← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 17704 | Posts: 33 | Started: 2005-04-10
2005-04-10 13:46 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=10508]World Magazine[/URL] Victims of their own choice ABORTION: A growing number of women are speaking up about the crippling effects abortion had on their bodies, hearts, and spirits | by Lynn Vincent
By 5 p.m. on Jan. 24, the temperature in Washington, D.C., had dipped to a bone-numbing 13 degreesââ¬âso cold that, had more experienced activists not given Leslie Graves disposable hand-warmers to tuck into her boots, she might have fled indoors. Instead, the 49-year-old stay-home mother of three shivered near a small stage erected in front of the United States Supreme Court, waiting for her turn to tell a crowd of 250 about her abortion.
Others spoke before her: Actress and model Jennifer O'Neill, 57, a veteran of more than 30 films who aborted a child in the early '70s and loathed herself for decades. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, who said the question of whether her two aborted babies were boys or girls still haunts her. And Georgette Forney, an abortion survivor who co-founded a group that helps abortion-injured people proclaim their pain.
As Leslie's turn on the dais grew closer, her throat tightened. She worried that her testimony would drown in a flood of her own tears. Finally, she climbed onto the platform and heard her own voice echo out through the mike into the icy breeze.
"Other women had spoken about coerced abortion," she says now. "So I decided to focus on the relative freedom of my choice, my strong pro-abortion convictions at the time . . . and how empowered I felt that day."
Empoweredââ¬âuntil months later, when an inexplicable depression consumed her, and years later, when her mind "erected an invisible wall between me and my living children," she said. "I didn't trust myself to get too close to my own kids because my abortion caused me to perceive myself as a violently damaging woman."
Leslie spoke for about two minutes, pushing out the words through the pressure of building tears. Then she stepped down to the cold concrete and berated herself for not keeping her cool. But soon her turmoil turned to resolve: "I may look like a mess and talk like an emotional wreck," she thought: "But I am Silent No More."
Neither are more than 2,700 other women who have registered with the National Silent No More Awareness Campaign, founded by Georgette Forney of National Episcopalians for Life (NOEL) in 2002. Sponsored by NOEL and Priests for Life, the campaign aims to proclaim publicly the truth about abortion's crippling effects on women's bodies, hearts, and spirits.
Peer-reviewed studies of post-abortive women over two decades reveal a pattern of effects that some clinicians call "post-abortion syndrome." The syndrome is said to resemble post-traumatic stress disorder and includes sleep disturbances, sexual dysfunction, suicidal ideas or attempts, increased substance abuse, and chronic relationship problems such as child abuse or neglect and divorce. Studies also chronicle abortion-related physical complications such as hemorrhaging, infection, embolism, increased risk of tubal pregnancy, breast cancer, labor complications, and death.
But for every such scientific study, another stands ready to rebut it. The National Abortion Federation (NAF) website notes that such "mainstream" groups as the American Psychological Association (so mainstream it published in 1999 a study that proposed to nix the term "pedophilia" in favor of the "value-neutral" term "adult-child sex") analyzed similar research and found "there is no such thing as 'post-abortion syndrome.'" NAF also cites other researchers' findings that "significant psychiatric sequelae" from abortion are rare.
Perhaps in academia's ivory towers, Georgette Forney concluded, but not in the trenches of women's lives. Ms. Forney, who had an abortion at 16 and found healing through Christ at 35, has worked with NOEL since 1998, providing confidential online counseling to women seeking help with post-abortion guilt and grief. "I had been contemplating the lack of women's voices" on the spiritual and emotional toll of abortion, she said. "Pro-lifers seemed to be about the babies, while the media portrayed groups like the National Organization for Women and NARAL [National Abortion Rights Action League] as representing women. But I knew they didn't represent me or the women who were contacting me."
So in January 2002, when NOW and Planned Parenthood held their annual candlelight vigil for "choice" on the Supreme Court steps, Ms. Forney stood quietly on the sidelines with a sign that said, "I regret choosing abortion."
