Another baby was dumped in a dumpster and a baby boy was left on the doorstep of a church wrapped only in towels. Abortion is on the rise and birth control isn't. It's another sad commentary on our society and I shutter think what it will be like in the coming months. Has anyone heard of any organizations that have plans to care for these defenseless throw aways?

-- Bardou (bardou@baloney.com), January 22, 1999

Answers

Bardou, Arc, I do NOT want to seem overly callous on this situation, but perhaps the United States is about to get a taste of what has been going on in most of the rest of the world off and on, for most of this century - whenever there is social upheaval and civil unrest, those who are most defenseless generally suffer first, longest, and the most.

May God have mercy on us all, Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), January 22, 1999.

Bardou, Sadly, I agree that abortion is a negative commentary on our society. Especially with the partial-birth type that sucks the life out of a baby just inches and moments from being born.

Where are the churches of this country? Is this not their job? Is this not what they are called to do? Pure relegion as defined in the "Book" says to care after the widows and the fatherless. To love all people should be the churches highest calling, love, not judgement, this includes those that no one else loves. Judgement is reserved for God. And how can a just God not soon judge this Country, we don't know right from wrong, we make the 10 commandments unconstitutional, the way we treat our unborn, elderly, homeless, ect.?

Perhaps Y2k is the comming judgement, as we see all that near and dear to us crumble. Maybe when all is lost we will see the errors of our way and be a humbled people ready to work and help each other.

-- TJ (trickjames@hotmail.com), January 22, 1999.

Recently spoke with someone who had just returned from hungary, she decribed a front page newspaper article on how the local hospital planned to set-up a incubator outside emerg doors so the babies dropped off would not freeze to death before being dicovered. Sad comentary on the state of affairs in the world, we are very sheltered in North america.

-- lcould (lcould @ hotmail.com), January 22, 1999.

Oh please, no more sermons. I've heard enough coming out of Washington from the Religious Right to last me a life time. The same politicians who decry partial birth abortions, or any kind, are the same politicians that withhold funding for family planning and birth control. Hypocrites!

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), January 22, 1999.

Why should I leave the city when there will no doubt be many reasons like this to stay? Everyone fleeing and consequently ignoring the problem is part of the problem.

-- Karen Cook (browsercat@yerf.net), January 22, 1999.

>>The same politicians who decry partial birth abortions, or any kind, are the same politicians that withhold funding for family planning and birth control.<<

Well, gilda, still the Johnnie one-note, I see. Isn't it about time you tried a different tune?

Would you care to explain how it is hypocrisy for a politician to decry abortions *and* withhold funding for "family planning" when the abortion industry hides behind that euphemism? I would call it consistency.

You take every opportunity to lay blame with the "religious right" even when it is totally irrelevant to the current subject. You clearly have a hangup and the bitterness permeates nearly every post you make.

Bardou's post, and the subsequent responses, concerned *children.* Even you must know the difference between "birth control," "abortion," and "children." Whatever your leanings are regarding abortion, surely you can understand that once a child is *born*, that child should not be thrown in a dumpster. If you want to take a comment about a cruel, heartless, inhuman act toward one's own child, and twist it for some left-wing agenda of your own, you have a serious problem.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), January 22, 1999.

er,...hate to sound callous...but if the kid had been aborted he wouldn't have ended up in the dumpster. Or at least not after he was fully developed and born anyway.

-- a (a@a.a), January 22, 1999.

a - Yeah, you're right. Better to have been cut into little chunks by a curette and sucked out by vacuum. Quieter, too...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), January 22, 1999.

All - Sorry, sorry, sorry! The abortion debate is extremely important and very, very emotional. It's also off-topic vis-a-vis Y2K. I apologize for continuing the thread. The Yourdon site is busy enough without some of us getting in a off-topic flamefest...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.com), January 22, 1999.

a,

That was a fool's response.

mac,

I hope you were being sarcastic.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), January 22, 1999.

Dumpster? Deja vu? Tears!

