Join The Debate!

Abortion is a State's rights issue.

I have been reading this blog and I have yet to see asserted the real issue. The problem is not that the feds have legalized abortion, but that they spoke at all. The states regulate marriage, adoption, education (with a little bullying from big brother) etc. This is as it should be. Want gay marriage? Move to Mass. Want to be assured that people won't be drinking around you? Move to a dry county in NC. The main point is that the state, the smallest body of legislation (barring strictly local government), put these issues to statutory vote amongst its citizens. This gives everyone in the state a chance to vote their conscience on this decision. I think that every state should be able to voice its opinion on this matter. That chance was stolen by Roe vs. Wade. People act like abortion was illegal on the federal level before that decision. It wasn't. It was just hard to get, which is the true bone in the craw of abortion advocates. They want cheap, easy, and - most of all - available abortion on demand. If all you pro-"choicers" out ther believe you are in the majority of Americans, join with me in calling for an end to the federal ban on voting on this issue and let each state decide its own fate, as a Federal system is supposed to. You won't, though, because you know that the rest of society would vote just as South Dakota has.

I Aborted My First Child

My heart goes out to Mary, because I also regret the abortion of my first child at age 18. My mom demanded that I get an abortion, and I was persuaded that it was best for my situation. I didn't think much about the baby until I came face to face with mine after a chemical abortion. No jar. No formaldehyde. The shock was immediate and did not wear off. The medical staff yelled at me, "Just WHAT did you think it was supposed to be??"

To this day, I'm not sure exactly what I was thinking as a teenager, mostly just thinking about myself. What I do know is that the terms "blob", "mass of cells", "fetal matter" and "product of conception" didn't seem to fit, and I screamed repeatedly, "It's a BABY!!", to which the staff quickly anesthetized me to neverland.

For years, I tried to bury this image in therapy and at times was very successful in going on with my life. However, at other times, I would continue to repeatedly grieve unexpectedly over this one baby even though I eventually had two other children. I finally realized that my memory of this baby wasn't going away and that I needed to reconcile. I had already renewed my relationship with Jesus Christ and accepted his forgiveness, but somehow it wasn't complete. I needed to ask forgiveness from my child. After I finally met this hurdle head on two years ago, 28 years after my abortion, I have gained the courage to share my story with others who are hurting from abortion and regained joy in my life. In fact, the healing deepens every time I share how abortion not only destroyed my baby, it also destroyed my heart.
Kathy

Safe and rare?

Sounds like the author of the article is advocating that abortion should be safe and rare.

I agree. I like the original article. I am a definite "liberal" on a host of topics, but glib campaigns proclaiming support for it are not my cup of tea. Abortion is something I have a hard time seeing how anyone can claim to be in favor of. I agree with conservatives on that. But there are times when it must be an option left up to the individual, not the state and I will explain why I think so.

Here is my personal liberal opinion on Abortion. I have already posted this opinion elsewhere:

Abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control. I have no problem with a law that properly enforces that.

I CANNOT agree with a law that makes ALL abortions illegal, because I don't buy the argument that they are never medically necessary to "save the life of a mother". I also, much as I respect life, do not agree with a law that prevents abortion in the case of rape or incest.

If my daughter were raped and became pregnant I would want the terrible decision about whether to raise or even allow that rapist's child into the world to be my daughter's decision, and I want the option to give her my advice. It is not the state's right to take that from us. She (and I) would be the ones who have to live with the consequences of that decision. And I do not believe that the state is wiser than I am on things that have deep impact on my personal life.

What about cases where pre-natal testing reveals with certainty that the child will be significantly handicapped in some way that will be life threatening and very expensive for the parents and society to care for that child? I again think that is a personal choice that the parents have to make. Liberal that I am, I do not trust the state to make these decisions for me or my daughters.

So what are the consequences of my opinion, should the rest of society agree with me?

