Supreme Court fires up abortion foes

Picture a country where there is no abortion, no birth control, no sex education in schools, no evolution taught, & no pornography.

Picture the 10 commandments in every courtroom, homosexual behavior re-instituted as a psychological disorder, all homosexual acts illegal, bible studies in all schools, & book banning in libraries.

This is what the radical Christian right envisions this country becoming. I have far more fear of their attempts to take over this country then any terrorist organization from abroad.

Spare the crocodile tears. Abortions are still legal - it is a very barbaric and uncivilized surgical procedure that has been made illegal. It also means less income for the surgical butchers who practiced it - tough! As for the handwringing feminist harpies - the time is long overdue when glorified feminine hygiene problems were removed from the courts and political life. This is a start - get used to it!

RomanB,

Don't forget the holy war that the RR's fearless leader started in Iraq.

This is just the first step to show that women don't have the right to choose murder.
What a GREAT DAY for life.
May GOD bless America and The Supreme Court!

Paulo

I cannot say I'm surprised, as this is the kind of banner-waving issue that gets votes from those who count symbolism as an achievement, rather than something tangible.

Women with a "risk" pregnancy in late-term will now undergo a more expensive C-section abortion, with more risk to the woman of infection - this will increase medical costs, which will end up raising insurance rates. Therefore, nothing tangible has been achieved at all by this decision.

If anything ever echoed the complete lack of actual gain, while getting a photo-op, this decision typifies the past 6 years under Bush.

Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of "already born" children die of disease and famine and war, and that does not register.

Fundamentalism is the problem, because while it may "feel good" for those involved, it's always at the expense of the "real" majority of the citizens impacted. It does give people like Bush something to run on as an "accomplishment", but of course it's an "empty" one, much like the "Mission Accomplished" moment on the carrier deck.

RomanB,
What does what you write have anything to do with child killing? Are you in favor of using scissors to collapse the scull of unborn baby after it is partially delivered? If it doesn't bother you then, then would it bother you if the baby was 3 months old and the execution was done in the same way? The Nazis couldn't even come up with a way to execute someone in a more vicious way. You have to be a total sicko and full of hate for mankind to be upset that we are abolishing this horifying practice.

Great news for mothers, daughters and sisters that carry babies that develop pre-natal encephalitis! Hope your mother, daughter, or sister appreciates you men telling them they can either deliver a baby with a swollen head the size of a basketball thru their vagina or they can be surgically cut open. God forbid a doctor relieve the inflamation to avoid a horribly bloody scene. And for you ignorant authoritarians the medical term is dilation and extraction.

And may God bless President Bush for his choice of Alito and Roberts for The Supreme Court.
What a Great Day!!

Paulo

I am only sad that the decision was so narrow. Rolling back the Abortion Industry is essential. We have currently killed, murdered, aborted, terminated (use whatever word you want), 45,000,000 children (babies, fetus, Americans) since Roe v. Wade.

This decision was a long time in coming and is hopefully the first step of many to rolling back Roe v. Wade and returning the issue to the voters, the legislature.

I'm happily surprised by Justice Kennedy on this one though.

Finally, the Court inches toward sanity in its abortion rulings.

Abortion, and the Court-invented "right" to an abortion, is not and never was a part of the US Constitution. It's for the people, not the courts, to decide.

I think RomanB needs to go watch a few ComCast commercials and S-L-o-w down....and maybe thank his parents for not believing in abortion.

Paulo

RomanB,
Don't forget that Evangelicals aren't crazy about democracy either. Because in a democracy you have to treat everyone as equal. And every Evangelical Christian knows that God did not make everyone equal.

The "pro-lifers" don't seem to have a problem with the death penalty,they also can't find it in their conservative hearts to adequately fund our overworked,overwelmed adoption and foster care programs.

They need to start fully funding and supporting these programs or stop telling women what to do with their bodies.

A woman can still get a "late term" abortion. This ruling only specifically banned the partial birth of a live being and then killing it. A woman can still have the fetus killed in the womb and then have it extracted. Late term abortion is still legal.

I sense in influx of bible thumpers coming on this thread.

The BIG LIE surrounding this specific abortion process is that it is only used when the health of the mother requires it. The facts have been shown that it is used as a matter of convenience (a smashed head is easier to extract than an intact one) and that NEVER is this method therapeutic, preserving the “health” of the mother.

Liberals want “health” as a general escape clause to excuse all forms of abortion, including mental distress. How many pregnant women do not experience mental distress?

Liberals of all political parties are underground members of the Party of Death, wishing to enshrine death of the very young and very old as a means of enhancing life for the powerful.

Today is a sad day for women's rights and women's health.

Late-term abortions are not common, anyway, and they are most often done at a physician's discretion because of danger to the mother's life and/or health or because of fetal abnormalities. It's not like there are tons of five-months-pregnant women who just wake up one day and say, "Hey, I just decided I don't want to have a baby - I'll just stroll down to the local clinic and get this taken care of."

Paulo - Spare me the "maybe thank his parents for not believing in abortion" bit. My parents are both vehemently pro-choice, and I'm here. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion; it's about people having the right to decide when to become parents.

How about this: Women and men act a little more responsibly while having sex and avoid all the "unwanted" pregnancies.

You know, I'm generally pro-life, and I applaud this decision, but I still think putting those ultraconservative nutjobs on the Supreme Court will be bad for our country and our civil liberties.
Then again, I believe in evolution and the Bible. Wish there were more people like me in America...oh, wait! Most of us are, we just don't have the fanaticism of the emotionally high-strung Conservative and Liberal whackjobs on both sides of this issue.

Paulo, if that's your name, stop celebrating. This decision effects far less than 1% of abortions, and overturning Roe only got 2 votes today: Scalia & Thomas. For some reason that aspect of it is not being under reported.

Thank God for some sanity from the Supreme Court! Hopefully this is the first of many RIGHT decisions to come.

Picture a country where you are targeted for practising Christianity, and can get your throat slashed for distributing bibles. RomanB your views are as myopic as they come.

Uncle Vincent
your statement '"The "pro-lifers" don't seem to have a problem with the death penalty' is the most ill-informed thought of the day. congrats.

"Liberals of all political parties are underground members of the Party of Death, wishing to enshrine death of the very young and very old as a means of enhancing life for the powerful."

Posted by: Stuart L. Brogden | Apr 18, 2007 2:42:05 PM

Funniest post ever.

P.S. Booo!!

The United States of America has turned into the laughingstock of the world over ignorant decisions made by this administration, decisions that are shortsighted and threaten the lives of millions upon millions of people. And I, a devoted citizen, am sad to say that I agree with the world. Something is rotten in the 50 states.

I can't say that I agree with this ruling, but only because there isn't anything that makes an allowance for a woman's health. If having the baby will kill the woman, then it should be her decision to get an abortion, not anybody else's.

On the other hand, I think abortion as a "choice" should not exist. Women shouldn't be able to terminate a baby's life because they are so slutty that they can't use condoms or take birth control pills. It is called RESPONSIBILITY. If the only reason you want an abortion is because you don't feel like ruining your night life, then you need to be sterilized and never allowed to get pregnant in the first place.

Of the 45 MILLION babies murdered since the Roe v Wade decision, which one was destined to find the cure for AIDS? Which one was destined to invent propulsion technology that would make true space flight possible? How much has our civilization lost just to satisfy the desire of the abortion industry to live well?

Uncle Vincent,
Didn't you know life begins at conception, but public concern for the child ends at birth? We need to make sure every pregnancy is carried to term while simultaneously reducing funding for these unwanted, often-abandoned and neglected children.

Until the mother actually gives birth it is not an unborn baby that is being aborted but a fetus. There is no life destroyed. Women should absolutely have the freedom to choose.

Actually whitney, sex is about people having the right to decide to become parents. Thats what happens after sex, pregnancy. Life is funny- it cant procreate without our help.

@witz
"Are you in favor of using scissors to collapse the scull of unborn baby "
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Lies like these are the battle cry of the neocons and all others who can't think for themselves.

As we all know, it's much easier to get fired up by bs like this, then say if someone said, "Abortions performed on the 92nd day are done exactly the same way as they are on the 22nd day"...Thats not nearly as controversial though.

The Taliban have arrived in America. Religious convictions over-ruling doctors' recommendations on medical procedures through the courts. This is cause for sorrow, not joy.

Vincent,

Government funding is not the answer to all of our nation's problems. There is no law that I am aware of preventing you from contributing your time and money to the under-funded foster care programs.

The Roe v Wade decision determined that abortion regulation should be left to the federal government, not the states. This ruling was a challenge to a federal law which was upheld. This does not "erode" Roe v Wade, it reaffirms the federal government's power to legalize or outlaw abortion practices.

Today, science and logic came together and took a step forward. Selfish human emotion must be seperated, in order to read the facts accurately. We must see this as a living child rather than some extra organ that can be removed. Planned Parenthood has to much money in this, creating a conflict of interest. If we truly respect women and want to empower them we must allow women to be fully educated and informed. Why does Planned Parenthood look down on sonograms and ultrasounds? Again, science and logic have prevailed.

I think that it is funny that the liberals bemoan that the Supreme Court ignored 30 years of jurisprudence in reaching its decision released today. I for one am glad that the Supreme Court has the ability to look back and realize that past courts made a mistake and has the guts to fix it. If the court could not do that, we would still be living with the Dred Scott decision.

Abortion is murder. Capital punishment is the execution of a death sentence for a severe crime - something that is not only approved, but mandated in both the Old and the New Testaments. The correct interpretation of the Commandment is 'thou shalt not 'murder'' (not thou shalt not kill).
There are more children killed in one week of abortions than have been killed in the entire war in Iraq - but the liberal media does not bemoan their loss.
If you are going to quote Evangelicals, you should understand what they believe first - instead of just quoting what you have been TOLD that they believe.

