a bit more complicated than "life begins at conception". That's a moral and religious position--not a scientific one, and it's not shared universally by every religion or morality. The best we should do in a pluralistic society is seek to persuade by the force of our arguments--and not legislate morality in an area fraught with such consequences for blind absolutism. Real life is not always black and white--and sometimes our most difficult decisions are made with this awareness staring us in the face.

"Blind absolutism" aka the sky is falling globull warming, aka 'health care is a right', aka corporations are evil, aka we don't pay enough taxes, aka progressivism.

To itsa below: thanks for writing another of your considered responses to one of my posts. I always appreciate those who write seeking to persuade with the force of their arguments, and avoid name-calling, stereotyping etc. by marshaling sound facts to buttress their claims.

It all looks so simple doesn't it? I spent a day at a planned parenthood in a larger city. The greatest majority of those women, on that day, could not say, "No" By that I mean they lived in cultures where declining sex was not an option. They did NOT want to be there. Most already had more children than they could care for or feed. In some cultures - those are not man's problems - those are women's problems. Those women did not have preventative birth control as an option. They were out of options. I know for some women, it may be elective or semi-elective. However, on that day - I gained a great deal of sensitivity for those women. Lastly, the God I believe in - does not give up on the souls of any viable b babies.

TCB, are you talking about American Women not having the option to say no? I'm kinda confused.

TCB writes "It all looks simple, doesn't it?". No, it is not 'simple" there have been 55 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. That is roughly the population of New York and California.

I once knew a nice young lady. There were complications, and she had to make a tough decision. Later she and her baby died together in the delivery room. I respected her decision. And I trust women to make up their own minds about what's best in their personal situations, without government intrusion.

Now that is very sad earthling. It happens in this day and age that women die in childbirth, but it is very rare than goodness.

I believe in a woman's right to choose. It is her body and she can choose to do whatever she wants with it. She can have elective surgery to fix her nose, enhance parts of her body and have an abortion. It is also a woman's right to choose (with the exception of rape or incest) to have intercourse and to use protection/contraception. It is a woman's choice to abstain, be monomagous or have multiple partners. In this country we make choices and we live with those choices. If that liposuction goes terribly wrong, well that is between the person who had the liposuction and his or her doctor. That person lives with the result but I am not liable for their surgery. Pregnancy is a short term situation with a predictable end result based on an emotional and passionate choice which you have made. The letter writer is correct, it is not "health care". It is also not the responsibility of the bystander, the tapayer to subsidize another persons moment of passion. Beyond that, personally I find it morally repugnant, it shows a lack of conscience on the part of the abortee and a refusal to take personal responsibility for a life that has been created. Choice? Yes, it is a choice which only the woman can make, it is her body. But it is no one elses responsibility to fund or excuse or to pay for counseling should the woman not be able to live with herself. Of course in the case of incest and rape or if the mothers health is at risk, that is morally excusable.

Finally, itsa has agreed it is a woman's choice. I applaud him for that! This is the first time in a long while I have heard reason from a conservative. Unfortunately, he is a minority when it comes to that view. Just look at the 2012 Republican National platform. These so called "less government" people want to tell a woman that no matter what the circumstance, the woman should have no choice but to carry the fetus to term. beleive it or not Itsa, I do agree with you when it comes to your statement concerning women and their choice. I also think it is wrong for a woman to have an abortion under normal circumstances, but it is her choice and she has to live with the decision. No one should have the right to take that choice away.

The issue is that both sides of the argument are extremists. If pro-life would leave it up to the woman's conscience and pro-choice would ban late term abortions then we would have a starting point. Both sides are absolutists. Period.

There you go again...trying to paint a false equivalence between the violent extremists who attack, intimidate, and kill doctors who provide abortion services, and those who support the right to abortion. Less than 1% of all abortions are performed after 21 weeks. Roe v.Wade permits states to place restrictions on late-term abortions, and many states have done so, with the proviso that there be a "health exception". But the bottom line is that in many states, especially in the west and south, there may be no doctor who will do the procedure within hundreds of miles, thanks to the restrictive laws place on providers, including funding cuts to organizations like PP. In effect, there is a defacto ban on abortions even in the first trimester for the poor in many parts of the country.

I am of the opinion that many things should not be banned. Who pays for what you do though is another discussion.

And banning it is not legal.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.