Abortion foes ask to speak freely at Dem convention protests
By Kevin Vaughan, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published June 18, 2008 at 12:27 p.m.
Updated June 18, 2008 at 11:53 p.m.
Photo by George Kochaniec Jr. © The Rocky
Rev. Patrick Mahoney, left, of the Christian Defense Coalition and Danielle White Versluys, of Survivors, speak at a press conference outside the Pepsi Center Wednesday June 18,2008. They were announcing anti-abortion protest plans for the Democratic National Convention.
Abortion opponents plan eight days of prayers, demonstrations and rallies surrounding the Democratic National Convention - and Wednesday they challenged Denver officials to respect their First Amendment rights.
In all, the groups expect as many as 1,000 out-of-town protesters to hit Denver for the convention scheduled Aug. 25-28 at the Pepsi Center, and they've already gotten permission to use Denver parks for gatherings.
They also plan to hit the 16th Street Mall, "encircle" the Pepsi Center, and maintain a presence outside the hotel of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, a Washington-based group.
His organization and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust announced plans for their demonstrations during the convention.
Mahoney said he hoped an afternoon meeting with Denver City Attorney David Fine would pave the way for an amicable co-existence between abortion opponents and law officers.
"Denver: Honor and respect and safeguard the First Amendment rights of every person who comes to your great and wonderful city," Mahoney said during a news conference outside the Pepsi Center late Wednesday morning.
After the meeting, Fine said he would "look into" concerns raised by Mahoney.
"We discussed his plans today," Fine said. "We intend to look into the issues that that raises."
Fine did not elaborate.
Mahoney said that his group had filed lawsuits in New York in 2000 and in Boston in 2004 to win the right to demonstrate, and he indicated that it could pursue that strategy again if it fears that its First Amendment rights are being threatened.
"To the city of Denver - demonstrators are not terrorists," he said. "Don't treat us like that."
Among the events announced Wednesday was a prayer at the Pepsi Center on Aug. 23, two days before the convention starts, in which Mahoney envisions demonstrators circling the building and laying hundreds of roses in protest of abortion.
He also said his group would not be present in the demonstration area set aside in a parking lot adjacent to the Pepsi Center.
"I would never go to a protest pen," he said. "It is absolutely despicable. As far as I'm concerned, the First Amendment applies everywhere that I can see."
Danielle White Versluys of the group Survivors said she hoped to persuade young voters to turn against abortion.
"It's time to stand up," she said. "It's time to cry out for an end to abortion."
Asked whether she was worried that the huge police presence would pose a problem for demonstrators, Versluys said, "We have nothing to fear."
"We will remain peaceful and compliant," she said.
Protests planned
Two groups, the Christian Defense Coalition of Washington, D.C., and the Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust of Riverside, Calif., have announced a partial schedule of events for demonstrations around the Democratic National Convention, scheduled Aug. 25-28 at the Pepsi Center:
Aug. 22
* 7 p.m.: Kickoff rally, location to be determined
Aug. 23
* 9 a.m.: Protest at an abortion clinic, location to be determined
* Noon: Rally in Civic Center
* 1 p.m.: Prayer at Pepsi Center, including the laying of roses around the building
* 6 p.m.: Prayer and rally at Skyline Park
Aug. 24-28
* Other events around town, the details of which have not been announced.
Candidates on abortion
Barack Obama
* Supports Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in the United States.
* Supports expanded access to contraception.
John McCain
* Says overturning Roe vs. Wade would be a top priority for his presidency.
* Promotes adoption as a first choice for unwanted pregnancies.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
Live updates
Sign up for mobile alerts and breaking news e-mails to keep up with the latest news.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
June 18, 2008
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
SockRayBlue writes:
I've read enough articles this week to prove beyond a doubt that there definitely is a reason and need for abortion. OR...all these unwanted children could be given to the government, raised and used as cannon fodder for the next generations war. Then the letter to the mother could read: That abortion you wanted? Done. Plus she'd get the half million insurance payment. Tax free.of course. Compliments of a grateful government.