@RomanB

That sounds pretty good to me!

"Today is a sad day for woman's rights and health"
Posted by Whitney...

Well Whitney,do you call 70,000,000 million abortions/murders a happy thing?
This is a step in the right direction for our country.

Paulo

To all of you anti-life people out there, I say.
Picture your child, your husband, your mother.....having their little bodies tenderly handled, with a doctor carefully inserting a scissors like prong into the back of the head and then......that future loved one's body first stiffening, then going limp and lifeless.

Read the brief for yourself from the Supreme Court of the testimony of the nurse, regarding what she saw happen to a child, half way out of the womb in just such a case. It will make your blood freeze. By the way, I'm not one of those kooks who holds up those awful placards, but if you don't recognize this as murder, you aren't human.

I’ve walked through the Auschwitz concentration camp twice & I don’t see any comparison between what the Nazi’s did & dilation and extraction (or, the scissors in the skull partial birth abortion spin on a medical procedure).

I only hope no one has to confront the same procedure as my sister, (with six children & who doesn’t believe in contraception) who has had this procedure performed.

Paulo, James,
You seem to think women in this country don't have the right to think for them selves. What gives you and any other man the right to tell women what are the best options for themselves, their future and their bodies. I hope you plan on donating all of your money to support all of the children that will now be born un-wanted. Maybe adopt some? You could become father of the year....some how I don't think you'll do anything except jump up and down waving the anti-(any) abortion flag.

People (mostly men from my unscientific observations) seem to think women want to get abortions. This is a huge decision a woman must make. Especially when there are more unplanned pregnancies than ever. Especially when there are more deadbeat dads than ever. If women are forced to carry pregnancies full-term, what kind of accountability should the fathers of these unplanned children have mandated?

Women don't use abortions as a first measure of birth control. There is the pill, there is EC, there is RU-486, there are condoms, and such. These options are much easier and much less psychologically traumatic. Give women some credit.

I think if men were able to become pregnant, there is no way in hell America would be banning D&E's.

Roman B, Think about what you are saying. That it is okay for a women to choose to have her baby killed, because it is inconvenient. She doesnt deserve to ever have children. She obviously cares more about herself that the welfare of her child, which is why there are so many problems in our society today...neglect...abuse...I myself had parents that neglected me. I still am suffering from that. Think how the creator of the earth suffers when you kill one of his children. Or secularly, that child could have made a difference in this world. When do we get to choose who dies? Its inhumane. Having the ten commandments in school wouldnt be soo bad. What are they? You shall have no other Gods but me.
1. You shall not make for yourself Any idol, Nor bow down to it or worship it.
2. You shall Not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
3. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
4. Respect your father and mother.
5. You must not kill.
6. You must not commit adultery.
7. You must not steal.
8. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
9. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods.
10. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
If all children today were taught these priciples, they would better benifit society. Think about it. If you will, email me your reply. Thank you.

Jethro, I am evangelical, all men are equal in God's eyes. Where are you getting that? None of us are equal to God. Tell me where in the Bible you found that. Email me your reply. If you are right I'll apologize.

Uncle Vincent, check this out and then just be quiet. The Christian community is already taking care of your concerns. Come to my church where there are a lot of former foster care kids, now adopted into loving homes. http://www.antiochadoptions.org/

My Dear Uncle Vincent,
Us "pro-lifers" have a problem with murder, whether it is of an unborn child or a fully-grown adult. The last time I checked, the death penalty was reserved for capitol crimes, murder being one of these. Unfortunately, only murdering a person who has already been born will result in capitol punishment.
As for these "overworked, overwelmed adoption and foster care programs," are you implying that you (and others who share your view point) should not be helping these children?

Sincerely,
William S.

If anti-choicers (because both sides are pro-life, just different lives) really want to decrease abortions, what we need in this country is full coverage sex ed from the time when children start figuring out the differences between boys and girls, free and easily attainable contraception of ALL kinds for all people of ALL ages and genders without parental involvment, and as much support as humanly possible for the poor. Then we would decrease our abortion rates significantly. Want to stop abortion? Hand out free condoms and Plan B.

Banning abortions has been shown to not significantly decrease the number of abortions that happen - because they happen for good reasons - in our country or others. What it does is make women endanger their lives and their families by taking away their options. Illigal abortions are incredibly less safe than legal ones. In this case, Intact D&E is often safer (and in my personal opinion, less gruesome) than the other options available at that time in the pregnancy. Thank you, Pb, your "It does give people like Bush something to run on as an 'accomplishment'" is right on the head.

Abortion can be a moral and right choice. When you cannot give a child the life that children deserve. When you or the fetus's health is bad. When you could not support your other children or the children you may yet have someday if you had this one. When having the baby will put your life in danger not only from sickness, but from partners or parents. Choices have to be made, and every single individual situation is different. We should not legislate the masses; we should let people make their own decisions with their doctors and families, because only they know their situation. Do not presume that a mother who would choose to let go of the baby is some sort of psycho. She has looked at this decision from every angle and this is the best choice she feels that she has. Don't judge her.

whats an abortion. mom always tells me I'm an abortion that lived. My sister just lafs

Whitney,
If you dont think you are ready to have a baby. Dont get into a sexual relationship. I think its wrong when you have sex, get pregnant, and say you arent ready for a baby. Sex was made to be part of holy matramony. If you do it get pregnant then It is your fault. Dont blame it on anyone else. Thanks for listening.

Picture a country where unborn children have less protection than endangered insects.

Picture a country where school children are taught that because they are no more than highly evolved animals they should give in to their basest desires with no restrictions on sexual activity including allowing older men to have sex with young boys.

Picture a country where women are objectified and glorified for their willingness to act like sluts.

Picture a society where criminals have more rights than the abused, where homosexual activity is viewed as an orientation rather than a behavioral anamoly.

Sadly, you don't have to picture this, because this is what we have become. Psalm 9:17 says, "the wicked will be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God".

Roman, you have nothing to fear from Christians. In fact you have more freedom to espouse your views in this "Christian" country than virtually anywhere in the world.

The problem with the references to "the will of the people" is that this was the will of the people in 2003 with a Congress that, by virtue of the outcome of the last Congressional election, does not necessarily reflect the current will of the people. To infer that Bush's hand-picked Supreme Court is only reflecting the will of the constituance is very misleading.

The right-wing has finally found a Swamp thread that they can post on, and find support from the like-minded. This is to be expected, as science is definitely low-priority for this crowd.

All that matters is the outcome, and for a woman requiring a late-term abortion, they will still get it, but with added risk. This decision trades an unpleasant "image" of the removal of the fetus, vs. added risks for the mother. That's a negative total outcome.

When those celebrating posters explain why thousands of "living" children die each week around the world, victims of war and disease, we might get to some actual discussion in lieu of diatribe. Don't expect the facts to get in the way of the emotional response.

Now for the real question: if a sperm and egg are not a human, and a newborn baby is one, when does the change occur? How do we draw the line?

Our country is committed to protecting the lives of innocent people. Why have we not legally defined personhood?

I guarantee you this: you won't find any logical reason to define it according whether to a child is inside the womb or outside.

Whitney, it's not about "pro-choice". It's about people in America being sexually irresponsible. Think about it, you say "...it's about people having the right to decide when to become parents." Now really, shouldn't they have thought about that beforehand? America is becoming selfish and irresponsible. Hopefully this Supreme Court Decision will take photo-finished words such as "health", "dilation" and "extraction" from organizations supporting this practice. Americans need to be told what this is really about: killing innocent children in order to live a life of pleasure and irresponsibility.

If we find that being gay is really genetic, could we at least abort those babies?

This changes nothing.
Selfish hedonists will remain the same.
Judgemental elitists will remain the same.
The ignorant will remain ignorant.
The enlightened will still smile and weep.
All the wonderful shades of gray in between will still exist. I will get old and die. Then perhaps I will know something.

References to the Ten Commandments in light of the Bush administration's performance are laughable:

1. You shall not make for yourself Any idol, Nor bow down to it or worship it.
Bush's worship of business and power is well-documented

2. You shall Not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
Got anything to say Mr. Vice President?

3. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
They usually use Sunday to sneak stuff by without us knowing it. It's a slow news day and it's usually in the bag before we hear what happened.

4. Respect your father and mother.
George is in constant competition with his father. Really Freudian.

5. You must not kill.
Over 3000 American servicemen sent to their death under false pretense in the name of arrogance. Tens of thousands if Iraqi citizens murdered as well.

6. You must not commit adultery.
I feel screwed, don't you?

7. You must not steal.
There's so much material here I don't know where to start. Everything from the Houston Astros to our Constitutional rights.

8. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
Three letters: W M D

9. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods.
It's the OIL, stupid.

10. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
See Commandment number nine.

Paul, that comment is very insulting and I would not be surprised in the least if you are in support of all abortions in order to demean the reputation of the pro-life movement.

Thank God--the Supreme Court has just saved the lives of thousands of America’s future children.

Why do the "numbers" of babies killed keep going from 45 million to 70 million and back to 45 million. Its almost as if some one was making them up....

Carrie S.
Read your Bible, enjoy your faith, blow up the ten commandments into wallpaper and redecorate your house. But try to raise my kids how you see fit, sorry a little bit out of your league. And that's coming from a Catholic that attends weekly Mass with the family.

Until the mother actually gives birth it is not an unborn baby that is being aborted but a fetus. There is no life destroyed. Women should absolutely have the freedom to choose.

