I don’t know why, but this weekend I was thinking about Bob Packwood.
For those of you who don’t remember that name, Bob Packwood was the long-time U.S. Senator from the state of Oregon who was the first true Congressional “champion” for abortion rights. Elected in 1968, he actually introduced legislation legalizing abortion before the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade decision. Unfortunately, Packwood got absolutely no support for his legislation but the Court ultimately came forward enshrining this important right.
Once abortion was legalized, Packwood became the point person for the pro-choice movement. He led the battles against the forces of evil that sought to restrict abortion rights, endearing himself to all of the pro-choice organizations. At a time when even pro-choice legislators were running from the issue, Packwood stood alone. He courageously stood on the floor of the U.S. Senate and defended the rights of women to have abortions. Of course, this also made him a target for virulent anti–abortion attacks, including hundreds of personal threats.
In the early 1980’s, Packwood was the lead pro-choice strategist in the fight against a proposed constitutional amendment that would have overturned Roe v Wade. As the chief lobbyist for the National Abortion Rights Action League at the time, I (along with my pro-choice colleagues) met with Packwood regularly as we discussed our vote counts, field strategy, how to talk to the media, etc. At one point, despite the fact that it looked like we would easily defeat the measure, Packwood suggested that he filibuster the proposal. We could not say no to him, so we went along with him, letting him have his day in the spotlight. Indeed, when we suggested that we could get other Senators to join him, he demurred, saying he could do it alone. So, we watched him read the U.S. Constitution with a catheter attached to his leg.
Ultimately, we handily defeated the constitutional amendment and today I have hanging on my wall a copy of that day’s Congressional Record signed by Senator Bob Packwood. It was a truly historic vote and the greatest victory ever experienced by the pro-choice forces on Capitol Hill.
Throughout this time, however, there were always rumblings that Packwood was having affairs with several women. He was indeed an attractive, articulate man who no doubt was approached by numerous aggressive women. In fact, I
remember the more cynical feminists suggesting that he was leading the way on abortion rights merely to get laid. I never had that impression, but it unfortunately was out there. I should add for a fact that one of my best friends confided in me that she had had an affair with Packwood.
Then, in November 1992, the Washington Post ran a story detailing the claims of sexual abuse and assault by ten women, mostly former staff people and lobbyists. In September 1995, he resigned from the U.S. Senate in disgrace. He then disappeared from sight for many years.
In 1998, when I was at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, we were planning a 25th anniversary party for Roe V Wade in Washington, D.C. and we decided to invite all of the pro-choice “heroes.” My old friend, Susan Hill, suggested that we invite Packwood. I ran it by some others and got very mixed reactions so Susan simply said that she would bring him as her date. Personally, I was thrilled because, despite his private behavior, he was our champion for many years.
He came that night to the Mayflower Hotel, handsomely clad in his tuxedo. When I ran into him in the hallway outside the ballroom, he appeared very nervous, it being the first time in many years that he would be with his former friends and colleagues. He thanked me profusely for “inviting” him and I actually escorted him into the room. Much to my delight, he was immediately surrounded by well wishers, old friends and the generally curious. He was back in his element.
I do recall, however, that three or four female clinic owners were so offended that Packwood was there that walked out of the party in disgust. That, of course, was their decision but I personally felt like it was a bit of an overreaction. Still, it was their right although they missed one hell of a party.
In later years, Bob Packwood came back to Capitol Hill where he made some serious bucks as a lobbyist for numerous corporate interests. I haven’t seen him for years.
What Packwood did totally sucked, there was no excuse for his personal conduct. On the other hand, he was the only one there when we needed a champion. I wish him well.



March 22, 2011 at 8:30 am
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? I stated time and again these men get no applause from me.
That means I do not approve of or excuse what they did. That includes HH, Edwards, JFK,or Thurmond. Republicans and Democrats. Lousy husbands,yes. Criminal sex offenders, no.
That you seem to have no issue with sex offenders or people paying tribute to them, well I’ve already stated my opinion on that.
Please review all my previous posts where I discuss my involvement working with single mothers, their children and women facing crisis pregnancies.
As for “compelling” its obvious you spend little time working with these situations. A significant number of these young women WANT to be pregnant. Yes you read that right.
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 11:07 am
I have no doubt that many of these women want to be pregnant. I guess i always wondered was, if a woman came to your cpc and they ultimately said they really wanted an abortion, would you refer them to a clinic or do you just let them go?
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Yes, Chuckles does have a problem with reading comprehension.
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 11:28 am
We don’t do abortion referral. However they are all capable of finding an abortion clinic if they want to badly enough, they need only go to a phone book or the internet.
When offered assistance and support, many women reconsider. Sometimes clients turn out not to be pregnant after all, or already have children and are in need of help.
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Like most other CPC mills they probably misrepresent facts to these vulnerable women.
That is disgusting that you admit you will not help a women in need of an abortion once you draw her in into your Mill.
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 4:18 pm
But Mary, if you care for women in general are you not concerned that they might wind up going to a very bad abortion doctor like the one in Philly? If they are going to choose on their own volition, why not go one more step and help them with a referral to a “reputable” clinic? Or does our compassion just end at the point where they dont agree with you? If you tell me where you are located, I would honestly be more than happy to refer you to a reputable clinic…
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Pat,
Why would there be need for concern? Why can’t a woman safely check out the phone book or internet? Don’t you folks keep your own house clean? If not then maybe you shouldn’t waste your time and energy coming after us CPC folks.
