JG-TC.com > Opinion > LETTER: Right to choose comes before the 'act'

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Tuesday, October 7, 2008 8:35 PM CDT
LETTER: Right to choose comes before the 'act'

By JUDY TIMM, Greenup

For years I have been reading about the woman’s right to choose. “The Right to Choose” has been debated far too many years and they are still talking. I say get off the fence already.

The “right to choose” has already been decided when they choose not to use protection. It seems clear to me that if a female or male chooses not to use protection that’s their decision. That is making a decision.

The right to choose is before, not after, the act. Having an abortion seems like a cruel thing to do to an unborn child. And make no mistake it is a child in the making. When anything is in the process of being made or built it is still called by the name it will be.

I am not against abortion, hear what I’m saying. But, abortion, because someone is too lazy to put on protection, or take a pill is so selfish. This is exactly why we have the pill and condoms, isn’t it? And now I’m reading that doctors. are not wanting to do abortions anymore. Good for them.

Come on people, surely we can use protection, can’t we? Think of that helpless unborn child. The word “unborn child” identifies what it is, and yet, we still refuse to acknowledge it as a child. I guess we feel better calling it a fetus, but what is a fetus if it’s not a child in the making?

Let’s wake up and get right with our Creator and quit being lazy to do right. I heard Oprah say once that when people know better they do better. That is pure hog-wash.

Getting an abortion is the quick fix for the actions of lazy people. I might add that they are not the ones reading this and don’t use their brain anyway. But smart people should.

It’s time we started acting smart and being responsible. Right is still right and always will be. And aborting an unborn child is — so unnecessary.

JUDY TIMM

Greenup

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

Becky wrote on Oct 8, 2008 8:55 AM:

" I couldn't agree with you more Judy. This is why all this federal money going to abstinence only programs is a huge failure. When children are taught abstience only, they are too afraid to talk to their parents about birth control because they know that their parents are going to blow up and probably restrict their friends and free time. This is why teens need educated about birth control and contraceptives PRIOR to "the act" so they can make resposible decisions. They also need private access to doctors and medical care that can help them make the right choices. Abortion is used way too commonly for birth control today and I find it disgusting that the same women are getting 2 and 3 abortions instead of acting responsibly and making sure that no baby is conceived if not wanted. I agree. It's laziness and the ease of abortions that's the main problems. Good post Judy! We really need to hammer this attitude home and stop all the unnecessary death of unborn children. "

People are grasping wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:10 AM:

" I appreciate your opinion Judy, but your logic is flawed.

Engaging in sexual intercourse does not guarantee a pregnancy. Therefore, not using protection while engaging in sexual intercourse is not making the choice to get pregnant or carry a pregnancy to term and have a baby.

Let's pretend for a moment though that your logic isn't flawed. Using your logic, if I use a condom during intercourse and a pregnancy still occurs, an abortion would be okay? After all, I would be making the choice to protect against pregnancy.

I've debated abortion for several years online and in person. At no point has anyone ever made me believe that another person should have the right to force a women to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. Conversely, I have never tried to make a person have an abortion or think that anyone has the right to force a woman to end her pregnancy against her will.

That's called choice. "

father bob wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:25 AM:

" but the "christians" are against using birth control or condoms.

kind of a catch 22 "

ed miller wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:50 AM:

" People are grasping wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:10 AM:
" That's called choice. "

I don't believe that the human life that is terminated gets any choice. Who sticks up for them?

P.S. FB, I don't think most mainstream protestant religions are against B.C. "

father bob wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:16 PM:

" ed miller wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:50 AM:
" People are grasping wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:10 AM:
" That's called choice. "

I don't believe that the human life that is terminated gets any choice. Who sticks up for them?

P.S. FB, I don't think most mainstream protestant religions are against B.C. """"

okay, try to offer free condoms at a school and see who starts picketing and calling for resignations...next "

cd wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:01 PM:

" Choosing to DO the act in itself is a choice.

The choice to NOT use protection is the second choice. Since abstinence is the ONLY 100% way to avoid a pregnancy.

That's 2 choices already, before an abortion.

Are you relying that not all acts result in pregnacy as your protection?
You may as well play Russian Roulette. Protection is not 100%, so if pregnacy still results, abstinence should be strongly considered.

As for: father bob wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:25 AM:

" but the "christians" are against using birth control or condoms.

It is the Catholic Church that prohibit birth control, not Christians in general. Look around for those small catholic families. They are some of the luckiest people or they are using birth control in spite of the Pope. "

shumphreys wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:39 PM:

" Mr. Miller the decision to be made to carry a fetus or abort should be between a woman and her Doctor. NO ONE else has a right to interfere. Premature babies can survive at 24 weeks gestation BUT they face life long health and mental problems. This is an issue of whose rights trump/have precedence over another entities rights. Until a baby can be brought to a healthy term outside a female uterus, the rights of the woman must come first. Education (complete unbiased), FREE birth control for all of child bearing and procreating age, is the BEST option for ALL. "

People are grasping wrote on Oct 8, 2008 2:56 PM:

" Ed miller--

A human? I agree. What else could two humans produce besides a human?

A life? Not quite. Until that fetus is born, able to physiologically support itself, or has been given the opportunity to develop into a life it is NOT *A LIFE*. It's working on developing that life with the life support of the woman. If a fetus were indeed a life--it wouldn't need to use a viable human in order to survive.

Now, before some jump on the "but there are people who rely on life support" bandwagon let me reiterate. Once a fetus is born it's a life. If that life can be saved by using drastic measures it should be. Life support outside of the womb does not require a person be attached to another person in order to survive. That's what some on these boards like to call "apples and oranges."

The bottom line is: If a woman doesn't want to carry a pregnancy or become a mother-- they don't have to. The day we force that upon someone is the day we have crossed over into a dictatorship. Forcing that on a woman could be compared to rape. It's her body--no one else's. "

father bob wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:56 PM:

" cd wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:01 PM:
It is the Catholic Church that prohibit birth control, not Christians in general. Look around for those small catholic families. They are some of the luckiest people or they are using birth control in spite of the Pope. """"

granted the catholic church, but also many other rightwing ultra conservative "christian" sects as well. ask jon vannatta. "

father bob wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:57 PM:

" so ed...you wouldn't be against offering sex education and birth control/condoms in the schools? "

ed miller wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:46 AM:

" father bob wrote on Oct 8, 2008 3:57 PM:
" so ed...you wouldn't be against offering sex education and birth control/condoms in the schools? "

As long as it's not grade school. I do think any sex ed course should strongly encourage abstinence and not just for religious reasons either. "

ed miller wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:58 AM:

" People are grasping wrote on Oct 8, 2008 2:56 PM:
"
A life? Not quite. Until that fetus is born...."

Why then can someone be charged with murder for killing an unborn child? There is a legal double standard here. If the only difference between murder and abortion is the willing choice of the mother then people should be able to kill their children with no repercussions whether they are born or not. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Many babies are aborted at a stage where they could survive on their own so that argument doesn't hold either. You also state that it's only the women affected. Well, I think the little body inside the women is also greatly affected since it is brutally killed. You'll notice that everyone who is pro-choice is already born. "

People are grasping wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:15 AM:

" Ed Miller--

I CAN have it "both ways..." as you call it.

You answered your own question, unbeknownst to you.

"If the only difference between murder and abortion is the willing choice of the mother..."--Ed Miller

If I'm pregnant and I want to carry that pregnancy to term and have a baby--NO ONE can take that away from me. Only if *I* choose to end the pregnancy is it legal.

That seems pretty obvious to me... maybe you were just sleepy when you posted? "

julio wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:26 AM:

" Republicans don't want to provide easy access to birth control or teach kids sex ed. Republicans preach abstinance.
Problem with this approach is many teens will have sex if they have the opportunity.
Most kids will also spend the small amount of money at their disposal on pizza and cheeseburgers. "

shumphreys wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:58 AM:

" Mr. Miller you are right there is a double standard. Right to lifers were behind the law charging murder for causing the death of an unborn child. They saw it as a back door way to stopping abortions. So you can blame them. Mr. Miller babies aborted at a very late stage can not survive on their own,they are damaged and the life of the mother is at stake if the baby isn't aborted. Any woman who has carried a baby that long makes an agonizing choice to abort at that stage and should NOT be judged, stigmatized or traumatized further. The majority of fetuses are aborted in the first trimester far before they can survive on their own. You are also ignoring the fact that babies born before term are subject to lifelong health and mental problems. A costly issue for the parents to deal with, emotionally and financially. Until this nation assumes the burden of the cost for raising such infants and for seeing that ALL unwanted children are found loving homes, abortion will remain a fact of life, and NO ONE has the right to judge a woman for whatever decision she makes. "

mom of twins wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:59 AM:

" My personal opinion is that abortion is wrong. But I do not believe that we should judge the women who get an abortion. It is a choice that I am sure is a very hard decision. I have a few friends in my life that have had abortions. It was a tough choice for them. I didn't agree with what they did, but they are my friends and all that I can do is support them spiritually. As for Jon Vanatta, he is only trying help save your soul. So in turn, you should not judge him. Jon is doing what he is supposed to do,(what we are all supposed to do), he is just trying to help us get to heaven. (We all have the same goal in the end). The mothers who abort their baby's will be the only one's who will be held accountable for their actions in the end, not some blogger in the newpaper. "

ed miller wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:59 AM:

" It is not up to me to judge anyone for their decisions. That will come in time. I am merely pointing out that there is a human life in all of this who does not get a "choice". "

shumphreys wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:20 AM:

" Mom of Twins don't forget that Grace if it is TRUE will be granted to everyone, even those who abort fetuses, even Osama Bin Laden, Hitler, and the posters on these pages who show anything BUT compassion for their fellows. "

harry potter wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:36 AM:

" Ask Sara Palin about how that abstinence education idea worked for her family? "

mom of twins wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:55 AM:

" ed miller, I do totally agree with you. The unborn child is the one who did not ask to be concieved. In this strange world, where everyone screams,, (you can't do that,,,it's against my rights). Well,where are the rights of an unborn child. "

cd wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:06 PM:

" harry potter wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:36 AM:

" Ask Sara Palin about how that abstinence education idea worked for her family? "
--------------------
If you were speaking of my post:

I was not referring to abstinence EDUCATION, but abstinence of the act.

Humans are not Borg; therefore, we think and act independently of each other and sometimes in spite of what we have been taught. When young, many think that bad things won't happen to them...they are invincible. As we get older we may look back and ask ourselves why we did such things even if nothing bad happened. "

shumphreys wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:06 PM:

" Mom of Twins don't forget that this is an issue of the rights of one entity versus the rights of another entity. Deciding between the two is never an easy choice, should not be taken lightly, and should be solely between a woman and her Doctor. Neither you, nor I, nor Mr. Miller or anyone else have a right to interfere, doing so is immoral pure and simple. You were on track with your first post, don't judge, offer support, unbiased responsible education and FREE birth control supplies. "

shumphreys wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:12 PM:

" Mr. Miller you have realized that life isn't always fair or easy. Difficult decisions have to be made daily. It is not ours to second guess or interfere or judge the decisions of others. If you really want to make a difference work to change the Illinois law that requires abstinance only education. The key is unbiased, complete information for ALL of child bearing and procreating age and FREE supplies. "

mom of twins wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:49 PM:

" shumphreys, I respect your right to your opinion. My opinion should also be respected. When it comes to this issue, I will admit, I have to watch myself to make sure that I do not stand too tall on my soap-box.(sorry about that). I am just so passionate about this issue because I have seen first hand that this will stay with a mother for the rest of her life. I am very sad that this topic even has to be addressed. "

shumphreys wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:19 PM:

" Aren't we all, Mom of Twins--sorry it has to be addressed again and again and again. Those that respect a womans right to choose have to be vigilant to protect that right. BUT then we have to be vigilant to protect ALL of our rights, that is our job (the voters job) in a Democratic society. "

caringmom wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:21 AM:

" I myself grew up in a household where the word sex was never even spoken. All my mother said was, "Don't get pregnant before you are married, it will ruin your life."

Well, I did...and no it didn't. I have an incredible life.

I have taken a different approach with my children. I am more open than most and feel sex should be talked about honestly and in a manner that doesn't make children afraid to ask questions. My children - all the way from High School to Elementary School have asked my husband and I questions and gotten real answers. We always make it age appropriate but we also make it comfortable. I didn't start out calling their "privates" silly names, I taught them what they were. It's simple biology. I don't sugarcoat answers and I don't make it seem "dirty" or "forbidden". Some might think this promotes sexual behavior and I strongly disagree. I think because my children know their bodies, their beliefs and their morals. I have a son at MHS that is almost graduated and still a virgin. I know this because he tells me and I'm proud of him. Some may say that I wouldn't know if he wasn't. Believe me..I'd know.

A good percentage of abortions come from teenagers who were mis-informed or not informed at all. Where no one took the time to really talk to them. I've heard outrageous questions from teenagers about sex. Some I couldn't even believe they really thought were true..but they did! I think making this subject more talked about would really help this issue. It is going to take a change in thinking in this country before we make any progress in this area as far as I'm concerned.

And for those of you who don't agree, that's fine and that's your right and I welcome your opinions. For those of you who spent more time looking at my grammar than my writing, you really need a hobby..lol. "

farmwife wrote on Oct 10, 2008 7:38 AM:

" in response to Ed Miller stating he didn't want birth control being offered in the grade schools, I do! I have an eleven yr old & we have had the birds and bees talk and discussed that waiting til he is older to have sex is the best idea. However I also know that by the time some of these kids are in 6th grade hormones are running wild. I don't want to be a grandma at 29 but I do want him to protect himself and the person he chooses to be with. "

Becky wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:16 AM:

" Then farmwife, educate your children and provide them with the necessary contraception yourself! Why should schools be responsible when you yourself are aware of it. "

lefty wrote on Oct 10, 2008 9:19 AM:

" BECKY, simple answer: because not all parents are responsible and provide these school-kids with contraceptives. And if they get pregnant, guess who gets to help with the kid? Tax-payers!

Consider it a cheap investment. "

medic57 wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:16 PM:

" shumphries

At less than 2 weeks I heard my son's heartbeat, which meant he had a heart, which meant he had a brain, which meant he had a body, he was not a fetus, he was a human being who is now 21 years old and has a child of his own.
It's funny, the doctor ask us if we wanted to do anything about the pregnancy because my wife was getting ready to undergo Gal Bladder Surgery and we were told the baby could be born with birth defects, We said no, however, our first son a year earlier was born with Cerebral Palsy ans Epilepsy is now 22, graduated from high school, got his drivers licesne and has a steady girlfriend.

Abortion, except to save the mothers life, I think not, and no abortion should be done in the 3rd trimester, for any reason. It's murder. "

People are grasping wrote on Oct 11, 2008 5:48 PM:

" At less than 2 weeks I heard my son's heartbeat, which meant he had a heart, which meant he had a brain, which meant he had a body, he was not a fetus, he was a human being who is now 21 years old and has a child of his own. --Medic

If you heard your son's heartbeat at 2 weeks he's a super hero or you owned a time machine. Especially 21 years ago.

Try again. "

Cognitus wrote on Oct 13, 2008 12:42 PM:

" CD called it:"You may as well play Russian Roulette."
Just last week I heard a Catholic
joking about it and he called it
"Vatican Roulette". "

injustice85 wrote on Oct 13, 2008 4:18 PM:

" AMEN Judy, if people had any common sense whatsoever we wouldn't have to do things this way, so many ways can a woman keep from getting pregnant and we still have to deal with the abortion issue, maybe if everyone grew up and had some self respect for God's sake, oh boo hoo i didn't know i was going to get pregnant after having sex so i'm going to go kill it because i'm an irresponsible dip, thats like saying i didn't know that car would hurt me when it hit me, duh!!!! "

Mama says wrote on Oct 14, 2008 2:12 AM:

" when our kids were home if they asked a question about sex they were old enough for an answer. None had children out of wedlock, and none had abortions.
We let them know should they do so, we would help what could and that they also could tell us if decided on a lifestle different than most. The kids are now grown and not had problems, so maybe straight forward and honest with them is the best guidance. "

People are grasping wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:26 PM:

" Injustice is obviously a man.

Tell us all why it is the woman's responsibility NOT to get pregnant. Is the man involved at all or is it his right to have unprotected sex free from repercussions?

The fact that you hold this opinion makes your say in this matter non-existent. "

injustice85 wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:08 PM:

" you would like to think of my opinion as non existent(typical conservative view) but it doesn't go that easy, in the end the man can have a say but it is the womans final say whether she lets that man go inside her unprotected or not, unless she is raped, DUH, yes a man can say no i won't do that unprotected but in the end it is the womans body, her responsibility, try making a logic point on at least one of these blogs for gods sake "

injustice85 wrote on Oct 15, 2008 8:09 PM:

" non existent, lol, that statement makes your opinion a joke "

People are grasping wrote on Oct 15, 2008 10:45 PM:

" try making a logic point on at least one of these blogs for gods sake--Injustice

Here's a point for you...

People are voting for Barry in blind faith mainly because he's black. Intelligence at it's finest here I tell ya...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PgV3_1_qlc "

People are grasping wrote on Oct 16, 2008 8:47 AM:

" it is the womans final say whether she lets that man go inside her unprotected or not, unless she is raped, DUH, yes a man can say no i won't do that unprotected but in the end it is the womans body, her responsibility, try making a logic point on at least one of these blogs for gods sake--Injustice

I replied to this once... hmmm, did it not make it passed the monitor?

I'll repost it but I can't remember it verbatim:

You did NOT just say that!

1. Ewwwww.

2. "...but in the end it is the womans [sic] body, her responsibility..." Exactly... see you're making my points for me! Thanks.

3. You wouldn't know logic if it hit you in the head. I'm not worried about the fact that my logic escapes you... nor surprised. "

injustice85 wrote on Oct 16, 2008 5:10 PM:

" wow seriously "People are Grasping" you might want your head checked dude, your last comments feel a few yards short of proving anything or making any sense, it was garble at best, your point my point what ever it is the woman's body she needs to be responsible for it given men can be trickery dogs but woman should also be prepared to handle themselves against that as well, as for voting in blind faith, the democrats are the ones who are actually considering the issues rather than just voting cause they want their guns or whatever or cause they don't like the muslim who isn't one, dems have their facts straight, try it dude "

injustice85 wrote on Oct 16, 2008 5:11 PM:

" perhaps your other statement didn't make it because it made less sense than your other posts and the moderator didn't even understand it lol "

People are grasping wrote on Oct 16, 2008 6:29 PM:

" wow seriously "People are Grasping" you might want your head checked dude, your last comments feel a few yards short of proving anything or making any sense, it was garble at best"--Injustice

My point exactly. You have a problem with comprehension. It's not a problem though... HP can help you through it. Oh, and for the record (and the 20th time) I'm not a dude.

"your point my point what ever it is the woman's body she needs to be responsible for it given men can be trickery dogs but woman should also be prepared to handle themselves against that as well"--Injustice

Exactly, it's her body and she is responsible for it. Not you. Not me. Not our government. And I'm still amazed at the pass you're giving men in this situation. You think it's okay to justify it by saying men can be "trickery dogs?" Wow.

as for voting in blind faith, the democrats are the ones who are actually considering the issues rather than just voting cause they want their guns or whatever or cause they don't like the muslim who isn't one, dems have their facts straight, try it dude"--Injustice

Wow, your "facts" are "straight?" Comical "dude." All I've seen are Democrats chastising anyone who doesn't see it their way, TQ making things up as he goes (but admitting to it), and HP slinging insults. Forgive me if I don't want to join the straight fact party.

Sheep. "

injustice85 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 11:02 AM:

" lol you copied each one of my responses and still didn't have any opposition to them aside from criticism lol, super, dude or no dude who cares, thats a good way to distract people from the real point, and either way yes we established that it's a womans body, she should be held responsible what she does with it, what she allows to be in it, and whether she lets herself get pregnant or not, is that not part of her responsibility, she only gets to decide on abortion or not? what point are you trying to make, did you confuse yourself? "

injustice85 wrote on Oct 21, 2008 2:46 PM:

" lol I feel like you are trying to agree with me but just can't bring yourself to do it, so far you have said the exact point I was trying to make over and over again, in todays society common sense should prevent abortions unless raped "