Are you Pro-Life or Pro-Abortion

[QivKomer]

What are you thoughts on This issue.

[markj]

Life is a gift.

It is not mine, yours or anyone else's to take.

End of story.

[QivKomer]

Amen

[Vvick727]

lol i don't think anyone is pro-ABORTION

[Theocrat]

By the way, the opposite of "pro-life" is "pro-death." ;)

[QivKomer]

lol i don't think anyone is pro-ABORTION

I think they call themselves Pro-Choice actually. I think it's the same thing though.

[therealjjj77]

Life is a gift.

It is not mine, yours or anyone else's to take.

End of story.

Except the one who gave the gift!

[Alex Libman]

It should read "Pro Tyrannical Prohibition" vs "Pro Self-Ownership" ...

We have a nice compromise going of leaving it up to the states, but if I see you fetus nuts gang up on this issue one more time, I'll vote Libertarian over Ron Paul!

[abruzz0]

I'm on the fence with this issue. Sometimes I come across people who I wish were aborted for being so stupid.

[Melissa]

if you are not pro life it does NOT mean you are pro abortion---What it is called is pro choice and what that means to me is even though I think abortion is wrong --for me--I can't tell anyone what thier "choice" should be----

remember the old saying dont judge till you walked a mile in thier shoes

[Eponym_mi]

It should read "Pro Tyrannical Prohibition" vs "Pro Self-Ownership" ...

And if I hear the abortion issue one more time, I'll vote Libertarian over Ron Paul!

+100000

I'm male and if polls are to be believed, most RP supporters are male too, which means most of the people responding here will never have one. Nevertheless, I wouldn't encourage any woman to get one, nor would I want to pay for one through taxes. But I really don't see how government would help. Government regulation of abortion would be nearly as effective as government regulation of suicide.

[Tom228]

You should really say pro-choice, otherwise you make it sound VERY bias. Saying Pro-Abortion is like saying you're Pro-Killing Babies Indiscriminately.

[RPTXState]

You should really say pro-choice, otherwise you make it sound VERY bias. Saying Pro-Abortion is like saying you're Pro-Killing Babies Indiscriminately.

+1

I refuse to answer this biased poll.

[TER]

For those who get offended by such polls, I get offended by life being sucked out via a suction device and flushed down the drain. Yes, its my opinion, and it will never change.

[Mahkato]

This issue and the semantics surrounding it are not well reduced to two-option polls. I am strong pro-life, but I applaud the many pro-(choice/whatever) Ron Paul supporters who do not agree with him on his pro-life stance yet agree that the matter should be decided by the states, not the courts which have usurped the authority.

[Ron Paul for Liberty]

I'm Pro Life. Barry Goldwater was pro choice by the way.

[defe07]

Well, I'm personally against abortion but favor responsible choice for the mother. I support all 1st trimester abortions, oppose all 3rd trimester abortions (except in case of mother's life, health) and state's rights with 2nd trimester abortions (favor only in 1st month of 2nd trimester). I wouldn't encourage abortions or have one but would like to leave this up to the states.

[Buzz]

You should really say pro-choice, otherwise you make it sound VERY bias. Saying Pro-Abortion is like saying you're Pro-Killing Babies Indiscriminately.

There's no sugar-coating it. Either you condone it or you don't.

I didn't vote. The issue is still a little bit complicated for me.

[aksmith]

I'm pro-life, but uncomfortably so because I do consider the privacy issue. What made up my mind is that I decided it's less about privacy than it is competing rights. I think that both the mother and the baby have a right to life, and I can't say one supersedes the other. And because I have no special knowledge about when life actually begins, I come down on the side of pro-life.

Christianity believes life begins at conception. Judaism believes that life begins at 40 days. I'm sure other religions believe some variation of the same. But it's not even a religious matter with me. I'm a physician, like Ron, and as much as I've studied and pondered, I cannot come up with an answer to when life begins that doesn't seem artificial or arbitrary. So, like I said, I come down on the side of pro-life.

[Radiofoot]

If something can be made so easy, it's hard to believe that it's sacred.

Life become sacred as it develops: as it learns, as it socialises, as it benefits others and grows. To assume something is sacred just through it existing seems a bit silly, things should be respected through what's been achieved.

A typical argument is 'but a baby has no choice in the matter', but another can be just as easily created. It's more beneficial to society for babies to be born into loving, caring families, where they have a chance to grow up to be prosperous and successful, rather than being born to unfavourable circumstances: where there's a greater risk of them dragging down society.

Though I'm not trying to convert anyone here, this is simply my viewpoint. And I believe everybody should have the right to do what THEY think is best, not what anyone else thinks.

If my girlfriend decides to abort our baby, it has no bearing on your life, and quite frankly is none of your business.

[peacemonger]

I'm pro-life and I am glad that nobody here was aborted.

I am happy that all of our mothers accepted our rights to exist.

Every Ron Paul supporter is truly miraculous.

[mmink15]

pro-abortion? Did Frank Luntz make this poll? There IS a common sense strain of thought that life does NOT begin at conception, how about pro-choice or anti-choice.

[josephadel_3]

It is a biological fact that life begins at conception. Like Ron Paul says, "If you can't protect life, then how can you protect liberty?"

I am strongly pro-life for that reason. A species that has started to terminate its offspring has accelerated its demise. A society unable to protect life is unable to protect liberty. Ron Paul would nullify the effects of Roe v Wade, and would respect the 10th amendment, allowing grassroots pro-life movements to change state laws. This is why I support Ron Paul. Roe v Wade disrespects the constitution; Ron Paul respects it.

[rp08orbust]

I think they call themselves Pro-Choice actually. I think it's the same thing though.

I'm pro-choice about drugs, but not pro-DRUGS.

[RPTXState]

It is a biological fact that life begins at conception.

Says who?

And is evolution a biological fact?

[FormerDemocrat]

I'm Pro-choice.

Well... I did come from the Democrats.
:D:D:D

I look at it this way.
I don't completely rule it out.

It's like a gun.
I prefer to have it and not use it, vs not have it and need it.


There was a special I believe on ABC that showed a family who's son was a product of his mother's rape. The kid's very bright, good grades, etc etc.

I mean put your self in his shoes. It would really take a toll on one's own life. (It has for him.)
That's why I don't completely rule it out, cause it may in fact ruin two lives instead of one.

[Brian4Liberty]

Give it a rest, please...

[IowaGarrett]

I can tell people what their choice should be: not to kill a living human being.

I am a nurse. The advances in the science should have put an end to this long ago. When I saw my first sonogram of a new life, even at just a few weeks old, it was all I will EVER need to KNOW. She was life, and she was human.

I think even with Roe v Wade hanging over us, all women who want an abortion should have to watch a 3-D sonogram of what they will be "terminating".

What is the question anymore? A choice? OUR rights end where another life begins. Sure I have the choice to kill somone... but I will go to prison. It is based in the other's "inalienable right to LIFE" per the Constitution.

Abortion is no different.

[IowaGarrett]

Why not let him decide on his 13th birthday then? We could propose law to allow euthenasia couldnt we? Do you think he would say: OK, just kill me? Maybe so...and if so then its his right to choice?


I'm Pro-choice.

Well... I did come from the Democrats.
:D:D:D

I look at it this way.
I don't completely rule it out.

It's like a gun.
I prefer to have it and not use it, vs not have it and need it.


There was a special I believe on ABC that showed a family who's son was a product of his mother's rape. The kid's very bright, good grades, etc etc.

I mean put your self in his shoes. It would really take a toll on one's own life. (It has for him.)
That's why I don't completely rule it out, cause it may in fact ruin two lives instead of one.

[noztnac]

It should read "Pro Tyrannical Prohibition" vs "Pro Self-Ownership" ...

We have a nice compromise going of leaving it up to the states, but if I see you fetus nuts gang up on this issue one more time, I'll vote Libertarian over Ron Paul!

No it should be "irresponsible morons mandating that I finance their boneheaded idiocy and something I see as immoral and reprehensible with my own tax money vs. personal responsibility".


I am a Libertarian and am 100% against the government stealing my money to pay for someone else's abortion. So if you think Libertarians are pro-tax subsidizes abortion you are sorely mistaken.

[brandon]

"pro-abortion"?? Totally a Frank Luntz poll.

[misterbig]

I think that destroying a handful of cells after they have been fertilized is really not a big deal. Although I would agree less and less as it develops more features. For example, a brain stem.

Is anyone here really saying they would get bent out of shape over destroying 1, 2, or even 4 cells after they have been fertilized? Hmm...

[misterbig]

It is a biological fact that life begins at conception. Like Ron Paul says, "If you can't protect life, then how can you protect liberty?"

Demagoguery. You are defining life to begin at conception and using that definition to "prove" your points. I could just as easily say it is a biological fact that life begins when the brain stem appears. Or when a heart appears.

The real fact, is that we don't know exactly when life begins. It certainly happens at some point after conception, but before birth.


A species that has started to terminate its offspring has accelerated its demise.

Imagine arguing the opposite point 200 years from now when the world is vastly overpopulated and its resources are insufficient to support life:

"If you can't reduce overpopulation, then how can you protect liberty?"

"A species that cannot control its population has accelerated its demise."

These are all valid statements in that context.


A society unable to protect life is unable to protect liberty.

Demagoguery again. Where is the proof of this statement? And how do you equate being "unable to protect life" with "supporting first trimester abortions?" You make it sound like if we allow first trimester abortions then we are condoning ALL forms of killing. This is simply untrue.

A more accurate statement would be "protecting life in most all cases but provding flexibility in terminating unwanted pregnancies within some suitably small window of time after conception." Is this really incompatible with liberty? Methinks not.

For the record, I completely support Ron Paul's position on this issue and wouldn't mind in the slightest if all states made abortion illegal, if it was a prerequisite to moving towards a just society with maximum liberties for all (and sound currency).

[drpiotrowski]

If my girlfriend decides to abort our baby, it has no bearing on your life, and quite frankly is none of your business.

If I decide to kill my ten year old daughter, it has no bearing on your life, and quite frankly is none of your business.

[Eponym_mi]

If I decide to kill my ten year old daughter, it has no bearing on your life, and quite frankly is none of your business.

IMO, life is consciousness and should be protected. Unless your daughter is brain dead, I don't think anyone would debate that your daughter is alive. However, there is plently of debate in respect to whether a fetus at a given stage in development is consciousness and therefore alive. Like most extremists, you're making an assinine argument.

[adara7537]

This debate is such a waste of time, pro lifers will hardly ever switch sides and likewise with pro choicers.

I am personally pro life though I don't believe I have the right to make that decision for others.

I also am of the opinion that if you are pro life and would like abortion outlawed you need to do your part and adopt children.

[Sey.Naci]

I think they call themselves Pro-Choice actually. I think it's the same thing though.No, it isn't. One can be personally anti-abortion yet pro-choice.

[josephadel_3]

Says who?

And is evolution a biological fact?

Says who?



"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." -

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School


"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception." -

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic





And is evolution a biological fact?

Carl Sagan wrote "Evolution is a fact, not a theory." American zoologist and paleontologist George Simpson, stated that "Darwin...finally and definitely established evolution as a fact."

from - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

technically it is both theory and fact, like gravity.

I don't want to force my opinion. I'm just answering your questions. You have the right to disagree with my response.

[josephadel_3]

Demagoguery. You are defining life to begin at conception and using that definition to "prove" your points. I could just as easily say it is a biological fact that life begins when the brain stem appears. Or when a heart appears.

The real fact, is that we don't know exactly when life begins. It certainly happens at some point after conception, but before birth.



Imagine arguing the opposite point 200 years from now when the world is vastly overpopulated and its resources are insufficient to support life:

"If you can't reduce overpopulation, then how can you protect liberty?"

"A species that cannot control its population has accelerated its demise."

These are all valid statements in that context.



Demagoguery again. Where is the proof of this statement? And how do you equate being "unable to protect life" with "supporting first trimester abortions?" You make it sound like if we allow first trimester abortions then we are condoning ALL forms of killing. This is simply untrue.

A more accurate statement would be "protecting life in most all cases but provding flexibility in terminating unwanted pregnancies within some suitably small window of time after conception." Is this really incompatible with liberty? Methinks not.

For the record, I completely support Ron Paul's position on this issue and wouldn't mind in the slightest if all states made abortion illegal, if it was a prerequisite to moving towards a just society with maximum liberties for all (and sound currency).

The real fact, is that we don't know exactly when life begins. It certainly happens at some point after conception, but before birth.

I have already addressed this. You don't have to agree with the quotations if you don't want to.


Imagine arguing the opposite point 200 years from now when the world is vastly overpopulated and its resources are insufficient to support life:

"If you can't reduce overpopulation, then how can you protect liberty?"

You might as well debate with Dr. Paul on this one. This is irrelevant to the abortion debate until true overpopulation occurs.

Regardless of hypothetical disasters, Abortion is an act of violence on an innocent life. Laws exist that protect a pregnant mother and her child in womb. If while speeding, you kill a pregnant mother while in a car crash, you are liable for the life of her and the child in womb. If you murder a pregnant mother, then you are liable for two lives. If the law recognizes these entities as individuals, then surely it has the ability to protect the same entity that may or may not be aborted. A paradox, indeed.

[thexjib]

I'm pro-life, but uncomfortably so because I do consider the privacy issue. What made up my mind is that I decided it's less about privacy than it is competing rights. I think that both the mother and the baby have a right to life, and I can't say one supersedes the other. And because I have no special knowledge about when life actually begins, I come down on the side of pro-life.

Christianity believes life begins at conception. Judaism believes that life begins at 40 days. I'm sure other religions believe some variation of the same. But it's not even a religious matter with me. I'm a physician, like Ron, and as much as I've studied and pondered, I cannot come up with an answer to when life begins that doesn't seem artificial or arbitrary. So, like I said, I come down on the side of pro-life.

+1

[IowaGarrett]

Im not sure why people continue to debate what life is as related to the number of cells something has accumulated.

Even science does not debate that a single celled organism (eg. an ameoba) is, in fact, a living creature.

[thehittgirl]

I am pro-life, but on the same token, don't feel it's the government's job to legislate. I detest abortion.

[Brutus]

Murder of anyone not getting a Federal paycheck is a matter for the States, so is abortion. Dr. Paul's position is 100% Constitutional. Hard matters/cultural matters/police powers go to the States. If a State doesn't like what another State is doing badly enough it can secede, well, Constitutionally, if not practically (yet).

[tamor]

The morning after pill would help eliminate the need for abortions -- it prevents the pregnancy from beginning--as more options are developed, there will not be the need for this discussion -- I am very much pro-choice

[1000-points-of-fright]

What are you thoughts on This issue.

My thoughts are that you are a smug, condescending asshole for wording your poll the way you did. I think war is bad, but I recognize that sometimes it is necessary. Does that make me pro-war?

[DahuiHeeNalu]

Pro Life - Anti War!

[aymn27]

www.l4l.org - converted me to libertarian first..and later led me to Christianity (being pro-life that is).

[FormerDemocrat]

Why not let him decide on his 13th birthday then? We could propose law to allow euthenasia couldnt we? Do you think he would say: OK, just kill me? Maybe so...and if so then its his right to choice?

Well, dude....
There are some people in the world who cannot face life, specially when times go hard and things get rough.

However, since you said euthanasia. Check out this documentary about capital punishment and execution.

It covers varies ways of killing a human being.

The Science of Killing a Human Being:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8672745777809394637

[TSOL]

Pro Life Personally

Let the states decide as it isn;t my call to tell a woman what she can do.

[jmdrake]

I'm pro life (weak, not rabid) because of listening to Ron Paul. And that just goes to show how STUPID the republican establishment is for fighting Dr. Paul. He's really winning people over to new ways of thinking.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[therealjjj77]

My wife, who is from China, was just reading an article about a woman in the country side who was pregnant and was in the middle of delivering the baby when the officials came in and killed the baby as it was coming out and still moving. This just happened. This was due to their "population control" policies. The lady went absolutely crazy afterwards.

What's really crazy about the whole situation is most of the Chinese are told by the government that it is OK and necessary and they actually believe that line.

It won't be long before the same socialist eugenicists try to pass this kind of crap here in the U.S. They've already got their foot in the door with skewing the definition of "life" written in the Constitution.

I guess our society is just "evolving" to the wonderful utopia that exists in China. :(

[daniroyer]

During the first trimester, the fertilized embryo's chance of surviving on its own is nil and its rights are tied to the woman's. When the second trimester starts, the fetus is much more viable and has its own rights. Into the third trimester, the fetus is it's own being and the chance of survival with proper medical care is decently likely.