Posted by: Jake | Apr 18, 2007 2:54:17 PM

this is the crux of the pro abortion/choice argument-

Jake- so you are saying that you are not human, until you actually pass through the birth canaL?

Babies in the womb respond to light, sound and touch- they also learn what there parents voices sound like... they act like humans, because they are humans. The fact that there is a human skull to crush and a human brain to suck out is makes the defending if this procedure indefensible

Don't lighten your moral load by trying to dilute the humanity of human children by calling then fetuses until they are born...

Your phrase "no life destroyed" is as chilling as it is innacurate..

Today the greatest danger to America and its peoples’ freedom is the effort of organized evangelical Christianity to increase its uncompromising grip on the national, state, and local governments and by so doing, the American people. Some denominations are more resolute than others, but nevertheless it is a relentless movement.

If religion becomes the major influencing factor in our government, we will have a modified fascist government. Many freedoms now taken for granted will go away, not the least of which is the very freedom that allowed this to happen; the first amendment of our constitution. Organized religion is deeply involved in Government now. If you don’t believe the religious right, is in some manner, funding its selected representatives either with money or votes, you are indeed naïve to the point where you will believe anything you are told to believe.

Dear "Jake"- you obviously are not a parent, or have never seen or heard an ultra-sound. To say that an "Until the mother actually gives birth it is not an unborn baby that is being aborted but a fetus". . .is like saying that the fruit on an apple is not an apple until it is ripe enough to fall off. Only then can it be called an apple? My son was born 6 weeks early. . .does that mean I gave birth to a fetus?

Furthermore re: Planned Parenthoods response. . .I found it so interesting how many times they used the words "Women's Health" and how the bill disregards Women's health, etc, etc. . . As I understand it, about 1/2 the abortions are done to female fetus'. . .which if given a chance to survive would turn out to be women. I don't get that. Abortions are anything but healthy for those unborn "women".

Becky A

Eugenics (abortion) - Kill the poor of the world. Those who fight abortion are the abolitionist of our time! Why is planned parenthood and other such groups trying to get congress to pass bills to protect them from law suites tied to medical malpractice related to a ruined abortion. Yeah they really care about my health or the health of other women! Get the facts please. Also, it was white men that ended slavery and as a black woman I am happy they did! You don’t need to be a woman to know abortion is wrong.

When does the unborn baby's heart begin to beat? The heartbeat begins on the 21st day after conception.

When does the brain begin to function? Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days.

How early can a baby survive outside the mother's womb? Currently, twenty weeks is considered the accepted minimum. However, this time will be reduced as medical technology continues to improve.

Who's having abortions (income)? Women with family incomes less than $50,000 obtain over 85% of all abortions.

1) Abortion is the killing of innocent poor humans.

2) Nearly 100% of all third trimester killings are not for health issues. Poor uneducated women under duress are manipulated into believing the act will be socially convenient and accepted.

3) Planned Parenthood is the largest lobbyist of abortion and has made over $100 million by pushing such procedures.

4) Most people do not see this as a choice but as a refusal to deal with the natural consequence of making a poor choice. This re-do unforutnatly requires the killing of a mute and weak human.

The pro-aborts post lies and Kyra leads the charge. Of course making abortion illegal would reduce the number of abortions. Do you liberals also favor the right of a mother to murder her son / daughter after it is born if he has downs syndrome and you don't value his life? Why not extend the age of allowing a mother to kill her offspring up to the age of 1 if she doesn't want it. And if she does, in the words of Krya 'Don't judge her'. After all she can kill it with 'HER BODY'. Why do you think that your life is worth more than one that is unborn? Can any lib answer that question. Another point for you libs. Seems like you would be in favor of murdering people on welfare since they need support also.

The pro-aborts post lies and Kyra leads the charge. Of course making abortion illegal would reduce the number of abortions. Do you liberals also favor the right of a mother to murder her son / daughter after it is born if he has downs syndrome and you don't value his life? Why not extend the age of allowing a mother to kill her offspring up to the age of 1 if she doesn't want it. And if she does, in the words of Krya 'Don't judge her'. After all she can kill it with 'HER BODY'. Why do you think that your life is worth more than one that is unborn? Can any lib answer that question. Another point for you libs. Seems like you would be in favor of murdering people on welfare since they need support also.

I have to admit that the Supreme Court is thinkin ahead.
We want to make sure that there's plenty of cannon fodder 18 years from now.

"If you dont think you are ready to have a baby. Dont get into a sexual relationship."

...Sorry, I have to say it - This from the people who brought you the virgin birth.

You know, a lot of people need an abortion for health reasons (mental or physical), economic reasons, rape, incest, or because the condom broke or the pill failed. It's more than a little unfair to characterize the average woman looking for help as a "slut" or to generalize them as all having sex outside of marriage. Many, many abortions are needed for married women. (Most of us don't think sex outside of marriage is a bad thing, btw...)

Sex is useful for a lot of things besides procreation. It strengthens a couple, it helps them to grow together and create a bond in which they can create a family if they choose to. It releases stress and anger and it makes you feel good both physically and psychologically. It does this work a lot better when you don't have to fear having a child. Women who are perpetual baby makers often die early and painful deaths.

To Sam,

How many of those 45 millions would have ended up in dumpster/foster care if they were born? How may of them would have become anti-socials and murdered ? millions?
It is unfortunate that America preaches democracy to the world when it is curtailing individual rights back home.

Europe is moving forward with gay/lesbian rights etc and the Euro is dominating the dollar. Is this the beginning of the dominance of Europe and the decline of USA?

Tell me pb, what are YOU doing to help those children dying of war and disease? How can we have an honest debate when you don't tell us what YOU are doing? I have a kid in Uganda I support. "Save one life and you save the world."

I look forward to hearing what YOU are doing so you can contribute to the debate.

If the right wants to take-up the right to life crusade, why not take the Bush administration to task for sweeping Iraqi casualties under the term collateral damage? Would it be different if Iraqi’s were mostly Christians instead of Muslims?

Remember that Ann Coulter, the conservative goddess on the right, said Middle Eastern leaders should be all killed & their Muslim population be converted to Christianity.

That doesn’t sound too radical now does it?

Please decide on the timing of procreation by acting responsibly beforehand. Unfortunately the vast majority of these abortions are not for the mother's health but as an escape route to realizing the result of what commonly happens when a man and woman come together that way. Irresponsibility or "poor timing" should not be taken out on the baby that results from that. We should not point the finger at our youth and shame them, forcing the sense that hiding it or making it go away is the only way out, rather we should continue to love them and support them; give them hope and reassurance. Our children are blessings not curses, no matter how they are conceived, and yes that applies to rape victims too (the whole 4% that initiate an abortion). Killing a child will never make things better, it is never the right thing to do. As for the cases where abortion is used to save the mother from certain death I don't think that is really the topic here as the statistics have shown that that scenario is but a drop of water in the ocean of "planned parenthood" abortions. We don't solve problems by trying to fix the outcome. Anymore than one would fix a leaky faucet by throwing a wrench at the puddle collecting beneath it.
In all of this, let us think, speak, and act out of our love for life, even the ones we can't hold yet. I think it is not spoken clearly enough that those of us who do support this ban have an equal care for the mothers. That would be the acme of foolishness to protect one life yet disregard the other.
And not to sound as though I have an agenda, but for the "I sense in influx of bible thumpers coming on this thread" I am proudly and gratefully one of those if by that you mean Christian. Remember John, not all the people doing the pounding represent or understand the Truth that is in that Bible, they just seem to get all the attention for the noise they make. Call it misrepresentation of the quiet-many by the loud-few. Please, I do urge you to read it sometime. May I graciously recommend 1 John 3:1 as a start. If it IS just a book full of lies what's the harm in reading it. I love fiction and am never threatened by it. But I think you will find it otherwise. Peace to all of you and may we show respect to each other regardless of our views.

"Jethro, I am evangelical, all men are equal in God's eyes. Where are you getting that? None of us are equal to God. Tell me where in the Bible you found that. Email me your reply. If you are right I'll apologize."

Posted by: Carrie S. | Apr 18, 2007 3:05:38 PM

Watch Jesus Camp, and you'll find those beliefs expressed by the camp director of Kids on Fire. It is the final scene of the movie.

Leave it to an abortion thread to bring out the sickos. Here are some rantings from a godless "leftist" who doesn't have the time to patch together something that flows better.

Sex is not evil; people who have sex just for fun -- outside the bounds of "holy" matrimony -- are not (necessarily) sluts. Sex is not innately dangerous either, anymore than eating pizza is. It's all a question of degree and care.

It's too bad you whacked out Xtians have been raised to have horrible guilt over the subject, but let's face it, you people are not content unless you have something to feel bad about. That means you, Carrie, you raisin. Do the world a favor. If you must reproduce, please give the kid up for adoption, so it has the prospect of a sane life you're too nuts to provide.

Calling a cytoplast a person is like calling an acorn a 100-foot oak. There is a substantive difference between a cytoplast and a 20-year-old woman, just as there is a difference between a cytoplast and a viable fetus. One may criticize the trimester/viability analysis of Roe, but unlike you Bible Thumpers, that decision at least tries to sort out these differences and draw rational distinctions.

As for the Ten Commandments: It's Sunday, let's Play Ball!

It's called Natural Law. If you are a Christian, it's found in the Bible. If you are a Jew or a Muslim, its found in the Torah or the Quran.

Abortion involves two human beings. TWO. Your argument that its up to the woman to decide what to do is the exact same rhetoric that certain southern white males used for a couple hundred years in this country.

This ruling merely outlaws the most detestable and disgusting procedure for Abortion. One very small step. Even if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, Abortion would still be legal. Did you even know that?

