The British Telegraph ran a truly gut-wrenching article Friday about an artist that hanged herself in England a few weeks ago because she couldn't bear the fact that she had aborted her twins.
Be forewarned: anyone on either side of the abortion debate who reads this piece will do so with tears in his or her eyes.
After your emotions for this poor woman pass, ask yourself whether our pro-abortion press would handle this story with the reverence and respect the Telegraph did (h/t NBer saw the light):
An artist killed herself after aborting her twins when she was eight weeks pregnant, leaving a note saying: "I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum."
Emma Beck was found hanging at her home in Helston, Cornwall, on Feb 1 2007. She was declared dead early the following day - her 31st birthday.
Her suicide note read: "I told everyone I didn't want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies: they need me, no-one else does."
[...]
The inquest heard that Sylvia Beck, the victim's mother, wrote to the hospital after her daughter's death, saying: "I want to know why she was not given the opportunity to see a counsellor.
"She was only going ahead with the abortion because her boyfriend did not want the twins.
"I believe this is what led Emma to take her own life - she could not live with what she had done."
[...]
Katie Gibbs, Miss Beck's GP, told the hearing: "She was extremely distressed by the abortion procedure, and I didn't think she ever came to terms with it.
"She had a long history of anxiety and depression. Despite my best efforts, she was not willing to see a counsellor after the termination."
Hold on tightly to someone you love before reading the following statement from the coroner:
Recording a verdict of suicide, Dr Carlyon said: "It is clear that a termination can have a profound effect on a woman's life."
Can you imagine a major American newspaper publishing such a quote from a coroner?
You're on your own with that question, for I have to go hug my daughter.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Choice isn't always a choice
February 24, 2008 - 00:55 ET by nkviking75I wish we had statistics on how many women (and many young girls as well) were pushed into unwanted abortions by boyfriends, parents, and husbands. Not all women have the inner strength to stand up to that kind of pressure. There are probably many for whom abortion was not a choice at all.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Learn more
February 24, 2008 - 07:00 ET by GrannyGrump4264% of women surveyed report being pressured by others into unwanted abortions.
http://www.unfaircho...
Marla Cardamone was browbeaten into an unwanted abortion by a hospital social worker. Her abortionist used an antiquated technique, did a botch job, and then the staff -- at a prestigious women's hospital, no less -- pretty much left her to die:
http://realchoice.0c...
Allegra Roseberry was lied to by doctors, who told her that her baby was "doomed" anyway and that she'd be disqualified for cancer treatment if she refused an abortion. The abortion killed her. An autopsy showed that there'd been nothing at all wrong with her baby:
http://realchoice.0c...
This sort of stuff is happening all the time. People with "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!" bumper stickers should have to face Marla's parents and child, or Allegra's husband and son.
Evil Men are to blame again?
February 24, 2008 - 23:58 ET by doctorfixitPlease stop with the male bashing. The lib-fascists have systematically and completely deprived men of any rights in protecting their unborn babies, and therefore of any responsibility. Women always have the choice not to murder their babies. Always. This person should serve as an example of the consequences of corrosive ideas like those that portray abortion as a frivolous convenience in a life of narcissism and casual pleasure.
Bee Blogger
Ten Reforms That Will Save America
Noel,
February 24, 2008 - 01:20 ET by R D HelmI saw that article this morning. I damn near choked on my bagel as I was reading it. It has been messing with me all day. I have no children of my own, but I do have three nieces and a nephew. I love them as if they were my own kids.
This was a three-way tragedy all the way around, and it didn't have to happen. It occurred to me as I was reading the article that societal pressures probably had a great deal to do with Emma Beck's initial decision to seek the abortions of her two unborn children.
As someone who was adopted at four weeks of age, I am rather sensitive to this sort of thing. Thankfully, things were a little different in 1964, else I would most likely not be here today.