1. Abortion should never be required by the state under any circumstances.
2. Birth control technology should be freely available to everyone and as cheap as possible. Any child male or female, who is physically capable of producing a child of their own, should understand the consequences of sex and have access to birth control technology. So I am in favor of "sex education". I have no problem with promoting abstinence as a method of birth control but it cannot be offered as the only option. Lack of knowledge or access to modern birth control techniques should never be an excuse for pregnancy.
3. Its OK with me if the social consensus is that abortion should be illegal except in the case of rape, incest, or "medical necessity". It is NOT OK with me if those exceptions are not permitted.
4. Abortions that do occur should be rare and safe.
5. Society has to reach consensus on the meaning of "medical necessity". That meaning will to evolve over time as medicine advances and society evolves. My stake in the ground is when there is reasonable certainty by qualified doctors that the life of the mother is in danger or when there is indisputable evidence that the child will be "severely handicapped".
6. Society has to define what "severely handicapped" means. Like medical necessity it can't be cast in concrete, and technology will make handicaps that are "severe" today quite livable tomorrow. Parents do not have a right to expect that their children will be "perfect" and there are real risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. But if the technology that enables a handicap to be classified as "not severe" has significant costs associated with it, those costs should not be only the responsibility of the parents of the child or the child themselves. The state that declares the the handicap as "not severe" or not on the list of "severe handicaps" needs to help the parents gain access to it without bankrupting themselves.

Viability?

Where do people stand on the issue of viability? I realize this is going to open the gate for comparing a fetus in the womb to any person on life support or other assisted care, but it's an issue I've seen raised with abortion before. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it, just asking what the rest of you think.

For these purposes, "viability" is defined at the point past which a fetus could survive outside the womb.

Jander, I'm not a liberal, by the way.

Parker on target

Always enjoy her columns. Agree or disagree, she always argues her case clearly and elegantly.

Agree: Abortion is a ghoulish practice which rarely has any medical value. It is in a class by itself among medical procedures. It seeks not to heal, to repair, to enhance; but to destroy.

Agree: Reasonable people can disagree about the morality of early term abortion. The product of conception is not immediately human. A human thinks, at the very least feels. The cluster of cells produced after conception has the potential to be human, but it is not human. Is it immoral to destroy something based on what it might be, instead of what it is? I say yes. I allow that others will say no, and that I cannot offer an indisputable argument that they're wrong.

Agree: 42 days is an arbitrary, but useful, threshhold. No pregnancy results in something unequivocally human before 42 days. The same way 18 is an arbitrary, but useful, threshold to give sexual consent. Will some young men and women have the maturity to consent at 17 and eleven months? Yes, but we have to draw the line somewhere, so we set the bar a little higher than we absolutely have to.

Agree: "I had an abortion" T-shirts trivialize a serious issue, and encourage a morally ambiguous behavior. Pro-abortion activists can make their case without resorting to crass, insensitive, sloganeering.

Parker is no conservative.

Abortion is..in your words Kathleen, “inhuman”. Abortion has three faces: mother, father and in your words…”fetus”, “product of conception” or “baby” as you supposedly prefer to call the child. You said, “After experiencing the humbling power of creation, it was impossible for me to view abortion as anything but the taking of a life”. Yet you say you are “reluctantly pro-choice” choosing some arbitrary number of days (42) to give women the opportunity to kill their children.

It’s a baby…. But kill it anyway as long as the killing takes place by day 42. Dead is dead Kathleen. It doesn’t matter whether you kill the child at hour six, day six, week six, or month six…He or she will never get to experience the life God intended this child to have because the mother chose either out of fear or selfishness to end her child’s life.

From the conception of her child, the woman is already a mother. She can choose to nurture, protect and give life to her child or not. If she chooses abortion,it does not mean her child never existed. Nor does it mean her child had no right to exist, only that she failed in her responsibility as a mother to nurture, protect and give birth to her child.

While Townhall.com banner ads boasts “over 60 conservative columnists”, Kathleen Parker is clearly not conservative. A conservative should defend the Constitution which states everyone has the right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Life is mentioned first because it is the most important right and without it we can enjoy no other rights.

Life is in the blood

Noelegy writes:

"Grissom quoted a Bible verse to her (and I wish I could remember what it was) to the effect of "the life is in the blood," in other words, life doesn't begin until the fetus has a circulatory system."

The statement is in the book of Leviticus chapter 17. However, I think the Grissom (and you) misinterpret what is meant here. Life is sustained by the blood carrying nutrients throughout the body, but clearly each cell is alive. If the heart is stopped and blood flow halted, a person will die - but not immediately. All cells continue to live for a time.

In any case, the argument that life does not begin until a circulatory system is fully formed is groundless. The egg (ovum) is sustained even before conception by the blood flow of the mother, so the circulatory system is present even before conception.

