GET YOUR GUNN

Marilyn Manson wrote a song called "Get your Gunn" which is said in this article which highlights socially unacceptable music that has become popular because it was black listed, to be about, "Dr. David Gunn, an abortion provider who was murdered by Michael Frederic Griffin in the first ever documented assassination of an abortionist." 

You can see the video here if you want.  You can see in the lyrics where he is talking about the murder that hapened back in 1993.


"Pseudo morals work real well / On the talk shows for the weak / Selective judgment, good guy badges / Don't mean a F$@% to me"


According to this website, one lyric analysis reports that, "this part of the song is about hypocritical activists who blame the wrong people because they don't share the same beliefs."  Manson has always been a 'pushing-the-envelope' type of artist, but this song really captures his creativity.  The song is, "...saying that nobody's a saint, no matter how devoted they are to doing what they thought was right."


Manson calls the murder a hypocrisy because someone who is pro-life took the life of a person--the very thing that they vow to protect.  We hear about these kinds of stories all the time.  I think the pro-lifers that kill people in the name of their cause see themselves as saviors.  Somehow in their twisted mindset, killing someone who kills babies for a living will put a stop to abortion.  It doesn't make perfect sense in our minds, but it does in theirs. 

I WANT THAT ORDER TO-GO

Take a good look.  These bags are not takeout from your typical Thai restaurant.  They contain aborted fetuses.  

  Can you read that? TWO THOUSAND AND TWO fetuses were found wrapped in the white bags pictured above in a Buddhist morgue inside a temple.  In this article entitled, "MPs to submit draft abortion law; Poll shows 60% shocked about foetuses [sic] found at temple," the author discusses the details of Thailand's proposed abortion laws.  The Democratic Party is in power and is said to have consensus views on legal abortions.  The new law would allow for abortion, but only by, "...setting up an agency to screen the unprepared requesting mother for an abortion.  Applicants must register before receiving an abortion," and pay for it.  

Currently, abortions are only legal if the mother's health is at risk or in cases of rape in Thailand.  The Prime Minister doesn't think that the abortion laws should be changed--they stand to serve as they do. 

A Dusit Poll surveyed a sample size of 1,458 people living in Bangkok (where the fetuses were found) and surrounding provinces on November 18-21st.  The results indicated that 62% said they didn't understand why there are so many abortions.  Approximately 15% reported that the findings of dead fetuses were a sin and illegal.  Alternatively, "nearly half of the respondents--47 per cent-- said it is an individual's right to have an abortion, if the need is shown."  In regards to the proposed amendment to the abortion law, "...65.6 per cent said they agreed for the law to be amended while nearly 22 per cent said they are uncertain and amending the law alone might not be useful, as educating those at risk should be given simultaneously."

In a supplementary article from CNN, the survey was reported to have a 5% margin of error.  From what I recall in lecture, I believe that 3% is most common, but 5% still seems quite low.  I'm no statistical genius, so the extra 2% of margin could be more significant than it seems.  It's just so interesting to see that a variety of societies all over the world experience challenges and obstacles from the topic of abortion.

HONEY, YOU FORGOT TO TAKE YOUR PILL...

I found this polling report done by CBS which asks a different kind of question than I've seen throughout my research for this class.  It asks:

 The most interesting responses to me are the ones I've boxed.  From this poll, 66% of men reported that they would be willing to take birth control pills, while the poll reports that 54% of women respondents would not believe it.  Contraceptives have always been considered to be a "woman's issue" or a "woman's job" to take care of.  I'm sure most women can agree that it is easier and more comfortable to chose your own method of contraceptive.  But, it just seems that women are responsible for protecting themselves.  If a women ends up pregnant (not by plan), among the first questions asked is:  Why didn't you use protection?


A lot of literature suggests that when it comes to having unprotected sex, men are sometimes in the position of whether or not to trust the girl when she says she is on birth control.  Men can take a form of birth control and thereby share the responsibility of protection.  I fear that if men decide to take birth control then condoms would be old news.  


According to this article (at a silly domain name of "WhatWomenWantFromMen.Com"), M.D. Emily Senay writes in her book that men are, "...more likely to refuse to see a doctor when they get sick.  they are less prone to take preventive steps to stay in good shape."  I've seen this emphasized in another one of my classes this semester.  Men are conditioned to not be sissies.  The article says, "it's that same conditioning all boys get growing up: don't cry, it's not masculine to show that you're in pain, just sweat it out."  So who takes care of them?  Women do!  It's because, "women are natural caretakers...they don't always want to do it but feel compelled to do it."  So, it seems that women will probably have to remind men to take their birth control pill.  Regularly taking birth control pills is not a piece of cake.  For you to reach the utmost certainty of protection, you must take your birth control pill everyday at the same time each day...that's not easy, especially for students with busy schedules and work and play!


I honestly want to know what you all think about male birth control.  Will they really take it?  Will this become more popular than women taking birth control? 

FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS WITH COUGARS...

An interesting article titled "Younger women regret one-night stands more than their older counterparts" reports poll information exactly what the title suggests. A survey was conducted in the United Kingdom with a sample size of 1,000 women.  The sample was targeted for women who are either married or in long-term relationships.  

WHO IS HAVING ONE-NIGHT STANDS?  According to The Daily Mail's report, "almost half of women in their 30s (46 per cent) and 40s (45 per cent) have had casual, one-off sexual encounters, while those in their 50s are not far behind--more than 1/3 have had casual sex."  Wow.
WHO IS HAVING REGRETS?  Come on!  These people have to have had at least one liaison that made them say, "Eww."  The poll results says that, "women in 40s are the least remorseful: surprisingly, 3/4 of them say they have no qualms, while 65 per cent of those in their 50s also have no regrets."  Wow.
WHO IS HAVING ABORTIONS?  The study shows that 23% of 20-29 year-olds admit to having an abortion, while, "...similar numbers of women in 40s and 50s--22 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively have also had terminations."  Have you been wondering about the 60 year-olds?  The article says that they reported only 9% due to the fact that most of the respondents in that age category grew up in a time where abortion was illegal.
NOW, WHO IS HAVING REGRETS?  The article says that while over half of all women report that they do not regret their decision to have an abortion, "...the majority of women--64 per cent--in the 40-49 age group do mourn their decision to end a pregnancy."

