Liberals ready to abandon US right to abortion
The Guardian
By: Gaby Wood
07/03/05

Last autumn, in the midst of a presidential election, America's Democrats were fighting furiously to protect what they described as a constitutional right - to have an abortion.
But in an extraordinary turn of events, some argue that it is the single issue standing in the way of their election prospects. They are daring to say what once was regarded as heresy - that it is time to let the argument go.

Abortion may still be the most divisive issue in the US, but in a move indicative of creeping conservatism, Democrats now seem happy to amend - even relinquish - their position on it.

On Friday pro-choice campaigners received another blow - Sandra Day O'Connor, the first women to serve in the US Supreme Court, announced her retirement. Her crucial pro-choice vote has now gone and George Bush is likely to replace her with a conservative .

There has been unprecedented discussion about 'letting go of Roe' - meaning Roe v Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that decriminalised abortion. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks argued that 'unless Roe v Wade is overturned, politics will never get better'. Liberals, he believes, have lost touch with working-class Americans because they rely on the courts to impose their views and have never had to debate 'values' with those voters.

But it is not only conservatives making this case. Cynthia Gorney, author of A Frontline History of the Abortion Wars, says she has 'heard it coming from people who you certainly wouldn't have heard it from three or four years ago. It's people who are ardent Democrats, fed up with the vacillations and ineffectiveness of the party. One aspect of that was: we've hung on too long to things that are destructive to us ultimately and clinging to Roe is costing us more than it's gaining us.'

The reason for the debate is the very real prospect of new conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, and whether they are likely to vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

A deeply contentious case, the 'Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act' is expected before the Supreme Court soon, by which time its pro-life Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist, will have retired (he is suffering from cancer). This is the longest-serving Supreme Court; eight of the nine justices are over 65 - and Day O'Connor and Rehnquist could be replaced with pro-life justices this year.

In the Atlantic Monthly, avowed pro-choicer Benjamin Wittes advised abortion-rights supporters to 'let Roe die'. Commitment to it, he wrote, 'has been deeply unhealthy for American democracy'. The battle over Supreme Court nominees is likely to become 'an ugly spectacle in which a single narrow issue pushes to the sidelines discussion of a broad array of other important legal questions' and liberals should have faith in the pro-choice majority.

But if Roe v Wade is overturned, women will lose what was judged in 1973 to be a constitutional right. Many argue that this is akin to relieving black people of their civil rights, and fear the return of back-alley abortions.

According to the Centre for Reproductive Rights, if the right to an abortion is again decided state by state, 21 are very likely to ban it altogether. Others, which legalised abortion before Roe, would continue to protect it.

Gorney believes there is not necessarily as much to fear as some suggest. The Supreme Court line-up has remained the same for 10 years, a period in which Roe v Wade has been upheld by those very same justices. Seven of the nine have been appointed by Republicans.

Even the pro-Roe count is open to interpretation. Anthony Kennedy is considered to be the most crucial swing voter. His personal views on abortion are unknown, though he is a conservative on other issues.

For this reason, some put him in the anti-Roe camp, and consider the pro-Roe vote to be 5-4. With the vote so close, losing one pro-Roe justice could bring down Roe v Wade. But Kennedy's actual record shows his to have been the swing vote in support of upholding Roe in 1992 and for this reason others put him in the pro-Roe camp, making the vote a less risky 6-3.

Last month, the debate over stem cell research reached a peak of moral simplification when antagonists publicised their use of the phrase 'embryo adoption', instead of 'embryo donation', used by clinics. To protest against a bill supporting the use of embryos for stem cell research, Bush appeared holding a baby who had been 'adopted' as an embryo.

William Saletan, author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War, thinks pro-lifers are 'on a collision course' with IVF.

'Embryo adoption' is not unlike 'partial-birth abortion', a term given by anti-abortionists to a particular procedure,' he said. 'What's happening now is they're fighting at the wrong end of pregnancy. There is no pregnancy. They are going to try to dress this up as "embryos are people". But it's just too hard to sell.'

Link: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520138,00.html

This is great news, hard to believe news but great news. 

Sad to hear that Rehnquist is suffering from cancer.


Maybe this time it'll be one more kid that gets to go to school, who gets to fall in love, who gets to be cool.


Long live life and opportunity.....p i s s on abortion.

I can't begin to tell you how happy I am to be living in Canada!

I can't begin to tell you how happy I am to be living in Canada!


Oh I bet you can, sooner or later I bet you will.

Oh I bet you can, sooner or later I bet you will.


What in the world is that supposed to mean? ???

Actually, don't even bother to answer that. I really don't care what you meant.  ;D

I can't begin to tell you how happy I am to be living in Canada!


I can't begin to tell you how happy I am not to be living in the Soviet Canuckistan.

Please, you neokons will believe anything.

For 30 years you have been voting for so-called pro-life candidates who tell you they will overturn Roe-v-Wade. 

And what has it got you?

Abortion is still safe and legal, and all those rich, liberal Hollywood celebrities you despise got a huge tax cut at your expense, courtesy of George "Culture of Life" Bush.

Face it, on the abortion issue, the Republicans know they can always jerk you around, and you will always come back for more.

Suckers!

Maybe this time it'll be one more kid that gets to go to school, who gets to fall in love, who gets to be cool.

Yes, and one more kid who gets to be born to a mother who dies in childbirth, or born addicted, or born to parents who do not want them, or end up abused, or dead... the opportunities for them are endless...

I don't support the act itself, personally, for MYSELF. But I do support and appreciate the fact that I have the right to choose, and all the other women in this countries right to choose for themselves what happens to their bodies. Because it is not my right, nor anyone one else's to tell them what they can or can not do with their body... and it never should be.

I have a hard time believing, even with this stupid mindless, not thinking for themselves, hypocritical "we are going back to family and moral values" but don't practice any of these family and moral values they preach, conservative times in the US that abortion will ever be made illegal again. They will do what they can to restrict things and whatever, and in some cases that is good. But I doubt it will ever become completely illegal again.

Too bad the last time the abortion issue came around in the courts in the 90s, O'Connor WAS NOT the deciding vote.

More dreams by the neocons here folks, nothing to see.

The fact is, that in areas where abortion was easy to obtain once it was legalized, you've already seen a very solid decrease in crime.  It's not hard to understand why.  Children aren't born to those who don't want them, can't support them, etc.  Less children without families equals less adults willing to turn to crime.

You always hear the rabid right talk about how mothers should have their children anyways and just put them up for adoption.  One problem there, there's already more children than the system knows what to do with.

Or maybe people should stop having sex.  Yes, clearly that would solve the problem.  I'm sure those people really don't like it anyways.  HAHAHAHAHAHAH  Oh wait, you mean the Bushies really think that? yesh, I was kidding.

Imagine the baby boom if the Bush plan of abstince only teaching, and lack of safe abortions.  Maybe that's really the plan, overburden the system to the point where the whole thing collapses.  Then they can just begin using the children for slave labor.  That's the real neocon dream isn't it?

What in the world is that supposed to mean? ???

Actually, don't even bother to answer that. I really don't care what you meant.   ;D



Using common sense it means that you can begin to tell us how happy you are to live in Canada and sooner or later you'll put your two sense in.

Please, you neokons will believe anything.

For 30 years you have been voting for so-called pro-life candidates who tell you they will overturn Roe-v-Wade. 

And what has it got you?

Abortion is still safe and legal, and all those rich, liberal Hollywood celebrities you despise got a huge tax cut at your expense, courtesy of George "Culture of Life" Bush.

Face it, on the abortion issue, the Republicans know they can always jerk you around, and you will always come back for more.

Suckers!


And the day the babies  win...that'll make us what?

Yes, and one more kid who gets to be born to a mother who dies in childbirth, or born addicted, or born to parents who do not want them, or end up abused, or dead... the opportunities for them are endless...

I don't support the act itself, personally, for MYSELF. But I do support and appreciate the fact that I have the right to choose, and all the other women in this countries right to choose for themselves what happens to their bodies. Because it is not my right, nor anyone one else's to tell them what they can or can not do with their body... and it never should be.