You aren’t suggesting that maybe abortion clinics are deceptive and drawing vulnerable women in, are you Pat? Certainly they all advertise honestly and provide their services in only the safest and cleanest environment.
So what’s the concern about the woman finding such a facility on her own??
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 7:41 am
Mary just does not get it. She never will.
Pro Lifers prove themselves daily to not be very smart.
She does not even answer questions asked of her.
She likes Dunkle! A murderer loving maniac! That says a lot about Mary!
LikeLike
March 22, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Len,
Contrary to your patronizing mentality, women are not helpless and clueless, nor are they drawn into CPCs. They enter freely and leave if it does not meet their expectations.
Women need only check a phone book or the internet if she wants an abortion. Again Len, women are not as helpless as you seem to think.
If you’re so concerned about disgusting perhaps you should google Kermit Gosnell.
He ran an abortion mill that had not been inspected in 17 years. It smelled like cat waste, no surprise since cats were allowed to roam freely about the premises.
Women were infected with STD, Hepatitis C, and HIV contaminated instruments that were not washed and properly sterilized. One and possibly two women died of drug overdose.
Seems to me Len your side needs to clean its own dirty house before going after CPCs. Nothing like this ever occured in any CPC I ever volunteered in.
At least women don’t leave the CPC feet first, or infected with a deadly disease.
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 7:38 am
Not true, many women go to CPC Mills thinking that they are offices that can do abortion or would have the courtesy of thinking for their best interest, ie referring them to an off ice that does abortion.
Women are lured in thinking they will get objective opinions and they do not.
You are fixated on one bad Doctor.
Seems to me the CPCs have got to clean up their filth and lies, and stop thinking about one doctor that the State regulates the Doctor’s ability to practice medicine, not people thatpeople in a women’s right to choose. You are confused again.
I’m talking of a nation of a thousand CPC office Mills. They were notorious for false advertising in the yellow pages, pretending to be offices that perform abortion to the point that Legislature had to be passed to stop their massive nationwide lying.
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Len,
Have you ever set foot in a CPC?
Women aren’t quite as stupid as you think they are. They can read signs. They can understand English when we tell them we do not refer for abortion. They are capable of standing up and leaving if they are not interested in the services we offer. They are capable of finding an abortion clinic. You see Len, most women can use a phone book and/or the internet.
As I told you before Len, women aren’t as clueless and helpless as you think they are.
Unlike Gosnell we don’t tie up women and force them to stay.
Fixated on one “doctor”? No, I’m just showing you that you folks have some very dirty houses to clean up before going after CPCs. Gosnell may not be an exception. Certainly you will make it your mission, given your great concern for women, to demand regular inspections, licensing, and regulation of abortion clinics.
As I said Len, no woman ever left a CPC feet first or infected with a deadly disease.
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Gosnell is a sleaze and we’re glad he is being shut down. Now, having said that, Mary, if you are proud of the cpc that you volunteer for, why dont you give us its name? I would love to call and see how upfront they are because, as you well know, just like there are sleazeball abortion clinics, there are cpcs that do engage in forms of deception.
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Pat,
No problem. Its called Birthright.
800-550-4900
You can also visit their webpage.
You know something Pat, an inspector from the National Abortion Federation had an opportunity some years ago to shut Gosnell down and didn’t. Despite finding appalling conditions, she felt no responsiblity to report to local authorities and the horrors continued.
Like I said Pat, you folks need to clean your own dirty house.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 9:51 am
I actually had a relationship with the head of Birthright for many years! Re cleaning up our acts, I totally agree. Every business, industry, etc has its bad apples. Years ago, I testified at a congressional hearing on how CPCs were advertising under “Abortion Services” and using the Pearson Manual that basically told them how to get women into their facility. After the hearings, things got better. As for NAF and Gosnell, I dont know the details but they should have shut him down. Indeed, about 10 years ago I publicly (NY Times) criticized an abortion doctor named Steve Brigham and warned women to stay away from him. We tried to shut him down and was successful in some states. But they are like cockroaches, very frustrating. The next day Brigham threatened to sue me!
I am enjoying our dialogue, Mary, and you may have done this already but will you not admit that some CPCs probably go too far as well, i.e., they might engage in some deception? Or, is it just our “side” that has some sleazeballs?
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Thank you. I enjoy our dialogue as well. I strongly commend and thank you for your efforts to shut down the likes of Brigham.
I worked in two different Birthright settings and I honestly have no clue what the “Pearson Manual” is.
We took call from our homes, clients called first to establish contact with a volunteer and to enable us to assess what help the client needed. Clients questions were answered honestly.
If the client wanted further contact or assistance, we arranged to meet her at our office, space donated to us by a local Catholic hospital.
Meeting in a public place was certainly not conducive to protecting privacy, this is why the office was preferred. It was not a ploy to “trick” a client.
The client gave only the info about herself that she chose, and most went only on a first name basis. This seemed to make the client feel more comfortable and in control, and alleviate any unfounded concerns she may have about any type of harassment. I always respected the client’s decision as to what info she chose to share or not share with me.
Clients may have misunderstood on occasion concerning us not referring for abortion, but after meeting they simply thanked us anyway and left, and it was kept amicable.
BTW, harassing clients in any way, shape, or form was expressly forbidden by the directors of our BR centers.