I'm never "for" abortion, but I believe it should be legal during the first trimester. It's sadly become a staple and if made illegal now, would push many women to seek illegal, unsafe procedures. We need to end this problem through proper sex ed, a better economy, and driving home PERSONAL responsibility.

My hope is that by time my sons are old enough to have to worry about this issue, abortion will be a legal medical procedure of extreme last resort. By then there should be better access to birth control for both women AND men. That is what I am working for.

[1000-points-of-fright]

In "the future" all new-borns should have a simple and reversible procedure that sterilizes them. Then as adults if they want children, they go have it reversed. The procedure can be limited to one gender or the other depending on simplicity and effectiveness. This will eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

This could also lead to the extinction of the human race.:p

[Aaya]

Remember that 85% of the abortions performed are on lower income women, the same people who traditionally vote for big government candidates. Not to be too crude, but abortion works to eliminate future enemies of the free market.

[Eponym_mi]

This could also lead to the extinction of the human race.:p

Let's just start with people whose sole purpose seems to be creating polls like this.

[zadrock]

Here are some people who appear to be both pro-life and pro-abortion

http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

Z

[IowaGarrett]

While sounding on a basic and overly simplified level, informed, this argument reads like a judge's decision being passed down from the bench. Let me explain something we all know... the judges ruling makes it legal-- it doesnt make it right.

As far as this declaration on the basis of viability goes... I dont see it as any stronger than any other argument.

Life is life. This is intrinsic.

I see nothing intrinsic about an embryo's rights being tied to the mother? What about being viable gives more rights? "The chance of surviving on its own" somehow grants rights, whereas not being able to survive on one's own takes them away? I havent met any newborn who had any "chance of surviving on its own". The only thing that gives these children a "chance of surviving on their own" IS the granting of RIGHTS-- which happens at birth under law-- which binds the medical staff to act in a way to preserve life (whether abandoned by the "mother" or not).

Unfortunately, without rights many living creatures are not "viable" from conception... or ever.

On a side note:
Ive seen enough sick people, critically ill. These people were far from "viable" and had no chance of surviving on their own. But they did. Because someone stepped in. Because they have rights we are bound by law to act in a manner to preserve their life by any means available. We shouldnt stand aside.


During the first trimester, the fertilized embryo's chance of surviving on its own is nil and its rights are tied to the woman's. When the second trimester starts, the fetus is much more viable and has its own rights. Into the third trimester, the fetus is it's own being and the chance of survival with proper medical care is decently likely.

I'm never "for" abortion, but I believe it should be legal during the first trimester. It's sadly become a staple and if made illegal now, would push many women to seek illegal, unsafe procedures. We need to end this problem through proper sex ed, a better economy, and driving home PERSONAL responsibility.

My hope is that by time my sons are old enough to have to worry about this issue, abortion will be a legal medical procedure of extreme last resort. By then there should be better access to birth control for both women AND men. That is what I am working for.

[therealjjj77]

Remember that 85% of the abortions performed are on lower income women, the same people who traditionally vote for big government candidates. Not to be too crude, but abortion works to eliminate future enemies of the free market.

There was an older guy at my GOP who was telling me about a family he casually knew when he was in Wisconsin that lived on welfare. They were on his delivery route and he would deliver to them every so often. It had been several months since he had delivered and when he got to the door the 14 year old answered the door and said, "I look different since the last time you saw me, don't I?" She was 8 months pregnant. She told him, "Yeah, my mom told me that we needed another paycheck each month so she told me to go get pregnant."

Unfortunately our welfare system actually grows the vote for the enemies of the free market.

[Aaya]

There was an older guy at my GOP who was telling me about a family he casually knew when he was in Wisconsin that lived on welfare. They were on his delivery route and he would deliver to them every so often. It had been several months since he had delivered and when he got to the door the 14 year old answered the door and said, "I look different since the last time you saw me, don't I?" She was 8 months pregnant. She told him, "Yeah, my mom told me that we needed another paycheck each month so she told me to go get pregnant."

Unfortunately our welfare system actually grows the vote for the enemies of the free market.

I agree completely. We need to fight the welfare state legislatively, but we shouldn't disregard one of our best weapons against it which is abortion.

[NEPA_Revolution]

I agree completely. We need to fight the welfare state legislatively, but we shouldn't disregard one of our best weapons against it which is abortion.

You would choose to kill a living person for the good of the Free Market? I dont think RP would agree with half of your statement.

[therealjjj77]

I agree completely. We need to fight the welfare state legislatively, but we shouldn't disregard one of our best weapons against it which is abortion.

It is also very hard to say what a person will choose to believe when they get older. By the family I come from and the way I was raised, I should have been a government dependent socialist. However, I heard about the ideas of free market and investigated and have changed my entire family's view on this. It is difficult to judge what a person will believe before they even have an opportunity to make that choice for themselves.

In fact, one could argue that the more people are in a family, the greater probability that one of them will stumble across the ideas of the free market and change their whole family's view.

[RonPaulFTFW]

I'm adamantly pro-life.

Women should always have the right to choose.

[G-Wohl]

For those who get offended by such polls, I get offended by life being sucked out via a suction device and flushed down the drain. Yes, its my opinion, and it will never change.

It isn't about the poll, it's about the clearly biased and one-sided wording featured in it. Such questions are perfectly acceptable to ask, but it's just ridiculous and stupid to make a poll depicting the "other side" as being Pro-Abortion ("Pro-Death" or other such things).

[jmarinara]

It should read "Pro Tyrannical Prohibition" vs "Pro Self-Ownership" ...

We have a nice compromise going of leaving it up to the states, but if I see you fetus nuts gang up on this issue one more time, I'll vote Libertarian over Ron Paul!

Well don't let the door hit you in the . . . . never mind.

Seriously, you're gonna go vote for someone else because you don't like some of the supporters points of view? Just stop and think about that for a minute.

[jmarinara]

if you are not pro life it does NOT mean you are pro abortion---What it is called is pro choice and what that means to me is even though I think abortion is wrong --for me--I can't tell anyone what thier "choice" should be----

remember the old saying dont judge till you walked a mile in thier shoes

Why is it so hard to say that murder is wrong, a violation of the most fundamental human right, and should be outlawed in a free and orderly society?

And why is it so hard to understand that humans are still people no matter how small they may be, or how far along in the development they may be, and that taking there innocent life, even if they lack the ability to protest, is murder?

[jmarinara]

Government regulation of abortion would be nearly as effective as government regulation of suicide.

Yeah sure.

When abortion was outlawed, the most liberal estimates where that about 35 abortions occurred on a yearly basis in the 20th century.

Now that it is legal we kill 4,000 babies every DAY.

[Eponym_mi]

Well don't let the door hit you in the . . . . never mind.


I'd say the same for you. Single issue people like yourself should go start a new party for that purpose and howl at the moon. You've already done a fine job pushing people away from the Republican party.:rolleyes:

[jmarinara]

Well, I'm personally against abortion but favor responsible choice for the mother. I support all 1st trimester abortions, oppose all 3rd trimester abortions (except in case of mother's life, health) and state's rights with 2nd trimester abortions (favor only in 1st month of 2nd trimester). I wouldn't encourage abortions or have one but would like to leave this up to the states.


So what happens on the 91st day of the child's life that makes it more human, more alive, and more deserving of protection?

[jmarinara]

I'm a physician, like Ron, and as much as I've studied and pondered, I cannot come up with an answer to when life begins that doesn't seem artificial or arbitrary. So, like I said, I come down on the side of pro-life.

Wow, you're a physician and this is your pathetic answer?

Seriously doc, if an hour old baby isn't alive, then what is it? You have two basic choices with no middle ground. Alive or Dead. Dead things don't grow, don't consume food, don't produce waste products, don't develop into living things. So therefore it is alive.

It is certainly human, and if you're gonna argue that point with me, you should give up your license to practice medicine and mop floors somewhere.

So if it's alive and human, is it not a person?

[Eponym_mi]

When abortion was outlawed, the most liberal estimates where that about 35 abortions occurred on a yearly basis in the 20th century.

Now, I know you're a nutjob. What 35 reported? What a crock of shit!! :rolleyes:

[Captain America]

Life is a gift.

It is not mine, yours or anyone else's to take.

End of story.

bump for a exactly what i believe

[evadmurd]

I think they call themselves Pro-Choice actually. I think it's the same thing though.

Not in the least. I am a strongly pro-life but I would have a hard time calling a pro-choicer pro-abortion, unless of course they were an abortionist.

[jmarinara]

Says who?

And is evolution a biological fact?

Answer to the first question: Anyone who has any common sense and any sensible definition of what being alive is.

No evolution is not a biological fact, it's a complete and total fairy tale. And what does that have to do with this subject?

[jmarinara]

I think that destroying a handful of cells after they have been fertilized is really not a big deal. Although I would agree less and less as it develops more features. For example, a brain stem.

Is anyone here really saying they would get bent out of shape over destroying 1, 2, or even 4 cells after they have been fertilized? Hmm...

Yes, yes I am saying I would get bent out of shape when we decide to arbitrarily kill a human being, no matter how small or how seemingly insignificant.

And your callous viewpoint on life is frightening and angering.

[Eponym_mi]

No evolution is not a biological fact, it's a complete and total fairy tale. And what does that have to do with this subject?

This forum has obviously been infiltrated.

[kutibah]

I'm pro-abortion under certain circumstances, but certainly not to "undo" a mistake.

[Iowa4Paul]

In a perfect world we wouldn't need legal abortion.

However we don't live a utopia. There are defects, complications, uneducated teens, rape, and sometimes a woman can't support a child.

I would rather have it legal than there be some back-alley coat-hanger abortions.
I've known girls who didn't know sex would get them pregnant. I've also known another who's father kicked them out of the house because they got pregnant...

Then there's my friend who was raped and got pregnant. Should she be forced to carry this child against her will?

Anyone who says yes can kiss my ass and lick my shit-soaked boots.

[jmarinara]

Demagoguery. You are defining life to begin at conception and using that definition to "prove" your points.

And why exactly is that a wrong or bad definition? Please, someone tell me how even a single cell dividing cannot be classified as alive.


I could just as easily say it is a biological fact that life begins when the brain stem appears. Or when a heart appears.

Sure, but you would have a hard time defending when a heart became a heart and a brain stem became a brain stem. I could poke holes in those types of arguments with my brain tied behind my back. The conception argument is simple, elegant, and completely logical. It is hard to argue against when you are being honest.


The real fact, is that we don't know exactly when life begins. It certainly happens at some point after conception, but before birth.

How do you define life? When you define life, you will know exactly when it begins assuming the proper information is available to you.


Imagine arguing the opposite point 200 years from now when the world is vastly overpopulated and its resources are insufficient to support life

Considering we are losing more people than we are gaining, I'm not real worried.


"If you can't reduce overpopulation, then how can you protect liberty?"

"A species that cannot control its population has accelerated its demise."

These are all valid statements in that context.

No. Murder is never right. No matter what the circumstances.


how do you equate being "unable to protect life" with "supporting first trimester abortions?" You make it sound like if we allow first trimester abortions then we are condoning ALL forms of killing. This is simply untrue.

Well now, think about it for a minute. If a child inside the womb is alive, and human, and it is ok to kill them for any reason, or even for limited reasons. Why would it not be ok to kill someone else for similar reasons? What has changed except the size and position of the person being killed? Are you really going to make the pathetic argument that size and position of a person determine their value?


"protecting life in most all cases but provding flexibility in terminating unwanted pregnancies within some suitably small window of time after conception." Is this really incompatible with liberty? Methinks not.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So yes, terminating an essential component of our rights is incompatible with liberty.

[jmarinara]

IMO, life is consciousness

Interesting. Is bacteria conscience? Hmmm? Of course not. So I guess then we must throw out all knowledge and theories we have on micro-biology because they are all premised on the idea that bacteria and other similar organisms are alive.


Like most extremists, you're making an assinine argument.

Took the words right out of my mouth, but instead regarding you and all other pro-murder extremists. And make no mistakes, you people who make these arguments straight out of the Nazi handbooks to justify your murder of innocent people are nothing short of extremists. How our founders and fore fathers would view us and be ashamed! How disgusting the sensible thinkers and leaders of the past would find these justifications for cold blooded murder!

[Eponym_mi]

Took the words right out of my mouth, but instead regarding you and all other pro-murder extremists.

Actually, I'm pro-life. In fact, there was a time where I might have taken your extreme views. I voted to outlaw abortion in my state should Roe v Wade be overturned. I just don't subscribe to your extremism. As I encounter people like yourself, I find your remedies to the problem imperfect and sickening. You offer no solution...you just judge and run around condemning people. Take the plank from your own eye asshole. :rolleyes:

[PepperdotNet]

Arguing about this subject is helping get Dr. Paul elected... how exactly?

[jmarinara]

I'd say the same for you. Single issue people like yourself

*sarcasm* Yes, that's right, I'm single issue. */end sarcasm* I vote for Ron Paul for 4 main reasons (Abortion, Our Basic Rights, Restoring our Republic, and Sound Money) and about 25 minor reasons.

So please ask me what my issue/issues are before you say something stupid.


You've already done a fine job pushing people away from the Republican party.:rolleyes:

I am happy to push as many as possible away from either pea in the same socialist pod. Democrat or Republican. The two parties ARE the problem, so I take your statement here as a badge of honor!

[josephadel_3]

Well said, jmarinara. Thank you. Although I disagree with you about evolution, it is irrelevant to this discussion, like you said.

[jmarinara]

Now, I know you're a nutjob. What 35 reported? What a crock of shit!! :rolleyes:

To clarify, the 35 number was an average and the highest in our nations history before Roe v. Wade. It was taken mostly from the number of convictions for illegal abortions with a modifier thrown in for those not caught in their crimes.

Now I admit it could be wrong because modifiers can always be wrong in statistics. However, I would bet my life that it doesn't even approach the 4,000 per day we have now.

[jmarinara]

This forum has obviously been infiltrated.

Intelligent . . . really. :eek:

[Eponym_mi]

So please ask me what my issue/issues are before you say something stupid.

Based on all of your posts in this thread, it is obvious that this is your make or break issue. The earlier comment stands....if you're not a Republican, you're probably from the CP...you should go back.:rolleyes:

[Eponym_mi]

To clarify, the 35 number was an average and the highest in our nations history before Roe v. Wade. It was taken mostly from the number of convictions for illegal abortions with a modifier thrown in for those not caught in their crimes.

Now I admit it could be wrong because modifiers can always be wrong in statistics. However, I would bet my life that it doesn't even approach the 4,000 per day we have now.

Yeah, convicted.:rolleyes: Truth is you have no idea how many were being performed before Roe v Wade. Nevermind that a large part of the population could very easily head over to Canada and get one legally.:rolleyes:

[jmarinara]

Actually, I'm pro-life. In fact, there was a time where I might have taken your extreme views. I voted to outlaw abortion in my state should Roe v Wade be overturned. I just don't subscribe to your extremism. As I encounter people like yourself, I find your remedies to the problem imperfect and sickening. You offer no solution...you just judge and run around condemning people. Take the plank from your own eye asshole. :rolleyes:

First of all, if you are going to paraphrase scripture, watch your language.

Here's my solution. Protect life, at all times at all costs. Period. Why? Because it is the very purpose of government to protect the life liberty and property of the innocent. It's why they exist. And when they can't do their job, or refuse to do their job, it is shameful.

As for those who have illegitimate children, my solution is to teach them that their purpose in life is to honor Jesus Christ and enjoy Him forever. They should be cared for, and their children should be cared for. Part of that care is help them to understand their sins, and to know the awesome Saviour who died to take it away. If they can or want to care for their children, then let them. If not, find the child a loving family who can care for him/her.

For those that decide to murder their children. They should be jailed after treatment and recovery and be punished according to the laws of the people.

For those that have been raped or abused and are forced to carry a child against their will, they should be given extra special care and understanding and never forced to care for a child they never wanted. The birth and pregnancy should be made as easy as possible and the child should be given to another family that will care for it unless the mother wants it.

I have my doubts you are pro-life. If you can somehow find a way to justify the murder of the innocent, you may think you are pro-life, but you are not.

