The Changing Face of Abortion

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: juliesatx @ 09/25/2008 4:13:21 PM

    RE : bojack27

    You are wrong about a lot of things because your perception is skewed towards Christianity. Witchcraft!!! Ridiculous. I wasn't condoning controlling men with this. I have personally never needed to do that nor would I. I'm just trying to make a point which you obviously don't get. Of course men call this kind of control witchcraft. How else would they persuade women not to use it on them? they burned a lot of 'witches' for less than that, like just caring for animals. It's scary to think that you are a women who perpetuates inhumanity to other women. Witches, you should be ashamed of yourself using this word to try to incite negativity toward me. So many innocent women have been put through hell and torture because of this kind of thinking, CANT YOU SEE THAT??????????

    Of course the current state wants people to believe that Gandhi was what you say he is. They must discount his methods because they worked, for Martin Luther King too who modeled his methods after Gandhi's. Gandhi developed his methods by watching women suffragists protest in Britain, where he was educated. you do believe that women should have the vote, right? Well this is how it was done!!!!

    You should be slower to believe everything you read. And looking at later blogs and I see you are physician, makes me very scared. Physicians like you are constantly trying to tell women that you know my body better than I know it. The medical community is full of sexism. You may even deny me birth control if I'm not wearing a wedding ring!!!! Your faith allows you to discount the opinions of others who don't follow the text of Bible literally. All religions have truth in them, including Christianity, I used to be one. they just don't know everything and all of them have something to offer you if you would just do your own research and study on them instead of listening to a preacher who has his own agenda. I suppose since you believe in the Bible you also believe that women can't be preachers or spiritual leaders......am I right? Again, what a ridiculous way of thinking. I think women have more to teach the world than you think. Women who raise children need to be appreciated for all of the things they do. Raising children is spiritual work that men would benefit from.

    Since you think you're opinion means more because you are a physician, I should tell you that I'm a PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology. Of course as a scientist I am angered by MD's because they prescribe drugs they know nothing about, and do little else except maybe recommend surgery. So I guess we're evenly biased. here's another quote by my spiritual teacher for you.........

    I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.???
    --Mahatma Gandhi

    Oh yeah and you are wrong about some of the stats on miscarriages. Genetic anomalies and aneuploidy alone would make the percentage much higher.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/26/2008 11:10:55 AM

      You was the one who suggested that women withhold themselves from men in order to gain power throughout the world???. Not me! I didn???t incite negativity towards you, I simply pointed out your thought pattern (as a woman) to gain power or equality with man.
      The most important thing I want to point out to you is I???M NOT A WOMAN??? I don???t know what gave you that idea??? but I???M A MAN???.. I posted a woman doctor???s point of view on miscarriages and even left the link to the site to make sure others know where this information was coming from???.
      What current state?... You are in a state of denial in not believing that he did exploit women and was a hypocrite in champion woman???s advancement while yet subjecting them to his sexual exploitations of enlightment.
      You should examine everything you read. Looking at later blogs lead you to believe that I was a woman and now you believe that I???m a physician??? I???m neither! So your tirade on the sexism in the medical community falls on deaf ears as far as I???m concerned. You assume to much in saying what I would deny you and what my faith discounts.
      No doubt those women are spiritual leaders as well as men??? you have missed the point concerning the bible???. God has already made the woman equal with man??? just read Genesis and you will find this out??? I think you would be surprise to know what my views on women are???. If you want I will spell them out to you and give you scripture to back them up???.

      I commend you on your PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology??? as far as my education??? I could lie to you and say I have this or that??? but in truth I have a Bachelors degree in Management and working toward my MBA??? I???m not attacking your education or ability to reason??? However I???m debating you on your beliefs that are contrary to my beliefs???

      As for your spiritual leader???s quotes in attacking Christians??? to generalize all when the acts of a few have failed to measure up to the teachings of Christ is wrong. But also to say one stand for something like he did and go against it???s teachings (sexual exploitations) is being a hypocrite??? your spiritual leader should have focus more on what he was suppose to represent than what he thought others should represent. ???. Just my opinion???.

      If my stats are wrong then post some stats refuting them instead of giving me your opinion???.

      • Posted By: juliesatx @ 09/26/2008 5:03:03 PM

        Re :bojack 27
        Why do you assume that what you have read is right and that I am wrong? Have you ever read anything about Gandhi. If you are not convinced of his truth then that???s your problem. I can???t convince you that he freed India from Britian, advocated against the caste system and the oppression of women, helped create a new government, used fasting to stop a war, and lived meagerly and in celibacy with his wife, by choice. You don???t have to believe anything. His message is powerful but obviously someone has been able to fool you into not learning about him, which is the goal of the ???the state??? (our current governing body).

        You used the word ???witchcraft??? which incites negativity. You know this because Christians have been using it for centuries. Millions of women were killed during he Inquisition all in the name of Christ. The Biblle has been used to justify lots of terrible things??????..usually because of a literal reading of it.

        These witch killings still happen today, (see Tanzania) and for you to continue the use of this language that means to suppress thought and incite fear, well that makes you part of the Bushie government. Palin just recently was ???pastorally blessed from witchcraft??????..
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_el_ge/palin_witchcraft_blessing;_ylt=AkVcoLbc23cJ5.xLVQxDuhYXr7sF?????????..
        I suppose you will vote for her, right?

        There are many great thinkers who speak truth, Socrates, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Buddha, Mohammed, etc etc etc. they have something to offer you, whether you agree or disagree.

        When you read the bible all the way through, you will find numerous contradiction. You can read it as a Christian or as an educated Christian. You must always consider the context in which it was written by humans, and mostly Jewish people,( not Christian). Have you heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh? Have you heard of the Akhenaton???s Hymn to the Sun? These are ancient texts similar to those in the Bible. You don???t have to believe anything. But if your one argument is scripture???.then maybe you can see if I quote your Christ??????..

        ???behold, in the days to come, I will send you prophets and wise men, and teachers, even these you will kill and crucify. Yes, even these you will persecute, and pursue to the ends of the earth???

        ???be forewarned: unless your righteousness exceeds the pseudo-righteousness of the religious, you will not set foot inside the kingdom of heaven???

        ???be witness to you own inconsistency! You are the decendents of those who killed the prophets and have surpassed even their wicked acts. Snakes! Generation of vipers! How ill you escape the condemnation of eternal judgement?

        Sorry I mistook you for a woman. Its not so bad you know. I love being a woman.

        My purpose is to teach not judge. Love is the law.

  • Posted By: burdenofproof @ 09/26/2008 2:07:13 PM

    Hey there bojack. How is it that you plan on backing up your arguements? With scripture? Are you not aware that scripture IS opinion?