I have a hard time believing, even with this stupid mindless, not thinking for themselves, hypocritical "we are going back to family and moral values" but don't practice any of these family and moral values they preach, conservative times in the US that abortion will ever be made illegal again. They will do what they can to restrict things and whatever, and in some cases that is good. But I doubt it will ever become completely illegal again.



I have nothing against a woman having the right to choose what to do with her body, I have something against a woman killing a baby. I always have I always will. Abortion is Baby murder, and it's wrong.

Thank you for your opinion on the "mother who dies in childbirth, or born addicted, or born to parents who do not want them, or end up abused, or dead"  and I agree with the Mother who dies in childbirth, which should be the only legal form of abortion that exist.  As far as born to parents that do not want them, that's what adoption is for and that's what condoms, birth control, and I dare better not say abstinence.  I mean going up town to buy a condom when your hornier than a fly on peanunt butter is hard enough let alone not sleeping with a guy you barely know. Was his name Tom or Tim??

You seem to know everything, so I guess you also know that there are plenty of adoptive parents out there in this world but the system is F'd up.  You know that if you have even the slightest criminal record you can't adopt a child?  And I do mean Slight. You also probably know that if you're already a parent your most likely not allowed to adopt a newborn baby, especially if you still have the capability to concieve yourself.  Then I know you have to know how outrageously espensive it is to adopt in the first place.

I can't begin to tell you how happy I am not to be living in the Soviet Canuckistan.


::) Yeah, because everyone knows how much alike the Former Soviet Union and Canada are. ::)

Way to try and bring an argument down to your level. Because as all republicans are taught "When all else fails, just start yelling and throwing out insults at the other person."

Why do you always do that? I never made any comparisons of Bush to Hitler. I didn't make any childish remarks about how the actions of the religious nuts in your country are starting to look a lot like those of the any other "fanatical" religious countries in the world.

So please tell me. What exactly is it that makes my country a "Soviet like" country. And don't you even THINK about bringing up our healthcare system. I want you to tell me about how we wait in line for toilet paper and coffee. Tell me just how oppressed the people are up here.

Sorry to go off topic. GWbush feel free to PM me with your response. ;)

Using common sense it means that you can begin to tell us how happy you are to live in Canada and sooner or later you'll put your two sense in.



Maybe this time it'll be one more kid that gets to go to school, who gets to fall in love, who gets to be cool

Sure, i'll put my two cents about Canada in. The quote you used above is from a Neil Young song. Neil Young, a canadian, by no means a conservative, and definately not someone who wants to cram their religion in your face.  :P BTW, the song wasn't intended to be a knock on abortion ;)

Thank you for your opinion on the "mother who dies in childbirth, or born addicted, or born to parents who do not want them, or end up abused, or dead"  and I agree with the Mother who dies in childbirth, which should be the only legal form of abortion that exist.  As far as born to parents that do not want them, that's what adoption is for and that's what condoms, birth control, and I dare better not say abstinence.  I mean going up town to buy a condom when your hornier than a fly on peanunt butter is hard enough let alone not sleeping with a guy you barely know. Was his name Tom or Tim??
Yes, people need to be more responsible, but unless you are able to reach them one by one and educate them it just ain't gonna happen. I hate to say this, but I would rather have an fetus aborted then a child born to someone who doesn't want them but doesn't give them up for adoption so this child ends up addicted or abused or abandoned or whatever.

Sure, i'll put my two cents about Canada in. The quote you used above is from a Neil Young song. Neil Young, a canadian, by no means a conservative, and definately not someone who wants to cram their religion in your face.  :P BTW, the song wasn't intended to be a knock on abortion ;)


it's hard to cram something you don't have into someone's face.  Not saying anything about Mr. Young, with that.

Yes, people need to be more responsible, but unless you are able to reach them one by one and educate them it just ain't gonna happen. I hate to say this, but I would rather have an fetus aborted then a child born to someone who doesn't want them but doesn't give them up for adoption so this child ends up addicted or abused or abandoned or whatever.


Or maybe even from rags to riches, from nothing to something.  That could happen too, and I'll take my chances with that.

Everyone deserves a chance, and you may or may not say that a woman should decide whether someone gets that chance or not. Fine.  I say a woman shouldn't be allowed to decide whether a person is allowed to live and have chance or to be murdered and forgotten about forever.  I got a chance, and unconcietedly I want everyone to have that chance, so I'll use my first amendment to speak up for those who aren't getting there opportunity.

I can't begin to tell you how happy I am not to be living in the Soviet Canuckistan.


How long have you been waiting to crack out that gem?

idiot non-savant

How long have you been waiting to crack out that gem?

idiot non-savant


I suppose idiot non-savant was NOT an attack against GWBush2004?

ABORTION ON DEMAND WITHOUT APOLOGY

That's the hard line we need to take for reproductive liberty.  The accomodationist equivocators who think you can reason with fascist theocrats and Christian funny-mentalists don't know their enemy.  The right-wingers pushing for the death of Roe v. Wade don't accomodate nor equivocate.  They lie about it sometimes, but their goal is: NO!
1. No legal abortion.
2. No legal contraception.
3. No legal sex outside of marriage.
4. No legal right of wife  to say no to sex with her husband.
Talk of "life of the mother" and "states' rights" is a sop thrown at gullible mods and libs.  United we stand, divided we fall.  If the the federal right to choose is lifted, many red-state legislatures will ban abortion outright.  Those that don't will be targeted for intense Christian Right lobbying and bans will be in place within a few years.  If you think it'll stop there, you don't know your funny-mentalists.  The next target will be contraception, cohabitation, and legalist crackdowns on individual sexual behavior.  A lot of social conservatives believe in a Biblical headship of man over woman, think Phyllis Schlafly and Dr. Laura types.  It was not until the '70s that a husband could be charged with rape for forcing his wife to have sex.  She was his "property." 
That's the road we are going down in this country.  Overturning Roe v. Wade is a good toe-hold.
Roe v. Wade does not guarantee abortion on demand.  Rather than apologising to right-wing moralists for liberties such as reproductive choice, rather than just defending the line we've managed to hold for the last 33 years, it's time to get aggressive again.
Abortion will stay legal in states such as Massachusetts, New York, and California.  However, once Roe is overturned the pushy theocrats will start lobbying for a federal ban on reproductive choice.  Within five years we will have the most right-wing supreme court since Roger Taney was chief justice in the mid-19th century.  It will be up to the so-called blue states to fight for reproductive rights.  That means fighting the Supreme Court via Constitution and precedent.  It also means reaching out to women in no-choice states.  Reproductive rights groups will need to provide funds for poor women to travel from no-choice to pro-choice states in order to receive proper reproductive healthcare.  Legal scholars need to gear up for a fight to hold onto Griswold vs. Connecticut, which guarantees the right to information on contraception.  That's one of the precedents the Right is going to attack following the defeat of Roe.
It's not just about abortion, you see, it's about Big Brother in your bedroom.
More healthcare providers who were practicing in the 1950s and 1960s need to testify to the number of premature deaths and adolescent hysterectomies before Roe.  Terrible things happened to women before abortion rights were guaranteed.  As soon as these rights are rescinded, we will see a skyrocketing amount of sickness and death from pregnancy complications and septic abortions.

ABORTION ON DEMAND WITHOUT APOLOGY

ABORTION ON DEMAND WITHOUT APOLOGY

That's the hard line we need to take for reproductive liberty.  The accomodationist equivocators who think you can reason with fascist theocrats and Christian funny-mentalists don't know their enemy.  The right-wingers pushing for the death of Roe v. Wade don't accomodate nor equivocate.  They lie about it sometimes, but their goal is: NO!
1. No legal abortion.
2. No legal contraception.
3. No legal sex outside of marriage.
4. No legal right of wife  to say no to sex with her husband.
Talk of "life of the mother" and "states' rights" is a sop thrown at gullible mods and libs.  United we stand, divided we fall.  If the the federal right to choose is lifted, many red-state legislatures will ban abortion outright.  Those that don't will be targeted for intense Christian Right lobbying and bans will be in place within a few years.  If you think it'll stop there, you don't know your funny-mentalists.  The next target will be contraception, cohabitation, and legalist crackdowns on individual sexual behavior.  A lot of social conservatives believe in a Biblical headship of man over woman, think Phyllis Schlafly and Dr. Laura types.  It was not until the '70s that a husband could be charged with rape for forcing his wife to have sex.  She was his "property." 
That's the road we are going down in this country.  Overturning Roe v. Wade is a good toe-hold.
Roe v. Wade does not guarantee abortion on demand.  Rather than apologising to right-wing moralists for liberties such as reproductive choice, rather than just defending the line we've managed to hold for the last 33 years, it's time to get aggressive again.
Abortion will stay legal in states such as Massachusetts, New York, and California.  However, once Roe is overturned the pushy theocrats will start lobbying for a federal ban on reproductive choice.  Within five years we will have the most right-wing supreme court since Roger Taney was chief justice in the mid-19th century.  It will be up to the so-called blue states to fight for reproductive rights.  That means fighting the Supreme Court via Constitution and precedent.  It also means reaching out to women in no-choice states.  Reproductive rights groups will need to provide funds for poor women to travel from no-choice to pro-choice states in order to receive proper reproductive healthcare.  Legal scholars need to gear up for a fight to hold onto Griswold vs. Connecticut, which guarantees the right to information on contraception.  That's one of the precedents the Right is going to attack following the defeat of Roe.
It's not just about abortion, you see, it's about Big Brother in your bedroom.
More healthcare providers who were practicing in the 1950s and 1960s need to testify to the number of premature deaths and adolescent hysterectomies before Roe.  Terrible things happened to women before abortion rights were guaranteed.  As soon as these rights are rescinded, we will see a skyrocketing amount of sickness and death from pregnancy complications and septic abortions.

ABORTION ON DEMAND WITHOUT APOLOGY


The turning of Roe Vs Wade comes down to a child's right to life.  God forbid, murder Now in ALL cases, being unnacceptable.

ABORTION ON DEMAND WITHOUT APOLOGY

That's the hard line we need to take for reproductive liberty.  The accomodationist equivocators who think you can reason with fascist theocrats and Christian funny-mentalists don't know their enemy.  The right-wingers pushing for the death of Roe v. Wade don't accomodate nor equivocate.  They lie about it sometimes, but their goal is: NO!
1. No legal abortion.
2. No legal contraception.
3. No legal sex outside of marriage.
4. No legal right of wife  to say no to sex with her husband.
Talk of "life of the mother" and "states' rights" is a sop thrown at gullible mods and libs.  United we stand, divided we fall.  If the the federal right to choose is lifted, many red-state legislatures will ban abortion outright.  Those that don't will be targeted for intense Christian Right lobbying and bans will be in place within a few years.  If you think it'll stop there, you don't know your funny-mentalists.  The next target will be contraception, cohabitation, and legalist crackdowns on individual sexual behavior.  A lot of social conservatives believe in a Biblical headship of man over woman, think Phyllis Schlafly and Dr. Laura types.  It was not until the '70s that a husband could be charged with rape for forcing his wife to have sex.  She was his "property." 
That's the road we are going down in this country.  Overturning Roe v. Wade is a good toe-hold.
Roe v. Wade does not guarantee abortion on demand.  Rather than apologising to right-wing moralists for liberties such as reproductive choice, rather than just defending the line we've managed to hold for the last 33 years, it's time to get aggressive again.
Abortion will stay legal in states such as Massachusetts, New York, and California.  However, once Roe is overturned the pushy theocrats will start lobbying for a federal ban on reproductive choice.  Within five years we will have the most right-wing supreme court since Roger Taney was chief justice in the mid-19th century.  It will be up to the so-called blue states to fight for reproductive rights.  That means fighting the Supreme Court via Constitution and precedent.  It also means reaching out to women in no-choice states.  Reproductive rights groups will need to provide funds for poor women to travel from no-choice to pro-choice states in order to receive proper reproductive healthcare.  Legal scholars need to gear up for a fight to hold onto Griswold vs. Connecticut, which guarantees the right to information on contraception.  That's one of the precedents the Right is going to attack following the defeat of Roe.
It's not just about abortion, you see, it's about Big Brother in your bedroom.
More healthcare providers who were practicing in the 1950s and 1960s need to testify to the number of premature deaths and adolescent hysterectomies before Roe.  Terrible things happened to women before abortion rights were guaranteed.  As soon as these rights are rescinded, we will see a skyrocketing amount of sickness and death from pregnancy complications and septic abortions.

ABORTION ON DEMAND WITHOUT APOLOGY


I don't think I said enough, so I'll say some more.

To think that outlawing abortion will lead to legalizing rape, and putting a ban on outside marital sex is just as ludicrus as you'd put it to believe that the legalization of abortion will lead to the legalization of other types of murder.

Try and pull a heart string by making it out to be as if all of the women who seek abortions are doing it for their physical health. The majority ain't doing it for their health, I'll grant you that Mr. Smart. The majority are doing it because they're irresponsible, scared, unremorseful, and above all else selfish. 

I don't think I said enough, so I'll say some more.

To think that outlawing abortion will lead to legalizing rape, and putting a ban on outside marital sex is just as ludicrus as you'd put it to believe that the legalization of abortion will lead to the legalization of other types of murder.

Try and pull a heart string by making it out to be as if all of the women who seek abortions are doing it for their physical health. The majority ain't doing it for their health, I'll grant you that Mr. Smart. The majority are doing it because they're irresponsible, scared, unremorseful, and above all else selfish. 


Yeah, well I'm tellin' you it's nunya business regardless why, and if I saw you parading around outside a clinic with one of those awful signs I just might show you it's nunya business!

Now would be a good time to quote George Carlin:
Didja ever notice how most people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't wanna **** anyway?
;D

I suppose idiot non-savant was NOT an attack against GWBush2004?


I don't care, don't worry about it.

Too bad the last time the abortion issue came around in the courts in the 90s, O'Connor WAS NOT the deciding vote.


Either way, if pro-abortion O'Connor is replaced with a pro-life judge, the noose will be tightening.

Surely you can admit that the abortion issue has gotten petty in America and has clouded more important issues.

I suppose idiot non-savant was NOT an attack against GWBush2004?


Then your assumption would be INcorrect. It was indeed an attack on GW. I'm glad to know you're working on your context clues though. Keep up the good work. 

You see, calling Canada, one of my two countries of citizenship along side the United States, "Soviet Canuckstan" was something only an idiot non-savant (or in English, a fool who is unaware) would do. You see, the word idiot has a somewhat different connotation in French than it does in English. Basically it denotes the same thing, but the severity of the word is much less. A better French translation for the more insulting "idiot" that (I'm sure) you're familiar with would be crétin(e).

Either way, if pro-abortion O'Connor is replaced with a pro-life judge, the noose will be tightening.
Yes, the "noose" on reproductive rights, and such liberties as I have described above.

Surely you can admit that the abortion issue has gotten petty in America and has clouded more important issues.

That's the latest anti-choice line.  The Christian right has been ceaselessly gunning for Roe v. Wade since the '70s.  If the pro-choicers turn their backs on the issue because the right-wing says it's time to focus on "more important issues," they're dupes.
Constitutionally speaking, when the right-wing talks of "original intent," and "strict constructionalist interpretation," they mean in their hearts "white supremecy," "male chauvinism," and "ecclesiastical forces meddling in public life." 
The Founding Fathers intended for Blacks to be property, women to be subjected to their fathers and husbands, and only white, land-owning, Protestant males to have the franchise.
Now, even though it was not "original intent" for chartered corporations to be more powerful than elected legislatures, that's exactly what the "strict constructionalists" are aiming at.  When the right-wing speaks of individual rights, they mean individual corporations and a select class of very wealthy people.

