gadgetlady

It made sense to me, which is why I did it. When I first read through it I was getting confused with all of the players, with the drug issue, with the Playstation, etc. Since my point, which was solely that the law in Ohio provides for people to be charged with murder if they kill an unborn baby, didn't need all of that information, I cut it out. But I didn't do so without posting a link, saying I had cut stuff, and putting in the ellipses to notate where I cut it. Sheesh! Wait, are you saying that the intent of the mother who aborts is not to kill the baby?

Carrie, do you mind telling me what hospital it was? I'd like to do some research on it.

Incredible. I did also put a link to the story for those who wanted more information! There was no intent to hide anything!! I'm astounded that you guys think I'm trying to dupe you about something I posted a link to, said I excerpted, and put ellipses in to show where I cut the story. Fine -- here's the whole friggin' story for those of you who are so interested. I'm not going to bother fixing the formatting like I did last time because it's a pain. Of course it doesn't change a damn thing; the point is still the same -- in Ohio, someone can be held for murder for killing an unborn baby at any point during the pregnancy unless, of course, that someone is the mother: SCIOTO COUNTY, Ohio (WSAZ) -- A new homicide investigation involving the termination of a pregnancy has police and prosecutors in Portsmouth, Ohio double checking their code books. It all started with a car accident last Friday night in Portsmouth. The crash caused a spontaneous abortion for one of the passengers, 18-year-old Jennifer King. King was just four weeks pregnant at the time. Portsmouth Police Officer John Peters says King along with two other young women, all pregnant, were cruising in a black Mazda, their friend Ricky Heineman was driving. Officer Peters says Heineman pulled up to an apartment building and while still in the car, began some sort of transaction with another supposed friend. “He was either buying a Playstation, or paying off a drug debt,” Officer Peters said. That’s when the police report says the man outside the car began violently and repeatedly punching Heineman. “We thought Ricky was dead, and his foot hit the gas, and we drove into the tree, or telephone pole,” King said. The police report says after being punched unconscious, and dragging the puncher along, Heineman's car plowed into a utility pole where injured and shaken, everyone in the car ran “There were a thousand people chasing us, after us,” King said. The police report says the crash caused Jennifer King to suffer a spontaneous abortion and police and prosecutors say by law, the apparent unlawful termination of a pregnancy calls for a homicide investigation. “In Ohio, a crash with the death of an unborn fetus is looked at as a fatal crash,” said Officer Peters. “He needs vehicle manslaughter or something, there were three pregnant women in the car and he still did it,” King said. Heineman suffered a broken nose, concussion and fractured ribs. The case remains under investigation and no arrests have been made yet. Police say assault charges are possible in the punching incident. As for the fetal homicide case, the charge could range anywhere from involuntary manslaughter to aggravated murder.

Oh, and btw, the ellipses I put in the middle of the article (. . .) are a cue to the reader that a portion of the article is missing -- so I certainly didn't hide the fact that I cut something out. I even think I said I excerpted it! It was a long story and I didn't want someone to stop reading it before they got to the end.

Oh.my.gosh. Can we say DEMONIZE? The reason I posted the article was not to share the convoluted story of these young people's lives, and it was not to obfuscate what was really going on. The reason I posted it was to show that there was a second state that I'm now aware of besides California, which is the one I cited earlier, which has laws protecting the unborn against someone other than the mother killing him or her. The excerpts I took out demonstrated what I was intending to demonstrate: that such laws are on the books in Ohio as well.

I'm not surprised at all. So you can see why they would close their doors, or at least all of their women's services, before performing abortions.

If you read the entire article (I only put in excerpts), there was more to it than that. It appears there was malicious intent. The point of my posting it was to cite the laws in that state as not requiring the baby to be viable before murder charges are sought. While charges have not been brought yet in this particular case, the law as it stands in Ohio doesn't require viability for prosecution.

You're missing the point. It is the policy of most religious hospitals not to perform abortions (not the doctors; the hospitals themselves). If they are required to do so, they will likely close their doors -- on principle -- instead. As an analogy, when Massachusetts required Catholic Charities to provide adoption services to homosexual couples, instead of complying with the demand they simply closed their doors. I believe they were the oldest adoption service in the state, and they just shut down rather than violate their principles. If you'd like news links on the Massachusetts issue, lmk and I can post some.

Here's a fetal homicide case that just happened in Ohio: Fetal Homicide Investigation Excerpts: SCIOTO COUNTY, Ohio (WSAZ) -- A new homicide investigation involving the termination of a pregnancy has police and prosecutors in Portsmouth, Ohio double checking their code books. It all started with a car accident last Friday night in Portsmouth. The crash caused a spontaneous abortion for one of the passengers, 18-year-old Jennifer King. King was just four weeks pregnant at the time. . . . The police report says the crash caused Jennifer King to suffer a spontaneous abortion and police and prosecutors say by law, the apparent unlawful termination of a pregnancy calls for a homicide investigation. “In Ohio, a crash with the death of an unborn fetus is looked at as a fatal crash,” said Officer Peters. “He needs vehicle manslaughter or something, there were three pregnant women in the car and he still did it,” King said. Heineman suffered a broken nose, concussion and fractured ribs. The case remains under investigation and no arrests have been made yet. Police say assault charges are possible in the punching incident. As for the fetal homicide case, the charge could range anywhere from involuntary manslaughter to aggravated murder. ----------------------- So here's another state where viability isn't an issue. Kill an unborn baby and you're charged with at least involuntary manslaughter. Oh, unless, of course, you're the mother.

Here is a wonderful news story about the pro-life effort going on this season. You can be darn sure the woman in the story didn't hear about all of her "choices" inside that clinic! Woman tells pro-lifers she changed mind - al.com

How will you feel if Obama's new guidelines do, in fact, require doctors to provide abortions? Or if it forces religious hospitals to provide abortions, which will likely have the effect of shutting them down?

I agree wholeheartedly. It's a terrible thing for people to judge you for because, really, very few people judge the father of the baby! And really, in today's society, people don't generally judge when two unmarried people are sleeping together. So all they judge is the natural consequence of that activity, and the only one they judge is the mother. Again, I agree. Neither option is easy and both have life-long implications. Once the baby is conceived, there are no easy answers. Mothers can perceive that abortion is easier than the alternatives because it seems like it "solves" the "problem", but for many, many mothers it is a problem in and of itself.

Why would you think that's a bad thing to say?

Again, if she believes she's found a better way, some of which is a learned experience through bad choices of her own, it makes sense for her to warn others so they can avoid the same bad choices. You may not agree with her presentation of that warning, but I think her not wanting to see others fall into the same holes she's fallen into is quite legitimate and not hypocritical at all. Now, if she were running around doing the same things now that she's warning others against, then we'd be warranted in calling her a hypocrite. But if those things are in her past and she's repented of them, sought forgiveness, and moved on to a different way of thinking? That's a different story. A smart man learns from his mistakes. A truly wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

If you truly believe in "choice", you don't offer only one option to your clients. Let me tell you about "choice". I've been participating in a local clinic vigil for the past week. It's a quiet presence of people outside the clinic for up to 24 hours a day (depending on the clinic; sometimes it's only 12 hours). There's no yelling or screaming and no one is calling anyone a murderer; it's just a vigil and the offer to help. No mothers are approached at all unless they initiate the discussion. On the very first day (last Wednesday), two mothers who had abortions scheduled saw the people there and came out and talked to the participants. Both mothers canceled their appointments and are keeping their babies. There was no coercion and no condemnation and the mothers left, clearly and obviously joyful and relieved at their decision. It was just the presence and concern from a group of people they didn't know that motivated these mothers to change their minds. That alone tells me that inside the clinic there was no offer of "choice" at all.

Please do read through it thoroughly. It's pretty clear and concise. And it is equally reflected on this board. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two people here who have argued for abortion's being legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. Pretty much everyone else believes on putting limitations on it in one way or another. That's what the statistics say, and they're borne out in other studies as well. Furthermore, it wasn't a group of pro-lifers undertaking the surveying. The organizations are mainstream and there's no reason to doubt them -- unless you don't like the results.

I've never heard pattygreen claim to be sinless. Maybe the reason she doesn't believe in sexual activity outside of marriage now is because she's seen (and felt) the problems it can cause. I certainly hope and pray my children can learn from my mistakes rather than having to repeat them.

pattygreen, your story is not unusual at all. Consider the facts. In the 2005 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood, the largest "non-profit" provider of abortion cleared a profit of $55,000,000. In their annual report, they revealed that they performed 264,943 abortions and did not report sending any mothers for outside adoption referrals (contrasted to the prior year when they referred 1,414 mothers for adoptions, a ratio of 1 for every 180 abortions). It is in their fiscal interest to not even mention adoption. I have a friend (actually also a member of this board who hasn't been active lately) who told me about when she and her husband were first trying to get pregnant. She went into PP for a pregnancy test and they so scared her about how much it would cost to raise a baby that she left considering abortion! Here is someone who is married and trying to get pregnant and they had her doubting herself so much that she left thinking she might want to abort (turns out she wasn't pregnant so it didn't become an issue that time around).

Popular opinion shouldn't be a factor. But just to address the issue fully, from the website Mindy posted earlier: myth: Most Americans favor U.S. abortion law. FACT: Most Americans actually oppose it. A recent Harris Interactive poll claims 52% of Americans favor Roe v. Wade and 47% oppose it.[11] But the poll describes Roe as "the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal." That's wrong. The fact is, Roe made abortion legal through all 9 months of pregnancy.[12] In the same poll, 72% of Americans said abortion should be illegal in the second three months of pregnancy, and 86% said abortion should be illegal in the last three months of pregnancy. Even support for abortion in the first three months is open to question. In a 2004 Zogby International poll, 61% of Americans said abortion should not be permitted after the fetal heartbeat has begun.[13] This occurs in the first month.[14] So why do 52% of Americans say they favor Roe v. Wade? Because they don't really know what Roe did.

Well, my husband and I were married on a Friday the 13th and we're blissfully happy (for 16 years). You'll be fine :wink:

I completely agree. And just because religious people oppose abortion doesn't mean it's a religious issue. It's a civil rights issue with its basis in the science of fetology. The facts are that the unborn baby is a human being different from the mother, with separate DNA, a separate circulatory system, and separate body parts. Religious people also believe the unborn baby has a separate soul, but since that can't be proven it shouldn't enter the equation. There are many pro-life people who aren't Christian, and indeed many are athiests. Similarly, a mother's personal belief that her unborn baby isn't a human being isn't based on fact, but rather emotion, and shouldn't be the determining factor in whether the baby lives or not. No problem. But please know that I am not standing in judgment of anyone here. It's not my place and it's not my style. I learned a long time ago that there is nothing in this world that any of us is above doing or not doing, and that we all have moral weaknesses and failures and we should never, never judge another for something because we might find ourselves in that very situation later in life.

Which is precisely why it's critical to determine whether there's one body there or two. As I pointed out above, the law expresses this schizophrenic idea that there is sometimes one body and sometimes two -- with the distinction between when there's one and when there's two being the mother's mindset. It's a ludicrous proposition: there's a baby there when the mother decides there is, and there's not a baby there if she decides there isn't. It ignores basic biology and scientific truths about empirical facts; we don't only exist when someone else thinks we do.

Thank you for posting this GREAT resource. It answers a lot of the questions that have been posed here. It looks at statistics, legal issues, etc. There are a lot of abortion myths there are that are totally debunked.

The problem is, law shouldn't be based on emotion, and whether or not someone dies shouldn't be based on another person's opinion. If I were raised in a racist family and believed in torturing blacks and you told me that was wrong, it wouldn't be acceptable for me to say, "Well, that's how I was raised and I'm emotionally attached to it so it's just my opinion." I have never judged anyone for having an abortion. I have never called a mother who had an abortion a murderer. And you don't know that I've never been in a position where I faced the choice or not.

Roe and the companion case Doe guaranteed abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever. If you want the fine print on the determination, I'd be happy to tell you (just let me know because I don't want to type the whole thing out if you're not interested). The reason it's currently "illegal" after a certain period in certain states is because the law has not been challenged in the Supreme Court. Every time it is challenged, the restricting law is overturned. There are very few doctors who can stomach a 9th month abortion, but they're out there. One of the most infamous ones is Tiller, aka "Tiller the Killer" in Kansas. But yes, there are abortionists around the country show "specialize" in 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. And yes, you can just "walk in" and get one. Well, given that it's a several-day procedure, you can't just "walk in", but essentailly you can.