  • Posted By: juliesatx @ 09/25/2008 4:13:37 PM

    RE : bojack27

    You are wrong about a lot of things because your perception is skewed towards Christianity. Witchcraft!!! Ridiculous. I wasn't condoning controlling men with this. I have personally never needed to do that nor would I. I'm just trying to make a point which you obviously don't get. Of course men call this kind of control witchcraft. How else would they persuade women not to use it on them? they burned a lot of 'witches' for less than that, like just caring for animals. It's scary to think that you are a women who perpetuates inhumanity to other women. Witches, you should be ashamed of yourself using this word to try to incite negativity toward me. So many innocent women have been put through hell and torture because of this kind of thinking, CANT YOU SEE THAT??????????

    Of course the current state wants people to believe that Gandhi was what you say he is. They must discount his methods because they worked, for Martin Luther King too who modeled his methods after Gandhi's. Gandhi developed his methods by watching women suffragists protest in Britain, where he was educated. you do believe that women should have the vote, right? Well this is how it was done!!!!

    You should be slower to believe everything you read. And looking at later blogs and I see you are physician, makes me very scared. Physicians like you are constantly trying to tell women that you know my body better than I know it. The medical community is full of sexism. You may even deny me birth control if I'm not wearing a wedding ring!!!! Your faith allows you to discount the opinions of others who don't follow the text of Bible literally. All religions have truth in them, including Christianity, I used to be one. they just don't know everything and all of them have something to offer you if you would just do your own research and study on them instead of listening to a preacher who has his own agenda. I suppose since you believe in the Bible you also believe that women can't be preachers or spiritual leaders......am I right? Again, what a ridiculous way of thinking. I think women have more to teach the world than you think. Women who raise children need to be appreciated for all of the things they do. Raising children is spiritual work that men would benefit from.

    Since you think you're opinion means more because you are a physician, I should tell you that I'm a PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology. Of course as a scientist I am angered by MD's because they prescribe drugs they know nothing about, and do little else except maybe recommend surgery. So I guess we're evenly biased. here's another quote by my spiritual teacher for you.........

    I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.???
    --Mahatma Gandhi

    Oh yeah and you are wrong about some of the stats on miscarriages. Genetic anomalies and aneuploidy alone would make the percentage much higher.

  • Posted By: Wetzelfam @ 09/25/2008 12:31:12 PM

    Stop and think before you bring God into the abortion debate. By the most conservative estimates, 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Infertility specialists believe the actual number is closer to 1 in 3 pregnancies. That's a lot of pregnancy terminations initiated by God.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/25/2008 2:17:20 PM

      forgot the link....

      http://pregnancyandbaby.com/pregnancy/baby/How-common-are-miscarriages-and-why-do-they-happen-208.htm

      • Posted By: MoJabar @ 09/25/2008 2:46:35 PM

        Is it not in dying that we are born to eternal life? If you look at it like that, the abortionist is doing the baby a favor, but sending him on to eternal life.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/25/2008 1:41:38 PM

      I don't know where you get your information from but it is wrong.... and as for God terminating pregnancies .... well here is a newsflash for you.... God is sovereign and is the giver and sustainer of life... so will a man judge God to justify himself? So who are you to call God into account .... it is God who declares things that are right..

      Job.40
      [8] Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

      Isa.45
      [19] I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

      • Posted By: MoJabar @ 09/25/2008 2:33:07 PM

        I love how god uses Olde English when he speaks; I thought he was Jewish. Did he live in Great Brittan when he wrote that stuff? God tells a friend where to eat in London: Thou shalt eat at Ye Olde Fish Chip Shoppe!

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/25/2008 2:41:44 PM

          It's a translation you ....... but then again what can one expect from you anyways.....

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/25/2008 2:16:23 PM

      Your question
      How often do miscarriages really occur, and what are the most common reasons for pregnancy loss? - Joni in Alpharetta, Georgia

      The expert answers
      There are two statistics to answer your question regarding how often miscarriages occur. As far as we are able to determine, it can be approximated that in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy, the miscarriage rate is about 10-15 per cent of a clinically recognizable pregnancy. Often a woman may not know that she is pregnant, and after being slightly late for her period, get a heavier than usual menstrual cycle. This is often not recognized as a miscarriage but instead just a late, heavy period. That's why in the earliest part of pregnancy it is difficult to quantify actual percentages of miscarriages.

      The second statistic is that if a live, appropriately grown fetus is present at 8 weeks gestation, the fetal loss rate (miscarriage) over the next 20 weeks (up to 28 weeks) is about 3 percent.

      Even now, there is still much confusion about the various causes of miscarriage. Some documented causes of miscarriage include infections such as rubella and syphillis; environmental factors such as exposure to extreme radiation; maternal smoking and alcohol consumption. Women who smoke 20 cigarettes daily and consume more than seven standard alcoholic drinks per week have a fourfold increase in their risk of miscarriage.

      There are medical disorders which may be connected to an increased risk of miscarriage. Three which are supposedly linked are diabetes, hypothyroidism and systemic lupus erythematous. In addition, women who are over 40 years old have a 10 percent chance of miscarriage, in comparison to a 2 percent chance in someone less than 30 years old. The uterus of the woman being misshapen or the cervix being incompetent may also increase the chances of miscarriage. Finally, the most common cause of miscarriage is a significant genetic abnormality of the fetus. In miscarriages in the first trimester, approximately two thirds have significant chromosomal anomalies, with about half of these being Down's Syndrome. This is not an inherited trait from the mother or the father; it is usually one single nonrecurring event.

      Sometimes when a pregnancy occurs, there is an empty yolk sac seen on ultrasound -- this is called an "anembryonic pregnancy" or a "blighted ovum." Interestingly, this type of pregnancy normally will miscarry itself, as well as documented pregnancies (by ultrasound) which are grossly genetically or morphologically abnormal. This would lead us to believe that somehow nature has a way of identifying some of its major, nonsurvivable mistakes and causes them to be miscarried.

      Jane Forester
      Family Physician
      Glencoe, Illinois

  • Posted By: tjs84 @ 09/23/2008 3:45:17 PM

    In response to the comment (question?) by sj32. When one person's freedom infringes upon another person's basic human rights in a grave manner, the law must protect the weak. Neither the mother nor the child ("fetus") are more important than the other. To look at the issue in that way creates a false dilemma. The real issue in this debate is about preserving basic human rights and establishing laws that will prevent an individual from harming those persons who cannot speak for themselves with regard to their basic human rights.
    How does this issue affect each one of us personally? Of course you may ignore the issue because it seems to have no clearly discernible practical effect on you at the present moment, but may you ignore the cries of the innocent? Would you ignore a man murdering his brother or sister in the street, or would you care only if that brother or sister owes you rent for the month? The common good is not served by individualism, and each of us must become our brother's keeper, or we all suffer.

    • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 09/23/2008 3:56:40 PM

      What about Christians in Darfur being murdered by Muslims. Should we invade that country to prevent innocents from being killed? What about gun control which would reduce murders? Are we not our brother's keepers? What about lowering the speed limit which we know saves thousands of lives? What if I told you that you cannot drive a car because automobiles are one of the leading causes of death in this country? Are you for the death penalty which has resulted in killings of many falsely convicted? If you are morally consistent then you hopefully are against all these other causes of innocent people dying and you are pursing them with the same zeal.

      • Posted By: tjs84 @ 09/24/2008 11:50:43 PM

        Sorry for all the repeat posts. Browser was failing.

      • Posted By: tjs84 @ 09/24/2008 11:26:38 PM

        You bring up some interesting points, but I think a distinction needs to be made between activities that are in and of themselves detrimental to the common good and those activities which are beneficial to the common good but which carry some risks. You are conflating activities that are in themselves perfectly moral (even if susceptible to abuse) with an activity (namely abortion) that is immoral in all circumstances. To the extent that gun and car use are in general abuse and are harming the common good, perhaps some regulation is in order. But do not confuse the underlying principles in these issues. You're analysis wil not be quite so sloppy if you employ this distinction. The death penalty issue is a bit different. It seems to me that it should permitted only in very rare circumstances, such as when the risk to society posed by keeping the person alive is so great that it puts other lives in grave, imminent danger.

        Also, I do think this nation has the duty to look keep an eye out for international injustice and abuse of human rights abroad, but I think an even bigger issue is the injustice in our own country. What kind of hypocrites are we if we attempt to remove injustice from other nations without addressing the grave abuse of human rights in our own nation? How can we allow the murder of the weakest and most innocent in our own society? Obviously both problems are very important, but in the order of urgency, it would seem wiser for this nation to ensure its own moral uprightness before it attempts to cleanse another nation of its injustice.

      • Posted By: tjs84 @ 09/24/2008 11:21:04 PM

        You bring up some interesting points, but I think a distinction needs to be made between activities that are in and of themselves detrimental to the common good and those activities which are beneficial to the common good but which carry some risks. You are conflating activities that are in themselves perfectly moral (even if susceptible to abuse) with an activity (namely abortion) that is immoral in all circumstances. To the extent that gun and car use are in general abuse and are harming the common good, perhaps some regulation is in order. But do not confuse the underlying principles in these issues. You're analysis wil not be quite so sloppy if you employ this distinction. The death penalty issue is a bit different. It seems to me that it should permitted only in very rare circumstances, such as when the risk to society posed by keeping the person alive is so great that it puts other lives in grave, imminent danger.

        Also, I do think this nation has the duty to look keep an eye out for international injustice and abuse of human rights abroad, but I think an even bigger issue is the injustice in our own country. What kind of hypocrites are we if we attempt to remove injustice from other nations without addressing the grave abuse of human rights in our own nation? How can we allow the murder of the weakest and most innocent in our own society? Obviously both problems are very important, but in the order of urgency, it would seem wiser for this nation to ensure its own moral uprightness before it attempts to cleanse another nation of its injustice.

      • Posted By: tjs84 @ 09/24/2008 10:59:09 PM

        You bring up some interesting points, but I think a distinction needs to be made between activities that are in and of themselves detrimental to the common good and those activities which are beneficial to the common good but which carry some risks. You are conflating activities that are in themselves perfectly moral (even if susceptible to abuse) with an activity (namely abortion) that is immoral in all circumstances. To the extent that gun and car use are in general abuse and are harming the common good, perhaps some regulation is in order. But do not confuse the underlying principles in these issues. You're analysis wil not be quite so sloppy if you employ this distinction. The death penalty issue is a little different. It seems to me that it should permitted only in very rare circumstances, such as when the risk to society posed by keeping the person alive is so great that it puts other lives in grave, imminent danger of death.

        Also, I do think this nation has the duty to look keep an eye out for international injustice and abuse of human rights, but I think an even bigger issue is the injustice in our own country. Obviously both are very important, but in the order of urgency, it would seem wise for this nation to look to its own injustice that it may more intelligently and zealously address injustices abroad.

      • Posted By: tjs84 @ 09/24/2008 10:37:40 PM

        You bring up some interesting points. I think it is helpful, however, to distinguish between activities that are in and of themselves morally permissible but which carry risks and those activities which are per se immoral. I actually commute by bike most of the time, but I find it absurd to place driving a car on par with procuring an abortion. There is nothing inherently wrong about driving a car, but it certainly is irresponsible to speed and fail to obey traffic violations. I would see nothing wrong with lowering the speed limit to save lives, but to equate such legislation with anti-abortion legislation is absurd and misses the point. And certainly there is nothing inherently wrong with gun use, so long as it is responsible. It is the abuse of these things that causes harm. And to the extent that society cannot effectuate responsible use of these thigns, perhaps regulation is in order. But do not equate thesee activities with abortion, which is never morally permissible, under any circumstance. I actually do oppose the death penalty in almost every circumstance, because it seems to me society does not have authority to take a life unless the harm it will suffer from allowing that person to live is so grave that it outweighs the injustice of taking that life. As far as invading another nation to save their innocents, many factors would come into consideration, such as the gravity of the harm, whether alternative means of resolution have failed, the prospects of succes, and the balancing of evil inflicted with the evil to be effected by such an invasion. It is a complicated issue, but ultimately I believe this nation has the primary responsibility to ensure its own uprightness. Of course we must have an eye toward international injustice and the abuse of basic human rights abroad, but we will look like hypocrites, and certainly be hypocrites, if we fail to uphold morality within our own nation.

  • Posted By: INOSH @ 09/24/2008 8:21:03 PM

    Our world population is just shy of 7billion people and we have passed our sustainable limits for both of our major food energy sources: grains and fish, as well as very quickly reaching our fresh water limits, and the sad fact of the matter is that somewhere between 10 and 30 million children die every year of the worst possible death, starvation and starvation related diseases.
    Part of this problem is that a lot of people who are against abortion (I say some, not all) are also opposed to birth control, and contraception ??? it???s all part of the belief that women who control their reproductive processes can be independent of men. That women, women's bodies, and in particular women's sexuality, must be controlled by men rather than by women themselves. In Niger only 5% of women use any form of contraception, largely because men forbid their wives to use it. In societies where women have very
    limited opportunities and resources, birthrates and adolescent birthrates tend to be high. As a result, population growth rates are also very high. Studies have shown that when the status of women improves, birthrates go down and population growth slows. When women are educated, can hold gainful employment, and are able to make decisions about their own reproductive health, they usually choose to have fewer children and wait longer before having them.
    We need to stop this argument about the morality of abortion, I think both sides will agree that it won't solve the problem, and we all need to work together and find SOME WAY to achieve ZERO POPULATION GROWTH. Our planet can't take it any more. Overpopulation is the problem , Abortion, global warming, and our current ecconomic crisis are all just symptoms.

  • Posted By: jim43 @ 09/23/2008 11:01:40 AM

    To answer your question SARAH. When I was in school, all social issues were different. Today, our teens see issues differently. Teachers having sex w students gets reported, Christmas Play is Holiday Play. Pledge to no one. My mother in the 1950s adopted out, todays teens have babies. Gomer was just funny not funny and. If I couldn't get an erection it wasn't on TV. Wake up to a new generation, We are getting older. I thought Columbus did discover America.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/24/2008 3:52:37 PM

      Jim,

      My parents were in school in the 1930's and I have freinds whose parents were in school in teh 1940's and early 1950's. The Pledge did not have the words "under god" in it. Ther was no need for it (there still is no need for it.) And my parents were FORCED to say the Lord's Prayer even though they were Jewish. (And that prayer is blasphemy to many Jes so they were FORCED to blaspheme.)

      Getting rid of forced in public schools and removing the words that were never supposed to be in the pledge in the first place (and it was written by a minister) is the correct thig to do.

  • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 09/23/2008 1:48:08 PM

    we live in the "free world". that means the freedom to make our own choices. you choose to have sex, you choose to get married, you choose to have childeren. you do not choose to get raped, live in poverty, get abused...yea yea "just dont have sex" how many people here actually follow that mantra? we all have sex, even "need" it. stupid argument. life does not exist without procreation

    and the government does not pay for abortions, none of your tax money pays for it.

    is abortion directly affecting a "pro-lifers" own life? does it keep you awake at night? does it make you regret being human? is it affecting your job, your rent, your family? if your pro life, great, now leave it at that. im so sick of people pushing they're own views onto others they deem "lesser".

    your pro-life, but pro war...your "good christians" but you all lie and cheat and steal and commit adultary.

    i was talking to a coworker of mine today and we got on the subject of war. all he said was "bomb the whole middle east and wipe them all out...just nuke the bastards" keep in mind this man is a devote christian...then i spoke about this article and he started saying how sickening it is that people kill innocent babies...hmmm...gotta love hypocrisy... last i checked our own government that will somehow be able to decide what a woman does with her life, is also the same government that launches missle strikes that always seem to entail a few dozen innocent bi-standards gettin killed or severely wounded. and we dont give them a support system either...

    "land of the free to kill anyone, except that unborn fetus, thats government business".

    • Posted By: wifenmother4evr @ 09/23/2008 1:54:58 PM

      Some rather "blanketed" statements there. I did find it humrous that you said the human race cannot continue without sex...very true indeed. We do need to pro-create to continue on as a species....please explain to me how having sex followed by an abortion is helping that equation. And will someone please answer the question of how the life of the mother is so much more important than that of the child.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/24/2008 10:06:39 AM

        Because until it is born (or at least until it would normally be independently viable outside of the womb without extreme medical intervention) it is not alive. (And the use of the term "Child" for a fetus or embryo is not medically valid. It is used purely for emotional purposes). I make the point about independenlty viable outside the womb to mean requiring the spefific woomb or the woman carrying it. Once born, a child (now it can be legitimately called that) can be cared for by any person. The woman who carried it is not required (desirable maybe but not required). Additionally, if the fetus would not be able to survive outside of that womb without extraordinary medical intervention, it is not independently viable (4-5 month old fetuses rarely if ever survive outside the womb) It is not really a life. A future life, maybe, but not a life. As for teh arguement that is raised about aborting the fetus may prevent a new Ghandi, Dr. ML King, or other great person from being born. That argument is a completely fallacy of logic as a reason to prevent abortions since the opposite possibilty is equally there. The fetus cuold turn into a new Stalin or Hitler, or Bundy or Bin Laden. Posible good or bad done by if a fetus is allowed to become a living person, is never a legitimate arguement can be ignored. Most educated anti-abortion advocates acknowledge the fallacy of that type of argument.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/24/2008 3:36:27 PM

          "Posible good or bad done by if a fetus is allowed to become a living person, is never a legitimate arguement can be ignored"

          needs clarifying. It should have read:

          "The possible good or bad that might be done if a fetus is allowed to become a living person, is never a legitimate arguement and that arguement can therefore be ignored"

      • Posted By: thinking4myself @ 09/23/2008 2:45:24 PM

        yeah, their called accidents for a reason.

  • Posted By: TheWorldWeLiveIn @ 09/23/2008 11:56:38 PM

    enough with the fear. who the president is will not have an impact on what makes a woman have an abortion. let's get real. overruling roe v. wade, however, will have a NEGATIVE impact. women will still have abortions. we'll be back to the back room abortions and the coat hangers.

    • Posted By: Cssndra @ 09/24/2008 1:09:11 PM

      Saline is a much safer way to go.

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/24/2008 1:19:49 PM

        Here is the method that you are talking about

        Salt Poisoning a.k.a. "Candy Apple Babies:"
        Most often used after the first trimester (first three months). The abortionist injects a strong salt solution directly into the amniotic sac (fluid surrounding the baby). The baby breathes and swallows it, is poisoned, struggles, and sometimes convulses. It takes over an hour to kill the baby. The mother delivers the dead baby in a day or two (sometimes alive!). Why "candy apple" babies? The corrosive effect of the salt solution often burns and strips away the outer layer of the baby's skin. This exposes the raw, red, glazed-looking subcutaneous layer of tissue. The baby's head sometimes looks like a candy apple. Some have also likened this method to the effect of napalm on innocent war victims. This technique was originally developed in the concentration camps in Nazi Germany.

        yep I guess that is the best way to commit infantcide, genecide and any other immoral killing of the innocent

        • Posted By: MoJabar @ 09/24/2008 1:53:03 PM

          "Candy Apple Babies" sounds so cute. It's like when they call soldiers "troops" I.e. "We sent in 20,000 troops" to mean we sent 20,000 boys and girls to murder one another on the battlefield. Or calling the toilet the "commode", Pardon me while I powder my nose, but really it's a bowel movement. So many euphemisms. Got any more cute names for abortion?

          • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/24/2008 2:16:58 PM

            I'm sorry you think the killing of babies is so cute.... are you really trying to compare the deaths of soldiers with children? unbelievable.... but here is a little statistics for you.... the number of people killed by the use of handguns worldwide (which includes wars) is 500,000 with 100-200k being killed in wars yearly.... the number of abortions performed worldwide is 42,000,000 and the number performed in America is 1,300,000 which more than twice the the amount of people killed worldwide and more than 5 times the amount killed in wars just in America alone..... and 210 times the amount killed worldwide .... so calling the pot or kettle black is not what I'm doing ..... you need to get a clue.....

  • Posted By: cocolex @ 09/23/2008 10:35:23 PM

    Well, get ready for these numbers to drastically increase if Barack Obama gets elected! After all, he doesn't care how many teenagers have abortions (without parental notification). He doesn't care how many innocent babies are killed... and if they don't die right away, he doesn't care if the "Doctors" just throw the babies in the corner and do nothing while they suffer a slow agonizing death.

    "I don't want my daughters to be punished with a baby!" - Barack Obama

    • Posted By: TheWorldWeLiveIn @ 09/24/2008 12:00:17 AM

      enough with the fear. who the president is will not have an impact on what makes a woman have an abortion. let's get real. overruling roe v. wade, however, will have a NEGATIVE impact. women will still have abortions. we'll be back to the back room abortions and the coat hangers.

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/24/2008 1:22:34 PM

        Maybe will will go back to where abstinence is looked upon as a virtue and not as a sin.... maybe we will go back to having self-respect of women and let them know that they are precious in the eyes of everyone and should be treated this way instead of like sexual objects...... hmmmmmm just a thought.....

  • Posted By: juliesatx @ 09/23/2008 7:46:53 PM

    RE Bojack27-------Don't be scared. I'm not saying it's all about that. But if the woman of the world all closed their legs at the same time.........what would government do? What would men do? Rape? well then we are sure to be heard. Violence against those for change is nothing new and not something I am afraid of. Sorry to disappoint you. Why do you think I am deceived? Do you presume to know more than I on this issue, I guarantee you don't. Men like you often presume you are more wise than any woman could be, but you are wrong. Weren't you just talking about bald eagles....what do you care? You should educate yourself on the challenges women face. You should educate yourself on everything. Here are some quotes from my spiritual teacher.....Mohandas Ghandi

    When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always.

    Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

    Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.

    If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior.

    If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future is with women.

    Woman, I hold, is the personification of self-sacrifice, but unfortunately today she does not realize what tremendous advantage she has over man.

    • Posted By: Cssndra @ 09/24/2008 1:11:52 PM

      Hah. Been tried before. Read Aristophanes 'Lysistrata". Not the same situation, the parallel (women denying men sex to achieve a common goal) is there. And certainly not original.

  • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/23/2008 3:46:19 PM

    The Endangered Species Act
    Passed in 1973 and reauthorized in 1988, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulates a wide range of activities affecting plants and animals designated as endangered or threatened. By definition, "endangered species" is an animal or plant listed by regulation as being in danger of extinction. A "threatened species" is any animal or plant that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
    The Act prohibits the following activities involving endangered species:
    ??? Importing into or exporting from the United States.
    ??? Taking (includes harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, trapping, killing, capturing, or collecting) within the United States and its territorial seas.
    ??? Possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, transporting, or shipping any such species unlawfully taken within the United States or on the high seas.
    ??? Delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of a commercial activity.
    ??? Selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
    Prohibitions apply to endangered species, their parts, and products. Most of these restrictions also apply to species listed as threatened unless the species qualifies for an exception. The Act also requires that wildlife be imported or exported through designated ports and that special declarations be filed. If the value of wildlife imported and/or exported is $25,000 per year or more, importers and exporters must be licensed.
    Exceptions:
    Permits may be granted for scientific or propagation purposes or for economic hardship situations involving endangered or threatened species.
    Penalties:
    Violators of the Endangered Species Act are subject to fines of up to $100,000 and one year imprisonment. Organizations found in violation may be fined up to $200,000. Fish, wildlife, plants, and vehicles and equipment used in violations may be subject to forfeiture.
    Rewards:
    Individuals providing information leading to a civil penalty or criminal conviction may be eligible for cash rewards.

    Most people are probably wondering is ....what does this have to do with the topic.... It is a strange place where we can look after the offspring of birds, plants, animals, and fish.... and consider it a crime to destroy or kill these animals or plants..... and receive a fine up $200,000 dollars and two years in prison.... yet when it comes to the life of an unborn we say that it is a right!

    • Posted By: Young Hickory @ 09/23/2008 4:24:23 PM

      We as humans are far from an endangered species. In fact we have billions starving and living in poverty. Before you start bringing more people into this world you may want to put a little effort into helping care for the people who are already here instead of sitting on your rear blogging.

      • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/24/2008 11:47:39 AM

        It is true that close to 800 million people are starving or living in poverty around the world... but the biggest thing about that is most of them are in developed countries who have the means, money and know-how to care for them.... governments that allow people to live in poverty do it for one reason... that is to control them for the gain and pleasure... It is nothing that I can do but speak out against governments that do these things... it takes a collect effort to raise awareness through the United Nation against the exploitations of the poor.... but saying I should do something instead of sitting on my rear blogging just shows me how ignorant you are.... you my friend are right here with me blogging.... I suppose that I interupted you changing the world speech that you was preparing to give the masses....

        So your reasoning goes like this.... lets kill the unborn until governments know how to treat the poor here on earth.... yet it is the poor here on earth that are being exploited into performing abortions around the world for government exploitation and population control measures.... yet they offer a form of death but not a hand in helping to feed them.... Great reasoning that you have there... NOT!

  • Posted By: juliesatx @ 09/23/2008 3:51:55 PM

    Comment: Women cannot wait for men to get their act together. They have not done a very good job in my opinion of running the world. Maybe women should give it a try. I will always encourage women to live for themselves. When they empower themselves they can transcend this life. Our ability to control our fertility is vital to our liberty. Add modesty and chasteness to this, women will run the world. WE HAVE BEEN CHOSEN TO GIVE LIFE. I'm tired of reminding men of this. We have what YOU want and need. If you seek our love and self sacrifice you should earn it. Until then, look to Europe where the government is so desperate to get women pregnant that they pay you to have a baby. When this begins to happen everywhere, we will have a voice. Maybe even equal representation in government!!!