"It was almost an experiment to see who would express compassion," she says now. "One woman said to me, 'I'm sorry you feel that way.' But no one else in that crowd offered me a hand. No one cared to reach out to me one iota. I knew in that moment that these people did not care about women's rights. They cared about abortion rights."
That angered Ms. Forney, who had spent heart-wrenching days helping women who wrote in with stories and letters like these:
ââ¬Â¢ "My husband didn't want me to have an abortion. I was stubborn and thought it would make life easier on everyone . . . I knew as soon as my uterus was violated I had participated in a murder . . . I cried every day for a year or more. Every time the vacuum [cleaner] was used, I thought about how my baby died."
ââ¬Â¢ "I remember sitting on the toilet crying nonstop, bleeding and in terrible pain . . . [Seven years later] I have a lot of grief, remorse, and guilt deep in my heart. I wonder what the baby felt while it was being murdered with its mother's consent."
"Women were writing letters that were tearing me up inside," Ms. Forney said. "I knew it was time to do something to represent those women who were out there hurting."
That's how the Silent No More Awareness Campaign (SNMA) was born. The group, co-founded by Priests for Life associate director Janet Morana, holds nationwide gatherings similar to the one in Washington, D.C., where Leslie Graves spoke. In addition, SNMA offers to women healing resources such as retreats and memorial services, and publishes articles and op-eds to draw attention to an overlooked contingent in the abortion debate: women who've had them.
Attention multiplied rapidly after Ms. Forney met Jennifer O'Neill. The actress/model was a Hollywood force during the '70s, '80s, and early '90s, starring with John Wayne and Dustin Hoffman and working with prestigious directors like Otto Preminger. But in the early 1970s, at the top of her game, she fell in love with a wealthy New York businessman named "Craig." That relationship led to an unintended pregnancy. Already the mother of a 3-year-old daughter from a previous marriage, Ms. O'Neill was happy about the new baby. But when she told Craig about it, he responded slowly and concisely, "If you insist on having my baby, I promise, the moment it is born, I will take it away from you. . . . I will prove you unfit, emotionally unstable, and I will bury you."
Though they now wish they hadn't, Ms. O'Neill's parents also counseled her at the time to have the abortion Craig ordered, as did her doctor, who told her the baby was a blob of tissue. "I buckled under fear," she writes in her autobiography, Surviving Myself. "Deep down I knew it was wrong when everyone was saying it was alright. I hated myself, no question about it."
Ms. O'Neill's self-loathing ate at her soul for 18 years, until she committed her life to Christ in 1987, when "I saw real hope for my hurting soul for the first time." Still, 10 more years passed before she felt completely healed from the pain of her abortion. Then, in 2003, she became the international spokeswoman for the Silent No More Awareness Campaign. Since then she has written two books on post-abortion healing: You're Not Alone: Healing Through God's Grace After Abortion and Life After Abortion, a workbook and video set.
Now Ms. O'Neill travels constantly, speaking at pregnancy centers, women's conferences, and schools. She feels it's especially important to let kids know that there are options besides abortion in an unintended pregnancy, and that "esteem comes from God and how He sees them. . . . Kids who've made mistakes need to know they can start again with the God who gives second, third, millionth chances."
Like SNMA, other post-abortion groupsââ¬âOperation Outcry, the Elliot Institute, and Priests for Lifeââ¬âare helping women speak out about the negative impact of their abortions.
"In a sense, it's kind of weird," said Ms. Forney. "How can you stand up and talk about your abortion? But the other side of that is when people break their silence, they're freed from being controlled by the shame of their abortions. They're able to open up to God's healing and forgiveness."