" Now that I was customized, I was at risk, because the Nazis, perfect socialists, sooner or later destroyed imperfect bodies and imperfect minds. And perfect bodies and perfect minds if they disagreed with Nazi doctrines. Euthanasia was common under the Hitler regime. It was one reason why people were afraid to speak out, or were in denial that this was possible. They could be executed if they opposed the Nazis. For example, a clergyman refused to join the war effort but volunteered for civil duty. The Nazis finished him off because he stood by his principles, even though he could have cared for cannon fodder like little brother and me. Our aunt and uncle live in the village of Medivalville. In the eighties, for its commemoration of seven hundred years of city rights, it published a book about its history. There is a sidebar with the following description about the 'Euthanasieprogramm': "The euthanasia program of the Nazis also affected a few people in Medivalville. Since the victims were not included on any kind of list, the following inventory is probably incomplete. As a rule, it was mentally disturbed citizens that were picked up, according to the Volksmund newspaper. Usually it was clear what it meant to be picked up. Through chance we know somewhat more about one of these victims. He was first taken to an institution. After some time he was delivered back dead to Medivalville. A neighbor invited the driver to eat and drink with them. He then drank too much and told everything he had to do. He said that he was 'with the vehicles of destruction,' the so called 'gas wagons,' and that with these vehicles the exhaust gases were piped into the loading room. He also reported that not only mentally hindered people, but also old and infirm ones, that did not have any next of kin, were also destroyed in this manner. The neighbors, an older couple who served him dinner, thereafter had great fear that this could happen to them also. The victims individually: Elise, born 1911, died 1941 Walter, born 1920, died 1940 Karl, born 1911, died 1944 Willi, born 1913, died 1940 Wilhelm, born 1878, died 1943 Otto, born 1897, died 1944. It cannot be determined today which one of these persons died of natural causes or was killed in a psychiatric hospital or in a camp. A further victim of the Nazi regime was also Karl, born July 6, 1911. He sold his identification card to a Jew. This one was caught, and Karl was thereupon sentenced and killed in a concentration camp also on September 16, 1943." This is why my ear perks up when I hear the word program. I wonder whos doing what to whom, and for what purpose? In this Medivalville book is also a photo of the main street of this village. It shows long Nazi flags displayed from every building. Its lengthy caption reads: In any case one cannot draw the conclusion from the display of the flags that the Medivalville people went over to National Socialism with waving flags. The hoisting of the flags by the people living on this main street was an obvious duty. Every deviation from this requirement could have meant danger to their lives and families.

-- TTF (seenit@ww2.com), January 22, 1999.

Elbow: no I'm not being sarcastic. I'm just noting that it would have been better if the stupid woman that "trashed" her tot had terminated the pregnancy in the early stages.

The truth sometimes hurts. Abortion hurts. But it is a woman's legal right to have an abortion in the first trimester. After that, the subject becomes controversial.

-- a (a@a.a), January 22, 1999.

People I suggest you cut/paste the snipets TTF posts. Then glue them back into a book. Might change your lives, or at least your outlook on it.

Mac, looks like you pulled a Lily on us...tsk tsk ;-)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 22, 1999.

a,

This is *not* an abortion issue. You cannot make it an abortion issue. If you want to go there, I will tear you apart. This is about someone murdering a *child.* Get it? Have you slipped down the slope so far that you would justify that action with a "shoulda been aborted" excuse? A generation ago, the majority understood that abortion was wrong. Now you do not comprehend that murdering children is wrong.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), January 22, 1999.

Elbow Grease,

Touche

-- TJ (trickjames@hotmail.com), January 22, 1999.

35 million children murdered since 1973... mostly for "convenience".

150,000 Iraqui non-combatants murdered in 1991... "collateral damage".

Endless destruction of natural resources... "progress".

Y2K... just desserts.

-- Why2K (who@knows.com), January 22, 1999.