[jmarinara]

Based on all of your posts in this thread, it is obvious that this is your make or break issue. The earlier comment stands....if you're not a Republican, you're probably from the CP...you should go back.:rolleyes:

No it's more like a life or death issue. I love children and care about the others especially when they are being killed. I feel government has specific tasks and protecting life is one of them. When government fails to do it's job, be it not protect life, or not serve the people, that is indeed a make or break issue for me.

I used to be in the CP, and in the GOP. I have no intention of going back to either. The CP is weak and to interested in ridiculous issues. The GOP is just plain evil, Dr. Paul being the glaring exception.

[jmarinara]

Yeah, convicted.:rolleyes: Truth is you have no idea how many were being performed before Roe v Wade. Nevermind that a large part of the population could very easily head over to Canada and get one legally.:rolleyes:

Yes, I admitted that I had no real idea, but I still would bet my life that it isn't even CLOSE to the 4,000 per day we have now.

And yes, the Canada thing is a good point. It is truly sad that Canada is willing to kill children, but we aren't the policeman of the world and have no right to tell Canada what to do, tragic though it may be. Although changing customs laws might be in order. ;)

BTW, you roll your eyes a lot.

[daniroyer]

The problem is arguing when life starts is if you take it back to conception, it's very easy to take it back to birth control being abortion because it prevents conception. It's a very slipery slope.

The other way, stating that life legally begins at viability, is much harder to slide to "life begins at birth".

Yes, illegal abortion rates may have been low before it was legalized, but I can assure it the rate of illegal abortions will be MUCH higher because it has been already legal. Too many people think it's a right. Much like people who use illegal drugs. Hell, open your history books to the Prohibition era.

Making it illegal won't stop it, it will only make each procedure much more dangerous. Imagine not only just women maimed by illegal abortion procedures, but what if the abortion doesn't work and we end up with a large number of babies born with defects from an attempted back-alley abortion? At least now we have a level of control over the saftey.

We all agree abortion is bad. We all agree it's used far too often. We all want to get the number of abortions down to almost nothing.

You can't just make it illegal and move on without fixing the issues that cause us to be in this situation. Just like Ron Paul will keep Social Security for my parents' genration, he will allow my gneration to opt out. To change the way we will live. The same goes for abortion. Keep it legal under the most basic circumstances while educating us to "opt-out".

We need to instill a sense of self responsibility. If I don't keep up with my depo shots, it's my own fault. If my husband continues to have sex with me without checking if I'm up-to-date on my depo shots, it's his fault. We have the responsibility to make sure our sons know enough to be responsible for themselves and have the knowledge to do so.

We also need to make basic sex ed avaliable to people. The idea of not having sex until marriage is the safest way, I agree. But not everyone will have the will to seek out further knowledge. Did my drivers ed teacher telling me to wear my seatbelt cause me to drive recklessly? No. Will my sex ed teacher telling me to wear a condom cause me to have sex recklessly? No.

Right now, my 2 year old knows that women can choose not to have babies. He doesn't know where babies come from other than "from mommy". He knows that I get a shot and a yellow card like he gets when he gets vaccinations. It keeps me from having babies just like his shots keep him from getting sick. When it matters in 14+ years or so, he'll at least know that women can do something to prevent preganancy. I'm hoping by then, there will be a male birth control so he can have more options.

We also need to make it easier for couples to adopt. Many of the same people who are yelling that abortion should be illegal are also the same people who won't allow gay couples to adopt. Opening up the pool of elegible parents will certainly cause a drop. Also, tend to steer towards IVF instead of adoption. Again, this is another situation where a mindset needs to be changed.

The final part of the "stop abortion equation" is the economy. Ignoring my health trouble, the way the economy is going right now, I don't want anymore kids. I can't even adopt because I'm unsure of what our financial situation will be. If we stablize the economy and make it stronger, many more women who would have an abortion in our current situation will feel much more comfortable having the child and raising it. Not to mention people would feel financially secure in adopting.

Besides doing the things I mentioned above, we can all put some of our efforts in supporting charities that help make it possible for these women to raise their children and that help find homes for the children that can't be raised by their biological parents. This one thing will tie in with all the things I've already mentioned. Many of these charities provide women with knowledge, emotional support, financial assistance (free stuff), medical assistance, and even legitimate adoption assistance.

I'm adopted and I currently have two small boys. I was advised to have an abortion with my second son for medical reasons and rejected the advice (thankfully to a good result). I worked for many years as a GED and vocational tutor and come in contact with many men and women in bad situations. I've been there, I've helped others through it. This problem is too hard to fix by simply just changing the law. You need to change the way we as a country think.

(Sorry for the long post. I feel so strong on this issue.)

[Eponym_mi]

I have my doubts you are pro-life.

Have all the doubts you want. As much as you try to be, you're not God. I know where I stand on the issue. :rolleyes:

Your "solution" doesn't meet my standards. You're trying to impose a moral standard that a very large percentage of women will never accept under any circumstances....and short of draconian involvement in the lives of fertile women, there is little chance government could ever enforce effectively. Moreover, I definitely don't think government should be conducting religious training in the manner you're suggesting...you're really out there on that one. Whose concept of God are we going to teach? Yours of course.:rolleyes:

[Kade]

I am all for the government telling women what to do with the functions of their body!

[WilliamC]

A better question for the religious folks is why does "god" kill so many of the unborn?

You do know that up to 1/3rd of all pregnancies end in natural miscarriage don't you?

See http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm for evidence.

Is this because god hates the unborn or because humans are simply imperfectly evolved biological organisms subject to the same selective pressures as all self-replicating systems?

[Kade]

You know, I can't just let this go...

This poll was intellectually dishonest. (I'm not responding to it) The concept of "pro-abortion" is misleading and unfair. The biggest misconception of people who want the government to stay out of pregnancy is that we don't care... It infuriates me that the debate is always focused on the moral high ground of pro-lifers, often times the same people who support war and the death penalty.

This is solely an issue of privacy, reproductive freedom, separation of church and state, and women's rights. Even if I did feel that a fetus was a human deserving of rights, I believe strongly the rights of a mother's value of life and experience, and the desire for non-government intervention, that I STILL would side with freedom of choice.

The lawful intervention is a slippery slope. It is that which we fear the greatest, the absolute uneasiness of allowing one block of the voting electorate to decide decisions for another block based solely on their religious piety. No thank you.

[Thrashertm]

For me it comes down to who has rights are supreme - the rights of the mother or that of the unborn baby/fetus. When determining that, it also comes down to your definition of whether or not a fetus is a human life.

I tend to not think so. Personally I think that a fetus is just an empty shell, and that a child's mind and personality (others might think of a soul), are formed as a child grows up and gains experience.

I think that we need to have total control of our bodies as individuals - the state has no business telling us what we can or cannot do to ourselves. Accordingly, women can choose to do as they like when it comes to their wombs.

[stevedasbach]

Didn't vote -- choices are inadequate.

[JK/SEA]

Abortion is a low priority issue with me. We have bigger fish to fry folks.

Check out this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ8uUOiXcCo&feature=related

[Kade]

For me it comes down to who has rights are supreme - the rights of the mother or that of the unborn baby/fetus. When determining that, it also comes down to your definition of whether or not a fetus is a human life.

I tend to not think so. Personally I think that a fetus is just an empty shell, and that a child's mind and personality (others might think of a soul), are formed as a child grows up and gains experience.

I think that we need to have total control of our bodies as individuals - the state has no business telling us what we can or cannot do to ourselves. Accordingly, women can choose to do as they like when it comes to their wombs.

I agree 100%. Because such a large percentage of us believe as you do, that a fetus is an empty shell, without a "soul" or personality, responsibility, a mind, a functioning nervous system, and no life experience; the right to a planned pregnancy MUST be protected. That half of the population may disagree is not reason to allow for out of control government legislation. A mother's right is supreme. Dissenting opinions are welcome, but wholly inadequate.


Didn't vote -- choices are inadequate.

Same.

[Madcat455]

Personally.... I'm Pro-Life.

With exceptions though....

I do think that abortions should be allowed in cases of Rape and Incest... of course, they'd have to have a police report to justify it.

that may actually help to get more rapes reported as well.



I also think it should be a state issue:)

[mustard gas and roses]

Personally.... I'm Pro-Life.

With exceptions though....

I do think that abortions should be allowed in cases of Rape and Incest... of course, they'd have to have a police report to justify it.

that may actually help to get more rapes reported as well.



I also think it should be a state issue:)


rape is extremely hard to prosecute. you'd be effectively denying most raped women the right to an abortion.


The poll options make me angry.

[Madcat455]

rape is extremely hard to prosecute. you'd be effectively denying most raped women the right to an abortion.


The poll options make me angry.

No.. Not saying they have to have a conviction... Just have to "report" it.

Kind of like when my car is broken into.. they'll never catch the jerks, but I have it on file that it happened.


agree.. poll choices are severley lacking.

[mustard gas and roses]

No.. Not saying they have to have a conviction... Just have to "report" it.

Kind of like when my car is broken into.. they'll never catch the jerks, but I have it on file that it happened.


agree.. poll choices are severley lacking.



ok. i understand a little better now, but still. reporting a rape is extremely difficult for a lot of women(even more so with men, but that's not in the scope of this topic).

[IowaGarrett]

You might be interested then to do some medical research on how the fetus intereacts with its surroundings in the womb. It reacts to sound and movement. It explores its own body. It sucks its thumb.

Still not convinced? Evidenced based nursing dictates that the father should talk to the fetus, read books etc. in order for the fetus to begin to recognize the father's voice-- just as it will recognize its mothers voice; as it has heard it throughout the pregancy and recognizes and remembers it.
*We do these things because the fetus does "gain experience" in the womb.

This post was a good example of the lack of medical knowledge being a major factor affecting people's decisions to be Pro--choice/abortion/whateverword makesyoufeelbetterabouttherealityofwhatishappening .

And I didnt overlook the fact that no one has disputed the validity of my last post in case anyone is paying attention.


For me it comes down to who has rights are supreme - the rights of the mother or that of the unborn baby/fetus. When determining that, it also comes down to your definition of whether or not a fetus is a human life.

I tend to not think so. Personally I think that a fetus is just an empty shell, and that a child's mind and personality (others might think of a soul), are formed as a child grows up and gains experience.

I think that we need to have total control of our bodies as individuals - the state has no business telling us what we can or cannot do to ourselves. Accordingly, women can choose to do as they like when it comes to their wombs.

[IowaGarrett]

double post.

[IowaGarrett]

I wonder if I could get a pro-"mother's"choicer to address this directly... I thought I would repost to give them a second chance at a comprehensive and specific argument, preferably evidence-based.


Reposting:
While sounding on a basic and overly simplified level, informed, this argument reads like a judge's decision being passed down from the bench. Let me explain something we all know... the judges ruling makes it legal-- it doesnt make it right.

As far as this declaration on the basis of viability goes... I dont see it as any stronger than any other argument.

Life is life. This is intrinsic.

I see nothing intrinsic about an embryo's rights being tied to the mother? What about being viable gives more rights? "The chance of surviving on its own" somehow grants rights, whereas not being able to survive on one's own takes them away? I havent met any newborn who had any "chance of surviving on its own". The only thing that gives these children a "chance of surviving on their own" IS the granting of RIGHTS-- which happens at birth under law-- which binds the medical staff to act in a way to preserve life (whether abandoned by the "mother" or not).

Unfortunately, without rights many living creatures are not "viable" from conception... or ever.

On a side note:
Ive seen enough sick people, critically ill. These people were far from "viable" and had no chance of surviving on their own. But they did. Because someone stepped in. Because they have rights we are bound by law to act in a manner to preserve their life by any means available. We shouldnt stand aside.


*****Quote:
Originally Posted by daniroyer
During the first trimester, the fertilized embryo's chance of surviving on its own is nil and its rights are tied to the woman's. When the second trimester starts, the fetus is much more viable and has its own rights. Into the third trimester, the fetus is it's own being and the chance of survival with proper medical care is decently likely.

I'm never "for" abortion, but I believe it should be legal during the first trimester. It's sadly become a staple and if made illegal now, would push many women to seek illegal, unsafe procedures. We need to end this problem through proper sex ed, a better economy, and driving home PERSONAL responsibility.

My hope is that by time my sons are old enough to have to worry about this issue, abortion will be a legal medical procedure of extreme last resort. By then there should be better access to birth control for both women AND men. That is what I am working for. ******

[allyinoh]

I don't see anything wrong with pro-life or pro-abortion. You are either for abortions or against them. There's no middle ground.

I don't judge people if they support abortions, but I cringe everytime someone says, "I should be able to do with my body what I want." Like Dr. Paul says, what is the difference between a minute before birth and a minute after?

I think it boils down to the fact that women are too lazy to protect themselves the way they know how. People, we all know that if you take birth control and you always use a condom, there is barely any chance you are going to get pregnant. If everyone just followed that, we wouldn't have a need for abortions.

And remember, if it's not a baby, you're not pregnant.

[jclay2]

Here is the deal: Abortion is a social issue. It is downright wrong, but the amount of shear power that one would have to give to the government to stop it is astronomical. Therefore, to stop abortion and protect life, there must be a moral and social movement. Nothing else will work. No roe v. wade, law, or institution can legilsate morals.

[-lotus-]

well since i cant make life, nor do i hold myself above anyone else, i am pro choice because its not my place nor do i think its ANYONE's place, government included, to tell another human what they can or cant do with their own body.

[Rangeley]

Here is the deal: Abortion is a social issue. It is downright wrong, but the amount of shear power that one would have to give to the government to stop it is astronomical. Therefore, to stop abortion and protect life, there must be a moral and social movement. Nothing else will work. No roe v. wade, law, or institution can legilsate morals.
And this is different from crimes in general how? The government cant stop a robber from robbing, but robbery is nonetheless a crime as it is the violation of someone elses rights. That someone else has a legal recourse, because their rights were violated, to go after the robber assuming they are found.

The government cant stop a murderer from murdering, but murder is nonetheless a crime as it is the violation of someone elses rights. While that someone else, in this case, cannot take any legal actions themselves, they can be represented in abstentia and legal action can still be taken against the perpetrator. Personally, this is good enough for me because I consider abortion to be murder, but if you want to put it into a seperate category I am sure you know how it would go. This isnt about legislating morals, or punishing someone for living the way they want to. Its about providing a protection to people from people who want to take violate their rights, and to provide a legal recourse (in this case, for their legal representative) if such a thing happens.

[-lotus-]

if you want to live in a world with no abortion because you value life, then you would also want to abolish the death penalty, and the military, blah blah blah because dont they also threaten the life that you hold so sacred?

[allyinoh]

if you want to live in a world with no abortion because you value life, then you would also want to abolish the death penalty, and the military, blah blah blah because dont they also threaten the life that you hold so sacred?

How about personal responsibility? Ron Paul talks about this all the time. You know that you can have a child if you have sex. If you aren't ready to potentially raise a child, don't have sex!!! What's so hard about that?

[PetersburgPanic]

As a result of my religious background, I consider every life to be sacred. So I oppose the death penalty as well as abortion on religious/moral/personal grounds.

That being said, as a man I'll never understand the issue of abortion fully from the perspective of a woman, and I think the federal government should not ban abortion A)because I don't think it has a right to and B) because abortions will occurr no matter what--so better that they be safe.

So I think my relatively simple moral views end up at a more complicated political reality, that I think abortion should be safe and legal within the first trimester, but also heavily discouraged with a much better job done at educating at risk populations.

[Rangeley]

As a result of my religious background, I consider every life to be sacred. So I oppose the death penalty as well as abortion on religious/moral/personal grounds.

That being said, as a man I'll never understand the issue of abortion fully from the perspective of a woman, and I think the federal government should not ban abortion A)because I don't think it has a right to and B) because abortions will occurr no matter what--so better that they be safe.

So I think my relatively simple moral views end up at a more complicated political reality, that I think abortion should be safe and legal within the first trimester, but also heavily discouraged with a much better job done at educating at risk populations.
So since murders happen regardless of murder being illegal, should we legalize assassination as a profession to make it "safe" and avoid the errors that someone lacking skill might make? Your reasoning falls short for the same reason this would - while its safer in the respect that fewer people might be harmed if someone with skill carries it out, it is nonetheless the violation of someones right to life. Making something a crime doesn't stop it entirely, but it does provide a legal recourse against those who commit it.

[allyinoh]

Making something a crime doesn't stop it entirely, but it does provide a legal recourse against those who commit it.

This is very true.

[Paulfan05]

Im pro choice, but only it the abortion is done early, not like 7 months

[Eponym_mi]

Making something a crime doesn't stop it entirely, but it does provide a legal recourse against those who commit it.

