South Dakota - Gone too far?

According to the polls… The majority of Americans are against the new laws against abortion, in South Dakota, in their own state.

When I heard that South Dakota was going to outlaw abortion I really didn't think I'd have a problem with it if the majority of their citizens wanted it.
When I heard abortion would ONLY be allowed in the case where a mother's life was on the line... Well, I don't think that is enough.
Incest and rape.
Why are these not good enough reasons for a woman (or a girl with adult counsel) to be allowed to have an abortion?

Abortion needs to be removed from Politics. Period.
It should be an issue that is between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God.

Here are the complete results of the poll.
It was no surprise to me to find out that Republicans are split on this issue.

Democrats were the only group that had a higher percentage of keeping abortion legal just for the reason of an unwanted pregnancy.
My guess is that most people see this as a form of 'birth control'.
IMO - Abortion should never be used as 'birth control'.

How many young girls say, 'If I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion.'
I had a 'friend' in High School who said 'that'. She also did 'that' 3 times in 2 years. She ended up having a son when she was 19 because she was told she may never be able to have children if she kept doing 'that'.
I will continue to try and talk women (usually young women) I know out of having an abortion while offering to adopt their baby.

Another concern is that a 'majority' of 51% is not enough to pass a law like this.

It will also be interesting to see if we have the largest migration seen, since the Gold Rush, in our Nation if laws like this pass throughout the Nation.
I can't wait until the Supreme Court gets their mitts on this one.


Posted by Dawn at March 8, 2006 10:30 AM
Comments
Comment #132098

Dawn,

When you said:

Abortion needs to be removed from Politics. Period. It should be an issue that is between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God.

I could not agree more.

Do a bunch of men (Congress, Legislature, etc.) think that they can actually tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body?

In theory, yes. In practical application, no.

The only time…the ONLY time a man has a say-so in the abortion debate is when he is about to unzip his pants.

If he zips his pants back up and goes home, he is against abortion.

If he unzips his pants and has a good time, he is for abortion.

What he doesn’t realize is that once he unzips his pants, he gives up all his rights. The right to decide whether or not the child will be born…the right to be an influential part of that child’s life…the right to keep a good portion of his paycheck for the next 18 years (more if the child goes to college).

Dawn, you are exactly right in excluding men in your description of the abortion debate…because no matter what we say or what we do (other than duct-taping a woman to a chair for 9 months), the final decision is up to “a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God”.
And a man…at that point…has absolutely no voice in the decision.

Remember, guys,

“zip your pants”…pro-life.
“unzip your pants”…pro-choice.

Posted by: Jim T at March 8, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #132101

Jim T,
I dont know of any anti abortion rallies where it’s the biological dad leading the protest. So your solution is not that helpful.

Me, I have no solution. Maybe it should outlawed for a while to see how it goes. Prohibition didn’t turn out like it’s supporters intended. I suspect this wouldn’t either - but we probably need to find that out.

Posted by: Schwamp at March 8, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #132103

zip your pants…pro-life
unzip your pants…pro-choice

That’s just silly. Try “take responsibility for your actions”-period

Men should have a voice in the decision. They are as instrumental in creating life as women. They are also held responsible for that life.

The thing people forget in their self centered arguments about abortion is that it isn’t a question of whether or not a woman has a right to decide what to do with her body. It’s a question of whether or not she has a right to kill another human being. This decision is often made because the child is inconvenient. That’s murder.

Posted by: steve at March 8, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #132106

steve,

“It’s a question of whether or not she has a right to kill another human being. This decision is often made because the child is inconvenient. That’s murder.”

This debate brings out the scientist in all of us.

Posted by: Rocky at March 8, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #132108

Well it is about time at last commen sense.
But the Alito is out of the bag and now we
will be forced to visit and reviset this
time and time again.

Dawn and Jim. The zip for Pro life should
have been the Slogan all along.

Now can some one tell me why some Republicans
are trying to Force a Designated State Religion
down Missouri Throats.
Seperation of Church and State?
Freedom of Religion?
Will Jews and Buddist and Atheist not
be allowed to live there. Or not have
rights if they do?
Is this not alot like Iraq?
your this you live there.
Your that you live over there.
If Missiouri becomes the Christian State
Does that mean every state must pick a religion?
To go with there flag and flower.

Isnt it time we keep our religion to our self
and our goverment working on Goverment issues.

Posted by: Honey P at March 8, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #132109

Abortion always should have been a state by state issue. Some states are more conservative and some states are more liberal on this matter. Then you live in a state that suits your choice. By the way, if the girl keeps her pants zipped there might not be many problems on this matter either. (Sorry - just couldn’t resist).

Posted by: JD at March 8, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #132111

It should be left up to the states and its people on whether abortion is legal there or not.
Cali has no business telling S. Dakota what to do and S. Dakota has no business telling Cali what to do.

“the final decision is up to “a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God”.
And a man…at that point…has absolutely no voice in the decision”

Amen Jim. The man has no voice or choice in the matter at all. Its only about the woman. Well, only about the woman until the man is forced to financially pay for the woman’s “choice.”

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #132112

Honey
I’m an atheist who lives in Missouri. Could you share how they are creating a state religion?

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #132113

found this on google about Missouri State Religion:
link to Missouri State Religion Bill

Posted by: reed at March 8, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #132114

Schwamp,

I dont know of any anti abortion rallies where it’s the biological dad leading the protest.


No…they’re hiding out, hoping not to get thrown in jail for non payment of child support…all because—-what?—-THEY DIDN’T ZIP THEIR PANTS AND GO HOME.


Steve,


zip your pants…pro-life
unzip your pants…pro-choice

That’s just silly. Try “take responsibility for your actions”-period


Yeah…taking responsibility is called “Zip your pants and go home” —-or—- “unzip your pants and accept that you are giving up all your parental rights forever…and most of your paycheck for the next 18 years.

Silly? Zipping your pants? Silly? No, it’s called “taking responsibility”.


Men should have a voice in the decision.

And there’s the stark difference between us.

There “should” be no world hunger.
But there is.

There “should” be world peace.
But there isn’t.

There “should” be a human colony on Mars.
But there’s not.

Men “should” have a voice in the decision.
But they don’t…and never will.

Posted by: Jim T at March 8, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #132118

KCTIM
2 Republicans have taken it to Jeffcity
and the Governor has said he will sign
the bill makeing Christianity the official
Missouri State Religion. How dumb is this
next we will have a Catholic State a Babtist
State a Jewish state on and on.

Posted by: Honey P at March 8, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #132119

Politicians and special interests groups know what is best for you. Stop trying to argue.

Posted by: dbpitt at March 8, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #132123

Thanks Reed
I was glad to see it was just a resolution. Resolutions state an opinion and are not legally binding.
If they tried to establish Christianity as the only legal religion in the state, and that passed, that would be a serious violation of the Constitution.

Honey, thank you too for bringing this to my attention. But I’m afraid you have jumped the gun some. Its just a resolution by a religious person and won’t go anywhere.
Although the Constitution doesn’t mention anything about “seperation of church and state,” it is very clear about the “establishment” of a religion.
One lone persons opinion has done nothing to change this great state.

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #132124

Dawn,

please add Mississippi to the discussion, which is working on a ban as well, though with the rape and incest exception. And let’s not forget the other states which are contemplating outright bans.

I don’t believe you can remove abortion from politics because there are too many people committed to making it illegal. This SD law was nothing but political, written to put it in perfect opposition to Roe.

Incrementalism favored the GOP (attacking Roe one little step at a time), so I am sure party leaders are quite worried about this. Leaders such as Ken Mehlman can no longer play both sides of the abortion fence(his RNC co-chair, JoAnn Davidson, is pro-choice).

I think Republicans will find it impossible to convince those pro-choice people (Rep, Ind or Dem) who voted with them in 2004 (and possibly 2000) that the main party platform wasn’t all about overturning Roe.

The GOP made this bed. They have positioned Democrats as baby killers for the last two decades.

The GOP cannot suddenly say “oops - when we put banning abortion on the party platform, we just meant it as a strategy to make sure you voted against Democrats;, we did not want anyone to actually try to ban abortion”.

It’s laughable. Having just made the biggest political blunder under this administration’s tenure, many Republicans now want to remove the abortion debate from the political arena.

No chance.

Posted by: CPAdams at March 8, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #132127

I fought a dead beat dad for 18 years
My son was concieved in the marrage bed.
Zip your pants and go home is the only
answer that makes sence. When it comes to
the matter of who is going to step up and take care of a child.
The female is to Often left
holding the Major portion of the responsability.
Would I have turned to abortion no way. But
in talking with my now 21 year old son.
He states this. My Father was never a father.
When I decide to have kids I will be there
for them. He also goes on to state to many
of his friends play the love card for sex.
Then turn away from Responsability. He
knows of only one female who got a abortion
that was due to health issues. He no longer
speaks to the one time friend who abandoned
her. That is the Kind of morals that will
reduce Abortions. The rest is Politics.

Posted by: Honey P at March 8, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #132128

I wish the Supremes do ban abortion again. Since the South has the highest single mothers ratio anywhere, it would be funny to see the consequences of this law.

Posted by: Aldous at March 8, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #132129

The answer once & for all is money. We have a multi-billion dollar business who lobbys politicians to keep their doors open. I agree that a women has a right to make decisions about her own body, but she does not have the right to make decisions for somebody else…the child she has conceived. It has become a convenient method of birth control. Wake up & smell the coffee! Try birth control, try keeping your legs together and finally accept some personal responsibility. The woman is NOT the victim unless she has been raped or abused.

We are outraged when someone kills a pregnant woman (i.e. Lacy Peterson), yet there is very little outrage about a pregnant woman killing her pregnancy/baby.

Let’s face it - I.A.A.T.M.S. It’s All About The Money Stupid!!

Posted by: Cathy at March 8, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #132132

In all this silliness, who is standing up for the rights of the child? All I hear from pro-choice advocates is the constant “rights of the woman”. But they never suggest a solution regarding the rights of that unborn child.
Unborn—-I guess that’s the key here, to them. But it’s not rational.

A seed, planted in the ground, begins to grow underneath the earth. Eventually it sprouts through the top of the earth and becomes a flower or a tree. But it was LIVING while it was still under the earth, just waiting to enter our view. Same applies to a child. The child may be inside it’s mothers womb and physically out of our sight, but it is still a LIVING and growing being and will, if left be, sprout from the earth and become a boy or girl.

How about the argument presented that the fetus cannot survive on its’ own? The seed cannot either. It needs nutrients and water from Mother Earth in order to eventually sprout. Even after becoming a flower or tree, it is still dependent on it’s Mother for survival. Try cutting a tree down at its’ base and see how long the top portion “lives” without being attached to Mother Earth. It won’t. It too will die.
There is no rational or logical argument for commitmitting murder. Abortion, whether you like it or not, is murder. It is the killing of a living being. Nuff said.

Posted by: tilthen at March 8, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #132134

Honey,

about one quarter to one third of this country believes that abortion should be absolutely, unconditionally illegal. This group has consistently voted Republican since the outlawing of abortion was made part of the RNC platform.

How could this issue ever stop being political without Republicans first removing it from their party platform?

Posted by: CPAdams at March 8, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #132137

Jim T.
You sound as if the woman has no say in the matter. SHE also has the CHOICE to say NO. Once THEY create a life then THEY have given up THEIR rights. Just because I find Jim T. inconvenient to my lifestyle, I don’t have CHOICE to kill him. Once a life is created, it is no longer simply the woman’s body, she has another LIFE to consider. And don’t tell me it’s not a LIFE until some unspecified later date. If you feel that way, I say…PROVE IT.

As for the man having no role. The liberal “emasculated” male you dream of does not exist in real life. I was involved every step of the way when my wife was pregnant with my son. She did all the hard work, there is no doubt, but I was not just a distant spectator. The courts seem to agree. They have ruled that men are responsible for supporting women they impregnate, and the children they bear. If a man kills a pregnant woman in many states he is charged with TWO counts of murder, one for the woman and one for the baby. BTW, have you been to any “Fetus Showers” lately? Thought not.

Men & Women + Once you CHOOSE to have sex, you give up your CHOICE to “party on” without the “burden” of a child. It may not sound fun, but that is the way GOD or even Nature for all you Pagans, designed it.

As for South Dakota, the Constitution is SILENT on abortion, only because the Founding Fathers could not imagine we would ever be capable of such barbarism. When the Constitution is silent on a subject, it is left to the states to decide for themselves. South Dakota simply ignored penumbras and shadows, and followed the Constitution.

Posted by: David C. at March 8, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #132145

That’s just silly. Try “take responsibility for your actions”-period


RIGHT ON STEVE!

I’ve caught hell for saying this before and I know I’ll catch hell for it again.
Once a women gets pregnant she gives up control over that part of her body. She has a human life inside her that has just as much right to live as she does. Killing that life is just plain murder.
If a woman doesnt want children she ought to try keeping her legs together.
I also agree that men should keep their zippers up if they don’t want babies.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 8, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #132147

I’m sure nobody will agree, but if you leave religion out of the question, then the issue is changed a little bit.

A mass of cells that does not have a brain, that does not have nerves, that cannot think or feel pain, is just a mass of cells. It has the potential to become a baby, to become a viable human life, but it may or may not.

When this mass of cells has developed human characteristics, that is the time under law to start recognizing it as a human and to provide it with more protections.

Keep your religious rantings and mischaracterizations to yourself. Your religion is for you, not for forcing your viewpoint on those that don’t share that belief. I am free to have different beliefs and live my life accordingly.

A reasonable law will be forced to examine when a mass of cells develops human characteristics.

Finally, all the talk of responsibility is simply a red herring. As much as we’d like other people to behave in certain ways, whether through or responsibility or otherwise, it is not the place of the government to act as our parent or nanny.

Laws are created to protect society or people from negatives. People, once they achieve the status of a person, inherit a lot of rights. The real issues is when does a foetus develop far enough to acquire rights of it’s own.

Posted by: Vegetable at March 8, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #132149

David C.,

Yes, the woman in this situation does have a choice. And after sex, she gets another choice (abortion or keep the child). And after that decision…she gets another choice (Involve the dad or not). And then she gets another choice (spend the money to track down the deadbeat dad or go on welfare or work).

What I’m stating is that the ONLY time a MAN really has a choice is when it’s time to have…or not have…sex. After that point in time, his opinions, his desires, his thoughts…all become completely and totally superflous.

That’s why I agree so strongly with Dawn. The abortion debate should not include men or their opinions…laws, bylaws or Constitutional Amendments. This debate is solely “…between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God.”

Posted by: Jim T at March 8, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #132150

tilthen,

I heard an interesting argument recently and I’m curious what your response would be. If a clinic were on fire and you had to choose between saving a petri dish with 10 fertilized eggs, ten young, unborn children in your example, or saving a 2 year old child, which would you choose?

The thing that I find amazingly hypocritical about the conservatives position on abortion is the exceptions they put in. Someone who thinks that “all” abortions should be outlawed, regardless of circumstances, is at least consistent. I may not agree, but at least they are consistent. But there are so many that put in these exceptions. Let’s outlaw abortion except when the mothers life is in danger, or except in a case of rape or incest. So if aborting a baby is murder, it’s ok to murder the unborn baby to save the mothers life? it’s ok to take a life to save a life? I just find it so amazingly hypocritical. Come on, if you believe that that glob of cells is a little baby playing pattycake with it’s placenta, than stand up for what you believe. Get a back bone.

Now, I realize that a lot of these spineless republicans add in these exceptions because of pressure from the left. Why is that? Because they will never get an outright ban on abortion through. A majority of the public wouldn’t accept that. Why? Because a majority of the public isn’t as anti-abortion as the right would have us believe. Yes, they are against abortion, they’d like to see alternatives, but they’re not so opposed to it that they would accept a complete ban, despite how the small percentage of hard core christian conservatives have vilified it over the years.

As for me, I agree with other remarks in this post. It should be between the woman, the man, family, doctor, priest, etc…, but ultimately it’s got to be the woman’s decision. I think society would be far better off to educate people, educate about contraception, educate about sex, educate about alternatives to abortion, than to have a bunch of young girls dieing of blood loss through self-administered abortions.

Posted by: Grant at March 8, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #132151

For all those who believe that abortion is murder, I pose a hypothetical question: You are
standing in a fertility clinic when a fire breaks
out. Also there, is a two year old child and a
petri dish containing five fertilized eggs. You
have only enough time to save either the two
year old child or the petri dish containing five
“human beings.” Which do you save? The one
human being or the five human beings?
Another question. If you so believe that a
fertilized egg is a human being, why aren’t you
also advocating the outlawing of the pill,
which basically just prevents a fertilized egg
from attaching itself to the uterus?

Posted by: psjohn at March 8, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #132155

vegetable,

‘A mass of cells that does not have a brain, that does not have nerves, that cannot think or feel pain, is just a mass of cells. It has the potential to become a baby, to become a viable human life, but it may or may not.’

Isn’t that a view as to how life as we know it began?

Posted by: dawn at March 8, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #132157


Grant
You’re off base boy. First of all, I’d do everything possible to save all I could.
Secondly, I did not list any exceptions. You should strive to read and understand better. Abortion is murder, regardless of circumstances. There are no exceptions.

Why is it you can’t see? Because you are blind to reality? NO. Because you choose not to!

Posted by: tilthen at March 8, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #132158

“Keep your religious rantings and mischaracterizations to yourself”

Not all people against abortion are religious. The left making religion the issue is nothing but their attempt to derail the fact that abortion is the killing of another lifeform.

“Your religion is for you, not for forcing your viewpoint on those that don’t share that belief. I am free to have different beliefs and live my life accordingly”

Do you believe in social programs that help the poor or whatever? Do you believe it is fair to tax people in order to fund those programs?
If I don’t give a rats ass about poor people, but you believe I should still be taxed to support them, are you not forcing your viewpoint onto others?
Should I not be free to have different beliefs than you and live my life accordingly?
You want to be left alone, well so do I.

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #132161
First of all, I’d do everything possible to save all I could.

Way to avoid my question.

The rest of my statement wasn’t directed just for you, it was for the right in general. I never said you specifically allowed any exceptions. Perhaps I should have clarified that. My appologies.

My points still stand though.

Posted by: Grant at March 8, 2006 1:49 PM
Comment #132169

Dawn:

“It should be an issue that is between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God.”

I agree. Nobody in government should have anything to say about it. This is the liberal, Democratic point of view.

I’m glad to see your eyes opening up to this Republican fraud. I hope one of these days you will be writing for the Democratic column.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at March 8, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #132170

To diehard Pro Life people
Try some science look up what per cent
of a females normal cycles pass fertilized eggs.

Posted by: Honey P at March 8, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #132171

Dawn,

I agree with you, but I don’t think God has anything to do with it, since i doubt there is one.

V. Edward

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 8, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #132172

The fetus is not “part” of a woman’s body. It is a separate and distict life that depends on the mother to bilogically survive. This fact does not change upon birth. A baby still needs their mother to care for them and feed them. However, the law says it is okay to kill before the due date and not after. It makes no logical or spiritual sense.