Just trying to help out.
June 18, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
KP13 writes:
LOL,
sounds like a bunch of crying aborted Babies!
June 18, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Why do they want to protest two days before the event?
They will tie up traffic and need a parade permit, and if they don`t get their way, watch them yell.
June 18, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Oh you all should be happy that your mommy didn't abort you...
June 18, 2008
1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
ghostie writes:
"I would never go to a protest pen," he said. "It is absolutely despicable. As far as I'm concerned, the First Amendment applies everywhere that I can see."
Umm, no, it applies to public property. As far as you're concerned, you still have to pay attention to the law and the Court's decisions, like it or not. The "pen" is actually a polite concession.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/a...
June 18, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
Well I guess we should round them up and put them in jail like the cons have suggested about the democrat protesters.
June 18, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
trinidad writes:
dirty sanchez and kp13, You two are CRUEL and HEARTLESS. There wouldn't be a need for abortions if the girls that got them would take the steps necessary to prevent themselves from getting pregnant in the first place. "Sounds like a bunch of crying aborted babies",How could you say that? kp13, if you're a woman, please do everything you can to prevent yourself from getting pregnant. You wouldn't deserve the gift of a baby. How sad it is that people in this world will stand up for the "rights" and lives of animals but will kill a baby that has a heartbeat and feels pain. I miscarried my baby at 4 weeks gestation. I grieved for my baby for months after, I still wonder about the baby that I lost. It's been 11 years. God has given me the gift of four children.
June 18, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
For all those against abortion...think about this-those mothers who are likely to have abortions are most likely in positions in which they can not raise children; whether it be finacial, social, mental health or other good reasons. So you would prefer that the woman have the child and he/she possibly be neglected or abused or even give the child up for adoption and put into an already failing and overwhellmed system such as foster care or even adoption. I do not like to see suffrage when it is not necessary, but Christian people believe that they can turn these people to God for happiness. I believe the Christians do not condone abortion because they lose future followers and supporters. Religion helps make since of traumatic events. This is just my opinion.
June 18, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
SockRayBlue writes:
danirobi
It makes no difference to me if my mommy aborted me or not. As with anything there are two ways to look at something. I've been valuable during my life since I've paid taxes, contributed to the social betterment of society and have kept out of trouble. Now, whomever replaces me could quite possibly be questionable. Since I'm retired I can sit back and be a SOB about pointing out everything negative about where society's headed. Kind of like when you spit in your hand and slap it. The longest thread of spit points the direction. I see a lot of that today and in the recent past in corporate America.
Protesters bring attention to many things. One thing overlooked is the person at the center that profits from all this heart rending action. Too lazy to work, but can con others to his solo music. I also have to question the gullible. Those poor sots that dance to many tunes, but never one of their own.
Eventually I will "self-abort" and another will take my place. Which is really all you can ask...........
June 18, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Well,the folks doing the political biz here later this summer DO have problems with killing the enemy,who can fight back.Not so much of a problem killing baby Americans who can't.
June 18, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
baby=born, outside the womb
embryo=unborn, still within the womb
so call it what it is...aborion kills embryos
June 18, 2008
1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
Where does everyone find time to protest? I must be in the wrong line of work.
June 18, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
MGD writes:
Freedom,
Christians are against abortion because they feel the baby is a human and that killing is wrong. Most of these people you are pointing to as wanting future followers do not lead churches.
It's one of the reasons that there are so many Christian adoption groups, to help people adopt these unwanted children.
June 18, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
dothan writes:
Abortion equals murder by mothers. Can there be a greater act of violence?
June 18, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
MGD
I was a social worker for years...there are no where near enough of these groups. Not to mention that most foster/adopt parents still need finacial help that comes from everyones' tax money not just those who are against abortion. I am sorry, but I do not want to pay for someone elses mistake or what ever you want to call it.
June 18, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
SickNTired writes:
Freedomfighter1 = "So you would prefer that the woman have the child and he/she possibly be neglected or abused or even give the child up for adoption and put into an already failing and overwhellmed system such as foster care or even adoption."
There are so many loving families out there that would be ready, willing, and more than able to adopt a baby that you are so quick to murder! Good one.
June 18, 2008
1:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
SickNTired writes:
Freedomfighter1 = "So you would prefer that the woman have the child and he/she possibly be neglected or abused or even give the child up for adoption and put into an already failing and overwhellmed system such as foster care or even adoption."
There are so many loving families out there that would be ready, willing, and more than able to adopt a baby that you are so quick to murder! Good one.
June 18, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
Sickntired
read my 1:47 post. I worked in the feild and I saw plenty of children who were put into group homes with no adoption in sight and if there are so many families that want to adopt why is there an adoption day and plublicity stunt where they dress these kids up real nice and parade them around.
June 18, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
trinidad,
I'm sorry for your loss. There's no denying the pain you still feel from that loss.
Still, abortion in the US is only protected before viability, and the awareness of pain does not exist until later.
“Fetal awareness of noxious stimuli requires functional thalamocortical connections. Thalamocortical fibers begin appearing between 23 to 30 weeks' gestational age, while electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain perception in preterm neonates probably does not exist before 29 or 30 weeks.” (Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. JAMA. 2005 Aug 24;294(8):947-54.)
“Mature thalamocortical projections are not present until 29 to 30 weeks, which has led many to believe the fetus does not experience emotional "pain" until then. Pain requires both nociception and emotional reaction or interpretation.”(Neurodevelopmental changes of fetal pain. Semin Perinatol. 2007 Oct;31(5):275-82)
You can read more about it here in layman’s terms: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/24/hea...
June 18, 2008
2:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
superbad writes:
"There are so many loving families out there that would be ready, willing, and more than able to adopt a baby that you are so quick to murder!"
Yeah, that's why they've closed all the orphanages, and foster parents are no longer needed. What you meant to say is that there are so many people willing to adopt healthy white babies who weren't born with AIDS and an in utero addiction to crack. Let's just be honest with each other here. The kind of babies that an abortion ban would create are not in high demand by adoptive parents. Sorry.
June 18, 2008
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Help me out guys.
What purpose does a protest serve? Do you think the disruption or publicity will actually sway the opposite viewpoint into changing?
An anti-abortion group had their van parked in my neighborhood for a couple of days. There was a morbid picture of a bloody baby on it. If they had any true compassion, they would not subject the children in the neighborhood to such a gruesome picture.
June 18, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
True Heidi, but protest are used to show a mass support for an ideal or opinion and they are important in a democratic nation.
June 18, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
Heidi,
I imagine you live in the same neighborhood of one of the contractors building the new Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains headquarters in Stapleton. Some protestors decided they would take their fight to the homes of electricians and plumbers doing their jobs.
The results:
1) The building is opening two months ahead of schedule.
2) PPRM completed fundraising on their $10 million capital campaign in three years instead of five.
3) A new law sponsored by Republican Steve Ward (running for Tommy Tank's 6th CD seat) placed new limits on residential picketing.
Trifecta!
June 18, 2008
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
When are all of you anti choice naz1's going to pony up money for the foster care system, and the homeless shelters that house so many of the throw-away kids. Instead of spending cash on the travel and the days away from work donate that time and money and do some real good. The good reverend is a poster child for retro active abortion anyways. I'd bet the majority of you all are a bunch of lethal injecting, anti abortion inconsistants anyway. So how about putting the cash and the time for this protest toward all the children you've already saved?
June 18, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
freedomfighter,
Yes, I suppose sometimes it helps. But I believe there are probably more effective ways.
Queen_Gorgo,
You could be right! The protest wasn't effective in that instance! Have you heard about the bloody baby van? I hope that has been addressed in the new law.
June 18, 2008
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Funny how those who claim that abortion is a right (even though it appears NOWHERE in the Constitution or Bill of Rights) are so quick to try to restrict the FREEDOM OF SPEECH of those who don't support killing children.
It just proves the obvious.... leftwingers support killing kids, but refuse to allow freedom of speech. Typical tyrants.
June 18, 2008
3 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacred49 writes:
I have an idea on how abortion could be stopped period!!! Women and men should stop bein so damn selfish and put on a condom, or put themselves on birth control. There are a lot of clinics that offer condoms for free, or birth control at a lesser price, you know. So that the pain that an unborn child goes thru, isnt felt. You know, from having its limbs vaccuumed off one by one and then having its head crushed and vaccuumed out with the rest of its body. Oh, And dont forget bout when the child is forced to go thru partial induced labor, having only its head pulled out, a hole pucntured in its skull and its brain being vaccuumed out. Guess what? It feels every second of this pain. I know, lets punish every person that commits a crime this way. But they get a choice: having their limbs vacuumed off or their brain vaccuumed out of their skull.
June 18, 2008
3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
trinidad writes:
Queen Gorgo. Thank You. Whether or not science thinks a baby has the capability to feel pain prior to 29 weeks, it's still a human life. I'm realistic. I know that there a both sides to the pro-abortion side itself. One being, girls using it a form of birth control. The other, the life of the mother being at risk. Girls in both situations have alot on their hands. I wouldn't want to be in either of their situations or would i want to make the decision for them . I hope that she would be at peace with what she decides. What upsets me in this whole ordeal is the lack of compassion for the baby itself. I know a baby in utero is not just a "blob" at any point of gestation. Please ask yourself. What would've become of the life that was ended?
June 18, 2008
3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
jacred49,
Did you read my post of 2:03? Doubtful.
trinidad, not to nit-pick, but your post illustrates that the corect term is pro-choice. Different people will do different things presented with the same situation. I support women's rights to make that decision for themselves without the state's interference.
Heidi, I think not. It was mostly about size and number of signs, and hours they could protest.
June 18, 2008
3:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Redwords writes:
Bloody "baby" van? I thought it was just an embryo or fetus and not a person...
The whole point is that it IS disturbing... very disturbing, and putting it out in the open for everyone to see keeps it from being a nice comfy concept.
The whole problem with the pro-choice vs. pro-life is that they are fundamentally opposed. Pro-choice believes that human life before birth is not sacred, and Pro-lifers do. They both won't "compromise" because there is no "compromise" if they both believe they are right.
It's easy to sit back an theorize about all this. Most people are too quick to judge on BOTH sides, no one can really say what it's like to have to go through it if they have not, so who knows how YOU would really decide if you had to live in another person's shoes.
That being said, I find it more disturbing that so many people bare so much hatred for some who have moral objections to abortion. If you believe that killing is wrong, no matter at what stage, you can't justify it just because society says that the child would be better off dead than live unwanted. And the problem with adoption is NOT lack of interest, but if anyone here has adopted or is in the process of trying to adopt, it is such a LONG and full-of-red tape process that can be expensive and emotionally harrowing, that many willing parents are hindered to the point that it is no longer possible for them. So, society would rather just "get rid" of the "problem" and not have to deal with the reality of it.
I respect everyones opinions, don't always agree, but it's not a cut and dry issue, and to trivialize it and resort to name calling, is not helpful.
June 18, 2008
3:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
That van has picture of fetuses past 20 weeks.
90% of the abortions in the US are done in the first trimester. The abortions pictured on that van are extraordinarily unlikely to be the elective "selfish girl should have been careful" abortions, as abortions at that stage are usually for fetal anomalies or maternal health issues.
It's not a matter of society saying what a woman's choices should be, but her right to determine that for herself using her own values.
And "sacred" is a religious construct, similarly in how it applies to religious marriages. Sacredness should not be a basis for our laws.
June 18, 2008
3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
I usually don't comment on the anti-abortion issue. It was just the effectiveness of certain types of protests I was questioning. I have mixed feelings about what is right and what is wrong on the abortion issue. And I am glad that I will never be placed in that situation where I would have to decide for myself.
June 18, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
KP13 writes:
Trinidad,
Accidents happen and some people really don't deserve, or should not have kids......someone who is raped deserves to have a kid? Someone who took the necesary steps towards not having a child(birth control, condoms, etc..), and still managed to get pregnant, and does not posses the means to raise a child should have to have the child once they are born?
Animals are born and alive....embryos are not(and embryos don't feel pain!)Animals run around and piss and crap, embryos do not!
You people are sick! You don't run the world, and you don't make choices for others, protest all you want.....
June 18, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
RicG-
If you noticed I argued for the rights of those to protest and I am for abortion.
June 18, 2008
3:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Redwords writes:
Queen_Gorgo
I never said that "sanctity" should be a basis for law making. And as for it being a religious construct, that may be true for some, but for me, it is my personal conviction, and I am correct in stating, as you have pointed out, that Pro-choice does not use the term, nor agree with it's use as applied to unborn humans, which is the whole point. The whole difference betweem the pro vs. anti abortion groups is how they view human life. Of course if you do not believe in God or that there is something greater than ourselves, you might not consider anything sacred in terms of life (I'm not saying that's you). This is where religion fits in for some, it brings meaning to life as a concept. If there is nothing beyond ourselves, then life has no "real" meaning, except to live, work, eat, pay taxes, and die. So getting rid of a few unwanted lives, has absolutely no impact in the whole scheme of things, in fact it just makes things simpler.
June 18, 2008
3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. It means being in favor of allowing the mother a choice.
If religious-based folks are against abortion, they should endorse education and birth control in an effort to eliminate the need for the choice - instead of the ineffective abstinence only approach.
Outlawing abortions will not stop the demand for abortions - it will only drive it underground/black market.
I also don't see anywhere in this story that the protesters are not being allowed to protest. I also don't see any comments about wanting these protesters beaten or having water cannons turned on them, etc... as has been mentioned in any other story about protesters at the DNC. Hypocrisy indeed.
June 18, 2008
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
EZBakeOven writes:
I'm not "for" abortion, I mean, who really is? However, I believe in choice for the woman. I respect her right to decide for herself what the best option should be and it's nobody else's business.
June 18, 2008
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
Redwords,
I appreciate your point of view, and more time might allow me to delve deeper, but I don't have it.
Atheism does not leed to being pro-choice. See Jewish Atheist liberal Nat Hentoff.
June 18, 2008
4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
TW1ZT3D writes:
Having been through a miscarriage i feel sick everytime i hear the word abortion, it is truly sad that for those who deserve and long so much to have a child aren't granted that gift and for the ones who are capable of creating a healthy baby and flaunt themselves, get knocked up, and "take care of it" make me feel like life to you pro-choicers really isnt worth it, but yet you argue and try to justify(as if you care about life), but how could you care for her life and not the baby's? or your own for that matter? it's all a contradiction. OK maybe she was raped? but did she put herself in that predicament? no? than who did? maybe she was where she was supposed to be, maybe she was protecting herself, maybe she took every precuation to not get pregnant or raped, and if so why does the innocent have to suffer? to end her suffering? it all makes sense now, mankind left to his own devices......, make another suffer to end your own suffering = absolutly heartbreaking.
June 18, 2008
4:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
nobodyman writes:
I am for abortion. The world has enough crack baby future car stereo thieves in it.
June 18, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
jax writes:
Points to ponder for the Right-To-Lifers:
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, do you really believe that women will stop having abortions? Please don’t insult me and say “yes” just because it would be law as we all know that just isn’t realistic. So, when they do continue to have abortions, who do you think will perform them? You got it; they will do it themselves just as they did 30-40-50 years ago. Or they’ll find others to do it for them. So what you are really saying is that it is okay for women to die doing this to themselves, but we must save the embryo. Hey, now you are “killing” both. Doesn’t that go against your touchy-feely side of saving everyone from themselves?
And since we know that woman will still have abortions, what do you propose should be the appropriate punishment for a woman who breaks the law and has an abortion? Burn her at the stake? Lock her up in jail? And, can we tax only the anti-abortion taxpayers who fought for this to be overturned to pay for the prosecution of these women?
And, what’s your plan for rape victims? Women who are raped? Children who are raped and end up pregnant? Incest victims? Will it be okay to abort those embryos? And if it is okay to abort under specific circumstances, doesn’t your whole theory of “don’t kill the embryo” go out the window? A kill is a kill, right? Why should it be acceptable for some but not others?
Ultimately you will be responsible for forcing a terrible fate to those children who will only know a life of pain because they were born to parent(s) who were forced to have them. Just because a person can conceive does NOT make them parents. How horrible that you feel you have the right to force someone to have a child and then force that child to either live a life of abuse and/or neglect. Don’t we have enough child cruelty and abandonment in the world now? Why would you advocate for more? If people can’t raise the children they have now, what makes you think these children will fare any better? Does anyone ever think of the horrible life these kids will have rather than just “protesting” your cause? There is always cause and effect. Do you ever think of the effect after you win your cause? As far as I am concerned, you are the ones who are cruel, forcing a life of suffering on a child. That makes you no better than the abusers. Save the embryo so you can destroy the child’s life. That’s disgusting.
June 18, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
I thought this was one of the big issues on the last election.
Bush said he was not for it and not going to have gay marriages. He was very clear about it.
Just tells me that the people on the right will say anything for a vote.
June 18, 2008
4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
ISKIFREELY writes:
Shouldn't you all be arguing on the conservation easement article? That $270mm fiasco is something that actually has an impact on all of you. Or would it be too much of a challenge to learn about something complicated rather than parrot others.
June 18, 2008
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter1 writes:
TW
I care for the child's future and not so much of the mother's "choice." If a women was pregnant and told you she did not want to have the baby (for what ever reason) would you tell her to bad she has to have this child. That's not freedom. I am sorry for your loss, but I believe that you are looking at this from a biased stance and not what is best for everyone.
June 18, 2008
4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
nobodyman writes:
"I thought this was one of the big issues on the last election.
Bush said he was not for it and not going to have gay marriages. He was very clear about it.
Just tells me that the people on the right will say anything for a vote."
*rolls eyes*
Seems a little biased. What you've obviously failed to notice is that politicians in general don't give a crap about the core issues of their party platforms. It's all pillow talk to get votes from stupid people who think things like abortion have any bearing on their lives. Plus things like abortion and gun control are more up to the Legislature and the Supreme Court than the Executive. Presidents can merely veto or not veto things. They can demand that the legislature introduce new bills but that only works sometimes. So really, the principles of a presidential candidate, as dictated to them by their party, are to be taken with a grain of salt. They all will say anything to get votes. That's how it works. Over and out.
June 18, 2008
5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
DenverDan writes:
They all will say anything to get votes. That's how it works. Over and out.
That is why people like me want "CHANGE". That's not how it should work. OUT.
June 18, 2008
5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
jax writes:
Points to ponder for the Right-To-Lifers:
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, do you really believe that women will stop having abortions?
-------------------------------
You need to clarify some distinctions. When Roe is overturned then abortion would be regulated by the various states. For instance, the pre-Roe law in Colorado authorized abortion for health reasons or if the pregnancy was a result of rape and incest.
Under Roe, abortion is used as birth control and that is why numbers are aound a million a year. If abortion is not legal as a methodof birth control then, yes, obvioulsy the numbers would drop.
The primary reason for making anything illegal is that is discourages the activity.
June 18, 2008
5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Redwords writes:
Queen_Gorgo - sorry I was not trying to generalize, no one likes to be steryotyped, least of all me. I am often grouped in with people that I have nothing in common with because of my beliefs. I know plenty of pro-life athiests, I only meant that for me, the only way I could be pro-abortion was if I didn't believe in a higher power, that's all. I can not speak for anyone else. Thank you for your point of view.
Jax,
I am pro-life, and I agree with you, even if Roe v. Wade WAS overturned (which it never will), people would not stop having abortions, and yes, there may be some who have botched abortions that lead to death sometimes(it happens now too). But, just because something will never stop happening, if someone believes it's wrong, sitting by might not ever be an option. The point of protesting is not always to change anyone's mind, in fact it generally only creates more polarization, but it is more of an awareness thing. "Here I am, I'm still here" kind of thing.
And as to your point about pro-lifers forcing terrible lives on millions of children who might have a horrible life by not letting them be aborted, is not rational. Whether abortion exists or not, there will always be child abusers and terrible "parents". The fact is that many just don't think that abortion is the best solution, and having the child stay with it's parent's might not be the best option either, but that argument of the child might end up with a terrible life so it's better off not being born, will never sway anyone who believes it's wrong. Plain and simple.
Speaking from experience, I have four adopted brothers and sisters whom I love dearly, who had that horrible life to start out, but were rescued from it, and now have a loving nurturing family, and no they are not white( for those who think that only white babies get adopted). Two of them have a fatal disease too, but they still have every right to be here, and I am thankful that their mother did not chose to abort them. Unwanted children do not always end up with a bad life, some do, but not all. All children deserve a chance, not all of them get it. We live in an imperfect world, and always will, but that won't stop me from trying to save just one child if I can.
And no one changes their mind over a "great argument" anyways. These opinions are very personal to some, and no one will change their mind either way unless they want to. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind and I am fully aware of the fact that I get a lot of flack for standing where I stand, but I am still here.
June 18, 2008
6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jax writes:
Redwords,
You are so correct in your view that no one will change their mind over a great argument as some view these issues as personal, some as religious, some as common sense and some are just as random as the weather. I rarely post my views on these types of topics just for that reason. It usually doesn't do much good.
There will never be unity on this issue and it will forever be divided. I actually think it's great to stand wherever you wish, that's why we live in the country that we do. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
June 18, 2008
8:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
missingmybaby writes:
I believed in abortion until I decided to have one. I thought it was my choice and my decision alone. However, after the abortion (which is incredibly painful and the noise of the suction is still haunting me)I became very depressed. I drank too much, I had suicidal thoughts, guilt, shame.... There are terrible things that come along with having an abortion - things women are not warned about. Those who choose abortion are at a high risk for breast cancer and preterm births. (All 3 of my living children were born in preterm labor, my last almost died and stayed in NICU for days.) I began to wonder about I had exterminated and I decided if it was just a clump of cells than I wouldn't be mourning so badly. During one of my pregnancies after the abortion I had an internal ultrasound at 9 weeks (first trimester) and my baby was as clear as day, moving with heart beating - fully formed. Then I realized that during my abortion that human being must have been ripped and torn out of my body and I realized, deep within my being, that I had done a terrible thing. The guilt and shame are very difficult to deal with and I am always crossing my fingers now at mammograms each year wondering if this will be the year it shows up.
I wish all you folks who have the best intentions, I believe, would please just listen to those who chose abortion and have regretted it. We lived it, we speak the truth.
I suggest to anyone who wishes to hear those voices to visit www.motherhoodinterrupted.com There are many stories of women who faced the decision and lived with the consequences - just hear what they have to say.
Thanks all.
June 18, 2008
9:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
missingmybaby: Thank you for an eloquent and heartfelt post. However I must disagree with your apparent opinion that as a result of your experience, the choice should not be available to other women. You can volunteer at or contribute to one of many pregnancy centers that discourage abortion, encourage adoption and offer assistance to single parents and parents in need. Spiritual, financial and/or emotional assistance.
But you can also be cognizant of the fact that there are not a few women who may be addicted, irresponsible or for many other good OR bad reasons, are unsuited, unprepared and unwilling to be a parent. And remember that there is also much heartache and mourning for what has happened to many children who have been born into this world unwanted too. You can read about them every day.
June 18, 2008
9:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
trinidad writes:
kp13 what would you say if i decided to abort the embryos of my pregnant dog because she accidently got pregnant. p.e.t.a. would try to have me thrown in jail for murder. now that is sick
June 18, 2008
10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
missingmybaby writes:
Davies: Thank you for your understnading. My point is, however, that women are going in uninformed about the impact of what they are about to do, abortion hurts women. I think it is no coincedence that as abortion became widespread in the 70's breast cancer has also risen? (see abclink.org) All the while, the woman is the pawn in the power struggle between the two sides. Why can't we offer women, most of who are in great distress (I certainly was)better options. I think women deserve better than abortion, and I would also guess those people who have been "victimized by being born" in the first place(in some folks opinions)are still grateful they were given life.
Thanks for reading.
June 18, 2008
11:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
jax writes:
Missingbaby:
I too feel your pain, however your experience is not everyone's experience. I also had an abortion but did not have the same results as you. I had a healthy baby girl several years later who was 5 days late. I did not have the depression, nor did I crave liquor. I also have no signs of breast cancer or any other long term effects. Perhaps your doctor wasn't the right one for you. Mine was very specific and very blunt when I was making this decision. Ultimately, I did what I thought was best for all at that time and do not regret it. I have a daughter who is 19 years old now, who had the very best that I could give her because I was able to do so. That would not have been the case earlier (and I was one of those people that became pregnant on the pill - so I was being responsible). Once again, I believe this goes back to choice as it effects some differently than others. I do not agree that it should be used for birth control, but I do believe it should be available to those who choose it. I am sorry for what you went through and I hope that time has lessened your grief.
June 19, 2008
5:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
drkenne writes:
As in many aspects of our daily lives, it's one group telling another how it must act. Imposing morals on those they deem immoral. Liberty is all about choice. Besides, there are much larger issues facing this country then overturning Roe v. Wade. Abortion should be, and always reamin, a individuals right to choose.
I think it's deplorable that victims of rape and incest would be forced to carry a physical reminder of the horrible crime imposed on them. I wonder how many pro-lifers would actually step up and adopt a person's child that is concieved under such circumstances?
June 19, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
AmaranthArticia, Someone should have aborted you when you were a little blob of meat.
Isn't that they type of reaction you were lookin for?
June 19, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
MissingMB: I do acknowledge your point and I'm sure it has been true for many others as well. My suggestion was to consider helping those non-profit agencies that discourage abortion, facilitate alternatives, and provide support for pregnant women, rather than to work towards prohibiting abortion for all women.
I make an occasional contribution to such a local agency, and they accept my money even though I'm pro-choice.
Heidi: Did you just attack a victim? Obviously the writer has an addiction to personal gratification, and is in need of assistance. She is probably suffering from Imemine disorder ;-)
June 19, 2008
8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
Yea, davies, can you believe it? I was bold this morning.
I agree with your advice to missingmb. I am surprised you are pro-choice, with being conservative. But I know you are open minded. Definitely not far right.
June 19, 2008
10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Queen_Gorgo writes:
Mising MB
I am sorry for your pain, but medical research shows that it is in no way typical of the average woman who has an abortion.
Women who seek abortion do so for many reasons such as poor psychosocial supports and poor family structures. These are also independant risk factors for chemical abuse.
As for the Abortion Breast Cancer link, it has been so thoroughly debunked that even the Bush administration, notorious for its supression and manipulation of science it does not agree with, released a report on the National Institutes of Health website debunking the purported link:
"Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/ere-...
June 20, 2008
6:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
thewayiseeit writes:
I do respect the right to protest and for these people to have an opinion. However, have you seen some of these people that have been at abortion rallies? They are usually people that noone would want to reproduce with anyway. They look like they reproduced with swamp thing and they have moles the size of Montana on their foreheads. If anyone attractive is hanging around these rallies, it is to feel better about their own looks. Just a thought.
June 23, 2008
1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
123 writes:
"To the city of Denver - demonstrators are not terrorists," he said. "Don't treat us like that."
Our Country's collective ignorance and arrogance are a far greater threat to our livelyhood than demonstrators or terrorists. Our People's willingness to be ruled by fear and emotion, which these people perpetuate, is our greatest weakness.
June 23, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cel writes:
That's deep