Regular meetings and training sessions were held to determine how to better serve clients and share ideas, not how to con or trick women.
Of course confidentiality was strictly maintained.
If there are situations where women were deliberately deceived in the CPCs you mentioned then I would be the first to condemn this. As well as any type of intimidation or harassment of a client.
If indeed this did occur and ceased after the hearings as you say, then I am very pleased to hear that.
Complete honesty was the rule for BR, and many a phone contact was promptly terminated by a client because of it.
We advertised under Abortion Alternatives and clients sometimes just misinterpreted what this meant.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 5:56 pm
The Pearson Foundation in ST Louis years ago put out a manual on how to set up a cpc and it included instructions like “dress in white medical looking garb” or words to that effect. After the hearings,most of that stuff stopped.
How do you feel, Mary, about CPC’s advertising under the Google search term “abortion services?”
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Again I do not advocate false advertising.
What do you think of abortion clinics that do not advertise their services as abortion but rather as “women’s health”, which could be open to any number of interpretations as well? Perhaps an unsuspecting woman could walk in expecting prenatal care.
The point is couldn’t a woman who walks into a CPC just as easily stand up and walk out if she discovers this does not meet her expectations?
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 5:43 am
Pat, I think we need to be far more concerned as to what methods were used to lure women into the clutches of Brigham and Gosnell, and if such situations still exist.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:50 am
As far as I know, every clinic in the country advertises in the Yellow Pages an on the Internet under “Abortion”. Think about it, since they are money grubbing slime balls who want to do as many abortions as possible, why would they obfuscate?
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 12:02 pm
On the other side of the Gosnell coin, Mary is the profit-driven abortionist who decalred for Jesus after she got busted, and now is a spiritual counselor at a CPC– Carol Everett. She likes to blame her greed and abused children’s problems on “post-abortion syndrome.” I advise you to not let any child you care for to be counseled by her:
http://web.mac.com/charlesgregory/ABORTICENTRISM/everett.html
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Mary, of the Downs Syndrome, anencephalic, etc., babies born, which types would you care for? If you say “any of them,” why haven’t you taken that extra step and adopted one? Why do so-called “pro-lifers” almost always have their intentions outstrip their actions?
And you haven’t answered if you’ll let me have your family dog. My girl friend would like to have one.
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Would you adopt a severely autistic child or one that was severely brain damaged because of accident or illness?
How about a troubled teenager?
A local teenage was completely paralyzed and rendered ventilator dependent because of a drunk driver.
Do you think parents should have the legal right to kill such children?
Do you run a licensed domestic violence center? If not, do you have a right to oppose domestic violence?
I certainly did answer your question in a previous post. I said I would love to have unloaded my pet cat a few years ago but she ran away. Had I known your friend wanted her she could have had her, with my blessing as my husband’s allergy to her was exacerbating his health problems.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 5:19 am
My girl friend would have LOVED to get that cat! She gets $5 apiece at the animal laboratory, and $10-20 for dogs, depending on their size.
In another post you mention that the DS child was the only one your sister had who was any good (or something like that). It doesn’t bother you that the other children are doing better?
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 5:34 am
It was my cousin’s DS child. The other kids turned into losers for the most part, not bringing any great joy to their mother. IMO, the DS was the best of the lot.
Again, shows that life holds no promises as to how our children will turn out.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 1:24 pm
It doesn’t bother you that you would give your cat to a woman who would sell it to an animal lab? And you didn’t worry about how your nieces and nephews either were growing up or being raised? You just figured they were going to be losers and let it go at that?
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 2:54 pm
I would have no problem with a reputable and humane lab. I assumed that is what the writer was referring to. I can’t imagine she anymore wanted to see animals abused than I do.
They were not my nieces and nephews, they were cousins about 3 times removed, they lived 200 miles away and I wasn’t much older than they were.
Actually I was surprised how they turned out considering they came from a religious two parent home. I must admit though that their father, my cousin through marriage only thank you, was a jerk.
Just shows to go you.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 11:53 am
Mary, up until now youve been living under the assumption that there are such things as “humane and reputable” labs. That particular lab was the University’s (I won’t name the state). Another one owned by an Ivy League college bought my friend Sand’s cat from its kidnapper. (Sandy stormed in to rescue it, since he worked at the college and knew exactly where the lab was and what it did.) The point here is that if you all this time had been willing to turn your family pet over to a complete stranger because of your assumptions about the way things are, what does it say about your insistence that children be born despite your personal lack of concern and/or ability to care for them? Should you revise your atttitude on the basis of the knowledge you gained from the stories of The Abortion Store and the Baby Store on the aborticentrism site?
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 3:27 pm
I stand corrected concerning the labs.
Initially I thought your friend just wanted a family pet and I didn’t think you’d befriend anyone who abuses animals. I would have thought it safe to let you have my cat.
When you said a lab, I assumed your friend worked at a humane lab.
Of course I could check the lab out.
I don’t equate children with animals so while I would give away a cat, I wouldn’t my child.
There are any number of reputable adoption and foster care agencies to supervise the proper placement of children.
All too often parents may decide the child they planned and wanted, they no long want but may not be responsible enough to place the child with people who could provide better care.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Mary, you might want to reconsider your opinion of animal labs.
The first person I knew who worked at an animal lab had the job of getting a cat out of the cage, and cutting its heart out for another technician to perform a medication experiment. She did not say whether she stunned the cat before she did that, but what bothered her one day was the way a cat she had just picked up reached out to the cat that remained in the next cage.