Uncle Vincent.
Implicit in the term “pro-life” is the understanding/belief that human life is sacrosanct and that the destruction of a person at any stage of life (i.e. from embryo to fetus to child to adult to the elderly) or condition of life (i.e. the value placed on human like is not withheld if a person is ill, handicapped, deficient, etc.) is contrary to that notion. “Pro-life” means that EVERYONE, from the unborn child diagnosed with downs syndrome to the child genius, has the same right to LIFE, and to the pursuit of the opportunities which that life affords. The same goes for a convicted felon or a terminally ill patient. The intentional taking of ANY human life is murder. Period. And as for the “overworked, overwhelmed adoption and foster care programs” argument, that is an infantile justification for the taking of 3500 innocent lives each day. That is equivalent to saying that we should murder every child in third world countries because there is not adequate distribution of the world’s food supplies. Or, based on that logic, one might say that since poor people are a drain on the economy, the economy would best be served if we murdered all the poor people (substitute “Jewish” for “poor” and we’ve arrived at part of Hitler’s justification for the Holocaust). Also, the practice of delivering a baby just enough so that the head is still inside the mother, then using scissors or another sharp instrument to create an wound in the back of the babies skull, through which the brain is sucked out, killing the child, is not “telling women what to do with their bodies.” And further more, an unborn child IS not part of the woman’s body. That baby has its own unique genetic code from the moment of conception-a black haired, brown eyed woman, could be carrying a blonde haired blue eyed baby boy with a different blood type than hers. They are distinct beings, individuals with their own unique DNA and genes. How sad that it’s taken our country this long to recognize this fact.

It looks like there's work to do. We need to start efforts to mandate retroactive abortions for those like Paulo. Then the world will say thank you.

If the women who get pregnant are "slutty" as some posters seem happy to proclaim, what are the men? You know - the ones who seek to have sex with women they know they have no real feelings for, no long-term interest in, no desire to have an honest relationship with? What about them? If you really want to put the whole abortion question to rest, the FACT is that the whole thing really starts with the simple act of men zipping up their pants. Because there's no such thing as an "immaculate conception."

What is your alternative??? What alternative do you propose for a wife, mother, sister, daughter that is carrying a baby w/ a head that, due to a pre-natal defect, is too large to pass thru the birth canal??? Force them to pass this baby thru her vagina?? Cut her open?? If the baby survives the birth defect, you want to saddle families w/ the burden of caring for a child w/ a mental disorder and other health complications?? D&E should not be for mother's that decide they don't want the responsibility of a baby. It's for fetus' that are suffering pre-natal disease and have little chance of leading normal lives even if they survive birth. What is your alternative if you take away this option for a mother?

Most women support "Roe". Most women have not felt that "Roe" was in danger and it has not been a single issue in their voting choice. Now that "Roe" is threatened, the right wing may find this decision a rallying point for women against them. Some victory.

Thank God--the Supreme Court has just saved the lives of thousands of America’s future children.

Posted by: Stephen Mercer | Apr 18, 2007 3:33:59 PM

Unfortunately, "He" evidently could not be bothered to do anything about all the thousands needless deaths that occurred in the last year. If there's a god, it's a sick and hateul god undeserving of the mindless worship you give it.

The pro-abortion women are ungrateful. Where are
you now if your Mother aborted you? You should be
grateful to your Mom because she made the right
choice by giving you a life.

Women do not have sex to get pregnant just to have an abortion. Some people say that its wrong, but honestly its something that, that individual has to deal with. I don't believe that a person who will never experience being pregnant or having a baby should tell a women that she can't have an abortion. Coming from someone who has been down that road, it hurts but it was a decision that I had to make and at that time it was the best decision for me.

Someone will say I should have better protected myself and I will agree I should have. But, just think about your life are you always 100% protected.

Abortion is an issue because it is fundamentally about the freedom of an individual to have sex on demand, and destroy the natural consequences of sex. No rational person would agree with murder. Abortion proponents argue "viability" to undermine the right-to-life argument. Of course we should not kill innocent babies. The place to start is with sensible legislation to protect the unborn.

Very few comments from women here. I loved Jose calling women slutty for not using condoms, though. How would I work that?

This is the point when the Western World gets its act together. We nolonger will have to fear those countries with highrer birth rates. We nolonger need be the agressors. Here is hoping that where the U.S.A. lead; Europe will follow. If we do go to war; at least we will be defending a society where the light of hope for the future is rekinled.

Women who have to make the choice to have an abortion are not serial killers and pyschopaths. They are your wives, mothers, sisters and bestfriends. The choice to have an abortion is never an easy one and the people who think that it is clear cut are clearly dilusional. I had two abortions and it was a deeply emotional experience every time. I am glad I had the choice and will fight everyday for other women to be able to have it as well. Pro-life activists talk about the constitutional "right to life"; well I would love to have a conversation about what that means because to me that involves the question of quality of life. I was deep in debt the first time i was pregnant and could not afford to give my child a life. During my second pregnancy i was told my child was slowly having the life crushed out of her because of a genetic disorder and would not survive to full term. When I made my decisions I considered every situation and senario in my mind. Adoption, government assistance, family support and more. I researched all of my options like i was writing a thesis on the subject. I know that every woman making the choice has been through the process as well. The priority in my decision was not my life but my child's life and how I could contribute to make it better and give them the best chance to make it. I dont know if I could have been a more responsible parent. We have over 400 million people living in this country and a large number of them live in poverty. We have not addressed the socio-economic issues for the current residents of this country and every day since our wonderful President Bush took office he has cut social service programs. Until we deal with social and family problems in this country no one has the right to deny a woman from having an abortion especially if it is the best choice for her child.

Good job Supreme Court! Finally a decent ruling.

@RomanB

What you fear is a moral society? You want pornography that leads to child molestors and rapist? Sounds like you've got things backwards.

This is a disgusting procedure, they freaking dismember a live baby. I don't think anyone really thinks that's okay.

I think we need to teach responsibility of having children, not how to dodge that responsibility by getting an abortion.

Don't sleep around if you are not prepared for the consequences and this applies to Men & Women.

Most of these post show me that people just don’t understand the decision made by the Supreme Court. The procedure of partially delivering a baby and ramming a sharp object in his head to depress the skull, has been made illegal. Thank God for that. That is the most inhumane way to go about a late term abortion. We don't even treat animals that way, yet we have people here crying a river because babies will no longer be killed that way. Late term abortions will still be performed; unborn babies will still die, so stop your crying. It will be more incovient for doctors and the women having the abortions, but the barbaric practice will no longer be performed. And all later term abortions are not done just for the women’s health, look in any phone book under abortion and you will see in big bold letters "Abortions performed up to 26 weeks". No doubt, this will not change. So stop your whining and rejoice that unborn babies will still die. Yeah, we are the laughing stock of the world, because of ignorant people, which are abundant on this post!

Actually, Stephen Mercer and the rest of you evangelical types, the Supreme Court has just endangered the lives of thousands of women whose lives are threatened by unviable pregnancies, and for whom intact dialation and extraction, the actual name for the banned procedure, is the safest course of action.

I hope to live to see the day when Evangelicals who speak with such loving concern about fetuses feel the same way about the PEOPLE on this Earth already.

It is AT BEST inconsistent that the same people who are Pro-Birth so loudly (I'll refer only broadly to the Republican Party, the political entity most closely aligned with Evangelicals and the largest "base" for said party), are also the people clamoring loudest for war. Ladies and gentlemen, AGGRESSIVE WAR IS MURDER. Where is the outrage?

"Small government conservatives" of the same party seek to undermine what little social safety net exists in this country, all while holding the Bible abreast, conveniently ignoring the myriad of exhortations to aid the suffering and the poor:

Deuteronomy 15:7 “If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.”

Deuteronomy 26:12 “When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.”

Leviticus 19:9-10 “'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.”

But these words fall on deaf ears, as taxes on the wealthiest are reduced, in turning forcing cuts in programs that largely benefit the poor. Not only is aiding the poor the noblest calling, it is also good for the economy. Where is the outrage?

Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. This MUST include specific (you can say explicit if you prefer to spin it that way) sex education, including proper condom use. It must impartially present the SCIENTIFIC FACTS about contraception, STD's, pregnancy and abortion so that women can have all the information to protect themselves from needing an abortion. NO ONE WANTS AN ABORTION.

Abstinence-only "education" simply does not have any effect on the sexual behavior of young people. Therefore, those efforts are misguided. Respect the intelligence of young people and teach them how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease. Granted, condom use is ONLY 99% effective. But that's a 100% more effective than ignorance.

I hope to live to see the day when Evangelicals who speak with such loving concern about fetuses feel the same way about the PEOPLE on this Earth already.

It is AT BEST inconsistent that the same people who are Pro-Birth so loudly (I'll refer only broadly to the Republican Party, the political entity most closely aligned with Evangelicals and the largest "base" for said party), are also the people clamoring loudest for war. Ladies and gentlemen, AGGRESSIVE WAR IS MURDER. Where is the outrage?

"Small government conservatives" of the same party seek to undermine what little social safety net exists in this country, all while holding the Bible abreast, conveniently ignoring the myriad of exhortations to aid the suffering and the poor:

Deuteronomy 15:7 “If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.”

Deuteronomy 26:12 “When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.”

Leviticus 19:9-10 “'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.”

But these words fall on deaf ears, as taxes on the wealthiest are reduced, in turning forcing cuts in programs that largely benefit the poor. Not only is aiding the poor the noblest calling, it is also good for the economy. Where is the outrage?

Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. This MUST include specific (you can say explicit if you prefer to spin it that way) sex education, including proper condom use. It must impartially present the SCIENTIFIC FACTS about contraception, STD's, pregnancy and abortion so that women can have all the information to protect themselves from needing an abortion. NO ONE WANTS AN ABORTION.

Abstinence-only "education" simply does not have any effect on the sexual behavior of young people. Therefore, those efforts are misguided. Respect the intelligence of young people and teach them how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease. Granted, condom use is ONLY 99% effective. But that's a 100% more effective than ignorance.

Paul, if homosexuality really is genetic, which many scientists seem to believe, then maybe every homophobe needs to give up on gay bashing. Your post is terribly offensive.

As Wendy Long wrote today, "Did anyone seriously think that the Constitution requires us to let abortionists vacuum the brains of late-term unborn children out of their skulls? What is remarkable is not the Court's holding today, but the fact that anyone would think such a barbaric procedure, opposed by overwhelming majorities of Americans, is something the Constitution puts off limits for the people to decide through their elected representatives."

I hope to live to see the day when Evangelicals who speak with such loving concern about fetuses feel the same way about the PEOPLE on this Earth already.

It is AT BEST inconsistent that the same people who are Pro-Birth so loudly (I'll refer only broadly to the Republican Party, the political entity most closely aligned with Evangelicals and the largest "base" for said party), are also the people clamoring loudest for war. Ladies and gentlemen, AGGRESSIVE WAR IS MURDER. Where is the outrage?

"Small government conservatives" of the same party seek to undermine what little social safety net exists in this country, all while holding the Bible abreast, conveniently ignoring the myriad of exhortations to aid the suffering and the poor:

Deuteronomy 15:7 “If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.”

Deuteronomy 26:12 “When you have finished setting aside a tenth of all your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe, you shall give it to the Levite, the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied.”

Leviticus 19:9-10 “'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.”

But these words fall on deaf ears, as taxes on the wealthiest are reduced, in turning forcing cuts in programs that largely benefit the poor. Not only is aiding the poor the noblest calling, it is also good for the economy. Where is the outrage?

Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. This MUST include specific (you can say explicit if you prefer to spin it that way) sex education, including proper condom use. It must impartially present the SCIENTIFIC FACTS about contraception, STD's, pregnancy and abortion so that women can have all the information to protect themselves from needing an abortion. NO ONE WANTS AN ABORTION.

Abstinence-only "education" simply does not have any effect on the sexual behavior of young people. Therefore, those efforts are misguided. Respect the intelligence of young people and teach them how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease. Granted, condom use is ONLY 99% effective. But that's a 100% more effective than ignorance.

Walter Huckeba

"If religion becomes the major influencing factor in our government, we will have a modified fascist government. Many freedoms now taken for granted will go away, not the least of which is the very freedom that allowed this to happen; the first amendment of our constitution."

Guess what religion the founding fathers believed in? Guess who created the constitution and gave us the freedoms that we enjoy. Have you forgotten your history? Christians don't destroy your freedoms no matter what you believe. Based on what some of you guys are writing on here I don't think you actually know an intelligent Christian. We exist!

Calling a cytoplast a person is like calling an acorn a 100-foot oak...
---

I meant blastocyst, not cytoplast. I'm a ranter, not a biologist.

---

Here's something for you antichoicers to consider:

Yes, a life (in some form) is killed in an abortion, at whatever stage. As one of you put it (in typically maudlin fashion), perhaps the inventor of a cure for cancer was aborted. Perhaps a mass murderer was aborted too, but that's not my point.

I'd ask you to consider the fact that a women can only have one pregnancy at a time. Thus, while an abortion does end a life, a pregnancy forecloses many other lives (sex during pregnancy is ok, isn't it, even though it's only for fun?).

Likewise, while an abortion ends a life, it also frees up the prospect of another pregnancy during the pregnancy term that had ended, and thereafter (maybe months or years after the first pregnancy would have come to term).

In short, let's deal with a fact, people: women average maybe 2.5 children (whatever the number) in their lives. A terminated pregnancy does not mean the woman will not have that same number during her life. It means that the aborted life will be replaced with another who otherwise would not have been conceived at all.

Is it really such a bad thing for a woman to want to raise kids in the best enviroment the children can be provided, e.g., a roof, food in the frig, a paycheck on the way, etc.? "Abortion on demand" facililates that outcome; forcing women to carry to term does not.

Since there are so few posts from women, I'll add one. I am a woman. I am pro-life. I have been blessed with children after years of infertility. I am a mother of prematurely born children. I have pictures of them from the day they were newly-thawed previously frozen embryos. They are very bright, and are reading at an early age. They are the light of my life.

I can hardly contemplate the banned procedure without feeling very, very sick. For those choosing abortion through the banned procedure (or at all), your children are wanted, alive. Why kill? Just to avoid a c-section? Please. There are other options!

By the way, I am also HUGELY in favor of sex education. Keeping this important information from kids is keeping the secrets of the human body from them. Knowledge is power!!!

I agree with "wolfgang"--spare me the emotion. Our country will never ban abortion in it's entirety, but it's fitting that the Supreme Court finally has a clue about the brutal, barbaric procedure which few could dare to watch. I don't understand the plethora of whining over this decision...when was the last time your life was "saved" by this procedure?

Let's not be short sighted. Regardless of whether you're pro-life or pro-choice or what ever religion you may beleive in, we all want justice, liberty, and freedom. Most of the argument people make are purely religious, irrelevant to the core issue of "fairness". Creating a law in favor of one religion to restrict choices of others is very unfair and rather dangerous. Also using the power of religion to step accross the line of modern science will create a mess. For example, will you survive if you follow the Ten Commandment that says "you should not kill"? Think of all of the lives of living things you have to destroy everyday for your survival? Have you ever ponder why there are somany angry people in our country and around the world? All of the violence people carried out are acts against oppression.

Jose. I'm incensed you would speak about women in this way:

“because they are so slutty that they can't use condoms or take birth control pills. It is called RESPONSIBILITY. If the only reason you want an abortion is because you don't feel like ruining your night life, then you need to be sterilized and never allowed to get pregnant in the first place.”

This is EXACTLY what is wrong with our patriarchal society. Women are blamed for everything. When a woman is raped, more often than not SHE is blamed. It’s always a question of, “was she drinking and what was she dressed like?”

My sister was a rape counselor. Trust me. It’s an issue. Women are blamed for everything, be it rape, be it pregnancy… it’s sickening. And now, we are “slutty” because people like you are too irresponsible to wrap it up or keep it in your pants. You have no real appreciation for women. I bet you have a nice little wife at home who cooks and cleans after your sorry a$$. When was the last time you gave her a backrub? Or a foot massage? I’m guessing… a big NEVER.

No offense but poverty levels, specifically for women and children, have skyrocketed under this administration. Too many children are malnourished, and exist with no healthcare and we’re talking about the unborn ones?

I have a pretty strong feeling that if abortion were abolished tomorrow people like Paulo and Jose would then be on these forums the very next day talking about how they hate having to pay taxes to cover healthcare for all the bastards of these slutty women.

Let’s start by paying women as much as men are paid. I’m 10x’s more educated than many men I know yet, even I’ve made 10% less than my male counterparts. Although I was directing the projects, I couldn’t get the d**ks above me to pay me equally. And this is at a high level position, I can’t imagine trying to raise a child on minimum wage.

Most of the anti-abortion people on here are, I noticed, men. Once you start menstruating… then you can get a real opinion. Till then, you have no idea.

When will it end? How many more years will this administration set women back? What’s next? Will they also ban Paps, pelvic exams and mammograms while the topic of female healthcare is on the docket? I’m no Hillary fan, but we really need more women in power. Ours is a defunct and primitive system that allows eight men to dictate the future of a woman to guard her heath (yes, I know the ruling was 5-4). Regardless of your view on abortion, this is a ruling against women’s rights.

"I have been blessed with children after years of infertility. I am a mother of prematurely born children. I have pictures of them from the day they were newly-thawed previously frozen embryos."

What?

What is your alternative??? What alternative do you propose for a wife, mother, sister, daughter that is carrying a baby w/ a head that, due to a pre-natal defect, is too large to pass thru the birth canal??? Force them to pass this baby thru her vagina?? Cut her open?? If the baby survives the birth defect, you want to saddle families w/ the burden of caring for a child w/ a mental disorder and other health complications?? D&E should not be for mother's that decide they don't want the responsibility of a baby. It's for fetus' that are suffering pre-natal disease and have little chance of leading normal lives even if they survive birth. What is your alternative if you take away this option for a mother?

Posted by: Dotty | Apr 18, 2007 4:05:55 PM

Anyone want to answer this valid question?

I am so sick of the "progressive" liberals that are always talking about religious right this & that.
Its the so-called "free-thinkers" that think it is absolutely o.k. to pierce a living child's skull as he is halfway out of the mother's vaginal canal.
What good is it that you all protest the death penalty & the Iraq war (which I oppose as well) but support the murder of our own people. We are no better than terrorists when we Americans are killing Americans!
If anyone is an extremist, its the pro-death leftists with their b.s. "choice" platform. The ONLY choice here is life or death.

www.ReyFloresAmerica.blogspot.com

All this talk about Intact D&E being particularly brutal is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Almost all forms of surgery are nasty. Having a tooth pulled is nasty; having a head cut open for brain surgery is nasty; having a sternum cracked open for heart surgery is nasty. None of these procedures are the least bit pleasant. One

Likewise, killing the fetus entirely in utero does not strike me as a walk in the park either.