Using marijuana, speeding, swearing, spitting on sidewalks, and jaywalking are illegal too. The point being when you have too many people doing something, you need an army to actually enforce the law. What do you really hope to accomplish here? How many more prisons are you proposing?

[Rangeley]

Using marijuana, speeding, swearing, spitting on sidewalks, and jaywalking are illegal too. The point being when you have too many people doing something, you need an army to actually enforce the law. What do you really hope to accomplish here? How many more prisons are you proposing?
And are those things the violation of someone elses rights?

[gracebkr]

We are endowed by our Creator, whether it be God or the universe, with a right to life and no one has a "right" to take that life. What's next infanticide? The slippery slope.

[gracebkr]

Im pro choice, but only it the abortion is done early, not like 7 months

At 12 weeks the heart is beating, which means the brain is working. You can't have an abortion, at least in my state until 12 weeks.

[WilliamC]

You might be interested then to do some medical research on how the fetus intereacts with its surroundings in the womb. It reacts to sound and movement. It explores its own body. It sucks its thumb.

Still not convinced? Evidenced based nursing dictates that the father should talk to the fetus, read books etc. in order for the fetus to begin to recognize the father's voice-- just as it will recognize its mothers voice; as it has heard it throughout the pregancy and recognizes and remembers it.
*We do these things because the fetus does "gain experience" in the womb.

This post was a good example of the lack of medical knowledge being a major factor affecting people's decisions to be Pro--choice/abortion/whateverword makesyoufeelbetterabouttherealityofwhatishappening .

And I didnt overlook the fact that no one has disputed the validity of my last post in case anyone is paying attention.

You are absolutely correct, the fetus does start to mentally develop within the womb. The interaction between the fetus and the external world (as the fetus perceives it through the womb) is very important for post-natal development.

But there is absolutely no mental activity prior to gastrulation is there?

[Eponym_mi]

And are those things the violation of someone elses rights?

Whether they are or not is immaterial. The point is that you appear ignorant to the fact that a large number of women claim what is probably an equally legitimate and competing right, namely to have control over their own body. So, your solution would be something like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500?

Feel free to keep pounding your shoe on the podium, but I see no legal solution to this problem. This is a moral issue that must be addressed at a personal/spiritual level...government is incapable.

[Dude!]

Please let this stupid wedge troll thread die. Everybody has a right to their own opinion, and neither side is going to convert anybody here.

[satchelmcqueen]

pro life....

[wildflower]

Demagoguery. You are defining life to begin at conception and using that definition to "prove" your points. I could just as easily say it is a biological fact that life begins when the brain stem appears. Or when a heart appears.

The real fact, is that we don't know exactly when life begins. It certainly happens at some point after conception, but before birth.


I'm amazed that anyone is actually still using this ignorant and blind "argument." OF COURSE life begins at conception, if there wasn't a life there, you wouldn't have to kill it, would you? It is blatantly false to state that life does not begin at conception. You can argue, if you want, that "personhood" does not begin until later, (which I disagree with, but that is what people debate) but it is retarded and a blatant lie to state that LIFE does not begin at conception.

[FireofLiberty]

I am pro-life because I believe a fetus is an unborn human life and therefore has rights, including the rights of life and liberty and any use of force, which I reject, to terminate that life infringes on the life and liberty of that unborn human life and therefore is wrong and should be illegal.

[Rangeley]

Whether they are or not is immaterial. The point is that you appear ignorant to the fact that a large number of women claim what is probably an equally legitimate and competing right, namely to have control over their own body. So, your solution would be something like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500?

Feel free to keep pounding your shoe on the podium, but I see no legal solution to this problem. This is a moral issue that must be addressed at a personal/spiritual level...government is incapable.
Well you are jumping around here and have made two different points so far, so before we let this little discussion steer entirely into incoherence (and start throwing around accusations of ignorance,) let me clear something up. Someone stated that abortion should be legal "because abortions will occurr no matter what--so better that they be safe." In response to this, I pointed out the purpose of making something a crime isn't to stop it entirely, but to also "provide a legal recourse against those who commit it." Thats the aim of every law.

And because this is an aspect of all laws, pointing out that this would be the case with abortion, in itself, is not a reason to keep it legal any more than it is a reason to legalize robbery, or murder. I raised this counterpoint not as a justification for illegalizing abortion, but merely to refute an argument against illegalizing abortion.

Its at this point that you entered the discussion, bringing up that there are things which are illegal which should not be. I agree with you, it is wrong to legislate morality. However, we should have legislation upholding the constitution and the rights it guarantees. That is what separates laws against swearing, for instance, and laws against abortion. The question I posed to you, "are those things the violation of someone elses rights," is not immaterial - it is the very material upon which we should judge laws of this nature.

Your second point, that a woman has control of her body, is indeed true - but so often people forget that the fetus is not a part of the woman's body. From its conception it has unique DNA, and is a separate - though dependent - individual and human being. Further, while everyone has control of their body, this is only true insofar as they do not use their body to infringe upon the rights of others. You cant, for instance, claim that its your body so you can trespass wherever you want, or that its your body so you can smuggle things out of buildings if you swallow them. And you certainly cant justify ending the life of another with the defense that it was your body when you used your hands to strangle another to death.

The government is there to safeguard our rights and provide a means in which people can settle disputes. While noones rights are violated if you swear, someones rights are violated when an abortion is carried out. This is the difference, and this is why it should be illegal.

[chiplitfam]

Who are you people voting for abortion? Get out of here.

[Eponym_mi]

You cant, for instance, claim that its your body so you can trespass wherever you want

I expect a lot of women would say an unwelcome fetus is tresspassing.


this is why it should be illegal.

How many cops do you want hired and how many prisons do you want to build? I think we have too many already.

[Rangeley]

I expect a lot of women would say an unwelcome fetus is tresspassing.
The problem with that is similar to the problem one would have in saying that their child is trespassing in their house - the child can legally be there because they are legally bound to the parents. They are the child's legal guardian. There is a process of severing this legal obligation, of course, and the child could be given up for adoption if this were necessary. But before that process is carried out, the parents can't throw an infant out on the streets. Being born is a part of that process, obviously, as you can't be adopted before that point.

How many cops do you want hired and how many prisons do you want to build? I think we have too many already.
No more than it takes to ensure that our rights are safeguarded, and legal recourse can be taken against those who violate our rights.

[QCB79]

outlaw abortion and see how many back alley, coat hanger abortion doctors pop up, not to mention the burden on people who pay for all the welfare kids running around, alot of the welfare mommas have more kids just to bring in more money. Personally I'd rather see a woman who cant take care of a kid just have an abortion than to have to see that kid grow up in poverty, neglected, turning into a criminal or born and tossed into some dumpster alive

[ojokolo]

Erm... this subforum is about Ron Paul on the issues, not his supporters.
This is not really the place to hold a debate.

[Eponym_mi]

outlaw abortion and see how many back alley, coat hanger abortion doctors pop up

Plus a blackmarket for RU-486, which raises an entirely different point. Makes me wonder if the rabid pro-lifers in this thread would like to make an equally futile effort to regulate that. :rolleyes:

[Eponym_mi]

this subforum is about Ron Paul on the issues, not his supporters.

The purpose of the poll was what?

[Rangeley]

The purpose of the poll was what?
I think his point is the poll shouldn't be in this sub forum, which is probably true.

[MilitaryDave]

Pro-Choicers need to stand up for their rights a bit more assertively. What this country needs is a strict death penalty that is available for ALL criminals or certified nuisances at the discretion of the plaintiff.

For examply, if you choose to run recklessly through a crowd, then you trip over someone and break your arm, you should have a right to take that person to court. If the court finds that person actually tripped you, then you the plaintiff should have the choice to put the guilty party to death ... humanely of course. Oh and as a special benefit, your arm will heal much faster and you can get on with your life

Why do people get in the way and we can't just kill them I will never know. In fact, in a free and liberal society, why don't we have death centers in every hospital where you can take anyone who you decide is holding you back (including yourself) for a safe, clean and professional killing? This would surely reduce dangerous and distasteful street crime ... I mean, what if they shot back at you?

I know, I'm being rhetorical. The "death center" would never work because the nuisance you are planning to kill would probably start fighting you once he/she saw the hospital sign. On the upshot, this plan would still work great on babies and probably even toddlers!

I know Ron Paul is against the death penalty and rails against abortion, but he has a lot to learn and I think he will come around to the pro-choice view.

Go get 'em guys and gals!

[MilitaryDave]

OMG! I just realized the "death center" plan would extend equally as well to foreign policy!

If you don't get rid of these countries now, they will be hell to deal with when they grow up to be big like you.

[MilitaryDave]

Bingo! Subpoenas and due process really put a screeching hault to progress, let's do away with all that, too!

[jmarinara]

Your "solution" doesn't meet my standards.

I could really care less.


You're trying to impose a moral standard that a very large percentage of women will never accept under any circumstances

Well any solution imposes a moral standard. It may be a good one or a bad one, but it is a moral standard nonetheless. Even doing nothing imposes a moral standard.


Moreover, I definitely don't think government should be conducting religious training in the manner you're suggesting

Who said anything about government conducting religious instruction? I certainly don't think government should be doing it. I am also smart enough to realize that crisis pregnancies need more than government rules and regulations. You also have to deal with people on a personal level and provide them with some assistance in many ways. In no way should government be giving that assistance, rather, as Dr. Paul suggests, we should should have welfare that relies on personal charity.



Whose concept of God are we going to teach? Yours of course.

Well yeah, if I'm going to spend my own money, or my churches money, or my partner's money in a charitable outreach to help people, I'm going to try and teach them any darn thing I want. If you don't like it, that's fine, you don't have to help fund the charity. In fact, you're also free to start your own. And I would encourage you to do so.

[coyote_sprit]

I voted pro life but I'm very neutral on this issue.

[jmarinara]

A better question for the religious folks is why does "god" kill so many of the unborn?

You do know that up to 1/3rd of all pregnancies end in natural miscarriage don't you?

See http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm for evidence.

Is this because god hates the unborn or because humans are simply imperfectly evolved biological organisms subject to the same selective pressures as all self-replicating systems?

Well, you see when God created this world He created it perfect in every way. However, the first people Adam and Eve decided that they wanted to do something outside of God's perfect plan and in the process broke His rules. This is called sin. As a result of this sin, death entered into the world because the world fell from perfection. With death came disease, misfortune, imperfection, and yes, even miscarriages. It is the natural result of our free will choice and the nature we took on when we (as a whole) rejected God and His way for us.

Now this should matter to you because if you continue in these sinful choices, God must punish you because He is just. A just judge cannot let someone off the hook because that wouldn't be, well, just. Fortunately, God came to earth as a perfect human named Jesus and died a horrible undeserved death. You can substitute His death for yours, and receive His free gift of eternal salvation. I would encourage you to do so.

For more information, www.livingwaters.com/good

[jmarinara]

I tend to not think so. Personally I think that a fetus is just an empty shell, and that a child's mind and personality (others might think of a soul), are formed as a child grows up and gains experience.

Wow.

So when does the child have enough "experience"?? What if the child doesn't have the capacity of gaining "experience" (in the case of mental retardation for example)?? Some people never really "grow up" in a mental sort of way. Some people can't understand anything beyond a 6 month capacity, are they "grown up" and "experienced" enough?

Or should we just kill them without any remorse whatsoever because they really don't matter anyway?

[jmarinara]

Using marijuana, speeding, swearing, spitting on sidewalks, and jaywalking are illegal too. The point being when you have too many people doing something, you need an army to actually enforce the law. What do you really hope to accomplish here? How many more prisons are you proposing?

And things you mention here shouldn't be a crime. Government's job is to protect the life liberty and property of innocent people from harm or destruction. One of the ways to do this is to institute justice (i.e. make laws and enforce them)

When an abortion happens a child is killed. That child deserves protection.

[IowaGarrett]

Anti- death penalty, anti war... was I supposed to have a problem saying that? Seems pretty logical to me.
if you want to live in a world with no abortion because you value life, then you would also want to abolish the death penalty, and the military, blah blah blah because dont they also threaten the life that you hold so sacred?

[WilliamC]

Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
A better question for the religious folks is why does "god" kill so many of the unborn?

You do know that up to 1/3rd of all pregnancies end in natural miscarriage don't you?

See http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm for evidence.

Is this because god hates the unborn or because humans are simply imperfectly evolved biological organisms subject to the same selective pressures as all self-replicating systems?


Well, you see when God created this world He created it perfect in every way. However, the first people Adam and Eve decided that they wanted to do something outside of God's perfect plan and in the process broke His rules. This is called sin. As a result of this sin, death entered into the world because the world fell from perfection. With death came disease, misfortune, imperfection, and yes, even miscarriages. It is the natural result of our free will choice and the nature we took on when we (as a whole) rejected God and His way for us.

Now this should matter to you because if you continue in these sinful choices, God must punish you because He is just. A just judge cannot let someone off the hook because that wouldn't be, well, just. Fortunately, God came to earth as a perfect human named Jesus and died a horrible undeserved death. You can substitute His death for yours, and receive His free gift of eternal salvation. I would encourage you to do so.

For more information, www.livingwaters.com/good

Kinda hard for a fetus in the womb to commit "sin" isn't it?

So god does hate and punish the unborn for something they didn't do, but for something this Adam and Eve did.

Thanks for clarifying that.

[AisA1787]

You know, I can't just let this go...

This poll was intellectually dishonest. (I'm not responding to it) The concept of "pro-abortion" is misleading and unfair. The biggest misconception of people who want the government to stay out of pregnancy is that we don't care... It infuriates me that the debate is always focused on the moral high ground of pro-lifers, often times the same people who support war and the death penalty.

This is solely an issue of privacy, reproductive freedom, separation of church and state, and women's rights. Even if I did feel that a fetus was a human deserving of rights, I believe strongly the rights of a mother's value of life and experience, and the desire for non-government intervention, that I STILL would side with freedom of choice.

The lawful intervention is a slippery slope. It is that which we fear the greatest, the absolute uneasiness of allowing one block of the voting electorate to decide decisions for another block based solely on their religious piety. No thank you.

Kade, I hate to single you out, but I was scanning through the posts in this thread and yours seemed to sum up the pro-choice logic most concisely, so you're my target :D


1) Privacy: Abortion is not a privacy issue. Period. A fetus is either a human being and has the right to life, or it isn't and it doesn't. I'm not going to pretend I know the answer to when a fetus is or is not a human being, but I really wish the abortion argument would focus on this question instead of resorting to the privacy argument, which is completely irrelevant.

2) Reproductive freedom: To the best of my knowledge, aside from cases of rape, no one is forcing a man and a woman to have sexual intercourse and reproduce. Consenting adults have the freedom to choose whether or not they engage in sexual intercourse. If a pregnancy occurs, the choice of whether or not reproduce has already been made. So again, except for rape, the "reproductive freedom" argument is completely irrelevant.

3) Separation of church and state: Abortion laws are not about religion, even though lots of people either think they are or want them to be. These laws are about deciding when a fetus is or is not a human being possessing the right to life.

4) Women's rights: First of all, I'm surprised that a Ron Paul supporter would think in terms of the rights of a group. That aside, abortion should be about an individual's rights. There are at least two (and maybe three, depending on how you look at it) individuals involved in every pregnancy - the mother, the father, and the fetus. In the case of consensual sex, the mother and father should both have equal rights in deciding whether the fetus is aborted. Of course this would create all sorts of legal complications if you believe in the popular definitions of "reproductive freedom" and "women's rights." But if you believe that the freedom to reproduce is a positive right possessed by all individuals (i.e., the right of a man and a woman to have consensual sexual intercourse and reproduce) and not a negative right possessed by single group of individuals (i.e., the right of only one individual involved, the woman, to terminate a pregnancy that occurred from consensual sex), then you must believe that all individuals involved in a pregnancy have the right to say whether the fetus is aborted or not.


Personally, I'm agnostic and religion doesn't factor in to my decision. I used to be pro-choice until I found out that a doctor can be held responsible for the death of a fetus if he mistreats a pregnant woman in his practice, and that a murderer can be charged with a double murder if he kills a pregnant woman and the fetus dies. These laws imply that a fetus is human and has the right to life. But the abortion laws imply that a fetus is not a human and has no right to life. I will be pro-life at least until all the laws regarding pregnancy don't contradict each other.


But seriously a 15 page long thread about abortion? I'm just as guilty as all of you for chiming in on this, but we have much more serious problems in this country.

[Rangeley]

Kinda hard for a fetus in the womb to commit "sin" isn't it?

So god does hate and punish the unborn for something they didn't do, but for something this Adam and Eve did.

Thanks for clarifying that.
I think the disconnect here is that you see death as being a punishment in itself, whereas Christians don't. Christians believe that because death can come at any time, you need to have your soul ready for the next life - ie, accepting Christ. Someone could die at 100, 80, 50, 20, and whether they have accepted him or not will determine if they go to Heaven or not. Because people can die at any moment, you cant say "oh I will convert later, I would rather have some fun now."

But then, of course, there are certain stages of development when people are incapable of making this choice. People have different views about what happens to, say, a child who is miscarried, or aborted. I happen to think they get into heaven just fine. But regardless, this is the general Christian idea about death.

[pcosmar]

lol i don't think anyone is pro-ABORTION

So far 61 are in favor of killing babies.
That is sad.:(

[Cinnaboo]

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g147/IsbPhoenix/Anti-Theism/AbortionToon1.jpg


:D

[MilitaryDave]

I think his point is the poll shouldn't be in this sub forum, which is probably true.

I think we need to inspect Ron Paul's position on abortion. All signs point to him being repulsed by abortion. So, why is that and what can we learn from the good Doctor?

Those who disagree with Dr Paul, can you highlight a quote or a passage from his writings that you find in error?

Thanks,
DD

[WilliamC]

I think we need to inspect Ron Paul's position on abortion. All signs point to him being repulsed by abortion. So, why is that and what can we learn from the good Doctor?

Those who disagree with Dr Paul, can you highlight a quote or a passage from his writings that you find in error?

Thanks,
DD

I agree with Ron Paul that Roe v Wade should be overturned and abortion laws decided on a State level.

[gracebkr]

I agree completely. We need to fight the welfare state legislatively, but we shouldn't disregard one of our best weapons against it which is abortion.

What?? I find this totally tasteless. Eugenics is not the answer to the welfare state. The welfare state is what it is because the government has told lower income people that family was not important, so 9 times out of 10 you have unwanted pregnancies with fathers who are useless. The government puts no incentives, no value on these people and that is why they were able to be VICTIMS of the school system, which in turn makes them dependent on the government which the government wants to contain this mess now through abortion and devaluing the sanctity of human life. This is obviously and extremely simplified argument for the whole argument, but I think my point is clear. Eugenics is wrong.

[gracebkr]

Kinda hard for a fetus in the womb to commit "sin" isn't it?

So god does hate and punish the unborn for something they didn't do, but for something this Adam and Eve did.

Thanks for clarifying that.

LMAO, that is so weak. You have to make sound arguments for them to hold any logical muster. Actually preventing mutated life from being born gives credence to God and not to evolution. Evolution claims that genetic mutations is responsible for the differences between species. But those differences, that evolution claims necessary to change a species into another don't stick, because the embryo that is not viable or mutated aborts itself. We see something like Trisomy 21 and that is seen as quite a small mutation with huge ramifications, then the males are born sterile, females sometimes sterile and if not their children are affected. It weens out the mutation. God. It's not a punishment. We are all going to suffer the first death. Blessed are the blind, embryos are blind, morally blind that is. They are with God. That is not a punishment.

[Cleaner44]

lol i don't think anyone is pro-ABORTION

I am most definetly PRO-ABORTION in the case of John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rupert Murdoch, George Bush, Hillary Cinton, any Rockefeller or any other asshole trying to enslave me!

[jumpyg1258]

I am most definetly PRO-ABORTION in the case of John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rupert Murdoch, George Bush, Hillary Cinton, any Rockefeller or any other asshole trying to enslave me!

Good answer!

[WilliamC]

LMAO, that is so weak. You have to make sound arguments for them to hold any logical muster. Actually preventing mutated life from being born gives credence to God and not to evolution. Evolution claims that genetic mutations is responsible for the differences between species. But those differences, that evolution claims necessary to change a species into another don't stick, because the embryo that is not viable or mutated aborts itself. We see something like Trisomy 21 and that is seen as quite a small mutation with huge ramifications, then the males are born sterile, females sometimes sterile and if not their children are affected. It weens out the mutation. God. It's not a punishment. We are all going to suffer the first death. Blessed are the blind, embryos are blind, morally blind that is. They are with God. That is not a punishment.

Why does god let mutated life even start to begin with? Some sort of sick joke to bring suffering on women who miscarry?

And any question can be removed from a scientific inquiry simply by saying "god did this".

And not all trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome) individuals are completely sterile.

And Downs syndrome is only one of over 500 chromosomal abnormalities that humans can be born with.

https://apps.chfs.ky.gov/medicallyfragile/downsyn_cf.htm


There are more than 500 known individual disorders which result from chromosomal abnormalities. Some of these disorders cause minor differences in the affected persons’ growth and development, physical appearance and ability to function normally. Most cause major impairment of physical development and/or intellectual function. The most frequent cause of mental retardation is Down Syndrome occurring in 1 in 650 live births.

So what is god up to by allowing so many different types of chromosomal mutant humans to be born?

From a scientific point of view this is the very grist of variation that natural selection can work on.

[cyrax]

I'm pro-choice up until the kid starts having brain waves.

[classicalscholar]

I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

I can agree that life begins at conception.

However, I do not think that it should be the position of the government to tell a person to risk their health and life for another person. I see the pro-life movement as government interference and incompatible with libertarianism. Imagine that a child of yours needed a kidney and you were a compatible donor. Should the law require that you donate your kidney to save that life? It may be a noble act to do so, but the law should not require it. If a woman decides she doesn't want to risk her life for another person, then she should have that choice.

[Kade]

Kade, I hate to single you out, but I was scanning through the posts in this thread and yours seemed to sum up the pro-choice logic most concisely, so you're my target :D

Good, it means you either recognize an intellectual equivalent and desire to stifle the potential affect on uninformed hordes, or you want to sharpen your expand your own knowledge base.



1) Privacy: Abortion is not a privacy issue. Period. A fetus is either a human being and has the right to life, or it isn't and it doesn't. I'm not going to pretend I know the answer to when a fetus is or is not a human being, but I really wish the abortion argument would focus on this question instead of resorting to the privacy argument, which is completely irrelevant.

An excellent start. Abortion is a privacy issue because the courts considered it relevant. There are two reasons for this, but I'll only use one. The nature of abortions prior to Roe v Wade was one of non-prosecution; states that banned abortion, like Texas, didn't normally prosecute. When Roe v Wade came to the Supreme Court, it was decided, among other things, that as precedence of the issue had proclaimed, the government had no right to a patient's medical history, or to view the operation's performed on a patient. In other words, the government could not violate the privacy of a person's medical history. This continues to gain a strong precedence with the passing of HIPAA. The other reason is more complex. Either way, I have proven that privacy is not irrelevant here.



2) Reproductive freedom: To the best of my knowledge, aside from cases of rape, no one is forcing a man and a woman to have sexual intercourse and reproduce. Consenting adults have the freedom to choose whether or not they engage in sexual intercourse. If a pregnancy occurs, the choice of whether or not reproduce has already been made. So again, except for rape, the "reproductive freedom" argument is completely irrelevant.

Do they have the freedom to decide when and where to have a child? Reproductive freedom does not simply end with the act of sexual intercourse. Reproduction requires about 18 years normally.


3) Separation of church and state: Abortion laws are not about religion, even though lots of people either think they are or want them to be. These laws are about deciding when a fetus is or is not a human being possessing the right to life.

Some of the definitions given for when a fetus is a human being possessing the right to life rely HEAVILY on religious language (ie, soul). This issue is furthered by the language used in many of the pro-life rallies and speeches. A law that reflects a change of heart for a right to an abortion must remain secular.



4) Women's rights: First of all, I'm surprised that a Ron Paul supporter would think in terms of the rights of a group. That aside, abortion should be about an individual's rights. There are at least two (and maybe three, depending on how you look at it) individuals involved in every pregnancy - the mother, the father, and the fetus. In the case of consensual sex, the mother and father should both have equal rights in deciding whether the fetus is aborted. Of course this would create all sorts of legal complications if you believe in the popular definitions of "reproductive freedom" and "women's rights." But if you believe that the freedom to reproduce is a positive right possessed by all individuals (i.e., the right of a man and a woman to have consensual sexual intercourse and reproduce) and not a negative right possessed by single group of individuals (i.e., the right of only one individual involved, the woman, to terminate a pregnancy that occurred from consensual sex), then you must believe that all individuals involved in a pregnancy have the right to say whether the fetus is aborted or not.

I'm a unique cat. I don't say things just because they sound like I am using the language of a libertarian. Women's rights are individual rights. There was a time when those rights didn't exist, as a separate group, thus an inclusion of the group in discussion. I am relatively torn about the father's rights in all this. There was a time when I was strongly against allowing the father to be the sole decider in the decision. On that, I think it will always depend heavily on intent. For what reason does he want to keep the child? If it is for religious reasons and plans on giving the child up for adoption, his views on the subject are magnanimously more irrelevant, if it is because he has chosen to be a part of the child's life and the woman's, and desires a family, I may falter a bit on the decision. I believe strongly that cases in which there is not a census decision, that is very rarely a point of contention. Part of the reason for the desire for abortions is the carnal knowledge a mother has about her potential to be a mother. It is natural, and evolutionary. If she cannot be a good mother, as happens often in nature, the best chance for survival of her offspring is to wait until she can be... this is a trait of ALL mammals. There is a potential argument on the improvement of the potential of her offspring in our current cultural, and one worth noting, however it is negligent when compared with the cost analysis of developing a fetus to full viability, a cost that is strongly weighed on the women's mental condition and future desires. I believe a man should have a say, and ultimately from a societal point of view, he does. I find it VERY hard to believe that there are women who get abortions who have men willing to raise a child with them, aside from cases of infidelity. As for the laws that hold doctors responsible, they are necessary. It was the intent of a mother to raise and give birth to a child, those interests are first and foremost, and a doctor's negligence is a still malpractice. In those cases it is clear that the woman desired to reproduce, and the doctor had a hand in ending her freedom to do so...




Personally, I'm agnostic and religion doesn't factor in to my decision. I used to be pro-choice until I found out that a doctor can be held responsible for the death of a fetus if he mistreats a pregnant woman in his practice, and that a murderer can be charged with a double murder if he kills a pregnant woman and the fetus dies. These laws imply that a fetus is human and has the right to life. But the abortion laws imply that a fetus is not a human and has no right to life. I will be pro-life at least until all the laws regarding pregnancy don't contradict each other.

I explained this. The double murder laws are bad law in general. However, I could argue either way. Consistency relies heavily on intent. Murder is malicious homicide. I don't see how a person could be charged with intent to kill a fetus unless it was the intent to kill the fetus. Make sense? Also, the woman desired to have the child. Her desires must be weighed strongly in these cases. This was a truly potential human destroyed. In cases of killing a pregnant women, emotional appeal aside, one should consider charges for first degree murder and a stricter sense of second degree manslaughter, perhaps in this case, for which I rarely side, a new law. It was understood from even Biblical times that punishment was necessary for the termination of a pregnancy, however, it was never equivalent to murder.



But seriously a 15 page long thread about abortion? I'm just as guilty as all of you for chiming in on this, but we have much more serious problems in this country.

Are there? Social issues have destroyed this country. I know many, many, libertarian friends of mine who do not support Ron Paul because of this issue.. I am a persuasive son of a bitch, and they won't budge. Consider the philosophy of Goldwater, he thought the influence of the religious right would destroy conservatism, and it has. Many on these boards demonstrate that.

[Rangeley]

Why does god let mutated life even start to begin with? Some sort of sick joke to bring suffering on women who miscarry?

And any question can be removed from a scientific inquiry simply by saying "god did this".

And not all trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome) individuals are completely sterile.

And Downs syndrome is only one of over 500 chromosomal abnormalities that humans can be born with.

https://apps.chfs.ky.gov/medicallyfragile/downsyn_cf.htm



So what is god up to by allowing so many different types of chromosomal mutant humans to be born?

From a scientific point of view this is the very grist of variation that natural selection can work on.
You are taking on a very judgemental perspective in assuming that you know all there is to life, and that people with downs syndrome are somehow of lesser value or worthiness - or would even be better off had they never been born. Christians believe that all life has an inherent equal value that goes beyond the body that your soul resides in. Its not our job to judge other people in this way, and we shouldn't be in the business of it, whether its the death penalty, abortion, or murder in general.

[IowaGarrett]

Mental activity? I will play this straightforward. No mental activity in conventional terms. BUT, if you read my previous posts you would know that I do not base my argument on mental activity. I only addressed it because someone else did, someone who was ill informed on the mental activity of the fetus. I did so in an informative nature. I find that argument without merit.

Science has defined many things as alive which have no mental activity. I noted some of them in the previous post. I reposted it only one or two messages away from the one that you chose to reply to... Although some would like to sit on a cogito ergo sum stance to life, and they are welcome to do so, they are absolutley arguing on non-evidence based terms. Is that the stance you would like to take?


[/I][/I]
You are absolutely correct, the fetus does start to mentally develop within the womb. The interaction between the fetus and the external world (as the fetus perceives it through the womb) is very important for post-natal development.

But there is absolutely no mental activity prior to gastrulation is there?

[snaFU]

Nice biased poll....pro-abortion. More like pro-choice.

[AisA1787]

Nice biased poll....pro-abortion. More like pro-choice.

hey, it's better than pro-life/anti-life

[WilliamC]

You are taking on a very judgemental perspective in assuming that you know all there is to life, and that people with downs syndrome are somehow of lesser value or worthiness - or would even be better off had they never been born.

You must be confusing me with someone else as I never said that.

I merely stated the fact they they are but one of hundreds of types of chromosomal mutants that are found in nature.

By genetic definition they are not "wild-type" humans.

In fact they are a big evolutionary step towards being a different species altogether.

But they should have equal rights under the law, and with that should come equal responsibility for their actions.


Christians believe that all life has an inherent equal value that goes beyond the body that your soul resides in.

Far be it for me to speak for you, but as for myself, I have no immortal soul.

Everything I am as an individual and a person depends upon my brain and body.

When my brain shuts down for the final time that's the end of my existence.


Its not our job to judge other people in this way, and we shouldn't be in the business of it, whether its the death penalty, abortion, or murder in general.

Who am I judging?

Except god perhaps, who I think would be a real evil being if he were to allow the unborn to suffer for sins they did not commit.

Horrible things can happen during development, whether through intrinsic genetic mutations or through extrinsic environmental agents, and sometimes when these malformed fetuses are born they live depressingly short and painful lives.

If you have a strong stomach google images under teratology and tell us if you think all fetuses which are going to be born so severly deformed that they have no chance for post-natal survival should never be aborted.

However, I agree with Ron Paul that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and that abortion be dealt with at the State level, not the Federal level.

[Rangeley]

You must be confusing me with someone else as I never said that.

I merely stated the fact they they are but one of hundreds of types of chromosomal mutants that are found in nature.

By genetic definition they are not "wild-type" humans.

In fact they are a big evolutionary step towards being a different species altogether.

But they should have equal rights under the law, and with that should come equal responsibility for their actions.



Far be it for me to speak for you, but as for myself, I have no immortal soul.

Everything I am as an individual and a person depends upon my brain and body.

When my brain shuts down for the final time that's the end of my existence.



Who am I judging?

Except god perhaps, who I think would be a real evil being if he were to allow the unborn to suffer for sins they did not commit.

Horrible things can happen during development, whether through intrinsic genetic mutations or through extrinsic environmental agents, and sometimes when these malformed fetuses are born they live depressingly short and painful lives.

If you have a strong stomach google images under teratology and tell us if you think all fetuses which are going to be born so severly deformed that they have no chance for post-natal survival should never be aborted.

However, I agree with Ron Paul that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and that abortion be dealt with at the State level, not the Federal level.
I was hardly confusing you for someone else, for it was you who made this statement:

Why does god let mutated life even start to begin with?
Asking why he would allow it to occur at least makes the implication that you are judging their existence to be lesser than yourself.

As to your statements regarding the issue of a soul, I was merely explaining the Christian beleif that life has an inherent value, beyond any of ones physical characteristics. While I can respect that you have different views, this doesnt really have anything to do with my point that under a Christian belief system, someone with downs syndrome has just as much value as someone without it.

Finally, as to your comment that that such fetuses "suffer for sins they did not commit," I already addressed part of this earlier, in regards to the miscarriage point you raised.


I think the disconnect here is that you see death as being a punishment in itself, whereas Christians don't. Christians believe that because death can come at any time, you need to have your soul ready for the next life - ie, accepting Christ. Someone could die at 100, 80, 50, 20, and whether they have accepted him or not will determine if they go to Heaven or not. Because people can die at any moment, you cant say "oh I will convert later, I would rather have some fun now."

But then, of course, there are certain stages of development when people are incapable of making this choice. People have different views about what happens to, say, a child who is miscarried, or aborted. I happen to think they get into heaven just fine. But regardless, this is the general Christian idea about death.
And beyond this, suffering in itself should not be viewed as being a punishment whenever it happens. The central figure of Christianity suffered greatly, yet committed no sins and thus would not have "deserved punishment." Its my view that, just like he was rewarded for suffering through the unjust treatment, so too will those who suffer unjustly today.

I dont say any of this in order to change your mind, but merely to explain the general Christian thinking behind it, hopefully in a way that makes sense. I personally think reasonable people can disagree on issues like this, and I have no doubt that this can be the case here as well.

[dvictr]

pro-life
or
pro-death

[Tdcci]

Nice biased poll....pro-abortion. More like pro-choice.

Actually, "pro-choice" is biased. You're manipulating language to make abortion seem softer, just as you would use "passing away" instead of "died" to a sensitive window, or how you would use the term "energy exploration" instead of "oil drilling" to appease environmentalists; You're no better than Frank Luntz and the FOX pundits. People like to think they have choice, and they think other people should have choice. You use the words "abortion rights", because people like the idea of having rights. The solution is to use neutral, objective phrases like "Pro abortion" and "Anti abortion". You can add clauses for rape, incest, whatever you like, but when it's time to make the laws it's either legal (ignore the 10th amendment) or not (obey the 10th amendment).

[alexpasch]

This issue is the stupidest issue on the planet. The world has much bigger things to worry about. Paul's stance is correct from a legal perspective, not necessarily a moral one.

[Theocrat]

Here's the truth of this moral dichotomy (WARNING: Graphic pictures ahead): Are you

Pro-Life?

http://www.tastystock.com/prodimages/newborn_prev.jpg

or

Pro-Abortion ("Pro-Choice")?

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/01.jpghttp://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/03.jpg
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/18.jpghttp://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/10.jpg
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/44.jpghttp://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/15.jpg
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/45.jpghttp://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/27.jpg
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/AbortionPictures/48.jpg

[MsDee]

Nice biased poll....pro-abortion. More like pro-choice.

I agree with this statement



Actually, "pro-choice" is biased. You're manipulating language to make abortion seem softer


And YOU and the OP are manipulating it to be something that in your minds that pro-choice is "worse". You can not tell someone how they think or perceive something. And that makes you just as bad as them.

Here's my grip:
My body, my choice. I think people are so taboo about it for religious reason. "Well that's killing a life and that's a sin". Alright fine, that a sin to you. But maybe not to me or to the next person. You can't force someone to accept your beliefs and ideals because YOU think their right.
After all, isn't is in the constitution about there being a separation of STATE and CHURCH?

If you, Dr. Paul or anyone else wants to be Pro-Life, that's fine believe whatever will make you happy, but please don't force me to accept someone else's belief.

[Tdcci]

Theocrat, you should link (not directly embed) those pictures, for the squeamish.

[ZenX]

^^^ Pathos ftw. Lol. You should show images of a woman dying of sepsis from an illegal abortion.

[Tdcci]

Here's my grip:
My body, my choice.

NOT your body, NOT a choice. You own your own body, but not the body of your child. Make no mistake, the state does not want to touch your [sexual disease ridden] body, but it has an interest in protecting the life of its citizens.


I think people are so taboo about it for religious reason. "Well that's killing a life and that's a sin". Alright fine, that a sin to you. But maybe not to me or to the next person. You can't force someone to accept your beliefs and ideals because YOU think their right.
After all, isn't is in the constitution about there being a separation of STATE and CHURCH?

While many pro-lifers are religious, it is unfair to say that all of them are religious. I am not religious, but I have a respect for human life, and it is a matter of human life and the rule of law, not morality. Strawman.


If you, Dr. Paul or anyone else wants to be Pro-Life, that's fine believe whatever will make you happy, but please don't force me to accept someone else's belief.

You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't abort. If the child decides, at a later date he wants to be aborted he can commit suicide. Don't make that CHOICE for him.

[Tdcci]

^^^ Pathos ftw. Lol. You should show images of a woman dying of sepsis from an illegal abortion.

And that's supposed to make us favor legal abortion? If the state were to legalize murder, they would definitely be cleaner, and the murderers could plan things so they wouldn't get hurt from self-defense attempts.

[ZenX]

Slippery slope much?

[Tdcci]

Slippery slope much?

I didn't mean that once abortion was legalized other things would be, I meant that while legal abortions would be safer for the murderer, legal [other] murders would be safer for the murderer, so it isn't a very good argument.

[allyinoh]

If you, Dr. Paul or anyone else wants to be Pro-Life, that's fine believe whatever will make you happy, but please don't force me to accept someone else's belief.

And don't force others to use terminology that suits you. If someone wants to say pro-abortion, that's their right. If I want to say abortion is murder, that's my perrogative.

You can say pro-lifers shouldn't force you to accept their beliefs but you should do the same.

[allyinoh]

For the people who support a woman's right to abort her baby, what do you think about a person who kills a pregnant woman being charged with two counts of murder-one for the woman and one for the unborn baby?

[Tdcci]

For the people who support a woman's right to abort her baby, what do you think about a person who kills a pregnant woman being charged with two counts of murder-one for the woman and one for the unborn baby?

The woman gets to decide whether the baby's human or not if it's convenient for her :rolleyes:

[Matt_R]

I thought we had many more realists here. Many of you are beginning to become caught up in your own moral ideals, and neglect to actually analyze the information. Whether or not abortion is legal, it is going to happen. This is really a debate in whether you want abortion to happen in a backalley with a closehanger or in a sanitary abortion clinic with legally liable doctors. Making abortion illegal will do the same thing making drugs illegal has done, create a legally uncontrollable black market.

[AzNsOuLjAh27]

It should read "Pro Tyrannical Prohibition" vs "Pro Self-Ownership" ...

We have a nice compromise going of leaving it up to the states, but if I see you fetus nuts gang up on this issue one more time, I'll vote Libertarian over Ron Paul!


Bump

[OKRonPaul]

I guess i could start a similar thread, but make the two options

I believe abortions should be performed in a regulated manner by licensed medical professionals

I believe abortions should be performed by whoever, wherever, with whatever device is handy

same options as this poll offers, just worded differently.

[Tdcci]

This is really a debate in whether you want abortion to happen in a backalley with a closehanger or in a sanitary abortion clinic with legally liable doctors.

No it isn't, but if this were a debate of that sort I would want the backalley, the dirty conditions make for a great deterrant, plus, it's harder for girls to hide it from their parents if there is a screwup. The baby's chances of living are higher, the woman's chance of living are lower. Karmic Justice, What's not to like?

[WilliamC]

I was hardly confusing you for someone else, for it was you who made this statement:


Why does god let mutated life even start to begin with?


Asking why he would allow it to occur at least makes the implication that you are judging their existence to be lesser than yourself.

I implied no such thing, I merely asked a good faith question.

Why, if god is in charge of things, does he allow mutated human life to even start to begin with?

Is he somehow unhappy with the normal chromosomal compliment of wild-type humans and feels the need to mess up certain individuals from time to time?


As to your statements regarding the issue of a soul, I was merely explaining the Christian beleif that life has an inherent value, beyond any of ones physical characteristics. While I can respect that you have different views, this doesnt really have anything to do with my point that under a Christian belief system, someone with downs syndrome has just as much value as someone without it.

Individuals with chromosomal abnormalities like Downs syndrome should have equal rights under the law as other humans, yes.

Why does that imply that I do not think they have as much value as a non-afflicted person?

The value of a person to me results from their behavior, not from their genetics.



Finally, as to your comment that that such fetuses "suffer for sins they did not commit," I already addressed part of this earlier, in regards to the miscarriage point you raised.

And from what you wrote it sounds to me like god is punishing innocent unborns for sins that they did not commit.

After all, if I had the power that god is supposed to, I wouldn't have ever let mammals evolve internal gestation.

Keep the fetus in an egg until it's born, and leave the poor mothers body alone.

Much cleaner and removes all of these troubling issues surrounding pregnancy.

But I'm just a dumb guy, so what do I know about these things?

Women actually claim to enjoy being pregnant, go figure.


And beyond this, suffering in itself should not be viewed as being a punishment whenever it happens. The central figure of Christianity suffered greatly, yet committed no sins and thus would not have "deserved punishment." Its my view that, just like he was rewarded for suffering through the unjust treatment, so too will those who suffer unjustly today.

Personally I see no redeeming value to suffering. I would prefer that there be less suffering in the world, not more.



I dont say any of this in order to change your mind, but merely to explain the general Christian thinking behind it, hopefully in a way that makes sense. I personally think reasonable people can disagree on issues like this, and I have no doubt that this can be the case here as well.

Well neither am I trying to change your mind, merely trying to understand someone who thinks differently than myself.

If all I ever did was to talk to people who agreed with me I'd never learn anything new about myself.

Again, as far as the abortion issue, I agree with Ron Paul that it should be decided at the State and local level, not at a Federal level.

No Federally mandated abortion on demand, no Federally mandated zero tolerance for any abortions under any circumstances.

Human development, like human life in general, is never going to be perfect, so it is obvious that sometimes there are no perfect solutions to human problems.

[WilliamC]

Theocrat, you should link (not directly embed) those pictures, for the squeamish.

Google images of teratology if you want to see examples of why some abortions should be allowed.

[QCB79]

There is not now nor will there ever be a resolution on this issue. There will always be a divide even if we all agree on every other issue. But, if you haven't been in the position of a woman who's has had or has considered having an abortion then you're just a bystander with a judgement.

In a fantasy world everything would be perfect, the woman would be a flawless princess and the man would be prince charming and they would get married and have children and live happily ever after but this is reality not fantasy and fact is people make mistakes, sometimes big ones. I don't think it's other people job to sit back and judge everyone else until they walk a mile in their shoes, one reason i support RP...Individual freedom even if i don't agree with his view on abortion

[MsDee]

NOT your body, NOT a choice. You own your own body, but not the body of your child. Make no mistake, the state does not want to touch your [sexual disease ridden] body, but it has an interest in protecting the life of its citizens.

Bravo, very mature of you. How old are you? 12?



While many pro-lifers are religious, it is unfair to say that all of them are religious. I am not religious, but I have a respect for human life, and it is a matter of human life and the rule of law, not morality. Strawman.

Who said all? Perhaps you need to adjust your vision and reread.



You can believe whatever you want as long as you don't abort. If the child decides, at a later date he wants to be aborted he can commit suicide. Don't make that CHOICE for him.

Oh Okay, I can believe whatever I want, but I still have to abide by the rules based on someone else's belief of what constitutes life or not? I suppose you're also against gay marriage? LOL

See, the point is no matter if the government or even the state brands this as illegal, it will happen anyone. Back alley abortions and traveling to another country (Mexico) to have it done. It's like when Prohibition was put in place. People still bought liquor, they formed speakeasies. Agree with it or not, the law isn't going to stop someone from doing what they want. We don't even have to look at the past to determine that, look at today.
I'll half admit, this is my own fault, I am a previous democrat who only registered Rep. for Ron Paul and really I don't agree with alot of the nutty Republican ideas. I just happen to believe Ron Paul is the right man for the job. Fear not! I will soon be moving to the Independents.

[Kade]

It should read "Pro Tyrannical Prohibition" vs "Pro Self-Ownership" ...

We have a nice compromise going of leaving it up to the states, but if I see you fetus nuts gang up on this issue one more time, I'll vote Libertarian over Ron Paul!

Haha, nice. +10

[jmdrake]

Remember that 85% of the abortions performed are on lower income women, the same people who traditionally vote for big government candidates. Not to be too crude, but abortion works to eliminate future enemies of the free market.

Thank you Margaret Sanger for expressing your eugenicist viewpoint. Glad Ron Paul doesn't roll that way.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[A rope leash]

I've come to think of abortion as basically immoral. It's pretty irresponsible to be getting pregnant if you don't want to be in this day and age. The embryo is a probable human being if left undisturbed. To remove it is just about the ultimate insult to your own species. Nearly everyone that is alive wants to stay alive, and nobody asked to be born in the first place, so why can't we extend these givens to the fetus? I understand that pregnancy is difficult, but if the child can be reard by adoptive parents, morality would dictate that as the proper course. It's called taking responsibility for your actions. Sure, you can say that a person shouldn't be saddled with an inferior offspring, or should not be forced to have her rapists' child, and these things are morally negotiable. Not every aborted child was destined to become a burden or criminal. I once advised a drunken friend of mine to abort her baby since she was in no shape to raise a child. That kid is the greatest, and almost grown now. I feel that abortion screws up spacetime continuity as it applies to human lifetimes. It's no wonder we're so screwed up...some that should be here are not. Who's to say we didn't abort a saviour?

That said, I think abortion should be legal, and as rare as possible. All sorts of immoral shit is illegal. What kills me is that the law lets a woman remove her fertilized egg, but wont let me smoke a joint...

[amberj]

My personal opinion is that it is fine as long as it is done very early. Although what the cut-off time should be, I have no clue. I have debated that issue in my own mind often. On principle I would say that it is wrong at any stage, but realistically and practically, there should be some leeway for having a choice early on.

[Esor]

I'm pro-life. I've never had any internal debate about the issue. It is as clear as day, for me. A fetus is a living being, killing it would be murder in my eyes.

However, everything becomes blurry when trying to decide the differences in trimesters or if the mother's life is in danger. That is why I support state's rights on the issue.

[hairball]

The poll is loaded with emotional stuff that is designed to ignite passion, not reason. I choose pro-chice, as the final choice is to rest with the woman. A woman has ultimate choice over what happens in her body, or we use force to usurp that, and make ourselves tyrants of a person we do not know, to bend her to our will.

One of the more hateful things I was forced to do was work protection at a Planned Parenthood clinic. You would get all the ugly, nasty Ultra-Religious lunatics parading with baby dolls nailed on a big cross parading and haranguing the women going in and out. They did not care that many of these women were going in for pre-natal care, they would get the same abuse. It was down the street from where I lived in Glendale, CA, and after seeing this scene for a while, and the emotionally distraught women being harrassed without the local cops doing anything but making sure things didn't get 'out of hand'. I was so disgusted with the whole thing that I got myself and some friends, including my girlfriend to volunteer to watch the doors, and keep the women coming in and out from being touched. It was one of the first times I had seen people at their ugliest, and it made me sad to think that I sometimes enjoyed putting an elbow in someones throat as I guided a woman up the steps for her pre-natal appointment.

The cops took things a bit more serriously when a woman's baby was killed by the abortion protesters in Alabama. They enteated her so vigorously to NOT abort the baby (never mind she was going in for low-cost pre-natal care) that she aborted the baby pretty much on the steps of the clinic.

Life is not so absolute that you take away choice, and the consequences of that choice.

[IowaGarrett]

I challenge ANY pro-abortion/choice supporter to try to debase the argument I have established on this thread. Not one of you have been able to touch my arguments yet.

[Kade]

I challenge ANY pro-abortion/choice supporter to try to debase the argument I have established on this thread. Not one of you have been able to touch my arguments yet.

I decimated it a while back. Sorry.

[IowaGarrett]

Sorry, pal, but I can't even find a thread where you adressed me.

Why dont you help me out here.


I decimated it a while back. Sorry.

[Tdcci]

A woman has ultimate choice over what happens in her body,

Sure, but does she have the ultimate choice over what happens to the body of her child? That is the true question. Abortionists will argue the life of the woman is more valuable than the life of the child's, because of her sex, age, or autonomy. Libertarians will argue the child is an individual who deserves equal protection.


The poll is loaded with emotional stuff that is designed to ignite passion, not reason.

or we use force to usurp that, and make ourselves tyrants of a person we do not know, to bend her to our will.

In the second quote You just loaded your argument with "emotional stuff that is designed to ignite passion, not reason".


One of the more hateful things I was forced to do was work protection at a Planned Parenthood clinic. You would get all the ugly, nasty Ultra-Religious lunatics parading with baby dolls nailed on a big cross parading and haranguing the women going in and out ... It was one of the first times I had seen people at their ugliest, and it made me sad to think that I sometimes enjoyed putting an elbow in someones throat as I guided a woman up the steps for her pre-natal appointment.