No second thoughts
Reacting to the stories of women who suffered after having abortions, a mini-movement of women who are unashamed, even proud, of their abortions has emerged. The "no regrets" movement includes the "I had an abortion" T-shirts that popped up at pro-abortion rallies last summer and abortion-story websites like the Abortion Conversation Project and I'mNotSorry.net. At I'mNotSorry, women have posted about 300 stories like these:
ââ¬Â¢ "I am a mom of three wonderful children. I love being a mom. However, I had two abortions before I actually was ready for this job. I am not sorry that I chose to end two pregnancies. I am sorry that I became pregnant . . . I do not lie awake at night second guessing my decisions . . . I rarely think about it . . ."
ââ¬Â¢ "I'm Claire, I've had three abortions. Regret = zero. My first was at 21. . . . A strict Christian upbringing almost succeeded in dumbing down my brain, but the father forced me to abort, as he did not want his burgeoning income eaten away by a child I couldn't support."
I'mNotSorry.net founder Patricia Beninato believes most women aren't sorry. She launched her site in 2003 to show that "contrary to pro-life propaganda," most post-abortive women aren't wracked with pain and guilt.
WORLD: There's at least one story on your site in which a woman said she's had numerous abortions. Do any of the stories that come in make you think, wow, that's taking "choice" a little too far?
Beninato: It doesn't bother me at all. One of the peeves I have is that there seems to be a mindset even within the pro-choice community that having to get one abortion is OK, but anything after that and you're a dumb slut who doesn't know how to use birth control. I often hear younger women say things like, "Well, yeah, the condom can break or whatever, but I don't believe in people using abortion as birth control." Um . . . abortion is birth control, just a more expensive and intrusive version of it.
WORLD: There is no longer a debate about whether a fetus is a living baby. Yet, a September 2004 Salon article notes that "most abortions in America are about convenience." Morally speaking, what do you think about that?
Beninato: It doesn't bother me. I believe in the Planned Parenthood axiom "every child a wanted child." We see all too often what happens to an unwanted child, the horrors that are inflicted upon them. Yes, a fetus is alive. But weeds are life and mold is life and bugs are life and we destroy those on a regular basis. Pro-lifers want to give the impression that abortion is someone ripping a full-term baby out of a woman's womb and dashing its brains out against the nearest wall, when in actuality the average abortionââ¬ânearly 90 percentââ¬âis done within the first trimester.
WORLD: You post your own abortion story on I'mNotSorry.net [under a false name]. Isn't your insistence that your own story remain anonymous at odds with your assertion that you're not sorry?
Beninato: I am not sorry I had the abortions. I never will be sorry I had the abortions. I am sorry, however, that I have to worry about my husband or family being harassed over my website, which has already happened. And you may look to your so-called fellow Christians for the source of that worry. . . . I have chosen to make certain aspects of my experience public, but that doesn't mean I have to make it all public.
WORLD: Do you think women who tell stories of pain and regret over their abortions are telling the truth?
Beninato: I have no doubt that there are women who regret their abortions. . . . But when you read the stories on the regretful sites, a theme starts popping upââ¬â"I didn't want to abort, but. . . ." And they start the blame game. . . . "My boyfriend said he'd leave me." "My parents said they'd stop paying for school." Never is it said that they made the decision. Until someone can show me a case where a woman was tied up, stuffed in the trunk of a car, brought to a clinic and tied down onto a table, I will always believe that a woman knew exactly what she was doing. ââ¬âââ¬Â¢
2005-04-10 16:52 | User Profile
I have become Pro-choice in the last couple years. Fact is, abortion dispropoartionally targets liberals and minorities, and w/o it, we'd be living in a much different (and worse) world, IMO.
I think it's an imoral act, but in a sense, I'm glad it's legal. Fewer libs in this world can never be a bad thing.
2005-04-10 17:17 | User Profile
I had two simple rules when ever I had a wife or a girl friend "No kids and don't get fat" or I'll simply walk away, anthing else will fight it out.
I never liked kids or wanted them and I would not have what I have now if I had any brats.
I know that some of you are against me on this but at the same time I know that many of you are with me on this and wished you didn't have kids.
When you get married you are a husband but once you have kids you become a "provider" and get tie down without been able to do the things that you and your partner used to or would like to do.
Only thing that I am sorry about is that I won't have any one to carry my name "Ponce de Leon" from my end of the family, but is ok because my half brotherss and sister have a bunch of kids in Cuba, including a black one and I accept this as being part of life.
Holy macro, a black Ponce de Leon?????? oh well, better than having a Jewish one.
2005-04-10 17:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay] Fewer libs in this world can never be a bad thing.[/QUOTE]Are fewer White people -- the only race unbreeding itself into extinction -- on the planet a good thing? Blacks and Hispanics are paid by our benevolent govt. to have children via welfare, food stamps, WIC, and other set-asides created especially for minorities. White women have no such incentives, and sometimes abortion can be an irresistible alternative.
2005-04-10 17:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]I have become Pro-choice in the last couple years. Fact is, abortion dispropoartionally targets liberals and minorities, and w/o it, we'd be living in a much different (and worse) world, IMO.
I think it's an imoral act, but in a sense, I'm glad it's legal. Fewer libs in this world can never be a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
Don't give yourself over to that sort of cynicism, Jay.
The fact is that abortion kills BABIES, not liberals and conservatives.
And killing babies is always wrong, period.
Another salient fact is that we Christian Nationalists occupy the high moral ground on the abortion issue and all other issues that I can think of, precisely because we proceed from deep moral convictions.
Allowing ourselves to take even perverse delight in the killing of a BABY - be it the child of a white liberal or a black ghetto welfare queen - brings us down to the level of our enemies.
Never, ever let that happen.
The Culture of Life will win because life always finds a way. We need to stay firmly on the side of Life, always.
2005-04-10 17:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]I know that some of you are against me on this but at the same time I know that many of you are with me on this and wished you didn't have kids. .[/QUOTE] It's probably just as well that you didn't have any kids.
You would have been a lousy father.
2005-04-10 19:24 | User Profile
One thing in particular I loathe about women is the way they point the finger rather than acknowledge that the Choice was theirs and theirs alone.
I was speaking to a young man just yesterday about how he begged for the life of his child to no avail. Reminds me of the Loce case in New Jersey ... where amicus curiae briefs by Mother Teresa and premier geneticist Dr. Jerome LeJeune were not sufficient cause for the Court to even hear the case.
All well and good for the Jenny's of the world to regret having made up their minds but I think that the damage toll on men will end up the greater evil where society's concerned. Its the men being targeted, after all. Women and Choice are just another avenue toward eradicating patriarchy.
2005-04-10 19:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]I have become Pro-choice in the last couple years. Fact is, abortion dispropoartionally targets liberals and minorities, and w/o it, we'd be living in a much different (and worse) world, IMO.
I think it's an imoral act, but in a sense, I'm glad it's legal. Fewer libs in this world can never be a bad thing.[/QUOTE]
Hooray ... at least one fellow on the board has the wherewithal to follow his convictions into the Republican party of faggot anti-breeder eugenicists where he belongs!!!
There was a reason the Dems -- before turning on a dime like the dutiful dysgenics they are -- couched abortion as "targeted genocide."
For more on that, let's listen to Poppy Bush in the Congressional Record ... be sure to scroll down until you hear him talking about "down breeding", "Genetic Quality" and the use of techniques (like those we use on cattle) to breed Superior Hereditary Quality.
Recommendations of the Task Force on Earth Resources and Population (George H. Bush, Chairman) . (as memorialized in the Congressional Record)
2005-04-10 19:44 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Don't give yourself over to that sort of cynicism, Jay.
The fact is that abortion kills BABIES, not liberals and conservatives.
And killing babies is always wrong, period.
Another salient fact is that we Christian Nationalists occupy the high moral ground on the abortion issue and all other issues that I can think of, precisely because we proceed from deep moral convictions.
Allowing ourselves to take even perverse delight in the killing of a BABY - be it the child of a white liberal or a black ghetto welfare queen - brings us down to the level of our enemies.
Never, ever let that happen.
The Culture of Life will win because life always finds a way. We need to stay firmly on the side of Life, always.[/QUOTE] You are a wise man, Walter. Your words lifted my spirits.
2005-04-12 00:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]Hooray ... at least one fellow on the board has the wherewithal to follow his convictions into the Republican party of faggot anti-breeder eugenicists where he belongs!!!)[/QUOTE]
Please re-phrase or explain your post.
I didn't like the tone of it one bit - but if you're trying to make a point, I'll be happy to hear it. What exactly are you saying?
2005-04-12 00:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Don't give yourself over to that sort of cynicism, Jay.
The fact is that abortion kills BABIES, not liberals and conservatives.
And killing babies is always wrong, period.
Another salient fact is that we Christian Nationalists occupy the high moral ground on the abortion issue and all other issues that I can think of, precisely because we proceed from deep moral convictions.
Allowing ourselves to take even perverse delight in the killing of a BABY - be it the child of a white liberal or a black ghetto welfare queen - brings us down to the level of our enemies.
Never, ever let that happen.
The Culture of Life will win because life always finds a way. We need to stay firmly on the side of Life, always.[/QUOTE]
I can sympathize with your point....it's a tricky issue. However, it's pretty clear to me that w/o abortion, our world would be worse off. I'm sorry, that's just a fact.
And really, I can't really argue with someone who says people will self-abort if there's no doctor. Do we really need our ER's full-up with stupid asses who coat-hangered themselves?
I think that the death penalty is FULLY warranted, so I already subscribe somewhat to a culture of death. I don't support euthanasia or abortion fully, but to ignore any residual benefits from it.....I'm sorry: can't do that. Statistics tell us that the aborted were likely (not ALL, but likely) to have made society worse off.
2005-04-12 02:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]Statistics tell us that the aborted were likely (not ALL, but likely) to have made society worse off.[/QUOTE]Actually, this assertion has been [url="http://www.isteve.com/np-abort.htm"]proven untrue[/url].
2005-04-12 02:15 | User Profile
Why is it that they feel any type of emotion attached to the murder of their child? Isn't the child just a mass of tissue, or isn't that what they believed when they paid the "doctor" to kill the "fetus" because it might inconvience them? what are they crying about now? Their tears are too late.:crybaby:
2005-04-12 03:01 | User Profile
Abortion is an ugly thing but I must admit to not feeling much regret for the idea of Chinese or Indians aborting children, although it's a shame they can't simply practise birth control. Now so far as whites go. We are a rare sub-species heading toward the endangered species list and for this reason it should be illegal for white people to abort, imo, but then maybe I'm a little biased.
2005-04-12 04:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It's probably just as well that you didn't have any kids.
You would have been a lousy father.[/QUOTE]
No Walter, the reason that I didn't want any kids is because I am very inmature and at the first crisis I would had just walked away from it all, and that's what makes me better than most.....I know who I am and I know my limits.
By the way I took a test about being a father where my score was 87 with 72 being very good.
2005-04-12 13:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]I can sympathize with your point....it's a tricky issue. However, it's pretty clear to me that w/o abortion, our world would be worse off. I'm sorry, that's just a fact.[/QUOTE] Abortion removes the incentives for marriage and close family ties and de-sensitizes people's attitudes towards children. The idea that it is some eugenic culling of the unfit is a ridiculous fantasy.
2005-04-12 14:08 | User Profile
If society can kill babies and call it "family planning" and "pro choice", then nobody should be surprised that society will market thong panties and belly-shirts in junior-miss sizes....or stage "fisting seminasrs" for 12-to-14 year old boys.... and call it "empowerment". Or outright f**k children and call it "alternative sexuality".
Never before has it been so perilous to be a small child or a young parent. I'd carry a rabbit's-foot, were I either.
2005-04-12 15:16 | User Profile
I feel obliged to oppose abortion on moral principle, but on the other hand I have liberatarian instints that make me feel uncomfortable with the idea of the state exerting control over a woman's body. However, I guess if the state can override the principle of "it's your body, you can do with it whatever the hell you like" in the cases of suicide and drug use, there's not a great inconsistency in widening this to include abortion.
Then there's the whole issue of whether the baby is a separate individual mere days or weeks after conception, but that's a religious debate that can go on for hours.
Or perhaps we should adopt the philosophy of the Chinese government: pro-abortion but against the woman's right to choose :) That oughta offend everyone equally.
2005-04-12 15:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]I feel obliged to oppose abortion on moral principle, but on the other hand I have liberatarian instints that make me feel uncomfortable with the idea of the state exerting control over a woman's body. [/QUOTE] The better libertarian/minarchist argument is that the state is authorized to act to protect the unborn child from harm, particularly where a woman has voluntarily engaged in conduct that could result in pregnancy.
2005-04-12 16:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]If society can kill babies and call it "family planning" and "pro choice", then nobody should be surprised that society will market thong panties and belly-shirts in junior-miss sizes....or stage "fisting seminasrs" for 12-to-14 year old boys.... and call it "empowerment". Or outright f**k children and call it "alternative sexuality".
Never before has it been so perilous to be a small child or a young parent. I'd carry a rabbit's-foot, were I either.[/QUOTE] Right on, Ragno. This makes me think of RowdyRoddyPiper's excellent signature -- 'Bad -- it's the new good!'
2005-04-14 01:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Never, ever let that happen.
The Culture of Life will win because life always finds a way. We need to stay firmly on the side of Life, always.[/QUOTE]
Do you support the death penalty?
2005-04-14 03:44 | User Profile
If it wasen't for abortion you would have a bunch of 12, 13 and 14 years old girls running around with a big belly.
2005-04-14 06:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]If society can kill babies and call it "family planning" and "pro choice", then nobody should be surprised that society will market thong panties and belly-shirts in junior-miss sizes....or stage "fisting seminasrs" for 12-to-14 year old boys.... and call it "empowerment". Or outright f**k children and call it "alternative sexuality".
Never before has it been so perilous to be a small child or a young parent. I'd carry a rabbit's-foot, were I either.[/QUOTE]
Hear, hear.
If you can kill a child it follows that you sure as hell can enslave it or abuse it in any way you want.
The growing acceptance of child sexual abuse, child neglect (working mothers), child drugging (Ritalin) and child exploitation for advertisers has just been a slow working out of the inexorable logic of abortion on demand.
Pro-lifers have been saying this since Roe v. Wade in 1973. It's probably too late now for America to hear this very simple message, though. In my opinion we're so far gone we'll have to flush and try again.
2005-04-14 06:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]Do you support the death penalty?[/QUOTE]
Yes.
2005-04-14 06:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]The better libertarian/minarchist argument is that the state is authorized to act to protect the unborn child from harm, particularly where a woman has voluntarily engaged in conduct that could result in pregnancy.[/QUOTE]
In the libertarian model the state's only function is to prevent the initiation of violence against the innocent.
Since there's nobody quite as innocent as a babe in the womb, and since there's nothing quite so violent as a late term abortion, it follows that under the libertarian model abortion should be banned.
2005-04-14 06:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SteamshipTime]Abortion removes the incentives for marriage and close family ties and de-sensitizes people's attitudes towards children. The idea that it is some eugenic culling of the unfit is a ridiculous fantasy.[/QUOTE]
Even if that were true murdering innocent babies is never, ever justified.
2005-04-14 23:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Yes.[/QUOTE]
But you told me on a PM, "Yes, I'm always pro-life."
Which is it? Do you support life....always? Or do you sometimes support death?
2005-04-15 05:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]But you told me on a PM, "Yes, I'm always pro-life."
Which is it? Do you support life....always? Or do you sometimes support death?[/QUOTE]
There is no contradiction there.
Abortion on demand and the death penalty are moral opposites.
Whereas abortion is about killing INNOCENTS as an exercise of ARBITRARY AUTHORITY of the strong over the weak, the death penalty involves the punishment only of those GUILTY OF HEINOUS CRIMES as an exercise in DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
2005-04-15 06:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]There is no contradiction there.
Abortion on demand and the death penalty are moral opposites.
Whereas abortion is about killing INNOCENTS as an exercise of ARBITRARY AUTHORITY of the strong over the weak, the death penalty involves the punishment only of those GUILTY OF HEINOUS CRIMES as an exercise in DUE PROCESS OF LAW.[/QUOTE] It would be more correct to say that the death penalty is the punishment of those thought to be guilty of heinous crimes. Quite a few of those on death row are innocent. That alone is sufficient reason for abolishing the death penalty.
Of course, all unborn babies are innocent, so your distinction stands.
2005-04-15 08:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]It would be more correct to say that the death penalty is the punishment of those thought to be guilty of heinous crimes. Quite a few of those on death row are innocent. That alone is sufficient reason for abolishing the death penalty.
Of course, all unborn babies are innocent, so your distinction stands.[/QUOTE]
The Constitution provides that nobody may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This means that the state MAY kill a man, seize his property and imprison or enslave him so long as due process of law is observed.
Thus, the question is whether there is due process of law. Due process means simply fairness in all matters substantive and procedural. Due process does NOT mean perfection, and it does not imply that the results will always be correct. It does require safeguards commensurate with the individual right at stake; e.g. we'd all agree that a lesser standard of evidence and judicial review is demanded of a parking ticket than a capital murder case.
In regard to the death penalty, clearly the stakes don't get any higher and consequently we must apply our highest standards throughout. Most of the guys you speak of are on death row not because they are innocent but rather because they were poor and had crappy counsel who couldn't get them off with a long prison term. That sort of thing is a violation of due process. But that can be fixed by ensuring top counsel for all capital prosecutions.
We should also require incontrovertible evidence for capital cases, not for determining guilt or innocence (that should remain "beyond a reasonable doubt) but rather at the sentencing hearing.
But we should keep the death penalty and apply it with rigor for particulary heinous cases.
2005-04-16 17:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jay]I have become Pro-choice in the last couple years. Fact is, abortion dispropoartionally targets liberals and minorities, and w/o it, we'd be living in a much different (and worse) world, IMO.
I think it's an imoral act, but in a sense, I'm glad it's legal. Fewer libs in this world can never be a bad thing.[/QUOTE]White liberals can be educated; dead white babies cannot. Also, not all children of liberals grow up to be liberals; on the contrary, children oft times stray from parental beliefs.
Liberals also tend to overrepresent the more intelligent and better educated white classes. We need more of them, not less; they will be thoroughly "reeducated by reality" soon enough. If they never existed in the first place because they were aborted, however, they can never be reeducated.
2005-04-16 17:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]If it wasen't for abortion you would have a bunch of 12, 13 and 14 years old girls running around with a big belly.[/QUOTE] We have abortion, and we do have 14 year old girls running around with big bellies.
Abortion only culls those parts of the population capable of self-discipline enough to want to avoid early pregnancy for reasons of schooling or career - ie, it tends to reduce the number of more intelligent and educated whites. It does nothing to cull the ranks of the "useless eaters", on the contrary.
Of course, abortion combined with welfare makes the problem even worse.
2005-04-19 00:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Abortion only culls those parts of the population capable of self-discipline enough to want to avoid early pregnancy for reasons of schooling or career - ie, it tends to reduce the number of more intelligent and educated whites. [/QUOTE]
Yeah ... soooo intelligent and educated, they can't decide when a human life is really human. Give me a break.
This thread -- if not the board in general most times -- tends to evidence that white skin is no guarantee of smarts or even an ape's grasp of the moral.