My point is that this stuff about Intact D&E being particularly heinous is a red herring. The issue still comes down to the core issues: whether all forms of pre-birth life are entitled to the same protections as post-birth life; whether women have any rights over their own bodies; whether society's interests prevail over a women's interests. The "partial birth" fuss is simply a pretext for the anti-choice asylum to shave away Roe. If these people were as honest as their zombied religiosity would seem to require, they'd at least admit that the precious cries about the "brutal" procedure are phony.

Hey Paulo - I see that you're STILL DUCKING my challenge to get you to provide support for your ALLEGATIONS, one 2 months old.

When are you finally going to have the backbone to admit that you post FALSE SMEARS against Democratic politicians and that you have no desire to post the truth, and back it up with evidence.

Typical Republican supporter.

[quote]
How about this: Women and men act a little more responsibly while having sex and avoid all the "unwanted" pregnancies.
Posted by: Jimmie B | Apr 18, 2007 2:47:34 PM
[/quote]

How about this, Jimmie B: You come up with a contraceptive that's 100% effective, so that people can enjoy sex without any risk of unwanted pregnancies. If you can do that, I'll guarantee that you'll become a multi-millionaire.

What you fear is a moral society? You want pornography that leads to child molestors and rapist? Sounds like you've got things backwards.
Posted by: Bob | Apr 18, 2007 4:47:20 PM

Bob, two points:

1. Please define the term "pornography" in CONCRETE TERMS using ONLY NOUNS, not with useless adjectives like "that disgusting stuff in magazines". Good luck, because the Supreme Court hasn't come up with a good definition yet.

2. Please show us scientific studies that PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that "pornography leads to child molesters and rapists". I expect you to come up with nothing, because rape and child molesting has been around as long as mankind has, and anything that you might call "pornography" has been around for maybe 200 years max. Unless you want to call those paintings of naked women in museums "pornographic".

Why do you think that your life is worth more than one that is unborn? Can any lib answer that question.

------

Actually I can. Post-birth people have spheres of interest surrounding them: parents, families, employers, schools, friends, neighbors, etc. We all have people who depend on us and on whom we are dependent. In short, society has an investment in us.

If a 20-year old woman dies giving birth, her death is indeed more impactive on society than the death of her fetus would have been. It is appropriate for a rational society to acknowledge that. Lines do have to be drawn of course. A viable fetus is very much a person, whereas the same cannot be said for a blastocyt. Again, a rational society can draw such a line.

Dotty, the majority of abortions are not of messed up babies. Alot of them would grow up to be fine. Besides even if they have a condition they still deserve a chance to live.

Jethro, I am not familiar with that movie. Thank you for replying. I'll look it up. I apologize.

Christian fundamentalism has no place in the political process. Last time I checked the United States was founded with a separation of church and state. It's funny how fundamentalism in other religions is fought all in the name of democracy, while fundamentalism in our own country is sanctioned and celebrated.

To Progressive,

I share your concern that many who espouse views against abortion routinely fail to live up to the part of Christianity that mandates kindness and generosity. In short, they violate the First Commandment by worshipping money. However, I reject your premise that the choice must be support abortion or support a socialist nanny state. There are many millions of evangelicals in this country who steadfastly oppose abortion and just as steadfastly support private programs to aid the poor and helpless. And they do it with THEIR money, not campaigning for the government to take someone else's money to do the job. And, on that note, can someone explain why women should have a choice to abort their babies, yet "The Rich" should not have a choice as to whether to support government social programs? (And, no, I am not among "The Rich.")

Dotty, the majority of abortions are not of messed up babies. Alot of them would grow up to be fine. Besides even if they have a condition they still deserve a chance to live.

Posted by: Carrie Starrett | Apr 19, 2007 10:25:35 AM

You are taking this option away from pregnancies that do go wrong. What is your alternative? Forced C-sections so that the baby might survive? Force the mother to push the baby thru causing her to lose massive amounts of blood and possibly dying in the processs? Why can't she decide what happens to her body? Will you pay higher taxes to support mothers that are forced to give birth to children w/ birth defects?

(Re- What I am doing to help?)

The same as you - supporting someone; different country. Neither of us mitigates the spending cuts on AIDS and other aid that has been cut by this Administration, which removes life support from the needy. The neglect in Darfur is also a factor.

It's a matter of priorities - those ALREADY on this earth should have the priority. I don't try to run the lives of total strangers, which is why while I have some Conservative positions, I consider "butting-in Fundamentalists" to have given the Republican Party a bad name.

It also has nothing directly to do with the fact that the "partial birth" issue (a misnomer if ever there was one) affected very few fetuses, and those would have been aborted by other means anyway. It's a "poster child" issue for those who want all abortions banned, and want the States to act. For Bush, it's vote-seeking.

None of us, individually, can act in a way equal to what our government could do. Bill Gates made a huge contribution. I have relatives who've adopted from China.

To me it's simply hypocrisy to be "concerned" with the unborn, and to allow the here-and-now living to perish.

Re: "Abortion involves two human beings. TWO"

I consider that fallacious, for this reason:

When I took physics, there were two forms of energy - POTENTIAL and KINETIC. A book on the edge of a table has POTENTIAL energy, and when it falls off, that's KINETIC energy.

Life is also energy, in a sense. Those not yet born I consider "potential", and no more than that. Mothers miscarry naturally all the time. None of us knows when a fetus becomes an individual "person", or remains a symbiote resident within the mother. None of us knows when the soul enters the body. The one moment that we can all agree on is actual birth.

With many, many thousands truly "born" and truly "people", and in need, THEY deserve our attention.

"And, on that note, can someone explain why women should have a choice to abort their babies, yet "The Rich" should not have a choice as to whether to support government social programs?"

Because "the rich" all stand to gain from a healthy society, which is precisely why we all need to contribute. No one benefits from a lack of funding in the public school system, for example. The United States is falling perilously behind in education, healthcare, etc. A society as a whole is stronger when every individual is healthy and well educated.

The problem is finding a balance. No woman is "pro-abortion". No woman wants to walk into a clinic and end a pregnancy but we don't live in an idealistic society. While working towards a utopia we must accommodate those still behind.

I don’t like abortion, but I am more adamantly against our society’s image of women. Rape statistics are staggering and women aren’t getting the kind of care they need because of society’s view towards women who are raped, which is one of the most heinous crimes. I have a friend who was brutally raped and her skirt became evidence for the defense because it was “short.” Huh? A short skirt = the right to rape? She never went through with the prosecution… she could not emotionally handle being made out to be the perpetrator, which rape victims so often are and why so many don't prosecute.

Then we have women, like myself, who are well educated, took on lead roles within a well established company and yet made on average 10% less than our male counterparts. I had more than enough evidence to press a sexual discrimination lawsuit, in addition to evidence for a sexual harassment lawsuit, but I choose not to because of the stigma that would have followed me in my career.

Women, in today’s society are still considered 2nd rate citizens. Again, I am not fond of abortion and I (at this point in my life) personally would not have the courage to go through with it, but I can’t deny that right to someone who feels as though it is her only choice. There are circumstances for women today that none of us can comprehend and I think for the majority of women, abortion is often the last choice. I think we need to worry about the soaring poverty levels of women and children first. We need to make sexual education available, we need to make birth control available (Illinois finally forced insurance companies to cover birth control). We need to worry about the demeaning sexual imagery posed to our daughters by Hollywood in the form of idols like Paris Hilton’n gang. We need to worry about the pay rate for women and make sure it equals that of men.

Everyone, rich and poor, men and women, benefits from a healthy, strong, well-educated community.

this is not a religous debate- this is a " how sacred is human life to us" debate.

This issue has been hijacked into being ONLY a womans choice issue to avoid addressing the annoying little - this might just be a human being issue. Whats more important, human or womens rights?

I would ask any pro abortion poster in this string.. " Would you support a restriction on abortion to be available ONLY when the mothers life is at stake- and there is a clear, baby or mom, choice. I would respect that argument, everything else is rationalizing an I want what I want NOW decision

Posted by: pb | Apr 19, 2007 12:23:16 PM
and
Posted by: mm | Apr 19, 2007 12:27:54 PM

Just saw pb and mm posts nice way to "lawyer" up the whole debate..

simple concept - If we cannnot agree that we are talking about two human beings here we are lost as a society..

I can't put it any kinder than to say that it is rediculous to dumb this issue down to concepts like kinetic and potential energy, or how women are not always treated equally in the workforce or judicial system-- LIFE is NOT Fair does not give anyone the right to end another life..

Heartburn,

"I would ask any pro abortion poster in this string.. " Would you support a restriction on abortion to be available ONLY when the mothers life is at stake"

No. The right of a pregnant woman outweighs the "right" of a fetus incapable of living without said mother.

Conversely, yesterday's Supreme Court ruling actually states that society has a legitimate concern in what a woman does with her body. That is phenomenal baloney. A woman is as sovereign as any man, and it would appear to be a rather slippery slope to suggest that "society" (i.e. the government) should be in the business of deciding who gives birth and how. Sounds like radical socialism/ communism to me.

JB,

"And, on that note, can someone explain why women should have a choice to abort their babies, yet "The Rich" should not have a choice as to whether to support government social programs? (And, no, I am not among "The Rich.")"

There is absolutely no connection between those two concepts. mm said it well, "The Rich" benefit from a healthy society, as much or more than everyone else. They have more to lose if society crumbles, and more to gain from its flourishing. The concept of "opting out" of paying taxes to provide a floor for those at the bottom is utterly absurd.

And to the guy who compared abortion to Eugenics, are you a complete moron or just fabulously obtuse? No one is picking and choosing which kids come into the world accept THE MOTHER. Society is not trying to alter the gene pool, women are making the choice individually as to what is best for themselves and society. (as it should be) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I have a question for the Pro-Birth crowd:

If you knew that you were carrying a child who was genetically pre-disposed to homosexuality, would it be more just to bring the child into the world as an outcast to be shunned by the Evangelical community and society at large, or to abort the child? If you could alter the gene safely, would you do so? I do hope someone will be honest enough to answer.

