They want government so small, it fits in a vagina.

Republicans are determined to establish a GIANT government when it comes to preventing others from doing what they don't want them to do. They also want a SMALL government when it comes to regulations blocking tax loopholes and overseas income tax shelters so they don't have to pay their fair share of American taxes on their wealth. Selfish and greedy: two unattractive qualities.

"Those opposed to abortion have to pretend that they care deeply for a child that, were it born, they’d
want nothing to do with."

"Whether or not a fetus is a human life does not matter. What’s really being debated is: “Is it OK to stop a process that will otherwise result in a new, independent human life?” It’s like putting all the
ingredients into a bread-maker and trying to decide if you should turn it off before it’s done. You’re not trying to decide what the dough is, you’re trying to decide whether or not you want bread."

"Many Christians see the fetus as human life in much the same way they see the face of Jesus on a grilled-cheese sandwich: They have what they believe, and come hell or high water they will make the facts fit their faith."

It's all designed to create a massive army of dumb superstitious people who will work for pennies. More people for big business to exploit, more people for organized religion to exploit, more people to treat like herd beasts and fight wars for their own enrichment.

Let's face it, no one that isn't rich would vote for the Republicans unless they weren't firing on all cylinders.

I don't think logic and intelligence can beat them.

Potential bread is not the same as a potential human life. That's a ridiculous analogy. Some people claim to be pro-choice, but they object to the requirement that it be "informed choice." If a women doesn't have all the facts, it's not really choice at all.

They want less government for themselves. For everyone else, not so much.

Republicans believe in small government About as much as they believe in balanced budgets. The sad thing is people in the South and Midwest continue to fall for Republican BS. Republican economic polices have destroyed their livelihood and turned them into little more than sharecroppers yet they continue to vote for them because they believe to Marry getting an abortion and Steve and Billy having sex is somehow a threat to them.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. What century are you from ?

Then they go and sleep with some guy , to try and keep him or get him , then can't remember his last name. A few days later they find out oops I am pregnant

So, according to you, married women never get abortions? Women in stable, long term relationships never get abortions?

yes tricycle rabbit, even married women have abortions. I know someone who was married and got pregnant twice by two different men. Her marriage was in shambles. She decided that abortion was the way to go. Her marriage ended shortly after that. And yes, she is still alive and well. Not suicidal in the least. Today she is in a loving and stable relationship and couldn't be happier.

Since the dawn of creation the female species has used various methods of birth control throughout the animal kingdom. Only recently have human beings decided it was a matter for public consideration. Such is not in accord with the will of God or "free will'. The spiritual challenge in life is to choose and grow. It is not to be lead by men who are often more confused than those they lead. With that said, politics is a way for the few to exploit the many. While politicians want to promote their benevolent human services they all seem to wind up with wealth, corruption and public scandal. Less government means less interference yet the Republican Platform is all about interference with exception to personal accountablility. I personally will let the women choose nad if they choose unwisely then they must answer for that. These are not things that should be legislated.

Really,

How about regulating the size of soft drinks? the type of butter used in movie theaters, how much salt is in food, the attack on fast food, smoking, drinking and other choices. Both sides want to tell us how to live our lives. I personally want to keep abortions legal, not because I believe in abortion, but I would much rather have it safe for the women having it than done illegally. The fact is there is over a million abortions done a year. Think about that for a second. We are all upset by what happened at a movie theatre, and rightly so. But that pales in comparison to how many abortions are done. The difference is taking responsibility. Both for the male and the female. I personally think it is a waste, but I certainly do not want another un-wanted child in the world.

elitetist --- er---uh---elithian<><><> Please explain to me exactly how it is that one can give a woman her right to make her own choices by deliberantly withholding from her information which MAY Or MAY NOT affect that choice, AS SHE DECIDES, rather than letting someone else decide whether or not she needs that information.

It seems to me those studies may not show any causal link to the abortion but instead simply to the situations that cause a woman to consider an abortion. The study should have compared all the women who have one of the problems (rape etc) that would make a woman consider an abortion to the women who actually had an abortion, instead of comparing women who have had an abortion to those that have not. Otherwise, they may be mistaking what the potential causal link is. It may be the sociological situations instead of the actual abortion. But I'm not surprised the judges didn't consider the faults of the study. Any lawyer knows that ideology moves judges to ignore faulty arguments.

Matilda,

The point is, the information that needs to be disclosed is between the doctor and the patient. Not the government and the doctor.

wiseone,

I was responding to post 2.6. I certainly do not fall under any type of delusion that only "loose" women get abortions.

#2.6,

Who finds out there pregnant a few days after having sex? Really? If that is the extent of your knowledge of human reproduction why would anyone take your opinions seriously? Whatever backwater you you grew up in probably equates sex education with pornography.

Tri Rabbit-- post#2.6 made no mention of the term "loose" and made no mention that married women never have abortions; that is something you derived on your own, you twisted the words that are in the post and added some new ones to slant the arrgument in your favor. Of course not only loose women get abortions and of course not only single women get abortions, thats just absurd!! What post#2.6 is saying is that only irresponsible women who can't own up to the decisions they've made get abortions. I suppose you're next comment now will read like this..."oh so every woman who got pregnant from being rapped is irresponsible?' To that I say...use your f'ing brain, there are exceptions to every rule!

Post 2.6 said this,

Then they go and sleep with some guy , to try and keep him or get him , then can't remember his last name. A few days later they find out oops I am pregnant .

and

YOU made the choice and choices that led up to the pregnancy, you picked the loser to have sex with , who is nowhere to be seen , and now the innocent has to suffer, because of your choices.