    Sex is not the problem. Sex is an absolutely vital part of who we are. The lack of embracing this fundamental part of our physiology is the real problem. Women don't often 'get it' because they are plagued with hang ups: abuse, rape, the 'good girl' 'bad girl' dichotomy, sexual dysfunction in 44% of American women, and selfish men who don't get it either. I promise if you're doing it right, your woman will want it. Men don't read self help books. They are guaranteed satisfaction in this matter, women are not. That's why the act itself has to be about us, women must demand this. Luckliy I have not experienced any of these things, only brushes with them. I have been multi orgasmic since I was 18. At 15 I was able to make a decision about my own life without my parents and because of Planned Parenthood, I was able to protect myself. I have had deep meaningful relationships with men who were unselfish lovers and I am so grateful for that. I have fantastic sex at least twice a week. I think everyone should have this. Sex is like food or water, natural, god given, and here for us to enjoy. The world would be a better place if everyone was having great sex.

    • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/23/2008 4:17:27 PM

      Julie you are deceived ... if you think that women will rule because they quote "have what we want" you are misleading.... if men get that desperate to give up every right to control or run things just for some _____ then you have overestimate the power of your vagina....If it gets down to men being rule by woman because of the benefits of sex.... then men will just simply take it...... so are you condoning a society of rapist?

      Also quit trying to acheive what God has already made..... that is women being equal to man.... God has already made women equal to man from the beginning.....Selah!

      • Posted By: juliesatx @ 09/23/2008 5:08:15 PM

        Don't be scared. I'm not saying it's all about that. But if the woman of the world all closed their legs at the same time.........what would government do? What would men do? Rape? well then we are sure to be heard. Violence against those for change is nothing new and not something I am afraid of. Sorry to disappoint you. Why do you think I am deceived? Do you presume to know more than I on this issue, I guarantee you don't. Men like you often presume you are more wise than any woman could be, but you are wrong. Weren't you just talking about bald eagles....what do you care? You should educate yourself on the challenges women face. You should educate yourself on everything. Here are some quotes from my spiritual teacher.....Mohandas Ghandi

        When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always.

        Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

        Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary.

        If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior.

        If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future is with women.

        Woman, I hold, is the personification of self-sacrifice, but unfortunately today she does not realize what tremendous advantage she has over man.

        • Posted By: bojack27 @ 09/24/2008 11:35:40 AM

          First of all I not scared... second ... I don't condone rape or forcing a woman to do anything .... neither do I condone a woman trying to usurp authority from a man using withcraft? Look up the true meaning of withcraft.... if a wife is keeping herself (sexually) from a man for the purpose of controlling his thoughts or getting a desired reaction contrary to his will then this is a form of withcraft... now for the matter of your spiritual leader.....

          Do you know that your spiritual leader was ..... how shall I say this? One who engaged in frequent sexual conquest of women? And now you are trying to quote some sayings from a guy who frequently took advantage of women for the pleasures of sex as your spiritual leader? I find that you are blind to the exploitation of woman through the man you call your spiritual leader and your premise of me not knowing that much or being as smart as you are on the oppression of women.... yet your following a person who slept with members of his own family and continue sleeping with woman up to his assasination.....

  • Posted By: Dowser @ 09/23/2008 9:42:51 PM

    Teen abortion rates have dropped also because more teenagers are keeping their babies. There is no "stigma" of rearing a child while still a child-- it has become quite fashionable. We need to offer free birth control to every woman of childbearing age who can't afford it.

    • Posted By: MoJabar @ 09/24/2008 11:28:57 AM

      I still don't understand where they get the money for cigarettes, lottery tickets, make up, and beer when they can't afford condoms?!

  • Posted By: jim43 @ 09/23/2008 3:05:52 PM

    To all that believe Abortion should stay Legal, Congradulations it is still Legal. For the so called Bible thumpers
    I would say dont give up and keep having Babies. Someday they will be able to vote.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/24/2008 10:33:47 AM

      And a lot of them will vote to keep abortion safe and legal.

  • Posted By: akndkid @ 09/23/2008 1:05:30 PM

    These "numbers" make me ill. These aren't just statistics. Each one of those "numbers" was a child who will never get a chance or a choice. I have two children and cannot imagine making a choice to kill one of them.

    • Posted By: wifenmother4evr @ 09/23/2008 1:10:02 PM

      Well said. The "pro-choice" like to look at statistics instead of lives. A simple number like a "blob of cells", or a "parasite", or something akin to an "appendix" is much easier for them to swallow getting rid of rather than what it actually is...a human life!

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/24/2008 10:22:22 AM

        You THINK that is is a human life. That is opinion not medical fact.

  • Posted By: twiddlecap @ 09/23/2008 1:08:52 PM

    Hey, all you people who want to get rid of abortion why don't you adopt all the children who are in foster care who need rescuing??? How about all the children out there who are abused on a constant basis why don't you save them????? What I do with my body is my own business, so leave me alone!!!!!!

    • Posted By: akndkid @ 09/23/2008 1:17:12 PM

      When my wife became ill with our first pregnancy she begged me to consider the childs life over her own. She said no matter what happens think of our child first.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/24/2008 10:21:16 AM

        That was HER right. But jsut because she felt that way does not mean that it is the ONLY valid viewpoint.

        She made her choice. She has no right to deny another woman to make a different one. She considered it a child, not every woman does.

    • Posted By: wifenmother4evr @ 09/23/2008 1:13:39 PM

      Why do you assume that we are not doing that very thing? And again I am forced to ask, why is your body of so much more importance than that of your child's???

      • Posted By: sj32 @ 09/23/2008 1:21:21 PM

        Why is what I do with MY life and MY body YOUR business? I'm not telling you not to have as many children as you like. Why should you tell me how many children I should have OR NOT have?

        • Posted By: wifenmother4evr @ 09/23/2008 1:24:59 PM

          I am not mandating that you have any certain number of children. I'm merely trying to understand how once you have created a child you feel it is your right to murder that child.

          • Posted By: sj32 @ 09/23/2008 1:36:04 PM

            Why is it your concern what another woman does? How it affect you directly if your next door neighbor had an abortion? You probably wouldn't even know it happened. Because most people don't discuss their medical background with every Tom, Dick and Harry that comes along.

            • Posted By: wifenmother4evr @ 09/23/2008 1:46:40 PM

              That is like saying why should it bother you that your neighbor murders her husband. People don't always talk of their murderous escapades with every Tom, Dick, and Harry. We are talking about a child. Why is the life of an unborn child of less value than the woman carrying it...someone please answer that question!

              • Posted By: sj32 @ 09/23/2008 2:54:16 PM

                Well could you then explain to me why an unborn child's life is more important or valuable than the mother's?

              • Posted By: JoBee20 @ 09/23/2008 2:14:21 PM

                I have answered it, you just don't like it.

                A fetus has no rights. A women has rights.

          • Posted By: JoBee20 @ 09/23/2008 1:44:07 PM

            First of all a child is never killed during a abortion. It is a zygote most of the time and a fetus the rest. Second, we have that right because a zygote/fetus is a not a person and does not have any rights.

