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 and old baby murderers.  What's best for her?  Why is this world so selfish? When did love others take a hike? Why did it take a hike? When did look out for yourself and give a F less about your fellow man/woman all of a sudden take over as the national motto?

Been in the situation myself?  You damn right I've been in the situation myself.  Everytime I get in an debate, one of the things that's always thrown my way is lack of experience. I have no experience, no experience. B.S.

Well let me tell you something, I do have experience.

Abortion: My sister got pregnant the first part of her senior year in high school. My sister had goals, she had dreams. She wanted to go to the University of Illinois at Champagne or the University of Texas as Austin and become a fashion designer. Unlike the selfish girls you want to protect my sister also had Morals and values as well.  She put her baby ahead of her, she did the RIGHT thing.  I watch my sister bust her a$$ off day in and day out for her son. And let me tell you that I got more respect and admiration for her than what you could ever imagine.

Oh I got more stories too, my sister isn't the only one in my family.

Oh and how about the whole I think everyone should speak English in this country. It certainly can't be because I want us all to be able to communicate at all times now could it? It has to be because I'm a racist even though one of my best friends from High school grew up in Nicaragra and my best friend up at College is originally from South Korea.

You blame my opinion on lack of experience, when it really comes down to my NON lack of Morals and values.

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?
::)


I don't support deprivation, insecurity, poverty, sickness, and as you can tell I definitely don't support unwayofGod death.

Poverty is a problem here in the United states because of two things. Apathy and U.S. giving more of a hoot about the poor in Africa than the do about the poor in Appalachia.

Cutting Nutrition?  With all of the changes to fast food resturaunts and all of the "health" freaks out and about today changing the way this obese country is eating, your complaining?  This country eats more than any other country in the world.  We don't have a lack of food.

Education - The no child left behind act is a flaw. BUT it was made with good intentions, it just failed.  Failing is better than not trying at all. But success is better than failure, so you got me here.

Sickness - Got to figure out something here.  Perhaps the make my pecker grow pills getting the dinero isn't where drug money should be going.

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?


No not at all. I stand beside my brother/sister whether he/she be black, white, yellow, or red or whatever they consider themselves to be.

I have nothing against Canada. In fact I like Canada. I like Canada a lot.  Have friends from there, and people on the professional level I have great admiration for. 

Toronto Mapleleafs and Toronto Blue Jays are 2 of my favorite sports teams.



My statement was towards HIM, the poster HIMSELF, not Canadians in general.

No not at all. I stand beside my brother/sister whether he/she be black, white, yellow, or red or whatever they consider themselves to be.

I have nothing against Canada. In fact I like Canada. I like Canada a lot.  Have friends from there, and people on the professional level I have great admiration for. 

Toronto Mapleleafs and Toronto Blue Jays are 2 of my favorite sports teams.



My statement was towards HIM, the poster HIMSELF, not Canadians in general.


You still didn't get it.  One can put in one's two cents, as in throwing in one's opinion.  We all have five senses, as in ways that we precieve the world around us, and in some of us, those senses, and the inferances and conclusions we draw from them are more accute than those of others.

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.


Not all women should have to have a baby.

All pregnant women, should.

Fetus, a little baby.

You still didn't get it.  One can put in one's two cents, as in throwing in one's opinion.  We all have five senses, as in ways that we precieve the world around us, and in some of us, those senses, and the inferances and conclusions we draw from them are more accute than those of others.


This came down to a spelling B?  O-K-A-Y

Once again, we debate a question where no compromise is possible.  The central issue is when does human life begin.  Anti abortion folks believe it is at conception, and therfore abortion is murder.  Pro-choice supporters believe (+/-) that it begins with, as the bible says in some passages, "the breath of life".  Clearly, this is a profound philosophical question.  One, in my opinion, not to be resolved by name calling, sarcasm (my apologies Harmonica) or vitriol, but rather by the recognition that we all, as more or less moral beings should be free to make our own moral choices without the interferance of either the state  or individuals and groups who would impose their moral views on us.  Personally, I find abortion abhorant, but if a daughter of mine chose to have one, I would accompany her to the clinic, hold her hand during the procedure, and continue to love her after.  I have said before, but it bears repeating

KEEP YOU RELIGION OUT OF MY LAW, AND MY DAUGHTERS' WOMBS

Not all women should have to have a baby.

All pregnant women, should.

Fetus, a little baby.


And what of the biblical references to "the breath of life"?

Yes it is....what's even sadder is that people want to QUADRUPLE those numbers when the 500,000 already in "the system" aren't being cared for adequately :(



And you can bet that none of those people who want to QUADRUPLE those numbers are willing to take care of those kids.




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 and old baby murderers.  What's best for her?  Why is this world so selfish? When did love others take a hike? Why did it take a hike? When did look out for yourself and give a F less about your fellow man/woman all of a sudden take over as the national motto?

Been in the situation myself?  You darn right I've been in the situation myself.  Everytime I get in an debate, one of the things that's always thrown my way is lack of experience. I have no experience, no experience. B.S.

Well let me tell you something, I do have experience.

Abortion: My sister got pregnant the first part of her senior year in high school. My sister had goals, she had dreams. She wanted to go to the University of Illinois at Champagne or the University of Texas as Austin and become a fashion designer. Unlike the selfish girls you want to protect my sister also had Morals and values as well.  She put her baby ahead of her, she did the RIGHT thing.  I watch my sister bust her a$$ off day in and day out for her son. And let me tell you that I got more respect and admiration for her than what you could ever imagine.

Oh I got more stories too, my sister isn't the only one in my family.

Oh and how about the whole I think everyone should speak English in this country. It certainly can't be because I want us all to be able to communicate at all times now could it? It has to be because I'm a racist even though one of my best friends from High school grew up in Nicaragra and my best friend up at College is originally from South Korea.

You blame my opinion on lack of experience, when it really comes down to my NON lack of Morals and values.



That was your sister's CHOICE! I have no problem with that. I know many others have made that CHOICE. Again, I have no problem with it. But that is not the right choice for many women. What about a 14 year old girl who was raped by her father? Would that be the right choice for her? Personally, I can't say but my guess would be probably not. What I am saying that it the woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE what would be best for her. And neither you nor I have the right to say if she can or can't. This issue is not an all or nothing. I'm not saying that ALL unmarried, young women HAVE to have abortions. I am saying that she should be allowed to have a legal, SAFE one if she CHOOSES to do so. Again, the key word here is CHOICE!   It is not for you or me or anyone else to say that she CAN'T. You can disagree with her choice but you have NO RIGHT to say that she CAN'T make that choice.



Cat

Once again, we debate a question where no compromise is possible.  The central issue is when does human life begin.  Anti abortion folks believe it is at conception, and therfore abortion is murder.  Pro-choice supporters believe (+/-) that it begins with, as the bible says in some passages, "the breath of life".  Clearly, this is a profound philosophical question.  One, in my opinion, not to be resolved by name calling, sarcasm (my apologies Harmonica) or vitriol, but rather by the recognition that we all, as more or less moral beings should be free to make our own moral choices without the interferance of either the state  or individuals and groups who would impose their moral views on us.  Personally, I find abortion abhorant, but if a daughter of mine chose to have one, I would accompany her to the clinic, hold her hand during the procedure, and continue to love her after.  I have said before, but it bears repeating

KEEP YOU RELIGION OUT OF MY LAW, AND MY DAUGHTERS' WOMBS


Keep your scissors out of my fellow man/woman's head.

And what of the biblical references to "the breath of life"?


And the reference to "Thou shall not kill".

A woman breathes in air to her unborn baby, thats breath of life.

It's not the same thing.  Pro-life people don't even OFFER an "or"...it's their way or the highway.  You cannot tell me that having a child DOES NOT make your life more difficult.  I KNOW, I have 3 of them.   You've been TO the clinics, but have you ever been counselled by one?  Ever been present when somene else was being counselled?  As I said before, NONE of the clinics I've been in have ever pushed for one alternative or another.  I find it hard to believe that EVERY one in Iowa is biased ::)


Pro-Choice people don't offer nothing but abortion either.  You think a girl is going to want to give her baby up for adoption when all they do is ridicule and degrade the parents who want to adopt?  You think a girl is gonna want to raise her baby, when the pro choice people fill her head with horror stories?  Pro-Life places are going to push for life and pro-choice places are going to push for murder.  You find it hard to believe they will in Iowa, I find it hard to believe they won't in Illinois.

Oh, that's one of the parts of the bible that you can't take literally ::)


obviously so is "thou shall not kill"

That was your sister's CHOICE! I have no problem with that. I know many others have made that CHOICE. Again, I have no problem with it. But that is not the right choice for many women. What about a 14 year old girl who was raped by her father? Would that be the right choice for her? Personally, I can't say but my guess would be probably not. What I am saying that it the woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE what would be best for her. And neither you nor I have the right to say if she can or can't. This issue is not an all or nothing. I'm not saying that ALL unmarried, young women HAVE to have abortions. I am saying that she should be allowed to have a legal, SAFE one if she CHOOSES to do so. Again, the key word here is CHOICE!   It is not for you or me or anyone else to say that she CAN'T. You can disagree with her choice but you have NO RIGHT to say that she CAN'T make that choice.



Cat


It'd be easier for a lot of people to murder a lot of other people. I don't condone them, so I won't condone a baby killer either.

But don't you see ????  They WANT the woman to have a choice.......as long as it coincides with THEIR beliefs ::)


Which are.....Don't be murdering babies.

Pro-Choice people don't offer nothing but abortion either.  You think a girl is going to want to give her baby up for adoption when all they do is ridicule and degrade the parents who want to adopt?  You think a girl is gonna want to raise her baby, when the pro choice people fill her head with horror stories?  Pro-Life places are going to push for life and pro-choice places are going to push for murder.  You find it hard to believe they will in Iowa, I find it hard to believe they won't in Illinois.


I am pro-choice and I don't tell people to have an abortion, hell I don't tell people to do anything. why because it's none of my d@mn business what others do.

I am pro-choice and I don't tell people to have an abortion, hell I don't tell people to do anything. why because it's none of my d@mn business what others do.


You remember that when your driving by a school playground and you see two other children punching and kicking another child drawing blood from his lips.

You remember that when you stay in a hotel one night and hear a girl screaming for help because her boyfriend in a drunken rage is raping and beating the living hell out of her.


Hopefully you never see this stuff, but if you do, keep on driving or turn your TV up.

Cause it's nun ya dam bis nas.

You remember that when your driving by a school playground and you see two other children punching and kicking another child drawing blood from his lips.



actually I won't stop, unless my child is involved.


You remember that when you stay in a hotel one night and hear a girl screaming for help because her boyfriend in a drunken rage is raping and beating the living hell out of her.



I would call the front desk and tell them something is going on.


Hopefully you never see this stuff, but if you do, keep on driving or turn your TV up.

Cause it's nun ya dam bis nas.


I have seen stuff like that, the woman that used to live next door to me was being threatened by her boyfriend and we call the cops for her.

Big difference between those statements and abortion, one is legal and the others are not.

People that are being raped or beaten are living breathing people.

I have heard it said that the only two things in the world you can count on are birth and death.

you have to have the birth to have death. (murder)

My Websters Dictionary defines "baby" as "a very young child", not as a fetus, or a blastocist.


Websters also defines marriage as "the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."  But I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.

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


It almost was overruled in 1992:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/04/scotus.blackmun.papers

As lawyers and court watchers have long suspected, the Supreme Court was ready to effectively overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1992, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy got cold feet, and the vote went the other way.

Internal notes in the papers of late Justice Harry A. Blackmun reveal the secretive dealings that led to the court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that year.

Blackmun's extensive records from 24 years on the court were opened Thursday.

Details of the archives were first reported by National Public Radio, which got advance access.

Blackmun's notes show that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist led a five-justice majority to overrule Roe. Four other justices voting with Rehnquist were Byron White, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Kennedy. Rehnquist himself was to write the majority opinion.

--1992 was, of course, before Clinton packed the court with Ginsburg and Breyer.

I don't support deprivation, insecurity, poverty, sickness, and as you can tell I definitely don't support unwayofGod death.

Poverty is a problem here in the United states because of two things. Apathy and U.S. giving more of a hoot about the poor in Africa than the do about the poor in Appalachia.

Cutting Nutrition?  With all of the changes to fast food resturaunts and all of the "health" freaks out and about today changing the way this obese country is eating, your complaining?  This country eats more than any other country in the world.  We don't have a lack of food.

Education - The no child left behind act is a flaw. BUT it was made with good intentions, it just failed.  Failing is better than not trying at all. But success is better than failure, so you got me here.

Sickness - Got to figure out something here.  Perhaps the make my pecker grow pills getting the dinero isn't where drug money should be going.

You must understand Bush's talk of poverty in Africa is nothing more than talk.  If you don't believe it, you will in time. 
I meant WIC, "food stamps," and school-based nutrition programs.  This country doesn't lack food, it lacks the wherewithall to keep power out of the hands of politicians who will cut funds to social programs just to fund tax cuts for rich people.
NCLB is about imposing federal testing in lieu of investing in real education reform.  Bush had no intention of improving the lot of kids in dysfunctional schools.
You're right about "pecker pills," but if our healthcare system is chained to market forces, then "pecker pills" are where it's at.  Old men have money. 

It'd be easier for a lot of people to murder a lot of other people. I don't condone them, so I won't condone a baby killer either.



A fetus is NOT a baby. I find it very interesting how men-who can NEVER become pregnant want to control what women do-women they have never met or know what their situation is. YOU do NOT have that right to tell anyone else what they can or can't do if it is legal. Abortion IS legal and women have the RIGHT to get one if they so desire. You seem to think that this is a cut and dry situation but it is not. There are many circumstance that you (or even I) have no idea. Ok, your sister was just ONE circumstance but there are many, many more out there. How DARE you think that you know what is best for women!!! You don't. You may have known what was best for your sister because you know her. But you don't know all the women who find themselves in a situation. And how DARE think that you do!!!




Cat

Keep your scissors out of my fellow man/woman's head.


First of all, I have stated may times that I don't personally condon abortion, so they are not my scissors.  Second, that which is removed from a woman's womb in most cases is not developed enough to have a "head".

And the reference to "Thou shall not kill".

A woman breathes in air to her unborn baby, thats breath of life.


This is biologically impossible, and even as metaphore it is a long stretch.

Websters also defines marriage as "the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."  But I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that.


As a matter of fact I DO agree that that is a conventional definition of marriage.  I believe that it needs to be braodened.

actually I won't stop, unless my child is involved.

I would call the front desk and tell them something is going on.

I have seen stuff like that, the woman that used to live next door to me was being threatened by her boyfriend and we call the cops for her.

Big difference between those statements and abortion, one is legal and the others are not.

People that are being raped or beaten are living breathing people.

I have heard it said that the only two things in the world you can count on are birth and death.

you have to have the birth to have death. (murder)




Glad to know you'd keep driving, I'd stop my car, get out of my car, and protect the young man or woman getting beat up.

I can see that. It is the hotel's business that something is happening in there hotel.  Why YOU would let them know, is beyond me.

Big Similarity between my statements and abortion....both are things that are Wrong.

You only care about certain people, I care about all people.  Liberty and Justice FOR ALL, not just certain ones.

Is that so?  Then why oh why or why was John Peterson charged with Double murder? Among other's who have killed pregnant women?  And what about when Women are devestated when they have still borns or miscarriages?  I know about that First hand, as close as you can get.  They lost a baby, not a Fetus or a foetous whatever Carlos keeps referring it as.

You must understand Bush's talk of poverty in Africa is nothing more than talk.  If you don't believe it, you will in time. 
I meant WIC, "food stamps," and school-based nutrition programs.  This country doesn't lack food, it lacks the wherewithall to keep power out of the hands of politicians who will cut funds to social programs just to fund tax cuts for rich people.
NCLB is about imposing federal testing in lieu of investing in real education reform.  Bush had no intention of improving the lot of kids in dysfunctional schools.
You're right about "pecker pills," but if our healthcare system is chained to market forces, then "pecker pills" are where it's at.  Old men have money. 


Tell me more about School based nutrition programs.  The schools I went to, and other schools throughout Iowa as well as some other surrounding states, I believe South Dakota being one of them has had a vast improvement in the foods they have been bringing into the cafeteria within the last 10 years. 

Good point about the cutting funds to Social programs. 

Old men do have money.

Money, in another form of root evil.

Bio 101....an unborn baby doesn't breathe air.  Just like a parasite, it gets everything it needs from the host. I know quite a few people who have adopted and NONE of them have been ridiculed.  Maybe in backwoods Iowa, they still ridicule unwed mothers and infertile parents, but not in the rest of the civilized world.  You think a girl is gonna want to raise her baby when she finds out the pro-life people don't give a rat's arse about what happens to her or the child AFTER it is born?  And, yes, I DO find it hard to believe the ONLY option at a so-called "pro-choice" clinic in Iowa is abortion.  I certainly hope my new part-time neighbors aren't THAT narrow minded....they seem like really nice people.


As well as oxygen.

None of them have been ridiculed?  You call me niave.  Maybe in Illini country they don't have something along the lines of foster-pay?  For those just born to 18 years of age.  Here in Iowa and I'd almost bet in the other 49 states they have a system where foster parents who can keep children as long as an adoptive parent can earn money for taking care of the child/ren.  If you don't think that some are in it for the money and the money alone, well then you go ahead and think that, cause I know better.

A lot of pro life people care about what happens to the child after it's born.  They're not going to hand money over left and right, nor are they going to do every little thing either. They will help, but the problem is that the mother expects everyone else to do everything for her.  Ambition to get a job and to work is very little. Ambition to sit on the batoose and use the money donated to go out and buy alcohol for one's self is quite high.  Don't believe this?  Then don't.  Crisis Center Intervention Services across the United States will be more than happy to tell you.


Narrow Minded? Nope Iowan's for the most part aren't narrow minded, but we do have a few.  We have big chest over hear, Gotta make room for that thing called a heart.

A fetus is NOT a baby. I find it very interesting how men-who can NEVER become pregnant want to control what women do-women they have never met or know what their situation is. YOU do NOT have that right to tell anyone else what they can or can't do if it is legal. Abortion IS legal and women have the RIGHT to get one if they so desire. You seem to think that this is a cut and dry situation but it is not. There are many circumstance that you (or even I) have no idea. Ok, your sister was just ONE circumstance but there are many, many more out there. How DARE you think that you know what is best for women!!! You don't. You may have known what was best for your sister because you know her. But you don't know all the women who find themselves in a situation. And how DARE think that you do!!!




Cat


Selfish.

I was once a fetus and you were once a fetus, so baby or not it is a human being. It is one of us. No one can skip that stage.  Therefore it's wrong to kill a fetus.

Oh cry me a river. You sit and type at your computer trying to pull a most women who have abortions are rape victems or will seriously damage their physical health or might even kill them.  Thanks for the minority report. Let's get to the others. The selfish ones. The ones who got pregnant because they had too much to drink the night before.  The ones who got pregnant because they didn't like the way a condom felt and didn't want to take the pill cause they heard it makes you gain weight. 

What's best for women?  Don't make me out to be a woman hater just because I dont' agree with the right for a woman to have someone else murder her son or daughter.  And yes Son or daughter, it's now possible to tell the sex of a baby within only a few weeks after conception. I suppose that still makes it a nothing to you though.

I feel no guilt nor any shame.  Give me a murdered baby and a selfish satasfied woman? Or give me a healthy baby and a woman who's pissed because she realizes that responsibility for actions is part of life.  Give me that latter.

First of all, I have stated may times that I don't personally condon abortion, so they are not my scissors.  Second, that which is removed from a woman's womb in most cases is not developed enough to have a "head".


I will correct myself on the first statement.    Those who you approve of. Their scissors. Keep them out of my fellow man/woman's head.

But it's devolped enough to die, head or no head.

I will correct myself on the first statement.    Those who you approve of. Their scissors. Keep them out of my fellow man/woman's head.

But it's devolped enough to die, head or no head.




To all the resat of you posting on this thread, it is clear that this self ritious, holier than thu "person" is so convinced of his direct line to God that there is really no point in arguing with him.  Hopefully, he will spend his days (and nights) in prayer and stop tormenting us with his occasionally incoherant babble.  I do question his direct link to God though.  I visited churches around the country and found that many of them had gold telephones, which one could use to call God.  The long distance fees were INCREDIBLE.  At one church it was $100,000/sec, at another it was $1,000,000/sec.  At a church in Vermont, though, it was only $.05/min.  I asked why.  The pastor said that was because from Vermont it was a local call. ;)

To all the resat of you posting on this thread, it is clear that this self ritious, holier than thu "person" is so convinced of his direct line to God that there is really no point in arguing with him.  Hopefully, he will spend his days (and nights) in prayer and stop tormenting us with his occasionally incoherant babble.  I do question his direct link to God though.  I visited churches around the country and found that many of them had gold telephones, which one could use to call God.  The long distance fees were INCREDIBLE.  At one church it was $100,000/sec, at another it was $1,000,000/sec.  At a church in Vermont, though, it was only $.05/min.  I asked why.  The pastor said that was because from Vermont it was a local call. ;)


you talk all about your happy respect. Where is it?  You don't believe in God and you make fun of those who believe in him and make fun of his existence with your message.

you talk all about your happy respect. Where is it?  You don't believe in God and you make fun of those who believe in him and make fun of his existence with your message.




  NO

I don't make fun of those who believe in God, and whether I believe in YOUR God or not is irrelevant.  Rather, I make fun of you.  I am willing to respect your beliefs, and your right to express them, but NOT your impulse to force them down other people's throats, which is what you have been doing.  When you earn my respect by demonstrating a respectful attitude toward others, I will display it.  In the mean time, your sanctimonious, holier than thu attitude will continue to incure my distain.  A but of humility on your part would go a long way toward eaning my respect, which you seem to think you deserve without condition.

Is that so?  Then why oh why or why was John Peterson charged with Double murder? Among other's who have killed pregnant women?  And what about when Women are devestated when they have still borns or miscarriages?  I know about that First hand, as close as you can get.  They lost a baby, not a Fetus or a foetous whatever Carlos keeps referring it as.



women that have miscarriages are devestated because they are already planning to raise a child, they picture in their mind what he/she would look like. She is emotionally (not physically) already a mother.

You have only two sense left, one is lost and the other is looking for it.

None of them have been ridiculed?  You call me niave.  Maybe in Illini country they don't have something along the lines of foster-pay?  For those just born to 18 years of age.  Here in Iowa and I'd almost bet in the other 49 states they have a system where foster parents who can keep children as long as an adoptive parent can earn money for taking care of the child/ren.  If you don't think that some are in it for the money and the money alone, well then you go ahead and think that, cause I know better.



Foster care and adoption are two very different things, foster parents know that any day the children could be adopted or (in the cases where they were taken out of the parents home) returned to their home.

Adoption is taking all responsibility for that child, no payments made to the adoptive family.

Selfish.

I was once a fetus and you were once a fetus, so baby or not it is a human being. It is one of us. No one can skip that stage.  Therefore it's wrong to kill a fetus.

Oh cry me a river. You sit and type at your computer trying to pull a most women who have abortions are rape victems or will seriously damage their physical health or might even kill them.  Thanks for the minority report. Let's get to the others. The selfish ones. The ones who got pregnant because they had too much to drink the night before.  The ones who got pregnant because they didn't like the way a condom felt and didn't want to take the pill cause they heard it makes you gain weight. 

What's best for women?  Don't make me out to be a woman hater just because I dont' agree with the right for a woman to have someone else murder her son or daughter.  And yes Son or daughter, it's now possible to tell the sex of a baby within only a few weeks after conception. I suppose that still makes it a nothing to you though.

I feel no guilt nor any shame.  Give me a murdered baby and a selfish satasfied woman? Or give me a healthy baby and a woman who's ticked because she realizes that responsibility for actions is part of life.  Give me that latter.





You know, I don't know why I bother. Apparently your mind is too narrow to try to explain ANYTHING to you. Yes, you know ALL. Once again the All-Mighty Harmonica has spoken so there for EVERYONE must HEED his words. So, from now on, every young woman I know of who is in this situation, I am going to send her to YOU and you can tell her that she has no choices-except for the one that YOU think in right for her. And if she can't handle having the baby-YOU can personally take care of it. I'm sure you would love that. I am totally done trying to explain ANYTHING to you because Heaven forbid you might actually LEARN something. I think you need a serious education and I am not talking about book-learning. I am talking about the REAL world (that you THINK you know everything about which you DON'T). Get a clue. Go and stick your head back in the sand and do us all a favor.





Cat

You know, I don't know why I bother. Apparently your mind is too narrow to try to explain ANYTHING to you.
Did you really think you were going to be able to do so?
I'm right, you're wrong, the Bible says it, I believe, and that settles it!  God is on my side, so there!
::)

  NO

I don't make fun of those who believe in God, and whether I believe in YOUR God or not is irrelevant.  Rather, I make fun of you.  I am willing to respect your beliefs, and your right to express them, but NOT your impulse to force them down other people's throats, which is what you have been doing.  When you earn my respect by demonstrating a respectful attitude toward others, I will display it.  In the mean time, your sanctimonious, holier than thu attitude will continue to incure my distain.  A but of humility on your part would go a long way toward eaning my respect, which you seem to think you deserve without condition.


Well make fun and have no respect for me all you will, that I don't care about.

The impartials towards the lord I do, and you say your not, so I'll have to take your word for it.  Polygraph won't stretch.

women that have miscarriages are devestated because they are already planning to raise a child, they picture in their mind what he/she would look like. She is emotionally (not physically) already a mother.

You have only two sense left, one is lost and the other is looking for it.


Only ok for the mother to think that. Not for the father or the other relatives only the mother. Not even ok for God. Just for the mother.

Just.

Well make fun and have no respect for me all you will, that I don't care about.

The impartials towards the lord I do, and you say your not, so I'll have to take your word for it.  Polygraph won't stretch.

Huh?  What the....?  

Foster care and adoption are two very different things, foster parents know that any day the children could be adopted or (in the cases where they were taken out of the parents home) returned to their home.

Adoption is taking all responsibility for that child, no payments made to the adoptive family.


The Foster parents can also file for adoption themselves.

The Foster parents can also file for adoption themselves.


And as soon as they adopt, the payments stop.

You know, I don't know why I bother. Apparently your mind is too narrow to try to explain ANYTHING to you. Yes, you know ALL. Once again the All-Mighty Harmonica has spoken so there for EVERYONE must HEED his words. So, from now on, every young woman I know of who is in this situation, I am going to send her to YOU and you can tell her that she has no choices-except for the one that YOU think in right for her. And if she can't handle having the baby-YOU can personally take care of it. I'm sure you would love that. I am totally done trying to explain ANYTHING to you because Heaven forbid you might actually LEARN something. I think you need a serious education and I am not talking about book-learning. I am talking about the REAL world (that you THINK you know everything about which you DON'T). Get a clue. Go and stick your head back in the sand and do us all a favor.





Cat


Yes tell me all about it. Tell me how great murder is. Hell tell me how to grab a pair of scissors and shove it right up there. Tell me, do the brains suck out better from the front or the back?

Should I feel great after murdering my first baby? Or is it only a good feeling?

Huh?  What the....?  


Gee I don't understand. I pretend that I have no idea what's going on when clearly Harmonica states that he doesn't have a polygraph which means that he don't think Sir Carlos is being honest.

DUH

And as soon as they adopt, the payments stop.



I suppose that's the worst thing in the world that can happen. Money is everything.

I suppose that's the worst thing in the world that can happen. Money is everything.


where the F*** did that come from. you were the one that said people become foster parents so that they could get money, you were the one that said people were rediculed for wanting to adopt and implied that it was because of money.

I only pointed out that why would people who adopt be rediculed about  adopting kids when no money is involved.

where the F*** did that come from. you were the one that said people become foster parents so that they could get money, you were the one that said people were rediculed for wanting to adopt and implied that it was because of money.

I only pointed out that why would people who adopt be rediculed about  adopting kids when no money is involved.


It came from the fact that Money is the real problem to all of the problems.  When money is involved it makes or breaks the situation.

If a girl had all the money in the world, would she want to kill her baby? Yeah, maybe, but it wouldn't be as concievable.

Poverty keeps people from doing a lot of things, including buying 75 cent condoms.

It came from the fact that Money is the real problem to all of the problems.  When money is involved it makes or breaks the situation.

If a girl had all the money in the world, would she want to kill her baby? Yeah, maybe, but it wouldn't be as concievable.

Poverty keeps people from doing a lot of things, including buying 75 cent condoms.


Actually, I think you got that a little backwards, people who live in poverty are the ones who keep their baby or put it up for adoption, because they can't afford an abortion.

Actually, I think you got that a little backwards, people who live in poverty are the ones who keep their baby or put it up for adoption, because they can't afford an abortion.





So it does come down to selfishness and greed?

Let's hear this one, it ought to be rich.

Wait I Can't say that! I'm not a liberal! I'm not one of you! That's only a privilage for those above me.

Please tell me how it is proper and ever so enlighting that a richer girl get an abortion.

So it does come down to selfishness and greed?

Let's hear this one, it ought to be rich.

Wait I Can't say that! I'm not a liberal! I'm not one of you! That's only a privilage for those above me.

Please tell me how it is proper and ever so enlighting that a richer girl get an abortion.



thank you ever so much Harmonica, I get a good laugh when I read your posts. and right now in my life there is not much that makes me laugh.

you take all our words and twist them around and hear what you want to hear.
you try and make everyone look like idiots and yourself to be  the right hand man to god himself.

I thought it would be obvious from my last post, the rich girl can get an abortion more quicker because she can afford to.

Those Crisis Intervention Services provide a safe haven in which the woman may bear the child.  Then they take the baby and sell it to the Scientologists who are currently raising an army of Tom Cruises to take over the world!
;D

Well make fun and have no respect for me all you will, that I don't care about.

The impartials towards the lord I do, and you say your not, so I'll have to take your word for it.  Polygraph won't stretch.


I'm not sure, due to the illiteracy of this post, but I think I have just beenb called a lier by this person.  What does "impartials towrad the lord" mean?  And to what did I say I was not?  Please explain this jibberish.

Yes tell me all about it. Tell me how great murder is. Hell tell me how to grab a pair of scissors and shove it right up there. Tell me, do the brains suck out better from the front or the back?

Should I feel great after murdering my first baby? Or is it only a good feeling?


Tyhis is really over the top.  Who the f*** do you think you are?  And how dare you?  Seems like your brains were sucked out at some point, or at least your ability to reason.

Gee I don't understand. I pretend that I have no idea what's going on when clearly Harmonica states that he doesn't have a polygraph which means that he don't think Sir Carlos is being honest.

DUH
Not being honest about what?  About the fact that I think you to be sanctimonious, narrow minded, and irrational?  Or dishonest about being willing to respect your beliefs when you show some respect for those of others?  This post is an attack on my honor and my integrity, and if this were 1805 instead of 2005, we would be standing ten paces apart with pistols drawn.  You owe me an appolgy, and you owe an appolgy to Cat, and to several other board members who you have gratutiously insulted.  If you and your attitude represent the Christian attitude, then I deplore and reject Christianity.  Go back to the middle ages where you belong.

On July 8, 2005,(yesterday),the Federal Appeals Court in Lincoln Nebraska ruled that the ban on D&X procedure
is unconstitutional. It has held (quite rightly in my opinion) that "when substantial medical authority supports the medical necessity of a procedure in some instances a health exception is constitutionally required".  In other words if the health of the mother is at stake she is allowed to protect herself from death or debilitating conditions arising from the pregnancy.  So once again women are constitutionally allowed to save their own lives. 

On July 8, 2005,(yesterday),the Federal Appeals Court in Lincoln Nebraska ruled that the ban on D&X procedure
is unconstitutional. It has held (quite rightly in my opinion) that "when substantial medical authority supports the medical necessity of a procedure in some instances a health exception is constitutionally required".  In other words if the health of the mother is at stake she is allowed to protect herself from death or debilitating conditions arising from the pregnancy.  So once again women are constitutionally allowed to save their own lives. 


That's already been done in other states.  Nebraska will just pass the same law with an exemption for something that may be life threatening.

That's already been done in other states.  Nebraska will just pass the same law with an exemption for something that may be life threatening.


This wasn't a decision in state court, it was a federal decision in a federal court.

My initial reaction to a certain thing that was said on this thread was a lot of expletives. All I will say is- last time I checked christian, god-fearing, or jesus loving people do not go saying such DISGUSTING and hateful things. As a matter of fact any decent human being wouldn't fix their fingers to type such sick stuff. It's because of idiots like you that there are a lot dead babies showing up in trash cans and such. Young women are too scared or don't have the freedom and/or education to get an abortion. They carry unwanted babies until it's too late.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

To the person who wrote that disgusting thing you get the big "New York Salute" from me. JERK.
You can bet it's NOT a thumbs up!


you know who you are.

My initial reaction to a certain thing that was said on this thread was a lot of expletives. All I will say is- last time I checked christian, god-fearing, or jesus loving people do not go saying such DISGUSTING and hateful things. As a matter of fact any decent human being wouldn't fix their fingers to type such sick stuff. It's because of idiots like you that there are a lot dead babies showing up in trash cans and such. Young women are too scared or don't have the freedom and/or education to get an abortion. They carry unwanted babies until it's too late.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

To the person who wrote that disgusting thing you get the big "New York Salute" from me. JERK.


you know who you are.





Touche.





Cat

Abortion

An issue that stands all alone. There is no other issue like it.  It is of and by itself.  Your either 110% for it. Or 110% against it. 

Every other issue discussed, compromise can be found.  Drinking for instance. Don't have to be 100% for it, nor a 100% against it.  Compromise is found in, go out have fun, get drunk but don't get behind the wheel of a car after your drunk.

Abortion there are no compromises. Any sign of sympathy or empathy towards the other side is murely a sign of weakness on both parties parts. 

It'd be nice to understand that the mother could lose her life, or that a girl was savagely raped and beaten, but that is unnacceptable.  You either stand behind the girl who goes out and get's pregnant as many times as she can trying to make the guiness book of world records for successful consequtive abortions the same way you stand behind the beaten and raped girl OR you spit on the girl who had sex with 5 different guys within the same night and the girl who's life is in grave danger having a baby.

No questions provide answers only more questions.

Is God against abortion? Maybe is the only acceptable answer, can not use anything to go one way or the other.  However I do ask if in a world where everything was right and pure, would abortions take place?  Some most likely will say yes they still would.  Others would say no they would not.  This of course brings up another argument of whether God wants all right and good.  And of course the existance of what is right and what is good, and of God ofself is also at question. 

No suggestions of either fact nor of opinion get anything accomplished besides making contradictions and the other side furious.

At first it was pointed out that the majority against abortion were men. Later on it was said that it was usually the man who suggested/forced the woman into getting an abortion.

At first it was said that a leading cause of abortion was poverty. Later on it was said that abortion couldn't be afforded by the poor and only the richer could afford it.


Abortion there are no compromises.

I could say much more. One thing I will say, even though I think I'm entitled to one as well is that I am sorry towards Don Carlos, for my attacks on him, not on what he had to say.  I apologize for making him feel negative, not for making him feel that what he had to say was negative in any form.

I'll end with abortion will be kept legal forever and your 110% with it or 110% against it, Or someday it will be made illegal and you'll be 110% behind the new law or 110% trying to make it legal again.

It'd be nice to understand that the mother could lose her life, or that a girl was savagely raped and beaten, but that is unnacceptable.  You either stand behind the girl who goes out and get's pregnant as many times as she can trying to make the guiness book of world records for successful consequtive abortions the same way you stand behind the beaten and raped girl OR you spit on the girl who had sex with 5 different guys within the same night and the girl who's life is in grave danger having a baby.



At first it was said that a leading cause of abortion was poverty. Later on it was said that abortion couldn't be afforded by the poor and only the richer could afford it.




How could you compare an abortion by a woman that might die because of complications, and an abortion by a whore.

consider the fact that the woman with complications might have other kids at home that need her.

But no your way is to let that woman die and leave even more children without a parent.

Abortion

An issue that stands all alone. There is no other issue like it.  It is of and by itself.  Your either 110% for it. Or 110% against it. 

Every other issue discussed, compromise can be found.  Drinking for instance. Don't have to be 100% for it, nor a 100% against it.  Compromise is found in, go out have fun, get drunk but don't get behind the wheel of a car after your drunk.

Abortion there are no compromises. Any sign of sympathy or empathy towards the other side is murely a sign of weakness on both parties parts. 

It'd be nice to understand that the mother could lose her life, or that a girl was savagely raped and beaten, but that is unnacceptable.  You either stand behind the girl who goes out and get's pregnant as many times as she can trying to make the guiness book of world records for successful consequtive abortions the same way you stand behind the beaten and raped girl OR you spit on the girl who had sex with 5 different guys within the same night and the girl who's life is in grave danger having a baby.

No questions provide answers only more questions.

Is God against abortion? Maybe is the only acceptable answer, can not use anything to go one way or the other.  However I do ask if in a world where everything was right and pure, would abortions take place?  Some most likely will say yes they still would.  Others would say no they would not.  This of course brings up another argument of whether God wants all right and good.  And of course the existance of what is right and what is good, and of God ofself is also at question. 

No suggestions of either fact nor of opinion get anything accomplished besides making contradictions and the other side furious.

At first it was pointed out that the majority against abortion were men. Later on it was said that it was usually the man who suggested/forced the woman into getting an abortion.

At first it was said that a leading cause of abortion was poverty. Later on it was said that abortion couldn't be afforded by the poor and only the richer could afford it.


Abortion there are no compromises.

I could say much more. One thing I will say, even though I think I'm entitled to one as well is that I am sorry towards Don Carlos, for my attacks on him, not on what he had to say.  I apologize for making him feel negative, not for making him feel that what he had to say was negative in any form.

I'll end with abortion will be kept legal forever and your 110% with it or 110% against it, Or someday it will be made illegal and you'll be 110% behind the new law or 110% trying to make it legal again.




Ever hear of a guy named John Salvi?  You seem to have a lot in common with his way of thinking.  That should scare you.

On July 8, 2005,(yesterday),the Federal Appeals Court in Lincoln Nebraska ruled that the ban on D&X procedure
is unconstitutional. It has held (quite rightly in my opinion) that "when substantial medical authority supports the medical necessity of a procedure in some instances a health exception is constitutionally required". In other words if the health of the mother is at stake she is allowed to protect herself from death or debilitating conditions arising from the pregnancy. So once again women are constitutionally allowed to save their own lives.


Ok, I feel incredibly dumb here, but what is the D&X procedure?  Is it like D&C?  If so, that is stupid and those lawmakers need to be beat about the head.


My initial reaction to a certain thing that was said on this thread was a lot of expletives. All I will say is- last time I checked christian, god-fearing, or jesus loving people do not go saying such DISGUSTING and hateful things. As a matter of fact any decent human being wouldn't fix their fingers to type such sick stuff. It's because of idiots like you that there are a lot dead babies showing up in trash cans and such. Young women are too scared or don't have the freedom and/or education to get an abortion. They carry unwanted babies until it's too late.
You should be ashamed of yourself.

To the person who wrote that disgusting thing you get the big "New York Salute" from me. JERK.
You can bet it's NOT a thumbs up!


you know who you are.


Well said.

How could you compare an abortion by a woman that might die because of complications, and an abortion by a whore.

consider the fact that the woman with complications might have other kids at home that need her.

But no your way is to let that woman die and leave even more children without a parent.





They can not be compared nor contrasted because there are no compromises in abortion.

Personally I do consider the fact that a woman with complications might have other child at home, and I take that into great account.  But there are no compromises in abortion.  I'd rather that there were and not let the woman die and have her have an abortion and understand that, but then I'd also have to understand and fully accept  the whore too.

Ever hear of a guy named John Salvi?  You seem to have a lot in common with his way of thinking.  That should scare you.


I will look him up.

I will look him up.

You'll have to look him down...in hell!
He shot up a couple of Boston-area clinics and killed a few people back in 1992.  He later hanged himself in his cell at Walpole prison.

They can not be compared nor contrasted because there are no compromises in abortion.

Personally I do consider the fact that a woman with complications might have other child at home, and I take that into great account.  But there are no compromises in abortion.  I'd rather that there were and not let the woman die and have her have an abortion and understand that, but then I'd also have to understand and fully accept  the whore too.


yes there is a compromise, why make a woman continue a pregnancy that will kill both mother and child.
I would rather see one survive and continue to be there for her other children.

If someone is using abortion as birth control, then that is not right.
but a mother saving her life so that she can care for other children is not using it as birth control but as a life saving surgery.

You'll have to look him down...in hell!
He shot up a couple of Boston-area clinics and killed a few people back in 1992.  He later hanged himself in his cell at Walpole prison.


I don't condone the man for what he did. His way of fighting is unaccepatable, and might as well be pro-abortion itself because it did nothing positive to fight abortion.

yes there is a compromise, why make a woman continue a pregnancy that will kill both mother and child.
I would rather see one survive and continue to be there for her other children.

If someone is using abortion as birth control, then that is not right.
but a mother saving her life so that she can care for other children is not using it as birth control but as a life saving surgery.


You either have to see both as being right or both as being wrong from a standpoint position. Personally of course not, but there is no compromise with abortion.

You either have to see both as being right or both as being wrong from a standpoint position. Personally of course not, but there is no compromise with abortion.


no you don't have to see them as equal, the scenarios that I have posted are so different.

one is used to get rid of an unwanted fetus and the other is used to save a life.

Abortion

An issue that stands all alone. There is no other issue like it.  It is of and by itself.  Your either 110% for it. Or 110% against it. 
...




No, not really.  It is a unique issue to be sure, but it's not necessarily as simple as you propose. 

It's simple if you take the view that a fetus unable to sustain life on its own is just as valid and worthy of protection as a fully-functioning human being.  That's a perfectly valid view, but not everyone shares it.  Just as not everyone believes in animal rights, and not everyone believes in the death penalty. 

It's also a simple issue if you take the view that until a particular point in its development, or ability to function at a certain level, the fetus is simply a biological appendage to the host, and that it has no rights independent of the host.

But contrary to the evidence of popular conversation, the fact is that there are a good many people somewhere in between.  Some take the view that the host should have some legal rights, but that the other genetic contributor should also have some legal rights that should be balanced against the host's.  Some take the view that the fetus should have legal rights, but that the host and the sperm contributor should also have rights that must be weighed against the fetus'.  One could take the view that the sperm contributor may have legal rights, but that these rights are contingent upon the manner in which the genes were contributed (e.g. rape/incest).  And on and on.

Listen, if all the issues human beings had to deal with were simple, human beings would have simple brains.

It's difficult to make a convincing 'logical' argument for or against the value of life, or to make a 'logical' argument for or against the 'right' to life in any circumstance, or for that matter, to make a 'logical' argument for or against most 'rights'.  It seems to basically come down to something so fundamental to one's own personal values that debates about right and wrong pretty much become meaningless. There are some issues that transcend self-righteous debate and polemics (from every perspective), and this is probably one of them.  But it could be a very meaningful subject to discuss and explore among people willing to let go of demonizing those who come from a different perspective.

As for empathy being a sign of weakness, well, that's just another subjective assessment isn't it?  :)

I could say much more. One thing I will say, even though I think I'm entitled to one as well is that I am sorry towards Don Carlos, for my attacks on him, not on what he had to say.  I apologize for making him feel negative, not for making him feel that what he had to say was negative in any form.



I do not accepot this appology.  I was called a lier and that statement has been neither retracted nor explained.  My honor is till offendde, and even more so by the suggestion that it my feeling that have been hurt.  I still want to know how this person thinks I have been dishonest, and I still demand an appolgy for beig accused of being so.

no you don't have to see them as equal, the scenarios that I have posted are so different.

one is used to get rid of an unwanted fetus and the other is used to save a life.


I'd like to agree with you and from a discussion approach I do.

However in a debate there are no compromises in abortion.

No, not really.  It is a unique issue to be sure, but it's not necessarily as simple as you propose. 

It's simple if you take the view that a fetus unable to sustain life on its own is just as valid and worthy of protection as a fully-functioning human being.  That's a perfectly valid view, but not everyone shares it.  Just as not everyone believes in animal rights, and not everyone believes in the death penalty. 

It's also a simple issue if you take the view that until a particular point in its development, or ability to function at a certain level, the fetus is simply a biological appendage to the host, and that it has no rights independent of the host.

But contrary to the evidence of popular conversation, the fact is that there are a good many people somewhere in between.  Some take the view that the host should have some legal rights, but that the other genetic contributor should also have some legal rights that should be balanced against the host's.  Some take the view that the fetus should have legal rights, but that the host and the sperm contributor should also have rights that must be weighed against the fetus'.  One could take the view that the sperm contributor may have legal rights, but that these rights are contingent upon the manner in which the genes were contributed (e.g. rape/incest).  And on and on.

Listen, if all the issues human beings had to deal with were simple, human beings would have simple brains.

It's difficult to make a convincing 'logical' argument for or against the value of life, or to make a 'logical' argument for or against the 'right' to life in any circumstance, or for that matter, to make a 'logical' argument for or against most 'rights'.  It seems to basically come down to something so fundamental to one's own personal values that debates about right and wrong pretty much become meaningless. There are some issues that transcend self-righteous debate and polemics (from every perspective), and this is probably one of them.  But it could be a very meaningful subject to discuss and explore among people willing to let go of demonizing those who come from a different perspective.

As for empathy being a sign of weakness, well, that's just another subjective assessment isn't it?  :)


Good stuff. But you know as well as I do that if your pro-choice and someone brings up an issue of this and that to you like partial-birth abortion and exactly what goes down with that or an abortion that took place do to greed and selfishness alone, you still have to take that aside and push feelings out the door and be 110% for abortion.  Same thing goes with being pro-life, the feelings for a raped girl have to go out the door in the end as well.

I do not accepot this appology.  I was called a lier and that statement has been neither retracted nor explained.  My honor is till offendde, and even more so by the suggestion that it my feeling that have been hurt.  I still want to know how this person thinks I have been dishonest, and I still demand an appolgy for beig accused of being so.


I gave you what I owed you, either you accept it or you don't.

Apology, liar,still, offended, apology, being = Stop insulting my grammar and illiteracy when yours is no better.

Good stuff. But you know as well as I do that if your pro-choice and someone brings up an issue of this and that to you like partial-birth abortion and exactly what goes down with that or an abortion that took place do to greed and selfishness alone, you still have to take that aside and push feelings out the door and be 110% for abortion.  Same thing goes with being pro-life, the feelings for a raped girl have to go out the door in the end as well.


I don't think anyone here would be for Partial birth abortions.

It was stated before on another thread that once a fetus could survive outside a woman's body that an abortion is wrong.

I don't think anyone here would be for Partial birth abortions.

It was stated before on another thread that once a fetus could survive outside a woman's body that an abortion is wrong.




But according to Don Carlos Survive or not Survive a Fetus is a nothing, and that nothing has no right to live.

But according to Don Carlos Survive or not Survive a Fetus is a nothing, and that nothing has no right to live.

Huh???
:D

Good stuff. But you know as well as I do that if your pro-choice and someone brings up an issue of this and that to you like partial-birth abortion and exactly what goes down with that or an abortion that took place do to greed and selfishness alone, you still have to take that aside and push feelings out the door and be 110% for abortion.  Same thing goes with being pro-life, the feelings for a raped girl have to go out the door in the end as well.


Well, implicit in my post was the idea that I'm not interested in buying into a simplistic 'pro-life vs. pro-choice' paradigm.

Well, implicit in my post was the idea that I'm not interested in buying into a simplistic 'pro-life vs. pro-choice' paradigm.


Political matters

Your either 110% for it. Or 110% against it. 

I disagree. You can personally think that it'd be better if we didn't NEED it, but the reality is that a safe procedure is better then women getting back-alley, unsanitary procedures done.. that's a bit of a mix. You make it too black-and-white.

I gave you what I owed you, either you accept it or you don't.

Apology, liar,still, offended, apology, being = Stop insulting my grammar and illiteracy when yours is no better.


Admittedly, for the umteenth time, my typing su*ks.  Big fingers hit sometimes 3 keys at a time, and I'm a terrible proof reader.  Grammer and leteracy are a different matter, and some of your posts are incomprehensible. 

More importantly, you STILL call me a lier without explanation.  When have I lied?  Seems to me your need to point out the lies you accuse me of or you need to  back off.

But according to Don Carlos Survive or not Survive a Fetus is a nothing, and that nothing has no right to live.


Now you are putting words in my mouth.  I never said any such thing, and I defy you to show that I did.  Further, I HAVE said that I oppose abortion, but respect a woman's right to decide her own health/reproductive issues.  So now YOU are lying in how you represent my views.  Shall we meet where Burr and Hamilton shot it out?

I'd like to agree with you and from a discussion approach I do.

However in a debate there are no compromises in abortion.


a debate and a discussion are the same thing so I guess you agree that some abortions are needed.

the meaning of debate :to engage in an argument by discussing opposing points.

I disagree. You can personally think that it'd be better if we didn't NEED it, but the reality is that a safe procedure is better then women getting back-alley, unsanitary procedures done.. that's a bit of a mix. You make it too black-and-white.


It'd be nice if I didn't have to Howard, but when it comes down to political debates on abortion, I don't have any "choice" (what a pun there huh?) in the matter.

You forget that to some people, there is ONLY black and white, no shades of grey or colors in between.  They agree whole heartedly with Bush's "You're either with us or against us" statement.  They fail to understand that it is possible to agree with BOTH sides of an argument based on circumstances.


And it's Crazymom with the flawless answer once again.

If you read my post you'd realize that I do see a lot of Gray in a lot of things, including abortion.  However I'm also no idiot. I know that when it comes to debating abortion the minute I try and come to a compromise accusations of jumping ship come into play.  There are no compromises in the debate of abortion. Your either for it or against it, No one nor no group will let you inbetween. 

Now you are putting words in my mouth.  I never said any such thing, and I defy you to show that I did.  Further, I HAVE said that I oppose abortion, but respect a woman's right to decide her own health/reproductive issues.  So now YOU are lying in how you represent my views.  Shall we meet where Burr and Hamilton shot it out?


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.

Then a while back too, on another board you said something to me about the whole fetus thing there as well, but then you called in a Fotus or something else.

a debate and a discussion are the same thing so I guess you agree that some abortions are needed.

the meaning of debate :to engage in an argument by discussing opposing points.




A debate and a discussion are not at all the same thing. Not at all the same thing. They are 2 different things at two different ends of the spectrum.

A discussion is to sit down and talk about why Shawn Green is/was such a great baseball player.

Where a debate is to sit down and have one party say Joe Montana is the greatest Quarterback of all time and the other party says it is Dan Marino.

  So now YOU are lying in how you represent my views.  Shall we meet where Burr and Hamilton shot it out?


That would be The Heights in Weehawken.  But please let's not take it that far.  In reading Harmonicas
comments in regards to the things he implies you say or believe I can see where you would want to take
it to that extreme.

Harmonica, DC is a father and a grandfather.  He knows the joy and love of children and for you to make the implication that he feels nothing for a child, at whatever stage is not a reflection on him, it is a reflection on you.

A debate and a discussion are not at all the same thing. Not at all the same thing. They are 2 different things at two different ends of the spectrum.

A discussion is to sit down and talk about why Shawn Green is/was such a great baseball player.

Where a debate is to sit down and have one party say Joe Montana is the greatest Quarterback of all time and the other party says it is Dan Marino.


I believe that is what we are doing, we are discussing how people should have the choice of having an abortion if they so choose, and how it is no-one's business but their own.

And it's Crazymom with the flawless answer once again.

If you read my post you'd realize that I do see a lot of Gray in a lot of things, including abortion.  However I'm also no idiot. I know that when it comes to debating abortion the minute I try and come to a compromise accusations of jumping ship come into play.  There are no compromises in the debate of abortion. Your either for it or against it, No one nor no group will let you inbetween. 


She did have a really good answer, I think.

I just went from what I saw, with the "You're either for it or against it" part.. I didn't see other posts.

I don't know who's raising accusations of ship-jumping.. but that just doesn't make sense. That's just ignorant.

Don't hold your breath for an answer on this, DC....you'll never get it. What is that supposed to mean?  I responded to someone else's comment and just because YOU didn't like it, you have to become sarcastic and start this crap again?  Just because I didn't start playing "martyr"?  Did you ever stop and think that maybe, just maybe, people would take you more seriously and actually LISTEN to what you say if you didn't act like a 5 year old who just got their favorite toy taken away?  Grow up. ::) I HAVE read your posts and the only one who's accusing and not allowing compromise is YOU.  Where's the grey?  I see none in your posts.  YOU lump the rape victim and the whore together.   Where's the grey in that?



Once again regardless of what I say I come out the loser. I say things are gray, you gotta tell me they're black and white, that is of course until I agree with you and get made out an idiot because they are gray.

I tried to compromise before, but no, and now that I say Ok there is no compromise, sure enough it's the only option.

If it looks black you say charcol, I say ok charcol, all of a sudden it's black again.

That would be The Heights in Weehawken.  But please let's not take it that far.  In reading Harmonicas
comments in regards to the things he implies you say or believe I can see where you would want to take
it to that extreme.

Harmonica, DC is a father and a grandfather.  He knows the joy and love of children and for you to make the implication that he feels nothing for a child, at whatever stage is not a reflection on him, it is a reflection on you.



He's told me numerous amount of times of the whole Foetus, fetus, fotus, he calls it something different time to time.  I go based on that. You go based on whatever, I don't care.

She did have a really good answer, I think.

I just went from what I saw, with the "You're either for it or against it" part.. I didn't see other posts.

I don't know who's raising accusations of ship-jumping.. but that just doesn't make sense. That's just ignorant.



lol, ignorant? Or unblind? Ignorance is when you can't clearly see what's going on. Therefore to call me ignorant is an oxymoron.

Once again regardless of what I say I come out the loser. I say things are gray, you gotta tell me they're black and white, that is of course until I agree with you and get made out an idiot because they are gray.

I tried to compromise before, but no, and now that I say Ok there is no compromise, sure enough it's the only option.

If it looks black you say charcol, I say ok charcol, all of a sudden it's black again.



When have you ever agreed? You have never agreed that some abortions are needed.
When it comes to abortion, you would never agree that others opinions matter especially the girl having the procedure done.  That girl's opinion and that of her family is the only people who should have a say in whether she has an abortion or not.

When have you ever agreed? You have never agreed that some abortions are needed.
When it comes to abortion, you would never agree that others opinions matter especially the girl having the procedure done.  That girl's opinion and that of her family is the only people who should have a say in whether she has an abortion or not.


I have never agreed that some abortions are needed? 

Abortion, like everything else does have it's time and place. In the event of the mother dying because of childbirth, I understand. <---------------- What is that???????

Her family now gets a say too?

lol, ignorant? Or unblind? Ignorance is when you can't clearly see what's going on. Therefore to call me ignorant is an oxymoron.


I didn't call YOU ignorant.. I called the people who're accusing others of ship-jumping ignorant.

I didn't call YOU ignorant.. I called the people who're accusing others of ship-jumping ignorant.


thank you for the clear up.

by the way? All jokes aside. Is an apricot a version of an apple? An orange? What is it?

Abortion

An issue that stands all alone. There is no other issue like it.  It is of and by itself.  Your either 110% for it. Or 110% against it. 

Abortion there are no compromises. Any sign of sympathy or empathy towards the other side is murely a sign of weakness on both parties parts.  
It'd be nice to understand that the mother could lose her life, or that a girl was savagely raped and beaten, but that is unnacceptable.  You either stand behind the girl who goes out and get's pregnant as many times as she can trying to make the guiness book of world records for successful consequtive abortions the same way you stand behind the beaten and raped girl OR you spit on the girl who had sex with 5 different guys within the same night and the girl who's life is in grave danger having a baby.

Abortion there are no compromises.




I have never agreed that some abortions are needed?

Abortion, like everything else does have it's time and place. In the event of the mother dying because of childbirth, I understand. <---------------- What is that???????

Her family now gets a say too?


read the top quote, that really shows you understand... ::)

thank you for the clear up.

by the way? All jokes aside. Is an apricot a version of an apple? An orange? What is it?


Uh.. I think apricots are citrus fruits.. so it would be more-closely related to oranges.

read the top quote, that really shows you understand... ::)


I said that because I finally gave in.  The quantity of my post from past discussions of abortion clearly state that I wanted there to be compromise, but I was beaten down with the idea that it's all the same to such a pulp that I finally just gave in and said Ok.

I've stated on at least three occasions of understanding the death of a mother due to childbirth.

Uh.. I think apricots are citrus fruits.. so it would be more-closely related to oranges.


Ok, thank you.

I said that because I finally gave in.  The quantity of my post from past discussions of abortion clearly state that I wanted there to be compromise, but I was beaten down with the idea that it's all the same to such a pulp that I finally just gave in and said Ok.

I've stated on at least three occasions of understanding the death of a mother due to childbirth.





the only part that people were saying was the same is that it's a woman's personal decission and that no one has the right to tell her what to do regardless of why she was having it done.

they were not saying that all abortions were for the same reason, you were the one saying an abortion is an abortion no matter how you look at it.

the only part that people were saying was the same is that it's a woman's personal decission and that no one has the right to tell her what to do regardless of why she was having it done.

they were not saying that all abortions were for the same reason, you were the one saying an abortion is an abortion no matter how you look at it.


Of course not all abortions are for the same reason.  I was saying that in a debate where you want anything to get accomplished for one side or the other, compromise is not an option, when it comes to abortion.

Of course not all abortions are for the same reason.  I was saying that in a debate where you want anything to get accomplished for one side or the other, compromise is not an option, when it comes to abortion.


Hate to tell you but by saying that there are different reasons for abortion and that you understand it for the woman that will die-is a compromise.

Uh.. I think apricots are citrus fruits.. so it would be more-closely related to oranges.
No they are related to Peaches, Nectarines and Plums not Oranges.The are soft fruits and are very similar in taste and texture to peaches.

I said that because I finally gave in.  The quantity of my post from past discussions of abortion clearly state that I wanted there to be compromise, but I was beaten down with the idea that it's all the same to such a pulp that I finally just gave in and said Ok.

I've stated on at least three occasions of understanding the death of a mother due to childbirth.



I actually find you scary.The way you go from ranting like an insane madman to this calm, almost aboutface.

No they are related to Peaches, Nectarines and Plums not Oranges.The are soft fruits and are very similar in taste and texture to peaches.


Well, I knew that, but they'd be closer to Oranges then Apples, no?

Hate to tell you but by saying that there are different reasons for abortion and that you understand it for the woman that will die-is a compromise.


Yes, I am breaking the rules and screwing myself and more so the system over because of that compromise. 

Well, I knew that, but they'd be closer to Oranges then Apples, no?
Well it is a whole different fruit family tree so to speak'Prunus' infact, but they would actually be nearer to apples being a soft fruit rather than a citrus fruit.

When did I ever say they were black and white?  Once again, you have my comments confused with someone else's ::)  And, where did you "compromise"?  All I've seen is you inferring that everyone should agree with you and we who don't are "heartless" and "murderers" despite the fact that we've said time and time again that we PERSONALLY think it's wrong.


I showed Whitewolf where I compromised.

I called you heartless before yes I did,but that was a long time ago, and I have not yet since called you crazymom heartless, nor have I called anyone of you on this message board personally a muderer.

I actually find you scary.The way you go from ranting like an insane madman to this calm, almost aboutface.


You should hear me do my voice overs.  I can go from Sean Connery to John Anderson(the country singer) in a spilt second.

Where was the compromise?  You said umpteen times that there is no compromise when it comes to abortion.

True, you did not call us murderers or heartless OUTRIGHT, but you sure as heck implied it:
The above comment implies that any of us would KNOW how it feels to have/perform an abortion, which in your view is murder, therefore, you called "us" murderers in your roundabout way.


I know nothing. I'm an idiot. I live in a very small world. I know nothing of the outside world. I have no sense experience in anything I talk against and that's why I'm against it.  <--------- All of that was impiled upon me.

I never called you or anyone else a murderer.

There is no compromise in abortion, to win a debate about abortion you can not compromise. That's why no one has won jack squat and the debate will go on for a long long time. Why? Cause Pro-lifers compromise with pro-choicers as well as Pro-abortionist  and pro choicers as well as pro-abortionist compromise with pro lifers.

And I'm not accusing pro-choicers of all being pro-abortion, but there ARE pro-abortion out there.

Yes, I am breaking the rules and screwing myself and more so the system over because of that compromise. 


How is it breaking the rules or screwing yourself by having sympathy for the woman that has to have an abortion?

It shows that you have a heart.

How is it breaking the rules or screwing yourself by having sympathy for the woman that has to have an abortion?

It shows that you have a heart.


And that makes a poor politician.

I know nothing. I'm an idiot. I live in a very small world. I know nothing of the outside world. I have no sense experience in anything I talk against and that's why I'm against it.  <--------- All of that was impiled upon me.

I never called you or anyone else a murderer.

There is no compromise in abortion, to win a debate about abortion you can not compromise. That's why no one has won jack squat and the debate will go on for a long long time. Why? Cause Pro-lifers compromise with pro-choicers as well as Pro-abortionist  and pro choicers as well as pro-abortionist compromise with pro lifers.

And I'm not accusing pro-choicers of all being pro-abortion, but there ARE pro-abortion out there.


Again the self pitty.  PLEASE.

Acctually, you have certainly implied that anyone who has an abortion is guilty of murder, and further that those who support a woman's right to choose are guilty of aiding and abeting. 

You are right, there is little room for compromise.  Either a woman has the right to control her reproductive system or she doesn't.  Many of us, myself included, support that right while at the same time deploring the social conditions that drive (force?) a woman to make that choice.  At the same time, many of us who support that right to choose advocate for more humane and supportive policies aimed at helping woman make the other choice, while all the anti-choice organizations with which I am familiar both avoid the issue and advocate policies that will inevitable force more women, especially young women, into making that choice.

As to advocates of abortion, I'm sure there are some, but I'd like links to any that advocated it for its own sake.

Again the self pitty.  PLEASE.

Acctually, you have certainly implied that anyone who has an abortion is guilty of murder, and further that those who support a woman's right to choose are guilty of aiding and abeting. 

You are right, there is little room for compromise.  Either a woman has the right to control her reproductive system or she doesn't.  Many of us, myself included, support that right while at the same time deploring the social conditions that drive (force?) a woman to make that choice.  At the same time, many of us who support that right to choose advocate for more humane and supportive policies aimed at helping woman make the other choice, while all the anti-choice organizations with which I am familiar both avoid the issue and advocate policies that will inevitable force more women, especially young women, into making that choice.

As to advocates of abortion, I'm sure there are some, but I'd like links to any that advocated it for its own sake.


It's not self pitty. It was Matter of fact.

I'm all about the kid. Whatever I can do to save him/her and you know that.

Advocates? As in you want proof of an active group?  Well I won't be able to google that and find anything. Pro-abortionist do exist, but would face way to much from the media as well as the rest of the world to be making themselves open and heard in the public, so they stay behind closed doors.

Yes the comment about the scissors and the brains was an extremely offensive one, and I mean from the point of view that it makes you Harmonica sound particularly 'disturbed' and 'hysterical' and that's putting it politely. What you seem to fail to realise is that when the vast majority of abortions are carried out there is NO brain to suck out nor do they stick in a pair of scissors ! Most abortions are the result of taking a tablet which induces a miscarriage, there is no surgery involved.Also what comes out is a tiny blob of cells, like a piece of jelly it's not even baby shaped yet !

You see you can't make a valid political argument as you put it if you are using wildly inaccurate facts because when it's proved to be so you loose all credibility. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? You have your beliefs and other people have theirs, but if you sit back and read through this whole thread like I did yesterday.Rather than coming across as someone arguing passionately for what they believe you just sound irrational and quite frankly insane, the mental image is of someone foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog !

I know nothing. I'm an idiot. I live in a very small world. I know nothing of the outside world. I have no sense experience in anything I talk against and that's why I'm against it. <--------- All of that was impiled upon me.

I never called you or anyone else a murderer.




I seem to recall in another thread a long time ago you calling someone who admitted they had an abortion a murderer. If I remember correctly, that thread was deleted because of that.

And this is what you called me without knowing me.




Selfish.








Cat

Sure you can.  I did and found 5 different groups on just the first 2 pages of results.  They just aren't in the news as much because they don't go to the extremes that some pro-life groups have.....such as blowing up clinics and murdering the doctors/nurses who provide them....rather ironic, huh?


What would they be blowing up? And who would they be killling?  Entire Hospitals? Ginocologist?

And, I know everything, have no compassion, am arrogant, a b!tch, and a heathen.....all of that was implied towards ME by YOU. Then what the hell was this comment supposed to mean ???  Noone ever said there weren't.  But, the comments you've made about us "pro-choice" people sure seem to point towards your belief that we ARE all pro-abortion, despite the NUMEROUS statements to the contrary.


You can be a know it all, you can be arrogant.  It's not a 100% thing, not saying it is. In fact most of the time your not, but that isn't all of the time.  If I thought you were a b*tch I'd come out and say you were a bitch. Therefore, I don't think your a b itch. The Heathen thing is something you or someone else made up along the way, it's a word I never use and don't plan on using in the future.

Some of the pro-choice people on this board are pro-abortion. Some aren't and some just lean with the weight.

Yes the comment about the scissors and the brains was an extremely offensive one, and I mean from the point of view that it makes you Harmonica sound particularly 'disturbed' and 'hysterical' and that's putting it politely. What you seem to fail to realise is that when the vast majority of abortions are carried out there is NO brain to suck out nor do they stick in a pair of scissors ! Most abortions are the result of taking a tablet which induces a miscarriage, there is no surgery involved.Also what comes out is a tiny blob of cells, like a piece of jelly it's not even baby shaped yet !

You see you can't make a valid political argument as you put it if you are using wildly inaccurate facts because when it's proved to be so you loose all credibility. Do you see the point I'm trying to make? You have your beliefs and other people have theirs, but if you sit back and read through this whole thread like I did yesterday.Rather than coming across as someone arguing passionately for what they believe you just sound irrational and quite frankly insane, the mental image is of someone foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog !


what you said is true for some abortions, not anywhere near most. And I know that for a fact.  So don't talk to me about being valid.

Insane issues call for insane measures.

I seem to recall in another thread a long time ago you calling someone who admitted they had an abortion a murderer. If I remember correctly, that thread was deleted because of that.

And this is what you called me without knowing me.







Cat




First of all, Crazymom was making a reference that I was calling all pro-choice afiliates murderers, and I did not.

As far as the person who had the abortion, Yeah, and if I had to do it over again, I'd call them a murderer again.  I view abortion as murder.

And Yes, I said "selfish" to one of your post, but the comment was on what you had to say, not on you as a person.

What would they be blowing up? And who would they be killling?  Entire Hospitals? Ginocologist?


There have been murders of doctors who perform abortions FOR THAT REASON.  A vermonter, I can't remember his name, shot such a doctor with a high powered rifl through his kitchen window near Binghamton NY a few yerars ago, and abortion clinics have, at the very least, been sujected to bomb threats.  Sounds like terrorism to me (which I'm not accusing you of advocating, but would welcome you to disavow).

I never called you or anyone else a murderer.







As far as the person who had the abortion, Yeah, and if I had to do it over again, I'd call them a murderer again.  I view abortion as murder.





You just contradicted yourself once again. ::)




Cat

Murder is a legal word, so it is a fact that abortion is not murder.  You might think it's just as bad as murder, and that is your own opinion, but there is no reason to say that to somebody unless you just want to make enemies and keep an arguement going, which is all you are doing.  There is no reason to insult people who disagree with you unless you just want to have an arguement for the sake of having an arguement, which is the kind of stuff that gets people banned or just ignored.

Murder is a legal word, so it is a fact that abortion is not murder.  You might think it's just as bad as murder, and that is your own opinion, but there is no reason to say that to somebody unless you just want to make enemies and keep an arguement going, which is all you are doing.  There is no reason to insult people who disagree with you unless you just want to have an arguement for the sake of having an arguement, which is the kind of stuff that gets people banned or just ignored.


His methods certainly could lead to that conclusion, but I am willing to believe he is truely and passionaltly opposed to abortion.  His methods win him no friends and probably no converts, but oh well.

There have been murders of doctors who perform abortions FOR THAT REASON.  A vermonter, I can't remember his name, shot such a doctor with a high powered rifl through his kitchen window near Binghamton NY a few yerars ago, and abortion clinics have, at the very least, been sujected to bomb threats.  Sounds like terrorism to me (which I'm not accusing you of advocating, but would welcome you to disavow).


I'm very aware of abortionist being assassinated, and abortion clinics being bombed.  That wasn't my question. My question was the pro-life people, what would the pro-abortion people do to them?  Would they kill men/women that delivered babies?  Bomb nurserys?

You just contradicted yourself once again. ::)




Cat


Yes I did.  Memory caught me on this one, not a sense of trying to hide something.

There have been clinics blown up....ones that NOT ONLY perform abortions, but provide birth control and counselling.  As DC said, doctors have been murdered as well. No I didn't.  You said that you had never called ANYONE a murderer and I was just pointing out that it sure as heck sounded like you called SOMEONE a murderer (of course, without actually saying the word itself).


I thought you were mentioning what if the pro-abortion people did things to the pro-life people, and that's what my question was all about.

Well in the case you made a liar out of me on more than one account.  I've called lots of people murderers, Ted Bundy, Tim McVeigh, Albert Fisch, and there's a guy who I see once in a great while that murdered his mom, dad, sister and other sister but was let off the hook completely because the police did not read him his miranda rights, I've called him a murderer too.

His methods certainly could lead to that conclusion, but I am willing to believe he is truely and passionaltly opposed to abortion.  His methods win him no friends and probably no converts, but oh well.


I have lots of friends. 

The thing about it is Don Carlos, there are very very few things that trip my trigger. Abortion happens to be one of the very few things.  Truth of the matter is, most people wonder what in the world does make me angry because I'm so laid back about things. Hard to believe, I'm sure it is for you, but I ain't pulling no strings here.

There's a lot more light to Harmonica than Dark, but you happened to stumble in a very dark area.

What a smart @ssed answer.  You knew exactly what I meant.  Typical ::)


I did call them murderers.

Hey! I have an idea. Why don't you all just give in and agree to disagree.

This mesage board is a pretty good example of what the world view is on abortion. The majority is for pro choice, the minority is pro life. There is no way that you are going to convince Harmonica that it's right, and there is no way that he is going to convince you that it's murder.

Hey! I have an idea. Why don't you all just give in and agree to disagree.

This mesage board is a pretty good example of what the world view is on abortion. The majority is for pro choice, the minority is pro life. There is no way that you are going to convince Harmonica that it's right, and there is no way that he is going to convince you that it's murder.




A few percent difference here and there doesn't make a majority/minority.  It's like saying 49% is a huge minority compared to the huge majority of 51%.

But you have an excellent point.  My stand on this topic is I see everyone posting a reply and all the reply's being one sided, I refuse to stand by and see everything go down on only one end of the spectrum.

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.
Yeah right...have YOU ever had to grow up in a dysfunctional family and THEN be turned over to the State coz your parents are alcoholics and SUPPOSEDLY can't care for you properly...and end up in several ABUSIVE foster homes? Adoption is NOT always the answer,to say that 'oh that baby will be adopted' is not always true if the kid is disabled,older,minority,or troubled...they stay in FOSTER care and UNLESS they get adopted or are in a group home/halfway house...they are 'aged out' of foster care....often with little or NO independent living skills...in other words SEE YA YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF..

I was lucky...not ALL foster children have the decent outcome I did.

Yeah right...have YOU ever had to grow up in a dysfunctional family and THEN be turned over to the State coz your parents are alcoholics and SUPPOSEDLY can't care for you properly...and end up in several ABUSIVE foster homes? Adoption is NOT always the answer,to say that 'oh that baby will be adopted' is not always true if the kid is disabled,older,minority,or troubled...they stay in FOSTER care and UNLESS they get adopted or are in a group home/halfway house...they are 'aged out' of foster care....often with little or NO independent living skills...in other words SEE YA YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF..

I was lucky...not ALL foster children have the decent outcome I did.
That is my point. There are lots of unwanted and unloved kids in this world who will NEVER have a permanent family....

Yeah right...have YOU ever had to grow up in a dysfunctional family and THEN be turned over to the State coz your parents are alcoholics and SUPPOSEDLY can't care for you properly...and end up in several ABUSIVE foster homes? Adoption is NOT always the answer,to say that 'oh that baby will be adopted' is not always true if the kid is disabled,older,minority,or troubled...they stay in FOSTER care and UNLESS they get adopted or are in a group home/halfway house...they are 'aged out' of foster care....often with little or NO independent living skills...in other words SEE YA YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF..

I was lucky...not ALL foster children have the decent outcome I did.


Kill me or make go through some adversity.

I'll take the latter, not everything in life is easy, nor supposed to be that way.

Kill me or make go through some adversity.

I'll take the latter, not everything in life is easy, nor supposed to be that way.


There's a difference between character-building and being abused.

There's a difference between character-building and being abused.


The law needs to step in there and do something about the abuse. More so than they are doing now.  Abused kids, kill em, no. Stop them from being abused, yes.

The law needs to step in there and do something about the abuse. More so than they are doing now.  Abused kids, kill em, no. Stop them from being abused, yes.


I agree... however, they AREN'T cracking down... I think it's better we let unwanted children never exist on earth then make them go through abuse, knowing the lax system won't help them.

Plus, wouldn't they just go back to God anyway? {according to your religion} That strikes me better then a sucky life.

I agree... however, they AREN'T cracking down... I think it's better we let unwanted children never exist on earth then make them go through abuse, knowing the lax system won't help them.

Plus, wouldn't they just go back to God anyway? {according to your religion} That strikes me better then a sucky life.


I don't know where they go.

According to my religion...."accepting jesus christ into your heart" as a human being, here on this earth is the only way back to God.

So you tell me, how are they going to do that, NEVER given the chance?

I'm very aware of abortionist being assassinated, and abortion clinics being bombed.  That wasn't my question. My question was the pro-life people, what would the pro-abortion people do to them?  Would they kill men/women that delivered babies?  Bomb nurserys?


What?  THAT hasn't happened.  Pro-CHOICE means just that.  You want to have a kid?  Great, have it (I have 4, all very much wanted).  I have never heard a pro-choice person in any way advocate murder of either kids or doctors.  Get real.

I have lots of friends. 

The thing about it is Don Carlos, there are very very few things that trip my trigger. Abortion happens to be one of the very few things.  Truth of the matter is, most people wonder what in the world does make me angry because I'm so laid back about things. Hard to believe, I'm sure it is for you, but I ain't pulling no strings here.

There's a lot more light to Harmonica than Dark, but you happened to stumble in a very dark area.


I'm glad you have lots of friend.  My point was that you are not making any on this thread.

I don't know where they go.

According to my religion...."accepting jesus christ into your heart" as a human being, here on this earth is the only way back to God.

So you tell me, how are they going to do that, NEVER given the chance?


From what I've read about Christianity, there is an "age of accountability".. like, up until 14, you automatically go to Heaven, because you really didn't understand religion anyway.. and babies are within that group.

The law needs to step in there and do something about the abuse. More so than they are doing now.  Abused kids, kill em, no. Stop them from being abused, yes.


Nobody is advocating eliminating abused kids, that would be just another form of euthanasia.

What?  THAT hasn't happened.  Pro-CHOICE means just that.  You want to have a kid?  Great, have it (I have 4, all very much wanted).   I have never heard a pro-choice person in any way advocate murder of either kids or doctors.  Get real.


That's because it was a question. That's why I made it a question not a statement.

From what I've read about Christianity, there is an "age of accountability".. like, up until 14, you automatically go to Heaven, because you really didn't understand religion anyway.. and babies are within that group.


hmmmm...maybe.

I'm glad you have lots of friend.  My point was that you are not making any on this thread.


Friends before debate, friends after debate.  A debate itself isn't about winning friends, it's about winning and issue.

That's because it was a question. That's why I made it a question not a statement.


The question was perspammersite.

Friends before debate, friends after debate.  A debate itself isn't about winning friends, it's about winning and issue.


I guess I wasn't clear.  Your stridant, and sometimes outragous statements win you no converts, and don't help you "win an issue".  Rather, they alienate people.  For example, by saying (as you have) that abortion = murder you alienate everyone who has had an abortion, and many of us who support choice, as I do.  By the same token I oppose abortion in most cases.  It should not be another method of birth control, it should not be common.  Ideally, it should be the result of rape or incest, or to protect a woman's life and nothing more.  We could work together toward that goal, but your fanatical absolutism makes it difficult to even broach these goals.

I guess I wasn't clear.  Your stridant, and sometimes outragous statements win you no converts, and don't help you "win an issue".  Rather, they alienate people.  For example, by saying (as you have) that abortion = murder you alienate everyone who has had an abortion, and many of us who support choice, as I do.  By the same token I oppose abortion in most cases.  It should not be another method of birth control, it should not be common.  Ideally, it should be the result of rape or incest, or to protect a woman's life and nothing more.  We could work together toward that goal, but your fanatical absolutism makes it difficult to even broach these goals.


I do not apologize for looking at the life of one being taken away for selfish reasons, such as an abortion that was not due to rape, insest or life endangerment to the mother, as murder.

I also do not apologize for saying abortion is murder, anymore than anyone else does not apologize for saying abortion is not murder.

If it's a "murder", then it's a "murder" REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  You can't "approve" of one and not the other.

What would Jeus approve of?

If it's a "murder", then it's a "murder" REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.  You can't "approve" of one and not the other.


Yes I can and I will.

Killing someone one in one way is murder.  Killing someone in another is not.

Circumstance does depend, and even some of your fellows will agree with that statement.

What would Jeus approve of?


A world where killing someone for whatever reasons would not exist.

I do not apologize for looking at the life of one being taken away for selfish reasons, such as an abortion that was not due to rape, insest or life endangerment to the mother, as murder.

I also do not apologize for saying abortion is murder, anymore than anyone else does not apologize for saying abortion is not murder.


Ok, "choicers", time to back off a step.  His H has agreed that under some circumstances abortion is tolerable (rape, incest, the life of the mother).  The question now is not so absolute.  It now, as I see it, divides itself into 2 parts.  First, are there other circumstances that would justify abortion?  Second, how can society act (what social policies can be put into place) that would mitigate those circumstances so that few would choose abortion, without, of course, giving up the right to choose?  How much are we willing to spend to develop such policies?

These 2 quotes totally contradict one another.  How many times have you said "abortion is murder"?  Not, "unjustified abortion is murder" or "abortions not done to save the life of the mother are murder" ?  If "abortion is murder", then the cause behind it should not matter.  And, if Jesus would want "a world where killing someone for whatever reasons would not exist", then I guess we should get rid of ALL abortions, shouldn't we?  And, I'm sure he's not real happy with people throughout the years who have fought "Holy Wars" as that's killing as well.  Or those people who have killed another person in self defense.  After all, those would be "whatever reasons".


No they do not contradict eachother, cause the question was not what would harmonica feel, it was what would Jesus feel.  I don't claim to be Jesus nor know how he feels. I can only take hypothesis based on what I have seen, read, and felt myself.

From what I've read about Christianity, there is an "age of accountability".. like, up until 14, you automatically go to Heaven, because you really didn't understand religion anyway.. and babies are within that group.


That would depend on whether you believe in "original sin" or not.  Are babies born (or not) free of sin, or does the human condition automatically make them sinners?  Either way, the "age of accountability" seems like an excuse to me.

That would depend on whether you believe in "original sin" or not.  Are babies born (or not) free of sin, or does the human condition automatically make them sinners?  Either way, the "age of accountability" seems like an excuse to me.


There is an age.  Children are given godparents for a reason.  The duty of the godparent is to see
to the moral and religious upbringing of the child in conjunction with the parents.  The godparents
are responsible for the sins of the child until confirmation, when the child is supposed to be old
enough, and have recieved religious instruction, to be accountable for their own sins. 

Kill me or make go through some adversity.

I'll take the latter, not everything in life is easy, nor supposed to be that way.
Are you saying a NEWBORN should take the abuse and 'learn to live with it'...there are some real nutjob  people who even abuse newborns...ever hear of SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME...I have been in foster care with these kids...even helped take care of them. They will NEVER know a normal life...some will never even walk or talk.  This is sad....many state agencies look the other way,they don't take the baby from the biological parents until MAJOR damage has been done.

Ok, "choicers", time to back off a step. His H has agreed that under some circumstances abortion is tolerable (rape, incest, the life of the mother). The question now is not so absolute. It now, as I see it, divides itself into 2 parts. First, are there other circumstances that would justify abortion? Second, how can society act (what social policies can be put into place) that would mitigate those circumstances so that few would choose abortion, without, of course, giving up the right to choose? How much are we willing to spend to develop such policies?


Let me start out by saying that I am against abortion and I think it is biblically wrong.  I don't think that gives me the right to tell others how they should live their lives.  Besides that, there is the whole "back alley" thing that worries me.  Making it illegal forces women to other choices.  I am an adoption advocate, pure and simple.  I guess that makes me pro choice.

Circumstances to justify abortion I think would be rape, incest and the life of the mother.  Although, I don't know that I could have one in the case of rape.  I think then I would be more inclined towards adoption.  To tell the entire truth, I don't know that I could have an abortion in any of the above cases.  I would have to be in the position to know better.  I don't think it is right to judge others decisions when we haven't been in their position.

I don't know that much can be done to mitigate those circumstances.  There will always be creeps out there who rape or molest.  I don't see how that problem can be fixed.

Let me start out by saying that I am against abortion and I think it is biblically wrong.  I don't think that gives me the right to tell others how they should live their lives.  Besides that, there is the whole "back alley" thing that worries me.  Making it illegal forces women to other choices.  I am an adoption advocate, pure and simple.  I guess that makes me pro choice.

Circumstances to justify abortion I think would be rape, incest and the life of the mother.  Although, I don't know that I could have one in the case of rape.  I think then I would be more inclined towards adoption.  To tell the entire truth, I don't know that I could have an abortion in any of the above cases.  I would have to be in the position to know better.  I don't think it is right to judge others decisions when we haven't been in their position.

I don't know that much can be done to mitigate those circumstances.  There will always be creeps out there who rape or molest.  I don't see how that problem can be fixed.


I can respect, very easilly respect the choices you think you would make, and can respect women who would make others.  Clearly, there is no way to eliminate, or even mitigate the incidences of rape, incest, or life-threatening pregnancies, but we, as a society could mitigate the pressures of other unwanted pregnancies and so encourage at least some women to deliver those babies rather than aborting them.  That was what I was suggesting, more people willing to adopt, more support for the mother-to-be etc.  In other words, a more humane set of policies.

There is an age.  Children are given godparents for a reason.  The duty of the godparent is to see
to the moral and religious upbringing of the child in conjunction with the parents.  The godparents
are responsible for the sins of the child until confirmation, when the child is supposed to be old
enough, and have recieved religious instruction, to be accountable for their own sins. 


That's of Catholic origin. All Catholics are christian.  NOT all christians are catholic.

Are you saying a NEWBORN should take the abuse and 'learn to live with it'...there are some real nutjob  people who even abuse newborns...ever hear of SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME...I have been in foster care with these kids...even helped take care of them. They will NEVER know a normal life...some will never even walk or talk.  This is sad....many state agencies look the other way,they don't take the baby from the biological parents until MAJOR damage has been done.


Ever hear of your no better than anybody else? Ever hear of you got no more right to live than anybody else? Ever hear of appreciating your chance and opportunity rather than taking it for granted?  Ever hear of given a chance period?

I can respect, very easilly respect the choices you think you would make, and can respect women who would make others. Clearly, there is no way to eliminate, or even mitigate the incidences of rape, incest, or life-threatening pregnancies, but we, as a society could mitigate the pressures of other unwanted pregnancies and so encourage at least some women to deliver those babies rather than aborting them. That was what I was suggesting, more people willing to adopt, more support for the mother-to-be etc. In other words, a more humane set of policies.


It would be nice if there were a way to get these women to have the baby instead of aborting.  I wish I had answers on how to do so.  It makes me sad when you hear women say they had an abortion because they couldn't handle giving a baby up.  I have given up a child and it isn't easy, but I know I can handle it better than I could had I had an abortion. 

I agree. I also want to say how great I think it is that you stand by your faith but accept that other people might have different views. I also wish that more women would choose adoption (after all, my parents adopted my oldest brother) and want to let you know how strong I think you are for choosing it yourself. :)


Thanks, crazymom.  It was a hard thing to do, but I wouldn't change a thing.  She has both a mom and a dad and a good life.  (She just turned 15 Sunday.  I feel old.)

It would be nice if there were a way to get these women to have the baby instead of aborting.  I wish I had answers on how to do so.  It makes me sad when you hear women say they had an abortion because they couldn't handle giving a baby up.  I have given up a child and it isn't easy, but I know I can handle it better than I could had I had an abortion. 


It comes down to whether or not the person is selfish.  How I feel, how I think, what's in it for me? Or Maybe I can go through a little bit of pain giving up a baby  to a family who does want him/her, for an opportunity at life.

It's not always that simple.  My brother was adopted by my parents and although they treated him like their flesh and blood (possibly even a bit better), he has had anger and commitment issues his entire life.  3 counselors/psychologists attribute both to the fact that he was given up for adoption.  He has had a few health problems pop up here and there and he & my SIL are worried about having children because he has NO family medical history.  There are tests that he could have to determine if he could pass on anything to his child but they are very expensive and they simply cannot afford to go through those.  They could go through the court system to "unseal" the adoption records, but that still wouldn't give him any medical history without contacting his birth mother, which he has no desire to do. 


All of this, and much more are the obstacles involved with adoption.  No wonder so many people throw up their hands in frustration and say F it.  Get this mess straigthened out and we might see a decline in abortions.

It's not always that simple.  My brother was adopted by my parents and although they treated him like their flesh and blood (possibly even a bit better), he has had anger and commitment issues his entire life.  3 counselors/psychologists attribute both to the fact that he was given up for adoption.  He has had a few health problems pop up here and there and he & my SIL are worried about having children because he has NO family medical history.  There are tests that he could have to determine if he could pass on anything to his child but they are very expensive and they simply cannot afford to go through those.  They could go through the court system to "unseal" the adoption records, but that still wouldn't give him any medical history without contacting his birth mother, which he has no desire to do. 


Sometimes you need to put things in fate....or if you believe God like I do, put things in God's fate.

All of this, and much more are the obstacles involved with adoption.  No wonder so many people throw up their hands in frustration and say F it.  Get this mess straigthened out and we might see a decline in abortions.


Changing the methods and ways of adoption are a vital key towards the decline and hopefully one day obilivion of abortions outside of the three that are considered "acceptable".

Sorry, but when it comes to probably passing on a debilitating disease to my child, I don't think so (if that's what your comment was referring to).  I knew there was a possibility that I could pass on cerebral palsy or down syndrome (as there is a family history of both) to my children and fortunately, my insurance covered the testing necessary to determine if I was a carrier of either of those (I was not).  He does not have that luxury.  My SIL knows that she is a carrier of the disease (which has a bazillion letter long name that I can't remember, but it basically guarantees the death of a boy within a few months of birth) because her parents had her tested after her mother had a son die from it (at 3 months old).


Within my own family babies have died. They also lived to.  But it was by Fate, God's hands.

And your point?  Babies have died in my family too....probably EVERY family on earth.  If my brother is a carrier then it's a GUARANTEE that the child will die and it's not a pretty death (they basically suffocate).  That's not fate, that's just sick.  If he had a family health history, then it would be possible to determine (without the testing) if the disease (or any others) "ran in his family".


My point is, adoption and a chance are better than an abortion, and never getting anything, ever.

SO, if my SIL were to become pregnant with a baby boy, she should have it and watch it suffer for a few months ?  That's cruel.


True that is cruel...funny how over 10 million babies were killed for irresponisble selfish reasons and somehow that is not cruel.

True that is cruel...funny how over 10 million babies were killed for irresponisble selfish reasons and somehow that is not cruel.
You forgot to add that in lots of situations, they were perfectly healthy...mother AND child and yet because of the selfishness and irresponsibility of BOTH the parents...the baby is murdered >:(

No it's not.  When an abortion is done, the fetus is not able to feel pain.

Oh gawd!  Now you've done it!  Prepare for a barrage of anti-choicer propaganda about fetuses screaming in agony!
;D

My broccoli screams in agony when I eat it.

I guess that makes me a murdiddilyurderer as well.