OK Elbow. You tell me then. Why would this story not have had a better ending had the child been aborted at say day 65 rather than murdered at day 270? Have you heard that the earth is headed for overpopulation? Do you know what kind of damage 6.6 billion cow-eating, urinating, defecating, forest burning, air polluting, concrete laying, strip mining, garbage producing people can do? Who pray tell would now be taking care of the millions of fetuses the world has aborted had they developed into fully mature human beings? Where would the money have come from? Aren't there enough abused kids in the world as it is? Are you one of the sick people that find it "cute" and "joyful" when a woman uses unnatural hormonal injections and has a friggin litter of EIGHT kids? Did you know that the world is running out of fresh water? Did you know that we are adding a city the size of SAN FRANCISCO to the world's population EVERY DAY? That McDonalds opens three new burger joints a day? Do you really think that man has the right to drive the other species on this planet to extinction just because we feel like we need MORE people??? Only a pompous ass misreading the scriptures could believe so.

When does the fetus become an unabortable child? At conception? Do you believe like my former Catholic "handlers" that rubbers are a no-no? Remember that huge pile of condoms the "holy" Pope of Rome burned in that African country a couple years ago? Yeah, that's right-the same country that is teaming with AIDS from lack of condom use.

With the terror that y2k will very soon bring, the tragedy of abortion is going to be the last thing on peoples minds. You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. Tear away.

-- a (a@a.a), January 23, 1999.

a,

First, and foremost, is your foolishness for turning this to an abortion debate, despite fair warning. I don't take the subject lightly, but I doubt that anyone else cares to endure it. That makes the issue an ego problem on your part. Second is your foolishness for making *me* your foil for the subject. Third is your foolishness for attempting to tar me with inquisitory insinuations before you know *what* my opinions are. Fourth is your foolishness for thinking that by generalizing to a global scale you excuse one child's murder, in hindsight no less, (This makes sense?) as you propose. And fifth is your foolishness for setting yourself up as *the* correct interpreter of scripture and then condemning the Pope for asserting the same role! What an ego! Who's the pompous ass?

The overpopulation rant is nothing but a red herring. The declining resource rant is another. The "running out of fresh water" rant is ludicrous. Of all the reasons people give for having abortions, concern about overpopulation is off the bottom of the list. If anyone wants to decrease the population, they can take themselves out of the gene pool anytime (ideally, before they reproduce) by sterilization, thereby pruning an entire branch. And, there is no punishment for suicide, at least, not in this life.

The primary reason for abortion is *inconvenience.* I suggest that the advocates of abortion suit their actions to their words, and have themselves sterilized, again *before* they reproduce. And for those who elect to abort their own children, again, mandatory sterilization for mother and father. That would eliminate multiple abortions by the same parent(s), decrease the financial cost to society, would put a dent in the "surplus population," Scrooge, and might even raise the ethical standards of the rest of the population. At least that way they might understand that there is a cost *to themselves* for killing their child. Even then, it wouldn't balance the scales. Of what use is fertility if the outcome is the murder of the child? Yet, for whatever warped reason, the *potential* for having children seems to carry more weight to some than *having* children.

>>Why would this story not have had a better ending had the child been aborted at say day 65 rather than murdered at day 270?<<

For crying out loud! A better ending for whom? How is death at 65 days "better" than death at 270?

>>Who pray tell would now be taking care of the millions of fetuses the world has aborted had they developed into fully mature human beings? Where would the money have come from? <<

Then, you've never heard of adoption. Yet you presume to make outrageous statements as if you had some prescient knowledge that these "millions" would be a drain on society their entire lives. I can say with some certainty that you know not whereof you speak. Ignoring the possibility of another Einstein, etc, etc, the cost to society in terms of moral decline, and loss of respect for human life far outweighs your pitiful appeal to any financial cost. We send rockets to Mars in search of *signs* of primordial life while we slaughter the next generation of our own species. How much does one rocket cost? There's plenty of money to support these children alright.

>>Do you really think that man has the right to drive the other species on this planet to extinction just because we feel like we need MORE people??? <<

Aren't you, a, presuming to have a right to live on this planet? How is your right any more compelling than someone elses? Let's face it, a: you, like every egotist, feel that you should be able to keep all your options open, while denying completely the most basic rights of the mute, the innocent and the helpless.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), January 23, 1999.