Post-it

And on the criminalization side, though it's called a failure, Prohibition limited the amount of alcohol consumption by 60%.
i would like to get find out where you got that information becasue if the Prohibition was that effective why did they get rid of it.

Now know that abortions have been occuring for years long before the current pratices we have now (no i dont know how far back they go i dont have the history of abrotion in front of me). The only problem i have with making abotions illegal is that people will still do them only in extremely unsafe ways that will most likely end up killing the woman.

My two cents are i think a woman should have the right to choose however i do not agree with the Roe v Wade descion

Jander

It's funny, I haven't spat in church, probably ever!

Reply to Noelegy

I apologize if I have mis-understood your position or statements. I have gotten the impression that you feel that the right(conservatives) don't do enough to help women that keep their children. Just like many libs, you claim that the religious right wants people to not have abortions, but don't want to help with the children if they keep them. This is absolutely false.

I assure you that I could get every major Christian church in this country to accept every unwanted child from a woman that chooses to keep her child if abortion was made illegal. Those churches can find homes for the children. There are many Christian families looking to adopt children. Not only do they want to adopt children, but they would find joy in saving children from abortion death!

In fact, this is what many pro-life clinics do for the mothers. The women don't want to keep the child, but cannot kill their child either. So these clinics give them another option. It is a win-win senario. The women don't have to pay for the medical either, as the expense is based on too the adoptive family.

So the argument about what to do with the million or so babies that would not be killed each year is answered. The church would be able to resolve this issue, if given the opportunity. Although I doubt that Planned Parenthood would give up their lucrative business of killing unborn children. They make too much money!

baseballdr/COLOSSUS

I've seen the film in question. I used to be a member of my county's Right to Life organization.

Jander, what are you talking about?

What "pro-death" groups would those be? How are they "my" groups?

Puzzled...

Gotta GettaName

I'm glad that you're the only person that God did not love enough to "create." Are you a robot? Despite the difficult life and pessimistic outlook you have toward all religion--it's a fact. God loves you and created you too!! Hope that doesn't upset you. Although I find that "truth" upsets a lot of people.

Here are some facts from Pro Life WI:

Pro-Life Wisconsin focuses educationally and legislatively on birth control for three reasons:


1) Many forms of birth control cause chemical abortions in the earliest stages of life. This scientific fact is recognized by the FDA and is disclosed by the manufacturers of these drugs and devices in the package inserts. This includes birth control pills, the Patch, the I.U.D., Depo-Provera, Norplant, and others.


2) The contraceptive mentality of wishing to separate the good and natural effect of the conjugal act from the activity itself creates a hostility to life (pregnancy). This mentality puts up a barrier against God’s creative will. If the desired effect of the contraceptive fails (a common occurrence), then legal abortion enables couples to terminate an unplanned pregnancy. Human beings, as mere co-creators, have no right to kill what God, the Author of all life, has created in His infinite wisdom.


3) The health risks of using contraceptives (again, read the package inserts) are downplayed by the manufacturers of the powerful drugs and the doctors who prescribe them. In 2002, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences labeled steroidal estrogen a "known carcinogen" (a cancer causing agent). Some side effects of birth control use include: bacterial infections, infertility, cervical cancer, blood clots, weight gain, stroke, a weakened immune system, and more.


How does birth control cause abortions?


Hormonal birth control has three mechanisms of action: 1) to suppress ovulation, 2) to thicken the woman's cervical mucus so that sperm have difficulty moving up the reproductive tract, and 3) to induce changes in the uterine lining so that if fertilization/conception does occur, the embryonic person is prevented from implanting in the uterine wall of his/her mother’s womb, resulting in an abortion. The first two mechanisms are contraceptive in nature. The third mechanism, however, is abortifacient, that is, it kills a human life. Many have sadly bought into the deception perpetuated by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology that “pregnancy” begins at implantation. Remember, a pregnancy, a unique human person actually begins at fertilization.

Gotta Getta Name

My distaste for abortion has nothing to do with any religious views any more than my being against robbery, arson, theift, rape, murder or any number of crimes. If a person has to take a moral stand based soley on their religious beliefs they are only using religion to cover for not having any personal moral fiber of their own.