I liked a quote that was used from a doctor by the name of Andrew Fergusson.  He said, "We have reached a point where abortion is seen as just another method of contraception.  For years, the effects have been swept under the carpet and evidence is only just beginning to emerge of real physical and psychological implications for some of the women who have abortions." 

Is this information startling to you?  Do you believe that based on the information reflected in the poll that older women are getting abortions as a "method of contraception"?  Do you see these older women who are getting an abortion as finding "a way out"?  

FANTASIA, ARE YOU FOR REAL??

Being one of the most forgotten American Idol stars, Fantasia has been in the media more often since receiving a contract for a reality TV show about her life that was recently renewed for a second season.  I've never watched the show because her irritable baby voice prohibits me from doing so.  However, recently she has not just been in the news for her TV show.  On Monday, her confession of having an abortion was made inside a courtroom in a battle between her ex and his wife.  That's right.  I said "his wife".  Juicy.

Apparently, she had told the court that she chose to get an abortion once she found out that her boyfriend was married.  This case is actually pretty interesting because Fantasia is trying to prove that she did not know that he was married, but the ex boyfriend's wife says she knew all about his marriage.  After reading testimony, Fantasia did know that her boyfriend was married, but believed that they were legally separated.  The wife calls Fantasia a "homewrecker" and is suing her over the affair.  This website tells readers that they can listen to her testimony and gives the website which you can listen to here.  The details are actually quite shocking.  It's unclear to me (and probably the court), whether she was pregnant when she attempted to commit suicide in August 2010.  She says she cannot recall when she had an abortion.  I find that hard to believe.  Right after allegedly finding out her boyfriend was married, Fantasia "attempted to take her [own] life by purposely overdosing on aspirin and a sleeping aid." 

This article says that the wife can sue Fantasia under a law called "Alienation of Affection" which is valid in North Carolina.  The law says, "...that an abandoned spouse can sue the party responsible for the breakup of their marriage, usually the adulterous spouse's lover."  WOW!  A real life Scarlet Letter!  


I just think that her reputation is ruined now, especially her affiliation with American Idol.  If evidence comes out that she attempted suicide while she was pregnant, her career is over.  I wouldn't be surprised if they pull the plug on her TV series.  I mean, what she allegedly did is such an unthoughtful, selfish act of behavior that really makes her no different from the women who drown or choke their own children to death.  How the "mighty" have fallen...

 Pictured here:  Fantasia and her ex boyfriend, Antwaun Cook.

UPDATE: NO GAMBLING MATTER

According to CNN, the couple who created an online poll to decide the fate of their unborn baby boy has finally publicly declared it was a pro-life stunt.  He told CNN that he wanted to "stimulate conversation about the politically charged subject."  I will say that he probably did accomplish his goal of getting people to talk about the subject of abortion, because the articles I read about their little "project" definitely disturbed me more than I thought they would.


He said that he bought the domain name prior to getting his wife pregnant.  He was, "...mulling the idea 'for some time'."  The couple said they gave the unborn baby the name of Baby Wiggles, "...to give people more to think about."  Well, they certainly did.  I was surprised that the husband gave a statement as to why.  He said:

 That is an interesting point.  My sister is pregnant right now with her first child and I won't forget how excited she was to finally choose a name for her baby.  You could see a genuine happiness when she would refer to him by his name while inside her stomach.  Such as "Mason and I would love to go get breakfast", or "Today, I felt Mason kick for the first time!"  Let's talk hypothetically.  If for some reason (KNOCK ON WOOD) my sister had a miscarriage, I would feel so strange knowing that Mason did not exist anymore.  Giving a name to an unborn child is recognizing the reality that they are a human being that will be brought into the world once the "oven is done".  


I am relieved to know that this couple was not serious about using a public opinion poll to determine whether they are going to be parents or not.  I do think that they were successful in getting the public's attention, and quite frankly, I feel at ease that an overwhelming majority voted for them to keep the baby.  That should say something about the public opinion.  

How would it feel if you were the deciding vote on whether or not a life is taken away from someone?  It's different when you are responsible for whether someone lives or dies.  That is a MAJOR decision that people are faced with in all types of situations (loved ones in a coma, a sick family pet, etc).  These situations seem to give the decider a more socially accepted context for doing so, rather than when the decider is the pregnant woman. 

NO GAMBLING MATTER...

I haven't come across an article that has really made me feel sick to my stomach or anything like that, until now.  This article & many more have reported a couple who is leaving their unborn child's future in the hands of the public in an online poll.  The woman is 16 weeks pregnant and they have chosen to get the public's opinion on whether or not they should abort the baby because, "...they are unsure whether they want to be parents."  Well, that choice went out the window the day YOU decided to have unprotected sex.  But these people aren't teenage statistics, they are grown adults.

They even gave their unborn son a name--Wiggles.  I'm at a loss of words!  How can you leave a choice like that in the hands of whomever your sample of respondents may be!  The article says that "some websites say the couple's website is a pro-life hoax aimed at upsetting anti-abortionists."  That may be very well true, but they insist that the website's poll is genuine.  They have made statements saying that they set up the website, "...so the public 'could make a difference in the real world.'"  The poll ends December 7th, which is 2 days before the 20 week deadline for a legal abortion.  

As of today, 104,000 say they should birth the baby while 25,207 say they should abort it. 
What do you think?  Is this a publicity stunt?  If not, what do you think about their choice to get the public's opinion on a private matter?  Is this shocking?

THE PROBLEM WITH CHINA...

I was a little disappointed when we found out today that all of our research papers lacked proper research.  But, I did question myself whether I chose the right countries to analyze.  I really liked the idea of using China, because China is basically our nation's evil step sister.  China has vast problems with population and reproductive controls.  It was difficult to find information that would be comparable across country lines. This made me question why this information is so scattered and not readily available for the public.