Posted by: Paul at March 8, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #132174

To the Men (and everyone else,

I keep reading prejudicial & hateful posts and it occurs to me that everyone is missing the point. ALL life is sacred…perhaps you would feel differently if your wife/girlfriend/one-night stand became pregnant with YOUR child…YOUR child. It is no longer a hypothetical argument, but an unborn child that pulls at your heartstrings. Take it from someone who knows…you (man or woman) will think about the baby you aborted the rest of your lives. It rips your heart out…

QUESTION: Why is it that when a baby is an inconvience, it is just a mass of cells - but when the baby is wanted, it is a baby from conception?

Posted by: Cathy at March 8, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #132175

Whatever your opinions of abortion are this South Dakota law is a gift to the Pro-choice side. As I understand it, this law is increadably extreme. I predict the Supreme Court will Unanimously strike it down.

What do you think all the people who voted for Bush because he would appoint judges who would ban abortion will do when they see that republicans just use pro-life to get people to vote for them regardless of whatever they do to the nation?

Posted by: montanademocrat at March 8, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #132176

Dear V. Edward,

If you meet me and forget me, you lose nothing. But if you meet Jesus and forget Him, you lose everything.

What if at the end of this life, you discover the God is very real. It’s too late when you’re dead.

Whether you know Him or not isn’t the question, because He knows & loves you today as much as He did when you were born.

I was a baby born out-of-wedlock and everyday, I thank God and my parents that they chose Life. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to talk to all you fine people.

Posted by: cathy at March 8, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #132177

What is the penalty for a woman who has an abortion?

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #132178

What is the penalty for a woman who has an abortion?

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #132180

phx8,

That’s the interesting thing, it sounds as if the only penalty regards the doctor that performs the abortion, it doesn’t sound like there is a penalty for the woman. If getting an abortion is murder, then shouldn’t the woman be penalized as well? If she causes her own abortion, should she be tried as a murderer?

Posted by: Grant at March 8, 2006 2:45 PM
Comment #132183

What I find amusing is that South Dakota rated Abortion as a Class 5 Felony. This is far different from a Class 1 Felony which is murder.

If the Repugs believed a fetus is a baby, then the penalty should equivalent to that of murdering a baby, instead of double-parking.

Posted by: Aldous at March 8, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #132185

Vegetable,
I can’t say I disagree with your screen name. As for the “inviolate mass of tissue cells” that aren’t life but could become life at a later date, WHEN does that happen? I would like to know exactly what day during the pregnancy that occurs. If we don’t know for sure, then the answer COULD be DAY ONE. When in doubt, let’s err on the side of life. It’s quite easy not to get pregnant, and killing babies just so people can keep screwing seems beneath us, don’t you think?

Posted by: David C. at March 8, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #132186

I believe abortion is wrong, but:

1)Exceptions should be made in cases of rape, incest, and health of the mother;

2)We should do our best to get public sympathy behind our position in the process of outlawing it, and

3)We should not compromise the important constitutional right to medical privacy in order to outlaw it. Such would create the precedent for forced abortions and sterilization.

All that said, in a nation where the outlawing of abortion does not seriously seem to be in the cards, we should try non-coercive methods to promote a decline in abortion. We should encourage putting up unwanted children for adoption, and on the other end of things, encourage the adoption of children by parents. Christians would be well advised to do this, if they oppose abortion.

We should practice more forgiveness of those put into difficult positions by pregnancy. Not that we should celebrate it. It’s clearly not the best course of action, most of the time. We just shouldn’t get in the way of a person redeeming the situation. We should learn to swallow what anger we may feel, and arrange for the child to be raised amongst their family, or adopted when the time comes, and not burden the people involved with our wrath.

Additionally, I want to address something else here that I believe: I think abortion and other religious conservative pet peeves have superceded much of what one could consider religious values in politics today.

Some Religious conservatives today call out the name of Jesus while they legislate laws that better suit the attitudes of Ayn Rand. They worship the market, and look the other way as their allies in the private sector lie, cheat, steal, and even kill with their policies. The disconnect is one reason why your average American views political religion with considerable skepticism. A unwavering belief in God is not synonymous with an unwavering belief in the justice of the free market.

I can’t help but feel that the God, Guns, and Gays formula has done more to undermine real masculinity, sensible gun ownership, and Christian behavior and thought than it’s done to preserve it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2006 3:19 PM
Comment #132188

Jim T,
We do not get to choose to kill people Jim. That is one of the agreements we have as a society. I can’t choose to kill you, and vice versa. Killing babies is no different. Killing is not a choice. If it were then anyone could kill anyone for any reason. Or no reason. You can see this practice in action right now. Just check out the Sudan. A very nice Muslim country in Africa. I’m suprised more liberals don’t vacation there, since you have so much in common with them.

Posted by: David C at March 8, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #132191

David,

We do not get to choose to kill people Jim.

We kill people all the time. Left, right, democrats, republicans. We all rationalize unnaturally ending life in one way or another. Whether it’s the death penalty, war, disconnecting life support, feeding tubes, etc…, and oh yes, conservatives terminate life support, feeding tubes, etc… when the situation presents itself.

In Utah, an unborn baby survived the stabbing death of it’s mother. Delivered premature and addicted to drugs, conservative utah was more than ready to let the baby die.

We all choose to kill people.

Posted by: Grant at March 8, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #132192

I am so glad someone brought up this topic of discussion. These are my opinions.

I have always believed that one should be philosophically consistent. If one is pro-life, one should be against the death penalty. If one is pro-choice, one should be for the death penalty. These should be “across the board” positions with no exceptions. Life is sacred, period.

Here in Texas, we seem to want it both ways—anti-abortion and very pro-death penalty. (This is similar to our position on public education. We want smart citizens, but we don’t want to fund education. But that’s for another discussion…) We must strive to be more consistent.

I believe that a man’s ability to have a say in the birth of his biological child is temporarily given up during the pregnancy simply because he is incapable of giving birth. If he wishes to have children, he must choose his partner carefully. Once she’s pregnant, it’s out of his hands, literally.

We should extend this philosophy through our statutes as well. Pregnancy is such a uniquely female experience. Here’s my extremely radical idea—I would like to see abortion laws addressed only by female citizens and female politicians. This topic is uniquely theirs.

If there is a conflict between the parents, the father has every right to fight for the child once it is born. During the pregnancy, he must provide for the mother or step aside. He cannot dictate the terms of the pregnancy and not provide for the mother. That is unbelievably inconsistent, and it’s disrespectful to the mother.

To me, it is remarkably disrespectful to dictate to a pregnant woman what she can and cannot do regarding this incredibly special time in her life. She needs care. She’s already in a perpetual state of concern, especially if it’s her first pregnancy. If she doesn’t want the baby, facilitate the baby’s adoption as well as care for the mother during the pregnancy.

Please don’t tell a pregnant woman it’s against the law to have an abortion and then also not take care of either her or the baby. If we turn someone out completely and give her no options other than “give birth and raise it yourself,” we run the risk of finding babies in plastic bags in dumpsters or having children grow up in such deprived, neglectful environments that they will probably perpetuate criminal, abusive behavior. Our prisons are already overcrowded.

Statistically speaking, I agree with the author of Freakonomics regarding his position that the increase in abortions during the 70’s resulted in the decrease of crime in the 90’s. To me it makes a lot of sense.

I strongly believe that, if one is pro-life, one should be willing to adopt a child, or at least volunteer at an adoption clinic or orphanage. I see no problem with someone standing outside an abortion clinic asking nicely if he/she may adopt the baby and pay for the mother’s prenatal care and childbirth.

I think it’s remarkably un-Christian and undignified to shout at pregnant women and show them graphic, disgusting, very large posters of aborted fetuses. God loved us so much that he gave us Jesus—the personification of God’s love. He didn’t send us a warrior or an unhinged sociopath. Yes, carrying large posters of aborted fetuses is sociopathic.

I am all for rethinking the adoption laws of this country and for putting tons of financial resources toward the care, education, and rearing of our children. However, that’s the super expensive way of handling this situation. Abortion is much less expensive—and therefore should be the choice of philosophically consistent fiscal conservatives.

Posted by: JW at March 8, 2006 3:37 PM
Comment #132197

The whole anti-abortion ballyhoo from the religious right goes back to the Old Testament belief of the superiority of men over women.

Keep women subservient to men…women should have no voice in the decision-making process, etc. It is sexist, demeaning and denigrating…period.

If men were able to get pregnant there would be absolutely no debate over abortion whatsoever…none.

As far as the Founding Fathers, and their stance on abortion…someone posted the they didn’t address this issue because they couldn’t comprehend our barbarism…abortion has been performed since the dawn of mankind. It wasn’t spoken of openly, but it was happening. It wasn’t spoken of in the Bible, but it ws practiced then too. This isn’t some new phenomenon that has recently reared its ugly head.

Posted by: DyedintheWoolDem at March 8, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #132200

It is consistent for a person to believe in non-abortion law and for the death penalty for criminals. The death penalty should be applied as a penalty that fits the crime. A baby does not do crime and cannot speak for itself. Therefore life should be the baby’s only option. There should be a change in law to make it more affordable for parents to adopt those babies that are unwanted. I have two boys that are half-brothers. They were not babies when we had them enter our family. But, the whole idea of foster care was for future adoption. That we did five years after coming into our family. I believe there are many, many parents who would adopt if the cost was affordable. By promoting abortion we become judge and jury to one who cannot protect itself.

Parting shot. Remove tax support for PP.

Posted by: tomh at March 8, 2006 4:12 PM
Comment #132201

Grant,
Because some other person or entity chose to kill someone for whatever reason does not mean that “I” or “we” are all culpable, and that it is suddenly ok. There is also a difference between an innocent baby or adult and a condemned murderer. Me, I’m ok with the death penalty, but I’d be ok with life without the possibility of parole as well. It’s actually less expensive on the taxpayers and more difficult for the condemned in my opinion. Do not use the failings of others as a justification for killing, or we will all descend to a society without any respect for life. And always remember, that life could be yours, or your child’s.

BTW, thanks for referring to babies as babies. The abortion mill industry seems to be afraid of that word for some reason.

Posted by: David C. at March 8, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #132202

If a mother (or couple) has a child that they cant afford and dont want, I wonder what the chances are that the child will become a burden on society?

I think we all have an idea of what the honest answer is.

And what do we say about someone brutally victimized by this burden? I guess we say tough luck.

Posted by: Schwamp at March 8, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #132204

phx8: “What is the penalty for a woman who has an abortion?”

You want that answer so bad ya had to ask it twice, eh? hehe j/k

Umm, I have an answer to this- it probably partly depends on whether or not she has a conscience. It’s like when a person commits a crime (murder, burglary, rape, whatever) and doesn’t get “caught”, either they forget about it and go on with their life without a care, or they are consumed by what they did and are punished by their conscience for the rest of their life.

My biggest problem with the GOP is their stance on abortion. But for the most part, I agree with the other issues they stand behind. Moreso than the Dems, which is why I tend to lean toward the right.

I can’t say as I’m sure one way or the other on abortion. I say that I’m “Pro-Choice” because that’s the closest I can get to “for or against”.

I had my oldest son when I was 18 (I was married, so don’t go there). During my pregnancy, my husband and I split up. 2 months after our son was born, and our divorce was underway, I got stupid drunk and got pregnant again by a guy that I’d dated before I was married. This guy was a total loser and had I not been young, drunk and stupid, I never would have “spread em” to him. But…I did, and I got pregnant. All I could think of was that I was going to be a single 19 yr old with an 11 yr old and a newborn. I was afraid of what kind of life I would be able to give them being I was just a baby myself. Well, I had an abortion. Am I proud of that decision? Hell no! I was young, naive and I made a huge mistake! What is my punishment for ending the life of my child? I have had to live with it every single day of my life since then. Maybe that’s not enough for some of you, but trust me, it’s not like “getting off scott free” either.

I later got married again, and got pregnant with twins. They died in utero, and I had to deliver my son and daughter knowing they were dead. Sometimes I think THAT was my punishment, but knowing God as I do, I know that he wouldn’t end 2 lives to punish me for ending one.

Having said that, I also feel that there ARE times when maybe abortion is justified? (note-I said MAYBE, so retract those claws for a minute) I’ve also been raped-had I gotten pregnant as a result of that rape, would it have been “right” for me to abort that child? I don’t know. Luckily, I was on birth control and that didn’t happen. I still have to live with that for the rest of my life too.

There are so many people in this world that cannot have children of their own and would give their right (or left LOL) arm to be able to adopt a loving little baby to raise as their own. Should women of rape/incest deliver these babies and put them up for adoption rather than abort them? COULD they deliver them and then put them up for adoption? I don’t know.

What I DO believe is this…politics is the LAST thing that should be telling these women what to do about it.

As far as men not having any say? That’s bull-not ALL women feel that way! And not all of us single mothers live on child support either. My oldest son is now 13-his father now has 3 children by 3 women and he doesn’t pay what he’s court ordered to. Hell, he doesn’t pay ANYTHING. And when he’s thrown in jail, his wife pays the bail and gets him out so he can sit on his ass at home again. He doesn’t call his son on his birthday or send him emails just to say hi. He doesn’t give a shit about anyone besides himself and never has. Now tell me, does HE have the right to make a decision as to what should happen with the children he sires? I’m definitely glad I didn’t abort our son, but I can assure you this, what HE thought had NOTHING to do with my decision to keep my son and wouldn’t have had anything to do with it if I’d decided to abort him. There are a lot of men (and women) like him out there. It’s a sad but verifiable fact. But they give a bad rap to the ones that really DO give a shit, and that is another reason this abortion debate is undecided in my mind.

I don’t know what’s right, and no data that I’ve seen/heard yet has convinced me one way or the other. All I know is that I did it, I had an abortion, and I’ve regretted it wholeheartedly ever since. I know other girls that have done it and have no regrets what-so-ever. I don’t think that abortion should be used as a method of birth control-but when I did it myself, how can I fight against it? All the should-a, could-a, would-a’s in the world won’t convince me that I did right, OR wrong, but my conscience says something that I can’t turn away from, therefore I will NEVER be able to abortion is “right”…I can’t say that it’s “wrong” either, not 100% and not 100% of the time.

Posted by: Tanya at March 8, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #132205

Grant:

I think you need to revisit your thinking a little. You say that its not okay to take a life to save a life (ie abort a child in order to save the life of the mother). Its the logical equivalent of self-defense, though. If someone points a gun at me with intent to kill me, I can kill them first with no legal repercussions. It only makes sense.

In the event of rape and incest, too many people try to “set up” the argument. For instance, if I say there should be no exception to rape, then they say “Cruel and heartless man, how DARE you force a 13 year old child who was raped by her uncle have to have the baby!!” And if I say then, okay lets make an exception, then they say “Ah hah, so you have no true moral issue here”.

Painting an argument in such a way that there is no acceptable answer is a wonderful debate technique, but its not applicable in real life.

I prefer no abortions, but I do understand the mental trauma that can come from having to carry the product of rape or incest, so I would make exception there and of course in the case of danger to the health of the mother. The danger aspect would need to be specifically defined, as some doctors would suggest that a 10% elevation of blood pressure due to pregnancy could be claimed as “dangerous” to the mother (when in fact it would be absolutely normal).

The biggest difference is that a woman has a choice to not have sex (ie reproductive freedom), but has no choice in the case of rape or incest.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at March 8, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #132209

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.”
Exodus 21:22

The Bible never directly addresses the subject of abortion, but this comes about as close to the topic as possible. The translation of the word “miscarriage” has been consistent and unanimous among both Christian and Jewish scholars until 1995, when one Christian fundamentalist group re-interpreted the meaning of the word “miscarriage” in an attempt to make the Bible less pro-choice friendly.

Of course, the OT also views women, slaves, and cattle as property for all legal purposes, so we might want to seek moral direction elsewhere.

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #132210

Tanya,
I can understand why people would decide one way or another. Personally, I’m pro-choice.

JBOD,
What about a case like Downs Syndrome?

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #132211

“When this mass of cells has developed human characteristics, that is the time under law to start recognizing it as a human and to provide it with more protections.”

vegetable, until the 13th amendment that is what would have been said about me and my children. my wife would have been put in jail for being with a black man. religous leaders of the 19th century protested against slavery, so does that make slavery a religous issue? i do not think so. i would have protested against slavery myself but i was only 3/5 of a person and had no voice, no rights, and no protection under the law. it sounds just like that mass of cells you are talking about, that, by the way we all once were. us religous people call that mass a baby.

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 8, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #132213

lllplus2,
If I run into a building burning and have to choose between saving your child, or saving a petri dish with 5 viable blastulae, which should I choose?

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #132216

Grant
Having to choose who to save in an emergency and choosing to murder a baby is two different things.
I could ask the same thing with different people involved. If you had a choose to save that 2 year-old, your wife, or your parents, who would you save? The fact is neither are very likely situations.
However I would save the tow year-old. The reason being, there wouldn’t be any living unborn children in one for them murder mills. And the two year-old is most likely in jeopardy too.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 8, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #132217

Stephen Daugherty probably represents the American mainstream.

Stephen (if you don’t mind) says abortion is a bad thing, but should be legal with some restrictions.

I agree with that too. We should bypass both extremes (never & anytime).

Abortion issue been bad for America. Compromise in the political arena would be a good thing.

Posted by: Jack at March 8, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #132218

I’m wondering about something.
If the profit was taken out of murdering babies, and their liberal murder doctor buddies couldn’t get rich doing it. Would the liberals start screaming for this type of murder to be outlawed?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 8, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #132219

About the debate of abortion.
There will always be theft, murders, rapist, terrorist attacks,etc.
Alot of things that we wish would go away, and we put it out of our minds as much as possible, because there is not alot we can do about it.
But, by putting it out of our minds, doesnt make it go away. It is a cold hard fact, abortion is killing a life.
Whenever a law goes into effect to protect an innocent life, we should be thankful, not critizing. We can’t stop women from getting abortions, entirely, but the little by little steps to help the unborn boys and girls is always a good thing. I am a woman, and I love my freedoms in America, but stopping a life for convience of another should Never be acceptable, especially in America where we have life and liberty.

Posted by: cheryl at March 8, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #132220

Phx8:

JBOD, What about a case like Downs Syndrome? Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2006 04:40 PM

Don’t know all that much about Downs Syndrome kids, but they seem to live reasonably normal lives, but at a bit lower functioning level than most people. And from my understanding, they live happy lives full of love.

Having lost a child at 7 months in the womb due to severe malformity ( it was my wife’s womb, but my child nonetheless), I think I can speak from experience about this issue. My baby died before my wife and I had to make any kind of decision on abortion. As such, I can only guess what I’d have done, but the baby was not going to live with the defects she had. In that kind of case, I tend towards compassion for the parents in making the decision, similar to a parent considering pulling the plug on life support for a child.

I feel differently when the decision is made regarding a healthy baby.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 8, 2006 5:27 PM
Comment #132221

If I take the Athiest/Left (Extreme)point of view, the federal government will force everyone to accept that abortion is legal and a choice. If I take the Religious/Right (Extreme) point of view, the federal government will tell us that abortion is murder will force all of us to accept the consequences. Neither side reflects the majority of the public.

Looking at the breakdown of the population and their point of view, www.pollingreport.com, there fails to be an extreme view held by a large majority of our populace. More likely, the answer will be “it depends on the situation” based on the polls listed above.

With that said, I resent the federal government trying to tell me either way what to follow when it comes to abortion. I fall back to it being a “states rights” issue and let the local populace decide how they want it to be viewed and handled.

With regard to who is more responsible for the pregnancy, both parties are responsible. The man can zip it up and so can the woman. Both go into the act knowing that their lives will be come exponentially more complicated once they engage in sex and therefore, both should be adult enough to accept responsibility. It’s not the man’s fault nor the woman’s fault alone, both played so both should pay. We ask politicians to be accountable for their actions so why shouldn’t we be responsible for ours?

Posted by: SilentObserver? at March 8, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #132222

TomH,

Thanks for responding to my post.

I have to respectfully disagree with your position on the use of the death penalty as being philosophically consistent with keeping a pro-life position. “To kill is okay,” and “Not to kill is okay,” are opposite. I appreciate the circumstances are different (killing a criminal versus not killing an unborn baby), but I believe the sanctity of life supercedes all.

I would like the sanctity of life respected for all people—born or not. Feel free to put away criminals for the rest of their lives with no possibility for parole. That is a practical solution for death row inmates.

Pope Paul VI set an unbelievable example when he forgave his potential assassin—in person. Wow! I believe we can be strong enough to do the same. I hope I am, but I pray I never have to be.

Regarding the adoption of your children, way to go! That is fantastic. My wife and I have a three-year-old daughter (biological) and I assume my wife and I are capable of having more, but I’ve often wondered about adopting instead. It’s just my natural instinct to believe there is a child or two out there who could use a great home who is currently in a bad environment. I am in awe of parents who open their homes to foster and adopted children.

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.

Posted by: JW at March 8, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #132223

phx8,
first of all the issue is abortion. it is my understanding that fertalized eggs in a perti dish would constitute someone who wants to get pregnant and can’t. they may be even willing to adopt a baby but there aren’t many to adopt because so many unwanted pregnancies end up in abortion. like 1.3 million.

are you trying to ask when does life begin? if yes, from conception. if you are just making a hypothetical situation to avoid the the true issue, just as most pro-choice people do, ie what about rape, incest, and health of the mother when 97-99% of abortions are done for convenience, then your question is just a threadjack.

those 5 eggs in the dish are there because when inserted into the mother’s uterus all 5 might attach or none might attach. that is why there are so many. it is to make pregnancy more likely. to choose between a child and fertilized eggs that might or might not attach is a stupid question. anyone would choose the child. but isn’t the debate here about eggs that have been attached and then aborted?

if fertalized eggs don’t attach to the uterus, that is natural and it happens all the time, natural = not murder. purposefully preventing an attachment is not natural ie murder. nothing in nature rips out its own baby so as not to be burdened.

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 8, 2006 5:36 PM
Comment #132225

Ok so this argument has come down to two basic principles. Religion and government, am I right?
But if I’m not mistaken this country AND it’s government were founded under God. Since when are we justified to take a helpless life, simply because we (men AND women) cannot keep it in our pants? How about leading a monogamous lifestyle? Or using some form of birth control? I read something about if you are pro-life, then why not try to ban birth control? Ok, birth control does NOT prevent a fertilized egg from attaching. It either stops the sperm from fertilizing to begin with or it stops ovulation or both.

I am a 22 year old married mother of one, and I see girls my age all the time who have 3 or 4 or 5 kids simply because they can’t stop making bad decisions. So it is not always the man’s fault. And most of them are on welfare, depending on those who work for their living to support them and their kids. Why should everyone have to pay for your mistakes?

And what is the percentage of pregnancies from rape anyway? Anyone? Not very high considering the fact that most rapists are in fact rapists because they have a sexual aggression issues due to the fact that almost 60% of them have some kind of sexual dysfunction! (i.e. inability to finish)

So it is my opinion that “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union”…… should just quit whining and accept the consequences of our actions and raise our kids instead of them raising themselves and stop making excuses for why we are so incompetent!


Posted by: karen at March 8, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #132226

It is funny how the same people who are for the right to bear arms(gun lobbiest), and pro death penalty are ani-choice. But you do not see these same people waiting on line to adopt a child (especially one not of their own race. It seems they care more for the unborn than the born.
Furthermore, If a man doen’t want to be a daddy all he has to do is wear a condom, if he doesn’t he doesn’t get a choice. for it was already made by him.

Posted by: always for choice at March 8, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #132228

Its also funny how the same people who are for the killing of an innocent child are against the killing of a convicted murderer.
Its also funny how the same people who think abortion and who you marry is a personal choice and others fears and viewpoints should not matter. But yet they are more than willing to force their viewpoints onto others when it comes to gun ownership and taxes to support their pet programs that make them feel better.

Yes, its a funny world. Ha Ha

Posted by: kctim at March 8, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #132230

AlwaysforChoice,

The man actually has two choices. Yes, a condom is one. The other is not to have sex.

Let’s teach men that it’s okay not to have sex everytime they feel the urge.

Posted by: JW at March 8, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #132231

Tanya…al I have to say is (I removed part of this comment due to attacking Tanya personally. Not allowed. Please control yourself paul.)


next issue…I just want to say that we as humans must not kill. That means do not kill Downs Syndrome babies/fetus, do not kill murders (lock them up), do not kill in order to convenience your life due to your irresponsibility, do not kill the doctor who performs the abortion, do not kill a fetus because his father was a rapist (wasnt his fault), do not kill because you believe the fetus would grow up to be a murderer himself. Thou shall not kill is a pretty simple concept….live by it!!

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #132235

Paul,

Your comments toward Tanya were unbelievably harsh.

Please don’t come back to this forum until you can control your temper.

Thank you.

Posted by: JW at March 8, 2006 6:18 PM
Comment #132236

Condoms leak. Abstaining works very well. Funny thing about condoms. Consumer Reports had a report on condoms and Planned Parenthood condoms were effective only 13% of the time. That is a screamer!!! Give somebody a condom then get 8-9 out of ten to come in for an abortion. PP marketing has got it figured out!!.

Posted by: tomh at March 8, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #132239

To Paul:
First I agree with you about the abortion issue.
Second, I think you were very wrong about Tanya.

Posted by: cheryl at March 8, 2006 6:29 PM
Comment #132241

Dyeinthewooldem;
They practiced abortion in the Bible as a form of witchcraft, sacrificing their babies to gods.

Posted by: cheryl at March 8, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #132243

Paul: “Tanya…all I have to say is that you speak like an irresponsible trailer trash whore….truly vile.”

Considering you only know about me what I’ve chosen to share with you, I suppose I can understand where you would come to that conclusion; however, you don’t see me posting what I think of you for MAKING such a comment. All I have to say to you is that you have a lot more growing up to do mentally than I do if you can resort to such nastiness toward another human being.


Tanya - Sorry I didn’t see that sooner.
Dawn

Posted by: Tanya at March 8, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #132244

Here are some interesting facts for you to think about while you’re mulling over the pros and cons of abortion laws:

-the fetal heart starts beating at day 22, the beginning of the 4th week after conception. Some women don’t even know that they’re pregnant by then. The spinal cord and fetal brain are pretty much formed by the end of the 4th week, but continue to mature, grow, and develop; however, it is functioning albeit at an early stage of development. The baby is fully formed at 9 weeks (i.e.- the baby looks just like any baby that is born, only much smaller). (info from “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology” by Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud)

When do we define life? When do we define death? I think most people agree that death is defined by “brain death” which is usually a result of cardiac arrest (the heart stops). Yes, trauma is certainly another way. Could we define life in the same manner? You could make the arguement at least. If life begins at 4 weeks of gestation, wouldn’t it then be murder to intentionally terminate this life? Doesn’t the government have a responsibility to protect the lives of it’s citizens? These are all rhetorical questions of course, but they answer some of the comments posted previously.

Then again there’s the old debate of choice and accountability. There’s always a choice; there are always consequences as well that you cannot escape. There are consequences for both men and women and there should be. Trying to escape them by killing an innocent child is not the answer; taking responsibility for your actions is the answer. Yes, 9 months can be along time to carry a child. Yes, there is a lot of pain and discomfort and even embarrassment. There are also a lot of people on a waiting list somewhere that can’t have children and would love to adopt yours.

As far as rape and incest go, the morning after pill will prevent implantation or large doses of some other FDA approved hormone regimens. Why do you have to wait until weeks later to decide you don’t want a baby after being raped? Oral contraceptives don’t work the same way; they prevent ovulation.

To answer another comment posted: I would save the child from the burning building because fertilized eggs don’t feel any pain and they are not viable unless implanted in a uterus as has been previously mentioned.

Just some food for thought.


Posted by: Tyler at March 8, 2006 6:49 PM
Comment #132246

If the human race had not spent the last 2000 years swimming against the currents of religious ignorance, we might have made it ashore where education and knowledge might have enabled responsibility better than the previous, thus possibly eliminating the need for abortions.

It’s the cult of ignorance known as religion, stupid, as usual!

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at March 8, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #132249

I suppose I should mention that the Republicans are cutting funding for child support, education and healthcare for children of poor families?

Posted by: Aldous at March 8, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #132252

JBOD,
Years ago I taught High School, and one of the assignments was putting together a presentation on a controversial issue. The presentations done by the kids on abortion were usually excellent- and most of those presentations did not have life experience behind them.

Downs Syndrome is bad. A close relative of mine had to deal with it. I’ll just leave it at that.

Personally, I can respect opinions from all over the spectrum on abortion, but of one thing I’m sure: government has no business involving itself in such matters.

Posted by: phx8 at March 8, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #132253

Tanya,

You said, “All I have to say to you is that you have a lot more growing up to do mentally than I do if you can resort to such nastiness toward another human being.”

Tanya, my wife and I had a stillborn son on 10/25/05. He was completely healthy, other than the cord became knotted. The cord was the cause of his demise. I am “grown up mentally” because I know that life is to be respected and cherished. It is people like you who degrade the moral fiber of what it means to be human. Tanya, you killed your baby as a means of birth control!! That is the ultimate in selfish sin! You use liberal doctrine to keep your sanity when you say, “I will NEVER be able to say abortion is “right”…I can’t say that it’s “wrong” either..” You are the complete representation of the degregation of morals in our society. Please consider getting your tubes tied so no more children have to die.

Parting Shot: I would rather be a conservative than a liberal on judgement day.

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #132256

Phx8,

Government has the responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens. I believe that abortion is murder and that babies are citizens too. You obviously don’t feel that abortion is murder. I’d refer you to my previous post. I’m not trying to change your mind; only you can do that. I’m just trying to show you that if I’m right, then the government does have “business involving itself in such matters.”

Posted by: Tyler at March 8, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #132257

Aldous,

You do not kill someone because a social handout is not available. If people would take responsibility for their lives, there would not be a problem. Perhaps those “poor families” you mention should work hard to support their families.

If we use your logic, why don’t we just kill those people who are irresponsible and connot take care of their children, instead of aborting the babies they conceive. Sounds stupid, huh? Get a clue man.

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #132260

phx8,

Downs is no doubt bad and very difficult for families to deal with. However, most kids affected by by Down’s are healthy, and mostly happy. They are affected to different degrees, there are those actually achieve high enough funcitoning that they can live on their own and hold jobs.

When I was working at a Children’s Hospital, one of the doctors gave me something to read that talked about the positive affects that Down’s children can have on their parents, extended families, and the larger community. The basic premise was that they teach us how to love unconditionally all the time.

Now, there is a high correlation of Down’s with other much nastier diseases that are caused by similar genetic defects. Those that have those other diseases are truly suffering quite often, that may be the case with your relative’s child.

I’m with you on abortion, but I think Down’s is not the right example. I recently had my first child and my wife and I were faced with the question of whether we wanted to know if the baby was going to be faced with a serious genetic defect. We opted for the test and thankfully it was negative. But I have to say, had the diagnosis been Down’s we would have thought long and hard about the decision, but I think we would have gone forward anyway. Other more serious diseases, probably not.

In short, I’m with you on the argument, but not this data point. I too have had experience with Down’s (though not with a close relative); my experience was 180 degrees from yours. I found that they were great individuals full of humor and love, and a pleasure to be around. Trying and frustrating at times, but aren’t we all?

Posted by: Rob at March 8, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #132264

This is incredible…! I’ve sat here and read from beginning to the point where I was too pissed to not write something.
We have been laid on an exam table, feet placed in stirrups and and our most intimate places exposed to the (essentially) entire world !!! It doesn’t look to me like we’ve made much progress since biblical days…..hell, we’re still chattle….and are being talked about like we haven’t been let out of the back rooms yet.
phx8…you hit slightly on one point that most don’t even consider, and that is the health of the fetus. Science and medicine can now tell us at an extremely early date, if it is, or not healthy. I, too, had an abortion many years ago, for purely medical reasons, and it was a toss-up which of us, me, or the fetus, would be more physically affected. I refuse to share with you all why that was, because it isn’t any business of any of you. I did, however, discuss it at length with my husband and Dr. To this day, and some 25 years after the fact, I wonder………but I don’t beat myself up for our choice.
So, now for a change of pace, why don’t one of you guys out there who has had a vasectomy jump in here and give us all of the explicit details !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 8, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #132267

Sandra,

You make no sense

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #132268

Cathy,

I am not fan of abortion, I am however a fan of liberty and free will. I am glad as well that your mother, your parents choose life. As far as the end of life is concerned, I do not fear it, nor do I fear that at the end it will be the end as far as I know it. I have come to realize—and it has been a slow, agonized lurching—that God does not exist at least in the clothing in which we human have donned him. There will be no second coming, because there was not a first. I will concede that Jesus walked the earth, but that he was not the son of God.

I would love to believe the fantasy that is God, but I no longer feel the need to cling to it; I set the course of my life and I am responsible for it. If there ever was a God, he has long since deserted this blue marble; we are on our own…

V. Edward

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 8, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #132272

I am not fan of abortion, I am however a fan of liberty and free will. I am glad as well that your mother, your parents choose life. As far as the end of life is concerned, I do not fear it, nor do I fear that at the end it will be the end as far as I know it. I have come to realize⡮d it has been a slow, agonized lurching⴨at God does not exist at least in the clothing in which we human have donned him. There will be no second coming, because there was not a first. I will concede that Jesus walked the earth, but that he was not the son of God.

Posted by: chy at March 8, 2006 8:58 PM
Comment #132274

V. Edward,

God is not a fantasy. God is a reality taught through the personification of his spirit in Jesus Christ. It is simply a matter of whether you want to accept it. I am an Irish Catholic and people like you scoff at people like me who speak about faith. Faith is the belief in life and in what tomorrow will bring. Faith exists in a religious and secular form. In secular form, if you did not have faith that your life would continue tomorrw, it would negatively impact your life today. In religious form, if you do not have faith in what Jesus has taught us in his life that there is a promise of heaven for those who follow His Word, your life will be negatively impacted today. Your most recent post above illustrates this.

Answer me this…how was our world created? How were we created? Who created us? Who designed the bilogical systems to enable human reproduction? Please do not hand me the big bang mantra of confused atheists…give a me a thoughtful answer to these questions.

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 9:01 PM
Comment #132280

Paul,

Were there dinosaurs in the bible? I must have missed that book. Please explain.

reed

Posted by: reed at March 8, 2006 9:28 PM
Comment #132283


“Abortion always should have been a state by state issue. Some states are more conservative and some states are more liberal on this matter. Then you live in a state that suits your choice.”

“It should be left up to the states and its people on whether abortion is legal there or not.
Cali has no business telling S. Dakota what to do and S. Dakota has no business telling Cali what to do.”

amen.

do we really want to make this about privacy? if ROE gets struck down, it is actually possible that they might conclude that there is no constitutional right to privacy. (unlikely, but possible.) this issue should have been left to the states, and we may all pay for their activism. now, established precedent or not, the SCOTUS could (potentially);

1. strike down Roe based on the notion that this is a state issue (which it is)
2. strike down Roe based on the notion that abortions are unconstitutional (violating the rights of the fetus)
3. strike down Roe based on the notion that, as previously mentioned, there is no right to privacy.

i personally doubt that they will overturn Roe this time; regardless, this issue will return to haunt us. i say, let S. Dakota decide for S. Dakota. they have proposed a law that no one wants simply to bring this case to the SCOTUS, and they will not stop trying until Roe is overturned (for whatever reason).

legislating morality is all fine and well, so long as yours is the morality being legislated.

for the record, i am pro-choice. in this instance, i mean both in the case of abortions and in the case of the states’ right to decide this contentious issue.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 8, 2006 9:41 PM
Comment #132284

Actually, I have a political solution to this mess. Lets really smash the church state division and make it so only christians are banned from getting abortions and non-christians will get government subsidies for abortions.

Its a win-win situation for everybody. Nobody can complain with this compromise.

cheers!

Posted by: reed at March 8, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #132286

Reed,

First, to answer your question, no dinasaurs are in the Bible. Therefore, you could not have missed that book. What more explanation to your question do you need? Where did the dinosaurs come from?

Second, to address your “political solution” to abortion….I must say it was very Clintonesque in the sense that you are trying to appease everyone without respect to the law that murder is illegal. Where is Vince Foster?

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #132289

Very clever Reed. The problem of course, (with the whole debate) is that we are not truly arguing about the same thing. We recognize that at some point in the process of gestation the two cells that have joined together eventually become a human being. I think most people would agree that whenever that point is, that is the point at which an abortion is killing a human being. The problem is really this: on the one hand you have people who want to look at it ethically/scientifically and try to determine the start of human life (first heartbeat, first brainwave, ability to thrive, etc.) From this perspective we should be able to determine an acceptable point after which abortion should be banned and before which it is nobody’s business except the woman’s. But because the point-of-view uses only measurable criteria, it does not take account of the soul. If you are a religious person, you must ask at what point it is that the soul either comes into being or comes to inhabit the fetus. Many people seem to believe that this is the moment of conception. If you take that as a given, then arguments about states rights or women’s right to choose have no meaning whatsoever - abortion is murder.

Essentially, it is like arguing with an insanse person. No amount of logic or proof can possibly can change his mind as his version of reality is different. Before anyone takes offense, I am not equating religion with insanity. My point is that to the scientific mind an argument based on the soul might as well be insane and from the religous perspective an argument which doesn’t consider the soul is equally insane.

Posted by: adverbal at March 8, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #132290

Diogenes,

You said, “legislating morality is all fine and well, so long as yours is the morality being legislated” when speaking on abortion above. Well, I must inform you that abortion is not completely about morality. It is about illegal killing of human life. Your liberal bias allows your conscience to believe it is just a moral talking point the right is trying to advance. It is about protecting life and preventing murder that is illegal in EVERY State.

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #132291

If you leave abortion up to the states,rich women in red states will still be able to travel to get an abortion. Not so likely for poor women.

Posted by: Shelly at March 8, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #132292

Paul,

Its called sarcasm. By the way, contrary to popular belief a fetus isn’t a human being therefore it isn’t murder. I don’t see 800 women per year thrown in jail for having abortions in South Dakota. I also grew up and lived in South Dakota for 22+ years so I know the state pretty well.

My real point is that this abortion law is purely based in religion (Christianity) and not everyone prescribes to the bible in there daily life therefore why should the bible apply to all people regardless of their religious beliefs. If my memory serves me correctly, this country was founded on freedom of religion and not rule by christianity.

I am agnostic, I don’t believe in any organized religion because they are contradictory and in the words of Arthur C. Clarke from “Childhoods End”, they can’t all be right……can they?

BTW - You didn’t answer my question about dinosaurs.

Posted by: reed at March 8, 2006 10:13 PM
Comment #132293

Adverbal,

Life begins at conception, when a male sperm and female egg unite. It is no person’s right to kill this life. It really quite simple. Try to work on scaling back the liberal confusion you suffer from.

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #132294

Paul…how about cases of rape or incest? Is abortion ok in those instances?

Posted by: Shelly at March 8, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #132297

Dyeinthewooldem;
They practiced abortion in the Bible as a form of witchcraft, sacrificing their babies to gods.

Posted by: cheryl at March 8, 2006 06:34 PM

If you’d take the time to read the Bible that you want to talk about things being in, you’ll notice that it condemns witchcraft. It also condemns murder. Which is exactly what killing unborn babies is.

always for choice
There’s a difference between putting a murderer to death and murdering an unborn baby.
The murderer gave up his/her right to live when they committed the crime.
A baby hasn’t done anything to deserve being put to death.

I’m all for choice.
A woman can choose to have sex or choose not too.
If she chooses not to, the everything’s fine.
If she chooses to then she needs to make sure that either she or her partner uses some sort of birth control if she doesn’t want to get pregnant.
If she chooses that route then everything is fine.
If she chooses not to make sure of it and gets pregnant, then she looses any more choices.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 8, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #132298

when someone opens up and tells there life experiences dont slam a knife in there back. also you, if you had been reading tanya’s posts. sorry you put the wrong label on her, iv’e found her to be quite a very likible person and sincere and sensitive those are very good traits and if you are the expert on being a conservative i think that party is in big trouble. and you call yourself a christian and yet you casted the first stone was not jesus the forgiver of all? he forgave the men on the cross? also he forgave mary magdalene? i am not a christain because of my heritage but i belive jesus was real and payed the ultimate price for all. i thought it was the christian thing to forgive people not chastise them. i feel in my heart tanya is my friend

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 8, 2006 10:31 PM
Comment #132299

Reed,

Wow, where do I begin. I have an observation. You must have gone through public school, based on your grammer and sentence structure. Anyway, lets discuss the issues. First, Christians support the idea that abortion is murder. That does not mean anti-abortion is a Christian concept. When you voluntarily terminate life, you are commiting murder. A fetus is a life that has brain waves, heartbeat, hands, toes, and even experiences fear of the abortion needle as it moves away from it in the womb when the “doctor” in administering the crime.

Second, America was founded on Christian morals and beliefs by virtue of our founding fathers setting our country up as a Republic and NOT a Democracy. A Republic is based on the rule of law, similar to that of the Bible, as our founding fathers intended and overtly stated. A Democracy is a form of government that is ruled by a majority feeling of the people at the time. Bills become laws though the vote of those we elect to perform the job for us - this is a Republic. In a Democracy, the whole country would have to conduct elections on every bill before they would become law. Did your public school teacher educate you on these facts? Of course he/she did not.

Third, I did answer your question on your meaningless dinosaur question…read my post above.

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #132301

Is it still murder if the baby was conceived out of rape or incest? This is where most of the pro-life movement’s thinking really angers me. They purport to be all for saving innocent unborn life, except in cases of rape or incest. How is that concern for the unborn life? A child conceived in the back seat of a car is no more of a life than one conceived from a rape. It seems some of these people are really concerned about punishing women, carrying an unwanted baby being the punishment.
I have much more respect for people who wouldn’t allow abortion ever, except if the mother’s life was in danger. At least they are consistent.

Posted by: Shelly at March 8, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #132302

paul,

Execution was brought up.
Did you respond with your views? I’m too lazy to find the post.

Posted by: dawn at March 8, 2006 10:43 PM
Comment #132303

Paul, your personal digs at other visitors here violate our policy. Comply, or lose your privilege to participate here. This will be your only warning.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at March 8, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #132304

Paul,

I suppose you never made a mistake when you were a teenager? Have you never done something that you’ve regretted ever since? At least I admit to what I did and as I said, I have to live with it for the rest of my life.

As far as your comment on me getting my tubes tied, don’t worry, I’ve had a hysterectomy-not because I didn’t want more children, but because I had cancer and would have died if I hadn’t fought the disease! One of the reasons I did fight it was so that my sons don’t have to grow up without their mother. I suppose that makes me bad too?

I could care less what you think of me. It’s obvious through your words that you are completely calloused, not to mention unforgiving, which, by the way, isn’t exactly Christian behavior.

Rant away, call me whatever you want. Like I said, I was young, naive and I made a mistake. The only one I have to answer to is God and I am ready to face him when my judgement day comes. But I certainly don’t think that it’s up to you to tell me what I should or shouldn’t have done, and it’s most definitely not something that politics should interfere with either-that much I DO know.

Posted by: Tanya at March 8, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #132305

Reed,
A fetus isn’t a human being? Can you prove that? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to prove it or disprove it. Trees don’t have brains or hearts and liberals want to protect them and kill babies. That makes sense.

Posted by: David C. at March 8, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #132306

Dawn

Please don’t apologize! With all of the words that are posted on these threads each day I’m sure it’s impossible to keep up. And in any case, it’s hardly your doing. One thing I have learned to do in my life is to exhibit self control and to not let the words of others shatter my pride.

Thank you for your concern, and for removing his words from his post.

Tanya

Posted by: Tanya at March 8, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #132308

Paul,

And you must have been home schooled by your complete ignorance of American History. Now that we have the rudeness out of the way, lets get on to the discussion.

Abortion is a religious subject matter. We don’t live in a Christian country. We live in a secular country which our founding fathers whom were mostly atheists, put in the prevision of separation of church and state.

What the hell is wrong with Roe vs. Wade anyway. Its about choice. If you are christian and don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. Its very simple. Even your home schooled educated mind should be able to grasp that concept. Sorry, being rude again.

If Roe vs. Wade is overturned and the Federal Government outlaws abortion, which means that the states cannot lawfully conduct abortions, then the separation of church and state will be broken and the church will now have say in political decisions.

Since you are obviously christian than you must also be a gun toting redneck so you have empathy for those who don’t want the separation of church and state to be broken in the least bit. You know, kind of like the NRA with gun control.

Anyway, you did answer my question about dinosaurs but your argument is lacking. Not much of a discussion though. I was hoping for the old argument that dinosaur bones were put on this earth to confuse us or something equally as asinine.

Was my grammar more to your liking this time?

BTW - did they teach you rudeness in your private christian school?

Posted by: reed at March 8, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #132309

I still apologize.
Comments like those are not allowed.
I did enjoy the others coming to your ‘rescue’.
Dawn :)

BTW- I do agree that a truly Christian person would not speak to someone in that manner.

Posted by: dawn at March 8, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #132310

Moderater, my apologies to Paul. I was being rude in response to his post and it was unbecoming of me.

Posted by: reed at March 8, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #132311

Jim T,
You said: “This debate is solely “…between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God.”
I am wondering, where does the baby figure into all this? Does the baby have rights? If we all got together and decided to kill Jim T, wouldn’t you like to have a say? Believe me, when you are old and inconvenient, you do not want to live in a society that kills the powerless because they are inconvenient. That is where we are headed though.

Posted by: David C. at March 8, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #132312

Paul,

My post was simply stating that I don’t believe that this is a case of arguing right versus wrong - this is two sides that truly view reality in different ways.

To save you the trouble of having to scroll up, I wrote

If you are a religious person, you must ask at what point it is that the soul either comes into being or comes to inhabit the fetus. Many people seem to believe that this is the moment of conception. If you take that as a given, then arguments about state’s rights or women’s right to choose have no meaning whatsoever - abortion is murder.”

How is that different from what you wrote? (actually I do regret using the phrase “seem to believe” as it seems to be generally accepted among devout Christians, but I have read some who argue that there is nothing in scripture which defines conception as the start of life - I’ll leave that to others to debate).

What is it that I wrote that caused you to insult me? What makes you think I’m a liberal?

Posted by: adverbal at March 8, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #132313

my kids watch animal planet. they see a predator raid a birds nest and aborts all the eggs in the nest. they are outraged and upset that a snake or crow or whatever would harm those baby birds that haven’t even had a chance to hatch. their view point is not from religion. it’s funny the kids, all kids, see the truth that we as adults have grown to stupid to see or “choose” not to see. Jesus Christ has saved ever member of my household but we knew abortion was wrong before we knew Jesus.

Oh yeah, why does a wild animal have more rights than an unborn human? what is the penalty for destroying bald eagle eggs? the bible mentioned dragons, we call them dinosaurs.

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 8, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #132314

Shelly,

In cases of rape or incest, it is a tough situation. To answer your question, let me tell you that I believe all life is enabled and blessed by God. In such vile cases, I do not believe a fetus itself is evil. The fetus has life and will grow to be born into this world. No one has the right to take the life of a helpless human being, even in cases of rape and incest. If we applied the logic you crypticly invoke, Jesus would have been aborted and would have never walked on this earth because Mary was pregnant without a husband. This was equivalent to rape during that time.

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #132315

“i thought it was the christian thing to forgive people not chastise them. i feel in my heart tanya is my friend”
Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 8, 2006 10:31 PM

Thank you Rodney-I appreciate your kind words. While I don’t expect everyone here to agree with me, or my views, I think they’re just as deserving to be here as anyone else’s. I’m sorry that I misjudged you in the beginning (I know I said that before, but I felt it beared repeating) and I’m glad you were willing to give me another chance.

I’m not worried, we will all have to answer for the things we’ve done in this life, and I’m ready to do that. I have repented and feel I’ve been forgiven.

I’m still not sure where I stand on the issue, its complicated to me- not so cut and dry as some make it seem, but I respect that others are either for, or against it. I’m actually learning a few things from others on here as far as why they feel the way they do, which is why I’m here in the first place, to learn about the issues.

I have my pride, and nothing anyone says can take that away from me.

Thank you again for your kindness, and to the rest of you as well. =)

Tanya

Posted by: Tanya at March 8, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #132316

Paul,

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that your posts are parodies. I couldn’t appreciate the subtlety of you humor until you took a dig at Reed about his grammar and then misspelled the word (and some others). And the satirical references to this being a Christian nation…Well done! You should send your work to The Onion!

Posted by: adverbal at March 8, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #132317

Reed, your ignorance is astounding. If Roe v. Wade is overturned it will not make abortion illegal in the US. It will simply mean that each state will make it’s own decision on the matter. Some will allow it, some won’t, exactly the way the Founding Fathers planned it.

Also dude, your hatred of Christians is not hurting them. I’ve posted several comments on this thread and have yet to mention religion. This isn’t a religious issue, it’s a rights issue. In the US we guarantee the right to LIFE, liberty and the PURSUIT (not the guarantee of happiness mind you) of happiness. There is no age limit on that pledge, and babies have rights just like you and I.

Good luck with the anger though, that stuff will kill you if you don’t deal with it.

Posted by: David C. at March 8, 2006 11:05 PM
Comment #132320

Reed,

You are tiring me. I attended Catholic school all my life…not home school. I am anything but a “redneck”, as you suggested. Ever hear of Notre Dame? It is proof that a Catholic education is superior to public school education. Look at the grades and income levels of both classes.

Anyway, with all due respect, you are comletely uninformed on true American history. Our complete formation as a country is modeled after the Bible and Judeao Christian principles and values. I suggest you do some internet searches to gain some insight into this. In your reasearch, you will see direct quotes from our founding fathersm supporting my statements to you. Good luck in your research.

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #132321

David C.

I have no hatred of christians, I just think they are stepping over there bounds on many issues. Why is that hatred? They are the dominating religion in this country and you cannot seriously believe that overturning abortion is not a religious issue. You need to pay more attention.

As far as Roe vs. Wade goes, I not sure if you are right on that. Before 1972, abortions were illegal. Correct me if I am wrong but was there a law in place in all 50 states that banned abortion. I don’t think so. Why in 1973, with Roe vs. Wade, did it now make it legal to get an abortion in all 50 states. Sounds suspiciously like a federal law to me.

Again, correct me if I am wrong.

BTW - I am certainly not pro-abortion. I also think abstinence is fantasy. Therefore, I think contraception is the best answer. I would never ever recommend abortion but I also believe that it should be a choice, hence pro-choice.


Posted by: reed at March 8, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #132322

Paul,
I have no idea what you just wrote. Do you believe abortion is okay in cases of rape or incest? Can you answer without invoke Jesus?

Posted by: shelly at March 8, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #132323

Paul,

You need to get your ego in check buddy. You are tiring me as well. Good luck with whatever it is you do.

Posted by: reed at March 8, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #132324

Tanya
If the asshole won’t pay child support then be glad he doesn’t try to do anything with your son. He’d most likely teach him to be a good for nothing asshole too. At least you have a chance to teach the boy to be responsible and if divorced to pay child support.
We’ve all made mistakes in our lives, and we’ve all paid for those mistakes one way or another. I’m not going to tell you you were right, but it’s over and done. I see no need for you to beat yourself up anymore over it.
Your right about one thing for sure. There are a lot of folks that can’t have children that would love to take one these precious little bundles of joy home with them.
My wife and I had three of our own and thought she couldn’t have anymore. But we still wanted more kids so we adopted a little girl. We have never regretted doing it. She is just as precious to us as the others. And has been nothing but a very loving daughter and sister. We eventually had another girl but that doesn’t diminish the joy we’ve had raising our adopted daughter. It also doesn’t diminish the joy we had raising my baby sister either.
We’re even looking into adopting another child. This time one around 12 or 13. Don’t really know if it’s going to happen though. There’s some question about our ages.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 8, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #132325

Adverbal,

That was funny and a good observation on your part. My spelling and grammar is a little off because it is a little late where I am. I really could tell Reed was public school educated based on his opinions and not his grammar. Our public schools are the worst in the world and it shows.

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #132326

Paul,

BTW - I graduated from South Dakota State. They have top-rated engineering, agriculture and Wildlife programs. Yes, it is a Public University and a very good one.

Posted by: reed at March 8, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #132327

Shelly,

I guess you do not understand my former post that clearly answered your question to me. I guess you were public school educated too. My answer is a clear and concise, No, abortion is wrong whether it is used as birth control for preganncies resulting from rape, incest, night on the town, or (as Tanya put it) “spred’em for the wrong guy. Understand now?

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #132328

Paul,
Fist I’m pro-life too.
Second if I said what I was thinking right now I’d be kicked off here, and it’s not worth that so I won’t.
All I’m going to say is your wrong to attack someone like you did.
Sure Tyana has made few mistakes. But who hasn’t?Have you been perfect all your life? If so, then cast the stones. If not, try to show a little compassion for those that are also human.
BTW, The only perfect person to walk the face of this earth was crucified.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 8, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #132329

I am proud of you, Reed….impressive

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #132330

Ron,

I was crucified on 10/25/05 when my wife and went to the hospital to deliver our son, only to find out he was stillborn. I held my son’s lifeless body and wept uncontrollably as our priest administered prayer over his body. I then buried my son 3 days later and have suffered ever since. Fortunatley, my wife and I are now expecting twins. She is 12 weeks pregnant. Based on my Catholic beliefs and experience last year, I have no respect for those who defy the gift of life given to us by God. I would have given my own life to save my son’s.

Posted by: paul at March 8, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #132332

Isn’t the feminist movement all but irrelevant nowdays? It’s time to overturn roe v wade.

Posted by: andy at March 8, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #132333

Paul,

from reading the posts I respect both Tanya and yourself. You were blessed to recieve the guidance in you’re life that not everyone gets. Have some understanding.

Posted by: andy at March 9, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #132334

I’m truly very sorry about you loss. As a parent myself I can’t even stand to think of losing one of my kids.
I can’t say I know exactly how you feel, but I can deeply sympathize with you.
You say your Catholic. I’m Baptist so I’ve been taught about Christ too. Didn’t he forgive the thief on the cross? Didn’t he ask his father in Heaven to forgive those that were murdering him?
I’m sure you were taught about forgiveness in church.
I’m not say that those that commit crime should get off scott free. I’m just saying that if Christ can forgive sinners, why can’t we?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 9, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #132335

Paul, you wrote:”I was crucified on 10/25/05 when my wife and went to the hospital to deliver our son, only to find out he was stillborn. I held my son’s lifeless body and wept uncontrollably as our priest administered prayer over his body. I then buried my son 3 days later and have suffered ever since.”

My heart goes out to you and your wife.

If you’d read the entirety of what I wrote, you would have seen that I, too, have delivered still born-twins. I also held my lifeless Kyle and Kelsee, wept, and had to bury them.

Even I am capable of pain and have experienced loss, as horrible as I may be in the eyes of the likes of you.

Posted by: Tanya at March 9, 2006 12:02 AM
Comment #132338

Dawn,

I got lost in all the comments, so I went back and read your original post.

I don’t think we will have a migration. I think the women who can afford to travel will go to those states where abortions can be safely and legally performed and then they will go home.

The women who can’t afford to travel will have to make some very hard decisions using very few resources. Statistically, I don’t think the outcomes will be good for the mothers or their children, except in a few cases. I think those states will have an increase in crime, healthcare and welfare expenses, and will somehow have to come to terms with those economic pressures.

Good political leaders, like good generals, need to look over their shoulders and see where their troops are going so they can get out in front. In this case, if abortion laws will radically change, we need to prepare other laws to accept the surge in lower class populations. A quickly expanding lower class population will definitely be the inevitable result.

I was glad to see you discuss adoption with the women you counsel and that you are interested in adopting. I think we need to work very very hard to improve adoption procedures.

I am seriously considering making it the rest of my life’s work to improve adoption procedures in the U.S. It is a topic with which I am completely unfamiliar, but if our country is going to reverse current abortion laws, there should be a rise in the number of unwanted pregnancies carried to term. Therefore, we should have a greater number of children available for adoption. From what I know, the current adoption procedure in the U.S. is unbelievably difficult, expensive and time consuming.

By the way, I was the product of two very young people who were not married and had a summer fling. They did the right thing and eloped, but the marriage only legally lasted until I was about 13. It was really over when I was about eight. I was born a few years before Roe v Wade.

As I stated in one of my earlier comments, I feel like my position is sort of an odd, third position. I believe in the sanctity of life, so I would rather there not be abortion or the death penalty. But specifically in the case of abortion, I really don’t feel I can chime in, as I am male. I am completely unqualified to address the unique experiences of pregnant women. Therefore, as I offered earlier, I’d like to see all pregnancy issues be addressed only by women voters and women politicians.

My wife was an amazing pregnant woman. And she loved being pregnant. But we were older, settled, very married, and economically okay. If we had more money, I think we’d have more kids. As of this date, we have one three-year-old daughter. (If there is such a thing as reincarnation, I want to come back as my daughter! She has a pretty great life.)

Abortion was something I never had to address as a young person. I guess I just understood the ramifications of teenage sex (as I was a living ramification), so I either played it safe or didn’t play.

I am a big believer in self control. I don’t see much in the way of our dominant culture letting our young people know it’s okay not to have sex. The message seems to be that sex is totally out of their control. They must give into every urge. I get it that there is a huge genetic component to promoting procreation. But I really believe we were given the faculties to control our desires until we can truly provide for ourselves and our children.

Perhaps that’s naive.

Posted by: JW at March 9, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #132339

Where would you be right-now if your mother aborted you?

Posted by: angry white man at March 9, 2006 12:38 AM
Comment #132341

Angry,

Not here, I guess.

Posted by: JW at March 9, 2006 12:44 AM
Comment #132343

From what I understand of South Dakota’s law, it is at least consistent. It presumes that life begins at, or soon after, conception. Therefore, unless the mother’s life is at stake, the fetus may not be aborted legally. If the mother’s life were at stake, one could argue the taking of the fetus’s life is self-defense.

From a legal perspective, the fact that a conception might have occurred during rape and/or incest does not mean that the fetus is no longer “life” — introducing such exceptions introduces a highly subjective factor into the law. Do we really want women to have to prove they were raped ? How? How long might a case take?

Having said all of this, however, I also don’t know how we can force a woman to take the pregnancy to term. If the fetus is “alive”, couldn’t it be argued that the mother can request the fetus be surgically removed (via c-section) from her womb at any time during the pregnancy?

What then? Does this violate the hippocratic oath? Just how expensive would the care be? What degree of suffering is the fetus likely to endure?

Look. Abortion sickens me — but the consequences of imposing a ban on abortion may be worse. It seems to me that we need to take the proper actions up front:

— educate kids about the consequences of sex (if parents would do an adequate job on this, there would be no issue having public schools give a “refresher”)

— take a more pragmatic approach to the argument about just when human life begins (consider the “morning-after” pill)

I think virtually everyone, with rare exception, believes abortion is an awful thing — very few are truly “pro-abortion”; rather, they are more likely to want to have access to this option if they should find themselves pregnant under particular circumstances (which may be rape for some; incest for others; teenage pregnancy for others; or whoops-I-did-it-again for others).

These are morally challenging scenarios — with the excpetion (based on a majority standard) of the last one. But, for those in that last camp, those with little restraint and a non-existent sense of responsibility, I don’t know how to keep them from causing pain and destruction for themselves and those in their wake. Will a ban on abortion stop them?

Posted by: gomer at March 9, 2006 12:51 AM
Comment #132344

Ron,

I just wanted to say thank you, and to let you know that I think it is wonderful that you and your wife adopt children! I find it especially commendable that you do it when you’re capable of having your own-so many people can’t or won’t. Those of you that can and do are a truly blessed gift and from what I can tell, your wife and children are very lucky to have you.

Posted by: Tanya at March 9, 2006 12:53 AM
Comment #132345

tanya chivalry is not dead! at least most of us think so! you take care give those young men of yours a big hug !!!!!! ron brown, you are the meaning of southern hospitality ! and a georiga peach!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 9, 2006 1:19 AM
Comment #132346

ron sorry GEORGIA ! @##$##*&^&*(*&^&*#$#@@#$!!!!!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 9, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #132348

Gomer,

A ban on abortion will not stop those who have no self control. They will keep conceiving and keep birthing or aborting, depending on their resources. It’s a shame.

Posted by: JW at March 9, 2006 1:25 AM
Comment #132351

Paul, you defined being publicly educated as an insult and then continued to throw that insult toward other visitors here at WatchBlog after you were warned. Your comment privileges are revoked.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at March 9, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #132353

Neither the Right nor the Left argues this point remotely well.

The Religious Right (RR) is wrong to think an adult woman and her husband, if both of sound mind, can’t make up their own choice. The fact is we are sexual beings and no contraception is perfect. Rape, incest, and cases for the woman’s serious health condition are obvious. (Headache whiners need not apply… “serious health conditions”.) This is the RR’s only failing on this issue but it is a GIGANTIC ONE. (Adoption is a fine idea but sometimes just a early and undesirable pregnancy can be the downward spiral in a young woman’s independence and means to living. Let’s allow her to be a more capable Mom later on.)

But the LEFT has a multitude of smaller failings on this issue. Boyfriend/Girlfriend is one thing, but to totally discount the feelings of a husband is ludicrous. To think a man has no stake in the issue simply because he doesn’t have the womb is ridiculous beyond words.

And a 15 year old GIRL has to get their parents to sign a consent form for a field trip, but they can have an abortion on their own, willy nilly, no parents required???!!! … just some person neither the parents nor the child had ever met before making this decision?? YGBFSM!!! To base that opinion on the .0001% chance that it was the father who got the GIRL pregnant … insanity in a world of craziness. If the father is molesting her, she needs to go to the police. Having some clandestine abortion solves diddly squat!

And late trimester abortions to save the mother’s life is obviously acceptable, to have the abortion to get rid of headaches or back pain … not an effort in common sense. If a baby has a heart beat, fingers, toes, it’s sleeping and moving about in a womb … to consider that the same as a little amoeba fetus … the folks for abortion marginalize themselves with this kind of talk.

One added note … the government can tell you what to do with your body. Illegal narcotics or other prescription drugs when you’re not the prescription holder … illegal and punishable under the law! And you can’t go running in the buff down main street. So please, for those fighting for an adult woman’s (and her husband as it applies) right to choose, please use another tact … you make yourself look moronic with this: You can’t tell me what to do with my body!! Oh yes they can! Change the debate in your favor. Argue smarter, not louder!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 9, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #132356

Ken Cooper,

I’m sorry. I missed your last comment. All I heard were screaming exclamation points. Something about being less loud?

Posted by: JW at March 9, 2006 2:37 AM
Comment #132359

I originally posted the following in a different WatchBlog column two days ago, before there was a Topic here specifically on the South Dakota law:


Conservative Ethics

Now, imagine This:

You are a twelve-year-old girl - blonde with blue eyes - from a Conservative American family. You’re just as cute as you can be - and you’re pregnant, because your father (who has been raping you since you were ten) has made you so. As you carry in your mind the wounds and scars of his sick lust, you now carry, in your young body, the product of his actions to fulfil it.

And now, since your family lives in South Dakota, you must bring this “love child” to term, and deliver it into the world: the screaming, crying, very possibly monstrous, reminder of your daily torment and nightly abuse - because the Conservative Value of the situation demands it. The “Family Value” of Conservatism says you may not have this nightmare ended sooner, rather than later, because the Conservative law says you must carry this horror within you, and then deliver it, at age twelve - even if it threatens your health to do so - and even though it is a product of both Rape and Incest.

This is an example of Conservative “Ethics.”

But there are many more:

Let’s say that now you are a twelve year old Chinese girl, with short black hair cut in bangs over your dark eyes. You are just as cute as you can be. Your family has just sent you to a better life in the Marianas, a commonwealth in political union with the U.S. They have raised several thousand dollars to send you and your sister to Saipan, where you have been promised a good job and the possibility of U.S. citizenship in the future. When you get there, your sister is separated from you, and you are both sold into Child Prostitution. If you get pregnant “on the job,” you will have a Forced Abortion. And all of this is because of the policies of none other than Tom Delay and other good Conservatives - it is an example of their Ethics and Values at work in the Global Economy:

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1743

Here’s another example:

American Conservatives (the overwhelming majority of whom identify themselves as being “Christians”) are also in favour of the Death “Penalty.” After all, wasn’t Jesus? He was, in fact, lawfully arrested by the local enforcers of the Law, duly tried - not once, but three times - and, having exhausted his “appeals,” was executed according to the Law. And so you have yet another example of Conservative “Ethics.”

Oh, I could go on and on: the response to Hurricane Katrina, and the lies to cover it up; the programme of lies to get America into the Iraq War, and the other lies to cover that up; the exposure of an active CIA control officer for the purpose of political payback, and the subsequent folding of her entire operation - including hundreds of foreign operatives and cutouts as well as their cover organisation - and the lies to cover that up; the violation of the constitution in order to conduct unwarranted surveillance on U.S. citizens, and the subsequent lies to cover it up. The list just goes on and on and on and on…

I wonder, just how much more of these Conservative Values can this nation endure, before it ceases to be America at all?

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 9, 2006 3:17 AM
Comment #132363

Hi all

Posted by: PAR at March 9, 2006 6:00 AM
Comment #132366

Dawn, be careful in how you phrase the results of that poll. It polled Americans nationwide, but you said “in South Dakota, in their own state”, implying that South Dakotans are opposed to the new law, which is ridiculous. Most South Dakotans approve of the new law. In fact, the majority of South Dakotans have been pushing to outlaw abortion for a long time. But only just now has the state legislature gotten brave enough to try it because they perceive the U.S. Supreme Court as going their way now.

Did you know that like Mississippi, abortion is so UNPOPULAR in South Dakota that there is only ONE clinic in the entire state that performs the procedure? ONLY ONE! The rest of them couldn’t get enough business to stay afloat even with Planned Parenthood dumped loads of money into the state to keep the open.

Here’s a thought. Why not let the PEOPLE decide what should be banned in their own state instead of external interest groups that only represent a tiny % of the state always getting their way because they have LAWYERS on their side?

abortion needs to be removed from Politics. Period. It should be an issue that is between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her God.

How ironic that you then turn around and use a national POLL to push your point. So which is it? Are you a hypocrite and only want abortion out of politics when there’s no danger of it being outlawed, but just as soon as a law gets pushed through that dares to touch it, then all of a sudden you start pulling up POLITICAL POLLS?

You know, usually you have to use two or three different posts by writers on here to show hypocrisy, but you manage to do it all within the first few sentences of ONE! Good job!!

Posted by: Bryan W at March 9, 2006 7:37 AM
Comment #132370

Bryan,

‘According to the polls… The majority of Americans are against the new laws against abortion, in South Dakota, in their own state.’


Please re-read.

new laws - in South Dakota -
separated to point out the laws ARE IN S. Dakota

If you remove ‘in South Dakota’, which is possible because it is between commas, the sentence reads…

‘According to the polls… The majority of Americans are against the new laws against abortion in their own state.’

I wrote it that way to show that the polls were National, the laws are in South Dakota and give some explanation about the title.

I don’t think I am mistaken about the grammar. If I am, please excuse. I attended PUBLIC school..


Posted by: dawn at March 9, 2006 8:09 AM
Comment #132373

Bryan,

Do you have the poll numbers for South Dakota? I could not find them.
I did not say that South Dakota could not pass their own laws. I said I thought it needed to include rape and incest.

“Are you a hypocrite and only want abortion out of politics when there’s no danger of it being outlawed, but just as soon as a law gets pushed through that dares to touch it, then all of a sudden you start pulling up POLITICAL POLLS?”


Do you have access to a poll that is NOT ‘political’? If so, I’d like to see it.

All a woman needs is a doctor and a pill.
She doesn’t need to go to a special clinic. She doesn’t need to be put on a list of statistics somewhere.

This is a ‘hot button’ issue because our politicians use it to get elected.
We need to know more about those running for office than their positions on abortion and gay marriage.


Posted by: dawn at March 9, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #132377

Dawn, you wrote: “This is a ‘hot button’ issue because our politicians use it to get elected.
We need to know more about those running for office than their positions on abortion and gay marriage.”

This is exactly correct! So many people vote for a specific politician based on their party affiliation and/or one or two specific things that the candidate speaks out for/against. Our voters NEED to look at the bigger picture, that is EVERYTHING that the person they’re considering voting for is in support or opposition from. If candidate A is pro-choice, for example, but against everything else I feel passionate about, I’m not going to vote for them. However, if that candidate is pro-life, again, for example, but feels the same way I do in regards to all other issues (ie: welfare reform, social security, homeland protection, budget, etc) then those all outweigh that one aspect we don’t necessarily agree on. One of the biggest thing that bothers me when talking to my fellow citizens in respect to a specific candidate that is running for office, is when that person says “I don’t care who’s running, I’m NOT voting for that damn democrat (or republican” even if that person they profess to vote for is against the majority of the issues that voter is for. This is why I register as an independant, because I’m not about to vote for someone that doesn’t take a stand on the issues I want them to represent me on, I don’t care what their party affiliation is. And also, just for the record, political “experience” doesn’t qualify as political “expertise”. Just because a person has never been in a political position before, doesn’t mean they won’t do well in one now. Everyone had to start somewhere, and besides that, there are a lot of people with no past political experience that are more intelligent regarding the issues than others who have been in various offices for a specific length of time.

With respect to the polls, I personally like to refer to them at times because it gives me an idea of how the majority feels about that issue-so I for one am glad you made that reference.

Tanya

Posted by: Tanya at March 9, 2006 9:20 AM
Comment #132388

JW,

CAPS ARE YELLING, exclamation points are there to offer emphasis.

Thanks for learning.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 9, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #132396

Saying abortion should be removed from politics is about the dumbest thing I’ve heard.

Peopel CANNOT be relied upon to morally police themselves. As long as we think abortion should only be up to the mother, well lets throw out our laws against murder, pedophilia and rape as well. Lets let those people make thier own decisions.

The fact is that abortion stops a beating heart. It kills a baby. THAT is why it shouldn’t be allowed in rape or incest either. When else is it ok to kill one person because of someone else’s wrong doing?

Also why exactly should men have no opinion in this? I’d like to remind all of you that abortion wouldn’t be legel now if it werent for the MEN who supported it. And Men have every right to ghave an opinion. Do I have to have been a rape victim to have an opinion on rapists? Do I have to be a victim of child abuse to have an opinion on child abuse? No. Abortion is not the same as a woman getting a tattoo….it is not just her body but a childs.

Posted by: Shelley at March 9, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #132402

Good comment Shelley.

Posted by: Tyler at March 9, 2006 10:58 AM
Comment #132404

Peopel CANNOT be relied upon to morally police themselves.
Posted by: Shelley at March 9, 2006 10:37 AM

Holy crap! Who then, You? Do you want to be like Saudi with morality police beating women if they don’t wear a Burka and letting girls burn to death in a dorm rather than let the firemen see the kids in their pajamas? Bad, bad, bad, worst idea ever to legislate morality.

BTW; My religion says a fetus is not a child and has no soul until it takes it’s first breath. Abortion is not murder but the death penalty is.

Posted by: Dave at March 9, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #132407

I get a kick out of the atheists & secularists railing against religion all whilst practicing theirs. The anti-religion, religion. The comparison of supporting death penalty and being anti-abortion. Same can be said of the other crowd. We just recently had 2 Drs. refuse to administer or monitor the lethal injection of a convicted murderer. Yet those same Drs. would have no compunction of punching a hole in a childs skull to vacuum it’s brain out, as long as it hadn’t progressed far enough down the birth canal to draw a breath on it’s own.

Posted by: pige at March 9, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #132408

pige,

It’s not a child until it’s taken a breath. Get over it. Your religion is wrong, has been for thousands of years and has already killed uncounted millions upon millions in greedy heretical hypocritical wars and crusades persecuted in its name. With yours having no credibility left, I have fun listening to the mewling cackles of a dying discredited belief system making a fool of itself.

Posted by: Dave at March 9, 2006 11:51 AM
Comment #132414

Dave:

By your last definition, a “child” is not a “child” until it takes a breath. This would mean that a “child” is not a child until the instant it is delivered from its mother’s womb, and perhaps spanked by the doctor.

Would you then find it morally acceptable for a mother to be to choose to abort her “non-child” a week/day/hour/minute before delivery, on the basis that it is not a child? Or would you consider it a life at that point. I’m not clear as to your stance on that. thanks.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at March 9, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #132418

Shelley
RIGHT ON SHELLY
The so called ‘pro-choice’ crowd doesn’t want to acknowledge that. But it is a baby and another human. They just use the excuse that it’s an unviable tissue mass or what ever to ease their conscious about murdering a helpless innocent person.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 9, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #132419

Ahhh, the screeching secularist. I do not oppose abortion on any religious grounds. I view abortion as murder, plain and simple. It’s nice to ‘dress’ abortion up as a right. Today though we have gender selection abortion as well as a ‘cure’ for headaches and backpain. The next step is a womans right to execute her children as a right to her privacy. Perhaps a gov’t sponsored means to achieve ‘gender’ balance or a more balanced ‘diversity’? All it takes is one leftist on the bench to ‘conjure’ up the right.

Posted by: pige at March 9, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #132421

“Peopel CANNOT be relied upon to morally police themselves”

Sure they can and they are relied upon every day to do so.
People are not punished for doing something which I feel is immoral and I should not be punished for doing something somebody else feels is immoral.
It is when they act on those morals and break the law that they are then punished.

Dave
“Your religion is wrong”

What makes yours right?

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #132422

Dave
O yes it is a child. Have you ever seen the ultrasounds? If it ain’t one then why does it look like one? Reckon it’s a counterfeit or something?
But then if I believed it’s ok to murder babies in the womb I’d have to ease my conscious too. But then I couldn’t live with myself knowing I support the taking of innocent life.
The thing yaall don’t stop to think is that the baby didn’t ask to be there.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 9, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #132425

Tanya
Thanks, Sometime my family might wonder how ‘lucky’ they are to have me around. ha
We’ve only adopted one so far. Like I said there’s a question about our ages now. I’m 59 and my wife is 55, she just shot me for giving her age. While I don’t think this is to old for adopting a 12 or 13 year-old, there’s some that seem to think so. Our lawyer thinks we can work past this though.
We’d like a boy this time around. We only have one boy out of the six we raised and would like to raise with another one. My son says that another boy would bring the status of the family up.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 9, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #132427


dave
one day, whether you like it or not, believe it or not, you are going to stand before your Maker and the words he will speak to you are “Depart from me into eternal hell, for I never knew you”. that is what awaits you unless you open your eyes and your heart.

Posted by: tilthen at March 9, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #132429
What makes yours right?

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2006 12:15 PM

Exactly, right back at cha’ and pige, and tilhen, and shelley, …

(the rest of my post was pretty much intended to get a rise and doesn’t necessarily represent my actual views, kind of a little sorry about that…)

Posted by: Dave at March 9, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #132438

Dave,

When someone stops breathing, does that mean that they’re dead? Why do you define life in the same way? Babies don’t breath inside the womb because there’s a few vessels called the umbilical arteries and vein that transport and export nutrients from the mother to the fetus including oxygen which is why we breath. The baby gets all the oxygen he/she needs from the mother. You might want to re-think your definition.

A baby’s brain and heart are functioning sometimes even before the mother realizes she’s pregnant.

Posted by: Tyler at March 9, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #132440

Tyler,
(Genesis 2:7) “…the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Posted by: Dave at March 9, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #132443

“Exactly, right back at cha’”

Um, I don’t have one, so I don’t claim mine is better than others and I don’t degrade ones religion to prove a point or make myself feel better either.

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #132446

If you look at the poll results (and not the spin of the reporter) you will see the following:

Regerdless of politics or gender, people believe abortion should be legal if the health or life of the mother is in jeopardy by a 4:1 ratio.

Regerdless of politics or gender, people believe abortion should be legal in the event of rape or incest by roughly a 3:1 ratio.

Most people are opposed to the SD bill because it does not allow for exceptions in the event of rape or incest.

Once you get beyond the mother’s health/life and violent criminal acts, that is where support for abortion sofftens dramatically and politics rears it’s ugly head.

