Letters: Sometimes things not that simple

I’d like to reply to the letter from E.E. deBessonet in the Dec. 29 Advocate.

I have been subjected to this same opinion/message from quite a few people. I have to ask this writer, as I ask the others who have spoken to me about this subject, “How many of these unwanted or unsupportable children who were allowed to be born have you adopted?”

With extremely few exceptions the answer is, “none.”

Every time I read about a child who died abandoned, or was submitted to tortures that would have made the Nazis cringe, or was starved to death, or beaten, or kept in a cage —- I won’t go on, but you get my point — I cannot help but think that child would have been better off having been “terminated” before having to endure such atrocities.

There is no “higher message” or “lesson” that justifies such suffering by an innocent, defenseless child.

James Lapham

computer technician

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by Reb - 03/01/2013

swinham has it right.... what is lost in this discussion is "RESPONSIBILITY"..... To hear most of these comments one would think that we have a bunch of pregnant virgin Marys running around here pregnant without a clue as to HOW they got pregnant..... If you cannot care for a child, protect yourself from pregnancy.... This is 2013... Don't try to say that protection is not available to you...

2) Comment by MBW - 03/01/2013

To 'pro-lifers', life begins at conception and ends at birth.....after that, you're just a pain in the rear.

3) Comment by MBW - 03/01/2013

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

4) Comment by MBW - 03/01/2013

When children are babies, pro-lifers call them "precious".....but when they grow up in poverty and are neglected, those same people call them "moochers".

5) Comment by MBW - 03/01/2013

Funny how the very people who demand that all babies be carried to term are the same people who condemn those mothers when they aren't able to take care of their kids.

6) Comment by Sandy - 03/01/2013

REALLY?!?! Your answer to the mistreatment of children in the world is to go ahead and kill them now so it doesn't happen? And you talk about others being barbaric?

7) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 03/01/2013

Since you are obviously a man and don't understand anything about mammography, I will explain it to you. I have NEVER seen a mammography machine in a primary care physician's office. For every mammogram I have had, my Ob/Gyn had to REFER me to a mammography center. And my insurance pays for teh mammogram. Women who can't afford the doctor rely on PP for primary care. Your tax dollars are paying for referral AND mammograms, but you make that sound like a bad thing. PP assists low income women with applying for grants through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program sponsored by the CDC. Some PP affiliates also have other programs funded by donations to assist women in getting mammograms, like the Again, this info is readily available on the intertube. You let groups like "liveaction" yank your chain with THEIR propaganda. The "phone calls" are irrelevant since they only confirm what I have already stated, that the PP clinics do not perform in-house mammograms --- http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/about.htm /// http://factcheck.org/2012/10/planned-parenthood-and- mammograms/ and why do you think I use HuffPo and MM as sources when i haven't?

8) Comment by Whatnow - 03/01/2013

And she and Obama don't mention the word "referrals" when they are trying to push their agenda. These referrals are to other clinics that may or may not be covered by PP. If they are funded to receive PP patients, I would really like to see that information. But, the service of mammograms is included in their propaganda to keep PP funded. Why was something that wasn't provided slipped in with services that are? Are our tax dollars paying for mammograms or referrals? Those phone calls to the PP clinics were not distorted and I am not the one duped. And my sources are just as correct to me as Media Matters and Huffington Post are to you.

9) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/01/2013

here is the quote from Cecile Richards that "liveaction" wants to distort into PP claiming to provide mammograms at their clinics: "If this bill ever becomes law, millions of women in this country are gonna lose their healthcare access–not to abortion services–to basic family planning, you know, mammograms." So as i stated earlier, PP provides access through referrals (and sources of funding) to clinics that provide mammograms. Again, whatnow chooses sources with agendas and is duped.

10) Comment by NearBarbarian - 02/01/2013

Great letter! And Tea Slayer, keep fighting the good fight. Happy New Year!

11) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

yardeggs, I can only hope that what you are saying is true. But, with the loons in Washington, who knows?

12) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-ceos-false-mammogram-claim/

13) Comment by yardeggs - 02/01/2013

@Whatnow, your concerns about tax money paying for abortion aren't likely to become reality. The government (Medicaid/Medicare) and private insurance companies don't like to pay for prescriptions or procedures that aren't considered medically necessary. This is why the birth control pill isn't covered by many private insurance plans, although a physician can request authorization based on medical necessity, i.e. a medical diagnosis that is treated by birth control pills. It is also why hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women is not longer reimbursable by many insurance companies, and by Medicare. It is only treating menopausal symptoms, and is not medically necessary. Since most abortions aren't medically necessary, it is unlikely that the government will begin to provide coverage for them.

14) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/01/2013

PP provides breast cancer screenings and, if appropriate, a referral to a clinic that provides mammograms. God forbid they try to save a woman's life. And PP has never claimed to provide mammograms only referrals --- http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mammograms.asp

15) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/01/2013

I guess you can't comprehend such subtleties as "an overwhelming majority" or "Almost without exception" or "typically". Hint: 78% is "an overwhelming majority", "almost without exception", and "typically" and NO ONE has made the claim that EVERY religious person is anti-abortion. First, you don't "believe in" polls, then you claim that 78% isn't a vast majority...sheesh...

16) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

Tea_Slayer, Your facts on the data supplied by Planned Parenthood are convoluted just to keep getting government funding, just like Obama pushing the idea that PP provides mammograms (that they don't) to push the need of keeping funding coming to them from the government to help him get elected by their donations to his election. Chem, I only brought up the "Christian" to Tea_Slayer because he knows I am one and he was trying to base my comments on being a persecuted Christian. The word "Christian" was not attributed to you.

17) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

(http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13271-fda-contradicts-obama-planned-parenthood-not-licensed-to-do-mammograms) (http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/05/false-abortion-is-only-3-of-planned-parenthoods-services/) I am not the first person to bring it up and was responding to Chem's "Almost without exception, those who are opposed to abortion do so based on religious reasons." which is still not true. 78% is still not all. You said, "My "retort" was specifically based on your post ABOUT religion." " what PP actually does, not what your church, (or god, or wherever you prentend to get your facts) tell you they do". And your poll still didn't prove my point about the other 22%. So, my statement about pro-lifers is still true. So, what did you hope to accomplish by your comments? I was against abortion before I was a Christian.

18) Comment by chem - 02/01/2013

Whatnow: I did not say all Christians. In fact, in the comment to which you refer, I made no mention of Christians. I said the religious. I said, "The same people who are so rabidly anti-abortion are also TYPICALLY those..."

19) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/01/2013

Your "lifenews" article is much like many of your posts...convoluted. By trying to argue that the percentage should be based on cost or time associated with the service is purposefully misleading. Here is my concession: PP claims that it performed 11.4M services for 3M clients. If they performed 320,000 abortions, that equates to approx 10%. And if you use the number of clinical visits(5M) as the total number, the percentage drops to 6.4%. However, many of the claims in the "lifenews" article are pure conjecture. For instance, the PP fact sheet clearly defines what a service is "A service is a discrete clinical interaction, such as the administration of a physical exam or STI test or the provision of a birth control method. In 2010, Planned Parenthood health centers saw approximately three million patients, who collectively received nearly 11 million services during nearly five million clinical visits." It is not that (as the "lifenews" article claims) "each pack of birth control pills is considered a service and carries the same weight in the calculation as an abortion."

20) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

Chem, "abortion is a political issue and has nothing to do with the “life of innocents", that may be true for some people, but not all. I don't know where you get your idea that all Christians are like you are describing. A very extreme opinion if you ask me. Praying for someone is not equated to hate and wanting anyone to "burn in hell".

21) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/01/2013

here we go again...try reading your own posts. YOU brought up a falsehood about the link between religion and abortion views to which I responded. I didn't just bring up religion out of the blue. My "retort" was specifically based on your post ABOUT religion. I'll even repost your comment so it won't be hard for you to find. "Not all pro-life believers are religious. That is a falsehood. A lot of them just value life. I guess killing a potential human is cheaper and better than using a condom. There are those that just do not value life. They value convenience more." And what did you get " from the horse's mouth?" Just because you choose to ignore polls (or not "believe in" them), doesn't diminish their relevance. Whats funny is that you think that wanting my government to be free from religious control is somehow shoving "anti-religion" down your throat. How am i forcing you to do anything against your own beliefs? I'm not. That's what the religilous in this country are blind to. Their own hypocisy...

22) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

(http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13271-fda-contradicts-obama-planned-parenthood-not-licensed-to-do-mammograms) (http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/05/false-abortion-is-only-3-of-planned-parenthoods-services/)

23) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

Tea_Slayer, I don't believe in polls, just facts, and mine came from the horse's mouth. You are the one that brought up the fallacy that I got my info from "not what your church, (or god, or wherever you prentend to get your facts) tell you they do" You are the one who constant brings religion into every retort. You can't get beyond the fact that I'm a Christian and it just eats you up, doesn't it? I feel sorry for you that you cannot have a conversation without bringing up religion. You protest too much. Your anti-religion is being shoved down people's throat, Tea_Slayer.

24) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/01/2013

"I am tired of our taxes being used to pay for stupidity and discouraging responsibility." 35% of Planned Parenthood's patient care involves contraception...

25) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/01/2013

disagreement does not equate to hatred. It's quite appalling to me to see the hypocrisy of the religilous posters...first talking about freeloaders (welfare, etc) and smaller government, then posting about how the government should intrude into our lives based upon their personal religious beliefs (abortion, gay marriage, etc). And to say that their political beliefs aren't intrinsically linked to their religious beliefs is disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst.

26) Comment by DMJ - 02/01/2013

If we're talking about responsibility vs. lack thereof, we're STILL missing the point- it's no one else's business but the mother's what she does with her own body. That will never cease to be true. No other arguments even really matter, my own included.

27) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

My apologies, DMJ. You are right. I didn't read that and misinterpreted your comment. But, I'm sorry, I still can't concede any abortion as being responsible. Responsibility was supposed to happen before sex and there are free measures and programs to help them learn responsibility, but it's just been made too easy and that's the dumb part. And if the government would cut off welfare after two kids, maybe they would think harder. Our government doesn't encourage responsibility, it encourages stupidity and dependency. And I know in my heart, that down the line, a mandate will be coming to make the taxpayer pay for abortions, just like we had to pay someone else's mortgages because some people were deluded into thinking that they could pay for homes that they could never afford. Either way, I am tired of our taxes being used to pay for stupidity and discouraging responsibility.

28) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/01/2013

DMJ, it doesn't matter what you post, whatnow loves to play the persecuted christian card.

29) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/01/2013

whatnow, the FACT is that only 3% of their services involve terminating a pregnancy. It doesn't matter where you choose to get your news. And whether you like it or not there is a definite link between religion and anti-abortion folks. But when presented with COLD HARD FACTS, you choose to ignore them. So be it. I will continue to post facts to counter your (as well as other's) ramblings. And since I forgot to post the link concerning the Gallup polling, here it is --- http://www.gallup.com/poll/147941/Republicans-Unified- Democrats-Abortion.aspx

30) Comment by chem - 02/01/2013

It is certainly true that not all anti-abortion people are religious, but the overwhelming majority are religious. I cannot take them seriously because abortion is a political issue and has nothing to do with the “life of innocents.” The same people who are so rabidly anti-abortion are also typically those that favor the death penalty, think of homosexuals as subhuman and not worthy of life, think AIDS is a penalty from some god and that those who get the disease deserve to die from it. And if one of those fetuses grows up to be gay, they are sinners in the eye of their god and deserve to burn in fire and brimstone for eternity. So where is all this compassion for human life?

31) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

So, you hate Christians. Duh, nothing new there. I never said that all pro-choice people were atheists.

32) Comment by DMJ - 02/01/2013

Whatnow, re-read my post- "increased likelihood" in your mind, becomes "automatically." How'd that happen? And what about the rest of what I wrote? I tell you what... I'm willing to concede that some abortions are about convenience, if you're willing to concede that, for some people, having an abortion IS being responsible.

33) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

Tea_Slayer, I don't get my info from religious sources. It is the country's leading abortion provider http://cnsnews.com/news/article/planned-parenthood-did-one-abortion-every-95-seconds-many-one-year-live-cincinnati)) I guess it all depends on where you get your information and if you are a liberal or a conservative. Tea_Slayer, your damnation of me being a Christian is only showing your hate. I just believe in the sanctity of life for all innocents. I also believe that once pregnant, it is not just a decision of the mother because she thinks it's her body. She is only nurturing that fetus, but it will become another body. I believe no man should hold the decision to kill an innocent who deserves to live. Now, is it a prerequisite that you have to be a Christian to value life?

34) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/01/2013

and not all pro-choice folks are atheists. But Gallup polls do show that the overwhelming majority of anti-abortion folks (dems and reps alike) are religious --- 78% of respondents who stated they were anti-abortion attend church or synagogue regularly

35) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 02/01/2013

what PP actually does, not what your church, (or god, or wherever you prentend to get your facts) tell you they do. Hint, only 3% involve termiating pregnancies ...oops... -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/what- planned-parenthood-actually- does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html

36) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

DMJ, I'm not against public insurance companies providing birth control. I'm against the across the board mandate that Obama imposed. He also promised that steps for religious objections would be implemented and he changed his mind. You can't abort all of these babies with the belief that they will automatically become criminals. That is just a cop out. You know that it's all about convenience and not about responsibility. It's not only a women's issue, DMJ. Men don't like to use condoms. They are less likely to care about what a woman goes through to have an abortion. They just want her to get rid of it and back to business as usual, unprotected sex with any gullible woman they can get it from. If Planned Parenthood ran it's business with that in mind, they would go out of business. They don't plan parenthood. They should name themselves "Oops Terminators".

37) Comment by DMJ - 02/01/2013

Whatnow, it's not better than using a condom, but it is a solution to a problem (if, of course, the woman views it as such). I wonder how many pro-lifers get upset at the prospect of a poor mother using Medicaid to have a baby, using Medicaid for health care for the child's life (and maybe longer), needing SNAP vouchers, sending the kid to public school...and lastly, the increased likelihood that this child will get involved in crime........yet they're against insurance companies covering contraception, they're against adoption by gay parents, against Planned Parenthood, against abortion. I mean... they don't want children born out of wedlock, especially to a poor mother, yet they're unwilling to support anything that might actually prevent this scenario, save abstinence. It's dumb.

38) Comment by Whatnow - 02/01/2013

Not all pro-life believers are religious. That is a falsehood. A lot of them just value life. I guess killing a potential human is cheaper and better than using a condom. There are those that just do not value life. They value convenience more.

39) Comment by Being_Stupid - 02/01/2013

Abortion is a very complicated matter. It is one of the few instances where the rights of two people meet at 1 person. You must ignore the right of one person to protect the right of the other person. The Right to Life vs. The Right to Body. I am against abortion because the Right to Life is more important than the Right to Body. I would have like to ask Ayn Rand, what about the right of the person inside the other person's body? Do they not have a right to live? Nobody asked Ayn Rand this question when she was on Donahue during the late 1970s and early 1980s. I would have liked to see her response to such a question, since she was a Right to Body Advocate.

40) Comment by Being_Stupid - 02/01/2013

Nazis don't cringe much. The only thing that makes Nazis cringe is when you mention the word "Stalingrad", then they cringe.

41) Comment by DMJ - 02/01/2013

Well said, James. People keep denying (even to themselves) that abortion is, in many cases, better than the alternative. We have 3,000 abortions every day? That's 3,000 unwanted, unplanned pregnancies avoided. Tell me that doesn't have positive socioeconomic consequences and I'll call you delusional.

42) Comment by madbiker - 02/01/2013

The writer suggests that it would be better to terminate the baby than to have him/her brought up as unwanted and then abused or neglected. The problem is that in the last 18 years, any woman who wanted an abortion could get one. Nothing was stopping her from exercising her right, except possibly some inner moral conflict. As one who worked in the child protection profession for 15 years, I have been in hundreds of households where babies and children were abused or neglected. I cannot remember one where the mother admitted she wished she would have had an abortion. The writer went on to say “I cannot help but think that child would have been better off having been “terminated” before having to endure such atrocities.” So then if the mother wanted the baby during the pregnancy through the time of birth, who then should be the predictor of motherly success to determine if the child should born? You, mister computer tech? How about the others of you who agree with him? The reality is, and for the most part, these women wanted a baby to have someone to love and to love them back, or the baby is a love child between two immature people who don’t have the means either mentally or financially to take care of themselves, much less another. But as a society, we are ok with that as we allow the portrayal of sex as free in modern culture through TV, movies, and song, without any of the risk or consequences of bad personal behavior. So unless we can have more education regarding birth control, including abstinence which, by the way is 100% effective with a disease transmission rate of 0%, we will have mothers and their men who abuse children. So I can agree on one point with the writer of this letter and that is yes, Mr. Lapham, sometimes things are not that simple.

43) Comment by SuzanneMS - 02/01/2013

There have been suggestions, Wallop, that women who miscarry do so because of some action of theirs, such as drinking, drugs, physical activity, etc. Those who hold that life begins at conception set up a scenario in which a woman who have to prove that she did nothing to contribute to a miscarriage. Of course, they also set up a scenario where zygotes could get Social Security numbers, life insurance policies could be taken out on them (would they pay out in the case of miscarriage?), and where funerals would have to be held for the product of a miscarriage. Swinham, get ready for the responses refusing to "pay" for someone else's "recreation." There is a worldview that legitimate sex is only for procreation, and that those (by which they mean women) who do not want to procreate should abstain. Women who pay their insurance premiums; married women; women who are in abusive relationships; women whose partners' Viagra prescriptions are covered by insurance. And, as I'm sure you know, this is an extremely complex social issue. Even with adequate access to reliable birth control, many teen-age girls and young adult women see pregnancy and child birth as the way to social acceptance and status. The media certainly promote it as glamorous; much more attention was paid to Snooki and her ilk than to the thousands of responsible young women who earned college degrees last year. And then there are the young men in the scenario.

44) Comment by swinham - 02/01/2013

As Bighug's comment implies, neither of the options presented in Mr. Lapham's letter is a good one, to say the least. The only real solution is prevention of these pregnancies to begin with. Since most people know this, why don't we do more to address what has become, in addition to the moral dilemma, one of our most pressing social problems?

45) Comment by Wallop - 02/01/2013

chem, great reply. I must quibble with one point, though. If a woman miscarries, wouldn't "god" be the murderer?

46) Comment by chem - 02/01/2013

The writer makes an excellent point. The choice to terminate a pregnancy is the woman's. That is settled law. Almost without exception, those who are opposed to abortion do so based on religious reasons. Religious belief has no business in public policy rules/laws. If someone does not believe in abortion, than simply don't have one. Humans are nothing special in this world. We are just another species of mammals (primates, specifically). I find it quite amusing that people who are against abortion have nothing to say about all of the miscarriages that occur. I guess if a woman has a miscarriage, she should be charged with murder, or at least an accessory to murder. What about the billions of eggs that are discarded from a women's bodies each month? Those are living cells -- eggs. Is that murder? What about all of the sperm that is lost down the drain, so to speak? Those are also live cells. Is that murder. Abortion is legal and safe. A woman has the right to choose what happens with her own body. Those against abortion would rather it revert to back- alley operations where woman die because of botched procedures. Yea, that's real Christian of you. Rather than trying to cram your religious beliefs down other people's throats, try leaving people alone to make their own decisions. And for many Christians, Catholics in particular, one cannot even use a condoms or other birth control, lest they go against their church edicts. How ridiculous.

47) Comment by Bighug - 02/01/2013

Whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, the argument that two wrongs make a right is not a good one.