Yeah, well I'm tellin' you it's nunya business regardless why, and if I saw you parading around outside a clinic with one of those awful signs I just might show you it's nunya business!

Now would be a good time to quote George Carlin:
Didja ever notice how most people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't wanna **** anyway?
;D


It's also none of my business that the administration at Fresno State University is seriously considering dropping it's wrestling program because of a push from TITLE IX. However, as a wrestling fan I make it my business by supporting Fresno State Wrestling, and signing petetions as well as giving donations.  It's none of my business, but somehow it is.

Carlin's quote goes quite hand in hand, because a person like myself doesn't F U C K a girl, he makes love to a woman. Unlike most of the population.  AND if that quote was directed from you to me, well I'm glad you said that, cause I'm not sure which team your batting for, but I don't swing that way, man.

I don't care, don't worry about it.


I'm not worrying about it.

I'm just pointing out ahead of time, and remembering this for future reference for if you retaliate against McDonald, he won't be able to say, "I never said anything towards GWBush2004."

You're either Pro-Life or Pro Death....the right  to kill babies or the right to let them live. That's all I want to say :-\\

You're either Pro-Life or Pro Death....the right  to kill babies or the right to let them live. That's all I want to say :-\\


I respect you at looking at the issue for what it is.

You guys just don't get it. Abortions are going to happen whether it is legal or not. Before Roe vs. Wade-the rich women went off to Sweden or some other country to have the procedure done safely, by a trained doctor. Poor women went to back allies and had the procedure done by someone who didn't know what they were doing and many, many times, those women died. So, if a poor woman decides not to risk her life, she has the baby. Then what? More kids live in poverty, more people on welfare. Are these so-call pro-life people going to help them? I sincerely doubt it. Most "pro-life" people are also "anti-welfare" people. Well, it's their own fault for getting pregnant in the first place, right? But, these are the same people who also want to take sex-education out of schools. So, you have ignorant adolescence running around with raging hormones and they don't know the "responsible" way to handle them. Abstinence? Ideally, that is the way to go but not all teens can contain themselves. And what about women who are raped? It is their fault? And then they HAVE to have a baby that would constantly remind them of a traumatic incident in their lives. Some may view this as a blessing. I'm not saying that all rape victims who become pregnant would have this view.  And the biggest issue is, why should the Supreme Court have a say so on my reproductive system? And it is MY choice.



KEEP ABORTION LEGAL, SAFE AND RARE!




Cat

You guys just don't get it. Abortions are going to happen whether it is legal or not. Before Roe vs. Wade-the rich women went off to Sweden or some other country to have the procedure done safely, by a trained doctor. Poor women went to back allies and had the procedure done by someone who didn't know what they were doing and many, many times, those women died. So, if a poor woman decides not to risk her life, she has the baby. Then what? More kids live in poverty, more people on welfare. Are these so-call pro-life people going to help them? I sincerely doubt it. Most "pro-life" people are also "anti-welfare" people. Well, it's their own fault for getting pregnant in the first place, right? But, these are the same people who also want to take sex-education out of schools. So, you have ignorant adolescence running around with raging hormones and they don't know the "responsible" way to handle them. Abstinence? Ideally, that is the way to go but not all teens can contain themselves. And what about women who are raped? It is their fault? And then they HAVE to have a baby that would constantly remind them of a traumatic incident in their lives. Some may view this as a blessing. I'm not saying that all rape victims who become pregnant would have this view.  And the biggest issue is, why should the Supreme Court have a say so on my reproductive system? And it is MY choice.



KEEP ABORTION LEGAL, SAFE AND RARE!




Cat
Adoption :-\\

I can't begin to tell you how happy I am not to be living in the Soviet Canuckistan.


And I can begin to tell you how happy I am to live in Amerixan uberal alis.  This was an unwarnted, undeserved, ans outragous example os xenophobia, and I detest it, reject ir, and condemn it.

You guys just don't get it. Abortions are going to happen whether it is legal or not. Before Roe vs. Wade-the rich women went off to Sweden or some other country to have the procedure done safely, by a trained doctor. Poor women went to back allies and had the procedure done by someone who didn't know what they were doing and many, many times, those women died. So, if a poor woman decides not to risk her life, she has the baby. Then what? More kids live in poverty, more people on welfare. Are these so-call pro-life people going to help them? I sincerely doubt it. Most "pro-life" people are also "anti-welfare" people. Well, it's their own fault for getting pregnant in the first place, right? But, these are the same people who also want to take sex-education out of schools. So, you have ignorant adolescence running around with raging hormones and they don't know the "responsible" way to handle them. Abstinence? Ideally, that is the way to go but not all teens can contain themselves. And what about women who are raped? It is their fault? And then they HAVE to have a baby that would constantly remind them of a traumatic incident in their lives. Some may view this as a blessing. I'm not saying that all rape victims who become pregnant would have this view.  And the biggest issue is, why should the Supreme Court have a say so on my reproductive system? And it is MY choice.



KEEP ABORTION LEGAL, SAFE AND RARE!




Cat


Rare? lol, keep it Rare? With all do respect, one of the main reasons I'm so against abortion is because it is  not rare, it's common.

Secondly whether drugs ever become legal doesn't make any difference on whether they will be sold or not.  If Drugs were legalized it would probably save a few lives. Will not probably, but it's very likely that it could. Legalizing Cocaine could very well keep the bullets out of the dealers chest, and it sure as hell would keep the junkies out from behind bars.

Does that mean illegal drugs should be legalized because it might save the life of a dealer? Or it might keep a junkie from going to jail?

I stick up for the good man, and the good woman.   Let those who CHOOSE to suffer, suffer.

You guys just don't get it. Abortions are going to happen whether it is legal or not. Before Roe vs. Wade-the rich women went off to Sweden or some other country to have the procedure done safely, by a trained doctor. Poor women went to back allies and had the procedure done by someone who didn't know what they were doing and many, many times, those women died. So, if a poor woman decides not to risk her life, she has the baby. Then what? More kids live in poverty, more people on welfare. Are these so-call pro-life people going to help them? I sincerely doubt it. Most "pro-life" people are also "anti-welfare" people. Well, it's their own fault for getting pregnant in the first place, right? But, these are the same people who also want to take sex-education out of schools. So, you have ignorant adolescence running around with raging hormones and they don't know the "responsible" way to handle them. Abstinence? Ideally, that is the way to go but not all teens can contain themselves. And what about women who are raped? It is their fault? And then they HAVE to have a baby that would constantly remind them of a traumatic incident in their lives. Some may view this as a blessing. I'm not saying that all rape victims who become pregnant would have this view.  And the biggest issue is, why should the Supreme Court have a say so on my reproductive system? And it is MY choice.

KEEP ABORTION LEGAL, SAFE AND RARE!


Cat

Couldn't have put it better myself!! You brought up excellent points I didn't even consider. Well done.

Rare? lol, keep it Rare? With all do respect, one of the main reasons I'm so against abortion is because it is  not rare, it's common.

Do you have statistics for that?
Common compared to...? Births? Children born and put up for adoption?
How many people do you know that have had an abortion? I know one.

Do you have statistics for that?
Common compared to...? Births? Children born and put up for adoption?
How many people do you know that have had an abortion? I know one.



31 million innocent deaths  in less than 40 years is stats enough for me.

1993 6/10 girls in Iowa would have their baby, 4/10 girls would have an abortion.  2003 9/10 girls in Iowa would have a baby, 1/10 girls would have an abortion.  Today I don't know what it is.  Be nice if it was 0/10 girls would have an abortion, and 10/10 girls would have an alive baby.

Unfortunately I know a lot more than one.

I respect you at looking at the issue for what it is.
In the case of the mothers health being at risk...well, I bend a bit on that...but as for abortions being RARE?? No, just look at what Hollyweird is. It's all about spreading thier gospel of being irresponsible, "Oh you can have sex with your boyfriend and if you get pregnant just kill the baby, it's your right"...rather than being better role models and sending the message of "IF you have an unwanted pregnancy you can always give the baby to someone who WANTS  it, THAT is also a right" ;)

In the case of the mothers health being at risk...well, I bend a bit on that...but as for abortions being RARE?? No, just look at what Hollyweird is. It's all about spreading thier gospel of being irresponsible, "Oh you can have sex with your boyfriend and if you get pregnant just kill the baby, it's your right"... ;)


Refresh my memory. What movie was that line from again? What hollywood star actually said that again, it seems to have slipped my mind ???

Seems that most of the TV shows and movies that i've ever seen always has the man telling the girl to get an abortion, and the woman saying no. Only to have the man accept responsability and support her choice to keep it.

Could you actually name some stars that have had abortions recently? Did they have a news conference and tell the world how easy it was, and that everyone should be doing it? ::)

Refresh my memory. What movie was that line from again? What hollywood star actually said that again, it seems to have slipped my mind ???

Seems that most of the TV shows and movies that i've ever seen always has the man telling the girl to get an abortion, and the woman saying no. Only to have the man accept responsability and support her choice to keep it.

Could you actually name some stars that have had abortions recently? Did they have a news conference and tell the world how easy it was, and that everyone should be doing it? ::)
Not so much a movie but the real lives they lead. Ther are all kinds of sleaze in Hollyweird. J-HO putting out (Pardon the pun)m a clothing line geared to make 10 year olds look like little whores. ALL I'm saying is, ADOPTION beats murder ;)

It's also none of my business that the administration at Fresno State University is seriously considering dropping it's wrestling program because of a push from TITLE IX. However, as a wrestling fan I make it my business by supporting Fresno State Wrestling, and signing petetions as well as giving donations.  It's none of my business, but somehow it is.
And best of luck to you and the Fresno State wrestling program.


Carlin's quote goes quite hand in hand, because a person like myself doesn't **** a girl, he makes love to a woman.
What you do with whom is none of my business and I'd rather keep it that way, thank you very much!

AND if that quote was directed from you to me, well I'm glad you said that, cause I'm not sure which team your batting for, but I don't swing that way, man.

I'm not batting for the home team, but even if I was it wouldn't be any of your affair...man!
8)

You're either Pro-Life or Pro Death....the right  to kill babies or the right to let them live. That's all I want to say :-\\

Yet you are gung-ho for repealing subsidized healthcare programs.  The state must mandate all women pregnant shall remain pregnant, but you don't want to spend dime one to help deprived women with prenatal care, infant healthcare and nutrition, early childhood education, safe and secure housing, and so and so on.
You've said yourself on this forum you want to see an end to all welfare programs. 
You can disagree with me as dogmatically as you please about abortion, but when you show no regard for the health of the children to be brought into this world, and the quality of life available to them, then your dogma is no more than political rhetoric.  That is what the entire pro-life movement is founded upon. 
Jerry Falwell knew in the '70s that abortion was the perfect issue with which to galvanize the social conservative movement.  He was right.  But the concern of Falwell and other evangelical leaders had nothing to do with the affirmation of life.  Why?  They all supported Ronald Reagan who was hellbent on destroying the safety net of American social programs.  That is evidence enough for me to show the pro-life drumbeat is about political power for the Right and the advocacy of patriarchal reaction via the demonization of feminism and women's rights causes.
Anti-choicers proffer vague notions of adoption, church, volunteerism, family values, and personal responsibility when called on their hypocrisy. 
Never mind that such concepts didn't cut it before Roe v. Wade, I say if the government is going to require all women who become pregnant to remain pregnant, then they have a moral obligation to provide a realistic social safety net to insure those children are not raised in neglect and deprivation.  I know you all on the so-called pro-life side have contempt for the government helping anybody but the rich, so quit pretending to care about babies!!!

quit pretending to care about babies!!!
I offer MY small opinion about life versus death and I get...a fricking BOOK?? No thanks, I ONLY said that I belive a life is a life and killing a life is WRONG! ALL the other stuff? Maybe you're right. I agree that the Government should offer way more help for women but I'm SO tired of the "Casual" attitude of Hollyweird and the libs with this ...."Oh, I'm pregnant because I slept with what's his name but now I don't want the baby!" So, have it and give it LIFE....don't murder it and then turn around and do the whole thing all over and over and over again....geez ::)

I'm not worrying about it.

I'm just pointing out ahead of time, and remembering this for future reference for if you retaliate against McDonald, he won't be able to say, "I never said anything towards GWBush2004."


LMAO!  ;D

What makes you think I would say such a thing in the first place? I chew on GW's leg quite frequently. I would have to be a moron to deny that. Similarly, GW has a nasty habit of posting incendiary remarks about anything and everything save for his own demi-gods and causes, and have you ever seen me call a *personal* party foul on him, as though I were some kind of vicitm? Nope. I always have simply retorted and that's what I always will do.

Yet you are gung-ho for repealing subsidized healthcare programs.  The state must mandate all women pregnant shall remain pregnant, but you don't want to spend dime one to help deprived women with prenatal care, infant healthcare and nutrition, early childhood education, safe and secure housing, and so and so on.
You've said yourself on this forum you want to see an end to all welfare programs. 
You can disagree with me as dogmatically as you please about abortion, but when you show no regard for the health of the children to be brought into this world, and the quality of life available to them, then your dogma is no more than political rhetoric.  That is what the entire pro-life movement is founded upon. 
Jerry Falwell knew in the '70s that abortion was the perfect issue with which to galvanize the social conservative movement.  He was right.  But the concern of Falwell and other evangelical leaders had nothing to do with the affirmation of life.  Why?  They all supported Ronald Reagan who was hellbent on destroying the safety net of American social programs.  That is evidence enough for me to show the pro-life drumbeat is about political power for the Right and the advocacy of patriarchal reaction via the demonization of feminism and women's rights causes.
Anti-choicers proffer vague notions of adoption, church, volunteerism, family values, and personal responsibility when called on their hypocrisy. 
Never mind that such concepts didn't cut it before Roe v. Wade, I say if the government is going to require all women who become pregnant to remain pregnant, then they have a moral obligation to provide a realistic social safety net to insure those children are not raised in neglect and deprivation.  I know you all on the so-called pro-life side have contempt for the government helping anybody but the rich, so quit pretending to care about babies!!!


Are you going to start writing in red all the time?  Because that's hard to read.

Are you going to start writing in red all the time?  Because that's hard to read.

NO!

I offer MY small opinion about life versus death and I get...a fricking BOOK?? No thanks, I ONLY said that I belive a life is a life and killing a life is WRONG! ALL the other stuff? Maybe you're right. I agree that the Government should offer way more help for women but I'm SO tired of the "Casual" attitude of Hollyweird and the libs with this ...."Oh, I'm pregnant because I slept with what's his name but now I don't want the baby!" So, have it and give it LIFE....don't murder it and then turn around and do the whole thing all over and over and over again....geez ::)


Oh give me a fricken break already!!! So what you're saying is that if a woman wants an abortion, that she must be a liberal whore? ::)

And you never answered my question. What celebrity are you referring to in your "Casual Hollyweird whore" posts? I'm sorry but just because J-Lo puts out a clothing line that you don't agree with certainly does not mean she's a whore.

What in the world makes you think that celebrities are sleeping around with everyone having abortion after abortion? Again, some examples of this behavior would be nice ;)

Btw. If you're interested. Here's a link to J-Lo's website. I'd like you to point out exactly where on her childrens website she's selling clothes to kids that make them look like whores.

http://www.shopjlo.com/nshop/product.php?view=listing&dept=girls%20sale&groupName=sale_716tops

Oh give me a fricken break already!!! So what you're saying is that if a woman wants an abortion, that she must be a liberal whore? ::)

And you never answered my question. What celebrity are you referring to in your "Casual Hollyweird whore" posts? I'm sorry but just because J-Lo puts out a clothing line that you don't agree with certainly does not mean she's a whore.

What in the world makes you think that celebrities are sleeping around with everyone having abortion after abortion? Again, some examples of this behavior would be nice ;)

Btw. If you're interested. Here's a link to J-Lo's website. I'd like you to point out exactly where on her childrens website she's selling clothes to kids that make them look like whores.

http://www.shopjlo.com/nshop/product.php?view=listing&dept=girls%20sale&groupName=sale_716tops


Sorry, I'll just stick to the simplicities of...Pro-Life=Letting a baby live by keeping it or giving to someone who appreciates life, via adoption.

Pro-Choice...actually Pro-Death=Kill an innocent baby. note: I do think thier can be exeptions. All I'm saying is if you have an unwanted pregnancy at least be responsible enough to give life a chance instead of throwing life in the garbage and saying "Oh well"  As for J-Ho, I've never liked her since she left her dog stranded in her apartment without food or water while she vacationed with Puff Diddy gang-bang and upon her return was pissed at her landlord because he'd found the animal and was going to evict her. I apologize for getting off topic. Surely though, any Hollyweird actress that happens to get an abortion...do you really think they'd go public about it??

More kids live in poverty, more people on welfare. Are these so-call pro-life people going to help them? I sincerely doubt it. Most "pro-life" people are also "anti-welfare" people.

Actually, that's not really true. Not all people who are socially conservative are fiscally conservative. One of the negative effects of categorizing people as being either "right" or "left" is it means you have to automatically assign a set of values to them on everything.

There's people who are pro-life that want national healthcare, and there's people who are pro-choice that want lower taxes and support the war in Iraq.

Sorry, I'll just stick to the simplicities of...Pro-Life=Letting a baby live by keeping it or giving to someone who appreciates life, via adoption.

Pro-Choice...actually Pro-Death=Kill an innocent baby. note: I do think thier can be exeptions. All I'm saying is if you have an unwanted pregnancy at least be responsible enough to give life a chance instead of throwing life in the garbage and saying "Oh well"  As for J-Ho, I've never liked her since she left her dog stranded in her apartment without food or water while she vacationed with Puff Diddy gang-bang and upon her return was ticked at her landlord because he'd found the animal and was going to evict her. I apologize for getting off topic. Surely though, any Hollyweird actress that happens to get an abortion...do you really think they'd go public about it??


"Oh well?" Yeah, you've hit the nail on the head with that one. Do you really think that it is that easy for a woman to have to make that choice? Have you ever been forced to decide whether or not to carry a baby for nine months in your body? I didn't think so.

Now I see your point about J-Lo. Since you don't like her for leaving her dog in her apartement to go on vacation, that must mean she was having a gang bang.

And you're right. Actresses don't come out and say that they've had abortions. And I would suggest that until they do, you stop already with implying that they all have.

"Oh well?" Yeah, you've hit the nail on the head with that one. Do you really think that it is that easy for a woman to have to make that choice? Have you ever been forced to decide whether or not to carry a baby for nine months in your body? I didn't think so.

Now I see your point about J-Lo. Since you don't like her for leaving her dog in her apartement to go on vacation, that must mean she was having a gang bang.

And you're right. Actresses don't come out and say that they've had abortions. And I would suggest that until they do, you stop already with implying that they all have.


No they ALL don't. Yes I DO know quite a few women that have had abortions and not ONE of them likes the "Choice" they made. They say that given the chance all over again, they'd have given it up for Adoption!!

As for J-Ho...ALL it "Meant" was she was cruel to an animal...oh yeah, let me jump on her bandwagon :D

Rare? lol, keep it Rare? With all do respect, one of the main reasons I'm so against abortion is because it is  not rare, it's common.

Secondly whether drugs ever become legal doesn't make any difference on whether they will be sold or not.  If Drugs were legalized it would probably save a few lives. Will not probably, but it's very likely that it could. Legalizing Cocaine could very well keep the bullets out of the dealers chest, and it sure as hell would keep the junkies out from behind bars.

Does that mean illegal drugs should be legalized because it might save the life of a dealer? Or it might keep a junkie from going to jail?

I stick up for the good man, and the good woman.  Let those who CHOOSE to suffer, suffer.





First of all, what does legalizing drugs have to do with abortion? Also, if this nation was bigger on birth control, there would be fewer abortions. Most insurence companies will not pay for birth control but they will pay for abortions and viagra  ::).  And there is also the "morning- after pill" and the "abortion pill". They should also be available.





Adoption :-\\



How many kids are up for adoption now? I tried to find those figures but couldn't. Those figures don't seem to be readily avialible but the number of adoptions are. (Interesting).  There are so many kids NOW who need loving homes. I'm not saying this is a bad choice. In fact, this is the ideal. However, if abortion were to become illegal once again, there were be many, many more kids needing homes. What is going to happen to them? Yes, there would be a few lucky ones. But I'm not too sure what the percentage is now of how many kids are up for adoption and how many actually get adopted.




Actually, that's not really true. Not all people who are socially conservative are fiscally conservative. One of the negative effects of categorizing people as being either "right" or "left" is it means you have to automatically assign a set of values to them on everything.

There's people who are pro-life that want national healthcare, and there's people who are pro-choice that want lower taxes and support the war in Iraq.




You are right that not ALL "anti-choice" people are against national health care. But many are.



It still boils down that I don't want ANYONE-either it be the Supreme Court, the House/Senate, or someone who has never met me to make MY choice about MY reproduction system. Like I said, it is MINE and I will make that choice. No one is FORCED to have one. It is a personal decision. Isn't that what this country is about- FREEDOM to decide for yourself?





Cat

I support Roe v. Wade, but even if you do, it's not hard to understand that some people think unborns should be protected.  I don't understand how people can say, it's my body, so that's the only issue.  That seems kind of disrespectful to women who have a hard time deciding to make that choice.  If it's just like cutting out some tissue, like a tumor, I don't think it would be as emotional as it is.  Like I said, I'm not arguing about choice, but you can't pretend everybody who is concerned is just trying to control women.

I support Roe v. Wade, but even if you do, it's not hard to understand that some people think unborns should be protected.  I don't understand how people can say, it's my body, so that's the only issue.  That seems kind of disrespectful to women who have a hard time deciding to make that choice.  If it's just like cutting out some tissue, like a tumor, I don't think it would be as emotional as it is.  Like I said, I'm not arguing about choice, but you can't pretend everybody who is concerned is just trying to control women.




I am not saying that it is a light decision to make. It is probably one of the hardest decisions a woman can make. It doesn't help her to be called a "baby killer" or a "murderer" as she is trying to decide what is the best cause of action.

People who are "anti-choice" sound like they ARE trying to control women. That is what bothers me so much. Being concerned is one thing. But you can be concerned without being judgemental. You can be concerned and offer REAL solutions-not just name calling.




Cat

I am not saying that it is a light decision to make. It is probably one of the hardest decisions a woman can make. It doesn't help her to be called a "baby killer" or a "murderer" as she is trying to decide what is the best cause of action.

People who are "anti-choice" sound like they ARE trying to control women. That is what bothers me so much. Being concerned is one thing. But you can be concerned without being judgemental. You can be concerned and offer REAL solutions-not just name calling.




Cat
I know of many babies that are put into dumpsters because the mother doesn't want them. There are laws here now make it alright for mothers to take thier babies to hospitals without getting them into trouble. I think that's a positive step....

I know of many babies that are put into dumpsters because the mother doesn't want them. There are laws here now make it alright for mothers to take thier babies to hospitals without getting them into trouble. I think that's a positive step....





I agree with you there. I think that is a GREAT law.




Cat

Well, I think that is because people who say stupid things always get the most attention, like how everybody reacts to CERTAIN WACKO POSTERS on these message boards...  I think they say stupid things because they like the attention, and it works.  Meantimes, there are good-intentioned people on both sides, but nobody cares what they think because people think of them like fundamentalist wackos who like to control women, or on the other hand, weirdo immoral hollywood liberal types.

For example, when people have kids, its their THEIR kids, so they have the right to disipline them the way they want.  But even there, most people agree there's a limit.  You can't lock your kid in a room for a week with no food just because you decide that is the best way to disipline them.  All I'm saying is, there is a balance, and just because a kid is MINE doesn't mean it's unfair if someone else disagrees with how I treat it.  If someone doesn't think an unborn should have the same rights as a kid, that's fair, but it only makes hatefulness to totally disrespect people's concern is all.  Now, to a lot of people I don't have any right to even talk about it since I'm a man.  But let's face it, if it came down to men wanting to control women, RVW never would have been passed in the first place, so lets not make enemies everywhere!

And best of luck to you and the Fresno State wrestling program.

What you do with whom is none of my business and I'd rather keep it that way, thank you very much!
I'm not batting for the home team, but even if I was it wouldn't be any of your affair...man!
8)


Thanks

Good deal

Glad to hear that, on two accounts.

Yet you are gung-ho for repealing subsidized healthcare programs.  The state must mandate all women pregnant shall remain pregnant, but you don't want to spend dime one to help deprived women with prenatal care, infant healthcare and nutrition, early childhood education, safe and secure housing, and so and so on.
You've said yourself on this forum you want to see an end to all welfare programs. 
You can disagree with me as dogmatically as you please about abortion, but when you show no regard for the health of the children to be brought into this world, and the quality of life available to them, then your dogma is no more than political rhetoric.  That is what the entire pro-life movement is founded upon. 
Jerry Falwell knew in the '70s that abortion was the perfect issue with which to galvanize the social conservative movement.  He was right.  But the concern of Falwell and other evangelical leaders had nothing to do with the affirmation of life.  Why?  They all supported Ronald Reagan who was hellbent on destroying the safety net of American social programs.  That is evidence enough for me to show the pro-life drumbeat is about political power for the Right and the advocacy of patriarchal reaction via the demonization of feminism and women's rights causes.
Anti-choicers proffer vague notions of adoption, church, volunteerism, family values, and personal responsibility when called on their hypocrisy. 
Never mind that such concepts didn't cut it before Roe v. Wade, I say if the government is going to require all women who become pregnant to remain pregnant, then they have a moral obligation to provide a realistic social safety net to insure those children are not raised in neglect and deprivation.  I know you all on the so-called pro-life side have contempt for the government helping anybody but the rich, so quit pretending to care about babies!!!


I'm not a rich person, so theirfore you are right, I'm not donating 10's of thousands of dollars towards anti-abortion groups. I'm not giving away what I plain and simply do not have.  However I belong to a anti-abortion group and I do my best to raise money for things such as prenatal care, infant healthcare and nutrition, early childhood education, safe and secure housing. I do what I can to trigger the richer of those among me into giving there money towards places it is needed.

I also agree with you that it should be the governments moral obligation to provide realistic social safety for the woman who decide murder is not the right choice.  If I had more power, I'd help them all myself.

I offer MY small opinion about life versus death and I get...a fricking BOOK?? No thanks, I ONLY said that I belive a life is a life and killing a life is WRONG! ALL the other stuff? Maybe you're right. I agree that the Government should offer way more help for women but I'm SO tired of the "Casual" attitude of Hollyweird and the libs with this ...."Oh, I'm pregnant because I slept with what's his name but now I don't want the baby!" So, have it and give it LIFE....don't murder it and then turn around and do the whole thing all over and over and over again....geez ::)


Your being a little rough on Hollywood.  Back a while back, quite a while back actually I would have to agree with you. Women used to think that they had to screw every cute guy in sight, which after a few beers becomes more than a couple.  They also used to think that having a child would ruin their career.

Well it just isn't that way anymore.  Woman more than ever in hollywood are supporting having babies and saying that having a daughter or a son or many of the same or each is the thing to do nowadays.  Hollywood is by no means keeping mothers off the screen. In fact Reese Witherspoon had her second child and played a just recently graduated high school girl in one of her last movies about Harvard.  It's rather common nowadays.  Married mom of 4 in real life, 17 year old cheerleader on the screen.

LMAO!  ;D

What makes you think I would say such a thing in the first place? I chew on GW's leg quite frequently. I would have to be a moron to deny that. Similarly, GW has a nasty habit of posting incendiary remarks about anything and everything save for his own demi-gods and causes, and have you ever seen me call a *personal* party foul on him, as though I were some kind of vicitm? Nope. I always have simply retorted and that's what I always will do.




retorded?  I'll change the o to an a.

Actually, that's not really true. Not all people who are socially conservative are fiscally conservative. One of the negative effects of categorizing people as being either "right" or "left" is it means you have to automatically assign a set of values to them on everything.

There's people who are pro-life that want national healthcare, and there's people who are pro-choice that want lower taxes and support the war in Iraq.


That's an excellent point.  No two peoples minds work alike. That includes two liberals and two conservitives.

First of all, what does legalizing drugs have to do with abortion? Also, if this nation was bigger on birth control, there would be fewer abortions. Most insurence companies will not pay for birth control but they will pay for abortions and viagra  ::).  And there is also the "morning- after pill" and the "abortion pill". They should also be available.





How many kids are up for adoption now? I tried to find those figures but couldn't. Those figures don't seem to be readily avialible but the number of adoptions are. (Interesting).  There are so many kids NOW who need loving homes. I'm not saying this is a bad choice. In fact, this is the ideal. However, if abortion were to become illegal once again, there were be many, many more kids needing homes. What is going to happen to them? Yes, there would be a few lucky ones. But I'm not too sure what the percentage is now of how many kids are up for adoption and how many actually get adopted.





You are right that not ALL "anti-choice" people are against national health care. But many are.



It still boils down that I don't want ANYONE-either it be the Supreme Court, the House/Senate, or someone who has never met me to make MY choice about MY reproduction system. Like I said, it is MINE and I will make that choice. No one is FORCED to have one. It is a personal decision. Isn't that what this country is about- FREEDOM to decide for yourself?





Cat



First of all I agree on there needing to be more birth control pills avaible for women all over the United States. I believe that trying to save the life of a child is much more important than trying to get a 60 year old man to get an erection.  Someone's life? or The Ability for Grandpappy to get Jiggy with it.  I vote on someone's life.

I'll say it a million times to you, abortion is not the answer to those kids. Killing them is not the answer. Changing the system of adoption is.  Do you have any idea how many OLDER couples would like to adopt a child but can't because they're past the age limit?  Do you have any idea how many already mothers would like to adopt a child but can't because of the "your system works, we give to those who's system does not".  Do you have any idea how many want to be parents have even the slightest criminal records and that keeps them from adopting?  I know you have to have an idea that somewhere someone is getting rich off of adoption, which is another sign of money being the root of evil. I've seen the same couples name in the paper looking for a baby for the past 3 months, don't tell me that they don't exist.

Second of all I'm not Anti - Choice I'm Anti-Murder....but I doubt you were referring to me. So let me say this to you.  On a person to person basis I think everyone is what they say they are, but you get into this on a professional, business, politcal matter what you really see is those so called Pro-Choice people being Pro-Murder and those so called  Pro-Life people being Pro-Choice.  Now, think of me stupid, what you will, but I've seen this over a dozen times first hand.  A girl goes into a pro-choice clinic and gets told pretty much three things.  When the abortion can take place, where the abortion can take place, and how much it will cost.  They like to say they talk to the girl about alternatives, but many of them either don't say crap, or degrade adoption and raising the child to such a degree that it's not even funny.  A girl walks into a pro-life place, they talk to her about adoption, about raising the child herself and if she's absolutley hell bent on killing the baby, they put their heads down and let her go on her way.

Freedom is a damn good thing. But I don't agree with the freedom to murder another person.  I agree more with the freedom to live, and not letting anyone else decide whether or not a particular person gets the right to live or not.

The "Safe Haven Laws" ARE a wonderful thing, but they're not in EVERY state...and they're not always the answer.  Unfortunately, neither is adoption.  As Harmonica pointed out, there are many roadblocks to adoption:  cost, background checks, health, etc.

Cat, I did find some statistics on adoptioninstitute.org:   FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION

The number of children in foster care in the United States continues to grow. At the end of Fiscal Year 1996, there were more than 500,000 children in foster care. This number represents a 79% increase over the number of children in care in 1986. Approximately 110,000 of the children in foster care will not return to their birth families and will need adoption planning services.



Illinois and Iowa are 2 States that do have the Safe Haven Law.  I'm not sure if your proud of Illinois for that, But I'm proud of Iowa.

The "Safe Haven Laws" ARE a wonderful thing, but they're not in EVERY state...and they're not always the answer.  Unfortunately, neither is adoption.  As Harmonica pointed out, there are many roadblocks to adoption:  cost, background checks, health, etc.

Cat, I did find some statistics on adoptioninstitute.org:  FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION

The number of children in foster care in the United States continues to grow. At the end of Fiscal Year 1996, there were more than 500,000 children in foster care. This number represents a 79% increase over the number of children in care in 1986. Approximately 110,000 of the children in foster care will not return to their birth families and will need adoption planning services.




I'm not too sure if foster care is the same thing that I was looking for (I did find). Are those #s ALL the kids who are up for adoption? Do they include the kids in orphanages? I'm not asking YOU directly because I'm sure you have no idea, like me.  I don't think every kid "in the system" so to speak, are in foster care. I could be wrong. That is why I didn't use those figures because I don't know if that tells the entire story. Thanks for trying.




Cat

I'll say it a million times to you, abortion is not the answer to those kids. Killing them is not the answer.

How do YOU know what is or is not the answer for those kids? Have you EVER been in that situation?



Second of all I'm not Anti - Choice I'm Anti-Murder....but I doubt you were referring to me. So let me say this to you.  On a person to person basis I think everyone is what they say they are, but you get into this on a professional, business, politcal matter what you really see is those so called Pro-Choice people being Pro-Murder and those so called  Pro-Life people being Pro-Choice.  Now, think of me stupid, what you will, but I've seen this over a dozen times first hand.  A girl goes into a pro-choice clinic and gets told pretty much three things.  When the abortion can take place, where the abortion can take place, and how much it will cost.  They like to say they talk to the girl about alternatives, but many of them either don't say crap, or degrade adoption and raising the child to such a degree that it's not even funny.  A girl walks into a pro-life place, they talk to her about adoption, about raising the child herself and if she's absolutley hell bent on killing the baby, they put their heads down and let her go on her way.

Freedom is a darn good thing. But I don't agree with the freedom to murder another person.  I agree more with the freedom to live, and not letting anyone else decide whether or not a particular person gets the right to live or not.



This is what I was talking about. A young girl finds herself in a situation and is being called a murder or a baby killer. That does not help her. And I meant what I said about being "anti-choice". You don't want a woman a chance to chose what course of action is best for HER!! Abortion is just ONE choice-the not only choice. There aren't many choices that a woman in that situation can make and you are trying to cut off one of those choices. You seem to think that fetus (that is not yet a child) has more rights than the woman. And what give YOU or anyone else the right to make the determination of what a woman can or can't do?




Cat

How do YOU know what is or is not the answer for those kids? Have you EVER been in that situation?


This is what I was talking about. A young girl finds herself in a situation and is being called a murder or a baby killer. That does not help her. And I meant what I said about being "anti-choice". You don't want a woman a chance to chose what course of action is best for HER!! Abortion is just ONE choice-the not only choice. There aren't many choices that a woman in that situation can make and you are trying to cut off one of those choices. You seem to think that fetus (that is not yet a child) has more rights than the woman. And what give YOU or anyone else the right to make the determination of what a woman can or can't do?




Cat

Yet anti-choicers vote for reactionary politicians whose platforms cause all the more deprivation, insecurity, poverty, sickness, and death for humans (and all God's creatures) than the health and life-affirming progressive platforms.  It's as though being against abortion makes it OK to dump toxins in the water, cut nutrition and education programs, and send 18-year-olds off to die in a rich man's war! 
How can we possibly take seriously the "pro-life" rantings of people who vote Republican?
::)

Yet anti-choicers vote for reactionary politicians whose platforms cause all the more deprivation, insecurity, poverty, sickness, and death for humans (and all God's creatures) than the health and life-affirming progressive platforms.  It's as though being against abortion makes it OK to dump toxins in the water, cut nutrition and education programs, and send 18-year-olds off to die in a rich man's war! 
How can we possibly take seriously the "pro-life" rantings of people who vote Republicans?
::)




Exactly!!!





Cat

Those are the statistics for children who are in the foster care system ONLY...not those up for private adoption.....HOWEVER, only about 3 % of those are infants (age <1...who are the most likely to be adopted)...about 52% are over age 9 and will likely stay in the foster care system until they reach 18.




Sad, isn't it.




Cat

I can't begin to tell you how happy I am not to be living in the Soviet Canuckistan.


I would like to apologise to all Canadians for this bit of xenophic idiocy.

Using common sense it means that you can begin to tell us how happy you are to live in Canada and sooner or later you'll put your two sense in.


Most people have five senses, sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch.  Are you proposing that Canadians have only two?  Which would they be?  Are you suggesting that Canadians are somehow less than fully human, or are you just illiterate?

You're either Pro-Life or Pro Death....the right  to kill babies or the right to let them live. That's all I want to say :-\\


My Websters Dictionary defines "baby" as "a very young child", not as a fetus, or a blastocist.  No one advocates the right to kill babies, but some of of do advocate the right of women not to have them.

Christ !?!  Did I not just say that they are a WONDERFUL thing? How is that possible?  Pro-life people are NOT about "choice" (unless your 'choice' happens to coincide with what THEY would choose).  They are about taking away a woman's options and saying "You MUST do what I think, not what you or anyone else thinks".  Besides, if Pro-Choice = Pro-Murder & Pro-Life = Pro-Choice, then Pro-Murder = Pro-Life ???   Not hardly. And, when was the last time you were in either type of clinic?  I've been in 3 different clinics in IL and they DO talk to you about alternatives.  Once was for myself and twice were with friends.  All 3 of them gave information about adoption, support services if the person decided to have the child as well as abortion.  2 of them were Planned Parenthood clinics and the third was a private abortion clinic and even THEY gave the alternatives.  NONE of them degraded ANYTHING...if anything, the private clinic tries to dissuade you from having an abortion....they will not even schedule it on your initial visit.


No need to get radical about the Safe Haven thing, I figured you liked them, I just didn't want to be putting word for word in your mouth, that's all.

Pro Choice people don't do the same thing?  "It's your choice to either have the baby and F up your life, or have an abortion and be on your merry way"......you call that a fair negotiation among choice????

I've been in a few different clinics.  Pella, Ottumwa, Des Moines, Souix City, Iowa City.  A few of them were anti-abortion and the others so called planned Parent hood.  I was rather P'od at the anti-abortion places because they actually looked at the pros of an abortion.  I was none to surprised when I had Mr. butthead telling me how a young girl couldn't handle givening up her child once she held it so adoption was out of the picture, and there goes college, a future job, and the rest of her whole damn life if she keeps it.  Long live baby death!  Oh sometimes what I'd give to be a violent person, cause I woulda beat that guy to a pulp.

How do YOU know what is or is not the answer for those kids? Have you EVER been in that situation?


This is what I was talking about. A young girl finds herself in a situation and is being called a murder or a baby killer. That does not help her. And I meant what I said about being "anti-choice". You don't want a woman a chance to chose what course of action is best for HER!! Abortion is just ONE choice-the not only choice. There aren't many choices that a woman in that situation can make and you are trying to cut off one of those choices. You seem to think that fetus (that is not yet a child) has more rights than the woman. And what give YOU or anyone else the right to make the determination of what a woman can or can't do?




Cat


I know killing them is not the answer. Do I know what the answer is? No I do not. Do I know what the answer is not. Yes I do. Murder.

I feel no remorse for the unremorseful selfish heartless of this world. That goes from the likes of Hitler to a young