Would you still let my girl friend have your cat?
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 5:41 am
Thank you for the input. I would have to seriously reconsider under these circumstances.
I support humane research and treatment of animals only.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 1:25 pm
“anonymous” above is me….
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 9:52 am
I’m a dog person myself…
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:52 am
Just found this post. Honestly, when I think about it I could not adopt an autistic child or a troubled teen. Frankly, I dont think I would be a good parent to them because I just dont think I would have the energy. I subbed at a class a few weeks ago of autistic kids and I was exhausted. My heart goes out to those parents, I dont know how they do it. I know I couldn’t…
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Hi Pat,
A teenage girl near us was totally paralyzed and left respirator dependent, like the late Christopher Reeve, after being hit by a drunk driver.
How does a parent cope with such a senseless tragedy and the demands of caring for such a severely disabled child? I can’t even imagine. Again, life guarantees us nothing.
A friend of mine has taught special ed. for years. I have such tremendous respect for her knowledge and dedication. I can’t imagine facing what she does every day.
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Also, why do you assume PL people have only planned, perfect, and wanted children? Do you think PL people don’t have children with physical and mental challenges, children who are mentally ill? Are PL people immune to autism? Accidents and illness?
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 5:22 am
I don’t assume that. But so=called “pro-lifers” assume that a child who is born to someone else who was coerced into having a baby is going to be loved and raised well. Why do they assume that? And if they don’t assume it, why don’t they adopt a child every year?
Answer: the so-called “pro-life” movement’s real work is having a PR campaign to persuade the world that they are champions for human life, not to show the world that they care for human life.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 5:40 am
You’re assuming children with various disorders had parents “coerced” into having them. Not always the case.
Anomalies like cerebral palsy may not be apparent until after birth. Autism may strike an otherwise normal child.
My co-worker’s first grandson was discovered to have severe hemophilia after he was born.
Absolutely no family history.
So now what? Shouldn’t these parent argue no one has the right to “coerce” them to raise this child and then kill him?
Just an interesting point. Apparently “little people” are outraged at the suggestion that unborn children diagnosed with dwarfism should be aborted.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 1:32 pm
A close relative of mine was harassed by so-called “pro-lifers” both times she had an abortion for anencephalic fetuses. Not on the sidewalk, but weeks afterward.
Those people were obviously in no position to take care of those particular human lives, but they did their dump anyway.
I am not saying parents are coerced into bearing crippled kdis; I’m saying so-called ‘pro-lifers’ are so fixated on hating abortion they are willing to use fraud or force to coerce ALL parents into having babies. The likely postnatal health of the child doesn’t at all mitigate their jdugments or behaviors.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 2:12 pm
How very tragic about your relative. What an agonizing situation.
I wasn’t there so I can’t dispute her perspective or question anyone’s antics.
I’m surprised she wouldn’t have it done at a hospital by her own physician, or a physician on staff who was a referral.
These can get complicated, depending on the stage of pregnancy when it is performed.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 11:56 am
She didn’t find the abortion (or the choice) at all agonizing; she realized that there was no way either fetus could ever achieve anything more than an existence as a vegertable with a very high protein content. What bothered her was the so-called “pro-lifers” who dumped on her decision.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Its highly unlikely these fetuses would have obtained even that high a level of existence.
They usually die at birth or prior to and have only brief life spans of a days or weeks.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 5:01 pm
I guess I should have said BRIEF existence as a vegetable with a high protein content. Sorry.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Mary,
Are you OK with John Dunkle? w
Dunkle who celebrates the murderers that have murdered innocent doctors?
Do you believe John Dunkle is a good person to burn an American Flag to hanor as martyrs, celebrate, and befriend these murderers?
He likes to visit murderers in jail, and considers them to be high quality people to the degree that he has proclaimed he would be proud to have them as his own son.
Mary,
are you one of those people too?
Or do you disagree with John Dunkle?
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Iknow nothing of John Dunkle’s background, only what I read here from him. I would be interested in hearing what he says before I come to any conclusions.
AmI someone who celebrates the killing of abortion doctors? No.
For the record, the National Right to Life Committee and every legitimate PL organization I have been involved with has condemned any such violence.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:29 am
Who is the Arbiter of which PL groups are the legitimate PL groups?
You?
Dunkle?
All the other Justifiable Homicide and terrorist Pro Life groups?
Well there are endless comments by Dunkle to that effect.
Dunkle, why don’t you tell Mary more about how what I mention is entirely true.
Mary,
will you denounce Dunkle, if he harbors the facts mentioned above about him?
Should pro lifers reign in their multitudes of violent bad apples?
You mention Gosnell. How about Pro Lifers taking control of the terrorist portion of the pro Life movement?
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:44 am
Well, I wont speak for Mary of course but to me the “legitimate” pro-life group is the National Right to Life Committee. They have indeed denounced the violence against abortion doctors.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Thank you Pat,
I would like to add that I know of no PL groups that advocate violence. Certain inidividuals may, just as certain straight people advocate violence against gays. That does not mean straight people as a whole, or PL people as a whole, advocate violence.
Within the past year an elderly,sickly PL man was sitting in front of a high school with his PL sign when he was shot. The person who shot him didn’t like the sign.
Do I assume now that PC people advocate shooting their opponents? Absolutely Not!