I came across this article called "The Incidence of Abortion Worldwide." The author made clear that government councils that deal with population development need information surrounding abortions.  However, "...in many countries where abortion is legal under broad conditions, statistics on abortion are collected and are of reasonable completeness and accuracy, but in others, official data are lacking or are incomplete."  The article goes on to say that, "a common problem is that some privately performed procedures go unreported and are therefore not counted." 


The article highlighted the problems they received in gathering public opinion information in China.  The author had to use Ministry of Health statistics because of their availability.  But, there have been, "...suggestions that the administrative units that supply data to the Ministry of Health may have had a tendency to overreport [sic] in the past."  The overall message of the article is that abortion information in many countries is usually incomplete and misleading. 


According to the article, "although the official rate in China is 26 abortions per 1,000 women, the true rate is probably between 30 and 35 per 1,000, close to the world average, when the undercount is considered."  So, I wasn't kidding myself when I said it was hard to find information, but what's even harder is public opinion on the matters.  I really don't think it's from a lack of effort upon my part.  I think I will just omit China in my research even though I believe their country provides an interesting take on abortion. 

MIND OVER MATTER

Tired of all the typical abortion arguments of entitlement?  I came across an article titled, "Mental Health is the New Antiabortion Battleground. But the Science is all Wrong" on The Washington Post's website which offers the public a new way to look at the abortion issue.  It is becoming less of a fight over a woman's body and more about their minds.  

"In the past few years, under the banner of 'a woman's right to know,' a number of states have passed laws mandating that women seeking abortions be told that going ahead with the procedure would expose them to mental health risks, including post-traumatic stress and a greater danger of suicide." 

 

This is a strategy pro-life activists can adopt this stance--it's a political strategy.   The author claims that these laws mislead women seeking an abortion because this information lacks accuracy.  Research has not been able to link abortion to increased mental health problems.  Citing an Oregon State University national study, the author reports their findings show that "teenagers who have an abortion are no more likely to become depressed or to have low self-esteem one year or five years later, compared with their peers who deliver."

The author claims that pro-life activists who adopt this strategy "...distorts scientific principles, even as it uses the umbrella of scientific research to advance its aims."  She says there is a flaw in correlation v. causation.  Her argument is based upon the assumption that women seeking abortions are,"...on average, less likely to be married or involved in an intimate relationship, more likely to be poor, and more likely to have suffered physical or psychological abuse.  All these latter qualities are risk factors for poor mental health."

GET THIS.  Lawmakers in Nebraska have sanctions in place that allows women to file a civil suit against the physician.  She can claim that the physician did not screen her adequately for characteristics (like being poor and pregnant) that are said to lead to mental health issues after an abortion.  What if you flipped it?  Should women who plan on carrying out their pregnancy be screened for characteristic that would lead them to depression or other mental health issues?

AND LISTEN TO THIS.  The author believes that "...the emotionally evocative stories of a minority of women can lead people to overestimate the frequency of those experiences."  She gives the example of a woman's story of how she tried to kill herself by swallowing an entire bottle of pain medication after becoming very depressed after having an abortion.  The author makes a bold statement stating that, "...her story drowns out the evidence that a much larger number of women feel relief following an abortion."

DOES SHE HAVE THE RESEARCH TO BACK IT UP?  The author conducted a study in the 1990s with a sample size of over 400 women who sought first-trimester abortions.  Her research concluded that, "...women who terminate an unplanned pregnancy report a range of feelings, including sadness and loss as well as relief."  Another revelation in her study showed that, "...two years after their abortion, most women say they would make the same decision if they had it to do over again under the same circumstances."

In my opinion, I think that some her findings fail to understand correlation and causation, just as she criticizes the argument that abortions cause distress on mental health.  Of course if you interview women who are 2 years from the day they made the decision to have an abortion, they are going to feel positive about it.  It seems nowadays that abortions are becoming the more popular option for women who face difficult economic situations.  The thought of having a baby at the time their found out they were pregnant, they probably couldn't imagine the idea of paying for a baby and all its needs.  They have escaped the burden--so life seems good.

GaGa for GaGa? HELL NO.

This article is a little off-topic, but I wanted to share.  Apparently at the University of Virginia, there is a class taught on Lady GaGa.  The class is called "GaGa for GaGa:  Sex, Gender, and Identity."  What would my parents think if I brought home a schedule of my classes and that was on the bill!  It says that students will, "...read about her influence on feminism and gender expression," as well as, "...the skills to think analytically for life."  The author believes that this is a sneaky way to get students to sign up for a gender studies centered class.  Is pop culture worth analyzing?  Does it provide any useful knowledge that can be utilized into an expansion of a deeper thought process?  

Dear God, please save us! 

I agree with the author's opinion on the establishment of a Lady GaGa class.  She says, "...this particular pop culture moment is ephemeral and it will pass."  A pop culture moment is relative to the context of its time--whoever is popular will seize the title and surely be forgotten as we are on to the next one...RIP Hootie and the Blowfish =)  I agree that classes like this are not the best ways to "impart lessons for life", but if it inspires creativity and participation in more substantial umbrella topics, then I'm all for it.

THE LIKE BUTTON?

A mass of articles publicized an anti-abortionist who put instructions on how to make a bomb on Facebook.

In this article, Justin Carl Moose, 26 years old, "...declared himself a 'freedom fighter' in one status update, and regularly bowed to end abortion, at all costs."  Just yesterday, he signed a plea bargain.  The article states that he faces up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. 


This article makes me think why someone who believes that abortion is murder, would take steps to produce a weapon that is capable of murdering a whole number of people?  I don't agree with this man's actions.  I don't believe using violence in this type of situation does any good towards the a pro-life ideology's mission.  So, my question is:  How do demonstrations make you feel?  Does it matter on how politicized the issue is?  