The Left celebrates the murders of 7- to 8- month old unborn babies. Classic.

Partial-birth abortions occur when the baby actually is born and then its brain is sucked out of the newborn baby. This procedure is not necessary and killing unborn babies that are at a stage in which they can live on their own is just plain sick, demented and further devalues life.

Really no different than the devaluing of life down by the VT shooter Cho.

The Left and Mr. Cho = no difference.

*sigh*

Let me guess... heartburn is a man?

Clearly THE most IGNORANT post ever:

Until the mother actually gives birth it is not an unborn baby that is being aborted but a fetus. There is no life destroyed. Women should absolutely have the freedom to choose.

Posted by: Jake | Apr 18, 2007 2:54:17 PM

"there is no life destroyed"??? Jake, what in the world kicks in the mother's womb that mothers and fathers feel and see? What in the world feeds and breathes in the mother's womb, if it is not life?

"rationalizing an I want what I want NOW decision"
Posted by: heartburn | Apr 19, 2007 12:53:32 PM

No it isn't. Do you know, on a personal level, any woman who has had to struggle with an abortion decision? Have you listened or given advice or been there as a friend?

If not, you have absolutely no right to make a vast general assumption such as this. You are taking stabs into thin air. Back up your claims with what your contributions have been.

Have you donated your time?
Have you donated your money?
Have you worked with helping women in any way shape or form?
Do you work with children?
Are you part of an afterschool program?

These are the questions we all need to ask ourselves, pro-choice and pro-life. Argue till your blue in the face, but don't forget to get off your a$$ once in a while and actually contribute to the women and children who already exist.

It's to easy to sit here and bark and bark and bark. But all in all this gets us no-where. Even if abortion were overturned, we'll still have massive problems that will continue to exist if we don't pull together as a society.

I may sound like a lawyer, but at least I do something about it at every opportunity. I physically donate my time, my energy, my talents and my cold hard cash.

"I can't put it any kinder than to say that it is rediculous to dumb this issue down to concepts like kinetic and potential energy"

I imagine many on the pro-choice side think its pretty ridiculous to say that a fetus incapable of surviving on its own is equivalent to a pregnant woman. As far as I am concerned, the rights of a WOMAN (meaning: a female capable of surviving outside the womb) supersede those of a fetus that is dependent upon that woman for survival.

To put it the other way, saying a fetus has full and equal rights of the woman means that fetus actually has MORE rights than the woman. In the eyes of the law (clearly you're not too into anachronistic notions like "the law" but its nonetheless extremely relevant when ostensibly discussing Supreme Court decisions) then, anything a woman did to incidentally harm the fetus (such as drinking or consuming too much sugar or fat) could be negligence, and the woman becomes simply a birth vessel. Her free will has been subordinated to "society's" desire for more births.

And let's think about this for a minute, folks. What do you REALLY think would happen if millions of predominantly poor women suddenly start having more unwanted children? Do you really think that would be a net positive for society? Its possible that one of them would grow up to be the next Einstein, its also as much or more likely that they will be the next Cho Seung-Hui, Pablo Escabar, Charles Manson, or Richard Cheney.

Freakonomics presents a fascinating argument that the reason for the drop in violent crime over the last two decades was that more unwanted children were not being brought into society where they would likely end up as negative forces. Abortions reduced UNWANTED pregnancies. UNWANTED children are more likely to act out and cause disorder in society. Therefore, safe access to abortion is a net plus to society. The rich will always have access to the medical treatment they desire, it will be the less fortunate who will suffer most, as always.

"I can't put it any kinder than to say that it is rediculous to dumb this issue down to concepts like kinetic and potential energy"

I imagine many on the pro-choice side think its pretty ridiculous to say that a fetus incapable of surviving on its own is equivalent to a pregnant woman. As far as I am concerned, the rights of a WOMAN (meaning: a female capable of surviving outside the womb) supersede those of a fetus that is dependent upon that woman for survival.

To put it the other way, saying a fetus has full and equal rights of the woman means that fetus actually has MORE rights than the woman. In the eyes of the law (clearly you're not too into anachronistic notions like "the law" but its nonetheless extremely relevant when ostensibly discussing Supreme Court decisions) then, anything a woman did to incidentally harm the fetus (such as drinking or consuming too much sugar or fat) could be negligence, and the woman becomes simply a birth vessel. Her free will has been subordinated to "society's" desire for more births.

And let's think about this for a minute, folks. What do you REALLY think would happen if millions of predominantly poor women suddenly start having more unwanted children? Do you really think that would be a net positive for society? Its possible that one of them would grow up to be the next Einstein, its also as much or more likely that they will be the next Cho Seung-Hui, Pablo Escabar, Charles Manson, or Richard Cheney.

Freakonomics presents a fascinating argument that the reason for the drop in violent crime over the last two decades was that more unwanted children were not being brought into society where they would likely end up as negative forces. Abortions reduced UNWANTED pregnancies. UNWANTED children are more likely to act out and cause disorder in society. Therefore, safe access to abortion is a net plus to society. The rich will always have access to the medical treatment they desire, it will be the less fortunate who will suffer most, as always.

*sigh*

Let me guess... heartburn is a man?

Posted by: mm | Apr 19, 2007 1:50:40 PM

Pretty hung up on that whole gender thing huh?

Anything but a straight answer..

This being a "human" rights issue- men,women, adult and child - humans. Your comment is a distraction from the real issue here..

ARE we talking about human beings or not?

Bryan-

you said-
I imagine many on the pro-choice side think its pretty ridiculous to say that a fetus incapable of surviving on its own is equivalent to a pregnant woman. As far as I am concerned, the rights of a WOMAN (meaning: a female capable of surviving outside the womb) supersede those of a fetus that is dependent upon that woman for survival. "

So you would support a law that limits abortion to only circumstances where there is a clear choice between mother OR child?

The rest of your post is the typical- well there are too many of us 'inconvenient humans" anyway - you aren't really supporting abortion because some people don't have it as good as others are you?

"If the baby survives the birth defect, you want to saddle families w/ the burden of caring for a child w/ a mental disorder and other health complications??"

Posted by: Dotty | Apr 18, 2007 4:05:55 PM

"Anyone want to answer this valid question?"

I will. I have a friend who had a kid out of marriage and her kid had a genetic disease that required constant care and with all likelihood she wouldn't live past 7. That kid was the light of my life, I love her. I would have married my friend if she would have had me and taken responsibility for the kid myself, but unfortunately for me she chose someone else. I have a cousin with another genetic abnormality, she is also a jewel. So yes, they all should live, we don't have the right to deny them that chance.

"Christian fundamentalism has no place in the political process. Last time I checked the United States was founded with a separation of church and state. It's funny how fundamentalism in other religions is fought all in the name of democracy, while fundamentalism in our own country is sanctioned and celebrated."
Posted by: Amanda | Apr 19, 2007 11:05:30 AM

Last time I checked, "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere in our constitution. It was in the papers written by Jefferson. If you are talking about the First Amendment, it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...".

"If you knew that you were carrying a child who was genetically pre-disposed to homosexuality, would it be more just to bring the child into the world as an outcast to be shunned by the Evangelical community and society at large?"
Posted by: No One is Pro-Abortion | Apr 19, 2007 1:44:05 PM

YES! Every human should have a chance at life. We are all born with problems, why should a homosexual be denied the right to live just because of one of their problems?

Who are we (even on an individual basis as a mother) to determine that someone shouldn't have the chance to live? There are plenty of people who want kids but can't have them, if a mother doesn't want her kid, let that kid be adopted by someone who wants one.

Posted by: mm | Apr 19, 2007 2:01:35 PM

Sorry- all I could hear in this post was

blah blah blah- me me me - blah blah blah

don't presume to know who I am or what I do-

No one cares what you say you do- because it has no bearing on this issue-

Are we aborting humans or not- pretty simple question.

Quit posing!

To the so-called "no one is pro abortion," the answer is "No." If a baby has Down's Syndrome, it should not be snuffed out. If a baby will be gay, it should not be snuffed off. Get the picture?

And in regard to your name, that is hardly the truth. There are plenty of folks who are pro-abortion. There are folks who believe in abortion in all cases. They do not believe parents should be notified or play any role, that 13 years olds should decide. They believe the brain of a 7-month old unborn baby should be sucked out so it dies.

Hmmmm, maybe doctors have a found a way to keep babies alive after sucking their brains out??? Perhaps those are what make up the Loony Left??? Just a thought!

Having made my posts... I realized that everyone on this forum is "pro-children". For or against abortion we all can agree we love children and want the best for our society and our future. This organization is one I love in particular and works with inner city Chicago children. Would it not be incredible if everyone who has posted today sent in a donation of some sort, large or little? Then we can all sleep tonight knowing no verdict was reached today but at least we all did something... small a gesture as it may seem... at least we all did something together?

http://www.broadtree.org/

Partial-birth abortions occur when the baby actually is born and then its brain is sucked out of the newborn baby.

Posted by: John D | Apr 19, 2007 1:44:37 PM

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Ouch!

As for heartburn... well, his posts speak for himself. I am no longer posting for his sake but for others. He can go after me all he wants, I really don't care.

The issue cannot be narrowed down this side or that side. Our society is a complex puzzle with one thing affecting another.

I've always hated the labels pro-choice and pro-life. I hate labels in general and they do nothing but create a divide. Again, we can argue and argue but until we physically start contributing one problem will always lead to the next. Even if abortion goes away, it doesn't solve the root issues the "abortion" fight revolves around. These are larger social issues and I am of the mindset to go after those issues first.

"What you fear is a moral society? You want pornography that leads to child molestors and rapist? Sounds like you've got things backwards.

Posted by: Bob | Apr 18, 2007 4:47:20 PM"

A moral society defined by who? Someone like Ashcroft who's so conservative he doesn't believe in dancing? And when did pornography lead to child molestaion & rapists? The single biggest reason why there are child molesters & rapist is because they were once victimes themselves. Going to Catholic schools most of my life, I've learned this is the single biggest reason for these tragedies.

Re: "I can't put it any kinder than to say that it is rediculous to dumb this issue down to concepts like kinetic and potential energy ..."

(Get this person a spell checker)

A "potential" human being is precisely what a fetus is - it is a symbiote. A woman's ovum is half of a potential human being - should we stop ovulation and menstruation if there's no intent to fertilize?. Each male sperm is half of a potential human being ... well, you get the idea.

Fetal cells not chosen for implantation are going to be discarded, at the wishes of the parent(s). Are these human beings, or POTENTIAL?

A LIVING (born) human being deserves our ultimate respect, as the real shame is watching a death from starvation when they could have been fed, or from disease when treatment could be made available, as the Gates Foundation is doing. Priority - first things first.

There has to be a dividing line as to when a "human being" is no longer just a couple of gametes. Roe v. Wade was a very reasonable compromise, by dividing the woman's term into trimesters, and in fact putting severe restrictions on the third trimester (rape, incest, health of the mother). The "abortion via the birth canal", as we euphemistically would call it, was good medicine, sparing the mother more extensive surgery and a risk of infection.

pb-

good analysis, logical, could even be accurate-great spelling too!

Poor humanity though - your logic conveniently removes that whole inconvenient human kindness thing from the equation .

Not sure why there has to be a connection between a starving "born" person and the validity of aborting a "non- born" person. I would take the leap of faith to say that of all the babies that have been or will be aborted, most of them would have had reasonably happy normal lives.

This is equivalent to the global warming carbon offset twist of logic- I am aborting this life because it might end up being an unhappy one. I am offsetting this unhappy life, by not bringing another unhappy life into the world- what kind of GOD complex is that!

Your point is easy to support logically as long as you are able to determine the quality of one life versus another- Please don't run for any public office.

Re: "Not sure why there has to be a connection between a starving "born" person and the validity of aborting a "non- born" person. I would take the leap of faith to say that of all the babies that have been or will be aborted, most of them would have had reasonably happy normal lives."

---------------------------------------

A very rational argument on its face, assuming "infinite capacity" to care for them, as the expression goes. Allover, those fetusus (fetii?) facing an abortion, in whichever trimester, are unwanted. Some are a result of rape or incest, and are definitely unwanted. Late-term abortions are nearly always medical decisions.

You are overly optimistic - I've done work for a large Foster Care agency, and even older kids have a very tough time. Most of them would NOT have a reasonably happy life, in fact - most would become antisocial, as without early "intensive" care from a mother, many shut down emotionally. These babies grow into teenagers, who have a much harder time of it. Once they're 18, they "age out" of the system, ready or not.

Since the Church also does not approve of barrier methods of contraception or education (which would ideally knock down abortion numbers), and abstinence does not work per a recent survey, giving up abortion totally would punish victims of rape or incest. At some point, we have to live in THIS world - many of those in prison were there because they were unwanted, but were "born" into this world, and we've all paid the price.

We don't have the "capacity" to care for all of the unwanted, and those "alive" suffering in Africa and elsewhere, to me, come in "ahead" of those POTENTIAL humans who sometimes nature does not permit to come to term, either.

I love animals, and hate to see euthanasia, but the alternative of "all living" is impossible, so I simply hope that it's performed by humane means.

How many of you people who call yourselves "pro life" are also for the death penalty and for the war?!?! Wake up!

"then you need to be sterilized and never allowed to get pregnant in the first place."

Posted by: Jose

Your middle name wouldn't be "Adolph", would it?

Sometimes I'm ashamed to be an American. Europeans seem to be more intelligent and less confused than the average American. People are so confused in the U.S. that the average American actually bought Bush's B.S., despite the fact it made no sense. Let's review the facts. Pakstani extremists hired terrorists which were mostly Saudi Arabians ( who the U.S. bends over backwards to please) and a few terrorists from the United Arab emerits to hijack airplanes and fly
them into buildings in the U.S. So Bush lies to the American public about phony weapons of mass destruction and cons the U.S. citizens into thinking we need to invade Iraq, who had nothing to do with 911. So we're spending trilions waging a phony war on people who not only don't have weapons of mass destruction but many of them don't even have running water and toilets and all they have as far as clothing is sheets to wrap their bodies and towels on their heads, and
a limited number of AK - 47's that the Russians sold so they can have toilet paper and an occasional meal. The first thing the U.S. did in Iraq was take control of the oil pipeline from the republican guard. 90% of Iraq's oil goes through that pipeline and 17% of the U.S. oil comes from there. So now we "share it" with Iraq and call it help. There is no reason for gas prices to have increased. If anything, gas should be less expensive for the U.S. now that Bush is stealing the crude oil from Iraq. It's just more B.S. on top of a huge mountain of B.S., but the American public fell for it and are still falling for it. 1 in 5 children in the U.s. go to bed hungry every night and instead of feeding every child in America, we're sending soldiers to their deaths and spending a fortune to give preferential government contracts to Halliburton to steal oil and give Bush future kickbacks for his retirement, based on Bush's phony war on terrorism just like his father's and Reagan's phony war on drugs. Wake up people. You sit there clinging to your self ritcheous family values B.S. and jump on the bandwagon of your interpreted Lord's wishes, but if your Lord posesses this tremendum, mysterium,and awesomeness, then he or she would be so evolved as not to be racist or sexist. There would be no differenciation between a man's rights and a woman's rights. There would be no
such divine text deeming man as master and woman as property. These such texts were written by men to favor men. The average American misses the point. There is no such issue as abortion. The issue is pro-choice or no-choice, not pro-abortion or pro-life. There are no laws or proposed bills that take away a man's rights over his own body and there are no efforts to do so. There are laws and hundreds of proposed bills to take away a woman's rights over her own body. When it comes to women, the U.S. constitution is being ignored. I hear so many men saying they want Rowe vs Wade overturned so abortion can be illegal. Who are you to decide? Since men will never get pregnant with the exception of the sea horse and its cousin the weedy sea dragon, it doesn't apply to you. All you men and women who want the rights of a fetus to come before the rights of the U.S. citizens who happen to be female, I don't see you offering to take all the unwanted children that you want so badly to be born to the point that you want to take women's rights over their bodies away from them. If you don't want an abortion don't get one, but it's none of your business what another woman wants or doesn't want growing in her body. You need to mind your own business. These are not your potential children. You want to force a woman to give birth against her will. That is the furthest thing from freedom. This country is supposed to stand for freedom. How would you like if suddenly a law was passed stating that only men could not treat and elminate cancer in their bodies because cancer is alive and many people believe that cancer cells have the right to life over the right for a man to terminate those cancer cells and that is more important then men having rights over their bodies if cancer is present. You wouldn't be chanting for the land of the free and the home of the brave, you would be terrified. You would realize the loss of your freedom. No, cancer isn't a fetus, but if you don't want something growing inside of you, being forced to let it grow is truly terrifying, and I don't think you would want that for yourself. Laws aren't made for you, they are made for everyone and all citizens deserve those freedoms that you have. You can't just say these women shouldn't have sex if they don't want a baby because it takes two and everyone is so quick to want to punish the woman. How would you like if there was a law that stated if a woman gets pregnant out of wedlock then the man who got her pregnant must be castrated? I don't think you would like that. Well it's the same feeling women have when people talk about women not being allowed to have rights over their bodies if pregnant. Since you wouldn't want the law stating men have no rights over their body, you have no right to try to enforce this lack of freedom for women only. You're all for taking their freedom away until it happens to you. Only the selfish would try to do this to others but not wish this or something just as devastating upon themselves. People need to worry about themselves and stop this twisted crusade to force their beliefs on others. Bush's abstinence only B.S. has caused more unwanted pregnancies and lack of education and lack of ability to obtain birth control. Bush has schools teaching lies to students. They are being taught that condoms are 9% reliable when actually it is 99%. He is having girls taught that it is up to them to say no because sex is something boys want and girls are taken advantage of. That's just more Bush B.S. and he's having teachers present girls only with virginity contracts to sign and obey. That is insulting and only causes girls to have psychological problems their whole lives instead of educating them with facts. To ensure his lies, he withholds federal funds to schools and international aid unless his lies are taught. This country actually had the nerve to impeach Clinton for fooling around with an intern which had nothing to do with his ability to be president, and Bush fabricated a war based on lies with a country that wasn't even responsible for 911 and Bush is responsible for the 3000+ soldiers who died for his lies. So Bush basically murdered 3000+ people and the American public fell for his lies and are still buying his B.S. 3000+ U.S. soldiers are dead because Bush lied. That's called genocide and Bush is the one who should be impeached and also forced to resign immediately. What Nixon did was nothing compared to Bush. Wake up people. I'm so dissapointed with this brain dead nation, I'm considering moving to Europe. Hillary Clinton is the only one who can restore the U.S. to what it's supposed to stand for. Liberty and justice for all. That means rights over your own bodies, no phony wars for theft based on lies, and children that will actually get fed if you are smart enough to vote for her. I don't think Americans are smart enough and it's a tragedy, but I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong.