Abortion expansion bill gasps for life

April 27, 2012

By Dave Roberts

California women abort their unborn children at a significantly higher rate than the rest of the country, accounting for nearly one in five abortions in the United States. But for many Democratic politicians and abortion providers there aren’t enough abortions in the Golden State. Rather than keeping it safe, legal and rare, as the slogan goes, they are determined to expand abortion access, even if it might result in more injuries to women.

State Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, has authored SB 1338, which expands the professions that are allowed to perform surgical abortions. Currently only licensed physicians and surgeons are allowed to do so. Anyone else would be subject to a $10,000 fine and imprisonment. SB 1338 would allow registered nurses, nurse practitioners and certified midwives who have received training by the end of the year also to perform aspiration abortions.

Aspiration is the most common type of abortion, primarily done in the first trimester, in which the baby is vacuumed out of the uterus. The technique is considered the safest abortion method — provided, of course, that you’re not the one being aborted. But it’s still an invasive procedure with sharp instruments, and complications can arise.

Those complications and whether they will increase when less skilled, less educated and less experienced people are allowed to vacuum uteruses were at the heart of the debate on SB 1338 in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee meeting on Thursday.

“A rigorous, state-approved pilot project has demonstrated that clinicians can perform with high rates of patient safety and satisfaction,” Kehoe told the committee. “Advanced clinicians already perform surgical and non-surgical procedures: IUD insertion and removal, biopsies and some forms of insemination.”

Kehoe’s bill originally applied to all nurses, practitioners and midwives. But she watered it down to apply to those 41 people in the state who have received aspiration abortion training through a University of California, San Francisco study. It’s possible that more people could be trained, however, by the January deadline. Representatives of the California Nurses Association said there are 16,000 nurse practitioners in the state who might also want to perform abortions.

The more the better, as far as Kathy Kneer, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, is concerned. “Over half the counties do not have  providers who will perform abortions for Medi-Cal patients,” said Kneer. “That requires women to drive long distances. We believe it’s very important that patients have access to early, safe abortion procedures. We believe that practitioners who they see for their regular routine care should also be able to offer this so they can provide continuity of care.”

Abortion study

Also leading the drumbeat for more abortions is Tracy Weitz, a UCSF associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science, who led the abortion study.

“We know that two things make abortion safer: making it legal, and doing it as early as possible in the pregnancy,” Weitz told the committee. “The widespread use of aspiration abortion technique as a preferred method for ending pregnancies in the first trimester is what has made abortion incredibly safe. The question of who can safely perform those procedures can now be answered by scientific evidence.”

During her four-year demonstration project, 41 clinicians performed nearly 8,000 abortions. It took about seven days and 45 abortions for each clinician to gain sufficient competency. Only 1.6 percent of the procedures resulted in complications, according to the study, with only six women requiring hospital care. All recovered “without any long-term physical harm,” Weitz said.

But the reliability of those numbers and the ethics of the study’s procedure came under assault by Assemblywoman Linda Halderman, R-Fresno, who is also a licensed surgeon. She has witnessed aspiration abortions, and said that the procedure can include the use of extremely sharp instruments in the blood-filled cervix to scrape its fetal contents.

“Incomplete abortion means that some of the fetal parts are left inside,” she said. “And that is in fact a known complication that is uncommon, but it’s reported in this procedure. However, there are additional complications that are reported. These are associated normally with surgical procedures done by board-certified obstetricians and gynecologists. The published rates (of complications) are between 3 and 5 percent. And they consist of incomplete abortions, failed abortions, hemorrhaging, excessive bleeding, anesthesia-related complications, bleeding within the uterus walls themselves, infections, cervical injury including cervical tear, and uterine injury which rarely requires hysterectomy.”


Given all of those possibilities of something going wrong, Halderman said she found it “disturbing” that, in data published by pro-choice ob-gyn organizations, there is a 3-5 percent rate of complications when abortions are done by experienced doctors and surgeons, but Weitz’s study asserts that there was only a 1.6 percent rate of complications in abortions performed by nurses and midwives learning the procedure.

Halderman is concerned that there was not adequate follow-up about potential problems. Less than 10 percent of the women were interviewed in person after their abortion. Most interviews were done by phone or a mailed survey and some women were not contacted at all. She pointed out that the study has yet to be published in a medical journal, undergoing peer review.