This world is crawling with deranged people and they represent only their own sick motives.
It would be great if they wore signs on their backs.
If John Dunkle tells me he advocates killing and violence then yes I will denounce that just as NRTL would.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 5:27 am
Mary, il miglior fabbro, you are a Godsend. You’ll run into a lot of ai’s (adolescent illiterates) on this blog, like Jules above, but you also get people like Kate, Rog, Chuckles, and especially Pat — non-zombies who can write. What more can a pro-lifer ask for? One danger though: after months of posting everything I sent in, the boss here started omitting, and worse, editing stuff. I realized they could get me in trouble that way, so I left. But as Pat, who outwits me, realized, I couldn’t stay away. So I returned and discovered you. As I say, thank God.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 10:18 am
As I’ve done elsewhere, let me say once again that John has not been censored! We WANT debate, arguments, name calling, etc 🙂 At one point John used “anonymous” for a post and that somehow resulted in his posts being deleted. There was one time when some person named “HELL” started trolling, filling up threads with inane comments, not contributing and he was taken off. So, Mary and John, opine away!!
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 5:42 am
Thank you John, you’re very kind.
I always give credit where it is due and Pat has been very fair and open, at least where I’m concerned.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Mary,
I do not believe you know what Dunkle is.
It is all over this site. He harms and harasses women, a true misogynist.
Is it ever OK to scream in a women’s ear?
Seriously,
Are you OK with that?
You write sensibly, but I have a hard time believing, unless you are Dunkle’s avatar that you believe Dunkle is a kind person.
Children run from him in fear.
Do you believe people that adore convicted murderer’s to be kind?
Yet you give him credit for kindness? Help me reconcile that?
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 5:59 am
I had forgotten to check “Older Comments” before or after I started reading this page (that’s why I asked “Who’s Dr. Abruzzo”). And now you impress me even more. And you got Pat right.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 12:06 pm
What’s with the “your comment is awaiting moderation”??? Real men can’t post here anymore? We’ll never hear from a Republican ever again?
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Mary, up until now youve been living under the assumption that there are such things as “humane and reputable” labs.
That particular lab was the University’s (I won’t name the state). Another lab owned by an Ivy League college bought my friend Sand’s cat from its kidnapper. (Sandy stormed in to rescue it, since he worked at the college and knew exactly where the lab was and what it did.)
The point here is that if you all this time had been willing to turn your family pet over to a complete stranger because of your assumptions about animal labs, what does it say about your insistence that children be born despite your personal lack of concern and/or ability to care for them?
Should you revise your atttitude on the basis of the knowledge you gained from the stories of The Abortion Store and the Baby Store on the aborticentrism site?
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 5:06 pm
let me modify one sentence above: “what does it suggest about your assumptions about how well children will be raised and the stands you take based on those assumptions?”
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 5:35 pm
I responded to this question when you previously posted it.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 6:58 pm
I’m sorry, but I never asked you about your assumptions before. You did, however, at one time respond to the effect that some kids get screwed in life and well, that’s too bad. Which was based on assumptions you have, and I was wondering if you’d change them.
All well and good.
So, you wouldn’t let my girl friend have your cat, but you’d make her have a baby???? What does that say about your care for human life?
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:39 pm
Some kids get screwed in life? We will predict this how?
Can we predict the child who will be brain damaged after a bout of meningitis? A child who will be confined to a wheel chair because of a drunk driver. A child that will become autistic?
Can we predict the happy family that may be in shambles a year after a child is born? Can we say that a situation that starts out difficult and unhappy will not turn into a happy and well adjusted situation?
I said life has no guarantees for any of us and it doesn’t.
Something horrendous can happen to you an hour from now.
Some children are born into happy stable homes, others are not. Some children will grow up healthy and happy, others will not. Some people have happy productive lives, others do not.
People have great opportunities in life and squander them, people raised under the most difficult circumstances have very successful and happy lives.
Life is not and never has been fair or predictable.
I didn’t say I wouldn’t let your friend have my cat.
If she could provide it with a good home, she could have it.
Why would your friend be incapable of caring for a child even if she didn’t like cats?
I despise dogs that look like little dustmops but it didn’t effect my ability to love and raise three children.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:52 pm
I must say I based my response on the assumption that you would not associate with an animal abuser.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 5:41 pm
“If John Dunkle tells me he advocates killing and violence then yes I will denounce that just as NRTL would.”
I don’t advocate killing and violence, Mary. I say that if someone is coming towards you with a knife to kill you, you may shoot him.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 5:38 pm
John,
Now be honest and don’t lie.
You have written extensively about your agreement with the use of force, and your support of convicted murderers.
Reveal to Mary, your true nature. When you lie, you can’t lose any more credibility, as you have lost it all already.
Tell Mary how you consider murderers of innocent people matyrs.
John,
Do you agree that the Legitimate pro life group is the one they mention?
I suspect you have a more radical perspective of what a legitimate pro life organization is?
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 4:24 am
Too many for me here, Rita. Think you’re talking to somebody smart? Simplify it.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:59 am
Simple John.
Be honest with Mary and tell her of your radical belief system.
If you and her have any integrity she will disavow you as a fringe prolifer that only Pro Life terrorists respect.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:29 am
Rita, I hold John Dunkle to be the quintessential so-called “pro-lifer.” Limiting his efforts to doing only that which is convenient, by stalking abortion providers he shows he has the cowardice of the bully. He is also cunningly obtuse, pretending to be confused by questions to which he would have to provide answers revealing the flaws of the so-called “pro-life” philosophy. And he does not care about children whom he does not know personally. He glories in the intellectual construct of the movement and disregards the needs of real human life. For him, the closer it gets, the less sacred it becomes.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 9:02 am
Mary is reticent to criticize John for all his heinous statements.
John as usual, evades, and plays word games, and adds meaningless comments.
Didn’t he say he was gone forever?
Gosh it was nice around here without that murderer loving and misogynist constantly adding his imbecilic statements constantly.
I guess he cannot be even trusted to stay away.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 7:02 pm
I’d rather have a fetus try and shoot me than use manipulation or force to make somebody bear and raise the next Jared Lochner to try shoot me….. And if I wanted to help a fetus protect itself, I’d certainly offer it a Mac-10.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Can you tell me how one predicts the next Jared Lochner?
Was he born with two horns and a tail?
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 5:50 am
Mary, it is up to each of us to do the best we can with every child we want born– and so-called “pro-lifers” won’t take on that responsibility.
We know enough about child development now that anyone can acquire a body of basic assessment skills to judge whether the child he encounters in almost any setting is more or less on track developmentally and what skills the child displays in coping with his environment– is he open to or fearful of the situation he’s in? Does he check with his parent at the first sight of something new or the first sound of something unaccustomed? Does he recognize a familiar object as having a feature he never noticed before? Does he have the ability to focus on and learn about that feature, or does he ignore it? Does he fuss because he’s genuinely distressed, or is it because he’s simply clamoring for his parent’s attention? And so on.
You might want to read “A Father’s Story,” written by Jeffrey Dahmer’s dad. Summary: clueless geek father, mother with issues that she worked out on Jeffrey. Dad, a scientist, thought Jeffrey’s fascination with dead things was the same sort of normal curiosity he had had at that age. Nobody ever thought it necessary to check out the relationship between Jeffery and his mother. Dad noticed a change in Jeffrey when he was four years old, but didn’t make the connection until a quarter-century later.
Today, so-called “pro-lifers” could be rescuing children by the tens of thousands by getting into the field of family dynamics and parental counseling, but they don’t. They focus on the death of a potential human being rather than the needs of real human beings.
The fact is, you CAN tell which child is headed for trouble, and you CAN do something about it– but it’s too much for you to handle. Fighting abortion is more important.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 8:27 am
No there is no such “fact”.
Sometimes you can tell a child is heading for trouble, and sometimes not.
How do you predict this in the womb?
Again life circumstances are not always under our control. For the most part they are not.
There’s a reason for the saying that “life is what happens when you make other plans”.
I’ve seen too many terrible adults from good families and too many great adults from terrible families to be convinced otherwise.
What do you suppose life was for children the past centuries? It was for the most part a brutal struggle to survive, if they were lucky. In most of the world this is sadly still the case.
All this psychology crap is fairly new, within the last century or so. People didn’t concern themselves with little psyches. Little Johnny might witness a public execution while out begging on the street in bitterly cold weather. Just bring home whatever you can scrounge up little Johnny if you don’t want another beating. You know that happens every time you come home emptyhanded. Childhood was trauma and hardship so do what you must to survive.
OK, so what happens if a child is determined to be a sociopath? I remain convinced they are born and not made. Therapy? For the most part worthless, but doesn’t hurt to try. How will the child turn out? Again, a scary prospect.
The point is we cannot predict or control life circumstances or always understand or control the human mind or how it can severely malfunction.
“A Father’s Story” I can tell you “A Local Couple’s Story”.
A local couple who’s honor student, Eagle Scout, star athlete, college bound on a scholarship son is convicted of a thrill kill. They thought they had raised the “perfect” son who is every parent’s fantasty, looks like they really raised a cold blooded sociopath who was brilliant enough to fool them and a lot of other people.
Believe me, I wish determining out children will grow up was as simplistic as you suggest.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Wow okay this was very, upsetting in a way, for you to commandeer such outlandish accusations claiming that therapy has no benefit then you are full of it, if you have any experience in therapy your self then you had a bad experience then yes ill give you that. but to completely dis psychology a field that has pretty much revolutionized the world as we know it is just on an entirely different level than your reasoning behind the predictability of nature v.s nurture. And that my dear is on a different site. but for the sake of your arguement you are right in the idea that there is no true way to predict things in people but the precautions in predicting things in kids with therapy and other techniques is the best we have.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Andrew, you’ll do well to check out what aborticentrism is. It explains this sort of behavior.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Andrew,
Would you please reread my post and try to get it correct.
What if any good psychology has done is a matter of perspective. I only pointed out that at one time no one cared about a child’s psyche. Life was brutal, get used to it early. Somehow the human race survived.
I did not say therapy is of no value. For certain situations it can be very valuable. I’m saying that for sociopaths it isn’t likely to work.
Sure try it with the sociopathic child, but don’t expect much.
You may want to read “The Sociopath Next Door” by Dr.Martha Stout. Great info without the psychobabble.
Also I have lived and worked with sociopaths.
Its my opinion that people are born wired to be sociopaths. If others disagree with me fine, I remain convinced.
A word to the wise Andrew, sociopaths are master manipulators and know exactly what you want to hear. You may think you are helping or changing them, but its far more likely they are just doing a good job of convincing you of that.
Sociopaths are not necessarily criminals, in fact they are people you encounter every day.
It may be the office Lothario, the manipulative family member, the person who can convince you to feel so sorry for them.
They make great undercover cops and special forces soldiers.
After reading Dr.Stout’s book Andrew I would advise that once you determine someone, a loved one, a friend, a c0-worked is a sociopath, never for a minute let your guard down.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 4:37 am
Siknce I discovered this blog, Chuckles offers four reasons for why we should continue legally to kill our young. The first, Mary, is that you and I and anyone else who wants to make that illegal again are emotionally or mentally or something handicapped. I think he’s written a book about it, but I’ve never learned how to spell the title. Above, though he offers us his reason #4: “We should continue legally to kill our young because France is in really bad shape these days.”
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 6:04 am
“kill our young.” In order to achieve transcendence over death, the so-called “pro-lifer” has to prove to himself that he is a hero. Since he lacks the ability to sacrifice that marks the true hero (such as giving his life or giving up the comforts of the life he knows in the cause of others), he instead engages in a public relations campaign. His first task is to create The Perfect Victim. The fetus is an ideal tabula rasa, a blank slate on which he can superimpose all the virtues he would like to find in someone he would like to rescue– innocence, purity, saintliness and so on– without fear of contradiction.
(from the aborticentrism website)
Which is why the so-called “pro-lifer” will refer to the fetus as “our young” rather than “our potential humans.” Any ad man worth his salt could list the reasons why the term is so masterfully deceptive.
The public has bought into this fetal framing, and to successfully counter the PR campaign which calls itself “pro-life,” it is necessary to point out that they don’t really care for children, only about fetuses.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm
See Mary? This is his first and most repeated reason — we can continue to kill people because those who don’t want us to are sickos.
But, believe me, he’s coming around. When I first met Chuckles, he called them humanoids. After I stopped that, he started calling them “unreal people.” Took me a while longer there, but now I’ve got him saying “potential humans.” I think those are steps in the right direction. Don’t you? Still, our work is cut out for us.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 3:48 pm
I never argue with progress, however slow. 🙂
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 10:23 am
On an entirely different note that has nothing to do with felines….Mary, do you support the use of birth control?
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 10:38 am
I have no problem with contraception, birth control that prevents conception.
I don’t like IUDs for reasons other than they may be abortifacients, like the injury I have seen them do to women, some pretty horrific.
Tubal ligations and vasectomies also are no issue to me. In fact there are people I wish had the good sense to get them done.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Are you agreeable with hormonal birth control?
Or would you legislate that away from women if you could?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:58 am
Mary – Did you answer Zannos’s question?
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 12:24 pm
“The fact is, you can tell which child is headed for trouble.”
Mary wrote: ” No there is no such “fact”.
Sometimes you can tell a child is heading for trouble, and sometimes not.”
Mary, you can learn the signs which indicate what other resources are needed to help a child trust his feelings, recognize when he has a problem and know that he can trust others to help him resolve a problem. You can learn the signs which indicate when a child is suffering any of the three types of abuse. You can learn the signs which indicate whether a child’s poor impulse control is physiologically or psychologically based. You can learn the signs which will indicate that a child born in and raised in extremely sub-optimal circumstances will likely surmount his upbringing. The data is there. There are deviations from the norm, but they are just that– deviations. Loeb and Leopold were deviations from the mean; Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Kasczinski were not. It is when we fail to exercise our utmost as caregivers that we are likely to warp the norm for the worse. You might want to check out the Warner Smith longitudinal study done in Maui.
Mary wrote: “How do you predict this in the womb?”
You don’t. You commit yourself to providing everything that fetus will need to become human, or you leave its fate to the decision of the pregnant woman.
Mary wrote: “Again life circumstances are not always under our control. For the most part they are not.”
Agreed– most of the circumstances are based on what’s happening in society, which is why it is important to be civically engaged.
Mary wrote: “What do you suppose life was for children the past centuries? It was for the most part a brutal struggle to survive, if they were lucky. In most of the world this is sadly still the case.
All this psychology crap is fairly new, within the last century or so.”
Mary, read the first five paragraphs of “The Fatal Shore” to get an account of just how brutal it was. I hope you will understand that that sort of life only changed when those suffering empowered themselves to get change– public education, good housing, protection against bad food and financial sharks.
Without paying attention to what is happening on Wall Street, it is pointless to expect today’s children will have better lives than ours. Already it is predicted children born in America as of 2005 will not live longer than their parents. So, rather than say kids can tough it out, we should be saying, “What will it take to once again make college affordable, to have safe food and clean water, to have good cops and decent schools?” But the so-called “pro-lifer” says “launch everything.”
Mary wrote: “The point is we cannot predict or control life circumstances or always understand or control the human mind or how it can severely malfunction.”
But we can do our best to see that the child we wanted to be born is given the tools for proper development. Psychologically, there is not a great difference between how a surgeon thinks and how a criminal thinks. It is the environment that makes the difference.
Actually, I think you are not a typical “pro-lifer.” While abortion bothers you, you are far too broad-minded about it to be driven by monomania. Sorry I’m so hard on you.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 12:57 pm
You haven’t explained how a child’s future will be determined while still in the womb.
Also, not all children display signs for being troubled. Yes, some do.
If therapy works, go for it. I’m saying that in my opinion with the sociopath child I wouldn’t bet the rent it will help. BTW this is the child who may seem all sweetness and light while secrety torturing animals.
Some very troubled children turn into stable productive adults and some seemingly untroubled children turn into criminals.
I pointed out the teenage”thrill killer” in a previous post.
Abused children may attempt to protect their abusers.
Children may perceive abuse that is not really abuse, like having their cell phones taken from them.
Children may use abuse accusations as a form of manipulation.
There have been situations of “therapists” using the power of suggestion to elicit a certain response or “memory”.
Not exactly cut and dried is it?
As for psychology it revises and re-revises definitions of “illness” and what is even is an “illness”. Basic human behavior becomes some kind of a neursis or disorder.
Sure, we can try our best for children but life and the world being what it is, children cannot be turned into little robots who live idyllic lives. Life is full of trauma, cruelty, unfairness, and injustice.
In centuries past children learned this lesson very quickly. Good, bad, or indifferent, that is how life was and the human race survived and progressed.
Some of the very factors that drove people to seek out the positive changes you mention like education, improved public health, child labor laws, etc.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Nurture or nature, a debate that will go on forever and never be resolved. Really just a matter of opinion. Even the “experts” can’t agree. Loeb and Leopold were “deviations”? Maybe they were just another example of what a mystery the human mind is and how nothing can be predicted.
Do you know if anyone has ever explained savants?
BTW, in addition to my last post, last paragraph.
I’m sure you heard of the famous teacher who along with her little brother spent their childhoods enduring the horrors of a “state institution” of the 19th century, AKA asylums. Very often dumping grounds for society’s rejects and unwanted.
Having survived that horrendous childhood, she became a teacher of the blind and deaf and, determined not to see another child endure the horror she did, gave the world Helen Keller, who’s parents at one time saw no alternative but to “put her away”. The teacher was Annie Sullivan and their story is told in “The Miracle Worker”.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Mary,
You write as if you are unfamiliar with the modern day understanding of the old “Nature vs Nurture” concepts.
Do you understand modern biology?
Are you familiar with books like
The Extended Phenotype?
If you are not, you probably should not be making comments on this subject.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 12:30 am
When science can give a definite answer on personality formation, savants, and genius, then I will not have my own opinions. When “experts” stop disagreeing with each other, I will also stop having my own opinions.
Are you familiar with the book “The Sociopath Next Door”?
I would advise anyone to read it.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 1:28 am
Thomas,
Why do you suppose transgender adults will say they “knew” from earliest childhood they were the “wrong” sex?
Why would a three year old child take a bunch of steak knives from the kitchen and surround his sleeping aunt’s head with the tips of the blades pointed to the aunt’s head? Ted Bundy did.
Any ideas on why children would have such thoughts and exactly what in their “nuturing” caused them?
Or is this something originating solely in their brains for reasons we cannot comprehend, at least not yet?
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:11 am
Mary, Ted Bundy and Bobby Darin were both raised in families where the mother was passed off as an older sister. The family environment was so devastatingly different for Bundy that by three years old he was already attempting to harm others. At three years old, this was not a conscious choice; it was part of the experimentation process children have to go to in order to become human. Due to his environment, his experimentation proved to him that being harmful to others was the appropriate way to behave. You might want to read “Mother of a Monster” at the aborticentrism website.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:50 am
Big freaking deal. So was my cousin, who went on to become a WW2 pilot, husband, father, and respected hisotorian, not a serial killer.
Children certainly had, and have, far more horrendous childhoods than Ted Bundy.
Please spare me the psychobabble.
Something was going on in this kid’s brain that we have yet to comprehend.
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Mary, you’ll have to find a Calvinist if you believe in predestination. I don’t. I believe in statistical probabilities. For instance, there’s a 70% chance that a child born in a terrible environment will always be crippled by it, but a 30% chance he will overcome it. Similarly, there’s a 99.99 chance a child will survive the measles, but a 0.01% chance he will suffer lifelong spasticity as a result of consequent meningitis.
If you want to believe that all the children you insist be produced are going to do all right, you are not necessarily going counter to the statistics– but you have to know the data underlying the status of the woman you are duping or coercing into parturition. Mature married women in general will do better raising an unwanted child than teenagers; higher-income have better parental outcomes than lower-income; whites better than blacks; liberals better than conservatives, and so on.
And it’s not a matter of being the Child in Trouble police– it’s a matter of knowing the child’s needs at the given stage of development. Child-rearing ought not be a behavior prevention process, but a development enablement process. I realize this might be hard to grasp, but when you’ve been looking at life from the so-called “pro-life” point of view, a lot of this stuff is really unknown territory.
Annie Sullivan and Helen Keller– again, the exception that proves the rule– hundreds of thousands of children of Annie Sullivan’s background never had the breaks, lived as beggars or worse and died unmourned. Why didn’t someone pay the attention to them that she was able to get to help herself along? Some kids have survivor traits, some don’t– and it’s up to us adults to help them all– or at least the ones we insisted be born. Don’t think that I would recommend that orphan Annie Sullivan should have been aborted instead; but you may be sure that if I insisted her mother come to term it would have been only if I were ready to take on the responsibility of raising her. She obviously had the five super-survivor traits identified by Warner Smith.
Loeb and Leopold were challenged by the task of committing a perfect crime. They blew it. It was not Satan tempting them to do it. It was their upbringing that led them to believe that they could avoid consequences. Like Larry Summers and Jeff Immelt, who actually got it right.
LikeLike