Men and women generally agree abortion shouldn’t be a form of birth control by a slim margin - for all intents and purposes, though, it’s a split decision.

Politics is the “great divide”, but the divide is only appears wide when compared to the men vs. women. Independents are closest to the M vs W. More conservatives oppose abortion as birth control than liberals that support it.

Most other polls I’ve studied (can’t point to references…sorry) seem to indicate that, when broken down, about 2/3 to 3/4 of people support more restrictions on abortion as long as there are exceptions for rape/incest and mother’s health/life.

Of course, the media usually focuses on the 15% who think abortion should be illegal without exception and misleadingly implies that 85% of those polled are “pro-choice” and the “pro-lifers” are portrayed as extremists.

Wasn’t it Clinton who said that abortion should be legal, safe and rare? Sounds like someone who doesn’t believe abortion should be used as birth control, either.

I bet that will poke a stick in HoneyP’s hornet nest. LOL.

Interestingly enough, though, I half-way heard something about a case where the “father” was challanging a child-support order because he wanted the mother to have an abortion and she refused. Interesting paradox for the left, isn’t it? Earlier someone claimed that men should not be involved in the abortion debate. Woman have the right to “choose”, if she “chooses” life, the guy has no choice but to pay support or go to jail. Seems the left should be rallying behind this case.
Oh, wait a minute…a male is claiming to be the victim…nevermind.

Posted by: Rich at March 9, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #132447

Dawn,
Has any other subject sparked so much debate?
Thanks for letting us voice our opinion.

Posted by: CHERYL at March 9, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #132450

kc,

I have no idea what religion you are or are not. Perhaps I misdirected my response.
The only thing I’m sure of with regards to religions is that they all are wrong about some things. It is that certainty that makes me disregard religious arguments used as absolutes in social matters. And abortion is a social matter.

Posted by: dave at March 9, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #132453

Dave,
“It’s not a child until it’s taken a breath.”

we have a phrase called brain dead to describe a condition in which the brain is dead and cannot be brought back to life( it also refers to a person who closes their eyes and refuses to think). brain dead gets youa death certificate. based on the fact the brain is alive and working before birth logic dictates the baby is brain alive in the womb. if you don’t believe me find the “silent scream” and watch a LIVING baby try to get away from instruments of death.

ps i was born january of 1973 to a 15 year old mother. i thank GOD roe past after that.

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 9, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #132456

Dave
So what about arguments against abortion that omit religion?
Not everybody who believes it is a living being when created are using religion as their opposition.
They simply want to protect the most innocent among us and give them a chance.
As soon as they speak, they are immediatly placed in the zealot group and that is wrong.

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #132458

kc,

The argument surrounding abortion is fixed on one issue: “when does a fertilized egg become a person and deserve equal protection?” I’ve been very clear in other posts as to my position on this. People who are absolutely against abortion at any stage (some may allow for rape/incest) get their position from religious teachings, whether they are honest about it to others or themselves.
To make my position even more clear, despite my support of privacy rights (reproductive control by a woman over her body) I’ve never had nor would I ever approve of a voluntary abortion for a egg fertilized with my sperm. But, the end decision would have to be my wife’s, no matter what I prefer.

Posted by: Dave at March 9, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #132463

CHERYL,

Yes. Gay Marriage v. Gay Partnerships

Posted by: dawn at March 9, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #132464

If we are so bent on the sanctity of life why oh why are the same people who vote for the repugnicans able to vote for the very party who on a whim invaded a country and has killed / maimed hundreds of thousands of people?

chew on that. i tend to place more value on life outside of the womb…

Posted by: tree hugger at March 9, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #132467

Dave,

I am for an ADULT’s woman right to choose before late term. However, to say that people who differ from your opinion only got their opinion from their religion, or place X, Y, & Z is both arrogant and ignorant. You know people’s history? You know all of their past issues as it might relate to their stance on abortion? Not only do I doubt it, I’d bet my life savings you don’t.

If you’re going to argue for an adult woman’s right to choose, do it responsibly without practicing your religion of non-religion. I’m a Catholic but I differ from my church on the stance of an adult woman in her first stages of pregnancy concerning GOVERMENTAL policy on abortion. So obviously you’re wrong. Most people who are religious aren’t these hypnotized automatons that you LOVE to think of them as. Actually, people who call all people in any group “bad” because of the actions of a remote minority … that’s automatons in secular form at it’s greatest height!

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 9, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #132468

Dave,

Nice try :) Your quoting of scripture is accurate but does not apply in this scenario since Adam was never in anybody’s womb. I’m going out on a limb, but I’ll speculate that Adam didn’t even have an umbilicus (belly button).

Posted by: Tyler at March 9, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #132472

Tree Hugger,

You should consider both.

And the “hundreds of thousands” (your stat, not mine) dead or maimed are a fraction of what Hussein would’ve done over the years.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at March 9, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #132473

Tree Hugger,

First, I want to say to you that your Liberal politicians (Kerry, Biden, Kennedy, Schumer) voted in favor of the war based on the same information George Bush had at his disposal. Please check their voting record. However, they did a political about face and are hoping that people will forget about their support for the very war Geroge Bush has embarked upon.

Second, If you are so concerned with life outside of the womb, then you should be supporting the war. I say this because we have liberated millions of people from Saddaam Hussein, a brutal killer of his own people. Saddaam had rape rooms for women, he used serin gas to kill tens of thousands of his own people, he would simply execute anyone who tried to exercise freedom of speech, he hoarded the riches of his country while letting his people starve, he has continually threatened the US and his neighbors with destruction. Should I go on?

With Saddaam out of power, Iraqis now had their own election and can exercise a respectable amount of freedom in their lives. Yes, the job is not done and it will still take hard work and more blood will have to spill. You liberals need to understand that freedom is not free! It comes at a price and that is through the bravery of our armed forces.

Posted by: paul at March 9, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #132476
I’m going out on a limb, but I’ll speculate that Adam didn’t even have an umbilicus (belly button).

Posted by: Tyler at March 9, 2006 04:03 PM

The scary part is you’re actually serious. “Out on a limb”? Gimme a break!


Ken,
Please read the full post next time (do I need to elaborate on the fallacy of always/never?):

People who are absolutely against abortion at any stage (some may allow for rape/incest) get their position from religious teachings, whether they are honest about it to others or themselves.

re: Hussein; he was done with mass killings after we bailed on the Shia and Kurds after Gulf I. You’re a little late with the “he would have been worse” stuff.

Posted by: Dave at March 9, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #132479

EVERYBODY,
Ok, if everyone has been paying attention. Everyone will see that everyone has given a personal opinion on this topic. Which tells me that this issue has to do with personal values. Not the values of America. So, why are we voting on it nationally? Why can’t we live in a free country where we get to make our own personal decisions, personally? STOP trying to control everyone around you and control yourselves. Freedon is fragile and the more of it we take away the more gets taken. If you disagree with abortion don’t get one. If you do think it is okay go to where you can get one. People, leave everybody else alone to make their own choices/mistakes in life. I don’t think any of the pro choice or pro life people would like to be told there will no longer be grocery stores that carry unhealthy foods. Because, in the long run they’ll cause diseases when eaten in excess. How would anyone like that. Not to say you can compare the two directly but, hopefully you all can see where I am going with this. I am not saying don’t voice you’re opinion. Just don’t expect everyone to change their views because you’re standing firmly on your side. I think it is funny that both sides have great arguments that niether are willing to really listen to.

Posted by: chad at March 9, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #132480

Please someone explain why Liberals are so bent on keeping abortion legal. Why is that so important to them? They support the killing of unborn babies, but do not suppot the chopoing down of a tree. I am trying to understand their passion and motivation toward such a brutal act.

I ask this question after seeing my twins on a sonagram jumping around in my wife’s womb, sucking their thumb. I saw their hearts beating at 171 and 168 bpm. One twin was even sucking their thumb. I just do not understand how anyone can say that is not human life and kill it.

Posted by: paul at March 9, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #132482

Chad,

We have freedom up to the point that it infringes on someone else’s. We do not have freedom of choice when it comes to the commission of a crime.

Your grocery store hypothetical is bad and rather childish. I have the knowledge and freedom to buy healthy or not. An unborn fetus does not have a choice when a needle pierces their skull and sucks their brain out.

Posted by: paul at March 9, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #132483

Okay….this is for you guys who have voiced opinions about not have a choice, or a say in this matter.

Here is the URL with an excerpt below…
http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=4603850



Men’s-Rights Activists Want a “Roe v. Wade for Men”
March 9, 2006, 02:16 PM EST
NEW YORK (AP)— Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men’s rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child. The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in US District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend’s daughter.



Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 9, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #132486

Paul,

To me, it’s not a person yet. Why can’t you understand that? Sperm isn’t a person yet, an egg passed by spontaneous abortion isn’t a person yet, your arm isn’t a person at all. Using nasty imagery only proves your talibanism.

Posted by: Paul at March 9, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #132487

Sorry, that last “Paul” should have been “Dave”
For some reason my “remember personal info” isn’t working so I have to retype it.

Posted by: Dave at March 9, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #132491

Paul,
What was the next line that I wrote after the “hypothetical”. Childish okay. If you notice your emotions are playing a big factor in this conversation. I know you may feel compelled to stand up for the fetus’s rights but, not everyone has the same value of it as you. So, why are you trying to make everyone like you? I don’t want to be forced to think like you and follow your value system either. Please don’t try to insult me again to boost your ego. I think its great to be passionate about your beliefs and values. Maybe if you’d finished reading you’d of grasped that. Once again I say stop trying to control eveyone it’s not going to happen. Like you said if people are going to commit crimes, they will. So, I guess what the goal may very well be is, to put children who don’t want to have children in jail for taking away an unborn child’s life. Or not I really don’t know how far you are willing to push it.

Posted by: chad at March 9, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #132492

Abortion is murder in some but not all’s eyes. Maybe if there was some actual awareness out there on sex that was more than just some informational video on the act of sex, we might handle this problem easily. So once again we would have to open our eyes and see life as more than what it is. We would also have to not be fearful of telling the youth about foreplay. Because, we all know what leads up to sex which equals a fetus. But, no we would rather shield our children’s eyes and not tell them until they are “old enough”. Which means until they make the mistake themselves. Education once again a factor in this one.

Posted by: chad at March 9, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #132494

dave

is talibanism a word?

Posted by: chad at March 9, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #132501

tree hugger

What was all of that supposed to tell us? You hate America, Americans, the American press or, all of the above. Little joke for you here, maybe if you and your buddies let go of the trees and hugged some people compassion for the fellow man may ensue and take over like a wild fire! LOL! Please just laugh, that was funny.

Posted by: chad at March 9, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #132502

I must apologize, I am getting in on this discussion a little late but I just wanted to add a few things for thought.

What I find very interesting is that nowhere in the debate is the welfare of the child brought up. Rape and incest are horrible tragedies and those who perpetrate such wicked and vile acts ought to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. That being said, it is not the fault of the unborn child that the crime was perpetrated. It is important that we are clear as to what abortion is. We are killing a living, breathing human being. Our Statue of Liberty invites the poor and the weak to this country. I can think of no poorer or weaker person than an unborn child. We cannot change the fact that the rape or act of incest occurred by ending another innocent life. Certainly, those around the victim should embrace both her and her child and support them in every possible way. Dawn, I think it is wonderful that you offer to adopt these children in order to spare their lives.

Also, this is not a matter of men telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. This is the weakest members of society receiving the full protection of the law as they deserve. The argument that once a man unzips his pants and has sex means that he has given up all rights concerning that child must be applied in the other direction. Obviously the case of rape is excluded but in the case of consensual sex both parties have, willingly or not, accepted the possibility of a child being conceived.

The argument must not center around the so-called rights of the man or women, but those of the child. Once the child is conceived, unless the mother’s life is in danger (not just inconvenienced), that child must be given the full rights and protections that our laws provide.

If we want to be pro-life, we cannot just pick and chose when it is convenient for us. We must always be pro-life or we are pro-choice.

Life is never up to us. It either is or it isn’t and once it is neither men or women have any right to end it.

Posted by: Kurt at March 9, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #132504

Kurt,
I agree.

Posted by: cheryl at March 9, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #132505

Dave
“People who are absolutely against abortion at any stage (some may allow for rape/incest) get their position from religious teachings, whether they are honest about it to others or themselves”

I am against abortion. I have no religious beliefs at all. If it is outlawed, I will disagree with that decision, but I will not be sad to see it go.
I believe those who use religion as their only reason are the extreme and the minority.
It IS possible to be thinking of abortion as killing an innocent, without the religious overtones.

Thanks for the link Sandra.

Posted by: kctim at March 9, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #132508

A further statement on “pro-abortion” advocates.
Why not have the person seeking an abortion be required to know the procedure? Why not have them know that the baby will feel the pain of the procedure? Why not have them know how the baby is disposed of after the procedure? In other words give the person seeking an abortion more information about the procedure. More knowledge will not hurt the one seeking an abortion. More knowledge will help them make a decision more honestly and less harmful to their own well being now and in the future. Read the studies of how the person receiving an abortion handles it at different periods of time afterward on up to 5-10-20 years and more. Many women suffer for the decision they made on that fateful day. If they could have had the knowledge I refered to above maybe their would be less harm to both the baby and the mother.

Posted by: tomh at March 9, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #132513

Kurt wrote:

What I find very interesting is that nowhere in the debate is the welfare of the child brought up.

Ermmm - *I* brought it up… About 3/4 of the way down this thread, when I wrote:

Now, imagine This:

You are a twelve-year-old girl - blond with
blue eyes - from a Conservative American
family. You’re just as cute as you can be,
and you’re pregnant, because your father
(who has been raping you since you were
ten) has made you so. As you carry in your
mind the wounds and scars of his sick lust,
you now carry, in your young body, the
product of his actions to fulfil it.

And now, since your family lives in South
Dakota, you must bring this “love child”
to term, and deliver it into the world: the
screaming, crying, very possibly monstrous,
reminder of your daily torment and nightly
abuse - because the Conservative Value
of the situation demands it. The “Family
Value” of Conservatism says you may not
have this nightmare ended sooner, rather
than later, because the Conservative law
says you must carry this horror within you,
and then deliver it, at age twelve - even
if it threatens your health to do so
- and
even though it is a product of Rape and
Incest.

This is an example of Conservative “Ethics.”

But there are many more:

Let’s say that now you are a twelve year
old Chinese girl, with short black hair cut
in bangs over your dark eyes. You are just
as cute as you can be. Your family has just
sent you to a better life in the Marianas - a
commonwealth in political union with the
U.S. They have raised several thousand
dollars to send you and your sister to Saipan
where you have been promised a good job
and the possibility of U.S. citizenship in the
future. When you get there, your sister is
separated from you, and you are both sold
into Child Prostitution. If you get pregnant
“on the job,” you will have a Forced Abortion.
And all of this is because of the policies of
none other than Tom Delay and other good
Conservatives - it is an example of their Ethics
and Values at work in the Global Economy:

http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=1743


Here’s another example:

American Conservatives (the overwhelming
majority of whom identify themselves as being
“Christians”) are also in favour of the Death
“Penalty.” After all, wasn’t Jesus? He was,
in fact, lawfully arrested by the local enforcers
of the Law, duly tried - not once, but three
times - and, having exhausted his “appeals,”
was executed according to the Law. And so
you have yet another example of Conservative
“Ethics.”

Oh, I could go on and on: the response to
Hurricane Katrina, and the lies to cover it up;
the programme of lies to get America into the
Iraq War, and the other lies to cover that up;
the outing of an active CIA control officer for
political payback, and the subsequent folding
of her entire operation - including hundreds of
foreign operatives and cutouts as well as their
cover organisation - and the lies to cover that
up; the violation of the constitution in order
to conduct unwarranted surveillance on U.S.
citizens, and the lies to cover that up. The
list just goes on and on and on and on…

I wonder, just how much more of these
Conservative Values can this nation endure,
before it ceases to be America at all?

In all of the subsequent posts, not one Oh-So-Righteous Conservative “Christian” has responded to the points I made on their Conservative “Ethics.”

Wassamatta, Conservatives? Truth got your tongues?

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 9, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #132518

Shelley,

I don’t think it’s “dumb” that I don’t want a politician telling me whether or not I should or shouldn’t have an abortion.

I do NOT think it is only the woman’s choice, but I certainly don’t think it’s up to any politician to make the decision either. There are different thoughts, different circumstances, etc that are involved, just as there are in any other ‘hot topic’ on the presses. This is a very personal issue that, whether people like it or not, does vary dependent on the differing circumstances for every different individual. Noone in Washington should have the right to make this decision. I guess if you haven’t been faced with the dilemma yourself you can’t possibly understand just what these women go through when trying to make such a decision (I’m not talking about the ones that laugh it off as a method of birth control, I’m talking about the cases of health, rape/incest, etc), but I’m sure if you ever had to be, you wouldn’t want any politician (or anyone else) telling you what you HAD to do about it. And I also don’t think it’s fair to say that ALL people cannot “morally police themselves”. Just because a certain percentage of people act in a certain way doesn’t mean we all do.

I hardly think it’s “dumb”, rather, it’s merely MY opinion. I’m entitled to mine just as you’re entitled to yours. This is why there is such a debate about this, because nobody agrees on it. There’s a reason for that, and politics should be the LAST reason on that list.

Tanya

Posted by: Tanya at March 9, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #132522

not a liberal paul,

thanks for assuming though.

“Your liberal bias allows your conscience to believe it is just a moral talking point the right is trying to advance. It is about protecting life and preventing murder that is illegal in EVERY State. “

pure ignorance. protecting life and preventing murder, huh? what about the death penalty? what’s that? is that not taking life? is that not LEGAL in almost EVERY STATE? your argument is drastically more morally based than you are willing to admit (possibly even to yourself). it’s plain and simple people - abortion is not in the constitution. it should be reserved for the states to decide.

several of you have pointed out very good reasons why this won’t satisfy everyone, and on both sides of the issue. so what? mind your own business! people of all ages are massacred all over the world, and yet i don’t see you trying to pass laws on their countries! why not? because we don’t have the authority - which is exactly the same case concerning abortion. that’s federalism people. it requires compromise.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 9, 2006 7:36 PM
Comment #132530

Ron,

Since when does age affect how well you can parent a child of that age? I mean I could understand not allowing the elderly with failing health to adopt an infant, but a middle aged couple with a proven track record of positive parenting is certainly as capable of handling a teenage boy, at least as capable, if not moreso, of a 20-30 something couple.

I wish you the best of luck in future adoptions. Even though we don’t agree on all issues, it is clear to me that you are a man of high intelligence and morals/values, which tells me you are a prime example of good parenting! (I’m sure those that disagree will be letting me know very soon LOL)

Tanya

Posted by: Tanya at March 9, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #132532

Wow,

first, diogenes, the death penelty is legal in most states, however five states have carried out over 2/3 of the executions since 1977.

And people keep talking about “a woman has the right to chose what happens to her body”. Well, shes not the one that dies. Why are you thinking so much about the woman!? The child has done nothing wrong, regardless of whether or not he was born of related parents or rape. I appreciate your commment on how abortion shouldn’t be used as birth control, but abortion IS used as birth control.