If you can justify from a strictly human stand point, no religion or mockery of, the killing of unborn humans you should be able to justify killing those same humans minutes after their birth. Or possibly days, or weeks. At what point as a human do you transgress from it being abortion and into murder?

I am not debating this argument on any religious grounds, nor am I debating it on any medical grounds linking abortion to other malodies. It does not take a religious person to see that we as humans are apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and different from those of which we evolved, how then does the butchering of our young do anything but reverse that evolutionary process.

No, morals are not a religious virtue, they are a human trait. This is not about religion, this is about are you an animal or a human. It's just that simple.

Animalgirlisback

I know what you mean about black vs. white, and it does say a lot about our culture that isn't very good at all. :( As long as the babies end up with loving homes, though, that's what counts.

I can relate anything to a "CSI" episode

This is making me think of the "CSI" episode (Las Vegas) with the "Operation Sunflower" organization that sought to place fertilized embryos (left over from IVF treatments) with women willing to carry them to term. When Catherine (Marg Helgenberger) explained to Grissom (William Peterson) that she was opposed to the philosophy of the organization, Grissom quoted a Bible verse to her (and I wish I could remember what it was) to the effect of "the life is in the blood," in other words, life doesn't begin until the fetus has a circulatory system. Earlier in the episode, Catherine had told the director of Operation Sunflower that historically, life was considered to have begun when the woman felt "quickening."

Anything other than religion?

I don't believe in your god, so your religious arguments have no value. Do you have any other arguments of value against abortion? Skip the pseudo breast-cancer link--it's statistically unreliable and is really nothing more than a smokescreen for the wingnuts who argue it.

If you can't come up with an argument against abortion that doesn't include your god, you can forget winning the argument. People don't vote your god--watch what happens in South Dakota in November. That's why the religious wingnuts are still fighting abortion some 30 years after the fact--religion is a loser and will always be a loser against choice.

Jo and Leroy

Thank you for your kind thoughts. As an adoptee, maybe I'm a bit biased toward choosing adoption, in spite of the arduous task that awaits me (and from what my parents have told me, the process has gotten much more complicated since they adopted me).

Or, as I told my parents, I wanted to be able to do for some little girl what my parents did for me.

I've been doubly blessed; my biological mother found me in 2001 and contacted me (my half-brother found me via the Internet and passed on the information to her). And Leroy, her circumstances were that she was separated but not divorced (she'd had three children with her first husband) and then she met my biological father. I apparently was the product of a one night stand, but I try not to let that affect my self-esteem *grin*. When he learned that she was pregnant, he denied and deserted. So I really feel no need to seek him out or know him. But I'm fortunate to have met this remarkable woman who's had a hard life but who did what she thought was best at the time: give me up to the possibility of a better life than she could give me.

I wish all stories turned out as good as mine did. I wish no child was ever unwanted.

Noelegy

Pardon me if I have read too much into your shirt, but it would appear you may have been the product of an unwed mother or similar circumstances. I should think that a person with this perspective would view the options availed to them throughout life far out numbered those offered an aborted baby.

Do either you or I have the illusive answer to this problem? Evidently not or we would not be having this debate. I do know what the answer is not though and that is the killing of the most innocent of us all, the unborn.

How many babies does God want?

God made me and countless other women infertile, but many women who believe in God seek infertility treatments. Does that go against God's will?

I'm not being flippant or disrespectful. I really do want to know what you all think about this.

Leroy

"As to the difference between bragging and not being ashamed, if you put it on a shirt for all the world to read, that is bragging."

You're right; that's why I used to have a T-shirt that said "B@st@rd Nation" (an organization advocating the rights of adult adoptees for open records).

Noelegy

Whether intentional or not you admit that if the child is born there is no telling what kind of life it may be allowed to lead. An abortion makes all that a mute point.

What if we allow the pregnancy to go full term, the woman decides she isn't ready for motherhood she is allowed to kill the child then. Herself. No worries about a child being brought up in an unwelcome environment or being a burden on an unwed mother. We have reached the same ends here but somehow I am willing to assume you find this option distasteful.

As to the difference between bragging and not being ashamed, if you put it on a shirt for all the world to read, that is bragging.

Adoption

As I've said in my blog, I myself am adopted (born prior to Roe vs. Wade) and my husband and I am looking into adopting in a few years. I've talked to my parents about what they had to go through, and I know it's a hard road. My mom has said that if every prospective parent had to go through the scrutiny that prospective adoptive parents have to endure, there would be no unwanted babies. That, to me, doesn't sound like such a bad deal.

But we regard it as a "right" to have babies in this country, regardless of whether we're prepared for everything that involves. You have to have a license for a gun or a car, but any two people can have a baby, no matter how immature or unsuited for parenthood.

I was watching the F/X show "30 Days" recently, and there was a pro-choice advocate who spent a month in a Christian pregnant women's home. She was surprised that although it was required that the women watch an anti-abortion videotape upon admittance to the home, virtually no pregnancy or childbirth information was made available (now that you've decided to have this baby, here's what to do to take care of yourself and your baby). She arranged for a woman to come out and give neonatal care classes to the expectant mothers. To the viewer, it appeared that the home, however well-intentioned, existed to make sure the women had the babies, but there were no plans beyond that point.

Just Curious

"My own transformative thinking -- from an unflinching pro-choicer to a disclaiming pro-lifer -- came with childbirth and motherhood."

How come Miz Parker, an obviously intelligent woman, didnt "realise" what abortion was until she had her own kids? I mean, isnt it kind of "obvious"?

"I figure 42 days is enough time for a gal to figure out whether she's up for motherhood. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a sane remedy to appalling recklessness."

My goodness! As a number of posters above have pointed out... lucky 41, unlucky 43!! How on earth can this be considered "sane"?

Let's just pluck a number out of the air... The British Embryological Society, when asked to pinpoint a time when the foetus was human, picked FOURTEEN days, at which time they said it could not be described as anything OTHER than human, and so after this time it would be "immoral" to experiment on them. Which is ridiculous of course, since abortion has been legal since 1967. So killing is ok...

I offer these points reluctantly, because I have no desire to criticise Miz Parker, whose writings in general I admire and like. I make them more in bewilderment.

Hockey Goon--no need for name calling

Yes, I do know a bit about the adoption process. It's just that it's not enough to save the babies from being aborted. What next? The women who are pregnant with them might not be ready or able to be mothers. Why force them into motherhood? What's in that baby's best interest, if it's going to be brought into the world? What sort of life will it be brought into?

(And I say "it" not to dehumanize or objectify, but because English lacks a gender-neutral pronoun.)

Agreed

truetolife writes: You are required to come back for the "procedure" within 24 hours or forfeit the money you have already paid. You are either shown a fuzzy ultrasound image or the machine is completely turned away from you--they don't want anyone changing their minds--it would be bad for business if the mother saw the baby sucking its thumb.
-------------------------------------------

I found it amazing when "Planned Parenthood" voiced protests over the new ultrasound systems that provide doctors and expected mothers with a clearer view of their babies.

An aborted human fetus...

is just that. Human. It can be nothing else. A woman has an abortion not to rid her body of an oak tree or zebra or anything else other than a human. It is a human fetus, to refer to it as simply a fetus degrades all of humanity. As if we could degrade ourselves further regarding this issue.

Noelegy

I wonder how man of those opposed to capital punishment have adopted serial murderers.

Your argument is specious.

I don't understand

why in this day of cheap and effective birth control, abortions are so plentiful. Why can't a woman or even a college freshman take the pill or use some other means of birth control if the pill is not right for her. Oh yes, it's probably because she doesnt want to upset the spontaneity, so unromantic you know. Much easier to take the chance because she can get the little problem "fixed" if she happens to get caught. If abortion on demand were not available, a whole bunch of women would be much more careful about unprotected sex. Which would also help with the growing STD problem.

baby steps

Pro-lifers were losing the culture war on this issue 12 years ago (I was in college in a pro-life group). NOW & PP had pushed their views so hard that middle America thought that it was "normal". And there were folks in our organization that were horrified when I opined that the movement should work toward ending the "abortions of convenience" (97%) and leave alone the sacred cow loopholes of "rape, incest, life of the mother" (3%).
Over the last decade, baby steps (pun intended) were taken - parental notification, paritial birth... And now the younger generation is more pro-life than their parents. Polls show that the majority of people, even women, want some sort of limitations on abortion. This was not an overnight magical occurrance. This was the result of people willing to work toward small steps forward and not scream and rant about total illegalization. Perhaps in a few more years, more baby steps of progress will be made. Yes, children will die in the meantime. Yes, this is a horror. But these children won't be saved by the hollering foot-stompers, either. Their brothers and sisters may be saved by the slow compromisers, taking their baby steps.
So, point being, an arbitrary cut-off point is an excellent baby step. As technology progresses it is easier for people to see an unborn baby as an individual at earlier and earlier stages. Until then, let's take the opportunities handed to us as we fight this battle.

honest petitioners?

Who's to say if the petition signers really had abortions? Many of this group would just sign to make a political statement.

Hey Bafundi, explain yourself! Now!!!

So sorry Fiddler the "Separation Clause" thing was a lame attempt at a play on terms, ie. "separation from the womb". I hope this gives you rosin for your bow.

Miss Latter-daze. I meant no slam of our G-d. He is Love, but He is not mocked!!!

Our modernized, updated versions of this death by choice is pathetically evil, but, ironically fanatically popular. It's a maga buck industry, employing tens of thousands.

If "partial birth abortion" doesn't make us want to cry "MURDER!", then folks, we need to apologize to all those Germans that could only mutter like dumb a--ses, "We didn't know."

Now, the latest thing in vouge is "Selective Reduction". This is when you only want one, and you're faced with multiples. "Selective Reduction" also let's you "baby shop" ie. sex, color eyes, body proportions, overall good health, etc.

Of course, this means that the rejects are "basin-bound", but what the he11, if you end up with your "designer babe in arms".

It's only fair, it's the woman's own body, and right; besides, babies (excuse me) fetuses that young can't speak out against being aborted, can they?

Lucky Number 42, unlucky Number 41.

Come on Kathleen, this is not sane, it's insane and inhuman. Life begins at the miracle of conception, not an arbitrary limit...."long enough for a gal to realize whether or not she should go through with a pregnancy"....my wife was an emotional mess through hers, hormones completely out of whack. This subjects the BABY to the whims of the mother. What is the real difference whether fetus, toddler, adolescent. They are living beings all at different stages of development.

Too bad when you had your own, that you didn't come to the full realization our laws that protect life should be extended to conception. I know I certainly did when I saw my children born.

Most dangerous of all....

Kathleen Parker is the most dangerous type of person to the pro life cause. Listing many of the arguments (proper and just arguments) against abortion she, none the less, endorses it at some random period of the baby's development.
She says: " I am reluctantly pro-choice. The very bottom line is that abortion ultimately is a personal decision." No its not. I've mentioned before that, as a counselor on a pregnancy helpline over several years, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of my callers were FORCED into the decision--by fathers, boyfriends and husbands. Abortion is DOMESTIC VIOLENCE at its very worst. Planned Parenthood is a business. Back in 1973 they said that, in ten years, the American people wouldn't even know what a "pro-lifer" would be. That was the same time they were asking themselves (in California) how they could get the American People to actually NOT believe that this "was life." That's when they came up with their scheme to call the "baby" things like, "a clump of cells;" "product of conception" and so on. Their entire business is based on lies and deception because they prey on the most scared (in most instances) persons in society. The slippery slope is here, the very basic concept of "respecting" life no longer holds meaning in our society. We're no better than the terrorists in our view of life. The irony in all this is that MOST Women's Centers REFER women for abortions!!! How's that for violating them EVEN MORE. I was denied a job at the Women's Center two decades ago because I was "pro-life." Up to then they loved me! Be very wary of any type of Women's group that attests that they actually help women. They're all backed by violent, abusive men. America has been duped. The murder of the innocents is the main issue here, but it galls me that we're forced to PAY for these gruesome, inhuman "procedures" to the tune of billions of dollars a year through our tax dollars. If Planned Parenthood is so caring--why don't they volunteer to help women? That's what pro-life organizations do. Only recently have there been paid administrative positions to further the pro life cause. Also--the "pill" alone brings in 64 million dollars annually. Do you really think they're helping girls and boys learn about abstinence??? Not when they're talking about "delicious flavors" of condoms in our classrooms. Planned Parenthood is just a bunch of pigs....unholy, dried up wenches who are so bitter about their own lives that they want everyone to suffer the way they do--maybe then they'll find some sort of validation in their pathetic collective existence.

Why 42 days?

Does the little guy suddenly become human on day 42? I realize that an unwanted pregnancy can have a devastating effect on a woman and possibly create longterm commitments, like parenthood. But an abortion is very permanent, especially for the little guy.

Timf: Typical misdirected chivalry

Timf stated:

“One group that is little explored are the millions of freshmen girls that arrive at college each year. They are awaited eagerly by older male classmates as a fox would await hens returning to the coop. Just how many of these naive girls are in love by Halloween, pregnant by Thanksgiving and dropped at Christmas is unknown…

The “solution” to the problem is not abortion. The solution is for fathers to not send their daughters into places where they cannot be protected. And especially not to send them into places where it is likely they will be harmed.”

I am somewhat taken aback by women-children & their self-loathing male enablers who consistently practice the neo-Marxist “Man bad, Women good” social philosophy on this website. What misguided chivalry (assuming “timf” is self-loathing male): we are told ad nauseam about the fundamental superiority of women over men:
• Women are able to think more rationally.
• Women can make better choices, especially under pressure.
• Women can understand complex issues, including politics, more easily.
• Women's brains are superior to men's due to some (disputed) studies claiming that women tend to have a slightly larger corpus callosum than men.
• Women have special, innate, or better-developed intuitive or multitasking abilities than men.
Yet when it comes inevitably back to women taking responsibility for their own actions, it is those stupid but EVIL MEN that nevertheless are able to seduce/manipulate “women-children” without their apparent consent. You might be interested to know women are just as likely as men to engage in partner aggression:
? Psychologist John Archer reviewed hundreds of studies and concluded, “Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” [Source: John Archer: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, pages 651-680]
? Law professor Linda Kelly noted, "leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates." [Source: Linda Kelly: Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse. Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 30, pages 791-855, 2003. Accessible at: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf ]
? An international survey of violence between dating partners in 16 countries concluded: “Perhaps the most important similarity is the high rate of assault perpetrated by both male and female students in all the countries.” [Source: Murray Straus: Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, Vol. 10, No. 7, 2001]
? Cal State Psychology Professor Martin Fiebert has assembled a bibliography of 175 scholarly investigations: 139 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Female misbehavior-enablers like you sound like national socialists when they began their efforts to malign Jewry, i.e., sub-human but able to conceive & maintain a global cabal. It’s called “Cognitive Dissonance.” And nothing is a greater embodiment of cognitive dissonance than the “virtuous gender” and its apparent fixation on ABORTION RIGHTS: it is perfectly “normal” for women that exercise their "reproductive rights" 1.4M times annually (w/o considering the corresponding responsibilities) by aborting, committing infanticide, & outright abandoning their children for purely capricious & arbitrary reasons. It is perfectly “normal” for over 60% of all child abuse cases being attributed to the biological Mother.

The ongoing ABORTION issue and its current facet, “Partial Birth Abortion” is but a single symptom of a greater problem. The US is currently too focused on its main post-modern domestic policy, i.e., providing for the emotional, physical & financial well-being of its virtuous female electorate: artificially enhanced lifespan, no-fault divorce (i.e., alimony, child custody, etc.), affirmative action/quotas, Female-only technical scholarships, (e.g. Intel), VAWA, welfare state, Title IX, taxpayer-funded abortion on demand in perpetuity. Plus a progressive taxation system (top 50% (majority=MEN) pay 96% of all income taxes) has been put in place by the Democrat party that penalizes men while financing said female-specific welfare state, abortion industry, divorce industry, child custody monopoly, etc. What a fine society radical feminists and their duplicitous metrosexual males with their misdirected sense of chivalry have created for the minimally franchised, expendable male taxpayer.

You all want to talk about victimization? How about the “Husband”, who despite the fact that he plays by the rules, has to pay 30% of his income for child support for a child that isn’t biologically his because his wife decided to commit the most despicable & widespread form of domestic abuse: Paternity Fraud. Apparently quite few women prefer viewing their husbands as ambulatory wallets vice sperm donor- some statistics cite 1-10% of all U.S. births, depending upon the woman’s socio-economic, ethnic & education background. Why is this behavior so widespread? Because radical feminism & a paternal legal system have allowed many women-children to return to their amoral promiscuous nature- back to the days before the “Patriarchy” imposed their “Judeo-Christian” morals upon the female worshippers of every tree & stone. Today, it apparently takes a village, i.e., welfare state to support & raise a child. Maybe if paternity tests were mandatory- society could gauge how widespread this behavior is among the “virtuous” gender.

Abortion Chic

It doesn't surprise me that a number of women are willing to list their names as having had an abortion, or to wear t-shirts attesting to that fact. It is little different from those felons in prison that are more than willing to admit to being murderers or serial killers.

We have some bad people out there folks. Just because she might be a 5'2", eyes of blue, 110 lb. perkey little thing doesn't mean she can't be less than maternal.

An obscure judge from an obscure court says she can practice her method of birth control as many times as she choses - and as we all know, therein lies the problem.

I recently had a democratic politician tell me that most democratic office holders would welcome republicians overturning Roe v. Wade, because no one personally supported it, but they were complelled to follow the party line or get crucified by the liberals. As I stated at the time - "so much for integrity"!

The irony of abortion, as it relates to politics, is that (from statistics I have read several times) without abortions the democrats would have an overwhelming majority in US politics.

This from the premise that democrats and liberals are more apt to have abortions, and many associated factors (socio/economic) that go along with that.

Smokeyham:

You got it! If everyone knew what they were doing, whether having an abortion or buying a car) they would at least have what they need to make a real decision. Otherwise, all they can do is follow someone else's decision. As Christians, one thing we should insist on is that people have the information they need to make decisions even if they are not Christians. The more serious the decision, of course, the more critical both the accuracy and completeness of that information is.

Separation Clause? Come on, Bafundi

No such animal. The first amendment has the "establishment clause", which prevents Congress from passing any law establishing religion or preventing free practice of religion. That's what it says. If you can get separation of Church and State (when the words state, church, and separation don't appear) then you must be practicing divination, along with all your moonbat friends.

I would be willing to make an exception for you, however, we could call it "post-birth abortion".

Who gets abortions

Aside from having exterminated 25% of the black population in America through abortion (an interesting percentage – at what point is it called genocide?), abortion is an option for other groups.

One group that is little explored are the millions of freshmen girls that arrive at college each year. They are awaited eagerly by older male classmates as a fox would await hens returning to the coop. Just how many of these naive girls are in love by Halloween, pregnant by Thanksgiving and dropped at Christmas is unknown. It would be interesting to check the number of abortions at college campuses during the months of January, February, and March.

These numbers are certainly dropping as this phenomena of exploitation and betrayal is moving out of college and into high school. However, many “professional women” today hide this secret shame. They feel that abortion was the only option they had to correct the damage done to them. They hide the secret from their families while their anger at having their trust betrayed still smolders years later.

Many of these women are ardent supporters of abortion and give money and voice to keeping abortion available for others who like them feel they must “take care of things” alone in the shadows.

The “solution” to the problem is not abortion. The solution is for fathers to not send their daughters into places where they cannot be protected. And especially not to send them into places where it is likely they will be harmed.

In adds up to insanity-

I often wonder, would the woman that is aborting her fetus, (baby} if asked the question, would you want to have been aborted. Is it that we beleive our right to the pursuit of happiness is more important than all other forms of life that God has granted. I beleive that woman whom abort the fetus, are in denial of just what life is. One one hand we have woman aborting fetus's and then on another hand we have young women cutting the fetus out of another woman. God must look down upon his children in great pain. We need as humans to look at what we are actually doing, what the meaning of life, value of life truely is. This evil that attacks mankind is allowed only by the rejection of God, remember Jesus always prayed for direction, from God. God left his living word for our instruction, to live life in His Will, for he has the answers to life's mystery's. We cannot trust our own interputations of what God's Will is without His gift of wisdom, to guide us and give us the truth. For it is written the Truth Will Set You Free. Amen!!!!!!

Legalization is Catalyzation

No one logical is arguing that abortion will go away if criminalized. There are two choices the government can make; criminalization or legalization. When abortion was legalized, according to a stats I've seen, the number of abortions went up %1500. And on the criminalization side, though it's called a failure, Prohibition limited the amount of alcohol consumption by 60%.

Legalization increases the incidences of anything, criminalization decreases it. The space between is what the fight is for; enforcement would be an after-thought.

With a new landscape, a new society would adjust to find its new equilibrium. Our culture would be (whatever percent) less debauched and diseased, and equivalently more productive and moralistic.

As an over-all community, not as a single self-obsessed individual, there's no way to think thank criminalization wouldn't be large step in the right direction.