Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, December 17, 2007
Matt Barber :: Townhall.com Columnist
Grim Reaping: Do You Really Know Roe?
by Matt Barber
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Due to circumstances beyond our control, the term “September 11th” almost instantly became a household phrase.  It represents a day of great tragedy and outrage wherein over 3,000 people were murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists who chose to callously sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda. 

But another date, January 22, which is not so well-known, signifies an equally outrageous and solemn occasion.  January 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of what is, unquestionably, one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most highly controversial and divisive rulings in its 200-plus year history  — Roe v. Wade

The Roe decision, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, found for the first time that the U.S. Constitution somehow guaranteed the phantom “right” for a mother to have the innocent child which grew within her summarily killed.         

Since that time, what seems an endless string of misguided women and innocent children have been victimized by this much more subtle, yet equally deadly form of politically motivated violence.  And those to blame are, once again, extremists with an almost religious zeal who callously “choose” to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda. 

It’s not at all surprising that what public support there is for Roe v. Wade is typically rooted in a lack of knowledge.  Ignorance is bliss, and blissful ignorance relative to Roe is by design.  It’s intentionally fueled through obfuscation and disinformation, fostered by pro-abortion activists and other like-minded leftists.  Polls show conclusively that the more people learn about Roe v. Wade, the less likely they are to support it. 

And so, in an effort to help educate the public about Roe, members from a coalition of pro-family organizations are asking America the following question: “Do you really know Roe?” 

Concerned Women for America (CWA), Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defense Fund and the Family Research Council have designed a Web site with a brief online questionnaire to test your knowledge about Roe v. Wade.  It’s a Roe IQ test, and it can be taken in a few short minutes at RoeIQTest.com.

We’ve all heard the Biblical admonition, “A man reaps what he sows.”  With Roe, we have reaped a culture of death.  The human toll Roe has taken is unfathomable and will only increase until people take the time to learn the truth about this convoluted and lethal ruling.   

The number of those slaughtered as a direct result of Roe far exceeds that of Americans killed in all U.S. wars combined. Yet, in this war — the war for our culture — it is innocent children whose bodies are strewn across the battle field, buried — unceremoniously — in mass graves behind the local Planned Parenthood.

Although we think of 1973 — the year Roe was decided — as relatively modern, there remained, even then, a raging debate over when life begins.  To abortion proponents, the pre-born child was merely a “lifeless blob” or a “nonviable mass of tissue” that could be done away with at any time prior to birth without moral or legal implications. 

To the pro-life side, human life begins at the moment of conception with all the associated legal and civil rights of personhood attached.

The Roe Court sided with the pro-abortionists. 

But since that time, science and technology have proven pro-lifers right and the Roe Court wrong.  Addressing that reality, CWA President Wendy Wright noted, “Technology and testimonies have splintered support for abortion, paving the way for more protection for women and unborn children.

“Advances in technology, particularly 3D and 4D ultrasound, provide a window into the womb, a picture that this is indeed a human being, not — as many abortion clinics tell unsuspecting women — a ‘blob of tissue.’  Whereas Roe claimed we do not know when life begins, ultrasounds show that it is clearly before birth.” 

History has a way of repeating itself.  The Roe decision was not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has so disgraced our nation.  Roe v. Wade  represents the twin bookend to the Court’s shameful 1857 Dred Scott decision.  In Dred Scott the Court absurdly held that African American slaves, even if emancipated, were not fully persons and therefore could never be considered U.S. citizens.  Likewise, Roe ruled that children in gestation are not fully persons and are therefore not entitled to their most basic civil right … life. 

As with Dred Scott, Roe’s fate is inevitable.  It’s just a matter of time.  History will eventually judge Roe v. Wade every bit as harshly as it judged Dred Scott.  But until that time, innocent children continue to die on a daily basis. 

Knowledge is power, and as more people gain knowledge about Roe v. Wade, the less power the multi-billion dollar abortion industry maintains.  Make no mistake — they’ll do anything and everything to keep that from happening.          

But their ghoulish zeal betrays their true agenda.  By any reasonable measure the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is nothing to celebrate.  It is a national day of mourning.  The post-Roe highway is awash with the blood of countless innocents.  And those who have lead these little lambs to the slaughter are responsible. 

Even so, this will not stop the mainstream media, radical feminists and other pro-abortion Kool-Aid guzzlers on the left from celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  They’ll break out the streamers and party hats and dance gleefully around the golden calf of euphemistic “choice.” 

But power is there for the taking. 

Please visit RoeIQTest.com before January, 22 and answer the question, “Do you really know Roe,” for yourself.  Then, when you see the left celebrating Roe v. Wade and the culture of death it has spawned, you can rest assured that you refused to stay in the dark.  You refused to remain powerless. 

After all … isn’t it your choice?    

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
J. Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and also serves as Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
BARBER: DO YOU REALLY KNOW ROE?
That's not the question I had in mind for you.

My question to you is this:

Do you believe that abortions began with Roe v. Wade?

It seems that many people do believe this; therefore it occurred to me that perhaps you did as well.

I believe it was Mother Terea who said .
"Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government ...They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or sovereign. The Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany recently ruled: 'The unborn child is entitled to its right to life independently of its acceptance by its mother; this is an elementary and inalienable right which emanates from the dignity of the human being.'

"Americans may feel justly proud that Germany in 1993 was able to recognize the sanctity of human life. You must weep that your own government, at present, seems blind to this truth."

That's "Teresa"
Normally I don't worry over my (all too frequent) typos. But it this case, given the subject, I have to apologize for the mistake.

Is there intelligent life out there?
On the question of life, is there ANY intelligent person out there who is NOT willing to concede that life begins at conception? I don't believe even the most ardent abortion proponents bother to argue that point any longer. Life begins at conception; there is no more debate.

The debate is now about the woman's "right to choose". I used to think I had no reason to engage in this debate because, "I'm not a woman and it doesn't affect me directly."

Then I held my adopted new-born son. I realized that we live in a country that just three months earlier would have legally ended his life. I would have been deprived of my son and he would have been deprived of his father.

I wept tears of gratitude for my son and tears of grief for every child who never had the opportunity to even be born. God help us.

Merry Christmas - such as it is...

Advances in technology
“Advances in technology, particularly 3D and 4D ultrasound, provide a window into the womb, a picture that this is indeed a human being, not — as many abortion clinics tell unsuspecting women — a ‘blob of tissue.’ Whereas Roe claimed we do not know when life begins, ultrasounds show that it is clearly before birth.”

Advances in technology have also given us a few other things in this regard.

1.) The morning after pill.

Joseph Kennedy made a fortune having ships ladened with alcohol waiting the day prohibition was lifted. Lesson being to buy stock in the morning after pill the day Roe gets lifted.

2.) $400 will now buy you the same vacuum machine doctors use to conduct abortions in the first trimester, where 90% of all abortions take place.

3.) Statistics in countries where abortion is illegal do not indicate the abortion rate goes to anywhere near zero when abortion is made illegal. Quite the opposite, actually, the abortion rate in some countries where abortion is illegal is on equal footing with countries where it is legal.

I guess making abortion illegal will salve your collective conscience though. I guess you can't argue with that. Overturning Roe v. Wade will definitely change the calculus of who dies and why. But to believe that it will somehow eliminate abortion related deaths some significant amount is the same pipe dream we nationally have about making drugs illegal.

Impact of Roe
To date because of Roe over 40 million babies have been sacrificed on the altar of the “woman’s right to choose”.
Can anyone fathom the economic impact this has had on our society? First there is the little matter of Social Security (SS) going broke. The loss of the (SS) contributions of 40 million potential workers who would have been in the work force is astronomical. When SS started there were 16 workers or more (this number varies) for every retiree. Now the number is 3 for every retiree. Soon it will be only 2 for every retiree.
The Baby Boomers who will soon be eligible for SS retirement are facing a bleak future. The SS well is going to rapidly run dry.
Then there is the little matter of how the death of 40 million babies impacts the businesses that supply the cribs, strollers, diapers, baby food, etc. Again the lost dollar amount is astronomical.
Who is most responsible for this dilemma? Why those very same” Boomers” who have been adamant in insisting that it is the “woman’s right to choose”. You are reaping what you have sown.
An ole Korean War Vet








Say what?
"Do you believe that abortions began with Roe v. Wade?"

Ummmmmm...no. What is your point?

Were there abortions before Roe?
Yes, but did our government sanction those abortions as being moral and legal? There is an obvious difference. Did Roe decrease the number of children sacrificed? Did we have the highly effective, and minimally intrusive, forms of birth control that are offered today before Roe? Are we truly better off after Roe?

Underground Railroad
I read an interview with a South African official in the weeks after Apartheid fell. The government official claimed very few citizens could now be found who were in favor of Apartheid.

Somehow I think there is this pipe dream by the pro-life crowd that when Roe is overturned that you won't find pro-abortion Americans in any sigificant number.

Ha ha!

The reality is that the liberals will definitely start an underground railroad from those states where abortion is illegal to those where it is.

The lie embedded in Matt's argument is that the only motivation is the billions of dollars at stake. Ahh no, there are millions of liberal who are strident enough in their belief that abortion should be legal and they will go to extreme measures to circumvent the law. Entire cities will flaunt enforcing the law.

And even Matt Barber isn't silly enough to go so far as to say we need an amendment to the constitution, banning abortion for the entire country, because even Matt knows that any such amendment would never stand to see the light of day.

We live in a Democracy, over 60% of the public wants Roe to stand, wants abortions. Overturning Roe would put the minority at odds with the majority. Those are the real facts.

The battle for life really needs to be one individual at a time, one church at a time until a majority no longer supports legal abortion. But the religious right doesn't want to do the hard work, rather they just want to overturn Roe and "hope for the best." Kinda like Bush's invasion of Iraq, his abortion of Saddam. What plan had he for after the fall? Right-wingers have no plan for this country if in fact Roe were overturned.

To wit, Republicans haven't thought about the consequences of their actions in that they live in a democracy and the majority of Americans, for whatever reason, want abortion legal.

I support Roe
I think it should be legal for a woman to kill her unborn child. I only wish more women made this choice, not fewer. I personally am tired of paying for the food and healthcare of these kids and mothers. Sure, encourage them not to have sex, to use birth control, but then encourage abortions if all else fails. Crime will go down, and the quality of schools will go up because the kids who make it tough for the good kids to learn won't exist. God and Jesus help us if the Court says life begins at conception.

Iff the majority want abortion
legal, they can vote for representatives who will pass legislation to make abortion legal.

For the Sup. Ct. to invent "privacy" and then legislate from the bench is an undermining of democracy and a travesty against the Constitution.

Any state could vote abortion legal and all the accoutrements it needs to function in that state.

The problem for the abortion minded is in reality people do not want to vote for representatives who are so abortion affiliated that they will actually put their actions where their mouths usually are and propose bills and vote them onto the desks of executives who could sign them into law.

Instead we have a legal anomaly dividing the country almost exactly in half because of judicial arrogance and leftist imposition.

German Abortion Law
Here's "the rest of the story" regarding German Law.

Agent Crawfish is correct the the German Consitutional Court has ruled that life begins at conception (although it was in 1974). The more recent ruling AC refers to was in response to a new law passed by the Bundestag in 1992, which liberalized German abortion law and permited first-trimester abortions on demand, subject to counseling and a three-day waiting period.

This law was challenged and the Federal Constitutional Court issued a decision reaffriming its 1974 decision that the German Constitution protected the fetus from the moment of conception, but stating that the Bundestag can decide not to punish abortion in the first trimester, providing that the woman has submitted to state counseling designed to discourage termination. The Bundestag passed such a law in 1995.

But Renny:
If life begins at conception then an individual state won't be able to pass laws supporting abortion. It would be illegal murder (as oppposed to legal murder as it is now).

I'm very concerned about that as abortion-minded and abortion-affiliated voter.

Phileo
To me the issue isn't when life begins, I don't care that much, but whether we want the government telling my wife who she can legally kill or not. I can't kill tresspassors. I can't kill illegal aliens, and now she won't be able to kill unwanted fetus. What's next!

Once again proving
that my blog's ahead of the curve, while raising the question of why I'M not getting paid to write it (as I seem to beat the mainstream columnists with these issues) you can read my take on this, raising many of the same issues in additon to others, in my essay "Murder and Roe", by cliking this link: http://viewfromtheisland.townhall.com/g/3919b23f-456a-43e6 -81b1-789fd0759bc8

No, that's not the name of some rock group.


Correct, Roger
THAT'S the point I make in my essay.


Ultimately, it isn't a question of ...
legality but of morality. Or, to be a tad more precise, the need for law to be grounded in morality. The fundamental moral assumption of any civilized society (let alone legal system) must be that the individual's rights (and most particularly the right to life) attach simply by virtue of his humanity.

Those of you posting along the lines of "...you can't stop abortion by making it illegal ..." are missing the point. We can't stop ANY behavior by making it illegal (murder, rape, child abuse to name but a few.) But, as moral actors we still seek to enshrine basic morality in our law. Thus, murder, rape and child abuse are illegal.

The law ceases to have moral force when it surrenders all claim to the good. Roe certainly does that. There is no relationship that gives one individual the right to end the life of another on a mere whim and to argue that a right to "privacy" trupms the right to existance is simply and purely ... evil.

JayHub Thanks
for the clarification. I was not citing German law as precedent. I was quoting Mother T. with respect to the right to life.

BrianR
Will read it now!

To BrianR
You are absolutely right. The aboriton-minded, and even pro-life people, rationalize Roe being overturned by saying it will go to the states.

It could go that way if the Court only decided to say Roe was based on made reasoning. That would be some kind of compromise, but how do you compromise on this issue? It's either murder or not. Now, as a moral relativist, I may not have problems with the concept of murder -- it depends -- there are times when I think murder is justified. The death penalty is one example, war is another. Aboriton, a third. I'm not entirel against a "culture of death." I think there is a greater good here.

But, at least people who disagree about the conclusion can agree with logic. I never beat around the bush or rationalize. It's muder people!

My Different Take on This Discussion
I agree with Phileo that there's no question that life begins at conception and the real discussion is about a woman's right to choose.

To my mind it is unfortunate that the pro-life and pro-choice groups have defined this discussion as all or nothing. Either the woman has total choice or the state can prevent her completely from getting an abortion - nothing in between. I think from the polls that majority of folks in this country are not comfortable with either of these positions.

Roe v. Wade held that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses up until the time when the fetus can live outside the mother (subsequent case law and practice, however, has made it possible to get a late term abortion pretty much without restriction).

Roe v. Wade was essentially an effort to craft a compromise between the woman's right to choose and the baby's right to live. So is the German law discussed above.

I, for one, believe that this compromise ground is where the discussion should be held. I do not agree that a woman should be able to get an abortion at any time for any reason, but I also do not believe that it should always be criminal for her to get an abortion.

The German law seems to me to be a better compromise than Roe v. Wade.

Other restrictions make sense to me too, parental notification for one, but the discussion has been co-opted on both sides by folks who will accept no compromise. If we want to settle this issue in the US, I believe we need to take the discussion away from the pro-life and pro-choice groups.

Roger writes ....
really, really, really bad "satire." You've got to find another gig dude. Others on TH are masters of the genre you're just not up to snuff. That's not an insult. I'm not either. You're going to have to find another way to contribute. This ain't working.

Roger
Thanks for taking the time to read the essay. I agree; we need a standardized legal definition of when life actually begins, because from that point on an abortion is murder. Prior to that point, abortion would not be murder, and would rightfully be a state issue.

We don't allow states to make their own definitions of whether or not murder is a crime, but that's because we have a nationally recognized legal standard that a living person can't be legally murdered.

We don't have that with unborn babies. That's the issue SCOTUS dodged in Roe.

We don't allow states to experiment with genocide, either. Further, a fetus that has achieved leghal "humanhood" enjoys constitutional rights of Equal Protection. There are a lot of issues involved, as I wrote on my blog.

Thos absolutely needs to be addressed. We need a national debate on this issue, and a binding legal standard resulting from that.

Until that happens, this issue's never going away.

JayHub on compromise:
How do we "compromise" between the right to life and a right to privacy? The right to life is an absolute. Privacy rights are not.

One can not take the life of another and remain a moral man except under very specific circumstances. (I am not morally obligated to let Nazi's kill Jews, or a home invader me, if deadly force is the only way to prevent them from doing so.)

Our right to privacy is limited. A person selling cocaine for a living cannot claim the transaction is "private" (as I assume most such transactions are) as a justification for the act or as the basis of a right to perform the act.

Now, if you want to debate the morality of the death penalty I suppose you can have an interesting debate that aims at "compromise." But the right to "privacy" ... on par with the right to life is a non-starter. People do have "rights" to "privacy" in a civilized society. But how those rights extend to granting the power to end another individual's existance is simply escapes me.

Why is it simply too much for us to accept the consequences of our actions and raise the children we produce?

Agent Crawfish

It's not satire. I agree with everything I wrote. What I did do is not couch my thoughts in traditional "pro-choice" "democratic" "safe" rhetoric. I really don't want to support these huge families on welfare. I am a moral relativist. I do support the death penalty. I also think abortion is murder -- to which I say, so? Some murder is justified in my mind: self-defense, death penalty, etc. And if my daugter got pregnant I would want her to have an abortion. I am, in many cases, pro-abortion.


Well, here's an on-topic outtake
from my current essay, "The Christmas Care and Feeding of Liberals", here: http://viewfromtheisland.townhall.com/g/81b8080e-cbbb-47bd -a101-9d44e98f593b&comments=true?submitted=true1af7a748-136 a-4da6-a44f-a593729c6cca



"Liberals are schizophrenic. Any unborn baby can be killed and thrown away, but no depraved murderer should be painlessly put to sleep. Somehow, 'society is debased' when a murderer is executed while at the same time remaining morally superior as tens of millions of unborn babies are slaughtered. Of course, this is understandable when you bear in mind liberals believe felons should still have voting rights. Convicted murderers are potential Democrats; unborn babies are too young to vote. Worse yet, they might turn into conservatives."

Roger@5:01
Not only that, we can't torture anymore either!
Thanks for the satirical posts-enjoyed them.

Crawfish
Yes, we're going to disagree on this, but I would not use the the term "Right of Privacy." That's just a legal name for the right to do with one's own body what one wishes.

There are no good analogies for this situation, motherhood is unique, but consider the state completely outlawing cigarette smoking. I don't smoke these days, but would object to that interference with what I wanted to do with my body. I'd have the same problem with a law requiring 30 minutes of exercise every day, or one requiring me to cut, or not have the right to cut off, my own arm.

The difference here, of course, is the presence of another life, but in a situation where that life cannot survive without the consent of the mother. If she chooses to kill herself, that baby dies too. So, I believe that up to some point the woman has the right to decide what happens with her body, and that point extends past her climbing into bed with some man. But like I say we're going to disagree on this, I expect, but this is where I think the discussion should be.

For discussion's sake, I'll tell you that our daughter had an abortion many years ago, when she was a teenager. My wife agreed with her, I opposed it. To this day I wonder about that child and miss it, but think it was my daughter's decision to make.

[Gotta sign off now, will check in later.]

Well than Roger you need
a dictionary. Murder is, by defintion, an immoral and/or illegal taking of human life. No thinking person is going to give you the time of day if you "seriously" propose murder as a solution to anything. (It kinda puts you in the same category as Hitler et. al.)

Similarly, nobody seriously purports to be a "moral relativist." As a general proposition proving an argument (any argument) is relative is an absolute refutation of that argument.

In a nutshell:

The relativist argues that the validity of morality/truth/the issue at hand etc. is based on perspective (ie the opinion and or/circumstances of the event and/or actors).

To be logically consistent the relativist must therefore conceed that ALL perspectives are equally valid.

My perspective is that relativism is invalid.

You have 2 choices:

1. You can claim my perspective is invalid ... but then your entire scheme collapses.

2. You can conceed my perspective is equally vaild ... but then your entire scheme collapses.

Or doesn't that matter in the "murder is good" crowd?


Human race
Technology is bringing us a vastly different world than we ever imagined. In some instances women are having abortions for sex selection. With genetic mapping we may know more about ourselves than we want to know.

By the Way JayHub
I sincerly appreciate the calm & reasoned way you "debate." We've been exchanging some pretty different ideas here & managed not to call each other names. (I confess I have indulged far too often on these pages in the past.) For the fact that we can, and do disagree, in an entirely civil discourse I am truly grateful. You strike me as a real gentleman. I look forward to reading yoru thoughts in the future.

I am outta here ...
Gotta go. Thanks to all for playing. Hope to chat with many of you again very soon. God bless & good night.

Agent Crawfish

I think you're saying that so long as one considers any particular taking of life justified it ceases to be murder to that individual. That makes sense. I'm just not bothered by the term being applied to my argument. It doesn't change my mind about my conclusion.

I still think I am a moral relativist -- I have no problem with the pro-life perspective; it is logical. I just choose my own take because I am pro-abortion.

On balance, I think abortions (when abstinence and contraception fail) can be a good thing depending on the circumstances (poor young mother who I will have to support for example).
That just seems morally relativistic because I am not esposing an absolute i.e., all abortions are bad.

But, I appreciate your outlook. Let me ask you this, though: if the terms moral relativist and murder can be applied to me (I am a left wing atheist) then why can't I apply them to myself?

That Won't Settle Anything

If A...what of the criminal penalties?

If B...what of the current legal restrictions like notificaiton, post-viability, etc.


The law and the body (jayhub, 6:00 PM)
jayhub raises the argument that the woman has a right to control her body.

I've always found this argument empty. There is no scientific definition that would permit the gestating offspring to be considered merely an appendage of the parent's body. The gestating offspring is clearly a separate organism, meeting all proposed criteria for life (it's not so easy to define what "life" is, of course, but independent motion, consuming food, ability to reproduce, all come into play.) The only comparable situation in nature is that of a parasite living within a host; but gestation is special case in that the "parasite" is of the same species as the host, and is there by invitation (usually.)

So, the woman is not making a decision for her own body, but for her body and her offspring.

Small children always live at the consent of their parents. If parents ever decide to abandon their children, the children die unless someone intervenes; they can't care for themselves. Yes, that's completely inhuman, but that's my point: simply because the offspring lives inside the parent's body is no justification for giving the parent leave to kill it. Parenthood is a recognized responsibility, and if a parent is truly incapable of fulfilling that role, there are satisfactory options far short of killing the child.

Just FYI, as excessive as Roe is, the Court never claimed the woman has an absolute right to control her body. Even in Roe, the Court acknowledged the inherent right of the state to intervene when it has legitimate interests. In my mind, child safety is very much a legitimate state interest.

(Unrelated to this thread, please read my political blog, "Plumb Bob: Squaring the Culture" at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Somehow it's never become an issue...
...but it's been learned since 1973 that the plaintiff in the Roe v Wade case was not raped, as was claimed in the case. Furthermore, it is now known that the young woman had no particular desire for an abortion, nor any particular desire to be made a test case. The ACLU lawyers who plead the case acted unethically, in complete disregard for the good of their client, and apparently in complete disregard for the truth.

Here's a rule of thumb that we all should live by: if you have to lie, cheat, manipulate, steal, violate professional oaths, or in other ways perjure yourself to defend a point of view, that point of view does not deserve your defense. True issues, issues of genuine human worth, never require lying to defend.

Abortion is not one of those issues. It cannot be defended without lies.

(Unrelated to this thread, please read my political blog, "Plumb Bob: Squaring the Culture" at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Let the people of each State decide


Why do you think the pro death people desperately wish it to remain a Federal issue?

"the Founders designed a government inspired by subsidiarity, the political expression of which is federalism. Authority remains, whenever possible, at the most local level."

Once the Feds noses are gotten out of it we will hear the death knell of Roe v Wade (as well as many other Federally enforced evils.)

Ron Paul '08 Hope for America.

Abortions
I'm glad some republicans have the guts to bring up abortions and Bush's abhorrent success on lowing it. Clinton, for heavens sake had a lower abortion rate. The RW should demand an answer. Don't count on any thing being done though, Bush has over a year left to do nothing.

That Magikal, All-Powerful Genii Bush
Taft, who is no lower than 5th in the All-Time Worst Logic competition among liberals here on Townhall, posted comparing Clinton's and Bush's "abortion rates."

In the magikal world inside Taft's head, the President of the United States somehow mystically influences young women to go out and obtain abortions. They're just sitting idly in class, and the All-Encompassing Spirit Power of the Evil Republican President invades their souls and leads them like hypnotized lemmings to the nearest abortion parlor...

I guess the Chimp/Retarded/Puppet/Frat Boy President is secretly a n Evil Genii preying on the young women of America.

Just another boring day in the head of a liberal. What giants of intellect they are!

Taft, would you like your posts to be treated seriously? Then be serious. Good grief...

PlumbBob
No, I don't think so. I've been reading a lot about who has abortions and why. Do you know any facts? I'd be interested.

Back in the day
in the 1970s, when talk radio was dominated by Lefties like Michael Jackson (the one with the British accent and the nose), the abortion advocates would get a lot of airtime to spew their anti-life propaganda.

One of the lies they used to tell us is the so-called "evolution" in the womb.

They used to claim that a human fetus would start as an amoeba, become a shrimp, then a fish, then a frog, then a monkey (tail and all) and finally a human being, right before it was born.

This nonsense was fabricated out of whole cloth, and they could never get away with such lies given the state of science.

It is time for Pro-lifers to become politically active again.

We allowed the Left to censor us, when they discovered that Operation Rescue was having an effect in the culture. Girls started seeing abortion as a human rights issue, and started seeing their babies as the tiny humans they are, babies who need protecting from evil doctors.

The Left in the media began to edit out all stories about pro-life rallies, and we just lay down and took it.

But now, the latest science is on our side, and it is time we use it to prove that these are actual babies, and should be protected under the Constitution.

Horns of a Delimma
Although I am horrified at the killing of innocent babies in the womb, it will be a sad thing if Lefties wind up reproducing themselves again if abortion is outlawed.

Of course, they keep threatening to use rusty coathangers on themselves, and die of back-alley abortions.

One can only hope...

one more thing...
if Lefties insist on offing themselves because abortions become outlawed again, why don't we suggest that they do it in advance of getting pregnant and avoid the rush.

Another thought...

Lefties are always recommending that we put ourselves in someone else's shoes before we judge them.

Why don't they follow their own advice and jump in a wood chipper?

I am sure it is similar to how it feels to be aborted by some of the sadistic methods doctors use.

Robert
"and the fetus is not viable the fetus dies with her...
so it is part of her body."

Of course that is a stupid statement, because it often occurs that a woman dies, and they take the baby out and treat it like a preemie, it can survive outside the mother's womb.

Every year, they are able to save the lives of smaller and smaller babies. Here is a photo by Anne Geddes of a 28-week old "fetus" living outside the womb:
http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/anne-geddes/special-baby.html

Here is another Anne Geddes picture of a preemie:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0768321190/ref=sib_dp_pt/10 3-1898420-6262207#reader-link

Here is a series of photos, taken inside the womb, by Lennart Nilsson. The "Space Baby" in the center (3 down, 3 over) is a picture of an 11 week old Fetus:
http://www.lennartnilsson.com/child_is_born.html

Dear "Moderate" Mark
We have gotten off our duffs and protested... for the last thirty years.

Guess what!?

The press gives lots of coverage to a small handful of gray-haired ladies in comfortable shoes advocating abortion, but refuse to even send cameras to cover a protest with literally thousands of pro-lifers marching down major streets in town.

We need to do more than just protest. We need to take back the courts, the universities and the media from the rigid clutches of the virulant Left.

Mountain Rose: We tried an experiment

over the weekend...

When roberta shows up, we LEAVE and go to another thread.

We kind of figured out that roberta was just a simple lab experiment anyway, so this was just ANOTHER exeriment.. LOL


Ha Ha Ha

Seems to work. :-)







Matt Barber
It is fascinating that Matt Barber wrote one column without blaming something on gays. Let's see if he can write two in a Roe without blaming it on gays or will he Wade down that river once again? I don't think that abortion should be used as a means of birth control, sex selection, genetic engineering, etc. However, abortion did not begin in 1973. And, it won't end with the repeal of Roe v Wade by the Supreme Court.

Thank You Swamp Fox
I noticed in his list of articles how many are about gays! It's a really weird obsession.

Is a Baby in the Womb a Separate
Human Being, or is it a part of a mother's body, like an appendix or a tonsil?

Well, just to keep the discussion on an intellectual, non-emotional, non-religious plane, let us consult the science.

Of course, we already know that at 10 days after conception, the primative blood stream is already developing, and by 18 days the heart is beating. By 5 weeks, the eyes are forming, following the development of the brain. Tiny hands and feet are forming, and by 6 weeks, tiny finger buds are clearly visable.

But what about the DNA?

At the very moment of conception, the DNA of the father and the DNA of the mother comes together and shuffled like four decks of cards. Bits of genetic code is exchanged: an eye for an eye, an ear for an ear. Then the combined "deck" once again seperates into 4, each one unique from the others. From that group of four cells, only ONE is chosen to develop and become the child.

The DNA of this child includes genetic information from each parent, but some of the traits might belong to grandma, grandpa, or some other ancestor.

Thus, junior is NOT mommie, and mommie is not junior, but a new individual creature, different genetically from mommie, daddy or any other human being who has ever lived (unless he has an identical twin).

To Mountain Rose

My only correction regards the type of wire hanger.

The lefties will use a clean wire hanger because lefties have jobs and require dry cleaning.

The red-necks who vote republican will have to dig them out of dumsters...hence rusty. Your eugenics plan may backfire!

As for woodchippers, again, the lefties in planned parenthood and the ACLU only have juicers and coffee grinders. Your red beck illiterate who votes for Bush will have the chipper...


Thanks Anne for the advice
It is interesting to me that the most parasitic person on the website is the most likely to accuse an unborn baby of being a parasite.

While I am here, let me elaborate on my last post.

When the one cell, out of the four available combinations, is "chosen" to become THE baby, it starts to copy itself.

Each cell of the body carries the complete genetic code, the blue print for the entire human being that is being made. Within that code is included the instructions to each particular cell, telling it what kind of cell it is going to become, and where it is going to be within the body.

Over and over again, with unbelievable accuracy, the cells faithfully copy themselves and the entire genetic code, continuing as long as the person lives.

It is astonishing that the cells know how to do this. How did they learn?

But I digress, because I promised not to bring up religion.

Roger
good thing I wasn't drinking anything hot when I read your post... I would have done a "spit take!!!"

How many Lefties can you get into a Krupps Coffee Grinder anyway?

Swampfox- no, abortion did not begin in
1973, but if we were to outlaw it again, and cause Leftie Lesbies to go impale themselves on rusty coathangers (excuse me Roger, brand new wire hangers- where is Mommie Dearest when you need her?), and meet their Maker, then it will be worth the effort.

Mod Mark- excuse me but what is the
"snip" about?

Is it YOUR personal contribution to birth control?

Thanks for keeping your genetic code out of the genepool!

Comment
A lying, disgusting, and inflammatory article. Aborted fetuses are buried in mass graves behind Planned Parenthood clinics? Women choose abortion in order to further a political agenda?

That you write and publish such nonsense says much about the reception you anticipate---and about the kind of readers who believe what you say.


Mountain Rose
Mountain Rose, "How many Lefties can you get into a Krupps Coffee Grinder anyway?" I don't know really what I consider myself..........let's settle on confused. Is abortion a left or right issue? The current law is that the state should not intervene on a personal decision of the woman. Now that would make it a RIGHT of center issue. But others say as you, that the at the time of conception the child has rights, which would make it a RIGHT of center issue................for the unborn. I guess that this discussion could go one forever and it will. It's a bit odd that we know that Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush are pro-choice. Does that make them LEFTIES? I am gay, but I don't think that abortion should be used for birth control, sex selection, genetic engineering, etc. Does that make make me a LEFTIE?

Where is Solomon when you need him?

What Is This Culture Of Death Anyway?
I believe that a lot of harm has been done by sliming the culture of death, because I don't believe that abortion is representative of that kind of culture. I'm definitely not as pro-choice as my parents, however, when I think of a culture of death, I think of a pursuit for one's right to die and celebrate it. I think elderly people should have a right to terminate their own life if they feel they don't want to live anymore. That's the main difference between an abortion and an assisted suicide: The infant isn't given a choice, but the elderly person does. I think that's giving them a little dignity. Plus, gothic clothing looks facinating on both men and women.

Pro-Abortion folks disregard science
When abortions were first legalized, the pro-abortion lobby said the fetus was only a blob. Science has since then refuted that.

Then the babies did not feel any pain. Abortions doctors own testimonies and ultra-sound have since refuted that.

Then abortions were only happening in dire circumstances. Abortion statistics have refuted that. Inconvenience is by far the biggest reason.

Now the pro-abortionists here have come out with new lies.. er, excuses. Abortions will not drop significantly if the practice is outlawed. Well, let's find out shall we?

No, most of these pro-abortionists know exactly what it is, and the horror of it is, they don't really care. That's why the lies & excuses continue. They don't have the guts or honesty to call it what it is: Murder; Infanticide. This practice is the lowest of the low and it's supporters are the scum of the earth.

I've done alot of things I'm not proud of, but I'll say this, I'd hate to be you when you stand before a just and holy God. Justice will be served!

Roger Makes No Excuse, CT
I know it's murder. And I am pro-abortion. You might find that sick, but guess what, it's a heck of a lot more honest than "pro-choice moderates" who technically have the same position as me but rationalize the butchery. I have the guts. As an atheist I fear no god. I am god.

CT
Usually when a person or an institution, like Bush's admin, want to get something done, they try. Seriously, if you all feel so strong about it, why aren't you doing studies on how to lower the rates? Why aren't there programs or anything? If you personally really cared a rats *ss you'd educate yourself on the facts, instead of attacking nice people.

re: Agent Crawfish
Agent Crawfish wrote:

"... But, as moral actors we still seek to enshrine basic morality in our law. Thus, murder, rape and child abuse are illegal..."

>>

Just to be clear, those acts are NOT illegal BECAUSE they are immoral.


"... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression against the Equal Rights of another and this is all from which the Law ought to restrain him." -- Thomas Jefferson


Those acts are illegal BECAUSE they are assaults against the Equal Rights of others. Law is not a proper instrument for "enshrining" morality, basic or otherwise. Morality is simply too subjective to the whims of the Majority. When the "Moral Majority" are allowed to use the blunt force of Law to "enshrine" morality Freedom, including Religious Freedom, suffer.

Roger,
Didn't I tell you you were the scum of the Earth?

Taft,
I listed the facts. And murderers are not nice people.

Like I said, justice will be served. You won't be so cocky when that day comes, bet on it.

CT
You don't sound like a Christian,and so I can assume the facts that Bush did diddle doesn't really bother you. Abortion isn't some game you can play with to win votes, are you that amoral?

A good, moral president
problem: abortions

study it, research causes and find answers. Do something. Check on the success, work harder to gain success.

Bush: nothing, zip, nada

The RW new approach. Vote for Fred the pro-abortion lobbyist. of Guillaini the pro-abortion Mayor.

President Bush's pro-life record
President Bush's first act upon entering office was to cut funding for overseas abortions.

President Bush signed into law a federal ban on partial birth abortion, which had been vetoed by the former President.

President Bush denied federal funding for the creation and destruction of human embryos for the purpose of scientific experiments.

President Bush sought legislation that provided for the prosecution of criminals who killed pregnant women--that they would be charged with the taking of two lives.

President Bush appointed 2 conservative judges to the Supreme Court.

I submit to you Taft, that this President has been the right man at the right time.


If Roe is overturned...
the number of abortions in this country will almost certainly decrease. But even if they went up (for whatever retarded reason that some idiots want to believe), what difference does that make? Does that mean that it is legitimate to keep abortion legal? How does that make any sense?

If something is wrong, then what is the problem with making it illegal? Just because "people will do it anyways" is such a dumb argument. Steroids are illegal in this country. But kids in high school can still get their hands on them if they really want to (and a lot of kids do). Does that mean we should make steroids legal?

Someone please explain the relevance of this argument.

Thanks


Election is a choice
No election is for the perfect candidate or not. It is a choice between a small number of persons running for office. If you only vote for a person who agrees with you on all subjects, you will not vote often (ever?)

You have to select among the options Bush v. Gore & Bush v. Kerry? Bush & Bush without a doubt.

There is not a candidate running for the Democrats that I would vote for over any Republican candidate. Not because of the party but where they stand on the issues (Hillary taking all sides of all issues understandably disqualifies her for office).

Swampfox
for those who say that the government should not intervene in a woman's personal decisions... what if a woman makes the personal choice to murder her husband in the privacy of her bedroom?

Would we want that?

Of course not, because we all agree that her husband is a living human being, whose life is protected under the Constitution of the United States, and by the laws of every state in the Union.

So the question is, at what point is a baby in the womb a living human being?

Check its DNA, and you will find it is a human, every time.

Does it have a heartbeat and brainwaves?

It has a heart beat within 2 1/2 weeks of conception, and brain waves before the first trimester is over.

Does that not indicate it is alive?

Why then, do we take away its right to live just because it is:
1) tiny in stature
2) extremely young in age
3) living where it cannot be seen without medical equipment.
4) dependant on a mother who wants to kill it.

There was a time in my life when my mother decided she didn't love me anymore, and I am so grateful that I was to big for her to kill me.

There was a time in my life when it seemed no one wanted me: should society have permitted someone to kill me?

Since when is being unwanted a capital offense?

Since when do we think it is OK to kill children for the mistakes of their parents?

The7Sticks
even if there is a law against suicide, what are they going to do to someone who kills themself?

Nothing.

So the debate is really, should the government permit doctors to be involved in assisted suicide, or euthinasia?

What about the Hypocratic Oath that states clearly, "First, do no harm." Although this oath is broken by abortionists regularly and with impunity, does this not make a mockery of the profession?

It is my opinion that the medical profession should never start down the road of killing people. This is how the doctors in Nazi Germany started down the road to the horrific acts they committed. They started out by euthanizing the mentally ill and the terminally sick, people for whom no one stood up. They ended with cruel human experimentation.

What kind of society do we want to live in?

Did you know that in the Netherlands, doctors can now decide when it is time to kill an elderly person, regardless of the patient's wants? Did you know that the doctors there think it is OK to kill babies that have already been born?

When does this end?

As medical science makes it possible for some people to live indefinately, there is going to be a problem with overpoplulation. Who will decide who gets to live and who must die, to permit the wealthy and connected to live as long as possible?

This is why these ethical questions are so important, more important than one person's life or happiness.

Lazyeye
Murder is against the law, but people still kill each other. Shall we make it legal?

So is Bank Robbery, Grand Larceny, Auto Theft, Child Molestation, and all manner of distastful behaviors. Yet people continue to do them anyway.

Should we make any of these things legal?

Of course not!

So, as you say, it IS a dumb argument.

lilly's correction
lilly writes: Monday, December, 17, 2007 11:04 PM
"Comment: A lying, disgusting, and inflammatory article. Aborted fetuses are buried in mass graves behind Planned Parenthood clinics? Women choose abortion in order to further a political agenda?
That you write and publish such nonsense says much about the reception you anticipate---and about the kind of readers who believe what you say."
*********************************************

I guess you are right.

Aborted babies are not buried behind the clinics.

They are stuffed in trash cans marked "Bio-Hazard" and disposed of with the rest of the "medical waste."

How convenient for abortionists, who used to toss them in the regular trash cans, but were agast to find that Pro-Life groups were taking pictures of the massacres.

In fact, that was how Jean Staker Garton came to write her book, "Who Broke The Baby?" about the time when she was a pro-abortion activist, who was preparing a lecture for a "pro-choice" group about how awful it was that the anti-abortion forces used photos of aborted babies for shock value.

As she reviewed slides on a projector screen, her tiny son wandered in, and saw the horrific photo.

With large eyes, he said, "Mommy, WHO BROKE THE BABY?"

I recommend this book to anyone who wants to be able to answer the slogans of the pro-abort Left:
http://www.amazon.com/Broke-Baby-Abortion-Slogans-Really/dp /0764220500

To Frigglesnitz
Abortions did happen before Wade. I'm sure pedophilia happened before laws against it were created as well. Does the prior existence of a practice forbid laws against it?

Further, can you think of any practice or substance whose use did NOT increase when it was legalized?

Roger
"Wow." No suger coating that statement on your beliefs.
Roger makes no excuse.
I know it's murder. And I am pro-abortion. You might find that sick, but guess what, it's a heck of a lot more honest than "pro-choice moderates" who technically have the same position as me but rationalize the butchery. I have the guts. As an atheist I fear no god. I am god.
Roger old pal could you say that in a crowd of people? Hopefully with a news camera present.

To Semperfi/par
Well, one can't claim that Roger lacks honesty. He undoubtedly represents a pretty broad current of opinion, most of whose holders refuse to admit their true opinion.

On abortion as well as God.

So much nonsense
I swore I will not debate with bleeding heart, illogical, hate filled moralists! But sometimes I have to vent too.
NO MALES should enter the dabete of abortion!
NO MALE can ever understand the debate that goes on in a female mind when she has to make this tough decision!
NO MALE legislator has the right to enforce such one-sided law on one segment of society without the equal "punishment" of the "other party"! This line of argument strikes me like the Saudi's punishing the rape victim rather than the perpetrators of the rape! Many men would keep it zipped if they knew that their body will have to carry their "good time moment" forcefully, for the rest of their life!
So, MALES of all creeds, KEEP OUT OF THIS! This was, is and will be forever a "women's issue"!

To Aniko
Identity politics at their best. As well claim that no woman has any say if a man decides to use his body to commit murder.

Crivebyposting
You stated,

To wit, Republicans haven't thought about the consequences of their actions in that they live in a democracy and the majority of Americans, for whatever reason, want abortion legal.

The ones who have not thought about the "consequences of their actions" ,were the young ladies, who should have left there pants on,and are now killing a BABY!!!!

There are no lungs???
Robert: you need to do some research.

aniko
Maybe only babies should get a say in this one.

Aniko
NO MALES should enter the dabete of abortion!

Why exclude males after the fact ?

We would not be having this argument over abortion if women excluded the entry of the male into the insemination process.

Aniko
If a woman would not have included the man to begin the pre abortion ritual of conception,she would not to include him at the execution.

Roe vs. Wade
Even if “Roe vs. Wade” is overturned for being “bad law,” the issue will be transferred to the individual state legislatures as per the US Constitution’s original framers, i.e., 13 different little experiments. Hence, if you’re rabidly Pro-life, you can live in the Dakotas. If you want to employ abortion out of convenience (IAW 96% of the 1.4M annual abortions performed per year) , and feel morally superior for doing so, go live in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, i.e., a woman-child sleeps around, gets pregnant despite having access to dozen forms of birth control & uses abortion as retro-birth control. They can then wear a Ms. Magazine "I had an abortion" tee-shirt as though killing their child for convenience was some sort of sick feminist right of passage. You know the type.

Do You Really Know Why We Need Roe?
RE "Grim Reaping: Do You Really Know Roe?": I offer this morning a variant which we will title "Grim Birthing: Do You Really Know Why We Need Roe?". Chicago Tribune 12-18-07: "Lakeshia Murph, 24, a mother of eight, was charged Sunday with one count of first-degree murder. She became frustrated with the crying of her 2 year-old son Brandon Nelson-Murph and beat him with a belt and her fists 'until her hand hurt', prosecuters said Monday. 'She just loses it.' Murph beat Brandon 'about his head and body with her fists and a belt, causing severe bleeding to his brain...'She does not know how many times she hit him'...An autopsy determined that the boy suffered multiple blunt-force injuries due to child abuse and his death was ruled a homicide. Lakeshia had her first child at age 13. She had an abusive mother and was raised in a series of group homes and placements with relations. She has had extensive counseling and professional supervision. Her remaining seven children have now entered the foster care system." [I have summarized this long article for brevity.] Would abortion really be worse? This woman birthed eight children into hell. Is something worse than that? You who are in love with two-week embryos: do you care anything about a sentient two year-old child being beaten to death?

PS Before you say "This is just one unusual case"---no, it isn't. Sometimes the beaten child doesn't die. Sometimes he is just stomped or scalded. Sometimes the abuser isn't Mom; quite often it's her boyfriend while Mom just watches. There is no magic that makes a child wanted just because it's born. Consider: had a baby at 13. Had EIGHT kids by age 24. Do you think Abstinence Only might have helped? Or a Purity Ball? You people live in Fairyland.

Aniko: So much nonsense?
I swore I will not debate with bleeding heart, illogical, hate filled amoral FEMINISTS! But sometimes I have to vent too. The mind is a “delusion engine”, hence no other creature but the average FEMINIST can characterize an entitlement mentality (i.e., living a consequence free, responsibility optional life) as a “moral virtue”. The debate about pro-choice vs. pro-life is bogus; it’s really pro-irresponsible woman vs. pro-fetus. The Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 gives women the exclusive, unilateral right to opt out of parenthood.
NO FEMALES should enter the debate on any topic but abortion!
NO FEMALE can ever understand the debate that goes on in a MALE mind when He has to make tough decisions on any other topic but ABORTION!
NO FEMALE legislator has the right to enforce such one-sided law on one segment of society without the equal "punishment" of the "other party"! One would conclude that abortion is the #1 issue of women; yet, on average, 40%+ of American children are born out of wedlock. Thanks to said legislators & their chivalrous male counterparts, Fathers have no rights during a pregnancy but financial obligations, with token rights, afterwards. Fetus ownership and financial obligation should be connected. IF ROE V. WADE NULLIFIES A MAN’S RIGHTS, IT SHOULD LIKEWISE ABSOLVE HIM OF RESPONSIBILITY. That is not the case, however. Women are allowed by law to engage in maternity fraud (lying about fertility) and paternity fraud (lying about the genetic father), forcing financial responsibility on defrauded men as well as the majority male taxpayer base how are forced to support the irresponsible, promiscuous FEMALES via feminist “Welfare Industrail Complex.”
So, FEMALES of all creeds, KEEP OUT OF THIS! Everything but the ABORTION issue is the sole province of MEN, since MEN continue to do all of society’s heavy lifting.!

Aniko: So much nonsense?
I swore I will not debate with bleeding heart, illogical, hate filled amoral FEMINISTS! But sometimes I have to vent too. The mind is a “delusion engine”, hence no other creature but the average FEMINIST can characterize an entitlement mentality (i.e., living a consequence-free, responsibility-optional life) as a “moral virtue”. The debate about pro-choice vs. pro-life is bogus; it’s really pro-irresponsible woman vs. pro-fetus. The Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 gives women the exclusive, unilateral right to opt out of parenthood.
NO FEMALES should enter the debate on any topic but abortion!
NO FEMALE can ever understand the debate that goes on in a MALE mind when He has to make tough decisions on any other topic but ABORTION!
NO FEMALE legislator has the right to enforce such one-sided law on one segment of society without the equal "punishment" of the "other party"! One would conclude that abortion is the #1 issue of women; yet, on average, 40%+ of American children are born out of wedlock. Thanks to said legislators & their chivalrous male counterparts, Fathers have no rights during a pregnancy but financial obligations, with token rights, afterwards. Fetus ownership and financial obligation should be connected. IF ROE V. WADE NULLIFIES A MAN’S RIGHTS, IT SHOULD LIKEWISE ABSOLVE HIM OF RESPONSIBILITY. That is not the case, however. Women are allowed by law to engage in maternity fraud (lying about fertility) and paternity fraud (lying about the genetic father), forcing financial responsibility on defrauded men as well as the majority male taxpayer base how are forced to support the irresponsible, promiscuous FEMALES via feminist “Welfare Industrail Complex.”
So, FEMALES of all creeds, KEEP OUT OF THIS! Everything but the ABORTION issue is the sole province of MEN, since MEN continue to do all of society’s heavy lifting.!

Why complicate matters?
If a pro-lifer wants to have a child then no one is forcing them to seek abortion counseling.

Yet, if another woman decides that motherhood is not what she wants, some would force her to capitulate. Why not make her wear a head scarf, far less burdensome than a infant, saves on makeup & sunscreen...

Control is control! Be careful what you wish for.

A significant difference between a freed slave and an infant is that the slave can be expected to put survival first, and fend for himself. If you insist that a fetus has the right to the woman's body, you have forced her into involuntary servitude. Let the fetus make the claim for itself and I'll rush to the rescue, let it lie in a dish, unable even to breath, and it's not a person, it is just organic tissue.

Get off you moral high horses. No one was ever forced to have an abortion they didn't want. No court, no judge, no committee, no panel, ever said:

"Go take 3 days of counseling to see if you want to abort your fetus. Then we'll allow you to go to term without risk of criminal prosecution."

Correction
I swore I will not debate with bleeding heart, illogical, hate filled amoral FEMINISTS! But sometimes I have to vent too. The mind is a “delusion engine”, hence no other creature but the average FEMINIST can characterize an entitlement mentality (i.e., living a consequence free, responsibility optional life) as a “moral virtue”. The debate about pro-choice vs. pro-life is bogus; it’s really pro-irresponsible woman vs. pro-fetus. The Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 gives women the exclusive, unilateral right to opt out of parenthood.
NO FEMALES should enter the debate on any topic but abortion!
NO FEMALE can ever understand the debate that goes on in a MALE mind when He has to make tough decisions on any other topic but ABORTION!
NO FEMALE legislator has the right to enforce such one-sided law on one segment of society without the equal "punishment" of the "other party"! One would conclude that abortion is the #1 issue of women; yet, on average, 40%+ of American children are born out of wedlock. Thanks to said legislators & their chivalrous male counterparts, Fathers have no rights during a pregnancy but financial obligations, with token rights, afterwards. Fetus ownership and financial obligation should be connected. IF ROE V. WADE NULLIFIES A MAN’S RIGHTS, IT SHOULD LIKEWISE ABSOLVE HIM OF RESPONSIBILITY. That is not the case, however. Women are allowed by law to engage in maternity fraud (lying about fertility) and paternity fraud (lying about the genetic father), forcing financial responsibility on defrauded men as well as the majority male taxpayer base WHO are forced to support irresponsible, promiscuous FEMALES via feminist “Welfare Industrial Complex.”

Prison for Murder?
If I took my shotgun and went next door and shot my neighbor because his dog poops in my yard (lame excuse, but an excuse none-the-less) and my neighbor died, I would be sent to prison for murder unless of course I could beat the system on a technicality like pleading insanity, but I would still probably end up incarcerated. Now the next question is did I do it on a whim or did I pre-meditate this crime. I'm mean this wasn't the first time the dog pooped in my yard so the chances are is that I had given this some thought. Hmmmm........

Whats wrong here? Why should I get in trouble for a clear violation of my yard being destroyed by my neighbors mutt and the girl down the road, just because her precious social life is going to be interupted get away scott fre for killing her own baby. I mean it's just not fair!

What makes my yard any less valuable than her personal fun? You see my arguement isn't that I killed someone but was protecting my yard from further harm and the woman getting an abortion is protecting her self interest.

Life=Meaninglessness in the minds of pro-abortionist.

Ever wonder what was so bad that God decided to flood the world one time? The killing of innocents. Baby sacrifices to Molech was one of the biggest atrocities. You people who love to kill unborns think you won't pay for this, but you will someday.

Silly lilly, so stupid!
"Do You Really Know Why We Need Roe?"

Hey lilly, last time I checked, that woman who killed her kid could have gone out and got the abortion, but chose not to. Are you telling everyone now that she should have been pre-emptively FORCED to have an abortion because someone somehow could detect that some time in the future she'd murder her child?

You are a disgusting, sub-human, America-hating pile of filth. Abortion IS FREAKING LEGAL, and yet did not prevent your horrible story from happening. Instead it CAUSED over 40 million OTHER horrible stories.

Seriously, does your mommy know she gave birth to an utter moron with no moral compass whatsoever? Personally, I think your mom should have made the "other choice" for you.

Take the ROE IQ Test

I highly recommend taking the Roe IQ Test

To CT and Tony

As an atheist threats of hell-fire don't carry that much weight.

To the "pro-choicers", if you thought murder was going on wouldn't your rhetoric and arguments reflect that literal fact?

Tony is also correct, "Life=Meaninglessness in the minds of pro-abortionist." I am a pro-aboritonist and I do no think life has any intrinsic meaning. It has relative value, and my desire not to have a bunch of impoverished kids running around on my dime trumps the life of the fetus. Now, I also advocate birth control and abstinence, but if that fails, and that mother doesn't want the kid, so be it. Anchors away.



abortions
Is it true that most abortions are bt woman that can afford children than those that cannot?I believe that quite a few woman that had abortions were knocked up by someone other than her hubby.

To Demosthenes:
"The debate about pro-choice vs. pro-life is bogus; it’s really pro-irresponsible woman vs. pro-fetus."

Agreed... to be truely responsible would either a) not to have sex or b) use birth control and it it failed have the kid.

As an abortionist though, I do like the panic button choice of aborting the living fetus. It's not that I am anti-fetus per se, just pro me and I also think pro-soceity (lower taxes, fewer kids on welfare, unclogged schools, lower health care premiums). It's more of a utilitarian outlook.

Not murder until sentience
A car accident victim who has no higher brain function is legally brain dead and is not afforded the same right to life as sentient humans; fetuses may react to stimuli earlier in the pregnancy, but have no higher brain function until 7 months. Until then, they should be held equal with the car wreck vegetables.

And Again I Say

phileo writes: Monday, December, 17, 2007 3:35 PM
… … … is there ANY intelligent person out there who is NOT willing to concede that life begins at conception?
======

I am very intelligent, and I know for a fact you are wrong. Just check Genesis 2, verse 6 or 7 or thereabouts, life begins at breath.

============

Willi Beax writes: Monday, December, 17, 2007 4:15 PM
Impact of Roe
To date because of Roe over 40 million babies have been sacrificed

---
And that means that 40,000,000 unwanted babies, babies that might have been mistreated, and abused have not suffered, and the woman involved would not have suffered a style of life she did not want to live.

That means that a million women did not die as a result of a self-administered abortion, or as a result of problems during birth.

That means that millions of families have later had babies who were then able to live in families who were financially, socially, and physically able to enjoy life.

========

Again, I didn’t read each and every word written here, but the best I could see, they were mostly written by men. How stupid.

I long ago came to the conclusion they are sexist pigs, who are saying, “A man put that sperm there, and no mere woman is going to disturb the fetus.”

Of course that goes along with the idea that if men could get pregnant, and could have a baby, abortions would be available at every street corner.

No one has answered this question, “Are you one of those who watch TV news stories of starving babies and cheer, and say, "At least she didn't get an abortion!"

Oh, and by the way, not one of you have mentioned the sexist, stupid pig who caused the problem in the first place. He should be castrated, without an anesthetic.

people, people...
I really hate the way Matt Barber posits his articles. Abortion is about MANY things. And is symptomatic of something VERY deep that no one wants to look square on...
That our society fails to understand the women who can and would do something that desperate. Consulting the rest of us on her decision isn't an option of we DON'T consider HER circumstances at the time. Privacy is this consideration is because the PUBLIC can't know what's going on fully enough, nor deal with what is a personal problem over all, and over a long time.
A WOMAN'S life can and is compromised in so many ways, and yes, we ARE saying HER life is forfeit, and without considering WHERE that child will go after the fact.

Our society DOES practice eugenics in a way. If it's not an IDEAL child that's born for IDEAL parents, then what?
Children are warehoused by the MILLIONS in this country who weren't aborted. We have no systems of adoption, foster care OR professional and medical intervention for women adequate enough without MAJOR failures that go on on the time.

part 2
I'm very sure that Matt Barber hasn't adopted a black, drug exposed baby or any OTHER children who would fit into HIS lifestyle conveniently.
Neither has James Dobson, or Tony Perkins.
Alan Keyes abandoned his daughter as soon as he found out she was a lesbian. Indeed, I have taken in gay kids who were kicked out of their own homes as young as twelve and thirteen. Most children in foster care are of color-and are institutionalized their entire lives.
The Colorado shooter of eight was a lifelong system child. Unloved and without the stable home life so idealized by many in TH, but that don't exist enough in real life.

Women require CARE and protection and guarantees our society can't provide for her and her baby.
I hate abortion. The thought of it appalls me and I also know that a woman MUST have the freedom to make such a personal and painful decision that meets HER needs, whatever they are.
And by the way, there is a horrendous statistic of women killed while pregnant. Men who don't accept the pregnancy or the prospect of new fatherhood so well are a serious reality, and homicide occurs more often than you think.
And without vetting the woman's personal situation, keeping abortion from any female could effectively be life threatening to her.
Or the ability to care for herself.
We don't and can't know, so such a decision MUST be kept between herself and her medical practitioner.

Moderate Mark
the thoughts expressed in a recent post have me right in there with Demosthenes.

Men have no legal rights in the abortion decision, unfortunately. If he wants the baby and she doesn't, her decision trumps his regardless of his wishes. But let that mother decide she wants to keep the baby, guess who gets slammed (rightfully so) with the financial responsibility whether or not he wants it?

As my FIL used to say, it ain't fair, but it's so. I simply feel that if he must pay if she "wants" the child, so should she allow him to assume the responsibility for the child if he wants to and carry the baby to term.

There is NO excuse for pulling an unborn child to pieces simply because he might be beaten to death later. Good heavens, how many of us here could rightfully say we were abused as children and yet would rather not be here?

vote
Put it up to a vote of the American people and let the majority decide. Of course this will never happen because the left knows it would be overturned.

Government Cannot Legislate Morality
The real tragedy of Roe vs. Wade is to illustrate the phenomenon of judicial activism or the concept of legislating from the bench.

Our country was founded on the principal of individual liberty and freedom. But many in our country feel that we cannot grant "too much" of that. Many of the acts of judicial activism have been committed by socialist leaning liberals trying to achieve some sort of elusive social justice or level playing field. But some of the issues have also come from the conservative right (ie: christian conservatives) Both groups have an agenda to control how I live and what I choose in my life. This is not even constitutional and it is also wrongheaded.

I think it safe to say that the controversy over abortion law will ensure that our country will always have a legal place to have an abortion. The issue is just too polarizing to get any kind of total consensus. Laws will not stop a certain portion of the population from seeking them. This was true before Roe vs. Wade. It also true about drugs and other issues as well. The reason is because these acts are highly personal and views will always differ from individual to individual. Seeking to legally ban such practices has never been a solution. What is more effective is social pressure and mores. it is intersting that the religious right has more or less abandoned its most potent weapon in reducing the incidence of abortion its religous teachings and network of community congrigations. These networks have always been bulwark of establishing moral grounding to help individuals make these types of decisions. The real tragedy is that we have allowed government to supplant this to a large extent.

The court should have never heard this case in the first place. Determining these kinds of questionsis not a proper function of government. It has failed to unite the people.

As I said you cannot legislate morality.

So Aniko, I am to
assume that "women" get pregnant all by themselves? (Since it is a "women's" only issue, of course!) "Women" is in quotation marks simply because I cannot imagine any true woman murdering her child.

Men should have a greater voice in what happens to their child too, and not just when some feminist judge decides to lavish the woman with all of the mans money.

Demosthenes, this fellow Hellinic moniker FEMALE absolutely agrees with you-

re: lazyeye writes:
"But even if they went up (for whatever retarded reason that some idiots want to believe), what difference does that make? Does that mean that it is legitimate to keep abortion legal? How does that make any sense? "

It is easy to illustrate with the example of the history of Prohibition. It can be argued that to drink is to sin. Alcohol is also a "gateway" drug to crime. So we passed Prohibition. But guess what, the country wasn't behind it so Prohibition was repealed. Today, 50,000 people die on the road each year and somewhere between 40 and 50 percent are alcohol related. Are the Evangelicals screaming bloody murder over the 25,000 dead people per year? Do the math over 35 years? That's close to one million people. No, the Evangelicals quietly accept these millions of dead and make no fuss.

Adams oft said that passing a law the people will not enforce is worse than not passing the law because doing so builds contempt for legal system, much as everyone has contempt for the tax code today. Everyone cheats on their taxes. Same is true with speed limits, everyone breaks the law. That's not good for the rule law.

Why do you think the case of Roe went all the way to the Supreme Court? Women could not get equal justice under the law *across state lines*. States which outlaw abortion also make it a crime to cross state lines to get an abortion, making it a Federal matter.

Finally, who are you people kidding with respect to abortion being murder? The penalty for murder is life in prison. Does anyone imagine that the public would stand for throwing mother in prison for life for having an abortion? Or the doctor?

Right. No, Prohibition of Abortion is similar to Prohibition of Alcohol. Neither are good public policy and for the same reasons; and even though millions of deaths over the years are directly related.

Impact Of Roe
jim writes: Tuesday, December, 18, 2007 1:24 PM

"And that means that 40,000,000 unwanted babies, babies that might have been mistreated, and abused have not suffered, and the woman involved would not have suffered a style of life she did not want to live.

That means that a million women did not die as a result of a self-administered abortion, or as a result of problems during birth.

That means that millions of families have later had babies who were then able to live in families who were financially, socially, and physically able to enjoy life."

Sorry Jim!!Same old pro-abortion rhetoric used to justify killing the babies.

Jim fails to respond to the economic impacts of the "woman's right to choose" movement. The baby boomers are about to reap what they sown. Sorry Jim, I sincerely hope you are not one of them.

Moral justification vs license
A right of abortion is justified only if it is a totally harmless act. There are no other grounds for permitting freedom of choice to engage in a given area of conduct. Unless a compelling case can be for the harmlessness of the act of abortion, all other arguments for allowing abortion choice lack the requisite moral justification to grant such a right.We as a nation need to face up to the error of our ways in allowing abortion choice, and recommit ourselves anew to remaining true to our founding values.

re: Will Beax
"To date because of Roe over 40 million babies have been sacrificed on the altar of the “woman’s right to choose”.
Can anyone fathom the economic impact this has had on our society? First there is the little matter of Social Security (SS) going broke. The loss of the (SS) contributions of 40 million potential workers who would have been in the work force is astronomical. When SS started there were 16 workers or more (this number varies) for every retiree. Now the number is 3 for every retiree. Soon it will be only 2 for every retiree. "

Well, if you are going to pretend to do math let's do some more pretending.

People have babies. Given the 35 years let's assume a birth rate of 1:1. That means 80 million not 40 million, of which many are kids of course. Oh wait, people die too but the average life span is approx. 70 years arguably some 90% of the 80 million would be alive given the average age of having a kid is under 40.

Then you have immigration policy. Immigration policy is hinged partly on the current pace in which the country can assimilate new immigrants. The impact on social services, etc.

Arguably, with less Americans born then immigration policy can be more liberal in allowing foreigners. And guess what, that is the case. In other words, we'd be around 300 million in population today either by direct replacement (babies) or indirect replacement (immigrants). The quota of immigrants is directly related to the maximum population perceived to be sustained by the infrastructure.

So where does that leave the math calculation? Just curious. Finally, have you checked the latest figures as to retirement age and average life span? Notice any trends?

re: KenG writes:
"A right of abortion is justified only if it is a totally harmless act."

Where do you people get this stuff from?

Everyday hundreds of Americans make a legal choice to end a life. They pull the plug on someone who is on life support. The lunacy of you people is evident in the Terry Schiavo case. Over 70 percent of the American people thought Congress and Bush were wrong in butting into people's private affairs. You have the right to kill your Mother if your mother is brain-dead and being kept alive by life-support and you decide to pull the plug. Tom Delay made that decision for his father and yet wanted to deny to Michael Schiavo. You people are just incredible. And given how few people choose to keep their relative on life support, and further given that 70 percent of Americans support that right, your argument is bogus even among Evangelicals. Everyday Evangelicals pull the plug of life support and kill a relative.

Get over it. Over 70 percent of Americans support the family's decision to pull life-support and over 60 percent support abortion rights. Every day people make non-life threatening medical decisions that cause harm. Who you kidding? How many people go on bogus diets? when we all know that excercise is the key? How many people choose unhealthy activities like smoking even though they know they are harming themselves? Their kids with 2nd hand smoke?

Are you going to throw Mothers who drink in jail for child endangerment? Does a mother become imprisoned about her life-style choices by law because some decision she makes to continue drinking may harm the child with fetal alcohol syndrome?

You people and your understanding of freedom are just bizarre.

Same old rhetoric
Persephone in SD writes: Tuesday, December, 18, 2007 1:48 PM
You said:
Men should have a greater voice in what happens to their child too,
----
I say, Yes if the woman decides to give birth, he must provide a financially, socially, and physically OK life, or he will be crastrated. Let’s put the blame where it belongs.

============

Willi Beax writes: Tuesday, December, 18, 2007 1:54 PM
You said
Same old pro-abortion rhetoric used to justify killing the babies.
---
Yes, in response to the same old stupid rhetoric used to make a woman endure what she doesn’t want to endure, for the next 20 years or so.

==========

I am not in favor of an abortion, unless the alternative is worse. I’ll take abortion over a starving, mistreated, or a not wanted baby any time, and the female involved is the only one who can make that decision. It is absolutely none of your business.

------
As usual, you forgot to answer one of my questions.

Perhaps you are one of those who watch TV news stories of starving babies and cheer, and say, "At least she didn't get an abortion!"

driveby,re: "Millions of deaths",
finally, a liberal agrees that SOMETHING dies during an abortion!

And Lilly, the scenario that you described is a direct result of LIBERAL policies-
I seriously doubt that the 13 year old teen mother would have had 8 children if there was not a paycheck in it for her, courtesy of the Dept. of Health and Human Services.

And lets guess which group took the shame out of illegitamacy??
Who advocates more for free sex, with anyone or anything?
The nightmarish landscape of todays sick and rotten "culture" is bequeathed to us, courtesy of liberals-

To Ken G
"A right of abortion is justified only if it is a totally harmless act."

This is your version of morality. What gives you the right to foist your version on me?

Jim, Is it just me,
or do these women know that pregnancy IS a preventable condition? I mean, regardless of how casually liberals treat it, it is not caught the same way as, say, the flu.Perhaps if they can curb their dog in heat desire long enough to use those much celebrated condom exercises that they all learned in school(Thanks to liberals again!), perhaps they might not need to make that "painful" decision to kill or not to kill..

Its so allegedly "painful" that most of these women are serial abortionees-

Impact of Roe
Drivebyposting writes:

"Well, if you are going to pretend to do math let's do some more pretending.

People have babies. Given the 35 years let's assume a birth rate of 1:1. That means 80 million not 40 million, of which many are kids of course. Oh wait, people die too but the average life span is approx. 70 years arguably some 90% of the 80 million would be alive given the average age of having a kid is under 40.

Then you have immigration policy. Immigration policy is hinged partly on the current pace in which the country can assimilate new immigrants. The impact on social services, etc.

Arguably, with less Americans born then immigration policy can be more liberal in allowing foreigners. And guess what, that is the case. In other words, we'd be around 300 million in population today either by direct replacement (babies) or indirect replacement (immigrants). The quota of immigrants is directly related to the maximum population perceived to be sustained by the infrastructure.

So where does that leave the math calculation? Just curious. Finally, have you checked the latest figures as to retirement age and average life span? Notice any trends?"

So you think I'm pretending. I just stated some economic facts and you haven't disputed them with your rhetoric.

Bottom line is why do we presently have only 3 workers for each retiree? This figure comes from the SS Administration.
The fact that people are living longer certainly does impact the amount of money in the fund. The fund is going to go broke in the not to distant future. As I said to Jim I sincerely hope you are not a baby boomer.

No one has that right

Blandernr1001 writes: Tuesday, December, 18, 2007 3:02 PM
To Ken G
"A right of abortion is justified only if it is a totally harmless act."

This is your version of morality. What gives you the right to foist your version on me?
===========

That is exactly the point. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the “… … right to foist your version on … … “ anyone.

the idiot at fault.
Persephone in SD writes: Tuesday, December, 18, 2007 3:17 PM
Jim, Is it just me,
or do these women know that pregnancy IS a preventable condition?

============

But here again you only talk about the lady involved, and not the slimy scum that caused the problem.

And don't tell me that most sex acts are not "pushed for' by the male, and you women haters don't even mention the idiot at fault.

Federal Law Prohibiting Abortions
I've an honest question about something I don't understand. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, I read many comments that the issue would go back to the various states to decide. I understand that would be the immediate consequence, but what would prevent Congress from passing some law or regulation that would prohibit abortions that would override any state statute? Right now that's prevented because it would be unconstitutional, but wouldn't that no longer be true if Roe v. Wade were overturned?

Higene, I know you did
not address me, however as a member of "the superfanaticalvastrightwingconspiracy" I would like to say yes, we do believe that God is the Author and Creator of ALL life. And life does begin at conception, whatever the names are that are used to describe the various changes that an unborn baby undergoes, it is still a BABY, a human being, not a chicken (re;that fraud Haekel)or anything else.
As far as getting over Roe.,I personally don't have anything to worry about, I never had an abortion and never would. My six children are all alive and well. I still grieve however for the millions sacrificed at the altar of convenience.

Re: To be or not to be?
"Do you believe that abortions began with Roe v. Wade?"

That isn't a question, merely a poorly conceived "Red Herring". A "FAIR" reading the commentary would show that the author never stated, or even alluded to such a stupid thing. Instead his point was consistently that Roe granted a diabolical "RIGHT" to murder one's unborn child to a woman.

"Do you believe that a woman has a "RIGHT" tpo murder her unborn child?

Now that is the question!

Impact of Roe
Jim writes:
No one has answered this question, “Are you one of those who watch TV news stories of starving babies and cheer, and say, "At least she didn't get an abortion!"

"As usual, you forgot to answer one of my questions".

Is that the question?

When my wife and I see these stories, we immediately send a contribution to one of the ministries who are feeding the starving children. Unfortunately being retired and on a fixed income limits the amount. Your asumption
"At least she didn't get an abortion!" never crosses our minds. When you see the same stories, do you contribute to help alleviate the suffering?
Thank you in advance if you do.

Jim, I find it most
amusing that I would be described as a "woman hater", I am in fact a woman. I'll blame both idiots if you want me to, however the choice of "to kill or not to kill" is ultimately the womans.

There are other alternatives besides women being "forced to live a life they don't want to live" by having to care for their unwanted progeny. Have you ever heard of adoption?
There are simply not enough babies for those who want to have children and cannot. And 9 months out of ones life is not that big of a deal in order to do a good thing. Its a win/win situation!

Will Beaux(?), Hurray for
your post! We sponsor a child in Thailand, there are some very good Christian Charities that do tremendous work all over the globe.

I can say when I interact daily with my grandchildren who I raise, thank God that their mother (who was a teen mother) didn't get an abortion! There is always a way to do the right thing. Liberals problem is simply that they don't trust God.

To: JayHub

Yes, Congress could pass a law which would be unconstitutional based on a) Congress having no authority to pass such a law (Congress can't pass anything it wants -- it must have the enumerated authority to do so. The broadest law is regulaiton of interstate commerce which has been used to regulate some pretty odd things). Or b) because the Supreme Court would have just ruled it is left to the states.

This is why the Republicans want an amendment to the Consitution which the Supreme Court would then have to support.


re: Persephone in SD writes:
"The nightmarish landscape of todays sick and rotten "culture" is bequeathed to us, courtesy of liberals-"

So you take 0 percent responsibility for what's happened in this culture and you attribute 0 percent of the culpability to conservatives? just liberals? Interesting. What is this super power that liberals have which makes them so overpowering of conservative population that the conservative population was rendered impotent? Just curious. Or is it perhaps that conservative kids are engaging in premarital sex as frequently as liberal kids because they are possessed by some liberal devil, eh? 99 percent of Americans today say they had sex before marriage. You going to blame that all on the liberals? Your own behavior?

Which would make you a victim, eh? A helpless, hapless victim.

Pathetic. You people are as gutless and irresponsible as the liberals you despise.

Why don't you take some responsibility. At least conservatives can say "we just stood by and let it happen."

You are almost as irrational as the guy claiming the worker to retiree ratio is soley the fault of abortion and not a wit related of the baby boom after WWII.

The logic and reason shown on this site are appalling.


Yo Persephone in SD
Thank you for your kind words. We too have sponsored children in third word countries. We have some great grandchildren who were born out of wedlock and we thank God that they were not aborted. It appears that some of the posters on this thread simply do not want to acknowledge the economic impact abortion is having on the Social Security dilemma. I'm not going to waste anymore time responding to their rhetoric.
An ole Korean War Vet

PS: I was president of my county's RTL chapter several years until age and health benched me. Enjoyed every minute of it.

Follow my advice
Willi Beax writes: Tuesday, December, 18, 2007 4:29 PM
have sponsored children in third word countries.

====

But wouldn't it be better to follow my advice and saturate all food given to anyone anywhere in the world, with a birth control agent.

If you can't afford to buy food, you can't afford to raise a baby.

Roger
As a liberal atheist I'd like to take some credit for the sorry culture we live in.

I have a 6 point plan I'd like to reveal. You may recognize some of these these, but I thought I would be explicit:

1. Require anyone who believes on God to no longer do so under penalty of contributing to PBS.

2. Force all persons to marry a homosexual.

3. Require abortions, but only in the third trimenter.

4. Make the US a Canadian provence.

5. Require Home Schoolers to teach French.

6. Require the consumption of yogurt containing "culture of death."


Jim, Moderate Mark
As I stated in my previous post, I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your rhetoric. I sincerely hope that you are not baby boomers.
Sayanara
An ole Korean War Vet

Yo Persephone in SD
Give me a hollar when you have a chance.

williebeaux@yahoo.com

Yo Persephone in SD
Willi Beax writes: Tuesday, December, 18, 2007 4:59 PM

Give me a hollar when you have a chance.

willibeaux@yahoo.com (corrected)
Sorry! Had a senior moment

Lilly
Abortion is currently legal. Your sob-story-of-the-day woman didn't have one. We have roe v wade. Yet you posit that this is why we need roe v wade.
Huh??

Yo Moderate Mark
You betcha by golly I will. With the Great's also.
Merry Christmas back to you and Happy New Year.

For Mitt and Huck and Y'all
"Isn't it amazing how self-pitying and self-aggrandizing the religious freaks in this country are? It's not enough that they can make straight-faced professions of "faith" at election times and impose their language on everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the currency. It's not enough that they can claim tax exemption and even subsidy for anything "faith-based." It's that when they are even slightly criticized for their absurd opinions, they can squeal as if being martyred and act as if they are truly being persecuted."

http://www.slate.com/id/2180159/

Beowulfe
I don't really know, but the subject woman who had her first baby at age 13, had eight kids by age 24, and last week killed one of them in a fit of rage, appeared to me to be poor. Certainly she was "known to social services"; she came through many foster homes and in more recent years has received counseling and supervision. So, on the basis of that information (which was in the paper), I am assuming that she may have been on Medicaid. Medicaid does not pay for abortions because Congress, pressured by such as you, ruled that Medicaid would not pay for abortions. If it did, chances are she would have had a few. Is this ideal? No, but I prefer it to seeing children abused and murdered by a crazed parent WHO DOES NOT WANT THE CHILD.

While we're on the subject of payment, another poster today has championed the rescue of tinier and tinier unborn babies. Please note that these heroic neonatal rescues are astronomically expensive. Few people can pay out-of-pocket a hospital bill of $1 million. You conservative folks don't want nationalized health insurance. You don't want taxes raised; if you had your way, we wouldn't even have taxes. So how do you propose paying for this care?

To SunThe
Please see my response to Beowulfe; same answer to you.

To John Acton
John writes:

"Do you believe that a woman has a "RIGHT" tpo murder her unborn child?

My take on it is that.....yes she does posess that right while it is in her body.

But that is just my take. Yours may be different. You may not like my take...I may not like yours but the point is we are never going to all agree on this. It is, in the end, a personal and even philisophical question. In my experience legislating an answer to something like that rarely if ever works (ie: Prohibition). Given that I say do what the forefathers intended....leave this decision up to the individual. Attempt to sway public opinion all you want but stay away from making coercive laws.

To Persephone in SD
Re "The trouble with liberals is that they don't trust God": I spoke with God about your post, and he said to ask you why you couldn't find a child closer to home to sponsor. Did Thailand sound more glamorous than Detroit or Los Angeles, or what? Or do you prefer to sit in a safe mostly-white small town or suburb, never soiling the tires of your car by driving into an American slum, and brag about sponsoring an abstract child who is located at a safe distance? Ralph Waldo Emerson said something like "Your charity afar is spite at home".

Lilly
I guess the answer to your subject woman would not be roe v wade then (since she didn't avail herself), but rather eugenics, or forced sterilization. I guess that would fit.

Why laws are needed
post by Blandernr1001: " Laws will not stop a certain portion of the population from seeking (abortions). This was true before Roe vs. Wade. It also true about drugs and other issues as well."

The fact that there are people who will break the law is not an argument to dispense with the law. The fact that the issue of abortion rights is polarizing is not a reason to simply throw up our hands and just allow the practice no matter what. There are some areas of conduct (remember slavery) of such profound moral consequence that they cannot be resolved simply by allowing choice. This is the case with abortion rights, and to simply allow the practice on the basis of mere choice is nothing other than moral license.

Roger
Thanks, appreciate the explanation.

Freedom of choice is not absolute
Blandernr1001

Post by KenG: “A right of abortion is justified only if it is a totally harmless act."

response by Blandernr1001: “This is your version of morality. What gives you the right to foist your version on me?”

So are you saying a right of abortion is justified whether it is harmless or not? If so, why not just come out and say it?

To Persephone
Have you actually known and worked with girls who get pregnant at 13 and every year thereafter? I have. They don't usually do it for the money. They don't think that far ahead. They do it because they are pressured by a boy to have sex, or because they feel sexual arousal, or because they want to get back at their mother, or because having a baby gives status in their community, or because they want to get one up on a friend who got pregnant, or because they want to give the baby as a gift to their mother, or because they want to get away from home, or because they want to re-attract a wandering boyfriend, etc. Overwhelmingly, they function on an emotional level. They don't calculate how much public assistance they will get, per child; many can't calculate and they aren't into anticipating and planning. I once knew a girl whose mother kept her very close; the girl was sent to the store for milk (she almost never got out alone) and managed to meet a guy there and get pregnant on the spot. Quite a feat. But she didn't get out of the house often so she had to take advantage of the opportunity.

Nobody asked my opinion, but I will give it anyway: I would like to see easily available long-term once-a-month (or at longer intervals, whatever works) contraceptive shots for girls who get pregnant at 13.


The right to life is inviolable
Blandernr1001

Question to Blandernr1001 from John Acton: "Do you believe that a woman has a "RIGHT" to murder her unborn child?

reply from Blandernr1001: “My take on it is that.....yes she does possess that right while it is in her body. … Attempt to sway public opinion all you want but stay away from making coercive laws.”

Apparently Blandernr1001 favors having a coercive law that infringes on the right to life of an unborn, but is against having a coercive law that infringes on a woman’s “right of abortion” while an unborn is in her body. I guess we’ll just have to rely on Blandernr1001 to inform us know which coercive laws are okay and which aren’t.

Ken G
Slavery is different. There no question that you are depriving someone of their life and liberty in that situation. And laws should be enforced.

The abortion question is much more murky. And you have the life and liberty of the baby carrier involved too (the woman). I give precidence to the living, breathing over the ball of cells in this case. For this reason, I think government should stay out of this one.

du, du, du
du writes: Tuesday, December, 18, 2007 1:25 PM
"people, people... our society fails to understand the women who can and would do something that desperate... Privacy is this consideration is because the PUBLIC can't know what's going on fully enough, nor deal with what is a personal problem over all, and over a long time...
Children are warehoused by the MILLIONS in this country who weren't aborted."
**************************************

I don't know where to start, your post is so full of misinformation. Let me start with the last point:

Please show the source of your statistics, which I believe to be made up about whole cloth. There are not MILLIONS of babies waiting to be adopted.

There are so few babies available for adoption in this country that people are going overseas to find them: mostly to China, but also to Africa (the fav place for stars to adopt). Infertile couples sometimes wait for years to find a child to adopt. There is an actual blackmarket of babies, they are so hard to come by.

Next, I would like you to explain why the Left insists on rubbing our nose in the sexuality of others- that is until it comes to this issue,and then they suddenly start whining "Privacy! Privacy!" Too late girls, you have already made it clear that you don't mind flashing your tatas at the camera on Spring Break. Now you want to hide while you do away with the child that resulted from your immoral behavior?

I don't think so!

And finally, the Left wants us to believe that women are just as strong as men- in fact, they want us to believe that a woman is tough enough to run this country. Why is it that they turn around and act like they are helpless delicate flowers who can't bear the presence of a tiny, helpless, innocent baby in their lives?

Excuse me, but do you offer an umbrella with your hogwash?

How Far Would You Go
Ken G: "There are some areas of conduct (remember slavery) of such profound moral consequence that they cannot be resolved simply by allowing choice."
_________________________
Yes, I agree on the principle, but it took 200 years of conflict ending only in the 1960's to end that dispute, with the bloody Civil War in the middle.

So, I'm interested. Assuming Roe v. Wade is overturned and the issue is returned to the states, would you see another civil war as perhaps necessary to protect unborn life? This time over pro-life or pro-choice? If not, why not? What would be the difference? Slaves weren't murdered often, they were too valuable. This from you point of view as I understand it is should actually be much worse than slavery, so the use of force to protect the innocent would be even more justified than it was in 1860.

lilly- I am perfectly content to go
back to the days when we took children away from trampy, "unfit" mothers, who behaved like alley cats and popped out more babies than they could afford to care for.

There are plenty of wonderful people waiting for a sweeth baby in their arms, who would be happy to adopt these children and rais them as their own.

Then these $1u+$ would have no excuse to snuff their own children, either in or out of the womb.

Stick to one story
posted by Blandernr1001: “The abortion question is much more murky. And you have the life and liberty of the baby carrier involved too (the woman). I give precedence to the living, breathing over the ball of cells in this case.”

Blandernr1001, you need to decide whether an unborn is a human life (which you conceded earlier when you said a woman has a right to murder an unborn child while it is in her body), or whether it is just a “ball of cells”. There’s a world a world difference between destroying a life and removing something akin to a tumor.

Moderate Mark
You wrote:
"A vast majority could be stopped with
contraceptive as you pointed out. But atlas, King George just believes in abstinence-only education."

Good grief!!! I am ever so surprised to learn that President Bush has outlawed contraception! Is there no end to the things that man has perpetrated????



Really, sir.

Oh, by the way...where exactly did you hear President Bush say that he was against birth control? Reference please.

This Christmas
How much are you anti-abortionists going to spend on single mothers who are American citizens this christmas? What kind of help are you going to agitate for them the rest of the year? Don't give no opinions unless you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. Money talks, and bullsh*t walks. Amen.

Besides
Anti-abortionists are actively attacking other people's religious beliefs which is discrimination and intolerance. How dare you tell other people that your's is the only 'acceptable' beliefs! You're full of dead bones.

To Mountain Rose
Mountain Rose, "1973, but if we were to outlaw it again, and cause Leftie Lesbies to go impale themselves on rusty coathangers (excuse me Roger, brand new wire hangers- where is Mommie Dearest when you need her?), and meet their Maker, then it will be worth the effort."

Want wonders are lesbians who really choose to have children. Don't blame the abortionist movement on lesbians or gays. Imagine what difficulties lesbians go through just to have children, should I name a few? I am gay male, who would have loved to have had children..........but,.........you fill-in the blanks.

Murky issue ....... I don't know?
Zena P, "How much are you anti-abortionists going to spend on single mothers who are American citizens this christmas? What kind of help are you going to agitate for them the rest of the year? Don't give no opinions unless you're willing to put your money where your mouth is. Money talks, and bullsh*t walks. Amen."

Does anyone know how many married couples are looking for children to adopt? I know a few that have had to go overseas to adopt.

Where is Solomon when you need him?

May I wish you all a Merry Christmas.

To Zena P
Zena P, "Anti-abortionists are actively attacking other people's religious beliefs which is discrimination and intolerance. How dare you tell other people that your's is the only 'acceptable' beliefs! You're full of dead bones."

If you want people on this board to start bringing up Bible quotes, just bring up the issue of gay males. They don't care about lesbians.

I will tell you all you about my sister. She became pregnant when she was a teenager by her abusive boyfriend when she was around 16. She had an abortion. My father was a doctor, whose best friend was a oby-gyn physican. Its all sort of an open family secret that no one talks about. Her abusive boyfriend died of liver cancer in his early 40s brought on by cirrhosis of the liver. My sister has gone on to become a school teacher with two lovely daughters.

Oops forgot to add this..........
My sister had her abortion, by a licensed doctor before Roe v Wade. Yep, licensed doctors were doing abortions before Roe v Wade.

Mountain Rose
The girl I wrote about, the one who got pregnant at 13 and had 8 children by age 24 and last week killed on of them in a fit of rage, was black. Her picture appeared in the story in the paper. Not too many people are waiting for "a sweet baby in their arms" when the baby is black. Another point is that in order for a baby to be adopted, its mother has first to relinquish her parental rights (and sometimes the birth father does too). In such cases two things often happen. 1) The mother lacks the maturity to relinquish parental rights and won't, and 2) when the birth father has to sign as well, his identity may not even be known, let alone his whereabouts.

When a nice suburban kid (of any race) makes a mistake and gets pregnant, that's hard enough to deal with. But this story was about the multiproblem mess that turns up in inner city cases (poverty, lack of education, lack of employment, lack of coping strategies, lack of common sense, mobility, poor nutrition, and often substance abuse) . Taking the girl away from her own mother might have been a moot point since the girl grew up largely in a series of foster homes anyway. I guess we could argue for taking babies away from mothers we just THINK are going to go bad, but that kind of baby-seizure would have to be legislated, and society won't stand for laws that go against its values, and the mother-child bond is a traditional value, very basic in our society. The social work profession will often go to hell and back to keep a kid with a birth mother no matter what, but please don't get me started on that subject as it's late and I need to go to bed at some point.

Life ain't simple.

SunThe1`
You are confusing apples and pears. Bush may very well believe in contraception since his wife has produced only once. But it's well-known that he promotes Abstinence Only education---a little googling will show you where Bush's funding goes. AO has given students absolutely false information about condom use (and about AIDS) and discourages all use of condoms. Teachers in an AO program are forbidden to given condom information even if a student is sexually active and specifically requests it.

Freedom of choice is not absolute
KenG to Blandernr: “So are you saying a right of abortion is justified whether it is harmless or not?"

ModerateMark to KenG: “Even if God came to Earth today with the 11 commandment "abortion is ok with me", it may not be a harmless procedure. It is a medical operation …”

ModerateMark, I am prepared to respond to you on the above only so long as I am convinced you intend to have a serious discussion with me about what I wrote. So here goes. I assumed when I wrote the above that everyone would understand what I meant when I said a right of abortion is only justified if it is a harmless act. You apparently took the word ‘harmless’ to mean there being no possibility of any harm being done whatsoever. Therefore, to clarify my remarks for you, I meant that the commission of the act of abortion is justified only if the act of destroying a pre-born can in no way be seen as doing harm to a human life, meaning the pre-born itself. In other words, unless there are compelling grounds beyond all reasonable doubt (sufficient to discount the entirety of the extensive scientific evidence that exists to the contrary) to conclude that a pre-born is not a human life, then the act of abortion lacks the requisite moral justification to be accorded legal standing as a right of choice. So my question to you is this: do you agree that the act of abortion must pass muster as being a harmless act with respect to what I have just written in order to be morally justified as a right of choice?

To drivebyposting
It won't be a railroad. It will be an airline. Nice little clinics will open up on Caribbean islands.

Aniko
"No male should enter the debate on abortion."

We better throw out Roe v. Wade. It was handed down by nine males in black robes.

To Steve
You mention brain-dead persons and 'car wreck vegetables'.
Let me ask you this: can the family member of such a 'vegetable' just walk into the hospital at any moment and pull the plug on the life support just because the continued existence of the victim is inconvenient?
I think you'll find that certain extensive medical and legal processes first have to be accomplished. And the point of these processes is not merely to establish that the victim has no consciousness NOW, but also that there is no real likelihood of the victim EVER having consciousness in the future.

The point is this: even in such a case, the victim is regarded as being worthy of extensive due process. Abortionists don't even regard an unborn baby as highly as they would a brain dead body dependent on life support.

To lilly
This woman had a total of eight children in twelve years between ages 13 and 24. I care not about her color -- would YOU think it responsible for YOU to have nine children on a similar income, similar circumstances?
Could YOU think of a way to avoid having nine children without resorting to abortion? Do YOU think this woman, even at age 13, had never heard of condoms or abstinence?

This woman was having two babies every three years. Do you HONESTLY believe they were all 'condom slips'? Perhaps they were ALL a result of contraceptive ineffectiveness?

We must have compassion on the erring, but also sound judgement. You and I both know that this woman, tragically, made her life into something unbearable by way of her own choices. And the simplest, cheapest, least potentially harmful means of prevention would NOT have involved abortion at all.

Lilly, one can try all sorts of means, fair and foul, to cushion people from their own errors without apportioning personal responsibility; but unless the people are taught *not to make the errors*, then it will be for nothing. As long as some nice nanny makes all the boo-boos go away with no accountability or repercussions, the person will just keep making ever greater mistakes until... well, some bad ending occurs.

Ending legal abortion
JayHub: “So, I'm interested. Assuming Roe v. Wade is overturned and the issue is returned to the states, would you see another civil war as perhaps necessary to protect unborn life? This time over pro-life or pro-choice? If not, why not? What would be the difference?”

I think it is more likely that if this issue is returned to the states that, over time, steadily increasing numbers of state will outlaw the practice until a sufficient number is reached to pass a constitutional amendment banning the practice nationwide.

JayHub: “Slaves weren't murdered often, they were too valuable. This from you point of view as I understand it is should actually be much worse than slavery, so the use of force to protect the innocent would be even more justified than it was in 1860.”

The initial aggression that took place in 1860 was by the Confederate forces that chose to keep the Union forces from bringing supplies to Fort Sumter, which was under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The War-Between-the-States expanded form there and culminated in the banning of slavery. The use of force in the case of protecting the unborn would only come into play (if required) to enforce an eventual constitutional amendment that prohibited the practice of abortion nationwide. At that point in time, it would be illegal for any state to sanction legislation that permitted the practice of abortion.



Lilly:talk about apples and pears
Of course your subject woman has really nothing to do with the abortion debate, because she would never have wanted or sought one. I suspect she would have refused one, and that she would forego free contraception as well. Her problem is a different one altogether. There's probably a psychiatric term for her.
The point: Roe v wade is not applicable to her in any sense, and as usual, you trotted out a non-example to make your case.

I accept that there are people who are rabidly in favor of free/legal/anytime abortion, just as there are people who are rabidly against it at any time or circumstance. I don't really care what your stance is, as long as you don't use ridiculous arguments to support it.

ElizabethBennet- You Go Girl!
ElizabethBennet writes: Wednesday, December, 19, 2007 12:03 AM

Aniko:
"No male should enter the debate on abortion."

ElizabethBennet:
We better throw out Roe v. Wade. It was handed down by nine males in black robes.
*********************************************

What Aniko forgets is that the Pro-Life movement is peopled primarily by women.

I guess the Leftie brainwashing propaganda machine missed a few.

More than a few.

is Lilly a liar or just misinformed?
lilly writes: Tuesday, December, 18, 2007 11:38 PM
Mountain Rose
"Not too many people are waiting for "a sweet baby in their arms" when the baby is black."
********************************************

What the h&1l are you talking about?!!!

People who want babies just want babies, and frequently adopt black children, regardless of their race.

In fact, the upset over this practice is coming out of the racist elements of the black community, who can't bear the idea of black children being raised by white families.

I spend a lot of time at the Zoo and see all kinds of mixed families every time I go there. Not only do I see many many many mixed race couples, I also often see parents with babies of a race not their own.

You need to wake up and discover that you are in the Twenty-First Century, and not in 1940s Alabama.

Foster homes are a Leftist invention
to prevent the authorities from taking children away permanantly and adopting them out.

In the old days, children were NOT put in these horrible places, but in new homes with new mommies and daddies, who were not there to collect money from the government.

When a child is adopted out, they no longer have to have contact with the creteans who were no better than sperm and egg donors. If a parent is lousy enough to have their children taken away from them, then the child is better off never seeing the parent again.

Lilly- Ennnnnt! Wrong again
"I guess we could argue for taking babies away from mothers we just THINK are going to go bad, but that kind of baby-seizure would have to be legislated, and society won't stand for laws that go against its values, and the mother-child bond is a traditional value, very basic in our society."
***********************************************

Permitting trampy 16-year-olds to keep their babies is NOT a traditional value.

It is a Leftist invention, because the Marxists were eager to create a welfare state, which began in the mid-Twentith Century.

The problems in the inner cities have been created out of this nightmare that began when the government started paying these little round-heeled doxies to pop out kids to multiple daddies without being married.

Before that, an unmarried girl who had a baby was pressured into giving it up for adoption.

Girls were taught to respect their bodies, to value having strong decent families, and to wait for marriage. Girls who did not were parias, and therefore it was an incentive to behave decently.

Black women got married more often than not, and though unwed mothers were more common than in the white community, it was not the epidemic that has been created out of the disease of Leftism.

The more that Leftist ideas are implemented, the worse things get. And then, just when we thing the useful idiots have learned their lesson, a brand new crop of little brainwashed fools like you come along to help propogate the lies even further.

To ModerateMark and Roger AAL's
Everytime I see your comments I find it extremely funny(in sad way)that both of you who claim so emphatically that you are self avowed atheist cannot ever refrain from mentioning God all the time. If you really don't believe in Him, then why even bother to bring Him up at all?

My point is that human life has been relegated down to us humans deciding who gets to live or die before even having a chance to breathe air by people that for the last 100 years or so have been having thrust down their throats that humans weren't created, but come from blob, monkeys, cows, molten rock, fish or whatever you evolutionist believe in your religious dogma. (YES I'm saying Evolution is a religion, not a Science.) Over the last century and especially so in this day and age as we see more and more young people caring less and less for the quality of life. We see this in the music they listen to, the more widely growing desire and laws being passed to accept perversions of all kinds, even some states and countries saying sex with animals is ok and sooner or later pedophilia will ok as well. This is in thanks in large part to you non-believer's, atheist at large.

Well, all the snarlers came out
after I left to pick my Grandchildren up from school-
Lilly, yes I have "worked" with 13 and up year old girls, rather closely I would say, I was in fact a teen mother at age 16 and had two babies by the time I was 17. When my mother informed me that SHE would not raise them for me, nor support me financially(meaning that I had to go to school or get a job), I learned that living on AFDC in a tiny apartment was definitely NOT the life I'd envisioned. So, I did the hardest thing, and believe me it is, I placed my son and daughter for adoption and they were adopted by a wonderful couple who are financially well-off, stable and loving. My kids are 30 and 31 now, and thank me for what I did for them.
Pt 2 My 23 year old daughter became pregnant when she was 15, and I have full custody of those children. And as far as your comment about "couldn't I find children closer to home to sponsor", I suppose you would sneer at the fact that my husband heads up a Ministry that houses, feeds, clothes and trains people in the service of Our Lord (current capacity at 401) merely nothing. There are 67 children in our facility. God Bless You and
Merry Christmas!

Mountain Rose, I couldn't have
said it better myself-
You ROCK girl!

And with that, I'm off to work-

Tony:


A lot of the left-wingers I know in Berkeley are actually very religious. Granted, they are in liberal churches. You should search how many churces there are in Berkeley, you might be suprised.

I think it is incorrect to blame the decline in civilization on atheists. Maybe you weren't doint that -- not sure. We're only a very small percentage of the population. If our influence is that strong I guess a few non-believers carry a lot of power.

Can you let me know which states say bestiality is okay? Or pedophilia? Do I need to point-out the trouble some priests have had with pedophilia?

Perhaps your post wasn't serious, not sure. If you're curious about atheism, I'm glad to discuss.

As for music, rap music is made by people who alwyas thank God and Jesus when they win awards. They certainly think they are religious!




To: Mountain Rose
"In the old days, children were NOT put in these horrible places, but in new homes with new mommies and daddies, who were not there to collect money from the government."

Here here! If you adopt twins in California you still get thousands from the state because they are considered "special needs!" I'd like that $$!

Mountain Rose
I live in Los Angeles. There are over half a million children living in foster care. And there have been ten children killed in the custody of foster parents in the last year.
At least in this city, there are more liberal adoptive rules. Single parents, gay men and women and cross racial adoption is possible here. Not so in other states.
Florida and Utah have the least liberal adoption policies, but Florida has over 60,000 children in institutions in that state.
My statement was about WAREHOUSING. when you add up an average of nearly 40 thousand in each state with no homes or parents, that adds up to millions in this entire country.
MOst adoptive parents have their own ideal BABIES they prefer, NOT children.
In WHAT old days are YOU talking about? Your off topic rant is just slamming the messenger.
Your idea of the sort of women who access abortions doesn't have any variance, and therein is why bias doesn't serve women OR their unborn. You seem to only see them as ONE kind of person with ONE kind of motive for an abortion. And that isn't the case.
And BTW, the same people who don't want abortion, also want to block and tend to get in the way of reliable and easily accessible BIRTH CONTROL.
And it is birth control that would eliminate the need for non therapeutic abortions, wouldn't it?



it's the sad world we live in...
Sadly, Mountain Rose, the truth is that there are children who aren't wanted or needed. You sound like a person that 'blames the Commies' for everything you don't agree with. Foster care a leftist invention?
Wow...
A twilight area so that parents can be reunited with their children is a PROBLEM for you?
Adoption ISN'T an option for many children because THEY AREN'T wanted.
You can ridicule what I say, but it's the truth.
And the majority of children left foster care over their entire lives are children of color. And a good many people in this country foolishly believe that gay men and women aren't capable of nurturing children competently and lovingly.
Same for an unmarried person who wants to adopt.
I'm sure you agree, but that's because perhaps you have the luxury of passing judgement on people you don't know.
My own personal background has made me especially sensitive to this issue. Whether it's on obtaining reliable birth control, or living with people who aren't your birth parents.
I'm a realist, not leftist or whatever name you come up with, when you can't argue on the merits of the topic.

second abortion, if ever, is the LAST
Mountain Rose writes: Wednesday, December, 19, 2007 9:08 AM

What Aniko forgets is that the Pro-Life movement is peopled primarily by women.
=========

I find that hard to believe, most of the time on TV, on Radio, and on the Internet, the ones doing the most and the loudest hollering are the males who are saying, “A man put that there, and don’t you dumb woman mess with it.”

You (I mean the general you) still never mention the idiot who is really responsible.

And I still say that an abortion is only permitted when the alternative is worse, and when the one asking for it is pregnant. The opinion of no one else matters.

A single woman who gets pregnant, and the stupid idiot who is really responsible for it, should both “pay” in some way. And the second abortion, if ever, must be the LAST where both are concerned.

Mountain Rose
"no, abortion did not begin in 1973, but if we were to outlaw it again, and cause Leftie Lesbies to go impale themselves on rusty coathangers (excuse me Roger, brand new wire hangers- where is Mommie Dearest when you need her?), and meet their Maker, then it will be worth the effort."

Why would you suggest a lesbian impale herself with a hanger? If she is truly gay, how would she get pregnant? (You did know that lesbians are gay women, right?)

Nice to see that you think women are of such value that you would like to see them dead just because they are not interested in being incubators.

You truly are a repugnant person.

Mary C.

du
You wrote "And it is birth control that would eliminate the need for non therapeutic abortions, wouldn't it?"
Apparently not, du. Sadly enough, in case you hadn't noticed, birth control is readily available (and no, most of us do NOT want to restrict it), and it doesn't seem to have had any reducing effect on the numbers of non-therapeutic abortion.

Matt Barber removed from Townhall?
I looked at Townhall and he no longer listed as columnist. I used an old link to get to his article.

A tumor does not a zygote make
posted by Higene: “The mass of cells that make up a recently conceived zygote is biologically indistinguishable from a rapidly growing tumor.”

Higene, if this is true, then why doesn't every tumor turn into a baby? The fact is there would be no humans apart from conception. Conception is an integral, inseparable part of a human life coming into existence. If not, tell me how it happens without conception. To say life does not begin at conception is to deny common sense. By the way, to assert this has nothing to do with religion. What virtually all religions teach us is that all human life is sacred from the moment each of us is conceived.

Higene v. Biology
Over the years, I've found that people attempting to defend abortion on logical grounds always -- without exception -- find themselves arguing against science at a level any college freshman should be able to understand.

Today's intellectually dishonest specimen ironically calls himself "Higene" (perhaps the misspelling foreshadows the technical misstatement.)

Here's Higene's version of science: "The mass of cells that make up a recently conceived zygote are biologically indistiguishable from a rapidly growing tumor."

Except that anybody observing the zygote and the tumor over time -- and not a great deal of time, really, a matter of a few hours -- will see that the tumor reproduces uniform cells, whereas the zygote begins developing an easily predictable set of specialized cells for particular body functions. By the time the zygote is even just a few days old, it's got virtually nothing in common with a tumor.

And what's worse, I'm pretty sure Higene already knows this, but can't bring himself to be honest, because -- "I mean, DAMN, what if the anti-abortionists are actually RIGHT about the science? Why... why... I might not be able to F**K just anybody I like anymore!"

Higene, please, find some integrity. Gestating human offspring have virtually nothing in common with tumors. Tumors are foreign, uninvited, abnormal, and damaging. Gestating humans are of the same species, invited, normal, and part of the ordinary functioning of the species. And you know it.

hi sunthe1
Sure, I know there is reliable birth control, but AVAILABILITY to the people who need it most, don't take it for granted it's all that accessible. From personal experience on another matter of birth control, I WAS OBSTRUCTED and the reason was inexcusable.
Now there are plenty of people around who think they have moral ground to obstruct access to birth control as much as abortificants or abortions, and don't care what your circumstances are.
And don't care how firm your decision.
Depending on the state, neighborhood and economic situation, it's not as easy as you think.
The poorest among us rely on our public money to fund their access to birth control as well as abortions, and guess who leads the charge on that.
This is why CLINICS should be left alone, because they provide FULL SERVICE when it comes to disease prevention and birth control as well as abortion information and treatment.

part two
Those pharmacists that stick their noses into what women want to access, will not do the same when it comes to men who come to pick up Viagra.

At least there is medical necessity for women to have birth control or abortificants (at least the reason WHY, is none of the pharmacist's business), and pregnancy can be life threatening to a female.
And such medications have OTHER uses for other conditions in women besides abortions.

Not being able to get it up, regardles of the abuse of Viagra out there, hardly qualifies as a necessity for men.
Gender politics, when it comes to medical care or intervention regarding pregnancy, has little moral ground to stand on when outrages like that happen with pharmacists.
Evidently, women aren't as important to our society as those in control of these laws would have us believe.
Whether it's for the vaccination against cervical cancer, or access to any and EVERY kind of birth control there is, there is always a fight.
The baby, once born, is still the sole dependent on it's mother and if not her, someone.
Therefore, this child cannot hold greater sway over the adult that conceived it or the adults around it.
And apparently, even those babies not yet conceived do too.


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.