And the right to life is clearly in the constitution, perhaps you should read it, its riveting (at least i like it). I recommend someone like you should skip to amendment 5, diogenes, so you dont have to read any other rights that you think people don’t deserve, simply because of the circumstance of their conception.

Posted by: CommonSense at March 9, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #132535

Abortion is killing a baby,thats it.It’s not about choice its about selfishness.Women that kill their own are just evil.They will burn one day.We,re not guaranteed tomorrow so repent and quit this futile argument.YOUR KILLING YOUR OWN CHILDREN,DUH.Have a good day and lets kick all the liberals off the bench.God Bless George Bush

Posted by: craig beach at March 9, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #132538

Betty,

Well, where to begin? I’ll respond to one of your comments. As to the others, if you have read the threads in this post, you already have some of your other answers. As for your last paragraph about all the lies told by the conservatives, that’s simply your opinion and those issues have been addressed in other posts in this forum.

Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin at night; that was illegal under Jewish law at the time. Do you really want to call the meeting with Herod (who simply referred Jesus to Pilate after Jesus wouldn’t respond to his questions) a “trial”. Pilate tried Jesus himself, and was about to release him, but the crowd demanded his crucifiction. Why you relate this to conservatives support of the death penalty is beyond me. Does this help?

Posted by: Tyler at March 9, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #132539

Who has the real numbers? how many children were aborted in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA last year?or the year before? How about from the inactment of Roe V Wade todate?

Posted by: angry white man at March 9, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #132540

Dave,

Sorry about the belly button comment. Nope, I wasn’t serious.

Posted by: Tyler at March 9, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #132541

Betty,

Sorry about the misspelling. That’s “crucifixion”. I’m a little tired.

Posted by: Tyler at March 9, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #132544

Craig….so if a man escapes prison, rapes a woman, she gets pregnant, she is forced to carry that child? That aint gonna fly even in red states

Posted by: shelly at March 9, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #132545

Betty,

I do have to ask what you meant in your last line when you put ethics in quotes as though ethics is made up.

It is one thing to argue the emotions of the issue and another to argue the issue itself. Certainly these instances are horrible (though what the hurricane “lies”, etc. have to do with what we are discussing, I don’t know). I don’t care what the politicians say and I am not trying to defend anyone on either side of the aisle. I am simply debating the issue at hand - life.

We must either accept the premise that truth is relative in which case chaos ensues because there is no end to everyone being a law unto themselves. Who is to protect us from one another? If truth is truly relative then there is no law of any value because I may not like it. But I don’t imagine that anyone would argue that it is right for an African-American to be forced to get off a bus that is only for whites or for a child to be sold into prostitution or for a father to rape his daughter. There are rights and wrongs. To deny that is to allow for total anarchy. But we certainly cannot trust people who make mistakes, act purely on emotion, and change their minds on a regular basis to be a source of rights and wrongs and we certainly cannot leave it up to the polls because the polls at one time supported racism.

Again, no one is arguing that rape or incest is good or should go unpunished but the person who should be punished should not be the innocent child. Adoption is a wonderful option and there are plenty of good couples out there wanting to give children like these a wonderful and loving home. If there is a threat to the life of the woman carrying the child then abortion can be considered, but only in that case.

This is an issue that transcends politics, in my humble opinion. It gets at the very root of what it means to be a living human being and the value that we place on life verses our own, often selfish desires.

Posted by: Kurt at March 9, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #132547

Craig..I beg to differ and if Roe v Wade is overturned it will just get worse. Noone wants to adopt most the most needy babies. If Roe v Wade goes back to the states, women with money , and the most wanted babies, will still be able to abort. Poor women, with the most unwanted babies wont.

Posted by: shelly at March 9, 2006 9:22 PM
Comment #132548

“first, diogenes, the death penelty is legal in most states, however five states have carried out over 2/3 of the executions since 1977.”

still, it’s legal; and in this instance, no one at all is arguing that those who are put to death are not already alive (a consensus!) and still it is legal. before you make any claim to the unconstitutionality of abortion, i suggest you first justify the constitutionality of the death penalty. i may or may not agree with you, but either way, i’ll be far more inclined to respect your opinion.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 9, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #132558

…. and the answer is?

“no person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

…which a convict is provided before being put to death. (sorry, got tired of waiting for a response).

why do we care? because, even conceding that a fetus is a person with full rights (and i do not), they may be deprived of their right to life with due process of law. so what, you ask?

in the case of terminating the life of an individual in a vegetative state, the supreme court has determined that such issues should be left to the states…

thus, the state is allowed to pass law regarding whether or not such an individual has a ‘right to life’. “vegetative state is a condition of patients with severe brain damage in whom coma has progressed to a state of wakefulness without detectable awareness. There is controversy in both the medical and legal fields as to whether this condition is irreversible.”

a fetus has no brain activity (up to a point), and exhibits no demonstrable awareness. there is much controversy over whether or not it is really a person. no one can know for sure that a given fetus will be viable.

i see some close parallels, but feel free to draw your own conclusions.


Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 9, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #132562

Shelly, have you not heard of couples going to foreign countries, often 3rd world countries( you know poor countries without immunizations or food for their children) to adopt because their aren’t enough babies here to adopt. to say to be a poor baby means no one wants you is just ignorant.

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 9, 2006 10:32 PM
Comment #132563

oh yeah, there has never been an arrest for someone selling a baby.

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 9, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #132573

People say that abortion is a woman’s choice. A woman has an abortion for one reason, she does not want the baby. If a woman or girl does not want a baby, then don’t have sex!!! You will be 100% sure that you will not have an unwanted baby. The real reason there are so many abortions is that people want to go out whoring around and don’t want to pay the price for doing so.

Posted by: andrea at March 9, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #132574

angry white man .if you could please answer this simple question for me.on stephen’s d, blog site the title cs lewis march 6 2006 you said ,, i quote (as for myself i will dip my bullets in pigs blood and stand my ground in the face of evil) if you could please elaborate some more on your comment thank you.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 9, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #132575

lllplus2,

“oh yeah, there has never been an arrest for someone selling a baby.”

And you came to this conclusion because……..?

Posted by: Rocky at March 9, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #132577

Tyler:

No - it most certainly does *not* “help.”

First, you blithely ignored the first part of my post - which happens to be the most On Topic part, for this thread - and said nothing about the Raped or/and Incestuous pregnancies for (any woman)/(but especially) Children, who then have to (unhealthily) bring it to term and then either deliver it or have it cut out of them surgically.

Second, you also ignored the bit (including link) about Tom Delay and other “Ethical” Conservatives creating and defending a situation in which children are sold into prostitution and then forced to have (dangerous, dirty, third-world) abortions (sometimes once a year, for some of these child sex-slaves), because a Pregnant Child Prostitute can’t make as much money as one who is not.

Third, with regard to Jesus, your descent into theosophical semantics does NOTHING to address my point that the Saviour was a victim of Capital “Punishment.” Mouthing such niceties (like mouthing Talking Points) may dilute or delay the argument, but it does not address the Facts. Perhaps you prefer the “Truthiness” of your reply to the Truth of my point? Go figure. Here are a few things Jesus said, appropriate to the Subject:

“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.”

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth’ - but I say unto you, that ye resist not Evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy’ - but I say unto you: Love your enemies; bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.”

“Judge not, that ye be not Judged. For with what judgment ye Judge, ye shall be Judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the Mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the Beam that is in thine own eye? How wilt thou say to thy brother, ‘Let me pull out the Mote out of thine eye’ when, behold, a Beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite! First cast out the Beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the Mote out of thy brother’s eye…”

“For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you - but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”

“Ye cannot serve God and Mammon - thefore,I say unto you, ta no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?”

“Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”

And here’s something his Dad had to say on the matter:

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto Wrath: for it is written, ‘Vengeance is MINE; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Now, what part of that Actual Christian Doctrine - from the words of God and Jesus themselves - would you like to continue to Ignore?


Kurt:

Your defence of this scenario proves my point about Conservative “Ethics” - (and explains why I must use the Quotes Of Cynicism when putting those two words together). Only a true *MONSTER* [NOT referring to You, here - just in general] would subject a girl of 10, 11, 12-etc. years of age to such an ordeal merely to satisfy their personal (warped) view of morality. READ IT AGAIN: It takes a special sort of Truly Sick Evil to even consider subjecting a young girl who is the victim of Rape and/or Incest to bringing a (quite possibly teratogenic) to term.

Period.

Now, when you think about it - asking yourself the question, “What if it were MY 11-year-old daughter, raped by oh, say, a Muslim from Ethiopia?” - perhaps you will find it in your heart not to do further Psychological Damage to that sweet little girl for another eight months, possibly culminating in her death.

Or maybe not. What you determine after thinking about it will define what sort of person you are. If you choose to join Humanity, then you must question Conservative “Ethics” - this is my point.

My God, how is it that I even have to write this - to argue these points - in this country, and so late in the evolution of Human Society?!?! Horrible, Horrible.

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 9, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #132578

Corrections:

“…ta no thought for your life…” should read: “…take no thought for your life…”

and

“…quite possibly teratogenic) to term…” should read: “…quite possibly teratogenic) foetus to term…

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 9, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #132579

Since when does age affect how well you can parent a child of that age?

That’s the question we’ve been asking Tanya. Both of us are in good health, except for my high blood pressure. We’ve managed to raise 6 youngins without killing them. Although there were times when…. Well you have youngins.
None of the kids have ever been in any serious trouble with the law. Five of them are married to wonderful spouses. Between them they have given us 16 of the sweetest grandyounins in the world. Three have been through college. One is in college. And my son is serving our great Country by making the Air Force his career.
The only time one of the kids had any trouble with the law was when my son was 17. He, his cousin, and 3 of his friends thought it would be funny to pee on an old cop car that got parked in different parts of the county to slow traffic down a bit. Only this night a deputy was sitting in the car. He found out that 17 isn’t to old to spank. No charges were filed as the Sheriff knows me and knew that the boy was in more trouble than the courts could handout.
Anyway back to the subject. The courts look at things like I described above as well as other things to determine if a couple is right for adoption. The fact that we’ve adopted before is in our favor. There’s only one person that’s raised a question about our ages. Like I said, our lawyer says we can get around that.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 10, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #132580

BTW Tayna,
If we didn’t disagree on somethings I would be worried. Hell, I don’t always agree with myself.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 10, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #132582

Sandra Davidson
Mens rights activist?
Geeeeeeezzzz, there goes the ball game.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 10, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #132583

rocky,
what i mean is people sell babies to rich people who can’t have babies. people willing to pay for a child don’t care if the mother is poor or rich, they just want a baby. watch the news. my statement was in response to the notion a baby from a poor mother is undesirable.


“If Roe v Wade goes back to the states, women with money , and the most wanted babies, will still be able to abort. Poor women, with the most unwanted babies wont.”

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 10, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #132585

I was involved in this debate some time ago on the blue side. Abortion is murder. No amount of liberal talking points and hypthetical questions where any answer condemns you will change that fact. However, I think South Dakota has just screwed the pro-lifers with this legislation. They need a refresher course in mathematics. Even if we know for sure that Roberts and Alito would vote to overturn Roe along with Scalia and Thomas(we don’t), that still leaves Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Kennedy voting to uphold it. I’m no mathematician but I think that’s 5-4 to uphold Roe and make it yet a stronger precedent. This is not the course of action we need to take. Sadly, we’re going to have abortion with us a long time. It will go the way of slavery when enough people realize that allowing barbarism to continue is not the American ideal, enough people to enact a Constitutional amendment giving the unborn full citizenship like the fourteenth amendment did for the former slaves. This will happen, but perhaps not in my lifetime. Until then, we need to educate people and provide contraception(real contraception, not planned parenthood condoms designed to get a woman pregnant and result in more $$$ for the abortion industry) and convince as many women as we can that abortion is not the answer. Oh yeah, and the fact that the Bible doesn’t really have an opinion on this issue should convince people that to be pro-life you don’t necessarily have to be religious. I don’t believe in the death penalty(anymore), I believe that a child who is the result of a rape is still an innocent human being, and I would save the two year old because he/she can feel pain, has a heartbeat, and has a functioning brain that produces brainwaves. Much like a six week old fetus.

Posted by: Duano at March 10, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #132586

lllplus2,

“my statement was in response to the notion a baby from a poor mother is undesirable.”

Black babies do get adopted less often.

Poorer mothers of all races often have less pre-natal care, and can be less heathy, therefore it can be assumed that their babies are often less healthy as well.

“Selling” babies is illegal.

But, of course you knew that.

Posted by: Rocky at March 10, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #132589

Black babies do get adopted less often.

Ain’t that the sad truth. These kids need loving homes as much as kids of any other race.
If you’ve been following the post between Tanya and me, you know that my wife and I are trying to adopt another child. Preferably a boy this time.
When we mentioned that we’d be willing to take a child of another race we were told that they could get us an Asian child. When my wife mentioned that we’d take one of any race the women that was interviewing us immediately said “You don’t really want a Black kid do you?” When we said we’d be willing to take one her response was less than enthusiastic to say the least. This is a Black women here. What’s wrong with this picture? Does she think that because we’re White that we won’t love a Black child?
I think she needs to talk to 4 of our grandchildren.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 10, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #132590

1/2 of black pregnancies end in abortion each year. the founder of planned parenthood was a rascist who thought all black people should be sterilized and anyone who was poor. where do you think you will find most of your abortion clinics? each census the black % of the total population deceases. as for pre-natal care, if you are poor you have a better chance for medical benefits than middleclass america. “different strokes” and “webster”and “losing isiah”, ever heard of them. white families do adopt black, asian, hispanic, special needs, etc. children all the time. nicole kidman and tom cruise adopted a black baby. michelle pfeiffer did also. angelina jolie adopted an asian baby and a baby from africa. how healthy do you think a baby from a 3rd world country is? our poor are rich to them.

my question to you is where in the u.s. is the orphanage full of black and poor babies that nobody wants?

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 10, 2006 1:14 AM
Comment #132592

ron, i am sorry to hear about you experience with that woman. the sad truth is a lot of black people won’t adopt a black orphan, but they are also against the child going to a white family because the child would grow up “white” and loose his “black heritage.”

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 10, 2006 1:19 AM
Comment #132597

iiiplus2

you’re going to need to back that claim up.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 10, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #132599

which claim would that be?

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 10, 2006 3:38 AM
Comment #132600

I could use some clarification on the following:

“Paul, your personal digs at other visitors here violate our policy. Comply, or lose your privilege to participate here. This will be your only warning. Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at March 8, 2006 10:45 PM -AND-
Paul, you defined being publicly educated as an insult and then continued to throw that insult toward other visitors here at WatchBlog after you were warned. Your comment privileges are revoked. Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at March 9, 2006 01:45 AM”

This is followed by….(among other things)

“Using nasty imagery only proves your talibanism”.
Posted by: Paul at March 9, 2006 04:52 PM


I noted the times….I see 2 things wrong with this picture….#1, I thought he wasn’t allowed to post in here anymore? and #2, He obviously hasn’t learned that his words against others is wrong, and #3, He has blatently ignored the repeated requests to stop ‘attacking the messenger’ as well as ignored where he was told his privelages in this forum have been revoked.

I guess I’m confused.., and Moderator, please, correct me if I’m out of line here, but how many more attacks must we witness by Paul against others before he really IS stopped? And another note to the Moderator, thank you for recognizing the verbal abuse and slander against me by this man and taking appropriate steps to stop him from any further attacks against me. Your reaction to the situation is very much appreciated! =)

Tanya

Posted by: Tanya at March 10, 2006 4:29 AM
Comment #132601

LOL Ooops…regarding my last post, my “2” things turned into 3-forgive me, it’s extremely late (or early if you look at it that way) and I’m operating on 2 hours sleep in 3 days. =)

Tanya

Posted by: Tanya at March 10, 2006 5:19 AM
Comment #132602

Ron, you wrote:”BTW Tayna,
If we didn’t disagree on somethings I would be worried. Hell, I don’t always agree with myself.”

Hey, there’s yet ANOTHER thing we agree on! I don’t always agree with myself either LOL

Also, again, best of luck to you in your quest to adopt the next member of your family! I have faith that you’ll get your wish! Keep that chin up =)

Tanya

Posted by: Tanya at March 10, 2006 5:23 AM
Comment #132603

I just noticed soome of Dave’s comments on thid thread. Having argued with him before on this issue on the blue side, I’ve noticed a change in his criteria for life. Over there he said it was when a fetus first had a “sentient” thought. Once I proved that brainwaves are measured during the first trimester, now I see he comes over here and has a whole new test for life. So if a child is born yet has not taken a breath, does the mother have a right to stab it to death really quick before the doc spanks him? And BTW, why isn’t he getting flagged for denigrading people’s religion on here? That’s hate speech, and he should be kicked off.

Posted by: Duano at March 10, 2006 6:53 AM
Comment #132604

Oh, yeah, and Dave likes to change your screen name to something derogatory if you make a good point against him, so watch out!

Posted by: Duano at March 10, 2006 6:56 AM
Comment #132610

Paul

You cannot prove that God is real, hence your Faith in his existence. God is not now, nor has he ever been a tangible.

As far as your question is concerned; the Big Bang theory of the Universe creation is not “mantra of confused atheists” it is science, whether you accept it or not. And the Big Bang is about as plausible as God creating the world in six days, and creating women from the rib of a man. Tell me that is not fantasy macerating as faith. I am not telling you that you are not entitled to your faith, but you are not entitled to impact my life and liberty by its practice.


V. Edward

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 10, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #132611

I want to go back to some of the earlier discussion on this board, about Missouri setting up a state religion and the Constitutionality of that. Obviously many people have no idea of what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights actually say.

Amendment 1…Congress (meaning FEDERAL government) shall make no law to establish a religion, nor shall it prohibit individual citizens from the free exercise of their religion.


Nowhere does this say that the STATES cannot establish a religion. In fact, numerous states actually DID have official religions in the past. Just because they don’t now, doesn’t mean that the intent of the Constitution has changed. Obviously and clearly, the Founding Fathers simply didn’t want the government or president to be like the King of England who was the head of the Church of England.

And, as for abortion, how can the difference between a “baby” and a “fetus” be only its location? If it’s outside the mother it’s a baby and human and life. If it’s inside the mother it’s a fetus and something less than that?

So a 25 week premie can grow to be a wonderful productive adult, but a 25 week fetus can just be “aborted” - and there’s a difference?

Why is it so difficult for you to see that those arguments just don’t work? IT IS A BABY, A HUMAN AND LIFE.

Posted by: r_bart at March 10, 2006 8:38 AM
Comment #132614

Cathy,

The woman is NOT the victim unless she has been raped or abused.

Unfortunatly, as yesterday’s “Worldwide Day of Women” should have remember some of you, women are way too often abused if not raped.

We are outraged when someone kills a pregnant woman (i.e. Lacy Peterson), yet there is very little outrage about a pregnant woman killing her pregnancy/baby.

If you’re pro-life, in first case two people died, only the unborn one in the second case.
If you’re pro-choice, that the same in the Peterson’s case, but how early the abortion is change the second case perception.

Last but not least, I happy (sarcasm) to see so much people’s ready to point a finger at so-called women open sexuality. How convenient!
Whoever consider abortion as a “comfort” solution really don’t know what he/she’s talking about…
It’s both a trauma for body and mind, and you simply can’t continue doing it over and over without definitive damage to both of them. Young women could become unfertile that way. Most often they’ll develop or increase men relationship issue.

Even when it’s not tainted by politics of religion, abortion is never an easy decision to make. One that you learn from, often painfully, whatever the choice. *Nobody* except the only one(s) concerned should be allow to weight in such decision.

PS: zip vs unzip pants? Hello!? Condoms, anyone?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 10, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #132618

I think most Americans believe that there comes a point where a fetus has grown into a baby, and at that point, it’s life should be protected.

It seems to me that the question becomes when that might be. Someone abovethread posted that “abortion stops a beating heart.” Well, that’s only true after a point, right? There is certainly some length of gestation where there is no heart, right?

And if you’re arguing about the “soul” and conception, well, I’m very sorry, but then you’re just grounding your argument into one particular religious system, and that’s a big problem under our Constitution. I know many people think it _shouldn’t_ be a problem, but it is.

But seriously, if you believe abortion is murder (and I’ll admit to being increasingly conflicted, myself), will you concede that there is some period where the fetus is not yet a person, and so aborting it is not murder?

I think most people would agree that there’s such a point. At that point, this issue really becomes a matter of details. Painful details, uncomfortable details, but details nevertheless.

kctim, you’ve made the credible argument that you oppose abortion on purely secular grounds, so I appeal to you personally; given your non-religious perspective, is there a point where abortion is not murder?

Posted by: Arr-squared at March 10, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #132620

Arr
It is MY personal belief that there is life when a woman is pregnant. From the first minute till the birth 9 months later.

Posted by: kctim at March 10, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #132621

kctim,

I see the problem, my phraseology was unclear, my bad.

“People who are absolutely against abortion at any all stages (some may allow for rape/incest) get their position from religious teachings, whether they are honest about it to others or themselves”


Tyler
I kind of figured you were kidding:-) But there are plenty of other scriptures relevent to your persepective. see for an excelent overview:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm


Duano

Having argued with him before on this issue on the blue side I’ve noticed a change in his criteria for life. Posted by Duano at March 10, 2006 06:53 AM
Oh, yeah, and Dave likes to change your screen name to something derogatory if you make a good point against him, so watch out!
Posted by: Duano at March 10, 2006 06:56 AM
I’ve been pretty consistent in my position, some people just read what they want to believe not what’s actually being said. For example what I saw was you dancing with the ball in your endzone. Finally, let’s review some Duano quotes from his referred to blue thread:
http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/003301.html

This will be my last post on this subject, so Douchbag Dave, KansasDung, and gaygay can have the last word.
I personally do not care what child murderers think about me. The bottom line is you are glad when these kids get killed, and you wish we could move the “sentience” definition to be able to kill anyone under the age of two … more people keep leaving your side and becoming right-wing fanatics like me.
Posted by: Dave at March 10, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #132622

tilthen,

A seed, planted in the ground, begins to grow underneath the earth. Eventually it sprouts through the top of the earth and becomes a flower or a tree. But it was LIVING while it was still under the earth, just waiting to enter our view. Same applies to a child. The child may be inside it’s mothers womb and physically out of our sight, but it is still a LIVING and growing being and will, if left be, sprout from the earth and become a boy or girl.

Sorry, but that’s a very stupid and broken analogy. The seed grow all on itself using their environment (Earth) resources. Human babies can’t. Plants mortality rate is way off the sky
compared to children one, but humans care a lot more about the latter, for obvious reasons.
Nobody have to take responsability to raise a seed, at least a human have for babies. Otherwise, alone, they just dies.

Bad analogy, really. Find a better one, please.

There is no rational or logical argument for commitmitting murder.

What about war time murders?
What about “killing few to save many” slogan?
My reality is way more complex than yours, it’s seems.

Abortion, whether you like it or not, is murder. It is the killing of a living being. Nuff said.

Life itself is (delayed) murder, if you want to follow this thin line. Abortion - that nobody I know “like” but just value the choice it allow - is not a black or white decision. Both choices come with bad side-effects. Hey, sounds like everything in life, after all. And I hardly see how “enough” could be said about life, except when one (naive) wants to force a binary pattern upon the infinite life situations…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 10, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #132624

iiiplus2,

which claim would that be?

You claimed that the sad truth is a lot of black people won’t adopt a black orphan, but they are also against the child going to a white family because the child would grow up “white” and loose his “black heritage.”.

Diogenes (and I, btw) ask you to back up this “truth”. Otherwise it’s just your opinion.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 10, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #132627

R_Bart,

The 14th Amendment with it requirement of equal protection under law, directly effects the states and the Bill of Rights. As a result of that Amendment the Supreme Court has ruled that the many states are bound by the 1st Amendment, and therefore are not free to set up official state religions.

I agree that if a baby can sustain life on its own outside the womb at 25 weeks, then so be it, said baby is a baby. But as long as the fetus depends on the mother for life, the other should be free to terminate at will. To use your argument, a sperm is life, but millions of them die when we masturbate and when a baby is conceived. Isn’t that murder? For that matted an unfertilized egg is life, and yet when a woman menstruates one dies; is nature not guilty of murder?

V. Edward

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 10, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #132629

Tanya, I’m glad you share your opinion on your own experience on this topic, that’s very valuable to all us. Or should.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 10, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #132633

WHEN A WOMAN LETS A MAN BETWEEN HER LEGS, SHE GIVES HIM EQUAL RIGHTS TO THE CHILD.

Posted by: PATRICK G. at March 10, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #132634

VEM,r^2,
The link I provided above shows some definitions and why there is little or no common ground here:

Overview of pregnancy and abortion terms: There are fundamental differences in definitions used by pro-life and pro-choice advocates:
Most Fundamentalist and other Evangelical Christians, pro-life advocates, and religious conservatives believe that: Pregnancy begins at conception. Human life, in the form of an ovum and spermatozoon (i.e. forms of life with human DNA), becomes a human person at conception. Any medication that terminates the life of a zygote, morula, embryo or fetus is an abortifacient — it induces an abortion. The “morning after pill” (a.k.a. emergency contraception, EC) either is or can be an abortifacient.
Essentially all medical specialists, pro-choice advocates, religious liberals, etc. believe that : Pregnancy begins when the pre-embryo embeds itself in the wall of the uterus, about twelve days after conception. Human life becomes a human person later in pregnancy — e.g. when the fetus attains sentience or at birth. Any medication that terminates the a pregnancy is an abortifacient. The “morning after” pill prevents a pregnancy from starting. It cannot induce an abortion. It is not an abortifacient.


Posted by: Dave at March 10, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #132637

I’m with Edward, I was about to post a very similiar argument. a FETUS that cannot survive outside the womb is not a child. Or a baby. Or anything other than a mass of cells that may or may not be naturally aborted by a womans body, or grow to become a baby.

Telling eveyone to not have sex unless they want kids is not a viable option. Contrary to someone’s post above, condoms are 90% or more percent effective. I decided on Depo-Provera which ia 100% effective until I miss a shot.

Abortion should always be a possible choice, but for the record, I’ve never known a woman to use it for ‘birth control’ I’ve heard its extremely painful, invasive and generally not someone any woman would want to actually go through.

Abortion should always be an option for a woman raped, even if that woman is married and raped by her husband. For those people claiming that it begins at fertilization, it can take up to 7 days for a viable egg to be fertilized - before that, for at least 48 hours, the morning after pill only flushes an UNfertilized egg, not a zygote.

For Paul and everyone else who thinks the zygote is given a soul as soon as the sperm and egg join, what about all the natural abortions that happen? does god take the soul back for another ‘child’? If not, didn’t I read somewhere that infants and babies who die become cherubs in heaven? that isn’t so horrible. That soul never has the chance to choose good or evil, and thus goes to heaven. Not a bad option, I think. Can’t christians be satisfied that an innocent soul is going to heaven and just bemoan the heathens who caused it to happen?

This arguement cannot be won by invoking god. It just sounds like one is shoving religion down another’s throat, and I resent it. I won’t listen to god based arguements because I don’t believe in the christian god. I can’t believe that out of all the millions of books put to pen, just one happened to come out of the middle east that holds every answer to the soul and life. I’ll keep looking, thanks.

Posted by: Kimberly at March 10, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #132653

I think what they have done in South Dakota makes total sense. Let me tell you why.
I come from a community where religon is dominant, about 95% of everyone is of the same religon. In our religon you do not have sex before marriage period. Now a lot of times a good girl gets into trouble, makes a bad decission, and has sex.
All of her friends are the same religon, her family, everyone she knows. She doesn’t want people to look at her as a bad person, so what does she do to escape the consequences of her actions: she accuses the guy of raping her. She couldn’t have had sex with him, she’s too good for that. She convinces herself he raped her so she can escape the consequences of her decission. It happens often enough to be a serious problem.
The same thing will happen with this. Girls won’t want to have the baby, but abortion is illegal, their back door is accussing the man of raping her, putting him in jail, she’s gets the abortion and everyone is happy. Don’t put this past them. If they are irresponsible enough to not take care of first things first, they won’t flinch in putting an innocent man in jail so they can continue “playing around.”
It’s a sad thing that we can protect the women who do get raped, but there is also something to be sad for the women who will abuse anyone, anyway, to get what they want.

Posted by: Myke at March 10, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #132654

Kimberly
Keep looking, you will never find it. Sorry about your disbelief in GOD. God is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. There is no other answer. He always was, is and is to come.

All the arguments used about when is a baby a baby, and when does life begin, is just a bunch of modern day wanta be experts on life and the experiences of life. It is the natural ego and narcissism of people to feel important because they have some kind of revelation from the past history of mankind that changes what has become fact. So sad.

Posted by: tomh at March 10, 2006 12:34 PM
Comment #132655

lllplus2
I don’t know if the founder of Planed Parenthood was racist or not, but he sure must have been anti-child.
I don’t know if the Black community in general is against a White couple adopting a Black child. But a some of it’s leaders sure are.
I was talking to a Black pastor a couple a weeks ago and he told me that we would be committing a sin to adopt a Black child. I asked him to back that up with the Bible and he couldn’t.
This is the same man that told my daughter and son-in-law that if a White pastor wouldn’t marry them he would. Sounds like a bit if double standards to me.
If it’s ok for a Black man and a white girl to marry, then why is it wrong for a white couple to adopt a Black child?


Philippe
It’s both a trauma for body and mind, and you simply can’t continue doing it over and over without definitive damage to both of them. Young women could become unfertile that way. Most often they’ll develop or increase men relationship issue.

Another good reason to outlaw abortion.

PATRICK G.
Rather crudely put, but your right. The man has as much say as the woman. It’s his child too.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 10, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #132658

Philippe Houdoin is correct, that is the claim to which i was referring.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 10, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #132680

is it my opinion? ron brown has seen it. i did list tv shows and a movie in which black kids were being raised by white families. going up black and poor( no cable) i watch these shows int the 80s with my parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, etc. when an episode about the kids going to be with a black family came on, my rather large family all, not some but all, would comment the kids belong with the black family. “losing isiah” is based on a true story and it talks about black babies belong with black families. go rent it. i see it on documentaries on tv. it talks about the difficulty white families have adopting non-white children.

it is nice to see you have taken a minor point in my post and made it your battle cry. you folks who have called me out have yet to address my other points. the other points are not what i observed growing up but are cold hard facts. what about them?

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 10, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #132681

were we not talking about the south dakota abortion ban? for those of you who are standing on your soapbox screaming “what about rape and incest victims?”, how many of the 800 or so abortions performed in south dakota each year are because of a rape or incest?

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 10, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #132690

the case for and the case against. is the touchstone of time. this issiue is one of the biggest HOT BUTTONs of all time, just look at this blog if you were counting you would see about a dead even split and some undecided’s out there, some people use there emotions to make the choice and some use god and some take god out of the eqasion some say leave politics out of it and some say leave politics in. to quote one supreme court justice i wont mention the name of this person it is simple to rectify. everyone vote on it simply yes or no! i rather think that is kind of simplistic but that was their opinion. from my point of veiw this has been a very enlightening subject and it shows us that we as a nation are still as divided as ever on this issiue, i give dawn a lot of credit for the context of this blog. i cant think of a subject that brings out more discussion for or against, and the discussion of such issiues brings out ideas!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at March 10, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #132691

+2;

South Dakota’s 40.4 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 12th highest. With a population of appx 800k, that makes 320 forced rapes or no more than 40% of the abortions could be as a result of rape. You’d think with so many sheep and cows the other 60% wouldn’t fall in the other category (appologies to and and all you South Dakotans).

Posted by: Dave at March 10, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #132751

Abortion is not just a religious issue. It can be an economic/social issue as well. Let’s save Social Security by banning abortions. Face it, Social Security is a pyramid scheme and we are getting close to the bottom of the pyramid. We need to reproduce and sell this scheme to our new citizens. Can I get an “Amen” from the liberals?

If not, keep your abortions, cancel Social Security, and give me my tax money back! My children and grandchildren will take care of me when I’m old. Why should they be forced to take care of you when your old and aborted a family? Hey, this goes back to the government and privacy issue! Shouldn’t the way I’m cared for when I’m old be a private decision between my family and myself. Keep the government and Social Security out of it.

Just thought I would add some honest sarcasm to this thread. I’m curious to see the liberals defend their government-privacy issue now though.

Posted by: Al at March 10, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #132756

amen from the conservatives.

Posted by: lllplus2 at March 10, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #132760

I would like to know what child, even after being born, is able to support itself in any way, shape or form? If you just leave it alone it will starve and die even if it was carried to full term and delivered. Viability is a useless argument. I don’t imagine that a lot of two or three-year-olds are able to survive on their own either. This is a completely ridiculous way to define life. Dependency on others is so often viewed as such a bad thing. We are so stuck on being independent yet we need only to look at our own belly buttons to realize that we are not by nature independent. It is impossible to have both a strong sense of community and a focus on independence. It is unnatural to be isolated and alone. There is nothing wrong with being dependent. It is one of the many ways that God manifests His love for us - the service and assistance that others provide for us and that we provide for other people.

It “may” take up to seven days to fertilize the egg but it does not always take that long and who has any idea only seven days after the fact that they are pregnant?

The different but related topic of the soul of a child is crucial to this debate. No where does Scripture speak of children becoming cherubs when they die. They are conceived with a soul and sadly, that soul is tainted with sin by its very nature. Sinfulness is not chosen, it is inherited by the fact that we are alive. We cannot claim to know the mind of God. We can only rely on His mercy in such cases, for we know He is merciful. Though we cannot know such things as the eternal future of a child killed in the womb, we can avoid having to raise the question by avoiding the abortion whenever possible. One sin does not justify another and the intense emotional and physical pain of something like rape or incest is not removed or helped by taking the life of another. It is only worsened by the guilt and physical pain that are acknowledged consequences of having an abortion.

We need simply to look around us to realize that the world is becoming a more and more broken rather than better place. Man is not by nature good. Rather, as experience tells us, we are selfish creatures left to our own devices. We need look no further than our own lives to realize that all is not well and good. We can try to lie to ourselves or create fanciful worlds around us, but if we are truly honest with ourselves we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that people are basically good. Think of some of the insidious acts that we are describing - rape, incest, hate, greed, death. These are signs of decay and brokenness not health and life.

Praise be to God, that in His Son, Jesus Christ He gives us life even in a world satured by brokenness and death.

Posted by: Kurt at March 10, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #132777

lllplus2
I’ve never seen Losing Isiah. But I do know that if we were to adopt a Black child that there would be some difficulties that wouldn’t be there if we adopt a White or Asian child. This is mostly due to racial prejudice from both races.
But if the child knows that their adopted parents love them and that the rest of the family does too, I don’t think that the child will suffer any bad effects from being adopted by parents from another race. This goes both for a White couple adopting a Black child, and a Black couple adopting a White child.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 11, 2006 2:35 AM
Comment #133034

Abortion=murder. It’s very simple and easy to understand, isn’t it? Well to most of us it should be; why can’t people understand that a new life begins when a sperm and egg meet each other. If anything, South Dakota is a prime example that all states and even Congress should follow!

Posted by: greenstuff at March 12, 2006 11:04 PM
Comment #133451

Immoral Morality

Bush and the Republicans were boosted into power on the wave of “moral values.” Evidently, the morality of the religious Republican zealots is based almost exclusively on avoidance of sex, which explains their hostility to sex-before-marrriage, abortion, same-sex marriage and even sex-in-movies. They hate sex so much that they think that having “non-sanctioned” sex is worse than dying from cancer! This is morality?

The most common cause of cervical cancer among women is the human papillomavirus or HPV. It kills abut 5,000 American women and hundreds-of-thousands of women abroad each year. Recently, Merck and Company developed a vaccine that if applied to young women before they become sexualy active prevents them from ever being infected with HPV.

Many tests have shown that this vaccine is almost 100% effective. It’s a boon to women. The outstanding scientist and Nobel laureate David Baltimore said:

“This is a cancer vaccine, and immensely effective one. We should be proud and excited. It has the potential to save hundreds of thousands of lives every year.”

Pretty straightforward, it seems. But not to the Republican religious zealots. They are holding up FDA approval. You know why? It’s hard to believe, but they are against the vaccine because it may subject young women to greater temptation to have sex before marriage! As Leslee J. Unruh, the founder and president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, said:

“Premarital sex is dangerous, even deadly. Let’s not encourage it by vaccinating ten-year-olds so they think they’re safe.”

Never mind that studies have found that “abstinence pledge” programs do not work. As Michael Specter in the March 13, 2006 issue of The New Yorker, states:

“Eighty-eight per cent of those who took such pledges and had sex before the end of the study did so before marriage.”

Religious zealots would rather women die from cancer than be subjected to the temptation of having sex. Wow. These are the same people that tell us these women have free will. From where I sit, their stymieing the availability of the cancer vaccine is a highly immoral act. Here’s Baltimore again:

“We are talking about basic public health now. What moral precepts allow us to think that the risk of death is a price worth paying to encourage abstinence as the only approach to sex?”

A true moral person would do his best to help girls (and others) live. A moral person is kind, generous and helpful. A moral person would not immediately assume the worst about others. A moral person would never stand in the way of adopting a vaccine that may enrich a woman’s life.

Religious zealots practice an immoral morality.

Posted by: june at March 14, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #133994

june
This is really reaching. The drug has not been available long enough to say it is 100% effective. Nor without side problems.

Abstinence doesn’t work? Where is the logic in that statement?

Posted by: tomh at March 16, 2006 7:29 PM
Comment #134197

tomh,

I thought it was pretty clear June was reffering to “Abstinence Only education”

Posted by: Dave at March 17, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #134317

My aunt was a victim of cervical cancer, the virus contracted from her philandering husband. She was faithful, religious (devout catholic) her entire life.

Cervical cancer is an equal opportunity disease. Nice Republican Christian women, like my aunt, will contract it the same as the liberal whores.

We already vaccinate for another sexually transmitted disease (hepatitis), both boys and girls. Why is the vaccination for cervical cancer different. Oh, yeah, I forgot, it’s different because only women get it, and men run our government.

Women continue to be second class citizens, never more so than under the Bush administration.

Posted by: Sam at March 18, 2006 12:24 AM
Post a comment