[Spiehler]  Where Is the Line?

Great post, Stacey. You are all over the main problem with this Initiative. It will leave critical decisions on women's health and well-being up to a legislature which has not managed to get us off the top of every negative social parameter I can think of, whether it is crime, poverty, unwanted pregnancy, teen-age pregnancy, STD levels, mortality rates, cancer rates, obesity rates, high school drop out rates, etc. It would take issues of family planning and women's health out of the hands of women, their loved ones, and their medical providers, and put it in the hands of the court system.

You want to scare people. You also want abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason. Shame on you.

Jay: restating and twisting other people's opinions violates our user agreement. You can state your own opinions but don't make up opinions for others. Similar violations will not be posted. Disagree agreeably.

So, Jay, are you are proposing that By Law, every child should be provided enough food for optimal nutrition, a Shelter that meets health and safety codes, Clothing, a bed and bedding, protection from abuse and a good k-12 education with health checkups, preventative care and medical attention as needed, including any medications.

That is very progressive of you.

Unless, of course, you just meant that every pregnancy should be carried to term no matter what conditions it will be born into (or with) and once it's born, well, it's on it's own from there.

Bobby--Talking to him would be pointless. He thinks there is some strange link between abortion and paganism and vampires. ( Check THIS out)

He also has a pretty far right extremist blog where he lays out the "plans" of Personhood USA (The Forerunner Blog). I refuse to link to that as I think the computer picked up a Trojan while I was looking at the site. (OH, THE IRONY)

Great. Another outside agitator armed with talking points.

Don't read his blog, seriously. It pretty much reads like a manifesto of theocratic crazy. Which, by the way, is pretty much the goal of the Personhood movement. His blog systematically lays out how they are going about outlawing abortion (and many, many other medical issues related to it.) They are attempting to go state by state enacting "Personhood" laws. They say that they know they cannot defeat Roe V. Wade at the federal level so they are using "personhood" to change the constituation of at least 38 states in order to get it changed in the US Constitution. The more I read about them the more I see how really crazy they are. They "decided" upon this so they didn't have to "wait on the make-up of SCOTUS to change".

As a Pagan, I find Jay's attempt to link witchcraft and abortion very, very offensive.

I've read the google+ entry several times and I can't believe it. Its not enough to attack women's health and reproductive rights in the name of domination and control, but they have to throw in attacks on other religions to boot?

How much hate can a person contain? What misery in their lives has lead them to do such things?

See, that was a nice answer, Stacey. I was gonna say "Steve, why don't you take that crap to the house and sit down.". (That's code for: Step off, Yankee)

WHOA! Steve, did you just say that if an ectopic pregnancy is a "person" than you can't see how its ethical to consider "killing" that person as a way to avoid the pain, expense, and future disadvantage of the MOTHER? Seriously?

Let's replace that word "mother" with "wife". SO, if your wife has an ectopic pregnancy, a pregnancy that is NOT VIABLE, you would be willing to have your wife keep an ectopic pregnancy knowing that the outcome would ALWAYS be the eventual death of the "baby" and the permanent loss of your wife's fertility (AT THE LEAST) with the worst case being the death of your wife? You are willing to let your wife die for an unviable pregnancy?

That is what you are saying?

Because, if that is what you are saying, its not worth it to debate this with you anymore. You are a radical that pretty obviously has no respect or love for women whatsoever and I hope that you aren't married. God Bless You, honey.

I find nothing to admire in men who can find nothing better to do than exert control over women in their life--mostly to their own detriment. You are anti-women and I bet you did find something to admire about those that fought under the confederate flag. Different color, same fight.

It's not often that I have wanted to say this, but, "BRAVA! Lori G!"
Stacey, I don't think that Mr. Schulin will understand your analogy. I don't think his simple closemindedness will accept logic. These fundamentalists will stop at nothing short of the eventual criminalization of clinical abortion.

Mr. Schulin, it would be a stretch to consider an embryo implanted in the Fallopian tube (just one form of ectopic pregnancy, by the way) as another patient. And, by the way, your ethical treatment has a name, salpingectomy. Often times, a salpingectomy is often done in conjunction with an oophorectomy (removal of the ipsilateral ovary) because the affected Fallopian tube often has a surrounding fibrotic reaction that causes it to adhere to surrounding structures, namely the ovary. Naturally, when this is performed, the ability to conceive in the future drops. I hate to drop such big words on you but my medical school training habits die hard.

Oh, and the next website you have to resort to for substantiation...please make it a scientific one. Your reliance on your version of Christianity dilutes your facts, as if there were any.

Dr. Koop was a staunch anti-abortionist...in private. He was always very careful when, as Chief of Surgery at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and later as Surgeon General, to tread neutrally on this topic. You see, he was able to marry the subjective feelings of his personal philosophy with the scientific, objective part of his medical profession. In fact, the famous "Koop Report" on abortion (as commissioned by President Reagan) was not written by him at all, though many continue to throw that up.

And, I can assure you, that Dr. Koop operated on very few, if any, pregnant women following his surgical residency (and avoided like all hell the uterus, tubes and ovaries in any case). That is the purview of obstetricians/gynecologists, not pediatric surgeons.

Thank you, Darryl. I know you know what you're talking about.

Stacey, I am so very sorry for your losses. Regardless of the stage of pregnancy, the size of the fetus or lack thereof, the woman carrying that life is attached to it both literally and figuratively. I have had two miscarriages, two vaginal births, one Caesarian section, a failed VBAC that resulted in dehiscence of both my uterus and bladder among other internal injuries. After that I was told I could and would NEVER get pregnant again. But I did. I was told by three Catholic doctors practicing at a Lutheran Hospital that abortion was the only way I would survive that pregnancy. Not nearly as severe as an ectopic one, true, but it was a highly unstable environment for a baby. In addition to the professionals telling me to terminate that pregnancy, my own family chimed in with how selfish I was to continue the pregnancy with four children who needed their mother (who most certainly would die), how could I take this chance with the heightened risk of the baby being born with Down Syndrome because of my age (I was 37 at the time, but only 36 when the egg was fertilized, I argued) and worst of all, how could I make my poor husband choose between the life of the unborn baby and his dying wife if it came to that.

My point, and I do have one, is that the Personhood Amendment is vague and deliberately so, I'm sure. Usually, as mothers we love our babies and we coddle that life from the minute we know we are carrying them. Whether they are a cluster of cells, zygote, embryo, fetus, toddler or one of the surly teenagers I'd like to muzzle on a daily basis, I don't believe that the Personhood Amendment captures the sanctity of that life. Women are better able to choose what is best for themselves, and for their bodies than any man or other woman could think of doing. The wording of this Amendment is horrific. I personally believe that you can't be responsible for killing a "person" if you don't know that that "person" is there! And that's about 4-6 weeks after conception! Unless you're trying to get pregnant, then abortion wouldn't be an issue in the first place, would it? I think we should invest more time and resources in the children who are here and less time on the children who are not here. I would hate to think that had my decision been different, it would have been murder. Given my circumstances, I don't think anyone would have considered me guilty of wrongdoing but this Amendment scares me. The Personhood Amendment is just too ambiguous. I will be voting "no" on this item.

p.s. I found a Perinatologist for my high-risk pregnancy, gave birth, 7 weeks early, to a smart-mouthed, sassy little girl and bankrupted my family. They love and deserve us both.