“This is so outside the standard of research care that I am concerned that there may be violations here that may be of a legal magnitude,” said Halderman. “In particular, locations that were chosen for these pilot projects have substantial portions of minority women. And if the purpose is to increase access to early abortion, I don’t think the way we want to do that is to compromise women’s safety.”

Informed consent?

Halderman is also concerned that the women who participated in the study were not all provided with informed consent forms in their native languages (only English and Spanish forms were provided).

“It is for these reasons that I regretfully ask that you must vote no on this project until we have some data, until we have some proof and until we have some real answers on whether or not protocols of research were actually followed,” Halderman concluded.

Also speaking against SB 1338 was Carol Hogan, communications director for the California Catholic Conference. She said that a majority of Californians oppose allowing nurse practitioners and physician assistants to perform first trimester abortions, citing a poll of 778 people conducted in late March by Smith Johnson Research.

“The author’s rationale is to increase access to abortion, thereby increasing the actual number of abortions performed in California,” said Hogan. “For almost any medical procedure, people with either private or government health insurance have to schedule their appointments well in advance and may well have to travel some distance. Even toenail surgery or earwax removal is not available on the same day or the same week that the patient desires it. To have an abortion is a serious decision, one that ends the life of an unborn child and may change the life of the woman. Does it need to be as available as an aspirin at the corner drug store? They claim that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. This law would make abortion less safe and less rare.”

Wynette Sills, a Sacramento pro-life activist, said, “They are increasing the certification for pet groomers to ensure the health of our pets. So why would we turn around and lower the health standards of women? Women deserve better. In this pilot study with 8,000 women hurt and 8,000 human lives killed, it was found to be fairly safe for the women. Yet the intent is to expand abortion throughout the state. While it might have been found safe under rigorous research conditions, as you move away from UCSF and out into the Central and Imperial Valley, I don’t think we can ensure the same level of supervision and safety for women.”

Although the committee has a 6-3 Democrat majority, surprisingly it deadlocked 4-4 on SB 1338 with two Democrats voting against it. One of those Democrats, Juan Vargas, who represents Chula Vista, said he could not support a policy affecting women’s health based on a study that had yet to be published and peer reviewed.

Mark Wyland, R- San Juan Capistrano, agreed that the committee had insufficient information to make an informed decision on such a technical issue. “It seems to me, given what we know, that it’s a big leap to say people who have had a few days’ training and a few supervised procedures should be doing something like this,” he said. “I just think that’s an awfully big leap.”

Although the bill failed to make it out of the committee, it has not been, well, aborted. Kehoe’s representative said she plans to bring it back to the same committee on May 7 for a vote only, no testimony allowed.


Write a comment
  1. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 27 April, 2012, 12:24

    This is a very controversial subject and I really think both sides have good arguments. That’s why it’s so controversial. Pick a side and you are open to legitimate attacks.

    After some long and hard thought on this I am of the opinion that it should be a woman’s choice. I know. I know. You will accuse me of being a baby killer. But the rules that govern abortion must be very strict. 1st trimester only unless the mother’s life is in danger. There should be a waiting period and counseling for the woman. She should be forewarned of possible physical or psychological after effects.

    You see, orphanages are full in America. And then there are children who are abused by a parent(s) who didn’t want them in the first place. Most live a life of misery and pain. Would you want to be one of those children? I wouldn’t.

    If this bill provided more choice to women – then I am for it. But the length of the waiting period should not decrease. This is a big decision that a woman must make so there needs to be sufficient time so that all the information is digested.

    That is my opinion.

    Reply this comment
  2. Corinna
    Corinna 27 April, 2012, 14:11

    Are you saying it’s okay to kill a human being because there is a chance they might be miserable? Isn’t that justifying murder based on speculation? Ask yourself this; is that a person or not? If so then what is the difference if that person is killed in the womb or 10 years down the road? If not then when does life begin?

    Reply this comment
  3. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 27 April, 2012, 14:21

    I mean, come on folks. Look at OctoMom for God sakes. She reminds me of that story “The old woman who lived in a shoe”. She’s got 14 kids. They’ve defaulted on their home loan agreement and the actual owner who holds the deed is deep in debt because Octo hasn’t made a $3000/mo payment in 11 months. Now the home is on the auction block. Yet Octo can spend $520 for her hair a Brazilian Blowout. Why anyone would hold the deed to a home and pay the mortgage while the occupant owner Octo pays him is one of those ‘believe it or not’ stories. I mean I just watch this stuff while shaking and scratching my head simultaneously. We all knew this would end up being a disaster. Where’s Octo going to go with her brood of 14 when she’s forced to leave the La Habra pad? The projects? This is the very reason why some people have moved to the side of pro-choice.

    And let’s face it, my friends. The welfare state made all of this possible. Without all the wild taxpayer give-a-ways none of this could have happened.
    And nobody can deny that with a straight face either.

    Reply this comment
  4. Rex The Wonder Dog!
    Rex The Wonder Dog! 27 April, 2012, 21:44

    This is a medical procedure that only medical doctors should perform.

    Reply this comment
  5. EastBayLarry
    EastBayLarry 28 April, 2012, 07:09

    If we focus on the “woman’s right to choose” then how soon will that choice be extended to two-year-olds?
    53,000,000 have died since Row v Wade. Do we really need to make it easier?

    Reply this comment
  6. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 28 April, 2012, 07:19

    CRNA (Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists) are nurses who perform the same duties as MD anesthesiologists. They keep people unconscious, sedated, pain free and alive while surgeons slice them open on the operating table. Controlling oxygen intake and injecting pharmaceuticals into a human to successfully accomplish that task is enormously complicated. If nurses perform that function why couldn’t they perform an abortion which is a relatively uncomplicated procedure by comparison? Nurse practitioners are highly trained and perform many out-patient surgical procedures. Personally I have no problem seeing a nurse practioner for routine procedures, diagnoses and medical advice. I have tremendous respect for them. I wouldn’t want one to perform brain surgery or a bypass on me. But the routine stuff is fine by me. Plus, it helps to keep medical costs under control.

    Reply this comment
  7. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 28 April, 2012, 07:32

    “If we focus on the “woman’s right to choose” then how soon will that choice be extended to two-year-olds?”

    Larry, I don’t think that is really a reasonable argument. Adults are fully mature and have developed the ability to reason and make their own decisions. At least hope so. Children don’t have that capacity. So even in crazy California I don’t think children will be given to latitude to make adult decisions.

    “53,000,000 have died since Row v Wade. Do we really need to make it easier?”

    I understand your argument here, Larry, and I respect it. As I said before, there are many, many good arguments on both sides of this topic.

    Let me ask you this, Larry. Let’s say a daughter was raped by her father and became pregnant. Do you think the girl should have the right to terminate that pregnancy?

    What about in a case where the pregnant mother had a medical condition that required the termination of the pregnancy – otherwise both the mother and the fetus would perish?

    The possible scenarios are numerous.

    What say you, Larry?

    Reply this comment
  8. fred
    fred 28 April, 2012, 08:48

    it’s not surgery – it’s killing a human being

    Reply this comment
  9. PJ
    PJ 28 April, 2012, 09:13

    Doctors hate doing abortions. An RN I know quit her nurse anesthetist program because they get stuck with doing the anesthesia for all the abortions.

    The “problem” here for the abortion supporters is that they just can’t convince doctors to give up their moral fiber and treat abortion like an appendectomy.

    Reply this comment
  10. queeg
    queeg 28 April, 2012, 09:38

    Abortion is killing an innocent human being….

    Couch as you please……baby killers are evil.

    Reply this comment
  11. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 28 April, 2012, 09:59

    And there are always 2 sides to a story.

    I can think of dozens of people who had they been aborted at birth that the world would have been a much better place as a result.

    A daughter brutally raped by her father and impregnanted should not be forced to carry that fetus. She would not be evil. In fact, anyone who forced her to carry that fetus to term would be evil IMO.

    A sick pregnant woman whose fate is death unless she aborts her fetus is not evil. In fact, someone who sentences her to death by forcing her to carry is evil IMO.

    Some do not possess the intellectual capacity to distinguish the subtle distinctions in life.

    They too deserve our compassion and sympathy.

    Reply this comment
  12. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 28 April, 2012, 10:03

    “Doctors hate doing abortions”

    There are thousands of MD’s who make a living performing abortions in the United States. If they hated it why would they do it?

    “The “problem” here for the abortion supporters is that they just can’t convince doctors to give up their moral fiber and treat abortion like an appendectomy”

    You’re not making any sense. It is easy to find a doctor willing to perform an abortion in America. I suppose some doctors would refuse to perform a circumcision too. Big deal. Go next door and doctor #2 would do it in a heartbeat.

    Reply this comment
  13. queeg
    queeg 28 April, 2012, 11:07

    No rationalization on judgement day….the most horrific horror is killing innocent babies…blood on your hands medical practioners!!!

    Reply this comment
  14. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 28 April, 2012, 11:19

    By eating a steak you are partipating in mass killing. There is only a 2% variance in the genetic code within a strand of DNA taken from a human and a cow. So how do you absolve yourself? By claiming you are superior and deserve to eat a cow’s flesh? That also could be subject to debate.

    Reply this comment
  15. queeg
    queeg 29 April, 2012, 13:31


    Reply this comment
  16. Corinna
    Corinna 29 April, 2012, 22:17

    1. Larry’s argument isn’t “will we let 2 year olds make decisions?” It’s “will we give mothers the right to kill their 2 year olds next?” There are scientists out there who are advocating for abortion to be allowed up unti l the child is 2 years of age. Their argument is that a human being is defined by their ability to reason and since children don’t typically develope that ability until the age of 2 they are technically not human.

    2. Should the innocent have to pay for the crimes of the guilty? It’s a terrible situation for a girl who is raped by her father and the father should be punished. But that baby hasn’t commited any crime. If that girl has an abortion that doesn’t make her unpregnant or unraped. It just makes her the mother of a child she killed and now she has to live with that blood on her hands where she was innocent before.

    3. Sometimes surcumstances come up where more than one life is in danger and a one has to choose whether to lose one person or lose them both. That is unfortunate but it doesn’t change the fact that it was still a baby and everyone should recognize that. Even Rick Santorum’s wife, Karen, was put in a situation like that. They named the baby Gabriel.

    4. Cows aren’t humans and therefor don’t have souls. I’m sure even Jesus ate a cow.

    5. For everyone here who is pro-abortion I have a question; when does life begin? If it is a human being in the womb then how do you justify killing it? Some of you brought up financial situations. So if I walk into a welfare office and start shooting people I just eased our financial sistuation but doesn’t that make me a murderer? What’s the difference if they are in or out of the womb?

    Reply this comment
  17. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 29 April, 2012, 22:59

    Corinna, thank you for actually responding to some of my points. I will address them in corresponding order:

    (1) Strike this one, Corinna. Your point here is ridiculous. Nobody is going to murder a 2 year old child and call it an abortion. You are dramatizing, not debating. Stay on track.

    (2) It’s not fair to the daughter who was raped by her father and impregnated to carry to term. That could be described as human psychological torture. Torture in America is not legal. In the first trimester when the fetus is not a viable human being – the daughter should be able to abort – as she could today under our current laws. You claim that an embryo is a human being. I say it’s not. You want to give an embryo more rights that a grown, living, breathing human being. I don’t. That’s where we differ. And there can be no compromise.

    (3) So you would want to kill the mother – who may have OTHER children that she’s responsible for so that BOTH mother and the embryo or fetus would perish? That is very, very cruel, Corinna. Have you no heart? Think of the mother’s other children who would be forced to live without her due to your crazy and irrational rules. Sorry, you make no sense to me here.

    (4) How do you know that cows have no souls? Because you read it in a book? The Hindus happen to think that cows have souls. What makes you think you are right and they are wrong? Animals are creations of God too. Why would you eat them? Do you have that right because you think you are a superior being? How would you like it if a higher superior being came to earth from outer space and wanted to eat you for dinner? Would you approve? Please put yourself in the cow’s hoofs for a second here.

    (5) Human life begins when the being inside the mother is viable, has a heartbeat, and would be able to survive without the mother outside the womb. To me it has nothing to do directly with finances. Life is long. 70 years or more. If a child is unwanted by the mother or both parents there is a high, high possiblility that the child will live a miserable and unhappy life. So before it becomes a viable human and has to deal with that situation – the mother should have the right to terminate. We must be practical here. I do not buy your ‘financial’ argument. It makes no sense.

    Thanks again, Corinna. I am not saying that you are wrong. We just think differently on this topic. It is controverial and brings out emotions. I only ask you to use your reason and be practical. Let go of all the garbage that you were indoctrinated with as a kid. Enjoy your evening. Good night.

    Reply this comment
  18. queeg
    queeg 30 April, 2012, 07:18

    No long tedious diatribe needed…human life is precious and damnation to the human who takes a life….Cain and Able come to mind….

    Reply this comment
  19. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 30 April, 2012, 09:43

    Did you eat sausage this morning? Prepare for karma. Pigs and cows represent life too.

    Reply this comment
  20. Corinna
    Corinna 30 April, 2012, 15:22

    1. I’m sure no one thought we would be killing unborn babyies 100 years ago either. Give someone a foot and they’ll take a mile. The point is where does it end? You have you’re own definition of human life but other people define humans differently. Who’s definition do we go by? The reason this was brought up in the first place is because there are people out there arguing in favor of it.

    2. You keep saying a viable human being? What is that? Are you saying that they are less human than we are? That’s the same argument that the people who advocate for the abortion of 2 year olds make. The only difference between you and them is the cut-off age you believe to be acceptable. A raped girl is innocent. So is the child. If she kills that kid then she has now commited murder for her own convenience. This hasn’t fixed anything. It has only made her the mother of a dead child.

    3. I never said kill the mother? I said they should still recognize the baby as a baby. Sometimes there are more than one life at stake and you need to save as many as you can. That may mean that you can only save one person. Such was the case with Karen Santorum. She tried to hold on as long as she could but it got to the point where she was on her death bed and they needed to remove the baby and the baby died. I don’t believe they intentionally killed the baby. They saved the mother and tragically the baby couldn’t be saved as well.

    4. And the Hindus don’t eat cows because they believe that the cows have souls. I believe that a child has a soul from the moment of conception. Not the magical 3 month mark or 90th day mark or whatever you seem to be going on about. They have souls from the moment of conception and therefore have a right not to be murdered.

    5. So a baby who is born premature and has to be on life support until they are big enough is still not a human being? They look pretty human to me. Was the Duggers last baby not a human because she was born 4 months early and couldn’t survive on her own yet. After a few weeks out of the womb (long before she was due) she was showing emotions like a regular baby. And a baby’s heart beats about 10 days after conception just so you know. Not all babys can survive without their mothers outside the womb like others can. I had a cousin who was born a month premature and couldn’t survive on his own. He was in worse shape than other babies who are born before that and he ended up dying after 2 weeks. Does the moment when a person becomes a human being vary from person to person? Help me out here. And again with the finances, you are saying abort based on speculation. That child may end up being misserable and they may take that with them into adulthood. Or they may find a way out and make their own happiness or change the life of someone else. You don’t know what the future holds for them so how can you say that the babies of poor people or bad families should be aborted? Don’t they deserve a chance to find their own happiness?

    Reply this comment
  21. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 30 April, 2012, 15:54

    Corinna. Welcome back! I always liked a challenge. Most scatter when I fire back and never return. This is tough subject matter – but let’s climb into the ring again.

    (1) “You have you’re own definition of human life but other people define humans differently. Who’s definition do we go by?” ANSWER: The Majority! That’s why we call it a ‘democracy’, Corinna. North Korea probably forbids abortion. Interested?

    (2) “You keep saying a viable human being? What is that? Are you saying that they are less human than we are?”. Of course they are less than human. They haven’t even formed hearts or a circulatory system yet. That would be like me walking into the social security admin office at age 25, claiming I am 65 and demanding social security benefits and medicare. The Pinkerton guard would grab me by the shirt collar and heave me out the door. A 2 year old is a fully formed human being who has exited the womb, Corinna. Anybody who would advocate aborting a 2-year old is promoting murder. Get your definitions straight.

    (3) The question is ‘Should the doctors abort the baby to save the mother’s life?’ I believe the answer is always YES. You seem to be in favor of letting the mother die to save the baby. I disagree. I believe the mother should always be given priority. Answer the question, Corinna. Don’t waffle.

    (4) Cows are held sacred in the Hindu religion. It’s my understanding that the Hindu’s believe that cows are spiritual equals to humans. James Brown had lots of ‘soul’ too. I was always confused by the word ‘soul’. Do you believe everyting you’re told? If dogs can’t go to heaven then when I die I want to go where they do. Collectively speaking, I have much more respect for dogs than I do for the majority of humans. Do you eat dogs, Corinna? Do you eat cows and pigs? Why would you eat 2 of the 3 and leave the other alone? Because dogs are superior to pigs and cows? Think.

    (5) Once an embryo starts to form the heart and the cirulatory system I say hands off. But the mother always gets priority if a decision must be made to save one and not the other. Someday I might find a cure to cancer. But until I do I don’t expect you to admire me for it. That would be sort of silly, wouldn’t it? Do you believe is livestock slaughter houses, Corinna? Just curious.

    Thank you for your lively debate. You make some good points while at the same time you miss the mark by a country mile.

    Hope I don’t scare you away.

    Reply this comment
  22. Corinna
    Corinna 1 May, 2012, 01:08

    1. And if the majority decides that cannibalism is okay would you accept that too? The majority isn’t always right and we aren’t a democracy. We are a republic. Get your systems straight.

    2. Still sounds to me like you are defining humanity by an age. Being a certain age doesn’t make you more or less human. It just makes you a certain age.

    3. I never said that so I’m not sure why you keep insisting that. If I ever said it I’d like a direct quote otherwise stop trying to interpret my words to mean what you want them to mean. If you are having such a hard time understanding this then let me break it down for you to comprehend. The life of the mother should always be put first. If you can’t save both lives then at least save hers. However, don’t sit there and act like it wasn’t a human being that just died because it is. Acknowledge the child for what he was which is a human being

    4. If

    Reply this comment
  23. Corinna
    Corinna 1 May, 2012, 01:30

    1. And if the majority decides that cannibalism is okay would you accept that too? The majority isn’t always right and we aren’t a democracy. We are a republic. Get your systems straight.

    2. Still sounds to me like you are defining humanity by an age. Being a certain age doesn’t make you more or less human. It just makes you a certain age.

    3. I never said that so I’m not sure why you keep insisting that. If I ever said it I’d like a direct quote otherwise stop trying to interpret my words to mean what you want them to mean. If you are having such a hard time understanding this then let me break it down for you to comprehend. The life of the mother should always be put first. If you can’t save both lives then at least save hers. However, don’t sit there and act like it wasn’t a human being that just died because in the process. You should still acknowledge the child for what he is which is a human being.

    4. If you don’t believe that humans have souls then what do you believe? You are making the argument that they don’t kill cows because they believe that cows are sacred. Well I don’t believe in killing children because I believe that human life is sacred from the moment of conception. And why do you assume that I just believe what I’m told? Could a person who does that really hold a resonable debate? Don’t assume I’m some drone who can’t think for myself just because I’m prolife. I eat cows and pigs becasue they are delicious. I don’t eat dog because I’ve never been introduced to the meat before and it just seems gross at this point. Dogs are not superior to pigs or cows. They are all animals who serve a different purpose. They may even taste delicious. Who knows? I think animals can go to Heaven because they are creations of God. I highly doubt that Heaven is some sort of an empty void filled with nothing but souls. However, if they don’t go anywhere when they die and that’s where you want to end up then have fun explaining that to God when you die. That’s your issue, buddy.

    5. You say don’t praise someone who hasn’t done good yet. I agree with that but you kind of just contradicted yourself. Shouldn’t the reverse also be true. Don’t condemn a person before they’ve had a chance to live and either be misserable or find happiness. And also, are you saying that it’s our insides that make us human? Is having a heart and veins what you define as a human? In that case, wouldn’t any animal be considered a human? Well, I guess that might make sense now that I look back and read your point 4 again. I don’t really know anything about slaughter houses but as long as it puts a delicious meat product on my table and no humans were harmed or killed in the process then I really don’t care.

    Reply this comment
  24. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 1 May, 2012, 14:45

    Hi, Corinna. I like you because you stick with the issues and debate them. I wish there were more as intelligent as you. Thank you for being such a staunch advocate of your convictions. We need more like you. And you do make some good points. But you also are sadly misinformed on some areas of discussion. Okay, round three:

    (1) “And if the majority decides that cannibalism is okay would you accept that too?” Yes, in a democracy I would. Much better to be eaten than to live under the totalitarian rule of a nation like North Korea. Nobody is forcing YOU to get an abortion, Corinna. And your comparison between cannibalism and 1st trimester abortion is all wet. More drama. But I don’t blame you. If I was arguing from your side of the aisle I would have to throw in drama and emotionalism too, regardless of the misapplication and erroneous analogies.

    (2) An embryo without a heart or circulatory system is not a human. Ask any medical doctor without an agenda.

    (3) “The life of the mother should always be put first. If you can’t save both lives then at least save hers”. Oh, so you are in favor of abortion with conditions attached. heh. I see. You are in favor of abotion. Now we are only bickering over the reasons. Thanks for clearing that up, dear. 😉

    (4) So many contradictions. Where to start? I don’t believe in the word ‘soul’ because it has too many religious connotations. I believe that all living animals have some connection to the greater universe and that we don’t completely die after our passing on earth. Our spirit lives on. I refuse to call it ‘soul’ though since I was forced to regurgitate that term too many time in my childhood. I do my own thinking. I do not let others think for me.

    On one hand you say: “I eat cows and pigs becasue they are delicious”. A couple sentences later you state: “I think animals can go to Heaven because they are creations of God”. So I can only deduce that you condone eating creations of God that are your spiritual equals? Wow. And you complain about woman terminating their pregnancies in the 1st trimester? At least the women do not take their fetuses home and eat them.

    I think all of us will be totally surprised at our existence after death. I wouldn’t count too heavily on the concepts of ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ either. Those are likely human concepts to keep all of you good little boys and girls. The government likes to keep a hammer over your head. Even after we die. Think, Corinna.

    (5) “Don’t condemn a person before they’ve had a chance to live and either be misserable or find happiness. And also, are you saying that it’s our insides that make us human? Is having a heart and veins what you define as a human?” No contradiction, Corinna. Life comes in stages. There is a pre-human stage too. That’s when embryos are generally terminated. At the pre-human stage. You seem to believe that an inseminated egg is a human. I disagree. You say ‘po-tat-o’. I say ‘po-taht-o’.

    You have good points, Corinna. Many believe what you say. The nation is deeply divided on this issue and all have strong arguments. It is fun to debate but we would never come to a compromise or an agreement. I believe in ridding humanity of indocrinated guilt acquired at a young age – and I believe in preventing unwanted life (ie. products of abuse and drug-related deformaties) – who oftentimes live wretched, painful and miserable lives. Call me pragmatic. It should be the mother’s choice up to a certain stage of life.

    Reply this comment
  25. Beelzebub
    Beelzebub 1 May, 2012, 21:29

    You’re a good sport, Corinna.

    If you want to call it a draw I’ll buy in.

    There are really no winners or losers on the abortion topic. Most of arguments on both sides make sense.

    Reply this comment
  26. Corinna
    Corinna 2 May, 2012, 14:27

    Fine. Draw. I dissagree with you very strongly and and I frankly don’t see this debate going anywhere but at least I got my voice out there.

    Oh and to clear this up; I don’t support abortion at all. I support saving as many lives as possible and if you can only save one then it is tragic that the other couldn’t be saved as well but at least the mother will live. I still think it was a baby regardless of the surcumstances. I say try to save them both and if you can’t then save who you can.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

Beware of lawmakers selling Prop. 13 snake oil

Dec. 4, 2012 By Katy Grimes Like geese migrating South for the winter, every year a combination of journalists, editorial

State estimates on cost of new lighting rules far too low

It looks like California business interests have yet another example of state bureaucrats downplaying or ignoring the cost of new

Fracking showdown: Will CA media STILL ignore Obama view?

The prospect of rich Dem dilettante Tom Steyer targeting Jerry Brown over fracking is scary in some ways. It could