NOT all pro-lifers are religious. Do you have to be religious to value and respect human life?! Your use of violence does not make yourself any better, they were just exercising their right to speech and religion.

[hairball]

Sure, but does she have the ultimate choice over what happens to the body of her child? That is the true question. Abortionists will argue the life of the woman is more valuable than the life of the child's, because of her sex, age, or autonomy. Libertarians will argue the child is an individual who deserves equal protection.


NOT all pro-lifers are religious. Do you have to be religious to value and respect human life?! Your use of violence does not make yourself any better, they were just exercising their right to speech and religion.

All the ones that have been brutal little thugs have been religious. I find the most desperately savage and nasty people to be religious. Except for O'Hare, most atheists are not such a nasty bill of goods.

I posit that the woman has ultimate jurisdiction of whatever is in her body. Noone has any more right to tell HER to have it than to tell her to kill it.

My use of violence was ONLY in responce to thier level of violence. Impedeing another person or myself, in lawfully entering a building earns the person an incentive to remove themselves from my path. I am protecting my person, and the person entering, and you are conveniently ignoring that I did this for women being hassled who were getting their children checked on. They were going to have their child, they merely needed a low cost facility to do the pre-natal stuff. These zealots cared not, and they cared less if they injured anybody expressing their wish to use FORCE to keep a person from entering a building. Exercizing a right of religion and free speech does ont involve grabbing my arm or not allowing me or the lady from opening the door.

That was assault, and we reacted accordingly in protecting ourselves. We had EVERY right. They had no right to assault us.

[WilliamC]

I challenge ANY pro-abortion/choice supporter to try to debase the argument I have established on this thread. Not one of you have been able to touch my arguments yet.

One word.

Teratology.

[IowaGarrett]

Thats laughable. Go right ahead with this line of argument. I'm seriously daring you.


One word.

Teratology.

[wildflower]

I'm convinced that any person with intellectual honesty, will eventually become pro-life, once they know all the facts and have fully debated this issue.

Every single so-called pro-choice "argument" is refutable. But even though that is true, I do think a lot of it has to do with a person's heart. If someone is hard-hearted and willfully blind, then no amount of arguments or debating will change them, they have to have a change of not only mind but heart.

[bobmurph]

"Right to Life" is a more accurate description. "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are cop-outs and blur the depth of the issue. A fetus has a "right to life"...the same rights that we have.

[WilliamC]

Thats laughable. Go right ahead with this line of argument. I'm seriously daring you.

I just did.

Google it for images if you have a strong stomach.

[Lumara]

I voted, although I think the poll would have been more accurate if the terms pro-choice and anti-choice were used. Calling it pro-abortion is inaccurate to describe those who may personally be against it but believe in choice and calling it pro-life is inaccurate to describe those who are opposed to abortion yet are pro-war.

[DeadtoSin]

Yeah, because everyone who is pro-life is also pro-war. I mean, your logic is astounding Lumara.

[Lumara]

I didn't say that. Not everyone who calls themselves pro-life are pro-war but many are.

[IowaGarrett]

I dont need to google. Yet, Im confused where you are going with this. Care to elaborate?
I just did.

Google it for images if you have a strong stomach.

[jmdrake]

I voted, although I think the poll would have been more accurate if the terms pro-choice and anti-choice were used. Calling it pro-abortion is inaccurate to describe those who may personally be against it but believe in choice and calling it pro-life is inaccurate to describe those who are opposed to abortion yet are pro-war.

Since this poll is aimed at people who support Ron Paul we can drop the "some who are pro life support the war" argument.

As far as being pro choice, how would you characterize someone prior to the civil war who lived in the North but felt slavery should remain legal in the south? Would they be pro slavery or "pro choice"?

Regards,

John M. Drake

[BuddyRey]

Need more choices (not sure/conflicted). Also, NOBODY is pro-abortion. Even people who are pro-choice do not necessarily find abortion a savory or desirable concept. Just like when folks on the other side of the argument refer to pro-lifers as "anti-choicers." It's very obvious and very manipulative political framing.

[WilliamC]

I dont need to google. Yet, Im confused where you are going with this. Care to elaborate?

Well if you look back up in the thread at some of my previous postings I already have.

Human development is not perfect, therefore not every pregnancy can be treated identically.

[QCB79]

whats ironic are the nutcases who stand outside abortion clinics protesting and chanting about how pro life they are but wanting the staff of the clinic dead...or worse yet, the ones who actually have killed staff members, so much for being "pro life" or is that a pick and choose kinda thing?

kinda like saying you are pro life but support the death penalty

[hairball]

whats ironic are the nutcases who stand outside abortion clinics protesting and chanting about how pro life they are but wanting the staff of the clinic dead...or worse yet, the ones who actually have killed staff members, so much for being "pro life" or is that a pick and choose kinda thing?

kinda like saying you are pro life but support the death penalty

That was always the curious hypocrisy of the 'right-to-life' groups, but it is unique to the religious zealots, who like some of the radical elements of Islam, believe death is a good punishment for violators of custom.

You want to talk of sanctity of life, fine, then you eschew war, the death penalty and killing someone to defend yourself or your family. That is a consistincy I can respect, though I do not agree with it.

Using force to make a woman produce a child she may not be able to care for, or for any of the multitude of reasons is just wrong. It is unconscienable. Whatever potential of the child inside is at the protection or rejection of the woman bearing that child. Once it is free of the womb, it is beyond potential. The argumnents are too absolute in their polarity to be realistic. To say 'no' is to put an absolute into an equation where choice would leave room for all the salient facts to be thought through.

Life is not so precious that it has to be preserved at all costs. A thug on a rampage has abrogated all rights to life. A man in pain on life support deserves the mercy of choice on when to check out, and a woman has absolute authority over what is growing in her body. We cannot force her to have it or abort it. It is her choice.

[Mik3_D]

I am not "Pro-Life" I am "Anti-Abortion." I am for the death penalty.

Children are not criminals who deserve death for things they've done nor are they enemy soldiers threatening our rights that need to be shot down. They are INNOCENT. A woman who is carrying a child does not have the right to end an innocent life. She had the choice not to have sex or to choose one of the many effective birth control options available to you in order to prevent the pregnancy. Once you're pregnant its too late. Now there is another persons life at stake and like any parent you are responsible for it. The father of the child is also responsible for what he helped bring to the world as well. This is why sex is not "just for fun." It has serious consequences for at least 3 people involved.

If you do not want to care for the child then there is adoption. You can drop the child off at any fire station you wish.

Hitler only killed 6 million. Pro-Abortion women have killed over 40 million. This is truly a crime against humanity.

[allyinoh]

whats ironic are the nutcases who stand outside abortion clinics protesting and chanting about how pro life they are but wanting the staff of the clinic dead...or worse yet, the ones who actually have killed staff members, so much for being "pro life" or is that a pick and choose kinda thing?

kinda like saying you are pro life but support the death penalty

So now you are assuming that the people who stand outside of abortion clinics want the people inside dead?

Wow that's a big leap to take.

I mean, what's ironic is the people who support individualism but when it comes to something they disagree with, they are very collectivist in their thinking. :rolleyes:

[allyinoh]

That was always the curious hypocrisy of the 'right-to-life' groups, but it is unique to the religious zealots, who like some of the radical elements of Islam, believe death is a good punishment for violators of custom.

You want to talk of sanctity of life, fine, then you eschew war, the death penalty and killing someone to defend yourself or your family. That is a consistincy I can respect, though I do not agree with it.

Using force to make a woman produce a child she may not be able to care for, or for any of the multitude of reasons is just wrong. It is unconscienable. Whatever potential of the child inside is at the protection or rejection of the woman bearing that child. Once it is free of the womb, it is beyond potential. The argumnents are too absolute in their polarity to be realistic. To say 'no' is to put an absolute into an equation where choice would leave room for all the salient facts to be thought through.

Life is not so precious that it has to be preserved at all costs. A thug on a rampage has abrogated all rights to life. A man in pain on life support deserves the mercy of choice on when to check out, and a woman has absolute authority over what is growing in her body. We cannot force her to have it or abort it. It is her choice.


Hey hairball and whoever else is pro-choice... Do you know how babies come about? If I remember correctly it's sex.

We all know that sex is how you get pregnant, yet there are people who do it and don't want to take responsibility of the consequences that arise out of it.

To me it boils down to TAKING RESPONSIBILITY! I think abortions are irresponsible. This is more than a "religious" issue to me.

I asked a few posts back a question about whether pro-choice people agreed with a person who kills a pregnant woman being charged with two murders and not so surprisingly I didn't get a response.

To me, to say that it's your body, your choice and if you want to kill, I mean abort your baby, that's fine because it doesn't have rights, contradicts the whole thing of a baby being counted as a person and a person being charged with it's murder! So, if someone else takes your babies life (which technically an abortionist takes your baby so that is a third party) the baby has rights but if you have someone else (an abortionist) abort your baby, it doesn't have rights?

It's either one or the other. If abortion is legal then if a pregnant woman is killed the person should be charged with one murder.

[jmdrake]

Need more choices (not sure/conflicted). Also, NOBODY is pro-abortion. Even people who are pro-choice do not necessarily find abortion a savory or desirable concept. Just like when folks on the other side of the argument refer to pro-lifers as "anti-choicers." It's very obvious and very manipulative political framing.

Sorry but you are wrong on this. As hard as it may seem to believe there are people who RELISH abortion. Take the abortion doctor in Kansas City who got caught eating fetuses.

http://www.kslegislature.org/committeeminutes/05-06/house/hhealth/testimony//03152005hb2503neutralDetecHowardKCPD.pdf

And don't forget that the racist Margaret Sanger who started "Planned Parenthood" did so for the sole purpose of culling the "mud races".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Or what about "Christian" Pat Robertson who came out and defended forced abortion in China because "they have so many people"?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/16/robertson.abortion/index.html

It's not simply about protecting "choice" or "rights". Its a systematic program to help depopulate the planet. I know this is tough to swallow. I used to be pro choice myself.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

That was always the curious hypocrisy of the 'right-to-life' groups, but it is unique to the religious zealots, who like some of the radical elements of Islam, believe death is a good punishment for violators of custom.

You want to talk of sanctity of life, fine, then you eschew war, the death penalty and killing someone to defend yourself or your family. That is a consistincy I can respect, though I do not agree with it.


Hmmmm....let's see. Ron Paul is pro life, against the death penalty and against unjustified wars. I would suspect that MOST people who support Ron Paul are at least anti war. So your argument is really goofy in this context.



Using force to make a woman produce a child she may not be able to care for, or for any of the multitude of reasons is just wrong.


And this woman doesn't have a choice to take the birth control pill? She doesn't have the choice to use a diaphragm and spermicide? There are even female condoms now. And why do some women not make this "choice" until MONTHS into the pregnancy? There are "morning after pills" and other very early term ways to end pregnancy. Why are there people who wait 4, 5 even 6 months into the pregnancy before making up their mind? Do you think that if a woman has a baby 6 months into the pregnancy and then throws it into the trash to die should be able to make that "choice"? Oh you say, she could give it up for adoption. But so could the woman who chooses abortion.



It is unconscienable. Whatever potential of the child inside is at the protection or rejection of the woman bearing that child. Once it is free of the womb, it is beyond potential.


So a 7 month old fetus is just a "potential" that its ok to kill, but a fetus born at 6 months is a "child" with rights? That argument is just plain stupid.



The argumnents are too absolute in their polarity to be realistic. To say 'no' is to put an absolute into an equation where choice would leave room for all the salient facts to be thought through.

Life is not so precious that it has to be preserved at all costs. A thug on a rampage has abrogated all rights to life. A man in pain on life support deserves the mercy of choice on when to check out, and a woman has absolute authority over what is growing in her body. We cannot force her to have it or abort it. It is her choice.

You're equating an unborn baby to a thug on a rampage? And besides, aren't YOU the one that started this post talking about how wrong the death penalty is? The hypocrisy of some on the pro choice side is quite salient.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[BuddyRey]

Sorry but you are wrong on this. As hard as it may seem to believe there are people who RELISH abortion. Take the abortion doctor in Kansas City who got caught eating fetuses.

http://www.kslegislature.org/committeeminutes/05-06/house/hhealth/testimony//03152005hb2503neutralDetecHowardKCPD.pdf

And don't forget that the racist Margaret Sanger who started "Planned Parenthood" did so for the sole purpose of culling the "mud races".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Or what about "Christian" Pat Robertson who came out and defended forced abortion in China because "they have so many people"?

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/16/robertson.abortion/index.html

It's not simply about protecting "choice" or "rights". Its a systematic program to help depopulate the planet. I know this is tough to swallow. I used to be pro choice myself.

Regards,

John M. Drake


In hindsight, I could have phrased my argument more effectively. Nobody, except for a very few demented individuals on the extreme and absolutist end of the pro-choice side, actually likes or endorses abortion. I say this as a fairly pro-life individual myself, who also used to be pro-choice but now has serious qualms and moral issues with it. I think either absolutist extreme is dangerous territory, just like some pro-life folks who don't believe that being pro-life precludes bombing abortion clinics (mind you, I'm not saying that this group makes up most, or even many, of the pro-life movement's ranks). My only trouble is that it's such a difficult issue, the longer I contemplate it, the more confused and conflicted I get, which is pretty rare, as normally, one's assurance in his or her belief system only grows more resolute with time and thought.

I don't reject the arguments used to support curtailing or even abolishing abortion. I only reject the terminology most people use to make the case for either position, which, whether used knowingly or unknowingly, have an implied effect of usurping moral authority or the appearance of a conscience from the opposition. Besides that, the terms are inadequate for descriptive purposes. I don't think "pro-choicers" are anti-life or pro-abortion. Many of them just have a different perception of where life begins definitively, which, when you think about it, only God knows for sure.

[Starks]

I reject the use of the term "Pro-Abortion" in this poll.

[josephadel_3]

whats ironic are the nutcases who stand outside abortion clinics protesting and chanting about how pro life they are but wanting the staff of the clinic dead...or worse yet, the ones who actually have killed staff members, so much for being "pro life" or is that a pick and choose kinda thing?

kinda like saying you are pro life but support the death penalty

Most right-to-life movements pray the rosary outside planned parenthood. You are making a blanket statement. Not all protesters want to kill the staff members, and it is absurd to say that all protesters are nutcases.

[jmdrake]

In hindsight, I could have phrased my argument more effectively. Nobody, except for a very few demented individuals on the extreme and absolutist end of the pro-choice side, actually likes or endorses abortion. I say this as a fairly pro-life individual myself, who also used to be pro-choice but now has serious qualms and moral issues with it. I think either absolutist extreme is dangerous territory, just like some pro-life folks who don't believe that being pro-life precludes bombing abortion clinics (mind you, I'm not saying that this group makes up most, or even many, of the pro-life movement's ranks). My only trouble is that it's such a difficult issue, the longer I contemplate it, the more confused and conflicted I get, which is pretty rare, as normally, one's assurance in his or her belief system only grows more resolute with time and thought.

I don't reject the arguments used to support curtailing or even abolishing abortion. I only reject the terminology most people use to make the case for either position, which, whether used knowingly or unknowingly, have an implied effect of usurping moral authority or the appearance of a conscience from the opposition. Besides that, the terms are inadequate for descriptive purposes. I don't think "pro-choicers" are anti-life or pro-abortion. Many of them just have a different perception of where life begins definitively, which, when you think about it, only God knows for sure.

Ok. I agree with that. And I used to be a pro choicer myself. I think the Terri Schiavo case first turned me off. It's not that I approved of the antics of the Bush administration, but I couldn't see why MoveOn.Org made it SUCH an important cause to get her feeding tube removed. If she was really braindead as they claimed (and contrary to everything I found in my research about persistent vegetative state) then why did they care? A brain dead person by definition can't be suffering any pain. And why was she given morphine?

Listening to Ron Paul (who didn't take the position I did on Schiavo) I began to question my support for abortion in general. Especially his argument that as a doctor he's held medically liable for what some people claim is not a person.

But what has REALLY soured me on the choice side is arguments I've had with some who claim to be "pro peace" but HATE Ron Paul because of his stance on abortion and other issues. I've heard a fetus being compared to a tumor or a fish. (I guess their good with tartar sauce?) I've heard a woman claim that since pregnancy is a medical condition that only affects women, men have no right to have an opinion about it or make policy about it. I guess then there should be no women proctologists or urologists since those are medical conditions that only effect men? I guess Ron Paul should have his obstetrician's license revoked because he is male? I know you haven't put forward such shrill arguments and I find what you are saying reasonable.

You are right, only God knows for certain when life begins. I used to look at that and give the benefit of the doubt to the choice side. Now I give the benefit of the doubt to the life side. If the choice side is right then the worst thing that happens is someone is inconvenienced while waiting to give her baby up for adoption. If the life side is right then the worst thing that happens is an innocent dies. Tough choice. (Pun intended). I'm not so strongly pro life that I'm against things like the morning after pill. (If it's really a child worthy of protection at the embryo stage, then we REALLY need to rethink in vitro fertilization.) But ultimately I wish people would make better choices before getting even to that stage. Wishful thinking I'm sure.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[pahs1994]

when i was in catholic school i was pretty much forced into the pro-life club by my principal. i have been pro-choice ever since. its funny how stuff like that works out.

[allyinoh]

But ultimately I wish people would make better choices before getting even to that stage. Wishful thinking I'm sure.



This is the problem. People know how you get pregnant yet they still take the chances. It's irresponsible.

People need to own up to things. That's a big problem in our society, there's always an easy way out and people don't have to deal with consequences of their actions.

[Rangeley]

I implied no such thing, I merely asked a good faith question.

Why, if god is in charge of things, does he allow mutated human life to even start to begin with?

Is he somehow unhappy with the normal chromosomal compliment of wild-type humans and feels the need to mess up certain individuals from time to time?

Again, you are implying with your question, whether it is how you truly feel or merely a side effect of the question you are posing, that there would be a reason that people with downs syndrome would not be allowed to be born. Its like if I were to say "why does God allow people with blue eyes to be born?" and say "is he somehow unhappy with brown eyed people and feels the need to mess up certain people from time to time?" In these questions there is inherently an implication that I somehow see people with blue eyes to be inferior as people, and therefore have to question why they would be allowed to exist.

My point, if it hasnt been made clear yet, is that the answer to your question is the same as the answer to my hypothetical question regarding eye color - what gives our lives value goes beyond whether we have downs syndrome or blue eyes or some other trait. I dont think we disagree here, we just get to this point from different approaches.

The way I have experienced life is very unique to me, just as the way you have experienced life is very unique to you. Because we can never really get beyond our own experiences and actually walk in the shoes of another, its very easy for us to say we would never want to have downs syndrome, never want to be blind or deaf, never want to experience this or that. That we would rather never be born than go through these things. But because we are not omniscient beings, we should not be the ones to judge lives in this manner - this is what I touched on in earlier posts.


And from what you wrote it sounds to me like god is punishing innocent unborns for sins that they did not commit.

Well, I honestly do not see where this is coming from, as I never said anything remotely similar to this. What I did say was that suffering should not be equated to divine punishment from God, and I used the example of Jesus Christ himself, who suffered greatly yet committed no sins.

Christians dont beleive in Karma, which seems to be the general idea you are talking about where having bad things happen to you must be preceded by you doing bad things.

[MilitaryDave]

whats ironic are the nutcases who stand outside abortion clinics protesting and chanting about how pro life they are but wanting the staff of the clinic dead...or worse yet, the ones who actually have killed staff members, so much for being "pro life" or is that a pick and choose kinda thing?

kinda like saying you are pro life but support the death penalty


I couldn't agree more, that is why faithful Catholics take the Catholic pro-life position and understand it ... no abortion (including embryonic), no death penalty, no euthanasia and no unjust war.

HEY, THIS IS RON PAUL'S POSITION TOO!!!

Just like the Catholic Church, Ron Paul rests on Christian principles and while technology changes and social movements change, sound principles should not. The pro-life position rests on the core principle of human dignity.

check out http://www.catholicsforronpaul.com

[MilitaryDave]

I thought we had many more realists here. Many of you are beginning to become caught up in your own moral ideals, and neglect to actually analyze the information. Whether or not abortion is legal, it is going to happen. This is really a debate in whether you want abortion to happen in a backalley with a closehanger or in a sanitary abortion clinic with legally liable doctors. Making abortion illegal will do the same thing making drugs illegal has done, create a legally uncontrollable black market.

I've tried to keep it real, but nobody cares. Whether or not murder is legal, it is going to happen over passion or money. This is really a debate in whether you want murder to happen gruesomely in a back-alley or basement by a gun, knife or blunt instrument or should we have a sanitary death clinic with legally liable doctors. Making murder illegal creates a legally uncontrollable black market for hit men and "vigilantes".

I know, I sound as silly as you do. Maybe we should both read Ron Paul's book on Liberty and Abortion and get our facts straight.

[theczar1776]

wow quite a debate

[MilitaryDave]

The problem is arguing when life starts is if you take it back to conception, it's very easy to take it back to birth control being abortion because it prevents conception. It's a very slipery slope.

...


You can't just make it illegal and move on without fixing the issues that cause us to be in this situation. J...

We also need to make basic sex ed avaliable to people. The idea of not having sex until marriage is the safest way, I agree. ....

...


...

Besides doing the things I mentioned above, we can all put some of our efforts in supporting charities that help make it possible for these women to raise their children and that help find homes for the children that can't be raised by their biological parents. This one thing will tie in with all the things I've already mentioned. Many of these charities provide women with knowledge, emotional support, financial assistance (free stuff), medical assistance, and even legitimate adoption assistance.

...

(Sorry for the long post. I feel so strong on this issue.)

Excellent post. I hope everybody reads your whole post. I believe that any coitus outside of a marriage context (protected or not) is tacit approval of abortion. The end of sex is to conceive and if conception doesn't occur, then the sexual experience still creates a powerful emotional and spiritual bond between the couple. Yes, I think a Christian theocracy is tempting as a concept but realize it offer the state too much power and power corrupts (unless you are God). The next best thing is the Constitution of the United States ... LET'S WORK TO GET IT BACK!

[theczar1776]

you can make all the moral arguments you want but i say, if 2 people do not to take the responsibility of MAYBE having kids, why tempt fate? God, take some responsibility

[allyinoh]

you can make all the moral arguments you want but i say, if 2 people do not to take the responsibility of MAYBE having kids, why tempt fate? God, take some responsibility

Nevermind I get what you mean.

[theczar1776]

it is politically incorrect but look at the facts more that half (52%) of abortions are to women with more than one child, and less that 20% of abortions are to women under 25 hmm. abortion sound like an economic issue to me.

[Nirvikalpa]

I am not "Pro-Life" I am "Anti-Abortion." I am for the death penalty.

Children are not criminals who deserve death for things they've done nor are they enemy soldiers threatening our rights that need to be shot down. They are INNOCENT. A woman who is carrying a child does not have the right to end an innocent life. She had the choice not to have sex or to choose one of the many effective birth control options available to you in order to prevent the pregnancy. Once you're pregnant its too late. Now there is another persons life at stake and like any parent you are responsible for it. The father of the child is also responsible for what he helped bring to the world as well. This is why sex is not "just for fun." It has serious consequences for at least 3 people involved.

If you do not want to care for the child then there is adoption. You can drop the child off at any fire station you wish.

Hitler only killed 6 million. Pro-Abortion women have killed over 40 million. This is truly a crime against humanity.

Agreed whole-heartedly. There's a HUGE difference between being 'Pro-Life' and 'Pro-Death Penalty' they are NOT THE SAME THING.


If something can be made so easy, it's hard to believe that it's sacred.

That's not entirely true. Visited a fertility clinic any time soon? Tell that statement to a man who is infertile and a woman who has had continuous miscarriages, who desperately want children.

[jyakulis]

can we change pro-choice to pro-death...haha kind of like estate tax=death tax now.

but seriously. i tend to sit on the fence on the issue. i see the plight of people that conceive a child and do not have the means to properly take care of it. at the same time, i say to myself that they should have practiced more personal responsibility. i don't know it's not going to change anyway so, ultimately i find the debate rather pointless. it needs to be handled in the courts and we just had a pro life candidate for 8 years and nothing changed other than maybe some conservative supreme court justices appointed.

[DDMX]

My opinion - Abortion is murder.

Why is it legal to kill a child the day before it was going to be born, but not the day after it is born?

It is sick.

[IowaGarrett]

For the second time:

I challenge ANY pro-abortion/choice supporter to try to debase the argument I have established on this thread. Not one of you have been able to touch my arguments yet.

[IowaGarrett]

bump.

[RonPaulMania]

Over and over again, "No one can tell me to do what I can do with my own body" "Who are you to tell me about my body" "It's not gov't's function to stop a choice" "No gov't can police abortion" "There will be coat-hanger abortions in back alleys"...

Yet, when it is explained over and over again it's not their body's they are violating, it's another's no one responds logically to the fact we aren't talking about the rights of the mother, but of the child. Viability is not an issue as a child for the first 6 years isn't really viable independently either.

If gov't cannot intrude in the "choice" of murdering innocent life when should the gov't interfere with the good and rights of all citizens? The government was founded on the grounds of defending life, liberty and happiness; but when you play with life you lose the others. When Washington said he fought for the rights of every citizen, and included the unborn as part of those who he fights for I see this as spitting on the founders who never even dreamed that murder would just be considered a choice.

Frankly, I don't care if there are back-alleys murders in comparison to the greatest holocaust that has ever existed. If you saw a man with a knife about to kill a new-born baby everyone would scream, let that same monster do it with a vacuum and forceps and it's a choice.

Here is the head abortionist of Washington, DC in the 70's talking and explaining that abortion really is murder. You can watch the "foetus" fight for it's life and scream in the womb. The movie is called "Silent Scream" and you can avoid the obvious conclusion. Watch for yourself, it's called Silent Scream and you can see an abortion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek

Watch his follow-up called the Eclipse of Reason. Abortion is murder, it's a medical fact and proven by ultra-sound abortions and the huge numbers of ex-abortionists that are suicidal and have joined a group called the Society of Centurions:
http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa020701a.htm

[Conservative Christian]

if you are not pro life it does NOT mean you are pro abortion---What it is called is pro choice and what that means to me is even though I think abortion is wrong --for me--I can't tell anyone what thier "choice" should be----

remember the old saying dont judge till you walked a mile in thier shoes

No offense intended, but your logic is deplorable. Let's apply it to some similar situations:

"Even though I think lynching black people is wrong--for me--I can't tell anyone what their choice should be."

"Even though I think gassing Jews is wrong--for me--I can't tell anyone what their choice should be."

Killing unborn babies, blacks and Jews is wrong. There is no room for "choice". I can walk fifty miles in "their shoes" and that won't change that hard fact.

[ErikBlack]

Killing a fetus is different from killing a living person because a fetus has nothing to lose. It hasn't experienced life yet. It hasn't made friends and loved ones. No-body will miss it when it's gone because nobody ever knew it. There is a difference. A fetus is not a person. It just has the potential to become a person. Erasing that potential is not the same as erasing an existing human life.

[familydog]

Killing a fetus is different from killing a living person because a fetus has nothing to lose. It hasn't experienced life yet. It hasn't made friends and loved ones. No-body will miss it when it's gone because nobody ever knew it. There is a difference. A fetus is not a person. It just has the potential to become a person. Erasing that potential is not the same as erasing an existing human life.

So by that logic, many shut ins, elderly, people living off the grid, homeless people, etc should all be killed because nobody will miss them.

EDIT: And mountain hermits too!

[constituent]

So by that logic, many shut ins, elderly, people living off the grid, homeless people, etc should all be killed because nobody will miss them.

EDIT: And mountain hermits too!

not even close.

[familydog]

not even close.

How so? By what he said, if nobody loves me or cares for me, I don't have any friends etc, I must not be a living person (never mind that fact that a fetus is living...which is how it grows in the womb).

[jondisx]

i hold a very controversial belief, im anti abortion but pro baby murder

[Mach]

On this post, if you're offended by profane, disgusting opinions, stop reading this now!








..........


To start off I can say that I am against Abortion, but, I went to "Catholic School" and the funny thing there is, I didn't agree with them all the way, I was about 13yrs old when my best friends sister and mother went to Washington to protest Abortion, now, I think that is wrong because, they want to rule out Abortion from a religious standpoint, well, I just see it as wrong and sick, by using religion to explain that it's wrong you are instantly blocking out people just because they don't want to be seen as a fanatic and I don't want to discourage Abortion through guilt, I want people to see right or wrong.

It's just sick that as time goes by premature kids are being born and surviving earlier and earlier, but, you have people trying to pass laws that say it's ok to pull a child most of the way out, head still inside, that's it, and kill that child, stabbing it in the brain, then throwing it away, go to a Hospital, visit the premature center and look at the newborns that only weigh about a pound, or less, then think about them getting ripped apart, well, thats what happens.

I could ramble all day about this...... here, click this, look at the picture and read the comments there.......

http://plus613.net/image/35583


Here, some of it I had to copy and paste. V V V V V


"Go watch a video, stupid(:rolleyes: ) sit there at a rally for gun control and right next to there gun control (to save lives) poster they have an abortion rights poster, stupid (:rolleyes:) even says I wanna make sure guns stay out of kids hands, (if she would have had an abortion she wouldn't have to worry about it), talk about sick in the head.............................................. ...... "

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3613002972379989761&sourceid=zeitgeist


Pro-Choice for Abortion and Pro-Gun Control ? Pro-Gun Control is Choice? That does get me pissed!..............

[WilliamC]

Again, you are implying with your question, whether it is how you truly feel or merely a side effect of the question you are posing, that there would be a reason that people with downs syndrome would not be allowed to be born. Its like if I were to say "why does God allow people with blue eyes to be born?" and say "is he somehow unhappy with brown eyed people and feels the need to mess up certain people from time to time?" In these questions there is inherently an implication that I somehow see people with blue eyes to be inferior as people, and therefore have to question why they would be allowed to exist.

My point, if it hasnt been made clear yet, is that the answer to your question is the same as the answer to my hypothetical question regarding eye color - what gives our lives value goes beyond whether we have downs syndrome or blue eyes or some other trait. I dont think we disagree here, we just get to this point from different approaches.

The way I have experienced life is very unique to me, just as the way you have experienced life is very unique to you. Because we can never really get beyond our own experiences and actually walk in the shoes of another, its very easy for us to say we would never want to have downs syndrome, never want to be blind or deaf, never want to experience this or that. That we would rather never be born than go through these things. But because we are not omniscient beings, we should not be the ones to judge lives in this manner - this is what I touched on in earlier posts.


Well, I honestly do not see where this is coming from, as I never said anything remotely similar to this. What I did say was that suffering should not be equated to divine punishment from God, and I used the example of Jesus Christ himself, who suffered greatly yet committed no sins.

Christians dont beleive in Karma, which seems to be the general idea you are talking about where having bad things happen to you must be preceded by you doing bad things.

Where went my answer to this post?

Very strange, I answered this post in the morning and remember seeing it after checking new threads.

Now it's gone.

Rats, now I have to re-do it.

[Knightskye]

By the way, the opposite of "pro-life" is "pro-death." ;)

And the opposite of Congress is Progress! :D

Okay, enough cheesy jokes, but according to the Guttmacher Institute:

ABORTION DECLINES WORLDWIDE, FALLS MOST WHERE ABORTION IS BROADLY LEGAL

So we'd have less abortions if they were legal, and if abortion was illegal, people would still get them, but they would be unsafe.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html

[Vancouverite90210]

Stop Global Warming And Overpopulation:

Spay Or Neuter Your Kids

[Mach]

And the opposite of Congress is Progress! :D

Okay, enough cheesy jokes, but according to the Guttmacher Institute:

Quote:
ABORTION DECLINES WORLDWIDE, FALLS MOST WHERE ABORTION IS BROADLY LEGAL


So we'd have less abortions if they were legal, and if abortion was illegal, people would still get them, but they would be unsafe.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/10/11/index.html


C'mon, those are like Bush numbers or something............


Ok, we (US), where it is legal, have 100 abortions in a year, well, that other country over there, where it is illegal, has 10 abortions a year, now, the year after that we have 80 abortions and that other country has 9, so, what are the headlines, here...............


The United States of America, where abortion is legal had a 20% drop in abortions this year while the other countries like, so and so, where abortion is illegal only had a 10% drop. Abortion being legal seems to make the numbers drop even more...:eek:

News at 11.

[Paulitician]

Pro-death and pro-abortion. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

[LibertyOfOne]

Talk about a bias poll