            • Posted By: wifenmother4evr @ 09/23/2008 1:50:25 PM

              Is this the lingo that helps pro-choicers sleep at night? A dog is pregnant with puppies, a cat is pregnant with kittens, a woman is pregnant with a baby!

              • Posted By: JoBee20 @ 09/23/2008 2:12:47 PM

                No that is the "lingo" that is used by the medical profession.

    • Posted By: 4astrongamerica @ 09/23/2008 1:24:02 PM

      Abortion has been legal for 35 years. Children who are abused are not the result of abortion rights or a lack thereof. Their parent's had the option of having an abortion and did not. Abuse is a seperate issue that must also be addressed, but your arguement doesn't have merit. Unless you want to force bad people to have abortions, Roe v. Wade can't solve this very sad issue one way or the other.

  • Posted By: KCgirl @ 09/23/2008 1:26:43 PM

    To wifenmother4evr, I don't think anyone suggested that tax dollars pay for abortion. But I'm interested in how our country was founded on Christian principles? They could actually be considered the principles of other religions that Christianity. Also, is a revolution where you kill your former countrymen Christian? "Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson. Seems more like we are founded on ideals of ancient Greek and Roman society (duh).

    • Posted By: wifenmother4evr @ 09/23/2008 1:37:38 PM

      And yet sadly, my tax dollars DO fund abortions so long as they are funding horrendous institutions such as planned parethood. (which by the way is an institution notorious with the horrendous practice of "racial cleansing".) Do your research!

      • Posted By: JoBee20 @ 09/23/2008 2:01:28 PM

        Take your own advice. It is ILLEGAL for federal tax dollars to pay for abortions unless it is for the 3 noted reasons. PP has to very careful with the money it receives from grants and if any improprieties are found during one of many audits they go through they lose the money.

        BTW, only about a quater of PP money comes from tax dollars, the rest is private donations.

        • Posted By: wifenmother4evr @ 09/23/2008 2:06:38 PM

          You used the word "unless" and the phrase "less than a quarter"....soooo, my tax dollars are funding them! Am I supposed to be able to pillow my head peacefully at night because only a small protion of my money is being spent to murder babies? Sorry, I simply cannot do that. Also, I was more trying to get people to research and realize that one of the goals of planned parenthood was "racial cleansing"... a truly horrendous practice. Again I say, do your research.

          • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/24/2008 10:16:31 AM

            Also, I was more trying to get people to research and realize that one of the goals of planned parenthood was "racial cleansing"... a truly horrendous practice. Again I say, do your research.


            That is pure bull. Although Sanger may have had some eugenic views, Planned Parenthood has grown far beyond her. The work it has done in the at least past 60 years is admirable work.

            And even in the old days, the organization itself was not for eugenics. The claim to the countrary is false.

          • Posted By: JoBee20 @ 09/23/2008 2:21:38 PM

            *sigh* Unless you live in one of the 17 states that uses state tax dollars to pay for abortion, your tax dollars are only paying to end pregnancies that are a result of rape, incest, or the mother???s life is in danger. And those only make up less than 1% of all abortions.

            And as your claim against PP. Complete and utter BS.

            • Posted By: wifenmother4evr @ 09/23/2008 2:48:54 PM

              I don't support ANY abortion so it's still not ok with me.

              • Posted By: JoBee20 @ 09/23/2008 3:08:50 PM

                Fair enough. Though I think it is absolutely absurd to punish the innocent victims of rape and incest even further by forcing them to use their bodies to carry the child of their attacker. It is even more outrageous that you believe that a mother should perish if her fetus is going to. But, hey, I don???t like my tax dollars going towards the slaughter of thousands of already-born men, women, and children in Iraq.

    • Posted By: wifenmother4evr @ 09/23/2008 1:35:32 PM

      Ah yes, and yet, my tax dollars DO pay for abortions as my tax dollars go to fund horrid institutions such a planned parenthood. (Which is notoriously an institution bent on "racial cleansing"...a disgusting fact not many people are aware of.) I don't think this board is the place to really get into the FACT that our government was founded on Christian principle but allow me to go ahead and state that because of that very FACT we do have a separation of church and state. Christians wanted to be certain that there would be freedom of religion in this land. Now, back to the question which no one has seen fit to answer as of yet. Why is the life of someone's unwanted child of less value than that of the woman carrying it?

      • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/23/2008 1:59:50 PM

        Planned Parenthood is not just about abortion. In fact, Planned Parenthood goes to great lengths to educate women about prevention and contraception. Abortion is a last result and only after mandatory counseling and a waiting period. Have you ever been to a Planned Parenthood? I, and many of my friends, visited Planned Parenthood in college to get bc pills for a very affordable price, even for college students.
        You want to talk about racial cleansing? Christians like yourself used to think slavery was just peachy. The government used to carry out horrific tests on blacks, too...yet you still pay taxes, right?

        • Posted By: wifenmother4evr @ 09/23/2008 2:09:41 PM

          I do find it interesting that you assume I am a Christian...and am glad that Christianity is linked with the sanctity of life. I think you'd be somewhat hard-pressed to find many Christians on this site however who are for slavery. Oh, and by the way, many non-christians were for slavery too. I fail to see how the sad history of our nation has anything to do with the daily murder of 4000 babies TODAY!

          • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/23/2008 2:25:11 PM

            Really? You REALLY find it interesting that I think you are a Christian, when you've been spouting off about Christianity? If you aren't a Christian then why are you using it as part of your weak argument?

      • Posted By: KCgirl @ 09/23/2008 2:18:55 PM

        So which one is it? That we have separation of church and state because it's a Christian principle, or "Comment: It's almost ridiculous to think that religion and politics could be separate when this country was founded on Christian principle. You're just contradicting yourself now. If separation of church and state is a Christian ideal, than my individual rights trump your irrelevant religious beliefs. You're free to practice your beliefs in peace, not to force it on others. You don't like abortion? Well I don't like hunting, but I don't go around spouting how wrong it is. I leave judgement up to whomever (isn't that something God encouraged?) and would rather spend my time helping others.

  • Posted By: TheVigil @ 09/23/2008 1:35:42 PM

    Outlawing abortions means going back to back-alley abortions and young girls dying of perforated uteruses or horrible infections. It's that simple.

    The people accusing pro-choice supporters of "infanticide" should take a look at their own contributions to the injuries and deaths caused by the increase in illegal abortions when it's made illegal.

    • Posted By: tomh_32 @ 09/23/2008 1:47:39 PM

      Well, since the life of the fetus does not matter, why should the life of the mothers matter. Can you tell me how to tell which life matters more or less?