Please, tell me how that is not referencing "loose" women?

This is hardly "politicians getting involved with a woman's decision to have an abortion" anymore than Roe v Wade was. That is a very ignorant statement by Planned Parenthood, but what can we expect.

What it IS, is a Legal Decision which compels a Doctor to fully disclose the possible affects, results, complications etc. of a medical procedure. They even do this with cosmetic surgery for crying out loud. And suicide is surely a far more serious issue than plastic surgery, hey? This disclosure on the increase in sucide risk is scientifically backed - any conscientious doctor with integrity is not going to disregard that.

Why should a Doctor who is an abortion provider not be held to standards similar to physicians performing other types of procedures? The aborition loving programs simply want to have their cake and eat it too. It aint gonna work no more.

@Just the plain:

Put all the blame you want on women, but it takes a female and a male of the species to make a human baby.

Maybe if more adult males would pony up and actually be men instead of overgrown boys looking to get their dicks slick whichever way they can, there would be fewer losers and fewer abortions.

Wrap it up, boys, or keep it in yer pants!

Yeah, amused, we sure as hell wouldn't want to impede the slaughter of inocent little lives now, would we? Let the blood flow on....and on!

Tell me, Spider, what makes you think that human babies are the be all of creation or evolution? What makes humans so special?

Spider - Why do you care? What part of its none of your business don't you understand? Take care of you and yours and STFU! IMHO.

Excuse me Spider, but how many of these unwanted babies are you willing to adopt.

You can tell the bigoted and biased from the cue phrase "shove down their throats". I can hardly wait to see the results of the Congressional investigation into the death of the Planned Parenthood botched abortion in Chicago. For years, they have taken our taxes to fund their operations, which include abortions to the tune of accounting for a third of all abortions in this country, while providing sub-standard levels of care for women. Not that PP gives a sh*t about the health of women other than as profit centers. The mark of these liars and deceivers is their misrepresenting the safety of abortions as compared to delivery. But the comparison should involve only high risk pregnancies since the majority of pregnancy, especially with prenatal care, are relatively safe. Abortions generally involve healthy and young women and nearly 50% already have experienced an abortion so the majority are relatively low risk. The majority of abortions may be considered elective surgery so the standard should be higher as it is for all elective surgeries. But you won't hear PP talk straight or honestly about these issues. Too many $Billions$ at stake. Damn corporations - PP really are not people, not really <Sarcasm>

Hey ladyCat, Michele Bachmann adopted over a dozen and we see how the leftylibdems treated her. There's no future in being a phoney so just give it up.

Steve D, you are obviously not a real conservative, or you would not think that "profit" was a dirty word...when, in fact, the only way of making a profit is by selling people something that they want or need to buy.

You honestly believe Planned Parenthood does what it does for profit?

It's a non-profit organization for christ's sake. Do you ave any understanding of what that term means, legally and practically?

Could this be why we have never had a woman for president? Men are scared to death of the power women have over their very own birth. Think about it.

Kathryn Sullivan

Bingo!!

Capt. Tripps --- Yes, PP is listed as a non-profit organization. However, the PP personel in the top echelons are VERY WELL PAID. The latest figures I saw was about $250,000 for the director. The director of The Salvation Army receives something like $50,000.

There are several women that i would vote for if they ran for President.

The part of the problem is that if they have kids, they are attacked for having a job outside the home. If they do not have kids, they are driven and considered controlling.

We will see what happens in the coming future.

Of course we are also so politically correct that we are no longer tolerant of other opinions.

SteveD,

Yeah, she adopted a bunch of kids. That's not why we have an issue with Bachman. We have an issue with her, because she's bat @!$%#, crazy.

Matilda, the director of the Red Cross earns $651,957 per year, making the PP director salary seem like a mere pittance by comparison.

And maybe if we looked at the agency's annual operating budget, the amount paid to their ED would not be out of line and would most likely be lower than that of a for-profit (corporate) CEO with the same operating budget. Why would you get angry that an employee is paid a wage that is appropriate. Besides, isn't wages off topic for this discussion. Yes, that means I'm off topic also.

think there is a casual link between guns and murder? We don't do anything about that !! ooops that's a "man thing"

Kathryn,

Murders have been happening well before the gun was invented.

Would it better if we had IUE's to deal with?

Women shoot guns as well.

The fact is there are many ways to prevent becoming pregnant in the first place.

Subnormal,

Yes, like vesectomies. I say, from now on, if you're a man and worried about abortion, take care of your own body, go get snipped, and leave ours alone.

said medical research has shown that the risk of suicide is higher for women who abort compared with women who don’t

And research has shown that people who live in or have visited Las Vegas have a higher incidence of suicide. So, are the travel sites hawking trips to Vegas now going to have to alert travelers to this fact?

Sarah,

Or we can just accept that we got her pregnant and take care of the child.

MR.Burns,

Off point. It's still her body. If you don't want abortions, you have to make sure you stop the pregnancy from ever even happening. If you knock her up, it's too late. Vesectomy, abstinence, or quit bitching, guys.

MO, Planned Parenthood has been attacked and ridiculed since it first appeared, including cheap shots in movies like "Cheaper by the Dozen" and "The Last Hurrah." And I hope that I would never be stupid enough to believe the anti-abortion BS that passes for "facts."

The only organization more attacked than Planned Parenthood was ACORN. There's so much misinformation being spun about the work they do it's astounding. To even suggest that they are "off limits" represents an astounding disconnection from reality.

And to respond directly to myopinion, in what world can one person's medical information be automatically given to someone else? What the @!$%#? I don't care what the disease is, it's illegal to disclose without the patient's consent. Period.

Mainstream media news has never printed news about Planned Parenthood that shows them in a negative light - fraud, covering up child sexual abuse, funding, financing, covering up sex trafficking, etc. If any of the above was even SUGGESTED to happen in a Christian organization - the media would be watching like a hawk and reporting hourly. Have you seen in headline news ANYTHING negative about them ever?

Cassandra - I would bet that if I was talking about any other organization, you would be one of the first people on these boards to want them investigated - but because we are talking about Planned Parenthood - in your mind - anything negative is because they are MISUNDERSTOOD by people who don't like them.

Capt Tripps: I am not suggesting that medical information be automatically released to anyone. What I am saying that if I am having sex with someone, I think I have a right that they tell me BEFORE we are intimate that they are HIV/AIDS positive so I can make an INFORMED decision on whether I want to continue or what kind of precautions we should take. I think anyone would agree with me.

According to Planned Parenthood, an individual should not have to disclose to their sex partner their HIV/AIDS status if it makes them uncomfortable. Why? Makes no sense.

MO, the fact (or at least you said it is) that mainstream media hasn't reported negative references to planned parenthood may qualify as an even better compliment for them than your diatribe attacking them. So far as I'm concerned, you only prove how needed planned parenthood is.

My Op, I would not want the organization investigated...I would simply not send them donations.

My opinion - sorry, but thats exactly what you are suggesting, and that's what Planned Parenthood opposed. You don't have the right to anyone's medical information, for any purposes, without their permission.

You have every right to ASK, and if you think someone is being less than honest, I'd suggest not sleeping with them, but you cannot DEMAND.

because christians don't want you to take a life even your own, we throw a fit when some one wants to end a life,that baby has as much right to live as you did when you were in your mom. a true christian does not hate you if you get an abortion, but please do not ask us to be silent when some one stops a beating heart.

I didn't say be silent...I said hold peaceful protests, have your mock clinics where you try to frighten women into letting you make their choice for them...in short, do everything that the freedom of speech law allows you to do to get your point out there. Stop trying to LEGISLATE it to everyone. Speak your piece, hold your rallies, etc., etc., etc. Just stop trying to bully the rest of the country into believing what you believe. Go ahead and do your part to try to change my mind about being pro-choice, but don't try to tell me or my peers what medical decisions I should make.

Volunteered to rock a few crack-babies lately? Signed up to be a foster parent, or adopted troubled kids into your family? So many of you sit up there on your religious high horses, wearing your rose-colored glasses and passing judgment and trying to pass "loophole laws" to force women to be told lies and half-truths...but you have no idea what it's actually like, either for the women who have abortions, or for the women who have children they are not prepared for and are not capable of taking care of. Your bible is black and white, and that's how you think the world is, too.

but please do not ask us to be silent when some one stops a beating heart.

Do you feel that way about capital punishment? Or does the bolt they shoot into the cow's head so you can have a Big Mac enter into your Nuke the Whales for Jesus prayers?

You can have any beautiful vision you want that sanctifies human life, but you should avoid trying to apply it universally via legislated interference to women who have the same right to personal other visions .

A woman has as much right to dismiss information that others want to impose on her because of some misguided concern of patriarchal men with control issues. The law basically treats women as children and not independent adults capable of making their own informed choices to decide what is and what is not propaganda relevant to her concerns.

r u wade, that argument does not hold water, and never does, because we are not talking about babies. We are talking about clusters of cells in the uterus before they form into human life. I know pro-life Christians like to think that a cute, smiley, fully formed baby magically appears inside a woman at the moment of conception, but it doesn't. And that's inarguable science.

Late term abortions (in which the fetus is a formed human baby) are already illegal in all but the most extreme cases of endangerment to the mother's life, and nobody is talking about legalizing them, ever. Abortion as it relates to this discussion and this debate, happens before there is a beating heart to stop. It is not a baby at this point, it is a cluster of cells that is no more a human life than a package of yeast.

Cameron,

The baby's heart starts beating around three weeks after conception; that's probably before the woman knows that she's even pregnant. So your argument that abortion does not stop a beating heart is incorrect.

Let me ask you a question: when does the human person begin? You say that a "cluster of cells" is not human. If the human being does not start at conception, then when? When does the "cluster of cells" become human?

The baby's heart starts beating around three weeks after conception

Buzzzzz! Wrong. You fail today's science test. Not surprised mind you. You probably think Intelligent Design is real an you probably don't believe in evolution or the Big Bang either.

The real answer is 5 - 6 weeks.

Personally a baby is a baby at conception for me. I mean life begins when it begins, and that's literally when everything starts.

I also believe that a woman has the right to decide if her body will carry another person's. The baby's rights do not override the mother's to determine the use of her body. That's simply how it is. You can't force a father to give up an organ to save a kid's life. Hell you can't even make them give blood or bone marrow. It's a decision people have to make for themselves, it's no one else' business.

that is the bottom line. Not your business.

When does the "cluster of cells" become human?

When it become viable and can live with minimal intervention outside of the womb.

You do realize you can take heart cells an put them in a culture and they will keep on beating... Contracting cardiovascular muscle cells does not equal a human.

Culhealth...your argument of "Do you feel that way about capital punishment?" is a very poor position to take. Are you insinuating that a baby is equal to a convicted criminal and therefore death is justly administered to both? I might also flip your own table by saying how ironic it is that you have no issue aborting a baby but by all means don't abort a convicted murderer in their 76th trimester. You might want to reconsider your argument.

Cameron...someone could scientifically argue that YOU are a clump of cells as well. That question is, "Is it alive?" Abortion is killing a human that is alive. You may argue the SIZE of the human, but that is moot. It's alive and growing.

Let me put it as clearly as I know how. If the zygote or embryo or fetus is not a human being, then no justification for abortion is necessary. Use it or abuse it as you please. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for taking her life is adequate.

Here's why: We do not justify harming any other human beings for the reasons people routinely give for abortion.

When will our country succumb to logic and realize that a BABY IS NOT A CHOICE...IT'S A HUMAN. I find it barbaric how Pro-Abortion advocates call it a "fetus" or "lump of cells" rather than a "baby". It's their cheap, politically correct attempt to dehumanize an innocent human that has been sentenced to death. Interestingly enough, how many times do you hear a couple say, "my husband and I are having a fetus" when they WANT a baby???

Killing a human is killing a human...period. Do any of us argue about whether or not we should kill grandmother because we don't want to put her in a nursing home and her existence is inconveniencing us? The topic is MOOT because there are some things that civil people just DON'T discuss. I'm appalled that abortion is even a topic of conversation. Since when did CHOICE trump LIFE? What is choice without life? The logic of liberalism is sending our nation to hell in a handbasket.

With regard to Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry: "Morality" shouldn't be legislated, but "Amorality" shouldn't be subsidized. As a taxpayer I have a problem w/ subsidizing the "amoral" abortion industrial complex.

"life begins at conception and ends with NATURAL death. Therefore abortion is murder. The fact that the Supreme Court has legalized it changes that fact not a whit. I could just as well argue that making it legal enables those who think it is ok to impose their lack of religious beliefs on others….If it's growing it's alive"

"It turns my stomach to see that some crackpots in Congress still want to protect such a grisly practice as partial-birth abortion. We assign such a low value on human life, and we have the nerve to wonder why a crazed college student would kill so many of his classmates. We're only reaping what we've sown."

CaballeroKid you are FREE to think or believe anything u want about abortion and religion just don't force your thoughts and beliefs on me.....see how easy that is:)

Cameron

What's funny is that the clump of cells you are reffering to is, according to the majority of scientists, human life. Pro-choicers have to resort to philosophical and political argumetns because they've already lost inthe field of science.

!n 1981, leading scientists met with thr Senate to affirm that human life begins at conception. Only one scientist didn't affirm this position, saying they didn't know when life begins.

The real question is when to afford legal rights. This is where the argument comes to a dead-heat, because this is opinion and a political and philosophical one at that.

Thank you Queenie...unfortunately we're not talking about religion and nowhere in my comments will you find me discussing such. I'm discussing science, rational logic and an important social issue that affects us all - male/female.

Caballero - If the argument is "life" is precious, then, yes, an unborn baby would be equal to a convicted criminal.

The thing is, women are also alive.

Hi CapeCodMom...you bring up a very interesting philosophical argument about life and it's value. You draw a conclusion however that all life is appropriate/desirable for society because it is simply "precious" and I might disagree. Without going into too much detail - what about justice for the precious life that was taken by a criminal (as all death row criminals HAVE taken at least one life)?

Extraneous from your supposition however is the ethical fact that one is innocent and one has blood of another human on their hands but both receive the penalty of death. At least the criminal was even tried by a court of peers...and the baby? That is where the injustice/tragedy lies. Sadly enough, potassium chloride is often used for abortion...It is ironic that they're using the same drug to end an innocent life that we use to execute prisoners who've had all their due process rights.

"Women are also alive"...not sure where you're going with that, but you are absolutely correct and I would not diminish that fact at all. Women are valued, culpable contributors to society. Are you perhaps suggesting that women are precious and have rights too (with regards to abortion)? I agree, CapeCodmom. Of course she is not the property of the state to be used at someone's else's discretion...but neither should the baby.

It is a misrepresentation to assume that ProLife can only = anti woman and ProChoice can only = pro women. There is a strong argument that abortion does not serve a woman's quality of life (as evidenced in this scientific study correlating abortion to increased likelihood of suicide). Moreover, at least the woman has a choice to be responsible...a baby has no say in the matter of responsibility with regard to their life. 1 out of 10 women might choose abortion, but 10 out of 10 babies would choose life. For the woman seeking to abort a baby with the argument that "I'm not the state's property" ...dare she tell a baby growing in her womb, "I'm NOT your mother, stop using me!" Is this what motherhood is then debased to? Is this where society is headed? If so, God help us all.

Saying the obvious...I would think that the woman would be likely to have an abortion AND kill herself because the guy left her.

The proper comparison group would be those women who wanted an abortion and were not allowed to have one. This is utter nonsense and just another attempt by some to force their religion on the rest of us.

The church is frantic to regain power and the first place they always go is women......well this is not the dark ages......we women will not be put in religious shackles.

Where did the article or science ever say that "abortion causes suicide"? The peer reviewed science shows that women who choose abortion are also linked to higher rates of suicide. It does not say that all suicides are abortion related or that all women who abort kill themselves. That is your convenient twisting of the science. So who is misleading or lying?

This mandate is only telling doctors to education women considering abortion enabling them to make more of an educated decision as to future potential outcomes. Those facts are scientifically peer reviewed and not disputed.

For Janet and Kathryn...what article are you reading? Does the word "religion" even get mentioned in the article??? "Women in religious shackles"....really?

Because the implication has not been proven true. And there are studies that negate even the correlation - which does not equal causation. Which is fundamental to statistics like these. I mean the simple fact that fewer women have had abortions than haven't means that any suicides within the former group would have a higher statistical percentage than the latters. That's how numbers work. It doesn't mean you're more likely to kill yourself after an abortion.

That's just a lie.

Because, even if it is the truth, which we don't really know, it's not the government that should be deciding this, it's the doctor/patient.

Capt Tripps,

You just proved you know nothing about statistics. Fewer women in one group does not mean there will be a higher percentage. Thats stats 101

Capt Tripp, "there are studies that negate even the correlation"...source please?

I am not a mathematician, so my apologies if I am missing something but your math seems fuzzy: "the simple fact that fewer women have had abortions than haven't means that any suicides within the former group would have a higher statistical percentage than the latters." If 10 out of 100 women with abortions commit suicide then that is 10%. If the larger pool, 100 women out of 1000 women have NOT had abortions and commit suicide...that still is 10%. From a percentage perspective, how does the former group have a higher percentage just because they're a smaller sample size???

I have to admit I never realized how liberals could come up with so many reasons to lie and be dishonest. In that case there are no arguments to defend aginst them. The truth is the only argument for lies and it means nothing to them...how sad. I wonder if you folks have any idea how many Biblical prophesies you have fulfilled and there by strengthening so many other's faith. Thank you!

Yes, Bob .. forget about the misuse of statistics .... we can live every detail of life and society by biblical prophecy ... or so you believe.

Do you have even the slightest idea what the visions of Ezekiel mean? Have you even the slightest idea of the information actually being passed to us by the Revelation of St. John the Divine? .... You think you know .... those without understanding have told you ... and so you have no understanding.

Here is a hint ... remember the Dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns? It is above you and below you and all around you ... all of the time ... in the Heavens in every direction at once. You do not know that because you do not understand the reference ... nor do those who taught you ... before you start trying to remake our nation according to prophecy, one might suggest you need to understand them. You most assuredly do not. The Magi knew them .... almost certainly he whom you call Jesus (Yeshua) understood .... you ... do not.

M An, couldn't comment for the las 3 days for some reason.

So no one will see this, but MrBurns, I haven't taken stats for over a decade, so the terminology eludes me, but you are taking a subset of one group, women who have had an abortion/women in general. So it would take fewer individuals committing suicide to give you a higher percentage in the subset. Without showing any causation, it's practically a meaningless number. It's the same thing with, say, cervical cancer. So let's say 10,000 women get cervical cancer. Of those, 2,000 have had abortions. Those 2,000 would represent a significantly larger percentage of the women with abortions group, than the 10,000 represents of women overall. So someone with an agenda can go "See, abortion causes cancer", when in reality, there's no causal link between the two.

Fun with statistics.

So let me get this straight Larry...your argument is that because abortion happens elsewhere we should just allow it in the U.S.? People can get child prostitutes in Bangkok, so we should allow it here, right? Murder is more rampant in other countries...so??? Is that really your rationale (or lack thereof)?

caba....abortions have been happening since the dawn of time and will continue no matter what....can you imagine what this society would be like if all those unwanted, trick, crack, rape, incest pregnancies were carried full term....can you say YUK!

can you imagine what this society would be like if all those unwanted, trick, crack, rape, incest pregnancies were carried full term....can you say YUK!

Are you saying those types of pregnancies produce lower quality children? That's not remotely insulting.

cc.....ahhhh well, how would you like to find out you were a product of rape or incest...you want suicidal? or 'Gee, you mean grandpa is my dad, no wonder you hate me'....These babies are not cute, unknowing bundles of joy for long....they grow up and develop serious issues. Then they go on and affect someone else with their mental issues and so on and so on and so on........

That's a pretty broad generalization. Could you please provide some articles or links to support this. I guess I wouldn't feel great if I came from rape or incest, but I'd be able to go on with my life. I realize incest could lead to disabilities for the baby, but most of the cases you mentioned can also turn out great people.

I don't have to...you said it yourself "I guess I wouldn't feel that great if I came from rape or incest" and how do you know what you would do?

1.Actually, my friends mother was raped and actually kept and raised that baby..he turned their home inside out...he couldn't handle the fact that he was the product of his mother's pain. He is now on the streets and reproducing with crackheads......NOT A FAIRYTALE.

2. I volunteered at a rescue mission and I can tell you first hand, crackbabies do not turn out to be great people..

3. most women at that shelter have been abused, molested and raped by family and most were mothers (unfortunately)..they were horrible mothers, their kids were disabled emotionally and physically and one had a daughter that was 13 and pregnant herself.....disgusting!

I realize the babys who had mothers on crack often end up troubled. However, as I said, I don't think claiming every baby in your above list is going to turn out badly is very fair or correct. There are children who are brought to full term that are brought up in good homes and live fairly normal lives. It's rather dehumanizing to claim that they are all only going to burden society and therefore shouldn't be given the chance to life.

If there is solid science behind it, Cassandra, then why not? Would it not seem responsible to help people make the most educated decisions possible about the challenges of adoption or abortion? Show us the science and let's discuss...but in your heart of hearts, do you really think that a woman has as much trauma giving a baby up for adoption as aborting it?

Yes, Caballero. It's a hell of a lot harder to carry a child for months, go through the physical and emotional trauma of giving birth to it, see and hold it, and then give it away forever.

I can not imagine ever giving my baby up for adoption, because at birth IT IS a baby. An abortion is a difficult decision but it's NOT a human, you are just having a medical procedure.

@shep

Most scientists would disagree with you. Most that don't say life begins at conception can't actually give you a definitive answer of when life begins. It might just be me, but I'd err on the side of caution.

Great, cc...then those scientists don't have to have abortions.

Great, cc...then those scientists don't have to have abortions.

The old, if you don't like abortions don't have one argument.

If you don't like children being beaten, don't beat children.

If you don't like people walking around naked in pulic, don't do it.

It seems like an easy solution, but I can pretty much justify anything with it.

Shep, science is not on your side when you say an abortion is not a human.

By any objective, scientific standard, the embryo qualifies as a member of the human race. From the moment of conception the embryo is an individual. The zygote is distinct from mother, father, and other living things, having her own unique genetic fingerprint.

The embryo is living, characterized by metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction (fulfilling the standard scientific definition of life).

The embryo is human, carrying DNA with a human genetic signature.

Finally, the embryo is an individual being: a self-contained, self-integrated living entity with her own nature. She has the innate capacity to proceed through the full series of human developmental stages. All that's needed is proper nurture and environment, the same as you and I.

ok....the cells are life starting, is that better? but still not a person and has not one right. I could care less what scientists want to call it...can it breath, cry, talk, walk, be aware of it's own existence....NOPE.

Capecodmom, I cannot speak from a first person standpoint on this...only what studies might suggest. I do find it interesting in your commentary that you hint to an emotional bond the mother develops - making it hard to give up. Whether that be a baby conceived out of love, rape or whatever, I don't know but there is one thing I do know without experiencing it first hand, and that is: There are choices. The mother can keep or put up for adoption depending on her emotional attachment. With those choices, why is the lose/lose choice of abortion supposed to be a valid one? Who wins/gains in this scenario?

Fortunately, rape is a VERY small % of abortions in the U.S. The CDC website will verify that. Also, the mother's risk of death is also extremely minimal with today's technology...unfortunately both of these instances are used as justifications by ProChoicers. This is the tail wagging the dog.

Sheplover, you seem pretty confident your definition of human personhood is correct and that the scientists can go screw themselves.

Now I must ask you. Does your definition of personhood allow for abortions, or does allowing abortions shape what you want to consider as a person?

My common sense tells me it's not a person.....with your theory anyone using an IUD or birth control pill would be having an abortion if an egg is fertilized. If I could draw on this board, I would draw a blood clot and ask you if it's a person?

with your theory anyone using an IUD or birth control pill would be having an abortion if an egg is fertilized.

Sure. I'm not big on contraceptives and IUD anyways, so your observation about my theory is fine with me.

If I could draw on this board, I would draw a blood clot and ask you if it's a person?

A blood clot's not human life.

absolutely it is....just a mass of bloody cells

Not even sure how to begin to respond to that, Shep. The terminology "bloody cells" does not makes sense because there are blood cells, muscle tissue cells, brain cells...what is a "bloody cell"? Secondly, a mass of blood cells or "bloody cells" have absolutely no potential by themselves to form a human baby. What they often form is called a tumor.

We're talking about a human zygote in which a sperm and egg cell have come together and exchanged DNA. It's growing, metabolizing, and in a phase of human development. JUST LIKE YOU right now...you're growing, metabolizing and in a phase of hd.

The embryo, therefore, from the very moment of conception is an individual, living, human being, a bona fide member of the human family. Her cells are not yet individuated (they haven't developed unique vocations as bone cells, skin cells, etc.). Yet she is still an individual self (though not yet self-aware), and will remain herself for her entire life until death. She will never become a human; she already is one. That's incontrovertible science.

If you are arguing that "can it breath, cry, talk, walk, be aware of it's own existence" then you MUST subscribe to the abortion of all vegetative state humans and all late term abortions.

Typical Airhead, blame someone else for your poor decisions, if you don't want to get pregnant, use protection or don't spread your legs... if you are stupid enough to get cond into sex, that doesn't speak very highly of you... while we're at it, when you say "every man who brought an unwanted child into this world" what about all the "wanted" unborn childern that the woman aborts and the man has no choice in raising the child he fathered.. I say make vaginal intercourse illegal unless tying to have a baby and just give us oral until then....

foggy, we have been over that already. Many abortion patients are married or in long-term relationships...and whoever they are, contraceptives have been known to fail.

contraceptives have been known to fail.

Then don't have sex. People abstained before contrceptives. What's so different now?

ccmnxc....WTF? you live in a bubble. Nobody abstained from anything..they would get married young, go away to an 'aunts' or have a back alley abortion.

"cond into sex"? Eh?

Illegal abortions were nowhere near the scale legal ones are today as they often resulted in the death or injury of the mother, who would then have to explain what happened. Once people lost their respect for the repercussions of having sex, they couldn't close their legs. However, people back then weren't stupid. They knew that getting pregnant would result in problems either way.

Right, cc..people knew that getting pregnant would cause TREMENDOUS problems, like, for instance, being labeled as a slut with a bastard baby...because the illegitimate baby was just as despised as the unwed mother who had produced him. And then there were places called orphanages...who do you think used THEM? Hint: It wasn't for women who had decided in advance to have sex.

The vast majority of cases weren't from incest or rape, so I don't know why it keeps coming up. I also stated it would be a problem either way. That's why more people practiced abstinence, which was my original point.

FACT: Studies show that the largest demographic of Pro Choice supporters is young men.

That's why more people practiced abstinence, which was my original point.

Except more people didn't really practice abstinence. Women were married off at young ages, men could just deny deny deny, abortificant herbs (while not 100% effective or safe) were common, sympathetic doctors performed abortions, orphanages, etc. It just wasn't something people talked about and something that very, very few people would come forward about because of shame. Now, it is just out in the open and there is no fear of legal prosecution.

Okay, say you're right. There are still people who can and have abstained until they were in a position to start a family. Heck, some people go their whole lives without losing their virginity. I'm not saying it's easy, but I can't do anything but question those that say abstinence isn't possible.

I'm not saying it's easy, but I can't do anything but question those that say abstinence isn't possible.

It isn't impossible. It is unreasonable for the vast majority of people.

All of these frivolous suits brought against women by right wingnuts are just more chipping away at the doctor/patient confidentiality. There's a difference between the gubbermint sticking its nose into your personal business and funding LOTS of things, including TAX BREAKS for millionaires like Romney. Also, viagra is covered by medicare. I don't see any congressional teabaggers forcing doctors to warn men about the dangers of having an erection for hours or having a heart attack from sex.

the government does not pay for abortions.........no matter how many times the radical right wing religious nuts say it.

How do figure , the Gov. gives PP millions for " Family Planning" then they take the money the gov. freed up for them and do the abortions . It's just shifting money ,, we are indirectly paying for abortions, but yet still paying for them none the less

Just,

Money may be fungible, math is not. If you go to a bank, deposit 10 bucks, then return the next day, do you get that very same 10 dollar bill back???

No, of course not.

Is the loss to the bank, still the same???

Yes.

Duh.

like it or not some women don't want to be mothers and would not be able to provide what it takes to raise a child.

With all due respect, most women don't become magically impregnated. Contrary to popular belief, people can aviod having sex all together and not allow a pregnancy to happen in the first place.

ccmnxcand-- some women who try to avoid having sex get beat up for denying their drunk abusive husbands. and if the result of getting beat up and then raped is she becomes pregnant by the abusive husband let's punish her some more and finnish her off by forcing her to have a baby. not all pregnancies involve a woman who had a choice. ''with all due respect'' you don't respect a womans right to determine what she chooses to do regarding her reproductive life. you may be of the opinion that abortion is morally wrong -----but accept the fact it is legal. your morality does not dictate what is legal. abortion is a legal choice and must remain that way.

And babies will loose

mr burns----forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want will make the baby the ultimate loser. a child raised without maternal love does not thrive-sometimes doesn't even survive and has little chance at a successful life. look into the mental health of babies in russian orphanages who were deprived of mothering and left in cribs all day everyday. they were mentally and emotionally stunted. sometimes an abortion is the best answer.

I'm sorry granny, but I disagree. I believe the right to life comes before the right to a good life. There are many people live difficult lives, but most don't seem to want to end it. Their value their gift of life, whether or not it is one of quality.

ccmnxc---cities around the country have adoptable children who never get adopted. several in recent past have been misplaced by social services who had no records of who had the child. child turned up dead. abortion prevents the birth of unwanted children. Until society wants to support unwanted children --provide for all their needs--physical and educational we should have no say in a womans right to obtain an abortion.

Most children don't end up lying dead in a gutter after being put up for adoption. The vast majority are indeed adopted as the waiting list for adoptions is about equal to those who need to be adopted. I don't find it just in the slightes to prevent these children from receiving a good life. Even those that do end up dead had a helluva lot more of a chance than an aborted baby.

By the way, I apologize for my last post and all its errors.

There are many people that live difficult lives, but most don't seem to want to end it. Their They value their gift of life, whether or not it is one of quality.

ccmn...don't you have a protest to go to or signs to make for the purpose of harassing woman who are seeking a medical procedure????? Good God!

Good job sheplover. Don't argue with facts and logic, just take jabs at people. It really shows maturity for your cause.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, in the period 2007-2008, 136,000 children were adopted in the United States. During that same time, there were 259,308 children in state care waiting to be adopted. More than half of those kids carried to term and given up for adoption ended up without families. It sure sounds like there are plenty of kids out there already!

Go look at those ads from prospective adoptive parents: "We want your healthy white infant."

ccmn....I have been arguing with you for a while...you make no sense, live in a fantasy world and make me think of those idiot protesters.....

@capecodmom

Hm. You've actually stumped me on this. I'll have to look into it.

Regardless, I stand by what I said about the right to life coming before the right to a good life.

@shep

I've heard the same form atheists on here, so it's nothing new. If wish not to argue with me any longer, I respect that choice.

@ccmnxc: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

Because it is just another ruse to get votes.

yes, but there is scientific proof of causation between smoking and cancer. There is no proof of causation between abortion and suicide. The link is correlation and correlation is not causation. Did you know there is a huge correlation between monthly ice cream consumption and shark attacks? Yep, the more ice cream consumed in a month, the more shark attacks there are. Icre cream doesn't cause shark attacks, but we don't force Bryers to place "warning, consuming ice cream may result in a shark attack" on their packages. Why, because correlation is not causation. Anything can be correlated. In the ice cream example, the increased shark attacks are actually the result of more people entering water where sharks are present due to the warmer weather/water. The increased ice cream consumption also results from warmer weather - lets face it, we eat more ice cream in the summer. Basic statistical knowledge is all that is required to debunk the SD law. If they want to include the warning then they need to clarify it with the phrase "that while women who have had an abortion may have a higher incidence of suicide, there is not scientific evidence that abortion causes suicide."

Hm. That cuts both ways.

Can you add "right-wing" before "Christians?" We're not all idiots....

I too am a christian and very much pro-choice!!! I care about the existing woman and her needs...zygots, embryos and fetus' are just a pregnancy until it takes their first breath unassisted.

oh dear god just the plain ol facts, didn't you just same the same thing nearly 30 minutes ago?? you couldn't come up with anything more original to say after having had time to think about it?

"have you a man to take care of you?" REALLY???

I can only imagine how backward and barefoot you would prefer to see women.

Once again the government is taking too much interest in a deeply personal decision between a woman and her maker. Let her make her decision without everyone else having an opinion or even worse stating their opinion.

@Just the plain ol Facts: And what about in the case of rape or incest where the woman didn't choose or consent and now finds out she is pregnant? She did not "give herself" to anyone...she was forcefully taken. She should not be made to feel even worse by deciding to have an abortion.

I agree with your point, Chase, but "her decision" should be as educated as possible and since the average woman is not a doctor, then perhaps a physician can provide education as to the benefits of or against abortion...what's so wrong about that?

Secondly, the article is not referring to someone stating their opinion. We all go to doctors because they have professional training and insight. Informing someone from scientific statistics regarding suicide in relation to a procedure they are about to have is simply educating them on their decision. A doctor might educate you that not taking Cipro for an infection could lead to increased infection/complications for you as well.

Are you on drugs?

I'm sensing a pretty serious troll-vibe from this one.

Unless a person has at least paid for care of someones unwanted child, they should mind their own business.

Two things.

1. Most people don't seem to listen to those who have helped poor children anyways.

2. Who are you to tell me I can't be infuriated by the death of a child and have the desire to stop it?

First it was a baby...now it is a child. Next we will read that we are aborting unborn senators and congressmen...but then no one will object.

Miki Howcroft,

You presume too much, I know of an unwanted child who was adopted and now he has a successful career. Also, look at Steve Job, he was adopted and look at what he gave to the world. The ANTI-HUMAN Leftists crowd are true materialists. Yet they do not realized that one day babies will grow up, pay taxes, and pay into the Social Security System which they will benefit from in their old age. Yes, babies will one day become doctors, scientists, firefighters, etc. Yes, I know there are bad people out there too who are destructive, however, abortion does not discriminate. You don't know if you're killing the unborn BEETHOVEN or not.

So even if you don't believe in God or Damnation, at least believe in Humanity!

And stop the blood from flowing!

Yes, a crack whore will give birth to the next Beethoven.....lolololol God, that was hilarious!!!!!

Sorry, Cassandra. I just use baby and child interchangeably. There is no deeper meaning to the change.

@sheplover

I guessing most people who've received abortions aren't crack-whores. But then, you already seem to know who you're killing.

Yes, babies will one day become doctors, scientists, firefighters, etc. Yes, I know there are bad people out there too who are destructive, however, abortion does not discriminate. You don't know if you're killing the unborn BEETHOVEN or not.

That's a terrible logical leap though because our entire lives are made of "shoulda, woulda, coulda". What if I didn't know I was pregnant, went on a rollercoaster, had a miscarriage, and prevented the next Beethoven? Or what if I avoided that car accident that would have killed the other driver, but given a transplant organ to a little girl? Or what if not having sex this month means that Isaac Newton wont be reincarnated?

Our lives, our WHOLE lives, are choices. You can't just boil it down to some simplistic rhetoric because it's not that simple. What if I will birth the next Picasso instead of aborting, but live in abject poverty so he suffers from malnutrition and can never nurture his gift? What if, what if, what if.

Yet they do not realized that one day babies will grow up, pay taxes, and pay into the Social Security System which they will benefit from in their old age.

I see nowhere in there that you mention the happiness or contentedness of the child.

Dear Tricycle Rabbit Clown,

No, your logic is terrible! We should give all unborn babies a chance. YOU ARE NOT A FREAKIN GOD. YOU ARE NOT THE JUDGE. IF PICASSO LIVES IN ABJECT POVERTY, SO FREAKIN WHAT! He got that chance to live, and YOU ARE NOT A FREAKIN GOD! YOU CAN'T DECIDE THE DESTINY OF OTHERS WITH YOUR STUPID PRESUMPTION. PICASSO COULD GET OUT OF POVERTY IF HE WORKS HARD, but Picasso must be given a chance at life first! BELIEVE ME TRICYCLE RABBIT CLOWN--if an unborn child could speak (And I believe this 1 Trillion percent), he or she will speak up and say: WHY ARE YOU KILLING ME MOM? if you don't want me, give me up for adoption, so that I can live and find love and happiness in this life. DON'T DEPRIVE ME OF THIS LIFE! IF YOU DON'T LOVE ME SOMEONE ELSE WILL!

YOU CAN'T DECIDE THE DESTINY OF OTHERS WITH YOUR STUPID PRESUMPTION.

You decide the destiny of everyone around you everyday. You give your dollars to stores that pay their employees with your money, that feed their families, etc. You work at your job and interact with people everyday, for better or worse. We don't exist in a vacuum.

And anyway, aren't you deciding the destiny of people by denying them abortions?

PICASSO COULD GET OUT OF POVERTY IF HE WORKS HARD,

He could. He also might not. Is life more valuable then not-life? If so, why? I thought you'd be one to believe in god and I thought being with him would be preferable.

if an unborn child could speak (And I believe this 1 Trillion percent), he or she will speak up and say: WHY ARE YOU KILLING ME MOM? if you don't want me, give me up for adoption, so that I can live and find love and happiness in this life.

And if s/he never gets adopted? Once again, is quality of life completely negligible? You would rather chance emotional scars for the mom, future baby, a lifetime of hardness and regrets, because you believe life is better then no-life?

Well, that's perfectly fine. Just don't expect me to believe it. And please, you'd be actually taken seriously if you'd refrain from insults. Your language sounds like a toddler.