Think I'll call it a night.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
I agree and understand your
February 24, 2008 - 01:24 ET by Sonny LykosI agree and understand your feelings. I was the 6th, and youngest. And my Mother had me 9 years after the others. She said she did not want me and tried hanging from doors to shake me out. She was in her mid forties. But until the day she died I was her "baby" and favorite. So I'm also glad that in 1942, abortions were very hard to obtain. I know she was too.
Sonny,
February 24, 2008 - 01:46 ET by R D HelmLOL-You know, it has occurred to me that there are probably more than a few residents of this rock (including several of my X's, one of whom actually resides in Texas) who wish that my birth mother had chosen differently. KWIM?
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
This was a three-way
February 24, 2008 - 09:06 ET by motherbeltThis was a three-way tragedy all the way around, and it didn't have to happen. RD Helm
True, and don't forget those left behind...the pair who lost a daughter and two grandchildren, not to mention the others who will mourn the loss of the young woman.
I also agree with the first commenter. I'm sure she was not the only woman told "get rid of it" when she confronts her boyfriend with a pregnancy.
Shame on societies (here, in the UK, anywhere in the world) that value personal convenience above all else. We devalue life at our own peril.
Politicians say we should be judged by how we treat the least among us. HA! That means who THEY decide is the "least."
Of course the media here will ignore it. The same do-gooders who see no problem in imposing draconian restrictions on society in other areas, with the justification that "if it saves even one life it's worth it! will say well....um....uh....this is just one situation...er...not typical...rare occurrence.....uh...well....
R D Helm, I love your
February 24, 2008 - 12:05 ET by msh1973R D Helm,
I love your story and can relate. We adopted our first child in 1993, her mom was about to have an abortion when my sister stepped in and offered her help. My sister took her in, gave her a home for her and her baby (she had a 7 month old as well). As a result we were able to adopt the baby. Our "baby" is 14 now, we thank the birthmom everyday for giving her life.
The pro-abortion folks say that the pro-life folks don't do enough for these women, but I have news for them. There are hundreds of organizations around the Country who give these women shelter and counseling. We have one such place in my hometown, Lifeline Family Center, they take pregnant girls in for two year, offering them job training, counseling and most of all love and compassion.
That was my soapbox for the day. :)
msh,
February 27, 2008 - 00:22 ET by R D HelmAll I know about my natural mother is that she was a music major at GSU (Georgia State University) in 1963.
The adoption records were sealed up tighter than a gnats's a$$ back then, so that is all I really know.
I have thought about seeking her out many, many times over the years, as I was told of my adoption at a very early age (8), but, as I am turning 44 next month, I just don't know if it is the "right" thing to do at this point in my life. Lost much sleep over this, I have.
Perhaps it is better all around if I just leave it alone.
No-longer proud (as in former) member of the "Once Conservative Republican Attack Machine."
sad
February 24, 2008 - 01:18 ET by Wesenthis is so sad but it would not have happened if Doc's did not abort on demand.
I found it most telling in
February 24, 2008 - 02:27 ET by Lame CherryI found it most telling in how the Brits treat people like cattle. There are only so many chutes to run them through.........a few words said..............I did my job in telling her to dial a deal..........I did my job........chopped the kids up........too bad the woman went goofy.
Next patient.
Moral of the story is thee olde English rhyme.
If you don't say I do
I will try nothing new
For as if I don't have a ring
I don't do a thing
This woman should have not sold herself short in settling for a jerk who did not honor her enough to put a wedding ring on her finger. She should have asked God to find her a mate and accepted who ever fell out of the tree.
That way sex, makes babies and too bad you are a dad, the guy is in on the deal.
I utilize the term often here in Soros raping economies, but this woman had her dreams raped and her heart raped by a jerk in betraying her, because she settled. He is guilty of criminal abandonment and certainly is guilty of manslaughter as he was the reason this woman in Judas betrayal for her children murdered herself in that crazy hormone imbalance all women go through.
The real question Mr. Sheppard is how many of these cases go on in America every year as with a million dead babies, one knows very well the odds in percentages numbers of women are doing this.
The coroners know this. The police know it. The notes they leave behind are proof........and yet the American media only reports on the obit page, "Woman dies at home".
Ladies, please stop settling for jerks and kick them to the curb. None of this ever has to happen if one follows the rules God set up.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Very sad
February 24, 2008 - 03:33 ET by KC MulvilleIt is a tragedy, no question. Let me just add a minor point, not to distract from this poor woman's story.
In this story, I see a woman who was completely unprepared for the morality of her circumstances. It doesn't matter whether you're for abortion or not. My point here is that this poor woman was drowned in the realities she had to face. She had moral conflicts she could not avoid, but it's clear that she was clueless on how to resolve them. She drowned in morality. We never taught her how to swim.
We need to re-learn how to discuss moral issues, without the slogans and acrimony. Maybe we won't all agree, but at least we'll become comfortable discussing the issues. Maybe then, moral issues like abortion or other powerful issues won't overwhelm people.
KC...it's waaay past my
February 24, 2008 - 03:52 ET by JerKC...it's waaay past my bedtime, but I just want to say: "Well said!"
I am in favor of more restrictive, but universally available, abortion rights.
However, in my opinion, the continued adherence to the "life begins at conception" position freezes the debate. In principle, it would seem to condemn a woman who takes a morning after pill to the same societal sanctions imposed on a first-degree murderer.
More later. Good night.
Jer
adherence to the truth
February 24, 2008 - 10:30 ET by TruthMongeradherence to the truth freezes the debate? interesting
TM...because the corollary
February 25, 2008 - 02:02 ET by JerTM...because the corollary is that such life at conception is a human being fully invested with the same rights, privileges and legal standing of any other person or persons, so that any act against that being will be subjected to the same laws applicable to acts against any and all other persons however or wherever situated.
Therefore, when you are ready to impose capital punishment for taking a morning after pill, I guess we can continue the debate.
Jer
Jer
February 25, 2008 - 10:07 ET by lotrIn case you haven't heard, many pro-lifers are anti-death penalty. According to Pope John Paul II, the death penalty is no longer a necessity for justice in the modern era of maximum security prisons.
Zygotes (fertilized eggs) are not the ordinary objects of abortion -- embryos and fetuses are. And for what it's worth, the punishment would likely more be akin to infanticide. I'm not aware of anyone who has been sentenced a death sentence (or life in prison sentence) for infanticide. But that doesn't mean infanticide should be legal.
lotr...you make some good
February 25, 2008 - 23:09 ET by Jerlotr...you make some good points. I acknowledge there are some pro-lifers who are anti-death penalty, but I believe they are in the distinct minority--at least in the United States. In fact, I would be interested in a poll here at NB to see how many fall within that category.
Are they pushing for an abolisment of capital punishment? I see daily evidence of those who feel it is of paramount importance to appoint pro-life judges and to elect pro-life politicians, but absolutely nothing about the desirability of anti-death penalty judges and elected officials.
I also often hear pro-choice advocates described as those who favor abortions for any reason up to the moment of birth. I don't know of a single pro-choice individual who actually advocates that, but it is an extreme position that, if true, freezes reasonable debate on the issue.
However, on the flip side is the "personhood" at the instant of conception belief. This is the official position of the Republican party, and to me, it freezes debate at the opposite extremity.
It doesn't matter if we are discussing infanticide, patricide, or matricide, taking a morning after pill constitutes a cold, calculated, deliberate act to terminate the life of a human being [in the pro-life view], just as if a lucid adult woman casually and consciously tossed an unwanted infant from a bridge.
True, I am framing the debate from its outward extremity, but we have to begin somewhere. So, I'll ask again, what would be a reasonable penalty for the destruction of a human life--albeit a zygote--by taking a morning-after pill?
Thanks, Jer
Pro-life and the death penalty
February 26, 2008 - 01:30 ET by KC MulvilleAs a matter of fact (and record), I'm also against the death penalty. I believe that abortion and the death penalty are both immoral. I oppose both, but there are a couple realities.
Capital punishment doesn't have the same sense of resentment behind it, because no one feels cheated by the process. On capital punishment, the issue is still liable to be discussed, and we can still make our case. OK, at the moment, the people want to keep the practice as is. That's democracy. But on abortion, the Supreme Court has thwarted democracy. I can't make a case for or against abortion, because five-out-of-nine lawyers won't allow the argument to even start. Roe v. Wade blocks the public from having the conversation in the first place. That's why pro-lifers are so much more enraged by abortion than capital punishment.
Jer
February 26, 2008 - 20:20 ET by lotrYes, it's true that there are also many pro-lifers who are generally aligned with a conservative platform (which is often pro-death-penalty). I find it's becoming more common to find Catholic pro-lifers opposed to both (thanks in no small measure to the Pope's opinions on the matter). But even so, abortion takes precedence for a number of reasons, so when it comes to voting for an anti-abortion candidate (usually Republican) versus a anti-death-penalty candidate (usually Dem), it's the anti-abortion candidate that gets the vote.
I will also concur with you that this is no simple matter -- were Roe v. Wade overturned, states that would outlaw it would have to grapple with what punishments fit the crime, what exceptions (if any) to make, how much is the abortionist culpable, etc. Ultimately, it would be subject to the democratic process, though, so it's highly unlikely that we would find states imposing full murder punishments for using the morning after pill (which in many cases might not even cause an abortion -- just because intercourse has occurred, doesn't necessarily mean that conception has -- in fact, the odds are against it since there is only about 1 week out of a woman's cycle that she's fertile).
Learning to discuss
February 24, 2008 - 12:35 ET by KC MulvilleJer:
The "life begins at conception" position is a conviction that deserves to be discussed on its own merits. But we can't abandon an idea just because, if true, we would be forced to face an uncomfortable or unpopular response. If it's true, it's true, whether we like it or not. We would be an immature society if we avoided the truth just because the truth makes demands on us.
But you know what, Jer? You made my point. You took it for granted that "life begins at conception" automatically locks us into an absolute conclusion. That's why conversation is vital, and why we need to encourage it -- rational conversation forces us to confront those assumptions, and gives us a chance to deal with them maturely.
I'm sure that this poor woman only saw absolutes, and couldn't deal with it. Who could?
KC...when I can type with
February 25, 2008 - 01:37 ET by JerKC...when I can type with both hands again, I'll elaborate, but for now let me just point out that, though there are indeed different legal degrees of homicide, in the example I cite there is nothing to suggest a negligent act, or involuntary manslaughter...the "killing" is premeditated and intentional.
So, what should the penalty be for this crime? Let's say there is some judicial leniency--so no death penalty, or life without parole...how about ten years in prison for the eradication of a fertilized egg smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Fair?
Jer
Begging the question
February 25, 2008 - 06:40 ET by KC MulvilleYour argument begs the question. The imposition of strict penalties presumes that the law has already decided that the child is a full person from the moment of conception. You cannot then turn around and claim that it is ludicrous to impose harsh penalties because the child could not possibly be a full human. In that case, you're not offering an argument as to whether the child is fully human, you're simply restating your unexamined belief.
As for the idea that this is premeditated and intentional, that's your justification at imposing the harshest sentence possible. Well, if you say so ...
Actually, my point was that we have the right to make those distinctions. Your argument assumes that we cannot make distinctions. I say we can.
Missing the point
February 25, 2008 - 07:52 ET by JerAnd I'm afraid your argument misses the point. The law has not decided that the child is a full person from the moment of conception. But it does seem to be the conclusion reached by the Republican party inasmuch as it has been a consistent plank in the party's platform for a number of years.
Laws follow the will of the majority who have the power to enact them. Why should those laws not be consistent with other laws which apply to the taking of a human life. The distinctions made by the law in the area of homicide are generally based on the intent of the perpetrator...not the age or size of the victim. Why would you now suggest dinctions where none or few have been drawn before? Is the life of a frail octogenarian less worthy than that of a thiry year old in the prime of life? Does a fertilized egg have even less value?
Are you saying there should be a sliding scale of penalties based on age or other physical characteristics of the victim?
Jer
Clarifications
February 25, 2008 - 10:45 ET by KC MulvilleWe need to be clear. Whatever the law is at the moment, it is possible to change it, if the majority so decides. We are not discussing what the law is at the moment. We're discussing what the law should be.
Your comment about making the laws consistent is true, but makes no difference. The reason we make distinctions here is not because the fetus is any different than a newborn. It is because, as you say, there is a clear difference between the motives of the mother. A fourteen year old girl is not choosing abortion because she has some grudge against the baby. It makes no sense to punish her as if she hated the child, because she clearly doesn't. On the other hand, a rich socialite who decides to abort in her final month is (likely) acting with callous disregard of human life. It has nothing to do with the baby itself.
But Jer, before we go further, let me appeal to you. In at least two responses on this thread, you're argued that the "life begins at conception" argument is a nonstarter, because you don't like the ramifications of what it would mean, if true. Your argument is that abortion can't be immoral because if it was, you'd have to treat it as immoral.
You say that I argue that
February 26, 2008 - 08:18 ET by JerYou say that I argue that "abortion can't be immoral...." Not true. It is just that I do see moral distinctions between the elimination of a one day old fertilized egg and the killing of a fully developed baby shortly whether shorty before--or after--birth, and I think appropriate legal distinctions can and have been made based on that relative morality.
It seems to me the life begins at conception argument makes no moral distinction, so it follows that those who advance that argument, as a matter of principle, should likewise reject any legal distiction in the treatment of the offender.
Furthermore, the death penalty may be more deeply rooted in the constitution, but it is somewhat of a stretch to say it is clearly provided while privacy/abortion rights are not. Cases involving both of these sensitive issues are heard from time to time, rather than being blocked by "5 of 9 lawyers".
Jer
OK - but see what you do
February 26, 2008 - 09:10 ET by KC MulvilleJer
We could continue this as a forum thread, but while we're here, let me return to my original point: You can handle yourself in a moral conversation. Somewhere along the line, you learned how to deal with moral arguments without foaming or spitting. And not to blow sunshine up your rear, you handle them pretty well.
This thread started with the story of a woman who (if reports are correct) could not deal with the overwhelming moralities that she faced. Later reports said that she had attempted suicide before, and maybe she was unstable. But I maintain that in general, we need to encourage a society where moral issues are discussed calmly and productively. That way, when reality hits hard (as it inevitably will, to everyone, at some point) we have some psychological preparation for how to get through it.
Again, well said, KC...not
February 26, 2008 - 22:59 ET by JerAgain, well said, KC...not the part about "sunshine up my rear" [OK, that, too], but especially the last two sentences of your post--I couldn't agree more.
Jer
It is true that the
February 25, 2008 - 11:08 ET by lotrIt is true that the 35-year-old "Law of the Land," as pronounced by Judicial Fiat, has made no statement on when "personhood" begins. Nevertheless, it seems to be the even stronger "conclusion" of the Democratic party that an unborn human being is not a person worthy of life until born (all Democratic presidential candidates must be pro-choice -- Republicans, to my own chagrin, are far more diverse on this matter).
Laws may be made anyway we, the people, want. The arguments you present are nothing more than red herrings.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, the legality of abortion would merely return to the states, where legislatures would pass laws in concordance with the will of their consistuents. Some states (e.g., CA, NY) would likely keep it legal (and suffer eventual demographic consequences). Others would pass laws that recognize mitigating circumstances -- that a woman may act out of desperation, that she may be coerced, that we don't know the degree of sentience of a fetus -- all reasons given for keeping the procedure legal. These same laws could also make exceptions for rape, life-of-mother, etc., but still outlaw abortions for convenience. It would be up to the voters and their elected officials -- democracy as the founders envisioned it. It ain't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than unlimited-abortion-on-demand-thru-third-trimester-let-the-abortus-die-on-the-table "Law" that was promulgated from Judges on High.
KC
February 25, 2008 - 10:31 ET by lotrWell articulated.
It's not just failure to discuss moral issues
February 24, 2008 - 07:05 ET by GrannyGrump42People need to learn that ambivalence and even rejection of the pregnancy are very common and normal in early pregnancy. They don't mean the woman will be an unfit mother or that she won't love her baby; it just means that she needs a while to adjust to this major change in her life:
http://realchoice.0c...
Consider these words by none other than Dr. Alec Bourne, who successfully had challenged the British abortion law by performing an abortion on a 15-year-old rape victim:
"Those who plead for an extensive relaxation of the law [against abortion] have no idea of the very many cases where a woman who, during the first three months, makes a most impassioned appeal for her pregnancy to be 'finished,' later, when the baby is born, is thankful indeed that it was not killed while still an embryo. During my long years in practice I have had many a letter of the deepest gratitude for refusing to accede to an early appeal."
http://realchoice.0c...
But to introduce psychology, sociology, and medicine into the mix, to provide the woman with such basic information as the fact that her feelings are normal and typically-self limiting, is treated by the abortion establishment as "condescending." As "not trusting women to make choices".
You're supposed to keep her frightened, ill-informed, and isolated, and this is called "compassion". In a pig's eye!
Of course they ignore it.
February 24, 2008 - 06:54 ET by GrannyGrump42When Stacy Zallie took her life in 2002, expressing regret over her abortion, it was treated as a local story, even though her family started a foundation to address the problem of suicidal post-abortion moms:
http://www.stacyzall...
It was likewise only a local story when policewoman Laura Grunas killed her baby's father, then herself, in a fit of anguish after her abortion:
http://realchoice.0c...
It's long been documented that women are more prone to violent death after abortion, and that they are particularly at increased vulnerability to suicide:
http://realchoice.0c...
But if the MSM paid attention to this fact, they'd have to admit that abortion isn't a palliative panacea for any and all ills.
This is really sad, but I
February 24, 2008 - 09:33 ET by DCC1This is really sad, but I could bet you alot that if this were in America the media would blame evangelicals for making this woman believe what she did was bad, and that it shows that evangelicals should be banned not abortion.
Terrorists want change too
Does anyone else see an
February 24, 2008 - 09:55 ET by QueenMumDoes anyone else see an indictment of the British healthcare system in this story? It seems that a lack of counseling resources prior to the woman going forward with the abortion was at least partly to blame for this tragedy. In America we have counseling options that provide moral, emotional, physical and financial support for those who are looking for a choice other than abortion. Did this woman have access to such services?
Beware America. If the libs get their way, we'll see many cases like this in our own country. Right now there are two bills in Congress that attempt to override every State restriction on abortion: H.B. 1964 and Senate Bill 1173. Write to your representatives to let them know that you won't let people like Barbara Boxer destroy the moral fiber of America.
Power to the people!
Yeah ...
February 24, 2008 - 10:08 ET by drillanwrGotta just love that Nanny State understanding and hand-holding ... We really do gotta get us some here ...
When you men get home and face an anti-war protestor, look him in the eyes and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend because she knows she’s dating a pussy… ~ Attributed to General Tommy Franks
The rest of the story
February 24, 2008 - 11:08 ET by LibraryLadyThe story is tragic but you're skipping some facts:
Many people let this young woman down. Astounding that her family knew she was so vulnerable and yet she went through this alone.
All sad...
February 24, 2008 - 18:25 ET by GrannyGrump42And all of these factors are reasons why we as a society shouldn't be just feeding women into the abortion mills like so many grains of wheat to be processed.
Abortion staff KNOW that women who are mentally unstable prior to their abortions are far more likely to totally crash and burn afterward than women who approach the process calmly and with deliberation.
Whose fault is it when medical professionals fail to screen out patients with contraindications to a procedure?
GrannyG... That is
February 24, 2008 - 18:37 ET by bigtimerGrannyG...
That is another reason why Planned Parenthood and their ilk do not want any gal who is thinking about going in for an abortion to see their ultra-sounds days before the procedure.
Says it all right there doesn't it.
The condescending attitude
February 24, 2008 - 19:12 ET by GrannyGrump42Rachel McNair, I believed, summed up the attitude of the abortion industry and its political cronies: "Don't worry your pretty little head." The idea is to grease the chute, to make the abortion itself as easy as possible, rather than to give her the information she needs.
It makes me think of Zaphod Beeblebrox's Joo-Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses: "At the first hint of trouble, they turn completely black, and thus prevent you from seeing anything that might alarm you." (Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy")
"The product, abortion, is
February 24, 2008 - 12:31 ET by rbosque"The product, abortion, is skillfully
marketed and sold to the woman at the crisis time in her life. She buys the
product, finds it defective and wants to return it for a refund. But, it's too
late."
~Carol Everett
Library Lady, To be sure
February 24, 2008 - 14:11 ET by dmd4jcLibrary Lady,
To be sure there were people around that could have helped this woman, but it seems to me that you are blaming her and her only by stating these "facts". This is typical pro-abortion/liberal thought processing.
Abortion Battle Brews Between Spitzer, Church
February 24, 2008 - 14:26 ET by lotrNoel et al.,
Has anyone heard about this one? Seems to be slipping in under the MSM radar.
Abortion Battle Brews Between Spitzer, Church
By JACOB GERSHMAN Staff Reporter of the Sun February 19, 2008
Tensions are running high between the Spitzer administration and the Catholic Church, which is mounting an unusually aggressive campaign to stop the state from enacting a law that would declare abortion a fundamental right for women.
http://www.nysun.com...
The battlelines are being drawn
February 24, 2008 - 15:25 ET by QueenMumIn the U.S. House of Reps. as well.
And good old Barbara Boxer is holding up her end in the Senate.
What with all the media attention on the Presidential candidates, it seems that the MsM is indeed ignoring what the Legislative branch is up to, besides grilling professional baseball players.
Power to the people!
QM and lotr...thanks for
February 24, 2008 - 15:49 ET by bigtimerQM and lotr...thanks for the links.
These people never ever will quit.
I get so angry about all of this I have a hard time even posting about it at times.
I feel your pain....
February 24, 2008 - 21:24 ET by lotrI know this was a bit off topic, but I just heard about it in church this morning and was so put-off that I got onto the computer as soon as I got home to verify it. Spitzer, the dirtbag who fought for driver's licenses for deportable aliens, now wants to proclaim abortion a fundamental "human" right. I was just surprised that more hasn't been said in the news about it, but perhaps I'm a bit off base here.
Not only that, lotr, but he
February 24, 2008 - 21:30 ET by motherbeltNot only that, lotr, but he wants to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. The way the bill is now written, they could pull state funding from hospitals that "interfere" with this "fundamental right."
Here is an explanation, and a statement from the NY Catholic Conference
I saw a different article
February 24, 2008 - 15:24 ET by motherbeltI saw a different article on the same subject. I hope that if the state forces that issue, the Catholic hospitals just close their doors. Let the other hospitals handle everything.
...especially the abortions.
February 24, 2008 - 21:24 ET by lotrI hope they do too.
Look above, lotr. I forgot
February 24, 2008 - 21:31 ET by motherbeltLook above, lotr. I forgot I had posted in this thread, and I just responded to your post, with a link.
My heart hangs heavy for
February 24, 2008 - 14:40 ET by bigtimerMy heart hangs heavy for all those involved in this story.
'nuff said.
As to the question from Noel at the end...my answer is an emphatic no.
Poor woman, poor twins
February 24, 2008 - 15:20 ET by greenfairieEverybody failed her. She didn't want to kill those babies, but probably felt like she'd be out on the street or something if she didn't do what her jerk boyfriend (may he rot in hell) commanded her.
This is why I'm a big fan of crisis pregnancy centers. Women who are between a rock and a hard place due to family/partner pressure to abort but want to have their children will have somewhere to go and people to help her.