      • Posted By: JC0101 @ 09/23/2008 1:53:01 PM

        With illegal abortions you can lose two lives instead of one. I would put the life of a sentient mother above a nonsentient embryo. You should actually say embryo rather than fetuses because almost all abortions occur during the embryonic stage.

        • Posted By: tomh_32 @ 09/23/2008 2:13:03 PM

          If you're into counting lives, we could say it's not too bad that we lose two lives, as if the mother lives, she could have a second or third abortion. In any case, I will have to consult the literature to see when the embryonic stage ends, but no matter, it is still a human embryo having the potential to become a fully sentient being. Now talking about sentient being. Is Albert Einstein more sentient when he published Relativity than when he was in his mother's womb?

          • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/24/2008 10:08:27 AM

            "Is Albert Einstein more sentient when he published Relativity than when he was in his mother's womb?"

            Yes.

      • Posted By: TheVigil @ 09/23/2008 5:17:22 PM

        I never said the life of the fetus doesn't matter.

        I will go on record as saying that criminalizing abortion doesn't stop it or even close.

        Women who could have had a safe procedure will end up dying or becoming horribly scarred - losing in some cases their capacity to even bear children - due to getting back-room abortions, which they will.

        If you're really concerned about life, you have to take the entire situation into account, and realize that in the end you're powerless to stop some of it.

        • Posted By: tomh_32 @ 09/23/2008 6:36:02 PM

          I do agree that making it (or part of it) illegal just drives people underground and young girls, women may die, but frankly I do not have much sympathy for people who engage in such act. I care about life but only up to a point. I am sorry but the images of girls/women dying because they try to kill their babies don't bother me that much.
          Actually no law prevents anything. Drug use is illegal, and you will always have drug traffickers who kill each other and drug users who will die of overdose. Our society don't seem to have much sympathy for the death of these people. A law making using abortion as a form of birth control illegal is not going to change anything. But it will say that society does not condone it. The fact that it is legal means our society condones it based on the argument that women have the right to do what they want with their bodies. But why is prostitution illegal in most states? That's a more true definition of women doing what they want with their bodies, and it doesn't involve killing anything.

      • Posted By: JoBee20 @ 09/23/2008 2:04:09 PM

        Umm because, and I know that anti-choicers don't like to hear this, the women is a person with rights and a fetus is not.

        • Posted By: tomh_32 @ 09/23/2008 3:07:03 PM

          Actually I don't have a problem with your line of reasoning: Women have rights and fetuses don't, but at least have the gut to admit that. Don't sugar-coat with the word "pro-choice" or "anti-choice". Our law allows us to kill unborn embryo or fetus up to a certain stage. Those of you who choose to do that should have the gut to call yourself "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice". It makes me sick to hear women talk about their body and "pro-choice", and it's such an irony that no love can compare with a mother love, but also no indifference can compare with a mother's indifference either, so much so that she would kill her baby and pretends it's all natural because I can do as I please with my body. Well it's not natural because that's not how nature would have it. Name me an animal that would abort its unborn.

          • Posted By: TheVigil @ 09/23/2008 5:13:04 PM

            The problem with "pro-abortion" is that it implies that we are for the act itself.

            Very few pro-choicers are pro-abortion in that sense. We all wish no one would ever have an unwanted, dangerous, or unaffordable pregnancy. Most of us are happy to see abortion rates drop in a legalized scenario. I certainly am; I don't support abortion past the first trimester either.

            I am staunchly pro-abortion-rights, if you'd prefer that label. I don't consider myself to be a big proponent of abortion. I just don't judge it as much as others do, and I believe that criminalizing it just drives it underground.

          • Posted By: JoBee20 @ 09/23/2008 3:31:43 PM

            Reading comprehension issues? I am pretty sure I did have to guts to say that women have rights and a fetus does not.

            Oh and I do not have a problem with being called pro-abortion because I am, though not all who call themselves pro-choice are. There are some who personally oppose abortion but oppose government intrusion even more.

            Well it makes me sick to think that government could force me to use my body against my will.

            Oh please spare us your hyperbole, ALL animals abort, it is completely natural and a part of life.

            • Posted By: tomh_32 @ 09/23/2008 4:26:24 PM

              ALL animals abort? Name me one besides human. And don't count the miscarriage as abortion.

    • Posted By: tomh_32 @ 09/23/2008 1:45:18 PM

      If you do something nature does not intend, prepare to pay for the consequences. It's that simple.

      • Posted By: TheVigil @ 09/23/2008 5:13:42 PM

        Who on Earth are you to say what nature does or does not intend?

        • Posted By: tomh_32 @ 09/23/2008 6:23:56 PM

          By observation, and of course my observation can be wrong, but to date I have not observed or read in other people's work any species that kill their young as a form of birth control. Point out to me, educate me instead of just making statements.

    • Posted By: summer4077 @ 09/23/2008 1:55:23 PM

      As others have commented, I find it interesting that those screaming "infanticide" are statistically the most likely to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do they think all those bombs we have dropped didn't hit innocent women and children?
      I guess I see the abortion issue differently from taking multiple philosophy courses in college. When is an embryo a child? When do the rights of the embryo trump the rights of the mother? When is pain felt? It's all too complex for black and white.

      • Posted By: TheVigil @ 09/23/2008 5:14:27 PM

        Yes indeed, I agree completely. Black and white thinking is the least likely to solve this issue.

    • Posted By: akndkid @ 09/23/2008 1:47:21 PM

      Your choices are not a legal abortion or an illegal abortion. Take responsibility, give the child a chance through adoption.

      • Posted By: JC0101 @ 09/23/2008 2:00:33 PM

        If every woman who had an abortion chose adoption you would quickly run out of adoptive families. Plus, it is harder to find adoptive familes for minority kids but they make up the vast majority of abortions. If you illegalize abortion an awful lot of babies will end up in the broken foster care system. Orphanages would have to be brought back. Will Republicans be willing to pay more taxes to pay for them?

  • Posted By: lalahakbar @ 09/23/2008 8:09:30 PM

    I try to exercise my rights as a Democrat American woman by having at least one abortion a year. I've even learned to enjoy it. I try to get Planned Parenthood to pay for it whenever possible just to stick it to tax-payers! Let them pay for my stupidity. My body. My choice. My dead babies!

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/24/2008 9:43:33 AM

      "I try to exercise my rights as a Democrat American woman by having at least one abortion a year. I've even learned to enjoy it. I try to get Planned Parenthood to pay for it whenever possible just to stick it to tax-payers! Let them pay for my stupidity. My body. My choice. My dead babies! "

      One more lying conservative Christian republican.
      Nice to hear from you Gov. Palin.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse