Roe v. Wade v. Kristi

The amendment would make several contraception devices potentially illegal, namely IUD, "abortion" pills and even the old-fashioned Pill, which works by denying the fertilized egg a friendly inner lining in the uterus (or by preventing an egg from maturing in the ovaries). On the other hand, it is estimated, that about 80% of fertilized eggs are flushed because they are not able to get planted. So your most active baby-killer is an average woman with normal hormones.

Kristi is pushing a very dangerous and naive position. It will eliminate birth control and the number of underage pregnancies will sore. A life beging with heartbeat and brainwaves. She should be adopting the "unwanted" babies. Start with 3.

I only wish that Ms. Kristi knew what it was like to use a bedpost or a wire hanger to self-mutilate in order to avoid a detected pregnancy.......The sad fact is that she in her righteous self indignation has no clue --- despite being a law student --- and I certainly hope that she gets raped and carries the demon seed to birth just to feel the horror of the hell that many women who have sacrificed their entire reproductive future to have control over their bodies. Afterall, even a rapist seed needs to live as long as it conceives, right Kristi?

Come on, I know you have to be monitoring the discussion of your precious little gimmick, Kirsti.... Let's hear you defend your position because I am sure that your don't give two craps about the children born to families that are not ready, not willing or not able to care for those kids.... Have you adopted any children yet from those situations. Perhaps you could use your new found popularity to adopt some to the rape-children in the Congo for the incubine women who just happened not to have access to birth control or abortion.... Defend yourself and your law school talents, I dare you!

Progressive America, There should still be some adjuatment of the legality of abortion. Roe V Wade was wrong because it was a form of birth control. When the fathers rights are trumped simply because a woman is to selfish to carry an innocent life for 9 measly months there is something drastically wrong.

The flip side of this 'abortion issue' is to make the joy of childbirth a government mandate.
The vast majority of women who choose to have a baby would be at the negative psychological effect of knowing that they do not have 'a choice' even though they would never consider having an abortion.
Presently, under the law (interpreted) a woman can receive an 'on demand' abortion during the first trimester of her pregnancy. Once the fetus is 'viable' (able to live outside of the womb) then the child obtains constitutional rights equal to those of it's mother.

To consider a fertilized egg a 'human being' is not scientifically sound; it is an arbitrary decision unfounded upon science but, rather, centered in a religious belief. A fertilized egg (usually) 'becomes', gradually, a human being, but that 'human 'being-ness' exists only as a potential until viability is attained.

If there were a law that required a person to speak continuously once that person exercised his or her 'right to free speech' that law would be considered as 'involuntary servitude' and, as such, would be unconstitutional.

To have the joy of a pregnancy and childbirth become a 'government mandate' for the vast majority of women is highly dysfunctional. A mandate of that type breeds subtle but powerful resentment that tears at the fabric of family life.

'Viability' of the fetus provides a much more objective test. It eliminates spurious religious philosophies and eliminates any doubt in-so-far as 'when' the fetus secures 'rights' under the law, as a human being.

It becomes much less of a 'tough call' if you simply pretend (if need be) that you are a woman who is two weeks pregnant and there is a government mandate requiring you to give birth, under penalty of the law.

Freedom of choice, during the first trimester, is the lesser of two evils. It removes 'oppression' from the equation and preserves the sanctity of the vast majority of women who choose life.

.

So, when does this new person get a social security number? I'm pro life, but this is would create a beurocratic nightmare. Imagine every spontaneous miscarriage being eligible for life insurance benefits under existing insurance laws. I don't think this young aspiring attorney has thought out her approach in full, and it's amazing to me that people will flock behind what seems to be a good idea on the surface without digging deep enough to realize the consequences BEFORE making new ideas legalities. We are always trying to dig out of the next mess we've created for ourselves, let's stop this one before it gets out of hand.

HOW CAN YOU BE PR0-LIFE AND PRO-WAR?.FROM GOD

My biggest issue with this pro-life stance is that a lot of people who support this is "pro-life" as long as the child is in the womb. Once the child exists the womb, they become "pro-choice" such as: supporting the dealth penalty; not wanting to support these mothers/famillies who have these unwanted children; not wanting to adopt any children; and not wanting to offer any support to these families. They just seem to stand in judgment when these women commit crimes like the Susan Smiths', Andrea Yates' etc.

Out of all the so called "pro-lifers" I've met, not one of them has ever been able to explain to me the difference between an abortion and a war that kills innocent people. If they are so "pro-life" reach out to these families that are facing every day challenging problems that could throw them over the edge with their children. Help them find resources for health care, education, and other alternatives to violence.

I personally believe that abortion is wrong for me, but I dare not stand in judgement of any woman who makes that choice.

It is really sad to me that there are many people out there that base their decision on who they will vote for to be the next president of the United States based on whether they are pro life or pro choice. You are being played by the Republican Party!!! They would never attempt to overturn Roe V Wade because once they do-you narrow minded people won't be out blindly supporting them anymore! George Bush used you for your votes. It is ironic that they same people who are pro life are also for the war, death penalty and guns- all things that kill human beings.

Geeze, too bad Kristi Burton wasn't so passionate about saving all the unwanted children AFTER THEY ARE BORN. Why do the pro-lifers focus so much on life BEFORE it's born and then suddenly have no futher part once this life is born?? Why don't all the pro-lifers ban together and adopt all the unwanted children in the world and provide healthcare, education, social and emotional care, and provided financially for these individuals until they are 18 or until 22 (once they've graduated college). RIGHT TO LIFE = RIGHT TO QUALITY OF LIFE!! What fetus would want to be born to a mother if it means stressing them out to the point of abuse? What fetus doesn't want a mother AND a father?? What fetus wants to be put in foster homes and abused by strangers? What fetus doesn't want healthcare and dental care so their teeth don't fall out and they don't have to suffer physically from illness?
Why should pro-lifers or government for that matter decide that a mother should have no control over her offspring? Why do republicans feel gov should butt out of people's lives except before they are born??
What if fetuses could tell us what they would like to do here - be born or wait for another opportunity to have a decent quality of life? Since they cannot, their mother is left with the choice - so everyone else butt out!

Burton and her anti-abortionists evidently do not consider the woman carrying the egg an innocent life worth protecting. So why say they want to "protect innocent life"? Simply to play on the emotions of one's listeners. The method is known as "Appealing to the Mob"---the incitement to action through emotional appeal. It seeks to manipulate a listener without addressing the content of an issue, which Burton certainly avoids.

"Innocent" refers primarily to those who have the capacity of choice. But Burton would apply moral stature to an egg, wheedling listeners to accept the notion that an egg is the equivalent of a self-aware, thinking, choosing, independently active organism.

"Life" refers to an enormously wide abstraction that includes algae, weeds, and other organic matter. An egg may be considered "alive" but it cannot rationally be considered human life. If I eat a chicken egg, I am not eating chicken. There is a distinct difference between the two. There is an unbridgeable chasm between an egg and a human being, which cannot be a "person" until it develops a personality, i.e., until it's born.

Sincerely,
Sylvia Bokor
Albuquerque, NM

I don't believe that anyone is Pro-Abortion. Abortion, like prostitution and drinking alcohol, have been with us since we have been. Making the consumption of alcohol and prostitution illegal hasn't stopped or eliminated either of them. The reversal of Roe V. Wade won't stop abortions instead it would put us back to the days of abortions being performed by who knows who using coat hangars in someones bedroom. I am not Pro-Abortion but am Pro-Choice. If for whatever reason a person I cared about such as a daughter or granddaughter chose to have an abortion, I would hope that it could be done in a clean, sterile hospital like setting by a qualified physician and not in a back bedroom with a coat hangar. To the Christian Right/Far Right I offer the following observation. The only good decisions and solutions to problems are made using our intellect. Using our egos, our religious beliefs or any of the baggage we carry around with us as human beings always gives us bad decisions and solutions to problems.

More and more disturbing stuff on Obama's past and his real intentions are just starting to surface.

As I predicted over a year ago .... Obama is a big fraud and America is being duped !!