In my opinion, I am almost kinda scared of demonstrators that are really out there.  I don't know if you guys remember the old guy that comes to the quad screaming about the lord?  I don't think I even had a chance to listen to what his message was because I was just wanting to get away from all of the yelling and crazy talk.  Maybe its just me, but I even hate the free sample people in the food court at the mall...lol

Exit Polling...

I really liked the exit polling experiment that we ended up doing.  It made me come out of my comfort zone and forced me to approach random people.  I always hate doing things like that, but I found a lot of people willing to participate and had actual conversations with during the process.  I didn't read any of the responses, which I wish I would have after we were done polling people.  I thought that people would see someone with a clipboard and run the other way, but that wasn't the case at all.  I was very surprised at how friendly the ISU campus was.  It kinda makes me rethink whenever I am walking around the Quad and someone approaches me.  I shouldn't dismiss them because I don't want to bothered. 

A PENNY FOR YOUR THOUGHTS...

I guess I have a question about my research paper.  I have decided to look at global public opinions on the topic of abortion because I felt that it was more interesting that a historical view of the United States' opinion.  My problem is that I've chosen countries who either intentionally or culturally encourage the oppression of women.  

One thing that I am so adamant about is avoiding being labeled a feminist.  So, it should be no surprise that I have to make my claim here:

 Ok, now that's out of the way...back to the issue at hand.  There is always the argument that as Americans we tend to force our standards and systems upon other countries, especially non-Western countries.  We tend to hold our treatment of women and their liberties as the mold that they should follow.  The U.S. typically sees some cultures in India as having a patriarchal society with oppressive behaviors toward women.  But what about the women who actually live in the culture?  Some reports say that these women who are perceived by the U.S. to be oppressed, really don't feel that way--they are satisfied and content with the way they live their lives.  

To bring it all full circle, what does this mean for the topic of abortion?  When you boil down to it, abortion is typically associated with the privacy of a woman's body--which is a right.  My main goal in writing my research paper is to be careful not to ignore background information about that country's culture and just report on the statistics.  The politics behind a woman's place in individual societies is essential to understanding why a public may hold a particular viewpoint.

Do you believe that I am heading in the right direction?  Are there any countries that I shouldn't touch? 

CALEEFORNEEA...

Most late night talk show hosts joke about how "dense" Americans are, as well as many other entertainers.  I heard a song by Jadakiss & Anthony Hamilton called "Why" and there is a lyric that goes: 

"...Why they let the Terminator win the election?  Come on, pay attention."

Arnold Schwarzenegger will never be able to leave his Hollywood image behind, so why not move closer to Hollywood and become governor?  The partisan lines are drawn very geographically in California.  The population living next to the ocean makes up the majority of California's liberal state, but inland is where the most conservatism lays. 

In an article titled "Abortion on Demand in California?" Becky Yeh highlights the booming industry of abortion within the state.  Carol Hogan of California Catholic Conference says that abortion is, "an industry in California...individuals in the state can have an abortion whenever and wherever, compliments of taxpayers". 

The California Catholic Conference works to educate voters that "their tax money is paying for abortions".  Hogan believes that not many people know about this.  In 2007, California spent $23 MILLION on 80,000 abortions in MediCal.

I've heard numerously that the only good thing Rod Blagojevich did in Illinois was create the "Illinois Healthy Women" program as a "new effort to deliver family planning services for low income women" in 2004.  By providing family planning services and free contraceptives, this program is designed to "avoid unplanned pregnancies and providing them with reproductive health care".  The program is run by the state's Medicaid agency--the Illinois Department of Public Aid (IDPA).  The federal government "will cover 90 percent of the cost of the family planning services provided under the new program".  


Where do you think the money comes to pay for this?  FROM YOU!  Just like Caleeforneea (*cue Arnold accent), these type of programs are paid for by tax payer money, but yet are so political in nature.  

It shouldn't be a surprise that most citizens don't realize that their tax money is supporting abortion when their principles are against it.  

WHEN THE CZAR HAS A COLD, ALL RUSSIA COUGHS...

The title of this article, "Russia Sees Rise in Pro-Life Views" gives away the subject.  This article was written fairly recently--September 2010.  It states that the current law in Russia allows women to demand an abortion up to "12 weeks gestation, up to 22 weeks for social reasons, and at any point during pregnancy for 'medical necessity'.  The 'service' is offered free of charge at all state clinics".  These regulations are pretty open.  It makes me wonder what "social reasons" would mean by law.  

This article posts a little chart on the social reasons for and against abortion.  See:

"Social reasons" can be an umbrella category.  What constitutes a social reason?  If being plus size or obese is highly frowned upon in society, could a woman opt for a legal abortion because she doesn't want to get fat?  Seems to be too broad and whenever you create laws, you must create them with a certain balance between being broad, but not too specific either.  

A man from Human Life International (HLI), Joseph Meaney, says, "Russia has had some of the worst abortion legislation in the world since the 1920s...and basically, abortion was a way of life under communism".  Meaney speculates that the increase in pro-life views is from the fact that Russia is dying out.  He says their population "...has actually shrunk by over 12 million people just since 1992...so literally, Russia is a dying country, and abortion is one of the main reasons for it".


 When I first read this, I thought his statement that abortion is directly correlated to the decreasing population was a bold statement.  I would think there is other reasons, which he does give.  He says that, "life expectancy is lessening in the country due to alcohol, drug abuse, and, to some extent, AIDS".  But he goes on to add that:

 
Abortions are actually interfering with Russia's labor and employment.  HLI reports indicate that the work force is decreasing rapidly.  Meaney states, "...they desperately need more children, not only to fill their country, but even to fill their workforce, and it's just not happening".  This is happening in other places around the world, including many European countries.  These places are forced to import labor (mainly Muslims) because there aren't enough people in the hiring population in their country.  I found it interesting that abortion causes problems well beyond it's own question of legality.  Loose abortion laws have created many social problems for countries that take time and resources from institutions. 

NO GIRLS ALLOWED!!

The article titled "Infanticide, Abortion Responsible for 60 Million Girls Missing in Asia" is well worth reading!  

Female Infanticide:  "The overt killing or neglect until death of female babies. It may also take the form of preferential abortion" (as defined here)."The weapons being used against them are prenatal sex selection, abortion, and female infanticide--the systematic killing of girls soon after they are born."  

               The UN is saying that it is because of these practices that are responsible for 60 MILLION missing girls in Asia.  

"Twenty-five million men in China currently can’t find brides because there is a shortage of women."  

               China is facing a serious, serious gender imbalance if things keep going as they are going.  By having this imbalance, a lot of violence stems from this situation.  Women are taken by force, against their will to be pushed into marriage.  I'm still trying to find a link to a video I watched in one of my classes, but there was a story of a very young woman who was taken from her village and forced to marry a 70 year old man who was very ill and couldn't find a bride to take care of him.  He would beat her and confine her to the house so she would not run away.  She was raped repeatedly until she became pregnant.  Luckily, she was able to conceive a baby boy (I wonder what he would have done to her if she had a girl?).  The documentary goes on to tell the story about how she was rescued.  A man dedicated to finding lost women did a lot of research and was able to find the missing woman.  He went to the village she was living in and rescued her.  They tried to take the woman's son with her, but the village people were throwing stones at them and they had to escape.  

               This imbalance also leads to a commercial sex trade.  The UN's 2005 report states "that up to 800,000 people being trafficked across borders each year, and as many as 80 percent are women and girls, most of whom are exploited"

"Historically infanticide was something that was practiced in poor places in China," Mosher said. "But when the one-child policy came into effect we began to see in the wealthy areas of China, what had never been done before in history — the killing of little girls."

               It's interesting that the demographics for female infanticide have crossed through all social classes and rankings.  The One-Child Policy demands that families who have more than 1 child must pay fines in order to keep their 2nd child.  Some families have the money to continuously pay the fines, but usually the poor do not.  They must take measures to conceal the pregnancy, and when the child is born, it must be abandoned.  It's interesting that wealthy families are still killing baby girls even though they have the money to pay the fines.  I think having a second child creates a stigma for that woman and family within the village--especially if it is a girl.

I really liked this quote from Wanda Franz, the president of the National Right to Life Committee:

"We feel it's a serious problem that everybody should be concerned about and aware of...This is a form of abortion that, from our point of view is especially egregious. Abortion is claimed to help women; obviously in these cases, females are the direct victims, because women in these cultures are not valued"

MARK MY CALENDAR

I think I am going to write my research paper on the linear aspect of abortion--see what opinions are held in different countries rather than the history of opinions on abortion in the US.  I think there is a lot to write about within other countries.  For example, in China, whenever a woman is pregnant, she is not allowed to know the sex of her baby at her sonogram appointments because if it is not a boy, they have a higher chance of aborting it if they find out that it is a girl.  I found this Chinese Gender Chart to Determine Your Baby's Gender:

 I thought this was pretty interesting.  There seems to be a consensus that women who are 30-37 should not try to have babies unless it's in December.  According to this article the Chinese Gender Chart was found in a tombstone seven centuries ago!  Some reports show that this chart is better than 50/50 accuracy.  What do you think? 

"SCHOOL TEACHERS IN HEAT" PORNO OR REALITY?

I don't think students, at any level of education, know what it takes to be a teacher.  I have had the opportunity to see beyond the face value of a teacher's job and let me tell you, it is not pretty.  As students, we know the struggles in balancing different aspects of our own lives.  Teachers do the same.  They have to create ways to balance their "teaching life" with their "personal life". 

Rhianna Ellis was a social studies teacher who found the perfect balance--just combine the two!  Ellis was ranked #44 on the list of The 50 Most Infamous Female Teacher Sex Scandals!  What an achievement! (Hint: Sarcasm).  She had an affair with a student named Cesar Pozo which started when he was 17 years old and "blossomed" into a relationship.  In a supplementary article by NY Daily News titled, "Teen Sex Storm. School Rocked Again - Guidance Counselor Booted", Ellis was one of two teachers found in sex scandals to come out of the New York high school within A WEEK!  What kind of water are they providing in the teacher's lounge?  

According to the NY Daily News article, students described Ellis to be "friendly...chummy...showing up to a Sweet 16 party...letting kids skip class".  Everything sounds pretty normal, except the part about showing up to Sweet 16 parties.  Oh, and the part I missed that said, "she slow danced with Pozo" at the Sweet 16.  Creepy.  But, it only gets better!  Pozo even introduced her to his parents, but conveniently left out the part that she was his teacher.  The article states that, "...the teacher and student phoned each other so frequently that his cell phone bill hit $700...His parents seized the phone, but Ellis replaced it and paid the new bills".  The article says that her jealousy is what spoiled the relationship, and so they called it quits.  She winds up pregnant and tells Pozo that she plans on having an abortion.  Pozo was nervous that she wouldn't come through with the abortion, and his worries became reality when she gave birth to a healthy baby 9 months later. 

So here's my question to you:  Pertaining to the legality of abortion,"certain circumstances" are generally defined as rape, incest, or harm to the mother.  Could Pozo claim he was raped by his teacher?  Does his age make a difference?  In Pozo's case, do you think it would be appropriate for the state to require Ellis to get an abortion?


I think rape should include demographical characteristics in its definition.  For example, more as having to deal with one person who is at a discernible age of maturity forcing or creating sexual acts with someone who is at an age of being easy influenced.  If Pozo was 7 years old, that would be rape--no question.  Pozo was 17 years old when sexual relations started with Ellis.  In both cases--whether Pozo is 7 or 17--the teacher took advantage of her position and power to seduce him.  Is it a different story when a student consents to sexual acts?


To close, Pozo told investigators in the NY Daily News article that he received a 65 in her class--a passing grade that "wasn't bad, considering he failed exams, didn't do homework, and was late every day".  FAIL.
 

"HOW LONG A MINUTE IS DEPENDS ON WHAT SIDE OF THE BATHROOM DOOR YOU'RE ON"

Just like boys like to have bathroom reading material in their bathrooms at home--Schroeder Hall bathrooms to display posters and announcements for safe sex, drinking, drugs, etc.  Today, I found a poster that said, "Protest the Protest".  As I read further, a student has created these posters in order to gather people to protest against an organization called "Life Chain".

Life Chain is one of the largest pro-life organizations which is coming to the ISU campus on October 3, 2010.  According to Wikipedia, "every first Sunday of October, Life Chain invites various churches and congregations across the United States to stand on designated sidewalks to pray and rally for one hour".  

So, the student who created these posters tries to capture readers by saying, "If they outlaw this choice, what's next?"  It almost seems like this student who is organizing a "Pro-Choice Protest" is associating protests with changing the law.  Grassroot protesters, such as this student's call to action, assume that by delivering knowledge on an issue to the public or displaying opposition to a law will allow them to bring about changes in policies or laws.  I'm as patriotic as they come, but I don't believe that laws can be changed from the grassroots.  In their defense, grassroot efforts have the potential to pick up media attention which could reach a larger population of people.  Politicians may show some compassion for grassroot groups and may support them, but it's usually just a ploy--bottom line is:  They want your votes.

I don't think grassroots are unimportant or a waste of time, but the only way for these types of groups to survive is by numbers and ultimately the character of the public's opinion on the issue.  

What do you think?  Do you believe that protests such as the one that this ISU student is organizing in opposition to National Life Chain Day (October 3, 2010) are able to create some kind of change?  What level of change?  Is it substantial enough to force politicians to change abortion laws?  Do you think that the posters are appropriate for this campus? 

"I'VE NOTICED THAT EVERYONE THAT IS FOR ABORTION HAS ALREADY BEEN BORN" ~RONALD REAGAN

There are many different types of abortion, which I hope to cover throughout the semester.  The one that probably sparks the most responses is a late-term abortion.  I did a little research on late-term abortions, and just wanted to share with you all.  According to information from the Michigan Christians for Life, late-term abortions require doctors to perform "instillation techniques" in which a needle filled with poison is inserted into the baby.  There are different types of poisons and incision sites used, but one mentioned caught my attention immediately.  Intracardiac injections are mentioned by the Michigan Christians for Life, which, "...involves injecting a poison--such as digoxin--into the unborn baby's heart".  A well-known late-term abortionist named George Tiller uses this technique.  The website exposes a known case of Tiller's where he had injected poison into the brain, instead of the heart.  The baby ended up surviving with severe brain damage, and was adopted by a couple, Bill and Mary Kay Brown, and named her Sarah.  Sarah died 5 years after being born from the complications.   

The strength of such a family to adopt Sarah is remarkable and goes without question--a noble act.  An article titled, "The Story of Sarah Brown", offers more background to Sarah's story.  Twenty-four hours after the failed attempt, "...she had not been cleaned up, the umbilical cord had been improperly severed and she had had no nourishment, Sarah continued to live.  A nurse in the newborn unit of the hospital finally took pity on the child.  She called an attorney with whom she was familiar and explained the situation.  The attorney called Bill and Mary Kay Brown and asked them to come to the hospital and rescue this remarkable child".  I think it is safe to say that if Sarah had received proper treatment and proper nourishment, her brain injuries would have been greatly reduced. 

Pictured below is a woman named Gianna Jessen, who survived a late-term abortion 33 years ago.  

Source:  http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2008/06/14/abortion-survivor-will-not-support-obama/

Gianna is active in the creation of a group called "BornAliveTruth" in partner with a nurse named Jill Stanek.  You may have heard of her.  A political article that I came across when searching for Gianna's story called, "Ad With Late-Term Abortion Survivor Bashes Barack Obama on Infanticide", reported Stanek to be responsible for exposing live-birth abortions, where "doctors purposefully cause the premature birth of an unborn child for the sole purpose of letting her die".  This led to, "...a national law President Bush signed requiring medical centers and personnel to provide such babies with adequate medical care after birth," and, "...the Illinois bills Obama opposed".

The article claims that Obama has voted down the"Born Alive Bill" four times, which calls for actions to protect babies left to die after an abortion.  The article states that: 

Obama has said he voted against the Born Alive bill in Illinois because it would have undermined Roe v. Wade and the so-called right to abortion, but documents from the Illinois legislature show he voted for an amendment to rectify that issue and still voted against the bill.

Mind you, this article is from 2008 in the heat of the election. I do not know if he has opposed the bill since, but BornAliveTruth.Org launched an ad that made the public aware of Obama's opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  You can click here to see Gianna's message to Obama.  

So as to relate to my previous post which focuses on two polls about whether or not abortion is murder, is poisoning a baby's heart or brain considered murder?  What's your opinion?

MURDER SHE WROTE...

I find it really interesting how pollsters can manipulate wording within a question to provoke a certain response.  I think of this technique more as a skill.  As I have mentioned previously, I am going to law school next year, and I believe that being able to analyze and spot manipulative words will help me when I need to infer about something indirectly.  Below are two polls that ask the same question (in essence).  

In "Polling the Nations: Abortion: General", a poll is constructed in a True or False format to the statement:

Poll #1

Abortion is murder:  True or False?

 At the same time, another poll (which you can view here) is constructed as well in the same format, except the statement is altered to say:

 Poll #2

Abortion is not murder:  True or False?

The same company, YouGov Polimetrix, conducted both polls the exact same day.  Both used the Internet to host the poll as well as the same sample size of 1,000.  With matching data for the date of poll, sample size, host, and pollster, it is easy to assume that this poll was conducted at the same time as the other.  However, we should not assume anything.  So we are going to treat the two polls as separate entities.  

So it is obvious that the keyword "not" is inserted into the statement in Poll #2.  Let's observe the results to try and see if the keyword influences anything.

Both polls hold very bold statements about whether or not "Abortion IS murder".  There are no circumstances offered.  And I think it is important to note that the responses do not represent the percentage of people who hold a certain belief on the legality of abortion.  For example,  in Poll #2, 33% responded "True" to the statement "Abortion is not murder"--This does not mean that those respondents who chose to answer True believe that abortion should be legal.  In society, the term "murder" is generally used in negative contexts.  So it may be easy to suspect that people who do not see abortion as being associated with a negative context also view abortion to be legal.  Some people can believe that abortion is not murder, but still don't think it is morally right to make it legal.  Ultimately, we do not know what the sample believes on the legalities of the issue.  And it should not be confused with what the poll is really asking.

Generally, in my opinion, pro-lifers tend to argue that abortion is literally killing a human being--and for lack of a better word--murder.  To me, I believe that most people would consider a late-term abortion to be murder.  I have no data to support this, but I think most of society is against late-term abortions.  States are given the right to restrict late term abortions.  I'm going to post later about late-term abortions.  But, what do you think?  Considering that pregnancies usually average about 36 weeks, if you or someone you knew decided to have an abortion at 35 weeks and 6 days, would that be murder?  What does that one more day mean to you?

PAPA DON'T PREACH...I'M KEEPIN' MY BABY. Ooh Ooh!

Aside from Kelly Osbourne's tragic remake of "Papa Don't Preach," the question of informing your parents of your decision to keep or abort a child is probably not as easy as singing it to your parents with funky hair and teenage angst.  But, a lot of people like to argue about whether or not parents of teenagers (under the age of 18 years old) should be required to inform their parents if they choose to get an abortion.  This can cause a lot of controversy.  Let's take a look at this poll's results I found from "Polling the Nation: Abortion: Parental Consent" which asked respondents in California in March of 2010 the question:  

Would you favor or oppose a state law requiring parental notification by the physician before a woman under age 18 can get an abortion? 

The results indicated the following:

Favor                                 68%

Oppose                               29%

Don't Know                          3%

What is interesting is a few notes about the actual poll design itself.  The sample size was 2,002 people which were contacted by land line phone and cell phone.  We all pretty much know that teenagers do not usually own land line phones, but this alone would leave me to the assumption that it is not the teenagers under the age of 18 answering the phones when the interviewers call to ask questions.  It seems more likely that the parent of the house would be the respondents in this poll.  HOWEVER,  I am assuming here that the interviewers targeted houses with teenagers and parents living inside them.  Even if they didn't do this, it would seem likely because we know that usually older people (older than college age students) have land lines (they could potentially be parents themselves), which may be why so many favor knowing that their child is having an abortion.  But, keep in mind that the poll does say that cell phones were used as well, so this changes a lot of my assumptions.  We still don't know how many voters were from land line calls and how many were from cell phones.

Another interesting component of this poll is that the pollsters included an answer category of "don't know".  This relates to what we talked about in class.  While it seems hard to figure that people don't know what abortion is or any issues relating to it, due to its saliency, this option creates a safeguard to the poll's potential to contain nonattitudes. 

Now let's analyze.  By more of the population in this poll favoring a state law that requires doctors to inform parents of their teenage daughters' abortion implicates something that is camouflaged.  By making this state law, society is laying a responsibility onto doctors to inform the parents.  What if the doctor forgets before the date of the operation?  Could he or she be sued by the child's parents?  Does a doctor have to inform the parents if the child asked for Plan B--another "type" of Abortion (which I will get into at a later time)? 

I think one factor that may encourage a doctor to inform the parents regardless of if this was put into law or not is the level of maturity the child exhibits to the doctor.  If a 12 year old girl with pig tails and a lollipop walks into the doctor's office and demands an abortion--I think the doctor would want to tell the parents what the child is asking for (And potentially ask "Where are your parenting skills?").  But, in the case of a 17 year old, who is only 1 year away from being at the legal age of "maturity" (in the eyes of the law), may be very mature and researched her options and decided that abortion was the best one.  It's a tough call because doctors can't make exceptions or even create your own implications to the law (if it were passed).

Overall, visiting your primary practitioner when you are growing up is always awkward because of all the changes that your body goes through as you mature.  I can't imagine the response the doctor would receive on the other line when he tells the parents that their 12 year old is pregnant and wants an abortion.  In the utmost optimism, parents should have a general concern for what happens to their children and they should have their best interests at heart.  An abortion is a major decision and a surgery that I believe a child shouldn't undergo alone or without the consent of the parents (as long as the child is legally a "dependent" of the parents).  From my experience with surgeries from sport injuries, you always have to have an emergency contact written down in case things go wrong.  I wonder how that works if a child doesn't want their parents to know. 

Ultimately, Papa is going to preach regardless when he is informed by a doctor, or told by his own child.   

SIDE NOTE:  I really don't want to talk about the HIPAA Act much because a large portion of its details follow adults and not children.  There are some specifications, but for the most part they are irrelevant. 

Kelly Osbourne's Baby

Source:  http://thegirlfromtheghetto.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/baby1.jpg?w=450&h=347

TRADITIONAL CREPES ARE BACK ON THE MENU...

My family in New Zealand can make an AMAZING crepe dish.  It's very traditional and homemade with sugar and lemon.  These days you've got everyone thinking they are the next Top Chef, who shy away from traditional variations of foods in order to be more modern.  I can't believe the crappy Betty Crocker pancakes that American restaurants try to pawn off as a crepe.  I'd fly to New Zealand just for a crepe, but anyways...The Gallup website has an article posted called, "Renewed Desire for U.S. Gov't to Promote Traditional Values"which shocked me with the results.  Let's take a look at the first Gallup poll given:

  Source:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/123326/Renewed-Desire-Gov-Promote-Traditional-Values.aspx

Gallup says that prior to 1993, the public was more in favor of NOT favoring any values, but since 1993 to 2004.  As you can see in the graph above, the difference in people for want to PROMOTE TRADITIONAL VALUES compared to the people who are NOT IN FAVOR OF VALUES is relatively a big gap.  At most, in 1999, there was a 19% difference in opinion.  It should be noted that although after 2005 the difference in opinion had become more level and even with each other (look right before 2009--Americans were torn), the opinion that is consistently more favored is having the government return to promoting traditional values.  I think it's important to show that:

The poll does not define what the term "traditional values" means; thus, respondents answer in light of their understanding of the term. The results by party and ideology discussed here suggest that respondents understand traditional values to be those generally favored by the Republican Party. 

Source:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/123326/Renewed-Desire-Gov-Promote-Traditional-Values.aspx

 What does traditional mean to you?  For me, I think a huge portion of traditional values stems from the family and it's structure.  In my opinion, when things are going good with your family, we credit ourselves for practicing and upholding the family ideal.  We forget all the conflicts and times where the family was anything but the normal family.  However, when things are going badly within the family, that is when we start on a studious search for the dysfunctional elements in our life and blame our problems on them, not ourselves.  What do you think?

Another interesting point that Gallup brings up that some may overlook is the response to the poll in 2001 which was taken in October (just after the September 11 attacks).  The highest peak came at that time in favoring the government at 59% to promote traditional values.  That is quite a large number--almost 60% wanted traditional values promoted.  Gallup quickly points out that this was a time when the American people had a "heightened trust" with our government.  Some could say "Pshhh" to it now, especially those who opposed the Patriot Act, and other actions of our government that liberals believe were distrustful.  BUT, at the time of the attack, our country looked to our government to figure out all the how and why questions.  We looked to our government to protect our soil from that ever happening again.  I remember when people were being interviewed and asked to give their opinion about the Patriot Act and the government being able to tap into their phone lines to find terrorists.  Many believed that it was okay, because they were trying to find Whodunit.  Now people think it was a bad game of Clue.  

The recent numbers still indicate an 11% difference in opinion and a favor in promoting traditional values within our government.  So, next time you order crepes...=)

YOUR BABY PROBABLY HAS A BEATING HEART, YOU KNOW. IT CAN FEEL PAIN...AND IT HAS FINGERNAILS!

I'm sure most of you have seen the movie Juno.  There is a scene in the movie that had critics talking.  When the main character Juno goes to an abortion clinic, she encounters a classmate who is protesting outside.  She yells out to Juno,"Your baby probably has a beating heart, you know.  It can feel pain...and it has fingernails!"  I think this is the part where she decides not to get an abortion.  She can't get over the fact that it has fingernails already; as if having fingernails makes the baby an actual, real living being.  


A neighbor of mine came over to my house earlier in the summer when my boyfriend and I were grilling out.  She told us she was pregnant.  So, the natural thing to do is to say "Congratulations!"  She said, "Yeah, well I'm getting rid of it on Thursday".  I was already in shock that someone seemed so careless when talking about aborting a baby, but what she did next pulled on my heart strings like never before.  She pulled out a pack of cigarettes and cracked open a beer.  All I could do was stare at her.  I was speechless.  In the 30 minutes she sat outside with us, she had smoked TWO packs of cigarettes and drank FOUR beers!  


It made me wonder if telling her that the baby had fingernails would have stopped her from smoking and drinking.  Some people may say, "Oh well, she was getting rid of it anyway", but I just didn't think it was right.  There is still a baby inside of you.  You are poisoning it!  So I found this article called, "Fetal Development: From Conception to Birth" and it explains when everything starts to develop inside a fetus.  It says:

"Week 6:  Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming"

BUT, look at the rest of the information before Week 6.  On DAY 22, "heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'".  You're bound to pass Day 22 before you even realize that you're pregnant, but yet your baby has a heart!  So, maybe YOU should have a heart when it comes to doing things that you know you are not suppose to do.   

Pictured here:  A real hand with fingernails from an aborted fetus at 12 weeks.

Source:  http://www.40daysforlife.com/napa/pictures/Embryo%2012%20weeks%20fingernails%202.jpg

I'M NOT IN LOVE WITH YOU, I'M IN LOVE WITH ABORTION!

Before, we start in on some Gallup poll information, I wanted to show you WHY I titled this blog "She's Addicted to Abortions?"  Just like any good girlfriend does, I will sit through an episode of "South Park" with my boyfriend (It goes both ways...Don't worry!  I make him sit through Real Housewives of New Jersey).  I saw an episode called, "W.T.F." where the boys become Wrestling Legends (in their own minds) and put on a show.  Relax and enjoy the show!

Eric Cartman: Addicted to Abortions Video Clip

Let's begin with our first Gallup poll to discuss.

SOURCE:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

This poll is interesting because it relates to the story about my friend who was raped in my first post.  It shows that within this year, 54% of the polled total believe abortions should be legal only under certain circumstances.  A few examples of "certain circumstances" include if the woman was raped, in a incestuous relationship, or her life was in danger of having the child.  It is important to point out the people who take an affirmed stance in the question:  the ones who say it is legal under any circumstances and those who say it is illegal under any circumstances.  Although "legal under any circumstances" accounts for 24% of the vote, you can clearly see the "close split" that evolves around the issue of abortion--the people who chose "illegal in any circumstance" account for 19% polled.  You can see a closeness throughout the graph between those 2 choices.  I think that people feel comfortable in choosing an option that has "gray" areas rather than "black and white".

The only spike between the 2 "black and white" responses occurs around the range of when Bill Clinton was in office.  Voters polled were in favor of abortions being legal under any circumstances by more than 21% over "illegal in any circumstances" voters.  I found a pretty neat article, "Abortion Timeline", which chronicles political events involving abortion in the United States.  It says that in January 1993: 

President Clinton reverses years of pro-life progress by issuing five executive orders reversing Title 10 regulations banning abortion referral by federal employees, repealing the Mexico City Policy restricting federal funding of international organizations that work to reverse countries' abortion laws, negating the ban on funding for fetal tissue transplants, ordering military hospitals to perform abortions, and asking the FDA to "review" the import ban on RU 486. 

SOURCE:  http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortiontimeline.html

My prediction tells me that because President Clinton was a popular President, he led the public to be more in favor of legalizing abortions under any circumstances.  His public policies advanced the opportunities for Americans to have a legal abortion.  The highlighted section where Bill orders military hospitals to perform abortions seems to stick out to me.